“Political Philosophy” and the Moralist Tradition^87
the “appetitive ignorant state”, medine-i cahile-i sebu’iyye and medine-i cahile-i
behimiyye); in the vicious or wicked state (medine-i fasıka) the faculty of reason
exists among the people, but faculties of the body prevail; finally, in the “errone-
ous state” (medine-i dalle) people use their reason but consider wrong as being
right (K450–51). The “erroneous state” can be either infidel, like the Frankish
or Russian states, or Muslim, like the Kızılbaş (Sürh-ser, meaning Safavid Iran).
Such deviations can be explained by the fact that humans vary enormously
in terms of intelligence and morality. In the “virtuous state”, the ruler may ini-
tially adhere to justice, and thus gain the hearts of the subjects, while in the
“imperfect” one he uses oppression and fear, often prohibiting the subjects
from using luxury goods, among others (K461). The explanation for the exis-
tence of impious and tyrannical but successful states, as seen, for instance, in
Ahmedi’s description of the Mongols, finds here its theoretical consummation.
Moving now to the “virtuous state”, Kınalızade explains that its citizens (if
we can translate ehl thus) are of five classes (tayife): (a) the “superiors” (efadıl),
on whom the good arrangement of state affairs depends—these are the judges
and ulema (hukema-i kâmil ve ulema-yı amil); (b) the “possessors of languages”
(zevi’l-elsine), who advise people on what is good and right; (c) the “estima-
tors” (mukaddir), who look after weights and measures and have knowledge of
geometry and mathematics; (d) the warriors (gaziler ve mücahid, sipahilik),
who protect the state against external threats; and (e) the “men of property”
(erbab-ı emval), who produce the goods that people need. These are the “pil-
lars of the state” (erkân-ı medine). However, as well as them, there are also the
“plants” or “weeds” (nevabit), those who are like thorns among useful trees
(K457–8). Furthermore, Kınalızade divides these “weeds” into another five
classes (in a slight alteration from al-Farabi):50 the “hypocrites”, who follow
the right path externally but are vicious in their hearts; the “distorters”, whose
beliefs are opposed to those of the virtuous and tend to prefer the “ignorant
state” and so they interpret the laws of the virtuous state as they please; the
“rebels” (bagi), who openly rise up against the ruler and wish to separate their
own community from the state; the “apostates” (marik), who, unlike the “dis-
torters”, do not wish to misinterpret the laws but do so by mistake or misunder-
standing; and the “sophists”, who also deceive the people by distorting the laws.
Kınalızade notes that, in contrast to Nasir al-Din Tusi’s opinion, it is not pos-
sible to correct any of these people and they must, therefore be killed or exiled
instead; he includes false witnesses, corrupt judges and professors, usurping
sipahis, and profiteers, among others (K459).
50 Rosenthal 1958, 138.