Al-Tikriti|103them as righteous as the rest of the righteous Muslims, as opposed to one’s ap-
pearance as a zindīq [secret nonbeliever], in which case it is absolutely obliga-
tory to kill him. Should someone abandon the abode of Islam and choose their
invalid religion, such that their abode might fill up with them, then the judge
must judge him for death, divide his possessions between the inheritors, and
marry his wife to some other husband. One must also know that jihad against
them is a prime obligation of each one of the people of Islam who are able to
fight them. We shall now detail the sharia points according to which these
aforementioned judgments are considered valid.Ibn-i Kemal’s kalām texts also provide early examples of the legal trend that
eventually culminated in what is widely referred to as the Ottoman reconcili-
ation of imperial law with Islamic law. With his strident arguments justifying
secular imperial enforcement of, as well as a broadening out of, sharia-sanctioned
punishments for apostasy, Ibn-i Kemal’s scholarship demonstrates the hege-
monic extension of imperial control over religious practice in order to harness
the justifying power of sharia norms to state interests. At the same time, such
court-supported religious argumentation demonstrates the infiltration of privi-
leged clerical views into the inner confines of imperial power.
Approving Philosophy
Once Ottoman society had successfully mobilized to fight the apostates within
and without, the next task was to define more precisely what constituted right-
minded belief and behavior. This initiative, while not clearly beginning on the
heels of any imperial directive, appears to have gained full momentum in the
1510s to 1520s. One of the controversial topics of the day was the philosophical
legacy of the controversial thirteenth-century Andalusian Sufi philosopher Ibn
ɇArabī (d. 1243). While the Ottoman prince Korkҕ ud (d. 1513) condemned him as ҕ
a deviant homosexual whose beliefs had misled the youth of his day, Ibn-i Ke-
mal issued a fatwa defending and praising him as a wise guide and complete
scholar who had educated the multitudes. According to Ibn-i Kemal, those who
condemn Ibn ɇArabī are mistaken, have not read his writings closely, and should
not counter the respect shown him by the ruler, Yavuz Selim. This disagreement
between Korkҕ ud’s position and Ibn-i Kemal’s demonstrates both the variety of ҕ
opinions manifest in elite circles and the influence of Ibn-i Kemal in driving the
long-term Ottoman view. As with most debates, Ibn-i Kemal’s view won the day,
and Ibn ɇArabī’s legacy gained an honored place within Ottoman letters. In this
case, direct dynastic input was clearly in play: Korkҕ ud’s brother and victorious ҕ
rival for succession, Yavuz Selim, had Ibn ɇArabī’s tomb located immediately
following his triumphant 1516 entry to Damascus. Whether Ibn-i Kemal, who
accompanied Selim on this campaign, drove this rehabilitation of Ibn ɇArabī’s
legacy or was compelled by Selim to speak out in support of the controversial