Ahmed&Filipovic 2004 The Sultan's Syllabus

Maisonneuve & Larose
The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses Prescribed in a fermn
of Qnn I Sleymn, Dated 973 (1565)
Author(s): Shahab Ahmed and Nenad Filipovic
Source: Studia Islamica, No. 98/99 (2004), pp. 183-218
Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20059215
Accessed: 21-07-2015 19:49 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:49:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Studia
Isl?mica,
2004
The Sultans Syllabus:

A Curriculum
for the Ottoman

in ^ferm?n
medreses prescribed
Imperial
of Q?n?ni
S?leym?n, dated 973 (1565)
Introduction
It is broadly recognized that the educational reforms carried out in
I S?leym?n (S?leym?n the
the reign of the Ottoman
Sultan Q?n?ni
regnant 926-974/1520-1566),
Magnificent,
following upon those of his
(Mehemmed the Con
great-grandfather, Sultan F?tih IIMehemmed
in the
and 855-886/1451-1481)
queror, regnant 848-850/1444-1446
previous century, had the effect of centralizing and systematizing edu
cation in the Ottoman empire to a degree unprecedented not merely in
Ottoman, but probably in pre-modern Islamic history. The role of these
and subsequent reforms in the progressive fashioning of the Hlmiyyewhat is generally called the Ottoman
"learned institution" ? particularly
their effects on the structure and organization of educational institu
tions and on the social constitution and career paths of the scholarly
class, has received some study.l One of the fundamental effects of these
1. See M.
C.
Baysun,
"Osmanh
devri medreseleri,"
in the entry
"Mescid,"
IA;
Ismail Hakki Uzun?arsili, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskila?, Ankara: Turk

Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1965; Cahid Baltaci, XV-XVI Asirlar Osmanh
Medreseleri:
Teskil?t,
Tarih,
Istanbul:
Irfan Matbaasi,
1976;
the early
twentieth
183
AHMED
Shahab
measures
imperial
was
the
FlLIPOVlC
and Nenad
into
of medreses
organization
hierarchy.2
s?htes (students) pursued courses of study moving up through the

successive grades of medreses according to their abilities and were duly
certified as they did so.3 The most successful made their way through
The
collected
Cevdet,
century
essays of Muallim
veMedrese,
Istanbul:
tep
?inar
Yayinlan,
:Medrese
Yiiksek Din
Egitimi
programlan,
and
edited
1978;
Eriiz, Mek
by Erdogan
Osmanhlarda
Atay,
Islahat
hareketleri,
Hiiseyin
Icazetn?meler,
Istanbul: Derg?h Yayinlan, 1983;Madeleine Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers and

the Ottoman
System
Paul Dumont
and
sociale de
in Jean-Louis
Bacqu?
et
l'histoire ?conomique
Mustafa
1983, 309-327;
Contributions
(eds.),
Leuven:
ottoman,
l'Empire
to the Tanzimat,"
Prior
Medrese
Grammont
?ditions
Peeters,
Bilge, Ilk OsmanhMedreseleri, Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakiiltesi Basimevi, 1984; R.

C. Repp, TheMufti of Istanbul: A Study in theDevelopment of the Ottoman
Learned
London:
Hierarchy,
Ithaca
1986; Halil
Press,
"The R?zn?mce
Inalcik,
Registers of the Kadiasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the IstanbulM?fi?l?k

wa
20
Turcica
Archives,"
(1988),
dir?sah
al-daivlah:
251-275;
Suraiya
al-us?l
al
al-dawlah
al-ijtim?'iyyah
li-al-ulam?'fi"
'Uthm?niyyahfi al-nisf al-th?ni min al-qarn al-s?dis 'ashar, al-Ijtih?d4 (1989)
183-200; Madeleine Zilfi, "Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman Religious
Establishment," inHalil Inalcik and Cernai Kafadar (eds.), S?leym?n the Sec
ond andHis Time, Istanbul:The Isis Press, 1993, 109-120; Mefail Hizli, Bursa
Medreselerinde
Akg?nd?z,
bul: Ulusal
Grandin
monde
fi
'
"al Tim wa al-ulam?
Faroqhi,
Bursa:
Egitim-Ogretim,
Kl?sik D?nem
Osmanh
Esra
Fak?lte
Paris:
Ihsanoglu,
"Ottoman
?ditions
Educational
Hasan
1997;
Istan
Ama?,
Yapi, Isleyis,
"Le mod?le
in Nicole
Ottomane,"
1997; Gilles Veinstein,

Yayinlan,
and Marc Gaborieau
(eds.), Madrasa:
Musulman,
Kitabevi,
Sistemi:
Medrese
La
transmission
1997,
du
savoir dans
Arguments,
and Scholarly-Scientific
le
Ekmeleddin
73-83;
in
Institutions,"
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (ed.)History of theOttoman State, Society and Civiliza

tion, Istanbul: IRCICA, 2002, 2:357-515; Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire
1300-1650:
See
229.
Ihsanoglu,
The
Structure
"The
The
(1916-1965):
of Power,
instructive
the
also
London:
Initial
Stage
of Discovery
Era
2002,
MacMillan,
Palgrave
historiographical
of the
Historiography
228
critique
by Ekmeleddin
of Ottoman
Medreses
and Construction,"
Archivum
Ottoma
nicum 18 (2000), 41-85.

2. On
see H.
the hierarchy,
.R. Gibb
and Harold
Islamic
Bowen,
Society
and theWest: A Study of the Impact ofWestern Civilization onMoslem Culture

in
the Near
East,
Uzun?arsih,
Asirlar Osmanh
The Mufti
London:
Osmanh
Oxford
Devletinin
Medreseleri,
46-50;
University
Ilmiye
Zilfi,
40-44;
of Istanbul,
Ihsanoglu,
371-380.
Institutions,"
larly-Scientific
I lim,
3. See Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde
Press,
Teskilati,
"The
1 .II:
1957,
5-17;
Baltaci,
Ilmiye Registers,"
"Ottoman
Educational
144-145;
XV-XVI
314;
and
Repp,
Scho
1:50-61.
184
The Sultan's
A Curriculum
Syllabus:
the Ottoman
for
Imperial
medreses
the hierarchy as students; and then either returned to the bottom to

career as m?derri?n (teachers) and once again to work up
begin their
the
ranks, or sought positions as entry-level judges (n?vmh) in
through
the imperial legal system. "Incumbents of posts in the most senior
to one of the posts of the
medrese grades qualified for promotion...
the lowest of the Great Molla grades, and thence through the
Mahrec,
4
Great Molla hierarchy to the Kadiaskerates." Those who were not suc
cessful in pursuing a career in the 'ilmiyyemight go to the qalemiyye
(secretarial institution),5 or even return to civil life.6 In other words, the
state was
Ottoman
in the
instrumental
tion of a distinct class of men

into
sector
the non-military
social
and
formation
of religious learning who were

of
state
the Ottoman
structure
certifica
integrated
- most
pro
? and whose influence was

nouncedly in the imperial capital, Istanbul
thus felt in Ottoman
society wherever people came into contact with
the legal and administrative offices of empire. In sum: "The 'ilmiyye
class as awhole was a privileged group whose status and hierarchy was
in the Islamic sciences. Its
based on the level of certified knowledge
state] side
represented the spiritual authority [of the Ottoman
7
was the
"As
the
architecture
side
with
by
military-political
authority."
Ottoman
material expression of
Islam, the ulema (s. alim), medrese
8
trained scholar jurists, were its living embodiment."
state found it important
But while it is evident that the Ottoman
members
to determine
the
structures
tant
that
remains
question
that
certified
who
was
relatively
learned,
an
is whether
unconsidered
impor
state
the
had any interest in intervening to determine what itwas that consti

tuted learning in the Islamic sciences ? that is to say, to intervene in
4. Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 312.
5. The
most
famous
of a 16th century
example
the qalemiyye is probably Mustafa

H.
Fleischer,
Bureaucrat
and
rianMustafa ?li (1541-1600),

especially at 34-36.
6. For
an
commerce
example
rather
one Mevl?n?
Kut,
7.
medrese
'Ali, on whom
Intellectual
graduate
who
entered
see the study by Cornell
in the Ottoman
Empire:
The Histo
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986,
of a 16th century
medrese
graduate who
as a m?derris,
or bureaucrat,
judge,
than
pursued
see the
a career
in
on
entry
'At? in Seh? Beg, HestBihist: The Tezkire by Sein Beg, ed. Giinay
Cambridge:
"The
Inalcik,
Harvard
R?zn?mce
University,
Registers,"
1978,
273.
254.
8.Madeleine Zilfi, The Politics ofPiety: The Ottoman Ulema in thePostclassi

calAge (1600-1800), Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Isl?mica, 1988, 24.
185
Shahab AHMED
and Nenad
FlLlPOVlC
of the men who functioned as the "living

state
Ottoman
Islam. Did the Ottoman
imperial
the curriculum of the medreses: in other words, did
it seek to establish an imperial canon? If so, what was this canon, and
what might the specific constitution
of the canon tell us about the
nature of the Islam with which the Ottoman
state wished to be iden
tified
Islam? A further
that is, about the official identity of Ottoman
to
canon tell us
is:
this
be
asked
if
what,
question
anything, might
of Islamic scholarly traditions?
about the historical development
This paper aspires to take a very small and very incomplete step
the content o? the education
embodiment"
of
seek to determine
towards
significance
these
answering
seems
have cited
questions
to have
escaped
by
the
examining
even
notice
a document
of
the
whose
scholars
who
it to date.
Item number E/2803/1

in the Topkapi Sarayi
is a single sheet of paper bearing
the title Med?ris-i
l?zim
olub
P?dis?l%-ile
M?derris
H?q?niyeye
ferman-i
Efenc&ler'e
virilen kit?blarim bey?nidur ? "This is a list of the books required for
the imperial medreses, given to the M?derris
Efenc?s [teachers] in
accordance with the decree of the Padishah." Beneath this are listed in
five rows the citations of thirty-nine books, and under each citation is
a numeral almost
certainly indicating the total number of volumes
the
work.
is given in the
The sum total of the volumes
comprising
Ar?ivi9
sixth row: yakunu jam'an 55 ("together, they are 55"). At the lower
left-hand side is the date 973 (1565) ? that is, one year before the
? and the Arabic
death of Q?n?ni
S?leym?n
phrase al-w?qV fi-hi,
"issued in".The title of the document
is self-explanatory:
it is precisely
an
intervention
on
the
part
of
state
the Ottoman
to
prescribe
the
? in other
to be used in the
words, to lay
imperial medreses
in
down a medrese curriculum.
constitutes the
Indeed, TSA E/2803/1
in Islamic history of a move by the state
first known documentation
books
9. The
authors
should
Sarayi Ar|ivi
Topkapi
Fetvaci
and to Emine
to ?lk?
like to express
their gratitude
us to transcribe
for graciously
allowing
for her kind facilitation.
10.While TSA E/2803/1
is not itself afirman,
at the
Altindag
TSA E/2803/1,
there can be little doubt that
?
extract
it is a genuine
from
it is
that a docu
afirman
highly
implausible
ment
to be an extract
an
from
edict
could
be thus
falsely
claiming
imperial
in the imperial
seems
to
archives. The
existence
of TSA
E/2803/1
preserved
have first been noted
cited the document
in his biblio
Baltaci, who
by C?hid
graphy
without,
however,
making
apparent
use of
it in his
study;
seeXV-XVI
186
The Sultan's
A Curriculum
Syllabus:
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
n
a canon of
Since we know that the
religious learning.
was
the Hanafi madhhab, and
official legal rite of the Ottoman
empire
the question
that the favoured theological school was M?turidism,
to establish
as
arises
immediately
to whether
canon
this
a Hanafi
possesses
identity ; and if so, what are the sources of Islamic scholar

n
constitute
that identity.
that
ship
The curriculum in question applies to a particular set of medreses,
or "imperial medreses? which
is a term that
the med?ris-i H?q?niye
seems not to have surfaced before now in the scholarship on the
M?turidi
ranking
of
the
medreses.
the most
However,
use
obvious
of
term
the
be in reference to the medreses founded by the Sultans them

of the
selves. From the time of the construction by F?tih IIMehemmed
the Sultans' medreses
medrese complex attached to the F?tih mosque,
seem to have automatically occupied the highest academic ranks in the
medrese hierarchy;13 this was also subsequently the case with regard to
would
Asirlar
Osmanh
XIII. Mustafa
Medreseleri,
the thirty-nine
63.
Medreseleri,
of
but without
works,
Hasan
thereof;
exposition
like Baltaci,
Akg?nd?z,
the
transcribed
Bilge
any
cites
titles of twenty
see Ilk Osmanh
the document
in
the
bibliography of his Kl?sik D?nem OsmanhMedrese Sistemi but does not make
apparent
11. This
use
of
does
it.
exclude
of course,
not,
lier
curricula
state-prescribed
Previous
available.
presently
have been based on evidence
for
the possibility
of
there
which
having
evidence
ear
been
is not
documentary
on curricula
in Islamic
of learning
history
a teacher
in
contained
(authorization
by
ij?zahs
studies
to a student to teach specified works on his authority), or in biographical and

autobiographical
9th/15th century,
notices;
for an
see Maria
Eva
a curriculum
study of
ij?zah-bzsed
Anas
and
"The
Khalidov,
Subtelny
from
the
Curricu
lum of Islamic Higher Learning inTimurid Iran in the Light of the Sunni
Revival under Sh?h-Rukh," Journal of the American Oriental Society 115
(1995),
cal and
12. On
For
210-236.
reconstruction
of Ottoman
autobiographical
Ottoman
Hanafi-M?turidism,
et son r?le dans
la soci?t?
t?re de laCulture,
It is important
contained
medreses
13.
curricula
from
biographi
see below.
notices,
see Mustafa
aux XV
turco-ottomane
Le kal?m
Said Yazicioglu,
Minis
si?cles, Ankara:
etXVIe
1990, 105-116.
to note
of
that
the
Sultanic
different
ranks,
with
stood
at the upper
medrese
the
complexes
lower ones
themselves
the
servicing
were
the apex medreses of the F?tih
the "eight medreses
complex
higher. Thus,
were
the Sahn-t ?em?n
which
medreses
serviced
by eight other
of the yard'
to the
even the
theM?sile-i
Sahn
medreses
called
However,
yard").
("leading
lower
Sultanic
medreses
grades
of
the medrese
hierarchy.
187
AHMED
Shahab
FiLlPOVIC
and Nenad
the medreses of the S?leym?niye complex, the construction of which

- that
was
is, nine years before the promulga
completed in 964/1557
H
tion of the curriculum under study here.
the med?ris-i
Thus,
are the medreses that stand at the very top of the hierarchy,
H?q?r?ye
and
the
course
highest
"The
in the
prescribed
in the Ottoman
study
curriculum
of
rank
official
more
ding. The
would
be
of
the medrese
founders
the founder,
prominent
in the
highest
the Dar?lhadis
document
present
the
represents
15
system.
educational
a role in medrese
also played
gra
or her medrese
the more
likely his
in the
instruction
sciences...
highest
grades and offer

of Siileymaniye,
the Sahn-i
the Siileymaniye,
and
to the
rise
Seman grades
that
had
medreses
corresponded
only
original
given
can be considered
to those
they
grades with
unalterably
"imperial"
grades,
were
to the
also vir
others of the highest
grades
standing. According
registers,
to medreses
founded
the
Medreses
built
exclusive
tually
family.
by
imperial
by
Since
the
Sultans
and
the women
of
the
the Hamis
dominate
dynasty
fourth
the
and
a few
highest
grades,
although
in both
"The
share
Zilfi,
Ilmiye Registers,"
grades";
sense of the scale of the
Some
medreses may
be obtained
315-16.
imperial
from the fact that the sixteen
could
F?tih medreses
Gibb
312
students;
lodge
Miisile-i
the
Siileymaniye,
medreses
nonimperial
and
third
Islamic
Bowen,
and
Society
the medrese
knowledge
of
Ihsanoglu:
over
enced
"Because
the
the
and
the West,
note
system,
of
this
recent
formation
establishment,
centuries
own
have
hierarchy
and multifaceted
studies
built
medreses,
the
and
educational
more
detailed
studied,
thoroughly
in order to achieve
greater
clarity with
regard
cational
and Scholarly-Scientific
Institutions,"
14. "Siileyman's
our present
regards
remark
of Ekmeleddin
As
1.11:145.
the
to the
subject";
376.
rated hierarchy
of medreses,
to this
pre-eminence
"In the late fifteenth
century
they
though
claim
seem
not
ford University
Press,
complex,
Ankara:
(1550-1557),
15. This
Ebus-su'ud:
1997,
see Omer
maniye
will
shortly
Istanbul
and
to have
Turk
achieved
exclusive
44.
of Istanbul,
the
Col
Eight
the pinna
occupied
came
in Istanbul
Imber,
required
Edu
The Miifiti
immediately;"
Repp,
and for much
of the sixteenth,
to the mosque
II in Istanbul
of Mehmed
leges attached
cle of religious
in the Ottoman
and legal education
Empire.
in 1557,
of the complex
after the completion
the colleges
Siileymaniye
tion;" Colin
be
"Ottoman
[sic\], were to form the top rungs in the fully elabo
completed by 966/1559
mosque
will
in
his mosque
around
changes
experi
not been very
to occupy
Islamic
Legal
The
8. On
the date
the most
Tradition,
of
In the decades
attached
prestigious
Stanford:
of the
the completion
ve Imareti
Cami
Siileymaniye
Kururnu
1:58.
1972,
Basimevi,
L. Barkan,
Tarih
be confirmed
by
the content
of
the curriculum
to
the
posi
Stan
Siiley
Insaati
itself.
188
The Sultan's
Syllabus:
A Curriculum
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
current knowledge of which books were apparently taught in

medreses has been culled piecemeal from a scattering of
the Ottoman
scholars on education and the
sources, such as works by Ottoman
Islamic sciences, scholarly biographies and autobiographies,
ij?zahs,
Our
16The present state of our knowledge
waqfiyyahs, and other documents.

is, however,
on
unsatisfactory
counts.
several
it is not
First,
clear
that
a
any of the lists of books that have been compiled
a
course of study, even for single level of the medrese system. 17
complete
so far constitutes
16. The
fullest
study
medrese
of Ottoman
is the
available
curricula
important
work of Cevat Izgi, OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim 1.Ci It:Riyaz? Ilimier 2. Cilt:

Tabi? Ilimler, Istanbul: IzYayincihk, 1997. In the introductory survey to his
book
with
the Ottoman
study of the natural
each from a
fourteen
lists of books,
Izgi compiled
title "Ottoman
each
list
the
medrese
under
presented
is concerned
(which
sciences
primarily
and mathematics)
and
source,
separate
curriculum
[Osmanh
Medreseleri
see
Programi]";
M?fredat
Osmanh
Medreselerinde I lim, 1:61-183. Izgi s lists build on the earlier compilations of

Uzun?arsih, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskilatt, 20-31; Baltaci, XV-XVI
Asirlar OsmanhMedreseleri, 37-43; and Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 40-63.
For
the
seventeenth
and
see
centuries,
eighteenth
?mer
?zyilmaz,
Manzume-i Tertib-i Ul?m, Tertibu'l Ulum, Kaside Fi'1-K?t?b'lMesb?re Fi'l

Ul?m, Kevakib-i Seb'a veErzurumlu IbrahimHakkt 'ntnTertib-i Ul?m Isimli
G?re, XVII veXVIII. Y?zyillarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim Programlari,
T.C.
Ankara:
K?lt?r
ve Medrese
Dereceleri,"
2002.
Bakanligi,
from Mehmet
See
also
subsection
"Osmanh
"Dersler,
Ipsjrli,
Islam Ansiklopedisi,
28:328-330.
two "Ottoman
medrese
curricula"
TDV
entry on "Medrese,"
17. For example,
Izgi cites
D?nemi,"
from
Konular
in the
the auto
one consisting of
biographical testimony of Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/156l),
books thatTa?k?priz?de records himself to have studied, and the second of
books
records
that Ta?k?priz?de
himself
to have
taught.
Now,
to
according
his own testimony, Ta?k?priz?de taught threeworks dtfiqh, however, no fiqh

works
in his
appear
curriculum
of
study.
Since
it makes
no
sense
for
Ta?k?priz?de to have taught a subject he had not studied, thismeans that the
first
is necessarily
curriculum
lum - which
every
book
incomplete
(so too
is the brief
second
curricu
is brief presumably because Ta?k?priz?de simply did not teach
on
the medrese
curriculum);
for
the curricula
from Ta?k?priz?de,
see Osmanh MedreselerindeI lim, 1:97-99, 170 (Cetvel 5), and 171 (Cetvel6).
Similarly, in his Kashf al-zun?n, H?jji Khalifah K?tib ?eleb? (d. 1067/1657)
describes the Talmh of Sad al-DIn al-Taft?z?ni (forwhich see item 36 in the
annotated
see
Kashf
list, below)
as a work
'an as?mi
al-zun?n
in the field;"
after by every student
"sought
wa
ed. ?erefettin
al-kutub
Yaltkaya
al-fun?n,
and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul:Maarif Matbaasi,

the Talwih
does
not
appear
in either
of the
two
1941-43, 496. However,
"Ottoman
medrese
curricula"
189
Shahab
Ahmed
FlLIPOVlC
and Nenad
Second, sometimes the historical source from which particular works

have been adduced to have been a part of the medrese curriculum does
not itself indicate that the work in question was actually studied within
a medrese,
as
to
opposed
continued beyond
in
private
where
settings
and
teaching
learning
18
The data compiled
the medrese curriculum.
to date,
compiled by Izgi from H?jj? Khal?fah's autobiographical excursus in his

Miz?nu l-haqq; see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:100-101, 173 (Cetvel 8),
and 174 (Cetvel 9). The fullest curriculum in Izgi is that taken from the
Kev?kib-i
seb'a,
an
inquiry
of Ottoman
by
an anonymous
work
the French
ambassador
education.
However,
to
in 1155/1741
in response
to the
Porte about
the character
High
in the Kev?kib-i
seb'a is
the list of books
authored
cur
at the lower levels of the medrese
subjects
taught
are more
as grammar,
which
and
repre
syntax
fully
logic),
and law);
there than
hadith
(such as Quranic
exegesis,
subjects
higher
Medreselerinde
163-167
1:69-77,
Ilim,
(Cetvel
1); also see ?zyilmaz,
towards
clearly weighted
riculum
(such
sented
Osmanh
XVII veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerininde Egitim Programlart, 37

42.
For
not
cite
in the medrese
the hierarchy
of subjects
the present firman.
see below.
education,
Izgi does
18. For example, Izgi'sCetvel 9 {OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim, 1:173) is an

"Ottoman
medrese
he
sumably
there
while
taught:
these works,
he was
taught
made
curriculum"
to have
himself
them
taught
not,
reason
a teacher
in fact,
a medrese
outside
Khalifah
that H?jj?
to doubt
of books
is no
mentions
that H?jj?
Khal?fah
in medrese?
therefore,
pre
curriculum.
on
Similarly,
the basis
of the testimony in the autobiography of Seyyid Feyzull?h Efend? (1639

nine
about
Izgi adduces
see Osmanh
1703),
as
books
Efend?
does
Feyzull?h
in a medrese,
but rather that he
However,
Ilim,
not
medrese
10).
(Cetvel
these works
say that he studied
of them with
either his father,
actually
studied
eight
set
he was at least as likely to do in a domestic
something
see Ahmet
in a medrese,
Tiirek
and F. ?etin
Derin,
"Feyzull?h
Hal Terciimesi,"
Istanbul
Kendi
Kaleminden
?niversitesi
Edebiyat
as
ting
Efendi'nin
Fak?ltesi Tarih Dergisi 23 (1969), 204-218,

from
(d. 1100/1689),
medrese
we
in
whose
also
do not
know;
also ?zyilmaz, XVII

Programlart,
desideratum
studied
21-26.
1291/1874);
not
l-ul?m
indicate
at 206-207.
some
presumably
see Osmanh Medreselerinde
of
Ish?q al-Toqad?
another
Izgi derives
that the works
he
them
Ilim,
"Ottoman
lists were
actu
were,
but
which
1:167,
(Cetvel
2);
veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim
a scholar's
In any case,
is more
the Nazmu
I-ulum
was
be studied
should
than a record of what
necessarily
Nazmu
in
b. Hasan
l-ul?m,
?emsiid
al-Toqadi,
published
of what
(see Ish?q
Siv?si,
Nazmu
does
the medrese
curriculum,"
studied
exactly
din
"Ottoman
1:174-175,
or cousins,
uncle
ally
an
comprising
Medreselerinde
curriculum;"
Men?qib-i
this would
Im?m-i
also
A'zam,
seem
Istanbul:
to be
Tevfiq
the case with
Efendi'nin
the Tertib-i
Matbaasi
'ulum of
190
Syllabus: A Curriculum
The Sultan's
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
valuable, is thus somewhat disjointed and must be treated with a

Indeed, our knowledge of what was studied
degree of circumspection.
in the medreses is sufficiently limited to have provoked the recent remark
that "it is not possible to determine the curricula of the Ottoman
19
we do have a
medreses in a clear and detailed manner."
Nonetheless,
sense
the
of
of
oudine
the
medrese
program of study:
good
general
while
The highest sciences - the traditions of the Prophet {hadis), Koranic

commentary (tefiir), and Islamic jurisprudence (fikth) were studied in
in the
highest
nature
medreses
an
instrumental
relegated
the lowest
to medreses
purposes.
fell within
disciplines
included
grades
instructional
more
grades. The
Arabic
grammar
in the lower
grades.
On
smattering
the whole,
the purview
of
those of
disciplines,
? were
(nahv)
syntax
of even
the curricula
elementary
(sarf) and
In practice,
sciences"
of the "highest
the highest
sciences
however,
the
...
superior
for
as
grades.20
A description of medrese education from 1155/1741

indicates fur
ther that logic (mantiq) was also taught at the beginning of the course
of study, while disputation
(?d?b-i hah s), preaching (va'az), rhetoric
tenets
of
faith
(hikmei) and theology
(bel?gai),
(aq??d), philosophy
were
at
an
it should be
intermediate stage.21 However,
(kel?m)
taught
stressed that students at the lower rungs were exposed in some degree
to higher subjects as well; thus, the lowest-ranking medreses in the
medrese hierarchy laid out by F?tih IIMehemmed
(those in which
Eryzir?mh Ibrahim Haqq? (d. 1194/1780), which is the primary subject of

of Neb?efen
?zyilmaz s study. The (?asidefi-'l-kutub-i me?h?re fi-'l-ul?m
diz?de
is, in turn,
(d. 1200/1785)
not
a medrese
curriculum
but
rather,
as its
title suggests, a list of important books in each discipline, some of which at

various
were
times
taught
presumably
see
in medreses,
Izgi,
Osmanh
Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:93-97, and 169 (Cetvel 4); also ?zyilmaz, XVII ve
XVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim Programlart, 30-37. Nor is
there any indication that the anonymous 11th/17th century %lim from
whose testimony Izgi compiled Cetvel 7 studied all the books in that list in a
medrese;
19.
see Osmanh
Medreselerinde
"Ottoman
Ihsanoglu,
Ilim,
Educational
and
and
1:99-100,
172.
Scholarly-Scientific
Institutions,"
383.
20. Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 315.
21. This
is the
above-mentioned
Kev?kib-i
seb'a;
see
Ihsanoglu,
"Ottoman
Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 384 (where ?d?b-i bahi is

erroneously
translated
as "elocution").
191
AHMED
Shahab
FlLIPOViC
and Nenad
teachers were paid 20 to 25 aq?es a day) were called H?siye-i Tec?d

medreses21 after the commentary by al-Sharif al-Jurj?n? (d.816/1414)
on the
theology primer entitled Taj?d al-kal?m by N?sir ai-Din al
T?si (d.678/1274),23
while the intermediate 40 aq?e medreses were
known
as Telvih medreses after the work
by Sa'd al-Din
fiqh)
kashf
haq?
al-Taft?z?ni
24
However,
'iq al-Tanqih.
preparatory
such
subjects,
as
on jurisprudence [us?l al
entitled al-Talwih fi
(d.791/1389),
as students
and
grammar
moved
logic,25
the
up
were
grades,
as
abandoned
?
now been mastered, and
having
higher subjects with which students
had thus far only received some degree of familiarization ? now
became the focus of more in-depth study.26
is thus a most fortuitous document as it provides
TSA E/2803/1
for us precisely what has not been available thus far in our knowledge
of Ottoman history: a clear and detailed syllabus of what was studied
at a particular level of the medrese hierarchy ? in this case, the highest
state. The date of the docu
level - at the instigation of the Ottoman
to
the
final
ment, 973/1565,
corresponds
period of the educational
reforms carried out by S?leym?n and his ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Suc?d (in
office, 952-982/1545-74).
22.
In the
reign
of F?tih
IIMehemmed,
the medreses
v/eve
organized
accord
ing to the teachers' salaries as 20 (H??iye-i Tecrid), 30 {Mifi?h), 40 (Harte),

50
(Da h tl, Tetimme,
M?s
in
ile-i Sahn,
Sah n-i Sema ri) and eventually,
S?ley
to a medrese
As a teacher was promoted
where
his salary increased. The
salaries
taught,
highest
courses
the highest
of study were
medreses, where
reign, 60 aq?e medreses.

was
advanced
material
m?n's
more
were
paid
in the Sultanic
See
taught.
Ihsanoglu,
XV-XVI
Baltaci,
Osmanh
Astrlar
and
Educational
"Ottoman
Medreseleri,
36-43;
and
Institutions,"
376-377.
23.
See Uzun?arsili,
Osmanh
Devletinin
Ilmiye
Teskilatt,
24.
XVI
See Uzun?arsih,
Astrlar Osmanh
25. Thirty
Osmanh
aq?e medreses
ul?m by Y?suf
Devletinin
38-39.
Medreseleri,
were
also
Teskilati,
Ilmiye
On
this work,
called Mifi?h
al-Sakk?k? (d.626/1229),
medreses
10, 25;
Uzun?arsih,
Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 37; Bilge,

Medreseleri, 54; and H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 346-351.
Ilk Osmanh
10, 28; Baltaci,
XV
see below.
after
the
Mifi?h
a work on morphology
al
(sarfi,
see
and rhetoric
"Ottoman
Educa
(nahtv)
grammar
(bal?ghah);
Ihsanoglu,
tional and Scholarly-Scientific
377.
Institutions,"
at the different
is reflected
in the lists of books
26. This
levels com
studied
by Baltaci,
piled
XV-XVI
Astrlar
Osmanh
Medreseleri,
36-43.
192
The Sultans
A Curriculum
Syllabus:
S?leymans
in
policies
religious
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
their
about
the
totality
brought
of the personnel
enhancement
service...
it was chiefly
the institu
and
expansion,
reorganization,
integration
in state
and judgements
of the ulema
tions
the training
and functions
affecting
involvement.
sustained
S?leymans
And
of religiosity
and
representation
cies were
founded...
S?leymans
the
expand
quality
scholarly
resources
new
inquiry.
of the
size and might...
rectitude
of
the
that
to
provide
three would
The
to
empire
Kadis were,
the
that
ulema
itwas
had
policies
the educational
and
personnel,
Hlmiyye
sophisticated
intellectual
empires
capacity
physical
of
of
too,
on
largely
S?leymans
at least
attracted
the ulemas
religious
poli
to
aims:
three
to
system,
ensure
levels
demanded
of course,
the backbone
the
more
for
opportunities
raise the educational
and
the
by
of the
empires legal system. The ability of the legal system to deliver on its
manifold potential depended in large part on the quality of the medrese
concerns
[the] overriding
[of the reforms]
system...
tem that was, within
the frame of royal prerogative,
and merit-driven.27
was
to
orderly,
a sys
produce
incorruptible
reforms was played by the

The central role in the educational
office of the ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Su'?d who held the post of ?eyhulis
was not
l?m for the last twenty years of S?leymans
reign, and who
most
in
the empire, but was
only the
respected religious authority
an
to
was
whom he
informal spiritual
unusually close to the Sultan
adviser. This unusual personal relationship between Sultan and ?ey
reform project
hulisl?m ? the two pivotal figures in the educational
? doubtless contributed
to
the
successful
significantly
implementa
tion of the reforms. 28The immediate impetus for the states concern
"Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman
27. Zilfi,
Religious
Establishment,"
110-113.
28. On
cies,
the "unprecedentedscale"
"Sultan
S?leym?n
see Zilfi,
116-118. On
s-Su'?ds
the Ottoman
involvement
Religious
in state
in my
terms
bosom,
my
of address
comrade
poli
Establishment,"
the relationship between Eb? s-Su'?d and S?leym?n,
intimate
remarkably
my friend
of Eb?
and
in the mystic
"my companion
on the
of truth, my brother
path
see the
state,
in the
afterlife [h?lde haldas um sinemde ?ndasum ta?q-i haqqda yoldasum ?hiret

qartndasum]" used by S?leym?n in his correspondence with Eb? s-Su?d
inMecm?'a-i
preserved
jevo, Gazi
obtaining
20. For
Husrev
a
a
copy
telling
?eyhulisl?m
G?r?m
Sara
b. Lsm?il
Bosnevi, MS
MehmedMey?
to
I 2012,
Buzov
for
74b
(we are grateful
Beg,
Snjezana
of this manuscript
for us). See also Imber, Ebu's
su'ud, 8
the Sultan
of close cooperation
between
and his
example
in a scholarly cause, see the imperial order dated 17thRajab
193
Shahab
with
reform was
educational
of
rumblings
sentatives
from
?
protest
of
the
FlLlPOViC
and Nenad
AHMED
likely provided,
medrese
the
graduates
to
nepotism
owing
that
empire
at least in part, by the

?
repre
potential
a
of
shortage
and
they thought
positions they were unable to obtain the appointments
29
is
of
these
deserved.
The
grievances
they
potential
destabilizing
seen in the student riots of 966-67/1558-59,
and then in a reasser
30
? the
tion of unrest in 973/1565
year of the issue of our fierm?n.
One
measure
important
ments
and
in
institution
the m?l?zemet
promotion
of the candidate.
state
this
which
to
according
31
Eb?
was
project
the
the
merit
scholarly
of
up
setting
at systematizing
aimed
appoint
and
seniority
famous defence
of the legitimacy
Birgili Mehemmed
s-Su'?d's
in his polemics
the czsh-waqf
with
also served to reinforce the 'ilmiyye by assuring the
(d.981/1573)
continuity of one of the most important financial bases of the insti
for
tutions that not only provided education, but also appointments
32It is in the
of
this
medrese graduates in medreses and mosques.
light
of
972/1565
tant
a certain
summoning
in a medresein
teacher
to Eb?
name
by the
to Istanbul
to
he had
the ?eyhulisl?m
help
Ahmet
been working;
Istanbul:
Muallim
Ahmet
of Faqiri,
Ottoman
s-Su'?d
tary on which
ve Bektasilik,
'ahm
to come
Rhodes,
as research
the Quran
alttnct astrda
complete
On
Refik,
Halit
serve
was
who
of Bedr?dd?n,
and
assis
commen
Rafizilik
20
1932,
(Docu
was
in question,
the well-known
Irsh?dal-'aqlal-sa&m,
a few months,
before
the Sultan's
within
death).
duly completed
shortly
see Edith
of corruption,
medrese
29. On
G?lcin
complaints
graduates'
ment
(The work
15).
"The
Ambros,
Kitaphanesi,
Let?'if
of
poet
the
Wiener
16th century,"
(1990), 59-78, at 64-65.

Zeitschrift f?r die Kunde desMorgenlandes80
30. On the student riots of 966-67/1558-59 and 973/1565, seeAhmet Refik,
On alttnct astrda Rafizilik ve Bektasilik, 13-14 (Document 2), 14-15 (Docu
ment 4), 15-16 (Document 6), 17 (Document 8), 19 (Document 14). On the
broader
Tarihinde
"T?rkiye
Akdag,
lan," Istanbul ?niversitesi
31. On
see
unrest
of student
phenomenon
M.
the role of Eb?
Inalcik,
"The
Iktisat
s-Su'?d
R?zn?mce
i?tima?
Fak?ltesi
see
in the I6rh century Ottoman
empire,
Serisenden:
Medreseli
Isyan
Buhranlar
Mecmuast
Registers,"
See
schools
the declaration
and most
cash-waqfs
Mandaville,
"were
of Eb?
s-Su'?d's
"Usurious
Piety:
The
and
Cash
Baltaci,
XV-XVI
Bali
Efend?,
on how
the
and
cash-waqf"
the prayer-caller
would
Waqf
system,
Astrlar
of Istanbul 51-55.
supporter,
... are based on
of the mosques
lost ... the preacher
361-87.
(1949),
of the m?l?zemet
257-261;
Osmanh Medreseleri, 34-35, Repp, TheMiifii

32.
11/1-4
in the establishment
Controversy
"certain
that
if the
lost;" Jon E.
the Ottoman
be
in
Empire," InternationalJournal ofMiddle East Studies, 10 (1979), 289-308, at 303.
194
The Sultans
Syllabus:
A Curriculum
for
the Ottoman
Imperial
medreses
on the part of the Ottoman

state ? in the form of the
larger project
to regularize and systematize the 'ilmiyye
Sultan and ?eyhulisl?m
that the decision to lay out a clearly-stated curriculum of study for
should be seen. S?leymans
the medreses (reflected inTSA E/2803/1)
as early as
concern with medrese education
standards is evidenced
in the form of aferm?n that expresses the Sultans dissat
945/1539
isfaction with the fact that the s?htes in the medreses "read only one
book from each discipline, and of each book only a few chapters."
The ferm?n stipulates that the s?htes must read entire books, that
they must be certified accordingly by their teachers (m?derrisden
then make appointments
temess?k aluh), and that the state will
33Given
the concern for regularization
based on this certification.
it is only logical to assume that curricula must
and certification,
at this time not only for the med?ris-i
have been prescribed
IJ?q?niye,
medrese
but
system;
also for the lower and

there
however,
is as yet
intermediate
levels of
the
documentary
evidence
of
no
curricula were presumably drafted by the S/iw-bureaucrats

of the department
of the ?eyhulisl?m who were themselves medrese
this. The
himself, and
graduates, subsequently approved by the ?ieyhulisl?m
on
to
to
like
be issued,
other parts of the edu
then taken
the Sultan
in the form of imperial ferm?ns ? that is, as
cational
reforms,
- in the
present case issued one year before
binding Sultanic law
death.
Q?n?ni
S?leymans
The
list of books
from
the ferman
now turn to the list of books from ?ie ferm?n. Inwhat follows,
are transcribed
the original citations as they appear in the document
and annotated. As will be seen, the citations are extremely brief, indi
that the audience of the list is
cating that there is an assumption
We
in question. The annotations will

already familiar with the works
the
the
the
title
of
the name of the
work,
identify
subject matter,
or
his
his
affiliation
author,
dates,
(as relevant), as
legal
theological
33. See Tayyib G?kbilgin,
tutan
Bursa
ve
"K?nuni Sultan S?leym?n devri m?esseseler

sicillerinden
te?kil?tina
i?ik
?er'iye
Ankara:
Turk
Uzun?arsih'ya
Armagan,
text of the
in question
113. The
ferm?n
Tarih
?rnekler,"
Kurumu
is given
at 96-99,
in Ismail
Basimevi,
see
Hakkt
1976,
especially
91
97.
195
Shahab AHMED
well as to gauge the continuing

extent
the
of
its survival
in
FlLlPOVIC
and Nenad
and
manuscript
as indicated by
of the work
circulation
print.
are
annotations
The
broadly aimed at providing basic information salient to answering the

state wished
question of the identity of the Islam that the Ottoman
34
men
to
the
of the religious institution
embody.
35
This
is al-Kashsh?f an haq? 'iq al-tan?l wa uy?n

the Quran commentary of Abu al-Q?sim
al-taidl,
al-aq?idl fi haqq
the
Mahmud
'Umar
al-Zamakhshari
Allah
b.
(d. 538/1142),
Jar
1.Ke?s?f.
famous
[1].
Hanafi
from
Mu'tazil?
36
Khw?razm.
2. Qutbu d-D?n. [1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi

b. Mas'?d
al-Sh?r?z?
al-Din Mahmud
al-Zamakhshari
by Qutb
a polymath astronomer and prolific scholar who was a
(d.710/1311),
Sh?fi'i by jurisprudential school, and an Ashari by theological affilia
tion.
He
spent
of
parts
reader discouraged
34. Any
list of thirty-nine
books may
that follow.
35. The
citation
original
in bold between
follows
ten under
reflect
to
referred
the citation
a concise
For
36.
ve
"Zamah?eri
hoglu,
italics. The
the number
the work
would
see Jane
of Classical
1991,
Ankara
the
of
pronunciation
Press,
then
and Modern
for
49-54;
Universitesi
have
presumably
we have
themselves,
'ilmiyye
tefsiri,"
that
numeral
in the
iswrit
original,
of volumes
that comprise
the
is that which,
al-Zamakhshari,
An Analysis
University
Cambridge
of
in bold
brackets
the Ottoman
sketch
Christians:
Quranic
is transcribed
square
and Tabriz.37
Malatya
an annotated
of reading
through
to the
and
Conclusions"
"Analysis
repair directly
indicating
in which
the way
of the
the scholars
by
to reflect
in Sivas,
at the prospect
the citation
To
work.
career
his
title.
D?mmen
McAuliffe,
Exegesis,
a fuller
Ilahiyat
been
transliterated
study,
Fak?ltesi
Cambridge:
Ismail Cerra
DergisilG
(1983) 59-96; and see also Ali ?zek, "el-Ke??af," TDVIslam Ansiklopedisi,
25:329-330. The Kashsh?fhas been printed several times, beginning with the
Calcutta lithograph of 1859, and the Cairo edition published by Matba'at
the work
Majma'
Bayt,
1989,
alsh?
mil
makht?t?t
155-188
37. Carl
wa
Geschichte
Brill,
1943, S.I:296-297;
Beirut:
Mu
assasat
al-Ris?lah,
of
the
al-arabi
ul?mu-hu,
M?B,
(hereafter,
a sense
see
period,
al-Had?rah
li-al-tur?th
al-tafur
Brockelmann,
For
1891.
in the pre-modern
al-Maliki
li-Buh?th
al-Fihris
quran,
in
Mustafa
Muhammad
circulation
the prodigious
of
list of extant manuscripts
in al
Mu'assasat
al
?l
al-Isl?miyyah,
al-makht?t:
al-isl?mi
Amman:
al-Tafsir).
der Arabischen
Litteratur,
'Umar Rid? Kahh?lah, Mujam

n.d.,
3:832;
ul?m
Mu'assasat
E.Wiedermann,
al
AI
al-Bayt,
Leiden:
E.
J.
al-muallifin,
"Kutb
al-D?n
al
196
The Sultan's
A Curriculum
Syllabus:
3. Sa'du d-Din.
Sa'd ai-Din Mas'?d
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
[1]. This is the super-commentary

b. 'Umar al-Taft?z?n? (d.791/1389)
composed by
on the com
; see item 6,
mentary authored by Sharaf al-D?n ai-Tib? (d.743/1343
on
a Hanafi
was
the
al-Zamakhshari.
Al-Taft?z?ni
below)
Kashsh?foi
other
Ashari by madhhab and a prodigious author and commentator
not
were
in
Ottoman
He
also
the
did
works of whom
used
curricula.
the present
complete
super-commentary,
as far as S?rat
only
reaching
al-Faih
?
4. C?r?perdi.
[1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi
Hasan
Fakhr
b.
Zamakhshar?
al-D?n
Ahmad
by
al-Ch?r?pardi/
a Sh?fi'i student of al-Bayd?w? (d.716/1315
;
J?r?bard? (d.746/1346),
see item 5, below) who spent much of his career inTabriz.39
5. Q?di Beyziw?.
[1]. This is the Quran commentary by N?sir al
D?n Abd Allah b. cUmar al-Sh?fi'i al-Bayd?wi (d.716/1315),
entitled
Anwar
wa asr?r al-ta'wil. This

s
al-tan?l
edition of al-Zamakhshar?
amended
is effectively
"a condensed
inwhich
Kashsh?f"
and
al-Bayd?wi
Sh?r?z?,"EI2; Ali ?erbetci, "Kutbudd?n-i ??r?z?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi,

extant
For
26:487-489.
of
manuscripts
see M?B,
the work,
352
al-Ta?r,
353. This book should not be confused with the work on logic by Qutb al
D?n al-Taht?n? (d.766/1365) entided Tahrir al-dq?'id al-mantiqiyyah fi
shark
tion,
was
which
al-Shamsiyyah
and also customarily
at the
primary
studied
cited
as
level of medrese
for
d-Din;"
"Qutbu
the fact
of
educa
this
latter
work having been studied, see Izgi, OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim 164, 168-70,
172,
176
note,
al-'aq?'idzs
that
however,
Izgi
incorrectly
38. Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 3:849;

min
mufiassirin
sadr
the Tah?r
of
'?dil Nuwayhid, Mu jam al

Beirut:
al-h?dir,
1983, 670; W. Made?ung,

of
manuscripts
il? al-asr
al-isl?m
hid ai-Thaq?fiyyah,
extant
the author
gives
al-Sh?r?z?.
al-Qutb
the work,
see M?B,
Mu'assasat
Nuway
"Al-Taft?z?n?," EI2. For
al-Ta?r,
This
425-430.
work
should not be confused with the work on logic by the same author, Tahdhib
was
which
apparendy
al-mantiq,
also
and
cation,
customarily
at the
primary
studied
cited
as
"Sa\du
Medreselerinde Ilim, 164.

39. See Mehmet ?ener, "??rperd?," TDV
and
Brockelmann,
GAL,
404-405.
M?B,
mar
by
H?jib,
al-Ta?r,
the same
that was
customarily
cited
1:193.
This
For
is not
extant
d-Din;"
level of medrese
see
Islam Ansiklopedisi, 8:230-231;
manuscripts
to be confused
with
of
see
the work,
on gram
li-Ibn
al-Mufassal
and also
education
the work
'ala sharh
entided H?shiyah
author,
at the
level of the medrese
primary
as
see
"??r?perd?";
Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde
studied
Izgi,
edu
Osmanh
I lim,
169.
197
AHMED
Shahab
to
sought
content
adjust
was
that
FlLlPOVIC
and Nenad
expressive
problematically
of
al
sMu'tazili
Zamakhshar?
theology.40
on the Kashsh?f of al
is the commentary
[3]. This
'
entitled Fut?h al-ghayb fi al-kashfan qin? al-rayb by
Sharaf
al-D?n
b. Muhammad
al-T?b? al-Sh?fn
al-Husayn
a student of al-Ch?r?pardi (item 4, above). 4?
(d.743/1342),
6. Jibl
Zamakhshari
Hamza.
[1]. This is the commentary on the Anwar
of al-Bayd?w? by the Anatolian Hanafi scholar, Nur al-D?n
42
Hamzah b. Mahmud
al-Qar?m?ni (d.871/1468).
8. D?rr-i Mensur.
[4]. This is the Quran
commentary
by the
7.Mevl?n?
al-tan?l
and prolific Egyptian Sh?fn scholar, Jal?l al-D?n al-Suy?ti

entitled al-Durr al-manth?rfi
(d.911/1505),
al-ta?r bi-al-mdth?r.43
9. Qurtubi.
[1]. This is theQuran commentary by the Andalusian
b. Ahmad A-Qunubl
M?lik? scholar, Abu
'Abd Allah Muhammad
acclaimed
entitled
(d.671/1273)
40.
See J. A.
Robson,
and Works,"
EI2;
"al-Baydaw?,"
Ibrahim,
Lutpi
18 (1979)
Islamic Studies
TDV
alpkam al-quran.44
al-J?mi1fi
311-321;
Life
"Al-Baydawi's
Yusuf
?evki Yavuz,
been
6:100-103.
Al-Bayd?wi's
Ansiklopedisi,
ta?rhzs
of 1848, and
with
the Leipzig
edition
times, beginning
see Ismail
"Envar?'t
of 1880. On
the work,
edition
Cerrahoglu,
TDV Islam
for a sense of
Tenz?l ve Esrar?
t-Tevil,"
11:260-261;
Ansiklopedisi,
see the list of extant manu
in the
its prolific
circulation
period,
pre-modern
inM?B,
280-334.
scripts
al-Ta?r,
"Beyz?v?,"
41.
See
Islam
numerous
published
the Cairo
the
study
on
him
by
'Abd al-Satt?r
Zamm?t
Husayn
in his
edition
of al-T?b?, al-Tiby?n fi al-bay?n, Beirut: Dar al-J?l, 1996; and Nuwayhid,

Mu
jam
M?B,
159.
al-mufassi?n,
389-394.
For
extant
al-ghayb,
see
190; Nuwayhid, Mu jam al-mufassi?n,
42. H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n,

164-5;
43.
of Fut?h
manuscripts
al-Tafsir,
See
for extant
the
study
manuscripts
by E. M.
of
Sartain,
the work,
see M?B,
al-Din
fal?l
472-73.
al-Tafsir,
Volume
I, Biogra
al-Suyuti:
1975. The
Press,
University
Cambridge:
Cambridge
phy and Background,
Durr
with
the
Cairo
edition
of
has been published
several
times, beginning
see M?B,
extant
al
1897. For a sense of the numerous
manuscript
copies,
530-540.
Ta?r,
44.
See
Qiirtubi,
several
extant
on him
study
representative
Kuwait:
Dar
1982.
al-Qalam,
Cairo
with
the
times,
beginning
the
manuscript
copies
of
the work,
Abd
al-Rahm?n
Firt, al
by Y?suf
His
has
been
been
ta?r
published
of 1952;
for the numerous
edition
see MAB,
al-Tafsir,
261-270.
198
The Sultan's
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
10. Teysir. [1]. This is theQuran commentary entitled

al-Taysirfii
'Umar b.
al-ta?r by the Hanaf? M?tur?d?, Najm al-D?n Ab? Hafs
Ahmad
the author of the famous M?tur?d?
al-Nasafi (537/1142),45
creed known as al-Aqidah al-Nasafiyyah.46
11. Q?s?nu [1]. This is the S?fi Quran commentary of Kam?l al
D?n
b. Ahmad
'Abd al-Razz?q
al-Q?sh?n?
al-Samarqand?
entitled Tdwi??t al-quran. The work
is often incor
(d.730/1329),
to
to whose
al-D?n
Ibn
al-'Arabi
ascribed
(d.638/1240),
rectly
Muhyi
47
school
al-Q?sh?ni belonged.
mystical
12. IsfahanL
[1]. This is theQuran commentary of Shams al-Din
Ab? al-Than?' Mahmud
b. ?bd al-Rahm?n al-Isfah?ni (d.749/1349),
a scholar claimed
by both the Sh?fi'? and Hanaf? legal schools, entitled
Anw?r al-haq? 'iq al-rabb?niyyah fi ta?r al-?y?t al-quran?yyah.48
is al-J?m?al-sah?h
of al-Bukh?r?, the Hadith
Abu
Allah
b. Ism?'?l al
?bd
Muhammad
by
that acquired canonical status in Islam.49
13. Buh?ri.
[l].This
collection
compiled
(d.256/870)
14. Kirm?ni.
[3]. This
Bukh?ri
Bukh?r? by the Baghd?di
45.
For
the
see
for extant
281;
Mujam
Nuwayhid,
al-mufassi?n,
see M?B,
the work,
152-155.
al-Ta?r,
see
in Ottoman
this work
Ilk Osmanh
medreses,
Bilge,
author,
of
manuscript
copies
46. For the use of
53.
Medreseleri,
47.
See
on the Sahih of al
is the commentary
scholar Shams al-D?n Muhammad
b Y?suf
Pierre
Les Commentaires
Lory,
du
?sot?riques
Coran
Abd
d'apr?s
al
Razz?q al-Q?sh?n?, Paris: Les Deux Oc?ans, 1980. The five published edi
tions of the work, beginning with the Cairo edition of 1866, have all also
been
misascribed
to
Ibn
al-D?n
Muhyi
Institut
work,
48.
Fran?ais
see M?B,
For
the
Riyad:
Dar
work,
see M?B,
See
lished
see
1964,
For
2:483-484.
369-70.
al-Ta?r,
see Badr b. N?sir
author,
the
al-Badr,
extant
Abu
of
manuscripts
al-Than?'
al-Muslim,
J. Robson,
innumerable
2002;
the
al-Isfah?ni,
al-Ta?r,
for
extant
manuscripts
of
al-nabawi
this
unpublished
405-6.
EI2. The work

been pub
"al-Bukh?r?,"
has, of course,
of extant manuscripts,
for a list of the vast number
times;
al-Malik?
li-Buh?th
al-Had?rah
al-Majma
al-Isl?m?yyah,
al-Fihris
al-sh?mil
li-al-tur?th
al-'arabi
al-isl?mi
al-Bayt,
hadith
see
correction,
uvre d'Ibn Arabi, Damascus:
ibn Abd al-Rahm?n ibnAhmad, 1749 h, hay?tu-hu wa ta?ru-hu,
Mahmud
49.
de Damas,
For
al-'Arab?.
Osman Yahya, Histoire et Classification de l'
al-sha?f
Al al-Bayt, 1991, 493-565
wa
ul?mu-hu
wa
(hereafter,M?B,
rij?lu-hu,
Mu
assasat
al-makht?t:
Amman:
Mu
?l
al
assasat
al-Hadth).
199
Shahab
AHMED
al-Kirm?n? (d.786/1384),
and Nenad
FlLIPOVlC
entitled al-Kaw?kib
50
al-Bukh?n.
al-dur?ri ft sharh Sahih
15. ?ynL [5]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukh?r?

the
Cairene scholar, Badr al-D?n Mahmud
b. Ahmad al-'Ayn? al
by
Hanaf?
entitled
'Umdat al-q?n
sharh Sahih al
(d.855/1451),
51
Bukh?n.
16. Ibn-i Hacer.
[4]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al
Bukh?r? by al-'Ayn? s great contemporary and rival, Ahmad Ibn Hajar
entitled Path al-b?ri bi-sharh
al-'Asqal?n? al-Sh?fi'? (d.852/1448),
52
Sahih al-Bukh?n.
17.Mesabtb.
[1]. This is the Hadith collection entitled Mas?bih
Ibn
al-sunnah comprised of Hadiths selected by al-Husayn b. Mas'?d
al-Farr?' al-Baghawi al-Sh?fi'? (d.516/1122)
from earlier canonical
53
collections.
18.Zeyn?
l-'Areb. [1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih
al-sunnah of al-Baghawi by Zayn al-'Arab 'Ali b. cUbayd Allah b. Zayn
54
al-D?n (fl. 758/1357).
50.
For
see Kahh?lah,
the author,
in Cairo
published
1933-64.
For
in 25
list
of
Mu
3:784;
jam al-mu'allifin,
by Matba'at
al-Bah?yyah
volumes
the
numerous
extant
manuscripts,
the work
al-Misr?yyah,
see MAB,
al
1308-1319.
Haa?th,
For
see Kahh?lah,
Mu
3:797-798;
jam
al-mu'allifin,
in Istanbul
the work was first published
EI2;
Marc?is,
"al-Ayn?,"
in 1890.
volumes
al-'Amirah
For
the numerous
al-Tib?'ah
by Dar
see M?B,
1096-1107.
al-Haaith,
manuscripts,
are several editions
and
"Ibn Hajar,"
EI2. There
52. See F. Rosenthal,
51.
was
the
author,
W.
less reprints
of
this work,
that of T?h?
including
al-Ra?f
Abd
and
in
11
extant
count
et al,
pub
Sa'd
lished in 28 volumes byMaktabat al-Kulliy?t al-Azhar?yyah in 1978. For the

see M?B,
of extant manuscripts,
EI2. The Mas?bih
"al-Baghaw?,"
for the very
of extant
large number
number
prodigious
53. See J. Robson,
Cairo
in 1876;
al-Hadth,
al-Haaith,
was
1142-1160,
first
from
published
see MAB,
manuscripts,
1490-1507.
54. H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n,
1699; Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin,
al-Durar
Ibn Hajar
al-k?minah
al-mi'ah
al
ay?n
al-Asqal?ni,
fi
Cairo: D?r
al-Kutub
ed. Sayyid
3:152.
th?minah,
al-Hadithah,
J?d al-Haqq,
About
work
exist
in the Siiley
of this unpublished
thirty manuscript
copies
the bulk of the
is where
which
collec
maniye
library in Istanbul,
surviving
2:472.
tions
of
the Ottoman
al-Hadth,
M?B,
manuscript
1011-1013.
libraries
of
Istanbul
are
preserved;
see also
200
The Sultans
Syllabus:
A Curriculum
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
[1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih

nah of al-Baghawi by Muzhir al-D?n al-Husayn b. Mahmud
19.Muzhir.
al-sun
al-Zay
entitled al-Mafi?hfi
d?n? (d.728/1328)
hall al-Mas?kh.55
20. Menhal.
al-sun
[1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih
nah of al-Baghawi by 'Ali b. Sal?h al-D?n al-Sakh?m? (fl. 762/1361)
entitled Manhal
al-yan?bi 'fi shark al-Mas?bth.56
21. Mi?kzt-i
al-sunnah was
T?bi. [1]. Al-Baghawi's Mas?bih
b. 'AbdAllah al-Khatib al-Tib
expanded byWal? al-D?n Muhammad
r?z? (/7.737/1337)
into a work entitled Mishk?t
al-Mas?bih. The
al-Mas?bih of al
Mishk?t-i
Tib? is the commentary on theMishk?t
al-T?b?
Khat?b al-Tibrizi by Sharaf al-D?n al-Husayn b. Muhammad
see
is al
whom
item
The
title
of
the
work
for
above.
6,
(d.743/1342),
K?shifi'an haq? 'iq al-sunan.57
22. CztnVu l-us?l. [1]. This
is the Hadith collection entitled J?mi

al-us?l compiled by Ab? al-Sa'?d?t al-Mub?rak Ibn
the matns of all
al-Athir al-Jazari al-Sh?fi'i (d.606/1210)
comprising
in the following mainly canonical
contained
the Prophetic Hadith
al-us?l
li-ah?dith
of M?lik b. Anas,
collections, but omitting the isn?ds: theMuwatta!
of
the Sahih of al-Bukh?ri, the Sahih
the J?mi of al-Tir
Muslim,
58
midh?, the Sunan of al-Nas?'i, and the Sunan of Abu D?'?d.
55. For the author, seeKahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 1:643; H?jj? Khal?
fah, Kashf
1699.
al-zun?n,
Thirteen
manuscript
of
copies
this unpublished
work exist in the Siileymaniye library in Istanbul; see alsoM?B,

1546-47.
see Kahh?lah,
the author,
56. For
Mu
seeH?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n,

makn?nfi
ala Kashf
al-dhayl
jam
l-A'bl',
al-mu'allifin,
al-Hadith,
for
the work,
1701; Bagdatli Ism?'?l Pa?a, ?d?h al

an
al-zun?n
as? mi
al-kutub
wa
ed.
al-fun?n,
?erefettin Yaltkaya and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi,
1945, 2:490. Three copies of this unpublished work exist in the Siileymaniye
and
library,
see M?B,
six worldwide;
only
apparently
al-Hadith,
1629.
57. SeeH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1700; thework was published by the
Id?rat
copies
manuscript
1257-59.
See
58.
wa
al-Qur'?n
F. Rosenthal,
in 1993.
Karachi,
see also M?B,
library;
al-'Ul?m
exist
al-Isl?miyyah,
in the Siileymaniye
"Ibn
al-Ath?r,"
EI2.
For
the work,
see
H?jj?
About
fifty
al-Hadith,
Khalifah,
Kashf al-zun?n, 535-537, andM. M. Azami, Studies inHadith Methodology

and Literature,
Ath?r
does
not
Indianapolis:
cite variances
American
in common
Trust
Publications,
matnsr,
in such
1977,
instances
112.
he
Ibn al
follows
201
AHMED
Shahab
FiLIPOVic
and Nenad
compiled
the Hadith collection

[1]. This is the Sahih Muslim,
Muslim
b.
that acquired
by
Hajj?j al-Nays?b?ri (d.259/874)
canonical
status.
23. Muslim.
59
24. ?erh-i Miislim-i

l-Nevevi. [1]. This is the commentary on the
Sahih of Muslim entitled al-Minh?j fi sharh Sahih Muslim b Hajj?j by
Yahy? b. Sharaf al-Nawawi (d.676/1277), a Sh?fn scholar of Damascus.60
of
25. Hid?ya.
[1]. This is al-Hid?yah fi al-fur?* a compendium
law by Burh?n al-D?n Ali b. Abi
61
(d.593/1197).
Al-Marghin?ni wrote the work
his own Bid?yat al-mubtadi\ which was, in turn,
tant early works of Hanafi law, the fundamental
Hanaf?
Muhammad
b. al-Hasan al-Shayb?ni
b. Muhammad
al-Qud?ri
of Ahmad
Bakr al-Marghin?ni
as a commentary on
based on two impor
(d.187/805)62
al-J? m? al-saghir of
and al-Mukhtasar
(d.428/1037).63
al-Baghd?di
either al-Bukh?r? or Muslim. The J?mi' al-us?l was edited by Muhammad

Hamid al-Fiq? and published from Cairo in 12 volumes byMatba at al-Sun
nah
script
For
1949-53.
al-Muhammadiyyah,
see MAB,
copies,
a list of
extant
the numerous
manu
484-491.
al-Hadith,
59. See G. H. A. Juynboll, "Muslim IbnHadjdj?j," EI2. This work has, of

been
times.
For
the very
innumerable
published
see M?B,
574-590.
al-Hadith,
manuscripts,
see Kahh?lah,
For
Mu jam
the author,
al-mu'allifin,
course,
large
number
of
4:98.
There
are
extant
60.
several
umes).
such
editions,
published
For the
of
number
large
as Cairo:
extant
Matbaat
1930
(18 vol
Hij?zi,
see MAB,
al-Hadith,
manuscripts,
1613-1624.
61.
See W.
Heffening,
Y. Meron,
EI2,
"al-Marghin?ni,"
al-Wafa'
al-Jaw?hir
al-Ma?rif
al-Qurashi,
D?'irat
Hyderabad:
fi
al-mudiyyah
al-'Uthm?n?yyah,
His
"Margh?n?n?,
and His Legacy," Islamic Law and Society 9 (2002), 410-416;
Method
IbnAbi
tabaq?t
al-Hanafiyyah,
For
2:204-206.
1915,
the
work and a long list of the commentaries thereon, seeH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf
al-zun?n,
2031-2040;
Kallek,
Cengiz
of the Hiaayah
text
The
17:471-473.
"el-Hidaye,"
has been
TDV
Islam
published
Ansiklopedisi,
numerous
times,
beginning with the Calcutta lithograph of 1833-37, and the Cairo edition of
1908.
It was
nor-General
India.
North
translated
62.
this work
For
and
561-64.
1631-1634.
its numerous
It was
Karachi,
Isl?m?yyah,
and
63. For this work
al-zun?n,
in
Mughal
see Brock
a
partial
S.I: 344-45.
GAL,
al-zun?n,
of Gover
of
For
elmann,
as
as 1791 at the order
English
early
on account
of its importance
Bengal,
extant
list of the numerous
manuscripts,
into
and Council
published
in 1987.
its numerous
It was
first
commentaries,
by
Id?rat
commentaries,
published
see
H?jji
al-Qur'?n
see
in Bombay
Khalifah,
wa
al-'Ul?m
Khalifah,
H?jji
in 1885.
Kashf
al
Kashf
202
The Sultan's
Syllabus:
A Curriculum
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
of al
26. Nih?ya.
[1]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah
entitled
Marghin?ni
al-Nih?yah fi fur? 'al-fiqh al-Hanafi composed by
Hus?m al-D?n Husayn b. 'Ali al-Sighn?q? (d.711/1311),
who was a
student of another author in this syllabus, Hafiz al-D?n al-Nasafi (see
M
item 29, below).
27. G?yet? l-bey?n. [3]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah
entitled Gh?yat al-bay?n wa n?dirat al-aqr?n by
of al-Marghin?ni
al-D?n Am?r K?tib b. Am?r 'Umar al-Itqan? (d.758/1356),
Qiw?m
who taught in Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo.65
is the commentary on the Hid?yah
28. EkmeL
of al
[1]. This
b.
Akmal
al-D?n
Muhammad
Mahmud
al-B?bart?
Margh?n?n? by
entitled al-Tn?yahfi sharh al-Hid?yah. Al-B?barti was a
(d.786/1384),
student of Shams al-D?n al-Isfah?ni who spent much of his career in
Cairo.66
are
64. There
two other
commentaries
on
the Hid?yah
that bear
the
title al
Nih?yah. One of these isNih?yat al-kifiyah fi dir?yat al-hid?yah by 'Umar b.

Sadr al-Shari ah al-Awwal (d.672/1273), for which seeH?jji Khalifah, Kashf
al-zun?n, 2033, and Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 48; and the other al
Nih?yah by Badr al-D?n al-'Ayn? (d.855/1451; seeH?jji Khalifah, Kashf al
zun?n,
2034)
who
is the author
in item
15, above.
However,
only
two
copies
of the first work and four of the second exist in the Siileymaniye library,while
there are twelve copies in the Siileymaniye of theNih?yah of al-Sighn?qi,
which
is also
the first
of
the numerous
commentaries
on
the Hid?yah
cited
by H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 2032. H?jji Khalifah identifies al-Sigh

n?qi as al-Marghin?ni s student (this is followed by Kahh?lah, Mu jam al
mu'allifin, 2:623) but the disparity in their death dates makes this highly
unlikely. See the study of al-Sighn?qi by Fakhr al-Din Sayyid Muhammad
Q?nit, in his edition of al-Sighn?qi, al-K?fi bi-sharh al-Bazdawi, Riyad:
Maktabat al-Rushd, 2001, 1:38-80 (the present work is cited at 70).
65. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 1:398; and Ahmet
Akgiindiiz, "Itk?n?," TDVIslam Ansiklopedisi, 23:464-465. There are about
twelve manuscript
copies
of
this work
extant
in the
Siileymaniye
library;
see
also al-Majma' al-Maliki li-Buh?th al-Had?rah al-Isl?miyyah, Mu assasatAl

al-Fihris
al-sh?mil
li-al-tur?th
al-araU
al-isl?nu
al-makht?t:
al-Bayt,
al-fiqh
wa us?lu-hu,
assasat ?1
Amman:
Mu
6:368-381
1999-ongoing,
al-Bayt,
(hereafter,
M?B,
al-Fiqh).
66. See the study of him by Muhammad Mustafa Ramadan Sufayh in his
introduction to his edition of al-B?barti, Sharh al-Talkf?s, Tarablus, 1980;
also Arif Aytekin, "B?bert?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 4:377-378. For the
work, see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 2034; it was lithographed in
203
Shahab
FiLIPOVIC
and Nenad
AHMED
is the commentary
authored in Cairo by
29. ZeyleX.
[1]. This
on the com
Fakhr al-D?n 'Uthm?n b. 'Ali al-Zayla'? (d.743/1342)
pendium of Hanaf? law entitled Kanz al-daq?'iq fi Jur?al-Hanafiyyah
al-Nasafi
al-D?n Ab? al-Barak?t 'Abd Allah b. Ahmad
by Hafiz
(d.711/1310).
AJ-Zayla'i entitled his commentary Tabyin al-haq? 'iq.67
is the collection
of legal opinions
30. Q?d? H?n.
[1]. This
Hasan
b.
Mans?r
Fakhr
al-Din
of
the
Hanafi
jurist
al-Izjandi
[fiat?wa)
known as the Fat?w?
(d.592/1196),
al-Fargh?ni Q?'dikh?n/Qazikh?n
Q?dikh?myyab/Qazikh?niyyah.68
is the collection
31. Hul?sa.
[1]. This
Hanafi jurist Iftikh?r al-Din T?hir b. Ahmad
of legal opinions of the

al-Bukh?r? (d.543/1147)
entitled Khul?sat
al-fat?w?.69
32. Q?m?s.
[1]. This is the Arabic dictionary entitled al-Q?m?s
al-muhit wa al-q?b?s al-wasit al-j?mV li-m? dhahaba min kal?m al
b.
arab sham?tit by the widely-travelled
Majd al-Din Muhammad
al-Fir?z?b?di
(d.817/1414).70
Yaq?b
in 1830-37.
Calcutta
are about
There
see further,
library;
Siileymaniye
see Kahh?lah,
67. For the author,
see
Khalifah,
H?jj?
copies of this work
2:242-261.
68.
For
Wara\
the
manuscript
copies
6:300-320.
al-Fiqh
fifty
extant
in the
For the work,

2:365.
al-mu'allifin,
are about
There
sixty manuscript
see also, MAB,
in the Siileymaniye
library;
al-Fiqh,
see Kahh?lah,
al-Jaw?hir
Mu
jam
1515.
al-zun?n
Kashf
extant
author,
MAB,
al-mudiyyah,
Mu
jam
al-mu'allifin,
and Ahmet
1:326-327;
1:594,
Ibn Abi
?zel,
"K?d?h?n",
al
TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 24:121-123. The work has been published several
times
with
beginning
the
19th century
edition
from
al-Matbaah
n?yyah inCairo; see alsoH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n,

a
partial
69. For
Wafa\
list of extant
the
manuscripts,
see Kahh?lah,
author,
al-Jaw?hir
al-mudiyyah,
see Brockelmann,
Mujam
M.
2:10-11;
GAL,
al-mu'allifin,
Esat Kili?er,
al-Maym?
1227-1228; and for

S.1:643-44.
2:9;
Ihn Abi
"Buh?r?,
al
T?hir
b.
Ahmed," TDV I slamAnsiklopedisi, 6:376. The work was recently published

in Quetta
al-Maktabah
by
Khalifah,
Kashf
extant
H?jj?
of this work
al-R?shid?yyah,
718. There
al-zun?n,
in the Siileymaniye
2002;
see also
library;
in
the description
are about
fifty manuscript
see further MAB,
copies
al-Fiqh,
3:1031-1045.
70.
For
the author,
3:777;
al-mu'allifin,
1310. Al-Q?m?s
H.
and Kahh?lah,
"al-Fir?z?b?di,"
EI2,
Mujam
see
1306
Khalifah,
al-zun?n,
H?jj?
Kashf
numerous
has been
times,
published
beginning
Fleisch,
for
al-muhit
the work,
with the Calcutta edition of 1817, and the B?l?q edition of 1865.
204
The Sultan's
A Curriculum
Syllabus:
for
the Ottoman
medreses
Imperial
[1]. This is the Arabic dictionary by Ism?'?l b. Ham

entitled al-Sih?bfi al-lughah.n
m?d al-Jawhari al-F?r?bi (d.393/1003)
34. Tacil l-esttuV. [1]. This would appear to be the dictionary
'
entitled T?j al-asm? fi al-lughah of which H?jji Khalifah says "col
lected in it are the Kit?b al-asm? 'of al-Zamakhshar?,72 the Kit?b al
33. Cevheri.
s?mi of al-Mayd?ni,73 and the Sih?h of al-Jawhari [item 33 above],

to the arrangement of the Sih?h" H?jji Khalifah
arranged according
not
does
copies
identify the compiler of the work, two unattributed
of which appear to be extant in the Siileymaniye
library.74 Brockel
reports a further Siileymaniye
attributed to an unidentifiable Nur
mann
to examine
unable
this
to
manuscript
manuscript work of this title

Allah al-Halab?, but we were
it to
compare
the
other
two.75
is al-Tawdih fi hall ghaw?mid al-Tanqih by

Sadr al-Shari'ah al-Th?ni 'Ubayd Allah b. Mas ud al-Mahb?b? al
a commentary on the authors own work on
Bukh?r? (d.747/1346),
Hanafi
jurisprudence entitled al-Tancph fi al-us?l.76
36. Tel?h.
[1]. This is the commentary on the Tancjih al-us?l of
Sadr al-Shar?'ah al-Bukh?r? by Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389
;
[1]. This
35. Tevzth.
71.
For
see L.
Kopf,
the author,
EI2,
"al-Djawhari,"
and Kahh?lah,
Mujam
al-mu'allifin, 1:362; for the work, seeH?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1071
1073. The Sih?h has been published numerous times beginning with the
B?l?q edition of 1865.
Kit?b
72. The
seems
al-asm?'
to be now
of
(for whom
al-Zamakhshar?
see
item
1, above)
lost.
73. This is the Kit?b al-s?mi fi al-as?mt by Ahmad b. Muhammad al-May

d?ni al-Nays?b?ri (d. 518/1124) for whom see Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'al
lifin,
1:240.
For
extant
manuscript
copies
of the work
see GAL,
S.1:506-507.
74. See H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 268. These are MS Kadizade
Mehmet 526, andMS Yeni Cami 1122, copied in 898 and 964 respectively;
that
is to say, before
the date
of
the
pr?senterai?.
75. This isMS Siileymaniye 811; see GAL, S.II:924.

76. For the author, see Brockelmann, GAL, S.IL300; and IbnQutlubughah,
T?j al-tar?jim fi tabaq?t al-Hanafiyyah, ed. Gustav Fluegel, Leipzig: Brock
haus,
1862,
168.
For
the
Tancfih
and
the numerous
commentaries
thereon,
seeH?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496-499. Al-Tawdih fi hall ghaw?mid

al-Tancph was first published in Cairo by al-Maktabah al-Khayriyyah in
1904-1906;
about
fifty
library; see further,M?B,
manuscript
copies
are
extant
in
the
Siileymaniye
al-Fiqh, 2:918-942.
205
Shahab
and Nenad
Ahmed
FlLIPOViC
see item 3, above), entitled al-Talwih

fi kashf haq? 'iqal-Tanqih. H?jji
(d. 1067/165 7) describes this work as "sought after by every
77
student in the field."
Khalifah
37. Hasan
?elebt.
b. Muhammad
[1]. This is the supercommentary

by Hasan
on al-Taft?z?nis
Sh?h al-Fan?ri (d.886/1482)
?eleb?
al? al-Talwih sharh al-TancphJ*
Talwih, called simply H?shiyah
is the work of Hanafi
38. Pezdevi.
[1]. This
jurisprudence by
Fakhr al-Isl?m 'Ali b. Muhammad
al-Pazdawi (d.482/1089)
entitled
al-Us?l.79
39. Ke?f.
on the Us?l of al-Pazdawi

is the commentary
'Ala' al-Din
'Abd al-'Aziz b. Ahmad al
spent his career inTransoxania.81
This
entitled Kashf al-asr?r by

Bukh?r? (d.730/1330),
who
and conclusions
Analysis
We
now
may
proceed
an
to
of
analysis
the
of
curriculum
the
This analysis is broadly aimed, firstly, ar answering
med?ris-i H?q?niye.
77. H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496. This work was first published
Cairo
copies
in 1904-1906;
by al-Maktabah
al-Khayriyyah
are extant
in the
Siileymaniye
library,
also
about
manuscript
2:771
fifty
see MAB,
in
al-Fiqh,
790. It is incorrectly identified by Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 50, as being

a commentary
Sharaf al-Din
For
78.
on
the
Tanqih
b. al-Hasan
al-ahaath
see Kahh?lah,
author,
"Hasan
Akpinar,
the
Ahmad
?elebi,
Fen?r?,"
fi
aJ-Hanafi
raf
of
al-ahd?th
al-tayammum
(d.771/1369).
Mujam
al-muallifin,
TDV Islam
Ansiklopedisi,
544;
and
16:312-315;
Cemil
for the
work, seeH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496. Itwas first published inCairo by
in 1904-1906;
about
al-Khayriyyah
thirty manuscript
copies
see further MAB,
in the Siileymaniye
3:382-387.
library;
al-Fiqh,
For the author, Kahh?lah,
for the work,
2:501;
Mujam
al-mu'allifin,
al-Maktabah
are
extant
79.
see
H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?7t, 112-113. This was first published in Istan
bul in 1890.
80.
In the
to
indicate
8.1. On
Wafa',
Buh?r?,"
there
document,
original
of volumes.
the number
see Kahh?lah,
the author,
al-faw?hir
al-mudiyyah,
TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi,
lifah, Kashf
al-Pazdawi,
al-zun?n,
in Istanbul
the Siileymaniye
112. This
in 1890.
is no numeral
Mujam
2:96-97;
al-mu'allifin,
and Fahrettin
1:186-187.
was
There
first
written
On
under
this citation
Ibn Abi
2:157-58;
Atar,
the work,
al
el
"Abd?laz?z
see
published,
along with
are about
fifty manuscript
Kha
H?jj?
the Us?lo?
copies
library.
206
in
The Sultans
the Ottoman
for
Imperial
medreses
the question of what, if anything, the curriculum tells us about the

official identity of Ottoman
Islam, and secondly at identifying what,
if anything, the curriculum tells us about the historical development
of Islamic scholarly traditions.
The thirty-nine titles in the curriculum of the med?ris-i H?q?niye
fall in the following subject areas: twelve works of tafsir (Quranic exe
five works of legal theory (jurispru
gesis), twelve works of Hadith,
seven
us?l
of positive law (fur? al-fiqh) ? mak
works
dence,
al-fiqh),
lexicons. It is
ing twelve works of fiiqh in total, and three Arabic
jects,
that
notable
immediately
as
such
or
syntax
grammar,
are no
there
books
and
logic,
on
no
any
books
preparatory
on
subjects
sub
that
to have formed a part of the intermediate level of the medrese

such as theology. Thus, the content of the curriculum
curriculum,
as the
confirms our initial identification of the med?ris-i H?q?niye
we know
highest grade in the medrese hierarchy, the present syllabus being very
much a course of advanced study that is undertaken after all prepara
82
tory subjects have been completed. Certainly, the fifty-five volumes
of the syllabus would have amounted to a rigorous and demanding
course of study that provided a
thorough exposure to the fields of
and
Hanafi
H?dith,
ta?r,
fitqh.
In considering
the tafsir works in the syllabus, the most striking
feature is the centrality to the curriculum of the Quran commentary
of JarAllah al-Zamakhshari
the Kasbsb?fi Of the eleven
(d.538/1144),
in some form or another,
than
the
other
derive,
ta?rs
Kashsh?fi eight
from that work ? and even the remaining three are chronologically
It should
82.
are
works
be noted
somewhat
here
that
the volume
For
puzzling.
numbers
example,
the J?mi'
for
given
al-ahk?m
tubi (item 7) is given as being in just one volume, when

too
for
long
that
certainly
no
existing
copy
manuscript
in a single tome (seeM?B, al-Ta?r, 261-270). This

ta?r of Shams al-D?n al-Isfah?n? (item 12;M?B,
be
may
to
that
the numerals
written
under
the citations
some
of
of
al-Qur
the work
seems
the
ismuch
to be bound
is also the case with the

al-Ta?r, 405-406). It
in the document
refer
other
than the number
of volumes,
but the latter understand
something
consonant
It is more
is
with
conventional
likely that the scribe
ing
practice.
to the number
cases and wrote
in some
of volumes
did not pay attention
concern
the evident
them
but it is also hard to square this with
incorrecdy
for
tallying
that
appears
the volumes
after
reflected
in the remark,
"Together
they
are
fifty-five,"
the citations.
207
Shahab
AHMED
FlLIPOVIC
and Nenad
to it,
was regarded in the
subsequent
indicating, perhaps, that it
as
in the history of
Ottoman
of
watershed
academy
something
The
the
inclusion
of
the syllabus is on
Quranic
exegesis.
Kashsh?fim
like the
the one hand unsurprising:
al-Zamakhshari was himself,
a
a
Ottomans,
Turk, while the
by legal school Hanafi, and by ethnicity
to
in
accorded
the
the centuries
widespread
recognition
Kashsh?f
between
its production
of the present syllabus

and the promulgation
in the fact that about a hundred complete manuscript
copies of the work still survive from that initial period of 550
83
95OH.
However, the fact that theKashsh?fiwzs not merely one tafsir
is reflected
in the
but was
syllabus,
chosen
in the Ottoman
tary
Zamakhshari
as
the
fundamental
Quran
is remarkable
curriculum
commen
in view
of
al
was a
problematic theological identity: al-Zamakhshari
Mu'tazil?84 and in the Sunni world of the 10th/l6rh century, Mu'tazil
ism was overwhelmingly
considered to be beyond the pale of legiti
an
mate belief. Indeed, the
"outspo
Kashsh?f, which has been called
85
was
seen
ken Mu'tazili book"
by non-Mu'tazilis as brilliant
generally
in its linguistic and rhetorical exposition of the Quran, but as theo
86
It is for this reason that the authors of
logically flawed and suspect.
the
commentaries
on
the
Kashsh?f
that
are
on
the
present
syllabus
al-Shir?zi
al-Din
Sa'd
al-Taft?z?ni
(d.710/1311),
al-Qutb
Fakhr
al-Din
and Sharaf
(d.791/1389),
al-Ch?r?pardi (d.746/1346),
to
correct
al
al-D?n al-Tibi
(d.743/1342)
regularly interject
more
Zamakhshari's
distinctively Mu'tazili
interpretations, while the
as noted earlier, is effectively "a
of
(d.716/1315),
al-Bayd?wi
tafsir
87
in
condensed and amended edition of al-Zamakhshari's Kashsh?f
which al-Bayd?wi reworked content that was problematically
expres
to
sive of al-Zamakhshari's Mu'tazili
theology
bring it into line with
83.
See MAB,
84. On
Madelung,
U.E.A.I.
lamisants,
al-Ta?r,
al-Zamakhshari's
"The Theology
1984),
(Malaga,
1986, 484-495,
155-166.
catholic Mu'tazilism,"
based,
"broadly
of al-Zamakhshari,"
Actas DelXII
Madrid:
Union
Europ?enne
see Wilferd
de la
Congreso
et d'Is
d'Arabisants
at 495.
of al-Zamakhshari,"
"The Theology
85. Madelung,
485.
on the
86. See the opinions
of scholars
Kashsh?f
gathered
wa
Beirut: Dar
al-Dhahabi,
Husayn
al-Ta?r
al-mufassir?n,
by Muhammad
al-Qalam,
n.d.,
?:435-442.
87.
J.A.Robson,
"al-Bayd?wi,"
EI2.
208
The Sultan's
the Ottoman
for
medreses
Imperial
88
(it is probably for this reason that al-Bayd?wi s

to outstrip
that of al
tafiir came, by the 12th/18th century,
in circulation and standing).89 The fact that the com
Zamakhshari
mentaries on the Kashsh?f do not merely explicate, but often disagree
with the text would presumably have also served to expose students to
in exegesis. Something similar might have
the dialectics of disputation
Ashari
formulations
been
of the tafsir of Shams
by the inclusion
achieved
al-Din
al
88. See the studies by Lupti Ibrahim, "The Concept of Divine Justice according
to al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi," Hamdard Islamicus 3A (Spring 1980) 3
17; "The Place of Intercession in the Theology of al-Zamakhshari and al
Isl?micas
Hamdard
Baydawi,"
the Attributes
of God
between
4.3
(Autumn
"Discussions
3-9;
1981)
al-Zamakhshari
and
about
Hamdard
al-Baydawi,"
Islamicus 5.4 (Winter 1982) 3-23; and "AComparative Study of theViews of

and
az-Zamakhshari
about
al-Baydawi
the
Position
of
the Grave
Sinner,"
Islamic Studies 29 (1982)55-73.

89. An examination of Izgi s lists of books reveals that the Kashsh?f was
studied by Ta?kopriz?de a few decades before the promulgation of the pres
ent
curriculum
does
Koshsh?fthat
(in addition,
not appear
a commentary
taught
Tagk?priz?de
in the present
curriculum,
on
the
that of al-Sharif
al
Jurj?ni), by Seyyid Feyzull?h Efendi in the second half of the 11th/17thcen

(along with
tury
unnamed
and
commentaries),
in the sec
by Nebiefendiz?de
ond half of the 12*718* century. Al-Bayd?wi s Anw?r al-tan?l appears in

many more of Izgi s book lists, beginning with Ta?k?priz?de, but especially
in those
from
the
and
11th/17th
12th/18th
centuries,
the anonymous
namely:
llth/17th century author of Izgi s Cetvel 7, H?jji Khalifah (d. 1067/1658),

Ish?q al-Toqadi (d. 1100/1689), Seyyid Feyzull?h Efendi (d. 1115/1703),
Nebiefendiz?de
(d.1200/1785), Bursali Ismail Haqqi (d. 1037/1725), the
Kev?kib-i seba (written 1155/1741)- which describes it as the "furthest goal
and highest purpose of the science of ta?r [maqsad-i aqs? ve matlab-i a( l?
o?an 'ilm-i te?r-i ?erif\," and Erzir?mli Ibrahim Haqqi
(d. 1194/1780)
who describes it as the "peak [nih?yet]" of the study of the science of ta?r,
see
Izgi, Osmanh
I Urn,
Medreselerinde
1:163-176.
For
the
12th/18th
see Madeleine
century,
Zilfi,
"A medrese
for
the
of al
importance
Bayd?wi s ta?r in the scholarly debates held in the Ottoman
palace in the
Ottoman
Palace:
Dynastic Legitimation in the Eighteenth Century", Journal of theAmerican

Oriental Society113 (1993), 184-191, at 186-187; for the performance of al
Bayd?wi
Mouradgea
in
ceremonies
ta?r
public
Tableau
General
d'Ohsson,
primerie de Monsieur
there
are many
of theKashsh?f
more
Firmin Didot,
extant
seeM?B,
manuscripts
in
de
12th/18th
l'Empire
century
Istanbul,
Othoman,
Paris:
1788-1824, 7 vols, 2:468-469.

of the Anw?r
al-Ta?r, 280-334
al-tanzi
I than
see
L'Im
In all,
there
are
and 155-188, respectively.
209
FlLlPOVIC
and Nenad
AHMED
Shahab
on the
Isfah?ni (d.749/1349)
who based his commentary
Kashsh?f
on
Fakhr
scholar
al-D?n
Ashar?
of
the
Sh?fi'i
and
theMafi?h
al-ghayb
al-R?zi (d.606/1210),
the latter work being characterized by an "anti
stance.90
Mu'tazili"
commentaries
themselves,
all Ash
doctrinal
at
l?m,
is further
It
selected
least
as far
their
and
theology
indicates
of the ?eyhulis
are concerned.
exegesis
the
the Ottomans
presence
on the part of the department
inclusiveness
of
authors
unlike
not M?turidis
and
aris,
the
that
noteworthy
on the
Kashsh?f'were,
this
Doubtless,
the fact that these works were all authored during the
8th century H, a time when the fundamental doctrines of Ashar? and
91
M?tur?d? theology coalesced in a significant degree
(it is a pity that
our document does not list the works prescribed for the study of theo
has to do with
logy at the middle

analysis,
But in the final
levels of the medrese curriculum).92
it is evident
that
to be of such brilliance
al-Zamakhshari
that itwas made
was
commentary
deemed
text in the
the fundamental
itsMu'tazili con
tafsir curriculum of the med?ris-i H?q?niye despite
tent ? and despite the availability of a long tafsir by as important a
whose
M?turid? as Najm al-D?n Abu al-Hafs al-Nasafi (d.537/1142)
was included in the syllabus, but not as the foun
al-Taysirfi al-ta?r
text.
dational
The Kashsh?f \s very much a ta?r bi-al-ra'y ? that is, an exegesis

engagement with the
arising from rhe authors direct hermeneutical
text of the Quran. The syllabus also includes one work that is a tafsir
-
hi-al-math?r
from
reports
earlier
is
which
commentary
commentaries.
Quran
essentially
of
comprised
is al-Durr
This
al-manth?r
scholar,
Jal?l al-D?n
al-Suy?ti
Egyptian
is
of
from several ta?rs
made
drawn
(d. 911/1505),
up
reports
compiled in the first four centuries of Islam, occasionally accompa
nied by al-Suy?ti s own interjections. The presence of this work makes
available to the students a broad range of the early Islamic exegetical
of
the
acclaimed
which
fact that al-Suy?ti died only sixty years before the

was
drawn up is expressive not only of how swiftly he
present syllabus
tradition. The
90.
See McAuliffe,
91. On
Turks,"
1968,
92. On
Quranic
Christians,
this, seeWilferd Madelung,

in Actas
Leiden:
theology
do IV Congresso
1971,
E.J.Brill,
works
taught
at 69.
63-71,
"The Spread of M?tur?dism
de Estudos
109-168,
in medreses,
Arabes
e Isl?micos,
and the
Coimbra-Lisboa
at 166.
see
Yazicioglu,
Le kal?m
et son r?le,
54-65.
210
The Sultan's
became
recognized
receptiveness
of
for
the Ottoman
as a scholar of historic
canon
the Ottoman
Imperial
standing,
to new
works.
medreses
but also of the

He
is the most
recent author
included in the canon.

The Kashsh?f is also not primarily a legally-oriented commentary,
and the authors of the curriculum seem to have acknowledged
this by
including on the list al-J?m? fi ah kam al-qur*?n of al-Qurtubi
Given, as we will see below, that all the law books on
(d.671/1273).
the list are by Hanafis,
it is noteworthy
that al-Qurtubi was aM?liki.
choice of al-Qurtubi s ta?r was probably influenced by the fact
that it is the longest and least partisan of the legally-oriented Quran
The
commentaries:
includes the arguments of the different

al-Qurtubi
in
his
schools
commentary, and sometimes aligns himself with
legal
other than the M?liki position.93
The fact that the creators of the curriculum should have made a
point of including a S?fi ta?r is certainly striking, as it indicates that
the study of S?fi hermeneutics was considered a necessary part of the
education of the mid-10th/16th
century representatives of official
Ottoman
Islam. That the work in question should be that of a fol
lower of the thought of Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Arabi - Abd
al-Razz?q
(d.730/1329)
al-Q?sh?nis
commentary, as noted above, has histori
? is also
the
cally been ascribed to Ibn al-Arabi
significant. Despite
some
mixed
of
in
Ibn
al-Arabi
of
the
Arab
very
world,
reception
parts
state. Thus, Ibn al-Arabi s tomb
he was venerated by the Ottoman
was restored by S?leymans
father, Yavuz I Selim, his orthodoxy
affirmed in a famous fativ? by Selim s Kadiasker of Anatolia, Kemal
pa?az?de (who went on to become the second ?eyhulisl?m of S?ley
medreses.94 It is note
m?n), and his works taught in the Ottoman
worth
that Eb? s-Su??d in his correspondence with S?leym?n invokes

Ibn al-Arabi as an authority.95 Finally, it should be noted that the syl
labus contains no work of ulum al-quranthe sciences of theQuran;
93.
See
al-Dhahabi,
al-Ta?r
wa
al-mufassi?n,
2:503-506.
94. See the entry by A.Ate?, "Ibn al-Arab?, Muhyi al-D?n," EI2; and
H?seyin Atay, "Ilmi Bir Tenkit ?rnegi Olarak Ibn Kem?l Pa?anin Muhyid
din B. Arabi Hakkinda Fetvasi," in S. Hayri Bolay, Bahaeddin Yediyildiz and
Mustafa Sait Yezicioglu
(eds.), Tokat Valiligi ?eyhulisl?m Ibn Kem?l
Arastirma Merkezinin Tertip Ettigi ?eyhulisl?m Ibn Kem?l Sempozyumu
Tebligler ve Tarttsmalar (Tokat 26-29 Haziran 1985), Ankara: T?rkiye
Diyanet Vakfi Yayinlan, 1986, 263-275. Mustafa Tahrali, "AGeneral Outline
of the Influence of IbnArabi on theOttoman Era," Journal of theMuhyiddin
211
Shahab
AHMED
FlLIPOVIC
and Nenad
this subject might have already been taken by students at the interme
diate level, but there is no documentary
confirmation of this.
The second subject covered in the syllabus isHadith. Here, the
first point to be noted is that only two of the canonical Hadith col
lections are included in their entirety: the respective Sahihs of al
Bukh?r? (d.256/870)
and Muslim
(d.259/874). The other collections
within
the
of
Ibn al-Ath?r (d.606/1210)
al-us?l
which,
J?mi'
appear
as noted before, comprises the matns of all the Hadiths
contained in
al-Nas?'i (d.303/915),
al-Tirmidhi
al-Bukh?ri, Muslim,
(d.279/892),
the
Abu D?w?d
Muwatta
of
M?lik
and
(d.179/795),
(d.275/888),
on the Sahihs of al
but omits the isn?ds. Three long commentaries
are prescribed, but none
Bukh?ri, and one on the Sahihs of Muslim
on any of the other collections. Clearly, the Sahihs of al-Bukh?r? and
were
Muslim
viewed
of
the makers
by
the
Ottoman
present
curricu
It is inter
lum as of superior utility to the other Hadith collections.96
commentaries
of
Badr
that
the
both
al-Din
respective
al-Ayni
esting
and Ibn Hajar al-Asqal?ni (d.852/1448)
(d.855/1451)
appear in the
syllabus, given that these two scholars were known for the disagree
ments
between
to
commentaries
their
the
that
point
Ibn
Hajar
authored a polemic directed specifically against al-Ayni s sharh of al

97The other
Bukh?ri.
Hadith work that appears in full, along with
Ibn Arabi
Society
the perhaps
26
overly
42-54,
(1999),
Arabo-centric
provides
focus
of
an
the
to
counterbalance
important
of
reception-history
Ibn
al
Arabi presented inAlexander Knysh, Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition:
TheMaking of a Polemical Image in Islam, Albany: State University of New
York
Press,
95.
For Eb?
1999.
s-Su ?d's
citation
of
Ibn
in his
al-Arabi
with
correspondence
S?leym?n, prefaced by the phrase ?eyhMuhyi d-Din-i Arehi naqlider-kih, see

Mecm?d-i MeyB, MS Gazi Husrev Beg, I 2012, 75a.
96. Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/1561), writing a few decades prior to the promulga
tion of the present
says that
curriculum,
theMifi?h /h?rte, and d?hil/altmish

written
about
two
centuries
by Ziy?'u d-Din Ahisqavi

Hadith
collections
Medreselerinde
Ilim
are
the Sahihs
in 1155/1741,
later,
(d. 1218/1803),
studied
1:170-71,
166,
of Bukh?ri
was
studied
in
(60 aq?e) medreses. In theKev?kib-i seb'a,

and
in the curriculum
given
it is stated that all six canonical
in
the
medreses.
and
173,
respectively.
See
Izgi,
Osmanh
97. IbnHajar, Intiq?d al-i'tir?d fi al-radd al? al-Ayni fi sharh al-Bukh?n,

ed. Hamd? b.Abd al-Maj?d al-Salaf? and Subh? b. J?sim al-S?marr?'i, Riyad:
Maktabat
bridge,
al-Rushd,
Academic
1993;
Rivalry
on
and
see Anne
their professional
Broad
rivalry,
in
the Patronage
System
Fifteenth-Century
212
The Sultan's
three
commentaries,
which
(d.516/1122),
for
the Ottoman
is the Mas?bih
contains Hadith
Imperial
al-sunnah
selected
of
from
medreses
al-Baghawi
the canonical
collections
and arranged by subject matter.98 The last Hadith work

from the Mas?bih
of
al-sunnah, being a commentary
on the
Sharaf al-Din al-Tibi (d.743/1342)
Mas?
the
of
b?h
expansion
It is noteworthy
that no
by Wal? al-D?n al-Tibriz? {fil. 737/1337).
works are prescribed that deal with the ul?m al-hadith, or method
also derives
itmay well
ological sciences of Hadith. As with the ul?m al-quran,
be that this subject was studied at the intermediate level ; but itmay
also be the case that the subject was considered to be dealt with suffi
on the syllabus.
ciently in the US?I al-fiqh works
All twelve legal works in the curriculum deal with Hanafi
law,
courts
the official legal rite of the Ottoman
While
the
of
empire.
the Ottoman
legal system did, of course, have sitting judges from

the other legal schools in those regions of the empire where
the
it iswould
other madhhabs had adherents,
appear from this cur
state did not itself have any interest in
riculum that the Ottoman
It would appear that
legal scholars of any other madhhab.
other
of
madh?hib
Shi'ah judges of
the
Twelver
judges
(including
their
received
both
Jabal '?mil)
training
privately and in medreses
and
supported by awq?fis founded by adherents of that madhhab,
not from the
would
similarly have received their remuneration
"
state
Ottoman
state, but from the madhhab awq?fi. The Ottoman
was, however, clearly invested in producing a cadre of Hanafi
jurists
who possessed a common
training in a standardized body of legal
are the Tawdih of Sadr al
texts. The works of us?l
al-fiqh selected
Shar?ah al-Bukh?ri
with
the
commentaries
thereon
(d.747/1346)
al-Taft?z?ni
and
Hasan
al-Fan?r?
(d.791/1389)
?eleb?
by
training
Egypt:
al-Ayni,
al-Maqrizi,
Ibn Hajar
and
al-Asqal?ni,"
Maml?k
Studies
Review 3 (1999), 85-107.

98. Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/1561) taught theMas?bih, which also appears in
see Izgi, Osmanh
the book list of Nebiefendiz?de
(d. 1200/1786);
Medreselerinde
99.
M.
This
Salati,
Ilim,
is a subject
"Toleration,
1:171,
and
169,
that warrants
Persecution
respectively.
further
study. On
and Local Realities:
Shi'i
see
education,
Observations
on
the
Shiism in the Holy Places and the Bil?d al-Sh?m (16th-17* Centuries)," in
Convegno sul tema La Shi 'aNelTImpero Ottomano (Roma, 15 Aprile 1991),
Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1993, 121-148, especially 133-143.
213
Shahab
AHMED
and Nenad
FlLIPOViC
with the
and the Us?l of al-Pazdawi (d.482/1089)
(d.886/l482),10ft
of Ala' al-D?n al-Bukh?r? (d.730/1330).
It is striking
commentary
how the emphasis here is on works authored in the two-and-a half
centuries
rather
than
on
standing
Hanafi
it
and
is
those
was
who
an
the
necessarily
oldest
seem
considered
rather
but
curriculum,
an
under
that
curriculum
the
assume
to
the
evince
in which
discourse
evolving
ones,
to
constructed
reasonable
only
of
construction
would
seek to include what were
would
not
part
of
the
This
works.
jurisprudence
works
the
to
prior
immediately
on older
the
that
the best
curriculum
? were
the best works

that
those
into
took
of legal
and were expressive of the historical development
,fH
the
It
Ottoman
us?l
that
is
works
of
Hanafi
these
later
theory.
state sought to canonize in 973/1565.
account
As regards positive law (fur? al-fiqh), the fundamental text was evi
which was stud
(d.593/1197),
dently the Hid?yah of al-Marghin?ni
?
of al-Sighn?qi
ied with
the Nih?yah
three commentaries
and the
the Gh?yat al-bay?n otal-Itq?ni
(d.758/1356),
(d.711/1311),
,02
three
Further to al-Marghin?ni,
Akmalof
al-B?barti (d.786/1356).
more
were used, the Khul?sah of Iftikh?r al-Din

o?fiat?w?
the Fat?w? Q?dikh?myyah ofFakhr al-Din
(d.543/1147)
collections
al-Bukh?ri
100. Al-Fan?r?'s
commentary
101. Note
twelfth
largely
resulted
old
the
century,
appears
in the
also
remark
of Subtelny
and Khalidov,
new
in the field
lum of
Higher
to the
curriculum
of
Islamic
from
"Starting
of Hanafite
developments
of Iranian
and Central
the contributions
through
texts and new
in the addition
of new authoritative
textbooks
from Nebiefen
list of books
see Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:169.
diz?de (d. 1200/1786);
higher
about
the
on
law, brought
Asian
scholars,
on
commentaries
learning;"
"The
Curricu
214.
Learning,"
102. It isworth noting here that the ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Su'?d himself, when
a
professor
at one
of
the
Eight
of
Colleges
the F?tih
medrese
is
complex,
reported to have taught both the Taluih of al-Taft?z?n?, and theHid?yah o?

al-Margh?n?n?;
see
Imber,
11. The
Ebu's-Su'ud,
?
who
by Ta?k?priz?de
generation
preceding
levels of the medrese
from the h?rte to altmtslt
the Kev?kib-i
seb'a
as
being
studied
in
Hid?yah
mentions
was
that
taught
it was
in the
studied
It is also mentioned
system.
in 1155/1741.
the medreses
in
The
Hid?yah, Nih?yah and Akmal are all prescribed for study by al-Toqadi
(d.l 100/1689). See izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:171, 165 and 167,
respectively.
214
The Sultan's
Q?di Khan
(d.743/1342)
for
103and
the Ottoman
Imperialmedreses
the
of al-Zaylai
commentary
of
Hafiz
al-Din
al-Nasafi
al-daq?'iq
on
were
All
the
of
works
law
the
thus
(d.711/1310).
positive
syllabus
to
in
a
the
800H.
is
This
of
550
indicative
produced
period
again
attitude
towards
Islamic
in
law
which
"a
developmental
chronologi
104
cally later opinion must replace an earlier one of equal validity."
on
The presence
the curriculum of these later works of positive law is
doubtless also due to the simple fact that since the purpose of the
(d.592/1196),
on the Kanz
medrese curriculum was to produce the best possible qualified judges,

the concern was that they should be familiar with "law cases that were
relevant and necessary to the age." I05In all, the list of twelve
legal
works comprises one text from the 5thH century, three from the 6thH
century, two from the 7thH century, six from the 8thH century, and
one from the 9thH century. Thus, the Hanafi
canon laid down
legal
was
state
Ottoman
in
the
made
of
works produced
973/1565
up
by
in the previous 500 years, with the bulk
originating from the 8th/14th
century.
In total, only four of the

thirty-eight dateable books in the curri
culum were authored before 500H (and two of these are the respective
Sahihs of al-Bukh?ri and Muslim,
and the third the dictionary of al
? the bulk of the
medrese
Jawhari). The remaining thirty-four works
103. The Q?dikh?niyyah is also mentioned in the Kev?kib-i seba as being

studied in the medreses in 1155/1741; Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim,
1:165.
104.Wael B. Hallaq, Authority, Continuity and Change in Islamic Law, Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 189. Note, for example, the
absence
from
the curriculum
of as important
an
early work
of Hanafi
posi
tive law as the Kit?b al-mabs?t of al-Sarakhs? (d.483/1090): works such as

the Mabs?t
erence
were
materials.
nonetheless
On
available
the historical
to Ottoman
evolution
jurists
of Islamic
in libraries
as ref
law, see Baber
positive
Johansen, "Legal Literature and the Problem of Change: The Case of the
Land Rent," inChibli Mallat (ed.), Islam and Public Law: Classical and Con
London:
Graham
and Trotman,
to
this phrase
the criteria
explain
collections
for inclusion;
selected fat?w?
Studies,
temporary
uses
105. Hallaq
o? fata
wa
29-47\
1993,
later
by which
to our mind,
equally well here to the likely criteria on the basis of which

fat?w?
ent
collections
syllabus.
and
See Hallaq,
commentaries
were
Authority,
Continuity
selected
and
for
those selfsame
inclusion
Change,
compilers
it
applies
in the pres
188.
215
Shahab
- were
curriculum
all
Ahmed
and Nenad
FlLiPOVIC
in the
of
produced
age
the medrese-,
that
is, the
period after 500H. Seven of these are from the 6thH century, six from
the 7thH century, seventeen from the 8thH century, and five from the
9rhH century. There is no work from the 10thH century itself, and
only two works seem to have been written by authors living under
Ottoman
rule - Mahmud
b. Hamzah al-Qar?m?ni (d.871/1468), who
was a judge in central Anatolia,
al-Fan?ri
and Hasan
?elebi
was
a
a
who
member
of
(d.886/1482),
prominent
scholarly family
106
which produced a number of high-ranking officials of the 'ilmiyye.
That there is no book from the 10thH century itself is probably expres
of a certain
sive
drew
the
up
not
to have
yet
in the
conservatism
-
curriculum
as
themselves
proven
culture
scholarly-bureaucratic
recent were
that
works
probably
the
obtained
having
that
deemed
sustained
some of the works

recognition of the scholarly community. Certainly,
on the curriculum - such as al-Taft?z?n? s Taluih ? had also been on
the
in the
curriculum
century
previous
I07
nonetheless,
the
fact
that
in all there are as many as five titles from the 9th H century is an
and of the
instructive indication of the limits of this conservatism,
content
evolving
of
the
curriculum
of
the Ottoman
medreses.
Also,
the
relative obscurity of two of the books ? theManhal

sharh
al-yan?Wfi
al-Mas?bih of al-Sakh?mi, of which only three manuscript copies sur
108
vive in the Siileymaniye library in Istanbul, and only six worldwide;
lexicon Taj al-asm? \ of which only two or three
and the anonymous
manuscript
109-
survive
copies
would
indicate
some
that
works
might
have enjoyed a brief vogue in the scholarly community

(as happens
or
in
the
favour
the
of
temporary
today)
department
?eyhulisl?m, but
failed
to sustain
eventually
106. On
the Ean?ris,
Ihsanoglu,
tions," 376-377.
108.
See
item
20,
above.
109.
See
item
34,
above.
'and
al-Sahihsfi
al-Fir?z?b?di
respect
see J. R. Walsh,
"Ottoman
107.
asm?
the
the continuing
contrast
renown
interest
and
between
of
the other
is very
striking.
the
ulema.
Institu
the anonymity
two lexicons
al-lughah of al-Jawhar? (d.393/1003),

(d.817/1414),
of
.?72.
"Fen?ri-z?de,"
Educational
The
or
Both
of
on
the Taj
the
al
syllabus,
and al-Q?m?s al-muhit of

the
latter works
appear
in
the poem of Erzir?mh Ibrahim Haqqi (d. 1194/1780); see Izgi, Osmanh
Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:168; ?zyilmaz, XVII veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh
Medreselerinin
Egitim
Programlart,
54.
216
The Sultans
Syllabus:
A Curriculum
the Ottoman
for
Imperial
medreses
In concluding, we will turn first to consider the second of the two

questions raised at the outset of the analysis: what, if anything, the cur
riculum tells us about the development of Islamic scholarly traditions. On
the basis of the foregoing, itwould appear that the S?leym?nic syllabus is
reflective of a process of conservative change in the historical constitution
of the scholarly canon in Islam. But itmust be emphasized that until we
have a better idea of what books were studied in the Ottoman medreses
before the educational reforms carried out in the reign of Q?n?ni S?ley
m?n, itwill not be possible to have a fuller sense of the continuity between
the present curriculum and the higher curriculum that was in use in
Ottoman medreses before 973/1565 ? let alone between it and the courses
of study in the medreses of theTurkish Hanafi dispensations that preceded
the Ottomans - most prominently, the Salj?qs and the Maml?ks. As
the
regards
evolution
medrese
of Ottoman
curricula
in the
centuries
sub
sequent to the present syllabus, we have, in the foregoing footnotes, made

some observations about the continuing study of certain books. For
namely
example, six of the twelve works oifiqh given inTSA E/2803/1,
theHid?yah of al-Marghin?ni, theNih?yah of al-Sighn?qi, the Akmal of
al-B?barti; the Q?dikh?r?yyah, the Tatudih of Sadr al-Shari ah, and the
Taluih of al-Taft?z?n?, all appear in the medrese curriculum described for
in the Kev?kib-i seb'a.Only one ta?rwork - that of al-Bay
1155/1741
?
d?wi
appears in both the present curriculum and in the Kev?kib-i seb'a;
but the fact is that theKev?kib-i seba cites only two ta?rs in total, which
not
telling the whole curricular story. In other
strongly suggests that it is
nature
the
of the available data renders unfeasible
words,
very incomplete
assessment about how
any meaningful
long the S?leym?nic syllabus
remained in effect, aswell as any deeper analysis about the continuity and
change of curricula in the Ottoman medreses in the subsequent centuries.
Also, we are presendy ill-equipped to effect a comparison between the
Ottoman
curriculum and the works being studied in the other great
no
Turkish Hanafi-Maturid? empire of the age - Mughal India.
110.
For
an
interesting
see Francis
attempt,
Robinson,
"Ottomans-Safavids
Mughals: Shared Knowledge and Connective Systems," journal of Islamic

Studies 8 (1997), 151-184, where the "Ottoman Curriculum" has been
assembled from Bilge, Ilk OsmanliMedreseleri, and theMughal curriculum is
a version
of
the famous
Dars-i
Niz?mi,
which
was
the first half of the 12th/18thcentury by Niz?m

Mahalli
established
(d. 1161/1748),
itself as the
and
which,
pre-eminent
in various
curriculum
compiled
in Lucknow
in
al-D?n Sih?lav? Firangi
permutations,
eventually
in Indian madrasahs.
217
Shahab AHMED
and Nenad
FiLlPOVic
to the
the state canon of
if anything,
question of what,
tells us about the official identity of Ottoman
Islam in the
973/1565
on
one
of
of Quranic
the
works
the
hand,
Q?n?ni
reign
S?leym?n:
are
text chosen
a
The
indicative
of
basic
of
exegesis
degree
catholicity.
is by a Turkish scholar who belonged to the official legal rite of the
As
state
Ottoman
taries
thereon
Hanafism
are
mainly
but who
Sh?fi'i
by
was
Asharis,
a Mu'tazili.
whose
The
commen
presence,
as we
have noted, is doubtless symptomatic of the gradual coming together

of Ashar?sm with the M?turidi
theology favoured by the Ottoman
state.
But
as
regards
the
law
the
primary
medium
in which
the
serve and rep

graduates of the med?ris-i H?q?niye would eventually
resent the state ? the identity of the Sultans syllabus is emphatically
no interest in train
and exclusively Hanafi. The Ottoman
empire had
ing its ulema in any other legal madhhab.
Shahab AHMED
Nenad
(Harvard University)
FlLIPOVIC (Princeton University)
218

Ahmed&Filipovic 2004 The Sultan's Syllabus

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ahmed&Filipovic 2004 The Sultan's Syllabus

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Maisonneuve & Larose

The Sultans Syllabus:

for the Ottoman

S?leym?n, dated 973 (1565)

Ismail Hakki Uzun?arsili, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskila?, Ankara: Turk

s?htes (students) pursued courses of study moving up through the

Istanbul: Derg?h Yayinlan, 1983;Madeleine Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers and

Bilge, Ilk OsmanhMedreseleri, Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakiiltesi Basimevi, 1984; R.

Registers of the Kadiasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the IstanbulM?fi?l?k

"al Tim wa al-ulam?

1997; Gilles Veinstein,

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (ed.)History of theOttoman State, Society and Civiliza

nicum 18 (2000), 41-85.

and theWest: A Study of the Impact ofWestern Civilization onMoslem Culture

the hierarchy as students; and then either returned to the bottom to

tion of a distinct class of men

of religious learning who were

? and whose influence was

had any interest in intervening to determine what itwas that consti

the qalemiyye is probably Mustafa

rianMustafa ?li (1541-1600),

see the study by Cornell

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986,

8.Madeleine Zilfi, The Politics ofPiety: The Ottoman Ulema in thePostclassi

of the men who functioned as the "living

Item number E/2803/1

10.While TSA E/2803/1

is not itself afirman,

there can be little doubt that

identity ; and if so, what are the sources of Islamic scholar

be in reference to the medreses founded by the Sultans them

to a student to teach specified works on his authority), or in biographical and

et son r?le dans

the medreses of the S?leym?niye complex, the construction of which

grades and offer

[sic\], were to form the top rungs in the fully elabo

current knowledge of which books were apparently taught in

16The present state of our knowledge

waqfiyyahs, and other documents.

work of Cevat Izgi, OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim 1.Ci It:Riyaz? Ilimier 2. Cilt:

Medreselerinde I lim, 1:61-183. Izgi s lists build on the earlier compilations of

Manzume-i Tertib-i Ul?m, Tertibu'l Ulum, Kaside Fi'1-K?t?b'lMesb?re Fi'l

his own testimony, Ta?k?priz?de taught threeworks dtfiqh, however, no fiqh

is brief presumably because Ta?k?priz?de simply did not teach

and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul:Maarif Matbaasi,

1941-43, 496. However,

Second, sometimes the historical source from which particular works

the medrese curriculum.

compiled by Izgi from H?jj? Khal?fah's autobiographical excursus in his

XVII veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerininde Egitim Programlart, 37

18. For example, Izgi'sCetvel 9 {OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim, 1:173) is an

of the testimony in the autobiography of Seyyid Feyzull?h Efend? (1639

Fak?ltesi Tarih Dergisi 23 (1969), 204-218,

also ?zyilmaz, XVII

veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim

valuable, is thus somewhat disjointed and must be treated with a

The highest sciences - the traditions of the Prophet {hadis), Koranic

A description of medrese education from 1155/1741

Eryzir?mh Ibrahim Haqq? (d. 1194/1780), which is the primary subject of

title suggests, a list of important books in each discipline, some of which at

Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 384 (where ?d?b-i bahi is

teachers were paid 20 to 25 aq?es a day) were called H?siye-i Tec?d

as Telvih medreses after the work