The Imperial Heyday 103
the legitimacy of endowing cash (on which he had to write a short treatise),
Ebussu’ud argued that the sultan maintains ultimate control over the endowed
land, but also defended the legitimacy of the donation of cash, i.e. of using
money-lending with interest for charitable purposes. Ebussu’ud’s arguments in
this case are of special interest: he stressed, firstly, that such endowments had
been legitimized by constant usage for centuries, and, secondly, that the pos-
sible annulment of these established endowments would jeopardize the wel-
fare of the community. On this issue he embarked on a bitter debate not only
with his predecessor Çivizade Efendi but also with Birgivî Mehmed b. Pir Ali
(1523–73), a highly influential scholar who, as shall be seen, insisted that such
endowments would constitute usury and should thus be condemned.11 In this
debate, Ebussu’ud clearly expressed the view of the majority of contempora-
neous scholars, if only because the cash endowments supported most of their
own activity; with the exception of Çivizade, more than one ex-şeyhülislam
had supported this institution, including Ebussu’ud’s immediate predecessor,
Fenarizade Muhyiddin Efendi.12 One of Ebussu’ud’s supporters, a sheikh from
Sofia named Bali Efendi (d. 1552), describes the central argument with formi-
dable clarity:13
The truth is, we know from the correctness of the cash waqf the strength
of its argument. We know that it would be a great sin to prevent its
practice ... This waqf supports the activities of Friday services. If it were
lost ... Friday prayers would be abandoned ...
God’s legislation has no other purpose than to ease the way of His ser-
vants through the exigencies of the times. Some rules of the Sharia
are overturned by changes through time, out of necessity and to ease
difficulties ... There can be no doubt that the traditional citations for its
[i.e., the cash waqf ] inadmissibility have been abandoned in our time
through the practice of the people opposed to it.11 See Mandaville 1979 and Karataş 2010 (on cash-vakfs); Johansen 1988, 98ff., Imber 1997,
115ff. and Ivanyi 2012, 270ff. (on land tenure). On previous treatises on cash-vakfs see
Kemalpaşazade – Özcan 2000, İnanır 2008, 252–256; on Kemalpaşazade’s fetvas about
land-holding and taxation, see İnanır 2008, 235–248.
12 Karataş 2010, 57–59. It is true that Fenarizade had bad personal relations with Çivizade;
however, he had also been engaged in bitter conflicts (concerning the formulas of juristic
documents, as well as the use of drugs!) with Kemalpaşazade, another supporter of the
cash vakf institution: see Gel 2013a.
13 Mandaville 1979, 301–304.