Qadizadeli Movementu and Revival Takfir PDF

chapter 8
The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Revival of takfīr

in the Ottoman Age
Simeon Evstatiev
Defining “belief” (īmān) and “unbelief” (kufr) has been a major point of debate
and contestation throughout Islamic history. The question “what is belief ?”
(mā al-īmān) has been answered by invoking different historical antecedents
and doctrinal tenets, including shared references to earlier religious authori-
ties. In general, Islamic conceptions of belief and unbelief have their origin in
the moral and religious debates on the destiny of sinners in the afterlife.1 The
issue of whether the grave sinner is an unbeliever (kāfir) and therefore subject
to capital punishment is one of the earliest religious questions to be posed
in Islam and it carries strong political relevance.2 The broader concept of
“unbelief” is inseparable from that of “apostasy” (ridda or irtidād)—“severing
ties with Islam” (qaṭʿ al-Islam)—which is punished by death.3 The connec-
tion between kufr and apostasy became increasingly important during the
Ottoman period, too, at least from the sixteenth century CE and after. A revived
perception of the surrounding world as steeped in unbelief gained momentum
in the activity of the violently puritan Istanbul-based Qāḍīzādeli movement
(1620s–1680s), followed by the Wahhābī surge in eighteenth-century Arabia.
The re-emergence of the accusations of unbelief vigorously promoted by these
movements were the product of very different social, political, and cultural
local contexts but they shared a pattern of understanding what the demands
of “true belief” were and what an authentically Islamic orthodox creed should
mean for Muslims. How to deal with unbelievers is certainly neither a new
question, nor a question typical for only one of the branches of Islam.
* I would like to thank Dale F. Eickelman, Rudolph Peters, Alexander Knysh, Mark Sedgwick,
and Rossitsa Gradeva for their support and helpful comments on an earlier stage of my ongo-
ing project on Islamic revivalism in the post-classical period (1258–1798), from which the
current chapter is an offshoot. The present chapter includes part of my research conducted
at the Davis Center for Historical Studies, at the History Department of Princeton University,
during the academic year 2013–2014.
1 Schöck, “Belief and Unbelief,” p. 101.
2 “Unbelief” and “apostasy” are intertwined in the classical Islamic sources. See al-Ashʿarī,
Maqālāt, p. 42.
3 Peters/De Vries, “Apostasy,” p. 5.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/9789004307834_010

214 Evstatiev
Unbelief and the question of whether those who have abandoned Islam
are subject to capital punishment have been vividly debated topics among
Muslims—Sunnīs, Shīʿīs, and Khārijīs alike. While some scholars, such as the
mid-twentieth century ʿAbd al-Mutaʿālī al-Saʿīdī, whose work coincided with
the momentum of modern nation building in the Middle East, have elaborated
an argument against the “charge of unbelief” (takfīr) and argued that the apos-
tate should be asked “to repent forever” (an yustatāba dāʾiman),4 others are
less tolerant. In recent years, an increasingly visible proliferation of charges of
apostasy (irtidād) against members of the Muslim community (umma) “has
become an effective political and legal weapon in the hands of some radical
Muslim groups and individuals.”5 In general, contemporary Muslim scholars
and movements privileging the accusations of unbelief are drawing upon a
set of major tenets and discussions in Islamic sources. Those sources, how-
ever, demonstrate that the question of what unbelief encompasses has been
subject to change over time. In some periods of Islamic history and in some
Muslim states takfīr—declaring and accusing someone of being an “unbe-
liever” (kāfir)—was clearly shunned as a duty, while in others it was impera-
tively foregrounded in religious, public, and political life.
By highlighting the Qāḍīzādeli movement, the present chapter argues for
continuity rather than rupture between the ideas promoted by its adherents
and other revivalist strands in Islamic history. Indeed, the Qāḍīzādelis might
have seemed to many a radical exception to Ottoman tolerance and laxity in the
application of Islamic law (sharīʿa), and they might well have been such an
exception in many ways. However, their struggle for a sharīʿa-minded reform
brought about through reviving the beliefs and practices of the first Muslim
generation in the first/seventh century seems not to have been entirely new;
such trends appeared not only in the earlier Islamic experience in general but
also in the earlier Ottoman intellectual and religio-political experience. The
latter, as we shall see, is a particularly understudied field. The Qāḍīzādelis’
vehement appeal for a purification of Islam and their questioning the faith of
their contemporary Ottoman coreligionists stirred up controversies that, more
than once, ended in violence against those who held different opinions.
I argue that by challenging the religious and political status quo, the preach-
ers of the movement drew upon a two-fold intellectual trajectory: a larger
4 By which al-Saʿīdī (Ḥurriyya, pp. 72, 148, 156) refers to an isolated report (khabar al-wāḥid)
transmitted by Ibrāhīm al-Nakhāʾī (d. ca. 96/717) that the apostate should “forever be asked
to repent.” For further references to this non-prevailing but still existent opinion, see Peters/
De Vries, “Apostasy,” p. 15 n. 41.
5 Griffel, “Toleration,” p. 340.
The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Revival of takfīr 215
classical and post-classical Islamic revivalist tradition, and an earlier, sharīʿa-

minded Ottoman religious strand. It is in this sense that the Qāḍīzādeli move-
ment was one of the culminations of an already existing trajectory in Islamic
history rather than an exception or a radical rupture. Such an argument
requires—instead of overemphasizing the (sometimes alleged) Qāḍīzādeli
tendency to admire and adopt Ḥanbalī doctrines within the Ottoman con-
text—that we also consider strict Ḥanafism, to which the adherents of this
movement belonged. I am thus seeking to build an argument for the rise of
Qāḍīzādelis as a result of the entanglements between this strict Ḥanafism and
a larger Islamic revivalist tradition, which is mostly but not exclusively related
to the Ḥanbalī madhhab.
In what follows, I offer a conceptualization of the Qāḍīzādeli movement
through the prism of belief vis-à-vis unbelief. In so doing, I shall firstly intro-
duce the concept of takfīr, including some of its classical foundations rel-
evant to the debates in the Ottoman age, as a means for distinguishing belief
and unbelief. I shall then go on to the Qāḍīzādelis themselves, suggesting a
framework for inquiry into their role in the spread of heightened awareness of
unbelief in the Ottoman age. I shall thus argue that, among other things, the
Qāḍīzādeli orthodoxy staged in the Ottoman religious scene was distinguished
by a strong emphasis on the struggle against unbelief that was embodied in
the proliferation of “heretical innovations” (bidaʿ), not all of which were to be
subsumed under the rubric of takfīr, with its strict legal consequences. Finally,
I will adduce some instances that delineate some traceable lines of continu-
ity between the Qāḍīzādelis, their inspiration, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Birgiwī,
known also as Birgili Meḥmed Efendi (d. 1573),6 and other Ottoman and Arab-
Islamic revivalist scholars and religious groups.
1 Discerning Revivalism: The Charge of Unbelief
“Revivalism” is used here to refer to “a stance that formulates its critique of

the contemporary state of affairs in terms of a return to an idealized early
Islamic period.”7 Furthermore, Islamic revival “involves a strengthening of
the Islamic dimensions of society. However, intensification of Islamic identity
6 But also as Birgivī, Birgiwî, Birkawî, or al-Birgawī. The variations are a result of the differ-
ent readings of the Arabic letter kāf (‫) ک‬, modified as gef (‫) گ‬, used by the Ottomans for the
Turkish “g,” in this case for writing the city name Birgi, as well as by the alternative of either
an Arabic or an Ottoman Turkish adjectival ending.
7 Hirschler, “Traditions of Revivalism,” p. 196.
216 Evstatiev
is not identical with the characteristic patterns of revivalism.”8 Focusing on

the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, scholars such as John Voll9 and
Rudolph Peters10 have suggested a typology of the “fundamentalist mode
of Islamic experience.”11 Voll considers three distinctive features of Islamic
revivalism: a call for a return to the Qurʾān and the Sunna; a reaffirmation of
authenticity, especially vis-à-vis syncretic tendencies; and, finally, an emphasis
on the need to apply ijtihād—independent Islamic legal reasoning.12 Peters
emphasizes the attack on the obligatory character of taqlīd—the acceptance
of or submission to authority, that is, the authority of one of the four major
madhhabs. The scholars who shunned taqlīd and privileged a direct approach
to the sources of Islam through ijtihād “belonged to the fundamentalist tra-
dition in Islam.”13 To Peters, fundamentalist thinking in Islam draws on two
major “concept-pairs”: sunna (“the normative example of the Prophet”) versus
bidʿa14 (“a deviation from the sunna, or the opposite of the sunna”); and tawḥīd
(“monotheism”) versus shirk (“polytheism”).15
Others, however, have developed an argument against such a typology of
revivalism. Ahmad Dallal offers an elaborate critique of those claims that
repeatedly speak of “Wahhābī influences” on the thought of the Indian Shāh
Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī (d. 1762), the West African ʿUthmān Ibn Fūdī (d. 1817),
and the North African Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sanūsī (d. 1859). Dallal questions “the
theory of a united Islamic revivalism,” and historian Bernard Haykel points out
that in spite of its heuristic potential, the theory of a united Islamic revivalism
can indeed be misleading. In his study on the Yemeni scholar and reformer
Muḥammad al-Shawkānī (d. 1834), Haykel aligns himself with Dallal, empha-
sizing that “the substantive content of the ideologies of Islamic revival needs
to be thoroughly researched before any broad generalizations can be made.”16
8 Levtzion/Voll, Renewal, p. 15.

9 Voll, “Sudanese Mahdi,” pp. 145–166.
10 Peters, “Dervishes,” pp. 217–242.
11 Voll, “Linking Groups,” p. 88.
12 Voll, “Renewal,” pp. 32–47.
13 Peters, Idjtihād and Taqlīd, p. 131.
14 Innovation, a belief or practice for which there is no precedent in the time of the Prophet
Muḥammad. See James Robson, “Bidʿa,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 1,
p. 1199. On bidʿa as the opposite of sunna and thus as a concept corresponding to “heresy,”
see also Lewis, “Observations,” pp. 52f.
15 Shirk is usually translated in Western languages as “polytheism,” but the term implies
“associationism,” i.e. the act of “associating” other deities to the oneness and unity of
Allāh.
16 Haykel, Revival, p. 13.
In fact, the scholars suggesting a typology of revivalism remain cautious, too,

admitting that the “characteristic pattern of renewal and reform” exploring the
“fundamentalist” mode of experience “has some limitations.”17
A proper grasp of revivalism requires a consideration of orthodoxy, heresy,
and the limits of religious pluralism within Islam.18 The Islamic legal dictum
ikhtilāf al-umma raḥma (“disagreement within the Muslim community is
[a sign of] God’s mercy”), established as early as the second/eighth century,19
gives a sense of the possibility for internal pluralism. Nevertheless, the answer
to the question of why this is so in Islam “cannot be that only Christian societies
are concerned with imposing religious conformity.”20 Moreover, the acknowl-
edged “disagreement” concerns certain details in questions of law and ritual,
while dissent in dogmatics and religious doctrine (ʿaqīda) is not encouraged.
Muslims from any school are bound to strictly defend their position. Or, as the
Ḥanafī scholar Ibn Nujaym al-Miṣrī (d. 970/1563) puts it: “The truth is what we
adhere to and the false—what is maintained by our opponent.”21 Despite its
limits and the overemphasis on Islam as a religion of orthopraxy, orthodoxy
has played an important role in all Islamic traditions.22
Analyzing religion as an anthropologist, Talal Asad suggests that “a tradition
consists essentially of discourses that seek to instruct practitioners regarding
the correct form and purpose of a given practice that, precisely because it is
established, has a history. These discourses relate conceptually to a past (when
the practice was instituted, and from which the knowledge of its point and
proper performance has been transmitted) and a future (how the point of that
practice can best be secured in the short or long term, or why it should be
modified or abandoned), through a present (how it is linked to other practices,
institutions, and social conditions). An Islamic discursive tradition is simply a
tradition of Muslim discourse that addresses itself to conceptions of the Islamic
past and future, with reference to a particular Islamic practice in the present.”23
17 Levtzion/Voll, Renewal, p. 14.

18 See Knysh, “Essay of Reassessment.”
19 Schacht, Introduction, p. 67.
20 Asad, Idea, p. 345.
21 Ibn Nujaym, Ashbāh, p. 418.
22 See Calder, “Limits.” For a tentative but more detailed discussion of “orthodoxy” and
“orthopraxy” in the study of Islam, see Evstatiev, “Qāḍīzādeli Movement,” pp. 15–17. In
the same study, I offer also a closer reflection on the relevant discussions around the
eighteenth-century “Islamic Enlightenment” (pp. 9–11) and the issue of universal Islam
vis-à-vis local contexts (pp. 12–13).
23 Asad, Idea, p. 14. For his anthropological views of religion, see Asad, “Anthropological
Conceptions,” pp. 237–259.
218 Evstatiev
According to Asad, “Wherever Muslims have the power to regulate, uphold,

require, or adjust correct practices, and to condemn, exclude, undermine, or
replace incorrect ones, there is the domain of orthodoxy.”24 The practice of
takfīr is thus one of the important Islamic discursive traditions demonstrating
that “there is an Islamic tradition, a set of ideas, symbols, and interrelated texts
and practices which may have a normative (although contested) force.”25
In Western scholarship on Islam the search for the historical evolution of
takfīr is a rare and only recent phenomenon. When Goldziher studied the
accusations of unbelief within the Ashʿarite school of theology (kalām), he for-
mulated their legal meaning as follows: a Muslim accused of unbelief has to
be excommunicated; after his unbelief is proved in a sound manner he should
be asked to repent (istitāba), in order to remain a member of the Islamic
community (umma); and if he fails to do so, he is therefore subject to capital
punishment.26 As a whole, this view is widely and conventionally accepted
also among Muslim scholars. Ḥamad ʿUbayd al-Kubaysī, editor of Shifāʾ
al-ghalīl fī bayān al-shubaḥ wa-l-mukhīl, by Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111),
which is one of the major classical Sunnī works dealing with takfīr, stresses
the general agreement between the Islamic jurisprudents ( fuqahāʾ) that the
“secret apostate” (zindīq), even if he publicly professes Islam ( yaẓhar al-Islām)
has to be killed. Al-Kubaysī points out that disagreement among scholars of
Islamic law emerged around the question of whether the repentance of an
apostate (murtadd) should be accepted or not. Both Abū Ḥanīfa and Aḥmad b.
Ḥanbal ruled that the repentance of such an apostate must not be accepted—
a view that was shared by Mālik b. Anas, while al-Shāfiʿī adopted the opposite
opinion.27
The Mālikī school of law, which stresses that in order to be branded an apos-
tate a man or woman would have to have professed Islam beforehand, defines
irtidād as “unbelief [of the Muslim] whose Islam has been established with
no doubt” (kufr baʿda l-Islām taqarrara). Mālikīs emphasize that a person’s
profession of the Islamic faith should be evident in both words (qawl) and
24 Asad, Idea, p. 15. Orthodoxy in Islam is viewed as the product of a “network of power” not
only by anthropologists but also by Islamicists such as van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft,
p. 686. In Islamic history, religious authority and political power have correlated in
cooperation and mutual support. However, quietism has also been an equally signifi-
cant stance and alternative to the participation of religious scholars in power. Cf. Fierro,
“Heresy,” p. 896.
25 Berkey, Popular Preaching, p. 7.
26 Goldziher, Vorlesungen, p. 182.
27 al-Ghazālī, Shifāʾ, p. 222 n. 7.
actions (ʿamal). A person who becomes Muslim by simply pronouncing the

Islamic profession of faith (shahāda) without observing the Islamic ritual
practices, such as prayer (ṣalāt), nevertheless cannot be legally declared an
apostate.28 Analyzing this peculiarity of Islamic law, Rudolph Peters and Gert
de Vries point out that apostasy (irtidād) is expressed through unbelief (kufr),
“specified as words implying unbelief, deeds implying unbelief or, according to
Shāfiʿite doctrine, the mere intention of unbelief. The apostatical words can be
either explicit, viz. solemnly abjuring Islam, or implicit, viz. utterances incom-
patible with the theological consensus (ijmāʿ) or with the axiomatic articles of
faith (mā ʿulima min al-dīn ḍarūratan).”29
Frank Griffel has suggested that for Goldziher there was little historical
development within the verdict of takfīr: he “did not distinguish between the
status of an unbelieving Muslim and that of a Muslim apostate, and thus he
neglected the dynamics of this legal institution.”30 This view reflects subse-
quent studies on accusations of unbelief and apostasy in Islam, and research
on the subject so far has not progressed to the point of outlining the histori-
cal development of takfīr and its inter-connectedness with irtidād and other
Islamic concepts used to set a boundary between belief and unbelief. Already
al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) had established a clear connection between “unbelief”
(kufr) and “apostasy” (irtidād). On the basis of a chapter from al-Shāfiʿī’s Kitāb
al-Umm, Griffel summarizes the views of the medieval scholar by stating that
unbelief as such was not a legal offence incurring a death sentence. The unbe-
liever would be treated as an apostate only if he publicly and unyieldingly breaks
with Islam. In terms of formulation, al-Shāfiʿī argues that one cannot separate
the concept of apostasy from unbelief because the legal term “apostasy” can-
not be understood without referring to the theological concept of “unbelief.”
Therefore, “the application of the legal term ‘apostasy’ is based on three nec-
essary conditions: first, the apostate had to have once had faith according to
al-Shāfiʿī’s definition (meaning publicly professing Islam); secondly there had
to follow unbelief (meaning the public declaration of a breaking-away from
Islam); and thirdly, there had to be the omission or failure to repent after the
apostate was asked to do so. These three criteria constitute apostasy and all
three are necessary to pass capital punishment on a Muslim, while the first two
are sufficient to classify a Muslim as an unbeliever.”31 Hence, according to the
earlier classical Islamic doctrine, kufr was an instructive definition that could
28 al-Ḥaṭṭāb, Mawāhib, vol. 6, pp. 279f.

29 Peters/De Vries, “Apostasy,” p. 3.
30 Griffel, “Toleration,” p. 340.
31 Griffel, “Toleration,” pp. 348f. Cf. al-Shāfiʿī, Umm, vol. 6, pp. 145–65.
220 Evstatiev
serve to accuse someone of unbelief, while irtidād was a legally consequential

concept referring to a person’s final break from Islam. Dealing with the lat-
ter, Islamic law has envisaged the most severe among the punishments for the
enemies of God—the death sentence.
Three hundred years after al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī offered a fresh
and more exclusivist Sunnī interpretation of what constitutes true Islamic
belief and practice.32 Unlike al-Shāfiʿī, to whom unbelief was not a legal
offence, for al-Ghazālī the public profession of Islam did not suffice to make
one a believer. Although the latter boldly emphasized the danger of the free
practice of takfīr, an action that should not undertaken lightly, he assumed
that—except for commoners—the enemies of the Islamic state and the prop-
agators of incorrect beliefs and practices should be killed, without giving them
the right to repentance (istitāba):
It is well-known from the revealed law (al-sharʿ) that the unbeliever has
to be killed (anna l-kāfir maqtūl), and we refrain from killing him if he
repents. His repentance (bi-tawbatihi) is [accepted] to mean that he has
abandoned his false religion (al-dīn al-bāṭil).33 However, the secret apos-
tate (al-zindīq) does not give up his false religion even if he pronounces
the shahāda. . . . It is therefore licit ( fī ḥaqq) to kill for his unbelief (kufr)
him whom we consider a permanent unbeliever (kāfiran mustamirran
ʿalā kufrihi).34
Al-Ghazālī compiled a separate work dedicated to the criteria of distinguish-

ing between Islam and unbelief, in which he set apart chapters dealing with
takfīr and the reasons for which one can be accused of unbelief.35 Al-Ghazālī
stresses that takfīr is a divinely ordained legal judgment (ḥukm sharʿī) and
as such it enjoins confiscation of the unbeliever’s property, the shedding of
his blood, and an eternal punishment in hell (al-ḥukm bi-l-khulūd fī l-nār).36
Al-Ghazālī thus was the most eminent Islamic theologian during the late clas-
sical period to emphasize the necessity of a strict interpretation of takfīr. In
32 More details on al-Ghazālī’s theory of takfīr, see in Izutsu, Concept, pp. 23f.
33 It is not sufficiently clear to me why Griffel (“Toleration,” p. 351 n. 53) reads bāṭin (“inner”)
instead of bāṭil (“false”, but also “invalid”)—it does not seem that the text has been cor-
rupted here.
34 al-Ghazālī, Shifāʾ, p. 222.
35 al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal, pp. 53–67. More about this work see in Jackson, Boundaries. For a
German translation of the work by Griffel, see al-Ghazālī, Rechtgläubigkeit.
36 al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal, p. 66.
the subsequent post-classical period, when the central Islamic lands were
dominated by the Mamlūks and subsequently by the Ottoman dynasty, takfīr
re-emerged in the works of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and the Ḥanbalites
of Damascus, later discussed by tenth/sixteenth–eleventh/seventeenth-
century Ottoman scholars, and culminating in movements as different as the
Qāḍīzādelis and the Wahhābiyya.
2 The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Issue of Unbelief
The Qāḍīzādeli movement’s “fundamentalist challenge”37 and “discordant

revivalism”38 evolved from a passionately devout, markedly anti-mystical
group of Muslim mosque preachers (Arabic wuʿʿāẓ, sg. wāʿiẓ; Turkish vaiz) on
the periphery of the Ottoman religious establishment—the ʿulamāʾ hierarchy
known in Ottoman Turkish as ʿilmiye. Acquiring a reputation as strict, rigor-
ous, and pious Muslim preachers among their supporters, but designated by
their Sufi adversaries in some Ottoman sources as “people of bigotry” (ehl-i
taʿaṣṣub),39 the Qāḍīzādelis prevailed over their rivals in eleventh/seventeenth-
century Istanbul under the successive leadership of Qāḍīzāde40 Meḥmed
Efendi (d. 1045/1635), the Damascene by birth and education Usṭuvānī (d. 1072/
1661), and Vānī Meḥmed Efendi (d. 1096/1684). They held a firm grip on
Ottoman religious and public life during the reign of Sultan Murād IV, with
his “conversion to piety,”41 but began to be identified as “Qāḍīzādelis” during
the height of their activities around 1061/1650–51—a time coinciding with the
reign of Sultan Meḥmed IV.42
During Murād’s reign and under Qāḍīzādeli pressure, coffeehouses and
tobacco were banned on pain of death.43 Smoking infractions resulted in a
huge number of executions by dismemberment, impaling, or hanging.44 The
eminent Ottoman historian Ḥajjī Khalīfa, known as Kātib Çelebi (d. 1067/1657),
relates the execution of “fifteen or twenty leading men of the army” on a charge
37 Zilfi, Politics of Piety, p. 134.

38 Zilfi, “Kadizadelis,” pp. 251–269.
39 Terzioǧlu, Sufi and Dissident, p. 199.
40 In modern Turkish transliteration: Kadızade, “the son of a judge.”
41 Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, p. 105.
42 Naʿīmā, Tārīkh, vol. 5, pp. 54–59; vol. 6, pp. 227–241. See also Terzioǧlu, Sufi and Dissident,
p. 202.
43 Naʿīmā, Tārīkh, vol. 6, p. 231.
44 Ricaut, History, vol. 1, pp. 59, 79.
222 Evstatiev
of smoking during a military expedition against Baghdad undertaken by

Murād IV. Despite the “severest torture” in the presence of the sultan, however,
“some of the soldiers carried short pipes in their sleeves, some in their pockets,
and they found an opportunity to smoke even during the executions.” Although
telling with respect to social and religious developments, the Qāḍīzādeli-
influenced ban on smoking was not a success story: “Even during this rigorous
prohibition, the number of smokers exceeded that of the non-smokers.”45
The appointment of the Qāḍīzādelis as Friday preachers provided them with
direct access to the public, and their career path quickly offered them control
over the so-called imperial mosques, such as Hagia Sophia (Aya Sofya), Sultan
Aḥmed, Süleymaniye, Beyazid, Fātiḥ, Selim I, and Shāhzāde. Endowed over the
centuries by the reigning lines of the Ottoman family, those imperial mosques
were “inherently egalitarian,”46 and apart from their ritual functions were a
major venue for socializing and public discussions. It is telling that initially the
Qāḍīzādelis were called “Birgiwī followers” (Turkish Birgivī khulefāsı) or simply
“Birgiwīs” (Turkish Birgivīler), since all of them were religiously and intellectu-
ally inspired by the influential conservative religious scholar Muḥammad b.
ʿAlī al-Birgiwī. His popularity spanned the entire Muslim world and he became
“more than the author of much-copied works”47 extensively referenced and
commented upon in both Ottoman Turkish and Arabic.
Why then do the Qāḍīzādelis seem so enigmatic and invisible outside of
Istanbul, when there is an apparent, though not sufficiently articulated, schol-
arly intuition of their significance over time and space? Were the Qāḍīzādelis a
part of an interrelated set of Islamic revivalist impulses that included accusing
other Muslims of unbelief (takfīr)? Did this metropolitan movement influence
an entire complex network of revivalist groups during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, or was it rather one of the (inter)acting groups within
a more general trend? The answers to such questions can so far not be given
with absolute certainty due to the shortcomings in the state of recent research.
Islamic intellectual history, and particularly the substantive teachings of the
revivalist groups and their leaders in the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-
ries, has yet scarcely been examined. In general, Islam during the Ottoman
centuries has been studied mostly in institutional terms, with a few excep-
tions, such as in the work of Madeleine Zilfi,48 who explores Islamic religious
life more broadly in the seventeenth century, which is seen as a period of
45 Kātib Çelebi, Balance, p. 51f.

46 See Zilfi, Politics of Piety, pp. 129f.
47 Cook, Commanding Right, p. 328.
48 Zilfi, Politics of Piety.
crisis followed by a more stable eighteenth century. Even Zilfi’s seminal work,
however, is based on developments in Istanbul alone. As a whole, the career
patterns of the ʿulamāʾ are traced prosopographically, without examining their
output in intellectual history—“the great lacuna in Ottoman history.”49
The role of the Qāḍīzādeli movement outside Istanbul is so far unclear,
and the spread of its ideas in the Arab East has until now lacked significant
scholarly attention. A chapter in Zilfi’s The Politics of Piety,50 written after an
article in Turkish by Ahmet Yaşar Ocak outlined the Qāḍīzādelis as a subject
deserving special attention,51 contains what is still the only published his-
torical survey of the movement, while the only monographic studies devoted
to it thus far are the doctoral dissertations of Necati Öztürk and Semiramis
Çavuşoğlu.52 These three works, however, focus heavily on the institutional
and urban aspects of the Qāḍīzādelis, against the backdrop of central impe-
rial policies, the ʿilmiye, and the movement’s vehement struggle against the
Sufis. It seems, however, that even the radical opposition between the Sufis
and Qāḍīzādelis seems debatable and cannot be taken for granted.
For a long time, scholarship was under the influence of a view promoted
by orientalists such as Sir Hamilton A.R. Gibb (1895–1971), according to whom
Sufism opposed orthodoxy and the “Arab idea” of Islam; hence a “violent
resistance to Sufism” has been expressed at least since the eighth/fourteenth
century by “the fundamentalist Hanbalite, Ibn Taimiyya, and his small body
of disciples.”53 Subsequently, Fazlur Rahman coined the term “neo-Sufism” to
denote more specifically the eighteenth-century Sufi revival, which “tended
to regenerate orthodox activism.”54 Until some two decades ago, it was widely
accepted that this “neo-Sufism” combined a revivalist Wahhābī creed with a
Sufi organizational structure. This convenient model, however, was disman-
tled by Rex S. O’Fahey and Bernd Radtke.55 Sharing their view, Mark Sedgwick
emphasized that now for most researchers “Gibb’s and Fazlur Rahman’s plac-
ing of Sufism in opposition to orthodoxy is unjustified.”56 In his turn, John Voll,
49 Hathaway, “Rewriting,” p. 38; cf. Peirce, “Perceptions,” p. 10. See also Peters, “Quest,”
p. 160; cf. Terzioğlu, “Man,” p. 141. A notable book dealing with intellectual history is, e.g.,
Fleischer, Bureaucrat.
50 Zilfi, Politics of Piety, pp. 129–182.
51 Ocak, “Puritanizm,” pp. 208–225.
52 Öztürk, Islamic Orthodoxy; Çavuşoğlu, Ķaḍīzādeli Movement.
53 Gibb, Modern Trends, p. 24.
54 Rahman, Islam, p. 195.
55 O’Fahey, Enigmatic Saint, pp. 1–9 and, respectively, O’Fahey/Radtke, “Neo-Sufism,”
pp. 52–87.
56 Sedgwick, Saints, p. 28.
224 Evstatiev
who extensively uses the term “neo-Sufism,” suggested a reconsideration of

the activist orders of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.57 Historian
Derin Terzioğlu suggests that Sufi preachers had distinguished themselves as
political commentators long before the emergence of the Qāḍīzādelis. She
argues that Sufi and non-Sufi preachers during the seventeenth century “had
complex relationships, which are not always accurately captured by such
words as ‘opposition’, ‘antagonism’ and ‘conflict’. To the contrary, a pronounced
emphasis on adherence to the Sunna and a puritanical outlook on Ottoman
social and cultural life united the reform visions of both groups.”58 Was, then,
the radical struggle against unbelief promoted by the Qāḍīzādelis—but appar-
ently not only by them—part of a deeper and larger-scale religious trend—
be it related or not to what Tijana Krstić defines as “confessionalization” or a
“Sunnitization” of the Ottoman Empire? 59
The Qāḍīzādeli preachers not only denounced practices of disbelief and
innovation by warning their listeners, but “sought to provoke the public
and ultimately the Ottoman authorities into action.”60 Dror Zeʾevi stresses
that Muslim reform movements during the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-
ries “did not offer messianic salvation in the form of a charismatic leader. Their
main objective was strict adherence to an orthodox interpretation of the law.”
Zeʾevi concludes that the “Qāḍīzādeli conflict had spread across the Ottoman
universe,”61 however without discussing the character and channels of this
spreading. The few other studies mentioning the Qāḍīzādelis within the social
and religious context of the Arab East all focus on late seventeenth- and early
eighteenth-century developments in Egypt. Jane Hathaway, analyzing the
Qāḍīzādeli opposition to Sabbatai Sevi, notes that “in his zeal to emulate
the original Muslim community at Medina, Vānī Meḥmed Efendi conceived a
goal of making Istanbul a purely Muslim city.”62 Two other studies consider an
incident around the battered dervishes of Bab Zuwayla, with the Qāḍīzādelis
57 Voll, “Neo-Sufism,” p. 317.

58 Terzioğlu, “Sufi Preachers,” p. 243.
59 Krstić, Contested Conversions, pp. 12f. Marinos Sariyannis (“Kadizadeli Movement,” p. 263)
has suggested an approach to the Qāḍīzadelis’ role in Ottoman social history by proposing
to study its “well-known ‘fundamentalism’ that arose throughout the seventeenth century
in the light of the emergence of new mercantile strata in the same period.” He argues that
the movement served the new classes in their struggle for political power in Istanbul and
resorts to the paradigm of Max Weber to demonstrate that “Kadızadeli-minded statesmen
could use the ‘fundamentalist’ ethics in promoting ‘free-trade’ measures.”
60 Le Gall, “Kadızadelis,” p. 3.
61 Zeʾevi, Producing Desire, p. 95.
62 Hathaway, “Grand Vizier,” p. 667.
qualifying it as proto-Wahhābī fitna in Ottoman Cairo.63 Barbara Flemming

later revisited the incident and suggested that it was not proto-Wahhābī as
much as neo-Qāḍīzādeli.64 Rudolph Peters and Barbara Flemming seem to
be the only ones to have touched upon a possible connection between the
Istanbul movement and the Wahhābī surge in the Arabian Peninsula.
In their studies on Wahhābiyya, scholars such as Michael Cook, Alexander
Knysh, and Hamid Algar do not mention any connection with the Qāḍīzādelis.65
Contemporary Saudi Arabian historians seem to focus on puzzling out the
local details without conceptualizing the movement initiated by Muḥammad
b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (b. 1115/1703, d. 1206/1792) in Najd within the broader Islamic
tradition and society.66 The contextualization of the Wahhābī movement
vis-à-vis its Qāḍīzādeli predecessor within the larger Islamic tradition still
awaits clarification. The situation is similar regarding the historical evidence
at our disposal for the radical purification of public morality in Bilād al-Shām
during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Sources such as al-
Budayrī’s Daily Events in Damascus67 and sijills provide information about
dramatic debates over piety and the measures taken by some ʿulamāʾ and
preachers against the proliferation of unbelief through bidʿa, wrongdoing,
and “evil” (sharr), which ranged from evil talk to wine drinking and prostitu-
tion, and from coffee drinking to tobacco smoking.68 Again, it is unclear
whether and how such dramatic events in the Arab East were an echo of
the earlier Qāḍīzādeli orthodox impulse or of the almost contemporaneous
Wahhābī surge.
One the few discussions of the Qāḍīzādeli impact in the Balkans is pro-
vided by Derin Terzioǧlu, who touches upon some of the earliest traces of the
movement’s presence in Anatolia and Rumeli, arguing that the followers of
Birgiwī had grown up as a social group identifiable not only in Istanbul, but
also in the Balkans. She mentions a didactic-cum-comic work composed by a
certain Ḥāccī Aḥmed in the town of Yanya (Yanina), in northwestern Greece,
in 1056/1646–47. The book includes an inventory of offensive social types
and curses them, and also contains an entry on “Birgivī followers (Birgivīler),
63 Flemming, “Vorwahhabitische Fitna,” pp. 55–65; Peters, “Islamischer Fundamentalismus,”

pp. 93–115.
64 Barbara Flemming, unpublished paper given at a conference in Leiden (2002).
65 Cook, “On the Origins,” pp. 191–202; Knysh, “Danger,” pp. 3–26; and Algar, Wahhabism.
66 al-ʿUthaymīn, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.
67 al-Budayrī, Ḥawādith Dimashq. For more details about al-Budayrī and his eighteenth-
century chronicle in Arabic, see Masters, “View,” pp. 354–356.
68 Rafeq, “Morality,” p. 181.
226 Evstatiev
who show obstinacy in matters in which they are in the wrong.”69 In her 2010
article, the Ottomanist Rossitsa Gradeva mentions the issue of orthodoxy in
her discussion of the movement and its possible influence in Sofia, referring
to Evliya Çelebi (d. 1094/1682), according to whom Sheikh Meḥmed, known as
Qāḍīzāde, “manifested himself here.” Gradeva interprets this passage not
as evidence that the founder of the movement was born in Sofia but in the
sense that, more importantly, his ideas had spread in the town.70 Kerima Filan
analyzes the Qāḍīzādeli type of “religious fanaticism” in Sarajevo during the
eighteenth century, based on notes (majmua) by Mula Mustafa Bašeski written
between 1760 and 1805. Filan argues that the contents of the notes show that
Sarajevo “fanatics” wanted to transform the religious life of the city in the same
way “as the Qāḍīzādelis did in Istanbul in seventeenth century.”71
The Oriental Department of the Bulgarian National Library in Sofia has pre-
served a collection of manuscripts including local copies of and commentaries
on Muḥammad Birgiwī’s al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, the content of which
and whose interrelation with the transregional movement known as al-Ṭarīqa
al-Muḥammadiyya is unstudied. The processing, cataloguing, and analyzing
of the Arabic and Ottoman Turkish manuscripts from such important local
Rumeli waqf library collections as the one in Samokov show that some of
the manuscripts, and especially the commentaries on al-Birgiwī’s al-Ṭarīqa
al-Muḥammadiyya by eighteenth-century scholars such as Aḥmad al-Kashfī
al-Samaqūwī72 and Aḥmad al-Ikhtimānī73 deserve special further attention,
at the very least because these works seem to have been widely used in the
Balkans and beyond. There are indications that in some localities, including
Samokov, al-Birgiwī’s al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya and its commentaries were
the most widely borrowed books in the waqf libraries. During the month of
Ramaḍān 1120/1708, al-Samaqūwī even traveled to Damascus, where he met
one of the major commentators on al-Birgiwī, the Sūfī ʿAbd al-Ghānī al-
Nābulusī, who polemicized with al-Birgiwī.74 Further research on those manu-
scripts can reveal the trajectories of the spread of al-Birgiwī’s ideas through
69 Ḥācī Aḥmed, Risāle-i ʿacībe, ff. 96b–98b; quoted by Terzioǧlu, Sufi and Dissident, p. 202.
70 Gradeva, “Churches,” p. 53. The founder of the movement, Qāḍīzāde Meḥmed Balıkesirli
(from Balıkesir), should be, however, distinguished from Qāḍīzāde Meḥmed Sofyalı (from
Sofia; d. 1631/2). See Zilfi, Politics of Piety, p. 255.
71 Filan, “Suije i kadizadelije,” p. 186; see also Filan, “Life,” pp. 335–337.
72 al-Samaqūwī, Sharḥ.
73 Aḥmad al-Ikhtimānī, Sharḥ al-Tarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, MS St. Cyril and Methodius
National Library, ОР 2364.
74 In his al-Ḥadīqa al-nadiyya. Cf. Kenderova, Knigi, pp. 91f.
his al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya. Alikber Alikberov, who looked through the

Samokov waqf library, published digitally a short but informative article in
Russian defining the al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya network as an “ecumenical
movement in Islam,” whose Balkan version is characterized by an anti-Chris-
tian polemic.75 This strand of accusing of unbelief both heretical Muslims and
non-Muslims needs further investigation, but this, however, falls beyond the
scope of the present chapter.
Since the Qāḍīzadelis struggled against all perpetrators of heretical “inno-
vations,” principal among whom were the Sufis, Derin Terzioğlu, among
others, went so far as to designate the mosque preachers’ teaching “a Salafī
message,”76 while Fariba Zarinebaf, in her recent book on crime and punish-
ment in Istanbul, refers to “the conservative Kadızadeli faction.”77 Such a com-
plicated issue of terminology is among the factors enjoining further reflection
around the question of how to qualify the movement inside the larger Islamic
tradition, and a glimpse into the movement’s views of unbelief could be a step
toward this aim.78
3 Innovation as a Pathway to Unbelief
Along with the explicit discussions on takfīr, understanding how societies—

including the Qāḍīzādeli-dominated central Ottoman lands in the seventeenth-
century—mark the borderline between what they define as belief and unbe-
lief requires a widening of the framework for inquiry. It involves the role of
such key imperatives and concepts as al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-l-nahy ʿan al-
munkar (“commanding right and forbidding wrong”), shirk (“polytheism”
or “associationism”), jihād (“holy struggle”), al-salaf (“the predecessors”, i.e.,
the first three generations of Muslims), and al-khalaf (“the successors”,
i.e., the ensuing generations of the Muslim community), hijra (the “emigration,”
75 Alikberov, <http://islamica.ru/?uid=95>, accessed 12 February 2014. I would like to thank

my fellow Arabist Dr. Anka Stoilova, archivist at the National Library in Sofia, for pointing
me to this article as well as for her ceaseless help in my work with Arabic manuscripts.
76 Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident, p. 194. Although the elaboration of Salafīyya as related to
Qāḍīzadelis is beyond the scope of this chapter, it must be noted that the designation
“Salafī,” and especially “Salafism,” may be confusing as applied to phenomena prior to the
twentieth century. See Lauzière, “Construction,” pp. 369–389. For a recent sound analy-
sis of Salafī Islam, see also Haykel, “On the Nature,” pp. 33–38. The Salafī trends in post-
classical Islam await closer examination, including in terms of takfīr.
77 Zarinebaf, Crime, p. 106.
78 Cf. Knysh, Islam, pp. 424–426.
228 Evstatiev
implying the avoidance of association with unbelievers), and bidʿa (innova-

tion). Below, I will demonstrate some of the connections between charges of
unbelief and bidʿa. Despite the leading role the Ḥanafī madhhab played across
the Ottoman Empire, entanglements among the schools of Islamic law must
also be constantly reconsidered in analyzing such religious transformations as
the adoption of the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya and his influential pupil Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350) by the Qāḍīzādelis, by their inspirer al-Birgiwī, and by
other Ḥanafīs. Examining such factors will shed further light on whether the
Qāḍīzādeli-revived interest in the Damascene Ḥanbalīs was a continuation of
a trend among some Ottoman ʿulamāʾ traceable back to the sixteenth century,
and if so, why that happened. However, sometimes apparent similarities can
be misleading.
In his 2010 study, Khaled El-Rouayheb suggests that “the views of Birgiwî
and his Kadizadeli followers may have been rooted, not in the thought of Ibn
Taymiyya, but in an intolerant current within the Ḥanafī-Māturīdī school, rep-
resented by such scholars as ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (d. 842/1438), who famously
declared both Ibn ʿArabi and Ibn Taymiyya unbelievers.”79 Al-Birgiwī’s al-Ṭarīqa
al-Muḥammadiyya is so heavily loaded with traditions (hadīths) that Michael
Cook writes that “whether we should see in this an indication of the persis-
tence of a traditionalist trend in Ḥanafism, antithetical to the predominant
Māturidite theology, is more than I can say.”80 Therefore, “closing the circle”
around the Qāḍīzādelis, with their undisguised admiration for Ibn Taymiyya’s
appeal for the eradication of blasphemous practices and unbelief,81 demands
firstly clarifying the foundations of their teachings to a sufficiently satisfactory
extent, and then proceeding further with revealing the transregional and post-
seventeenth-century spread of their revivalism. In other words, a first approxi-
mation invokes a retrospective approach to the sources of Qāḍīzādeli attitudes
toward the question of setting a strict boundary between belief and unbelief.
Al-Birgiwī, who is generally recognized as the inspirer of the Qāḍīzādelis,
deals with accusations of unbelief in his al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, while
extensively discussing piety (taqwā), which Katharina Ivanyi sees as “at the
79 El-Rouayheb, “Changing Views,” p. 304.

80 Cook, Commanding Right, p. 324 n. 127.
81 It is telling that the founder of the movement, Qāḍīzāde Meḥmed Efendi, expressed his
political views through an expanded translation of Ibn Taymiyya’s al-Siyāsa al-sharʿiyya
into Ottoman Turkish, entitled Tācü ʾr-resāʾil ve minhācü l-vesāʾil, which he presented to
Sultan Murād IV. For more details about this work, including about its possible attribu-
tion to another author, see Çavuşoğlu, Ķaḍīzādeli Movement, pp. 93ff.
heart of Birgivī’s concern in more than just a symbolic sense.”82 Explicitly,

al-Birgiwī mentions takfīr only twice. The first mention is in the very introduc-
tion to his chapter on taqwā and appears after passages heavily loaded with
Qurʾānic verses demonstrating the religious significance of piety. Following
these verses al-Birgiwī offers a classification of the various religious doctrines
and ritual practices of which taqwā is “the ultimate aim” (ghāya), such as ritual
worship (ʿibāda), dhikr, fasting (ṣawm), and justice (ʿadl). Al-Birgiwī states that
among the things constituting taqwā is also takfīr al-sayyiʾāt—the need for
pious believers to accuse of unbelief those Muslims who are performing “bad
things.”83 The second explicit occurrence of takfīr is in the same chapter on
piety, in al-Birgiwī’s explanation of the linguistic and legal aspects of taqwā.
According to al-Birgiwī, taqwā has two meanings in divine law ( fī l-sharīʿa)—
one general and one particular. In its particular meaning, taqwā refers to guard-
ing the self from that which incurs punishment (ʿuqūba) and especially from
grave sins (kabāʾir). Al-Birgiwī then goes on to tackle the question of whether
or not minor sins (ṣaghāʾir) deserve legal punishment, and he formulates his
opinion against the backdrop of two opposite positions:
As to the minor sins, [some jurists] have said that they do not [deserve
legal punishment] because through them a redemption for refraining
from great sins is acquired and therefore they do not deserve to be pun-
ished. Others say “yes” because some exegetes have attributed the grave
sins mentioned in the Qurʼān to the different types of idolatry, but no
charge of unbelief is designated [for the minor sin] (wa-amma l-ṣaghāʾir
fa-qīla lā li-annahā mukaffara ʿan ijtināb al-kabāʾir fa-la-yastaḥiqqu bihā
l-ʿuqūba, wa-qīla naʿm li-annā baʿd al-mufassirīn ḥamalū l-kabāʾir fī āyat
al-karīma ʿalā anwāʿ al-shirk fa-lam yataʿayyan al-takfīr). Thus the punish-
ment for the minor sin is optional ( jāʾiz) if the Sunnīs are refraining from
committing grave sins.84
However, although this passage might seem casuistic and obscure in some of
the phrasing, it becomes clear enough that al-Birgiwī is very cautious when
calling for takfīr. On an explicit level, in this major work for a general Muslim
audience, he prefers to mention takfīr only negatively, meaning that it is not
82 Ivanyi, Virtue, p. 131. I am indebted to Katharina Ivanyi for providing me with a copy of
her recent unpublished PhD dissertation as well as for her fruitful comments during our
conversations in Princeton.
83 al-Birgiwī, Ṭarīqa, p. 37.
230 Evstatiev
to be applied regarding the minor sins. As for the grave sins, they are subject to
their respective punishments (ʿuqūba), but it seems to remain an open ques-
tion as to whether those punishments include excommunication and whether
the grave sinner should be treated as an apostate (murtadd) who can be legally
punished with all irreversible consequences.
Nevertheless, al-Birgiwī’s views of other subjects distinguish him as a puri-
tanical thinker calling for a stricter interpretation of the sharīʿa. It is telling
that he particularly foregrounded his concerns about the proliferation of
blasphemous innovation (bidaʿ). In his detailed classification of innovation,
which appears at the very beginning of al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, right
after the chapter on the imperative to adhere strictly to the Qurʾān and the
Sunna, al-Birgiwī considers how bidʿa relates to unbelief (kufr). Some kinds
of “innovation in faith” (al-bidʿa fī l-iʿtiqād) are tantamount to kufr, while oth-
ers are equal to grave sins (kabāʾir).85 Al-Birgiwī thus seems more inclined to
struggle directly against the kinds of bidʽa that are tantamount to kufr rather
than calling for a focus on takfīr, which is too closely linked to apostasy and
hence to excommunication. As a religious scholar al-Birgiwī is fully aware that
takfīr is consequential and he tends to avoid its direct usage, placing emphasis
instead on heretical innovations (bidʿa). It seems that his Qāḍīzādeli followers,
and especially Vānī Meḥmed Efendi,86 continued to weigh bidʿa more heavily
than other possible accusations that might be related to unbelief (kufr), but
nevertheless they introduced a strongly activist element into the accusation of
unbelief against other Muslims and non-Muslims.
The struggle against blasphemous bidʿa was revived during the seven-
teenth century in a treatise “On the Visitation of Graves” (Ziyārat al-qubūr),
until recently attributed to al-Birgiwī, under whose name the work has been
published and is distributed widely until today. Significantly, this treatise is
extremely popular among Salafī, including Wahhābī, religious groups. In 2010,
however, the Turkish scholar Ahmet Kaylı, in a study of al-Birgiwī’s misattribu-
tions, developed a cogent argument that the treatise attacking popular prac-
tices among Sufis and other Muslims was not actually compiled by al-Birgiwī.
Kaylı suggests that the author of this work written in Arabic is most probably
al-Birgiwī’s admirer Aḥmad al-Rūmī al-Aqḥiṣārī (d. 1041/1631 or 1043/1634)87—
“the forgotten puritan from Anatolia” as Yahya Michot calls him, because this

86 On the mutual accusations between Vānī Meḥmed and the Sufi Niyāzī-i Miṣrī (d. 1694)
see Çavuşoğlu, Ķaḍīzādeli Movement, p. 177f., as well as Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident,
pp. 128–32.
87 Kaylı, A Critical Study, pp. 52–66.
religious scholar “is almost completely absent from modern studies of the
Ottoman 10th/16th–11th/17th centuries.”88
The treatise on the veneration of tombs ascribed to al-Birgiwī opens with
explicit mention of Ibn al-Qayyim:
I have selected these pages from the book of Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
Ighāthat al-lahfān min maṣāiʾd al-shayṭān, adding also some things that
I have found in other works, because many nowadays worship some of
the graves like idols. They pray next to them, perform the sacrificial rite,
do things and say words that do not befit believers. Thereby, I wanted
to clarify what is fixed in sharīʿa regarding this issue, so anyone who is
determined to correct his faith can start discerning right from wrong, the
truth from the lie of the Devil, salvation from eternal torment in Hell, and
the gate to Paradise.89
Although the question of the veneration of tombs is not among the issues
most extensively dealt with in al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, in several pas-
sages al-Birgiwī explicitly expresses his view that the visitation of graves is
forbidden.90 His opinion on this question is thus not different from the views
of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. Therefore, no matter whether the actual
authorship of Ziyārat al-qubūr should be attributed to al-Birgiwī or to his
contemporary al-Aqḥiṣārī,91 which is otherwise an important source-critical
puzzle, the compilation and wide circulation of this treatise are important
evidence of the keen interest in the ideas of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and his
famous Ḥanbalī teacher Ibn Taymiyya92 among Ottoman scholars, not only
during the seventeenth but also during the sixteenth century.
On the other hand, however convincing the arguments for the lack of explicit
references to Ibn Taymiyya in al-Birgiwī’s works might seem, at this point a more
88 Michot, Aḥmad al-Rūmī al-Aqḥiṣārī, p. 3.

89 al-Birgiwī, Ziyārat al-qubūr, p. 7. Michot (Aḥmad al-Rūmī al-Aqḥiṣārī, p. 1 n. 2) indicates
that the copy of al-Aqḥiṣārī’s treatise on the same topic, although entitled Radd al-
qabriyya or Risāla fī al-radd ʿalā l-maqābiriyya, opens with the same explicit reference to
Ibn al-Qayyim.
90 al-Birgiwī, Ṭarīqa, pp. 181, 196, 216. Cf. Ivanyi, Virtue, pp. 37f. n. 87.
91 Who should not be confused with the Bosnian religious scholar Ḥasan al-Kāfī al-Aqḥiṣārī
(d. 1024/1615).
92 Derin Terzioğlu (“Bir tercüme”) studied the translation of Ibn Taymiyya’s work al-Siyāsa
al-sharʿiyya by ʿĀşıq Çelebī (d. 979/1572) presented to Sultan Selīm II and showed that
both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim were well known and read in seventeenth-century
Anatolia.
232 Evstatiev
implicit, unacknowledged influence of the medieval Damascene Ḥanbalī should

not be excluded from the whole picture. In 2004, in a textual study conducted
in Arabic that included an edition of al-Birgiwī’s work Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn
wa-kāshifat buṭlān al-mulḥīdīn, the Saudi researcher Sulṭān Ibn ʿAbd Allāh
al-ʿArrābī developed a strong argument for how al-Birgiwī, whom he considers
a great renewer (mujaddid) in Islam during the 10th/16th century,93 directly
borrowed from Ibn Taymiyya, though without explicit acknowledgment.94
It thus turns out, for instance, that with respect to the question of the prolifera-
tion of bidʽa, al-Birgiwī elaborated his accusation of unbelief (takfīr) against
the rationalist theological schools of the Muʿtazila and the Qadariyya by reiter-
ating what was already opined by Ibn Taymiyya.95
Al-ʿArrābī delineates three types of sources on which al-Birgiwī draws:
widely quoted and generally recognized Islamic sources such as the classi-
cal ḥadīth collections; works he cites explicitly, such as those by al-Ghazālī
or Ibn al-Jawzī; and, finally, sources from which al-Birgiwī borrows—some-
times directly—without mentioning them explicitly.96 Ibn Taymiyya and
Ibn al-Qayyim fall into the third category: al-Birgiwī borrowed heavily from
them, including even entire pages, but did not mention them as references.
Al-ʿArrābī then speculates that al-Birgiwī may have been motivated in this by
caution: if he had explicitly acknowledged his admiration for Ibn Taymiyya’s
school, his works would have been not so widely accepted and might have even
been rejected and suppressed by the ruling Ottoman religious establishment.
Accordingly, al-Birgiwī borrowed from Ibn Taymiyya, including whole passages
from his fatāwā, but in doing so, as al-ʿArrābī puts it, he was “just very slightly
modifying them” (bi-taṣarruf yasīr jiddan).97 If this claim reflects a contempo-
rary Salafī-Wahhābī trend in Saudi Arabia to justify utilization of the work of
authors like al-Birgiwī, I can so far not say with certainty. However, this argu-
ment seems to be based on solid textual research and as such is worth consid-
ering in establishing the inter-connections between Ibn Taymiyya, al-Birgiwī,
and the Qāḍīzādelis.
As often happens in Islamic history, one and the same scholar can adopt
views that, at first glance, seem to contradict to one another. In this case, even
if al-Birgiwī agrees with Ibn al-Qayyim in the debates over the visitation of
graves, this does not necessarily mean that the Ottoman scholar was influenced
93 al-ʿArrābī, Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn, p. 52.

by the noted Ḥanbalī of Damascus in any other aspect of religious doctrine.

In his al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, al-Birgiwī treats the study of disciplines
such as speculative theology (kalām) and logic (manṭiq) as farḍ kifāya—a col-
lective duty of the Muslim community—a view that, as El-Rouayheb rightly
stresses, was “vehemently denied by Ibn al-Qayyim.”98 Al-Birgiwī’s view can
be explained by the contextual Ottoman traditions during his time and by the
complexity of Islamic learning in general. Even though a wholesale borrowing
from Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya should be imputed neither to
al-Birgiwī nor to all his Qāḍīzādeli followers, evidence of such an influence
should not be neglected either.
The whole picture of the spread of more puritanical sharīʿa-minded ideas
centering on establishing an Ottoman Islamic orthodoxy does not, however,
involve only classical Middle Eastern influences and references to scholars
from the Arab East. It seems that in the sixteenth century there were already
Ottoman scholars prepared to wage this battle “from within.” Typical of that
trajectory is the activity of two scholars, both of whom switched from a mili-
tary career to the ranks of the ʿulamāʾ: the Ottoman prince Shāhzāde Qūrqūd
(d. 1513),99 who spent a certain time in Mamlūk Egypt, and the famous Kamāl
Pāshāzāde (d. 1534),100 the most influential scholar of the formative period
of the Ottoman Islamic religious establishment. Both of them tried to revive
the classical Sunnī doctrine demarcating the boundaries between belief and
unbelief for the purposes of the Ottoman state. In so doing, they provided a
fresh view of takfīr, which contributed to the line already drawn in the works of
al-Ghazālī and some Ḥanbalī scholars after him, such as Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn
Kathīr (d. 774/1372–3), who are famous, among other things, for their appeal to
Muslims to struggle against those who follow laws created by human beings
instead of divine law (sharīʿa).
In terms of how to recognize unbelief and how to treat unbelievers, the con-
cerns of the sixteenth-century Ottoman scholars were already highly complex.
They involved the tension between the strict application of sharīʿa and the var-
ious innovations related to the qānūn, which—unlike divine law—expressed
the will of the sultan, or even “heretical” interpretations of Islamic doctrines,
98 El-Rouayheb, “Changing Views,” p. 303. For the revival of the study of logic during the
seventeenth century see idem, “Revival.”
99 The name is widely written in modern Turkish script as Şehzade Korkud. See [Shāhzāde]
Qūrqūd, Ḥall ashkāl al-afkār, a recent Turkish translation of his treatise against unbeliev-
ers, written in Arabic, containing a facsimile of the manuscript.
100 Known as Ibn-i Kemāl or Kemalpaşazade, when using modern Turkish script for Ottoman
names. More about his muftiship see Repp, Müfti, pp. 224–239.
234 Evstatiev
such as those of the Shīʿa (represented mainly by the Ṣafavid-supported

Qizilbāsh branch). Eventually, the classical question of who is an apostate re-
emerged, and those Ottoman scholars found it necessary to broaden the scope
of the rulings that had been suggested by al-Ghazālī. What to do with hidden
unbelievers, with those who secretly profess a “false faith” or do not have any
faith? How does one identify the hidden unbelievers among all those who pub-
licly declare themselves believers?
These questions underlie some of the religious discussions to which
Ottoman scholars of the sixteenth century, and particularly Shāhzāde Qūrqūd
and Kamāl Pāshāzāde, made their own contribution. And whereas the latter
compiled a work entitled Risālat Takfīr al-rawāfiḍ specifically targeting the
Qizilbāshīs but including a more general explanation of the accusations of
unbelief, Qūrqūd tackled the issue in a theological treatise, where he dem-
onstrated how to discern the hidden unbelievers: Among other things, unbe-
lievers wear clothes typical of non-Muslim communities, their attitude to the
Qurʾān and the ḥadīth is disrespectful, they venerate idols or the sun, offer ani-
mal sacrifices, claim false prophethood, and practice sorcery.101 Drawing upon
al-Ashʿarī’s definition of faith (īmān) as “sincerity” (taṣdīq),102 Qūrqūd thus
eventually broadened the answer to the question he put to himself of who is
a Muslim and who is an apostate. Hidden unbelievers could be declared apos-
tates, which opened the gate for new debates over the boundaries of belief and
unbelief in the Ottoman age.
Subsequently, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, some of the
most indicative examples of the spread of a shared intensification of ortho-
dox belief are provided by the revived call for a ruthless struggle against the
proliferation of blasphemous innovation (bidʿa) and for strict performance of
the duty of “commanding right and forbidding wrong” (al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-
l-nahy ʿan al-munkar), which, prior to the seventeenth century, “does not seem
to have been a prominent feature of the Ottoman religious scene.”103 When in
the whole second chapter of his al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya al-Birgiwī exten-
sively deals with pernicious “innovations” he adduces a great deal of ḥadīth
material to demonstrate that this is a subject of general importance for all
Muslims: “Ibn al-Ḥārith reports that the Prophet said: There is no community
(umma) introducing in its religion innovations after its prophet which did not
101 [Shāhzāde] Qūrqūd, Ḥāfiẓ al-insān, ff. 191a–215b. Cf. al-Tikriti, Şehzade Korkud, p. 161 n. 19.
102 This second form, taṣdīq, means particularly “accepting s.o.’s sincerity”.
103 Cook, Commanding Right, p. 328.
thus destroy the Sunna (mā min ummatin abdaʿat baʿda nabiyyihā fī dīniha
bidʿatan illā aḍāʿat mithlahā al-sunna).”104
The Qāḍīzādeli followers of al-Birgiwī were notorious for their insistence
that it was the unavoidable duty of every true Muslim to actively “command
right and forbid wrong.” As Madeline Zilfi writes, Qāḍīzāde Meḥmed “asked of
his adherents not only that they purify their own lives, but that they seek out
sinners and in effect force them back onto ‘the straight path’.” Indeed, it was the
task of all preachers to mention the duty of al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf, but Qāḍīzāde
“introduced an ‘activist element’ that demanded that his listeners not only take
an intellectual position but strive to make that position a reality in the com-
munity at large.”105 Kātib Çelebi, himself a disciple of Qāḍīzāde, covered the
development of the movement, trying to take a neutral stance with respect
to its controversies with the Sufis. Nevertheless, Kātib Çelebi noted that the
Qāḍīzādelis were too demanding of the believers:
. . . If the people of any age after that of the Prophet were to scrutinize
their own mode of life and compare it with the Sunna, they would find a
wide discrepancy. . . . Scarcely any of the sayings or doings of any age are
untainted by innovation. . . . For the rulers, what is necessary is to protect
the Muslim social order and to maintain the obligations and principles
of Islam among the people. As for the preachers, they will have done
their duty if they gently admonish and advise the people to turn towards
the Sunna and to beware of innovation (bidʿa). The duty of complying
belongs to the people; they cannot be forced to comply.106
The perception of there having been a deviation from the straight path and
of the need for a new socio-moral reconstruction, which motivated the pas-
sionate efforts of the urban Qāḍīzādeli movement, seemingly also spanned
the Ottoman Arab world in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
An example is provided by Damascus during the reign of the powerful local
notables, the ʿAẓms (ruled 1138/1725–1197/1783). Whether it is due to the pol-
icy of the ʿAẓms or to a “neo-Qāḍīzādeli” influence that spread eastwards, or
to a combination of these factors, breaches of Islamic morality requiring the
pursuit of “commanding right and forbidding wrong” strongly attracted pub-
lic attention. Muslims conceived of this as the result of a long-lasting distor-
tion of their original faith, the corruption of which was a consequence of the

105 Zilfi, Politics of Piety, p. 137.
106 Kātib Çelebi, Balance, p. 90.
236 Evstatiev
proliferation of innovation (bidʿa).107 The eighteenth-century Syrian chroni-

cler al-Budayrī censures the moral laxity of his fellow Damascenes in a time
when women sitting by the river, eating, drinking coffee, and smoking tobacco
outnumbered men. Prostitution increased in Damascus in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, but not to the extent noted by the chroniclers in the
eighteenth century:
In those days depravity grew (izdāda al-fasād), the worshipers were

oppressed (ẓalumat al-ʿubbād), the number of lewd women (banāt
al-hawāʾ) in the bazaars increased night and day. Among the events that
happened during the reign of Asʿad Pasha [al-ʿAzm] those days is the
following. A prostitute was infatuated, falling in love with a young man
from the Turks who fell ill, so she vowed that if he was cured of his ill-
ness she would arrange a celebration in his honor with Shaykh Arslan.
Soon the young man did recover and the prostitutes of the city (mūmisāt
al-balad) gathered in a procession across the bazaars of Damascus, car-
rying candles, lamps, and incense burners with fragrance, clapping their
hands and beating tambourines. The people crowded around them and
rejoiced, while the prostitutes were with unveiled faces and with their
hair loose. And there was nobody to censure this reprehensible act (wa-
mā thamma nākir li-hādhā l-munkar), whilst the pious and devout people
just raised their voices crying “Allah is the greatest” (Allāhu akbar).108
If the demands of pious individuals in Damascus faced the indifference of the

ruling elite and even the judicial authorities, developments in Arabia took
another direction—towards restoration of the original “true” beliefs and prac-
tices of Muslims. In Najd, in the central Arabian Peninsula, Muḥammad b.
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and his followers initiated a rigorously puritanical movement,
which soon established an alliance with the Ibn Saʿūd family: “[Saʿūd] ordered
the inhabitants of Jeddah and Mecca to give up the smoking of tobacco, which
is not permitted to be sold in the tavern. He ordered the people to enter the
mosques when they hear the call for prayer (al-ādhān). He ordered the ʿulamāʾ
107 Abdul-Karim Rafeq (“Morality,” p. 181) writes that breaches of the moral code “ranged
from evil talk to wine drinking and prostitution.” Coffee and tobacco, unlike opium,
which was socially accepted and widespread, were prohibited earlier, but smoking was
again legalized in the late sixteenth century, “and its addicts included a number of highly-
placed ʿulamāʾ in Damascus.”
108 al-Budayrī, Ḥawādith Dimashq, p. 112.
to read the works composed by Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.109 As a powerful move-

ment against the proliferation of bidʿa, the Wahhābiyya often practiced violent
takfīr towards their “corrupted” Arabian society, which they regarded as the
land of savagery, blasphemy, and unbelief.110
Wahhābī steps to restore Islam as they imagined it to have been practiced
by the salaf recall some of the actions taken in the preceding century by the
Qāḍīzādelis. And if in Istanbul the Qāḍīzādeli alliance with imperial power
came to an end in the 1680s, their revivalist intensification of Islamic iden-
tity and their striving to re-establish orthodoxy presumably extended in other
directions and intertwined with the great revival and reform movements of
the eighteenth century. However, the rise of the Qāḍīzādeli movement in the
seventeenth century and the spread of Islamic revivalism in the eighteenth
century seem to have been preceded not only by the notorious late-medieval
Middle Eastern tradition of a stricter and more literalist interpretation of Islam
offered by such Ḥanbalī scholars as Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim but also
by a more “indigenous” strand of Ottoman puritanism, the proper understand-
ing of which requires further work.
The ideas promoted by some sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century
Ottoman predecessors of the Qāḍīzādeli preachers, such as Kamāl Pāshāzāde,
Shāhzāde Qūrqūd, and Aḥmed al-Rūmī al-Aqhiṣārī, together with al-Birgiwī
himself, show that, however different these scholars might have been other
wise, there was also a clearly identifiable revivalist strand in the Ottoman reli
gious scene. Despite the connections between these scholars and the existence
of institutionalized religious networks, all of them shared a common revivalist
opinion of what belief and unbelief were. Those scholars were concerned about
setting stricter boundaries between belief and unbelief, including by reviving
takfīr, prior to Qāḍīzāde Meḥmed Efendi and his contemporary and later inter-
locutors. At this stage of research, it seems that just as their inspirer al-Birgiwī
had done, the Qāḍīzādelis themselvesforegrounded the need to eradicate bidʿa
as more urgent than takfīr as a legal charge stricto sensu. Nevertheless, often
their accusations of bidʽa were no less consequential than the classical idea
of takfīr implies and reflected a deep conviction that the world around the
few true believers was being corrupted by the spread of unbelief. This empha-
sis on bidʿa seems to be among the particular contributions of the r evivalist
Qāḍīzādeli movement and their orthodox Ottoman predecessors. When
109 Daḥlān, Khulāṣat al-kalām, p. 292.

110 For a recent analysis of the political context of early Wahhābī discourse on takfīr see Firro,
“Political Context.” See also Fattah, “‘Wahhabi’ Influences.”
238 Evstatiev
ractising the accusations of bidʿa, the Qāḍīzādelis more than once seemed as
p
if they practised takfīr.
Bibliography
Algar, Hamid, Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, Oneonta, NY 2002.

Alikberov, Alikber K., “Al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya (‘Muhammadov put’) na Balkanah
pozdnego osmanskogo perioda,” [“Al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya (‘Muḥammadan
Path’) in the Balkans during the Late Ottoman Period”] Islamica—Center for Arab
and Islamic Studies http://islamica.ru/?uid=95 (accessed 12/02/2014).
al-ʿArrābī, Sulṭān b. ʿUbayd b. ʿAbd Allāh, Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn wa-kāshifat buṭlān
al-mulḥīdīn. Al-Imām Muḥammad b. Bīr ʿAlī Iskandar al-Birgiwī: Dirāsa wa-taḥqīq,
MA thesis, Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Mecca 1425/2004.
Asad, Talal, “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz,” Man,
New Series 18/2 (1983), pp. 237–259.
———, The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam, Washington, DC 1986.
al-Ashʿarī, Abū l-Ḥasan, Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn wa-khtilāf al-muṣallīn, ed. Muḥammad
Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, Beirut 1411/1990.
Baer, Marc David, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman
Europe, Oxford 2007.
Berkey, Jonathan P., Popular Preaching and Religious Authority in the Medieval Islamic
Near East, Seattle 2001.
al-Birgiwī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (Birgili, Meḥmed ʿAlī), al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya wa-l-
sīra al-nabawiyya al-Aḥmadiyya, Cairo 1356/1937.
———, Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn wa-kāshifat buṭlān al-mulḥīdīn, [published together
with] al-ʿArrābī, Sulṭān b. ʿUbayd b. ʿAbd Allāh, Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn wa-kāshifat
buṭlān al-mulḥīdīn. Al-Imām Muḥammad b. Bīr ʿAlī Iskandar al-Birgiwī: Dirāsa
wa-taḥqīq, MA thesis, Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Mecca 1425/2004, pp. 148–407.
al-Birgiwī [?], Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (Birgili, Meḥmed ʿAlī) [attribution uncertain], Ziyārat
al-qubūr al-sharʿiyya wa-l-shirkiyya, Amman 1996.
al-Budayrī, Aḥmad al-Ḥallaq, Ḥawādith Dimashq al-yawmiyya 1154–1176 AH / 1741–1763,
ed. Aḥmad ʿIzzat ʿAbd al-Karīm, [Cairo] 1959.
Calder, Norman, “The Limits of Islamic Orthodoxy,” in Intellectual Traditions in Islam,
ed. Farhad Daftary, London 2000, pp. 66–86.
Çavuşoğlu, Semiramis, The Ķaḍīzādeli Movement: An Attempt of Şeriat-Minded Reform
in the Ottoman Empire, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1990.
Cook, Michael, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought,
Cambridge 2004.
———, “On the Origins of Wahhābism,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2 (1992),
pp. 191–202.
Daḥlān, Aḥmad b. Zaynī, Khulāṣat al-kalām, Cairo 1305/1887.

El-Rouayheb, Khaled, “From Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī (d. 1566) to Khayr al-Dīn al-Ālūsī
(d. 1899): Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya among non-Ḥanbalī Sunni Scholars,” in
Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Karachi 2010,
pp. 269–318.
———, “Was There a Revival of Logical Studies in Eighteenth-Century Egypt?” Die
Welt des Islams 45 (2005), pp. 1–19.
Evstatiev, Simeon, “The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Spread of Islamic Revivalism in
the Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire: Preliminary Notes,”
CAS Working Papers Series, Center for Advanced Study, Sofia 2013, pp. 1–37.
Fattah, Hala, “‘Wahhabi’ Influences, Salafi Responses: Shaikh Mahmud Shukri and the
Iraqi Salafi Movement, 1745–1930,” Journal of Islamic Studies 14 (2003), pp. 127–148.
Fierro, Maria Isabel, “Heresy in al-Andalus,” in The Legacy of Muslim Spain, ed. Salma
Khadra Jayyusi, Leiden 1992, pp. 895–908.
Filan, Kerima, “Life in Sarajevo in the 18th Century (According to Mulla Mustafa’s
Mecmua),” in Living in the Ottoman Ecumenical Community: Essays in Honour of
Suraiya Faroqhi, ed. Vera Costantini and Markus Koller, Leiden 2008, pp. 317–346.
———, “Suije i kadizadelije u osmanskom Sarajevu,” Anali Gazi Husrev-begove bib-
lioteke, Knijga XXIX–XXX, Sarajevo 2009, pp. 163–186.
Firro, Tarik K., “The Political Context of Early Wahhabi Discourse of Takfir,” Middle
Eastern Studies 49 (2013), pp. 770–789.
Fleischer, Cornell H., Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian
Mustafa Âli (1541–1600), Princeton 1986.
Flemming, Barbara, “Die vorwahhabitische Fitna im osmanischen Kairo, 1711,” İsmail
Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’ya Ar-maĝan, Ankara 1976, pp. 55–65.
Le Gall, Dina, “Kadızadelis, Nakşbendis, and Intra-Sufi Diatribe in Seventeenth-
Century Istanbul,” The Turkish Studies Association Journal 28 (2004), pp. 1–28.
al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid, Über Rechtgläubigkeit und religiöse Toleranz, Eine Übersetzung
der Schrift Das Kriterium der Unterscheidung zwischen Islam und Gottlosigkeit, trans.
Frank Griffel, Zürich 1998.
———, Fayṣal al-tafriqa bayna l-Islām wa-l-zandaqa, ed. Maḥmūd Bayjū, [Damascus]
1413/1993.
———, Shifāʾ al-ghalīl fī bayān al-shubaḥ wa-l-mukhīl, ed. Ḥamad ʿUbayd al-Kubaysī,
Baghdad 1390/1971.
Gibb, H.A.R., Modern Trends in Islam, New York 1972.
Goldziher, Ignaz, Vorlesungen über den Islam, Heidelberg 1910.
Gradeva, Rossitsa, “The Churches in the Life of Sofia Citizens (Preliminary Notes),” in
Religion and Boundaries: Studies from the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Turkey, ed.
Galia Valtchinova, Istanbul 2010, pp. 47–79.
Greene, Molly, A Shared World: Christians and Muslims in the Early Modern Mediter
ranean, Princeton 2000.
240 Evstatiev
Griffel, Frank, “Toleration and Exclusion: al-Shāfiʽī and al-Ghazālī on the Treatment
of Apostates,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 64 (2001),
pp. 339–354.
Ḥācī Aḥmed, Risāle-i ʿacībe, MS Istanbul, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi,
Baǧdat 404.
Hathaway, Jane, “Rewriting Eighteenth-Century Ottoman History,” Mediterranean
Historical Review 19 (2004), pp. 29–53.
———, “The Grand Vizier and the False Messiah: The Sabbatai Sevi Controversy and
the Ottoman Reform in Egypt,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997),
pp. 665–671.
al-Ḥaṭṭāb, Abū ʿAlī Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, Mawāhib al-jalīl li-sharḥ mukhtaṣar
Khalīl 1–6, Tripoli [Libya] n.d.
Haykel, Bernard, “On the Nature of Salafi Thought and Action,” in Global Salafism:
Islam’s New Religious Movement, ed. Roel Meijer, New York 2009, pp. 33–57.
———, Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of Muhammad al-Shawkānī, Cambridge
2003.
Hirschler, Konrad, “Pre-Eighteenth-Century Traditions of Revivalism: Damascus in the
Thirteenth Century,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 68 (2005),
pp. 195–214.
Ibn Nujaym, Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn b. Ibrāhīm, al-Ashbāh wa al-naẓāʾir ʿalā madhhab Abī
Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān, ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Faḍīlī, Beirut 1418/1998.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ighāthat al-lahfān fī ḥukm ṭalāq al-ghaḍbān, ed. Jamāl al-Dīn
al-Qāsimī, Cairo 1327/1909–10.
Ivanyi, Katharina Anna, Virtue, Piety and the Law: A Study of Birgivī Meḥmed Efendī’s
Al-Ṭarīqa Al-Muḥammadiyya, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2012.
Izutsu, Toshihiko, The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology, Salem 1988.
Jackson, Sherman A., On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abū Ḥāmid
al-Ghazālī’s Fayṣal al-Tafriqa, New York 2002.
Kātib Çelebi, Fezleke-i Kātib Çelebi 1–2, Istanbul 1286/1870.
———, Mustafa b. Abdullah Kȃtip Çelebi, Hacı Halife, The Balance of Truth [Mīzān
al-ḥaqq fī-khtiyār al-aḥaqq], trans. Geoffrey L. Lewis, London 1957.
Kaylı, Ahmet, A Critical Study of Birgivî Mehmed Efendi’s Works and their Dissemination
in Manuscript Form, MA thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversity, Istanbul 2010.
Kenderova, Stoyanka, Knigi, biblioteki i chitatelski interesi sred samokovskite myusyul-
mani (XVIII—purvata polovina na XIX vek) [Books, Libraries, and Readers’ Interests
among Samokov Muslims (Eighteenth–the First Half of the Ninetieth Centuries)],
Sofia 2002.
Knysh, Alexander, “A Clear and Present Danger: ‘Wahhabism’ as a Rhetorical Foil,” Die
Welt des Islams 44 (2004), pp. 3–26.
———, Islam in Historical Perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ 2011.

———, “ ‘Orthodoxy’ and ‘Heresy’ in Medieval Islam: An Essay of Reassessment,” The
Muslim World 83 (1993), 48–67.
Krstić, Tijana, Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the
Early Modern Ottoman Empire, Stanford 2011.
Lauzière, Henri, “The Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering Salafism from the
Perspective of Conceptual History,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 42
(2010), pp. 369–389.
Levtzion, Nehemia and John O. Voll (eds.), Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in
Islam, Baltimore 1987.
Levtzion, Nehemia and John O. Voll, “Introduction.” Eighteenth-Century Renewal and
Reform in Islam, Baltimore 1987, pp. 3–20.
Lewis, Bernard, “Some Observations on the Significance of Heresy in the History of
Islam,” Studia Islamica 1 (1953), pp. 43–63.
Masters, Bruce A., “The View from the Province: Syrian Chronicles of the Eighteenth
Century,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 114 (1994), pp. 353–362.
Michot, Yahya, Aḥmad al-Rūmī al-Aqḥiṣārī (d. 1041/1631 or 1043/1634) Against Smoking:
An Ottoman Manifesto, Introduction, Editio Princeps and Translation, Markfield 2010.
Naʿīmā, Muṣṭafā, Tārīh-i Naʿīmā 1–6, Istanbul 1280/1863–64.
al-Nābulusī, ʿAbd al-Ghānī, al-Ḥadīqa al-nadiyya: Sharḥ al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya,
Istanbul 1873/1991.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar, “XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dinde Tasfiye
(Puritanizm) Teşebbüslerine Bir Bakış: Kadızâdeliler Hareketi,” Türk Kültürü
Araştırmaları 17–21 i–ii (1979–1983), pp. 208–225.
O’Fahey, Rex S., Enigmatic Saint: Aḥmad Ibn Idrīs and the Idrīsi Tradition, London 1990.
———, and Bernd Radtke, “Neo-Sufism Reconsidered,” Der Islam 70 (1993), pp. 52–87.
Öztürk, Necati, Islamic Orthodoxy among the Ottomans in the Seventeenth Century with
Special Reference to the Qāḍī-zade Movement, PhD dissertation, Edinburgh
University, 1981.
Peirce, Leslie, “Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: The Early Centuries,”
Mediterranean Historical Review 19 (2004), pp. 6–28.
Peters, Rudolph, “The Battered Dervishes of Bab Zuwayla: A Religious Riot in
Eighteenth-Century Cairo,” in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, ed.
Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll, Baltimore 1987, pp. 93–115.
———, “Idjtihād and Taqlīd in 18th and 19th Century Islam,” Die Welt des Islams 20
(1980), pp. 131–145.
———, “Islamischer Fundamentalismus: Glauben, Handeln, Führung,” in Max Webers
Sicht des Islams: Interpretation und Kritik, ed. Wolfgang Schluchter, Frankfurt a.M.
1987, pp. 217–242.
242 Evstatiev
———, “Reinhard Schulze’s Quest for an Islamic Enlightenment,” Die Welt des Islams
NS 30 (1990), pp. 160–62.
Peters, Rudolph and Gert J.J. De Vries, “Apostasy in Islam,” Die Welt des Islams 17 (1976–
77), pp. 1–25.
Qāḍīzāde Meḥmed Efendi, Tācü ʼr-resāʾil ve minhācü l-vesāʾil, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi, Hacı Mahmud Efendi, 1926.
[Shāhzāde] Qūrqūd (Şehzade Korkud) = Muḥammad Qūrqūd al-ʿUthmānī b. Abī Yazīd
b. Muḥammad b. Murād, Ḥāfiẓ al-insān ʿan lāfiẓ al-imān, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi, Aya Sofya 2289.
———, Kitāb Ḥall ashkāl al-afkār fī ḥill amwāl al-kuffār, facsimile published in Şehzâde
Korkud, İslâm’da Ganimet ve Cariyelik, Osmanlı Sistemine İçeriden Bir Eleştiri, Yayına
Hazırlayan: Asım Cüneyd Köksal, Arapça Aslından Çeviren: Osman Güman,
Istanbul 2013, pp. 1–123.
Radtke, Bernd, Autochthone islamische Aufklärung im 18. Jahrhundert: Theoretische und
filologische Bemerkungen. Fortführung einer Debatte, Utrecht 2000.
Rafeq, Abdul-Karim, “Public Morality in the 18th Century Ottoman Damascus,” Revue
du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée 55–56 (1990), pp. 180–196.
Rahman, Fazlur, Islam, London 1966.
Repp, Richard Cooper, The Müfti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman
Learned Hierarchy, London 1986.
Ricaut, Sir Paul, The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, Containing the
Maxims of the Turkish Polity, the Most Material points of the Mahometan religion,
Their Sects and Heresies, Their Convents and Religious Votaries . . . in Three Books,
London 1686.
al-Saʿīdī, ʿAbd al-Mutaʿālī, al-Ḥurriyya al-dīniyya fī l-lslām, Cairo 2n.d.
a-Samaqūwī, Aḥmad al-Kashfī, Sharḥ al-Tarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya, MS Sofia, National
Library, ОР 1037.
Sariyannis, Marinos, “The Kadizadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon:
The Rise of a ‘Mercantile Ethic’?” in Political Initiatives ‘From the Bottom Up’ in the
Ottoman Empire, ed. Antonis Anastasopoulos, Halcyon Days in Crete VII, A
Symposium Held in Rethymno 9–11 January 2009, Rethymno 2012, pp. 263–289.
Schacht, Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Oxford 1982.
Schöck, Cornelia, “Belief and Unbelief in Classical Sunnī Theology,” Encyclopaedia of
Islam, Three, 2010/2, pp. 101–111.
Sedgwick, Mark, Saints and Sons: The Making and Remaking of the Rashīdi Aḥmadi Sufi
Order, 1799–2000, Leiden 2005.
al-Shāfiʿī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Idrīs, Kitāb al-Umm 1–7, Cairo
1321–25[/1903–08].
Terzioğlu, Derin, “Bir tercüme ve bir intihal vakası: Ya da İbn Teymiyye’nin Siyasetü’ş-
şer‘iyye’sini Osmanlıcaya kim(ler) nasıl aktardı?” Journal of Turkish Studies = Türklük
Bilgisi Araştırmaları Dergisi 31 (2007), pp. 247–275.
———, “Man in the Image of God in the Image of the Times: Sufi Self-Narratives and
the Diary of Niyazi-i Misri (1618–94),” Studia Islamica 94 (2002), pp. 139–165.
———, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyāzī-i Miṣrī (1618–1694), PhD dis-
sertation, Harvard University, 1999.
———, “Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers in Service of the Ottoman State: The
Naṣīḥatnāme of Hasan Addressed to Murad IV,” Archivum Ottomanicum 27 (2010),
pp. 241–312.
al-Tikriti, Nabil Sirri, Şehzade Korkud (ca. 1468–1513) and the Articulation of Early 16th-
Century Ottoman Religious Identity, PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 2004.
al-ʿUthaymīn, ʿAbd Allāh Ṣāliḥ, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: The Man and His
Works, London 2009.
van Ess, Josef, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra, vol. 1, Berlin
1991.
Voll, John O. “Linking Groups in the Networks of Eighteenth-Century Revivalist
Scholars: The Mizjaji Family in Yemen,” in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform
in Islam, ed. Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll, Baltimore 1987, pp. 69–92.
———, “Neo-Sufism Reconsidered Again,” Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue
Canadienne des Études Africaines 42 ii/iii (2008), pp. 314–330.
———, “Renewal and Reform in Islamic History: Tajdid and Islah,” in Voices of
Resurgent Islam, ed. John L. Esposito, New York 1983.
———, “The Sudanese Mahdi: Frontier Fundamentalist,” International Journal of
Middle East Studies 10 (1979), 145–166.
Zarinebaf, Fariba, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul 1700/1800, Berkeley 2010.
Ze’evi, Dror, Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East,
1500–1900, Berkeley 2006.
Zilfi, Madeline C., “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century
Istanbul,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986), pp. 251–269.
———, The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Post-Classical Age (1600–1800),
Minneapolis 1988.
Accusations of Unbelief in Islam
A Diachronic Perspective on Takfīr
Edited by
Camilla Adang, Hassan Ansari,

Maribel Fierro and Sabine Schmidtke
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: Ms. Berlin, Landberg 437. Fol. 50v. (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin). With kind permission.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Accusations of unbelief in Islam: a diachronic perspective on takfir / Edited by Camilla Adang, Hassan
Ansari, Maribel Fierro and Sabine Schmidtke.
pages cm. — (Islamic history and civilization ; v. 123)
ISBN 978-90-04-30473-4 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-30783-4 (e-book)
1. Kufr (Islam) 2. Islam—Doctrines—History. I. Adang, Camilla, editor. II. Ansari, Hasan, 1970 or
1971-, editor. III. Fierro, Ma. Isabel (María Isabel), editor. IV. Schmidtke, Sabine, editor.
BP166.785.A39 2015
297.2—dc23
2015030452
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0929-2403
isbn 978-90-04-30473-4 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-30783-4 (e-book)
Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite
910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents
Preface and Acknowledgements ix

List of Contributors xi
Introduction 1
part 1
Takfīr through Islamic History
section 1
The Early Period (First/Seventh–Fourth/Tenth Centuries)
1 Self-defining through Faith: The walāya and barāʾa Dynamics among the
Early Ibāḍis 29
Ersilia Francesca
2 Were the Umayyad-Era Qadarites Kāfirs? 42

Steven Judd
3 Denouncing the Damned Zindīq! Struggle and Interaction between

Monotheism and Dualism 56
István T. Kristó-Nagy
4 Kufr et takfīr dans l’ismaélisme fatimide: Le Kitāb Tanbīh al-hādī de

Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Kirmānī 82
Daniel De Smet
Section 2
The Classical and Post-Classical Period (Fifth/Eleventh–
Eleventh/Eighteenth Centuries)
5 The Vocabulary of “Unbelief” in Three Biographical Dictionaries and

Two Historical Chronicles of the 7th/13th and 8th/14th Centuries 105
Sonja Brentjes
vi contents
6 Takfīr in Egypt and Syria during the Mamlūk Period 155

Amalia Levanoni
7 Takfīr and Messianism: The Ḥurūfī Case 189

Orkhan Mir-Kasimov
8 The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Revival of takfīr in the

Ottoman Age 213
Simeon Evstatiev
9 The takfīr of the Philosophers (and Sufis) in Safavid Iran 244

Sajjad Rizvi
Section 3
The Modern Period
10 The Cost of Condemnation: Heresy and takfīr in a South Indian

Community 273
Brian J. Didier
11 The Sum of its Parts: The State as Apostate in Contemporary Saudi

Militant Islamism 304
Justyna Nedza
12 “The Kāfir Religion of the West”: Takfīr of Democracy and Democrats

by Radical Islamists 327
Joas Wagemakers
13 On the takfīr of Arab Women’s Rights Advocates in Recent Times 354

Roswitha Badry
14 Apostasy in the West: A Swedish Case Study 381

Göran Larsson
Part 2
Discussing Takfīr: Different Perspectives
15 Essential Islam: The Minimum that a Muslim is Required to

Acknowledge 395
Hossein Modarressi
contents vii
16 Abandoning Prayer and the Declaration of Unbelief in Imāmī

Jurisprudence 413
Robert Gleave
17 Society and Propriety: The Cultural Construction of Defamation and

Blasphemy as Crimes in Islamic Law 434
Intisar A. Rabb
18 Literary Works as Evidence of Unbelief 465

Zoltan Szombathy
19 “Religions, Opinions and Beliefs are Nothing but Roads and

Paths . . . While the Goal is One”: Between Unity and Diversity in
Islamic Mysticism 488
Michael Ebstein
Index 525

Qadizadeli Movementu and Revival Takfir PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qadizadeli Movementu and Revival Takfir PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qadizadeli Movementu and Revival Takfir PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chapter 8

The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Revival of takfīr

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004307834_010

classical and post-classical Islamic revivalist tradition, and an earlier, sharīʿa-

1 Discerning Revivalism: The Charge of Unbelief

“Revivalism” is used here to refer to “a stance that formulates its critique of

is not identical with the characteristic patterns of revivalism.”8 Focusing on

8 Levtzion/Voll, Renewal, p. 15.

In fact, the scholars suggesting a typology of revivalism remain cautious, too,

17 Levtzion/Voll, Renewal, p. 14.

According to Asad, “Wherever Muslims have the power to regulate, uphold,

actions (ʿamal). A person who becomes Muslim by simply pronouncing the

28 al-Ḥaṭṭāb, Mawāhib, vol. 6, pp. 279f.

serve to accuse someone of unbelief, while irtidād was a legally consequential

Al-Ghazālī compiled a separate work dedicated to the criteria of distinguish-

2 The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Issue of Unbelief

The Qāḍīzādeli movement’s “fundamentalist challenge”37 and “discordant

37 Zilfi, Politics of Piety, p. 134.

of smoking during a military expedition against Baghdad undertaken by

45 Kātib Çelebi, Balance, p. 51f.

who extensively uses the term “neo-Sufism,” suggested a reconsideration of

57 Voll, “Neo-Sufism,” p. 317.

qualifying it as proto-Wahhābī fitna in Ottoman Cairo.63 Barbara Flemming

63 Flemming, “Vorwahhabitische Fitna,” pp. 55–65; Peters, “Islamischer Fundamentalismus,”

his al-Ṭarīqa al-Muḥammadiyya. Alikber Alikberov, who looked through the

3 Innovation as a Pathway to Unbelief

Along with the explicit discussions on takfīr, understanding how societies—

75 Alikberov, <http://islamica.ru/?uid=95>, accessed 12 February 2014. I would like to thank

implying the avoidance of association with unbelievers), and bidʿa (innova-

79 El-Rouayheb, “Changing Views,” p. 304.

heart of Birgivī’s concern in more than just a symbolic sense.”82 Explicitly,

85 al-Birgiwī, Ṭarīqa, p. 12.

88 Michot, Aḥmad al-Rūmī al-Aqḥiṣārī, p. 3.

implicit, unacknowledged influence of the medieval Damascene Ḥanbalī should

93 al-ʿArrābī, Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn, p. 52.

by the noted Ḥanbalī of Damascus in any other aspect of religious doctrine.

such as those of the Shīʿa (represented mainly by the Ṣafavid-supported

104 al-Birgiwī, Ṭarīqa, p. 11.

proliferation of innovation (bidʿa).107 The eighteenth-century Syrian chroni-

In those days depravity grew (izdāda al-fasād), the worshipers were

If the demands of pious individuals in Damascus faced the indifference of the

to read the works composed by Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.109 As a powerful move-

109 Daḥlān, Khulāṣat al-kalām, p. 292.

Algar, Hamid, Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, Oneonta, NY 2002.

Daḥlān, Aḥmad b. Zaynī, Khulāṣat al-kalām, Cairo 1305/1887.

———, Islam in Historical Perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ 2011.

Camilla Adang, Hassan Ansari,

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Preface and Acknowledgements ix

2 Were the Umayyad-Era Qadarites Kāfirs? 42

3 Denouncing the Damned Zindīq! Struggle and Interaction between

4 Kufr et takfīr dans l’ismaélisme fatimide: Le Kitāb Tanbīh al-hādī de

5 The Vocabulary of “Unbelief” in Three Biographical Dictionaries and

6 Takfīr in Egypt and Syria during the Mamlūk Period 155

7 Takfīr and Messianism: The Ḥurūfī Case 189

8 The Qāḍīzādeli Movement and the Revival of takfīr in the

9 The takfīr of the Philosophers (and Sufis) in Safavid Iran 244

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/9789004307834_010

8 Levtzion/Voll, Renewal, p. 15.

17 Levtzion/Voll, Renewal, p. 14.

28 al-Ḥaṭṭāb, Mawāhib, vol. 6, pp. 279f.

37 Zilfi, Politics of Piety, p. 134.

45 Kātib Çelebi, Balance, p. 51f.

57 Voll, “Neo-Sufism,” p. 317.

63 Flemming, “Vorwahhabitische Fitna,” pp. 55–65; Peters, “Islamischer Fundamentalismus,”

75 Alikberov, <http://islamica.ru/?uid=95>, accessed 12 February 2014. I would like to thank

79 El-Rouayheb, “Changing Views,” p. 304.

85 al-Birgiwī, Ṭarīqa, p. 12.

88 Michot, Aḥmad al-Rūmī al-Aqḥiṣārī, p. 3.

93 al-ʿArrābī, Dāmighat al-mubtadiʿīn, p. 52.

104 al-Birgiwī, Ṭarīqa, p. 11.

109 Daḥlān, Khulāṣat al-kalām, p. 292.