The Imperial Heyday 123
reminded of Celalzade’s discussion of infidel but just kings. Interestingly,
the defence of Ebussu’ud’s legal synthesis by these authors fits well with Guy
Burak’s suggestion that Mongol rule was a major influence on this Ottoman
development.69 In this respect, Kınalızade’s view may be seen as a precursor to
the seventeenth-century reading of Ibn Taymiyya by “Sunna-minded” authors,
which shall be examined in chapter 6 (note that Ibn Taymiyya’s translator, Aşık
Çelebi, was prone to accepting the possibility of non-şer’î success, in contrast
to the text he was translating!).70 In case he was not able to make himself clear,
Kınalızade also added another point to Davvani’s urge for minimal use of capi-
tal punishment (K489–90):71
The devil seduces some rulers in the present day, to the effect that:
“Nowadays, if one deems the sacred Sharia sufficient and stays within
the limits and the orders of the Muhammedan way, the correction of the
world becomes difficult, since wrong-doers, the, and robbers are so abun-
dant!” And with this useless suggestion [these rulers] become drunk with
the blood shed and spend their zeal in torturing people on the basis of
imaginary and [unfounded] opinions.Kınalızade could not have been clearer: this was exactly the point made by
his contemporary Dede Cöngi Efendi in his effort to justify the legitimacy
of the Ottoman kanun as a supplement to the Sharia, and it should also be
remembered that Korkud had a similar criticism of this view. Might we attri-
bute Kınalızade’s taking of sides against Ebussu’ud Efendi’s synthesis to his
ulema education and career? It should be noted that he was a student and a
mülazim (i.e. an appointed candidate for an ulema post) of Çivizade Efendi.72
If the ulema were a rising class that was claiming a share in political power
from the mid-sixteenth century onwards,73 Kınalızade’s position within that
group may offer a context for his opposition to Süleyman’s legal policy.
wrote a monumental cosmography which mainly draws on the medieval ajaib genre
(Hagen 2013, 420–423); this particular passage, however, seems to belong to himself.
69 Burak 2013, 594–599.
70 See Terzioğlu 2007, 254–255.
71 Cf. Davvani’s text in Dawwani – Thompson 1839, 395; Dawwani – Deen 1939, 206. Tezcan
2001, 119–120, also comments on this point.
72 Tezcan 1996, 16–17; Gel 2010, 89–91. Kınalızade’s relations with Çivizade remained good
after the latter’s dismissal; on the other hand, Kınalızade’s two brothers were students of
Ebussu’ud, and one of them was dismissed by him.
73 This is the suggestion made by Tezcan 2010a, 30ff.