The Sultan S Syllabus A Curriculum For T

Maisonneuve & Larose
The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses Prescribed in a fermān
of Qānūnī I Süleymān, 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: 06-02-2016 03:50 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.
Brill and Maisonneuve & Larose are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 03:50:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Studia Isl?mica, 2004
The Sultans Syllabus:

A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial
medreses prescribed in ^ferm?n of Q?n?ni I
S?leym?n, dated 973 (1565)
Introduction
It is broadly recognized that the educational reforms carried out in

the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Q?n?ni I S?leym?n (S?leym?n the
Magnificent, regnant 926-974/1520-1566), following upon those of his
great-grandfather, Sultan F?tih IIMehemmed (Mehemmed the Con
queror, regnant 848-850/1444-1446 and 855-886/1451-1481) in the
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 Hlmiyye-
what 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
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVlC
measures was the of medreses into a

imperial organization hierarchy.2
The 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
century essays of Muallim Cevdet, collected and edited by Erdogan Eriiz, Mek
veMedrese, Istanbul: 1978; Osmanhlarda
tep ?inar Yayinlan, Hiiseyin Atay,
Yiiksek Din :Medrese Icazetn?meler, Islahat hareketleri,
Egitimi programlan,
Istanbul: Derg?h Yayinlan, 1983;Madeleine Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers and
the Ottoman Medrese Prior to the Tanzimat," in Jean-Louis
System Bacqu?
Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds.), Contributions ? l'histoire ?conomique et
sociale de ottoman, Leuven: ?ditions Peeters, 1983, 309-327; Mustafa
l'Empire
Bilge, Ilk OsmanhMedreseleri, Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakiiltesi Basimevi, 1984; R.
C. Repp, TheMufti of Istanbul: A Study in theDevelopment of the Ottoman
Learned London: Ithaca Press, 1986; Halil Inalcik, "The R?zn?mce
Hierarchy,
Registers of the Kadiasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the IstanbulM?fi?l?k '
Archives," Turcica 20 (1988), 251-275; Suraiya "al Tim wa al-ulam?
Faroqhi,
wa al-daivlah: dir?sah al-us?l al-dawlah al
fi
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 Bursa: Esra Fak?lte Kitabevi, 1997; Hasan
Egitim-Ogretim,
Kl?sik D?nem Osmanh Medrese Sistemi: Ama?, Istan
Akg?nd?z, Yapi, Isleyis,
bul: Ulusal Yayinlan, 1997; Gilles Veinstein, "Le mod?le Ottomane," in Nicole
Grandin and Marc Gaborieau (eds.), Madrasa: La transmission du savoir dans le
monde Musulman, Paris: ?ditions 1997, 73-83; Ekmeleddin
Arguments,
"Ottoman Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," in
Ihsanoglu,
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (ed.)History of theOttoman State, Society and Civiliza
tion, Istanbul: IRCICA, 2002, 2:357-515; Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire
1300-1650: The Structure London: 228
of Power, Palgrave MacMillan, 2002,
229. See also the instructive
historiographical critique by Ekmeleddin
"The Initial Stage of the of Ottoman Medreses
Ihsanoglu, Historiography
(1916-1965): The Era of Discovery and Construction," Archivum Ottoma
nicum 18 (2000), 41-85.
2. On the hierarchy, see H. A .R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society
and theWest: A Study of the Impact ofWestern Civilization onMoslem Culture
in the Near East, London: Oxford Press, 1957, 1 .II: 144-145;
University
Uzun?arsih, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskilati, 5-17; Baltaci, XV-XVI
Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 46-50; Zilfi, "The 314;
Ilmiye Registers," Repp,
The Mufti of Istanbul, 40-44; "Ottoman Educational and Scho
Ihsanoglu,
larly-Scientific Institutions," 371-380.
3. See Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde I lim, 1:50-61.
184
The Sultan's A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses
Syllabus:
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
through the ranks, or sought positions as entry-level judges (n?vmh) in
the imperial legal system. "Incumbents of posts in the most senior
medrese grades qualified for promotion... to one of the posts of the
Mahrec, the lowest of the Great Molla grades, and thence through the
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
Ottoman state was instrumental in the social formation and certifica
tion of a distinct class of men of religious learning who were integrated

- most
into the non-military sector of the Ottoman state structure
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
based on the level of certified knowledge in the Islamic sciences. Its
members represented the spiritual authority [of the Ottoman state] side
7 was the
by side with the military-political authority." "As architecture
material expression of Ottoman Islam, the ulema (s. alim), medrese
8
trained scholar jurists, were its living embodiment."
But while it is evident that the Ottoman state found it important
to determine the structures that certified who was learned, an
impor
tant that remains unconsidered is whether the state
question relatively
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 medrese who entered
example graduate
the qalemiyye is probably Mustafa 'Ali, on whom see the study by Cornell
H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman The Histo
Empire:
rianMustafa ?li (1541-1600), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986,
especially at 34-36.
6. For an of a 16th century medrese a career in
example graduate who pursued
commerce rather than as a m?derris, or bureaucrat, see the entry on
judge,
one Mevl?n? 'At? in Seh? Beg, HestBihist: The Tezkire by Sein Beg, ed. Giinay
Kut, Harvard University, 1978, 273.
Cambridge:
7. Inalcik, "The R?zn?mce Registers," 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
the content o? the education of the men who functioned as the "living
embodiment" of imperial Ottoman Islam. Did the Ottoman state
seek to determine 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 - that is, about the official identity of Ottoman Islam? A further
question to be asked is: what, if this canon tell us
anything, might
about the historical development of Islamic scholarly traditions?
This paper aspires to take a very small and very incomplete step
towards these a document whose
answering questions by examining
seems to have the notice even of the scholars who
significance escaped
have cited it to date.
Item number E/2803/1 in the Topkapi Sarayi
Ar?ivi9 is a single sheet of paper bearing the title Med?ris-i
H?q?niyeye l?zim olub ferman-i P?dis?l%-ile M?derris 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
comprising the work. The sum total of the volumes is given in the
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
death of Q?n?ni ? and the Arabic
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 of the Ottoman state to the
part prescribe
to be used in the ? in other
books imperial medreses words, to lay
in
down a medrese curriculum. Indeed, TSA E/2803/1 constitutes the
first known documentation in Islamic history of a move by the state
9. The authors should like to express their gratitude to ?lk? at the

Altindag
for graciously us to transcribe TSA E/2803/1,
Topkapi Sarayi Ar|ivi allowing
and to Emine Fetvaci for her kind facilitation.
10.While TSA E/2803/1 is not itself afirman, there can be little doubt that
?
it is a genuine extract from it is that a docu
afirman highly implausible
ment to be an extract from an edict could be thus
falsely claiming imperial
in the imperial archives. The existence of TSA E/2803/1 seems to
preserved
have first been noted by C?hid Baltaci, who cited the document in his biblio
without, however, use of it in his seeXV-XVI
graphy making apparent study;
186
The Sultan's A Curriculum the Ottoman medreses
Syllabus: for Imperial
n
to establish a canon of
religious learning. Since we know that the
official legal rite of the Ottoman was the Hanafi madhhab, and
empire
that the favoured theological school was M?turidism, the question
arises as to whether this canon a Hanafi
immediately possesses
M?turidi identity ; and if so, what are the sources of Islamic scholar
n
ship that constitute that identity.
The curriculum in question applies to a particular set of medreses,
the med?ris-i H?q?niye or "imperial medreses? which is a term that
seems not to have surfaced before now in the scholarship on the
of the medreses. However, the most obvious use of the term
ranking
would be in reference to the medreses founded by the Sultans them
selves. From the time of the construction by F?tih IIMehemmed of the
medrese complex attached to the F?tih mosque, the Sultans' medreses
seem to have automatically occupied the highest academic ranks in the
medrese hierarchy;13 this was also subsequently the case with regard to
Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri, XIII. Mustafa transcribed the titles of twenty

Bilge
of the thirty-nine works, but without any thereof; see Ilk Osmanh
exposition
Medreseleri, 63. Hasan like Baltaci, cites the document in the
Akg?nd?z,
bibliography of his Kl?sik D?nem OsmanhMedrese Sistemi but does not make
apparent use of it.
11. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of there been ear
having
lier curricula for which documentary evidence is not
state-prescribed
available. Previous studies on curricula of learning in Islamic
presently history
have been based on evidence contained in (authorization by
a teacher
ij?zahs
to a student to teach specified works on his authority), or in biographical and
notices; for an study of
a curriculum from the
autobiographical ij?zah-bzsed
9th/15th century, see Maria Eva and Anas Khalidov, "The Curricu
Subtelny
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), 210-236. For reconstruction of Ottoman curricula from biographi
cal and notices, see below.
autobiographical
12. On Ottoman Hanafi-M?turidism, see Mustafa Said Yazicioglu, Le kal?m
et son r?le dans la soci?t? turco-ottomane aux XV etXVIe si?cles, Ankara: Minis
t?re de laCulture, 1990, 105-116.
13. It is important to note that the Sultanic medrese themselves
complexes
contained medreses of different ranks, with
servicing thethe lower ones
the apex medreses of the F?tih were the "eight medreses
higher. Thus, complex
- - were
the Sahn-t ?em?n medreses which serviced
of the yard' by eight other
medreses called theM?sile-i Sahn to the However, even the
("leading yard").
lower Sultanic medreses stood at the upper of the medrese
grades hierarchy.
187
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FiLlPOVIC
the medreses of the S?leym?niye complex, the construction of which

was - that
completed in 964/1557 is, nine years before the promulga
H
tion of the curriculum under study here. Thus, the med?ris-i
H?q?r?ye are the medreses that stand at the very top of the hierarchy,
and the curriculum in the present document represents the
prescribed
15
course of in the Ottoman educational
highest study system.
"The official rank of the medrese founders also played a role in medrese gra
more the more or her medrese
ding. The prominent the founder, likely his
would be in the instruction in the sciences...
highest grades and offer highest
Since the Dar?lhadis of Siileymaniye, the Siileymaniye, and the Sahn-i
Seman grades to the medreses that had rise
corresponded only original given
to those can be considered
grades, they grades with unalterably "imperial"
to the others of the highest were also vir
standing. According registers, grades
exclusive to medreses founded the Medreses built
tually by imperial family. by
the Sultans and the women of the dynasty dominate the Hamis and the
Miisile-i the third and fourth a few
Siileymaniye, highest grades, although
medreses
share in both Zilfi, "The
nonimperial grades"; Ilmiye Registers,"
315-16. Some sense of the scale of the medreses may be obtained
imperial
from the fact that the sixteen F?tih medreses could 312 students; Gibb
lodge
and Bowen, Islamic and the West, 1.11:145. As our present
Society regards
of the medrese system, note the recent remark of Ekmeleddin
knowledge
"Because the establishment, formation and the
Ihsanoglu: changes experi
enced over the centuries of this educational have not been very
hierarchy
studied, more detailed and multifaceted studies will be
thoroughly required
in order to achieve to the
greater clarity with regard subject"; "Ottoman Edu
cational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 376.
14. "Siileyman's own medreses, built around his mosque in Istanbul and
completed by 966/1559 [sic\], were to form the top rungs in the fully elabo
rated hierarchy of medreses, seem not to have achieved exclusive
though they
claim to this The Miifiti 44.
pre-eminence immediately;" Repp, of Istanbul,
"In the late fifteenth century and for much of the sixteenth, the Col
Eight
to the mosque II in Istanbul
leges attached of Mehmed occupied the pinna
cle of religious and legal education in the Ottoman In the decades
Empire.
after the completion of the complex in 1557, the colleges attached to the
mosque in Istanbul came to occupy the most

Siileymaniye prestigious posi
tion;" Colin Imber, Ebus-su'ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition, Stanford: Stan
ford University Press, 1997, 8. On the date of
the completion of the
Siiley
see Omer L. Barkan, Cami ve Imareti Insaati
maniye complex, Siileymaniye
(1550-1557), Ankara: Turk Tarih Kururnu Basimevi, 1972, 1:58.
15. This will shortly be confirmed by the content of the curriculum itself.
188
The Sultan's A Curriculum for the Ottoman medreses
Syllabus: Imperial
current knowledge of which books were apparently taught in

Our
the Ottoman medreses has been culled piecemeal from a scattering of
sources, such as works by Ottoman scholars on education and the
Islamic sciences, scholarly biographies and autobiographies, ij?zahs,
16The present state of our knowledge
waqfiyyahs, and other documents.
is, however, on several counts. First, it is not clear that
unsatisfactory
any of the lists of books that have been compiled a so far constitutes
course of study, even for single level of the medrese system. 17
a
complete
16. The fullest of Ottoman medrese curricula available is the important

study
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 (which is concerned with the Ottoman study of the natural
primarily
sciences and mathematics) fourteen lists of books, each from a
Izgi compiled
separate source, and each list under the title "Ottoman medrese
presented
curriculum [Osmanh Medreseleri see Osmanh
M?fredat Programi]";
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 centuries, see ?mer
eighteenth ?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,
Ankara: T.C. K?lt?r 2002. See also subsection "Dersler, Konular
Bakanligi,
ve Medrese Dereceleri," from Mehmet "Osmanh D?nemi," in the
Ipsjrli,
entry on "Medrese," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 28:328-330.
17. For example, Izgi cites
two "Ottoman medrese curricula" from the auto
biographical testimony of Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/156l), one consisting of

books thatTa?k?priz?de records himself to have studied, and the second of
books that Ta?k?priz?de records himself to have Now, to
taught. according
his own testimony, Ta?k?priz?de taught threeworks dtfiqh, however, no fiqh
works in his curriculum of Since it makes no sense for
appear study.
Ta?k?priz?de to have taught a subject he had not studied, thismeans that the
first curriculum is necessarily incomplete (so too is the brief second curricu
lum - which is brief presumably because Ta?k?priz?de simply did not teach
every book 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 list, below) as a work after by every student in the field;"
"sought
see al-zun?n 'an as?mi al-kutub wa ed. ?erefettin
Kashf al-fun?n, Yaltkaya
and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul:Maarif Matbaasi, 1941-43, 496. However,
the Talwih does not in either of the two "Ottoman medrese curricula"
appear
189
Shahab Ahmed and Nenad FlLIPOVlC
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 in where and
opposed private settings teaching learning
18 to date,
continued beyond the medrese curriculum. The data compiled
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 anonymous work authored in 1155/1741 in response to
an the French ambassador to the Porte about the character
inquiry by High
of Ottoman education. However, the list of books in the Kev?kib-i seb'a is
towards at the lower levels of the medrese cur
clearly weighted subjects taught
riculum (such as grammar, and which are more repre
syntax logic), fully
sented there than
higher subjects (such as Quranic exegesis, hadith and law);
Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:69-77, 163-167 (Cetvel 1); also see ?zyilmaz,
XVII veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerininde Egitim Programlart, 37
42. For the hierarchy of subjects in the medrese see below.
education, Izgi does
not cite the present firman.
18. For example, Izgi'sCetvel 9 {OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim, 1:173) is an
"Ottoman medrese curriculum" made of books that H?jj? Khalifah mentions
himself to have while there is no reason to doubt that H?jj? Khal?fah
taught:
these works, he was not, in fact, a teacher in medrese? therefore, pre
taught
he them outside a medrese curriculum. on the basis
sumably taught Similarly,
of the testimony in the autobiography of Seyyid Feyzull?h Efend? (1639
about nine books as an "Ottoman medrese
1703), Izgi adduces comprising
curriculum;" see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:174-175, (Cetvel 10).
However, Efend? does not say that he studied these works
Feyzull?h actually
in a medrese, but rather that he studied of them with either his father,
eight
uncle or cousins, he was at least as likely to do in a domestic set
something
as in a medrese, see Ahmet Tiirek and F. ?etin Derin,
ting "Feyzull?h
Efendi'nin Kendi Kaleminden Hal Terciimesi," Istanbul ?niversitesi Edebiyat
Fak?ltesi Tarih Dergisi 23 (1969), 204-218, at 206-207. Ish?q al-Toqad?
from whose Nazmu l-ul?m another "Ottoman
(d. 1100/1689), Izgi derives
medrese curriculum," also
does not indicate that the works he lists were actu
- some
studied in the medrese of them were, but which
ally presumably
we do not know; see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:167, (Cetvel 2);
exactly
also ?zyilmaz, XVII veXVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim
21-26. In any case, the Nazmu I-ulum is more a scholar's
Programlart,
desideratum of what should be studied than a record of what necessarily
was
studied (see Ish?q b. Hasan al-Toqadi, Nazmu l-ul?m, published in ?emsiid
din Siv?si, Im?m-i A'zam, Istanbul: Efendi'nin Matbaasi
Men?qib-i Tevfiq
1291/1874); this would also seem to be the case with the Tertib-i 'ulum of
190
The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman medreses
Imperial
while valuable, is thus somewhat disjointed and must be treated with a

degree of circumspection. Indeed, our knowledge of what was studied
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
medreses in a clear and detailed manner." Nonetheless, we do have a
good sense of the general oudine of the medrese program of study:
The highest sciences - the traditions of the Prophet {hadis), Koranic

-
commentary (tefiir), and Islamic jurisprudence (fikth) were studied in
in the more
medreses highest grades. The elementary disciplines, those of
an nature - ? were
instrumental Arabic grammar (sarf) and syntax (nahv)
to medreses in the lower In practice, the curricula of even
relegated grades.
the lowest included a of the "highest sciences" for
grades smattering
instructional purposes. On the whole, however, the highest sciences as
fell within the purview of the ...
disciplines superior 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
(bel?gai), tenets of faith (hikmei) and theology
(aq??d), philosophy
(kel?m) were taught at an intermediate stage.21 However, it should be
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

?zyilmaz s study. The (?asidefi-'l-kutub-i me?h?re fi-'l-ul?m of Neb?efen
diz?de (d. 1200/1785) is, in turn, not a medrese curriculum but rather, as its
title suggests, a list of important books in each discipline, some of which at
various times were in medreses, see Osmanh
presumably taught Izgi,
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; see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:99-100, and 172.
19. Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman Educational and Institutions,"
Scholarly-Scientific
383.
20. Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 315.
21. This is the above-mentioned Kev?kib-i seb'a; see "Ottoman
Ihsanoglu,
Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 384 (where ?d?b-i bahi is
translated as "elocution").
erroneously
191
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOViC
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 on jurisprudence [us?l al
fiqh) by Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389), entitled al-Talwih fi

24
However, as students moved the
kashf haq? 'iq al-Tanqih. up grades,
such as and were abandoned as
preparatory subjects, grammar logic,25
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
TSA E/2803/1 is thus a most fortuitous document as it provides
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
level - at the instigation of the Ottoman state. The date of the docu
ment, 973/1565, corresponds to the final 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 of F?tih IIMehemmed, the medreses v/eve accord

reign organized
ing to the teachers' salaries as 20 (H??iye-i Tecrid), 30 {Mifi?h), 40 (Harte),
50 (Da h tl, Tetimme, M?s ile-i Sahn, Sah n-i Sema ri) and eventually, in
S?ley
m?n's reign, 60 aq?e medreses. As a teacher was promoted to a medrese where
more advanced material was his salary increased. The salaries
taught, highest
were in the Sultanic medreses, where the highest courses of study were
paid
See Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 36-43; and
taught.
"Ottoman Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions,"
Ihsanoglu,
376-377.
23. See Uzun?arsili, Osmanh Devletinin Teskilatt, Uzun?arsih, 10, 25;
Ilmiye
Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 37; Bilge, Ilk Osmanh
Medreseleri, 54; and H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 346-351.
24. See Uzun?arsih, Osmanh Devletinin Teskilati, 10, 28; Baltaci, XV
Ilmiye
XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 38-39. On this work, see below.
were
25. Thirty aq?e medreses also called Mifi?h medreses after the
Mifi?h
al
ul?m by Y?suf al-Sakk?k? (d.626/1229), a work on morphology (sarfi,
grammar (nahtv) and rhetoric see "Ottoman Educa
(bal?ghah); Ihsanoglu,
tional and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 377.
26. This is reflected in the lists of books studied at the different levels com
XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh 36-43.
piled by Baltaci, Medreseleri,
192
The Sultans A Curriculum the Ottoman medreses
in their about the

S?leymans religious policies totality brought
expansion, and enhancement of the personnel
reorganization, integration
and judgements of the ulema in state service... it was chiefly the institu
tions the training and functions of the ulema that attracted
affecting
sustained involvement. And too, itwas on the ulemas
S?leymans largely
representation of religiosity and rectitude that S?leymans religious poli
cies were founded... had at least three aims: to
S?leymans policies
the of the educational system, to ensure the
expand physical capacity
of and to for more
quality Hlmiyye personnel, provide opportunities
scholarly inquiry. The three would raise the educational and
sophisticated
intellectual resources of the to the levels demanded the
empire by
new size and might... Kadis were, of course, the backbone of the
empires
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
system... [the] overriding concerns [of the reforms] was to a sys
produce
tem that was, within the frame of royal prerogative, orderly, incorruptible
and merit-driven.27
The central role in the educational reforms was played by the

office of the ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Su'?d who held the post of ?eyhulis
l?m for the last twenty years of S?leymans was not
reign, and who
only the most respected religious authority in the empire, but was
unusually close to the Sultan to whom he was an informal spiritual
adviser. This unusual personal relationship between Sultan and ?ey
hulisl?m ? the two pivotal figures in the educational reform project
? doubtless contributed to the successful
significantly implementa
tion of the reforms. 28The immediate impetus for the states concern
27. Zilfi, "Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman Religious Establishment,"

110-113.
28. On the "unprecedentedscale" of Eb? s-Su'?ds involvement in state
poli
cies, see Zilfi, "Sultan and the Ottoman Establishment,"
S?leym?n Religious
116-118. On the relationship between Eb? s-Su'?d and S?leym?n, see the
terms -
remarkably intimate of address "my companion in the mystic state,
my friend in my bosom, my comrade on the of truth, my brother in the

path
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
preserved inMecm?'a-i G?r?m b. Lsm?il Bosnevi, MS Sara
MehmedMey?
jevo, Gazi Husrev Beg, I 2012, 74b (we are grateful to
Snjezana Buzov for
a -
obtaining copy of this manuscript for us). See also Imber, Ebu's su'ud, 8
20. For a of close cooperation between the Sultan and his
telling example
?eyhulisl?m in a scholarly cause, see the imperial order dated 17thRajab
193
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLlPOViC
with educational reform was at least in part, by the

likely provided,
?
of protest from medrese the repre
rumblings graduates potential
? a
sentatives of the that to and of
empire owing nepotism shortage
positions they were unable to obtain the appointments they thought

29
they deserved. The destabilizing potential of these grievances is
seen in the student riots of 966-67/1558-59, and then in a reasser
? the 30
tion of unrest in 973/1565 year of the issue of our fierm?n.
One measure in this state was the of
important project setting up
the m?l?zemet institution which aimed at systematizing appoint
ments and to the merit and
promotion according scholarly seniority
31 famous defence of the legitimacy
of the candidate. Eb? s-Su'?d's
of the czsh-waqf in his polemics with Birgili Mehemmed
(d.981/1573) also served to reinforce the 'ilmiyye by assuring the
continuity of one of the most important financial bases of the insti
tutions that not only provided education, but also appointments for
32It is in the
medrese graduates in medreses and mosques. light of this
a certain 'ahm name of Bedr?dd?n, who was a

972/1565 summoning by the
teacher in a medresein Rhodes, to come to Istanbul and serve as research assis
tant to Eb? s-Su'?d to the ?eyhulisl?m the Quran commen
help complete
tary on which he had been working; Ahmet Refik, On alttnct astrda Rafizilik
ve Bektasilik, Istanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit (Docu 1932, 20
Kitaphanesi,
ment 15). in question,
(The work the well-known was
Irsh?dal-'aqlal-sa&m,
within a few months, before the Sultan's death).
duly completed shortly
29. On medrese of corruption, see Edith
graduates' complaints G?lcin
Ambros, "The Let?'if of Faqiri, Ottoman poet of the 16th century," Wiener
Zeitschrift f?r die Kunde desMorgenlandes80 (1990), 59-78, at 64-65.

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 of student unrest in the I6rh century Ottoman see
phenomenon empire,
M. Tarihinde i?tima? Buhranlar Serisenden: Medreseli
Akdag, "T?rkiye Isyan
lan," Istanbul ?niversitesi Iktisat Fak?ltesi Mecmuast 11/1-4 (1949), 361-87.
31. On the role of Eb? s-Su'?d in the establishment of the m?l?zemet system,
see Inalcik, "The R?zn?mce 257-261; Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar
Registers,"
Osmanh Medreseleri, 34-35, Repp, TheMiifii of Istanbul 51-55.
32. See the declaration of Eb? s-Su'?d's supporter, Bali Efend?, on how "certain
schools and most of the mosques ... are based on the and that if the
cash-waqf"
cash-waqfs "were lost ... the preacher and the prayer-caller would be lost;" Jon E.
Mandaville, "Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman
Empire," InternationalJournal ofMiddle East Studies, 10 (1979), 289-308, at 303.
194
on the part of the Ottoman state ? in the form of the

larger project
Sultan and ?eyhulisl?m - to regularize and systematize the 'ilmiyye
that the decision to lay out a clearly-stated curriculum of study for
the medreses (reflected inTSA E/2803/1) should be seen. S?leymans
concern with medrese education standards is evidenced as early as
945/1539 in the form of aferm?n that expresses the Sultans dissat
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
temess?k aluh), and that the state will then make appointments
33Given
based on this certification. the concern for regularization
and certification, it is only logical to assume that curricula must
have been prescribed at this time not only for the med?ris-i
IJ?q?niye, but also for the lower and intermediate levels of the
medrese however, there is as yet no evidence of
system; documentary
this. Thecurricula were presumably drafted by the S/iw-bureaucrats
of the department of the ?eyhulisl?m who were themselves medrese
graduates, subsequently approved by the ?ieyhulisl?m himself, and

then taken on to the Sultan to be issued, like other parts of the edu
cational reforms, in the form of imperial ferm?ns ? that is, as
- in the
binding Sultanic law present case issued one year before
Q?n?ni S?leymans death.
The list of books from the ferman
We now turn to the list of books from ?ie ferm?n. Inwhat follows,
the original citations as they appear in the document are transcribed
and annotated. As will be seen, the citations are extremely brief, indi
cating that there is an assumption that the audience of the list is
already familiar with the works in question. The annotations will
identify the title of the work, the subject matter, the name of the
author, his dates, his or affiliation (as relevant), as
legal theological
33. See Tayyib G?kbilgin, "K?nuni Sultan S?leym?n devri m?esseseler ve

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

the extent of its survival in and The annotations are
manuscript print.
broadly aimed at providing basic information salient to answering the

question of the identity of the Islam that the Ottoman state wished
men to 34
the of the religious institution embody.
1.Ke?s?f. 35
is al-Kashsh?f an haq? 'iq al-tan?l wa uy?n
[1]. This
al-aq?idl fi haqq al-taidl, the Quran commentary of Abu al-Q?sim
Jar Allah Mahmud b. 'Umar al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1142), the
36
famous Hanafi Mu'tazil? from Khw?razm.
2. Qutbu d-D?n. [1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi

al-Zamakhshari by Qutb al-Din Mahmud b. Mas'?d al-Sh?r?z?
(d.710/1311), a polymath astronomer and prolific scholar who was a
Sh?fi'i by jurisprudential school, and an Ashari by theological affilia
tion. He of his career in Sivas, and Tabriz.37
spent parts Malatya
34. Any reader discouraged at the prospect of reading an annotated

through
list of thirty-nine books may to the and Conclusions"
repair directly "Analysis
that follow.
35. The original
citation is transcribed in bold italics. The numeral that then
follows in bold between square brackets is that which, in the iswrit
original,
ten under the citation the number of volumes that comprise the
indicating
work. To reflect the way in which the work would presumably have been
referred to the scholars of the themselves, we have transliterated
by 'ilmiyye
the citation to reflect the Ottoman of the title.
pronunciation
36. For a concise sketch of al-Zamakhshari, see Jane D?mmen McAuliffe,
An Analysis
Quranic Christians: of Classical and Modern Exegesis, Cambridge:
Press, 1991, 49-54; for a fuller Ismail Cerra
Cambridge University study,
ve tefsiri," Ankara Universitesi Fak?ltesi
hoglu, "Zamah?eri Ilahiyat 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
Muhammad Mustafa in 1891. For a sense of the prodigious circulation of
the work in the pre-modern see the list of extant manuscripts in al
period,
Majma' al-Maliki li-Buh?th al-Had?rah al-Isl?miyyah, Mu'assasat ?l al
Bayt, al-Fihris alsh? mil li-al-tur?th al-arabi al-isl?mi al-makht?t: ul?m al

makht?t?t wa ul?mu-hu, Amman: Mu'assasat AI
quran, al-tafur al-Bayt,
1989, 155-188 (hereafter, M?B, al-Tafsir).
37. Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1943, S.I:296-297; 'Umar Rid? Kahh?lah, Mujam al-muallifin,
Beirut: Mu assasat al-Ris?lah, n.d., 3:832; E.Wiedermann, "Kutb al-D?n al
196
3. Sa'du d-Din. [1]. This is the super-commentary composed by

Sa'd ai-Din Mas'?d b. 'Umar al-Taft?z?n? (d.791/1389) on the com
mentary authored by Sharaf al-D?n ai-Tib? (d.743/1343 ; see item 6,

below) on the al-Zamakhshari. Al-Taft?z?ni was a Hanafi
Kashsh?foi
Ashari by madhhab and a prodigious author and commentator other
works of whom were also used in the Ottoman curricula. He did not
the present as far as S?rat
complete super-commentary, reaching only
al-Faih
4. C?r?perdi. [1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi ?
Zamakhshar? by Fakhr al-D?n Ahmad b. Hasan al-Ch?r?pardi/
J?r?bard? (d.746/1346), a Sh?fi'i student of al-Bayd?w? (d.716/1315 ;
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 al-tan?l wa asr?r al-ta'wil. This is effectively "a condensed and
amended edition of al-Zamakhshar? s inwhich
Kashsh?f" al-Bayd?wi
Sh?r?z?,"EI2; Ali ?erbetci, "Kutbudd?n-i ??r?z?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi,

26:487-489. For extant of the work, see M?B, 352
manuscripts 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 which was studied at the level of medrese educa
al-Shamsiyyah primary
tion, and also customarily cited as d-Din;" for the fact of this latter
"Qutbu
work having been studied, see Izgi, OsmanhMedreselerinde Ilim 164, 168-70,
-
172, 176 note, however, that Izgi incorrectly gives the author of the Tah?r
al-Qutb al-Sh?r?z?.
al-'aq?'idzs
38. Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 3:849; '?dil Nuwayhid, Mu jam al
min sadr al-isl?m il? al-asr al-h?dir, Beirut: Mu'assasat Nuway
mufiassirin
hid ai-Thaq?fiyyah, 1983, 670; W. Made?ung, "Al-Taft?z?n?," EI2. For
extant of the work, see M?B, 425-430. This work
manuscripts al-Ta?r,
should not be confused with the work on logic by the same author, Tahdhib
which was studied at the level of medrese edu
al-mantiq, apparendy primary
cation, and also cited as "Sa\du d-Din;" see Osmanh
customarily Izgi,
Medreselerinde Ilim, 164.
39. See Mehmet ?ener, "??rperd?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 8:230-231;
and Brockelmann, GAL, 1:193. For extant of the work, see
manuscripts
M?B, al-Ta?r, 404-405. This is not to be confused with the work on gram
mar the same author, entided H?shiyah 'ala sharh li-Ibn
by al-Mufassal
H?jib, that was studied at the
primary level of the medrese education and also
cited as see I lim,
customarily "??r?perd?"; Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde 169.
197
to content that was of al

sought adjust problematically expressive
Zamakhshar? sMu'tazili
theology.40
6. Jibl [3]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?f of al
'
Zamakhshari entitled Fut?h al-ghayb fi al-kashfan qin? al-rayb by
Sharaf al-D?n al-Husayn b. Muhammad al-T?b? al-Sh?fn
(d.743/1342), a student of al-Ch?r?pardi (item 4, above). 4?
Hamza.
7.Mevl?n? [1]. This is the commentary on the Anwar
al-tan?l 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
acclaimed and prolific Egyptian Sh?fn scholar, Jal?l al-D?n al-Suy?ti
(d.911/1505), entitled al-Durr al-manth?rfi al-ta?r bi-al-mdth?r.43
9. Qurtubi. [1]. This is theQuran commentary by the Andalusian
M?lik? scholar, Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad A-Qunubl
(d.671/1273) entitled al-J?mi1fi alpkam al-quran.44
40. See J. A. Robson, EI2; Lutpi Ibrahim, "Al-Baydawi's Life

"al-Baydaw?,"
and Works," Islamic Studies 18 (1979) 311-321; Yusuf ?evki Yavuz,
TDV Islam 6:100-103. Al-Bayd?wi's been
"Beyz?v?," Ansiklopedisi, ta?rhzs
numerous times, beginning with the Leipzig edition of 1848, and
published
the Cairo edition of 1880. On the work, see Ismail "Envar?'t
Cerrahoglu,
Tenz?l ve Esrar? t-Tevil," TDV Islam 11:260-261; for a sense of
Ansiklopedisi,
its prolific circulation in the see the list of extant manu
pre-modern period,
scripts inM?B, 280-334.
al-Ta?r,
41. See the on him 'Abd al-Satt?r Zamm?t in his edition
study by Husayn
of al-T?b?, al-Tiby?n fi al-bay?n, Beirut: Dar al-J?l, 1996; and Nuwayhid,
Mu 159. For extant of Fut?h see
jam al-mufassi?n, manuscripts al-ghayb,
M?B, al-Tafsir, 389-394.
42. H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 190; Nuwayhid, Mu jam al-mufassi?n,
164-5; for extant of the work, see M?B, 472-73.
manuscripts al-Tafsir,
43. See the study by E. M. Sartain, fal?l al-Din al-Suyuti: Volume I, Biogra
phy and Background, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. The

Durr has been published several times, beginning with the Cairo edition of
1897. For a sense of the numerous extant see M?B, al
manuscript copies,
Ta?r, 530-540.
44. See the on him Abd Firt, al
representative study by Y?suf al-Rahm?n
Qiirtubi, Kuwait: Dar al-Qalam, 1982. His has been been

ta?r published
several times, with the Cairo edition of 1952; for the numerous
beginning
extant of the work, see MAB, 261-270.
manuscript copies al-Tafsir,
198
Syllabus: A Curriculum
The Sultan's the Ottoman medreses
for Imperial
10. Teysir. [1]. This is theQuran commentary entitled

al-Taysirfii
al-ta?r by the Hanaf? M?tur?d?, Najm al-D?n Ab? Hafs 'Umar b.
Ahmad al-Nasafi (537/1142),45 the author of the famous M?tur?d?
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 'Abd al-Razz?q b. Ahmad al-Q?sh?n? al-Samarqand?
(d.730/1329), entitled Tdwi??t al-quran. The work is often incor
rectly ascribed toMuhyi al-D?n Ibn al-'Arabi (d.638/1240), to whose
47
mystical school al-Q?sh?ni belonged.
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
13. Buh?ri. [l].This is al-J?m?al-sah?h of al-Bukh?r?, the Hadith
collection compiled by Abu ?bd Allah Muhammad b. Ism?'?l al
Bukh?ri (d.256/870) that acquired canonical status in Islam.49
14. Kirm?ni. [3]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al
Bukh?r? by the Baghd?di scholar Shams al-D?n Muhammad b Y?suf
45. For the author, see 281; for extant

Nuwayhid, Mujam al-mufassi?n,
of the work, see M?B, 152-155.
manuscript copies al-Ta?r,
46. For the use of this work in Ottoman medreses, see Ilk Osmanh
Bilge,
Medreseleri, 53.
47. See Pierre Lory, Les Commentaires du Coran Abd al
?sot?riques d'apr?s
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 al-D?n Ibn al-'Arab?. For the correction, see
Muhyi
Osman Yahya, Histoire et Classification de l' uvre d'Ibn Arabi, Damascus:
Institut de Damas, 1964, 2:483-484. For extant of the
Fran?ais manuscripts
work, see M?B, 369-70.
al-Ta?r,
48. For the author, see Badr b. N?sir al-Badr, Abu al-Than?' al-Isfah?ni,
Mahmud ibn Abd al-Rahm?n ibnAhmad, 1749 h, hay?tu-hu wa ta?ru-hu,
Dar al-Muslim, 2002; for extant of this
Riyad: manuscripts unpublished
work, see M?B, 405-6.
al-Ta?r,
49. See J. Robson, "al-Bukh?r?," EI2. The work has, of course, been pub
lished innumerable times; for a list of the vast number of extant manuscripts,
see al-Malik? li-Buh?th al-Had?rah Mu assasat ?l
al-Majma al-Isl?m?yyah,
al-Bayt, al-Fihris al-sh?mil li-al-tur?th al-'arabi al-isl?mi al-makht?t: al
hadith al-nabawi wa ul?mu-hu wa Amman: Mu assasat
al-sha?f rij?lu-hu,
Al al-Bayt, 1991, 493-565 (hereafter,M?B, al-Hadth).
199
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVlC
al-Kirm?n? (d.786/1384), entitled al-Kaw?kib al-dur?ri ft sharh Sahih

50
al-Bukh?n.
15. ?ynL [5]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukh?r?

by the Cairene scholar, Badr al-D?n Mahmud b. Ahmad al-'Ayn? al
Hanaf? (d.855/1451), entitled 'Umdat al-q?n sharh Sahih al
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
al-'Asqal?n? al-Sh?fi'? (d.852/1448), entitled Path al-b?ri bi-sharh
52
Sahih al-Bukh?n.
17.Mesabtb. [1]. This is the Hadith collection entitled Mas?bih
al-sunnah comprised of Hadiths selected by al-Husayn b. Mas'?d Ibn
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 the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu 3:784; the work was
jam al-mu'allifin,
in Cairo in 25
published volumes by Matba'at al-Bah?yyah al-Misr?yyah,
1933-64. For a list of the numerous extant see MAB, al
manuscripts,
Haa?th, 1308-1319.
51. For the author, see Kahh?lah,
Mu 3:797-798; and
jam al-mu'allifin,
W. Marc?is, "al-Ayn?," EI2; the work was first published in Istanbul in 11
volumes by Dar al-Tib?'ah al-'Amirah in 1890. For the numerous extant
see M?B, al-Haaith, 1096-1107.
manuscripts,
52. See F. Rosenthal, "Ibn Hajar," EI2. There are several editions and count
less reprints of this work, that of T?h? Abd al-Ra?f Sa'd et al,
including pub
lished in 28 volumes byMaktabat al-Kulliy?t al-Azhar?yyah in 1978. For the
number of extant manuscripts, see M?B, al-Haaith, 1142-1160,
prodigious
53. See J. Robson, EI2. The Mas?bih was first from
"al-Baghaw?," published
Cairo in 1876; for the very large number of extant manuscripts,
see MAB,
al-Hadth, 1490-1507.
54. H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1699; Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin,
2:472. Ibn Hajar al-Durar al-k?minah ay?n al-mi'ah al
al-Asqal?ni, fi
th?minah, ed. Sayyid J?d al-Haqq, Cairo: D?r al-Kutub al-Hadithah, 3:152.
About thirty manuscript copies of this unpublished work exist in the Siiley
maniye library in Istanbul, which is where the bulk of the

surviving collec
tions of the Ottoman libraries of Istanbul are see also
manuscript preserved;
M?B, al-Hadth, 1011-1013.
200
[1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih

19.Muzhir. al-sun
nah of al-Baghawi by Muzhir al-D?n al-Husayn b. Mahmud al-Zay
d?n? (d.728/1328) entitled al-Mafi?hfi hall al-Mas?kh.55
20. Menhal. [1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih al-sun
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 T?bi. [1]. Al-Baghawi's Mas?bih al-sunnah was
expanded byWal? al-D?n Muhammad b. 'AbdAllah al-Khatib al-Tib
r?z? (/7.737/1337) into a work entitled Mishk?t al-Mas?bih. The
Mishk?t-i Tib? is the commentary on theMishk?t al-Mas?bih of al
Khat?b al-Tibrizi by Sharaf al-D?n al-Husayn b. Muhammad al-T?b?
(d.743/1342), for whom see item 6, above. The title of the work is al
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 al-us?l compiled by Ab? al-Sa'?d?t al-Mub?rak Ibn
li-ah?dith
al-Athir al-Jazari al-Sh?fi'i (d.606/1210) comprising the matns of all
the Prophetic Hadith contained in the following mainly canonical
collections, but omitting the isn?ds: theMuwatta! of M?lik b. Anas,
the Sahih of al-Bukh?ri, the Sahih of Muslim, the J?mi of al-Tir
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 al-zun?n, 1699. Thirteen manuscript copies of this unpublished
work exist in the Siileymaniye library in Istanbul; see alsoM?B, al-Hadith,
1546-47.
56. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu l-A'bl', for the work,
jam al-mu'allifin,
seeH?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1701; Bagdatli Ism?'?l Pa?a, ?d?h al
ala Kashf al-zun?n an as? mi al-kutub wa ed.
makn?nfi al-dhayl 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 six worldwide; see M?B, al-Hadith, 1629.
library, apparently only
57. SeeH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1700; thework was published by the
Id?rat wa al-'Ul?m Karachi, in 1993. About
al-Qur'?n al-Isl?miyyah, fifty
exist in the Siileymaniye see also M?B, al-Hadith,
manuscript copies library;
1257-59.
58. See F. Rosenthal, "Ibn al-Ath?r," EI2. For the work, see Khalifah,
H?jj?
Kashf al-zun?n, 535-537, andM. M. Azami, Studies inHadith Methodology
and Literature, American Trust Publications, 1977, 112. Ibn al
Indianapolis:
Ath?r does not cite variances in common matnsr, in such instances he follows
201
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FiLIPOVic
23. Muslim. [1]. This is the Sahih Muslim, the Hadith collection
compiled by Muslim b. Hajj?j al-Nays?b?ri (d.259/874) that acquired
59
canonical status.
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
25. Hid?ya. [1]. This is al-Hid?yah fi al-fur?* a compendium of
Hanaf? law by Burh?n al-D?n Ali b. Abi Bakr al-Marghin?ni
61 as a commentary on
(d.593/1197). Al-Marghin?ni wrote the work
his own Bid?yat al-mubtadi\ which was, in turn, based on two impor
tant early works of Hanafi law, the fundamental al-J? m? al-saghir of
Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shayb?ni (d.187/805)62 and al-Mukhtasar
of Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Qud?ri al-Baghd?di (d.428/1037).63
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 1949-53. For a list of the numerous extant manu
al-Muhammadiyyah,
see MAB, al-Hadith, 484-491.
script copies,
59. See G. H. A. Juynboll, "Muslim IbnHadjdj?j," EI2. This work has, of
course, been published innumerable times. For the very number of
large
extant see M?B, al-Hadith, 574-590.
manuscripts,
60. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam 4:98. There are
al-mu'allifin,
several editions, such as Cairo: Matbaat 1930 (18 vol
published Hij?zi,
umes). For the number of extant see MAB, al-Hadith,
large manuscripts,
1613-1624.
61. See W. EI2, Y. Meron, His
Heffening, "al-Marghin?ni," "Margh?n?n?,
Method and His Legacy," Islamic Law and Society 9 (2002), 410-416; IbnAbi
al-Wafa' al-Qurashi, al-Jaw?hir al-mudiyyah fi tabaq?t al-Hanafiyyah,
Hyderabad: D?'irat al-Ma?rif 1915, 2:204-206. For the
al-'Uthm?n?yyah,
work and a long list of the commentaries thereon, seeH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf
al-zun?n, 2031-2040; Cengiz Kallek, "el-Hidaye," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi,
17:471-473. The text of the Hiaayah has been numerous times,
published
beginning with the Calcutta lithograph of 1833-37, and the Cairo edition of
1908. It was translated into as as 1791 at the order of Gover
English early
nor-General and Council of on account of its importance in
Bengal, Mughal
North India. For a list of the numerous extant see Brock
partial manuscripts,
elmann, GAL, S.I: 344-45.
62. For this work and its numerous commentaries, see Khalifah,
H?jji Kashf
al-zun?n, 561-64. It was Id?rat wa al-'Ul?m al
published by al-Qur'?n
Karachi, in 1987.
Isl?m?yyah,
63. For this work and its numerous commentaries, see Khalifah,
H?jji Kashf
al-zun?n, 1631-1634. It was first in Bombay in 1885.
published
202
26. Nih?ya. [1]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah of al
Marghin?ni entitled 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
of al-Marghin?ni entitled Gh?yat al-bay?n wa n?dirat al-aqr?n by
Qiw?m al-D?n Am?r K?tib b. Am?r 'Umar al-Itqan? (d.758/1356),
who taught in Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo.65
28. EkmeL [1]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah of al
Margh?n?n? by Akmal al-D?n Muhammad b. Mahmud al-B?bart?
(d.786/1384), entitled al-Tn?yahfi sharh al-Hid?yah. Al-B?barti was a
student of Shams al-D?n al-Isfah?ni who spent much of his career in
Cairo.66
64. There are 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, two
only 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 of this work extant in the see
copies Siileymaniye library;
also al-Majma' al-Maliki li-Buh?th al-Had?rah al-Isl?miyyah, Mu assasatAl
al-Bayt, al-Fihris al-sh?mil li-al-tur?th al-araU al-isl?nu al-makht?t:
al-fiqh
wa us?lu-hu, Amman: Mu assasat ?1 6:368-381
al-Bayt, 1999-ongoing,
(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 AHMED and Nenad FiLIPOVIC
29. ZeyleX. [1]. This is the commentary authored in Cairo by

Fakhr al-D?n 'Uthm?n b. 'Ali al-Zayla'? (d.743/1342) on the com
pendium of Hanaf? law entitled Kanz al-daq?'iq fi Jur?al-Hanafiyyah

by Hafiz al-D?n Ab? al-Barak?t 'Abd Allah b. Ahmad al-Nasafi
(d.711/1310). AJ-Zayla'i entitled his commentary Tabyin al-haq? 'iq.67
30. Q?d? H?n. [1]. This is the collection of legal opinions
[fiat?wa) of the Hanafi jurist Fakhr al-Din Hasan b. Mans?r al-Izjandi

al-Fargh?ni Q?'dikh?n/Qazikh?n (d.592/1196), known as the Fat?w?
Q?dikh?myyab/Qazikh?niyyah.68
31. Hul?sa. [1]. This is the collection of legal opinions of the
Hanafi jurist Iftikh?r al-Din T?hir b. Ahmad 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
arab sham?tit by the widely-travelled Majd al-Din Muhammad b.
Yaq?b al-Fir?z?b?di (d.817/1414).70
Calcutta in 1830-37. There are about extant in the

fifty manuscript copies
see further, MAB, 6:300-320.
Siileymaniye library; al-Fiqh
67. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu 2:365. For the work,
al-mu'allifin,
jam
see Khalifah, al-zun?n There
1515. are about
H?jj? Kashf sixty manuscript
extant in the Siileymaniye see also, MAB,
copies of this work library; al-Fiqh,
2:242-261.
68. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu 1:594, Ibn Abi al
jam al-mu'allifin,
Wara\ al-Jaw?hir 1:326-327; and Ahmet ?zel, "K?d?h?n",
al-mudiyyah,
TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 24:121-123. The work has been published several
times with the 19th century edition from al-Matbaah al-Maym?
beginning
n?yyah inCairo; see alsoH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1227-1228; and for
a list of extant see Brockelmann, GAL, S.1:643-44.
partial manuscripts,
69. For the author, see Kahh?lah, 2:9; Ihn Abi al
Mujam al-mu'allifin,
Wafa\ al-Jaw?hir 2:10-11; M. Esat Kili?er, "Buh?r?, T?hir b.
al-mudiyyah,
Ahmed," TDV I slamAnsiklopedisi, 6:376. The work was recently published
in Quetta al-Maktabah 2002; see also the description in
by al-R?shid?yyah,
Khalifah, al-zun?n, 718. There are about
H?jj? Kashf fifty manuscript copies
of this work extant in the Siileymaniye see further MAB,
library; al-Fiqh,
3:1031-1045.
70. For the author, H. Fleisch, "al-Fir?z?b?di," EI2, and Kahh?lah, Mujam
3:777; for the work, see Khalifah, al-zun?n, 1306
al-mu'allifin, H?jj? Kashf
1310. Al-Q?m?s al-muhit has been numerous times,
published beginning
with the Calcutta edition of 1817, and the B?l?q edition of 1865.
204
The Sultan's A Curriculum for the Ottoman medreses
Syllabus: Imperial
33. Cevheri.[1]. This is the Arabic dictionary by Ism?'?l b. Ham

m?d al-Jawhari al-F?r?bi (d.393/1003) entitled al-Sih?bfi al-lughah.n
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
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
does not identify the compiler of the work, two unattributed copies
of which appear to be extant in the Siileymaniye library.74 Brockel
mann reports a further Siileymaniye manuscript work of this title
attributed to an unidentifiable Nur Allah al-Halab?, but we were
unable to examine this to
compare it to the other two.75
manuscript
35. Tevzth. is al-Tawdih fi hall ghaw?mid al-Tanqih by
[1]. This
Sadr al-Shari'ah al-Th?ni 'Ubayd Allah b. Mas ud al-Mahb?b? al
Bukh?r? (d.747/1346), a commentary on the authors own work on
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 ;
71. For the author, see L. EI2, and Kahh?lah,

Kopf, "al-Djawhari," 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.
72. The Kit?b al-asm?' of al-Zamakhshar? (for whom see item 1, above)
seems to be now 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
1:240. For extant of the work see GAL, S.1:506-507.
lifin, manuscript copies
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 and the numerous commentaries thereon,
Tancfih
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 are extant in the
fifty manuscript copies Siileymaniye
library; see further,M?B, al-Fiqh, 2:918-942.
205
Shahab Ahmed and Nenad FlLIPOViC
see item 3, above), entitled al-Talwih

fi kashf haq? 'iqal-Tanqih. H?jji
Khalifah (d. 1067/165 7) describes this work as "sought after by every
77
student in the field."
37. Hasan ?elebt. [1]. This is the supercommentary by Hasan
?eleb? b. Muhammad Sh?h al-Fan?ri (d.886/1482) on al-Taft?z?nis
Talwih, called simply H?shiyah al? al-Talwih sharh al-TancphJ*
38. Pezdevi. [1]. This is the work of Hanafi jurisprudence by
Fakhr al-Isl?m 'Ali b. Muhammad al-Pazdawi (d.482/1089) entitled
al-Us?l.79
m on the Us?l of al-Pazdawi
39. Ke?f. This is the commentary
entitled Kashf al-asr?r by 'Ala' al-Din 'Abd al-'Aziz b. Ahmad al
Bukh?r? (d.730/1330), who spent his career inTransoxania.81
Analysis and conclusions
We now to an of the curriculum of the

may proceed analysis
med?ris-i H?q?niye. This analysis is broadly aimed, firstly, ar answering
77. H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496. This work was first published in
Cairo by al-Maktabah in 1904-1906; about
al-Khayriyyah fifty manuscript
are extant in the also see MAB, 2:771
copies Siileymaniye library, al-Fiqh,
790. It is incorrectly identified by Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 50, as being
a commentary on the al-ahaath al-ahd?th of
Tanqih fi raf al-tayammum
Sharaf al-Din Ahmad b. al-Hasan aJ-Hanafi (d.771/1369).
78. For the author, see Kahh?lah, 544; and Cemil
Mujam al-muallifin,
"Hasan ?elebi, Fen?r?," TDV Islam 16:312-315; for the
Akpinar, Ansiklopedisi,
work, seeH?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496. Itwas first published inCairo by
al-Maktabah in 1904-1906; about are
al-Khayriyyah thirty manuscript copies
extant in the Siileymaniye see further MAB, 3:382-387.
library; al-Fiqh,
79. For the author, Kahh?lah, 2:501; for the work, see
H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?7t, 112-113. This was first published in Istan
bul in 1890.
80. In the document, there is no numeral written under this citation
original
to indicate the number of volumes.
8.1. On the author, see Kahh?lah, 2:157-58; Ibn Abi al
Wafa', al-faw?hir 2:96-97; and Fahrettin Atar, "Abd?laz?z el
al-mudiyyah,
Buh?r?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 1:186-187. On the work, see Kha
H?jj?
112. This was first
lifah, Kashf al-zun?n, published, along with the Us?lo?
al-Pazdawi, in Istanbul in 1890. There are about in
fifty manuscript copies
the Siileymaniye library.
206
Syllabus: A Curriculum
The Sultans the Ottoman Imperial medreses
for
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
gesis), twelve works of Hadith, five works of legal theory (jurispru

dence, us?l al-fiqh),
seven works of positive law (fur? al-fiqh) ? mak
ing twelve works of fiiqh in total, and three Arabic lexicons. It is
notable that there are no books on sub
immediately any preparatory
such as or and no books on that
jects, grammar, syntax logic, subjects
we know to have formed a part of the intermediate level of the medrese
curriculum, such as theology. Thus, the content of the curriculum
confirms our initial identification of the med?ris-i H?q?niye as the
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
ta?r, H?dith, and Hanafi 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 (d.538/1144), the Kasbsb?fi Of the eleven
ta?rs other than the Kashsh?fi eight derive, in some form or another,
from that work ? and even the remaining three are chronologically
82. It should be noted here that the volume numbers for some of the
given
works are somewhat For the J?mi' al-ahk?m of
puzzling. example, al-Qur
tubi (item 7) is given as being in just one volume, when the work ismuch
too - no seems
for that copy to be bound
long certainly existing manuscript
in a single tome (seeM?B, al-Ta?r, 261-270). This is also the case with the
ta?r of Shams al-D?n al-Isfah?n? (item 12;M?B, al-Ta?r, 405-406). It
may be that the numerals written under the citations in the document refer
to other than the number of volumes, but the latter understand
something
is consonant with It is more
ing conventional practice. likely that the scribe
did not pay attention to the number of volumes in some cases and wrote
- concern
them incorrecdy but it is also hard to square this with the evident
for the volumes reflected in the remark, are
tallying "Together they fifty-five,"
that appears after the citations.
207
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVIC
to it, was regarded in the

subsequent indicating, perhaps, that it
Ottoman academy as of watershed in the history of
something
Quranic exegesis. The inclusion of the Kashsh?fim the syllabus is on
the one hand unsurprising: al-Zamakhshari was himself, like the
Ottomans, a
by legal school Hanafi, and by ethnicity aTurk, while the
widespread accorded to the in the centuries
recognition Kashsh?f
between its production
and the promulgation of the present syllabus
is reflectedin 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
in the but was chosen as the fundamental commen
syllabus, Quran
tary in the Ottoman curriculum is remarkable in view of al

s was a
Zamakhshari 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
mate belief. Indeed, the an
Kashsh?f, which has been called "outspo
85
was seen
ken Mu'tazili book" generally by non-Mu'tazilis as brilliant
in its linguistic and rhetorical exposition of the Quran, but as theo
86
logically flawed and suspect. It is for this reason that the authors of
are on -
the commentaries on the that the
Kashsh?f present syllabus
al-Qutb al-Shir?zi (d.710/1311), Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni

(d.791/1389), Fakhr al-Din al-Ch?r?pardi (d.746/1346), and Sharaf
al-D?n al-Tibi - to correct al
(d.743/1342) regularly interject
Zamakhshari's more distinctively Mu'tazili interpretations, while the
of al-Bayd?wi (d.716/1315), as noted earlier, is effectively "a
tafsir
87
condensed and amended edition of al-Zamakhshari's Kashsh?f in
which al-Bayd?wi reworked content that was problematically expres
sive of al-Zamakhshari's Mu'tazili to
theology bring it into line with
83. See MAB, 155-166.

al-Ta?r,
84. On al-Zamakhshari's based, catholic Mu'tazilism," see Wilferd
"broadly
"The Theology of al-Zamakhshari," Actas DelXII de la
Madelung, Congreso
U.E.A.I. 1984), Madrid: Union d'Arabisants et d'Is
(Malaga, Europ?enne
lamisants, 1986, 484-495, at 495.
85. Madelung, "The Theology of al-Zamakhshari," 485.

86. See the opinions of scholars on the
Kashsh?f gathered by Muhammad
al-Dhahabi, wa Beirut: Dar n.d.,
Husayn al-Ta?r al-mufassir?n, al-Qalam,
?:435-442.
87. J.A.Robson, EI2.
"al-Bayd?wi,"
208
The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses
88
Ashari formulations (it is probably for this reason that al-Bayd?wi s
to outstrip that of al
tafiir came, by the 12th/18th century,
Zamakhshari in circulation and standing).89 The fact that the com
mentaries on the Kashsh?f do not merely explicate, but often disagree
with the text would presumably have also served to expose students to
the dialectics of disputation in exegesis. Something similar might have
been achieved by the inclusion of the tafsir of Shams 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
Hamdard Isl?micas 4.3 (Autumn 1981) 3-9; "Discussions about
Baydawi,"
the Attributes of God between al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi," Hamdard
Islamicus 5.4 (Winter 1982) 3-23; and "AComparative Study of theViews of
az-Zamakhshari and about the Position of the Grave Sinner,"
al-Baydawi
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 (in addition, a commentary on the
Tagk?priz?de taught
does not appear in the present curriculum, that of al-Sharif al
Koshsh?fthat
Jurj?ni), by Seyyid Feyzull?h Efendi in the second half of the 11th/17thcen
in the sec
(along with
tury unnamed commentaries), and 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 11th/17th and 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 I Urn, For
Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde 1:163-176. the importance of al
Bayd?wi s ta?r in the scholarly debates held in the Ottoman palace in the
12th/18th century, see Madeleine Zilfi, "A medrese for the Palace: Ottoman
Dynastic Legitimation in the Eighteenth Century", Journal of theAmerican

Oriental Society113 (1993), 184-191, at 186-187; for the performance of al
s in ceremonies in 12th/18th Istanbul, see
Bayd?wi ta?r public century
d'Ohsson, Tableau General de Othoman, Paris: L'Im
Mouradgea l'Empire
primerie de Monsieur Firmin Didot, 1788-1824, 7 vols, 2:468-469. In all,
there are many more extant of the Anw?r al-tanzi I than there are
manuscripts
of theKashsh?f seeM?B, al-Ta?r, 280-334 and 155-188, respectively.
209
Isfah?ni (d.749/1349) who based his commentary on the

Kashsh?f
and on theMafi?h of the Sh?fi'i Ashar? scholar Fakhr al-D?n
al-ghayb
al-R?zi (d.606/1210), the latter work being characterized by an "anti
Mu'tazili" stance.90 It is further that the authors of the
noteworthy
selected commentaries on the unlike the Ottomans
Kashsh?f'were,
- a
themselves, all Ash aris, and not M?turidis their indicates
presence
doctrinal inclusiveness on the part of the department of the ?eyhulis
l?m, at least as far and are concerned. Doubtless, this
theology exegesis
has to do with 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
logy at the middle levels of the medrese curriculum).92 But in the final
it is evident that al-Zamakhshari s was deemed
analysis, commentary
to be of such brilliance that itwas made the fundamental text in the
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
M?turid? as Najm al-D?n Abu al-Hafs al-Nasafi (d.537/1142) whose
was included in the syllabus, but not as the foun
al-Taysirfi al-ta?r
dational text.
The Kashsh?f \s very much a ta?r bi-al-ra'y ? that is, an exegesis

arising from rhe authors direct hermeneutical engagement with the
text of the Quran. The syllabus also includes one work that is a tafsir
-
hi-al-math?r a which is of
commentary essentially comprised
reports from earlier Quran commentaries. This is al-Durr al-manth?r
of the acclaimed
Egyptian scholar, Jal?l al-D?n al-Suy?ti
(d. 911/1505), ismade up of
which reports drawn from several ta?rs
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
tradition. The fact that al-Suy?ti died only sixty years before the
present syllabus was drawn up is expressive not only of how swiftly he
90. See McAuliffe, Christians, 63-71, at 69.

Quranic
91. On this, seeWilferd Madelung, "The Spread of M?tur?dism and the
Turks," in Actas do IV Congresso de Estudos Arabes e Isl?micos, Coimbra-Lisboa
1968, Leiden: 1971, 109-168, at 166.

E.J.Brill,
92. On works in medreses, see Le kal?m et son r?le,
theology taught Yazicioglu,
54-65.
210
The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman
Imperial medreses
became as a scholar of historic but also of the

recognized standing,
of the Ottoman canon to new works. He is the most
receptiveness
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
(d.671/1273). Given, as we will see below, that all the law books on
the list are by Hanafis, it is noteworthy that al-Qurtubi was aM?liki.
The 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
commentaries: al-Qurtubi includes the arguments of the different
legal schools in his commentary, and sometimes aligns himself with
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
al-Q?sh?nis (d.730/1329) commentary, as noted above, has histori
? is also
cally been ascribed to Ibn al-Arabi significant. Despite the
very mixed reception of Ibn al-Arabi in some parts of the Arab world,
he was venerated by the Ottoman state. Thus, Ibn al-Arabi s tomb
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
m?n), and his works taught in the Ottoman medreses.94 It is note
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-quran- the sciences of theQuran;
93. See al-Dhahabi, wa 2:503-506.

al-Ta?r al-mufassi?n,
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 and Nenad FlLIPOVIC
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
appear within the J?mi' al-us?l of Ibn al-Ath?r (d.606/1210) which,
as noted before, comprises the matns of all the Hadiths contained in
al-Bukh?ri, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi (d.279/892), al-Nas?'i (d.303/915),
Abu D?w?d (d.275/888), and the Muwatta of M?lik (d.179/795),
but omits the isn?ds. Three long commentaries on the Sahihs of al
Bukh?ri, and one on the Sahihs of Muslim are prescribed, but none
on any of the other collections. Clearly, the Sahihs of al-Bukh?r? and
Muslim were viewed the makers of the Ottoman curricu
by present
lum as of superior utility to the other Hadith collections.96 It is inter
esting that the respective commentaries of both Badr al-Din al-Ayni
(d.855/1451) and Ibn Hajar al-Asqal?ni (d.852/1448) appear in the
syllabus, given that these two scholars were known for the disagree
ments between their commentaries to the that Ibn
point 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 26 (1999), 42-54, an counterbalance to

Society provides important
the perhaps Arabo-centric focus of the of Ibn al
overly reception-history
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, 1999.
95. For Eb? s-Su ?d's citation of Ibn al-Arabi in his 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 curriculum, says that the Sahihs of Bukh?ri was studied in
theMifi?h /h?rte, and d?hil/altmish (60 aq?e) medreses. In theKev?kib-i seb'a,
written about two centuries later, in 1155/1741, and in the curriculum
given
by Ziy?'u d-Din Ahisqavi (d. 1218/1803), it is stated that all six canonical
Hadith collections are studied in the medreses. See Osmanh
Izgi,
Medreselerinde Ilim 1:170-71, 166, and 173, respectively.
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 al-Rushd, 1993; on their professional see Anne Broad
rivalry,
Academic and the Patronage in
bridge, Rivalry System Fifteenth-Century
212
The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses
three commentaries, is the Mas?bih al-sunnah of al-Baghawi

(d.516/1122), which contains Hadith selected from the canonical
collections and arranged by subject matter.98 The last Hadith work
also derives from the Mas?bih al-sunnah, being a commentary of
Sharaf al-Din al-Tibi (d.743/1342) on the of theMas? b?h
expansion
by Wal? al-D?n al-Tibriz? {fil. 737/1337). It is noteworthy that no
works are prescribed that deal with the ul?m al-hadith, or method
ological sciences of Hadith. As with the ul?m al-quran, itmay well
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,
the official legal rite of the Ottoman empire. While the courts of
the Ottoman legal system did, of course, have sitting judges from
the other legal schools in those regions of the empire where the
other madhhabs had adherents, it iswould appear from this cur
riculum that the Ottoman state did not itself have any interest in
training legal scholars of any other madhhab. It would appear that
judges of other madh?hib (including the Twelver Shi'ah judges of

Jabal '?mil) received their training both privately and in medreses
supported by awq?fis founded by adherents of that madhhab, and
would similarly have received their remuneration not from the
Ottoman " state
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
texts. The works of us?l are the Tawdih of Sadr al
al-fiqh selected
Shar?ah al-Bukh?ri (d.747/1346) with the commentaries thereon
by al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389) and Hasan ?eleb? al-Fan?r?
Egypt: al-Ayni, al-Maqrizi, and Ibn Hajar Maml?k Studies

al-Asqal?ni,"
Review 3 (1999), 85-107.
98. Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/1561) taught theMas?bih, which also appears in
the book list of Nebiefendiz?de (d. 1200/1786); see Izgi, Osmanh
Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:171, and 169, respectively.
This is a subject that warrants further Shi'i see
99. study. On education,
M. Salati, "Toleration, Persecution and Local Realities: 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
(d.886/l482),10ft and the Us?l of al-Pazdawi (d.482/1089) with the

commentary of Ala' al-D?n al-Bukh?r? (d.730/1330). It is striking
how the emphasis here is on works authored in the two-and-a half
centuries to the construction of the curriculum,
immediately prior
rather than on older works. This would seem to evince an under
on the of those who constructed the curriculum that

standing part
Hanafi was an discourse in which the best
jurisprudence evolving
- assume
works and it is reasonable to that the curriculum
only
? were
would seek to include what were considered the best works
not the oldest ones, but rather those that took into
necessarily
account and were expressive of the historical development of legal
,fH the
theory. It is these later works of Hanafi us?l that Ottoman
state sought to canonize in 973/1565.
As regards positive law (fur? al-fiqh), the fundamental text was evi
dently the Hid?yah of al-Marghin?ni (d.593/1197), which was stud
ied with three commentaries ? the Nih?yah of al-Sighn?qi
(d.711/1311), the Gh?yat al-bay?n otal-Itq?ni (d.758/1356), and the
,02
Akmalof al-B?barti (d.786/1356). Further to al-Marghin?ni, three
more collections were used, the Khul?sah of Iftikh?r al-Din
o?fiat?w?
al-Bukh?ri (d.543/1147) the Fat?w? Q?dikh?myyah ofFakhr al-Din
100. Al-Fan?r?'s commentary appears also in the list of books from Nebiefen
diz?de (d. 1200/1786); see Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:169.
101. Note the remark of Subtelny and Khalidov, from about the
"Starting
twelfth new in the field of Hanafite law, brought on
century, developments
the contributions of Iranian and Central Asian scholars,
largely through
resulted in the addition of new authoritative texts and new commentaries on
old textbooks to the curriculum of Islamic "The Curricu
higher learning;"
lum of 214.
Higher Learning,"
102. It isworth noting here that the ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Su'?d himself, when
a at one of the of the F?tih medrese is
professor Eight Colleges complex,
reported to have taught both the Taluih of al-Taft?z?n?, and theHid?yah o?
see Imber, Ebu's-Su'ud, 11. The was in the
al-Margh?n?n?; Hid?yah taught
?
who mentions that it was studied
preceding generation by Ta?k?priz?de
from the h?rte to altmtslt levels of the medrese system. It is also mentioned in
the Kev?kib-i seb'a as studied in the medreses in 1155/1741. The
being
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 Syllabus: A Curriculum the Ottoman
for Imperialmedreses
103and
Q?di Khan (d.592/1196), commentary the of al-Zaylai
(d.743/1342) on the Kanz of Hafiz al-Din al-Nasafi
al-daq?'iq
(d.711/1310). All the works of positive law on the syllabus were thus
produced in the 550 to 800H. This is indicative of a
period again
developmental attitude towards Islamic law in which "a chronologi
104
cally later opinion must replace an earlier one of equal validity."
The presence on the curriculum of these later works of positive law is
doubtless also due to the simple fact that since the purpose of the
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
by the Ottoman state in 973/1565 was made up of works produced
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
Jawhari). The remaining thirty-four works medrese
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 were nonetheless available to Ottoman in libraries as ref
jurists
erence materials. On the historical evolution of Islamic 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
temporary Studies, London: Graham and Trotman, 1993, 29-47\
105. Hallaq uses this phrase to the criteria
explain by which later
compilers
o? fata wa collections selected fat?w? for inclusion; to our mind, it
applies
equally well here to the likely criteria on the basis of which those selfsame
collections and commentaries were selected for inclusion in the pres
fat?w?
ent See Hallaq, and 188.
syllabus. Authority, Continuity Change,
215
Shahab Ahmed and Nenad FlLiPOVIC
- were
curriculum all in the age of the medrese-, that is, the
produced
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, and Hasan ?elebi al-Fan?ri
(d.886/1482), who was a member of a 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
sive of a certain conservatism in the culture that
scholarly-bureaucratic
- recent were
drew up the curriculum works that deemed
probably
not to have themselves as obtained the sustained
yet proven having
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
I07
the curriculum in the century ; nonetheless, the fact that
previous
in all there are as many as five titles from the 9th H century is an
instructive indication of the limits of this conservatism, and of the
content of the curriculum of the Ottoman medreses. Also, the
evolving
relative obscurity of two of the books ? theManhal al-yan?Wfi sharh
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;
and the anonymous lexicon Taj al-asm? \ of which only two or three
109-
survive would indicate that some works
manuscript copies might
have enjoyed a brief vogue in the scholarly community (as happens
today) or temporary favour in the department of the ?eyhulisl?m, but
failed to sustain the or interest of the ulema.
eventually respect
106. On the Ean?ris, see J. R. Walsh, "Fen?ri-z?de," .?72.

107. "Ottoman Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institu
Ihsanoglu,
tions," 376-377.
108. See item 20, above.
109. See item 34, above. The contrast between the anonymity of the Taj al
asm? 'and the continuing renown of the other two lexicons on the syllabus,
al-Sahihsfi al-lughah of al-Jawhar? (d.393/1003), and al-Q?m?s al-muhit of
al-Fir?z?b?di (d.817/1414), is very Both the latter works appear in
striking.
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 54.
Programlart,
216
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 evolution of Ottoman medrese curricula in the centuries sub
regards
sequent to the present syllabus, we have, in the foregoing footnotes, made
some observations about the continuing study of certain books. For
example, six of the twelve works oifiqh given inTSA E/2803/1, namely
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
1155/1741 in the Kev?kib-i seb'a.Only one ta?rwork - that of al-Bay
?
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
strongly suggests that it is telling the whole curricular story. In other
words, the very incomplete nature of the available data renders unfeasible
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 attempt, see Francis Robinson, "Ottomans-Safavids

interesting
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 in Lucknow in
compiled
the first half of the 12th/18thcentury by Niz?m al-D?n Sih?lav? Firangi
Mahalli (d. 1161/1748), and which, in various permutations, eventually
established itself as the pre-eminent curriculum in Indian madrasahs.
217
Shahab AHMED and Nenad FiLlPOVic
As to the the state canon of

question of what, if anything,
973/1565 tells us about the official identity of Ottoman Islam in the
reign of Q?n?ni S?leym?n: on the one hand, the works of Quranic
exegesis are indicative of a of The basic text chosen
degree catholicity.
is by a Turkish scholar who belonged to the official legal rite of the
? ?
Ottoman state Hanafism but who was a Mu'tazili. The commen
taries thereon are Sh?fi'i Asharis, whose as we

mainly by presence,
have noted, is doubtless symptomatic of the gradual coming together
of Ashar?sm with the M?turidi theology favoured by the Ottoman
as ?
state. But the law the medium in which the
regards primary
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
and exclusively Hanafi. The Ottoman no interest in train
empire had
ing its ulema in any other legal madhhab.
Shahab AHMED (Harvard University)

Nenad FlLIPOVIC (Princeton University)
218

The Sultan S Syllabus A Curriculum For T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sultan S Syllabus A Curriculum For T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maisonneuve & Larose

The Sultans Syllabus:

S?leym?n, dated 973 (1565)

It is broadly recognized that the educational reforms carried out in

1. See M. C. Baysun, "Osmanh devri medreseleri," in the entry "Mescid," IA;

measures was the of medreses into a

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

tion of a distinct class of men of religious learning who were integrated

4. Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 312.

H?q?niyeye l?zim olub ferman-i P?dis?l%-ile M?derris Efenc&ler'e

9. The authors should like to express their gratitude to ?lk? at the

Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri, XIII. Mustafa transcribed the titles of twenty

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

mosque in Istanbul came to occupy the most

current knowledge of which books were apparently taught in

16. The fullest of Ottoman medrese curricula available is the important

biographical testimony of Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/156l), one consisting of

Second, sometimes the historical source from which particular works

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

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

good sense of the general oudine of the medrese program of study:

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

A description of medrese education from 1155/1741 indicates fur

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

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

fiqh) by Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389), entitled al-Talwih fi

22. In the of F?tih IIMehemmed, the medreses v/eve accord

in their about the

The central role in the educational reforms was played by the

27. Zilfi, "Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman Religious Establishment,"

my friend in my bosom, my comrade on the of truth, my brother in the

with educational reform was at least in part, by the

positions they were unable to obtain the appointments they thought

a certain 'ahm name of Bedr?dd?n, who was a

Zeitschrift f?r die Kunde desMorgenlandes80 (1990), 59-78, at 64-65.

Empire," InternationalJournal ofMiddle East Studies, 10 (1979), 289-308, at 303.

on the part of the Ottoman state ? in the form of the

graduates, subsequently approved by the ?ieyhulisl?m himself, and

The list of books from the ferman

33. See Tayyib G?kbilgin, "K?nuni Sultan S?leym?n devri m?esseseler ve

well as to gauge the continuing circulation of the work as indicated by

broadly aimed at providing basic information salient to answering the

2. Qutbu d-D?n. [1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi

34. Any reader discouraged at the prospect of reading an annotated

Bayt, al-Fihris alsh? mil li-al-tur?th al-arabi al-isl?mi al-makht?t: ul?m al

3. Sa'du d-Din. [1]. This is the super-commentary composed by

mentary authored by Sharaf al-D?n ai-Tib? (d.743/1343 ; see item 6,

Sh?r?z?,"EI2; Ali ?erbetci, "Kutbudd?n-i ??r?z?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi,

to content that was of al

40. See J. A. Robson, EI2; Lutpi Ibrahim, "Al-Baydawi's Life

phy and Background, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. The

Qiirtubi, Kuwait: Dar al-Qalam, 1982. His has been been

10. Teysir. [1]. This is theQuran commentary entitled

45. For the author, see 281; for extant

al-Kirm?n? (d.786/1384), entitled al-Kaw?kib al-dur?ri ft sharh Sahih

15. ?ynL [5]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukh?r?

18.Zeyn? l-'Areb. [1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih

maniye library in Istanbul, which is where the bulk of the

[1]. This is the commentary on theMas?bih

K?shifi'an haq? 'iq al-sunan.57

24. ?erh-i Miislim-i l-Nevevi. [1]. This is the commentary on the

either al-Bukh?r? or Muslim. The J?mi' al-us?l was edited by Muhammad

26. Nih?ya. [1]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah of al