258 chapter 6
3.2 Who Is to Blame? Ulema, Non-Muslims and Evil Merchants
Despite the constant emphasis on the importance of ilm and ulema for diag-
nosing and treating the ills of the empire, the ulema of the times were also
subjected to severe criticism in texts penned by both Kadızadelis and Halvetis.
Bribery in appointments and judgements remained one of the most vilified
practices of the time and the nasihat-givers unanimously called for its eradica-
tion. The prevalence of taking bribes led most of the authors to conclusions
about the moral depravity of the clerical corps that exhibited itself as sheer
perversion, ignorance, and worldly pursuits.
Abdülahad Nuri’s İnkazü’t-talibin ‘an-mehavi’l-gafilin (“The deliverance of
the seekers [of knowledge] from the crowds of the ignorant”) addresses the
dangers of engaging in ilm for worldly pursuits.84 In the first section, Nuri con-
demns the discussions that were allegedly being carried out in the name of ilm
(münazara) yet were actually aimed at improving one’s social and material sta-
tus in the eyes of political dignitaries; the Muslim scholars regarded practising
ilm with expectations for material benefits as debauchery. The second chapter
is devoted to criticism of those who fraternize with state officials without tak-
ing into consideration God’s approval and disavowal. The scholars who, after
a long period of scholarly education, fraternized with sultans were deemed
worthy of hell. In the third section, Nuri argues that the purpose of scholarly
education was its implementation; according to him, ‘ilm and amel must al-
ways go hand in hand. In the forth section, Nuri complains about the preachers
whom he called “the most vicious ones in the Islamic community (ümmet).”
They speak gibberish in order to be appreciated by the public, engage in vain
acts, and are mere shadows of real legal scholars (fakih taslağı). At the pul-
pits of the mosques they engage in excessive boasting and deliberately stayed
away from recounting the deeds of the real saints (menkıbe) that could awaken
those in error. He quotes from al-Ghazali’s İhya and mentions earlier scholars
who concluded that the real harm to the world would come from sycophantic
ulema and those who pretended to be truthful. In the final section, he attacks
heretical sects and scholars, calling them satanic, and quotes from Bayzawi and
Ebussu’ud, who also commented on such people during their own lifetimes.
The thing that most disturbed our Sharia-minded commentators about
contemporary ulema practices was their disregard for the Sharia. Kadızade
Mehmed İlmi devoted long sections of his work to diatribes against the igno-
rance of judges and their neglect of the Sharia and the word of religion.85 Sivasi
went one step further and included neglect of the Sharia in legal judgements
84 Nuri – Akkaya 2003, 103–104.
85 Nushü’l-hükkâm, 11, 13.