ÖTEKiLERiN PESiNDE AHMET YAŞAR OCAK'A ARMAGAN

IN PURSUIT OF THE OTHERS Festschrift in Honor of

Ahmet Yaşar Ocak

ALA POURSUITE DES AUTRES Melanges en l' honneur

d' Ahmet Yaşar Ocak

HAZlRLAYANLAR Mehmet Öz

Fatih Yeşil

Dem. No: . ~ .35b

Tas. No: o c A . ô

ÖTEKİLERiN PEŞiNDE

AHMETYAŞAR OCAK' A ARMAGAN

TİMA.Ş YAYINLARI 13803

Tarih İnceleme Araştırma Dizisi 175

EDITÖR

Adem Koçal Zeynep Berktaş

KAJ'AK TASARlM

Ravı.a Kızılruğ

IÇ DÜZEN

Serhar Küçük

1. BASKJ

Mayıs 2015, İstanbul

ISBN

TİMA.Ş YAYINLARI

Cağaloğlu, Alemdar Mahallesi, Alayköşkü Caddesi, No: 5, Fatih/lstanbul

Telefon: (0212) 511 24 24 P.K. 50 Sirkeci 1 İsranbul

cimas.com.tr rimas@timas.com.rr

facebook.com/cimasyayingrubu ı:wi[{er.com/ti~asyayingrubu

Kültür Bakanlığı Yayıncılık $ertifika No: 12364

BASKJ VE Ctı.T Si.sıcm Maıb:ıacılık

Yılanlı Ayazma Sok. No: 8 Oa'lllrpaşa-Topkapı/İsıanbul Telefon: (0212) 482 ll Ol Maıbaa Sertifika No: 16086

YAl'IN HAIO.ARI

© Eserin her hakkı anlaşmalı olarak Timaş Basım Ticaret ve Sanayi Anonim Şirketi'ne aittir.

İzinsiz yayınlanama Kaynak gösıerilerek alınu yapılabilir.

The Li.mits of Religous Tolerance: The Ottoman Experience from the · · 14th to the 18th Century•

Mehmet ÖZ ..

"Let us get out of our grooves and study the rest of the globe. The Sultan govems in peace twenty million people of different religions; two hundred thousand Greeks live in security in Constantinople; the muphti himself no­minates and presents to the emperor the Greek patriarch, and they also ad­mit a Latin patriarch. The Sultan naminates Latin bishops for some of the Greek islands, using the fallawing formula: "I command him to go and resi-

. de as hishop in the isiand of Chios, according to their ancient usage and their vain ceremonies." The empire is full of Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monotheli­tes; it contains Copts, Christians of St John, Jews and Hindoos. The annals of Turkey do not record any revalt instigated by any of these religi­ons."[Voltaire, Toleration and Other Essays, translated with an introduction by Joseph McCabe (New York and London: I<nickerbocker Press, 1912), 23, ci:­ted by Karen Barkey, Empire of Differeııce-.11ıe Ottommıs iı:ı Comparative Pers­pective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008, p.109]

The Ottoman state attracted the attention of scholars as an example of relatively peaceful xo-existence of clifferent ethnic and religious groups dur­ing the pre-modern period. It is important to note that based on the theoreti­cal and legal framework of Islam.ic law regarding the treatment of the fal­lawers of other Abraham.ic religions (dlıimmids). It is observed that while the Ottoman attitude towards non-Muslims, especially Christians and Jews re­mained more or less the same within this framework, the degree of tolerance may have changed depending on the conjecture.

In this article I will also discuss the extent of the religious tolerance exhib­ited by the Ottomans towards not only the believers of other religions but also Muslim subjects before the 18th century. For the purposes of this article I will draw your attention to the treatment of some scholars and mystics ac­cused of blasphemy and atheism. In addition Ottoman religious policy re­garding the so-called heterodox groups such as Alewis and others will be dealt with, keeping in mind the political and socio-economic factors affect­ing the relations between the state and these groups throughout different periods of Ottoman history.

Here we are talking about at least four cenhıries of a polity that gradually developed from a frontier principality to a world empire. Therefoı:e, in ev al-

• 'Ih.is article is a revised version of the paper subınitted in the Round Table "Tolerance before the 18th Cenrury)" in 2lst Congress of International Coınmittee of Histoncal Sciences, Amsterdam, 22-28 August 2010. -Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Tarih Bölümü.

510 Melımet Oz

uating any aspect of such a polity one should take into accol;ffit both the stages of its development and the lands and peoples with differing ethnic and religious parncularities it brought under its hegemony during these stages.

The Ottoman empire was a pre-modern polity at least as far as the period under examination here is concemed. It is assumed that one of the most im­portant features of a pre-modem agrarian society and pre-modern states or empires lay in that their ideology was largely dependent on a religion. Meanwhile, it has been a widespread belief that religions fostered intoler­ance and fanaticis~, particularly in such states and societies as the Ottomans that openly declared one particular religion and its tenets their official reli­gions. In our case, it is a well-known fact that the Ottomans adhered to the Sunnite version of Islam in general and the Hanefite sect in particular. How­ever, the picture .is not as clear as it appears at first sight: we must keep in mind the fact tha:t their perception of Islam changed along the way from the tiny rrontier polity established ca. 1300 to the 16th century world empire daminating the central lands of Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates from the 7th il:o the 13th century, which meant, not surprisingly, some degree of change in their approach to and perception of the true Islam.

For the purposes of this article I will single out three aspects of the Otto­man attitude canceming tolerance or intolerance: treatment of non-Muslim populations, Ottoman policy vis a vis Islamic sects and sufi orders, and offi­cial attitude towards scholars with un-orthodox views. In my analysis I will try to highlight the factors that determined official policies over these fea-

. tures;· which were, to a great degree, to do with the preservation and consol­idation of the existent political system.

1-Tiıe Ottoman State and Non-Muslims

As we have said the legal basis of the treatment of Christian and Jewish subjects by the Ottomans was the Islamic concept of dhimma(zimmet). There are differences among different Islamic sects, and the Ottomans applied the Hanefite regulations as their official school of fikh, or Islamic law. Under their rule, their non-Muslim subjects enjoyed religious freedam as well as various other rights such as keeping their private properties, freedam of trade ete. In the article "Dhimma" in the second edition of Encycloped.ia of Islam, Claude Cahen remarks that "it was at the time of the expulsions from Spain and the religious wars in the West that the constitution of the Ottoman empire restored-albeit without modifying the situation in other Islamic countries- the spectacle of an Islamo-dhimmi symbiosis which was none the less -remarkable foı:- the maintenance of the regime ... "1

1 C. Cahen "D~", Eııcyclapedia oflslnm, 2nd ed.ition., v., p. 230.

Tlıe Limits ofReligioııs Tolernııce 511

However, there were some restrictions in their religious freedom com­pared to Muslim population. The discrim.ination against non-Muslims eırıa­nated from the contemporary attitudes as well as from some religious dog­mas, regarding the status of dhimmids. It is not the place to go into detail here but we must point out that discriminatory acts manifested themselves a few ways: the obligation to pay the poll-tax or cizye in return for protection or dhinınuı; the obligation of wearing different dothes with different colors, lim­itations in building and preserving religious buildings, the ban on riding horses (instead they had to ride donkeys) and so on.

As for the case with the Ottomans, research by such eminent scholars as Halil İnalcık, the leading Ottomanist worldwide, and Michel Balivet, a French histarian of Ottoman-Byzantine relations shed light on the content

' and nature of the tolerance accorded to Christian and J ewish learned men and clergy both in the earlier stages of the Ottoman polity and its classkal age. In the mid-14th century an Orthodox priest, Gregory Palamas, who was captivated by the Ottomans and spent some years in the Ottoman palace, held free discussions with the ruler, his grandson, dignitaries in the palace and the Muslim ulema or scholars on matters related to Islam and Christiari­ity. Palamas wrote in his Jetters that Christians enjoyed freedom under the reign of Sultan Orhan. It is known that in the 14th and 15th centuries Chris­tians served in the provincial administration without the obligation to con­vert to Islam2, but thereafter this practice would change except for certai.n privileged groups assigned to auxiliary military services.

As Barkey points out Ottoman toleration has been contrasted to the "per­secuting society" of the medieval West. Unli.ke the West, "the realms of the Ottomans were mostly peaceful, accepted diversity, and pursued policies of accommodation istinıalet).3 She argues that the emphasis on religi.ous and cultural reasons for toleration leads us away from the political, economic and mainly administrative functions of toleration in a multiethnic, multireli­gious empire. She explains toleration as "a means of rule, of extending, con­solidating, and enforcing state power." Adeting that "toleration refers to the relations among different religious (and ethnic) communities-and secular authorities, and is the outcome of networked, negotiated, and pragmatic forms of rule."4 Meanwhile, Aron Rodrigue sees Ottoman Islam as a fra­mework where religion, language, and structure provided the milieu in which groups interacted. It is imperative to recognize that w hile the political language and discursive framework of Islam about the status of the dhim-

2 R İnalcık, Fati/ı Devri Üzeriııe Tetldkler ve Vesikn/nr, Ankara 1995, s. 143; M Balivet, "Açık Kültür ve 14. Yü.zyıl Osmanlı Kentlerinde Dinler Arası İlişkiler'', Osmanlı Beı;liği (1300-1389), ed. E. Zachariadou, trans, Gül Çağalı Güven et al., İsta.nbul1997, pp. 1-7 3 K Barkey, Empire of Differeııce, 17ıe Otlommıs in Compnrntive Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008. pp.109-110. 4 Barkey, p. 110.

512 Melımet Öz

mids remained relevant during the Ottoman period, it was never static. He also points out that "it isimportant not to ascribe to the Ottoman case a sta­tic visian of an arliıngement between "majority versus minority," or "ruler versus ruled," or "state versus society," 'but rather to unpack the situation over particular periods inhistory."5

Let us now turn to Ottoman case in practice. We know that not only the Ottoman sultans but also the leading figures in the administration were so much careful to gain the support of the people in the Balkans that they strict­ly adhered to a flexible and tolerant policy during the conquest and incorpo­ration of the Balk~ countries.6 For example, ina document dated 1387 and belonging to a Monastery the local representative of the Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople mentions the district governor of Serres, son of the Grand Vizier Hayreddin Paşa, as "my brother". In short, as Balivet points out, ex­cept for the situ~tions where public order was upset, the Ottoman admin­istration did i ts b~st to make its agents respect religious tolerance. This toler­ance was based on the one hand the Quranic principle that "la ikrah fi'd­din" (ll/256) "Let there be no compulsion in religion, and the political wis­dom of the Ottomans which realized that such a religious tolerance was the most realistic and valid political instrument in keeping its cosmopolitan sub­jects consisted of very different ethnic and religious communities in a bal­ance, on the other .7

Let us have look at how things were seen by a westem abserver writing in the second half of the 17th century. Sir Paul Ricaut, British cansul of Smryna and fellow of the Royal Society who spent S years in the Ottoman capital, deseribes the toleration of Islam and the Turks towards Christians as follows: "they know they cannot force Mens Wills, nor captivate their con­sciences, as well as their Bodies; but what means may be used to render them contemptible, to make them poor, their lives uncornfortable, and the interest of their Religion weak and despicable, are practiced with divers(e] Arts and Tyranny, that their toleration of Christianity is rather to afflict and persecute it, than any grant of favour or dispensation." He further states that "1,'he Malıometan Religion tolerates Christian Churches and Houses of De­votion, in places where they have been anciently founded, but admits not of holy buildings on new foundations."s

When we look at the restrictions on building new churches, it is widely accepted that the erection of new churches in Muslim lands have been pro-

s Aron Rodrigue, "Difference and Tolerance in the Ottoman Empire," Stmıford Hımımıities

Revieıu 5:1 (1995): 81-90. 6 In general see, Halil İnalak, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest'', Studia Islamica, ll (1954), pp. 103-129. 7 Michel Balivet, Bizans ve Osmanlı, trans. Nedim Demirtaş, İstanbul2009, p. 89. 8 Paul Ricaut, 71ıe HistonJ of tlıe Preseni State of tlıe Ottommı Empire, the sixth edition, London

1 1686, p. 195. -.

71ıe Li m i ts of Religioııs Tolern11ce 513

hibited by the Islamic law. However, in practiice there w ere some variations in this matter. ·It is clear that whether the churches and synagogues surviv~d depended on the circumstances in which the land had been conquered. If a new town was founded after the conquest no church or synagogue was al­lowed to be built there. On the other hand, if a place was conquered as result of the submission the indigenous population would be allawed to retain and repair their churches without any enlargement. It is also argued that in re­gions taken by force not only the construction of new churches was prohib­ited but also the ancient buildings were confiscated. However, we know that despite these legal restrictions, Christians always built new churches, paying considerable surns of money to obtain permission.

Let us now turn to Ottoman practice in this matter. A good case in point concems the churches in İstanbul. During an inspection in 1538, exactly 80 years after its conquest, upon the testimony of two old men over the age 100, a religious opinion or fetwa, a very irnportant docurnent by muftis or reli­gious authorities on a controversial matter, established that since Istanbul was conquered through the collaboration of its Jewish and Christian inhab­itants the sultan allawed them to maintain the.ir churches and synagogues. It is obvious that this feh.va was issued to justify the maintenance of ancient re­ligious buildings in İstanbul, an attitude normally expected from a multi­ethnic and multi-religious empire such as the Ottomans. In reality, whether taken by force or through submission they converted the most prestigious building into a mosque asa sign of their victory and supremacy while leav­ing other churches for the use of remaining non-Muslim population.

Anather interesting fetwa concems the case in which Muslims in a place contend that a church would become a mosque after Muslim call for prayer or ezan was recited there. lt appears that such dairns and attempts were not exceptional. Afetıva regarding this point reads as follows:

The Question: "Should a Muslim call for prayer in a church which was left to the zimmi infidels since the time of the conquest, would-it become a mosque". The answer is "No.''9

Evidence shows that disappearance of some old churches were closely re­lated to circumstances; for example, if a church sornewhere was left by the Christian community and was not used for religious service for SO years, it could be either turned into a mosque or demolished.

Despite the clairns to the contrary, research based on Ottoman archives as well as Monastic archives reveal that the Ottomans did not prevent the repa­rations of old churches in the Balkans and Anatolia. Among oth~ scholars, especially the works of the Dutch Ottomanist Machiel Kiel shed considerable light on this matter. He draws attention to the fact that in line with Islamic

9 Ali İhsan Karataş, Osmmılı Devleti'nde Gnyrimıis/imleri11 Top/ımı Httynh-Bıırsn Önıeği-, İstanbul 2009, p. 134.

514 Mehmet Öz

principles Christians and Jews had the right to rebuild and restore their old churches and synagogues.ıo In the conclusion of his detailed study on "Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period", he remarks that "It was the socio-economic structure of the Turkish empire that made the survival of non-Muslim culture within its realm possible. It allawed sufficient room for non-Muslims to build up fortunes or at least to gather enough money to en­gage in the promoti.on of Christian religious art." He further adds that "It was the relative tolerance of Islam, solidly anchored in Islamic theology, that allawed the survival of Christi.anity as such, including the ecclesiasti.cal hier­archy, monasti.cism and religious art."ll

As for restricti.ons on worship, the best known of themis the han on ring­ing bells, a practi.ce demonstrati.ng the superiority of Islam. Otherwise, Ot­toman authoriti.es were enjoined by the Sultan to keep an eye on the misuses and misconducts regarding the worships and rituals of the non-Muslims. An imperial diplarnci or berat granted to a Greek metropolitan says that "when some priests and~ monks are sent to the houses of zimmi community by their bishops, no state official should interfere with their service or ritual." There is evidence that families would be sametimes harassed by Muslims when they conducted their religious service at their houses. When they com­plained about it, the local kadi or judge-administrator and other officials were ordered to punish the guilty.ı2

Anather discriminati.ve principle emanati.ng from the Islamic law con­cems the height or size of Non-Muslim houses as well as the placement of windows so as to protect privacy. In practi.ce, however, there· are abundant "' ex-ceptions", if we call them so, since for example in such places as Cyprus or Kayseri demonstrati.ng the fact that Muslims and dhimmids bought and ~old property among themselves regardless of their size or height.13 As a matter of fact, research on Ottoman Sharia Court records reveal that there was no strict segregation between Muslims and dhimnıids in economic and social life. Dhimmids carried even the disputes among themselves to the sha­ria court even though they had the right of settling them in their community courts. In Cyprus, for example, there was a Greek interpreter in the sharia court for those who could not speak Turkish.:4

10 M. Kiel, Art mıd Sodety of Bıılgaritı iıı tlıe TıırJ.islı Period- A Sketclı of tlıe Ecollomic, Jııridical aııd Artistic Preconditioızs ofBulgtıriaıı Post-Byzmıti11e Art mıd i ts Place iıı tlıe Development of tlıe Art of the Clıristinıı Balkans, 1360/70-1700- A New Iııterpretatioıı, Van Gorcun, Assen/Maastricht, 1985, p.184. ll Ibid, p.351. 12 Ali İhsan I<arataş, p. 121. For Bursa, Karataş cites many examples of imperial decrees recorded in Kadis Coıı,rt Registers ordering local authorities to ensure that the members of Greek, Annenian churces as well as the Jews could perform their worships freely. 13 Kemal Çiçek, "Uving Together: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eighteenth Century Cyprus as reflected by the Shari'a Court Records'~, Islam-Oıristimı Muslim Relatioııs, N /1 aune 1993), p. 42 14 Çiçek, p. 59. '

Tiıe Limits ofReligious Tolerniıce 515

To conclude, it is safe to assume that the Ottoman practice in general con­firrns eahen' s daim that the they restored the "spectacle of an lslamo­dhimmi symbiosis". Sporadic waves on intolerance notwithstanding, they took into consideration the socio-political realities of the lands under their rule and applied Islamic laws canceming the treatment of the People of the Book in a rather practical and pragmatic way, so to speak. In Barkey' s words, "Whereas toleration emerged to provide a sense of imperial order and an organizational advantage to the s ta te, it alsa grew to mean something specific in the cantext of the Ottoman Empire; it referred to a cultural un­derstanding that, as a rule, non-Muslims would not be persecuted."lS

2- Official Islam, Sufism, Papular Islam, Heresy and Blasphemy

2.1-0fficial Islam versus Blasphemy, Heresı; andAtheism

In terms of their philosophical and theoretical aspects, heretical and athe­ist movements or incidents appeared, or noticed by the authorities, especial­ly during the times of political and/ or socio-economic trouble. The gover.ri­ment was mainly concerned with their · political implications rather than their ideologkal content; however, when dealing with such incidents or mavemen ts it made use of what it considered the heretical beliefs of their ac­tors for punishment. I will analyse the persons or groups accused of heresy, atheism and blasphemy in three categories: The Hub-Mesihis or the Good fallawers of the Messiah, Jesus Christ; members of the ulema and some rep­resentatives of certain sufi orders or tarilcats such as Melamiye and Halvetiye.

From a passage in Ricaut' s work we learn that in the Ottoman Palace and in İstanbul there are the fallawers of an opinion, who were called Chupmes­sahi (or Hubmesihl), "or the good fallawers of the Messiah; these maintain that Christ is God and Redeemer of the World ( ... ) Of this sart of people there are great number in Constantinople, some of which have so boldly as­serted this Doctrine, that they have su.ffered Martyrdarn underthis denomi­nation."16 N early one and a half century before Ricaut, in an interesting irıci­dent in İstanbul a member of the learned class or ulema named Molla Kabız was executed after a trial irı the Imperial Council for the charge of blasphe­my. It is clear that he claimed the superiority of Jesus Christ over Prophet Muhammad on the basis of Quranic verses, a daim which is unacceptable for the Muslims. He was reported to have had close contacts with Ch.tistians and his views affected not only Christians but alsa many Muslims irı İstan._ bul. He defended his views in the trial held irı the Imperial Council or Di­wan-ı Hümayun and according to the sources, even when the Chief Mufti

15 Barkey, p. 110. ı6 Ricaut, p. 244-245.

516 Mehmet Öz

disproved his eVidence he did not accept the cal! for repentance. This inci­dentas well as Ricaut's observations show that even the existence of follow­ers of Jesus ChrisfWithin Muslim circles was tolerated as long as it was not proclaimed and propagated openly.

2.2. Zendeka (Blasphemy) and İlhad (Atheisnı) among the Ulema and Sufis

From the 15th to the 18th century we see some isolated cases of perseeu­tion against members of the Ottoman leamed class or ulema, connected with blasphemy and atheism. Apart from the revolt of Şeyh Bedreddin, both a scholar and a mystic, in the second decade of the 15th century just after the reunification of the state after an ll year of Interregnum caused by the struggle for throne among the sons of Bayezid I following his defeat and subsequent death at the hand of Tamerlane, other cases were individual in­cidents w ithout ~y socio-political repercussion.

Due to the coi:ınotations of the concept of ve/ayet-i kutb, whlch supposes that the ku tb or p·oıe is at the summit of the pyrarnid of holy men managing the affairs of the werld on behalf of God, the state sametimes persecuted cer­tain sufi orders whose şeyhsor leaders claimed to be the owner of the time or the kııtb, the pole of the poles, and were perceived to have threatened the authority of the reigning sultan. For, especially such tarikats or sufi orders as the Melarnis and Kalanderis with unorthodox beliefs, the kutb or pole had both religious and worldly missions and the political authority of sultans wen~ illegal. They were careful not to express these views openly, but in a few c_ases they even did so. I will not go into details of these incidents; it will suffice to say that political authorities maintained their vigilance regarding the activities of such orders, took the measures they considered necessary When things seemed to have become out of control, but there was no sys­tematic persecution or animosity against Mystic orders by the state, whlch preferred, rather, to control and use them for its own purposes in order to consolidate its legitimacy as the protector and servant of Islam.17

2.3. Tolerance or Intolerance among the Muslim groups: The Case of Kadizadelis

In seventeenth century İstanbul, there was a controversy between a group of ıılema (religious scholars) with strictly orthodox attitude against novelties in religion (bid' at) and a group of members of sufi ord ers, that turned into violent confrontation from time to time, resulting in the deporta­tion of fanatical leaders of the so-called Kadizadeli leaders, defending the puritan Islam. The leader of the Sufi order of Halvetiye, Abdülmecid Sivasi

17 See in general, A. Yaşar Ocak, Zıııdıklar ve Miillıidleri iderrı, "Sufism, Sufis and Tariqahs, Private Dervish Lodges", Ottommı Civilizatioıı, ed. H. İnalcık-G. Renda, İstanbul 2003, pp. 267-287. \.

Tire Li mi ts ofReligioırs Tolermıce 517

was the preacher of Sultan Ahmet Mosque or the Blue Mosque whereas his main rival'Kadizade Mehmed occupied the preaching position in the other prestigious mosque, the Hagia Sofia or Ayasofya. Although the parties of the clash seem to have been these two groups the underlying struggle was be­tween the puritanism and pragmatism among the leamed men or the ulenın. The roots of this controversy can be traced at least to the previous century when the Ottoman shayk-al-Islam Ebussuud and his main rival Mehmed Birgivi, the forerunner of the Kadızadelis, defended opposite views regard­ing many religious affairs such as cash waqfs. Titis is a very interesting issue which shows the pragmatism of the official ulema vis a vis worldly affairs.

·· While Islam prohibits taking interest (ribn) from an invested sum of money, the Ottomans widely practiced taking interest out of the money endowed for

· the maintenance of religious foundations in order to use it for the needs of people and pious endowments.

The fundamentalist programme of the Kadizadelis consisted mainly of de­nouncing the bid'at or innovations, including certain kinds of prayers estab­lished after the time of the Prophet, pilgrirnages to the tombs of holy men, drinking coffee, use of tobacco and opium, sufi dance (sema ve devı•m1), recit:. ing Quran and hymns by music ete. They ·held the ulema hierarchy respon-

. sible for the situation and claimed that "it was the higher ulema's tolerance of growing Sufi presence( ... ) that gave licence to the wilder forms of Su­fism ... "18

The prominent Ottoman scholar and encyclopedist Katib Çelebi, known as Hacı Halife by westerners, who wrote a treatise about the controversial matters between Kadızadells and their Sufi opponents, was critica! of both sides and, defended the rational sciences and moderation in religious mat­ters.19 For example when he deals with sınaking he concludes that "The best is of course not to interfere with anyone in this respect and that is all there is to it."20 Besides, when dealing with innovations that was introduced into ter the Muslim community after the Prophet he is very realistic and says that it is tutile to fight the customs of people or popular religion: "People will not abandan custom.( ... ) As for the preachers, they will have done their duty if they gently admonish and advise people to turn towards the Sunna and to beware of innovation. The duty of complying belongs to the people; they cannot be forced to comply."n He is highly critica! of those daiming that "they enjoin right and forbid wrong" by referring to Prophet Muhammed who "used to deal kindly and generously with his community. The arrogant men of later time, ( .. ) label some of the community as infidels, same as here-

18 Ma deline Zil.fi, "The Kadizadelis: D iseordant Revivalism in Seventeenth Century İstanbul", foumnl OfNenr Enstenr Shrdies, s. 268-269. 19 Katib Chelebi, Tire Bnlnııce ofTrutlr, trans. By. G.L.Lewis, London 1957. ııı Tbid, p. 58. 2J Tbid, p. 90.

518 Mehmet Öz

tics, same as profligates (günahkar, ahlaksız, yaramaz) , for tıifling reasons, without fear of Gad or shame before His Prophet."22

Ka tip Çelebi was not alone in his criticism against the fanaticism and nar­row-mindedness of Kadizadelis. 'fo give but one example here are a few lines from a poem by the famous 17th century mystic Niyazi-i Mısri (d. 1694), which are openly directed against narrow-minded preachers such as the Kadızadelis:

One day I go into an assembly where a preacher is giving advice

Opening his book he reads it and makes the people cry and weep

He divides people into two and sends one into paradise

While he let the atlıers by his hands hand down the hell

He fills the h~ll so much so that no place is left to stand

He is busy placing people th~e, doing a very great job

During the reign of Sultan Murad rv the Kadızade Mehmed and his fal­lawers seemed to realize their projects as the young sultan attempted to get rid of social anarchy and ilisorder by harsh measures including prohibiting the use of tobacco and coffee, closing down coffeehouses and taverns ete. However, the Sultan was not eager to deal with other innovations which were much more important -for Sufi circles, content with the kind of measures canceming social and politicallife, having close contacts with both Kadizadelis and the Sufi circles, thus maintaining a balance. 23

While the Kadizadeli ideology enjoyed same degree of approval among _ llı.e contemporary intelligentsia and exploited by the state in i ts own interest, it was feared, on the other hand, that the militant character of the mavement might have underinine the public order and threaten the cansensus on reli­gious tolerance between the state and society. In the end, after a chaotic pe­riod at the beginning of the reign of the child Sultan Mehmed IV (1648-1687), Köprülü Mehmed Paşa, who was not very much fond of Sufis at all, became the grand vizier in 1656 and put an end the attacks and exuberance of the Kadizadelis and banished their leaders to Cyprus.

Conclusion

Seen in the political and social cantext of the time this mavement and its repercussions attest to the fact that Ottoman s ta te and intellectuals in general embraced and maintained a moderate and tolerant approach in religious

22 Ibid, 108. . 23 Ma deline Zilfi, '"Ibe Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth Century İstanbul".

:rlıe Limits of Religioıts Tolerance 519

matters, to b~ interrupted by sporadic waves of intolerance and fanaticism. Especially öuring the reign of Mehmed Il, the Conqueror of İstanbul, organi­sation of non-Muslim communities was rearranged and their rights and privileges reaffirmed. The Sultan is famous for his open-mindedness and re­garded as a Renaissance ruler, inviting scholars and artists from different re­ligions and countries, such as the Italian ·artist Gentile Bellini, who ma de his portraits. He inherited an empire far from an Orthodox-Sunni state but in the sixteenth century the fierce clash with the Shiite Safewids caused at least in part a change in the degree of religious toleration towards particularly Muslims of heterodox inciina tion.

To conclude, taking into consideration the fact that there were some changes in the attitude and policies of the Ottomans vis-a-vis members of

' different religions and sects it is not an overgeneralization to argue that be­fore the 18th century the Ottoman practice was one that allowed the coexist­ence of differences in "a world that recognized and accepted that groups d id not necessarily have to share similarities to have a place in the overall arran­gement."24

u Rodrigue, ibicl