Katib Chelebi (1609–1657) was an Ottoman civil servant who spent much of his time as an accountant for the Turkish army, accompanying it on several important campaigns. Over time, he became passionate about learning and pursued not only Islamic law but also ancient Greek philosophy, geography, and modern European sciences. He wrote several important books, including a bibliographical encyclopedia. The book of essays from which the following extract comes also discusses such contemporary issues as coffee, singing, opium, shaking hands, bowing, and bribery.

Katib Chelebi, “The Balance of Truth”

“When the year 800 after the Hijra approached the year 900 [in the fifteenth century], and when Spanish ships found the New World. The Portuguese and the English were also sailing through the shores in order to pass from the Western seas to the Eastern seas, they arrived at an island,* which is close to the shores noted as Gineya in the Atlas. Due to the negative impact of the humidity of the sea air on his nature, a doctor from the crew of the ship suffered from what appeared to be a lymphatic disorder. While he was looking for a cure, employing hot and dry things in accordance with the dictum “Cure is in the opposite,” his ship arrived at the aforementioned island, and he saw that some sort of a leaf was burning. Smelling its scent, he understood that it was a hot scent, and he started sucking the smoke through a pipe-like instrument. As he benefited from this, he collected a large quantity of that leaf and used it while he stayed there. The people on the ship, saying “This is a beneficial cure” and following his example, collected a lot of the leaf. They start smoking this way one after another. After the ship arrived in England, smoking spread to France and other places; without knowing about its origin and thinking that it can be used leisurely, people started smoking tobacco. Most of them became addicted and considered it a stimulating drug. As it became a common phenomena in the East and the West, it remained unhindered by prohibition.

It appeared around 1010 A.H. [1601]. Since then various preachers mentioned it, and many learned men wrote treatises; some argued that it is religiously prohibited, and others disapproved. Those who were addicted, on the other hand, replied to these with their own treatises. After a while, in the court of the sultan [that is, in Istanbul], Şeyhi Ibrahim Efendi, the surgeon of the Palace, showed extreme care for the topic and talked about it at length and preached in the public seminar of Sultan Mehemmed Mosque and hung on the wall copies of the counsel and religious opinion [fatwa] in vain. As he talked about it, people smoked more and became more obstinate. Seeing it doesn’t help, he gave in.

Later, towards the end of his reign, Sultan Murad IV [1612–1640] banned coffee houses in order to close down the door of evil acts and tobacco because it caused some fires [in the city]. When people disregarded the prohibition, the power of the Sultan necessitated reprimanding those who by smoking performed the sin of acting against the imperial order. Occasionally, [due to] the sultan’s ruthlessness in suppression and in accordance with the dictum “Mankind craves what is forbidden,” people’s desire and craving to smoke equally increased. Many men were sent to the realm of nothingness due to this crime. At the encampments on the way to the Baghdad campaign, while fifteen to twenty leading soldiers were being executed in the presence of the sultan with extreme torment with the accusation of smoking tobacco, they still carried little pipes, some under their shirts, and some in their pockets and smoked at every opportunity. In Istanbul, there was no end to those who smoked in the barracks and public latrines. Even under such harsh suppression, those who smoked were more than those who didn’t. After he [Sultan Murad IV] passed away, at times it was prohibited, and at times it was permitted, and finally, during the time of the late grand mufti Bahai Effendi issued a fatwa ruling that tobacco was permissible; among the people smoking became prevalent and popular once more. Yet, thanks to the fact that the high imperial order chastised the addicts from time to time, some quit. However, in all of the fourth of the world that is inhabited it was being smoked. Such is the story of tobacco. Now, let’s consider the contexts for and characteristics of smoking in the form of a few arguments:

The first argument is that people can be prevented through prohibition and can quit tobacco. Since habit is second nature, we need to push aside this possibility. Addicts cannot be made to quit this way. . . .

The second discussion concerns the question of whether tobacco is good or bad with respect to reason. We can neglect the approval of it by addicts, and the intelligent accepted it as bad; either the judgment of good or bad have to be determined by both reason and religious law. . . .

The third argument is about its benefits and harmful effects. There is no doubt that it is financially harmful. However, since it becomes one of the most essential items for the addict, he doesn’t mind its financial harm. Its harm on the body is well attested. Since tobacco pollutes the essence of air breathed by people, it is physically harmful.

The fourth argument is whether or not it is an innovation according to religion. It is an innovation according to the religious law, since it appeared in recent times. Moreover, it cannot be argued that it is an acceptable innovation. It is also rationally an innovation, because smoking hasn’t been seen or heard of by the intelligent since the time of Adam. . . .

The fifth argument concerns if it is religiously abominable or not. There is no way to deny that it is abominable in reason and in religion; everyone has accepted this argument. Since the scent of tobacco smoke and the scent of its leaves are not abominable in themselves, for it to be accepted as abominable, its excessive use is a condition.† . . .

The sixth argument is about its being unlawful or not. To produce a judgment on a topic through independent reasoning is accepted as a method in books of religious law. There are sufficient conditions collected to proscribe tobacco through an analysis of available proof. Yet it is preferable not to proclaim it forbidden. It is recommended to accept it as religiously permissible in order to protect people from insisting on sin by doing forbidden acts through the application of a legal principle.

The seventh argument is whether or not it is religiously permissible. Since tobacco appeared in recent times, it is not clearly considered and mentioned in books of religious law. Consequently, following the dictum, “In things permissibility is inherent,” smoking is considered as permissible and legitimate.”

Source: Mecmu’a-i Ulum [Journal of Sciences] 1.2 (November 30, 1879): 79–125, trans. Selim S. Kuru.

QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS