Crimean Scholars and the Kadizadeli Tradition in the th Century Mykhaylo M. Yakubovych* 18. Asırda Kırımlı Âlimler ve Kadızadeli Geleneği Öz Kadızadelilik Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda görülen en ilginç dini hareketlerden birisidir. 17. yüzyılı, bu hareketin sonraki gelişimini de biçimlendiren bir oluşum devresi olarak gören bir çok araştırmacı, çalışmalarını çoğunlukla bu hareketin erken tarihçesine odaklamışlardır. Bu çalışmada, yazar, Kırım’da temsilini bulan ve Osmanlı entellektüel çevrelerine yakinen bağlı olan son dönem Kadızadeli geleneklerinden birini ele almaktadır. Araştırma, bölgedeki Kadızadeli ilmî birikiminin anahatlarını, -Muhammed el-Kefevî (ö. 1754), Muhammed el-Akkirmanî (ö. 1761) ve Kutbüd- dîn el-Kırımî (ö. 1800?) isimlerinin mirasları da dahil olmak üzere-, göstermektedir. Araştırmadaki temel argüman Kadızadeliler’in ‘doğru Sünnet’i yeniden tesis etme iddialarının geleneksel Sünnî teoloji ve ahlakının yeniden yorumlanması anlamına da geldiğidir. Anahtar kelimeler: Post-Klasik İslam, Kadızadelilik, Kırım Hanlığı, İslam’da reform, İbn-i Sina sonrası dinbilim/teoloji, Tek tanrıcılık öğretisi, Özgür irade Introduction When approaching the “intellectual history” (the most popular term for many contemporary studies on post-Classical Islam) of the Crimea, many schol- ars traditionally relate it to the kalam and Sufism, as in the case with the Late * The National University of Ostroh Academy, Ostroh, Ukraine. This research would not have been possible without the funding from the Willis M. Doney Membership Fund during my stay at the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, NJ, USA) as a member in 2014. Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XLIX (2017), 155-170 155 CRIMEAN SCHOLARS Ottoman religious thought in general. Despite the existence of some in-depth research on this tradition, represented by case studies on Crimean scholars,1 in general it requires a more complex approach. The following question must be answered: Did a specifically “Crimean” intellectual tradition really exist or should the intellectual history of Crimea be interpreted only in a broader context, mean- ing that of the Golden Horde or the Ottoman one? On the one hand, most of Crimean scholars in the Khanate period (1441 - 1783) were students or teachers of authorities from other parts of the Empire, primarily, Istanbul and Anatolia. On the other hand, Crimean Peninsula was a center of Islamic learning since the first half of 14th century. Numerous medreses like Zincirli Medrese (founded in 1500) were not only purely “religious” since the “rational” sciences were also taught (kalām, manšiq, etc.) in these institutions. By examining certain isnads and silsilahs of scholars from this part of the Islamic world one may easily find strong links between generations of the Crimean scholars who started their career in Ottoman Kaffa, Bahchisaray or the cities of Bujak (Akkerman). Still, the final destination in career paths of the most of these scholars were Istanbul or other central Ottoman cities.2 While speaking about the intellectual legacy of the Crimean scholars, the prevalence of an Ottoman connection is much more evident, namely, the Kadi- zadeli movement, founded upon the works and intellectual endeavors of Me- hmed Birgivi (d. 1574) and Mehmed Kadizade (d. 1635). The Kadizadeli move- ment has been subject of many studies primarily due to its ideological and social dimensions.3 Recent studies show the presence of Kadizadeli followers in the 1 See, for example, Gudrun Schubert, “Ahmad b. Abdallah al-Qirimi, ein Verteidiger Ibn al- Arabis gegen die Orthodoxie”, Asiatische Studien, 48 (1994), pp. 1379-1381; Ashirbek Muminov, “Manuscripts of “Kata’ib A‘lam al-Akhyar”, New Materials for the Biography and Activity of Mahmud ibn Sulayman al-Kafawi”, Written Monuments of the Orient, 2/19 (2013), pp. 159-177; Necmettin Pehlivan, “Muhammed Kefevî ve “Risâle fî’l- Âdâb”ı”, Felsefe Dünyası, 56 (2012), pp. 322-333. 2 This is evident from a quick look at the biogaphies given by Mehmed Tahir Bursalı: Mehmed Tahir Bursalı, Osmanlılar Zamanında Yetişen Kırım Mü’ellifleri (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1980). 3 Madeline Zilfi, “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 45/4, (1986), pp. 251-269; Marinos Sariyannis, “The Kadızadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon: The Rise of a ‘Mercantile Ethic’?”, Political Initiatives “From the Bottom Up” in the Ottoman Empire, (Rhetymmo: Crete University Press, 2012), pp. 263-291; Kerima Filan, “Religious Puritans in Sarajevo in the 18th Century,” Osmanlı Ta r ihi Araştırma ve Uygulamaları Merkezi Dergisi, 33 (2013), pp. 43-62; John Curry, 156 MYKHAYLO M. YAKUBOVYCH regions of the Empire which are far from the center. For example, although it has been argued previously that Kadizadelism had already lost its influence in 18th century,4 recent research on Bosnia and other regions shows quite another picture.5 Moreover, when talking about the theoretical side of the Kadizadeli movement, it must be noted that some of the most advanced and well accepted commentaries on Birgivi’s al-Tarīqah al-Muģammadiyah were written in this pe- riod (like Al-Barīqah Sharģ al-Tarīqah by Abu Sa’īd al-Khādimī, d. 1763) and its aftermath.6 Despite the lack of any special self-identification (Kadizadelis did not care about their self-definition) as a special school of thought in the Ottoman Sunni Islam, their ideology has been mostly reduced to the critics of the practical Sufism. At the level of theoretical discourse (theology), Kadizadelis appealed to the same sources of Ash‘arism and Maturidi kalam and, of course, were engaged in the post-Classical philosophical discussions. For example, one of the most informative sources with a strict Kadizadeli background, Majālis al- Abrār by Aģmad bin ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Rūmī (d. 1633) provides discussion of certain metaphysical issues.7 Kadizadeli scholars generally used the same ‘ca- nonical’ works as did other contemporaneous Ottoman authors - works of Abu al-Barakāt al-Nasafī, Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī, Aēud al-Dīn al-Ījī, Qušb al-Dīn al-Rāzī and others. The central marker of Kadizadelism was, of course, rejec- tion of certain Sufi practices. For example, it was reported that they protested Sufi dhikr practice after ŝalāt al-’aŝr, since no additional prayer was recorded in the Sunnah for that. Kadizadelism also can be viewed as a social movement. It is known, for example, that many political leaders were closely connected with the Kadizadeli circles. This can be observed, for example, in the biographies “Kadizadeli Ottoman Scholarship, Muģammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, and the Rise of the Saudi State,” Journal of Islamic Studies, 26/3 (2015), pp. 265-288; Sheikh, Mustapha, “Taymiyyan Influences in an Ottoman-Ģanafī Milieu: The Case of Aģmad al-Rūmī al-Āqģiŝārī,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 25/01 (2015), pp. 1-20; Simeon Evstatiev, “Qāēīzādeli Movement and the Revival of Takfīr in the Ottoman Age,” Accusations of Unbelief in Islam A Diachronic Perspective on Takfīr, ed. by Camilla Adang, Hassan Ansari, Maribel Fierro and Sabine Schmidtke (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 213-244. 4 Zilfi, “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” p. 268. 5 See Filan, “Religious Puritans.” 6 Abu Sa’īd Al-Khādimī, Al-Barīqah Sharģ al-Šarīqah, (Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 2011). 7 Aģmad Al-Rūmī, Majālis al-Abrār wa Masālik al-Akhyār wa Maģaīq al-Bida’ah wa Maqāmi’ al-Ashrār (Madinah: Jāmiah al-Islāmiyah, 2007), pp. 148-160. 157 CRIMEAN SCHOLARS of Abaza Hasan Paşa (d. 1659), Köprülü Mehmed Pasha (d. 1661) and Fazıl Ahmed Paşa (d. 1676).8 When talking about the first appearance of the Kadizadeli scholarship in Crimea and other parts of Southern Ukraine, incorporated to the Ottoman Em- pire in 17th and 18th centuries, one of the most important pieces of evidence are certain manuscripts preserved. First, one can mention the manuscript copy of the abovementioned book of Aģmad al-Rūmī Majālis al-Abrār wa Masālik al-Akhyār wa Maģaīq al-Bida‘ah wa Maqāmi’ al-Ashrār (“Gatherings of the Righteous, Way of the Better Ones, Destruction of Innovations and Battles against the Evil Ones”) from Zincirli Medrese, currently preserved in Lviv Museum of the His- tory of Religions (Lviv, Ukraine).9 The manuscript generally corresponds to the aforementioned critical edition by ‘Alī Fūrā. Divided into one hundred chapters, this book contains the typical Kadizadeli discourse against innovations pertain- ing to visiting graveyards, and performing additional prayers (nawāfil), etc. The manuscript from Zincirli Medrese was rewritten by some Crimean scribe ‘Abd al- Gaffār bin Bahadirshāh in 1216 hijri (1801 C. E.) from the earliest source. Also, it contains some glosses on the margins (which could be classified as ģāshiyah or ta‘līq), providing explanations, signed by some qāēī. It looks like a local reception of this work, which has been read by few generations of scholars in the library of Zincirli Medrese until its closure in the 20s of the last century. Muģammad al-Kafawī and his Reception of Al-Birkawī One of the most prolific Crimean authors of the 18th century was Muģammad bin al-Ģājjī Ģamīd al-Kafawī (d. 1754/1755), a scholar from Kaffa who contributed to the fields of Islamic theology, law, rhetoric, tafsir and several others.10 Despite the fact that dozens of his works are known (some of them were published early like his Ģāshiyah on al-Lārī’s commentary to Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-Ģikma)11, little is known about his life. It seems that he was born in a noble family in Ottoman Kaffa between 1690 and 1710; his father 8 Sariyannis, “The Kadızadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon.” 9 Aģmad Al-Rūmī, Majālis al-Abrār wa Masālik al-Akhyār wa Maģaīq al-Bida’ah wa Maqāmi’ al-Ashrār. Lviv Museum of the History of Religion, No. 6494, 302 ff. 10 It seems that the only published study on this scholar is the next one: Pehlivan, “Muhammed Kefevî ve “Risâle fî’l- Âdâb”ı”.