Sayfa Sonuna Git

THE OTTOMAN ULEMĀ: THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWLEDGE AND SCHOLARLY CONTRIBUTIONS*

ı. UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWLEDGE

As in the Classicasl Islamic World, so too in Ottoman scholarly and education circles, knowledge was generally divided into two groups: rational and traditional. This article focuses on the understanding of knowledge by scholars in the Ottoman medreses (academies of higher learning). It also investigates their understanding of traditional knowledge that was based on religion, and the scholar­ly works produced within this framework. A study of rational knowledge, also called the positive or natural sciences, in which generally non-religious subject are studied, will be examined in a separate article.

In order to understand how scholarly activities were carried out in the Ottoman medreses and how scholarly works were created as a result of these activities, we should first look at the understanding of knowledge in these institutions.

There is a direct relation between an understand­ing of knowledge and attempts to classify knowledge, since these classifications are natural results of under­standings that one has adopted as one's own. Within this framework, we know that in the Classical Islamic World, many scholars classified the sciences that were studied or whose names were topics of discussion.

Prominent among them was the famous Turkish Islamic schol­ar-philosopher Fārābī (d. 339 / 950).

Fārābī investigated the sci­ences in five categories[1]. In a general manner, we can summarize the categories as:

1. Philology and its subcategories: disciplines that examine various parts of a language such a grammar, rhetoric, rhetorical style, and prosody.

2. Logic and its subcategories: includes eight chap­ters of Aristotle's Organon.

3. Didactic knowledge and its subcategories: such subjects as calculus, geometry, astronomy and astrolo­gy, music, and measurement of weight.

4. Nature and Theology: principles of the philoso­phy of nature, study of simple objects, existence and extinction, properties of the elements, topics on miner­als, plants and animals, ontology as the principle of
knowledge, and metaphysical subjects in which incor­poreal entities are discussed.

5. Civilized knowledge and its subcategories: includes fıqh (jurisprudence) and kelām (study of the Quran)[2].

Influenced as he was by Fārābī's works, İbn Sīnā (Avicenna; d. 429/1037), who can be considered a stu­dent of his even though he was born thirty years after the death of Fārābī, expanded Fārābī's classifications[3]. Yet he divided the non-religious rational sciences into two: the "speculative sciences searching for the truth," and the "applied sciences search­ing for human happiness[4]." In the same vein, there are no important differences in essence between the classifications of el-Kharezmī (d. 3S7-997)[5] and of the famous his­torian and sociologist İbn Khaldūn (d. 809/1406)[6].

It can be said that Ottoman scholars adopted without signifi­cant changes the classifications of knowledge constructed in the pre-Ottoman Islamic World. Since the Ottomans' scientific and cultural world and understanding of life, along with their administrative and institutional tradi­tions, reflected the Islamic culture and civilization that existed before them, this situation should be seen as normal.

There was clearly a continuation of textbooks used in educational institutions, and of their authors[7]. Beginning shortly after the foundation of the Ottoman state, Ottoman scholars went to foreign lands for edu­cation and brought their scholarly gleanings and under­standing of knowledge back to their own lands. The regions that they went to can be grouped into two. For the religious sciences and law, whose fundamentals lay in tefsīr (Quranic exegesis), hadīs (sayings of the Prophet), history, literature and religious precepts, they went to Syria and Egypt, the lands of classical İslām where the Arab population predominated; while for knowledge of mathematics, geometry, calculus, the Quran, and philosophy, they mostly went to eastern regions including Iran, Transoxania, and Khorasan, which were under Turkish sovereignty[8]. The learning garnered from these two sources, and the scholarly understanding in these regions would play a determin­ing role in the Ottoman understanding of knowledge[9].

Two scholars who influenced the Ottoman ulemā (religiously trained scholars) deeply lived in these regions. One of them was the famous Muslim scholar İmam Ghazalī (d. 505/1111); and the second was Fahr al-Dīn Rāzī (d. 606/1209) who would establish a school in his own name. The most famous professor (müderris) of the Seljuk Nizāmiye Medrese, Ghazalī criticized philosophers harshly, and con­structed a perfect scientific and ideological framework that ended the conflict between Sünnī Islamic ideology and Islamic Sūfism (tasavvuf). Rāzī succeeded in receiving the title of Sheik al-Ulemā (head of the scholars) with his scientific ability; and wrote many works on tefsīr, hadīs, kelām, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, literature and other rational or traditional sciences. His lineage of education reached back to Ghazalī in a way[10]. Seyyid Hüseyin Nasr stat­ed: "Rāzī is a second Ghazalī in many aspects",[11] which may be considered a result of this lineage.

Rather quickly, many Muslim scholars adopted Rāzī's understanding of knowledge. The most signifi­cant peculiarity of his approach was that it looked for practical aims, and had a rational and philosophical character. It could establish a bridge between Sünnī Islamic ideology and classical Greek philosophy[12]. While he was writing Tefsīr al-Kebīr, to which he owed his fame, Rāzī benefited from all of the sciences of his time and placed a great importance on re'y (personal views)[13]. In fact, his method was adopted and used by Ottoman scholars including the renowned Sheihu’l-İslām Ebussuud Efendi[14]. The methodology of Rāzī's schools led Ottoman scholars to focus on applied sciences, whose practical results could be seen immediately, and which could be practiced easily-as we shall discuss below-and also met the needs of the state for such studies.

Various information shows that Ottoman scholars were educated by scholars of the Rāzī school or schol­ars of this lineage. For example, although he was a Sūfī, Dāvūd-ı Kayserī (d. 751/1350-1351), who was the first professor (müderris) of the first Ottoman medrese, the İznik Orhaniye, and the first representative of Arab Sufism in the Ottoman territories, was a follower of the Rāzī school. Similarly, Alā al-Dīn Esved (d. 800/1397) of the same medrese completed his education in Iran and came to the Ottoman Empire as a follower of Rāzī[15]. The famous Molla Fenārī (d. 834/1430-31) was also a follower of this school[16].

Another known scholar of the same period, Molla Yegan (d. 841/1437) was a student of Fenārī. Hızır Bey (d. 863/1459), who was a student of Yegan and kādī (judge) of İstanbul, educated many scholars who later became professors in the Sahn Medrese. After these, Molla Lütfī (d. 900/1494-95), İbn Kemāl (d. 940/1534) and Ebussuud Efendi (d. 982/1574), who constituted the cornerstones of Ottoman scientific life, became follow­ers of the Rāzī school through this lineage, and repre­sentatives of this school within the Empire. These people taught at the highest level in the Ottoman medrese system[17].

In addition, Sa'ded al-Dīn Taftazānī (d. 783/1390) and Seyyid Serif Cürcānī (d. 816/ 1413-14), whose works became the textbooks and preferred books of many of the Ottoman scholars and were read in the medrese for centuries, and of whom people spoke in high terms, were followers of the Rāzī school[18].

All of these clear connections are enough to show that the Rāzī school formed the scientific and ideologi­cal background of the medrese, which constituted the main institution of the Ottoman education system. Although the Ottoman ulemā were followers of such a broad viewed and strong school in terms of science, it can be argued that they were unable to become as pro­ductive as the famous scholars of this school and remained followers of them. In fact, as will be explained below, the general level of scientific works, and their development and performance through time, prove such a statement to be correct.

The understanding of science in the Ottoman medrese should be studied in light of these connections.

Among the Ottoman scholars who classified the sci­ences, examined the understanding of science, and pro­vided detailed, compiled information and statements on them, was Taşköprülü-zāde Ahmed İsām al-Dīn Efendi. Taşköprülü-zāde examined the subject in depth and launched hypotheses on the issues that he regarded as science. Before mentioning his views regarding this topic, a classification of science, with evaluations, was composed by the Sahn müderris Hoca-zāde Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa (d. 893/1488) who lived during the reign of Mehmed II the Conqueror and whose biography was given by Taşköprülü-zāde. This classification is very short; yet, it is important in terms of having value judg­ments. According to Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa, the sciences were divided into three groups:

1. The sciences on which one can discuss and write about. The well-known classifiers and authors classify these sciences; and they identify these works as kilk-i tahkīk (a pen looking for the truth).

2. The sciences that cannot be explained, but can be written about. These sciences are mixed with hallucinations and include polemics. Speculations, conclu­sions, misleading arguments, and punning upon words in order to silence rivals during meetings and debates are included in this group. Thus, these have no benefits for people.

3. The sciences that cannot be examined or explained. These sciences can only be understood by symbols and signs. Human beings cannot explain such sciences, which are also called "divine knowledge". This knowledge can only be possessed by those who have insight, aptitude, and con science; and they discuss these sciences among themselves by symbols and signs[19].

According to Taşköprülü-zāde, Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa regarded the second group of the sciences as useless. Knowledge included within this framework is generally of kelāmī and philosophical subjects. The sciences that the ulemā should deal with are in the first category. These consti­tute beneficial knowledge. Moreover, since the subject sciences were studied, explained and written by the "ulemā-i kadīm" or scholars of old, they are readily learned. Taşköprülü-zāde divides the sciences into two groups in his Shakā'ık. According to him, the first group is called "explicit sciences", which have been granted by God to the people who engage in them, to be explored and explained. Those who study language, idiomatic usage, syntax, methodology, logic and kelām, tefsīr and hadīs deal with explicit sciences. Although all of them have their own place in the world of knowledge within their realms; in particular the scholars of hadīs are use­ful for the Muslim world by understanding and explain­ing the statements of the Quran in their capacity as e'imme-i Dīn (leaders of the religion, or imams) and as zümre-i müctehidīn (scholars who have the knowledge to give their own opinion in religious issues)[20].

There is a compromise that Muslih al-Dīn mentions between the sciences that Taşköprülü-zāde studied in this group and his own "knowledge that can be studied or explained." Taşköprülü-zāde names the second group ilm-i bātın (internal knowledge) and those who deal with this knowledge as erbāb-ı ilm-i bātın. This knowledge cannot be learned from books. God taught them esmā (names) and sıfat (conditions) and made the divine secrets "close to them." They are contented people. If we notice, it can be seen that Sufism is included in this group. The sciences that Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa groups as knowledge that cannot be studied and explained, are the same as bātınī (and Sūfī) knowledge.

Per Taşköprülü-zāde, in spite of their differences regarding their realms, scholars are a "fırka-i nāciye," (a group saved from damnation), which means they reach truth through their knowledge and save them­selves. In their book of deeds, it is written, "they are saved by God". Thus, the level of scholars is much high­er that of rulers[21].

As will be mentioned at length below, such descrip­tions and classifications show what Ottoman scholars and society understood by ulemā (scholars), and provides clues about their understanding of sci­ence. Except for the descriptions and classifications mentioned here, in his work Miftāhu's-Sa'āde[22] Taşköprülü-zāde exam­ines the topic in depth[23]. In this work, we see that he examines the sciences under seven titles. We can briefly summarize them as:

1. Sciences related to writing (ilm al-hatt): Under this category, he includes various topics such as the art of writing and origins of the letters.

2. Sciences related to lexicology (ilm al-lüga): Phonetics, grammar, prosody, and a range of concepts are included in this category.

3. Sciences related to logic (ilm al-mantık): Logic, proof, debate, dialectics, etc. are examined under this title.

4. Philosophy, ontology (ilm-i ilāhī): Theology (metaphysics), medicine, nature, physics, astrology, sorcery, mathematics constitute this group.

5. Practical philosophy (hikmet-i ameliyye): Morals, household administration, politics, ihtisāb (office of the censor of morals), and the military are included in this group.

6. Religious sciences (ulūm-i fer'iyye): Quran, tefsīr, hadīs, fıqh, kelām, etc form this group. The author explains this groups extensively.

7. Esoteric sciences (ilm-i ma'rife): wisdom and vari­eties of worships, mysteries of various prayers, contemplation, traditions and customs and knowledge itself constitute this group.

Studies on this classification show that Taşköprülü-zāde prepared a detailed classification of sciences by taking the previous classifications into account and by using them. From this point of view, it can be said that his classification is a good recitation and arrangement of the previous classifications[24].

In all the classifications of sciences that we have examined so far, entire sciences in essence are catego­rized in two groups, rational and narrative (religious). This situation might have played an important role in defining the realm of the ulemā and its orientation. The goals of the sciences can be seen as a defining factor in choosing the realm. In the earlier eras of the Muslim world, the first group of sciences was considered vahiy (religious), and the second group as sciences based on human wisdom and experience. Since knowledge based on religion was carried from generation to generation, they were generally called narrative and the others rational[25]. To illustrate a reflection of their understand­ing of the subject, professors (müderris) thought wor­thy of appointment to the Ottoman medrese were described as those who knew the rational and the nar­rative sciences well[26]. Whether rational or narrative, the final aim of the sciences was to know God (ma'rifetu'llah), and by this to reach eternal happiness[27]. Therefore, in order to be a real scholar, one should have knowl­edge on the sciences, which are subject to classifica­tion[28]. Yet, one should be willing and eager to learn especially religious sciences, which requires a strong narra­tive knowledge, since wisdom alone cannot save one. The Quran includes all the sciences, however, human wisdom is incapable of understanding the Quran alone[29]. For this reason, the religious sciences, which stemmed from the religion and have a powerful traditional and historical background, strength­en the comprehension of those who study; this study honors and saves them[30]. In fact, regardless of the categories, God teaches humanity all the sciences, with no distinc­tion as to esoteric or exoteric, religious or rational[31]. Therefore, the sciences that will be useful to the people in this world and in the other world should be learned. This is the main goal of science.

In the concept of the goal of science, there seems no important difference between Taşköprülü-zāde and Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa, who lived half a century before him.

The emphasis on usefulness is so strong that it even constitutes the basis of the approach that calls the sci­ences that should be studied ulūm-ı nāfi'a (useful sci­ences). This had been the same before the establishment of the Ottoman medrese, and remained so after it. This approach remained in vogue not only during the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth and sixteenth cen­turies, but also in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen­turies. As mentioned below, the biographical works of Taşköprülü-zāde,[32] Atāyī,[33] and Sheik Mehmed Efendi[34] all list knowledge of the ulūm-ı nāfi'a as the most sig­nificant feature of the ulemā.

We have stated that the idea of pragmatism observed in Ottoman medrese professors did not originate with them, but rather they inherited this ideology from pre­vious centuries as a tradition had been preserved in the Islamic World. For example, Ghazalī (d. 505/1 111), who divided the sciences into religious and non-religious, and gave unquestioned superiority to the first one, states that while one studies philosophical subjects such as mathematics, logic, physics, theology, politics and morals, also learning the mathematical sciences such as calculus, geometry and astronomy is not unfavor­able, but even useful as a tool and to a certain extent to meet the necessary requirements in his el-Munkız. However, such sciences have two disadvantages. The first is the probability that those who learn the niceties of these sciences can forget truth and stray by deciding that what philosophers say is the truth due to the extraor­dinary nature and harmony that they explore. For this reason, those who deal with these sciences too much should be stopped, because although the subject sci­ences have nothing to do with religion, they are the start­ing point of the philosophical sciences and thus, the evil inside this knowledge can affect the scholar. A few schol­ars have investigated these sciences without abandon­ing their religion and God.

The second disadvantage of involving oneself with these sci­ences is the situation in which, because of the above-men­tioned danger, one is sincere but supposes that he/she can help the religion by denying the philosophical sciences. Such a person, for instance claims that "statements of the philosophers on lunar and solar eclipses do not conform to the Sharia, and so the person even denies them." "Even if these claims are proved to the mentioned person by evidence, he/she does not doubt his/her indisputable argument; yet the person believes that İslām is based on ignorance and the denial of unchallengeable proofs. Thus, his love for philosophy and his distrust of İslām increase"[35].

Similarities exist between the above-mentioned esti­mations of Ghazalī and the works of Hoca-zāde Muslih al-Dīn, who studied the classification and evaluation of sciences, on philosophical debates and the sciences that he classifies as "the sciences to be written about, but not to be explained. While Hoca-zāde argues that these are "non-useful" sciences, Ghazalī legitimizes the study of logic, physics, theology, politics and moral sciences in terms of "usefulness"[36]. However, not learning these sciences is more desirable, if they are learned in a way that cannot provide benefit. The envisaged or expected benefit is to know God (ma'rifetu'llah), not to leave God's path, and to preservation and strengthen it, as Taşköprülü-zāde stresses. For this reason, those who are not capable of understanding the niceties of these sciences should be prevented from reading books written by philosophers. Actually, these books also include true and good knowledge, in the same way that legiti­mate money can be in the same pocket with immorally gained money, but legitimate money cannot make the bad money good; and one would be wise to know which is legitimate. Benefiting from the books of philosophers resembles this[37].

The approaches of Ghazalī and the prominent Ottoman scholars Taşköprülü-zāde and Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa to the sciences to which they give superiority, and other knowledge, can be seen in the works of Birgivī Mehmed Efendi (d. 981/1537), who debated fiercely with the famous Şeyhulislām Ebussuud Efendi in the mid-sixteenth century. The similarity is notable in that although Birgivī went beyond the Rāzī tradition, which many Ottoman scholars respected, adopting a more rad­ical view and supporting some ideas of the Hanbalī sect,[38] his understanding and classification of science, and opinions of them were not different from a scholar of the Rāzī School[39].

1. Sciences whose knowledge we can obtain: The sciences under this title carry a religious feature, simi­lar to Muslih al-Dīn Mustafa's sciences which are pos­sible to study and explain.

2. Sciences forbidden to us: These sci­ences are similar to Mustafa Efendi's classification of the sciences to be studied, but not to be explained, including Quranic study (kelāmī) and the philosophical sci­ences.

3. Müstehab (canonically laudable or approved) sciences: There is a difference between Muslih al-Dīn's third catego­ry and Birgivī's. This catego­ry generally includes sci­ences (no limitation on learning or not learning) that examine the world and do not stem from religious sources. These are calculus, astronomy, geometry, med­icine and so on. Birgivī states that these sciences should not be the main aim of life, but would be useful to learn to a certain extent in order to make life easier[40]. Birgivī differs in this category from Hoca-zāde; his exclusion of Sufism from the third group reflects his approach to it[41].

It has been already said that Taşköprülü-zāde con­sidered the possession of knowledge on all the sciences that he classified a condition to be a scholar. Setting aside the improbability of this, considering the length of human life, this notion can be connected to the con­cept of ālim-i küll (a scholar who knows everything). The concept of knowing everything reflects the mental­ity of most of the ulemā. It is certain that this under­standing establishes a bridge between the word ilim (sci­ence) and bilgi (knowledge).

In fact, the word ilim in the Ottoman sources is used within the context of ma'lūmāt (knowledge). In other words, "very detailed knowledge" is science; and an ālim (scholar) is the one who has the knowledge of all the popular sciences of his time. On this point, the greatest scholar is the one who knows the most. For example, Hızır Bey (d. 863/1559), who was the first kādī of İstanbul and teacher of many professors in the Sahn (Courtyard) Medreses there, was called an ilim dağarcığı (one who knows all the sciences) during the reign of Mehmed II the Conqueror. It was said that he knew all the sciences before him and even had knowledge on subjects that he had never heard.

The same situation can be seen in Taşk6prulu-zade, Atāyī and Sheik Mehmed Efendi who produced biogra­phical works on many of the Ottoman professors. The Ottoman professors were mentioned with features to serve as examples for the members of the medrese and society, which proves that they were regarded as high-level scholars of the Islamic sciences. Their features are very important in this regard. Actually, in many of the examples, the features of the scholars are based on their being religious, mature, and virtuous. They are meek, modest, wise, learned in science, mature, virtuous, legit­imate, respected, inquiring, religious, loyal to the Sharia, moral, socially loved, excellent researchers, close to the "sea of the sciences," loyal to God, and incorrupt people[42].

As a result, we can reach a conclusion that the understanding of knowledge of the scholars lectur­ing in the Ottoman medrese encompassed pos­sessing full knowledge of at least the rational sciences. Scholars should know all the sciences; in other words, they should be ālim-i küll. However, they represented Classical Islamic culture and understanding of knowledge, whose traditional nature was very strong.

Generally, the understand­ing of science of the Rāzī school, which gave impor­tance to philosophical and rational knowledge, namely re'y, was adopted extensively. Therefore, scholars did not ignore the requirements and necessities of the time and had a flexible position in reconciling Islamic laws with contemporary conditions-as long as they did no to the religion. This understanding directed them in their practice, and they gave priority to the religious-based beneficial and applied sciences. Within this framework, they studied tefsīr and fıqh in depth, as we shall see below. Yet over time this strong tradition would imprison them within the loop of repeating themselves.

How did these scholars, whose understandings of science and scientific capacities have been examined, exhibit their scholarly performance, and what kind of works did they produce?

II. SCHOLARLY CONTRIBUTIONS

The first period of the Ottoman medrese, namely the time until the conquest of Constantinople, can be regarded to some extent as a crawling period. The same situation is valid for the scientific works produced. In the first period, generally religious courses were given in the Ottoman medrese. Thus, the sciences that the Ottoman scholars studied were religious based[43]. Subsequent to the conquest of Constantinople, a enliven­ing and picking up of pace was observed in comparison to the previous periods in the scientific realm, at the high-level medrese founded in the city. Philosophical and scientific thought began among the Ottoman Turks in this period[44]. However, as A. Adıvar stresses, the same thing cannot be said for the positive and experiential sciences. In fact, in spite of the existence of works on medicine before the reign of Mehmed II the Conqueror, these were in essence products of personal research, not of medrese education[45]. In order to turn the city into a center of science, Mehmed II the Conqueror provided famous Ottoman and Muslim scholars in Muslim regions with generous facilities to attract them to İstanbul. When examining the reasons for the scientific spurt experi­enced during his reign in the Ottoman Empire, one should take into account the sultan's personality and approach to science. Actually, in addition to being a man of action, his was a great personality having a high intel­lectual level, respect for science and a curiosity for research, which also encouraged the schol­ars around the sultan. Therefore, ground for new works was pre­pared. The Ottoman sources mention the high respect of Mehmed II the Conqueror for science and scholars. According to Hoca Sa'deddin Efendi, dur­ing his reign scholars enjoyed a high respect and lived in peace; and their works written in such an environment spread the name of the sultan as well as science all over the world. He attacked ignorance and founded houses of sciences and knowledge, protected science and knowledge in his lands; and always respect­ed and supported scholars, seyyids and sheiks as had his ancestors[46]. This flowering during the time of Mehmed II the Conqueror affected the level and char­acter of scientific works in a movement that did not lose speed until the mid-sixteenth century.

Generally speaking, the scholars of the Ottoman medrese acted within the framework of the understand­ing of knowledge and education that we have tried to examine. This statement has not been launched as a simple opinion or hypothesis. The sample data present­ed below prove the above statement. A breakdown of the works of the scholars who taught throughout the Ottoman medrese system is likely to provide certain ideas. Expanding a breakdown over a long time period would be more useful. Yet, the issue is large and multi-faceted, such that isolated attempts will not able to over­come it in a short time. For this reason, we must rec­oncile ourselves to several examples. We would like to focus on the Sahn (or Fātih) Medrese (the Courtyard Medrese or Academy at the Mosque of Mehmed the Conqueror in İstanbul), which was one of the most prominent medreses in the Ottoman Empire.

Works written by the scholars of the Fātih Medrese are divided into two groups, rational and traditional (or religious), which conforms to the classification of sci­ences mentioned above. However, the works in both groups can be also divided into "original compositions" (te’līf) and "non-original (or derivative) compositions". The original works are those whose subjects are cho­sen, researched, examined and produced by the author. The non-original works are known as şerh (commen­taries), hāşiye (annotations), hāmiş (marginal notations), and tasnīf (compilations). If we are to explain these terms roughly: şerh is a commentary on a work (mostly of words and expressions) and is written in the same or in a different language, and more extensively[47]. Hāşiye or Hāmiş are annotations written in the margins of a work, regarding the text. Brief commentaries are called ta'līkāt or kelimāt[48]. Among the works of hāşiye, hāmiş, ta'līk and kelimāt, which are all a kind of annotation device, in particular the hāşiye may take on the form of a separate work. Within these main features, the works of the Ottoman medrese ulemā should be taken into account.

It should be pointed out that the data shown below is not definitive and absolute informa­tion regarding the works of the Ottoman scholars. However, we believe that since this data reflects the general outlook, it is important.

The Sahn Medrese, which we are examining, was founded as a part of the Fātih Külliyesi (complex of institutions at the Conqueror's mosque) in 1470 (875). From this time to the reign of Sultan Ahmed I, namely in the last thir­ty years of the fifteenth century and throughout the six­teenth century, 290 scholars who taught in the Sahn wrote 520 short and lengthy works, 189 (36.3 %) of which were original compositions, and the rest are şerh, hāşiye, ta'līkāt, and kelimāt, compilations and translations.

The latter works were written by 1 18 scholars (40.7 %). In this situation, it can be claimed that more than half of the 290 scholars, specifically about 60 %, did not produce anything in the field of knowledge in the most productive years, between the last quarter of the fif­teenth century and the end of the sixteenth century.

As for the seventeenth century, the number of the scholars who taught in the Sahn in this century was 648. Of them, only 60 scholars (9.3 %) composed a total of 118 works, 32 of which (27.1 %) were original compo­sitions and 86 of which (72.9%) were non-original şerh, hāşiye, ta'līkāt, kelimāt, compilations and translations.

When we look at the fields of science in which these books were written, traditional or religious subjects constituted the majority: out of 189 original works com­posed by the scholarly ulemā who taught in the Sahn even for a short time between 1470 and 1603, only 20 (10.6%) dealt with the rational sciences. The remaining 169 books (89.4 %) were on religious subjects such as tefsīr, hadīs, fıqh, akā'id-kelām, morals, and Sufism, and on non-religious but traditional subjects such as history, literature, grammar, syntax, rhetoric, oratory, rhetorical style, and semantics. A similar trend occurred in the following centuries. For example, the total of orig­inal works in the seventeenth century was calculated as 32. It should be noted here that this number was pro­duced by the ulemā, who numbered 648. In the first thir­ty years of the eighteenth century, original works by professors at the Sahn numbered thirteen.

If we look at the topic in terms of şerh works, we observe that as of the foundation of the academy (1470) until the end of the sixteenth century, 37 works were composed in the Sahn Medrese. Out of this number, only 3 (8.1 %) dealt with the rational sciences. In the seventeenth century, there were a total of 15 şerh works, and only one of them dealt with the rational sciences. In the eighteenth century, no şerh work was produced at all by a professor at the Courtyard Academy.

If we look at the issue with regard to hāşiye, hāmiş, ta'līkāt, kelimāt, translations and compilations, the results are as follows. From the founding of the Fātih Medrese until the end of the sixteenth century, a total of 294 books were composed, only 11 of them (3.7 %) on the rational sciences. While a total of 71 works were pro­duced in the seventeenth cen­tury; in the first thirty years of the eighteenth century, there were just 16 works, 13 of which were compilations and translations.

Moreover, the subject can be considered in this way: between 1470 and 1730, a period of some three cen­turies, a total of 14 (6 %) tefsīr, 48 (20.5 %) fıqh, 25 (10.7 %) akā'id-kelām, 11 (4.7 %) morals, and one hadīs books with a grand total of 99 religious books were composed. In the same period, 58 (24.7 %) works were composed on literature and history, 11 (4.7 %) on the Arabic lan­guage and 30 (13 %) with no clear topics but religious (fünūn-ı āliye), and at least 14 (6 %) books (religious "ba'zı resā'il"). In other words, out of 234 original com­positions, 143 (61.7 %) were on religious subjects. It should not be forgotten that in the works of literature, history, and the Arabic language (total 69), religious cul­ture was mentioned extensively.

In the same way, during the period in question, a total of 336 books appeared on şerh, hāşiye, hāmiş, ta'­līkāt, kelimāt, compilations, and translations. Fifty-five of them (16.3 %) were tefsīr, 128 (38 %) were fiqh, 64 (19 %) aka'id-kelam, 10 (3 %) on morals and Sufism, and 6 (1.8) on hadīs. Also, 74 (22 %) books were com­pilations and translations, most of them compilations of fetvās or religious decrees.

A total of 36 works of various lengths that can be considered in the rational sciences realm were produced in the same period; they were generally on astronomy, geometry, calculus, and mathematics.

During the same period, of 1,191 professors, 194 (16.3 %) composed manuscripts, which shows that most of the scholars avoided writing or were not able to write[49]. However, the manner in which Mecdī, Atāyī and Sheik Mehmed Efendi describe these scholars is interesting. In many examples of brilliant sentences, they mention the comprehensive abilities and clever­ness of these scholars, but they employ such phrases as "has a knowledge on this" or "has a knowledge of that science," which in essence do not mean much[50].

We have presented some statistical data on the works of the scholars who were educated in the Ottoman medrese and taught in these medreses and for at least some period in the Sahn Medreses. In order to inject this information with meaning, the works should be examined.

Notably, fıqh ranked first among the subjects stud­ied and among the sciences. The reason of this is obvi­ous: fıqh is inherently related to legislative activities. As is known, the Ottoman administration and judicial insti­tutions were in need of works written in this field, as the arbitration of many person­al, social, and administrative problems depended upon these studies. Moreover, every scholar was a civil ser­vant, a judge, and a mufti at the same time and hence appealed to for decisions on matters many times each day, which in turn necessitated studies on fıqh.

Among fiqh texts studied in the medrese, the Hidāye ("the proper religious path") and studies derived from it ranked at the top. This work, written by Ferganālı Mergınānī (d. 593/1196) is on usūl-ı fıqh, namely the methodology of fiqh or jurisprudence. Ottoman scholars who rose to as high a level as the Sahn Medreses had studied various sections of the work while preparing for their examinations, then composed inde­pendent treatises on it, as well as numerous şerh, hāşiye, hāmiş, ta'līk and kelimāt on it.

Another important work that scholars studied in depth is the Vikāye, on the branches of fiqh dealing with transactions. Composed by the Hanafī scholar Burhan al-Sheri'a Mahmūd (d. 13 c.) in the name of his grand­son (through his daughter) Sadr al-Shari'a-i Sānī; and which due to this reason was called the Sadr al-Shari'a, the full name of the work was Vikāyetü'r-Rivāye fī Mesā'ili'l-Hidāye. The Vikāye influenced Ottoman scholars deeply, with numerous şerh, hāşiye and hāmiş and related studies produced from it.

Another significant work of fıqh on the issue of trans­actions is the Gurer by Molla Hüsrev (d. 885/1480), and his commentary on it called Dürer. Both works gener­ally are mentioned together, as Gurer and Dürer.

An additional work that scholars studied much is the Telvīh. This work in fact is a commentary written by Sa'ad al-Dīn Taftazānī on the Tenkīh al-Ahdās by Şeref al-Dīn Ahmed.

Although not as important as the above-mentioned works, other works on fıqh deserve our mention. These include Sirāc al-Dīn Ahmed's (d.?) Ferā'izü al-Secāvend (Ferā'iz-i Sirācī); Baghdadī Ahmed b. Muhammed's (d. 428/1036) Muhtasar al-Kudūrī; Sa'ad al-Dīn Taftazānī's Tavzīh; İbn Kemāl's (d. 940/1534) Islāh u Īzāh; Hāfız al-Dīn Omer Nesefī's (d. 710/1301) Menār al-Envār; a şerh of the work by İbn Melek (d.?); another work of Nesefī, Kenz al-Dekāyık, Fıkh-ı Ekber in the name of the İmām-ı A’zam; Molla Hüsrev's Mi'rāt (u'l-Usūl) and Sheik Bedr al-Dīn's (d. 820/1417) Cāmi al-Fusūlīn. It should be emphasized that the all Ottoman scholars used these works as the major sources of education. Two major works on Tefsīr were included in the curriculum of the Ottoman medrese, first el-Keşşāf ‘an Hakāyıkı't-Tenzīl (called Keşşāf for short) by the famed tefsīir scholar Mahmūd Zemahjerī (d. 538/1143); and second Kādī Beyzāvī's (d. 685/1286) Envāru't-Tenzīl ve Esrāru't-Te'vīl (called Tefsīr-i Kādī or Kādī Beyzāvī for short). Most Ottoman scholars wrote haşiye, hāmiş, ta'likāt and kelimāt on the above-mentioned works. We can see that the Beyzāvī was studied more than the Keşşāf.

The most famous tefsīr written during Ottoman times was certain­ly the İrşād al-Akl al-Selīm ilā Mazāya al-Quran al-Kerīm by the Şeyhulis-lām Ebussuud Efendi. Ebussuud Efendi wrote his works while he was şeyhulislām. It is claimed that Ebussuud Efendi took the Keşşāf and Beyzāvī as models and applied their methodologies in his book. The tefsīr of Ebussuud Efendi was much admired by Süleyman the Magnificent and earned for the author and for prominent scholars of this age the sultan's good grace and gifts. Although it is not clear whether the work was read as a textbook in the medreses, it is certain that it became one of the basic reference works of the ulemā.

With regard to works of hadīs, despite their relative paucity we see that some Sahn professors produced works on the Sahīhs by Buhārī (d. 256/869) and Muslim (d. 264/874), as well as on Muhammed al-Sāgānī's (d. 650/1252)) Meşārıku'l-Envār, which can be regarded as a summary of the famous book of six hadīs (the Kütüb-i Sitte).

In terms of doctrine (akā’id), the prominent work is the Akā’idü'n-Nesefiyye by Necmüddīn Ebū Hafs Ömer b. Muhammed Nesefī (d.537/1142). Sa'düddin Taftazānī wrote a valuable commentary on this book, so much respected by the Ottomans that in fact, Ottoman schol­ars wrote their commentaries and annotations on Taftazānī's commentary. Of other works related to akā’id, we can mention the İsbāt-i Vācib by Celālüddīn Devvānī (d. 908/1502) and the Nazmu'l-Ferāid fī Silki Mecma'i'l-Akā'id by the Sahn professor Şeyh-zāde İbrāhim b. Mustafa (d. 1014/1605).

Ottoman scholars studied in particular three works on Quranic studies or kelām. They were called, for short, the Tecrīd, Mevākıf, Tevāli' and were used as textbooks in the medrese before the conquest of Constantinople. Many şerh, hāşiye, hāmiş, ta'likāt and kelimāt were writ­ten on the Tecrīd or, with its full name, the Tecrīd al-Kelām by Nasr al-Dīn Tūsī (d.672/1273). Among authors of these works, we can cite many well-known scholars such as Ali Kuşēu, İbn Kemāl, Hāfız-ı Acemī, and Kınalı-zāde Ali Celebi. Al-Mevākıf was written by Adud al-Dīn Abd al-Rahman b. Ahmed al-Īcī (d. 756/1355). The best commentary on this book was produced by Seyyid Şerīf Cürcānī; Ottoman professors consulted mainly this com­mentary. The third important work is the Tevāli' al-Envār by Abdullah b. Ömer Beyzāvī (d. 685/1286). Hoca-zāde, Efdal-zāde Hamīdüddīn, and Muhyiddīn b. Tablbaz figure among the Ottoman scholars who wrote commentaries on this work during and after the reign of Mehmed II the Conqueror.

Also with regard to original works composed on kelām, we should mention the İnāyet of şārih al-Mültekā Seyyid Mehmed Efendi (d. 1104/1692), and the Menāhicül-Vusūl ilā Medārici'l-Usūl by Kādī-asker Abd al-Bākī Ārif Efendi (d. 1152/1713).

It is known that the Ottoman ulemā worked extensively on the Arabic language and wrote numer­ous commentaries and annotations on this subject. The reason for this must be to under­stand the Quran better and not to be misled in provid­ing explanations on the Quran. However, studies on lan­guages, which in essence were viewed as an auxiliary or a tool, gradually began to gain respect, as had the superior sciences.

There was an important reason for this. Various topics such as kelām, hikmet, logic and so on that are included in the realm of sciences, and which are diffi­cult to study, began to be examined in works on lan­guage. Methodology topics came to form basic fields of study, such as the so-called Arabic Sciences (Ulūm-i Arabiyye) that included vocabulary, etymology, verbs and tenses, syntax, prosody, and rhyme, as well as the so-called ilm-i belāgāt or Science of Rhetoric, which encompassed rhetorical and oratorical style that sought to teach clarity, eloquence, and correctness when expressing oneself.

On rhetoric, the most studied work was the Miftāhu’l-Ulūm of Sirācüddīn Ebī Ya'kūb Yūsuf b. Ebūbekir Sekkākī (d. 626/1228). The commentaries on it by Sa'duddīn Taftazānī and Seyyid Şerīf Cürcānī attracted attention; and many Ottoman scholars wrote annota­tions and appendages on these commentaries. Ottoman scholars of rhetoric also read and studied Sa'duddin Taftazānī's own work Mutavvel and his commentary on the above book, entitled Muhtasar.

Regarding grammar, İbn Hācib's (d.646/1248) Şāfiyye and Ahmed b. Alī b. Mes'ūd's (d.?) Merāhu'l-Ervāh deserve mention. Quite a few scholars, including Ibn Kemāl, wrote commentaries on the latter. Finally, one original work on grammar is the Mīzān-ı Tasrīf by the Sahn professor Ahmed b. Mustafa (d. 911/1505).

One example of the studies on syntax is İbn Hācib's el-Kāfiyye fi'n-Nahv. The commen­tary by Molla Cāmī on this work attracted attention and Ottoman professors studied it in particular, as they did the work on syntax by İbn Hişām (d. 762/1360-61), Mugni'l-Lebīb 'an Kütübi'l-E'ārib.

With regard to logic, which was literally called "the science of balance" (ilm-i mīzān) and classified among the philosophical (rational) sciences, the Metāli'u'l-Envār formed the primary work. Composed by Kādī Sirācüddīn Mahmūd b. Ebūbekir Urmevī (d. 682/1283), the Metāli' was not only consulted in great depth by Ottoman pro­fessors, who wrote annotations and commentaries on it, but also served as a textbook in the Ottoman medrese. The commentary on it by Seyyid Serif Cürcānī was espe­cially respected, while the renowned scholar Ali Kuşēu wrote a separate treatise by studying some sections of the Metāli'. Quite a few scholars of the sixteenth centu­ry studied this work, including Molla Lütfī.

Additional works of logic include eş-Şemsiyye by Necmüddīn Ömer b. Ali Kazvīnī (d. 693/1293), and the commentaries on this work by Kutbuddīn Muhammed Tahtāvī (6. 766/1364), el-Kavā’idül-Mantıkıyye fī Şerhi'ş-Şemsiyye (or, Şemsiyye-i Kutbī) and by Seyyid Şerīf Cürcānī, the Şerh-i Şemsiyye. Seyyid Şerīf's commen­tary was used as textbook in the Tetimme medrese, which served as a preparatory school within the Fātih Mosque Complex for students preparing to enter the Sahn Medreses.

All the works mentioned above constituted important sources in the scientific and intellectual development of Ottoman medrese scholars. Naturally, to examine each indi­vidual work extensively is impossible here and requires more in-depth investigation.

In this study we have attempted to present simply the main outlines of the subject. Most certainly, research in varying degrees of intensiveness on these works and their subject matter continued until the end of the Ottoman Empire and the closure of the medreses.

 Translated by Murat Taşar.

________