Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:33:01.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nabulsi Ulama in the Late Ottoman Period, 1864–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

Mahmoud Yazbak
Mahmoud Yazbak
Affiliation:
Lecturer in the Department of Middle Eastern History, University of Haifa, 31905 Haifa, Israel.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the main arguments used to prop up the thesis that, as of the 16th century, there was a steady decline in virtually all spheres of the Ottoman Empire's administration and society has been that Muslim societies in the Ottoman Middle Eastproved incapable, or even unwilling, to open up and accept the process of Western modernization. In recent years, however, newly discovered local sources together with a change in methodological approach have led to a growing body of critical studies that challenge the decline theory on a number of points. The 19th century, for example, is increasingly viewed as still very much an Ottoman century, in which the Porte, instead of seeing its power in the provinces diminish under the growing impact of the West, succeeded in strengthening its hold through the centralization policies of the Tanzimat. Another significant example is that of local elites who, instead of opposing Istanbul's reformist policies across the board, are often found to identify and cooperate with the central government.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 71 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Author's note: I thank Professors Amnon Cohen and Gad Gilbar, Dr. Butrus Abu Manneh, and Dr. Ilan Pappé, who read earlier versions of this article. Further, while preparing the final version I greatly benefited from comments by Professor Beshara B. Doumani, and I thank the anonymous referees for comments that proved very useful. I also thank my good friend Dick Bruggeman for his help in styling my English text. Needless to say, I alone remain responsible for the content. The Council for Higher Learning (Jerusalem) generously provided a research grant.

1 Cf. Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, H., Islamic Society and the West vol. I, pt. 1 (London, 1950), vol. I, part 2 (London, 1957);Google ScholarLewis, B. L., The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1961);Google ScholarHolt, P. M., Egypt and the Fertile Crescent 1516–1922 (London, 1966);Google ScholarCohen, Amnon, Palestine in the 18th Century, Patterns of Government and Administration (Jerusalem, 1973).Google Scholar

2 Cf. Owen, Roger, “The Middle East in the Eighteenth Century—An Islamic Society in Decline: A Critique of Gibb and Bowen's Islamic Society and the West,” Review of Middle East Studies 1 (1975): 101–12;Google Scholaridem, The Middle East in the World Economy, 1800–1914 (London, 1981), 1–23;Google ScholarDoumani, Beshara B., “Merchants, Socioeconomic Change, and the State in Ottoman Palestine: Nablus Region, 1800–1860” (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, 1990);Google Scholaridem, “The Political Economy of Population Counts in Ottoman Palestine: Nablus, Circa 1850,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 26 (1994): 1–17;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, Rediscovering Palestine, Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700–1900 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995), 1–14;Google ScholarGerber, Haim, “A New Look at the Tanzimat: The Case of the Province of Jerusalem,” in Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period, Political, Social and Economic Transformation, ed. Kushner, David(Jerusalem, 1986), 30–45;Google ScholarThompson, Elizabeth, “Ottoman Political Reform in the Provinces: The Damascus Advisory Council in 1844–45,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 25 (1993): 457–75;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAbu-Manneh, Butrus, “The Islamic Roots of the Gulhane Rescript,” Die Welt des lslams 34 (1994): 173–203.Google Scholar

3 Ma'oz, Moshe, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine, 1840–1861: The Impact of the Tanzimat on Politics and Society (Oxford, 1968), 3–11;Google Scholaridem, “The ʿUlama and the Process of Modernization in Syria during the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Asian and African Studies 7 (1971): 77–88;Google ScholarShamir, Shimon, “Egyptian Rule (1832–1840) and the Beginning of the Modern Period in the History of Palestine,” in Egypt and Palestine: A Millennium of Association (686–1948), ed. Cohen, Amnon and Baer, Gabriel (Jerusalem, 1984), 214–31;Google ScholarCommins, David, Islamic Reform, Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman Syria (New York, Oxford, 1993), 7;Google ScholarInalcik, H., “Application of the Tanzimat and its Social Effects,” Archivum Ottomanicum 5 (1973): 98, 111.Google Scholar

4 Schilcher, Linda Schatkowski, Families in Politics: Damascene Factions and Estates of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Stuttgart, 1985);Google ScholarThompson, , “Ottoman Political Reform”; Doumani, “Merchants.” Uriel Heyd (“The Ottoman ʿUlema and Westernization in the Time of Selim III and Mahmud II,” in Scripta hierosolymitana, ed. Heyd, Uriel, Studies in Islamic History and Civilization, vol. 9 [Jerusalem, 1961], 87)Google Scholar notes that the leading ulama in the center—that is, in Istanbul—were not opposed to the first stages of the Tanzimat because they “were deeply convinced that not only the fate of Islam but their own depended on the existence and stability of the Empire.” The leading urban ulama in the Syrian lands behaved similarly because “the era of Turkish reform … contributed largely to the crystallization and consolidation of the urban leadership of ulama and aʿyan, by the establishment of the local councils (majlis) in the towns”; cf. Ma'oz, Moshe, “Syrian Urban Politics in the Tanzimat Period Between 1840–1861,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 29 (1966): 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar As for Damascus, Khoury found that “the higher ʿulama adjusted easily to new Ottoman pressures in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. … [T]hey also became more closely tied to Istanbul”; later, when secular institutions emerged and overshadowed the religious institutions, ulama families adapted to the new situation by educating their sons in the secular educational institutions in Istanbul to obtain a hold on the new governmental institutions; see Khoury, Philip S., Urban Notables and Arab Nationalism, the Politics of Damascus 1860–1920 (Cambridge, 1983), 16, 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 On the history of the Khammashes before the mid-19th century, see Doumani, , “Merchants,” 127–31.Google Scholar

6 Schilcher, , Families in Politics, 104–6;Google ScholarHourani, Albert, “Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables,” in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, ed. Polk, William R. and Chambers, Richard L. (Chicago, 1968), 60–64;Google ScholarSchőlch, Alexander, Palestine in Transformation, 1856–1882, Studies in Social, Economic and Political Development, trans. Young, William and Gerrity, Michael (Washington, 1993), 197–240;Google ScholarAkarli, Engin D., “ʿAbdulhamīd II's Attempt to Integrate Arabs into the Ottoman System,” in Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period, 81.Google Scholar

7 Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua, Jerusalem in the 19th Century: Emergence of the New City (Jerusalem and New York, 1986)Google Scholar; idem, “The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine during the First Eighty Years of the Nineteenth Century According to Western Sources,” in Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, ed. Ma'oz, Moshe (Jerusalem, 1975), 49;Google ScholarKark, Ruth, “The Jerusalem Municipality at the End of the Ottoman Rule,” Asian and African Studies 14(1980): 117–41;Google Scholar see also n. 1 of this article.

8 Doumani, , Rediscovering Palestine, 9, 23, 68, 73–74, 107;Google Scholaridem, “Merchants,” 74, 227–28.

9 On other Syrian cities, cf. Thompson, “Ottoman Political Reform”; see also the biography of the Damascene Ghazzis in Schilcher, , Families in Politics, 175;Google Scholar Doumani, “Merchants”; idem, Rediscovering Palestine.

10 ʿAwaḍ, ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Muḥammad, Al-ldāra al-ʿUthmaniyya fi Wilāyat Sūriyya, 1864–1914 (Cairo, 1969), 70–81.Google Scholar

11 Al-Dustūr, vol. 1 (Beirut, 1301 A.H.), 382;Google ScholarFindley, Carter V., “The Evolution of the System of Provincial Administration as Viewed from the Center,” in Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period, 3–29.Google Scholar

12 About the broad authorities Istanbul granted to its provincial officials in consequence of the Gűlhane edict, see Inalcik, , “Application,” 99–104;Google ScholarRogan, Eugene L., “Moneylending and Capital Flows from Nablus, Damascus and Jerusalem to Qaḍāʾ al-Salt in the Last Decades of Ottoman Rule,” in The Syrian Land in the 18th and 19th Century, the Common and the Specific in the Historical Experience, ed. Philipp, Thomas (Stuttgart, 1992), 239.Google Scholar

13 Al-Dustūr, , 1:382–432Google Scholar

14 At the level of the liwāʿ the governor (mutaṣarrif) received his nomination directly from the sultan's bureau (bi-irādat al-janāb al-shāhāni); al-Dustūr, 1:386. The liwāʾs accountant (muḥāsibjī), the corresponding secretary (mudīr al-taḥrīrāt), and the nāʾib also were nominated directly by Istanbul; ibid., 389; also Findley, , “Evolution of the System,” 5–6.Google Scholar

15 See, e.g, Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1299 A.H., 237.

16 The long civil war which raged in Jabal Nablus in the first half of the 19th century offered the Ottomans the chance to try once and for all to do away with local powers, and they successfully intervened in 1858; from then until the end of the century the sanjaq of Jabal Nablus was ruled by governors appointed by Istanbul; cf. Hoexter, Miriam, “The Role of the Qays and Yaman Factions in Local Political Divisions: Jabal Nablus Compared with the Judean Hills in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Asian and African Studies 3 (1973): 249–311.Google Scholar

17 Eligible to vote were only tax-paying residents; these would elect twice the number of council members required, from among whom the wālī and the mutaṣarrif then appointed those who to their mind were most suited for the job. There were two categories of membership in the administrative council: the nāʾib, muftī, muḥāsibji, and mudīr al-taḥrīrāt were on the council ex officio, as were the heads of the non-Muslim communities; a further six members were elected (muntakhab) from among people who did not as yet serve in any capacity in the local administration; Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1300 A.H., 236; al- Dustūr, 1:385, 387, 389.Google Scholar For a full explanation of the way elections were organized, see Part 5 of the Law, Vilayets; al-Dustur, 1:392–94.Google Scholar Cf. also al-Nimr, Ihsan, Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus via al-Balqāʾ, vol. 3 (Nablus, n.d.), 3:30–32Google Scholar, for an account of the elections as they were held for the municipal council in Nablus in 1912. See also Davison, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1845–1876 (Princeton, 1963), 125–30, 148;Google Scholar and idem, “The Advent of the Principle of the Representation in the Government of the Ottoman Empire,” in Beginnings of Modernization, 93–108.Google Scholar For the process of election to the Ottoman parliament, see Kayali, Hasan, “Elections and the Electoral Process in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1914,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 27 (1995): 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Doumani, , “Merchants,” 45–46;Google Scholar for similar trends in Damascus, see Schilcher, , Families in Politics, 114;Google Scholar also the biographies of the Damascene Ghazzis, in ibid. 169–75.

19 Many of the family's sons studied at al-Azhar; cf. Kupferschmidt, Uri M., “Connections of the Palestinian ʿUlama with Egypt and Other Parts of the Ottoman Empire,” in Egypt and Palestine, 183.Google Scholar

20 Doumani, , “Merchants,” 124, 127.Google Scholar

21 Sijill of the Shariʿa Court of Nablus (hereafter Sijill), 9:305Google Scholar (Ghurrat Rabiʿ al-Thani 1253/5 July 1837).

22 Doumani, , “Merchants,” 127.Google Scholar

23 Mustafa, was nāʾib in the years 1808–10, 1813–21, 1823–28, 1829–1831;Google Scholar see al-Nimr, , Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus, 2:124.Google Scholar See also Doumani, , “Merchants,” 122;Google Scholaral-Raminl, Akram, “Nāblus fi al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar” (master's thesis, Jordan University, Amman, 1977), 219.Google Scholar

24 Between 1830 and 1832, he substituted for his father; Doumani, , “Merchants,” 127.Google Scholaral-Wahid, ʿAbd was nāʾib during the years 1832–34, 1842–44, 1850–59, 1869–1870;Google ScholarSijill, 23:144Google Scholar (18 Rajab 1299/27 May 1882); al-Ramini, , 219.Google Scholar

25 Sijill, 9:305Google Scholar (Ghurrat Rabic al-Thani 1253/5 July 1837).

26 There may have been a quid pro quo here, because the ʿAbd al-Hadis were able to enlarge their economic bases in the town and the rural area, among other things, by using the services of ʿAbd al-Wahid, who as naʾib transferred large waqf properties—not always legally, it seems—from the hands of the old aristocratic families to the ʿAbd al-Hadis and their allies. As leaders in the Egyptian ruling system of the region who were fully aware of the implications of agricultural commercialization, the ʿAbd al-Hadis bought during the 1830s large mīrī lands in the rural areas and registered them (illegally) in the maḥkama (court) as private holdings (mulk) during the office of the qāḍī of cAbd al-Wahid; see Doumani, , “Merchants,” 116–17, 129.Google Scholar

27 Sijill, 9:305Google Scholar (Ghurrat Rabiʿ al-Thani 1253/5 July 1837).

28 Sijill, , 11:121–23Google Scholar (Ghurrat Rabic al-Thani 1256/2 June 1840); 12:226–28 (21 Jumada al-Ula 1275/17 December 1858); 22:247 (22 Rajab 1298/12 June 1881).

29 Sijill, , 19:303Google Scholar (11 Rabic al-Awwal 1292/17 April 1875).

30 Al-Nimt, ,Taʾrikh Jabal Nāblus, 1:340;Google ScholarSijill, , 12:128Google Scholar (Awakhir Dhu al-Qacda 1271/14 August 1854); 17:180 (10 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1288/25 May 1871); 22:159 (15 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1297/20 October 1880).

31 Nāʾib's substitute, Hanafi imam in the al-Nasr mosque, khatṭīb, and imam in the Salahi mosque; and mudarris; Sijill, 17:391Google Scholar (10 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1289/17 June 1872); 20:381 (7 Jumada al-Thaniya 1293/31 December 1876); 24:128 (23 Shaʿban 1300/29 June 1883); 25:121 (Ghurrat Rabiʿ al-Thani 1301/30 January 1884); 26:227 (10 Dhu al-Hijja 1303/9 September 1886); 30:380 (22 Jumada al-Thaniya 1311/31 December 1893); 35:176 (17 Shawwal 1316/14 January 1899); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1298 A.H., 214;Google Scholar see also the years 1299–1304 A.H.

32 Muhammad Amin's brother, Makki, appears in the sijill in 1873 holding the post of imam. In 1881 he became a member of the committee for administering assets (amlāk) and an inspector of government schools (mektebs) in Nablus (1900); Sijill, 17:647 (Ghurrat Muharram 1290/March 1873). Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1299 A.H., 238;Google Scholaribid., 1301 A.H., 184; ibid., 1302 A.H. 175; ibid., 1303 A.H. 150; Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1318 A.H., 216.Google Scholar Another brother, Raghib, and his son, ʿAbd al-Rahman, were kātibs in the sharīʿa court; Sijill, 17:348 (13 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1289/22 May 1872).

33 Sijill, 25:247Google Scholar (6 Muharram 1302/27 October 1884); 33:357 (26 Shawwal 1315/20 March 1898).

34 Sijill, 19:301Google Scholar (3 Rabic al-Awwal 1292/9 April 1875); 24:42 (25 Jumada al-Ula 1300/3 April 1883).

35 Sijill, 14:90Google Scholar (10 Shawwal 1282/26 February 1866); 19:303 (112 Rabic al-Awwal 1292/17 April 1875).

36 Doumani, “Merchants,” 158.Google Scholar

37 Mahmud was kātib in the sharica court, and khaṭīb and imam in the Satun mosque; Sijill, 17:663 (15 Jumada al-Ula 1290/11 July 1873); 22:280 (20 Shaʿban 1298/29 August 1881); 23:28 (25 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1299/14 February 1882), 23:118 (5 Jumada al-Ula 1299/25 March 1882). Najib was khaṭīb and imam, administrator of the Salahi and the Nasr mosques, and a member of the court of commerce, of the amīāk administration committee, and of the municipal council; Sijill, 19:303 (11 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1292/17 April 1875); 20:159 (Ghurrat Safar 1293/27 February 1876); 24:42 (25 Jumada al-Ula 1300/3 April 1883); 27:341 (Muntasif Safar 1306/October 1888); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1299 A.H., 238; al-Nimr, , Taʾrikh Jabal Nāblus, 2:27.Google Scholar ʿAbbas was nāʾib and nāʾib's substitute, khaṭīb, and imam in the Satun mosque, investigator (mustanṭiq) with the criminal law court (maḥkamat al-jazāʾ), a member of the civil (nizami) court, and naʾib in Horns (1900; p. 84); Sijill, 23:112Google Scholar (13 Rajab 1299/31 May 1882); 25:314 (17 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1302/4 February 1885); 26:221 (15 Dhu al-Hijja 1303/14 September 1886); 31:226 (23 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1312/18 May 1895); 32:41 (22 Dhu al-Qacda 1312/17 May 1895); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1299 A.H., 238;Google Scholaribid., 1300 A.H., 238; ibid., 1301 A.H., 185; Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1310 A.H., 189;Google ScholarDarwazah, Muḥammad ʿIzzat, Miʾat ʿām Filasṭīniyya, Mudhakkirāt wa Tasjīlāt (Damascus, 1984), 1:101.Google Scholar Khadir was khaṭīb and imam in the Satun mosque and served in 1900 on the municipal council; Sijill, 17:663Google Scholar (15 Jumada al-Ula 1290/11 July 1873); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1318 A.H., 213.Google Scholar

38 Before his election he served as nāʿib in the liwāʾ of Hawran (1892), and as khaṭīb and imam in the Satun mosque; Sijill, 33:127Google Scholar (9 Shaʿban 1314/14 January 1897); al-Ḥūt, Bayān Nuwayhiḍ, al-Qiyādāt wa al-Muʾassasāt al-Siyāsiyya fī Filasṭīn, 1917–1948 (Beirut, 1986), 845.Google Scholar The sixth son, Muhammad Amin, was khaṭīb and imam in the Satun mosque and a member of the amlāk administration committee, the administrative council of the agricultural bank, and the commerce court; Sijill, 22:322Google Scholar (23 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1298/18 October 1881); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1304 A.H., 165;Google ScholarSālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 310 A.H., 189, 191.Google ScholarFinally, Muhammad Tahir was khaṭīb and imam in the Satun mosque; Sijill, 17:663Google Scholar (15 Jumada al- Ula 1290/11 July 1873). Najib's son, Muhammad Shakir, served as khaṭīb and imam in the Satun mosque; Sijill, 27:341Google Scholar (Muntasaf Safar 1306/October 1888).

39 The Hanbali school was more widespread in Jabal Nablus than in other parts of Palestine. It is supposed to have come to Jabal Nablus in the 11th century through al-Shirazi, who had made connections with some shaykhs in the area; see al-ʿAsali, Kamil, “al-Fikr al-Dīnī: al-ʿulūm al-Islāmiyya fī Filasṭīn” in al-Mawsūʿa al-Filasṭīniyya, al-Qism al-Thānī, 6 vols. (Beirut, 1990), 3:457.Google Scholar

40 Suhayl Zakkar, “Filastin fi ʿAhd al-Mamalik,” in ibid., 2:588; al-Mawsuca al-Filastiniyya, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Acre, 1986), 3:504.

41 Al-Nimr, , Taʾrikh Jabal Nāblus, 1:53.Google Scholar

42 Sijill, 27:35Google Scholar (28 Jumada al-Thaniya 1304/22 February 1887); al-Shaṭṭi, Jamil, Mukhtaṣar Ṭabaqāt al-Hanābila (Damascus, 1339 A.H.), 178.Google Scholar

43 See, e.g., al-Ghazzī, Najm al-Dīn, al-Kawākib al-Sāʾira bi-Aʿyān al-Miʾa al-ʿĀshira, 3 vols. (Beirut, 1979), 2:101;Google Scholaribid., 3:16; al-Nimr, , Taʾrikh Jabal Nāblus, 1:59;Google Scholaribid., 2:56; al-Nābulsī, ʿAbd al-Ghanī, al-ḥaḍra al-Unusiyya fi al-Riḥla al-Qudusiyya (Beirut, 1990), 76;Google Scholaral-Dabbāgh, Muṣṭafā Murād, Biladuna Filastin, 4th ed., 11 vols. (Beirut, 1988), 6:163–74;Google Scholaral-Shatti, , Mukhtasar, 75, 127, 130, 177;Google Scholar al-Qayati, who visited Nablus in the 1880s, mentions that the Hanbalis in Nablus and its region are found in greater numbers than in other places in the Syrian lands; see al-Qayātī, Muḥammad, Nafḥat al-Bishām fi Riḥlat al-Shām (Beirut, 1981), 103.Google Scholar

44 Al-Qayati mentions that the Hanbali qāḍī in Cairo in the 1880s was a Jaʿfari from Nablus; see al-Qayati, , Nafḥat al-Bishām 103.Google Scholar

45 al-Murādī, Muḥammad Khalīl, Silk al-Durar fī Aʿyān al-Qarn al-Thānī ʿAshar, 2 vols. (Beirut, 1988), vol. 1, pt. 1, 219;Google Scholar vol. 1, pt. 2, 217; vol. 2, pt. 3, 83; vol. 2, pt. 4, 183.

46 Ibid., vol. 2, pt. 3, 83; ibid., vol. 2, pt. 4, 183; al-Shaṭṭī, , Mukhtaṣar, 127, 130Google Scholar.

47 Al-Shaṭṭī, , Mukhtaṣar, 147Google Scholar; al-Nimr, , Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus, 2:60Google Scholar; al-Dabbāgh, , Bilādunā Filasṭīn 6:172Google Scholar.

48 Sijill, 17:47 (3 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1287/25 January 1871)Google Scholar; 20:345 (11 Ramadan 1294/19 September 1877); al-Nimr, Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus, 1:340, 2:124.

49 Sijill, 20:316 (15 Rajab 1294/26 July 1877)Google Scholar.

50 Sijill, 17:182 (3 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1288/22 June 1871)Google Scholar; 17:361 (13 Jumada al-Thaniya 1289/18 August 1872); 21:142 (11 Shaʿban 1295/10 August 1878); 23:29 (27 Safar 1299/18 January 1882), 23:251 (24 Muharram 1300/5 December 1882); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1300 A.H., 237Google Scholar; ibid., 1301 A.H., 184.

51 Sijill, 6:24 (3 Muharram 1213/17 June 1798)Google Scholar; 6:165 (Awakhir Dhu al-Qaʿda 1213/5 May 1798); 7:84 (3 Shawwal 1226/21 October 1811); Doumani, , “Merchants,” 336–37Google Scholar.

52 Sijill, 21:25 (11 Safar 1295/14 February 1878)Google Scholar; 24:220 (9 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1300/11 September 1883).

53 Rashid was mudarris and a member of the examination commission selecting ulama for employment in the ʿilmiyya institutions; Sijill, 32:345 (29 Muharram 1315/30 June 1897)Google Scholar; 33:157 (Awasit Shaʿban 1316/December 1898). Daʾud was Hanbali imam in the Salahi mosque and mudarris in the Hanabila mosque. Both were engaged in commerce; Sijill, 32:358 (3 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1315/2 August 1897)Google Scholar; 35:176 (17 Shawwal 1316/14 January 1899).

54 Sijill, 17:204 (Awaʾil Jumada al-Ula 1289/July 1872)Google Scholar.

55 Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1303 A.H., 149, 150Google Scholar.

56 Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1310 A.H., 189Google Scholar.

57 Sijill, 35:93 (24 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1316/12 September 1898)Google Scholar; 35:211 (Ghurrat Dhu al-Hijja 1316/12 April 1899); Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1318 A.H., 219Google Scholar. In order for Husayn, and later his sons, to become muftis, they converted to the Hanafi madhhab; cf. Jaʿfari private papers with Dr. ʿAbd al-Rahim al-Hanbali in Nablus. I wish to thank Dr. ʿAbd al-Rahim for giving me access to these papers. For a similar trend in 18th-century Damascus, see Voll, John, “Old ‘ʿUlama’ Families and Ottoman Influence in Eighteenth Century Damascus,” American Journal of Arabic Studies 3 (1975): 49, 54, 56Google Scholar.

58 Sijill, 43:365 (15 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1329/15 April 1911)Google Scholar; 44:56 (23 Dhu al-Hijja 1329/15 December 1911); Sālnāme-i Devlet-i ʿĀliye-i Osmāniye, 1330 A.H., 622Google Scholar.

59 Sijill, 20:345 (11 Ramadan 1294/19 September 1877)Google Scholar; 23:251 (24 Muharram 1300/5 December 1882); 25:104(11 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1301/10 January 1884); 30:141 (24 Jumada al-Ula 1310/14 December 1892); 32:348 (7 Safar 1315/8 July 1897); 32:365 (5 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1315/4 August 1897); 34:31 (8 Jumada al-Thaniya 1315/4 November 1897); 34:63 (24 Rajab 1315/19 December 1897).

60 Sijill, 17:204 (Awaʾil Jumada al-Ula 1289/July 1872)Google Scholar.

61 Sijill, 17:361 (13 Jumada al-Thaniya 1289/18 August 1872)Google Scholar.

62 Ibid. Because the assets contained large agricultural tracts in five villages around Nablus and a water mill in the town, the post of mutawallī of the waqf of the Hanabila mosque was important for Muhammad ʿAli to enhance his power. As mutawallī he would have full control over all other ulama employed in the mosque; Sijill, 20:345 (11 Ramadan 1294/19 September 1877);Google Scholar 21:220 (23 Safar 129616 February 1879); 23:241 (29 Dhu al-Hijja 1299/10 November 1882); 25:26 (21 Muharram 1301/22 November 1883); 26:8 (27 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1302/14 February 1885).

63 One of the most respectable families in Nablus, the Tuqan ruled Nablus for many years during the 18th and 19th centuries; see al-ʿAbbasi, Muṣṭafa, Taʾrīkh Āl-ṬūqĀn fī Jabal Nāblus (Shifa ʿAmru, 1990);Google Scholar see also Hoexter, , “Role of the Qays and Yaman Factions,” 249–311Google Scholar.

64 As naqīb of Nablus, Muhammad Murtada had married the daughter of Jerusalem's naqīb while his own daughter was married to Muhammad Tuqan; Sijill, 17:163 (8 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1288/23 May 1871).Google Scholar

65 Al-Nimr, , Taʾrīkh Jabal Nā;blus, 3:42Google Scholar. This opposition failed in 1864 to take the niqāba away from Muhammad Murtada, and he filled the post until his death in 1870.

66 Ibid.

67 Sijill, 23:251 (24 Muharram 1300/5 December 1882);Google Scholar 26:8 (27 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1302/14 February 1885).

68 Sijill, 34:8 (29 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1315/16 September 1897).Google Scholar

69 Although the Jaʿfaris were originally Hanbalis, some of them, especially when they held the offices of naqīb and mufti, were registered only as Jaʿfaris, without mention of their madhhab affiliation. As has been shown, a small number had already converted to the Hanafi madhhab. Some of Nablus's Jaʿfaris today declare that they are Shafiʿis or Hanafis. Shaykh Muhammad ʿAli Murtada was appointed nāʾib in Bani Saʿb (1891–92) and Haifa (1896–97); Shaykh Munib was nāʾib in Tripoli and Bani Ghazi, in Libya; see al-Nimr, , Tarīkh Jabal NĀblus (1975), 4:124;Google ScholarKupferschmidt, Uri M., “A Note on the Muslim Religious Hierarchy Towards the End of the Ottoman Period,” Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period, 126Google Scholar.

70 Sijill, 35:93 (24 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1316/12 August 1898);Google Scholar 31:1 (12 Jumada al-Thaniya 1311/21 December 1893); 44:216 (20 Jumada al-Ula 1300/8 May 1912).

71 Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1330 A.H., 622.Google Scholar

72 Sijill, 31:134 (3 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1312/4 September 1894).Google Scholar See also n. 74.

73 For a comprehensive discussion of the changing bases of power in Nablus's society during the first half of the 19th century, see Doumani, , “Merchants,” 285–330Google Scholar.

74 Ibid., 341,346.

75 Three were located in the town's mosques, al-Salahi, al-ʿAyn, al-Hanabila, and one in the zāwiya of ʿImad al-Din; Sijill, 22:229 (12 Jumada al-Thaniya 1298/4 May 1881);Google Scholar 27:280 (12 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1305/22 July 1888); 32:358 (3 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1315/2 August 1897).

76 There were two categories of mudarrisūn. Those in the first category taught students (ṭalabat alʿilm) in the classes (ḥalaqāt al-tadrīs) of the four madrasas; Sijill, 32:360 (5 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1315/4 August 1897).Google Scholar The functions that those in the second category carried out were preaching (waʿẓ), religious guidance (irshād), and instructing the general populace (nafʿu al-ʿawwām) during the daily prayers, before and after the Friday prayer, during Ramadan, and on other holy feast days. Because the latter group did not have students in the usual sense of the word and they did not follow any organized teaching program, they could not award students ijāzāt. Cf. Sijill, 21:131 (23 Shaʿban 1295/22 August 1878);Google Scholar 35:354 (3 Rajab 1317/7 November 1899).

77 For example, Mahmud Tahir, a well-known Nabulsi merchant, initiated the building of twelve student dwellings in the Salahi mosque, which he dedicated as waqf, intended for foreign students (alʿulamāʾ wa-ṭalabat al-ʿilm al-aghrāb), in addition to the dwellings founded long before (min qadīm alzamān); Sijill, 20:38Google Scholar (25 Rajab 1292/27 August 1875); 20:82 (11 Ramadan 1292/11 October 1875); 20:131 (20 Dhu al-Hijja 1292/30 December 1875); 20:337 (1 Ramadan 1294/30 August 1877); 43:258 (8 Shawwal 1329/2 October 1911); 44:239 (18 Jumada al-Thaniya 1330/5 June 1912); 44:257 (7 Rajab 1330/23 June 1912).

78 Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1288 A.H.Google Scholar

79 Sijill, 30:264 (13 Muharram 1311/27 July 1893).Google Scholar

80 Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Sūriyā, 1302 A.H.Google Scholar

81 Sālnāme-i Vilāyet Beirūt, 1311 A.H.Google Scholar

82 Darwazah, , Miʾat ʿām Filasṭiniyya, 41–47, 145–51.Google Scholar We know of only one Nabulsi who studied in Europe: Muhammad al-Tamimi, who, after he had finished the mülkiye in Istanbul, was given a scholarship to continue his education in Paris; cf. Rafiq, Muḥammad (al-Tamīmī) and Bahjat, Muḥammad, Wilāyat Bayrūt, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Beirut, 1987), 1:2Google Scholar.

83 For Damascus, see Roded, Ruth, “Social Patterns Among the Urban Elite of Syria During the Late Ottoman Period (1876–1918),” in Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period, 148Google Scholar, and in Khoury, , Urban Notables, 28Google Scholar.

84 Sijill, 17:663 (15 Jumada al-Ula 1290/11 July 1873)Google Scholar.

85 Ibid.

86 Sijill, 21:274 (Ghurrat Jumada al-Thaniya 1296/23 May 1879)Google Scholar.

87 Sijill, 22:100 (11 Jumada al-Ula 1297/22 April 1880)Google Scholar.

88 Sijill, 17:647 (Ghurrat Muharram 1290/1 March 1873)Google Scholar.

89 Sijill, 27:341 (Muntasaf Safar 1306/October 1888)Google Scholar.

90 Sijill, 31:14 (9 Shaʿban 1311/15 February 1894)Google Scholar.

91 Sijill, 35:176–77 (17 Shawwal 1316/14 January 1899)Google Scholar.

92 Sijill, 44:313 (1 Ramadan 1330/15 August 1912)Google Scholar.

93 Sijill, 32:128 (17 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1313/1 May 1896)Google Scholar.

94 Sijill, 32:126 (17 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1313/1 May 1896)Google Scholar.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

97 Sijill, 35:324 (Ghurrat Jumada al-Thaniya 1317/7 October 1899)Google Scholar.

98 Al-Dustur, 1:143Google Scholar.

99 Sijill, 27:341 (Muntasaf Safar 1306/October 1888)Google Scholar.

100 Sijill, 20:163 (Ghurrat Safar 1293/27 February 1876)Google Scholar.

101 Sijill, 24:20 (26 Jumada al-Ula 1300/4 April 1883);Google Scholar 24:88 (19 Rajab 1300/26 May 1883); 24:250 (3 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1300/1 February 1883); 24:253 (29 Shaʿban 1300/5 July 1883).

102 Culled from Sijill, 20:87 (Ghurrat Shaʿban 1292/September 1875);Google Scholar 21:274 (Ghurrat Jumada al-Thaniya 1296/23 May 1879); 22:202 (4 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1298/5 February 1881); 24:49 (18 Jumada al-Thaniya 1300/17 January 1883); 24:171 (5 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1298/29 January 1881); 24:176 (5 Shaʿban 1300/11 June 1883); 24:185 (13 Shaʿban 1300/19 June 1883); 24:191 (28 Shaʿban 1300/4 July 1883); 24:193 (19 Ramadan 1300/24 July 1883); 27:281 (6 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1305/18 July 1888); 27:320 (26 Muharram 1306/2 October 1888); 28:327 (18 Safar 1308/3 October 1890); 28:328 (21 Safar 1308/6 October 1890); 31:14 (9 Shaʿban 1311/15 February 1894); 32:96 (14 Shaʿban 1313/30 January 1896); 32:126 (17 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1313/1 May 1896); 32:252 (14 Shawwal 1314/18 March 1897); 32:253 (14 Shawwal 1314/18 March 1897); 32:282 (10 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1314/12 April 1897); 32:349 (8 Safar 1315/9 July 1897); 34:36 (10 Jumada al-Thaniya 1315/26 October 1897); 34:77 (21 Ramadan 1315/13 February 1898); 35:179 (21 Shawwal 1316/19 January 1899); 35:324 (Ghurrat Jumada al-Thaniya 1317/7 October 1899); 35:354 (3 Rajab 1317/7 November 1899); 35:357 (8 Rajab 1317/12 November 1899); 43:228 (20 Rajab 1329/17 July 1911); 44:33 (28 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1329/20 November 1911); 44:99 (30 Dhu al-Hijja 1329/17 December 1911); 44:191 (9 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1330/29 March 1912).

103 Sijill, 44:332 (20 Safar 1330/9 February 1912)Google Scholar.

104 The same principle can also be seen at work in other, administrative functions. Cf. Rafiq, and Bahjat, , Wilāyat Bayrūt, 1:131Google Scholar.

105 Sijill, 17:167 (10 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1288/30 May 1871);Google Scholar 17:182 (3 Rabiʿ al-Thani 1288/22 June 1871).

106 Sijill, 26:215 (22 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1302/2 September 1885)Google Scholar.

107 Sijill, 29:215 (Ghurrat Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1309/5 October 1891)Google Scholar.

108 Sijill, 24:109 (19 Rabiʿ al-Awwal 1300/28 January 1883);Google Scholar 28:109 (24 Shaʿban 1306/25 April 1889); 30:241 (25 Dhu al-Qaʿda 1310/18 September 1893).

109 Rafiq, and Bahjat, , Wilāyat Bayrūt, 1:132Google Scholar.

11O Al-Nimr, , Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus, 3:56–57Google Scholar.

111 Darwazah, , Miʾat ʿām Filasṭiniyya, 1:102;Google Scholaral-Nimr, , Taʾrikh Jabal Nāblus, 3:59Google Scholar.

112 Darwazah, , Miʾat ʿām Filasṭiniyya, 1:102Google Scholar; al-Nimr, , Taʾrlkh Jabal Nāblus, 3:57Google Scholar.

113 Darwazah, , Miʾat ʿām Filasṭiniyya, 1:101Google Scholar.

114 Al-Nimr, , Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus, 3:58Google Scholar.

115 Al-Kitāb al-Sanawī li-Baladiyyat Nāblus (Nablus, 1972), 21Google Scholar.

116 Al-Nimr, , Taʾrīkh Jabal Nāblus, 3:21Google Scholar.

117 Except, of course, the capitals (Istanbul and Cairo). Hourani may have shown the way as early as 1968 when he pointed up the difference between the ulama in the capitals and those in the provincial towns: “[The latter] remained more important than in the capitals, both because they were an ancient, wealthy, locally rooted aristocracy and not an elite of service, and because the religious schools, although in decline, still had a monopoly of religious education. There were no modern professional high schools in the provincial centers, and it was not until toward the end of the century that Muslim families of standing began to send their children to the French and American mission schools or the professional schools of Istanbul”; cf. Hourani, , “Ottoman Reform,” 61Google Scholar.