Why did the Ottomans ban printing? What would have changed if the Porte had strongly encouraged it?

Well, see title. They allowed non-Muslims to use printing presses, so what gives?

Had the Ottomans encouraged printing, would the Islamic world have been more amenable to newly developing (Christian) European sciences?
 
Well, see title. They allowed non-Muslims to use printing presses, so what gives?

Had the Ottomans encouraged printing, would the Islamic world have been more amenable to newly developing (Christian) European sciences?

Most likely political reasons. François I did the same thing, he banned the printing of any books in his realm in 1535, punishable by death - a policy substantially less liberal than that which the Ottomans seemed to have done. Non-Muslims, not being capable of the same political access to the center, probably didn't represent the same political threat that the mass spread of new ideas could bring, and likely there were many such groups that were more vigorously involved in commerce and hence had greater need for printing.

An alternate proposal I've seen after quick reading is that it might have been because of opposition from calligraphers. Given the political economy of the Ottoman Empire - a single empire stretching out over a highly considerable stretch of territory - this would be possible to have an impact on the actual spread of books, unlike in Europe. François's ban was of little use after all, because there were hosts of independent states beyond his control that continued to flood him with books; in the Ottoman Empire, there were no such close by centers that natively printed in the same vernacular, or furthermore high language. Thus, an entrenched faction would be able to put up much more resistance than in Europe, although that is just speculation on my part. There is mention that Murad III mighty ave allowed the sale of European books written in Turkish, Farsi, and Arabic in the ottoman Empire, but while just guessing blindly I can't help but think that printing in those languages was limited in Europe.

I had seen one site suggest that it was a cultural reason in that the Ottoman literati liked more decorations and quality that the calligraphers produced, but that seems like nonsense; Europe's literati probably liked hand made books too, but made the switch to printing. An unlikely proposal I could think of is if printing was uneconomical and wages of calligraphers lower or productivity higher enabling them to compete with printing presses, but I doubt this was the case. Perhaps a demand-side element could be at play instead though; if the Ottoman potential major-market "middle class" was of insufficient size or wealth to purchase many books, then only the upper class, already with access to calligraphers, would purchase books. In such an environment a ban on printing would be easy to continue. I don't know about the internal Ottoman economic distribution and wages to know if that is possible, but it hardly seems impossible that the Ottoman Empire was poorer than Europe and hence had a smaller market for printing.
 
Most likely political reasons. François I did the same thing, he banned the printing of any books in his realm in 1535, punishable by death - a policy substantially less liberal than that which the Ottomans seemed to have done.
I think you got it a bit wrong :the declaration (that was legally quite vague) was about a temporary interdiction of printing books, not printing press.

Basically, he wanted to oversee as much as printing production as possible, as the various declarations, edicts and ordonnances point out. Placards Affair is the main cause of 1535 decision, which again was really temporary : it was voided out mere days afterwards in favour of a parlementarian-supported censorship.
 
Had the Ottomans encouraged printing, would the Islamic world have been more amenable to newly developing (Christian) European sciences?
To be fair the European sciences were based upon a foundation of learning and libraries of the Islamic world and the transmission of Indian and Chinese learning via the same route.
 
I think you got it a bit wrong :the declaration (that was legally quite vague) was about a temporary interdiction of printing books, not printing press.

Basically, he wanted to oversee as much as printing production as possible, as the various declarations, edicts and ordonnances point out. Placards Affair is the main cause of 1535 decision, which again was really temporary : it was voided out mere days afterwards in favour of a parlementarian-supported censorship.
I had been citing from Imagined Communities which had said that "Nothing gives a better sense of this siege mentality than François I's panicked 1535 ban of the printing of any [emphasis his] books in his realm - on pain of death by hanging!" on page 40, of the revised edition I believe: my version is at home and so I was looking at one online. If that is incorrect then my apology.
 
Don't worry, I was in no way offended : just that the 1535 decision is sometimes used out of context on the Interwebz, about how Francis was supposed to go all nazi on printing books.
If something, printing books blossomed during his reign in France (Albi, where I live, is one of the first printing press location of this time) but as long it was under royal or parlementarian scrutiny.

This, quite violent admittedly but that explain why it didn't last more than a week, decision have to be contextualized in both a tendency to censorship and control litterary edition (printed or not), and with the rise of Protestantism in France; rather than any anti-intellectual or anti-modernism take.
 
The printing of books was banned as some scholars then believed that copying the Quran by a machine was haram as putting the holy words of Allah through a machine was tainting them.
 
The printing of books was banned as some scholars then believed that copying the Quran by a machine was haram as putting the holy words of Allah through a machine was tainting them.
So why did they not just ban printings of the Quran? Or did the Quran so dominate book production that there didn't seem to be much point.

I have been reading around about this and there doesn't seem to be much consensus on why it happened. Some blame the calligraphers. I came across a story that they all laid there brushes down before some palace as a protest. Others blame the religious scholars as you have but I have been unable to find the religious reasoning behind the prohibition. All the statements I was able to find were just emphasising how OK printing was. It seems a somewhat controversial and frustrating subject especially for someone restricted to English sources.
 
Last edited:
So why did they not just ban printings of the Quran? Or did the Quran so dominate book production that they didn't seem to be much point.

I have been reading around about this and there doesn't seem to be much consensus on why it happened. Some blame the calligraphers. I came across a story that they all laid there brushes down before some palace as a protest. Others blame the religious scholars as you have but I have been unable to find the religious reasoning behind the prohibition. All the statements I was able to find were just emphasising how OK printing was. It seems a somewhat controversial and frustrating subject especially for someone restricted to English sources.

Whether you believe it permissible or not, it was the case among many Ulema in those periods of Islam. The initial reasoning for banning was likely the Quran which was then put ontop of the wishes of interests who benefitted from calligraphy and hand made books. The two together with political concerns, likely led to the overall ban.
 
I would think that the growth of secular scriptoriums in Late Medieval Europe, concommitant with the important growth of litterary and copy production with the XIVth (and probably with the rise of universities as more secularized centers of knowledge), may have played a role there.
Latin Europe eventually less associated books with a clerical culture and production, while I'm under the impression that book culture in Arabo-Islamic world remained more importantly tied up with a religious or clerical culture and production.

It doesn't explain everything, especially with Ottoman Empire having fairly secular cultural institutions, but I think that it may be a factor.
 
Last edited:
Top