Sei sulla pagina 1di 25

II. Abdülhamid’in sürgün y›llar›nda

doktorlu¤unu yapm›fl olan At›f Hüseyin Bey hat›rat›nda sâb›k hünkâr›n dilinden ilginç bir hikâye anlat›r: II. Abdülhamid flehzadeli¤i s›ras›nda kaza eseri yanarak ölen k›z›ndan bahseder. Befliktafl Sahilsaray›’nda bulunan 12- 13 yafllar›ndaki k›z›, validesi de yan›nda oldu¤u halde, kibritle oynarken ç›kan atefl tül elbisesine s›çram›fl, annesinin çabas› bir ifle yaramay›nca k›zca¤›z feci bir flekilde yanm›flt›r. O s›rada biraderi Burhaneddin Efendi ile Çengelköy’de deniz hamam›nda bulunan Abdülhamid’e mesele tam olarak söylenmese de garip bir durum oldu¤unu sezerek h›zl› bir flekilde kay›kla Befliktafl’a ulaflan flehzadenin k›z›n›n odas›na girmesi saray görevlilerince engellenir. Doktor Marko Pafla gelip durumu anlat›nca, art›k kimseyi dinleyecek durumda olmayan ac›l› baba zorla içeri girmek isterken bay›l›r. Kendine gelince odaya girer. Bafltan afla¤› sarg›lar içerisinde olan k›z›n›n yaln›z gözleri aç›kt›r; son kez babas›na bakar, âdeta onu beklemektedir. Babas› ise yafll› gözlerle k›z›n›n gözlerinden öper. O s›rada, amcas› Sultan Abdülaziz de yan›na gelmifl ve mahzun ye¤enini teselli ederek validesinin Niflantafl›’ndaki dairesine yollam›flt›r. Cenaze bir hafta sonra Yahya Efendi Dergâh›’nda defnedilir.

II. Abdülhamid bu hat›ras›n› Kadirî tarikat›ndan

oldu¤unu vurgulamak maksad›yla anlatm›flt›r. Zira ona göre, Kadirîlikte her fleyi hofl görme ve

At›f Hüseyin Bey, who served as doctor to Abdülhamid II during his years of exile, recollects an intriguing story from the former sultan. He speaks of Abdülhamid’s daughter, who accidently burnt to death while her father was still prince. The girl, 12-13 years old, was playing with matches at the Befliktafl Coastal Palace when her tulle dress caught alight, and despite her mother’s efforts to extinguish the flames, the poor girl suffered severe burns to her entire body. Although Abdülhamid, who was at the Çengelköy Turkish baths with his brother Burhanettin, was not told of the incident, he sensed that there was something wrong and hurried back by boat; when he finally reached the Befliktafl Palace, the palace guards prevented him from entering his daughter’s room. When Doctor Marko Pasha explained what had happened, the father, completely devastated, was in no state to listen to anybody; while trying to force his way into the room, he fainted. When he regained consciousness, Abdülhamid entered the room, and found his daughter bandaged from head to toe, with only her eyes exposed; it was as if she had been waiting for her father, to look at him one last time. As tears rolled down his cheeks, Abdülhamid kissed his daughter’s eyes. Then his uncle, Sultan Abdülaziz, entered the room, comforted his nephew, and sent him to his mother’s residence in Niflantafl›. The young girl was buried a week later at the Yahya Efendi tekke.

| 204 |

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

felaketlere tahammül etme esas› vard›r. Kendisi ise zaten bir “felaketzede”dir. Bu olay hayat›ndaki ilk felaketlerden biridir. fiöyle devam eder: “Benim yerime baflka biri olsa dayanamaz! Ben dervifl oldu¤um için Kâdirî tarikat›na mensubum… Ba¤dat’ta Abdülkadir-i Geylanî hazretlerinin birçok müritleri vard›r. Hindistan’dan birçok hediyeler gelir. Ben de türbeyi tamir ettirdim…” II. Abdülhamid’in fiazelî, Rifâî ve Nakflî olabilece¤i söylense de bu, rivayet di¤erlerinin yan›nda daha s›hhatli gibi durmaktad›r. Nitekim o devre ait arfliv malzemelerinde tekkelere yap›lan maafl, ihsan, atiyye gibi yard›mlar› gösteren listelerde

ço¤unlukla ilk s›ray› Kadirî dergâhlar›n›n almas›, bu durumu pekifltiren bir olgudur. Sultan

II. Abdülhamid sadece Ba¤dat’taki bu türbeyi

de¤il, Ahmed Rifâî gibi di¤er din büyüklerinin türbelerini de tamir ettirmifl ve bunlara ba¤l› dergâhlar› ihya etmifltir. Bütün bunlar dindar bir kiflili¤e sahip oldu¤unu bildi¤imiz sultan›n salt

bireysel hay›r çabalar› olarak görülmemelidir. Bu ince çizginin nerede bafllay›p nerede bitti¤ini kestirmek flüphesiz çok zordur. Ancak

II. Abdülhamid dönemi (1876-1909) devlet-

tekke iliflkilerini sadece yukar›daki ba¤lamda

de¤erlendirmenin yanl›fl olaca¤› da aç›kt›r.

Tarikatlar›n Osmanl› sosyal ve siyasî yaflant›s›nda ne denli mühim roller oynad›¤› bugün çok daha net olarak görülmektedir. Dolay›s›yla, genelde sosyolojik olarak “ikincil gruplar” kategorisinde de¤erlendirilen bu müesseselerin dönem dönem farkl› görüntülere sahip oldu¤u, flehir ve k›rsal alanlardaki etkileri, sosyal hayattaki yard›mlaflma ve dayan›flma hususlar›ndaki ifllevleri, dinî hayat›n daha coflkun yaflanmas›ndaki ve kitlelere kolayl›kla ulaflt›r›lmas›ndaki baflar›lar› ve kültür ve sanat dünyas›nda ortaya koyduklar› eserler de¤iflik ba¤lamlarda incelenmifl ve araflt›r›lm›flt›r. 19. yüzy›la gelindi¤inde ise tarikatlar›n temsil ettikleri gelene¤in çok köklü ve sa¤lam esaslara istinat etti¤i vurgulanmal›d›r. Ancak, yüzy›l›n ikinci çeyre¤inin hemen bafl›nda özellikle Yeniçerilik ile olan iliflkisi bilinen ve taflrada yayg›nl›¤› tart›fl›lmayacak olan Bektaflîlik tarikat›n›n yasaklanmas› sözkonusu gelenek için dönüm noktas›d›r. Bu tarihten sonra tekkeler sahip olduklar› nisbî özerkliklerini yitirmeye bafllam›fl ve daha çok devletin güdümüne girmifllerdir. Özellikle, Evkâf-› Hümâyun Nezareti’nin kurulmas› ile mali otonomilerine ciddi bir darbe alan tarikatlar fieyhülislaml›¤›n

ciddi bir darbe alan tarikatlar fieyhülislaml›¤›n Kadirî Gülü / Qadiri Rose ( Yahya Agâh Efendi,

Kadirî Gülü / Qadiri Rose

(Yahya Agâh Efendi, Mecmuatü’z-zeraif ve sandukatü’l-maarif, Hakk› Tar›k Us 13400/1; SYEK, Nuri Arlasez, 101)

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

POLICY IN THE REIGN OF ABDÜLHAM‹D II Abdülhamid II related this story in order to emphasize

Abdülhamid II related this story in order to emphasize that he was a member of the Qadiriyyah sect; for him, Qadiriyyah meant tolerating tragedies and enduring sorrows, and this story brought forward that he himself was a victim of tragedy. This was one of the first tragedies of his life. He remarked: “If it had been someone else, they would not have been able to endure such a tragedy! I am a member of the Qadiriyyah, I am a Dervish… Abdülkadir Geylani has many followers in Baghdad. Many gifts are sent from India. I have ordered that his tomb should be restored…” Although many say Abdülhamid may have been a member of the Shazaliya, Rifaiya or Naqshbandi sects, the report given above seems to be more reliable. Indeed, the fact that the Qadiriyyah dergah was high on the lists in many of the records that specified the salaries and charitable donations made at that time confirms this report. In addition to the tomb in Baghdad, Abdülhamid

II also ordered the restoration of the tombs of

Ahmad Rifai and many other great religious figures, and renovating the dergahs that were affiliated with the,. These acts should not be regarded solely as the individual charitable

efforts of a sultan who was renowned for his

religious character; indeed it is extremely difficult

to determine where this fine line begins or ends.

However, it is clear that evaluating the relationship between the state and the tekke

during the reign of Abdülhamid II (1876-1909)

in this context alone would be misleading.

Today the extent of the tarikatsrole in Ottoman social and political lives is more evident. Thus, these institutions, which are generally evaluated sociologically as “secondary groups”, have been studied and researched in connection with their different appearances from period to period, their effect on city and rural life, their functions in cooperation and

solidarity in social life, their success in enlivening the religion and making it easier to communicate

to the masses, and the works they presented to

the world of culture and art. It should be emphasized that the tarikats were based on deeply-rooted traditions and sound principles by the arrival of the 19 th century. However, the ban of the Bektashi tarikat, which was widespread throughout the provinces at the beginning of the second quarter of the century and known for its affiliation with the Janissaries, was a turning point for the traditions in question. After this

| 205 |

1- Gülflenî, 2- Mevlevî, 3- Himmetî, 4- Sa‘dî, 5- Zenburî, 6- Cerrahî, 7- Bedevî, 8-

1- Gülflenî, 2- Mevlevî, 3- Himmetî, 4- Sa‘dî, 5- Zenburî, 6- Cerrahî, 7- Bedevî, 8- Desukî, 9- Bektaflî, 10- Ma¤ribî, 11- Celvetî, 12- Bayramî taclar›

Headgear of: 1- Gulshani, 2- Mawlawi, 3- Himmeti, 4- Sadiyye, 5- Zenburiyye, 6- Cerrahi, 7- Badawi, 8- Desuki, 9- Bektashi, 10- Ma¤ribiye, 11- Celveti, 12- Bayramiyye tarikat

(Yahya Agâh Efendi)

denetimine geçmifltekine nazaran daha fazla maruz kalm›fllard›r. Nitekim nüveleri III. Selim’in saltanat›n›n ilk y›llar›nda at›lsa da II. Mahmud döneminin sonlar›nda, 1836 tarihinde tarikatlar üzerinde çok ciddi bir düzenleme yap›lm›flt›r. Bu uygulamalar, nihayet 1866 tarihinde devletin denetleme siyasetinin en somut hali olan Meclis-i Meflâyih’in kurulmas› ile sonuç vermifltir. Böylelikle tekkelere ait meseleler ve atamalar tek elden görülmeye bafllanm›fl ve meclis bir alt birim olarak Meflihat makam›na ba¤lanm›flt›r. Üyeleri devletin uygun gördü¤ü tarikat fleyhlerinden oluflan bu meclis, tekkelerin kurumsallaflmas› ve devlet siyasetinde resmî bir mevkiye sahip olmas› aç›s›ndan çok önemli bir ad›md›r.

Bununla beraber, III. Selim’den itibaren Sultan Abdülaziz’e kadar Nakflibendîlik, Mevlevîlik, Halvetîlik, Celvetîlik, Sa‘dîlik, Sünbülîlik, Kadirîlik ve Rifâîlik gibi tarikatlar hem sultanlar ve devlet erkan› hem de halk nezdinde yer yer öne ç›karak önemli görevler eda etmifllerdir. Bu dönemlerde kamuoyu için gelifltirilen ‹slamî diskurun oluflumunda tarikatlardan ciddi flekilde istifade edilmifltir. Hatta bizzat padiflahlar, birtak›m politik davran›fllar›n meflrulaflt›r›lmas›nda etkili söylem sa¤layan bu yap›lardan destek almaya gayret etmifllerdir. Örne¤in II. Mahmud döneminde devlet dairelerine “tasvîr-i hümâyun” as›lmas›

| 206 |

period, the tekkes began to lose their independence and came to be under greater government control. In particular, with the establishment of the Evkaf-› Hümayun Nezareti (Ministry of Waqfs), the tarikats not only suffered a serious blow to their financial independence, but were also subjected to even greater control from the sheikh-ul-Islam. Although the seeds were sown in 1836, during the initial years of the sultanate of Selim III, it was towards the end of the reign of Mahmud II when significant changes were made to the tarikats. In 1866, these implementations eventually produced results with the establishment of the Meclis-i Meflayih (council of sheikhs), the most concrete of the government’s inspection policies. Thus, issues related to the tekkes and appointments to the same were now dealt with by a central body, which was affiliated to the office of the sheikh-ul-Islam. This council, whose members consisted of those tarikat sheikhs that were approved of by the government, was a very important step in terms of institutionalizing the tekke and their taking up an official position in state politics.

In addition, from the reign of Selim III to that of Sultan Abdülaziz, tarikats such as the Naqshbandi, Mawlawi, Khalwati, Jalwati, Sa’diya, Sunbuli, Qadiriyyah and Rifaiya occasionally came to the fore by performing

merasimlerinde ulemaya de¤il de tarikat fleyhlerine dua ettirilmesi bu ba¤lamda câlib-i dikkattir. Ayr›ca

merasimlerinde ulemaya de¤il de tarikat fleyhlerine dua ettirilmesi bu ba¤lamda câlib-i dikkattir. Ayr›ca padiflahlar›n gezileri s›ras›ndaki tekke ve türbe ziyaretleri, dergâh tamir ve inflalar›, bu zümrelere yapt›klar› ihsan ve atiyyeler dönemin propaganda araçlar› olan gazetelerce kamuoyuna duyurulmufltur. Elbette, öte taraftan belli bir gelenek ve dindarl›k anlay›fl›n›n devam› olarak görülmesi gereken bu davran›fllar›n özellikle Bat›l›laflmay› tazammun eden Tanzimat süresince tafl›d›¤› politik mesajlar da gözden ›rak tutulmamal›d›r.

II. Abdülhamid devrinde tarikatlara bir devlet politikas› olarak nas›l yaklafl›ld›¤› ve bu aç›dan dönemin ne gibi nitelikler tafl›d›¤›, çok genifl bir konudur. Bu sat›rlarda, pek çok akademik araflt›rmalarla ayd›nlat›lmas› gereken bu sürecin sadece baz› temel noktalar›na de¤inilecektir. Bu manada, Sultan Abdülhamid kendisinden önceki tekke siyasetini devam ettirmifl ve di¤er dönemlerden farkl› olarak kendi flahsiyetinden ve döneminden kaynaklanan birtak›m farkl›l›klar ilave etmifltir. Öncelikle, bu dönemin tevarüs etti¤i gelene¤i nas›l sürdürdü¤üne temas edelim.

19. yüzy›lda devlet-tekke iliflkilerinde, tekkelerin daha çok devlete yaklaflt›r›ld›¤›na ve ba¤›ml› hale getirildi¤ine temas edilmiflti. Bu manada,

important duties on behalf of the sultans, state officials or the public. During these periods, the tarikats were extremely beneficial in the production of Islamic sermons to help drum up public support. In fact, the sultans made efforts to gain support for the legitimization of several of their political actions from these influential organizations. For example, in this sense it is quite interesting that it was the tarikat sheikhs who carried out the prayers at the ceremonies of hanging the tasvir-i hümayun (imperial portrait) in state offices during the reign of Mahmud II, and not the ulama. Moreover, visits to tekkes and mausoleums during the sultans’ expeditions, the restoration and construction of dergahs, and the donations made to these organizations were publicized via the newspapers, the sole propaganda organ of the period. Of course, while such actions were necessary to portray the continuation of certain religious and traditional concepts, the political messages that were conveyed during the Tanzimat process and, in particular, the moves towards Westernization should not be ignored.

How the tarikats were approached as a part of state policy during the period of Abdülhamid II and what the characteristics of the period were from this aspect is a vast subject. Here we will focus on just a few of the essential points of a

| 207 |

| 208 |

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

tekkelerin her türlü ihtiyaçlar›n›n karfl›lanmas› ve meflâyihin kalplerinin “münkesir” olmamas›na yani k›r›lmamas›na gayret edilmesi, Osmanl› arfliv vesikalar›nda çokça görülen ve devletin alg›s›n› yans›tan geleneksel bir yaklafl›m tarz›d›r. II. Abdülhamid döneminde tekkelere taamiyeler ve atiyyeler verildi¤i gibi, tamire muhtaç olanlar tamir ettirilmifl, mübarek gün ve gecelerde bu yard›mlar›n miktar› art›r›lm›fl ve tekke fleyhlerine maafllar ba¤lanm›flt›r. Örne¤in 19 Temmuz 1319/1 A¤ustos 1903 tarihinde Hamidiye Anbar›’ndan Kadirîhâne’ye, Neccarzade, Halil Hamid Pafla, Kas›mpafla ve Üsküdar mevlevihanelerine, Ümmî Sinan, Nureddin Cerrahî gibi dergâhlara erz (pirinç), tereya¤›, kuyruk ya¤›, revgân-› zeyt, fleker gibi erzaklar›n düzenli olarak verildi¤i anlafl›lmaktad›r (BOA, Y. PRK. EV., 4-7). Ayr›ca 21 A¤ustos 1322/3 Eylül 1906 tarihinde Sultan›n özel hazinesi olan Hazine-i Hassa’dan ‹stanbul’da isimleri verilen 284 tekkeye toplam 50.000 kurufl “taraf-› eflref-i hazret-i hilâfet- penâhîden atiyye ve ihsân” buyurulmufltu. ‹lginçtir ki bu tekkeler iki kategoriye ayr›lm›fl, bir k›sm›na 300’er kurufl, di¤er k›sm›na 160’ar kurufl verilmiflti. Bu listenin bafl›nda ise Kadirîhâne diye bilinen Tophane’deki meflhur âsitane bulunmaktayd› (BOA, HH.d 14841, s. 1- 8). Tekkelerin temel ihtiyaçlar›n›n karfl›lanmas› ve desteklenmesi aç›s›ndan bu kadîm gelenek devam ettiriliyordu. Asl›nda tarikatlar ‹slam’›n duygusal boyutunu temsil etmekle kalm›yor seçkinler ve halk aras›nda sa¤lam bir köprü vazifesi de görüyordu. Kemal Karpat’›n ifadesiyle, toplumsal ve siyasal anlamda tam bir muhafazakâr olan II. Abdülhamid’in bu köprüyü desteksiz b›rakmas› düflünülemezdi.

II. Abdülhamid döneminin gere¤i olarak birtak›m tarikatlar›n ve fleyhlerin di¤erlerine nazaran çok daha öne ç›kar›ld›¤› görülmektedir. Bu durum zaman zaman padiflah›n bütün tarikat mensuplar›na homojen bir tav›r sergiledi¤i gibi yanl›fl bir düflünceye sebep olmaktad›r. Ayr›ca, sultan›n bu yaklafl›m›n›n, ilgili tarikata intisap etti¤i gibi bir di¤er yanl›fl alg›lamaya yol açt›¤› da söylenmelidir. Ancak devrin siyasi ve sosyal yap›s›, Müslümanlar lehine de¤iflen demografik dengeler ve buna paralel bir flekilde yükselen ‹slamc›l›k anlay›fl›n›n bir tezahürü olarak baz› tarikatlara özel görevlerin verildi¤i belirtilmelidir. Bunun d›fla dönük ve aktivist bir Panislamist siyasetinin sonucu olarak de¤il, ama ‹mparatorluk topraklar› içerisinde Müslüman tebaaya yönelik

process that requires a number of academic studies in order to be elucidated. In this sense, Sultan Abdülhamid continued the tekke policies of the previous rule, however adding a number of differences that resulted from his own personality and the characteristics of the period. Firstly, we will look at how the customs inherited from former times were continued in this era.

In the relationships between the state and the tekkes in the 19 th century, we have already mentioned that the tekkes had been brought much closer to the government; now they were in a position that was dependent on the state. In this sense, the traditional approach that reflects the state’s perception and which can frequently be seen in Ottoman archival documents is that every effort was made to meet the needs of the tekkes and to avoid offending the sheikhs. In the era of Abdülhamid II, not only were the tekkes provided with taamiye and atiyye (provisions and charity), necessary repairs were carried out on tekkes, the donations were increased on holidays, and the sheikhs were given a regular salary. For example, it can be understood that on 19 July 1319/1 August 1903, provisions such as rice, butter, suet, olive oil and sugar were distributed from the Hamidiye Stores to the Kadirihane, Neccarzade, Halil Hamid Pafla, Kas›mpafla and Üsküdar Mawlawi tekkes, and the Ümmi Sinan, Nureddin Cerrahi tekkes on a regular basis (BOA, Y. PRK. EV. 4-7). Moreover, on 21 August 1322/3 April 1906, stating: : “taraf-› eflref-i hazret-i hilâfet-penâhîden atiyye ve ihsân,” a total of 50,000 kurufl was distributed to 284 tekkes in Istanbul from the Hazine-i Hassa, the sultan’s personal treasure. It is interesting that these tekkes were divided into two categories, with one group receiving 300 kurufl, and the other group only being allocated 160 kurufl. At the top of this list was the famous Âsithane in Tophane, known as the Kadirihane (BOA, HH.d 14841, pp. 1-8). This ancient custom of supporting and meeting the basic needs of the tekkes was continued. In fact, the tarikats not only represented the emotional dimension of Islam, but also acted as a bridge between the privileged members of society and the public. According to Kemal Karpat, it is inconceivable that Abdülhamid II, a conservative socially and politically, would leave this bridge unsupported.

Abdülhamid II was forced from time to time to focus relatively more attention on certain

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

POLICY IN THE REIGN OF ABDÜLHAM‹D II bir konsolidasyon siyasetinin parças› olarak görülmesi

bir konsolidasyon siyasetinin parças› olarak görülmesi gerekmektedir. Bu, asl›nda bir bak›ma ‹ngiltere ve Fransa gibi Bat›l› devletlerin “paranoyak” bir nitelik kazanan Hilafet alerjilerinden de kaynaklanan duruma verilen bir cevap niteli¤indedir. Bunlar›n Osmanl› s›n›rlar› içerisinde sebep olduklar› ve körükledikleri ayr›l›kç› gruplara karfl›, bu dönemde baz› tarikatlar›n çok etkili bir flekilde kullan›ld›¤› söylenmelidir. Öyle ki “Arap Hilafeti” tezini her yönüyle desteklemeye ve bu yolla Arap co¤rafyas›nda tefrika ç›karmaya çal›flan ‹ngiltere, Azmi Özcan’›n tespitiyle, 1906 y›l›nda kendi D›flifllerine ait Türkiye Y›ll›k Raporunda II. Abdülhamid’in tüm Müslümanlar›n halifesi oldu¤unu onaylamak zorunda kalm›flt›.

Bu zorunlu onaylaman›n ard›nda II. Abdülhamid’in baflar›yla yürüttü¤ü Hilafet politikas› ve bu anlamda desteklerini kazand›¤› yerel eflraf ve dinî liderler vard›. Nitekim baflta fieyh Ebü’l-Hüdâ Sayyadî, fieyh Zâfir, Hüseyin el-Cisrî ve Ferâflet-i fierîfe Vekili Ahmed Es’ad gibi Arap co¤rafyas›nda nüfuz sahibi tarikat liderleri, âlimler ve afliret reislerinin de¤iflik vazifeleri vard›. Bu ba¤lamda sadece ilk iki fleyhten bahsedilecektir.

Bu iki fleyhten ilki olan Ebü’l-Hüdâ lakapl› Muhammed bin Hasan el-Vâdî (1850-1909),

tarikats or their sheikhs; this situation often led to incorrect ideas, such as the sultan displayed a homogenous attitude to the members of all tarikats. At the same time, it could be said that this approach led to the other incorrect perception that the sultan was affiliated with a tarikat. However, it must also be stated that the political and social structure of the age, the changing demographic balance in favor of the Muslims and the corresponding rise in the concept of Islamism entrusted the tarikats with a special role. This should not be perceived as result of an extrovert and activist pan-Islamist policy, but rather part of the consolidation policies of Muslim citizens within the Ottoman territory. This, in fact, in one sense, was in response to the ‘paranoiac’ characteristic of the Western states, such as France and England, which stemmed from their hypersensitivity to the caliphate. It should be mentioned that some tarikats were used in an effective manner against the separatist groups that were provoked and incited by these states. In fact, according to Azmi Özcan, Britain supported the ‘Arab Caliphate’ in every respect, thus attempting to provoke a disagreement within the Arab territories, but due to the Turkish Annual Report produced by its own foreign office was obliged to recognize Abdülhamid as the caliph and leader of all Muslims.

Sultan II. Abdülhamid’in ihya etti¤i bir Nakflî dergâh›n›n kitabesi

The inscription on the Nakshi dergah, renovated by Sultan Abdülhamid II

| 209 |

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

Halep as›ll› bir Rifâî fleyhidir. Kendisi seyyid oldu¤unu pek çok yerde ifade etse de, hakk›nda müteseyyidlik iddialar› da mevcuttur. Anlafl›ld›¤› kadar›yla, genç yaflta ikbal kap›s› kendisine aç›lm›fl, ilmî yönü ve karizmatik flahsiyetiyle bizzat sultana tesir edebilmiflti. Neredeyse 30 y›l boyunca sultana yak›n olmufl ve Y›ld›z Saray›’n›n hemen yan› bafl›ndaki Serencebey Yokuflu’nda yer alan, padiflah›n kendisine ihsan etti¤i büyük kona¤› tekke olarak kullanm›flt›. Yayg›n kanaate göre, bu tekke bir misafirhane ifllevi görmüfl ve özellikle Arap co¤rafyas›ndan gelen konuklar›n a¤›rland›¤› bir merkez haline gelmiflti. fieyhin Araplar üzerinde çok etkili oldu¤u, Ayfle Osmano¤lu’nun hat›ralar›nda bahsetti¤i bir olaydan çok net anlafl›lmaktad›r:

“Abdülhamid Yemen ayaklanmas› s›ras›nda kabile rüesas›n› ‹stanbul’a davet etmifl, küçük Mabeyn dairesinin önüne taht›n› koydurtmufl, orada bunlar› kabul etmiflti. 100 kifli kadar vard›lar. Hepsi birden tuhaf renkli elbiseleriyle s›ra ile gelmifller, babam›n ellerine ayaklar›na yap›flm›fllard›. Ebü’l-Huda Efendi s›rmal› elbisesiyle ortaya gelerek bunlara babam taraf›ndan Arapça bir nutuk irâd etmiflti. Bizler de bu kabul resmini Harem pencerelerinden seyretmifltik.” Sonras›nda bu reislerin bir k›sm›n›n Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n, di¤er bir k›sm›n›n ise fieyh Zâfir Efendi’nin kona¤›nda misafir edildi¤inden bahsetmifltir. Görüldü¤ü gibi, II. Abdülhamid Arap bölgelerinde ç›kan ve ç›kmas›

B muhtemel hadiseleri geleneksel anlamda çok

kuvvetli olan tarikatlar›n manevi güçlerini

kullanarak çözme yolunu seçmifltir.

undan baflka, fieyh Ebü’l-Hüdâ gerek birtak›m

ayr›l›kç› hareketlerin önünü alma gerekse

Müslümanlar›n halifesinin II. Abdülhamid

oldu¤unu ispatlama sadedinde yaz›lar ve kitaplar

kaleme alarak entelektüel anlamda önemli bir

ifllev görmüfltür. Kendisine 200’den fazla eser

nispet edildi¤i bilinmektedir. Bunlardan en

meflhurlar› olan Da‘i’r-reflâd li-sebîli’l-ittihâd ve’l-

ink›yâd ve en-Nefahâtu’n-Nebeviyye fî hidmeti’l- Hilâfeti’l-Hamîdiyyeti’l-Osmâniyye’de genelde Osmano¤ullar›n›n özelde II. Abdülhamid’in hilafetinin meflru oldu¤unu ilmî ve dinî gerekçelerle izah etmiflti. Bu eserlerinin dilinin Arapça olmas› ise asl›nda propagandan›n mahiyet ve yönünün anlafl›lmas› ad›na yeterli bir ipucudur. Zekeriya Kurflun, Ebü’l-Hüdâ ve ‹zzet Pafla gibi Arap as›ll› figürlerin padiflaha birtak›m siyasi mevzularda dan›flmanl›k yapt›klar›n› ifade etmekte; bu manada, bu kifliler üzerinden Arap

| 210 |

After this compulsory approval, due to his success in enforcing the policies of the caliphate, Abdülhamid II won the support of religious leaders and local gentry. Initially, influential tarikat leaders, scholars and tribal leaders of the Arab territories, such as Sheik Abu’l-Huda Sayyadi, Sheikh Zâfir, Hussein Al-Jisri and the representative of the ferâflet-i fierîfe, Ahmad Es’ad, all held various duties. However, here we will only discuss two of these sheikhs.

The first of these two sheikhs, Muhammad bin Hasan Al-Vadi, also known as Abu’l-Huda (1850-1909), was a Rifaiya sheikh who was originally from Aleppo. Although there are many claims that he was a sayyid, there are also claims to the contrary. Apparently, fortune smiled upon him at a very young age and he was able to impress the sultan with his wisdom and charismatic manner. He was a close advisor to the sultan for almost thirty years, and used the mansion on Serencebey Hill, which was immediately adjacent to the Y›ld›z Palace and had been presented to him by the sultan, as a tekke. It was commonly thought that this tekke was used as a guesthouse, and acted as a center for hosting visitors, in particular those from the Arab territories. The sheikh’s great influence over the Arabs can by clearly understood from an event that Ayfle Osmano¤lu relates in her memoirs: “During the disturbance in the Yemen Abdülhamid invited leaders of the tribes to Istanbul; he had his throne placed in the mabeyn and received all the guests there. There were about a hundred people. They stood in a line, each of them wearing strangely-colored clothing, and they grabbed onto my father’s hands and feet. Abu’l Huda Efendi walked into the center of the hall wearing an embroidered gown, and began to deliver a speech in Arabic. We observed this scene from the windows of the Harem.” Princess Ayfle continues to explain that half of these leaders were taken to Abu’l-Huda’s tekke, while the remainder went to Sheikh Zâfir Efendi’s mansion as guests. As can be seen, Abdülhamid chose to solve the problems that emanated, or could emanate, from the Arab regions by using the spiritual forces of the very strong tarikats.

Sheikh Abu’l Huda also carried out an important function from an intellectual aspect both in preventing a number of separatist movements and in supporting Abdülhamid II’s claim to the

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

kabileleri aras›nda denge kurulmaya ve afliretlerin desteklenmeye çal›fl›ld›¤›n› dile getirmektedir. fieyhin özellikle M›s›r gibi Osmanl› karfl›t› muhaliflerin topland›¤› bir bölgede gazete ç›kartarak Osmanl› Devleti lehinde propaganda yapt›rmas› da bu ba¤lamda özellikle kaydedilmelidir.

Bu hizmetleri mukabilinde padiflah›n büyük iltifat ve ihsanlar›na nail olan Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n hem kendisinin hem de yak›n çevresinin h›zla yükseldi¤i müflahede edilmektedir. Peflpefle niflanlar, madalyalar, maafllar, payeler elde edilmifl ve Rifâî tarikat› özellikle Suriye, Ba¤dat, Basra ve Yemen’e kadar olan bir alanda cömertçe desteklenmifltir. O dönemde Kadirîlerin askerlikten muaf tutuldu¤u gibi Rifâîlerin de benzer bir muafiyet ald›¤› görülmüfltür. Seveni kadar sevmeyeni de olan Ebü’l-Hüdâ üzerine yaz›p çizilenler asl›nda bir ölçüde günümüzde hâlâ devam eden II. Abdülhamid devri tarih yaz›m› paradoksunu hat›rlatacak cinstendir. Z›nd›k ile Kutbü’l-aktâb gibi iki z›t s›fat›n onun hakk›nda ayn› sat›rlarda geçti¤ine tesadüf etmek mümkündür. Özellikle Jön Türklerin menfî propagandalar›n›n da tesiriyle hakk›nda çok olumsuz bir imaj oluflturulmufltur. Örne¤in, muhalif bas›n›n Ebü’l- Hüdâ yerine Ebu Dalâl (Dalaletin Babas›) lakab›n› kullanmas› bu imaj› anlama ad›na yeterlidir.

Gizemli bir kiflili¤e sahip olan Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n sultan› etkiledi¤i ve verdi¤i kararlarda onu yönlendirdi¤i, hatta “parma¤›nda oynatt›¤›” fleklindeki de¤erlendirmeler de bu olumsuz imaj›n hâs›l etti¤i abart›l› propagandan›n sonucudur. Arfliv vesikalar›na bak›ld›¤› zaman Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n politika oluflturulmas› aç›s›ndan özneden çok nesne oldu¤u ve Osmanl› Devleti menfaatleri do¤rultusunda istihdam edildi¤i görülebilir. Çok istedi¤i fieyhülislaml›k makam›n›n kendisine verilmeyifli ve zaman zaman isteklerinin hemen yerine getirilmeyifli bu iddiay› güçlendirir. Bununla beraber padiflah›n huzuruna rahatl›kla ç›kabilmesi ve birtak›m dinî ve siyasi hususlarda görüfllerine baflvurulmas› II. Abdülhamid nezdindeki vazgeçilmezli¤ini de gösterir. Örne¤in medrese talebelerinin bir sorunu karfl›s›nda veya Selanik’te Sabetay/Avdetî kökenli bir k›z›n Müslüman bir gence kaçmas› gibi olaylarda Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n krizlerin yönetimine ifltirak etti¤i görülmekteydi. II. Meflrutiyet’in hemen akabinde hedef

post of caliph of all Muslims in the articles and books he wrote. Over 200 works have been attributed to him; the most famous of these works, Da‘i’r-reflad li-sebili’l-ittihad ve’l-ink›yad and en-Nefahatu’n-Nebeviyya fi hidmeti’l- Hilafeti’l-Hamidiyyeti’l-Osmaniyye in general describe Ottoman legitimacy, and more specifically that of Abdülhamid II with intellectual and religious justifications. The fact that these works were written in Arabic is enough of a clue to understand the true nature and course of the propaganda in that era. Zekeriya Kurflun states that noble Arab figures like Abu’l Huda and ‹zzet Pasha advised the sultan on a number of political topics; in this context he states that it was through these people that he tried to establish a balance among the Arab tribes and to support the tribes. It should also be noted that the sheikh published regional newspapers that promoted propaganda for the Ottoman State in regions where anti- Ottoman groups had gathered, particularly in Egypt.

In return for these services Abul’l Huda received great compliments and gifts from the sultan; both he and his close associates quickly rose through the ranks, acquiring a number of medals, decorations, salaries and positions, and the Rifaiya tarikat was generously supported in many regions, particularly in Syria, Baghdad, Basra and the Yemen. At that period, not only were the Qadiriyyah exempt from the military, the Rifaiya also were exempted. That which was written about Abu’l Huda, who was as hated as he was loved, in fact to some extent reminds us paradoxically of what is still being written about the history of the era of Abdülhamid II. It is possible to find two opposing adjectives, like z›nd›k (heretic) and kutbü’l-aktâb (chief of saints), in the same line of text. In particular, the oppositional propaganda of the Young Turks formed a very negative image of this matter. For example, that the opposing press referred to Abu’l Huda as Abu Dalâl (Father of Corruption) is enough to demonstrate this.

The evaluation of Abu’l Huda as someone who had a secretive personality, affected the sultan and directed the decisions that he took, even “twisting him around his little finger” was a result of this exaggerated propaganda that created such a negative image. When archival records are examined from the aspect of the

| 211 |

Ebulhuda, Tenvîrü’l-ebsâr fî

tabakâti's-sâdâti’r-Rifâiyyeti’l-

ahyâr

| 212 |

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

TEKKELER‹ VE ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N TAR‹KAT S‹YASET‹ tahtas›na konulan ve üzerinden örtülü olarak II.

tahtas›na konulan ve üzerinden örtülü olarak

II. Abdülhamid elefltirisi yap›lan Y›ld›z Kamarillas›

aras›nda o da yer almaktad›r. Önce Bekira¤a Bölü¤ü’ne, daha sonra da 31 Mart Olay› öncesi son nefesini verece¤i Büyükada’ya gönderilir. Bu s›rada devrin bas›n›nda kendisine “üfürükçü, remilci ve cinci” gibi yak›flt›rmalar yap›l›r. Hatta Üfürük isminde ç›kar›lan mizah dergisi bizzat bu temalar› iflleme maksad›yla ç›kar›lm›flt›r. Ölmeden bir müddet önce Serbestî gazetesine verdi¤i mülakatta bir nevi savunma yapm›fl, hakk›ndaki iddialar› cevaplam›fl ve çok aç›k bir flekilde vazifesinin devlete hizmet odakl› kitap

ve yay›nlar telif etmek oldu¤unu öne sürmüfltür.

Benzer flekilde, II. Abdülhamid’in sayg›s›na ve muhabbetine mazhar olmufl bir di¤er kifli de Tunus as›ll› Medenî-fiazelî fieyhi Zâfir Efendi’dir. Mahmud Nedim Pafla’n›n

Trablusgarp valili¤i s›ras›nda tan›fl›p ‹stanbul’a getirdi¤i fleyhin, daha flehzadelik döneminde

II. Abdülhamid ile yak›n iliflkiler kurdu¤u

rivayet edilmifltir. Sultan kendisine saray›n›n yak›n›nda bir konak ve tekke ihsan etmifltir. Özellikle, Kuzey Afrika ve Ma¤rip co¤rafyas›nda etkili olan fieyh Zâfir’in meflhur sadrazam Tunuslu Hayreddin Pafla’y› II. Abdülhamid’e

formation of Abu’l Huda’s policies, it can be seen that he was more of an object than a subject, and that he was employed to the benefit of the Ottoman State. The fact that he was not given the post of sheikh-ul-Islam, which he had

wanted very much and that from time to time his demands were not fulfilled confirm this view. At the same time, the fact that he could go into the sultan’s presence when he so desired and that Abdülhamid II turned to him for advice on

a number of religious and political matters

demonstrates how indispensable the sheikh was to the sultan. For example, we can see that Abu’l Huda participated in crisis management for problems with madrasah students or when a Jewish girl from Salonika eloped with a Muslim youth. Yet, he took his place among the Y›ld›z Kamarillasi, a group that criticized Abdülhamid II, who had become a target immediately after the Second Constitutional Monarchy. First the sheikh was sent to the Bekira¤a Troops, and later, just before the 31 March Olay›, he was exiled to Büyükada, where he took his final breath. At this time the press referred to him as üfürükçü, remilci, ve cinci” (types of faith healers….) In fact a humorous magazine by the name of Üfürük was brought out to continue work on this theme. Some time before he died, in an interview he gave to the Serbestî newspaper, Abu’l Huda put up some sort of defense, answering the claims that had been made about him, claiming that his duty had been concentrated on compiling books and publications in the service of the state.

In a similar way, another person who received Abdülhamid II’s respect and affection was the

Tunisian Medeni-Shazali sheikh, Zâfir Efendi. It

is rumored that the sheikh met Mahmud Nedim

Pasha when the latter was governor of Tripoli and was brought by him to Istanbul, where they formed a close friendship. The sultan presented him with a mansion and a tekke close to the palace. It is known that Sheikh Zâfir, who was particularly influential in North Africa and the Maghreb, recommended the famous Hayreddin Pasha of Tunisia to Abdülhamid II as grand vizier. Sheikh Zâfir was as active as Abu’l Huda in publishing. In the work called el-Envârü’l- kudsiyye, he strongly emphasized that the Ottoman State was the Dâr-i Hilâfet-i ‹slâmiye (Land of the Islamic Caliphate). In fact, there are commentaries that Shazaliya was seen as an

alternative to Senusiya; however, later the

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

tavsiye etti¤i bilinmektedir. fieyh Zâfir’de Ebü’l- Hüdâ kadar olmasa da telif faaliyetleri ile ilgilenmifltir. el-Envârü’l-kudsiyye adl› eserinde Osmanl› Devleti’nin “Dâr-i Hilâfet-i ‹slâmiye” oldu¤unu kuvvetlice vurgulam›flt›r. Hatta fiazelîli¤in Kuzey Afrika’da Senusîli¤e alternatif olarak görüldü¤ü, fakat daha sonra padiflah›n bu fikirden vazgeçerek Senusîlerle anlaflt›¤› yorumlar› da mevcuttur. Ayr›ca fieyh Zâfir Efendi’nin kona¤›n›n misafirhane hizmeti görmesi Ebü’l-Hüdâ ile benzer bir misyona sahip oldu¤u intiba›n› uyand›rmaktad›r. Nitekim, “Ekseri dergâha gelmekte olan züvvâr ve misafirîn için” fieyh Zâfir’in yast›k, yorgan, çarflaf gibi yatak tak›mlar› istemesi bu alg›lay›fl› desteklemektedir.

sultan abandoned this idea and made an agreement with the Senusiya. Moreover, the fact that Sheikh Zâfir Efendi used his mansion as a guesthouse reminds one of the similar mission of Abu’l Huda. The fact that Sheikh Zâfir wanted pillows, quilts and sheets “for the pilgrims and guests who mostly come to the dergah” supports this understanding.

It is also claimed that in fact Sheikh Zâfir, in comparison to the other, was more introverted and had a position that was affected by the spirituality of the sultan. In fact, some repair and construction notebooks belonging to the tekke are very important in that they show there were flehzade rooms there, making clear how close the sultan and his family were. While the sheikh’s children and son-in-law were employed in important state positions, his brother Sheikh Hamza Efendi was sometimes given 100,000 kurufl from the sultan’s private treasury. The sanctity and respect of the dergah in the palace

fell off after Sheikh Zâfir. A library was built next to the showy mausoleum that was built for Sheikh Zâfir Efendi by the famous architect D’Aranco. Books like Delâil-i Hayrât were donated to the Shazaliya Dergah›, and importance was given to the recital of prayers and the continuous reading of the mawlid. The fact that information about how the sheikh of the dergah could cure someone in three days by “breathing

on them” is recorded in the Y›ld›z documents is

important for showing his effect on the palace.

he fact that these two sheikhs, who had similar

missions, were given similar mansions close to

one another prepared the grounds for constant

comparison between the two of them. It should

be stated that Shazaliya was more modest in

comparison to Rifaiya. While Abu’l Huda had a

more political and social personality, Sheikh

Zâfir had a character that was more devoted and

pious, and did not become involved in worldly

matters. In the memoirs of this era we can find claims that these two sheikhs were in constant competition. In fact, in the archival documents it is possible to see a few informants’ reports concerning this competition. In one memoir, it is claimed that Abu’l Huda had had a report made about a bomb attempt on a Friday procession ceremony that was to be performed at the Ertu¤rul Mosque, thus attempting to make Sheikh Zâfir fall from favor. In fact, in the archival documents of the period there is such

Bunun yan›nda, asl›nda fieyh Zâfir’in di¤erine k›yasla daha içe kapan›k ve padiflah›n maneviyat›ndan etkilendi¤i bir konuma sahip oldu¤u öne sürülmektedir. Nitekim tekkesine ait

baz› tamir ve inflaat defterlerinde flehzade odalar›n›n bulunmas›, padiflaha ve onun ailesine yak›nl›¤›n› göstermesi ad›na son derece önemlidir. fieyhin çocuklar›ndan damad›na kadar en yak›nlar› devlet hizmetinde istihdam edilirken, kardefli fieyh Hamza Efendi’ye padiflah›n özel hazinesinden bazen tek kalemde 100 bin kurufl verildi¤i bile görülmekteydi. Dergâh›n saray nezdindeki kudsiyeti ve itibar› fieyh Zâfir sonras›nda da azalmam›flt›r. fieyh

Zâfir Efendi için meflhur mimar D’Aranco’ya T

yapt›r›lan mutantan türbenin yan›nda bir de

kütüphane infla ettirilmifltir. fiazelî Dergâh›’na

okunmas› için Delâil-i Hayrât türü kitaplar

vakfedilmifl, dualar›n›n al›nmas›na ve sürekli

mevlit okutulmas›na önem verilmifltir. Dergâh›n

fleyhinin üç gün boyunca “nefes etti¤i” flahs›n

iyileflti¤ine dair bilgilerin bizzat Y›ld›z evrak›na

yans›mas›, saray üzerinde etkisini göstermesi

bak›m›ndan önemlidir.

Bu iki fleyhin benzer misyonlara sahip olarak

birbirlerine yak›n yerlerde ve benzer konaklarda padiflaha çok yak›n olmalar›, aralar›nda sürekli mukayeselerin yap›lmas›na zemin haz›rlam›flt›r. Bu anlamda, fiazelîli¤in Rifâîli¤e nazaran daha mütevaz› geliflti¤i belirtilmelidir. Ebü’l-Hüdâ daha siyasi ve sosyal bir kimli¤e sahip iken, fieyh Zâfir ise âbid ve zahid kiflili¤i ile dünya ifllerine pek kar›flmayan bir flahsiyet olarak gösterilir. Döneme dair hat›ralarda bu iki fleyhin sürekli rekabet halinde oldu¤u iddialar›na yer verilir. Hatta arfliv vesikalar›nda bu rekabete dair

| 213 |

Zâfir Efendi’nin sandukas› The sarcaphogus of Zâfir Efendi | 214 | II. YILDIZ SARAYI’NIN TEKKELER‹

Zâfir Efendi’nin sandukas›

The sarcaphogus of Zâfir Efendi

| 214 |

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

birtak›m jurnalleri görmek de mümkündür. Bir hat›rada, Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n Ertu¤rul Camii’nde icra edilecek bir Cuma selâml›¤› merasiminde bombal› suikast ihbar› yapt›rtt›¤› ve böylelikle fieyh Zâfir’i gözden düflürmeye çal›flt›¤› öne sürülmüfltür. Gerçekten devrin arfliv vesikalar›nda böyle bir ihbar flafl›rt›c› bir flekilde görülmektedir. Ancak iddian›n di¤er k›s›mlar›n›n ne kadar do¤ru oldu¤u tart›flmal›d›r. Netice olarak, II. Abdülhamid döneminde uzak taflradan gelen bu iki Arap as›ll› fleyhin payitahtta el üstünde tutulmas› hiç flüphesiz bu devrin politik ihtiyaçlar›ndan kaynaklanan farkl› hususiyetlerini yans›t›r. Ayr›ca, çevrenin merkeze entegrasyonu ba¤lam›nda de¤erlendirilebilecek bu olaylarda, küçük bir kasabadan imparatorlu¤un baflkentinde parlak bir kariyere giden yolun, Osmanl› toplum ve siyasas›ndaki sosyal hareketlili¤i göstermesi aç›s›ndan dikkat çekici oldu¤u belirtilmelidir.

II. Abdülhamid’in ‹slam Birli¤i siyaseti ba¤lam›nda nüfuzlar›ndan istifade etti¤i bu fleyhlerden baflka, genel olarak Osmanl› Devleti’nin 19. as›rda tarikatlara yönelik gelifltirdi¤i birtak›m politikalar› devam ettirdi¤i gözlemlenmektedir. 1891 y›l›nda Meclis-i Meflâyih kurum olarak yeniden düzenlenmifl ve ilk nizamnamesi devrin flartlar› muvacehesinde de¤ifltirilip tekamül ettirilmifltir. Bu anlamda, taflrada bulunan tekkelerin meflihatlar›na yap›lacak atamalar›n merkezin s›k› kontrolü gerçeklefltirilmesi sa¤lanm›flt›r. Oralarda da merkezdeki meclise benzer, küçük meflâyih meclisleri kurulmaya çal›fl›lm›flt›r. Bu anlamda, Sünnî yönleri kuvvetli Kadirîlik, Rifâîlik, Nakflibendîlik gibi tarikatlar›n de¤iflik müntesiplerine taflrada tekkelerin aç›ld›¤› ve finanse edildi¤i ayr›ca belirtilmelidir. Ancak, “kay›t d›fl›” olarak meflihat› bulunmayan cami, türbe, mescit ve hanelerde tarikat ayinlerinin yap›lmas› yasaklanm›fl ve s›k› bir kontrol mekanizmas› gelifltirilmifltir.

Bununla birlikte, II. Abdülhamid’in Bektaflîlik hususunda dedesi II. Mahmud’un yolundan gitti¤i görülmektedir. Bektaflîli¤in yay›lmas›na müsaade etmemekle kalmam›fl o devrin bir siyaseti olan Bektaflî tekkelerine Nakflî fleyhlerin atanmas› uygulamas›n› da yeniden gündeme getirmiflti. 26 Temmuz 1892 y›l›nda Sadrazam Cevad Pafla, ‹stanbul’da Bektaflîlerin 7-8 adet tekkelerinin oldu¤u ve buralara “iflli-iflsiz” pek çok kiflinin devam etti¤i, içkiler içildi¤i, hatta

an astonishing report. However, how much the other part of the claim is true is open to ques- tion. As a result, the fact that these two Arab sheikhs who came from far-away lands during the reign of Abdülhamid were in superior positions in the capital reflects the changing characteristics which resulted from the needs of the politics of the era. Moreover, it should be stated how interesting these events, which can be evaluated in the connection of the integration of the center with the surrounding areas, are; they demonstrate the social mobility in Ottoman society and politics, that path which leads from a small town to the capitol of the empire.

In addition to these sheikhs, from whose

influence Abülhamid II benefited in the policies of the Islamic Union, there were a few policies that were developed towards the tarikats in general in the 19 th -century Ottoman State. In

1891 the Meclis-i Meflâyih was reestablished; this

was changed in the era of the first nizamname and perfected according to the conditions of the age. In this context, the appointments of the posts in the tekkes in the provinces were taken under the strict control of the center. Attempts were made to form smaller councils of sheikhs which resembled that in the center. In this context, it should be stated that powerful tarikats which had Sünnî tendencies in the provinces were related to different tarikats, like the Qadiriyyah, Rifaiya or Naqshbandi, but were separately opened and financed. However, it was

forbidden that mosques, tombs, masjids and hane, which were not part of the council and were “off the record”, hold ceremonies and a strict control mechanism was developed.

Moreover, it can be seen that Abdülhamid II followed in the footsteps of his grandfather Mahmud II on the matter of the Bektashi. He not only did not allow for the spread of the Bektashi, now the appointment of the Naqshbandi sheikhs to the political Bektashi

tekkes was once more on the agenda. On 26 July,

1892 the grand vizier Cevad Pasha sent an order

to the Foreign Ministry to investigate the claims that in the 7 or 8 Bektashi tekkes in Istanbul there were many people “employed and unemployed” here, that there was drinking and

even that women came there. “Tekâyâ ve zevâyâ emâkin-i muhteremeden olarak bu misillû mahallerde menhiyyat vuku‘unun s›hhati halinde men‘i muvaf›k-› fler‘ u hikmet olaca¤›”

(YSM)
(YSM)

II. Abdülhamid’in Zâfir Efendi’ye hediye etti¤i dolap

A cupboard presented to Zâfir Efendi by Abdülhamid II

II. Abdülhamid’in Konya Mevlânâ Dergâh› postniflini Mustafa Saffet Çelebi Efendi’nin ölümü üzerine yerine kardefli Abdülvahid Çelebi’nin tayinine dair berat›

A warrant of Abdülhamid II that appoints Abdülvahid

Çelebi to be fleyh of the order

in succession to his deceased

brother, Mustafa Saffet, the

head of the Mevlânâ Dergâh in Konya

(Divan Edebiyat› Müzesi)

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

(Divan Edebiyat› Müzesi) II. YILDIZ SARAYI’NIN TEKKELER‹ VE ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N TAR‹KAT S‹YASET‹ | 216 |

| 216 |

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

kad›nlar›n da geldi¤inden bahisle meselenin araflt›r›lmas› için Dâhiliye Nezareti’ne bir talimat göndermiflti. “Tekâyâ ve zevâyâ emâkin-i muhteremeden olarak bu misillû mahallerde menhiyyat vuku‘unun s›hhati halinde men‘i muvaf›k-› fler‘ u hikmet olaca¤›” belirtilmiflti (Y. A. HUS., 1310.1.1). Yani, bir anlamda bu devirde tekke ve zaviyelerin sayg›ya lay›k mekânlar oldu¤unu devlet kabul etmekle kalmam›fl, buralar›n muhafazas› için özellikle Bektaflîli¤in yay›lmas›n› önleyici tedbirler alm›flt›.

Bu anlamda At›f Hüseyin Efendi’nin, hat›ralar›nda Abdülhamid’in Bektaflîler hakk›ndaki flahsi kanaatlerini aktarmas› son derece ilginçtir. II. Abdülhamid, Masum Efendi ad›nda medrese tahsili görmüfl ve sonradan Bektaflî olmufl bir flahs›n huzuruna ç›kar›ld›¤›ndan bahsetmifltir. Bu flahs›n Erzurum’da pek çok kifliyi Bektaflî yapt›¤› kendisine rapor edilmifltir. O s›rada yan›nda ulemadan bir zat oldu¤unu anlatan Abdülhamid, adam› bizzat imtihan etti¤ini söylemifltir. Sorulara cevap veremeyen Bektaflînin a¤lamaya bafllamas› üzerine onu yan›na ça¤›rm›fl ve fleyh efendinin ahbab› oldu¤unu söyleyerek kendisini Yahya Efendi Dergâh›’na göndermifltir. ‹lginçtir, bu adam›n saç ve sakal›n›n birbirine kar›flmas›n› ve t›rnaklar›n›n uzun olmas›n› genel bir Bektaflîlik profili olarak ele alm›flt›r. Hat›ralarda Masum diye bahsedilen bu Bektaflînin isminin Mesut olma ihtimali çok yüksektir. Zira böyle bir flahs›n Yahya Efendi Dergâh›’na gönderildi¤i tespit edilmifltir. Ayr›ca daha da ileri gidilerek bu zata Bektaflîlik aleyhinde bir risale yazd›r›ld›¤› bile görülmektedir. Olaya Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n da müdahil oldu¤u görüldü¤ünde ister istemez padiflah›n yan›ndaki ulemadan olan flahs›n Ebü’l-Hüdâ olup olmad›¤› zihne tak›lmaktad›r. Bu tekil hadiseyle sultan›n bizzat ilgilenmesi Bektaflîlik konusunu önemsedi¤inin iflaretidir.

Bu dönemin tarikatlar aç›s›ndan çok ilginç bir yönü de 19. yüzy›l boyunca sultanlara çok yak›n bulunmufl ve bizzat onlar›n özel iltifatlar›na mazhar olmufl olan Mevlevî fleyhlerinin sessizlikleridir. II. Abdülhamid’in saltanat› devralmas›nda, Mithat Pafla’n›n çiftli¤inin yan›nda bulunan Yenikap› Mevlevihanesi fieyhi Osman Selahaddin Dede’nin büyük pay sahibi oldu¤u bilinmektedir. Hatta ilk zamanlar saraya gelerek padiflah›n huzurunda Mesnevî okuttu¤u dahi malumdur. Ancak gerek Mithat Pafla

belirtilmiflti (Y. A. HUS., 1310.1.1). That is, in one sense, in this era the tekke and zaviye were not only areas that were perceived as being worthy of respect, but preventive measures were taken to stop the spread of the Bektashi to protect these institutions.

In this context, what At›f Hüseyin Efendi

relates about Abdülhamid’s personal opinion of

the Bektashi in his memoirs is extremely

interesting. Abdülhamid II received instruction

at the madrasah of Masum Efendi and later was

taken into the presence of a Bektashi person. It was reported that this person had made many people Bektashi in Erzurum. At that point, Abdülhamid says that, accompanied by someone from the ulama, he tested the man himself. Unable to answer the questions the Bektashi began to cry and the sultan called him over, and saying that he was a friend of the sheikh, sent him to the Yahya Efendi Dergah›. It is interesting that this man is described as having tangled hair and beard and long nails, a typical Bektashi profile. It is highly likely that the Bektashi, whose name in the memoirs is Masum, was really called Mesut; such a person was sent to the Yahya Efendi Dergah›. Moreover, going even further, it can be seen that this person wrote a treatise against the Bektashi. Taking into account that Abu’l Huda interfered in such matters, then the question of whether this person from the ulama who was with the sultan was Abu’l Huda arises. That the sultan personally

intervened in this solitary incident is indicative

of the importance that he gave to the Bektashi

matter.

A very interesting characteristic of this period

from the aspect of the tarikats is the silence of the Mawlawi sheikhs, who had been very close

to the sultans throughout the 19 th century, and

who received special compliments and rewards.

It is known that Sheikh Osman Selahaddin

Dede of the Yenikap› Mevlevihanesi, which was next to Mithat Pasha’s farm, played an important role in Abdülhamid II coming to the throne. In

fact, it is known that in the early days he would even come to the palace and read the Masnawi

in the presence of the sultan. However, both on

the recommendation of Mithat Pasha and as a result of Reflad Efendi, the Veliahd-› Saltanat (heir to the sultanate) becoming a Mawlawi, the Mawlawis became more passive. The once powerful sheikh and the first chief of the Meclis-i Meflâyih,

| 217 |

Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî’nin kabri ve mührü

The tomb and seal of Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî

The tomb and seal of Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî | 218 | II. YILDIZ SARAYI’NIN TEKKELER‹ VE

| 218 |

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

TEKKELER‹ VE ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N TAR‹KAT S‹YASET‹ ekibinin tasfiyesi gerekse Veliahd-› Saltanat Reflad

ekibinin tasfiyesi gerekse Veliahd-› Saltanat Reflad Efendi’nin Mevlevî oluflu yüzünden Mevlevîler pasifize edilmifltir. Bir zamanlar›n kudretli fleyhi ve Meclis-i Meflâyih’in ilk reislerinden Mesnevihân Osman Selahaddin Dede ise “uzlet-niflin” olarak ahir ömrünü sessiz sedas›z tamamlam›flt›r. Ard›ndan gelen o¤lu Celaleddin Efendi de benzer durumlar yaflam›flt›r. Mevlevîlerin ayinlerini büyük bir kontrol ve tarassut alt›nda yapmaya çal›flt›klar› o devirde yaflam›fl olan ‹htifalci Mehmed Ziya gibi yazarlar taraf›ndan ilginç anekdotlarla anlat›lm›flt›r. Bu s›k›nt›n›n Konya’daki Mevlana Âsitanesi’ndeki Çelebi Efendi’yi de kapsad›¤› ifade edilmelidir. Özellikle, II. Abdülhamid’e karfl› gelifltirilen ‹ttihat ve Terakki muhalefetinde Bektaflîlerin ve Mevlevîlerin desteklerinin al›nmas› bir ölçüde onlar›n da gayrimemnun zümresinden olmalar›yla izah edilebilir. Nitekim her iki tarikat da II. Meflrutiyet sonras› h›zla yükselifle geçmifllerdir.

Sultan›n Nakflibendîler ile aras› fleyhlere göre farkl›l›k arz etmifltir. Özellikle, Nakflibendîli¤in Osmanl› topraklar›ndaki üçüncü dalgas› olarak

Mesnevihân Osman Selahaddid Dede completed the last days of his life in quiet and alone. His son, Celaleddin Efendi, lived in a similar way. Writers like the ‹htifalci Mehmed Ziya tell very interesting anecdotes about this era in which it was attempted to take the Mawlawi ceremonies under strict control and surveillance. It should be stated that this problem affected Çelebi Efendi at the Mawlana Âsitanesi in Konya. In particular, it could be stated that as the Bektashi and Mawlawi supported the ‹ttihat ve Terakki opposition which was developed against Abdülhamid II, they fell from favor. In fact, both tarikats had a rapid ascendency after the Second Constitutional Monarchy.

The sultan displayed a different attitude to the sheikhs of the Naqshbandi. In particular, it is known that Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî, who began a new era in the Halidî branch, commemorated as the third wave of Naqshbandi on Ottoman land, was close to Abdülhamid II. Even though an investigation of the sheikh, who had fought on the Batum front in the 1877-78 Russian War, was carried out in 1890,

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

POLICY IN THE REIGN OF ABDÜLHAM‹D II an›lan Halidîlik kolunda ayr› bir 盤›r

an›lan Halidîlik kolunda ayr› bir 盤›r açm›fl olan Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî’nin II. Abdülhamid’e yak›n oldu¤u bilinmektedir. 1877-78 Rus Harbi s›ras›nda Batum cephesinde savaflan fieyh hakk›nda 1890’da bir soruflturma aç›lsa da, dört y›l sonra vefat etti¤inde techîz u tedfin masraflar›n› bizzat sultan›n karfl›lamas› bu yak›nl›¤a bir iflaret olarak de¤erlendirilmifltir. Hatta Kanunî’nin hemen yan› bafl›na gömülmesi yine bu teveccühün bir göstergesi say›lm›flt›r. Sultan tekkeye yard›mlar›n› fieyh’in vefat› sonras›nda da kesmemifl, 25 adet Delâil-i Hayrât vakfederek ilgisini devam ettirmiflti. Fakat di¤er baz› Nakflî-Halidî fleyhlerine ayn› flekilde davranmad›¤› ve siyasi olarak sak›ncal› gördüklerini sürgüne gönderdi¤i bilinmektedir. Bunlar aras›nda Orta Anadolu’da çok genifl bir mürit deste¤ine sahip olan Ahmed Da¤›stanî, M. Es’ad Erbilî ve Feyzullah Efendizade fieyh Mehmed Ali efendilerin oldu¤u görülmektedir. Asl›nda bu dönemde Kadirî, Sa‘dî, Halvetî ve Melamî fleyhlerinden baz›lar›n›n da sürgüne gönderildi¤i vâkidir. Bu daha çok devlet erki d›fl›nda hareket etme potansiyeli bulunan fleyhlere karfl› uygulanm›fl bir politikad›r.

when he died four years later the cost of his funeral expenses were met by the sultan himself, thus indicating this closeness. In fact, being buried right next to Süleyman the Magnificent can be considered to be a sign of favor. The sultan did not cease supporting the tekke after the sheikh’s death, continuing his interest by donating 25 copies of Delâil-i Hayrât. However, it is known that he did not treat other Naqshi- Halidi sheikhs in the same way, but rather saw them as a political threat, sending them into exile. Among these were Ahmed Da¤›stanî, who had a wide base of murid (novices), M. Es’ad Erbilî and Feyzullah Efendizade Sheikh Mehmed Ali. In fact, at this time some of the Qadiriyyah, Sa’diya, Khalwati and Malami sheikhs were sent into exile. This was more a policy to be implemented against those sheikhs who had the potential to act outside the state power.

In general, it is known that many tekkes were under surveillance and that the ceremonies appeared in the reports of informers. For example, at the Adile Sultan Kulekap›s› Mevlevihane on 13 September, 1894, a date that coincides with

Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî’nin Ramuzü’l- ehadis isimli eserinin müellif nüshas› ve müttekalar›

Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî, Ramuzü’l-ehadis (copy of the author) and his muttekas

| 219 |

(M. Es’ad Coflan Arflivi)

Gümüflhanevî, Ramuzü’l-ehadis (copy of the author) and his mutteka s | 219 | (M. Es’ad Coflan

II.

YILDIZ

SARAYI’NIN

TEKKELER‹

VE

ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N

TAR‹KAT

S‹YASET‹

TEKKELER‹ VE ABDÜLHAM‹D’‹N TAR‹KAT S‹YASET‹ Kadirî ve Nakflî gülleri Qadiri and Nakshi roses (Yahya

Kadirî ve Nakflî gülleri

Qadiri and Nakshi roses

(Yahya Agâh Efendi)

| 220 |

Genel olarak, pek çok tekkenin takip edildi¤i ve ayin günleri jurnallerinin takdim edildi¤i bilinen bir husustur. Mesela 13 Eylül 1894 tarihine denk gelen Hz. Peygamberimizin veladet gününde Adile Sultan’›n Kulekap›s› Mevlevihanesi’nde okuttu¤u Mevlid-i fierîf’e pek çok fleyh ve derviflin yan› s›ra yaklafl›k befl yüz kifli ifltirak etmiflti. fiehremaneti’nden yaz›lan rapora göre, Mevlid icra edildikten sonra Ebu’r-R›za Tekkesi fleyhi Nureddin Efendi Padiflah’›n ömrü ve sa¤l›¤› için dua etmiflti. Raporda, ayr›ca, toplanan cemiyette asayifle ayk›r› bir durumun vuku bulmad›¤› belirtilmiflti. ‹stanbul’daki dört mevlevihanenin fleyhleri ile Bursa Mevlevihanesi ve Yahya Efendi Dergâh› fleyhlerinin de aralar›nda bulundu¤u on fleyhin mevlide ifltirak etti¤i kaydedilmifltir (Y. PRK. fiH. 5-29). Bu dönemde, güvenlik ve asayifl odakl› kontrol mekanizmas›n›n tekkeleri kapsad›¤› da görülmekteydi. Bu anlamda herhangi bir miraç veya mevlit program›n›n yap›lmas› izne tabi oldu¤u gibi, program›n icra

the birth date of Prophet Muhammad, in addition to the many sheikhs and dervishes, there were about 500 people who participated in the ceremony. According to a report written by the fiehremaneti (City Council), after the Mawlid had been performed, Nureddin Efendi, the sheikh of the Ebu’r-R›za Tekke, recited prayers for the health and long-life of the sultan. Moreover, in the report it is stated the congregation that had gathered posed no threat to the peace. It is recorded that the mawlid was performed by ten sheikhs, including the sheikhs of the four Istanbul Mevlevihanes, the sheikh of the Bursa Mevlevihane and the sheikhs of the Yahya Efendi Dergah› (Y. PRK. fiH. 5-29). In this period it can be seen that the control mechanism which focused on security and public order included the tekkes. In this sense, not only did they have to apply for permission for any kind of miraj or mawlid program, but officers would be sent to the dergah on the evening that the program was executed. Sometimes the events that occurred in

THE

TEKKES

OF

YILDIZ

PALACE

AND

THE

TAR‹KAT

POLICY

IN

THE

REIGN

OF

ABDÜLHAM‹D

II

edilece¤i akflam da dergâha muvazzaf memurlar gönderilmekteydi. Bazen de tekkelerde cereyan eden olaylar günü gününe rapor edilmekteydi. 3 A¤ustos 1893’te Kanl›ca’da bulunan Nakfli dergâh›n›n fleyhinin o¤lu mektebe bafllad›¤› için dergâhta mukabele-i flerif icra edilerek “nâm-› nâmî-i cenâb-› hilafetpenâhî” için dualar edilmiflti. Bir gün önce ise, Üsküdar’da Hüdâyî Tekkesi postniflininin dervifllerinden baz›lar›n› yan›na alarak Beykoz’da Yufla Tepesi’ne ç›kt›¤›, bizzat Zabtiye naz›r› taraf›ndan rapor edilmekteydi (Y. PRK. ZB. 12-11).

Sonuç olarak, II. Abdülhamid dönemi devlet ve tekke iliflkileri, kurucu harc›nda tekke gelene¤i bulunan Osmanl› Devleti için eski ve köklü yaklafl›mlar›n devam› oldu¤u kadar, dönemin sosyo-politik ihtiyaçlar›n›n ve dominant bir padiflah›n özelliklerini yans›tacak yönler de tafl›maktayd›. Her fleyden önce, tarikatlar›n bu dönemde de ihtiyaçlar›n›n karfl›land›¤› görülmekle birlikte, özellikle Arap co¤rafyas›nda etkili ve güçlü baz› tarikatlar›n daha çok desteklendi¤i söylenebilir. Bu yaklafl›m ise dönemin “Hilafet ve ‹slam Birli¤i” siyasetinin bir parças›d›r. Bununla birlikte, 19. yüzy›lda daha çok devlet denetimine giren tarikatlar›n iç ifllerini düzenleyen ve denetimlerini mümkün k›lan Meclis-i Meflayih yeniden tasarlanm›flt›r. Bu politikan›n bir sonucu olarak, tekkeler devletin takibine daha çok u¤ram›fl ve siyasi olarak tehlikeli görülen birtak›m fleyhler ya pasifize edilmifl ya da sürgüne gönderilmifllerdir. Bu s›k› denetimin yan› s›ra tekkelere cömertçe ihsan ve atiyyelerde bulunulmaktan kaç›n›lmam›fl ve her f›rsatta bunlar›n destekleri al›nmaya çal›fl›lm›flt›r. ‹mparatorlu¤un dört bir taraf›nda özellikle Sünnî ekolden tarikatlara yeni tekkeler aç›larak yerel halk›n dolayl› bir flekilde destekleri temin edilmeye çal›fl›lm›flt›r.

KAYNAKLAR / SOURCES

Buzp›nar, fi. Tufan, “Osmanl› Suriyesinde Türk Aleyhtar› ‹lanlar ve Bunlara Karfl› Tepkiler”, ‹slam Araflt›rmalar› Der., sy. II, ‹st. 1998. Deringil, Selim, ‹ktidar›n Sembolleri ve ‹deoloji II. Abdülhamid Dönemi (1876-1909), ‹st. 2002. Eraslan, Cezmi, II. Abdülhamid ve ‹slam Birli¤i, ‹st. 1995. Hülagü, M. Metin, Sultan II. Abdülhamid’in Sürgün Günleri Hususi Doktoru Hüseyin Bey’in Hat›rat›, ‹st. 2003. Kara, ‹smail, ‹slamc›lar›n Siyasi Görüflleri I Hilafet ve Meflrutiyet, ‹st. 2001.

the tekkes would be reported day by day. On 3 August 1893, to mark the first day of school for the son of the sheikh of the Naqshi dergah in Kanl›ca, a mukabele-i flerif was performed and the prayer “nâm-› nâmî-i cenâb-› hilafetpenâhî” was recited. One day earlier the postnish of the Hüdâyî Tekke in Üsküdar had taken some of his dervishes up to Yufla Hill in Beykoz, and this was reported by the Minister of the Zaptiye (Gendarme) himself (Y. PRK. ZB. 12-11).

As a result, the relationship of the state and the tekkes in the era of Abdülhamid II was a continuation of the well-rooted approaches between state and the tekke, and in a way the tekke tradition was in fact the cement of the Ottoman establishment; in addition, this relationship was colored by the characteristics of the dominant sultan, as was necessary for the socio-political era. Not only can we see that the needs of the tarikats were met in this period, but some of the effective and strong tarikats in the Arab geography were given greater support. This approach was part of the “Caliphate and Islamic Union” policy of the period. In addition, the tarikats that came under greater state control in the 19 th century were re-designed by the Meclis-i Meflayih, which made it possible for their inner functions to be organized and inspected. As a result of these policies, the tekkes were more closely followed by the state and some sheikhs, who were seen as a political threat, were pacified or exiled. However, in addition to this tight control the tekkes were granted generous gifts and support was given at every opportunity. In the four corners of the empire new tarikats, in particular from the Sunni branch, were opened and thus an attempt to gain their support, and indirectly, that of the local people was made.

Translation: Zainab Mahmout

Karpat, Kemal, ‹slam’›n Siyasallaflmas›, ‹st. 2009.

Kolo¤lu, Orhan, Abdülhamid Gerçe¤i, ‹st. 2002. Kurflun, Zekeriya, Yol Ayr›m›nda Türk Arap ‹liflkileri, ‹st.

1992.

Osmano¤lu, Ayfle, Babam Sultan Abdülhamid, Ank. 1986. Özcan, Azmi, “‹ngiltere’de Hilafet Tart›flmalar› (1873- 1909)”, ‹slam Araflt›rmalar› Der., sy. II, ‹st. 1998. Varol, Muharrem, II. Abdülhamid’in Dan›flman› Ebü’l-Huda Sayyadi’nin Hayat›, Eserleri ve Tesirleri (1850-1909), M.Ü. Türkiyat Araflt›rmalar› Enstitüsü, bas›lmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, ‹st. 2004.

| 221 |