114 chapter 3
On the other hand, Ebussu’ud had explicitly stated that Süleyman could
exercise the right of the caliph to make definitive choices from different legal
opinions, and in several cases quoted an imperial order together with—in fact,
as the definitive answer to—authoritative jurisprudence.43 An imperial decree
issued in 1548 discusses the debate between Ebussu’ud and Çivizade (the for-
mer şeyhülislam who had been dismissed for his denunciation of prominent
dervishes and who had died one year earlier) on the legality of cash vakfs;
Süleyman takes a clear position on the grounds that their prohibition would be
“the cause of a diminution in benefactions” and that most of the ulema asked
favored Ebussu’ud’s opinion:44
Since it is my imperial custom and practice to advance the affairs of the
Faith and to strengthen the true shar’, my decree has gone forth to this
effect, that those benefactors who whish to make benefactions ... on the
basis of that which has been current practice in the Ottoman lands since
olden times may establish their wakfs, choosing whether to do so with
silver or with gold.It is clear from the sultan’s wording that he was practising his right, as
described by Ebussu’ud, to decide on matters of jurisprudence, even when the
issue at stake was relevant to the Sharia rather than the kanun.
3 Reactions to the Imperial Vision
Now, although it looked more and more majestically self-justified and inevi-
table, the imperial model did not cease to have its enemies. While Ebussu’ud
and his adherents, such as Dede Çöngi, were trying to “Islamicize” the Ottoman
synthesis, the strong religious connotations that the opposition had taken by
Yazıcıoğlu’s time became increasingly dominant. A cautionary remark seems
useful here: there can be a tendency to revert to an oppositional, religious vs.
secular understanding of the world in the post-Enlightenment sense. However,
for the sixteenth-century Ottoman this opposition simply did not exist:
one could place more emphasis on the Sharia’s precepts, i.e. on the role of
the ulema who would interprete and execute it, or on the sultan’s right to com-
plement the law, but all narratives would only move within a “religious” frame-
work and inevitably use “religious” justifications.
43 Imber 1992; Imber 1995, 152–153.
44 Repp 1986, 255. On this decree cf. Tezcan 2010a, 31–34.