444 conclusion
order” (nizam-i cedid) as well:39 it seems thus that the cult of the “old law” had
strong kanun connotations.
Throughout the eighteenth century, on the other hand, we often find the
two terms coexisting harmoniously, something that might imply that the con-
flict had finally been resolved or at least supressed. The anonymous “Dialogue
between an Ottoman and a Christian officer” joins the rules of the “Sharia”
with the “old laws” (the Ottomans had allegedly stopped observing both and
thus their superiority waned). Around 1770, Dürri Efendi argued in favor of the
“old law” in relation to military regulations while also (like Hemdemi) stress-
ing the Sharia and at the same time adopting Kâtib Çelebi’s use of Khaldunism
with regard to different measures for different ages, while Canikli frequently
mentions “the law, Holy or sultanly” (gerek şer’i ve gerek kanuni).
3.3 Innovation (bid’at)
While the “old law” was gradually sanctified as a source of authority, innova-
tion (ihdas, bid’at) was the subject of criticism from very early, since its negative
connotations were present in the Quran; in this, Islamicate thought resembled
other medieval cultures (although this is a subject that still has to be thorough-
ly explored).40 Of course, the concept did not have any concrete meaning in
early Ottoman political thought, i.e. before the concept of the “old law” gained
weight or at any rate before Çivizade’s and Birgivi’s opposition. Rather, it was
a standard item in the vocabulary used for criticism, as when Aşıkpaşazade
wanted to criticize the decisions of bad counselors.41 It was in Ebusuud’s time
that the term began to take on a concrete meaning, namely regulations that
contradicted canonical principles. As such, innovation became a standard ac-
cusation used by the Kadızadelis against their opponents, and especially the
dervish orders; on the other hand, as seen in chapter 6, the latter often used the
same argument as well. Sivasi also spoke vehemently against the “people of in-
novation”, although his targets were infidels and heretics rather than women in
the palace or dervishes. A usual object of bid’at accusations was using tobacco,
from Kadızadeli and Halveti preachers alike; an association of this trope with
39 This name is found in Raşid’s title of the relevant chapter (tertib-i nizam-ı cedid be-ahval-ı
cizye), but not in Defterdar’s account, which, otherwise, Raşıd copies almost verbatim:
Raşid 1865, 2:148; Defterdar – Özcan 1995, 387. The term is not found in Silahdar’s history
either. Raşid was Defterdar’s near-contemporary (he died in 1735), but (until the manu-
scripts are examined) we cannot exclude the possibility of the title being rewritten after
his book was published in 1865.
40 Cf. the remarks on the Byzantine case in Spanos 2014.
41 Aşıkpaşazade – Atsız 1949, 244. The word is used in the same way by Yazıcıoğlu Ahmed
Bican (Yerasimos 1990, 195–96) and by contemporaneous ulema-minded authors (e.g.
Seyhoğlu: Şeyhoğlu – Yavuz 1991, 54, which has the proviso that there are also “good in-
novations”, bidat-i hasene: ibid., 72).