The article is devoted to the development of the Kadizadelite reform movement in the Crimean Khanate of the 18th century. Based on the materials of preserved manuscripts, in particular the works of the jurist and theologian Muhammad al-Kafauwi, the main ideas of Kadizadelism are analyzed. At the center of Muhammad al-Kafauwi's theses was the idea of revising Islamic religiosity, namely the question of worship (ibad). Kadizadelism also had a corresponding social base.

Keywords: Kadizadelism, Ottoman Empire, Crimean Khanate, reforms in Islam, post-classical Islam, Avicennism, Kalam, Hafsir.

KADIZADELISM IN THE CRIMEAN KHANATE: MUHAMMAD AL-KAFAWI (d. 1754)

Mykhaylo YAKUBOVYCH

The article is dedicated to the development of the Kadizadeli reform movement in the Crimean Khanate of the eighteenth century. The main sources are the works of the jurist and theologian Muhammad al-Kafawi. The article analyses the basic Kadizadeli ideas. Muhammad al-Kafawi argued for the revising of the Islamic religion, namely the issue of worship ('ihadah).

Keywords: Kadizadelizm, the Ottoman Empire, Crimean Khanate, reform in Islam, post-classical Islam, Avicennism, Kalam, Tafsir.

Traditionally, the" intellectual heritage " (as such a phenomenon is now commonly called in Islamic studies) of the Crimean Khanate is associated with Kalam and Sufism (Bursah, 1975). Despite a number of studies devoted to several authors [Schubert, 1994; Muminov, 2013; Pehlivan, 2013; Yakubovych, 2013; Yakubovich, 2014; Yakubovich, 2015], in general, the intellectual history of Crimea is still awaiting its comprehensive assessment. In addition, the question arises whether a certain "Crimean" component of intellectual culture actually existed, or whether it should be considered in broader contexts (Golden Horde, Ottoman, etc.). In any case, this tradition should include a fairly wide layer of the culture of the Crimean Khanate, which has its own characteristics, but at the same time is closely connected with other regions of the Islamic world of the post-classical period.

In the Crimean segment of the post-classical Islamic world, where the "rational" (in the Islamic sense of the term, i.e., so-called knowledge, 'ilm) tradition was represented by Sufism, kalam, and the "science of the foundations of law", but one more movement, Kadizadelism, was noticeably distinguished. Quite a lot has been written recently about Kadizadelism itself (named after the Ottoman preacher Mehmet Kadizade, d. 1635), primarily about the ideological and resource base of the movement (see recent work: [Curry, 2015]). Recently, there have been studies devoted to the development of cadizadelism in regions far from the center. While earlier it was assumed that Kadizadelism had already lost its influence significantly in the 18th century [Zilfi, 1986], new sources show a different picture [Filan, 2013]. This is partly true for the Ahn-

YAKUBOVICH Mikhail Mikhailovich-Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Senior Researcher at the National University "Ostroh Academy", mykhaylo.yakubovych@oa.edu.ua.

Mykhaylo YAKUBOVYCH - PhD (in History), Senior Researcher, The National University of Ostroh, Ukraine.

page 64
However, in Bosnia, for example, the Kadizadelites still had significant support, and the most significant works of representatives of the movement were written during this period and in Istanbul itself (Al-Barika Sharh at-Tariq Abu Said al-Khadimi, for example).) [Al-Khadimi, 2013].

The ideology of Kadizadelism, despite the lack of self-identification among representatives of the movement as a separate branch of Sunni Islam, usually boiled down to a rather sharp rejection of Sufism. At the level of theological views, however, the Kadizadelites relied on the traditional Maturidite and Asharite Kalam, developed post-classical Avicennism (see, for example, the "philosophical" sections in the work of Ahmad ar-Rumi: [Ar-Rumi, 2007, pp. 43-54]), and relied on the same "rationalistic" interpretations of the Qur'an-az-Zamakhshari, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, al-Baydawi with numerous commentaries and glosses, etc. In their understanding of the basic doctrinal texts, the Qadizadelites also relied on the basic canon of the Ottoman madrasahs, namely the works of Abu'l-Barakat al-Nasafi, Asir al-Din al-Abhari, 'Adud al-Din al-Iji, Qutb al-Din al-Razi and other authorities.

The Qadizadelite discourse, however, focused on the controversy with Sufism, which began already in the time of Muhammad al-Birkawi, the author of the fundamental work for the Qadizadelites At-Tariqatu l-Muhammadiyya ("Muhammad's Way") [Al-Birkawi, 1861/1862]. At a time when the Kadizadelite elite considered Sufi practices as innovations that had no basis in religious law (bidaat), there were often conflicts with Sufis at the level of preachers and ordinary mosque parishioners, for example, those who gathered for Dhikr after the Asr prayer. There were also repeated protests against other "innovations". Such Ottoman politicians as Abaza Hasan Pasha, Mehmed Koprulu, and Fazil Ahmed received support in Kadizadelite circles (Sariyannis, 2012).

The Lviv Museum of the History of Religions (Lviv, Ukraine) has preserved a manuscript of the fundamental Kadizadelic work Majalis al-Abrar by Ahmad ar-Rumi (d. 1632), which was once obtained from the library of the Zynjirli Madrasah in the Crimea (6494/Sr1690). According to the inscription at the end of the text [Ahmad al-Rumi, l. 1836], it was copied by a certain 'Abd al-Ghaffar bin Bahadirshah in 1216 (1801). In addition to the main part, which generally corresponds to the modern critical edition [Ahmad al-Rumi, 2007], the text contains separate glosses signed by a certain qadi. Despite the fact that it is hardly possible to determine the place of correspondence of this text (although the form of the name "Bahadyrshah" was often found in the Crimea), there is no doubt that it was studied in the Crimea by more than one generation of scientists. For example, he is quoted in his work Rahatu'l-Umma fi Dar al-Mu'min by a certain Qutb al-Din al-Kyrim, while simultaneously opposing the Sufi practice of the Ziyarats and blaming the loss of statehood by the Crimean Khanate not on foreign forces, but on the moral level of his compatriots [Al-Kyrim, Qutb al-Din, Rahatu l- Ummah fi Dar al-Mu'minah, l. 2a-12b].

Among the Crimean authors who were directly related to the ideology of Kadizadelism, a prominent place is occupied by Muhammad ibn al-Haji Hamid al-Kafauvi (d. 1754/1755). Unfortunately, the available sources give extremely limited information about his biography. The scientist was born, as evidenced by his toponymic name, from the Crimean Kafa (Feodosia). The date of his birth is unknown, probably between 1690 and 1710. In many manuscripts, the title Sayyid is mentioned before the name, which was attributed to the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Another Crimean predecessor of Muhammad al-Kafauwi, Abu'l-Baqa ' al-Kafauwi, had the same title. The name and title of Muhammad al-Kafauwi's father, "Haji Hamid", indicates that he once made a pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj). According to M. Bursali, Muhammad al-Kafauwi continued his career in Madinah (where he was a "mullah", probably an imam or a teacher in one of the mosques or mosques).

page 65
madrasah), and ended up in Jerusalem as a judge. It was there that Muhammad al-Kafauwi died and was buried in 1168 AH (1754/1755) [Bursali, 1975, p. 380-381].

The handwritten and printed heritage of this author deserves special attention. It is difficult to determine the exact number of works of which he was the author, since the same work often appears under different names, and the attribution given in catalogues is questionable. Therefore, it is worth focusing on the most famous and popular (based on the number of copies) works, which, in turn, do not cause doubts about their belonging to the pen of Muhammad al-Kafauvi. M. Bursali recalls 13 works by this author. However, taking into account the manuscripts unavailable to M. Bursali, more than two dozen works of Muhammad al-Kafauvi have been counted so far. At least ten of them are directly related to philosophical thought, in particular kalam and logic; most of these works, as will be shown later, reflect the author's Cadizadelic views.

First of all, we should pay attention to the works of Risala fi Isbat al-Wajib ("Message on the proof of the existence of a necessary being") [Al-Kafauwi, Risala fi Isbat al-Wajib] and Risala fi Adab al-Bahs ("Message on the method of investigation"). Obviously, these works were never published, but they were widely distributed (especially Risala fi Adab al-Bahs, dozens of copies of which are known) [Al-Kafauwi, Risala fi Adab al-Bahs].

In other works, Muhammad al-Kafauwi also addressed ontological problems, in particular the actively debated problems of" proving the existence " (isbat) of the divine being as necessarily existing (wajib al-wujud), that is, the one from which the possible existence (mumkin al-wujud) of all things necessarily follows. The very concept of isbat (lit., "statement") Muhammad al-Kafauwi understood both the "explanation of stable existence" (subut) and the belief in this permanent existence (subut). So, isbat wajib al-wujud is a "rational" proof not only that God exists, but also that God cannot not exist [Al-Kafauwi, Risala fi Isbat al-Wajib, l. 2b-3a].

This justification, typical of the Avicennian kalam, was considered by Muhammad al-Kafawwy in a small text that appears in catalogues under the name Sharh Kalimat al-Birkawy [Al-Kafawwy, Muhammad, Sharh Kalimat, l. 42a-b]. Muhammad al-Birkawi (also known as al-Birgawi and Birgili, 1523-1573), on whose work this commentary is written, was one of the most famous religious reformers of the Ottoman Empire, who tried to "revive" the original Islamic doctrine by rejecting the extremes of popular Sufism. It was his work, as already mentioned, that later formed the basis of cadizadelism.

The original title of the text is Kalimat lahiyyah ("Words about the particle 'no'"), although another manuscript of Muhammad al-Kafauwi's commentary includes Kalimat lahiyyah. In this text, Muhammad al-Birkauwi tried to determine how objections and statements (la ilaha illa Llah, "There is no god but Allah") relate in the Islamic "creed", i.e., what is denied and what is affirmed. Muhammad al-Kafauwi, having studied the arguments of his predecessor, more clearly formulated the possible answers.

According to Muhammad al-Kafauwi, "there is no God" can be understood in three senses [Al-Kafauwi, Muhammad, Sharh Kalimat, l. 42a]. First, as a denial of the divinity of everything except God himself. Secondly, as a denial of any particular personified existence (fictional deities, etc.). Thirdly, as a denial of the very existence of everything except God, since only God, as necessarily existing, is endowed with true being.

Muhammad al-Kafauwi considered the first interpretation to be correct. The second, in his opinion, is wrong, because in the words of la ilaha there is no specific word.

page 66
impersonations (ta'ayin). The third point of view, which is held by some wujudiyya (supporters of the idea of "unity of being"), that is, the denial of the existence of everything except God as a single absolute being, is also considered by Muhammad al-Kafauwi as erroneous. "These thoughts are probably the most harmful... They are held by the Wujudiyyah and Falasifa, who have been cursed by God, angelic and human, " notes Muhammad al-Kafawwy [Al-Kafawwy, Muhammad, Sharh Kalimat, l. 42a]. Muhammad al-Birkawi himself mentioned only "Sufis" with such views. Muhammad al-Kafauwi, in turn, was referring to the school of Ibn 'Arabi, which was opposed by the Qadizadelites. Probably, Muhammad al-Kafauvi was almost the first Crimean author who was critical of Sufism (or of its interpretations popular among Ottoman intellectuals).

More unambiguous, according to Muhammad al-Kafauwi, can be considered the second part of the" symbol of faith " - Illaa. Here," the established self is identical with the established self, " i.e., God reveals himself in the Qur'an through la ilaha illa Llah. At the end of the commentary, Muhammad al-Kafauwi gave an explanation of six possible ways of understanding the "symbol of faith", which are perceived by the human mind. He proposed a logical scheme where negation and affirmation can relate to either "all" or"part". There are four such options: negation of everything, affirmation of the self that necessarily exists as a single deity; negation of "everything", affirmation of "something quite different"; negation of "part", affirmation of the self that necessarily exists; and finally, negation of "part", affirmation of "something quite different". Only the first option denies the "divinity" of anything other than the one God in the world; the other options, according to Muhammad al-Kafauwi, are wrong. "Something else" mentioned in these variants may be, for example, the idea of absolute existence criticized by the Kadizadelites [Al-Kafauwi, Muhammad, Sharh Kalimat, l. 42b].

There are, however, two other variants [Al-Kafauwi, Muhammad, Sharh Kalimat, l. 42b]. If you understand ilah ("deity") in the direct, i.e. religious, sense of the word, the "creed" denies the very existence of personified deities, asserting the self of a necessary existence, or, in the second variant, asserting "something else, temporary" (i.e., giving the divinity of creation). This logic, based on mythological thinking, does not satisfy Muhammad al-Kafauwi, since, despite the external correctness, a person can also give "divinity" to impersonal factors of his being. Muhammad al-Kafauwi himself, emphasizing the correctness of the first version, refers to the work of At-Tawdih fi Hall Gawamid al-Tankih ("Explanation of the solution of difficult places of 'Correction'") the famous Hanafi-Maturidist scholar 'Abd Allah al-Bukhari (d. 1346), who was given the title Sadr al-Shariah ("The Heart of religious law"). The legacy of this Central Asian author was well known in the Crimea already at the beginning of the 15th century (in particular, thanks to Ibn al-Bazzaz). Therefore, those who recognize monotheism in its first sense, i.e., as the exclusive divinity of the one God, are " true believers."

In fact, Muhammad al-Kafauwi came quite close to the idea that later became one of the original doctrines of Islam in the teachings of his older contemporaries - Muhammad al-San'ani (1687-1768) and Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1791). The essence of this doctrine boils down to the fact that the profession of monotheism implies not only the recognition of God as the sole Creator ("the unity of God in dominion"), but also His exclusivity as an object of worship ("the unity of God in divinity") [Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, 2008, pp. 125-168]. Thus, the thoughts of Muhammad al-Kafauwi reflect the search for new approaches to the renewal of Islam, which matured in the Muslim world in the XVI-XVII centuries. However, unlike other supporters of the renewal of the doctrine, Muhammad al-Kafauwi relied on the "old" tradition of Avicennism, and not exclusive textualism.

page 67
This tradition is even more noticeable in one of the few individual works of Muhammad al-Kafawwy, which is called Isbat al-wajib ("Proof of the Existence of a Necessary Being"). Almost the only known list of this text, dated 1172/1758, is preserved in the Princeton University Library [Al-Kafauwi, Risala fi isbat al-wajib]. The work is included in a manuscript collection along with Hafid al-Nasari's commentary on Sharh al-Taftazani's commentary on the work of Talhis al-Ma'ani al-Khatib al-Qazwini (d. 1338), devoted to the problems of rhetoric. The author himself is directly mentioned at the beginning of the work as Sayyid Muhammad al-Kafauwi, which leaves no doubt about the authorship.

The work is devoted to a problem that was formulated, according to Muhammad al-Kafauwi, al-Zamakhshari (Sahib al-Kashshaf, "the author of al-Kashshaf"), at-Taftazani and al-Iji. The essence of this problem is as follows. The world is a set (ta'addud) of "possible existences" (mumkinat), i.e. things with a temporary existence. However, if the only thing that exists is necessary, then how can many different things come out of it? After all, multiplicity itself is inherent only in " possible "and not in" necessary " being. In these words, Muhammad al-Kafauwi actually addressed the ancient controversy surrounding the proposition "from the one comes only the one", which was attributed to Ibn Sina and which was refuted, for example, by Ibn Taymiyyah.

Muhammad al-Kafauwi believed that the contradiction did not arise due to an error in wording, but as a result of a misunderstanding. It is not the idea of dividing being into necessary and existing things that is wrong, but the logic by which this division is justified. That is why the answers of previous scholars, in particular the already mentioned al-Iji and al-Taftazani, as well as Sa'adi Efendi (d. 1538), were quite reasonable [Al-Kafauwi, Risala fi isbat al-wajib, l.2a].

Muhammad al-Kafawwy, in particular, wrote the already mentioned haishya on the work of Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani Risala fi Isbat al-wajib ("Message on the proof of the existence of a necessary being") [Al-Kafawy, Hashiya ' ala sharh al-Dawwani]. This text, published in a late eighteenth-century manuscript collection, includes the first words of the relevant parts of al-Dawwani's work, as well as explanations and marginal notes made by Muhammad al-Kafauwi himself. The attribution of the text is not in doubt, since the message begins with the words: "In these lines I have set out glosses to the commentary and added more in the margins, remembering together with some of the brothers. And I myself am a needy slave of the Almighty, as-Sayyid Muhammad al-Kafawy ibn al-Haji Hamid, may God forgive him, his parents and all Muslims "[Al-Kafawy, Hashiyah ' ala sharh ad-Dawwani, l. 2a]. Probably, this copy was copied from the author's copy, but, unfortunately, the lack of dating and mention of the copyist does not allow us to establish the exact year of writing the text.

The Persian thinker Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani, among others, was the author of two epistles called Isbat al-wajib, which researchers call" old " (kadima) and "new" (jadida), respectively. The "old" epistle to which the hashiya of Muhammad al-Kafauwi is written is mainly devoted to metaphysical issues, in particular causality [Risala fi isbat..., 2011, pp. 8-37]. Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani tried to find out how the " perfect first cause "(al-'illatu t-tamma) relates to the "effect", i.e., creation. It is logical to think that the cause should be "involved" (including literally) in the result, or even partially included in it, which, however, refutes the very distinction between necessary and possible being. In other words, the crux of the question was: how does the possible occur as possible, being separate from the necessary, i.e., the absolute? Why does the possible, proceeding from the necessary (and only from it), remain possible, and not become a continuation of the necessary?

Ibn Sina himself, who was referred to by post-classical authors, was inclined to the Neoplatonic concept of emanation (fayad - "outflow", sudur - "origin"),

page 68
emphasizing that "what exists is necessary", i.e., the Creator acts through an emanation from His own self, not obeying His own will or choice (Lizzini, 2005). The being created by the emanation, i.e. dependent on the Creator, becomes "existing in possibility", and the Creator himself refers to the eternal "necessarily existing". Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani considered all the arguments of Ibn Sina, dividing the rationale into two "paths". In the first" way "he proved the necessity of the existence of a first cause as such (refuting the infinity of causes), and in the "second" way, relying on the arguments of "correspondence" and "coincidence", he showed that it is the necessary that exists that remains the only first cause of being. The argument of " correspondence "consisted in the fact that in the perspective of infinity the part and the whole are the same, which contradicts the actual reality, the argument of" coincidence " - in the fact that in the imaginary infinity of causes one should look for an infinity of consequences, and since there should have been more consequences, such an infinity cannot exist (after all," consequences", i.e., "consequences").e. visible items, limited in number). Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani gave his own explanations for these arguments, and Muhammad al-Kafawy, in turn, tried to formulate them in detail, stating his own thoughts [Al-Kafawy, Muhammad, Hashiyah ' ala isbat al-wajib, l. 10a-15b].

One of the first positions of Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani, which was commented on by Muhammad al-Kafauwi, concerns the possible existence as a set of" composed things " (muraqibat). The "composed" possible being needs the "simple" possible, and that, in turn, comes from the necessarily existing. Muhammad al-Kafauwi, however, gave a counterargument, according to which the" simple "possible comes from the folded" in a circle", but even in this case it requires a" reason "for its existence, either" internal "or"external". Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani noted that this reason must still be both material and formal. In support of this, Muhammad al-Kafauwi quoted the words of the Ottoman thinker Kamal Pasha-zade (d. 1535), who wrote in the Hashiya na Tajrid al-'Aqa'id ("Purification of Doctrines") that it is impossible for all parts of a thing to be simultaneously the self of the effect of a perfect cause, especially at the level of matter and form. Otherwise, Muhammad al-Kafawwy pointed out, the "perfect cause" would also be both a target and an effective cause, which is obviously impossible [Al-Kafawwy, Muhammad, Hashiyah 'ala isbat al-wajib, l.15a-18b]. Thus, the inclusion of necessary being in the possible as a" part " leads to the identification of cause and effect, and therefore ultimately refutes the established gradation of being.

At the end of his work, Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani drew several conclusions. In particular, he noted that " it is necessary that the existing is free from division, which is required by its very essence... it is too general to need any mediation or anything else... it is necessarily a self-sufficient unity (wahda kafiya)." Muhammad al-Kafauwi, in turn, tried to find out whether this conclusion belongs to ad-Dawwani himself, Ibn Sina, or other authors. He pointed out that some authors, in particular Shams al-Din al-Isfahani (1276-1348), resorted to the separation of necessary and being at this stage of proof. Obviously, this was meant to divide what is necessary into essence and properties, which raised additional questions about the status of the properties themselves (in fact, the well-known discussion about the status of God's attributes). Probably, Muhammad al-Kafauwi was referring to the first section of Shams al-Din al-Isfahani's "Preface on the division of being into parts in the teachings of various groups". Muhammad al-Kafauwi believed that the approach of other followers of Ibn Sina-al-Iji and al-Taftazani-looks more understandable and "close to the solution" than, for example, the position of the Ash'arites [Al-Kafauwi, Muhammad, Hashiyya ' ala sharh, l. 30a].

The biography and texts of Muhammad al-Kafauwi allow us to draw several conclusions. First of all, this figure, given the significance and number of written works, requires a separate study. As can be seen from the titles and content of most of his works, Muhammad al-Kafauwi was more interested in philosophical problems than in religious ones. This is probably one of the few

page 69
Crimean and, in a broader context, Ottoman authors who were less interested in the interpretation of the Qur'an, hadith, or minor issues of Muslim law (Furu ' al-fiqh). Perhaps his only known work on the interpretation of the Qur'an (sharh on al-Baydaouvi's commentary on the verse "We did not punish anyone without sending a Messenger", Qur'an, 17: 15) also deals with theological discussions: according to Muhammad al-Kafauwi, this verse refutes the Mu'tazilite idea that it is possible to understand the laws of God rationally even without revelation, since otherwise God would have punished all nations even before the arrival of the messengers [Al-Kafauwi, Muhammad, Hashiya ' ala mabhas...].

Muhammad al-Kafauwi's interests included problems of ontology, metaphysics and logic, and hermeneutics (in its modern sense), which the scientist approached mainly from the standpoint of Avicennism. His sympathy for "pure" Avicennism is indicative, in particular, his attempts to restore the neo-Platonic metaphysics of the great teacher, leaving the discussions of representatives of the late Kalam in the background. Although most of the works of Muhammad al-Kafauwi are written in the form of interpretations on the works of his predecessors, they can find new, critical interpretations of established concepts in Kalam. The thinker was particularly attentive to categorical analysis, adhered to the positions of consistent rationalism, and in many matters preferred it to independent logical configurations. Avicenna's kalam was, in the understanding of Muhammad al-Kafauwi, almost the only correct approach to the interpretation of the Islamic doctrine of monotheism (tawhid).

The interest in the methodology of the Ottoman reformer Muhammad al-Birgauvi, revealed in the Kadizadeli movement, is also significant in the work of Muhammad al-Kafauvi. In his commentary on this author's theological epistle, al-Kafawwy came pretty close to an idea that was later developed by other eighteenth-century Muslim reformers. Its essence was the need to recognize the right to any acts of worship exclusively in relation to the one God, which negated the importance of numerous "shrines" (the cult of "close to God" graves, new "sacred" places), popular in folk and Sufi interpretations of Islam. Al-Kafauvi's devotion to this methodology can also be explained by his more than lukewarm attitude towards the Ibn Arabi school, which is popular among other Crimean scholars who usually belonged to Sufi tariqas (naqshbandiyya, halvatiya, etc.In the long run, this idea also had practical ideological significance, since it reduced the influence of Sufi tariqas on the political and social life of the Ottoman Empire. However, al-Kafauwi did not approach these ideas from the standpoint of religious textualism, as other reformers did, but tried to use philosophical terminology that was already traditional for the Avicennian kalam. It should be noted that the legacy of al-Kafauwi (despite the fact that he made a career far from his homeland) was well known in the territories close to the Crimean Khanate-for example, his hashiya on the interpretation of Adab al-Bahs al-Iji, rewritten in 1766 "on the banks of the Danube" (Tuna), was preserved, i.e. in Bujaq [Al-Kafawy, Muhammad, Hashiyah 'ala sharh Adab al-Bahs].

Thus, while remaining true to the ontological views of Ibn Sina, Muhammad al-Kafauwi was critical of the popular interpretations of Islam at that time, being in search of answers to current challenges to the classical heritage of Islamic philosophical thought. In the work of this scholar, both tendencies characteristic of the intellectual life of the Ottoman Empire of the XVIII century intersected - on the one hand, as a consistent aviationist, al-Kafauvi expressed somewhat conservative views on traditional philosophical issues, on the other - as an equally consistent kadizadelite, he was a supporter of reformation ideas in the interpretation of Muslim religious doctrine. All this allows us to consider Muhammad al-Kafauvi as one of the most prominent representatives of the "Islamic enlightenment" of the XVIII century, who came close to a new vision of the development of the Muslim intellectual tradition.

page 70
list of literature

Abu Bakr Qalandar. Qalandar-nameh. Chapter 1. "Monotheism" / / Golden Horde Review. 2014. No. 2. pp. 243-252.

Abu Bakr Qalandar. Qalandar-nameh. Chapter 2. "Praise and blessing in relation to Muhammad Mustafa" / / Golden Horde Review. 2014. No. 3. pp. 207-215.

Abu Bakr Qalandar. Qalandar-nameh. Chapter 3. "Praising Abu Bakr, the ruler of the Faithful" / / Golden Horde Review. 2014. No. 4. pp. 171-177.

Al-Birkauwi Muhammad. At-Tariqat al-Muhammadiyya. Istanbul: Matbaa al-Busnawi, 1861/1862.

Al-Birkauwi Muhammad. Risala fi tawhid. Milli Kutuphane. Ankara. No. 1021/4. l. 22a-43b.

Al-Isfahani Shams ad-Din. Sharkh at-Tajrid. King Saud University Library. No. 2217. Л. 6a-7b.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Risala fi Isbat al-Wajib. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. ELS3409. L. 1-3.

Аль-Кафауві Мухаммад. Шарх калімат лягазійя лі ль-Біркауві. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. L. 4212Y Ark. 42b-43a.

Al-Kafauwi, Muhammad. Hashiya ' ala sharh Adab al-Bahs. Національна бібліотека України ім. В. Вернадського. Відділ рукописів. Cipher F. 74 No. 49. 33 l.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Risala fi Adab al-Bahs. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. 2978Y. Л. 25b-27b.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Risala fi Isbat al-Wajib. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. ELS3409. Л. la-3b.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Hashiya ' ala Isbat al-Wajib. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. 5330Y. Arc. 31b-45a.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Sharkh ' ala l-Baidauvi. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. 5590Y. Ark. 4b.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Sharkh kalimat lyagaziyya li l-Birkauvi. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. 4212Y. Ark. 42b-43a.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Hashiya ' ala mabhas al-juma min jamiatu l-rumuz. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. 5590Y Ark. 5b-8a.

Al-Kafauwi Muhammad. Hashiya ' ala sharh ad-Dawwani. Princeton University Library. Robert Garrett Collection. No. 2787Y 55 ark.

Al-Qirimi Qutb ad-Din. Rahatu'l-Ummah fi Dar al-Mu'minah. Milli Ktituphane-Ankara. No. 3577/1. l. la-13b.

Ar-Rumi Ahman. Majalis al-Abrar. Medina: Al-Jamiat al-Islamiyya, 2007.

Al-Khadimi, Abu Sa'id. Al-Bariqa Sharh at-Tariqa. Истанбул: Hakikat Kitabevi, 2011.

Ас-Сана'ани, Мухаммад. Tathir al - 'Ittmqad' an adran al-Ilhad / Ed .by ' A. As-Sannan. Mecca: Matabiu l-Wahid, 2004, pp. 79-85.

Ibn ' Abd al-Wahhab Muhammad. Tafsir kalimatu t-tawhid / / Silsilya sharhu r-Rasail. Cairo: Dar al-Furqan, 2008, pp. 125-168.

Ibn Taymiyyah. Daru't-Ta'rud al - ' Akl wa n-Naql / Ed. by M. Salim. Riyadh: Jami'atu l-Imam, 1991.

Muminov A. Makhmud ibn Sulaiman al-Kafavi and his information on the history of the Golden Horde / / Kipchaks of Eurasia: history, language and written monuments. Astana, 2013. pp. 226-247.

Risala fi isbat al-wajib li l-imam al-Dawwapi / Ed. by M. Gush. Amman: Dar an-Nur, 2011. 187 p.

Bursali M. Osmanli muellifleri. Istanbul: Meral Yayinevi, 1975.

Bursali M. Osmanlilar Zamaninda Yetisen Kirim Mu'ellifleri. Ankara: Gaye Matbaasi, 1990.

Curry J. Kadizadeli Ottoman Scholarship, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and the Rise of the Saudi State // Journal of Islamic Studies. 2015. No. 26 (3). S. 265-288.

Filan K., Religious Puritans in Sarajevo in the 18th Century // Osmanli Tarihi Arastirma ve Uygulama. Merkezi Dergisi. 2013. No. 33. P. 43-62.

Lizzini O. Utility and Gratuitousness of Metaphysics: Avicenna // Quaestio. 2005. No. 5. P. 307-344.

Pehlivan N. Muhammed Kefevi ve "Risale fi'l-Adab"i // Felsefe Dunyasi. - 2012/2. Sayi 56. S. 322-333.

Sariyannis M. Political Initiatives 'From the Bottom Up' in the Ottoman Empire" // The Kadizadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon: The Rise of a "Mercantile Ethic"? Rethymno: Crete University Press, 2012. P. 263-291.

Schubert G. Ahmad b. Abdallah al-Qrimi, ein Verteidiger Ibn al-Arabis gegen die Orthodoxie // Asiatische Studien. 1994. No. 48. S. 1379-1381.

Yakubovych M. A Neglected Ottoman Sufi Treatise from 16th century: Mawahib al-Rahman fi bayan Maratib al-Akwan by Ibrahim al-Qirimi // The Journal of Ottoman Studies. 2015. No. 45. P. 137-161.

Yakubovych M. Muhammad al-Aqkirmani and his Iqd al-La'ali: the Reception of Ibn Sina in Early Modern Ottoman Empire // The Journal of Ottoman Studies. 2013. No. 41. P. 179-219.

Yakubovych M. Post-Classical Islamic Philosophy in the Medieval Crimea: Sharaf al-Din al-Qirimi and Ahmad al-Qirimi // Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne. 2013. Vol. 11 [46]. S. 207-221.

Zilfi M. The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul // Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1986. Vol. 45. No. 4. P. 251-269.

page 71

Permanent link to this publication: