This paper has two aims. The first is to extract from the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Ottoman Sufi lore the views towards astrologers that are more often than not unfavorable in nature. This lore includes the menakibname literature, Sufi treatises engaged in epistemological discussions, and scattered archival correspondences penned by individuals defining themselves as Sufi shaykhs. While the attacks against astrology and astrologers in the medieval and early modern world, in both the Islamicate and European realms, frequently feature as an object of study in the relevant literature, the Sufi take on the practice has been seldom studied. Intriguingly, the most severe objections raised against astrologers in the Ottoman context came from prominent Sufis who vilified astrologers on account of their alleged claims, though they by no means rejected the fundamental celestial principles underlying the practice of astrology. This brings us to the second aim of the paper, which is to highlight the important nuances that need to be addressed when utilizing the polemical literature. If the main object of the contempt and polemics was not the astrological premises but rather the astrologers themselves, what does this tell us about the epistemic and social rivalries at the time? And how did the munajjims themselves define their own craft vis-à-vis those externalist views that tended to reduce them to back-street charlatanry or magicianship promoting the idea of astral determinism?