# data[].attributes.headline
Kadızade "Puritan" Revival (1620 - 1680s)

# data[].attributes.subject
Kadızade "Puritan" Revival (1620 - 1680s)

# data[].attributes.body
A network of fiery preachers inspired by the jurist Birgivi Mehmed and led by Kadızade Mehmed Efendi denounced coffee‑houses, Sufi music, tobacco, and “innovation,” urging the sultan to enforce amr bi‑l‑maʿrūf (command right, forbid wrong). I chose this because it shows an early‐modern contest over Islamic authority: mosque pulpit vs. palace patronage vs. Sufi lodges

# data[].attributes.body
Ulema and Janissaries ousted Sultan Mustafa II after he ruled from Edirne, claiming palace advisers had strayed from sharʿī norms. I chose this because it marks the high‑water point of scholarly power. It demonstrates a coup justified entirely on grounds of protecting dīn.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nuruosmaniye Mosque & the Ottoman Baroque (1748‑1755)

# data[].attributes.subject
Nuruosmaniye Mosque & the Ottoman Baroque (1748‑1755)

# data[].attributes.body
Commissioned by Mahmud I and finished by Osman III, Nuruosmaniye was the first imperial mosque to integrate European Baroque curves, light, and calligraphy into a classical Ottoman prayer space. I wanted to highlight this because it visually signals a theological confidence that Islam could absorb Western aesthetics without losing legitimacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wahhabi‑Ottoman War & Reconquest of the Ḥaramayn (1803‑1818)

# data[].attributes.subject
Wahhabi‑Ottoman War & Reconquest of the Ḥaramayn (1803‑1818)

# data[].attributes.body
Wahhabi‑Saʿūd forces took Mecca/Medina; Cairo’s viceroy Muḥammad ʿAlī crushed them, retaking the holy cities in 1813‑18. It forced Istanbul to shore up its claim to guardianship of Islamic orthodoxy and highlighted competing “reform” visions inside the broader Muslim world.

# data[].attributes.body
Mahmud II abolished the Janissary corps after securing a fatwa from the Şeyhülislâm labeling their revolt “un‑Islamic.” This began to show the relationship between religion and its militarization.

# data[].attributes.body
Mustafa Reşid Paşa’s proclamation opened the Tanzimat with Qurʾānic language on life, honor, property, promising security and equal taxation for all subjects. It evolves from the previous block as now Islamic justice is reframed as the moral basis for a centralized, rights‑guaranteeing state.

# data[].attributes.body
Abdülmecid I guaranteed equality “regardless of creed” in education, office‑holding, and courts. This part is interesting to me because it signals an internal Ottoman debate. As in, can an Islamic politics be multi‑confessional yet still Islamic?

# data[].attributes.headline
Mecelle‑i Aḥkām‑ı ʿAdliyye Civil Code (1869‑1876)

# data[].attributes.subject
Mecelle‑i Aḥkām‑ı ʿAdliyye Civil Code (1869‑1876)

# data[].attributes.body
Ahmed Cevdet Paşa codified 1,851 Hanafi legal maxims, making it the first systematic sharia code ever enacted by a Muslim state. Now again evolving into a more political entity, I chose this because it shows Islam re‑imagined as a trans‑imperial political identity and as a tool of soft power against Europe.

# data[].attributes.headline
1917 Family Law Code (Ḥukūk‑ı Âile Kararnâmesi)

# data[].attributes.subject
1917 Family Law Code (Ḥukūk‑ı Âile Kararnâmesi)

# data[].attributes.body
Ottoman jurists produced a uniform Muslim family code (marriage, divorce, inheritance) drawing on all four Sunni madhhabs. I chose this because it represents the last imperial attempt to harmonize Islamic law with a modern statute‑based legal order.

# data[].attributes.body
The Kadızadelis’ pulpit campaigns (1620s‑80s) opened the period by insisting that civic life conform to “pure” Hanafi‑Sunni practice. To me, this showed a sort of thrusting of mosque preachers into direct confrontation with Sufi lodges and the court. When scholars and Janissaries invoked similar language to depose Mustafa II in the 1703 Edirne Incident, they proved that Islamic legitimacy could topple sultans as well as coffee‑houses . Yet the dynasty’s confidence soon re‑emerged in stone. The Nuruosmaniye Mosque (1755) fused Ottoman and European Baroque aesthetics, which to me demonstrated that Islamic piety could absorb foreign forms without surrendering authority. A decade later the empire had to defend that authority abroad, reclaiming Mecca and Medina from Wahhabi control in the 1803‑18 campaign, an episode that re‑asserted the sultan‑caliph’s guardianship of the Ḥaramayn. Back in Istanbul, Sultan Mahmud II used a fatwa to justify eliminating the Janissaries during the “Auspicious Incident” (1826). This is a way of demonstrating how sacred sanction could enable radical military reform. The Tanzimat statesmen then reframed Islamic justice as the moral engine of a modern, rights‑bearing state in the Gülhane Edict (1839) and the Islâhat Fermânı (1856), both couched in Qurʾānic motifs of equity and protection. That rhetorical move matured into substance with Cevdet Paşa’s Mecelle (1869‑76), the first systematic codification of fiqh that translated Hanafi maxims into article‑based civil law. The Hijaz Railway (1900‑08) stitched Damascus to Medina as both a logistical Hajj artery and a steel metaphor for pan‑Islamic solidarity against European encroachment. Finally, the 1917 Family Law Code harmonized rulings from all four Sunni schools, illustrating a last‑ditch attempt to keep Islamic jurisprudence central. Taken together, these ten events chart a coherent evolution. From community‑driven moral policing, through state‑driven legal and institutional modernization, to a vision of state Muslim unity, each phase redefined how Islam underpinned Ottoman legitimacy in an age of internal dissent, European pressure, and global Muslim awakening.