Search Results (2)

In early modern Islamic thought, the concept of zindīq (heretic) occupied a critical space at the intersection of theology, law, and state authority, particularly in the context of Muslim–Christian relations. One of the most significant scholarly attempts to define this term came from Ibn Kemāl (d. 940/1534), a leading Ottoman jurist and theologian, whose treatise Risāla fī mā yataʿallaq bi-lafẓ al-zindīq (Treatise on the Definition of the Word Zindīq) sought to clarify the precise meaning and legal implications of zandaqa (heresy). This article provides the first English translation and critical edition of Ibn Kemāl’s treatise, making this important work accessible to a wider scholarly audience. Through a close reading of the text, this study examines how Ibn Kemāl systematically distinguished zindīq from murtadd (apostate), mulḥid (disbeliever), and munāfiq (hypocrite), shaping Ottoman legal discourse on heresy. The present analysis further explores the theological and jurisprudential foundations Ibn Kemāl employed to define and punish heretics, particularly in light of the controversial execution of Mollā Kābid (or Mullā Qābiḍ, tr. Molla Kābız), who had asserted the superiority of Jesus over Muhammad. This case demonstrates the presence of polemical debates in the shaping of confessional boundaries in the ninth/fifteenth-century Ottoman Empire and reflects the broader challenges of Muslim–Christian interactions during this period. Additionally, this study investigates the broader implications of Ibn Kemāl’s classification of zindīq within the context of Muslim–Christian relations, considering how interfaith polemics and religious boundary-making influenced Ottoman legal thought. By contextualizing this treatise within early modern Ottoman legal and theological traditions, this study contributes to the understanding of how heresy was redefined in a multi-religious empire navigating theological, political, and interreligious challenges. Full article

Credit relations in Muslim societies have attracted significant scholarly attention across disciplines due to the prohibition of interest. In the Ottoman Empire, renowned for its vast resources, the presence of sophisticated credit mechanisms alongside its strong Muslim identity has often been perceived as paradoxical. While this apparent contradiction has been extensively studied, the perception and legitimacy of these credit mechanisms within Islamic law, particularly in English-language scholarship, remains underexamined. This study addresses this gap by analyzing bayʿ al-wafāʾ, a significant financing mechanism in which asset ownership is temporarily transferred to a lender in exchange for a loan, with the understanding that the asset will be returned upon full repayment. This transaction, employed for centuries across diverse regions as an interest-avoiding solution, has been extensively debated within Hanafi jurisprudence. This research chronologically examines bayʿ al-wafāʾ’s integration into Hanafi legal thought from its emergence through the 18th-century Ottoman Empire, drawing on primary sources across various genres of Hanafi legal literature. The findings reveal that bayʿ al-wafāʾ could not be categorized within existing Islamic contract frameworks. Instead, it is recognized as a contract with unique provisions deriving legitimacy from custom and necessity. This study illuminates both how this transaction achieved legal and legitimate status within Hanafi jurisprudence and, more broadly, demonstrates the dynamic evolution of Islamic law within the Hanafi school from the 10th to 18th centuries. Through this analysis, this study demonstrates how the paradoxical challenge of providing interest-free financing was resolved within the framework of Islamic legal principles. Full article