At›f Hüseyin Bey, who served as doctor toAbdülhamid II during his years of exile,recollects an intriguing story from the formersultan. He speaks of Abdülhamid’s daughter,who accidently burnt to death while her fatherwas still prince. The girl, 12-13 years old, wasplaying with matches at the Befliktafl CoastalPalace when her tulle dress caught alight, anddespite her mother’s efforts to extinguish theflames, the poor girl suffered severe burns to herentire body. Although Abdülhamid, who was atthe Çengelköy Turkish baths with his brotherBurhanettin, was not told of the incident, hesensed that there was something wrong andhurried back by boat; when he finally reachedthe Befliktafl Palace, the palace guards preventedhim from entering his daughter’s room. WhenDoctor Marko Pasha explained what hadhappened, the father, completely devastated,was in no state to listen to anybody; while tryingto force his way into the room, he fainted.When he regained consciousness, Abdülhamidentered the room, and found his daughterbandaged from head to toe, with only her eyesexposed; it was as if she had been waiting for herfather, to look at him one last time. As tearsrolled down his cheeks, Abdülhamid kissed hisdaughter’s eyes. Then his uncle, SultanAbdülaziz, entered the room, comforted hisnephew, and sent him to his mother’s residencein Niflantafl›. The young girl was buried a weeklater at the Yahya Efendi tekke.

II. Abdülhamid’in sürgün y›llar›ndadoktorlu¤unu yapm›fl olan At›f Hüseyin Beyhat›rat›nda sâb›k hünkâr›n dilinden ilginç birhikâye anlat›r: II. Abdülhamid flehzadeli¤is›ras›nda kaza eseri yanarak ölen k›z›ndanbahseder. Befliktafl Sahilsaray›’nda bulunan 12-13 yafllar›ndaki k›z›, validesi de yan›nda oldu¤uhalde, kibritle oynarken ç›kan atefl tül elbisesines›çram›fl, annesinin çabas› bir ifle yaramay›ncak›zca¤›z feci bir flekilde yanm›flt›r. O s›radabiraderi Burhaneddin Efendi ile Çengelköy’dedeniz hamam›nda bulunan Abdülhamid’e meseletam olarak söylenmese de garip bir durumoldu¤unu sezerek h›zl› bir flekilde kay›klaBefliktafl’a ulaflan flehzadenin k›z›n›n odas›nagirmesi saray görevlilerince engellenir. DoktorMarko Pafla gelip durumu anlat›nca, art›kkimseyi dinleyecek durumda olmayan ac›l› babazorla içeri girmek isterken bay›l›r. Kendinegelince odaya girer. Bafltan afla¤› sarg›lariçerisinde olan k›z›n›n yaln›z gözleri aç›kt›r; sonkez babas›na bakar, âdeta onu beklemektedir.Babas› ise yafll› gözlerle k›z›n›n gözlerinden öper.O s›rada, amcas› Sultan Abdülaziz de yan›nagelmifl ve mahzun ye¤enini teselli ederekvalidesinin Niflantafl›’ndaki dairesine yollam›flt›r.Cenaze bir hafta sonra Yahya EfendiDergâh›’nda defnedilir.

II. Abdülhamid bu hat›ras›n› Kadirî tarikat›ndanoldu¤unu vurgulamak maksad›yla anlatm›flt›r.Zira ona göre, Kadirîlikte her fleyi hofl görme ve

felaketlere tahammül etme esas› vard›r. Kendisiise zaten bir “felaketzede”dir. Bu olayhayat›ndaki ilk felaketlerden biridir. fiöyledevam eder: “Benim yerime baflka biri olsadayanamaz! Ben dervifl oldu¤um için Kâdirîtarikat›na mensubum… Ba¤dat’ta Abdülkadir-iGeylanî hazretlerinin birçok müritleri vard›r.Hindistan’dan birçok hediyeler gelir. Ben detürbeyi tamir ettirdim…” II. Abdülhamid’infiazelî, Rifâî ve Nakflî olabilece¤i söylense de bu,rivayet di¤erlerinin yan›nda daha s›hhatli gibidurmaktad›r. Nitekim o devre ait arflivmalzemelerinde tekkelere yap›lan maafl, ihsan,atiyye gibi yard›mlar› gösteren listelerdeço¤unlukla ilk s›ray› Kadirî dergâhlar›n›n almas›,bu durumu pekifltiren bir olgudur. SultanII. Abdülhamid sadece Ba¤dat’taki bu türbeyide¤il, Ahmed Rifâî gibi di¤er din büyüklerinintürbelerini de tamir ettirmifl ve bunlara ba¤l›dergâhlar› ihya etmifltir. Bütün bunlar dindar birkiflili¤e sahip oldu¤unu bildi¤imiz sultan›n saltbireysel hay›r çabalar› olarak görülmemelidir. Buince çizginin nerede bafllay›p nerede bitti¤inikestirmek flüphesiz çok zordur. AncakII. Abdülhamid dönemi (1876-1909) devlet-tekke iliflkilerini sadece yukar›daki ba¤lamdade¤erlendirmenin yanl›fl olaca¤› da aç›kt›r.

Tarikatlar›n Osmanl› sosyal ve siyasîyaflant›s›nda ne denli mühim roller oynad›¤›bugün çok daha net olarak görülmektedir.Dolay›s›yla, genelde sosyolojik olarak “ikincilgruplar” kategorisinde de¤erlendirilen bumüesseselerin dönem dönem farkl› görüntüleresahip oldu¤u, flehir ve k›rsal alanlardaki etkileri,sosyal hayattaki yard›mlaflma ve dayan›flmahususlar›ndaki ifllevleri, dinî hayat›n dahacoflkun yaflanmas›ndaki ve kitlelere kolayl›klaulaflt›r›lmas›ndaki baflar›lar› ve kültür ve sanatdünyas›nda ortaya koyduklar› eserler de¤iflikba¤lamlarda incelenmifl ve araflt›r›lm›flt›r.19. yüzy›la gelindi¤inde ise tarikatlar›n temsilettikleri gelene¤in çok köklü ve sa¤lam esaslaraistinat etti¤i vurgulanmal›d›r. Ancak, yüzy›l›nikinci çeyre¤inin hemen bafl›nda özellikleYeniçerilik ile olan iliflkisi bilinen ve taflradayayg›nl›¤› tart›fl›lmayacak olan Bektaflîliktarikat›n›n yasaklanmas› sözkonusu gelenek içindönüm noktas›d›r. Bu tarihten sonra tekkelersahip olduklar› nisbî özerkliklerini yitirmeyebafllam›fl ve daha çok devletin güdümünegirmifllerdir. Özellikle, Evkâf-› HümâyunNezareti’nin kurulmas› ile mali otonomilerineciddi bir darbe alan tarikatlar fieyhülislaml›¤›n

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

|204|

Kadirî Gülü / Qadiri Rose

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

Abdülhamid II related this story in order toemphasize that he was a member of theQadiriyyah sect; for him, Qadiriyyah meanttolerating tragedies and enduring sorrows, andthis story brought forward that he himself was avictim of tragedy. This was one of the firsttragedies of his life. He remarked: “If it had beensomeone else, they would not have been able toendure such a tragedy! I am a member of theQadiriyyah, I am a Dervish… AbdülkadirGeylani has many followers in Baghdad. Manygifts are sent from India. I have ordered that histomb should be restored…” Although many sayAbdülhamid may have been a member of theShazaliya, Rifaiya or Naqshbandi sects, thereport given above seems to be more reliable.Indeed, the fact that the Qadiriyyah dergah washigh on the lists in many of the records thatspecified the salaries and charitable donationsmade at that time confirms this report. Inaddition to the tomb in Baghdad, AbdülhamidII also ordered the restoration of the tombs ofAhmad Rifai and many other great religiousfigures, and renovating the dergahs that wereaffiliated with the,. These acts should not beregarded solely as the individual charitableefforts of a sultan who was renowned for hisreligious character; indeed it is extremely difficultto determine where this fine line begins or ends.However, it is clear that evaluating therelationship between the state and the tekkeduring the reign of Abdülhamid II (1876-1909)in this context alone would be misleading.

Today the extent of the tarikats’ role inOttoman social and political lives is moreevident. Thus, these institutions, which aregenerally evaluated sociologically as “secondarygroups”, have been studied and researched inconnection with their different appearancesfrom period to period, their effect on city andrural life, their functions in cooperation andsolidarity in social life, their success in enliveningthe religion and making it easier to communicateto the masses, and the works they presented tothe world of culture and art. It should beemphasized that the tarikats were based ondeeply-rooted traditions and sound principles bythe arrival of the 19th century. However, theban of the Bektashi tarikat, which was widespreadthroughout the provinces at the beginning ofthe second quarter of the century and known forits affiliation with the Janissaries, was a turningpoint for the traditions in question. After this

|205|

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

denetimine geçmifltekine nazaran daha fazlamaruz kalm›fllard›r. Nitekim nüveleriIII. Selim’in saltanat›n›n ilk y›llar›nda at›lsa daII. Mahmud döneminin sonlar›nda, 1836tarihinde tarikatlar üzerinde çok ciddi birdüzenleme yap›lm›flt›r. Bu uygulamalar, nihayet1866 tarihinde devletin denetleme siyasetininen somut hali olan Meclis-i Meflâyih’inkurulmas› ile sonuç vermifltir. Böylelikletekkelere ait meseleler ve atamalar tek eldengörülmeye bafllanm›fl ve meclis bir alt birimolarak Meflihat makam›na ba¤lanm›flt›r. Üyeleridevletin uygun gördü¤ü tarikat fleyhlerindenoluflan bu meclis, tekkelerin kurumsallaflmas› vedevlet siyasetinde resmî bir mevkiye sahipolmas› aç›s›ndan çok önemli bir ad›md›r.

Bununla beraber, III. Selim’den itibaren SultanAbdülaziz’e kadar Nakflibendîlik, Mevlevîlik,Halvetîlik, Celvetîlik, Sa‘dîlik, Sünbülîlik,Kadirîlik ve Rifâîlik gibi tarikatlar hem sultanlarve devlet erkan› hem de halk nezdinde yer yeröne ç›karak önemli görevler eda etmifllerdir. Budönemlerde kamuoyu için gelifltirilen ‹slamîdiskurun oluflumunda tarikatlardan ciddi flekildeistifade edilmifltir. Hatta bizzat padiflahlar,birtak›m politik davran›fllar›nmeflrulaflt›r›lmas›nda etkili söylem sa¤layan buyap›lardan destek almaya gayret etmifllerdir.Örne¤in II. Mahmud döneminde devletdairelerine “tasvîr-i hümâyun” as›lmas›

period, the tekkes began to lose their independenceand came to be under greater government control.In particular, with the establishment of theEvkaf-› Hümayun Nezareti (Ministry of Waqfs),the tarikats not only suffered a serious blow totheir financial independence, but were alsosubjected to even greater control from thesheikh-ul-Islam. Although the seeds were sownin 1836, during the initial years of the sultanateof Selim III, it was towards the end of the reignof Mahmud II when significant changes weremade to the tarikats. In 1866, theseimplementations eventually produced resultswith the establishment of the Meclis-i Meflayih(council of sheikhs), the most concrete of thegovernment’s inspection policies. Thus, issuesrelated to the tekkes and appointments to thesame were now dealt with by a central body,which was affiliated to the office of thesheikh-ul-Islam. This council, whose membersconsisted of those tarikat sheikhs that wereapproved of by the government, was a veryimportant step in terms of institutionalizing thetekke and their taking up an official position instate politics.

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

|206|

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)

merasimlerinde ulemaya de¤il de tarikatfleyhlerine dua ettirilmesi bu ba¤lamda câlib-idikkattir. Ayr›ca padiflahlar›n gezileri s›ras›ndakitekke ve türbe ziyaretleri, dergâh tamir veinflalar›, bu zümrelere yapt›klar› ihsan veatiyyeler dönemin propaganda araçlar› olangazetelerce kamuoyuna duyurulmufltur. Elbette,öte taraftan belli bir gelenek ve dindarl›kanlay›fl›n›n devam› olarak görülmesi gereken budavran›fllar›n özellikle Bat›l›laflmay› tazammuneden Tanzimat süresince tafl›d›¤› politik mesajlarda gözden ›rak tutulmamal›d›r.

II. Abdülhamid devrinde tarikatlara bir devletpolitikas› olarak nas›l yaklafl›ld›¤› ve bu aç›dandönemin ne gibi nitelikler tafl›d›¤›, çok genifl birkonudur. Bu sat›rlarda, pek çok akademikaraflt›rmalarla ayd›nlat›lmas› gereken bu sürecinsadece baz› temel noktalar›na de¤inilecektir. Bumanada, Sultan Abdülhamid kendisindenönceki tekke siyasetini devam ettirmifl ve di¤erdönemlerden farkl› olarak kendi flahsiyetindenve döneminden kaynaklanan birtak›mfarkl›l›klar ilave etmifltir. Öncelikle, bu dönemintevarüs etti¤i gelene¤i nas›l sürdürdü¤üne temasedelim.

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

important duties on behalf of the sultans, stateofficials or the public. During these periods, thetarikats were extremely beneficial in theproduction of Islamic sermons to help drum uppublic support. In fact, the sultans made effortsto gain support for the legitimization of severalof their political actions from these influentialorganizations. For example, in this sense it isquite interesting that it was the tarikat sheikhswho carried out the prayers at the ceremonies ofhanging the tasvir-i hümayun (imperial portrait)in state offices during the reign of Mahmud II,and not the ulama. Moreover, visits to tekkesand mausoleums during the sultans’ expeditions,the restoration and construction of dergahs, andthe donations made to these organizations werepublicized via the newspapers, the sole propagandaorgan of the period. Of course, while suchactions were necessary to portray thecontinuation of certain religious and traditionalconcepts, the political messages that wereconveyed during the Tanzimat process and, inparticular, the moves towards Westernizationshould not be ignored.

How the tarikats were approached as a part ofstate policy during the period of Abdülhamid IIand what the characteristics of the period werefrom this aspect is a vast subject. Here we willfocus on just a few of the essential points of a

|207|

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 vedevletin alg›s›n› yans›tan geleneksel bir yaklafl›mtarz›d›r. II. Abdülhamid döneminde tekkeleretaamiyeler ve atiyyeler verildi¤i gibi, tamiremuhtaç olanlar tamir ettirilmifl, mübarek gün vegecelerde bu yard›mlar›n miktar› art›r›lm›fl vetekke fleyhlerine maafllar ba¤lanm›flt›r. Örne¤in19 Temmuz 1319/1 A¤ustos 1903 tarihindeHamidiye Anbar›’ndan Kadirîhâne’ye,Neccarzade, Halil Hamid Pafla, Kas›mpafla veÜsküdar mevlevihanelerine, Ümmî Sinan,Nureddin Cerrahî gibi dergâhlara erz (pirinç),tereya¤›, kuyruk ya¤›, revgân-› zeyt, fleker gibierzaklar›n düzenli olarak verildi¤ianlafl›lmaktad›r (BOA, Y. PRK. EV., 4-7).Ayr›ca 21 A¤ustos 1322/3 Eylül 1906 tarihindeSultan›n özel hazinesi olan Hazine-i Hassa’dan‹stanbul’da isimleri verilen 284 tekkeye toplam50.000 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’arkurufl verilmiflti. Bu listenin bafl›nda iseKadirîhâne diye bilinen Tophane’deki meflhurâsitane bulunmaktayd› (BOA, HH.d 14841, s. 1-8). Tekkelerin temel ihtiyaçlar›n›n karfl›lanmas›ve desteklenmesi aç›s›ndan bu kadîm gelenekdevam ettiriliyordu. Asl›nda tarikatlar ‹slam’›nduygusal boyutunu temsil etmekle kalm›yorseçkinler ve halk aras›nda sa¤lam bir köprüvazifesi de görüyordu. Kemal Karpat’›nifadesiyle, toplumsal ve siyasal anlamda tam birmuhafazakâr olan II. Abdülhamid’in bu köprüyüdesteksiz b›rakmas› düflünülemezdi.

II. Abdülhamid döneminin gere¤i olarak birtak›mtarikatlar›n ve fleyhlerin di¤erlerine nazaran çokdaha öne ç›kar›ld›¤› görülmektedir. Bu durumzaman zaman padiflah›n bütün tarikatmensuplar›na homojen bir tav›r sergiledi¤i gibiyanl›fl bir düflünceye sebep olmaktad›r. Ayr›ca,sultan›n bu yaklafl›m›n›n, ilgili tarikata intisapetti¤i gibi bir di¤er yanl›fl alg›lamaya yol açt›¤› dasöylenmelidir. Ancak devrin siyasi ve sosyalyap›s›, Müslümanlar lehine de¤iflen demografikdengeler 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 Panislamistsiyasetinin sonucu olarak de¤il, ama ‹mparatorluktopraklar› içerisinde Müslüman tebaaya yönelik

process that requires a number of academicstudies in order to be elucidated. In this sense,Sultan Abdülhamid continued the tekke policiesof the previous rule, however adding a numberof differences that resulted from his ownpersonality and the characteristics of the period.Firstly, we will look at how the customs inheritedfrom former times were continued in this era.

In the relationships between the state and thetekkes in the 19th century, we have alreadymentioned that the tekkes had been broughtmuch closer to the government; now they werein a position that was dependent on the state. Inthis sense, the traditional approach that reflectsthe state’s perception and which can frequentlybe seen in Ottoman archival documents is thatevery effort was made to meet the needs of thetekkes and to avoid offending the sheikhs. In theera of Abdülhamid II, not only were the tekkesprovided with taamiye and atiyye (provisions andcharity), necessary repairs were carried out ontekkes, the donations were increased on holidays,and the sheikhs were given a regular salary. Forexample, it can be understood that on 19 July1319/1 August 1903, provisions such as rice,butter, suet, olive oil and sugar were distributedfrom the Hamidiye Stores to the Kadirihane,Neccarzade, Halil Hamid Pafla, Kas›mpafla andÜsküdar Mawlawi tekkes, and the Ümmi Sinan,Nureddin Cerrahi tekkes on a regular basis(BOA, Y. PRK. EV. 4-7). Moreover, on 21August 1322/3 April 1906, stating: : “taraf-›eflref-i hazret-i hilâfet-penâhîden atiyye ve ihsân,”a total of 50,000 kurufl was distributed to 284tekkes in Istanbul from the Hazine-i Hassa, thesultan’s personal treasure. It is interesting thatthese tekkes were divided into two categories,with one group receiving 300 kurufl, and theother group only being allocated 160 kurufl. Atthe top of this list was the famous Âsithane inTophane, known as the Kadirihane (BOA, HH.d14841, pp. 1-8). This ancient custom ofsupporting and meeting the basic needs of thetekkes was continued. In fact, the tarikats notonly represented the emotional dimension ofIslam, but also acted as a bridge between theprivileged members of society and the public.According to Kemal Karpat, it is inconceivablethat Abdülhamid II, a conservative socially andpolitically, would leave this bridge unsupported.

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

|208|

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

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

Bu zorunlu onaylaman›n ard›ndaII. Abdülhamid’in baflar›yla yürüttü¤ü Hilafetpolitikas› ve bu anlamda desteklerini kazand›¤›yerel eflraf ve dinî liderler vard›. Nitekim bafltafieyh Ebü’l-Hüdâ Sayyadî, fieyh Zâfir, Hüseyinel-Cisrî ve Ferâflet-i fierîfe Vekili Ahmed Es’adgibi Arap co¤rafyas›nda nüfuz sahibi tarikatliderleri, âlimler ve afliret reislerinin de¤iflikvazifeleri vard›. Bu ba¤lamda sadece ilk ikifleyhten bahsedilecektir.

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

tarikats or their sheikhs; this situation often ledto incorrect ideas, such as the sultan displayed ahomogenous attitude to the members of alltarikats. At the same time, it could be said thatthis approach led to the other incorrectperception that the sultan was affiliated with atarikat. However, it must also be stated that thepolitical and social structure of the age, thechanging demographic balance in favor of theMuslims and the corresponding rise in theconcept of Islamism entrusted the tarikats with aspecial role. This should not be perceived asresult of an extrovert and activist pan-Islamistpolicy, but rather part of the consolidationpolicies of Muslim citizens within the Ottomanterritory. This, in fact, in one sense, was inresponse to the ‘paranoiac’ characteristic of theWestern states, such as France and England,which stemmed from their hypersensitivity tothe caliphate. It should be mentioned that sometarikats were used in an effective manner againstthe separatist groups that were provoked andincited by these states. In fact, according toAzmi Özcan, Britain supported the ‘ArabCaliphate’ in every respect, thus attempting toprovoke a disagreement within the Arabterritories, but due to the Turkish Annual Reportproduced by its own foreign office was obliged torecognize Abdülhamid as the caliph and leaderof all Muslims.

|209|

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

Sultan II. Abdülhamid’in ihyaetti¤i bir Nakflî dergâh›n›nkitabesi

The inscription on the Nakshidergah, renovated by SultanAbdülhamid II

B

Halep as›ll› bir Rifâî fleyhidir. Kendisi seyyidoldu¤unu pek çok yerde ifade etse de, hakk›ndamüteseyyidlik iddialar› da mevcuttur. Anlafl›ld›¤›kadar›yla, genç yaflta ikbal kap›s› kendisineaç›lm›fl, ilmî yönü ve karizmatik flahsiyetiylebizzat sultana tesir edebilmiflti. Neredeyse 30 y›lboyunca sultana yak›n olmufl ve Y›ld›zSaray›’n›n hemen yan› bafl›ndaki SerencebeyYokuflu’nda yer alan, padiflah›n kendisine ihsanetti¤i büyük kona¤› tekke olarak kullanm›flt›.Yayg›n kanaate göre, bu tekke bir misafirhaneifllevi görmüfl ve özellikle Arap co¤rafyas›ndangelen konuklar›n a¤›rland›¤› bir merkez halinegelmiflti. fieyhin Araplar üzerinde çok etkilioldu¤u, Ayfle Osmano¤lu’nun hat›ralar›ndabahsetti¤i bir olaydan çok net anlafl›lmaktad›r:“Abdülhamid Yemen ayaklanmas› s›ras›ndakabile rüesas›n› ‹stanbul’a davet etmifl, küçükMabeyn dairesinin önüne taht›n› koydurtmufl,orada bunlar› kabul etmiflti. 100 kifli kadarvard›lar. Hepsi birden tuhaf renkli elbiseleriyles›ra ile gelmifller, babam›n ellerine ayaklar›nayap›flm›fllard›. Ebü’l-Huda Efendi s›rmal›elbisesiyle ortaya gelerek bunlara babamtaraf›ndan Arapça bir nutuk irâd etmiflti. Bizlerde bu kabul resmini Harem pencerelerindenseyretmifltik.” Sonras›nda bu reislerin birk›sm›n›n Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n, di¤er bir k›sm›n›n isefieyh Zâfir Efendi’nin kona¤›nda misafiredildi¤inden bahsetmifltir. Görüldü¤ü gibi, II.Abdülhamid Arap bölgelerinde ç›kan ve ç›kmas›muhtemel hadiseleri geleneksel anlamda çokkuvvetli olan tarikatlar›n manevi güçlerinikullanarak çözme yolunu seçmifltir.

undan baflka, fieyh Ebü’l-Hüdâ gerek birtak›mayr›l›kç› hareketlerin önünü alma gerekseMüslümanlar›n halifesinin II. Abdülhamidoldu¤unu ispatlama sadedinde yaz›lar ve kitaplarkaleme alarak entelektüel anlamda önemli birifllev görmüfltür. Kendisine 200’den fazla esernispet edildi¤i bilinmektedir. Bunlardan enmeflhurlar› 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 geneldeOsmano¤ullar›n›n özelde II. Abdülhamid’inhilafetinin meflru oldu¤unu ilmî ve dinîgerekçelerle izah etmiflti. Bu eserlerinin dilininArapça olmas› ise asl›nda propagandan›nmahiyet ve yönünün anlafl›lmas› ad›na yeterli biripucudur. Zekeriya Kurflun, Ebü’l-Hüdâ ve ‹zzetPafla gibi Arap as›ll› figürlerin padiflaha birtak›msiyasi mevzularda dan›flmanl›k yapt›klar›n› ifadeetmekte; bu manada, bu kifliler üzerinden Arap

After this compulsory approval, due to his successin enforcing the policies of the caliphate,Abdülhamid II won the support of religiousleaders and local gentry. Initially, influentialtarikat leaders, scholars and tribal leaders of theArab territories, such as Sheik Abu’l-HudaSayyadi, Sheikh Zâfir, Hussein Al-Jisri and therepresentative of the ferâflet-i fierîfe, AhmadEs’ad, all held various duties. However, here wewill only discuss two of these sheikhs.

The first of these two sheikhs, Muhammad binHasan Al-Vadi, also known as Abu’l-Huda(1850-1909), was a Rifaiya sheikh who wasoriginally from Aleppo. Although there aremany claims that he was a sayyid, there are alsoclaims to the contrary. Apparently, fortunesmiled upon him at a very young age and he wasable to impress the sultan with his wisdom andcharismatic manner. He was a close advisor tothe sultan for almost thirty years, and used themansion on Serencebey Hill, which wasimmediately adjacent to the Y›ld›z Palace andhad been presented to him by the sultan, as atekke. It was commonly thought that this tekkewas used as a guesthouse, and acted as a centerfor hosting visitors, in particular those from theArab territories. The sheikh’s great influenceover the Arabs can by clearly understood froman event that Ayfle Osmano¤lu relates in hermemoirs: “During the disturbance in the YemenAbdülhamid invited leaders of the tribes toIstanbul; he had his throne placed in the mabeynand received all the guests there. There wereabout a hundred people. They stood in a line,each of them wearing strangely-coloredclothing, and they grabbed onto my father’shands and feet. Abu’l Huda Efendi walked intothe center of the hall wearing an embroideredgown, and began to deliver a speech in Arabic.We observed this scene from the windows of theHarem.” Princess Ayfle continues to explain thathalf of these leaders were taken to Abu’l-Huda’stekke, while the remainder went to Sheikh ZâfirEfendi’s mansion as guests. As can be seen,Abdülhamid chose to solve the problems thatemanated, or could emanate, from the Arabregions by using the spiritual forces of the verystrong tarikats.

Sheikh Abu’l Huda also carried out an importantfunction from an intellectual aspect both inpreventing a number of separatist movementsand in supporting Abdülhamid II’s claim to the

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

|210|

kabileleri aras›nda denge kurulmaya veafliretlerin desteklenmeye çal›fl›ld›¤›n› dilegetirmektedir. fieyhin özellikle M›s›r gibiOsmanl› karfl›t› muhaliflerin topland›¤› birbölgede gazete ç›kartarak Osmanl› Devletilehinde propaganda yapt›rmas› da bu ba¤lamdaözellikle kaydedilmelidir.

Bu hizmetleri mukabilinde padiflah›n büyükiltifat ve ihsanlar›na nail olan Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›nhem kendisinin hem de yak›n çevresinin h›zlayükseldi¤i müflahede edilmektedir. Peflpefleniflanlar, madalyalar, maafllar, payeler eldeedilmifl ve Rifâî tarikat› özellikle Suriye, Ba¤dat,Basra ve Yemen’e kadar olan bir alandacömertçe desteklenmifltir. O dönemdeKadirîlerin askerlikten muaf tutuldu¤u gibiRifâîlerin de benzer bir muafiyet ald›¤›görülmüfltür. Seveni kadar sevmeyeni de olanEbü’l-Hüdâ üzerine yaz›p çizilenler asl›nda birölçüde günümüzde hâlâ devam eden II.Abdülhamid devri tarih yaz›m› paradoksunuhat›rlatacak cinstendir. Z›nd›k ile Kutbü’l-aktâbgibi iki z›t s›fat›n onun hakk›nda ayn› sat›rlardageçti¤ine tesadüf etmek mümkündür. ÖzellikleJön Türklerin menfî propagandalar›n›n datesiriyle hakk›nda çok olumsuz bir imajoluflturulmufltur. Örne¤in, muhalif bas›n›n Ebü’l-Hüdâ yerine Ebu Dalâl (Dalaletin Babas›)lakab›n› kullanmas› bu imaj› anlama ad›nayeterlidir.

Gizemli bir kiflili¤e sahip olan Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›nsultan› etkiledi¤i ve verdi¤i kararlarda onuyönlendirdi¤i, hatta “parma¤›nda oynatt›¤›”fleklindeki de¤erlendirmeler de bu olumsuzimaj›n hâs›l etti¤i abart›l› propagandan›nsonucudur. Arfliv vesikalar›na bak›ld›¤› zamanEbü’l-Hüdâ’n›n politika oluflturulmas› aç›s›ndanözneden çok nesne oldu¤u ve Osmanl› Devletimenfaatleri do¤rultusunda istihdam edildi¤igörülebilir. Çok istedi¤i fieyhülislaml›kmakam›n›n kendisine verilmeyifli ve zamanzaman isteklerinin hemen yerine getirilmeyifli buiddiay› güçlendirir. Bununla beraber padiflah›nhuzuruna rahatl›kla ç›kabilmesi ve birtak›m dinîve siyasi hususlarda görüfllerine baflvurulmas› II.Abdülhamid nezdindeki vazgeçilmezli¤ini degösterir. Örne¤in medrese talebelerinin birsorunu karfl›s›nda veya Selanik’teSabetay/Avdetî kökenli bir k›z›n Müslüman birgence kaçmas› gibi olaylarda Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›nkrizlerin yönetimine ifltirak etti¤i görülmekteydi.II. Meflrutiyet’in hemen akabinde hedef

post of caliph of all Muslims in the articles andbooks he wrote. Over 200 works have beenattributed to him; the most famous of theseworks, Da‘i’r-reflad li-sebili’l-ittihad ve’l-ink›yadand en-Nefahatu’n-Nebeviyya fi hidmeti’l-Hilafeti’l-Hamidiyyeti’l-Osmaniyye in generaldescribe Ottoman legitimacy, and morespecifically that of Abdülhamid II withintellectual and religious justifications. The factthat these works were written in Arabic isenough of a clue to understand the true natureand course of the propaganda in that era.Zekeriya Kurflun states that noble Arab figureslike Abu’l Huda and ‹zzet Pasha advised thesultan on a number of political topics; in thiscontext he states that it was through thesepeople that he tried to establish a balanceamong the Arab tribes and to support the tribes.It should also be noted that the sheikh publishedregional newspapers that promoted propagandafor the Ottoman State in regions where anti-Ottoman groups had gathered, particularly inEgypt.

In return for these services Abul’l Huda receivedgreat compliments and gifts from the sultan;both he and his close associates quickly rosethrough the ranks, acquiring a number ofmedals, decorations, salaries and positions, andthe Rifaiya tarikat was generously supported inmany regions, particularly in Syria, Baghdad,Basra and the Yemen. At that period, not onlywere the Qadiriyyah exempt from the military,the Rifaiya also were exempted. That which waswritten about Abu’l Huda, who was as hated ashe was loved, in fact to some extent reminds usparadoxically of what is still being written aboutthe history of the era of Abdülhamid II. It ispossible to find two opposing adjectives, likez›nd›k (heretic) and kutbü’l-aktâb (chief ofsaints), in the same line of text. In particular,the oppositional propaganda of the Young Turksformed a very negative image of this matter. Forexample, that the opposing press referred toAbu’l Huda as Abu Dalâl (Father of Corruption)is enough to demonstrate this.

The evaluation of Abu’l Huda as someone whohad a secretive personality, affected the sultanand directed the decisions that he took, even“twisting him around his little finger” was aresult of this exaggerated propaganda thatcreated such a negative image. When archivalrecords are examined from the aspect of the

|211|

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

tahtas›na konulan ve üzerinden örtülü olarakII. Abdülhamid elefltirisi yap›lan Y›ld›z Kamarillas›aras›nda o da yer almaktad›r. Önce Bekira¤aBölü¤ü’ne, daha sonra da 31 Mart Olay› öncesison nefesini verece¤i Büyükada’ya gönderilir. Bus›rada devrin bas›n›nda kendisine “üfürükçü,remilci ve cinci” gibi yak›flt›rmalar yap›l›r. HattaÜfürük isminde ç›kar›lan mizah dergisi bizzat butemalar› iflleme maksad›yla ç›kar›lm›flt›r.Ölmeden bir müddet önce Serbestî gazetesineverdi¤i mülakatta bir nevi savunma yapm›fl,hakk›ndaki iddialar› cevaplam›fl ve çok aç›k birflekilde vazifesinin devlete hizmet odakl› kitapve yay›nlar telif etmek oldu¤unu öne sürmüfltür.

Benzer flekilde, II. Abdülhamid’in sayg›s›na vemuhabbetine mazhar olmufl bir di¤er kifli deTunus as›ll› Medenî-fiazelî fieyhi ZâfirEfendi’dir. Mahmud Nedim Pafla’n›nTrablusgarp valili¤i s›ras›nda tan›fl›p ‹stanbul’agetirdi¤i fleyhin, daha flehzadelik dönemindeII. Abdülhamid ile yak›n iliflkiler kurdu¤urivayet edilmifltir. Sultan kendisine saray›n›nyak›n›nda bir konak ve tekke ihsan etmifltir.Özellikle, Kuzey Afrika ve Ma¤rip co¤rafyas›ndaetkili olan fieyh Zâfir’in meflhur sadrazamTunuslu Hayreddin Pafla’y› II. Abdülhamid’e

formation of Abu’l Huda’s policies, it can beseen that he was more of an object than asubject, and that he was employed to the benefitof the Ottoman State. The fact that he was notgiven the post of sheikh-ul-Islam, which he hadwanted very much and that from time to timehis demands were not fulfilled confirm this view.At the same time, the fact that he could go intothe sultan’s presence when he so desired andthat Abdülhamid II turned to him for advice ona number of religious and political mattersdemonstrates how indispensable the sheikh wasto the sultan. For example, we can see thatAbu’l Huda participated in crisis managementfor problems with madrasah students or when aJewish girl from Salonika eloped with a Muslimyouth. Yet, he took his place among the Y›ld›zKamarillasi, a group that criticized AbdülhamidII, who had become a target immediately afterthe Second Constitutional Monarchy. First thesheikh was sent to the Bekira¤a Troops, andlater, just before the 31 March Olay›, he wasexiled to Büyükada, where he took his finalbreath. At this time the press referred to him as“üfürükçü, remilci, ve cinci” (types of faithhealers….) In fact a humorous magazine by thename of Üfürük was brought out to continuework on this theme. Some time before he died,in an interview he gave to the Serbestînewspaper, Abu’l Huda put up some sort ofdefense, answering the claims that had beenmade about him, claiming that his duty hadbeen concentrated on compiling books andpublications in the service of the state.

In a similar way, another person who receivedAbdülhamid II’s respect and affection was theTunisian Medeni-Shazali sheikh, Zâfir Efendi. Itis rumored that the sheikh met Mahmud NedimPasha when the latter was governor of Tripoliand was brought by him to Istanbul, where theyformed a close friendship. The sultan presentedhim with a mansion and a tekke close to thepalace. It is known that Sheikh Zâfir, who wasparticularly influential in North Africa and theMaghreb, recommended the famous HayreddinPasha of Tunisia to Abdülhamid II as grandvizier. Sheikh Zâfir was as active as Abu’l Hudain publishing. In the work called el-Envârü’l-kudsiyye, he strongly emphasized that theOttoman State was the Dâr-i Hilâfet-i ‹slâmiye(Land of the Islamic Caliphate). In fact, thereare commentaries that Shazaliya was seen as analternative to Senusiya; however, later the

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

|212|

Ebulhuda, Tenvîrü’l-ebsâr fîtabakâti's-sâdâti’r-Rifâiyyeti’l-

ahyâr

T

tavsiye etti¤i bilinmektedir. fieyh Zâfir’de Ebü’l-Hüdâ kadar olmasa da telif faaliyetleri ileilgilenmifltir. el-Envârü’l-kudsiyye adl› eserindeOsmanl› Devleti’nin “Dâr-i Hilâfet-i ‹slâmiye”oldu¤unu kuvvetlice vurgulam›flt›r. Hattafiazelîli¤in Kuzey Afrika’da Senusîli¤e alternatifolarak görüldü¤ü, fakat daha sonra padiflah›n bufikirden vazgeçerek Senusîlerle anlaflt›¤›yorumlar› da mevcuttur. Ayr›ca fieyh ZâfirEfendi’nin kona¤›n›n misafirhane hizmetigörmesi Ebü’l-Hüdâ ile benzer bir misyona sahipoldu¤u intiba›n› uyand›rmaktad›r. Nitekim,“Ekseri dergâha gelmekte olan züvvâr vemisafirîn için” fieyh Zâfir’in yast›k, yorgan,çarflaf gibi yatak tak›mlar› istemesi bu alg›lay›fl›desteklemektedir.

Bunun yan›nda, asl›nda fieyh Zâfir’in di¤erinek›yasla daha içe kapan›k ve padiflah›nmaneviyat›ndan etkilendi¤i bir konuma sahipoldu¤u öne sürülmektedir. Nitekim tekkesine aitbaz› tamir ve inflaat defterlerinde flehzadeodalar›n›n bulunmas›, padiflaha ve onun ailesineyak›nl›¤›n› göstermesi ad›na son dereceönemlidir. fieyhin çocuklar›ndan damad›nakadar en yak›nlar› devlet hizmetinde istihdamedilirken, kardefli fieyh Hamza Efendi’yepadiflah›n özel hazinesinden bazen tek kalemde100 bin kurufl verildi¤i bile görülmekteydi.Dergâh›n saray nezdindeki kudsiyeti ve itibar›fieyh Zâfir sonras›nda da azalmam›flt›r. fieyhZâfir Efendi için meflhur mimar D’Aranco’yayapt›r›lan mutantan türbenin yan›nda bir dekütüphane infla ettirilmifltir. fiazelî Dergâh›’naokunmas› için Delâil-i Hayrât türü kitaplarvakfedilmifl, dualar›n›n al›nmas›na ve süreklimevlit okutulmas›na önem verilmifltir. Dergâh›nfleyhinin üç gün boyunca “nefes etti¤i” flahs›niyileflti¤ine dair bilgilerin bizzat Y›ld›z evrak›nayans›mas›, saray üzerinde etkisini göstermesibak›m›ndan önemlidir.

Bu iki fleyhin benzer misyonlara sahip olarakbirbirlerine yak›n yerlerde ve benzer konaklardapadiflaha çok yak›n olmalar›, aralar›nda süreklimukayeselerin yap›lmas›na zemin haz›rlam›flt›r.Bu anlamda, fiazelîli¤in Rifâîli¤e nazaran dahamütevaz› geliflti¤i belirtilmelidir. Ebü’l-Hüdâdaha siyasi ve sosyal bir kimli¤e sahip iken, fieyhZâfir ise âbid ve zahid kiflili¤i ile dünya ifllerinepek kar›flmayan bir flahsiyet olarak gösterilir.Döneme dair hat›ralarda bu iki fleyhin süreklirekabet halinde oldu¤u iddialar›na yer verilir.Hatta arfliv vesikalar›nda bu rekabete dair

sultan abandoned this idea and made anagreement with the Senusiya. Moreover, thefact that Sheikh Zâfir Efendi used his mansionas a guesthouse reminds one of the similarmission of Abu’l Huda. The fact that SheikhZâfir wanted pillows, quilts and sheets “for thepilgrims and guests who mostly come to thedergah” supports this understanding.

It is also claimed that in fact Sheikh Zâfir, incomparison to the other, was more introvertedand had a position that was affected by thespirituality of the sultan. In fact, some repairand construction notebooks belonging to thetekke are very important in that they show therewere flehzade rooms there, making clear howclose the sultan and his family were. While thesheikh’s children and son-in-law were employedin important state positions, his brother SheikhHamza Efendi was sometimes given 100,000kurufl from the sultan’s private treasury. Thesanctity and respect of the dergah in the palacefell off after Sheikh Zâfir. A library was builtnext to the showy mausoleum that was built forSheikh Zâfir Efendi by the famous architectD’Aranco. Books like Delâil-i Hayrât were donatedto the Shazaliya Dergah›, and importance wasgiven to the recital of prayers and thecontinuous reading of the mawlid. The fact thatinformation about how the sheikh of the dergahcould cure someone in three days by “breathingon them” is recorded in the Y›ld›z documents isimportant for showing his effect on the palace.

he fact that these two sheikhs, who had similarmissions, were given similar mansions close toone another prepared the grounds for constantcomparison between the two of them. It shouldbe stated that Shazaliya was more modest incomparison to Rifaiya. While Abu’l Huda had amore political and social personality, SheikhZâfir had a character that was more devoted andpious, and did not become involved in worldlymatters. In the memoirs of this era we can findclaims that these two sheikhs were in constantcompetition. In fact, in the archival documentsit is possible to see a few informants’ reportsconcerning this competition. In one memoir, itis claimed that Abu’l Huda had had a reportmade about a bomb attempt on a Fridayprocession ceremony that was to be performedat the Ertu¤rul Mosque, thus attempting tomake Sheikh Zâfir fall from favor. In fact, in thearchival documents of the period there is such

|213|

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

birtak›m jurnalleri görmek de mümkündür. Birhat›rada, Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n Ertu¤rul Camii’ndeicra edilecek bir Cuma selâml›¤› merasimindebombal› suikast ihbar› yapt›rtt›¤› ve böyleliklefieyh Zâfir’i gözden düflürmeye çal›flt›¤› önesürülmüfltür. Gerçekten devrin arflivvesikalar›nda böyle bir ihbar flafl›rt›c› bir flekildegörülmektedir. Ancak iddian›n di¤erk›s›mlar›n›n ne kadar do¤ru oldu¤u tart›flmal›d›r.Netice olarak, II. Abdülhamid döneminde uzaktaflradan gelen bu iki Arap as›ll› fleyhinpayitahtta el üstünde tutulmas› hiç flüphesiz budevrin politik ihtiyaçlar›ndan kaynaklanan farkl›hususiyetlerini yans›t›r. Ayr›ca, çevreninmerkeze entegrasyonu ba¤lam›ndade¤erlendirilebilecek bu olaylarda, küçük birkasabadan imparatorlu¤un baflkentinde parlakbir kariyere giden yolun, Osmanl› toplum vesiyasas›ndaki sosyal hareketlili¤i göstermesiaç›s›ndan dikkat çekici oldu¤u belirtilmelidir.

II. Abdülhamid’in ‹slam Birli¤i siyasetiba¤lam›nda nüfuzlar›ndan istifade etti¤i bufleyhlerden baflka, genel olarak Osmanl›Devleti’nin 19. as›rda tarikatlara yönelikgelifltirdi¤i birtak›m politikalar› devam ettirdi¤igözlemlenmektedir. 1891 y›l›nda Meclis-iMeflâyih kurum olarak yeniden düzenlenmifl veilk nizamnamesi devrin flartlar› muvacehesindede¤ifltirilip tekamül ettirilmifltir. Bu anlamda,taflrada bulunan tekkelerin meflihatlar›nayap›lacak atamalar›n merkezin s›k› kontrolügerçeklefltirilmesi sa¤lanm›flt›r. Oralarda damerkezdeki meclise benzer, küçük meflâyihmeclisleri kurulmaya çal›fl›lm›flt›r. Bu anlamda,Sünnî yönleri kuvvetli Kadirîlik, Rifâîlik,Nakflibendîlik gibi tarikatlar›n de¤iflikmüntesiplerine taflrada tekkelerin aç›ld›¤› vefinanse edildi¤i ayr›ca belirtilmelidir. Ancak,“kay›t d›fl›” olarak meflihat› bulunmayan cami,türbe, mescit ve hanelerde tarikat ayinlerininyap›lmas› yasaklanm›fl ve s›k› bir kontrolmekanizmas› gelifltirilmifltir.

Bununla birlikte, II. Abdülhamid’in Bektaflîlikhususunda dedesi II. Mahmud’un yolundangitti¤i görülmektedir. Bektaflîli¤in yay›lmas›namüsaade etmemekle kalmam›fl o devrin birsiyaseti olan Bektaflî tekkelerine Nakflî fleyhlerinatanmas› uygulamas›n› da yeniden gündemegetirmiflti. 26 Temmuz 1892 y›l›nda SadrazamCevad Pafla, ‹stanbul’da Bektaflîlerin 7-8 adettekkelerinin oldu¤u ve buralara “iflli-iflsiz” pekçok kiflinin devam etti¤i, içkiler içildi¤i, hatta

an astonishing report. However, how much theother part of the claim is true is open to ques-tion. As a result, the fact that these two Arabsheikhs who came from far-away lands duringthe reign of Abdülhamid were in superior positionsin the capital reflects the changing characteristicswhich resulted from the needs of the politics ofthe era. Moreover, it should be stated howinteresting these events, which can be evaluatedin the connection of the integration of thecenter with the surrounding areas, are; theydemonstrate the social mobility in Ottomansociety and politics, that path which leads froma small town to the capitol of the empire.

In addition to these sheikhs, from whoseinfluence Abülhamid II benefited in the policiesof the Islamic Union, there were a few policiesthat were developed towards the tarikats ingeneral in the 19th-century Ottoman State. In1891 the Meclis-i Meflâyih was reestablished; thiswas changed in the era of the first nizamnameand perfected according to the conditions of theage. In this context, the appointments of theposts in the tekkes in the provinces were takenunder the strict control of the center. Attemptswere made to form smaller councils of sheikhswhich resembled that in the center. In thiscontext, it should be stated that powerful tarikatswhich had Sünnî tendencies in the provinceswere related to different tarikats, like theQadiriyyah, Rifaiya or Naqshbandi, but wereseparately opened and financed. However, it wasforbidden that mosques, tombs, masjids andhane, which were not part of the council andwere “off the record”, hold ceremonies and astrict control mechanism was developed.

Moreover, it can be seen that Abdülhamid IIfollowed in the footsteps of his grandfatherMahmud II on the matter of the Bektashi. Henot only did not allow for the spread of theBektashi, now the appointment of theNaqshbandi sheikhs to the political Bektashitekkes was once more on the agenda. On 26 July,1892 the grand vizier Cevad Pasha sent an orderto the Foreign Ministry to investigate the claimsthat in the 7 or 8 Bektashi tekkes in Istanbulthere were many people “employed andunemployed” here, that there was drinking andeven that women came there. “Tekâyâ ve zevâyâemâkin-i muhteremeden olarak bu misillûmahallerde menhiyyat vuku‘unun s›hhatihalinde men‘i muvaf›k-› fler‘ u hikmet olaca¤›”

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

|214|

Zâfir Efendi’nin sandukas›

The sarcaphogus of Zâfir Efendi

II. Abdülhamid’in ZâfirEfendi’ye hediye etti¤i dolap

A cupboard presented to ZâfirEfendi by Abdülhamid II

(YSM)

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

II. Abdülhamid’inKonya Mevlânâ Dergâh›postniflini Mustafa SaffetÇelebi Efendi’nin ölümü

üzerine yerine kardefliAbdülvahid Çelebi’nin

tayinine dair berat›

A warrant of Abdülhamid IIthat appoints Abdülvahid

Çelebi to be fleyh of the orderin succession to his deceasedbrother, Mustafa Saffet, the

head of the Mevlânâ Dergâhin Konya

(Divan Edebiyat› Müzesi)

|216|

kad›nlar›n da geldi¤inden bahisle meseleninaraflt›r›lmas› için Dâhiliye Nezareti’ne birtalimat göndermiflti. “Tekâyâ ve zevâyâ emâkin-imuhteremeden olarak bu misillû mahallerdemenhiyyat vuku‘unun s›hhati halinde men‘imuvaf›k-› fler‘ u hikmet olaca¤›” belirtilmiflti (Y.A. HUS., 1310.1.1). Yani, bir anlamda budevirde tekke ve zaviyelerin sayg›ya lay›kmekânlar oldu¤unu devlet kabul etmeklekalmam›fl, buralar›n muhafazas› için özellikleBektaflîli¤in yay›lmas›n› önleyici tedbirleralm›flt›.

Bu anlamda At›f Hüseyin Efendi’nin,hat›ralar›nda Abdülhamid’in Bektaflîlerhakk›ndaki flahsi kanaatlerini aktarmas› sonderece ilginçtir. II. Abdülhamid, Masum Efendiad›nda medrese tahsili görmüfl ve sonradanBektaflî olmufl bir flahs›n huzurunaç›kar›ld›¤›ndan bahsetmifltir. Bu flahs›nErzurum’da pek çok kifliyi Bektaflî yapt›¤›kendisine rapor edilmifltir. O s›rada yan›ndaulemadan bir zat oldu¤unu anlatan Abdülhamid,adam› bizzat imtihan etti¤ini söylemifltir.Sorulara cevap veremeyen Bektaflînin a¤lamayabafllamas› üzerine onu yan›na ça¤›rm›fl ve fleyhefendinin ahbab› oldu¤unu söyleyerek kendisiniYahya 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 birBektaflîlik profili olarak ele alm›flt›r. Hat›ralardaMasum diye bahsedilen bu Bektaflînin ismininMesut olma ihtimali çok yüksektir. Zira böylebir flahs›n Yahya Efendi Dergâh›’na gönderildi¤itespit edilmifltir. Ayr›ca daha da ileri gidilerekbu zata Bektaflîlik aleyhinde bir risale yazd›r›ld›¤›bile görülmektedir. Olaya Ebü’l-Hüdâ’n›n damüdahil oldu¤u görüldü¤ünde ister istemezpadiflah›n yan›ndaki ulemadan olan flahs›nEbü’l-Hüdâ olup olmad›¤› zihne tak›lmaktad›r.Bu tekil hadiseyle sultan›n bizzat ilgilenmesiBektaflîlik konusunu önemsedi¤inin iflaretidir.

Bu dönemin tarikatlar aç›s›ndan çok ilginç biryönü de 19. yüzy›l boyunca sultanlara çok yak›nbulunmufl ve bizzat onlar›n özel iltifatlar›namazhar olmufl olan Mevlevî fleyhlerininsessizlikleridir. II. Abdülhamid’in saltanat›devralmas›nda, Mithat Pafla’n›n çiftli¤ininyan›nda bulunan Yenikap› Mevlevihanesi fieyhiOsman Selahaddin Dede’nin büyük pay sahibioldu¤u bilinmektedir. Hatta ilk zamanlar sarayagelerek padiflah›n huzurunda Mesnevî okuttu¤udahi malumdur. Ancak gerek Mithat Pafla

belirtilmiflti (Y. A. HUS., 1310.1.1). That is, inone sense, in this era the tekke and zaviye werenot only areas that were perceived as beingworthy of respect, but preventive measures weretaken to stop the spread of the Bektashi toprotect these institutions.

In this context, what At›f Hüseyin Efendirelates about Abdülhamid’s personal opinion ofthe Bektashi in his memoirs is extremelyinteresting. Abdülhamid II received instructionat the madrasah of Masum Efendi and later wastaken into the presence of a Bektashi person. Itwas reported that this person had made manypeople Bektashi in Erzurum. At that point,Abdülhamid says that, accompanied by someonefrom the ulama, he tested the man himself.Unable to answer the questions the Bektashibegan to cry and the sultan called him over, andsaying that he was a friend of the sheikh, senthim to the Yahya Efendi Dergah›. It is interestingthat this man is described as having tangled hairand beard and long nails, a typical Bektashiprofile. It is highly likely that the Bektashi,whose name in the memoirs is Masum, wasreally called Mesut; such a person was sent tothe Yahya Efendi Dergah›. Moreover, goingeven further, it can be seen that this personwrote a treatise against the Bektashi. Takinginto account that Abu’l Huda interfered in suchmatters, then the question of whether thisperson from the ulama who was with the sultanwas Abu’l Huda arises. That the sultan personallyintervened in this solitary incident is indicativeof the importance that he gave to the Bektashimatter.

A very interesting characteristic of this periodfrom the aspect of the tarikats is the silence ofthe Mawlawi sheikhs, who had been very closeto the sultans throughout the 19th century, andwho received special compliments and rewards.It is known that Sheikh Osman SelahaddinDede of the Yenikap› Mevlevihanesi, which wasnext to Mithat Pasha’s farm, played an importantrole in Abdülhamid II coming to the throne. Infact, it is known that in the early days he wouldeven come to the palace and read the Masnawiin the presence of the sultan. However, both onthe recommendation of Mithat Pasha and as aresult of Reflad Efendi, the Veliahd-› Saltanat(heir to the sultanate) becoming a Mawlawi, theMawlawis became more passive. The once powerfulsheikh and the first chief of the Meclis-i Meflâyih,

|217|

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

ekibinin tasfiyesi gerekse Veliahd-› SaltanatReflad Efendi’nin Mevlevî oluflu yüzündenMevlevîler pasifize edilmifltir. Bir zamanlar›nkudretli fleyhi ve Meclis-i Meflâyih’in ilkreislerinden Mesnevihân Osman SelahaddinDede ise “uzlet-niflin” olarak ahir ömrünü sessizsedas›z tamamlam›flt›r. Ard›ndan gelen o¤luCelaleddin Efendi de benzer durumlaryaflam›flt›r. Mevlevîlerin ayinlerini büyük birkontrol ve tarassut alt›nda yapmaya çal›flt›klar› odevirde yaflam›fl olan ‹htifalci Mehmed Ziya gibiyazarlar taraf›ndan ilginç anekdotlarlaanlat›lm›flt›r. Bu s›k›nt›n›n Konya’daki MevlanaÂsitanesi’ndeki Çelebi Efendi’yi de kapsad›¤›ifade edilmelidir. Özellikle, II. Abdülhamid’ekarfl› gelifltirilen ‹ttihat ve Terakkimuhalefetinde Bektaflîlerin ve Mevlevîlerindesteklerinin al›nmas› bir ölçüde onlar›n dagayrimemnun zümresinden olmalar›yla izahedilebilir. Nitekim her iki tarikat daII. Meflrutiyet sonras› h›zla yükselifle geçmifllerdir.

Sultan›n Nakflibendîler ile aras› fleyhlere görefarkl›l›k arz etmifltir. Özellikle, Nakflibendîli¤inOsmanl› topraklar›ndaki üçüncü dalgas› olarak

Mesnevihân Osman Selahaddid Dede completedthe last days of his life in quiet and alone. Hisson, Celaleddin Efendi, lived in a similar way.Writers like the ‹htifalci Mehmed Ziya tell veryinteresting anecdotes about this era in which itwas attempted to take the Mawlawi ceremoniesunder strict control and surveillance. It shouldbe stated that this problem affected ÇelebiEfendi at the Mawlana Âsitanesi in Konya. Inparticular, it could be stated that as the Bektashiand Mawlawi supported the ‹ttihat ve Terakkiopposition which was developed againstAbdülhamid II, they fell from favor. In fact,both tarikats had a rapid ascendency after theSecond Constitutional Monarchy.

The sultan displayed a different attitude to thesheikhs of the Naqshbandi. In particular, it isknown that Ahmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî,who began a new era in the Halidî branch,commemorated as the third wave of Naqshbandion Ottoman land, was close to Abdülhamid II.Even though an investigation of the sheikh,who had fought on the Batum front in the1877-78 Russian War, was carried out in 1890,

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

|218|

Ahmed ZiyaüddinGümüflhanevî’nin kabri ve

mührü

The tomb and seal of AhmedZiyaüddin Gümüflhanevî

an›lan Halidîlik kolunda ayr› bir 盤›r açm›fl olanAhmed Ziyaüddin Gümüflhanevî’ninII. Abdülhamid’e yak›n oldu¤u bilinmektedir.1877-78 Rus Harbi s›ras›nda Batum cephesindesavaflan fieyh hakk›nda 1890’da bir soruflturmaaç›lsa da, dört y›l sonra vefat etti¤inde techîz utedfin masraflar›n› bizzat sultan›n karfl›lamas› buyak›nl›¤a bir iflaret olarak de¤erlendirilmifltir.Hatta Kanunî’nin hemen yan› bafl›na gömülmesiyine bu teveccühün bir göstergesi say›lm›flt›r.Sultan tekkeye yard›mlar›n› fieyh’in vefat›sonras›nda da kesmemifl, 25 adet Delâil-i Hayrâtvakfederek ilgisini devam ettirmiflti. Fakat di¤erbaz› Nakflî-Halidî fleyhlerine ayn› flekildedavranmad›¤› ve siyasi olarak sak›ncal›gördüklerini sürgüne gönderdi¤i bilinmektedir.Bunlar aras›nda Orta Anadolu’da çok genifl birmürit deste¤ine sahip olan Ahmed Da¤›stanî, M.Es’ad Erbilî ve Feyzullah Efendizade fieyhMehmed Ali efendilerin oldu¤u görülmektedir.Asl›nda bu dönemde Kadirî, Sa‘dî, Halvetî veMelamî fleyhlerinden baz›lar›n›n da sürgünegönderildi¤i vâkidir. Bu daha çok devlet erkid›fl›nda hareket etme potansiyeli bulunanfleyhlere karfl› uygulanm›fl bir politikad›r.

when he died four years later the cost of hisfuneral expenses were met by the sultan himself,thus indicating this closeness. In fact, beingburied right next to Süleyman the Magnificentcan be considered to be a sign of favor. The sultandid not cease supporting the tekke after thesheikh’s death, continuing his interest bydonating 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 sawthem as a political threat, sending them intoexile. Among these were Ahmed Da¤›stanî, whohad a wide base of murid (novices), M. Es’adErbilî and Feyzullah Efendizade Sheikh MehmedAli. In fact, at this time some of the Qadiriyyah,Sa’diya, Khalwati and Malami sheikhs were sentinto exile. This was more a policy to beimplemented against those sheikhs who had thepotential to act outside the state power.

In general, it is known that many tekkes wereunder surveillance and that the ceremoniesappeared in the reports of informers. For example,at the Adile Sultan Kulekap›s› Mevlevihane on13 September, 1894, a date that coincides with

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

Ahmed ZiyaüddinGümüflhanevî’nin Ramuzü’l-ehadis isimli eserinin müellifnüshas› ve müttekalar›

Ahmed ZiyaüddinGümüflhanevî, Ramuzü’l-ehadis(copy of the author) and hismuttekas

(M. Es’ad Coflan Arflivi)

|219|

Genel olarak, pek çok tekkenin takip edildi¤i veayin günleri jurnallerinin takdim edildi¤i bilinenbir husustur. Mesela 13 Eylül 1894 tarihine denkgelen Hz. Peygamberimizin veladet günündeAdile Sultan’›n Kulekap›s› Mevlevihanesi’ndeokuttu¤u Mevlid-i fierîf’e pek çok fleyh vederviflin yan› s›ra yaklafl›k befl yüz kifli ifltiraketmiflti. fiehremaneti’nden yaz›lan rapora göre,Mevlid icra edildikten sonra Ebu’r-R›za Tekkesifleyhi Nureddin Efendi Padiflah’›n ömrü vesa¤l›¤› için dua etmiflti. Raporda, ayr›ca,toplanan cemiyette asayifle ayk›r› bir durumunvuku bulmad›¤› belirtilmiflti. ‹stanbul’daki dörtmevlevihanenin fleyhleri ile BursaMevlevihanesi ve Yahya Efendi Dergâh›fleyhlerinin de aralar›nda bulundu¤u on fleyhinmevlide ifltirak etti¤i kaydedilmifltir (Y. PRK.fiH. 5-29). Bu dönemde, güvenlik ve asayiflodakl› kontrol mekanizmas›n›n tekkelerikapsad›¤› da görülmekteydi. Bu anlamdaherhangi bir miraç veya mevlit program›n›nyap›lmas› izne tabi oldu¤u gibi, program›n icra

the birth date of Prophet Muhammad, inaddition to the many sheikhs and dervishes, therewere about 500 people who participated in theceremony. According to a report written by thefiehremaneti (City Council), after the Mawlid hadbeen performed, Nureddin Efendi, the sheikh ofthe Ebu’r-R›za Tekke, recited prayers for thehealth and long-life of the sultan. Moreover, inthe report it is stated the congregation that hadgathered posed no threat to the peace. It isrecorded that the mawlid was performed by tensheikhs, including the sheikhs of the four IstanbulMevlevihanes, the sheikh of the BursaMevlevihane and the sheikhs of the YahyaEfendi Dergah› (Y. PRK. fiH. 5-29). In this periodit can be seen that the control mechanism whichfocused on security and public order included thetekkes. In this sense, not only did they have toapply for permission for any kind of miraj ormawlid program, but officers would be sent to thedergah on the evening that the program wasexecuted. Sometimes the events that occurred in

Y I L D I Z S A R A Y I ’ N I N T E K K E L E R ‹ V EI I . A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D ’ ‹ N T A R ‹ K A T S ‹ Y A S E T ‹

|220|

Kadirî ve Nakflî gülleri

Qadiri and Nakshi roses

(Yahya Agâh Efendi)

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

Sonuç olarak, II. Abdülhamid dönemi devlet vetekke iliflkileri, kurucu harc›nda tekke gelene¤ibulunan Osmanl› Devleti için eski ve köklüyaklafl›mlar›n devam› oldu¤u kadar, döneminsosyo-politik ihtiyaçlar›n›n ve dominant birpadiflah›n özelliklerini yans›tacak yönler detafl›maktayd›. Her fleyden önce, tarikatlar›n budönemde de ihtiyaçlar›n›n karfl›land›¤›görülmekle birlikte, özellikle Arap co¤rafyas›ndaetkili ve güçlü baz› tarikatlar›n daha çokdesteklendi¤i söylenebilir. Bu yaklafl›m isedönemin “Hilafet ve ‹slam Birli¤i” siyasetininbir parças›d›r. Bununla birlikte, 19. yüzy›ldadaha çok devlet denetimine giren tarikatlar›n içifllerini düzenleyen ve denetimlerini mümkünk›lan Meclis-i Meflayih yeniden tasarlanm›flt›r.Bu politikan›n bir sonucu olarak, tekkelerdevletin takibine daha çok u¤ram›fl ve siyasiolarak tehlikeli görülen birtak›m fleyhler yapasifize edilmifl ya da sürgüne gönderilmifllerdir.Bu s›k› denetimin yan› s›ra tekkelere cömertçeihsan ve atiyyelerde bulunulmaktankaç›n›lmam›fl ve her f›rsatta bunlar›n desteklerial›nmaya çal›fl›lm›flt›r. ‹mparatorlu¤un dört birtaraf›nda özellikle Sünnî ekolden tarikatlarayeni tekkeler aç›larak yerel halk›n dolayl› birflekilde destekleri temin edilmeye çal›fl›lm›flt›r.

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

As a result, the relationship of the state and thetekkes in the era of Abdülhamid II was acontinuation of the well-rooted approachesbetween state and the tekke, and in a way thetekke tradition was in fact the cement of theOttoman establishment; in addition, thisrelationship was colored by the characteristics ofthe dominant sultan, as was necessary for thesocio-political era. Not only can we see that theneeds of the tarikats were met in this period, butsome of the effective and strong tarikats in theArab geography were given greater support. Thisapproach was part of the “Caliphate and IslamicUnion” policy of the period. In addition, thetarikats that came under greater state control inthe 19th century were re-designed by the Meclis-iMeflayih, which made it possible for their innerfunctions to be organized and inspected. As aresult of these policies, the tekkes were moreclosely followed by the state and some sheikhs,who were seen as a political threat, were pacifiedor exiled. However, in addition to this tightcontrol the tekkes were granted generous giftsand support was given at every opportunity. Inthe four corners of the empire new tarikats, inparticular from the Sunni branch, were openedand thus an attempt to gain their support, andindirectly, that of the local people was made.

Translation: Zainab Mahmout

|221|

T H E T E K K E S O F Y I L D I Z P A L A C E A N D T H E T A R ‹ K A TP O L I C Y I N T H E R E I G N O F A B D Ü L H A M ‹ D I I

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. AbdülhamidDönemi (1876-1909), ‹st. 2002.Eraslan, Cezmi, II. Abdülhamid ve ‹slam Birli¤i, ‹st. 1995.Hülagü, M. Metin, Sultan II. Abdülhamid’in Sürgün GünleriHususi Doktoru Hüseyin Bey’in Hat›rat›, ‹st. 2003.Kara, ‹smail, ‹slamc›lar›n Siyasi Görüflleri I Hilafet veMeflrutiyet, ‹st. 2001.

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-HudaSayyadi’nin Hayat›, Eserleri ve Tesirleri (1850-1909), M.Ü.Türkiyat Araflt›rmalar› Enstitüsü, bas›lmam›fl yüksek lisanstezi, ‹st. 2004.