6.3

 

Not only the cities in the countryside, but even Teheran, the capital city of Iran, received significant criticisms from the Ottoman diplomats or travellers. Münif Paşa wrote in his despatch to Yusuf Kamil Paşa that the buildings of Teheran was constructed simply from soil, therefore a heavy rain could destroy entire city, “even a fire-fighting squad could bring the most strong walls down to the earth.”⁷⁸⁵ For Süleyman Şükrü, except some inhabitants of Teheran, there was nothing worth of mentioning: “What makes Teheran active and demonstrates its glory is the presence of imperial dynasty, the elites and the rich people; there is no ostentatious and comfortable place worth of loving, seeing and enjoying.”⁷⁸⁶ Despite these negative characteristics and although having no resemblance to any European city, according to Süleyman Şükrü, Teheran had a “peculiar charm” (kendine mahsûs bir letâfet) particularly for those who were accustomed to the living style of the East (Şark mâişetine alışkın olan zevât). It was “the largest city in the Iranian realm and the most beautiful one among the cities in Central Asia.”⁷⁸⁷ These depictions of the city demonstrates that Süleyman Şükrü clearly distinguished between Europe and Iran, and unlike most of the Ottoman travellers, who had particularly attempted to find similarities between Oriental and European cities, he cited no such resemblance. What is more, Teheran could only be appreciated by the Easterners or those accustomed to the Eastern life-style; this was another clear-cut distinction between European and Iranian civilizations.

The countryside of Iran was under more miserable conditions. Mehmed Fazlı, who had passed along the eastern border zone between Iran and

⁷⁸⁵ “[…] bir tulumbacı bölüğü dahi en metîn surunu zîr-ü zeber edebilir.” Özgül, Münif Paşa, 284.

 

⁷⁸⁶ “Tahran’ı şetâretlendirip şerefli gösteren hânedân-ı Şâhî ile küberâ ve ağniyânın vücudları olub, şehirde sevilecek, görülecek, eğlenilecek mutantan ve müferrah yer yoktur.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 142.

 

⁷⁸⁷ “[…] Acemistan’da vakî bilâdın ekberi ve Asya-yi Vustâ’da bulunan medâinin ecmelidir.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 147.

Afghanistan, underlined the messy inns that he and his friends had stayed. In his travelogue, he compared Russia and Iran while passing the Russo-Iranian border. Despite the negative description of Russia because of its aggressive foreign policy towards the Central Asia, the Russian border garrison was appreciated as a modern and defensible post; while the Iranian border garrison was defined as a terrible ruin with a customs officer wearing rugged and shabby clothes. He and his fellow companions were forced to spend the night there, which he defined as such: “During this small journey, until here, we have not passed such a miserable night in such a miserable place.”⁷⁸⁸ In sum, Mehmed Fazlı emphasized the stark contrast between Russia and Iran in terms of the degree of modernization.

If one of the reasons for Ottoman travellers’ negative perception of Iran was the underdevelopment of this country compared to the Ottoman Empire, a more significant reason was the Sunni-Shi’i cleavage. This religious divide influenced the Ottoman perception of Iran to a significant extent and almost all the travelogues included an indirect criticism of Shi’ism. The intensification of Shi’i propaganda in the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman attempts for including Iran to a prospective Islamic alliance fostered the mutual distrust between two communities; this resulted in Ottoman travellers’ comparison between Sunni and Shi’i versions of Islam and their emphasis on the shortcomings of the latter.

Interestingly, one of such shortcomings was perceived as the lack of hygiene. Since the travellers did not directly criticize Shi’i Islam, they did so by criticizing some of its provisions. The use of water for ablution was one of them. Accordingly, the Sunni version of Islam is more inclined to use flowing water for ablution, while the Shi’i version generally advises to use ditch water, in other words, they practice ablution from pools. However, the dirtiness of such pools was a significant matter of criticism for the Ottoman travellers. For example, Süleyman Şükrü went to a bath in Teheran after a long and exhausting voyage; however, after seeing the messy pool in which people were cleaning he did not enter into the pool and ordered fresh water for his own bathing. He argued that

⁷⁸⁸ “Bütün şu küçük seyahâtimizde buraya kadar, böyle sefil bir yer, böyle sefil bir gece geçirmemiştik.” Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 30.

such a practice of cleaning within a pool was a Shi’i tradition and he pitied the Iranians and demanded the God not to give such a miserable life even to his enemies.⁷⁸⁹ Similarly, in the Kazimeyn mosque in Iraq, Mehmed Hurşid saw a similar pool for ablution. He wrote:

They have a pool called Havz-ı Kür. They wash the meats and other ingredients of their food in the pool, they practice ablution, and they filled their ewers which they use in toilets from the pool. They do many other things which are obscene to be mentioned here. Since the water of the aforementioned pool is stagnant, there emerge a very disgusting smell difficult to define, and the respect and obedience of the Iranians towards good manners is evident with this [practice].⁷⁹⁰

 

In sum, the lack of hygiene was tied to the Shi’i tradition in Iran; this also means that the Ottoman travellers perceived themselves and their Sunni sect as superior to the Iranians and the Shi’i sect by degrading the latter through criticizing their disinclination to cleanliness.

A second shortcoming of Shi’i tradition was the bigotry (taassup) of its adherents. Accordingly, the travellers perceived Shi’ism as an impediment in front of modernization. Although this was not directly mentioned in the travelogues, from some of the descriptions of Iranians and their habits, such a perception could be derived. For example, while criticizing the indolence of Iranians to the recent technological developments, Süleyman Şükrü wrote as such:

I have no doubt that the Iranians, who could not abandon the rules of previous ages, […] are totally devoid of wealth and happiness. To stay indifferent to all the progress of the developments of current times does never befit to a clever nation like Iranians.⁷⁹¹

⁷⁸⁹ “Bu diyar sekenesinin şu suretle geçirdikleri zillet hayatı Allah düşmanıma da nasip etmesin.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 139.

 

⁷⁹⁰ “Havz-ı Kür ta’bîr olunur bir havuzları olup ta’amda pişecek luhûmât ve sâireyi derûnuna daldırıp çıkarırlar ve derûnunda abdest alırlar ve ayak yolunda istimâl eyledikleri ibrikleri sokup doldururlar. Daha nice zikri müstehcen işler işlerler. Havz-ı mezbûrun suyu râkid olduğundan tariften hâriç bir mertebede pis çirkin râyiha peydâ etmekle A’câm’ın terbiye olan hürmet ve riayetleri bununla ızâ’a olduğu bî-iştibâhtır.” Mehmed Hurşid, Seyahâtnâme-i Hudud, 57-58.

 

⁷⁹¹ “Kurûn-u evvelân kavâidini terk edemeyen Đranîlerin şu hallerini görünce, […] refah ve saâdetten bilkülliye mahrûm olduklarına şüphem kalmadı. Asr-ı hâzıranın her türlü terakkiyâtına karşı bîgâne durmak Đranîler gibi zekî bir kavme asla yakışmıyor.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 136.

Similarly, in criticizing the Iranian government, Süleyman Şükrü argued that the government reversed their “step to progress” (hatve-i terakkî) to the past and wrote that “the reason for the long sleep of this government as Ashâb-ı Kehf was the bigotry of its subjects.”⁷⁹² He compared the characteristics of Iranians with other nations as well: “The selfishness of Iranians is more than the English, their bigotry is more than the Spanish, their roguery is more than the Greeks, [and] their opium-addiction is more than the Chinese.”⁷⁹³ In sum, although Süleyman Şükrü bitterly criticized several practices of Iranians, indeed he perceived this nation as a clever one. The problem was, therefore, was not their lack of capacity to overcome these deficiencies, but the religious bigotry that prevented them to abandon the traditions impeding their modernization.

Mehmed Fazlı’s description of his experiences in Meshed in the Shi’i holy shrines also demonstrated the Ottoman criticism of Iranian maltreatment in these places, sacred not only for the Shi’i community but also for the Sunnis. In one occasion, he and his fellow companions were forced to give money to the keepers of the Imam Reza Mosque in order to be able to visit these monuments. Mehmed Fazlı found this practice quite odd, since they visited these places only for religious purposes. The exploitation of the religious sentiments of people was bitterly criticized in his travelogue.⁷⁹⁴

Mehmed Fazlı also underlined that the bigotry of Iranians did not only target the Sunnis but also non-Muslim communities. Accordingly, in the marketplace of Meshed, there was a chain beyond which non-Muslims were not allowed to pass. Mehmed Fazlı and his companions passed beyond the chain; however, due to their modern dresses, local people thought that they were

⁷⁹² “Şu hükümetin ashâb-ı Kehf gibi nevm-i medîde dalmasındaki hikmet tebâsının taassubudur.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 144. Âshab-ı Kehf was a group composed of seven persons and their dog, who had escaped from the persecution of the Romans because of their monotheistic belief. They hide into a cave where they had slept for centuries. Süleyman Şükrü referred to that Quranic tale in his description of the Iranian government.

 

⁷⁹³ “Đranlıların hodbîinlikleri Đngilizlere, taassubları Đspanyollara, belâperdazlıkları Yunanlılara, tiryak-keşlikleri Çinlilere […] rahmet okutuyor.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 144

 

⁷⁹⁴ Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 34-35.

Christians, and they attempted to attack them. The company could only survive the incident after they had convinced the attackers that they were Muslims. Mehmed Fazlı wrote in his travelogue that, the Iranian notable hosting them in Meshed warned them as such: “You should not go outside! The people are savage.”⁷⁹⁵ In other words, by citing the Iranian notable, indeed, Mehmed Fazlı aimed to demonstrate what the Iranian bigotry might mean.

All in all, the Ottoman travellers’ perception of Iran was extremely negative, almost more than any other region in the non-European world. Indeed, the reason for this pejorative outlook was not that Iran was extremely backward as they had depicted; however, the political problems with that particular state contributed to the emergence of a negative public opinion about Iran, from which the travellers were also influenced. What is more, the inherent Sunni reaction to Shi’ism consolidated the negative perception of Iran. In sum, the inferior status attached to the Iran and Iranians was not a result of Orientalist conceptions, but a result of political and cultural divergences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

⁷⁹⁵ “Burada sokağa çıkılmaz! Ahali vahşidir.” Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 38.

CHAPTER 12

 

 

THE OTTOMAN PERCEPTION OF THE CENTRAL ASIA

 

 

12.1.       Ottoman Relations with the Central Asia

Ottoman relations with the Central Asian states and peoples can be traced back to the sixteenth century, when the Safavid threat forced the Sunni Uzbeks to seek an alliance with the archrival of the Safavids, the Ottoman Empire.⁷⁹⁶ Accordingly, the Uzbek Khans of Bukhara sent emissaries to the Porte in 1566 and 1588, and offered a mutual attack from the western and north-eastern frontiers of Persia.⁷⁹⁷ The first offer was not welcomed because of the Ottoman- Iranian peace emerged after the Treaty of Amasya (1555). However, the second offer, including the partition of Persia between the Ottoman Empire and the Khanate of Bukhara, came when the Ottoman-Safavid Wars of 1578-1590 was at its climax.⁷⁹⁸ Therefore, the Ottomans considered this offer; however, before its materialization, the war had ended, and the Ottomans declined further Uzbek demands of partition, which continued until the end of the sixteenth century.

 

⁷⁹⁶ Safavid Shah Ismail defeated the Uzbeks in 1510 and occupied Khorasan and Khwarizm. However; the Uzbeks were able to extend their authority over Transoxus region and reoccupied Khwarizm. From then on, there emerged an Uzbek-Safavid rivalry over Khorasan. Under the ambitious ruler of Bukhara, Abdullah Khan, the Uzbeks later captured Merv, Andhud, Shibirgan, Balkh, Samarkand and Tashkent between 1567 and 1579. This intensified Uzbek-Safavid conflict, which also coincided with the 1578-1590 Ottoman-Safavid Wars. Therefore, this war was the period, when the Ottoman-Uzbek relations reached a zenith. Abdullah Gündoğdu, “Türkistan’da Osmanlı-Đran Rekabeti,” in Eren (ed.), Osmanlı, Vol. 1, 581-587, 581-584. For a brief account of the Uzbek state and its relations with its Central Asian neighbours, also see Peter

L. Roudik, The History of Central Asian Republics, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007), 52- 57 and René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, translated by Naomi Walford, Eighth Edition, (Chapel Hill, NC: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 481-486.

 

⁷⁹⁷ Mehmet Saray, Rus Đşgali Devrinde Osmanlı Devleti ile Türkistan Hanlıkları Arasındaki Siyasi Münasebetler (1775-1875), (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1994), 6-7.

 

⁷⁹⁸ During the 1578-1590 wars, several Uzbek emissaries came to the Porte; these delegations were responded in 1586, when the Porte sent Piyale Paşa to Abdullah Khan in order for negotiating a prospective military alliance. Gündoğdu, “Türkistan’da Osmanlı-Đran Rekabeti,” 583.

Another significant development that directed the Ottoman attention to the Central Asia in the second half of the sixteenth century was the Russian southward expansion towards Caucasia. The Russian occupation of Kazan in 1552 and, more importantly, the conquest of the territories of the Khanate of Astrakhan in 1556 concerned the Ottomans about the security of trade and pilgrimage routes from the Central Asia to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman initiatives to establish a naval base in Caspian Sea, known as Bahr-i Kulzum Kapudanlığı and the project of establishing a canal connecting the Don and Volga rivers (therefore, linking the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea) in the late sixteenth century reflected this concern, although both projects could not be materialized.⁷⁹⁹

The internal disturbances and the external threats diverted the attention of the Ottoman Empire from the Central Asia in the seventeenth century. However, still, the Central Asian states, such as the Amirate of Bukhara or the Khanate of Khive,⁸⁰⁰ or tribal political entities such as the ones established by Kalmyk or Kyrgyz people demanded Ottoman mediation to solve their internal problems. The Ottomans generally responded positively to these demands of mediation. For example, in 1647, the son of the Amir of Bukhara rebelled against his father and both sides demanded Ottoman mediation. The then Ottoman Sultan Đbrahim (r. 1640-1648) resolved the issue through advising the former to stop his rebellion against his father and the latter to forgive his son.⁸⁰¹ Similarly, in 1690, the Khan

⁷⁹⁹ Gündoğdu, “Türkistan’da Osmanlı-Đran Rekabeti,” 582.

 

⁸⁰⁰ From the sixteenth century onwards, the Central Asia was very much dominated by three states, being the Uzbek Khanate, the Amirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khive. The Amirate of Bukhara was established in 1500 and controlled western parts of Central Asia, while the Khanate of Khive established in 1512 mainly controlled the eastern parts. These khanates lived their golden age in the mid-seventeenth century, after which internal disturbances and external threats, such as the Russians and the Persians, weakened them. The third significant state of Central Asia, namely the Khanate of Kokand was established in 1710 after the weakening of the Amirate of Bukhara on the Fergana Valley. For the political, economic and socio-cultural structures of these Central Asian states, see Roudik, The History of Central Asian Republics, 57- 62; Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 177- 194.

 

⁸⁰¹ Mehmet Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan: Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Printing House, 2003), 196.

of Kalmuks, Ayuka (1669-1724), sent an envoy to the Porte declaring that he had recognized the Ottoman sovereignty. The reason for this recognition was that the acceptance of his allegiance by the Caliph would serve as a source of legitimization of Ayuka’s political authority and increased his prestige among his rivals. The then Ottoman Sultan, Suleiman II (r. 1687-1691), accepted the allegiance of Ayuka Khan and advised him to get along well with the neighbouring countries.⁸⁰²

The activities of two external powers, namely Qajar Persia and Russia, which had been threatening both the Ottoman Empire and the Central Asian states, resulted in the intensification of the correspondence between these two in the second half of the eighteenth century. Ottoman-Qajar wars were relatively shorter and resolved quickly before 1750s, when Nader Shah directed its attention to the East, namely to the Central Asia and Afghanistan. Therefore, when Muhammed Bahadır Khan (r. 1742-1747) of Khive and Ahmed Shah Durrani (r. 1747-1773) of Afghanistan demanded the support of the Ottoman Empire in their quest against Nader Shah, the Ottoman Sultans, which wanted to maintain peaceful relations with Iran, advised them to abandon their aggressive stance against Nader Shah and to develop good relations with him.⁸⁰³

When the Russian threat against the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith in the second half of the eighteenth century with the Ottoman-Russian War of 1768-1774 and the Russian annexation of Crimea in 1783, this time, the Ottoman Empire contacted the Central Asian states and demanded their support in the Ottoman quest against Russia. Within this context, Abdülhamid I (r. 1774-1789) sent Alemdar Mehmed Seyyid Ağa to the Amirate of Bukhara in order to arouse the Central Asian Muslims against Russia. In his letter to the Amir of Bukhara, Abdülhamid I demanded him to send sheikhs, dervishes and members of ulama to the Central Asian Muslims in order to get their support to the Ottoman Empire. The responding letter of the Amir indicated that he accepted the

⁸⁰² Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 197.

 

⁸⁰³ Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 200-201.

Ottoman demands; however, no significant result had emerged out of this correspondence.⁸⁰⁴ Meanwhile, another Ottoman delegation, headed by Ferah Ali Paşa, was sent to Caucasia in 1780 in order to obtain the allegiance of the Circassian tribes in the region. This delegation contributed to the Islamization of the Circassians and their support of the Ottomans during the Ottoman-Russian War of 1787-1792.⁸⁰⁵

Another significant issue in the second half of the eighteenth century, which would later resulted in the intensification of Ottoman interest in the Central Asia, was the Chinese invasion of East Turkistan between 1755 and 1764 and the establishment of Chinese administration over the region.⁸⁰⁶ In order to provide total subservience of the Muslims of East Turkistan, China had established a strict administration, which triggered Muslim resistance movements in the first decades of the nineteenth century.⁸⁰⁷ What is more, Chinese Muslims found a significant ally in this period, the Khanate of Kokand, which was one of the strongest states of Central Asia in the early nineteenth century. The Khans of Kokand had been persuaded by the Khojas, the former rulers of East Turkistan deposed by the Chinese, about reclaiming the region in order to preserve their lucrative trade relations. In 1826, the Khan of Kokand sent Jahangir Khoja with the troops of Kokand to capture East Turkistan.

⁸⁰⁴ Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 203-209.

 

⁸⁰⁵ Mustafa Budak, “Kafkasya ve Osmanlı Devleti (XVI-XX. Yüzyıllar),” in Eren (ed.), Osmanlı, Vol. 1, 594-612, 598.

 

⁸⁰⁶ After the Mongol rule in the Central Asia under Genghis Khan, his descendents and Timurids, in the sixteenth century, the rule of Khojas, the so-claimed descendents of Prophet Muhammed and masters of Naqshbandi order, in East Turkistan had been established. The rule of Khojas brought peace and stability to the region for most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; however, the rivalry among Khojas and the Kalmuk incursions to the region weakened their rule and this facilitated the Chinese invasion of East Turkistan. For a brief account of Khojas and their influence in East Turkistan, see James A. Millward, Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 83-88.

 

⁸⁰⁷ Particularly, the rebellion of Ziyaeddin Akhund Khoja between 1816 and 1826 aroused the Muslims of East Turkistan to resist against the Chinese rule. See Baymirza Hamit, Türkistan Devletlerinin Milli Mücadele Tarihi, translated by Abdülkadir Sadak, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995), 138-139. In this period of invasion, the Chinese named East Turkistan as Xinjiang (The New Frontier) and from then on a contentious debate has been started about naming the region. See Millward, Eurasian Crossroads, 97.

Initially, Jahangir was able to force the Chinese to retreat; however, after his victory, he cooled his relations with the Khan of Kokand, which resulted in the retreat of Kokand troops from East Turkistan and subsequent Chinese invasion in 1827.⁸⁰⁸ In 1830, The Khan of Kokand attacked China once more and captured East Turkistan for a while. From this period until 1864, the region had experienced the fierce rivalry of the Chinese, the Khanate of Kokand and the Khojas. Finally, in 1864, the Khan of Kokand and Buzurg Khoja, the son of Jahangir, had come to terms about the ruling of East Turkistan. A Kokand army headed by Yakub Bey was able to capture the region from the Chinese and install Buzurg Khoja as the ruler of East Turkistan. However, Yakub Bey was the de facto ruler of the country, and declared the independence of East Turkistan in 1867.⁸⁰⁹

While the Chinese were the most significant threat for the East Turkistan, for the rest of Central Asia, it was the Russians. Starting from the late 1840s, the three Khanates of Central Asia, namely, Bukhara, Khive and Kokand, began to inform the Porte about the Russian threat and demanded the Ottoman support. However, the Empire had already been busy for consolidating internal reform processes and balancing the interests of the European powers. Therefore, these demands could not be replied positively.⁸¹⁰ Having been disappointed by the polite refusal of the Ottoman Empire, the Khanates turned their attention to Great Britain and sent envoys to the British governor of India. Indeed, Great Britain had already been concerned about the Russian desire to establish control over Central Asia; however, the British foreign policy focused on the establishment of Afghanistan as a buffer state between Russia and British India and the protection

 

⁸⁰⁸ Millward, Eurasian Crossroads, 111-112. For a detailed account of Jahangir Khoja’s attacks on China and his relations with the Khans of Kokand, see L. J. Newby, The Empire and the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations with Khoqand, c. 1760-1860, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), 95-123.

 

⁸⁰⁹ Hamit, Türkistan Devletlerinin Milli Mücadele Tarihi, 140-145 and Millward, Eurasian Crossroads, 116-123.

 

⁸¹⁰ Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 214-215.

of British commercial interests in the region. Therefore, the British could not also respond the demands of the Khanates positively.⁸¹¹

The long-planned Russian military campaign towards Central Asia had started in 1864, when desperate calls from the Khanates reached the Porte. Already weakened by internal disturbances and rivalries among themselves, the Khanates fell one after another. In 1873, the Khive and Bukhara had been defeated and accepted Russian sovereignty; they would endure their existence until 1920 as semi-autonomous political entities. Three years later, Kokand was occupied by the Russians, and unlike the other two Khanates, it was directly transformed into the Russian province of Fergana. In sum, in the ten years between 1864 and 1873, Western Turkistan fell under Russian domination.⁸¹²

Russian advance was not limited to the Central Asia; Caucasia was under the Russian threat as well. Since some parts of this region were controlled by the Ottoman Empire, the Russian threat in Caucasia was more intimidating for the Ottomans, compared to the Central Asia. From the early eighteenth century onwards Russia from the north and Persia from the south pressed towards Caucasia. However, the decisive assaults began in the late eighteenth century, particularly after the Ottoman defeat in the Ottoman Russian War of 1778-1774. Russians began to move southwards and occupy some parts of Caucasia; as a reaction to Russian invasion, the religious orders, which had consolidated themselves during the eighteenth century, began to arouse Muslims against the Russians. Particularly, the resistance of Sheikh Mansur from 1785 onwards

 

 

⁸¹¹ Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 216-217.

 

⁸¹² For the occupation of Central Asian Khanates and establishment of Russian direct or indirect rule in the region, see Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, 195-208; Francis Henry Skrine and Edward Denison Ross, The Heart of Asia: A History of Russian Turkestan and the Central Asian Khanates from the Earliest Times, (London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2005), 163-168. For a detailed account of Russian rule in Bukhara and Khive, see Seymour Becker, Russia’s Protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865–1924, (London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2004). For a detailed account of the establishment of Russian administration in Central Asia, see Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, “From the Russian Capture of Tashkent to Full Sovietization, 1865-1966,” in Edward Allworth, Central Asia: 130 Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1994), 131 ff.

contributed to a wider resistance movement approximately half a century later.⁸¹³ Subsequent Ottoman-Russian Wars between 1788 and 1792, 1806 and 1812, and 1827 and 1828, resulted in further losses of the Ottoman territories in the region; meanwhile, the Russians continuously defeated the Persians and occupied most of the Eastern and Southern Caucasia between 1813 and 1828. In sum, from 1830s onwards, Russian control of Caucasia was very much consolidated. However, this control was not free from problems; particularly the resistance movement of Sheikh Shamil (1797-1871) prevented the Russians from administering the region properly.⁸¹⁴

The Ottoman governments followed the resistance of Sheikh Shamil closely. Especially during the Crimean War, the Ottomans contacted him and offered a mutual offensive against the Russians. Although these plans could not be materialized, Sheikh Shamil was granted with the title of “Grand Commander of Dagestan” by the then Ottoman Sultan, Abdülmecid, in 1854.⁸¹⁵

The Russian invasion of Caucasia resulted in a massive influx of Caucasian people into the Ottoman Empire. Especially during and after the Ottoman-Russian War between 1877 and 1878, thousands of Caucasians migrated to the Empire and the settlement of these migrants became a significant financial and social problem for the Ottoman governments. This war indicated the total collapse of the Ottoman rule in Caucasia; however, Ottoman contacts with local Muslim leaders continued until the end of the First World War.

East Turkistan faced a similar fate a little later. The independent East Turkistan state under Yakub Bey was able to maintain its existence against Chinese pressure until 1877, thanks to the British and Ottoman diplomatic and

⁸¹³ For the resistance movement of Sheikh Mansur, see Charles King, The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 66-67.

 

⁸¹⁴ For a brief account of Sheikh Shamil’s resistance movement, see King, The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus, 77-91; for the implications of religious orders in Caucasian resistance movements, see Michael Kemper, “Khālidiyya Networks in Daghestan and the Question of Jihād,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2002): 41-71 and Moshe Gammer, “The Beginnings of the Naqshbandiyya in Dāghestān and the Russian Conquest of the Caucasus,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Nov., 1994): 204-217.

 

⁸¹⁵ Budak, “Kafkasya ve Osmanlı Devleti (XVI-XX. Yüzyıllar),” 604.

military support as well as internal problems of China.⁸¹⁶ Accordingly, Yakub Bey sent two missions, one to the Ottoman Empire and the other to the British governor of India. The mission to the Porte arrived in 1872 demanding the Sultan/Caliph’s recognition of Yakub Bey’s authority over East Turkistan and military support against Russian and Chinese pressures. Unlike the Ottoman response to the demands of other Khanates, Abdülaziz, who had already concerned about Russian advance in the West Turkistan, decided to respond positively to the demands of Yakub Bey. On the one hand, he accepted Yakub Bey’s allegiance to himself as the Caliph and recognized him as Amir of East Turkistan; on the other hand, he sent arms and ammunition together with military personnel.⁸¹⁷ The Ottoman delegation reached Kasghar almost at the same time with the British delegation, which aimed to increase British commercial relations with East Turkistan. Yakub Bey signed a commercial treaty with the British in 1874 and a Central Asian Trading Company was established in the same year.⁸¹⁸ Another significant diplomatic success of Yakub Bey was to ensure Russian neutrality in the conflict between East Turkistan and China; this neutrality was because of the Russian focus on Western Turkistan and their concern about the relations between Yakub Bey and the British. However, all these efforts, Ottoman military and British commercial support as well as Russian neutrality, could not prevent the demise of this short-lived state of East Turkistan. In 1876, the Chinese full-scale attack began and Yakub Bey died. One year later, Chinese forces occupied Kasghar and ended the independence of East Turkistan.

In sum, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, most of the Central Asian region was controlled by either the Russians or the Chinese. The only relatively independent state remained in the region was Afghanistan. Indeed, from the 1830s onwards, Afghanistan was perceived by the British as a vitally important state, since it would act as a buffer between Russia and British India.

⁸¹⁶ For a brief account of Ottoman and British support to Yakub Khan, Millward, Eurasian Crossroads, 123.

 

⁸¹⁷ Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 161.

 

⁸¹⁸ Saray, The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan, 152.

From 1836 onwards, they contacted with the Afghan ruler Dost Muhammed Khan (r. 1826-1839 and 1842-1863); however, they found his main contestant, Shah Shuja (r. 1803-1809), a more reliable partner. The British intervention in Afghanistan to install Shah Shuja as the Afghan ruler resulted in the First Anglo- Afghan War between 1839 and 1842. This was a futile conflict, since the British retreated after a change of government in London demanding immediate end of British attack and since Dost Muhammed Khan preserved its position after the war.⁸¹⁹ This conflictual relationship soon turned out to be a friendship between 1869 and 1872 under the administration of Shir Ali Khan, because the British were concerning about the Russian southward expansion. However, when Russia occupied Bukhara and Khive and approached the Afghan border, the British governor of India failed to respond Shir Ali Khan’s demand of support against the Russians. This alienated Shir Ali Khan from the British. In order to re- establish friendly relations, in 1876, the British demanded the Ottoman Empire to send an envoy to Shir Ali Khan and to persuade him to change his anti-British attitude. Indeed, Abdülhamid II also found sending an envoy to Afghanistan beneficial in order to get Afghans’ support to the Ottoman Empire in a prospective Ottoman-Russian War. However, the Ottoman mission to Kabul headed by Ahmed Hulusi Efendi failed to convince Shir Ali Khan, whose deep distrust to the British even prevented the Afghan support to the Ottoman Empire.⁸²⁰

In 1878, Shir Ali Khan had to welcome an uninvited diplomatic envoy from Russia. Feared from a Russian-Afghan alliance, the British governor of India sent a delegation to Kabul; however, Shir Ali Khan refused this delegation. This refusal triggered the Second Anglo-Afghan War, as a result of which Shir Ali Khan was deposed and his nephew Abdurrahman Khan (r. 1880-1901) was

 

 

⁸¹⁹ Meredith L. Runion, The History of Afghanistan, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007), 76- 79.

 

⁸²⁰ Mehmet Saray, Afganistan ve Türkler, (Đstanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1987), 56-61.

installed as the King of Afghanistan in 1880.⁸²¹ From then on, the British sought for negotiating with the Russians about Central Asia and after years of diplomatic initiatives, in 1907, an Anglo-Russian Treaty was signed, with which the Russians declared that Afghanistan would no longer be a Russian sphere of influence and the British declared that they would not occupy any part of Afghanistan.⁸²²

Meanwhile, Afghanistan was modernized under the rule of Abdurrahman Khan and his son Habibullah Khan (r. 1901-1919). The local rebellions were suppressed, a central administration was tried to be established, the tribal resistance was removed to a great extent, a central army was established and economy and regional trade as well as sanitation and education was tried to be improved.⁸²³ In this modernization process, Mahmud Tarzi (1865-1933), a Pashtun-Afghan intellectual and nationalist had a significant place. Accordingly, he invited experts in various fields from the Islamic world, and particularly contacted with the Ottoman soldiers, especially with the ones escaping from Hamidian pressure, to train Afghan army.⁸²⁴ In the post-Hamidian era, particularly during the First World War, the Ottoman governments tried to establish stronger contacts with the Afghans for their quest against the Russians. In 1915, when the Ottoman Sultan declared jihad, an Ottoman-German delegation was sent to Kabul in order to invite the Afghans to this holy war. Habibullah Khan welcomed the envoy and declared that he could act against the British in case a joint Ottoman-German army would be sent to Afghanistan.⁸²⁵

⁸²¹ Runion, The History of Afghanistan, 80-81.

 

⁸²² For a detailed account of 1907 Anglo-Russian Treaty, see Louis Dupree, Afghanistan, Third Edition, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 433; Vartan Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan: Politics of Reform and Modernization, 1880-1946, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969) 117.

 

⁸²³ For a detailed account of Afghan modernization under Abdurrahman and Habibullah Khan, see Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, 129-201.

 

⁸²⁴ For the role of Mahmud Tarzi in the Afghan modernization see Dupree, Afghanistan, pp. 438-

440. Mehmed Fazlı, the author of one of the travelogues mentioned in this dissertation, was among such military experts invited by Mahmud Tarzi.

 

⁸²⁵ Mehmet Saray, Afganistan ve Türkler, 88-89.

Since this project could not be materialized, Afghan support to the Ottoman quest for jihad could not be ensured.

Afghanistan was not the only target of the Ottoman governments during the First World War; they tried to ignite a general Turkish rebellion in Central Asia as well. Some agents of the Special Organization (Teşkîlât-ı Mahsûsa) were sent to the Central Asia to organize the local Turkish communities and to inflict a rebellion against Russia. They had participated and sometimes led the resistance movements, the most significant of which was the Great 1916 Rebellion.⁸²⁶ This rebellion reflected the Central Asian reaction to the Russian colonization as well as the increasing pressure over the nomadic people of the region under the war conditions. As Hélène Carrère d’Encausse mentions, “the excessive exploitation of the local population through taxes and forced labour” contributed to the Central Asian discontent of Russian administration.⁸²⁷ The rebellion continued until the end of the Tsarist regime and could only be suppressed totally in the 1920s after the establishment of the Soviet rule in Central Asia.

If external penetration either by Western colonial powers or China was one of the most significant characteristics of the late nineteenth century Central Asia, another significant aspect was the consolidation of the idea of modernization. Particularly, towards the late nineteenth century, an intellectual movement called Jadidism influenced not only the Russian and Central Asian Muslims, but also the Ottoman intellectuals thanks to the intimate connection between them and the major promulgators of this movement. Indeed, Jadidism emerged as an educational modernization movement in the 1880s, particularly with the writings of a Muslim intellectual living in Bakhchisaray, Crimea, Đsmail Gaspıralı (1851-1914). He tried to disseminate his ideas with regard to the modernization of education in his newspaper, Tercüman, published between

⁸²⁶ Adil Hikmet Bey and his fellow companions were among these agents. His travelogue narrated the rebellion in detail.

 

⁸²⁷ Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, “The Fall of the Tsarist Empire,” in Allworth (ed.), Central Asia: 130 Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, 208-209.

1883 and 1918. Accordingly, Gaspıralı argued that the major reason for the backwardness of the Muslim community and the colonial rule over the territories populated by the Muslims was ignorance emerged out of the lack of proper education. Therefore, instead of the traditional education, which had neglected positive sciences, modern pedagogical structures of the Western world should be adapted by the Muslim community.⁸²⁸ This initially educational movement soon turned out to be political debate between the old and new structures; the Jadidists began to enlarge the scope of their ideas of modernization to the other fields of social life. In 1910s, the debate between Jadidists and Kadimists (those arguing for the preservation of the traditional educational system) was intensified. The former accused the latter for bigotry, while the latter accused the former with blasphemy.⁸²⁹ Meanwhile the Jadidist movement spread towards the Central Asia with the opening of modern schools in the region from 1901 onwards.⁸³⁰ Some students were sent to the Ottoman Empire in the post-Hamidian era; they adopted the nationalist ideology of CUP and when they returned to the Central Asia, inspired from the Young Turks, they labelled themselves as the Young Bukharans (Yaş Buharalılar).⁸³¹

All in all, the Ottoman relations with the Central Asia continued until, and even intensified in, the last years of the Empire. The common ethnic identity, which had been emphasized in the post-Hamidian period contributed to these relations. However, still, the Central Asian connection remained limited and except for several diplomatic and clandestine missions, the Ottomans were not interested in the affairs of this region as much as they wanted. These missions were particularly important for attracting the Ottoman attention to the

⁸²⁸ Ingeborg Baldauf, Jadidism in Central Asia within Reformism and Modernism in the Muslim World, Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Mar., 2001): 72-88, 73.

 

⁸²⁹ Ahat Andican, Cedidizm’den Bağımsızlığa Hariçte Türkistan Mücadelesi, (Đstanbul: Emre Yayınları, 2005), 25.

 

⁸³⁰ For a detailed account of the spread of Jadidism in Central Asia, see Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia, (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1998)

 

⁸³¹ Andican, Cedidizm’den Bağımsızlığa Hariçte Türkistan Mücadelesi, 29.

Central Asian Turks. The Central Asia connection was very much abandoned with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and the consolidation of Soviet rule in the region during the 1920s.

 

12.2.      Ottoman Traveller’s Perception of the Central Asia in the Nineteenth Century

 

12.2.1.               Turkish Identity and the Central Asia

One of the most significant differences between the Ottoman perception of the Central Asia and other parts of the non-European world was the sense of Turkishness strongly felt in this particular region. The Ottoman travellers visiting Arab provinces of the Empire felt themselves comfortable in these remote regions because they were part of the Ottoman Empire. They felt comfortable in South and East Asia because they were in the territories having a similar Eastern identity despite significant differences. However, in the Central Asia, they felt themselves more comfortable because they were in the Turkish lands, in other words, their ancestral fatherland. Of course, most of the travellers visiting the region were Turkists and they came to Central Asia on the eve of or during the First World War, when the nationalist conceptions were at their zenith. However, still, there was an earlier example, in other words, the travelogue of Mehmed Emin Efendi, published in 1880s, in which such national sentiments were evident as well. This demonstrates that Central Asia had been important for the travellers not only for the Muslim identity of its inhabitants, but also for their Turkish identity.

For the Ottoman travellers, it was enough to feel positively for a city or a region having some kind of a relationship with Turkishness, although these territories might not necessarily be within the Central Asian “fatherland.” For example regarding Odessa, Habibzade Ahmed Kemal wrote much positively compared to other Russian cities, because he perceived this city as a former Turkish land (eski Türk vatanı).⁸³² Similarly, although the Russian countryside

⁸³² Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 17

was narrated quite pejoratively, the Turkish villages in Russian territories, which appeared frequently when the travellers were approaching Central Asia, were extremely praised. For example, while Habibzade described the Russian villages as “owl nest” (baykuş yuvası),⁸³³ he wrote that when his train approached Russian Turkistan, even the climate became milder since they were approaching to the “heaven-like soil of Turkistan” (cennet-misal Türkistan toprağı).⁸³⁴

The excitement emerged out of approaching the “Turkish fatherland” was sometimes declared in the case of “Muslim” villages. In other words, some travellers emphasized the Islamic nature of the region more with regard to its Turkish identity. For example, Mehmed Fazlı wrote about Caucasia as such:

The panorama of small Circassian villages scattered in the edges of this cruel and bigoted country thorough modesty and a pretty poetic scene with nice small mosques and minarets revived joy and comfort in our angry souls; it caressed our Islamic feelings.⁸³⁵

 

Since even its adjacent territories aroused the travellers, it was not surprising that the Central Asia itself excited them the most. They sacralized this region as their ancestral fatherland and declared their sentiments quite vividly. For example, regarding East Turkistan, Adil Hikmet Bey wrote as such:

Here is Turkistan, which I had dreamed for years, and here are the Turks of this holy region… Finally, I was in it. These places would be a sphere of action for us. We would do everything around here and with these people. This place is the home of our ancestors. I found the faces of the people whom I saw very nice. Indeed, none of them were grumpy. Every face was smiling.⁸³⁶

 

 

 

⁸³³ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 19.

 

⁸³⁴ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 20.

 

⁸³⁵ “[…G]üzel mescitler ve minareciklerle bir tevazû ve şi’r-i latîf içinde, bu müstebît ve mutaassıp memleketin kenarlarında, şurasında burasındaki küçük Çerkes köylerinin manzarası bizim rûh-u mahrûrumuzda bir ferâh-u neşât ihyâ etti; hissiyât-ı Đslâmiyemizi okşadı.” Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahati, 20.

 

⁸³⁶ “Đşte benim senelerden beri hayalimde yaşattığım Türkistan ve işte o mübarek kıtanın Türkleri… Artık onun içinde bulunuyordum. Buraları bize bir faaliyet sahnesi olacaktı. Bütün işlerimizi bunlarla ve bu civarda görecektik. Buraları cedlerimizin yurdu idi. Gördüğüm halkın çehrelerini çok sevimli buluyordum. Esasen onların hiçbirisi abus değildi. Her simada bir beşâşet görülüyordu.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, p. 106.

Similarly, Mehmed Fazlı narrated his voyage from Krasnavodsk to Merv in a way to underline the moral significance of this region:

While the train was passing through these holy lands, which are our homelands, the black tent-shaped Turcoman barracks on plain fields triggered our deep national feelings. We also felt sorrow for the sufferings of these

blessed and noble lands in the hands of a cruel government like Russia…837

 

From these excerpts, it can be inferred that the travellers utilized strong adjectives, such as “holy” (mübarek) to denote the sacredness of this region for themselves. In other words, besides the holy sites of Islam, these regions were also given a sacred status not because of their Islamic nature, but because of their Turkishness. What is more, most of the travellers tended to disregard the negativities in the Turkish cities; they did not mention the dirtiness and disorderliness unlike their narration of much of the non-European world. Rather, they tried to bring the positive qualities of these cities to the forefront. For example, regarding the town of Yenihisar in East Turkistan, Adil Hikmet Bey wrote that he felt himself as if he was in an Anatolian town; unlike his pejorative account and backwardness of Russian or British dominated parts of Central Asia, he wrote that everyone seemed prosperous and happy.⁸³⁸ Similarly, Mehmed Fazlı resembled the market place of Merv to its counterparts in Anatolia and emphasized this resemblance, although he briefly touched upon the depravity of modern buildings in this city. ⁸³⁹ Although he described Herat as an old city with small buildings and narrow streets, he did not complain about this as he did, for example, for Meshed. He rather underlined the hospitality of the Afghan officials.⁸⁴⁰ Similarly, unlike his fierce criticism of the inns and caravanserais of

 

⁸³⁷ “Tren anayurdumuz olan bu mukaddes yerleri geçerken, siyah çadır şeklinde vasî ovalarda Türkmen kulübeleri hissiyât-ı âmika-yı milliyemizi tehzîz ederek bu mübârek ve azîm yerlerin Rusya gibi bir hükümet-i müstebîde muzdarîp ve mukahhûr kalmasına elemler çekiyorduk.” Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahati, 24.

 

⁸³⁸ Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 106.

 

⁸³⁹ Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahati, 25.

 

⁸⁴⁰ Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahati, 44-46.

Iran, although physical conditions did not change much in Afghanistan, he labelled the Afghan caravanserais (as comfortable facilities for the travellers.⁸⁴¹

All in all, Central Asia was perceived quite differently by the Ottoman travellers compared to their accounts regarding the other parts of the non- European world and the main reason for this difference was the nationalist sentiments felt towards this particular region. They sacralised the region as their ancestral homeland and thus neglected the negativities they had encountered. Such tolerance was not the case in their writings about the rest of the non- European world.

 

12.2.2.The Perception of the Central Asian People and Civilization Likewise the territories and cities, the peoples of Central Asia were also

narrated quite positively. To give an idea about this degree of positivity, it can be said that the travellers even found some fundamental aspects of Central Asian societies as superior to the Ottoman ones. For example, Mehmed Emin defined that in Turkistan the people were living a “pure and clean life” (hayat-ı saf, hayat-ı pak), thus he indirectly criticized the life in the Ottoman Empire as an impure and corrupted one.⁸⁴² He particularly admired the simple lives of the Turcomans and criticized the Ottomans for being extravagant. His criticisms towards the role of the women in society and the practice of harem in the Ottoman Empire, which are mentioned in Chapter Eight, also reflected his inclination towards the original Turkish lifestyle.

Mehmed Emin also argued that the Central Asia had once hosted a significant civilization. Although he did not clearly mention about a “Turkish civilization,” what he intended to say was exactly this. For example, when he reached the old city of Urgench, he dreamed of its glorious past and wrote that once upon a time, this city was the centre of civilization; it had been so developed in terms of industry and trade that the entire world had imported their

⁸⁴¹ Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahati, 47.

 

⁸⁴² Seyyah Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, 24.

products. All the neighbouring states demanded the help of this state in order to provide their security.⁸⁴³ However, he argued that all this prosperity and wealth, all this progress and civilization was destroyed under the feet of the horses of Kalmyks. Still, he particularly described the Ottomans as the inheritor of this civilization:

The Turks, being the first ferment of formation of our Ottoman nationality came from such a progressed, civilized and happy place under the guidance of Alp-Kaya. It is because of their exodus from such a source of civilization that after all they demonstrated a sample of a new civilization to the world by establishing a world-conquering state with the union of different nations.⁸⁴⁴

 

Mehmed Emin did not only praise the former civilization of Central Asia, but also tried to rationalize the unfamiliar practices of the Turcomans. In other words, he found their practices extremely logical, although most of the other travellers or authors found them quite weird. For example, he argued that the reason of the early age of marriage among the Turcomans was the prevention of adultery and the appreciation of having many children in this society.⁸⁴⁵ Similarly, he mentioned that some Turcomans named their child as “Father- Soul” (Baba-Can) or “Grandfather-Soul” (Dede-Can). He wrote that although this custom seemed to be ridiculous for the Ottomans, indeed it had a great wisdom underlining the continuity of the generation.⁸⁴⁶ Even, he touched upon the Turcomans’ extreme respect to their graves and wrote that one should not condemn this practice because these graves were the only indication that a person had lived on that particular territory and therefore being respected by the Turcomans.⁸⁴⁷

⁸⁴³ Seyyah Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, 136.

 

⁸⁴⁴ “Đşte millet-i Osmanîyemizin ilk mâye-i teşekkülü olan Türkler böyle müterakkî ve mütemeddîn ve mesut bir yerden Alp-Kaya delâletiyle çıktılar. Böyle menbâ-yı medeniyetten çıktıkları için değil midir ki muahharen bunca milel-i muhtelifenin tevhidiyle cihangîrâne bir devlet yaparak cihâna da bir medeniyet-i cedîde numunesi gösterdiler.” Seyyah Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, 137.

 

⁸⁴⁵ Seyyah Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, 68.

 

⁸⁴⁶ Seyyah Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, 69.

 

⁸⁴⁷ Seyyah Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, 71-72.

The positive perception was not only confined to the Turcomans. Regarding the Kyrgyz people, Adil Hikmet Bey wrote quite positively as well. After passing weeks under the British threat, as well as coping with some Afghani brigands, they were able to reach the Pamir Plains, where they met with the Kyrgyz people. Adil Hikmet Bey wrote that they “[…] understood what a happiness to stand in front of a noble Turk after such tiredness.”⁸⁴⁸ The perception of the Turks as a “noble race” (ırk-ı necib) was also evident in some other travelogues. For example Habibzade utilized this concept with regard to the people of East Turkistan.⁸⁴⁹

The Afghans were another community, depicted quite positively by the travellers. Adil Hikmet Bey encountered with them in Peshawar, and compared to his pejorative perception of the Indian Muslims, who collaborated with the British for the maintenance of their colonial rule, he praised their anti-British stance. He wrote that the Afghan inhabitants of the city were brave and honest, and they never engaged in spying for the British. What is more, not only the urban settlers, but also the nomadic Afghan tribes had a pure morality.⁸⁵⁰ Similarly, although Mehmed Fazlı made a distinction between the urban and rural (he mentioned them as mountaineers/dağlı) Afghans particularly with regard to their dress and occupation, in terms of their diligence and intelligence, there was no difference between these two.⁸⁵¹ These writings demonstrated that the discourse on urban-nomadic distinction evident in most of the travelogues regarding the non-European world was very much diminished in the travelogues on Central Asia.

 

 

 

⁸⁴⁸ “Bu kadar yorgunluktan sonar necîp bir Türk’ün karşısında bulunmanın ne saadet olduğunu anlamıştık.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 93.

 

⁸⁴⁹ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 84.

 

⁸⁵⁰ Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 60.

 

⁸⁵¹ Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 72.

In writing about the Afghan people, similar to the travelogues on Africa or Asia, the concept of race became a significant component. For example, Mehmed Fazlı defined the Afghan race as such:

Afghan race from the Arian people and from the white race are almost completely long, brunette-skinned, handsome, charming, intelligent and brave. They are tough people intolerant to anger and violence […] Their allegiance to religion is very excellent; they are extremely respectful to the peoples of piety

and ascetics and sheiks.852

 

Despite these extremely positive accounts of the Central Asian people, they were criticized for some other characteristics. Generally, these criticisms were not directed to the ordinary people but to the local rulers. For example, Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü criticized the ruling elite of Bukhara for their ignorance of “the contemporary sciences and the science of politics” (ulûm-u asriye ve fünûn-u siyâsiye) as well as their incompetence to oratory (hüsn-ü selîka).⁸⁵³ He even wrote that the Russians, “who could not see an idea of progress in this government with closed-eyes” (Bu gözü kapalı hükümette fikr-i terakki göremeyen Ruslar) built an ornamented governmental building for the Amir of Bukhara in order to show a sample of the maturity that the art of architecture had reached for the last centuries.⁸⁵⁴

The critique of local rulers instead of ordinary people reached a zenith in the writings of Habibzade. For example, he felt himself quite ashamed in Kasghar, when he was heard that Musa Bayef, one of the local elites of the city, married with eighty women until his thirtieth birthday. He found such a practice and its legitimization with the improper exegesis of religious teachings as an extreme shame towards the “noble Turkish women.”⁸⁵⁵ What is more, he particularly found these local elite and the bigot ulama supported by them as the

⁸⁵² “Arya kavminden ve ırk-ı ebyâzdan Afgan halkı hemen umûmiyetle uzun boylu, esmer benizli, parlak gözlü, mütenâsib-ül âzâ, zekî, cesur bir kavim olup hiddet ve şiddete […] tahammül etmez sert insanlardır. […] Salâbet-i dinîyeleri pek mükemmel olup mollalara, ehl-i zühd ve takvâya ve meşâyihe fevkalâde hürmet ederler.” Mehmed Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 70-71.

 

⁸⁵³ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, p. 202.

 

⁸⁵⁴ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, p. 202.

 

⁸⁵⁵ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 25.

real culprits of the ignorance and backwardness of the ordinary people. For example, unlike Mehmed Emin, he criticized the superstitious beliefs of the people regarding the shrines. He perceived the local ulama responsible for these superstitions:

Unless the devotion to shrines poisoning the social life, civilized life and national customs of Kashgar and other similar superstitions are not abandoned […] the endurance and future of the country will be suffocated under suspicious clouds and within dark storms. Today, while Christian priests are warning their people and guiding them towards a civilized life by entering even the most desolate parts and forgotten fields of their homeland, our religious scholars and mullahs with big turbans do nothing but collecting money by

cheating people and filled up themselves by wandering around.856

 

Similarly, with regard to the local elite of Kasghar, he wrote as such:

The bays of Kasghar have no sense of nation and civilization. Their hearts are blackened and roasted by enmity, the sense of jealousy, dissension and discord. Their aim is to preserve themselves at the expanse of suffocation of all Turkish sons within the storms of poorness and misery and all peoples in that country

being victims of the personal interests of these inhumane people.857

 

All these criticisms directed Habibzade and other travellers to argue that the problem behind the deviations and backwardness of this region was not the intellectual inferiority of the Central Asian people, but the lack of proper education. Influenced from the Jadidist movement, they argue for the establishment of new schools based on a new methodology. For example, Habibzade argued that the youngsters living in Kasghar had an extraordinary intelligence (zekâvet-i fevkalâde). If they had been taught in schools employing the new methodology (yeni usûl mektepler), they could have been easily developed intellectually:

⁸⁵⁶ “Đşte Kaşgar’ın hayât-ı içtimaîye ve hayât-ı medeniye ve anânat-ı milliyesini zehirlemekte olan mezarlara hulûs ve daha bunun gibi hurûfat kalkmadıkça […] memleketin hayât ve istikbâli şüpheli bulutlar altında, karanlık boranlar içinde boğulur kalır. Bugün nasrâniyet papazları, vatanlarının en tenha köşelerine, mensî sahrâlarına kadar girip milletlerini ikâz ve medenî hayâta sevk etmektelerken, bizim din adamlarımız ve büyük sarıklı mollalarımız, kapı kapı dolaşıp kursak doyurmaktan, halkı aldatıp cebe para toplamaktan baş kaldıramıyorlar.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 96-97.

 

⁸⁵⁷ “Kaşgar baylarında millet ve medeniyet duygusu, hemen yok demektir. Bunların kalpleri nefsâniyet, hiss-i haset, nifak ve şikak ile kararmış ve kavrulmuştur. Bunların emeli bütün Türk oğulları, fakr-u zarûret tufanları içinde boğulsun ve bütün bir memleket halkı, bu insafsızların şahsî faydalarına kurbân olsun.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 44.

If these youngsters of Gochar with such a nature had been taught in European gymnasiums, in the universities of the capital [i.e., Đstanbul], the inventors of wireless telegraph, submarine, airplane, zeppelin could not have exerted more talent than the youngsters of Gochar. […] Unfortunately these youngsters are convicted to shine and burn out with a sudden flash such as the light of a thunder […] Because there are probably many people accusing them of blasphemy since they are interested in cinema or photography machines instead

of appreciating them for their talent and arts.858

 

Similar to Habibzade, Adil Hikmet Bey also continuously mentioned about the role of education for national consciousness. In one of his conversations with an Afghani tribal leader, the tribal leader told Adil Hikmet Bey that they were waiting for the Caliph to save them from foreign intervention. Adil Hikmet Bey’s response was conspicuous: “We said: The Caliphate was a delusion. It might be a power thirteen centuries ago. Today it is nothing. You should try to create a caliph’s power within the personality of your children through educating them.”⁸⁵⁹

⁸⁵⁸ “ Eğer bu yaradılıştaki Goçar gençleri, Avrupa jimnazyalarında, payitaht darülfünûnlarında okumuş olsalar, telsiz telgraf, tahte’l bahr, ayaroplan, siplin muhterîleri, bu Goçarlı gençlerden daha fazla istîdat gösteremezlerdi […] Maateessüf bu gençler […] şimşek ziyâsı gibi ani bir iltimâ ile parlayıp sönmeye mahkûm… Çünkü bunların hüner ve sanatlarını takdir şöyle dursun, belki bunları, sinema ve fotoğraf makineleriyle uğraştığı için küfürle ithâm edenler de çoktur.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 143. Having made such criticisms, Ahmed Kemal was able to open a school employing the modern education methods in the city of Artush by April 1330 [1914]. The school was named as “Teacher’s College of Union” (Darülmuallimin- i Đttihâd) and established together with an organization called the “Islamic Society” (Cemiyet-i Đslâmiye). However, just after the opening of these schools some prominent people in Kashgar began to criticize Ahmed Kemal and his school. They argued that the new methodology employed by Ahmed Kemal was contrary to Islam. Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 34. Particularly the teaching of geography and history and the illustrations in the books taught in schools were proclaimed by a local religious leader called Selim Ahund as forbidden by religion. Even some students began to complain that they were excluded from their communities. This alarmed Ahmed Kemal who delivered a speech to the public and defended his methods. The complaints seemed to decline afterwards; however, after a spectacle organized by Ahmed Kemal in the form of a play criticizing the old traditional education, some parents forced their children to abandon the school. The problem was finally resolved with the intervention of the Chinese local government in Kashgar and a document of concession was given to Ahmed Kemal’s school proclaiming it as a legitimate establishment. For the full text of this concessions translated from Chinese to Turkish see Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 42. After getting this concession new schools were opened with interesting names such as “The Light of Education, The Source of Knowledge, The School of Progress, The School of Patriotism” (Nûr-i Maârif, Menbâü’l Đrfân, Terakkî Mektebi, Hamiyet Mektebi). Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 43.

 

⁸⁵⁹ “Hilâfet, dedik, bir vehimdir. Bin üç yüz sene evvel belki de bir kuvvetti. Bugün için bir hiçten başka bir şey değildir. Çocuklarınızı tahsil ettirerek onların istikbalde hepsinin nefislerinde bir halîfe kudreti yaratmaya çalışmanız icap ederdi.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, p. 77.

All in all, the idea of civilization as a learnable and an attainable talent was evident in the travelogues on Central Asia. The inhabitants of the region were praised for their sagacity, intelligence and hard-working; what was lacking was a proper education. However, this education did not necessarily mean westernization; rather it was limited to the the adoption of Western science and technology. The deviation from the “real” Islamic morality was another significant critique in terms of the achievement of modernity; thus together with Western morality, these deviations were perceived quite negatively as well. The prescription of the travellers was simple. Already, there were the basic elements for a better life in the region, namely the potential of the people and the Turkish (and Islamic) morality. If proper education was added to this equation, the result would be modernization without sacrificing the Turkish characteristics.

CHAPTER 13

 

 

OTTOMAN PERCEPTION OF THE SOUTH AND EAST ASIA

 

 

13.1.         Ottoman Relations with the South and East Asia

The Ottoman Empire’s relations with the states and the Muslim communities of the South and East Asia had been intensified in two periods, namely the sixteenth century, when the Ottoman Empire tried to cope with the Portuguese naval incursions in the Indian Ocean, and the second half of the nineteenth century, when Pan-Islamism was utilized by some Ottoman Sultans as a tool for alarming the European colonial powers about the Ottoman potential, hence directing them not to press on the Empire strongly. In the following sub- sections on the Ottoman relations with India and the Southeast Asia these two periods of intense relations are examined. The Ottoman interest towards East Asia, namely towards China and Japan, was quite late compared to the South and Southeast Asia, because of geographical distance, the Japanese self-isolation and the lack of Ottoman awareness about the Chinese Muslims. Therefore, almost no significant contact had been established between the Ottoman Empire and China/Japan before the second half of the nineteenth century. The subsections on the Ottoman relations with China and Japan therefore focus on the reasons and implications of the establishment of contact in this volatile era.

 

13.1.1.               Ottoman Relations with India

The Ottoman diplomatic relations with India had started in the sixteenth century, when the Ottoman and Mughal Empires, the two greatest Sunni Muslim states of that time, were at the zenith of their political and military power. These relations were sometimes friendly and other times indifferent, if not hostile. Such fluctuations depended mainly on the clash or overlap of the mutual interests of these two Empires as well as their identities. According to Naimur Rahman Farooqi the factors resulting in friendly relations were the common racial and cultural background, the Safavid threat, which from time to time afflicted two

Empires, and lack of any border clashes since Iran was a buffer state between them. Contrarily, the factors resulting in hostile relations were the question of the Uzbek state, sometimes supported by the Ottoman Empire while some territories of which were claimed by the Mughals, the issue of the Caliphate since some Mughal Emperors did not recognize the Ottoman claims, and finally the Timurid identity of the Mughal Empire, which reminded the Ottoman defeat by Tamerlane (r. 1370-1405) in 1402.⁸⁶⁰ The diplomatic relations between these two Empires reached a zenith in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and then gradually cooled until the late eighteenth century, namely until the establishment of British control in India.

Although the Ottoman relations with the Mughal Empire came to an end, contacts with some local Muslim states of India continued.⁸⁶¹ However, in this period, considering the tight balance in their relations with Western colonial powers, particularly Britain and France, the Ottoman Sultans did not engage in an active relationship with these political entities. The correspondence between the Sultan of Mysore, Tipu (r. 1782-1799) and the Ottoman Sultans, Abdülhamid I and Selim III was a significant example of Ottoman caution towards the Muslim states of India.⁸⁶² According to Kemal Karpat, this correspondence

⁸⁶⁰ Naimur Rahman Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556-1748, (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat- i Delhi, 2009), 222-234.

 

⁸⁶¹ For example, the Mughal governors of Deccan tried to obtain help from the Ottomans during the eighteenth century. Özcan, Pan-Islamism, 10.

 

⁸⁶² Accordingly, in order to cope with the British ambitions over his sultanate and for a proper recognition by the Caliph as the Sultan of Mysore, in his first letter dated 1786, Tipu demanded from Abdülhamid I the establishment of better relations between two states, the control of the port of Basra in exchange for the port of Mangalor and the permission to construct a waterway from Euphrates to the city of Najaf, which was sacred for the Shia. According to Hikmet Bayur, these demands demonstrated that Tipu wanted to control Ottoman Iraq. While on the one hand, Abdülhamid’s reply procrastinate these demands through assigning the governor of Basra to deal with these issues, on the other hand, it included an advice to Tipu for not attacking on the British. Together with his announcement that the Ottomans were preparing for a war with the Russians, this advice was planned to serve for not annoying the British on the eve of an Ottoman-Russian War and for getting the support of Tipu Sultan for this war, probably in financial terms. After this correspondence, the second letter was sent by Selim III to Tipu Sultan after hearing the rumours that Napoleon Bonaparte aimed to contact with him in order to establish an alliance against the British. Upon the request of the British, Selim III wrote in his letter, dated September 22, 1798, that Tipu Sultan should not cooperate with the French and should not act hostilely towards the British. Tipu Sultan replied this letter by offering the Sultan to deal with his own

demonstrated the earliest indications of the genesis of the idea of “Pan-Islamism” and the Caliph’s role for prompting the Muslim community:

Apparently, the British were the first to see the caliphate as the potential center that could not only mobilize and unite Muslims – and induce them to fight for England but also soothe some Indian Muslims, who perceived London to be the enemy of Islam. The Ottoman ruler appeared at this stage rather unaware of the potential of the caliphate – or unwilling to use it – for political purposes; the English, however, seemed to have a clear and concise opinion about the caliphate’s potential influence over other Muslims.⁸⁶³

 

In other words, the Tipu case was a significant starting point for the discussions on the issue of Pan-Islamism, which became intensified during the reigns of Abdülaziz and Abdülhamid II in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Indeed, until the 1870s, the Ottomans did not actively engage in the affairs of the Indian Muslims because of their policy of maintaining good relations with Britain.⁸⁶⁴ In order to continue the British backing towards the Ottoman Empire against Russian ambitions, the Ottomans had to support the British colonial rule over India. For example, they did not react to the great Indian Mutiny of 1857, where the Muslims and Hindus fought together against the British; they even allowed the British troops passing through the Ottoman territories to suppress this rebellion.⁸⁶⁵ However the Mutiny served for a closer relationship between the Indian Muslims and the Ottomans. According to Azmi Özcan:

adversaries, since he would do the same in India. In other words, he rejected the advices of Selim III and continued his struggle against the British until he was killed in the siege of the capital city of Mysore, Srirangapatnam, in 1799. For a detailed analysis of this correspondence and its implications see Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, “Maysor Sultanı Tipu ile Osmanlı Padişahlarından I. Abdülhamid ve III. Selim Arasındaki Mektuplaşma,” Belleten, Vol. 12, No. 48 (1948): 617-654 and Kemal Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 49-52.

 

⁸⁶³ Karpat, Politicization of Islam, 51.

 

⁸⁶⁴ However, as early as 1849, the Ottoman consulates in Bombay and Calcutta were opened in order to protect Ottoman commercial interests and the rights of the Ottoman citizens living in the region. Özcan, Pan-Islamism, 14.

 

⁸⁶⁵ Despite this allowance, such a need never existed; therefore, British troops did not show up in the Ottoman Empire. Özcan, Pan-Islamism, 16; Cemil Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism, 32.

Since there was no Muslim sovereign left in India, the Ottoman Sultan Caliph appeared to be the natural focus for the emotional and spiritual attachment of the rank and file Indian Muslims. Thus followed the inclusion of the Ottoman Sultan’s name in the Friday sermons.⁸⁶⁶

 

In other words, the Indian Muslims turned their faces to the Ottoman Empire, which was ruled by the only legitimate Islamic authority, namely the Sultan/Caliph.⁸⁶⁷ The friendly relations between the Ottoman Empire and Britain initially prevented the Ottoman Sultans to reply the Indian Muslims’ approach positively. However, the rapid deterioration of these relations after the Ottoman- Russian War of 1877-1878 and, particularly, the British invasion of Egypt in 1881, resulted in an active policy pursued by Abdülhamid II, called as Pan- Islamism. Indeed, it was Abdülhamid II, who clearly became aware that he could use his power as Caliph in order to arouse the feelings of Indian Muslims, which might pose a threat to the British colonial rule; in other words, this provided the Sultan with a practical political power to preserve the precarious diplomatic balance among the European powers.

The indications of Pan-Islamist policy was even visible as early as 1877, when Abdülhamid II sought a Muslim alliance against the Russians, which might induce the Amir of Afghanistan, Shir Ali Khan, to attack the Russians from the south.⁸⁶⁸ The diplomatic mission sent to Afghanistan failed to realize this alliance because of the anti-British and pro-Russian policies of the Amir.⁸⁶⁹ However, still, the Indian Muslims declared their support to the Ottomans and financially contributed to the Ottoman army.⁸⁷⁰ After the war, Abdülhamid II pursued a policy of continuously disturbing the British by making them aware of

⁸⁶⁶ Özcan, Pan-Islamism, 19.

 

⁸⁶⁷ Syed Tanvir Wasti, “The Political Aspirations of Indian Muslims and the Ottoman Nexus,”

Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 42, No. 5 (Sep., 2006): 709-722, 709.

 

⁸⁶⁸ For a brief account on the emergence of Pan-Islamism, see Dwight E. Lee, “The Origins of Pan-Islamism, The American Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jan., 1942): 278-287.

 

⁸⁶⁹ Özcan, Pan-Islamism, pp. 78-88. This mission produced one of the most significant Ottoman travelogues about India and Afghanistan, written by one of the members of the envoy, Şirvanlı Ahmed Hamdi Efendi, and entitled Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi.

 

⁸⁷⁰ Özcan, Pan-Islamism, 68-70.

his spiritual power over the Indian Muslims. According to Azmi Özcan this policy was composed of several strategies: (1) to contact with the ulama of the Indian Muslims, to host them in the Porte and to make them work for the Ottoman interests; (2) to engage in propaganda activities in India through printing new newspapers or supporting the existing ones; (3) to use Ottoman diplomatic missions, particularly the consulates for creating a public opinion supportive of the Ottoman interests; (4) to maintain close ties between the Ottomans and the Indian Muslims through regular (i.e., contacting with Indian Muslims during Hajj) or occasional opportunities (i.e., demanding Indian Muslim’s financial contribution to the construction of Hedjaz railway).⁸⁷¹

Indian Muslim’s intimate relations with the Ottoman Empire continued in the post-Hamidian era as well. The Indian Muslim’s enthusiasm regarding the Young Turk Revolution, based on the notions of liberty, equality and fraternity, resulted in the continuation of their supports to the Empire, when the Empire was desperately in need of it, as in the case of the Ottoman-Italian War of 1911, the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 and finally the First World War and the Turkish War of Independence.⁸⁷² The financial or moral support of the Indian Muslims during the Ottoman-Italian and Balkan Wars were transformed into a more active support with the declaration of jihad by Sultan Mehmed Reşad (r. 1909-1918), when the Ottoman Empire entered into the First World War. Even some of the Indian Muslims sought for an anti-British armed insurrection in north-western India in 1915 in order to help the Ottomans.⁸⁷³

All in all, having contained the largest Muslim community, the Indian sub-continent was a significant region for the Ottoman Empire. The initial fluctuating relationship with the Mughal Empire until the nineteenth century was followed by a more systematic policy of Pan-Islamism from the late nineteenth century onwards.

⁸⁷¹ Azmi Özcan, “Sultan Abdülhamid Döneminde Osmanlılar ve Hindistan Müslümanları,” Güzel [et. al.] (eds.), Türkler, Vol. 13, 138-143.

 

⁸⁷² Özcan, Pan-Islamism, 129.

 

⁸⁷³ Wasti, “The Political Aspirations of Indian Muslims and the Ottoman Nexus,” 710.

13.1.2.               Ottoman Relations with the Southeast Asia

Similar to the Ottoman contacts with India, the Ottoman interest towards the Southeast Asia had started in the second half of the sixteenth century as a response to the increasing Portuguese naval activity in the Indian Ocean. The Portuguese pressure on some local Muslim states, particularly on the Sultanate of Aceh, forced the Sultan of this state, Alaaddin Riayet Shah el-Kahhar (r. 1537- 1571), to send several embassies to the Ottoman Empire, which demanded for Ottoman military support. The first of these missions reached the Porte in 1562 and were able to get cannons, rifles and military experts. With this support Sultan Alaaddin was able to repel the Portuguese threat and to extend his borders at the expense of other small Muslim states, especially the Sultanate of Johor.⁸⁷⁴ A second diplomatic mission, sent in 1566 for further military support, was failed because the military personnel and equipment sent to Aceh were used to suppress a rebellion in Yemen, storming the region between 1567 and 1571.⁸⁷⁵

These earlier contacts with the Southeast Asia ended until the mid- nineteenth century, since the Ottomans directed their attention to the wars with the European powers. The contact was re-established in 1851, with an Acehnese diplomatic mission to Sultan Abdülmecid, which demanded the establishment of Ottoman administration in Aceh against the increasing Dutch presence.⁸⁷⁶ The

⁸⁷⁴ Leonard Y. Andaya, “Interactions with the Outside World and Adaptation in Southeast Asian Society, 1500-1800,” in Nicholas Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, 4 Volumes, (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1994), Vol. 1, 345-401, 383; for a detailed analysis of Ottoman-Achenese relations in the early modern period, also see Anthony Reid, An Indonesian Frontier: Achenese and Other Histories of Sumatra, (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2005), 69-93.

 

⁸⁷⁵ Đsmail Hakkı Göksoy, “Güneydoğu Asya Đslam Ülkelerinde Türk Đzleri,” in Güzel [et. al.] (eds.), Türkler, Vol. 9, 618-631, 621.

 

⁸⁷⁶ Indeed, Aceh remained independent until the late nineteenth century; although the British claimed sovereignty over the Sultanate of Aceh, this was only a nominal declaration. In 1824, with the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, Britain delivered her possessions on Sumatra to the Dutch; therefore, Aceh was begun to be claimed by the Dutch although the Dutch initially remained respectful to the independence of the Sultanate. However, from mid-nineteenth century onwards, the Dutch began to follow a more active colonial policy in the region; it was this transformation of Dutch colonial policy that contributed to increasing contacts between Aceh and the Ottoman Empire. For a detailed account of the Dutch colonial policy and the Sultanate of Aceh see M. C. Ricklefs, A History of Modern Indonesia since c. 1200, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 185-188;

Ottoman government initially responded these demands negatively and adjourned them by assigning the governor of Yemen to deal with the issue. Meanwhile, the Dutch increased pressure over Aceh and finally declared war on the Sultanate in 1873. Although they were able to occupy the coastal regions, the Acehnese resisted strongly in the interior parts of the Sultanate and once more applied to the Ottoman Empire for help. A mission headed by Seyyid Habib Abdurrahman ez-Zahir (1833-1896), the foreign minister of the Sultanate of Aceh, arrived in the Porte in 1873 and aroused Ottoman public support to the Acehnese resistance.⁸⁷⁷ However, the Ottoman administration did not respond actively in order not to disturb the Ottoman relations with the European states and only offered mediation.⁸⁷⁸ Despite the Ottoman failure to intervene into the Acehnese case, according to Cemil Aydın, this crisis had significant implications for the Ottoman public opinion’s awareness of the Muslims living outside the Ottoman Empire; he wrote that “the Aceh debates increased Ottoman curiosity about Muslims in different parts of the world and create a trans-state Muslim identity.”⁸⁷⁹

Although the Ottoman administration remained indifferent to such direct demands from the Muslim states of Southeast Asia, there emerged a growing

for the Achenese diplomatic mission to the Porte in 1851, see Göksoy, “Güneydoğu Asya Đslam Ülkelerinde Türk Đzleri,” 622-623.

 

⁸⁷⁷ Jan Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 1876-1926: Four Essays on Dutch, Dutch-Indian and Ottoman History, (Đstanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Đstanbul, 1992), 58.

 

⁸⁷⁸ The Acehnese resistance continued for the next thirty years and two other demands of help were made in 1893 and 1898, which were as futile as before. Göksoy, “Güneydoğu Asya Đslam Ülkelerinde Türk Đzleri,” 623. For an account of the Acehnese question also see, Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 52-56.

 

⁸⁷⁹ Cemil Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism, 33. Besides the Sultanate of Aceh, the Amir of the island-state of Riau in the north-eastern and the Jambi Sultanate in the eastern part of Sumatra sent letters to the Ottoman Porte and similarly demanded for the establishment of Ottoman authority on their states to prevent the British and Dutch colonial desires in the late 1850s. Both demands were not responded positively. Göksoy, “Güneydoğu Asya Đslam Ülkelerinde Türk Đzleri,” p. 624; for the correspondence between Taha Safiyyuddin of Jambi Sultanate and the Ottoman Porte see Elsbeth Locher-Scholten, Sumatran Sultanate and Colonial State: Jambi and the Rise of Dutch Imperialism, 1830-1907, translated by Beverley Jackson, (Ithaca, NY: SEAP Publications, 2004), 119-120.

interest towards this region particularly from 1860s onwards. Trade relations and pilgrimage traffic between the Ottoman Empire and the Southeast Asia grew day by day and these increasing contacts resulted in the establishment of an Ottoman consulate in Singapore in 1864.⁸⁸⁰ The Ottoman consuls, according to the Dutch observers of that time, served to give the local Muslims the impression that they were not alone in their legal quest against the colonial powers.⁸⁸¹ Through distributing religious publications published in Đstanbul in the name of the Sultan/Caliph, establishing friendly relations with the Hadramauti Arab community of the region (which was the wealthiest community) by providing them with Ottoman passports and thus entailing them with an equal status with the Europeans, and agitating the local people against the discriminatory rules applied by the colonial administration, the Ottoman consuls acted as agents of Pan-Islamist discourse in the region.⁸⁸² What is more, as in the case of the Indian Muslims, the Ottoman administration also used pilgrimage and several initiatives, such as the demand of help from the Muslims of the region for the construction of the Hedjaz railway, for the maintenance of relations with the Muslim community of the Southeast Asia.⁸⁸³

The Ottoman interest towards this region continued in the post-Hamidian era as well. Particularly, the declaration of jihad by the Caliph/Sultan during the

⁸⁸⁰ Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 53. However, the first Ottoman consul died just one year after his appointment and the Dutch and the British colonial administrations were able to prevent the appointment of new Muslim consuls, fearing from an arousal in the Muslim public opinion in the region. However, from 1883 onwards, the Dutch government was unable to refuse the appointment of Ottoman consuls to Batavia (contemporary Jakarta) for reciprocity’s sake. Göksoy, “Güneydoğu Asya Đslam Ülkelerinde Türk Đzleri,” 624.

 

⁸⁸¹ Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 85-86.

 

⁸⁸² Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 86-87. For the Dutch discriminatory policy towards the Hadramauti community see Huub de Jonge, “Dutch Colonial Policy Pertaining to Hadhrami Immigrants,” in Ulrike Freitag and William G. Clarence-Smith (eds.), Hadhrami Traders, Scholars, and Statesmen in the Indian Ocean, 1750s-1960s, (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 94-111. For the Pan-Islamic publications in the region see Natalie Mobini-Kesheh, The Hadrami Awakening: Community and Identity in the Netherlands East Indies, 1900-1942, (Ithaca, NY: SEAP Publications, 1999), 29-30.

 

⁸⁸³ Lik Arifin Mansurnoor, “Osmanlı Dünyasında Đslam Reformu: Osmanlılar ile Malay Dünyası Arasındaki Sosyo-Dini Bağlar,” in Eren (ed.), Osmanlı, Vol. 2, 222-229, 222; Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 81-83.

First World War aroused the Muslim people of the region. Just after this declaration, an anonymous pamphlet in Arabic entitled “A Public Declaration to the Community of Muslim People,” which had been published by Muslim Welfare Society (Cemiyet-i Hayriye-i Đslâmiye, founded under the aegis of the CUP) was distributed in the region, which explained the concept of jihad in detail. This alarmed the Dutch government and the Dutch ambassador to the Porte, Van der Does, who demanded from the Ottoman Grand Vizier, Said Halim Paşa, to forbid further circulation of this pamphlet.⁸⁸⁴

In sum, the Ottoman relations with the Southeast Asia followed a similar pattern with its relations with India. The initial relations established in the sixteenth century against the Portuguese threat, were reiterated in the nineteenth century, this time against the British and Dutch colonial expansions. As in the case of India, the Ottomans did not respond actively to the demands of the Muslims of Southeast Asia. Rather, they pursued a precarious policy of contacting with the local Muslims loosely enough not to attract a significant reaction from the colonial powers, but, at the same time, strongly enough to make the colonial powers aware of the Ottoman capacity to arouse Muslim public opinion against their colonial intentions.

 

13.1.3.               Ottoman Relations with Japan

Although some members of the Ottoman intellectual community were aware of Japan and the Japanese people prior to the nineteenth century, it was only after the 1860s that the two states contacted with each other.⁸⁸⁵ Similar to

⁸⁸⁴ Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 135-137. The implications of this pamphlet could not be determined clearly; however, it might stimulate some resistance movements in the region to support the jihad against the Western powers. For example, in 1915, in Singapore, a mutiny was erupted, organized by an Indian Muslim, Kassim Ali Mansoor and suppressed by the British. See Özay, Islamic Identity and Development, 27. One year later, this time in southern Sumatra, a rebellion, which was explicitly considered by its leaders to be part of the jihad of the Ottoman sultan against the Entente Powers, started and could only be suppressed by the Dutch in two months. Schmidt, Through the Legation Window, 53. For a detailed account of the southeast Indian Muslims during the World War I, see Kees van Dijk, The Netherlands Indies and the Great War 1914-1918, (Leiden: KITLV Press, 2007), 287-316.

 

⁸⁸⁵ According to Selçuk Esenbel, Katip Çelebi’s Cihannüma published in the second half of the seventeenth century had a few pages on Japan; while a Japanese geography book published in the eighteenth century mentioned about Ottoman Empire as a mighty state extended over three

the other parts of Asia, the first desire to establish a contact came not from the Ottoman Empire; but from Japan. Particularly, after the Meiji restoration, this self-isolated country became curious of and wanted to learn about the outside world.⁸⁸⁶ In this period, the major Japanese consideration was to be able to get rid of the unequal treaty system, which maintained an inferior status for Japan vis-à-vis the European states from 1858 onwards. Therefore, there emerged a search for the application of this system in other parts of the world. This search led the Japanese to contact with the Ottomans, which were another victim of the unequal treaties within the framework of the capitulations.⁸⁸⁷

The first Japanese delegation came to the Ottoman Empire in 1871 for reviewing the Ottoman legal relations with the Europeans. Indeed, this delegation was a part of a greater mission headed by Prince Iwakura Tomomi (1835-1883), which had been sent to Europe in 1871 to revise the unequal treaty system. Iwakura sent one of his secretaries, Fukuchi Genichiro (1841-1906), to Đstanbul in order to study the Ottoman capitulatory system. The report of this first visit was not found sufficient for the Japanese government; therefore further delegations were sent in the 1880s and afterwards. One of the most significant of these delegations was the Yoshida Masaharu’s mission sent directly by the Japanese Foreign Minister to Đstanbul. Abdülhamid II welcomed the mission and

continents. Selçuk Esenbel, “Türk-Japon Đlişkilerinin Tarihi,” in Güzel [et. al.] (eds.), Türkler, Vol. 13, 149-161, 149. According to Orhan Koloğlu from 1841 onwards, the official newspaper of the Ottoman Empire, Takvim-i Vekâyi published several articles about Japan, and in 1863 other newspapers such as Tasvîr-i Efkâr and Cerîde-i Havâdis published some series regarding Japanese history, politics, and socio-economic structure. Indeed, these newspapers generally translated from the European sources; however, still their introduction of Japan to their readers was a significant development for the development of Ottoman-Japanese relations. Orhan Koloğlu, “Osmanlı’da Đlk Yapon Haberleri,” Tarih ve Toplum, No. 218 (Feb., 2002): 83-85.

 

⁸⁸⁶ Indeed, in a narrow sense, the Meiji Restoration means a coup d’état carried out in Kyoto on January 3, 1868, that put control of the Imperial Court into the hands of men from some of the great feudal princedoms of Japan and terminated the hereditary feudal regime through reasserting the Emperor’s direct responsibility for governing the country. In a wider sense, it means a series of reforms introducing political, economic and social modernization of the country from 1868 onwards. For a detailed account of Meiji Restoration see William G. Beasly, The Meiji Restoration, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1972) and Marius B. Jansen, “The Meiji Restoration,” in Marius B. Jansen (ed.), The Cambridge History of Japan, 6 Volumes, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), Vol. 5, 308-366.

 

⁸⁸⁷ Esenbel, “Türk-Japon Đlişkilerinin Tarihi,” 149.

encouraged the efforts for the establishment of diplomatic relations between two states. The mission undertook a detailed study of the Ottoman capitulatory regime as well as the Ottoman political, economic and social structure and submitted a report to the Japanese delegation in St. Petersburg. Upon receiving this report, the head of the delegation contacted the Ottoman ambassador to St. Petersburg, Şakir Paşa (served between 1878 and 1889), and submitted a survey regarding the Ottoman capitulatory system.This survey was replied by Şakir Paşa in detail.⁸⁸⁸

After these initial diplomatic contacts, the Ottoman capital began to host high-rank Japanese politicians and members of the Japanese royal family. One of such visits was paid by the brother of Emperor Meiji (r. 1867-1912), Prince Komatsu (1846-1903), who came to Đstanbul in 1887 after a tour in Europe.⁸⁸⁹ Abdülhamid responded to this gesture visit by sending a frigate, Ertuğrul, carrying the students of the Naval Academy under the command of Admiral Osman Paşa as well as the Order of Merit (Đmtiyaz Nişanı) for the Emperor Meiji sent as a response to the Order of Great Chrysanthemum given by Prince Komatsu. According to Kaori Komatsu, the mission was not a simple visit of courtesy; rather it included Pan-Islamic elements. Accordingly, the order sent from the Prime Ministry to the Naval Ministry about the mission mentioned that the students and the frigate were sent “to wave the Ottoman flag over foreign shores” (râyet-i zafer-âyet-i Osmânî’nin sevâhil-i ecnebiyede temevvüc eylemesi) and to stop at port cities where the Muslims had been living.⁸⁹⁰ In other words,

⁸⁸⁸ For the Yoshida mission and a summary of the survey of the Japanese delegation in St. Petersburg, see Umut Arık, A Century of Turkish-Japanese Relations: A Special Partnership, (Tokyo: Gyosei Tsushin Co., 1991), 19-21; also see, Selçuk Esenbel, “Japanese Perspectives of the Ottoman World,” in Selçuk Esenbel and Inaba Chiharu (eds.), The Rising Sun and the Turkish Crescent, (Đstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2003), 7-41, 12-13. For the English translation of Yoshida Masaharu’s reports, see Nakaoka San-eki, “The Yoshida Masaharu Mission to Persia and the Ottoman Empire during the Period 1880-1881,” in Collected Papers of Oriental Studies in Celebration of Seventy Years of Age of His Imperial Highness Prince Mikasa, (Shogakukan: Japan Society for Near Eastern Studies 1985), 203-235.

 

⁸⁸⁹ Hee Soo Lee and Đbrahim Đlhan, Osmanlı-Japon Münasebetleri ve Japonya’da Đslamiyet, (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1989), 26.

 

⁸⁹⁰ Kaori Komatsu, Ertuğrul Faciası: Bir Dostluğun Doğuşu, (Ankara: Turhan Kitapevi, 1992), 37-38.

the route of Ertuğrul was carefully chosen for demonstrating the potential power of the Caliph over the Muslims of South and Southeast Asia.

Ertuğrul started its voyage in March 1889 and reached Japan in June 1890. On the way, in accordance with the order given by the Prime Ministry, it had stopped in various ports such as Bombay, Colombo, Calcutta, and Singapore, and Osman Paşa sent telegrams to the Porte indicating that thousands of Muslims came to visit the ship and declared their allegiance to the Caliph. According to Komatsu, the Muslim interest in the mission alarmed the colonial powers of the region, particularly the British and the Dutch.⁸⁹¹ In Tokyo, the mission was accepted by the Emperor. The speech of Osman Paşa in the presence of the Emperor indicated that Abdülhamid II carefully followed the progress of the Japanese and desired the continuation of this progress which might bring about the establishment of good relations between these two countries.892

The mission of Ertuğrul ended with a tragedy. The frigate sunk in a storm on its return to Đstanbul and most of its crew lost their lives. However, the sinking of Ertuğrul contributed the Ottoman-Japanese relations more. The survivors were sent back by two Japanese ships in 1891. One year later, Yamada Torajiro (1866-1957) brought the relief sent by the Japanese people for the families of those who lost their lives in the accident. Torajiro remained in Đstanbul as a merchant and for the next twenty years he acted “as the unofficial ambassador of Japan to the Porte.”⁸⁹³

These positive relations were complicated with the 1902 Anglo-Japanese alliance. Indeed this alliance was anti-Russian, which might be beneficial for the Ottoman Empire as well; however, the Ottoman-British relations were not as good as before. Particularly, after the British invasion of Egypt in 1881, the Ottomans had deep suspicions regarding the British. Therefore, the ideas for the

⁸⁹¹ Komatsu, Ertuğrul Faciası:Bir Dostluğun Doğuşu, 40-43.

 

⁸⁹² Arık, A Century of Turkish-Japanese Relations, 33.

 

⁸⁹³ Esenbel, “Türk-Japon Đlişkilerinin Tarihi,” 153-154.

development of Ottoman-Japanese diplomatic relations and a possible signature of a treaty of friendship between these two states came to a halt.

Although the Ottoman ruling elite as well as the Ottoman intellectuals were aware of and appreciated the Japanese modernization, it was only after the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent Japanese victory that they began to perceive this state as a model. In Cemil Aydın’s words, this war “[...] was interpreted throughout the world as the first victory of an Asian nation belonging to the yellow race over a major white and Christian Western Empire.”⁸⁹⁴ The victory of the Japanese “[...] propelled all anticolonial nationalists to be more assertive and confident, strengthened the constitutional movements, and invalidated several key legitimacy discourses of the Eurocentric world order.”⁸⁹⁵ As such, of course, the Ottomans, who had suffered a lot from the Russians, perceived that the Western imperialist expansion was not altogether unstoppable. Therefore, according to them, the Japanese victory and its background should be examined. Within this framework, during the war, a Turkish soldier, Colonel Pertev Bey (Demirhan, 1871-1964), was sent to Japan as an observer. He reached to the Japanese-Russian front in October 1904, followed the battles and returned to Đstanbul two years later. His report laid great emphasis on moral factors, such as the order, discipline and the excellent relationship between soldiers and officers, as the key to Japanese military success.⁸⁹⁶

The victory of Japan impressed the Ottoman military establishment to a great extent; as Handan Nezir Akmeşe argues, “[...] it strengthened their convictions about the role of the army as an agent for change in the society and

⁸⁹⁴ Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism, 71.

 

⁸⁹⁵ Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism, 72.

 

⁸⁹⁶ Handan Nezir Akmeşe, “The Japanese Nation in Arms: A Role for Militarist Nationalism in the Ottoman Army,” in Renée Worringer (ed.), The Islamic Middle East and Japan: Perceptions, Aspirations and the Birth of Intra-Asian Modernity, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 63-89, 67. This report would later be published as a monograph entitled Rus-Japon Harbinden Alınan Maddi ve Manevi Dersler ve Japonların Esbab-ı Muzafferiyeti (Material and Moral Lessons Drawn from the Russo-Japanese War and the Causes of the Japanese Victory), (Đstanbul: Kanaat Matbaası ve Kütüphanesi, 1913).

what a ‘nation in arms’ could indeed achieve in the face of Western encroachment.”⁸⁹⁷ However, the army’s appreciation of the Japanese victory increased the suspicions of Abdülhamid II. On the one hand, he recognized the use of Japanese victory for diverting the Russians from being a potential threat for the Ottomans at least for some time; on the other hand, he was concerned about the perception of this victory by the “dissidents” (particularly the Young Turks situated in the army) as a victory for a constitutional state over an autocracy.⁸⁹⁸

The Japanese victory was not only a matter of discussion during the Hamidian era; the Young Turks continued to try to understand the reasons for the Japanese success. Accordingly, in 1911, a conference on the modernization of Japan was organized by the CUP, among the audience of which there were high- ranking and influential figures such as the Ottoman Prince Abdülmecid Efendi (1868-1944) and the then Ottoman Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rif’at Paşa.⁸⁹⁹

For the Young Turk administration as for the other Asian observers, the Japanese model of modernization was valuable for three reasons: (1) This model presented a shortcut to the Western level of civilization since the Japanese were able to modernize quite rapidly; (2) it showed that non-Western cultures and religions did not necessarily act as impediments in front of modernization; (3) it provided a significant optimism for the Ottoman as well as Asian observers to rejuvenate radical reformism.⁹⁰⁰ That is why, they were very much interested in understanding the Japanese way of modernization.

All in all, the Ottoman relations with Japan started as a result of Japanese efforts to end the unequal treaties system starting from the 1870s onwards and

⁸⁹⁷ Akmeşe, “The Japanese Nation in Arms,” 66. What is more, as early as 1905, two staff officers, Major Osman Senai and Captain Ali Fuad, published a five-volume study entitled The Russo-Japanese Campaign of 1904-1905 (1904-1905 Rus-Japon Seferi), which appeared to have been widely read by cadets at the War College and by officers. Akmeşe, “The Japanese Nation in Arms,” 68-69.

 

⁸⁹⁸ Akmeşe, “The Japanese Nation in Arms,” 68.

 

⁸⁹⁹ Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism, 79-80.

 

⁹⁰⁰ Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism, 81-82.

continued through the visits of Japanese delegations until 1890, when Abdülhamid II decided to respond these visits by sending Ertuğrul to Japan. However, the Ottoman interest towards Japan passed beyond such courtesy visits after the Japanese victory over the Russians in the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War. The defeat of a Western power by an Eastern one was very much appreciated by the Ottomans seeking to do the same for years; therefore, the Japanese way of development without giving up the national culture and traditions became a significant model discussed by the ruling elite as well as by the intellectuals of the Hamidian and post-Hamidian periods.

 

13.1.4.               Ottoman Relations with China

Unlike India, Southeast Asia and Japan, Ottoman Empire’s relations with China was almost non-existent until the last decade of the nineteenth century. In the first instance, the reasons for this disinterest can be argued as the intense Ottoman relations with the West instead of the East and the geographical distance. However, this does not explain why the Ottoman Empire established relations with other parts of Asia and even with a remoter country like Japan. Therefore other factors should be examined to understand the Ottoman disinterest towards China. One factor was that the Ottomans were very lately informed about the existence of a Muslim community in China. They were aware of the Mughal Empire of India and the small Muslim political entities in Southeast Asia; however, their proper acknowledgement of the Chinese Muslim community had only started in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Secondly, unlike Japan, there was no corresponding interest from the Chinese side to the Ottoman Empire; in other words, there was mutual disinterest. What is more, while Japan might offer a model for the Ottoman Empire due to its successful development patterns, China could not have such a modelling effect. All these factors contributed to the Ottoman disinterest towards China.

It can be argued that the Ottoman Empire’s consideration of China had started in the 1870s with the issue of East Turkistan. Yakub Khan’s contact with the Porte, which is analysed in the previous chapter, increased the awareness of the Ottomans towards the Chinese Muslims, which was intensified during the

reign of Abdülhamid II. This awareness was reciprocal; in the meantime, the Chinese became also aware of the Ottomans, since the Russian advance in Central Asia disturbed China to a great extent and made her seek for an alliance with the Western states against Russia. Within this framework, one of the Chinese delegations headed by Sie Fou-Tcheng was sent to Paris and London in 1890 and there, he met with the Ottoman ambassadors Esad Paşa and Rüstem Paşa. Particularly, his meeting with Rüstem Paşa was significant, because Rüstem Paşa proposed the signature of a treaty of friendship between these two states since they had a common threat, namely Russia.⁹⁰¹ Such a treaty was not signed; however, the first diplomatic contacts were thus established.

Besides this earlier contact, Abdülhamid II closely followed the Boxer rebellion against the imperialist powers. Upon the request of the Germans, he sent some religious scholars and one of his aides, Enver Paşa, to China in 1900 in order to meet with the Chinese Muslims and to convince them not to join the rebellion. However Enver Paşa returned after a short visit to Shanghai, because the rebellion had already been suppressed short before his arrival in China in 1901. Still, however, the mission served for the increasing Ottoman awareness regarding the potential of the Chinese Muslims. The ulama accompanied Enver Paşa distributed several religious pamphlets prepared in Chinese in order to increase the loyalty of the Chinese Muslims to the Caliph.⁹⁰²

In the first decade of the twentieth century, three more visits were paid by the Ottomans to China. The first one was performed by Muhammed Ali, a member of the ulama, sent by Abdülhamid II in 1902, who had contacted with the Muslim religious authority (müfti) of Beijing, Abdurrahman (the Chinese name was Wang Hao-Chan). His main mission was to make the Chinese Muslims allegiant to the Caliph.⁹⁰³ He was followed by Karçınzade Süleyman

⁹⁰¹ Ocaklı, “XIX. Yüzyıl Sonu ve XX. Yüzyılın Başında Çin Müslümanları ve Osmanlı

Đlişkileri,” 589.

 

⁹⁰² Barış Adıbelli, Osmanlıdan Günümüze Türk-Çin Đlişkileri, (Đstanbul: IQ Yayıncılık, 2007), 107-113.

 

⁹⁰³ Hee Soo Lee, “II. Abdülhamid ve Doğu Asya’daki Pan-Đslamist Siyaseti,” in Eren (ed.),

Osmanlı, Vol. 2, 363-371, 366.

Şükrü and Abdürreşid Đbrahim in 1904 and 1906 respectively. Whether these two were independent travellers or agents of Pan-Islamism sent by Abdülhamid II was a matter of discussion. According to Arzu Ocaklı and Hee Soo Lee, Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü was sent by Abdülhamid under the auspices of the Grand Vizier Tahsin Paşa in order to make Pan-Islamist propaganda in the region.⁹⁰⁴ Hee Soo Lee also perceives Abdürreşid Đbrahim as an agent of Abdülhamid as well; while Selim Deringil argued the contrary and wrote that “the popular conception of Abdürreşid as Abdülhamid’s envoy and missionary is misplaced.”⁹⁰⁵ In their travelogues, Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü and Abdürreşid Đbrahim never declared themselves as agents of Abdülhamid II.

Meanwhile in 1906, Müfti Abdurrahman came to the Porte on his way to pilgrimage. He was followed by other Chinese pilgrims, which strengthened the ties between the Empire and the Chinese Muslims. Abdurrahman demanded from Abdülhamid to send Islamic scholars to China in order to teach the true principles of Islam to the Chinese Muslims. Abdülhamid responded positively and sent Hafız Ali Rıza Efendi and Hafız Hasan Efendi to Beijing. They educated Chinese Muslim students in one of the mosques of Beijing called Niou Kiai. What is more, in 1908, as a result of Ali Rıza Efendi’s initiatives, Beijing Hamidiye College (Dar’ul Ulûm-i Hamidiye) was established by the Muslim elites of the city as a gratitude for sending ulama to China.⁹⁰⁶

All in all, the Ottoman relations with China was extensively limited and except for the diplomatic contact established between the Chinese delegation and the Ottoman Embassies in Paris and London, there was no significant diplomatic contact. Rather, the Ottoman interest to China was mainly focused on the Chinese Muslims and their potential within the framework of the policy of Pan-

⁹⁰⁴ Lee, “II. Abdülhamid ve Doğu Asya’daki Pan-Đslamist Siyaseti,” 367; Ocaklı, “XIX. Yüzyıl Sonu ve XX. Yüzyılın Başında Çin Müslümanları ve Osmanlı Đlişkileri,” 593.

 

⁹⁰⁵ Lee, “II. Abdülhamid ve Doğu Asya’daki Pan-Đslamist Siyaseti,” 370-371; Selim Deringil, “Ottoman-Japanese Relations in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Esenbel and Chiharu (eds.), The Rising Sun and the Turkish Crescent, 42-47, 44.

 

⁹⁰⁶ Lee, “II. Abdülhamid ve Doğu Asya’daki Pan-Đslamist Siyaseti,” 366; Ocaklı, “XIX. Yüzyıl Sonu ve XX. Yüzyılın Başında Çin Müslümanları ve Osmanlı Đlişkileri,” 592.

Islamism. Particularly, during the reign of Abdülhamid II, several religious scholars were sent to China for the maintenance of the allegiance of the Chinese Muslims to the Caliph. Beyond that, except for some Ottoman travellers, China remained out of the focus of the Ottomans.

 

13.2.      Ottoman Travellers' Perception of South and East Asia in the Nineteenth Century

 

13.2.1.               Ottoman Travellers' Perception of the Local People

 

 

13.2.1.1.                The Perception of the Japanese

Among the peoples of South and East Asia, the Japanese were the most appreciated and admired community in the Ottoman travelogues; their cultural resemblance to the Muslims, their modernization without giving up their national qualities and their competition with the Europeans in terms of political and military power attracted the attention of the travellers.

The appreciation of the Japanese people even extended to their physiognomic qualities. Karçınzade defined the Japanese, whom he had encountered on the board of the vessel on which he had been travelling to Shanghai, as such: “They are short, their bodies are solid, their bones are big, their arms are strong, their feet are swift, their steps are agile, their hearts are vivid, their eyes are small but quite open.”⁹⁰⁷ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, on the other hand, resembled them to the Turkish race. This similarity made him feel comfortably and in a familiar environment during his stay in a Japanese hospital in Shanghai for the treatment of his illness. He wrote that the Japanese “[...] did not perceive [him] as a foreigner […] They informed each other that one of their brothers in the West had come to their hospital.”⁹⁰⁸

⁹⁰⁷ “Kâmetleri kısa, gövdeleri sağlam, kemikleri iri, kolları kavî, ayakları çevik, hatveleri serî, kalpleri hayy, gözleri küçük ve fakat gayet açık [...]” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 544.

 

⁹⁰⁸ “[..B]eni yabancı görmüyorlardı [...] Garbdaki kardeşlerinden bir ferdin hastahanelerine geldiğini birbirlerine haber veriyorlardı.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 223.

Besides their physiognomy, the Japanese modernization and the travellers’ awareness of its successes resulted in a very positive perception of the Japanese, particularly some of their characteristics. First and foremost, the diligence of the Japanese was emphasized; accordingly, the Japanese were “thinking a lot and speaking a little,” (çok düşünür az söyler)⁹⁰⁹ and “speaking a little and working a lot.” (az laf, çok iş)⁹¹⁰ They were acting rapidly and working continuously; they were solely dealing with their own duties without laughing and talking in vain, because they were always seeking for the interest of their own nation.⁹¹¹ They were even working harder than the Europeans because while the Europeans closed all their shops and factories during holidays, the Japanese kept them open and worked even harder during their festivals to meet increasing demands of the Japanese people.⁹¹² They did not have a nightlife; this was another “indication of good morality” (hüsn-ü ahlâk emâresi), which showed that the Japanese were not idle people.⁹¹³ What is more, according to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, they were extremely productive; the Japanese industry frequently produced new inventions. He particularly mentioned about the “patent practice” (“patent” usûlü), which encouraged the Japanese scientists, since the inventors could obtain all the rights and concessions of what they had invented.⁹¹⁴ Another useful method was commercial advertisements (ilânât-ı ticâriye) which fostered Japanese trade; even, in this respect, he found the Japanese far more superior to the Europeans.⁹¹⁵

 

⁹⁰⁹ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 16.

 

⁹¹⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 281.

 

⁹¹¹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 189; Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 17-20.

 

⁹¹² Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 198.

 

⁹¹³ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 209.

 

⁹¹⁴ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 318.

 

⁹¹⁵ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 196-197.

Besides their diligence, the Japanese were appreciated for their cleanliness, orderliness and plain lives. For example, on his way to Yokohama, Abdürreşid Đbrahim visited a Japanese village and admired its clean and ordered streets and houses; he was also quite surprised when he saw a telephone cabin in the midst of the village together with a modern post and telegraph office.⁹¹⁶ Not only villages or houses, but also other institutions such as museums or prisons were very much appreciated.⁹¹⁷ Besides cleanliness and orderliness, he argued that all the Japanese were polite, hospitable and good-mannered.⁹¹⁸ Similarly, Habibzade wrote that it was difficult to establish friendship with the Japanese; however, once it was established, they were extremely generous and sincere towards their friends.⁹¹⁹

Another Japanese characteristics worth of mentioning was the importance given to education. Accordingly, even in the smallest villages there were proper schools; in the cities, except for governmental buildings, only the schools were constructed colossally, which was an indication of the value given to education.⁹²⁰ What is more, the Japanese were extremely inclined to reading; Habibzade was surprised when he saw libraries even in the houses of Japanese villagers.⁹²¹ Similarly, Abdürreşid Đbrahim mentioned that the Japanese were reading newspapers properly; the newspapers were distributed even to the smallest villages of this country⁹²²

The Japanese were also admired for their family lives and for their respectfulness to the national culture. For example, Habibzade emphasized the

⁹¹⁶ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 185.

 

⁹¹⁷ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 234, 270.

 

⁹¹⁸ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 214.

 

⁹¹⁹ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 16-17.

 

⁹²⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 189.

 

⁹²¹ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 16.

 

⁹²² Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 185.

education of the Japanese children by their mothers in accordance with Japanese traditions, the respect of the Japanese women to their husbands, and the helpfulness of the Japanese men to their wives.⁹²³ Similarly, Abdürreşid Đbrahim found the Japanese women not as informal as the Western women; he appreciated the mutual respect between Japanese man and woman. He also argued that even the high-rank bureaucrats and the members of the ruling dynasty preferred the Japanese living style instead of the Western one. For example, The Minister of Imperial Palace accepted Abdürreşid Đbrahim first in a room decorated in European style and after a few minutes he told him that the formality was over and now they could pass to his personal room decorated in Japanese style. He further said that they were both Easterners and therefore they should communicate in Eastern style⁹²⁴. Similarly, he watched a Japanese theatre, only for it reflected the Japanese sensitiveness towards preserving their own national culture, although he did not understand the language of the play.⁹²⁵

These positive qualities directed particularly Abdürreşid Đbrahim to conclude that indeed the Japanese had already been practising the Islamic principles, such as cleanliness, honesty, or the mutual respect between man and woman.⁹²⁶ He wrote that “thenceforward, there is no doubt that Islam will spread in Japan because the Japanese nation were naturally inclined to Islam.”⁹²⁷ He also devoted a chapter on the characteristics of the Japanese similar to Muslims in order to show that “if [the Ottoman] ulama are able to show the way to the Japanese, there is no doubt that the Japanese have the perfect competence to Islam.”⁹²⁸

⁹²³ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 17-20.

 

⁹²⁴ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 279-280.

 

⁹²⁵ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 224.

 

⁹²⁶ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 265.

 

⁹²⁷ “[F]î mâ-bâd, Đslâmiyetin Japonya’da intişâr edeceği şüphesizdir. Zira Japon milleti tab’en

Đslâma yakın bir millettir.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 273.

 

⁹²⁸ “Eğer bizim ulemâmız Japonlara yol gösterebilirlerse, hiç şüphe yoktur ki, Japonlarda

Đslâmiyet için istidâd-ı tâm vardır.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 311.

Abdürreşid Đbrahim also admired the international respect and power that the Japanese attained in a short period of time. In one of his conversations with the former Japanese Foreign Minister, Okuma Shigenobu (1838-1922), he declared his sentiments about the Japanese as such:

First of all, the Japanese suddenly arose like the sun and in their first attempt they proved to the world that the eastern nations had the capacity to become civilized. This is against the European diplomats’ vicious ideas and vile interests regarding the East; therefore there is no doubt that they will change the political ideas that they have been pursuing so far.⁹²⁹

 

Similarly, he wrote that the emergence of the Japanese as a mighty power in the East was miraculous: “The emergence of a small nation, having no name and trace in the world, by making all the nations existing in the earth trembling, is an unforgettable wonder.”⁹³⁰

Besides such declarations of admiration, Abdürreşid Đbrahim argued that the Japanese should act as a guide to all Eastern nations:

Today, I convinced myself through my own observations about the Japanese advance. It is the natural competence I observed in the Japanese that gives me a great confidence… The Japanese nation will act as a guide for all Eastern nations, the natural channel of the East is to rise.⁹³¹

….

I see the Japanese as a new-born sun; I demand from the God that the entire Eastern world shall benefit from the lights of this sun. The Japanese are newly- flowered fruit tree, all Eastern and particularly our Muslims are waiting to eat from its fruits… If the elites of this nation cannot preserve this fruit, they will become responsible to the entire Eastern world, because the life of Japanese is the life of entire Eastern world.⁹³²

⁹²⁹ “Evvelâ Japonlar birden bire güneş gibi tulû ettiler ve birinci hareketlerinde şark milletlerinin bir istidâd-ı temeddüne malik olduğunu âleme ispât ettiler. Bu ise Avrupa diplomatlarının Şark hakkında besledikleri efkâr-ı fasîde ve menâfî-i kasîdlerine mugâyir olduğu gibi, şimdiye kadar tâkip etmekte oldukları siyâsetlerini dahî tebdîl edeceklerinde şüphe yoktur.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 202.

 

⁹³⁰ “Dünyada hiç nâm ve nişânı olmayan ufacık bir kavmin bütün kürre-yi arzda mevcût akvâm-ı beşeriyeyi titretircesine meydana çıkması hiç bir zaman hatırdan çıkmayacak hârikadır.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 500-501.

 

⁹³¹ “Ben bugün Japonların takaddümlerine bilmüşâhade kesb-i kanâat ettim. Japonlarda gördüğüm istidâd-ı fıtrî bana gayet büyük itminân vermiştir… Japon milleti bütün akvâm-ı Şarkiyeye rehber olacaklardır. Şarkın mecrâ-yı tabiîsi yükselmektir.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 215.

 

⁹³² “Ben Japonlara yeni tulû etmiş bir güneş nazarıyla bakıyorum. Bütün Şark âleminin bu güneşin nûrundan müstefîd olmalarını Cenâb-ı Hâktan temennî ediyorum. Japonlar yeni çiçek açmış bir meyve ağacıdır, bütün Şark ve husûsen bizim Müslümanlar bunun meyvesinden yemeye muntazırdır… Eğer millet ricâli bu meyveyi muhâfaza edemezse bütün maşrık âlemine karşı

Despite this extreme adoration towards Japan and the Japanese culture, there were three significant characteristics of the Japanese that were not appreciated by the Ottoman travellers. One of them was the lack of the practice of “proper veiling” (setr-i avret) and therefore the lack of the sense of “shame” (hicâb) in the Japanese culture. Particularly, the bathing of the men and women together resulted in such a criticism towards the Japanese culture.⁹³³ The second point of criticism was related to the Japanese tradition of cremation of the corpses. Accordingly, Abdürreşid Đbrahim participated to a cremation ceremony and explained it in detail. Although he disliked this practice, he perceived it as a matter of belief.⁹³⁴ Finally, the Japanese were criticized for their suppression over the neighbouring nations such as the Koreans or the Chinese. Although this criticism was not as severe as the criticism of Western imperialism, still the insulting treatment of the Japanese towards the Chinese and their intention to pursue their authority over them was not liked much.⁹³⁵

 

13.2.1.2.            The Perception of the Koreans

Among the Ottoman travellers, only Abdürreşid Đbrahim mentioned about the Koreans. His perception of this community was quite negative; he expressed his criticisms towards the Koreans through comparing them with the Japanese. To start with, cleanliness was one criterion of comparison. Regarding the Koreans of Pusan, Abdürreşid Đbrahim wrote that they had been living under miserable conditions, in dirty and messy houses.⁹³⁶ Similarly, on his way to Seul, he passed the night in a Korean town and the official in the train station advised him to stay in one of the Japanese houses instead of the Korean ones

mesûl kalırlar, zira Japonların hayâtı umum şark âleminin hayatıdır.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim,

Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 339.

 

⁹³³ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 209, 214.

 

⁹³⁴ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 274-277.

 

⁹³⁵ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 489.

 

⁹³⁶ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 461.

because of the cleanliness of the former; after visiting both kinds of houses he had to admit that the official was right.⁹³⁷

Another difference between the Japanese and the Koreans was the diligence of the former vis-à-vis the laziness of the latter. He wrote that, “[a]lthough the fields are wide and fertile in Korea, there was no trace of life, since the nation is a dead one; it [the trace of life] only exists where the Japanese are residing.”⁹³⁸ What is more, there was nothing to trade in Korea since the Koreans had nothing to sell or buy because their lives were even simpler than the Japanese. There was no wealthy person as well, since the Koreans only thought about how to feed themselves and nothing else.⁹³⁹

Comparison with the Japanese was not only done for presenting the inferiority of the Koreans vis-à-vis the Japanese; with regard to the sense of “shame” (hicâb) the Koreans were perceived as superior to the Japanese. According to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, this was a quality to be appreciated; in Korean houses there was a particular section in their houses for women (harem) and they never let foreign males to see the women. ⁹⁴⁰

 

13.2.1.3.            The Perception of the Chinese

The perception of the Chinese by the Ottoman travellers was quite mixed; it was not as positive as the Japanese and not as negative as the Koreans. They praised the virtues of the Chinese and criticized the negative characteristics of this people. To start with the positive qualities, the Chinese awareness of their national culture and pride, unlike the Koreans, was appreciated. According to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, in Manchuria, although both the Chinese and the Koreans

⁹³⁷ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 463.

 

⁹³⁸ “Kore’de arazi bi’nnisbe vasî ve münbît ise de millet ölmüş bir millet olduğundan hayat eseri hiç gözükmüyordu, yalnız Japonların bulunduğu yerlerde var.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 464.

 

⁹³⁹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 473.

 

⁹⁴⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 461. Later, he discussed this sense of “shame” and veiling practices of Korean women in detail, 467-468.

were living under the Japanese domination, the Chinese did not totally surrender as the Koreans. They remained more prosperous compared to the Koreans; the reason for their prosperity and their resistance to the Japanese domination was their respect to Chinese traditions and national customs, since this provided “another trace of life” (başka bir hayat eseri) for this people.⁹⁴¹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim admired the respect of the Chinese to their national costumes and their long hairs.⁹⁴² He even compared this attitude of the Chinese with the Ottomans who were ashamed of their fez and changed it with a hat when they travelled to Europe.⁹⁴³ Secondly, the Chinese were perceived as extremely honest; in this respect, he concluded that “the Chinese civilization was the most strong and solid civilization.” ⁹⁴⁴

The Chinese of Shanghai attracted the attention of Adil Hikmet Bey, who perhaps produced one of the most positive accounts of the Chinese in his travelogue besides the most negative ones. According to him, the Chinese of Shanghai were the most vigilant and patriotic Chinese of the entire country.⁹⁴⁵ He praised their respect to the Chinese culture and the importance given to the use of national products instead of European imports. The merchants were honest and they hated the tricksters. He concluded that “if all the Chinese people loved their country as the Chinese of Shanghai and if they became as hard- working as them, then there would be no doubt that the yellow peril, from which

 

 

 

 

⁹⁴¹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 487-489.

 

⁹⁴² “[…B]ir Çinli ne kadar zengin olursa olsun kendi millî elbisesinden başka bir elbiseye rağbet etmez, belki millî elbisesiyle iftihâr eder. Çok metîn bir millettir. Hele o hayvan kuyruğu kadar saçını heman takdîs edercesine muhâfaza eder.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 154.

 

⁹⁴³ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 554.

 

⁹⁴⁴ “Çin medeniyeti en metîn ve sağlam bir medeniyettir.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 493.

 

⁹⁴⁵ “Şanghay Çinlileri, bütün Çin arazisinde yaşayan insanların en îzanlısı ve en vatanperveridir.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 412.

the Europe has feared, is to be materialized.”946 What is more, in Shanghai, he met with some Chinese intellectuals and admired their anti-European nature:

A real Chinese intellectual hates the Europeans. A viper is seen as deserving more respect than a European. He hates the Chinese snobs altogether. For a real intellectual, a Chinese who is inclined to Europeanness is a great threat, and any Chinese, who has contaminated his personality with the European principles, is worth of an army of missionaries. That is why he is hated.⁹⁴⁷

 

Besides these positive qualities, the Chinese were criticized for their dirtiness and cowardliness towards the colonial powers.⁹⁴⁸ The most significant criticism to the Chinese came from Habibzade Ahmet Kemal and Adil Hikmet Bey, who had been imposed to unfair and even harsh treatment by the Chinese officials, including imprisonment and exile. Similar to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Habibzade emphasized the dirtiness of the Chinese, their houses and their quarters.⁹⁴⁹ However, it was the Chinese sense of law and that he criticized the most. Accordingly, he was imprisoned for several times in Kasghar by the Chinese authorities; therefore he concluded that “[i]n Kasghar governmental affairs are quite disordered. Order and regularity are forgotten […] Government in Chinese country means the shelter of bandits emerged within cities.”⁹⁵⁰ With regard to the treatment in the Chinese prisons, he mentioned about torture and argued that “In this era of progress of the society of mankind, the cruel laws of China applied these provisions [he meant the provisions for torturing the

⁹⁴⁶ “Bütün Çin ahâlisi Şanghay Çinlileri gibi vatanlarını sevmeyi bilseler ve onlar kadar çalışkan olsalar, Avrupa’nın korktuğu sarı tehlikenin meydan alacağına şüphe edilmezdi.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 412.

 

⁹⁴⁷ “Hakikî bir Çinli münevver Avrupalılardan nefret eder. Bir engerek, bir Avrupalıdan daha ziyâde hürmete şâyân görülür. Hele Çinli züppelerden tamamıyla nefret eder. Avrupalılığa temessül etmiş olan bir Çinli, hakikî münevverin fikrince müthiş bir tehlikedir ve her benliğini Avrupa akîdelerine bulaştırmış olan Çinli, bir misyoner ordusuna bedeldir. Bunun için ondan nefret edilir.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 425.

 

⁹⁴⁸ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 158-159, 493

 

⁹⁴⁹ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 118, 132-133.

 

⁹⁵⁰ “Kaşgar'da hükümet işleri çok bozuktur. Nizâm, intizâm mefkût […] Çin memleketlerinde hükümet, şehir içinde türeyen eşkiyâların ocağı demektir. Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin- Türkistan Hatıraları, 79.

prisoners] on the sons of Adam.”⁹⁵¹ What is more, he argued that the Chinese were not aware of international law:

Since the Chinese governors have not yet been familiar to the rules and provisions of international law, they did not perceive such occurrences as important, they ignore even the most serious and significant problems humiliating the honor of the government and the dignity of the country with tolerance.⁹⁵²

All in all, Habibzade suffered so much from the Chinese maltreatment that when the Chinese officials decided to send him to Shanghai after two years of imprisonment, he summarized his negative perception of the Chinese as such:

I am ready to prefer even the road to hell instead of the Road to Shanghai in order to save myself from the arms of stubborn Chinese people, the unlawful officials and the long haired thieves unaware of the provisions of international law and the rules of civilization and in order to reach the homeland.⁹⁵³

Similarly, Adil Hikmet Bey criticized the Chinese officials as much as he could; he mentioned about their insidious nature, from which he suffered the most. His hatred towards the Chinese was so significant that except for the Chinese officials, who had declared themselves as of Turkish origin, and the Chinese of Shanghai, he perceived all the Chinese as venomous people.⁹⁵⁴ What is more, he mentioned about the Chinese sense of arrogance; accordingly the Chinese perceived themselves as superior to all other nations. In their eyes, all

⁹⁵¹ “Đşte cemiyet-i beşeriyenin bu devr-i tekâmülünde Çin'in zâlim kânunları, bu maddeleri Âdemoğullarında tatbîk ediyor.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 139.

 

⁹⁵² “Fakat Çin valileri henüz daha hukûk-i düvel kâide ve ahkâmına vâkıf adamlar olmadıklarından, bu gibi vukuatlara ehemmiyet vermezler, nâmus-u hükümet ve haysiyet-i memleketi tahkîr eden en büyük ve ciddi meseleleri bile nazar-ı müsâmaha ile geçirirler.” These lines were written after an incident in which some friends of Habibzade were captured by the Russian Cossacks operating within the Chinese territory. He applied to the local governors and mentioned that Russia acted contrary to international law and the Chinese had the right to reclaim these captured Turks. However, the Chinese governor attempted to ignore the incident in order not to disturb the fragile relations between China and Russia. Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin- Türkistan Hatıraları, 51.

 

⁹⁵³ “[...A]nûd Çinlilerin, bu kâidesiz memurların, hukûk-u düvel ahkâmından, medeniyet kânunlarından bîhaber, hırsız uzun saçlıların kolundan kurtulup vatana kavuşmak için Şanhay yolunu değil, belki de, cehennem yolunu tercih etmeye hazırdım.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin- Türkistan Hatıraları, 166.

 

⁹⁵⁴ Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 236, 241.

other nations of the world were savage and the Confucian ethics were the most civilized and proper law.⁹⁵⁵

The Ottoman travelogues mentioning about China did not only describe the Chinese, but also the Chinese Muslims. According to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, the Chinese Muslims were extremely superior to the non-Muslim Chinese with regard to their cleanliness.⁹⁵⁶ What is more, they were appreciated for their establishment of schools for the education of youngsters. Habibzade praised them for establishing a school in Beijing entitled “the Islamic School” (Medrese- i Đslâmiye).⁹⁵⁷

The Chinese Muslims could not easily be separated from the non- Muslims because they cut their mustaches and beards and kept their hairs long.⁹⁵⁸ This physiognomic similarity resulted in the criticism of Abdürreşid Đbrahim because he perceived the long hairs and nails of the Chinese and cutting of their beards and mustaches as inappropriate in terms of Islamic principles.⁹⁵⁹ What is more, according to Abdürreşid Đbrahim the Muslim Chinese houses, shops and mosques could only be differentiated from the non-Muslim ones by the Arabic scripts and Islamic signs carved on these buildings.⁹⁶⁰

Another criticism directed towards Chinese Muslims was their ignorance and bigotry. Abdürreşid Đbrahim found the Chinese imams extremely ignorant, even deprived of the knowledge of simple Arabic; what is more, they blended Confucian traditions with Islam, which was deteriorating the real Islamic principles.⁹⁶¹ What is more, the elites of the Chinese Muslims were quite

⁹⁵⁵ “Dünyada mevcût kavimlerin hepsi onlarca vahşîdir ve bütün dünyada en medeni ve doğru kânunlar Konfüçyus ahkâmından ibarettir ve herkes de bu kânunlarla idâre olunur.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 369.

 

⁹⁵⁶ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 138.

 

⁹⁵⁷ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 26.

 

⁹⁵⁸ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 563.

 

⁹⁵⁹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 512.

 

⁹⁶⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 138.

 

⁹⁶¹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 141.

ignorant as well; when Abdürreşid Đbrahim began to talk about the concepts like nation, progress or education, they did not listen to their words and even began to sleep.⁹⁶² After emphasizing the Muslim ignorance he offered the Ottomans to enlighten these people:

In northern China, especially in northeastern parts and in Manchuria ignorance is widespread, even to the degree that they are not aware of their ignorance, to awaken them and to send people to awake them are the duties of Muslims of enlightened ideas. Particularly the Muslims living under the Islamic Caliphate and especially the post of seikhulislam should help and save them from the darkness of ignorance; otherwise their future was extremely desperate.⁹⁶³

Habibzade also focused on the bigotry of Chinese Muslims; however, he appreciated this bigotry because the missionaries could not succeed to convert Chinese Muslims for their fanatical loyalty to their religion. He wrote that the Chinese Muslims called the missionaries as “the thieves of religion” (din hırsızları) and the missionaries called the Chinese Muslims as “Chinese barbarians” (Çin barbarları).⁹⁶⁴

 

13.2.1.4.            The Perception of the Indians and the Indo-Chinese

What is significant, in the first instance, with regard to the Ottoman perception of the Indians and the Indo-Chinese was their effort to categorize different ethnic communities living in these regions. Such an effort was not much visible in the accounts of China or Japan because of the relative demographic homogeneity of these countries, except for the cosmopolitan cities like Shanghai or Hong Kong. In making these categorizations, certain criteria

⁹⁶² “Muallimden, tâlimden bir şey söylersem âdeta uyumaya başlar.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i

Đslam, Vol. 1, 143.

 

⁹⁶³ “Çin-i şimâlide, husûsen şimâl-i şarkîde ve Mançurya’da cehâlet çok taammüm etmiş, hatta o derecede ki kendi cehâletlerinden kendilerinin haberleri yok, buraları îkâz etmek ve îkâz edecek adamları yollamak münevverü’l efkâr olan Müslümanların vazîfeleridir. Husûsen hilâfet-i Đslâmiyede bulunan Müslümanlar ve bâhusûs meşihât-ı Đslâmiye bunların imdâdına yetişmeli, bu zulmet-i cehâletten bunları kurtarmalı ve illâ âkıbetleri çok vahîmdir.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 155.

 

⁹⁶⁴ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, p. 27. Similarly Adil Hikmet Bey mentioned that the Chinese Muslims’ bigotry resulted in the failure of the missionaries. Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 313.

such as religion, dress, profession or ethnic background were used. For example, Ahmed Hamdi Efendi categorized the Indian population with regard to their religion and mentioned about the Muslim, Mecusî (he meant Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist communities), and Parsi communities.⁹⁶⁵ On the other hand, while he mentioned about the cosmopolitan composition of Bombay, he focused on different ethnic communities besides religious ones:

In the interior parts [of the city], there were peculiar quarters for Hind and Arab and Acem and Parsi and European and Chinese and etc. In its streets, Hindus with big turbans, naked bodies and red and yellow and blue lines on their faces, Arabs wearing Babylonian clothes, Parsis with long cones on their heads who very much look like Persians, Portuguese ladies wearing black costumes, savage-looking Chinese and Burmese speaking with a loud voice, Malays, Kûçî and Gujarati people with thin turbans and Afghans and Sind people with large turbans are encountered.⁹⁶⁶

Three points attracts attention in this long excerpt. First of all, Ahmed Hamdi Efendi defined these ethnic communities mainly by referring to their costumes, particularly their turbans. For example, what distinguished Parsis from Sind people is not their physical appearance but their head-covers. Secondly, the Portuguese were noted as the only European community; his disregard of the British or other European communities living in the city demonstrated that he perceived the Portuguese among the native population of the subcontinent. Finally, in depicting Indo-Chinese and Chinese communities, he focused on their language  and  physical  appearance  instead  of  their  costumes.  Such  a

⁹⁶⁵ A Parsi or Parsee, is a member of a Zoroastrian community based primarily in the Indian subcontinent, who had claimed themselves to be descended from the Zoroastrians migrated from Persia to Indian subcontinent around the eighth century A. C. Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, p. 14. Similarly, Ali Bey classified the peoples of India in accordance with their religions under the categories of Islam, Parsi, Brahmans (Bunyan), Hindu and the Portuguese. See Ali Bey, Seyahat Jurnali, 107-111.

 

⁹⁶⁶ “Derûnunda Hind ve Arab ve Acem ve Pârsî ve Avrupalu ve Çinli ve sâireye mahsûs mahaller olup, sokaklarında başları büyük kavuklu ve bedenleri çıplak ve yüzlerine kırmızı ve sarı ve mavi hatlar çekilmiş Hindulara ve Babilî elbiselerle mülebbes Arablara ve müşâhabetçe Acemlere pek karîb olan uzun külahlarıyla ser-efrâz Parsîlere yâni ateşperestlere ve siyah elbiseler giyinip çıkmış Portekizli güzellere ve tantana ile tekellüm eden vahşî simâlı Çinlilere ve Birmanlılara, Malaylara ve ince sarıklı Kûçî ve Guceratîlere ve büyük amâmeli Afganîlere ve Sindlilere tesâdüf olunur.” Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 15-16.

differentiation even reached to the level of labelling Indo-Chinese communities as savage-looking.

Similar to Ahmed Hamdi Efendi, Abdürreşid Đbrahim was another traveller utilizing ethnic background for classification. Regarding the Sumatran people, he devoted a small chapter entitled “Ethnographic Aspect” (Etnoğraf Ciheti) in which he determined the Javanese and the Malays as mixed groups emerged out of the mixture of the Chinese and the Indians. Accordingly, the Javanese resembled the Chinese, while the Malays resembled the Indians.⁹⁶⁷

Rather than utilizing dress or ethnic background as a criteria, Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü mainly focused on the division of labour for categorizing them. For example regarding Ceylon, he mentioned that the Muslims were mainly dealing with trade, the Singhalese were working as artisans or officials, and the Tamil people were dealing with agriculture.⁹⁶⁸ Similarly with regard to the inhabitants of Bombay, he mentioned about the Muslim community, which was the most developed one in terms of industry and trade, the Zoroastrians dealing with the same sectors, and the Hindus dealing mainly with agriculture.⁹⁶⁹

Besides the categorization of local people, another significant point in the travelogues on India and Indo-China was the conditions of the Indian Muslims, which were perceived quite similar to the Chinese Muslims. On the one hand, the Indian Muslims' piousness and their loyalty to the Caliph were appraised; on the other hand, their acceptance of the British colonial administration was criticized. There was no single perception of the Indian Muslims; for example, Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü wrote that the Muslim community of Calcutta was quite pious and modest; they preserved and were proud of their spiritual ties with the Caliph.

⁹⁶⁷ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 19.

 

⁹⁶⁸ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 471.

 

⁹⁶⁹ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 361. Similarly, he utilized profession as a criterion for categorizing the peoples of Hong Kong. Accordingly the Muslim community were generally dealing with trade, bakery, butchery, grocery and they earned quite well. Europeans and the Japanese were dealing with trade, medical profession, artisanship, money changing, and hotel and bar management. The Jewish community was dealing with brokerage and finally the local inhabitants were working as farmers, workers, boatmen, and porters. Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 540.

Hhowever, the Muslim ruler (nuvvab) of Baroda, who had been deposed by the British and replaced by a Hindu raj, was depicted as a coward man, whose cowardliness, also visible in the Muslim community of that region, contributed to the British supremacy.⁹⁷⁰ Similarly, his perception of the Muslim community of Ahmedabad was quite negative. He wrote that these Muslims “[...] are oppressed by ignorance, poverty and laziness; their bloods are frozen, their hearts are dead, their minds are drowsy; therefore they cannot benefit from their inherited intelligence.”⁹⁷¹

Ignorance and lack of education was another point of criticism directed towards the Indian Muslims. Regarding Hyderabad, Abdürreşid Đbrahim mentioned about the miserable conditions of the mosques, religious schools, or lack of libraries. He argued that in this great Islamic state, such problems should not exist.⁹⁷² He bitterly criticized the students of the Muslim schools, who were “at the most primitive stage of the humanity.” (insâniyetin pek ibtidaî derecesinde).⁹⁷³ He also argued that the only education given in this school was on Arabic and religious sciences; there was no courses on the new sciences (fünûn-u cedîde).⁹⁷⁴ Similarly, in Porbandar, Karçınzade attended to the opening ceremony of a Muslim school entitled “The School of the Council of Benevolence” (Medrese-i Encümen-i Ahyâr), and made a speech on the importance of education. He mentioned that the curriculum of the school was rich in terms of language education, but extremely poor in terms of science education. To the languages taught in the school, Turkish must be added in order not to ignore the religious and commercial significance of the Ottoman Empire; what is more, besides history, geography and philosophy, positive sciences

⁹⁷⁰ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 447, 375.

 

⁹⁷¹ “Cehâlet, atâlet, meskenet üzerlerine çöküp kanları donmuş, kalpleri ölmüş, âsapları uyuşmuş olduğundan zekâvet-i fıtriyelerinden müstefîd olamıyorlar.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 377.

 

⁹⁷²Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 89-90.

 

⁹⁷³ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 91.

 

⁹⁷⁴ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 91.

including, algebra, geometry, cosmography, geology and mineralogy should be added to the curriculum. Another department on trade and industry should be added to this school as well.⁹⁷⁵ These propositions demonstrated the significance attached to modern education by the Ottomans.

Finally, the Indian culture and Hindu religious practices attracted the attention of the travellers. Ahmed Hamdi Efendi mentioned about Indian culture generally quite objectively, without judging or comparing it with Islamic standards. Many Indian traditions, such as the cremation of the corpses or the sanctity of cows, were solely described by Ahmed Hamdi Efendi without a negative connotation. For example, he described how Indians had prepared the corps for burning and how the process of cremation had been executed in detail.⁹⁷⁶ However, he did not condemn it as an indication of barbarity. Similar to the Indian funeral traditions, he did not adjudge the Parsi tradition of placing the corpses on a high tower and leaving them to the birds to eat; rather he confined himself to narrate a conversation that he had made with a Parsi on the funeral customs of this community.⁹⁷⁷

Ahmed Hamdi Efendi approached another oft-cited practice, namely sanctity of cows, as a religious practice. He enlisted many rites regarding cows, even as marginal as the utilization of cow urine as a cleaning liquid or application of cow excreta by some Hindu sects on their foreheads for good fortune; however he just perceived them as religious rituals.⁹⁷⁸ On the other hand, Karçınzade was not as tolerant as Ahmed Hamdi Efendi regarding cow- worshipping. He criticized the dirtiness of cow-worshippers, since they utilized the urine and excrement of the cows for smarten up themselves. He wrote that

 

 

 

⁹⁷⁵ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 393.

 

⁹⁷⁶ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 10-11.

 

⁹⁷⁷ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 18.

 

⁹⁷⁸ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 72.

through this practice, the streets of Bombay resembled to “a river full of mess” (müzhârefatlı bir dere) and “a disgusting sewer” (mekruh bir lağım).⁹⁷⁹

As a Muslim scholar, Ahmed Hamdi Efendi did not question the validity of reincarnation as well. Writing on Hamirpur, he mentioned about Buddhists and their religious beliefs and he briefly described reincarnation without judging it with Islamic precepts. ⁹⁸⁰ Unlike Ahmed Hamdi Efendi, Karçınzade derided with the religious practices of the Hindus; he sarcastically mentioned about their distorted beliefs.⁹⁸¹ For example he labelled a Hindu ritual as a “ridiculous disorder” (gülünç bir keşmekeş).⁹⁸²

There were a few traditions which Ahmed Hamdi Efendi did not remain neutral and criticized. For example, he mentioned his disgust over the leaving of the remnants of corpses after cremation to the Ganges River. Thus he describes the appearance of these remnants on the river as an “unsightly panorama” (bir çirkin manzara).⁹⁸³ Even commenting on this practice, Ahmet Hamdi Efendi did not abase it in religious terms, but rather condemns it as an unhygienic and hideous habit. Another tradition he fiercely criticized was the abandonment of those with mortal diseases to the banks of Ganges to make them drowned to the river during the high tide. He named this practice as a “disgusting custom” (âdet- i kerîhe) likewise the satee, the practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband’s funeral pyre, which had been severely prohibited by the British short before his arrival to the subcontinent. ⁹⁸⁴

Ali Bey also found the cremation of corpses as a disgusting practice, which he could not afford to watch; such a negative perception was evident in

⁹⁷⁹ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 360.

 

⁹⁸⁰ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 122.

 

⁹⁸¹ For example, he criticized the worshipping to a statute having a human body with a donkey’s head. Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, p. 363.

 

⁹⁸² Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, p. 375.

 

⁹⁸³ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 66.

 

⁹⁸⁴ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 130.

the travelogue of Abdürreşid Đbrahim, who found this practice as a savage tradition.⁹⁸⁵ Similarly, both of them condemned the tradition of satee and appreciated its prohibition by the British.⁹⁸⁶ Abdürreşid Đbrahim concluded that “[a]lthough such beliefs were present in almost all nations, I think that they are not as extreme as Hindus.”⁹⁸⁷

All in all, the travellers’ perception of the Indians was quite mixed. On the one hand, ignorance and bigotry were the main criticisms directed towards the Muslim community; however, these criticisms were also extended towards the Hindus and Parsis. Particularly the cremation of the corpses and the tradition of satee attracted the attention of the travellers the most, because these were extremely weird traditions conflicting with the basic Islamic principles. Therefore, the inhabitants of India and South East Asia were generally perceived negatively.

 

13.2.2.Cities of South and East Asia and the Issue of Urban Duality Similar to the other travelogues on the non-European world, the

travelogues on the South and East Asia included the detailed descriptions of cities and their characteristics. What make these travellers content about a city was its orderliness, cleanness and its level of attainment of the civilizational qualities. For example, Abdürreşid Đbrahim compared Bombay and Calcutta; while he liked the former for having felt himself as in one of the European cities, he complained about the latter, particularly for its dirtiness.⁹⁸⁸ Similarly, regarding Bombay, Âli Bey wrote that the city was almost reconstructed by the British;  he  admired  the  orderliness  of  the  new  city;  particularly  large

⁹⁸⁵ Ali Bey, Seyahat Jurnali, pp. 107-111; “Đhrak-ı meyyitin mecusiyette esas-ı dine alakası olmayıp, belki diyanet namına kabul olunmuş bir vahşettir.”Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 125.

 

⁹⁸⁶ Ali Bey, Seyahat Jurnali, 110; Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 126.

 

⁹⁸⁷ “Her ne kadar bu gibi itikatlar her millette dahi var ise de, Hind mecusilerinde olduğu kadar fahiş olamaz.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 32.

 

⁹⁸⁸ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 31, 37.

governmental buildings. He even wrote that the railway station was much more superior to the ones that he had seen in Europe in terms of its largeness and architectural design.⁹⁸⁹

Among the cities of South and East Asia, it was Shanghai that impressed the travellers the most. For example, Habibzade admired the city’s illuminated ports, European style buildings, automobiles, motorcycles, electrical trams and all other technological infrastructure. He perceived the city as a European capital instead of an Asian one, and felt himself as if he was in “one of the excellent cities of Europe” (Avrupa’nın en mütekâmil şehirlerinden biri).⁹⁹⁰ Similarly, Abdürreşid Đbrahim wrote that this city was the most prosperous city of China and resembled to the European cities and wrote that “[t]here is no doubt that this region is a Chinese realm. However, the city is an international city in which administrative authority resides with the British administrators. In appearance it is almost a British city.”⁹⁹¹ Adil Hikmet Bey was also impressed about the international nature of the city. He wrote that every European nation designed its own quarter as to remind their own country.⁹⁹²

Although Beijing was an old city deprived of the traces of civilization and modernity, Abdürreşid Đbrahim admired the glorious past of the city; he labelled Beijing as “[…] one of the oldest cities of the world and one of the oldest examples of civilization. Beijing, which is the capital city of the Great Chinese state is a great city known by the world.”⁹⁹³ He argued that the city had

⁹⁸⁹ Ali Bey, Seyahat Jurnali, 112.

 

⁹⁹⁰ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, pp. 233-234; Habibzade Ahmed Kemal,

Şanghay Hatıraları, 7.

 

⁹⁹¹ “Hiç şüphe yoktur burası bir Çin ülkesidir. Fakat belde ise Entre-nationale bir belde olup hâkimiyet-i idâriye tamamen Administrer Đngilizler tasarrufundadır. Zâhire bakılacak olursa adeta bir Đngiliz beldesidir.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 584.

 

⁹⁹² “Her devlet kendi mıntıkasını diğeriyle rekâbet ederek imâr etmişti. Şurası Taymis kenarından bir köşe, burası Fransa’dan bir bucak, ötesi Almanya’dan bir parça idi.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 411.

 

⁹⁹³ “Dünyanın en eski beldelerinden olup medeniyetin de en eski numûnelerindendir. Çin devlet-i mefhûmesinin payitahtı olan Pekin beldesi mâruf-u cihân olan bir belde-i muazzamadır.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 521.

been constructed so marvellously that it was very difficult to realize such a big project even in the period he was living in:

Those who had constructed and improved this castle five hundred years ago are the Easterners whom have been called by Europeans as barbaric and savage. It is worth of saying that today it is impossible to establish such a thing even millions are spent for it.⁹⁹⁴

 

The Sultanate of Johor also impressed Abdürreşid Đbrahim for its self- modernization. He argued that the Sultan Đbrahim Ebubekir, whom he argued had only served for his Sultanate, had established railways, post offices, ports, in sum an ordered and clean country unlike other regions of the South and East Asia. Even in terms of cleanliness, he found the Sultanate better than the Japanese. There were other cities he admired for their development; however, they owe their limited modernization to the colonial rule. What is significant for the Sultanate of Johor was its self-modernization by an able and modern-looking Sultan. In sum, according to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Johor was “a totally civilized country” (tamamiyle medeni bir memleket).⁹⁹⁵

Another significant aspect of the travelogues on South and East Asia was the analogies set between Indian and Western cities in accordance with several criteria such as economic positioning, geographical location, or quality of artisanship. For example, in resembling Ajmer to Frankfurt, Ahmed Hamdi Efendi focused on the existence of a wealthy banker community, which he depicted as the “Rothschilds of this country” continuously competing with each other.⁹⁹⁶ In resembling Benares to Napoli, he mentioned that two cities had a similar topographic establishment, climate as well as panorama.⁹⁹⁷ Finally, in resembling Bombay to Paris or London, he used the quality of carriage-making as a standard for comparison. He wrote that he had encountered with carriages on

⁹⁹⁴ “Bu kaleyi bundan beş yüz sene mukaddem binâ ve imâr edenler Avrupa’nın vahşî ve barbar dedikleri Şarklılardır. Bugün milyonlar sarf olunsa bile bu gibi bir şey meydana getirmek imkân hâricinde denilirse sezâdır.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 529.

 

⁹⁹⁵ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 17.

 

⁹⁹⁶ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan Ve Svat Ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 37.

 

⁹⁹⁷ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan Ve Svat Ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 57.

the streets of Bombay manufactured by Indians, which were almost identical with the ones manufactured in Paris or London.⁹⁹⁸ Similarly, when he visited Bina, he had the opportunity to compare diamond-cutting. While he admitted that the quality of diamond-cutting and faceting was inferior to that of the Dutch, still the Indians had acquired the ability to cut the diamonds to a degree that they were preferred in Europe.⁹⁹⁹ Besides such similarities with Europe, resembling the cities and landscapes of the region to Anatolia was another way of comparing these two different geographies. For example, when entering to the port of Bombay, Karçınzade resembled the greenness of the city to the forests of Anatolia; he even argued that Bombay and Đzmir were created by the God as similar ports.¹⁰⁰⁰

Similar to the travelogues on North Africa, urban duality, in other words the spatial distinction between the quarters resided by the Europeans and the local people was a significant matter in the travelogues on South and East Asia. Cleanliness and orderliness, the existence of proper transportation and illumination were the criteria for separating between these two different spaces. The cities, particularly the cosmopolitan/metropolitan cities, such as Calcutta, Bombay, Beijing, Shanghai and Singapore were perceived in terms of urban duality. For example, regarding Calcutta, Abdürreşid Đbrahim argued that while the European quarters of the city were not different from any other European city, the Muslim and Parsi quarters were quite disordered and dirty.¹⁰⁰¹ A similar criticism was made for Beijing. He argued that except for the quarters where the European diplomats resided; “the dirtiest street of Đstanbul is cleaner than the cleanest street of Beijing.”¹⁰⁰² Regarding Shanghai, Habibzade went one step

⁹⁹⁸ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan Ve Svat Ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi, 16.

 

⁹⁹⁹ Şirvanizade Ahmed Hamdi, Hindistan Ve Svat Ve Afganistan Seyahâtnâmesi,,121.

 

¹⁰⁰⁰ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 355.

 

¹⁰⁰¹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 38.

 

¹⁰⁰² “Bizim Đstanbul’un en pis caddesi, Pekin’in en nazif caddesinden daha naziftir.” Abdürreşid

Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 533.

further and separated between “the civilized and uncivilized” (medenî ve gayrımedenî) quarters of the city in which the Europeans and the Chinese were living respectively.¹⁰⁰³

Unlike the travelogues on North Africa, urban duality was not solely constructed on the distinction between the European and non-European quarters; sometimes the urban space was divided between Muslim and Chinese or Muslim and Hindu quarters; with regard to this type of distinction, the Muslim space was always superior from the non-Muslim one. For example, Habibzade wrote about the Chinese and Muslim quarters of the city of Aksu. He wrote that although the Chinese quarter was newly built and therefore had physical superiority over the old Muslim quarter, he was quite bored in the former because of its narrow streets as well as its cold-blooded and static inhabitants. He preferred to live in the old, musty Muslim quarters since he was with his co-religionists in this part of the city. Similarly, in the account of Habibzade, the city of Urumchi was divided into three parts being the upper part inhabited by the Europeans, the lower part inhabited by the Turks and the middle part inhabited by the Chinese. He wrote that the Chinese quarter was the dirtiest part of the entire city because the Chinese were lifeless and miserable people deprived of any kind of social life.¹⁰⁰⁴

 

13.2.3.               Critique of Western Colonial Policy

Similar to the Ottoman travelogues on North Africa, the travelogues on the South and East Asia included a significant critique of the Western colonial policy. While in the former travelogues, the target was the French colonialism, the latter travelogues mainly focused on the British colonialism.

To start with, the Ottoman travellers argued that the colonial powers exploited the resources of the South and East Asia and usurped the wealth of the local people. For example, Karçınzade argued that the British policy in India was

¹⁰⁰³ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 7.

 

¹⁰⁰⁴ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin-Türkistan Hatıraları, 156.

based on the imposition of unbearable taxes on the inhabitants of India; when they could not afford to pay these taxes, the British began to sell whatever they found and to “lift the wealth of India to London” (Hind servetini Londra’ya aşırmak).¹⁰⁰⁵ Indeed, he admitted that the British had made some investments to India from these taxes in the form of construction of modern buildings and infrastructure; however, these constructions were made solely for the sake of the Europeans and their comforts. Regarding Bombay, he wrote that the British had only modernized the littoral parts, where they had been residing, and left other parts of the city unimproved.¹⁰⁰⁶ Similarly, regarding Calcutta, he wrote while all the ornamented buildings were constructed by Indians, they were not respected by the British and continued to live under miserable conditions.¹⁰⁰⁷ According to him, this was an intentional British strategy to show the difference between the British civilization and the Indian backwardness. Another way of demonstrating this duality was the construction of statutes representing the grandeur of Britain vis-à-vis the Indians; similar to the description of a statute in French colonies in North Africa, he depicted the statute of Queen Elizabeth in Calcutta in detail as the visual representation of Western superiority. ¹⁰⁰⁸

A second point of criticism towards British colonialism was the segregation between the Europeans and the Indians. Karçınzade mentioned that an Indian, however noble, virtuous and wealthy he was, had not the right to enter into the lodges of the Europeans or to travel in the same compartment with them.¹⁰⁰⁹ Similar to his writings about the French colonial rule in North Africa, he mentioned that the Indians were never appointed to high-ranking posts; at most, they could be appointed as an official-in-chief. No higher career could be

 

¹⁰⁰⁵ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 357.

 

¹⁰⁰⁶ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 359.

 

¹⁰⁰⁷ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 442-443. ¹⁰⁰⁸ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 447-448. ¹⁰⁰⁹ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 364.

obtained by the local inhabitants of the country.¹⁰¹⁰ Similarly Habibzade wrote that it was impossible for a Chinese to enter to a park where the Europeans were wandering, to buy something from the shops where the Europeans bought something, or to go to a theatre or cinema where the Europeans were going.¹⁰¹¹ In other words, not only in India but also in China, same segregation prevailed.

The segregation was not only present in social life; it was legalized through law and establishment of dual courts separating the Europeans and the local inhabitants. Karçınzade mentioned that “[t]he Europeans had two kinds of laws in India and in other colonies. The provisions of one of them are for their own nations and the other on the ones under their authority.”¹⁰¹² Similarly, Habibzade mentioned about the dual courts in Shanghai, one devoted for the European trials based on European laws, and the other one dealing with the trials of the Chinese whose trial and persecution had been full of “different kinds of atrocities” (envâ-yı mezâlim)¹⁰¹³

A third point of criticism towards the British colonial policy was that the British had allowed, if not encouraged, the ignorance of the local people. Karçınzade argued that one of the main tenets of the British colonial policy was the preservation of the weird superstitions of the Indians:

The essence of the policy of preserving the British interests is to strive seriously for the continuation and permanence of all the ignorant traditions resulting in the eternal blindness of the Indians through hiding them under the curtain of liberty.¹⁰¹⁴

 

 

 

¹⁰¹⁰ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 371.

 

¹⁰¹¹ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 8.

 

¹⁰¹² “Avrupalıların Hindistan ile sâir müstemlekelerinde iki türlü kânunu vardır. Bunlardan birinin ahkâmı kendi miletlerine, diğeri sırf anâsır-ı mahkûmeye mahsûstur.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 513.

 

¹⁰¹³ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 7.

 

¹⁰¹⁴ “Hindlilerin ilelebed kör kalmasına bâdî ne kadar âsâr-ı cehâlet var ise hürriyet perdesi altında gizleyerek devam ve bekâsına cidden çabalamak Đngilizlerin tâkip ettikleri cerr-i menâfî planının esâsıdır.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 364.

Similarly, Abdürreşid Đbrahim mentioned about the misapplication of the understanding of liberty in India, while he was mentioning about the freedom of publication. He wrote that in this country, the authors were free to write everything about religion, about the communities of India, about the backwardness of people; they could even insult prophets freely. The one thing they were forbidden was to criticize Britain and British colonial administration.¹⁰¹⁵

A fourth point of criticism was the intimate relations between the colonial administration and the missionary activities. Almost all the travellers to the South and East Asia were complaining about the works of the missionary groups. Abdürreşid Đbrahim was the most fierce critique of them; he labelled the missionaries as “incorrigible parasites” (haşerât-ı lâ-iflahûn) and mentioned about their publications made to deceive ordinary people in detail.¹⁰¹⁶ He argued that “[t]he missionaries were not religion-spreaders and the servants of Christianity, they just sow the seeds of sedition.”¹⁰¹⁷ What is more, he criticized that the missionaries were benefitting from the miserable conditions or the weaknesses of the local population. For example, regarding the missionary activities in Korea, he wrote that the Korean addiction to alcohol facilitated missionary work, since the Koreans were converted to Christianity even with a glass of drink.¹⁰¹⁸

Similar to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Karçınzade complained about the disastrous nature of the missionary activities and the missionaries’ exploitation

¹⁰¹⁵ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 131-132.

 

¹⁰¹⁶ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, p. 305. Indeed it was quite ironic that Abdürreşid Đbrahim was labelled by some authors as a missionary of Islam. However; he himself rejected the label of missionary attached to him. In one of his speeches in the presence of a Japanese audience he said: “What I shall first say to you is that I did not come here for religious education or spreading religion; in Islamic religion missions are performed not through proposing but through illuminating the morality.” (Benim her şeyden önce size arz edeceğim şudur ki: Ben buraya din tâlimi ve neşri için gelmedim, zaten diyânet-i Đslâmiyede misyonerlik tekellüfât ile değil, tezhîb-i ahlâk iledir.) Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 328.

 

¹⁰¹⁷ “Zaten misyonerler esâsen din nâşirleri, nasrâniyet hâdimleri değildir.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim,

Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 553

 

¹⁰¹⁸ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 473.

of the miserable conditions of the local inhabitants emerged out of famines or other natural disasters. He mentioned that through providing them simply with daily sustenance, the missionaries were able to convert many people into Christianity.¹⁰¹⁹ Habibzade underlined that the missionaries did not only benefit from the poverty of local people but also approached them as if they were one of them. Exemplifying the missionary activities in China, he argued that the missionaries were dressed like the Chinese and adopted Chinese living style in order to facilitate their contact with the local population and they organized their working programme in accordance with Chinese traditions.¹⁰²⁰ Similarly, Adil Hikmet Bey criticized the missionary activities by emphasizing that the missionaries did not refrain to kill, intimidate or make even the brothers enemies to each other.¹⁰²¹

According to these travellers the most important reason for the success of missionary activities in these regions was the local people’s abandonment of their national culture and morality. According to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Korea was the country where the missionaries had performed their jobs extremely comfortably because of the incapacity and indifference of the Koreans for the preservation of their national culture and identity.¹⁰²² Similarly, in one of his speeches delivered in Japan, he warned the Japanese for not abandoning their national culture, morality and identity, for not surrendering to Frankish customs and for bewaring the missionaries.¹⁰²³

Another interesting point in these travelogues was the perception of the travellers towards Japanese imperialism and Japanese missionary activities. Unlike their account of Western colonial policy, in general, they appreciated and

¹⁰¹⁹ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 512-513.

 

¹⁰²⁰ Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 10.

 

¹⁰²¹ “Misyonerler halkı tanassur için dâima mücâdelededirler. Bu maksatla hatta iki kardeş arasında bile münâferet uyandırırlar. Katl, tehdit, her şey bunlarca mübahtır.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 381.

 

¹⁰²² Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 469.

 

¹⁰²³ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 383-384.

tried to legitimize Japanese imperialism and missionary activities over the region. Interestingly, they were content with an Eastern rival to Western imperialism; they believed that the Japanese imperialism was more preferable than the Western imperialism for the Chinese or the Koreans. For example, Abdürreşid Đbrahim mentioned that the Koreans welcomed Japanese invasion since the Japanese constructed a new infrastructure for them.¹⁰²⁴ What is more, he appreciated the Japanese colonial policy; because unlike the Western colonial policy which focused on ruining and exploiting the colonies, the Japanese colonial policy was based on reconstruction. He mentioned that whatever he found as a trace of civilization in Korean cities was constructed by the Japanese. ¹⁰²⁵ Similarly, with regard to the Japanese-controlled regions of China, Habibzade wrote that “the Japanese found jobs for the Chinese, they educate them and they attempted any kind of propagandistic sacrifice through endorsing them with Confucian tradition in order to awaken a hatred and enmity against the Europeans in Asia.”¹⁰²⁶ In other words, the Japanese colonial policy was more constructive than destructive. Adil Hikmet Bey did not only excuse Japanese intentions towards China and Korea, he even encouraged the Japanese to expand towards the wide Asian soil. He advised them to continue their occupation from Korea to the inner parts of Asia including Mongolia and to establish industrial complexes in these newly acquired territories in order to be able to maintain their power.¹⁰²⁷

However, still, such appreciation had some limits. Habibzade criticized the Japanese treatment of the Chinese as such:

¹⁰²⁴ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 466.

 

¹⁰²⁵ “Zaten Japonların siyasetleri umumiyetle müstemlekatı daha ziyade imar ediyorlar.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 472.

 

¹⁰²⁶ “[...] Japonlar Çinlilere iş bulmakta, onları okutmakta ve Konfuzu ananelerini onlara telkin ederek Asya’daki Avrupalılara bir gayz ve kin uyandırmak için her türlü puropaganda fedakarlıkları yapmaktadırlar.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 12.

 

¹⁰²⁷ “[Yapılacak şey] geniş Asya toprağına nakletmek. Kore’den itibaren garba doğru istilaya devam ederk Moğolistan’ı da zaptetmek ve bütün sınai müesseselerinizi bu mıntıkada tesis etmek.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 442

The Chinese make worked in these [Japanese] factories for a bowl of hot water and a piece of dry bread. In Asia injustice prevails instead of justice. Just as the Europeans who claimed for civilization in Europe and in international markets, the Japanese, which became a civilized nation of Asia, unfortunately closed the pages of the rule of law and the book of civilization in order to sustain all of their ambitious interests from the Chinese of the same race and deemed all kinds of injustice for this oppressed nation proper.¹⁰²⁸

All in all, the travellers attracted attention to the missionary activities and criticized them bitterly. They found cultural penetration of the West into the East even more dangerous than the military or economic one. Therefore, struggling with the missionary activities had to be sustained through the preservation of national or religious characteristics of the local inhabitants of the South and East Asia.

13.2.4.               Ottoman Presence in the South and the East Asia

One of the most interesting parts of the travelogues on the South and East Asia was the travellers’ critique of the lack of adequate Ottoman representation in regions. For example, Abdürreşid Đbrahim mentioned about the absence of an Ottoman consulate in Singapore; he argued that there had once been a successful Ottoman consul, Ataullah Efendi, who had well-served for the interests of the Muslims in the region. After praising the level of development of the Sultanate of Johor, he stipulated that one of the reasons of the prosperity of this Muslim state and the Muslim community of the region was the efforts of this particular consul. He criticized that after his death no single consul had been sent to Singapore by the Ottoman Empire, although the presence of a consul was essential for maintaining the links between the Muslims of the region and the

 

 

 

 

¹⁰²⁸ “Çinliler bir kap sıcak su ile kuru bir lokma ekmek mukabilinde bu fabrikalarda çalıştırılır. Asya’da hak yerine haksızlık kaimdir. Avrupa’’da ve beynelmilel pazarlarda medeniyet davası yapan Avrupalılar gibi Asya’nın mazhar-ı medeniyet olmuş bir kavmi bulunan Japonlar da maalesef kendi ırkdaşları Çinlilerin sırtından her türlü haris menfaatlerini temin için medeniyet kitabının ve hak düsturunun sahifelerini kapatmışlar ve enva-yı haksızlığı bu mazlum millet hakkında reva görmüşlerdir.” Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Şanghay Hatıraları, 20-21.

Caliphate.¹⁰²⁹ In other words, according to Abdürreşid Đbrahim, the Ottoman consuls should act as the agents of the unity of Muslims.

The maladministration of the existing Ottoman diplomats, particularly, those serving in India, was another matter of criticism. Accordingly, it was argued that these diplomats were incapable of maintaining good relations with the Muslim community. For example, in Bombay, during a Friday prayer, Abdürreşid Đbrahim noticed the imam had not mentioned the name of the Caliph in his speech contrary to the Islamic tradition. When he asked the reason, the imam said that although he respected the Caliph, he refused to mention his name because his representative in Bombay (meaning the Ottoman consul) never attended the mosque and the Friday prayers. What is more, he accused the consul of wearing Frankish cloths and being disinterested for the affairs of the Muslims.¹⁰³⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim wrote that the Ottoman administration should be careful about sending diplomats, who would have the capacity to get along with the Muslim community of the region.

Karçınzade was even more critical against the Ottoman consul in Bombay, because in Ahmedabad, the local Muslims complained about the consul and accused him of being bribed by the British for acting on behalf of British interests instead of protecting the Muslim interests. ¹⁰³¹ What is more, in Hyderabad, the Muslims claimed that they had been cheated by one of the former Ottoman consuls, named Hüseyin Hasib Bey, who had embezzled the money collected from the local Muslims during the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877- 1878.¹⁰³² Karçınzade, himself, met with the then Ottoman Consul to Bombay, Emin Bey and labelled him as “a creep” (dalkavuk). According to him, Emin

 

¹⁰²⁹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 18-19. For the diplomatic representation of Ataullah Efendi, see Anthony Reid, “Nineteenth Century Pan-Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia,” The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Feb., 1967): 267-283.

 

¹⁰³⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 40.

 

¹⁰³¹ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 377.

 

¹⁰³² Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 451-455.

Bey never dealt with the problems of the local Muslims as well as the Ottoman citizens living in India.¹⁰³³

In sum, those who mentioned about the Ottoman diplomats in the region complained about their incapacity or dishonesty. They perceived the region as having a significant potential since millions of Muslims were living there. Both Karçınzade and Abdürreşid Đbrahim had pan-Islamic ideas or arguing for projects aiming the unity of the East; the establishment of proper contacts between the Caliphate and the Muslim community of the region. Therefore, they demanded the Ottoman government to send abler diplomats to make the Empire benefit from this potential.

 

13.2.5.               The Unity of the East

One of the most significant aspects of the travelogues on the South and East Asia, particularly of the ones written by Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Abdürreşid Đbrahim and Adil Hikmet Bey, was the idea of the “unity of the East” (ittihâd-ı Şark). Indeed, what these travellers argued was that the Western imperialist expansion could only be prevented through the establishment of an Eastern unity, not only uniting the Muslims, but also all the Eastern nations. In other words, only the unity of the East could confront the unity of the West.

To start with, these travellers argued that it was the “Eastern” indifference to the Western imperialist expansion that resulted in the backwardness of the East and its dominance by the Western Powers. For example, Karçınzade wrote:

Isn’t it the deep sleep that the entire Easterners were in that indulges a couple of Western nations as such? When we got asleep, they woke up. They began to attack and spread everywhere in the absence of vigilant administrators. In order to survive from the evil of these plunderers, let’s wake up.¹⁰³⁴

 

 

¹⁰³³ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 476.

 

¹⁰³⁴ “Bir avuç akvâm-ı garbiyeyi böyle şımartan bilcümle şarklıların daldığı havâb-ı medîd değil mi? Biz yatınca bunlar kalktılar. Bu yağmakârların şerrinden kurtulmak için artık uyanalım.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 557.

This warning and the call for waking up was addressed not to the Muslims, but to the Easterners. This was a significant discursive transformation and showed that these travellers defined themselves as the members of the Eastern community.

Karçınzade further argued about the glorious past of the Easterners compared to the Westerners, and once more did not limit the anti-Western bloc with the Muslim community: “When Eastern nations were enlightened with the lights of science and were presented as an example to the world, the Western nations were swimming in stupidity and ignorance and they were totally unenlightened.”¹⁰³⁵ In other words, the Easterners once had superiority over the West and this should once more be rejuvenated.

Secondly, these travellers attracted the attention of the readers to the disunity of the Eastern communities and perceived this as an outcome of the Western colonial policies. For example, Karçınzade mentioned that the British colonial policy in India was based on the exacerbation of the enmity between the Muslims and the Hindus in order to be able to maintain their colonial administration.¹⁰³⁶ Similarly, he wrote about the internal division of the Muslim community of Singapore as a result of jealousy, which was fostered by the British colonial administration for the continuity of British authority over the region.¹⁰³⁷ Abdürreşid Đbrahim also mentioned about the internal division of the Muslim community as well as the enmity among the Eastern nations. He particularly witnessed that the Muslim community of India was divided between Shia and Sunni versions of Islam, and argued that this division should be ended in order to struggle with Western imperialism and in order to be able to progress as the Westerners.¹⁰³⁸ He also attracted attention to the enmity between the

¹⁰³⁵ “Ümem-i şarkiye envâr-ı feyzâ feyz ile münevver ve muhterîn-i ilm iken garbiyyûn gabâvet ve cehâlette pûyân ve ale’l ekser nâdân idiler.” Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 557.

 

¹⁰³⁶ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 389. ¹⁰³⁷ Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, 532. ¹⁰³⁸ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 161-162.

Hindus and Muslims and proposed the end of hostilities between these two communities although he was aware that this was a difficult task to achieve.¹⁰³⁹

The idea of “the unity of the East” was clearly declared by Abdürreşid Đbrahim in various occasions. For example, in one of his meetings with a high- ranking Japanese bureaucrat, Abdürreşid Đbrahim argued that the Europeans could not bear the rise of a rival power in the East, and did their best to prevent Japanese progress and modernization. The only way to prevent this was to work together with the Chinese; considering the difficulty of this cooperation, he advised the Japanese bureaucrat to contact with Chinese Muslims, who might be more eager for such cooperation.¹⁰⁴⁰ In another occasion, he openly mentioned that the only way to cope with the European threat was “to serve for the unity of the East.” (Şarkın ittihâdına hizmet etmek)¹⁰⁴¹ Similarly, in Beijing, in a newspaper published by the Muslims, he published an article entitled “The East is for the Easterners” (Şark Şarklılar Đçindir). In this article, he warned the Chinese Muslims about Western imperialistic intentions and repeated his thesis of establishment of the unity of the East.¹⁰⁴²

Indeed, Abdürreşid Đbrahim was aware that the unity of the East was extremely difficult, because of the inherent enmities among the Eastern nations; however, there were some examples demonstrating that such a unity might be possible. He argued that there was a harmonious relationship between the Muslim and Hindu communities of Dekkan which might be considered as an example for the rest of India:

There is no enmity between Hindus and Muslims in this region, Dekkan Hindus are quite respectful to the Muslims, they called Muslims as sahib, they show their respect to the Muslims with a particular stance when they are passing. The Muslims on the other hand do not behave as if they are the dominant nation, they get along well. Dekkan Muslims and Dekkan Hindus are

¹⁰³⁹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 162-164

 

¹⁰⁴⁰ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 290.

 

¹⁰⁴¹ Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 351.

 

¹⁰⁴² “Şarkın hayâtı Şarkın ittihadıyla temîn olunur, başka türlü olamaz.” For the summary of the article see Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 1, 542-545.

therefore worth of congratulating, they treat themselves within the framework of humanity.¹⁰⁴³

 

Adil Hikmet Bey’s account of the “unity of the East” was as clear as Abdürreşid Đbrahim. He even went one step further and defined himself as an Asian; in other words, besides his Turkish and Muslim identity, he added a third dimension, namely Asian-ness. He mentioned that similar to the Japanese, he was an Asian, Anatolia was at the Western edge of Asia and the Turks had migrated to Anatolia from Central Asia.¹⁰⁴⁴ Similar to Karçınzade and Abdürreşid Đbrahim, he argued that the unity of the East was the only way of survival from European imperialism; however, different from them, he demanded from the Japanese to lead this movement:

Yes, we, the Turks, who had struggled to protect Asia from the threat of the West for centuries and the Japanese, who [established] the most strong and the only independent state of the Far East, had forgotten each other. The Turks had shed their pure bloods continuously in order to protect Asia from their migration to the west of Asia until this time. Millions of sons of Asia had been buried because of the attacks of Europe and the Turkish population decreased for that reason. There are two independent states in Asia. You are a rearguard in the East and we are a forerunner in the West. You should understand that the forerunner is now very tired. You should assume this responsibility [of the unity of the East] as the noble sons of Asia.¹⁰⁴⁵

 

 

 

 

¹⁰⁴³ “Burada Hindûlar ile Müslümanlar beyninde bir münâferet yoktur, Dekkan Hinduları oldukça Müslümanlara ihtirâm ederler, Müslümanlara sâhib tâbirini kullanırlar, Müslüman geçerken bir Hindu mutlaka vaziyet-i mahsûsa ile Müslümana ezhâr-ı tevkîr eder. Müslümanlar da bilmukâbele millet-i hâkime falan muamelesinde bulunmazlar, oldukça men’us ve hoş geçinirler. Dekkan Müslümanları ve Dekkan Hindûları bu cihetle hakikaten şâyân-ı tebrîktir, yekdiğerine insâniyet dâiresinde muamele ederler.” Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Âlem-i Đslam, Vol. 2, 100.

 

¹⁰⁴⁴ “Ben de Asyalı idim. Anadolu dahi Asya’nın garp köşesinde idi ve memleketimizin Türkleri Asya’nın orta mıntıkalarından hicret etmişlerdi.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 425.

 

¹⁰⁴⁵ “Asya’yı garp tehlikesine karşı asırlardan beri korumaya uğraşan biz Türklerle, Aksâ-yı Şark’ın en kuvvetli ve yegâne müstakil bir devleti olan Japonlar biri birilerini evet, unutmuşlardı. Türkler Asya garbına hicretlerinden itibaren bu zamana kadar Asya’yı muhâfaza etmek için mütemâdiyen saf kanlarını akıttılar. Milyonlarca Asya evlâdı Avrupa’nın savleti karşısında toprağa gömüldü ve Türkiye nüfusu bu yüzden çok azaldı. Asya’da istiklâline sahip iki devlet vardır. Siz Şark’ta bir dümdar, biz garpta bir pişdar vaziyetindeyiz. Takdir etmelisiniz ki, artık pişdar çok yorulmuştur. Bu vazifeyi Asya’nın necip evlatları olan sizler deruhte ediniz.” Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, 441.

In sum, Adil Hikmet Bey clearly mentioned the Asian identity of the Turks and offered the Japanese to lead the unity of the East, since it was the Japanese that were capable of bringing this movement to success the most.

All in all, the Japanese victory over the Russians had tremendous implications over the Ottoman perception of the concept of the “East.” Even the Islamist thinkers began to think about a “unity of the East” which would also include a “unity of the Muslims.” This unity was perceived as the only solution for the prevention of further Western encroachments to the East and further decadence of the East vis-à-vis the West. The idea of the “unity of the East;” however, was a short lived one; during the World War I, with the employment of the idea of jihad, the Islamist tune once more prevailed over the other components of being Eastern and finally with the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the East was turned back for the sake of adoption of a European identity.

CONCLUSION

 

 

The Ottoman travellers’ perception of the Eastern territories and peoples and the linkage between the Ottoman understanding of the concept of civilization and the concept of the “East” are important themes to understand the Ottoman self-perception. Indeed, this is the absent dimension of the studies on the Ottoman identity. Despite relatively extensive studies on the Ottoman self- identification vis-à-vis the West; its self-identification vis-à-vis the East has not been analysed in detail. This thesis tries to overcome this gap in the literature by setting the interrelationship between the idea of civilization and the idea of the East.

The concept of civilization was brought to the Ottoman literature during 1830s by a group of young diplomats, who had become acquainted with the concept during their service in European capitals. In these years, the concept of civilization had already been consolidated in Europe; however, it had not yet lost its universal and universalizing meaning. In other words, civilization was perceived as a phenomenon not peculiar to a particular group of people, but an attainable characteristic for all the human beings. Based on the Enlightenment notion of reason, the idea of civilization offered a refined, wealthier and happier life to its adherents.

Indeed, it was this universal nature of the concept of civilization that had attracted the attention of the Ottomans. The diplomats admired the order, the well-being and the magnificence of the European capitals that they had served and found out that the way to attain a similar level of development in the Ottoman Empire could be reached via the utilization of the “technique of civilization.” In other words, the initial Ottoman perception of civilization differed from Europe in the sense that the civilization was not the end but the means to reach an end. This reflected that the classical Ottoman pragmatism, focusing on the means rather than the ends, somehow continued in this period. However, still, it can be argued that the Ottoman intellectuals of the time were aware of the significance of the concept and what it meant to the Europeans.

They no more focused on armament techniques, buildings, education, or factories individually, but perceived all these within the framework of a general structure, namely the civilization.

From 1820s to 1850s, the degree of the universality of the idea of civilization declined considerably in Europe; rather, civilization was begun to be perceived as a European phenomenon. This does not necessarily mean that it lost all its universality; indeed, what had changed is that the European intellectuals began to emphasize that the current level of civilization was the outcome of several developments experienced in Europe. Therefore, they argued, non- European societies could be civilized only if they followed the prescriptions provided by the Europeans. Guizot’s studies on European as well as French civilization were quite popular among the French intellectuals of the time, from whom the Ottoman intellectuals were influenced to a considerable degree.

This transformation of the concept of civilization from a universal to a European one had dramatic implications for the Ottoman intellectuals and thereby the Ottoman perception of this concept. For them, it was easier to adopt a universal phenomenon since it did not had a cultural/religious base; however, the centuries-long equation of Europe with Christianity created significant tensions among the Ottoman intellectuals. In other words, there was the problem that any imports from “European” civilization might not fit with the Islamic identity of the Ottoman society.

The Ottoman intellectuals of the Tanzimat era tried to surpass this dilemma in two ways. First of all, they argued that although contemporary civilization had reached its utmost development in the European continent, this did not necessarily mean that the civilization was a European phenomenon. In other words, adopting the European civilizational achievements was indeed adopting what was best for all the mankind, including the Ottomans. The intellectuals like Şinasi and Münif Paşa clearly followed such an understanding.

The second way to overcome the dilemma, on the other hand, was to distinguish between the material and moral elements of civilization. The material elements of civilization such as scientific and technological inventions were not peculiar to the Europeans although they had been invented by them; rather they

could be perceived as the universal inheritance of the mankind. In other words, there was no problem in adopting them; they would serve nothing but to increase the well-being of the Ottoman citizens and to provide the survival of the state vis-à-vis its adversaries. Since these inventions were excelled in Europe, there was no reason to seek for an alternative; even their immediate adoption was extremely necessary.

The moral elements of civilization, on the other hand, should be treated carefully. Some of these moral elements, such as social justice, hard-working for the fatherland, or modern education had already been ordered by Islam; therefore, these were the Islamic principles that every Muslim had to obey. Some other moral elements peculiar only to the Europeans due to their cultural and religious background might conflict with the cultural and religious structure of the Ottoman Empire. In case of such a conflict, the Ottomans should preserve their own peculiarities and never tend to adopt such moral elements of European civilization, because what might be useful for the Europeans might have fatal implications for the Ottoman society. In sum, the distinction between material and moral elements of civilization, the unconditional and immediate adoption of the former and the rejection of the latter turned out to be the basic Ottoman understanding of civilization from Tanzimat period until the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

From 1850s until the end of the First World War, particularly with the development of social evolutionist and Darwinist theories on the one hand, and the consolidation of European imperialism on the other, the idea of civilization was very much understood within the framework of the concept of race. In other words, the idea of the universality of the concept of civilization turned out to be the idea of the universality of the concept of “European” civilization. This means that the European intellectuals argued that there was only one civilization, and it was the European one. The other forms of similar collectivities were perceived as a historical phenomenon; in other words, there had once been an Egyptian, Indian, or Chinese civilizations; however, they had ceased to exist. What is more, the idea of inequality of races, this idea of supremacy of the white

Caucasian race over the yellow and black races was extensively utilized to justify European imperialism as well as the civilizing mission.

The Ottoman response to these developments was mixed. On the one hand, some social evolutionist and even social Darwinist theories were adopted, at least partially, by some of the Ottoman intellectuals. Particularly, from 1870s onwards, the European literature on these theories were began to be translated and published in the Ottoman Empire. Ahmed Mithat’s utilization of social evolutionist concepts, his particular emphasis on the inevitability of progress and the survival of stronger societies vis-à-vis the weaker ones, and Abdullah Cevdet’s translations of the most famous European intellectual on racism, namely Gustave Le Bon, reflected this tendency. Indeed, for the Ottoman intellectuals, in terms of race there was no problem, the Ottomans belonged to the white Caucasian race; however, particularly the Islamists were rejecting the idea of race based on the Islamic notion of the ultimate equality of people. What is more, they sought for an example, which demonstrated that the race did not matter in terms of civilizational achievements. The example came in 1905, when Japan, a modernizing non-European state, won a significant victory against Russia, a European state. This created a significant excitement in the Ottoman Empire, since they found the example that they had been looking for; for the first time in recent history a non-European state defeated a European one.

The rising racist theories in Europe combined with the Ottoman disappointment with the West particularly from 1876 onwards consolidated the Ottoman distinction of the material and moral elements of civilization. Except for a group of radical Westernists, the Ottomans separated between the scientific and technological achievements of the West and the Western hypocrisy, cruelty and imperial policy. The Tanzimat’s notion of modernization in order to be accepted as a European state transformed into an understanding of modernization to be able to resist the European aggression. Particularly, from 1908 onwards, the Ottoman political movements sought for a synthesis combining the European- style material development and Eastern (i.e., Islamic or Turkic) morality.

Indeed, it was this synthesis that established the originality of the Ottoman perception of civilization. In other words, in distinguishing the material

and moral elements of civilization, what the Ottomans sought was to create the merger of the modern developments experienced in the West with the existing moral structures of the East. All the Ottoman intellectuals were unified that the first part of this formula, namely adoption of Western material modernity, was essential. However, they differed from the second part of the formula. Except for the radical ones, the Westernists, aimed to continue what the Ottomanists had once tried to achieve during 1860s and 70s, namely to create a Western-style state. They did not deny the Islamic character of the state; however, what they sought was a religion as a matter of personal conscience, which did not resist modernization. Islamists tried to preserve the Islamic identity of the Empire and even extend it beyond the Ottoman Empire by providing an Islamic unity, which had not been achieved since the time of the Prophet. The Turkists, on the other hand, tried to link the material modernity of civilization with the Turco-Islamic cultural traditions. In sum, none of them wanted a totally westernized society; what they sought was a modern society capable of providing the welfare and security of its components.

All in all, the ambivalence that the Ottoman intellectuals felt during the nineteenth century between the East and the West led them to seek for a synthesis between these two. They were aware that they could not survive without adopting the requirements of their age; they were also aware that they could not survive without preserving their Eastern characteristics. Therefore, the only solution was the most difficult option, namely to conciliate the East and the West. In an age emphasizing the inherent distinction of these two entities and impossibility of their consolidation, their task was extremely burdensome; however, at least, they tried to achieve this. The ideal once put forward by Şinasi as the “marriage of the mature reason of Asia with the virgin ideas of Europe” became the ideal of the nineteenth century Ottoman intellectuals, which produced the Ottoman understanding of civilization.

This transfer of the idea of civilization to the Ottoman intellectual circles in a way to establish a synthesis has significant implications on the Ottoman perception of the “East.” Before the consolidation of the idea of civilization and its interrelationship with the “West,” the Ottomans had a notion of the East

(şark) hardly passing beyond a geographical reference point. In other words, the territories and inhabitants of the East were not perceived as forming a totality vis-à-vis the West; rather they were named and examined individually. For example, the geography books of the classical period mentioned about India (Hind) or China (Çin-ü Maçin), instead of a peculiar “East.” This began to change with the import of Orient-Occident debate, which had consolidated in Europe after the widespread usage of the concept of civilization from the early nineteenth century onwards. With this import, the Ottomans began to accept that the East is an entity different from the West. Accordingly, they followed the Western discourse to some extent, since they argued that the West was developed vis-à-vis the East. While the former was associated with technological and military superiority, orderliness, cleanliness, and development, the East was given an inferior status in technological and military terms; its disorderliness, uncleanliness and underdevelopment had been emphasized to a great extent. In other words, the concept of the East acquired additional meanings besides its geographical understanding.

However, this does not necessarily mean that the Ottomans perceived the East as the West did. There are significant differences between the Ottoman and the Western perceptions of this concept. To start with, Western perception was based on a strict dichotomy between the East and the West based on the notion of civilization; in other words, this distinction was the distinction between the civilized and uncivilized. The Ottomans could not be such strict on this matter, because they perceived themselves as members of the Eastern community. In the travelogues, one can encounter with the expressions such as “We, the Easterners” or “our East” frequently. The adoption of the East-West distinction based on civilization would mean the acceptance of the status of “uncivilized” given by the Western discourse to the East. Therefore, the Ottomans developed some alternative discourses; the acceptance of civilization as a universal concept and the separation of its material and moral elements were the most significant of such discourses. Meanwhile, some of them, particularly the Islamists, began to define the East as another civilization; here the association of Eastern civilization with Islam was quite extensive. Since the acceptance of the Western superiority

would mean the inferiority of Islam, the production of an Islamic alternative to the Western civilization was a necessity for the Ottoman intellectuals.

The notion of Islamic civilization (medeniyet-i Đslâmiye) and its linkage with the notion of the East continued until the disintegration of the Empire; however, there emerged another understanding in the first decades of the twentieth century with regard to the concept of the East, namely the perception of the East not as an Islamic entity, but as a civilizational entity in the Western sense. Two developments contributed to this perception. The first one is the relative secular thinking of the Turkists, which became a major current of thought in the post-Hamidian era. The Turkists were thinking about the idea of civilization and the Orient/Occident debate in more secular terms by distinguishing between the concepts of civilization and culture. The second development was the Japanese victory over the Russians, which was appreciated by the Ottomans as the failure of the argument of invincibility of the West and the indolence of the East. This victory was so impressive for the Ottomans that they began to redefine the East to include the South and East Asian states, such as India, China and Japan. India had already been a part of the Islamic understanding of Eastern civilization because of the Muslim community in this country; however, the perception of the East in its totality vis-à-vis the West was a new development. Even some of the Islamist Ottoman travellers, who had actually witnessed the Japanese modernization, began to argue for a “unity of the East” (ittihâd-ı Şark) including the classical understanding of the “unity of Muslims” (ittihâd-ı Đslam). In other words, they defined some common internal and external problems faced by the Muslim and non-Muslim components of the East and offered the unity of the East as a remedy to overcome these problems.

If the Eastern element of the Ottoman identity was one factor that differentiated the Ottoman perception of the East from the Western one, the Ottoman rejection of the Western argumentation of the inherent superiority of the West vis-à-vis the East was another factor. Indeed, as mentioned before, the Ottomans perceived the superiority of the West in material terms; however, even in this regard, they argue that this superiority was not an insurmountable one. In other words, they claimed that when the existing problems of the East in general,

and the Ottoman Empire in particular, had been solved, then, the non-European world had the potential to re-assume its once glorious condition. This means that they rejected the argument that the Western world was civilized and the non- Western world was uncivilized; what they argued was that the problems of the Ottoman Empire and the East might have resulted in their current inferiority; however, this inferiority was not an eternal one and could be surpassed when certain measures would be taken.

One of these measures was education. Almost in all travelogues, education was perceived as the most significant remedy for the problems of the Empire and the East. Indeed, the acceptance of Western material superiority forced the Ottomans to review their educational system in a way to incorporate the scientific and technological achivements of the West. Thus, the education of people to keep up with the current developments was an essential element for the revival of the East. However, education did not only include the teaching of positive sciences; for example, according to the Islamists, proper teaching of Islamic theology, from which the non-Islamic principles impeding the scientific development had been cleaned off, was a necessity. According to the Turkists, the national and cultural elements should be taught as well, particularly in the Central Asia whose Turkish inhabitants were under the Russian and Chinese cultural oppression. In sum, the distinction between the material and moral elements of civilization continued in the field of education as well; besides the teaching of material aspects of civilization, the Islamic/Turkish/Eastern morality should be preserved with their proper teaching.

If education would provide internal and intellectual development of the East and by extension the Ottoman Empire, the unity, either provided through the unity of the Muslims or through the unity of the East would protect the Eastern world from further external penetration. The Ottoman intellectuals in general and the Ottoman travellers in particular were critical regarding the European imperialism; they perceived the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern world as the victim of European encroachments. Therefore, the struggle with the imperialist expansion could not be successful by individual resistance; a collective action is required. What is more, the Ottomans did not think a military

confrontation; rather they targeted self-development and common action against the Western world after having acquired more or less the same level of development.

A third significant difference between the European and the Ottoman perceptions of the East was the usage of terminology. Accordingly, in the Ottoman case, the East had never been a field of academic study; in other words, there was no systematized Oriental Studies in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans generally learned about European terminology through translations from European sources. The Ottoman travellers, for example, read the European travelogues or their translations and used them as sources in their own writings. However, they did not reciprocate the European Oriental Studies in linguistics or anthropology. Therefore, their perceptions of several concepts remained extremely superficial. One conspicuous example is the concept of race. In several travelogues, the Ottoman travellers tried to categorize the inhabitants of the regions that they had been travelled in racial terms; they sometimes established several hierarchies depicting some races as superior to others. However, this does not necessarily mean that they internalized the concept of race as a medium for distinguishing between civilized and uncivilized communities. Religion is a more significant medium for most of them in establishing superior-inferior dichotomies. For example, with regard to the African tribes, the Muslim or Christian tribes were depicted as more civilized compared to the others. All in all, race had never acquired a status in the Ottoman perception of the East as strong as the Western perception.

If race was not the major criterion, then what were the major denominators of civilization for the Ottoman travellers? Accordingly, the most significant criterion in separating between the civilized and uncivilized was the settlement. Following the Khaldunian tradition, which was oftenly referred by the travellers, they argued that the settled communities were more civilized compared to the unsettled ones regardless of their race. With regard to this criteria the nomadic people of Anatolia and the nomadic people of Arabia, for example, had not much difference; both were perceived as uncivilized compared to the city-dwellers.

Secondly, the type of settlement was a matter of civilization as well. The travellers praised clean and orderly cities and perceived the inhabitants of such cities more civilized compared to unclean and disordered ones. The dyadic account of the quarters inhabited by the Europeans and the quarters inhabited by the local people (namely the urban duality) in the cities of the non-European world showed that city planning was another major criterion of civilization. However, again, the cleanliness and orderliness was not only perceived as a characteristic of Western civilization; rather it was argued that they were the major principles of the Islamic life-style as well. In making this emphasis, the Ottoman travellers tended to show that the backwardness of the non-European urban space can not be explained by the nature of Islam, as some Western intellectuals argued, but rather by the deviations from the true Islamic principles.

Finally, the fourth and perhaps the most significant difference between the European and Ottoman travellers’ perceptions of the East was that while the former tended to establish a monolithic perception of the East based, in Saidian terms, on the epistemological and ontological distinction between the Orient and the Occident, the latter had developed a more diversed understanding on the East based on the ideological inclination of the traveller and the specificities of the regions that they travelled.

To start with the ideological inclination of the travellers, it can be argued that the Westernist, Islamist or Turkist inclinations have significant implications on the style and content of the travelogues. For example, the Westernists tended to criticize the Western colonial and imperialist expansion towards the non- European world less compared to the Islamists or Turkists. They felt themselves alienated in the regions they travelled in the East, except for some rather developed (and westernized) cities such as Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Calcutta, or Shanghai. They tried to avoid depicting themselves as Easterners; they focused on their differences more than similarities with the inhabitants of the regions they travelled. Therefore, they did not have the effort of establishing a common identity, either in Islamic or in Eastern form. In sum, their depictions were very much resembled to the Orientalist Western travelogues.

The Islamist travellers, on the other hand, bitterly criticized the Western imperialist penetration in the non-European world; they tended to set the European-non-European relations within Christianity vs. Islam dichotomy. They, therefore, focused on the exploitation of the Islamic world by the Christian West, the unjust and cruel treatment of the Westerners in the name of civilization and the destructiveness of the missionary activities. In the Muslim lands, they felt themselves extremely comfortable. Although they were critical of the underdevelopment of the Islamic world, what they criticized was not Islam as a religion, but the deviations from its true path. What is more, they seemed to be proud of labelling themselves as Easterners; this was quite understandable considering their critical tune regarding the Westerners.

When it comes to the Turkist travellers, similar to the Islamists, they were critical of the Western penetration to the non-European world. Besides political and military interventions, they also reacted to the missionary activities disturbing the national identity of the Turkish youth. However, different from the Islamists, they perceived some Muslim communities, particularly the Arabs, as different from themselves. For example, they accused the Arabs of being indifferent to the Western penetration, and argued that the Arabs began to be influenced from the anti-Ottoman propaganda of the Western powers. Therefore, they attracted attention to the precursors of the Arab nationalism, which had been perceived as a Western intrigue. They felt themselves as alien in the Arabic lands, while in Central Asia, they were quite comfortable as if in their homelands. In sum, the nationalist mind-set resulted in their less critical tune regarding the underdevelopment of these regions.

Besides these ideological inclinations of the Ottoman travellers, the region that had been travelled also differentiated the content and the style of the travelogues. Regarding the travelogues on the Middle East and North Africa, which was composed of the Ottoman provinces, most of the travellers perceived these distant and unfamiliar territories as their own country; because despite the distance of these regions from the imperial centre, they were still Ottoman lands. While some of the travellers wrote about the inhabitants of these lands as equals of themselves since they were all Ottoman citizens, others perceived the

inhabitants of these regions as inferior to themselves, since they were representing the urban-settled intellectual elite of the Empire while the inhabitants of the region were generally presented as nomadic or half-settled ignorant people. However, such a perception was not exactly an Orientalist one. Rather it is a discourse based on different levels of material and intellectual developments between a developed region where the travellers came from and a relatively less developed region where they were going to. In other words, it was not a distinction based on race to a great extent; for example the Ottoman travellers’ discourse on Turkish villages was not much different from the Arabic villages; the problem here was not the problem of racial inferiority, but the problem of lack of settlement and education. Such a discourse could be comparable, for example, regarding the Parisian intellectuals’ perception of French countryside.

The perception of Iran was quite different from the perception of other parts of the Muslim world because Iran, as an independent Muslim State adopted a different version of Islam, namely the Shi’ism, was perceived by the Ottomans as a rival political entity. This perception was not a new one; however, with the intensification of border disputes, the mutual attacks from the tribes populating the border region and most important of all the Shia propaganda activities in Ottoman Iraq resulted in a problematic relationship with Iran in the late nineteenth century; therefore the perception of this country was extremely negative compared to other parts of the Muslim world.

Regarding the Muslims of Central Asia as well as India and China, the Ottoman travellers had a sense of superiority for religious reasons. They perceived themselves as the representatives of a country, which was ruled by the supreme religious authority of the Muslim world, namely the Caliph. This made them think themselves as the true Muslims, therefore, they criticized some traditions of these people as deviations from the true path of Islam. However, still, it can be argued that compared to adherents of other religions prevalent in the region such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the Ottoman travellers approached to the Muslims more sympathetically for the sense of religious brotherhood. In Central Asia, this sense of religious brotherhood was compounded with a sense

of ethnic brotherhood, since the Turkic communities living in the region were perceived by the Turkist travellers as the underdeveloped brothers of the Ottomans. This ethnic similarity resulted in a more tolerant perception of the flaws of these people.

Finally, the Far East was perceived by the Ottoman travellers in a complex way. On the one hand, there was not much commonness between the Ottomans and these people, neither in ethnic nor in religious terms; however, they shared similar internal and external problems. The critique of the ignorance in the Ottoman lands and in China, for example, was not much different from each other. More important than that all these people encountered a similar external threat, namely the Western penetration. This common threat perception made the Ottoman travellers and the inhabitants of the Far East closer and there emerged a common identity based on the notion of Easternness. In other words, besides ethnic and religious elements of identity, Easternness became an element for establishing a common identity.

To conclude, the Ottoman perception of the East and the Ottoman identification of themselves vis-à-vis the inhabitants of the East had three levels. In the first level, the Ottoman travellers sought for religious similarities. Muslim inhabitants of the East were perceived as closer to the Ottomans. This religious brotherhood did not prevent the Ottoman travellers to criticize the backwardness of the Muslim territories and peoples; however, they also found themselves responsible for this problem. The critique of Ottoman ignorance of the Muslim lands which were part of the Ottoman Empire and the critique of Ottoman neglect to establish stronger ties with the Muslim communities living outside of the borders of the Empire demonstrated this responsibility. This also means that the Ottomans wanted to elevate the conditions of the Muslims of the East; however, this perception had significant differences from the mentality of civilizing mission. First, the Ottoman travellers sometimes perceived themselves as representing a higher level of development; however, what they intended to do was not to use this level of development to establish their rule over the East. They were aware the impossibility of this project. What they sought instead was to awaken the Muslims about the backwardness of the Islamic world, to make

them question the reasons of this backwardness and to take common action to overcome this problem and to struggle with the Western penetration. Since the Ottoman Empire was still the strongest independent power in the Islamic world having the religious authority of the Caliphate, the Ottoman leadership in this process was perceived as natural. This leadership did not have strong imperialist or colonialist intentions; in other words, in awakening the Indian Muslims, for example, the Ottomans did not think to replace the British colonial rule with their own. Rather, what they sought was to revive the once glorious Islamic civilization by making it compatible with the recent scientific and technological developments.

The second level comprised the ethnic similarity. Particularly, the post- Hamidian travelogues began to mention about the Turkish solidarity between the Ottoman Empire and the Turkic communities of Central Asia. Here, the sense of brotherhood was higher since it was fed by two elements of identity, namely ethnicity and religion. The Ottomans perceived the peoples of Central Asia as their “little brothers;” here, the adjective “little” demonstrated the Ottoman attempt to act as an experienced and stronger actor. The Ottomans are more experienced, because they learned much from their interaction with the Europeans; they are militarily and politically stronger as well. Therefore, they can help their “brothers” to raise their level of development and make them contribute to the general quest against the Western penetration.

Finally, the third level is the loosest level based on the notion of Easternness, since the Ottoman travellers perceived common threats as a denominator bringing different communities of the East having no similarities but this denominator. Unlike the first two levels, in this third level, the Ottomans did not perceive themselves as the leader of the Eastern communities, because there was a much stronger candidate for this leadership, which was also supported by the Ottomans, namely the Japan. The success of Japanese modernization without giving up their own national peculiarities and their military victory over a Western power amazed the Ottomans. The travellers who had visited Japan or Japanese-controlled territories in East Asia directly observed their strength and accepted their superiority even over the Ottoman Empire.

Therefore, they did not hesitate to offer the leadership of their project of the “unity of the East” to the Japanese. This also demonstrated that this third level was not a civilizational one; in other words, the Ottomans did not clearly develop a notion of Eastern civilization vis-à-vis the Western one. What they did was quite practical, to emphasize their Eastern identity to create a common action against the Western military as well as cultural penetration.

All in all, it can be argued that the Ottoman perception of the East is not exactly the same with the Western perception. The political, economic, social and cultural structures of the Ottoman Empire, which were quite different from the European ones, resulted in the production of a different discourse on the Eastern lands and their inhabitants. The Ottoman search for a synthesis in terms of the concept of civilization resulted in the blurring of the epistemological and ontological difference between the East and the West, which is one of the basic tenets of Saidian Orientalism. What is more, the different ideological inclinations of the Ottoman travellers and different mode of relationships between the Ottoman Empire and different parts of the East did not result in reaching a monolithic perception regarding the East based on the notion of civilization. All these differences underlined that the Ottoman perception of the East was more complex, reflecting the intellectual as well as spiritual colours of its particular culture.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

PRIMARY SOURCES

 

Abdürreşid Đbrahim, Alem-i Đslam ve Japonya’da Đntişar-ı Đslamiyet, 2 Volumes, Đstanbul: Ahmed Saki Bey Matbaası, 1328 [1910], transliterated and edited by Özalp, Ertuğrul, (Đstanbul: Đşaret Yayınları, 2003)

 

Adil Hikmet Bey, Asya’da Beş Türk, compiled, transliterated and edited by Gedikli, Yusuf, Đstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat, 1998.

 

Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet, 6 Volumes, Dersaadet: Matbaa-i Amire, 1271 [1855].

 

         , Tezakir, 4 Volumes, transliterated and edited by Baysun, Cavid, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1991.

 

Ahmed Fakih, Kitâb-ı Evsâf-ı Mesâcid üş-Şerîfe, transliterated and edited by Mazıoğlu, Hasibe, Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, 1974.

 

Ahmed Đhsan, Asya-i Şarkiye Seyahat, Đstanbul: Alem Matbaası, 1307 [1890].

 

 , Avrupa’da Ne Gördüm, Đstanbul: Alem Matbaası, 1309 [1892], transliterated and edited by Servantie, Alain and Gündoğdu, Fahriye, Đstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2007.

 

Ahmed Midhat, Acâib-i Âlem, Đstanbul: Tercüman-ı Hakikat Matbaası, 1299 [1882], transliterated and edited by Şenol, Nurullah, Đstanbul: Bordo-Siyah Yayınları, 2004.

 

Ahmet Mithat, Ben Neyim: Hikmet-i Maddiyeye Müdafaa, Đstanbul: Kırk Anbar Matbaası, 1308 [1892].

 

  , Rikalda Yahud Amerika’da Vahşet Alemi, Đstanbul: [Tercüman-ı Hakikat Matbaası], 1307 [1890], transliterated by Ülgen, Erol, Andı, M. Fatih and Yetiş, Kazım, Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, 2003.

Ahmed Şerif, Arnavudluk’da, Sûriye’de, Trablusgarb’de Tanîn, transliterated and edited by Börekçi, Mehmet Çetin, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1999.

 

Âli Bey, Seyahat Jurnali: Đstanbul’dan Bağdad’a ve Hindistan’a, Min sene 1300 ilâ sene 1304, Đstanbul: Rauf Bey Kütüphanesi, 1314 [1898] transliterated and edited by Kayra, Cahit, Dicle’de Kelek ile Bir Yolculuk, Đstanbul: Büke Yayıncılık, 2003.

 

Ali Suad, Seyahatlerim, Dersaadet: Kanaat Matbaası, 1332 [1914].

 

Aşık Mehmed, Menâzirü’l Avâlim, transliterated and edited by Ak, Mahmud, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2007.

 

Avlonyalı Ekrem Bey, Lebenserinnerungen (1885-1912), München: Wissenschaftsverlag Gmbh, 1968, translated by Dirim, Atilla as Osmanlı Arnavutluk’undan Anılar, Đstanbul: Đletişim, 2006.

 

Azmzade Sadık el-Müeyyed, Afrika Sahrâ-yı Kebîri’nde Seyahat, Đstanbul: Alem Matbaası, 1314 [1896-1897], transliterated and edited by Bostan, Đdris, Đstanbul: Çamlıca, 2008.

 

 , Habeş Seyahatnamesi, Đstanbul: Đkdam Matbaası, 1322 [1906], transliterated and edited by Baydemir, Mustafa, Đstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 1999.

 

Babanzade Đsmail Hakkı, Irak Mektupları, Đstanbul: Tanin Matbaası, 1329 [1911], transliterated and edited by Çulcu, Murat, Đstanbul: Büke Yayıncılık, 2002.

 

Bağdadlı Abdurrahman Efendi, Seyahatname-i Brezilya, translated into Ottoman Turkish by Antepli Mehmet Şerif, Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1288 [1871], transliterated and edited by Özalp, N. Ahmet, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2006.

 

Abdülkadir Câmî, Trablusgarp’den Sahra-yı Kebîr’e Doğru, Dersaadet [Đstanbul]: [Unknown Publisher], 1326 [1909].

 

Celal Nuri, Đttihad-ı Đslam: Đslamin Mazisi, Hali, Đstikbali, Đstanbul: Yeni Osmanlı Matbaası, 1331 [1913].

Cenap Şehabettin, Avrupa Mektupları, Đstanbul: [Matbaa-i Amire], 1335 [1917], transliterated and edited by Sav, Sabri Özcan, Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1996.

 

         , Hac Yolunda, Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Kanaat, 1341 [1922-1923].

 

   , Âfâk-ı Irak: Kızıldeniz’den Bağdat’a Hatıralar, transliterated and edited by Bülent Yorulmaz, Đstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2002.

 

Ebubekir Ratip Efendi, Ebubekir Ratip Efendi’nin Nemçe Sefaretnamesi, transliterated and edited by Uçman, Abdullah, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 1999.

 

Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, transliterated and edited by various authors, 9 Volumes, Đstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996.

 

Habibzade Ahmed Kemal, Çin Türkistan Hatıraları, Đzmir: Marifet Matbaası, 1341 [1925], transliterated and edited by Özalp, N. Ahmet, (Đstanbul: Kitabevi, 1996).

 

  , Şanghay Hatıraları, (Đstanbul: Kader Basımevi, 1939), later edited by Gedikli, Yusuf, Đstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat, 1997.

 

Halil Halid, Cezayir Hatıratından, Mısır: Matbaa-i Đçtihad, 1906, transliterated and edited by Çiftçi, Cemil, Đstanbul: Hece Yayınları, 2007.

 

Halid Ziyaeddin, Musavver Mısır Hatıratı, Đstanbul: Agob Matosyan Matbaası, 1326 [1910].

 

Hatıra-yı Seyahat: Almanya Đmparatoru Haşmetlu Wilhelm ve Đmparatoriçe Augusta Viktorya Hazeratı’nın Dersaadeti Def’a-i Saniye Olarak Ziyaretleriyle Suriye Seyahatlerine Bir Hatıra-i Naçiz Olmak Üzere (Sabah) Gazetesi Tarafndan Kar’iin-i Osmaniyeye Hediye Edilmiştir, Đstanbul: Mihran Matbaası, 1316 [1889].

 

Haydar Çelebi, Haydar Çelebi Ruznâmesi, transliterated and edited by Senemoğlu, Yavuz, Đstanbul: Tercüman Yayınları, [unknown year of publication].

Hayreddin Bey, Vesâik-i Tarihiye ve Siyâsiye, Đstanbul: Ahmet Đhsan Matbaası, 1326 [1908-1909].

 

Đbrahim Abdüsselam, Yemen Seyahâtnâmesi ve Coğrafya-yı Nebatiyesi, Dersaadet [Đstanbul]: Hilal Matbaası, 1324 [1906], transliterated and edited by Pekcan, Leyla Batu, Đstanbul: Pan Yayınları, 2008.

 

Đbrahim Müteferrika, Milletlerin Düzeninde Đlmi Usuller, transliterated and edited by Okutan, Ömer, Đstanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2000.

 

Đbrahim Şinasi, Müntehabat-ı Eş’ar, Đstanbul: Tasvir-i Efkâr Matbaası, 1279 [1862], transcripted and edited by Kemal Bek, Đstanbul: Bordo-Siyah Yayınları, 2004.

 

  , Makaleler, compiled, transliterated and edited by Fevziye Abdullah Tansel, Ankara: Dün Bugün Yayınları, 1960.

 

Đskilipli Mehmed Atıf, Frenk Mukallitliği ve Şapka, Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Kader, 1340 [1924].

 

Karçınzade Süleyman Şükrü, Seyahat-i Kübra, (Petersburg: [The Printing House of Abdürreşid Đbrahim], 1907)

 

Kıvamî, Fetihname-i Sultan Mehmed, transliterated and edited by Babinger, Franz, Đstanbul: Maarif Basımevi, 1955.

 

Mehmed Akif, Safahat, edited by Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Đstanbul: Đz Yayıncılık, 1991.

 

Mehmed Emin, Đstanbul’dan Asya-yı Vusta’ya Seyahat, Đstanbul: Kırk Anbar Matbaası, 1296 [1878], transliterated by Darga, Muhibbe, Đstanbul: Everest Yayınları, 2007.

 

Mehmet Fazlı, Resimli Afganistan Seyahati, Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Ahmet Đhsan, 1325 [1909-1910], transliterated and edited by Karabulut, Kenan, Đstanbul: Đş Bankası Yayınları, 2007.

Mehmed Hurşid, Seyahatname-i Hudûd, Đstanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1277 [1860-1861], transliterated and edited by Eser, Alaattin, Đstanbul: Simurg Yayınevi, 1997.

 

Mehmed Mihri, Sudan Seyahatnamesi, Đstanbul: Ahmed Đhsan ve Şürekası, 1326 [1910].

 

Mehmet Refet, Seyahatname-i Arz-ı Filistin, Suriye: Suriye Vilayet Matbaası, 1305 [1887].

 

Mehmed Sadık Rıfat Paşa, Avrupa’nın Ahvaline Dair Bir Risale, Đstanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1275 [1858].

 

Mehmet Şakir, Hicaz’ın Ahval-i Umumiye-i Sıhhiye ve Islahat-i Esasiye-i Hazırasına Dair Bazı Müşahedat ve Mülahazat-ı Bendegânemi Havi Bir Layiha-yı Tıbbiye, transliterated and edited by Sarıyıldız, Gülden and Kavak, Ayşe, Halife II. Abdülhamid’in Hac Siyaseti: Dr. M. Şakir Bey’in Hicaz Hatıraları,Đstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2009.

 

Musa Kazım, Külliyat-ı Şeyhülislam Musa Kazım: Dini-Đçtimai Makaleler,

Đstanbul: Evkaf-ı Đslamiye Matbaası, 1336 [1920].

 

Mustafa Sami Efendi, Avrupa Risalesi, Đstanbul: Takvim-i Vekayi Matbaası, 1256 [1840], Bir Osmanlı Bürokratının Avrupa Đzlenimleri: Mustafa Sami Efendi ve Avrupa Risalesi, transliterated and edited by Andı, Fatih, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 1996.

 

Mühendis Faik, Seyahatname-i Bahr-i Muhit, Đstanbul: Mekteb-i Bahriye-i Şahane Matbaası, 1285 [1868]), transliterated and edited by Özalp, N. Ahmet, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2006.

 

Münif Paşa, Muhaverat-ı Hikemiye, Dersaadet: Ceridehane Matbaası, 1276 [1859].

 

Nâbî, Hicaz Seyahatnamesi: Tuhfetü’l Harameyn, transliterated and edited by Ünlü, Seyfettin, Đstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 1996.

 

Namık Kemal, Osmanlı Tarihi, Đstanbul: Mahmut Bey Matbaası, 1326 [1909], transliterated and edited by Demirel, Mücahit, Đstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2005.

Namık Kemal, Renan Müdafaanamesi, Đstanbul: Mahmut Bey Matbaası, 1326 [1908], transliterated and edited by Küçük, Abdurrahman, Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1988.

 

  , Osmanlı Modernleşmesinin Meseleleri, Bütün Makaleleri 1, compiled, transliterated and edited by Aydoğdu, Nergiz Yılmaz and Kara, Đsmail, Đstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2005.

 

Nasuh üs-Silahî (Matrakçı), Beyân-ı Menâzil-i Sefer-i 'Irakeyn-i Sultan Süleyman Han, transliterated and edited by Yurtaydın, Hüseyin Gazi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1976.

 

Ömer Lütfi, Ümitburnu Seyahatnamesi, Đstanbul: Basiret Matbaası, 1292 [1868], transliterated and edited by Yorulmaz, Hüseyin, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2006.

 

Ömer Seyfeddin, Vatan! Yalnız Vatan..., Selanik: Rumeli Matbaası, 1327 [1911].

 

         , Makaleler I, compiled, transliterated and edited by Argunşah, Hülya,

Đstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2001.

 

Pîrî Reis, Kitab-ı Bahriye, transliterated and edited by Kurdoğlu, Fevzi and Alpagut, Haydar, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1935.

 

Rus-Japon Harbinden Alınan Maddi ve Manevi Dersler ve Japonların Esbab-ı Muzafferiyeti, Đstanbul: Kanaat Matbaası ve Kütüphanesi, 1329 [1913].

 

Rüşdü Paşa, Yemen Hatırası, Đstanbul: Kütübhane-i Đslam ve Askeri -

Đbrahim Hilmi, 1327 [1910-1911].

 

Selanikli Mehmed Tevfik, Musavver Hindistan Seyahatnamesi, Đstanbul: Mihran Matbaası, 1318 [1900].

 

Seydî Ali Reis, Miratü’l Memalik, first edition published by Necib Âsım, Đstanbul: Đkdam, 1313 [1885/86]. Transliterated and edited by Akyıldız, Necdet, Đstanbul: Tercüman Yayınları, [unknown year of publication].

Seyyid Muradî, Seyyid Muradî’nin Kaleminden Kaptan Paşa’nın Seyir Defteri: Gazavat-ı Hayreddin Paşa, transliterated and edited by Şimşirgil, Ahmet, Đstanbul: Babıali Kültür Yayıncılığı, 2003.

 

Süleyman Nazif, El-Cezire Mektupları, Kahire: Matbaa-i Đçtihad, 1322 [1905-1906].

 

Şehbenderzade Ahmed Hilmi, Hangi Meslek-i Felsefîyi Kabul Etmeliyiz,

Đstanbul: Hikmet Matbaası, 1329 [1913].

 

Şerafettin Mağmumi, Seyahât Hatıraları, Mısrü’l Kahire: Matbaatü’l Fütuh, 1327 [1909], transliterated and edited by Kayra, Cahit, Đstanbul: Boyut Kitapları, 2008.

 

Şeyh Mihriddin Arusî [a pseudonym for Şehbenderzade Ahmed Hilmi], Yirminci Asırda Alem-i Đslam ve Avrupa: Müslümanlara Rehber-i Siyaset, Đstanbul: Hikmet Matbaa-i Đslamiyesi, 1327 [1911].

 

Şirvanlı Ahmet Hamdi Efendi, Hindistan ve Svat ve Afganistan Seyahatnamesi, Đstanbul: Mahmud Bey Matbaası, 1300 [1883], transliterated and edited by Hürmen, Fatma Rezan, Đstanbul: Arma Yayınları, 1995.

 

Yirmisekiz Mehmet Çelebi, Paris'te Bir Osmanlı Sefiri: Yirmisekiz Mehmet Çelebi'nin Fransa Seyahatnamesi, transliterated and edited by Rado, Şevket, (Đstanbul: Türkiye Đş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2006.

 

Yusuf Akçura, Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset, transliterated and edited by Enver Ziya Karal, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976.

 

SECONDARY SOURCES

 

Abdel-Malek, Anouar, “Orientalism in Crisis,” Diogenes, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Dec., 1963): 103-140.

 

Abun-Nasr, Jamil M., A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

 

Ahmad, Feroz, The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908-1914, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Ahmad, Faroz and Rustow, Dankwart A., “Đkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Meclisler: 1908-1918,” Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol. 4-5, (1975-1976): 245-284.

 

Ahmed, Sayyid Maqbul, A History of Arab-Islamic Geography (9th-16th Century), Amman: Al-Bayt University Press, 1995.

 

Akarlı, Engin Deniz, The Long Peace: Ottoman Lebanon, 1861-1920, Berkeley: University of Columbia Press, 1993.

 

Akmeşe, Handan Nezir, “The Japanese Nation in Arms: A Role for Militarist Nationalism in the Ottoman Army,” in Worringer, Renée, ed. The Islamic Middle East and Japan: Perceptions, Aspirations and the Birth of Intra- Asian Modernity, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007, 63-89.

 

Aksan, Virginia, An Ottoman Statesman in War and Peace: Ahmed Resmi Efendi, 1700-1783, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.

 

Aksüt, Ali Kemali, Sultan Aziz’in Mısır ve Avrupa Seyahati, Đstanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası, 1944.

 

Aktepe, Münir, 1720-1724 Osmanlı-Đran Münasebetleri ve Silahşör Kemani Mustafa Ağa’nın Revan Fetihnamesi, Đstanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1970.

 

Akyol, Đbrahim Hakkı, “Tanzimat Devrinde Bizde Coğrafya ve Jeoloji,” in Tanzimat I: Yüzüncü Yıl Münasebetile, Đstanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1940, 511- 571.

 

Akyol, Taha, Osmanlı’da ve Đran’da Mezhep ve Devlet, Đstanbul: Doğan Yayıncılık, 1999.

 

Al-Fasi, Muhammad, “Algeria, Tunisia and Libya: The Ottomans and Their Heirs,” in Ogot, Bethwell A., Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century, .Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999, 120-133.

 

Alkan, Ahmet Turan, Sıradışı Bir Jöntürk: Ubeydullah Efendi’nin Amerika Hatıraları, Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları, 1997.

Anay, Harun, “Ahmet Cevdet Paşa’nın Modernizme Bakışı,” in Ahmet Cevdet Paşa Sempozyumu, 9-11 June 1995, Ankara, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995, 67-77.

 

Andaya, Leonard Y., “Interactions with the Outside World and Adaptation in Southeast Asian Society, 1500-1800,” in Nicholas Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, 4 Volumes, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1994, Vol. 1, 345-401.

 

Anderson, Matthew Smith, The Eastern Question, 1774-1923: A Study in International Relations, London: Macmillan / New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966.

 

Andican, Ahat, Cedidizm’den Bağımsızlığa Hariçte Türkistan Mücadelesi,

Đstanbul: Emre Yayınları, 2005.

 

Andreeva, Elena, Russia and Iran in the Great Game: Travelogues and Orientalism, London and New York: Routledge, 2007.

 

Anscombe, Frederick, The Ottoman Gulf: The Creation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

 

Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

 

Arık, Umut, A Century of Turkish-Japanese Relations: A Special Partnership, Tokyo: Gyosei Tsushin Co., 1991.

 

Arıkan, V. Sema, III. Selim'in Sırkatibi Ahmed Efendi Tarafından Tutulan Ruznâme, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1993.

 

Arnason,  Johann  P.,  “Civilizational  Patters  and  Civilizing  Processes,”

International Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2001): 387-405.

 

Aron, Raymond, The Opium of the Intellectuals, translated by Terence Kilmartin, New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1962.

 

Ashcroft, Bill and Ahluvalia, Pal, Edward Said, London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

Asiltürk, Baki, Osmanlı Seyyahlarının Gözüyle Avrupa, Đstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 2000.

 

 , “Edebiyatın Kaynağı Olarak Seyahatnameler,” Turkish Studies: International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, Vol. 4, No.1 (Winter 2009): 911-995.

 

Atasoy, Nurhan, “Matrakçı Nasuh and Evliya Çelebi: Perspectives on Ottoman Gardens (1534-1682),” in Conan, Michael, ed. Middle East Garden Traditions: Unity and Diversity, Dumbarton Oaks: Harvard University Press, 2008, 197-220.

 

Aydın, Cemil, Politics of Anti-Westernism: Visions of World Order in Pan- Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought, New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

 

Aytürk, Đlker, “Turkish Linguists against the West: The Origins of Linguistic Nationalism in Atatürk’s Turkey,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 40, No. 6 (Nov., 2004), 1-25.

 

Baer, Gabrieli “Social Change in Egypt: 1800-1914,” in Holt, P[eter] M[alcolm], ed. Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt, London: Oxford University Press, 1968, 136-161.

 

Baldauf, Ingeborg, “Jadidism in Central Asia within Reformism and Modernism in the Muslim World,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 41, No. 1, (Mar., 2001): 72-88

 

Baldiceanu, Niceora, Le Timar dans l’État Ottoman: Début XIVe Début XVIe Siécle, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980.

 

Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, Osmanlı Đmparatorluğunda Kuruluş Devrinin Toprak Meseleleri, Đstanbul: Devlet Basımevi, 1937.

 

Bartlett, William Henry, The Nile Boat: Or Glimpses of the Land of Egypt, London: Arthur Hall, Virtue and Co., 1849.

 

Baumer, Franklin, “England, the Turk and the Common Corps of Christendom,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Oct., 1944): 26-48.

Baykara, Tuncer, Osmanlılarda Medeniyet Kavramı ve Ondokuzuncu Yüzyıla Dair Araştırmalar, Đzmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1999.

 

Baysun, Cavid, “Mustafa Reşid Paşa’nın Paris ve Londra Sefaretleri Esnasındaki Siyasi Yazıları,” Tarih Vesikaları, Vol. 1, No. 4, (Dec.,1941): 283-296.

 

         , “Mustafa Reşid Paşa’nın Paris ve Londra Sefaretleri Esnasındaki Siyasi Yazıları,” Tarih Vesikaları, Vol. 1, No. 6 (Apr., 1942): 430-442.

 

   , “Mustafa Reşid Paşa’nın Paris ve Londra Sefaretleri Esnasındaki Siyasi Yazıları,” Tarih Vesikaları, Vol. 2 No. 9, (Oct., 1942): 208-219.

 

Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet, “Nadir Şah Afşar’ın Ölümünden Sonra Osmanlı Devleti’ni Đran’ı Đstilaya Kışkırtmak Đçin Yapılan Đki Deneme,” Belleten, No. 46, (1948), 403-487.

 

         , “Maysor Sultanı Tipu ile Osmanlı Padişahlarından I. Abdülhamid ve

III. Selim Arasındaki Mektuplaşma,” Belleten, Vol. 12, No. 48, (1948): 617-

654.

 

Beasly, William G., The Meiji Restoration, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1972.

 

Becker, Seymour, Russia’s Protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865–1924, London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2004.

 

Bein, Amin, “A ‘Young Turk’ Islamic Intellectual: Filibeli Ahmed Hilmi and the Diverse Intellectual Legacies of the Late Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Nov., 2007): 607-625.

 

Benveniste, Emile, Problemes de Linguistique Générale, Paris: Gallimard, 1966.

 

Berkes, Niyazi, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1959.

 

         , The Development of Secularism in Turkey, London: Hurst&Company, 1964.

  , Batıcılık, Ulusçuluk ve Toplumsal Devrimler, Đstanbul: Yön Yayınları, 1965.

 

Birinci, Necat, Edebiyat Üzerine Đncelemeler, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2000.

 

Blackburn, J. Richard, “The Collapse of Ottoman Authority in Yemen, 968/1560-976/1568,” Die Welt des Islams, Vol. 19, No. 1-4 (1979): 119-176.

 

Blanton, Casey, Travel Writing: The Self and the World, New York: Twayne Publishers, 1997.

 

Blattell, Caroline B., “Introduction: Travel Literature, Ethnography and Ethnohistory”, Ethnohistory, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Spring, 1986): 127-138.

 

Bock, Kenneth E., “Darwin and Social Theory,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Apr., 1955):123-134.

 

Bonnett, Alastair, “Makers of the West: National identity and Occidentalism in the Work of Fukuzawa Yukichi and Ziya Gokalp,” Scottish Geographical Journal, Vol. 118, No. 3, (2002): 165-182.

 

Borchigud, Wurlig, “Between Chinese Nationalism and Soviet Colonisation: A Chinese Orientalist's Narration of Inner and Outer Mongolia (1926-1927),” Inner Asia, Vol. 4, (2002): 27-46.

 

Bose, Sugatha and Jalal, Ayseha, Modern South Asia: History Culture and Political Economy, London and New York: Routledge, 1998.

 

Bostan, Đdris, “Orta Afrika’da Nüfuz Mücadelesi ve Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu (1893-1895), Belleten, Vol. 54, (Aug., 1990), 665-697.

 

Brewer, Anthony, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, London: Routledge, 2002

 

Bridges, Roy, “Exploration and Travel outside Europe,” in Hulme, Peter and Youngs, Tim, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Travel Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Brydon, Diana, ed. Post-Colonialism: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies, 5 Volumes, London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

 

Budak, Ali, Batılılaşma Sürecinde Çok Yönlü Bir Osmanlı Aydını: Münif Paşa, Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2004.

 

  , Batılılaşma ve Türk Edebiyatı: Lale Devri’nden Tanzimat’a Yenileşme, Đstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2008.

 

Budak, Mustafa, “Kafkasya ve Osmanlı Devleti (XVI-XX. Yüzyıllar),” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 1, 594-612.

 

Burke, Edmund and Prochaska, David, “Rethinking the Historical Genealogy of Orientalism,” History and Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June, 2007): 135-

151.

 

Burke, Peter, The French Historical Revolution, 1929-89, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.

 

Buzard, James, “The Grand Tour and After (1660-1840),” in Hulme, Peter and Youngs, Tim, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Travel Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

 

Buzpınar Tufan, “Lübnan: Osmanlı Dönemi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 27, 248-254.

 

Buzpınar, Tufan, “Celal Nuri’s Concepts of Westernization and Religion,”

Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2, (Mar., 2007): 247-258.

 

Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène, “From the Russian Capture of Tashkent to Full Sovietization, 1865-1966,” in Allworth, Edward, Central Asia: 130 Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1994.

 

Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène, “The Fall of the Tsarist Empire,” in Allworth, Edward, Central Asia: 130 Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1994, 207-

Cezar Mustafa, ed. Mufassal Osmanlı Tarihi, 6 Volumes, Đstanbul: Đskit Yayınevi, 1972.

 

Chambers, Richard L., “The Education of a Nineteenth Century Ottoman Âlim, Ahmed Cevdet Paşa,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct. 1973): 440-464

 

Chaturvedi, Vinayak, ed., Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, London and New York: Verso, 2000.

 

Claget, Marshall, “Some General Aspects of Physics in the Middle Ages,”

Isis, Vol. 39, No. 1-2 (May, 1948): 29-44.

 

Clark, Linda L., “Social Darwinism in France,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 53, No. 1, On Demand Supplement (Mar., 1981): D1025- D1044.

 

Clarke, J[ohn] J[ames], Jung and the Eastern Thought: A Dialogue with the Orient, London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

 

  , Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter between Asian and Western Thought, London and New York: Routledge, 1997.

 

Cohen, Amnon, Palestine in the Eigtheenth Century: Patterns of Government and Administration, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973.

 

Coşkun, Menderes, “Osmanlı Türkçesiyle Kaleme Alınmış Edebî Nitelikli Hac Seyahatnâmeleri,” in Güzel, Hasan Celal, [et. al.] eds. Türkler, 21 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 11, 806-814.

 

   , “Seyahatname ve Sefaretnameler,” in Halman, Talat Sait [et.al.] eds. Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 3 Volumes, Đstanbul: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınlığı, 2007, Vol. 2, 327-344.

 

Crossley, Ceri, French Historians and Romanticism: Thierry, Guizot, the Saint-Simonians, Quinet, Michelet, London and New York: Routledge, 1993.

 

Çaycı, Abdurrahman, La Question Tunisienne et La Politique Ottomane, 1881-1913, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1963.

   , Büyük Sahra’da Türk-Fransız Rekabeti, 1858-1911, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1970.

 

Çelebi, Đlyas, “Son Dönem Osmanlı Aydınlarının Batılılaşma Serüveni,” in Koca, Ferhat, ed. Osmanlıdan Cumhuriyete Siyaset ve Değer Tartışmaları, (Đstanbul: Rağbet Yayınları, 2000), 17-122.

 

Çelik, Zeynep, Displaying the Orient: Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth Century World’s Fairs, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1992.

 

Çetinsaya, Gökhan, The Ottoman Administration of Iraq 1890-1908, London: Routledge Curzon, 2005.

 

Çetinsaya, Gökhan, “The Caliph and Mujtahids: Ottoman Policy towards the Shiite Community of Iraq in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2005): 561-574.

 

Çırakman, Aslı, From the ‘Terror of the World’ to the ‘Sick Man of Europe’: European Images of Ottoman Empire and Society from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth, New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 2002.

 

Daniel, Elton L., The History of Iran, Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press, 2000.

 

Dankoff, Robert, An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi, Leiden:

E. J. Brill, 2006.

 

Dawn, C. Ernest, From Ottomanism to Arabism: Essays on the Origins of Arab Nationalism, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1973.

 

De Jonge, Huub, “Dutch Colonial Policy Pertaining to Hadhrami Immigrants,” in Freitag, Ulrike and Clarence-Smith,William G., eds. Hadhrami Traders, Scholars, and Statesmen in the Indian Ocean, 1750s- 1960s, Leiden: Brill, 1997.

 

Demir, Remzi, Philosophia Ottomanica: Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu Döneminde Türk Felsefesi, 3 Volumes, Đstanbul: Lotus Yayınevi, 2007.

Den Boer, Pim, “Europe to 1914: The Making of An Idea,” in Wilson, Kevin and Van Der Dussen, Jan, eds. The History of the Idea of Europe, Third Edition, London: Routledge/The Open University, 1995.

 

Dereli, Hamit, Kraliçe Elizabeth Devrinde Türkler ve Đngilizler, Đstanbul: Anıl Matbaası, 1951.

 

Deringil, Selim, “The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), 3-29

 

   , The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909, London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 1998.

 

    “‘They Live in a State of Nomadism and Savagery’: The Late Ottoman Empire and the Post-Colonial Debate, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 2003): 311-342.

 

           , “Ottoman-Japanese Relations in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Esenbel, Selçuk and Chiharu, Inaba, eds. The Rising Sun and the Turkish Crescent: New Perspectives on the History of Japanese Turkish Relations, (Đstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 2003), 42-47.

 

Dikici, Ezgi, “Orientalism and the Male Subject of Turkish Nationalism in the Stories of Ömer Seyfeddin,” Middle Eastern Literatures, Vol. 11, No. 1, (Apr. 2008): 85-99.

 

Dirimtekin, Feridun, Ecnebi Seyyahlara Nazaran XVI. Yüzyılda Đstanbul,

Đstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1964.

 

Divine, Donna Robinson, Politics and Society in Ottoman Palestine: The Arab Struggle for Survival and Power, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publications, 1994.

 

Dobie, Madeleine, Foreign Bodies: Gender, Language, and Culture in French Orientalism, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.

 

Doğan, Atila, Osmanlı Aydınları ve Sosyal Darwinizm, Đstanbul: Đstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2006.

Doğan, Đsmail, Tanzimatın Đki Ucu: Münif Paşa ve Ali Suavi, Sosyo- Pedagojik Bir Karşılaştırma, Đstanbul: Đz Yayıncılık, 1991.

 

Dupree, Louis, Afghanistan, Third Edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.

 

Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process, translated by Edmund Jephcott, London: Blackwell, 2000.

 

Emecen, Feridun, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin ‘Şark Meselesi’nin Ortaya Çıkışı: Đlk Münasebetler ve Đç Yansımaları,” in Tarihten Günümüze Türk-Đran Đlişkileri Sempozyumu, 16-17 December 2002, Konya, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2003, 33-48.

 

Enginün, Đnci, ed., Abdülhak Hamid’in Mektupları, 2 Volumes, Đstanbul, Dergah Yayınları, 1995.

 

Esenbel, Selçuk, “Türk-Japon Đlişkilerinin Tarihi,” in Güzel, Hasan Celal, [et. al.] eds. Türkler, 21 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 13, 149-161.

 

   , “Japanese Perspectives of the Ottoman World,” in Esenbel, Selçuk and Chiharu, Inaba (eds.), The Rising Sun and the Turkish Crescent, Đstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2003, 7-41.

 

Eyüboğlu, Bedri Rahmi, Canım Anadolu, Đstanbul: Varlık Yayınları, 1953.

 

Farah, Caesar E., The Politics of Interventionism in Ottoman Lebanon, 1830- 1861, London and New York, I. B. Tauris, 2000.

 

   , The Sultan's Yemen: Nineteenth-Century Challenges to Ottoman Rule, London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2002.

 

Farooqi, Naimur Rahman, Mughal-Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556-1748, Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delhi, 2009.

 

Faroqhi, Suraiya, Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans (1517- 1683), London: I. B. Tauris, 1994.

Fasai, Hasan, History of Persia under Qajar Rule, translated and edited by Busse, Heribert, New York and London, Columbia University Press, 1972

 

Fattah, Hala and Caso, Frank, A Brief History of Iraq, New York: Facts on File, 2009.

 

Febvre, Lucien, Uygarlık, Kapitalizm ve Kapitalistler, translated by Kılıçbay, Mehmet Ali, Ankara: Đmge Kitabevi, 1995.

 

Fındıkoğlu, Ziyaeddin Fahri, “Tanzimatta Đçtimai Hayat,” in Tanzimat I: Yüzüncü Yıl Münasebetile, Đstanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1940, 619-659.

 

Findley, Carter Vaughn, “An Ottoman Occidentalist in Europe: Ahmed Midhat Meets Madame Gülnar, 1889,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Feb., 1998): 15-49.

 

Firro, Kais, “The Ottoman Reforms and Jabal al-Duruz, 1860-1914,” in Weismann, Itzchak, and Zachs, Fruma, Ottoman Reform and Muslim Regeneration: Studies in Jonour of Butrus Abu-Manneh, London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2005, 149-164.

 

Fortier, Paul A., “Gobineau and German Racism,” Comparative Literature, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn 1967), 341-350.

 

Fortna, Benjamin C., “Islamic Morality In Late Ottoman ‘Secular’ Schools,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3, (Aug. 2000): 369-393.

 

Fussell, Paul, Abroad: British Literary Travelling between the Wars, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

 

Gammer, Moshe, “The Beginnings of the Naqshbandiyya in Dāghestān and the Russian Conquest of the Caucasus,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Nov., 1994): 204-217.

 

Geraci, Robert P., “The Concept of Civilization,” in Merriman, John and Winter, Jay, ed. Europe 1789 to 1914, Volume 1 of the Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, 5 Volumes, New York: Thomson Gale, 2006.

Gerber, Haim, “A New Look at the Tanzimat: The Case of the Province of Jerusalem,” in Kushner, David, ed. Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben- Zvi Press, 1986.

 

         , The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publications, 1987.

 

Gibb, E. J. W., A History of Ottoman Poetry, 6 Volumes, London: Luzac and Company Ltd., 1965.

 

Glassman, Bernard, Benjamin Disraeli: The Fabricated Jew in Myth and Memory, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002.

 

Gökyay, Orhan Şaik, ed., Katip Çelebi: Hayatı ve Eserleri Hakkında

Đncelemeler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1957.

 

   , “Türkçe’de Gezi Kitapları,” Türk Dili, Vol. 27, No. 258 (Mar., 1973), 457-467.

 

Göksoy, Đsmail Hakkı, “Güneydoğu Asya Đslam Ülkelerinde Türk Đzleri,” in Güzel, Hasan Celal, [et. al.] eds. Türkler, 21 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 9, 618-631.

 

Göyünç, Nejat, “Muzafferüddin Şah ve II. Abdülhamid Devrinde Türk-Đran Dostluk Tezahürleri,” in Đran Şehinşahlığı’nın 2500. Kuruluş Yıldönümüne Armağan, Đstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1971, 159-162.

 

 , “XIX. Yüzyılda Tahran’daki Temsilcilerimiz ve Türk-Đran Münasebetlerine Etkileri,” in Atatürk Konferansları, 6 Volumes, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1975, Vol. 5, 271-280.

 

Gregorian, Vartan, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan: Politics of Reform and Modernization, 1880-1946, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969.

 

Gregory, Derek, “Imaginative Geographies,” Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1995): 447-485.

  , “Scripting Egypt: Orientalism and the Cultures of Travel,” in Duncan, James S., ed. Writes of Passage: Reading Travel Writing, London: Routledge, 1998.

 

Grousset, René, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, translated by Naomi Walford, Eighth Edition, Chapel Hill, NC: Rutgers University Press, 2002.

 

Gündüz, Ahmet, “Musul: Osmanlılar Dönemi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 31, 363-367.

 

Gündüz, Mustafa, II. Meşrutiyet’in Klasik Paradigmaları: Đçtihad, Sebilü’r Reşad ve Türk Yurdu’nda Toplumsal Tezler, Đstanbul: Lotus Yayınları, 2007.

 

  , Đçtihadın Đçtihadı: Abdullah Cevdet’ten Seçme Yazılar, Đstanbul: Lotus Yayınları, 2008.

 

Gündoğdu, Abdullah, “Türkistan’da Osmanlı-Đran Rekabeti,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 1, 581-587.

 

Güngör, Necati, Seyyahların Kaleminden Şehr-i Şirin Đstanbul, Đstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları, 1996.

 

Halaçoğlu, Yusuf, “Bağdat: Osmanlı Dönemi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 4, 433-437.

 

Halaçoğlu, Yusuf, “Basra: Osmanlı Dönemi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 5, 112-114.

 

Halcombe, Charles, The Genesis of East Asia, 221 B.C. – A.D. 907, (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2001)

Hall, James, Tour through Ireland; Particularly the Interior and Least Known Parts, 2 Volumes, London: Moore, 1813.

 

Halliday, Fred, “Orientalism and Its Critics,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1993), 145-163.

 

Hamit, Baymirza, Türkistan Devletlerinin Milli Mücadele Tarihi, translated by Abdülkadir Sadak, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995.

 

Hamnett, Chris, “Social Segregation and Social Polarization,” in Paddison, Ronan, ed. Handbook of Urban Studies, London: Sage Publications, 2001, 162-176.

 

Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, “Garbcılar: Their Attitudes toward Religion and Their Impact on the Official Ideology of the Turkish Republic,” Studia Islamica, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Aug., 1997): 133-158.

 

Harlow, Barbara and Carter, Mia, eds. Imperialism and Orientalism: A Documentary Sourcebook, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.

 

Hathaway, Jane, The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of Qazdağlıs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

 

Hathaway, Jane, The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800, London: Pearson, 2008.

 

Hay, Denys, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968.

 

Hayes, Kevin J., “Baedeker Guides,” in Speake, Jennifer, ed. Literature of Travel and Exploration: An Encyclopedia, 3 Volumes, New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2003, Vol. 1, 58-60.

 

Hazar, Numan, “Türklerin Afrika ile Đlişkilerinin Kısa Tarihçesi,” in Güzel, Hasan Celal, [et. al.] eds. Türkler, 21 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999,Vol. 13, 118-131.

 

Herzog, Christoph and Motika, Raoul, “Orientalism ‘alla turca’: Late 19^th / Early 20^th Century Ottoman Voyages into the Muslim ‘Outback’,” Die Welt

des Islams, New Series, Vol. 40, No. 2, Ottoman Travels and Travel Accounts from an Earlier Age of Globalization (Jul., 2000): 139-195.

 

Hitti, Philip Khoury, History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present, London: Macmillan, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964.

 

         , Lebanon in History: From the Earliest Times to the Present, London: Macmillan, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1967.

 

         , History of Syria, Including Lebanon and Palestine, 2 Volumes, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2002.

 

Hobden,   Stephen,   International   Relations   and   Historical   Sociology: Breaking Down Boundaries, London and New York: Routledge, 1998.

 

   and John M. Hobson (eds.), Historical Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

 

Holt, P[eter] M[alcolm], “Pattern of Egyptian Political History from 1517 to 1798,” in Holt, P[eter] M[alcolm], ed. Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt, London: Oxford University Press, 1968, 79-90.

 

Hooper, Glenn, Travel Writing and Ireland, 1760-1860: Culture, History, Politics, London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

 

Hourani, Albert, The Emergence of the Modern Middle East, London: Macmillan Press, 1981.

 

Hütteroth, Wolf-Dieter, “Ecology of the Ottoman Lands,” in Farouqhi, Suraiya N., ed. The Later Ottoman Empire, (1603-1839), Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Turkey, 4 Volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 18-43.

 

Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History, translated and introduced by Franz Rosenthal, abridged and edited by N. J. Dawood, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1967.

 

Itzkowitz, Norman and Mote, Max, Mubadele: An Ottoman-Russian Exchange of Ambassadors, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Đhsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin, “Introduction of Western Science to the Ottoman World: A Case Study of Modern Astronomy (1660-1860),” in Đhsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin, ed. Transfer of Modern Science and Technology to the Muslim World, Đstanbul: IRCICA Publications, 1992, 67-120.

 

  , “Tanzimat Öncesi ve Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Bilim ve Eğitim Anlayışı,” in Yıldız, Hakkı Dursun, ed. 150. Yılında Tanzimat, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1992, 335-397.

 

Đlgürel, Mücteba, “Evliya Çelebi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 11, 529-533.

 

Đnalcık, Halil, “The Poet and the Patron: A Sociological Treatise upon the Patrimonial State and the Arts,” Journal of Turkish Literature, Vol. 2 (2005): 9-70.

 

Đnayet, Alimcan, “Divanü Lûğat-it-Türk’te Geçen “Çin” ve “Maçin” Adı Üzerine,” Turkish Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Fall 2007): 1174-1184.

 

Đzgöer, Ahmet Zeki, Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Đstanbul: Şule Yayınları, 1999.

 

  , Tahkik ve Tevfik: Osmanlı-Đran Diplomatik Münasebetlerinde Mezhep Tartışmaları, Đstanbul: Kitabevi, 2003.

 

Jansen, Marius B., “The Meiji Restoration,” in Jansen, Marius B., ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, 6 Volumes, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989, Vol. 5, 308-366.

 

Jenkins, Jennifer, “German Orientalism: Introduction,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Vol. 24, No. 2 (2004): 97-100.

 

Jersild, Austin, Orientalism and Empire: North Caucasus Mountain Peoples and the Georgian Frontier, 1845-1917, Montréal, London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003.

 

Johnson, Robert, Spying for Empire: The Great Game in Central and South Asia, 1757-1947, London: Greenhill Books, 2006.

Jones, David Martin, Image of China in Western Social and Political Thought, Gordonsville VA.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.

 

Kabbani, Rana, Europe’s Myths of Orient: Devise and Rule, London: Macmillan, 1986.

 

Kafadar, Cemal “Gaza”, in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 13, 427-429.

 

Kalinowska, Izabela, Between East and West: Polish and Russian Nineteenth-Century Travel to the Orient, Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2004.

 

Kalpana, Sahni, Crucifying the Orient: Russian Orientalism and the Colonization of the Caucasus and Central Asia, Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1997.

 

Kara, Đsmail, Türkiye’de Đslamcılık Düşüncesi: Metinler/Kişiler, 3 Volumes,

Đstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 1997.

 

Karaer,  Nihat,  Paris,  Londra,  Viyana:  Abdülaziz’in  Avrupa  Seyahati,

Đstanbul: Phoenix Yayınları, 2007.

 

Kark, Ruth, “The Contribution of the Ottoman Regime to the Development of Jerusalem and Jaffa, 1840-1917,” in Kushner, David, ed. Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press, 1986, 45-58.

 

Karpat, Kemal H., Ortadoğu’da Osmanlı Mirası ve Ulusçuluk, translated by Recep Boztemur, Ankara: Đmge Yayınları, 2001.

 

  , The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

 

Karsh, Efraim, Islamic Imperialism: A History, New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press, 2007.

Kashani-Sabet, Firoozeh, “Fragile Frontiers: The Diminishing Domains of Qajar Iran,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1997): 205-234.

 

Kavas, Ahmet, “Büyük Sahra’da Gat Kazasının Kurulması ve Osmanlı- Tevarık Münasebetleri,” Đslam Araştırmaları Dergisi, No. 3, (1999): 171-

195.

 

   , “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Afrika Kıtasında Hakimiyeti ve Nüfuzu,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 1, 421-430.

 

         , Osmanlı-Afrika Đlişkileri, Đstanbul: TASAM Yayınları, 2006.

 

Kayalı, Hasan, Jön Türkler ve Araplar: Osmanlıcılık, Erken Arap Milliyetçiliği ve Đslamcılık (1908-1918), Đstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998.

 

Kaye, Howard L., The Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997.

 

Kaygı, Abdullah, Türk Düşüncesinde Çağdaşlaşma, Ankara: Gündoğan Yayınları, 1992.

 

Keddie, Nikkie R., “The Origins of the Religious-Radical Alliance in Iran,”

Past & Present, No. 34 (Jul., 1966): 70-80.

 

  , “Socio-economic Change in the Middle East since 1800,” in Udovitch, Abraham L., The Islamic Middle East, 700-1900: Studies in Economic and Social History, Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, 1981.

 

  , and Amanad, Mehrdad, “Iran under the Late Qajars, 1848-1922,” in Avery, Peter, Hambly, Gavin and Melville, Charles, eds. The Cambridge History of Iran, From Nader Shah to the Islamic Republic, 7 Volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, Vol. 7, 174-212.

 

Kemper, Michael, “Khālidiyya Networks in Daghestan and the Question of Jihād,” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2002): 41-71.

Keyman, Fuat, Globalization, State, Identity/Difference: Toward A Critical Social Theory of International Relations, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997.

 

Khalid, Adeeb, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1998.

 

King, Charles, The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

 

Kitapçı, Zekeriya, “Osmanlıların Orta Afrika Politikası: Askeri, Ticari ve Siyasi Đlişkiler,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 1, 411-420.

 

Knight, Nathaniel, “Grigor'ev in Orenburg, 1851-1862: Russian Orientalism in the Service of Empire?,” Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Spring, 2000): 74- 100.

 

Koloğlu, Orhan, “Osmanlı’da Kamuoyunun Oluşumu,” in Eren, Güler, ed.

Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 7, 327-

336.

 

  , “Osmanlı’da Đlk Yapon Haberleri,” Tarih ve Toplum, No. 218 (Feb., 2002): 83-85.

 

Komatsu, Kaori, Ertuğrul Faciası: Bir Dostluğun Doğuşu, Ankara: Turhan Kitapevi, 1992.

 

Kopf, David, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization, 1773-1835, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

 

Korkmaz, Ramazan, “Yenileşmenin Tarihî, Sosyo-Kültürel ve Estetik Temelleri,” in Halman, Talat Sait [et.al.], eds., Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 3 Volumes, Đstanbul: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınlığı, 2007, Vol. 3, 17-42.

 

Korlaelçi, Murtaza, “Bazı Tanzimatçılarımızın Pozitivistlerle Đlişkileri,” Tanzimatın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1994, 25-43.

Korte, Barbara, English Travel Writing from Pilgrimages to Postcolonial Explorations, translated by Catherine Matthias, Hampshire: Macmillan / New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

 

Kramer, Gudrun, A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, translated by Graham Harman and Gudrun Kramer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

 

Kroeber, A[lfred] L[ouis] and Kluckhohn, Clyde, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, New York: Vintage Books, 1952.

 

Kruijt, Dirk and Koonings, Kees, “Epilogue: Latin America’s Urban Duality Revisited,” in Kruijt, Dirk and Koonings, Kees, eds. Fractured Cities: Social Exclusion, Urban Violence and Contested Spaces in Latin America, London and New York: Zed Books, 2007, 138-141.

 

Kuran, Ercümend, Türkiye’nin Batılılaşması ve Milli Meseleler, edited by Mümtaz’er Türköne, Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1994.

 

Kurşun, Zekeriya, “Osmanlı Devleti Đdaresinde Hicaz (1517-1919),” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 1, 316-325.

 

Kutay, Cemal, Sultan Abdülaziz’in Avrupa Seyahati, Đstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları, 1991.

 

Küçükaşçı, Mustafa Sabri, “Mekke: Osmanlı Dönemi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 28, 563-572.

 

Laisram, Pallavi Pandit, Viewing the Islamic Orient: British Travel Writers of the Nineteenth Century, London and New York: Routledge, 2006.

 

Landau, Jacob M., The Politics of Pan-Islam: Ideology and Organization, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

 

Lawrence, Bruce, The Quran: A Biography, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.

Layton, Susan, Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest of the Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

 

Lee, Dwight E., “A Turkish Mission to Afghanistan, 1877,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 13, No. 3, (Sep., 1941): 335-356.

 

         , “The Origins of Pan-Islamism, The American Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jan., 1942): 278-287.

 

Lee, Hee Soo and Đlhan, Đbrahim, Osmanlı-Japon Münasebetleri ve Japonya’da Đslamiyet, Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1989.

 

  , “II. Abdülhamid ve Doğu Asya’daki Pan-Đslamist Siyaseti,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 2, 363-371.

 

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism, [unknown translator], Moscow: Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R., 1934.

 

Levend, Agah Sırrı, Gazavât-nâmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey Gazavât-nâmesi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1956.

 

  , Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 2 Volumes, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1973.

 

Libby, Lester, “Venetian Views of the Ottoman Empire from the Peace of 1503 to the War of Cyprus,” Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1978): 103-126.

 

Little, Douglas, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

 

Litvak, Meir, Shi’i Scholars of Nineteenth Century Iraq, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

 

  , “A Failed Manipulation: The British, the Oudh Bequest and the Shi’i Ulama of Najaf and Karbala,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1 (May 2000): 69-89

Llull, Ramon, Selected Works of Ramon Llull (1232-1316), 2 Volumes, translated by Anthony Bonner, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

 

Locher-Scholten, Elsbeth, Sumatran Sultanate and Colonial State: Jambi and the Rise of Dutch Imperialism, 1830-1907, translated by Beverley Jackson, Ithaca, NY: SEAP Publications, 2004.

 

Lockman, Zachary, Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

 

Long, Andrew, “The Hidden and the Visible in British Orientalism: The Case of Lawrence of Arabia,” Middle East Critique, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2009): 21-37.

 

Loupis, Dimitris, “Piri Reis’ Book on Navigation (Kitab-ı Bahriyye) as a Geography Handbook,” in Tolias, George and Loupis, Dimitris, eds. Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Athens: Institute for Neohellenic Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2004, 35-49.

 

Ludden, David, ed., Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalization of South Asia, London: Anthem Books, 2002.

 

Macfie, A. L., The Eastern Question, 1774-1923, London and New York: Longman, 1994.

 

    , Orientalism, London and New York: Longman, 2002.

 

MacGahan, Januarius Aloysius, Campaigning on the Oxus and the Fall of Khiva, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1874, translated by Kolağası Ahmed Bey, Hive Seyahatnamesi ve Tarih-i Musavver, Dersaadet [Đstanbul]: Basiret Matbaası, 1292, [1875].

 

Makdisi, Ussama, “Rethinking Ottoman Imperialism: Modernity, Violence and the Cultural Logic of Ottoman Reform,” in Hanssen, Jens, Philipp, Thomas and Weber, Stefan, eds. The Empire in the City: Arab Provincial Capitals in the Late Ottoman Empire, Beirut: Orient Institut der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, 2002, 29-48.

 

            , “Ottoman Orientalism,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 3 (Jun., 2002): 768-796.

Mandaville, Jon E., “The Ottoman Province of al-Hasā in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 90, No. 3 (July - Sep., 1970): 486-513.

 

Mansurnoor, Lik Arifin, “Osmanlı Dünyasında Đslam Reformu: Osmanlılar ile Malay Dünyası Arasındaki Sosyo-Dini Bağlar,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 2, 222-

229.

 

Ma’oz, Moshe, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine, 1840-1861: The Impact of Tanzimat on Politics and Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

 

Marchand, Suzanne L., German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

 

Matthee, Rudi, “The Safavid-Ottoman Frontier: Iraq-i Arab as Seen by the Safavids,” International Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1-2, (Summer 2003): 157-174.

 

Mazlish, Bruce, Civilization and Its Discontents, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.

 

McFarlaine, Charles, Turkey and Its Destiny, 2 Volumes, Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1850.

 

McLachlan, K. S., “Tripoli and Tripolitania: Conflict and Cohesion during the Period of the Barbary Corsairs (1551-1850),” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 3, Settlement and Conflict in the Mediterranean World (1978), 285-294.

 

McSweeney, Bill, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

 

Meriç, Ümit, Cevdet Paşa’nın Cemiyet ve Devlet Görüşü, Đstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat, 1979.

 

Meriç, Cemil, Umrandan Uygarlığa, Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları, 2008.

Mermutlu, Bedri, Sosyal Düşünce Tarihimizde Şinasi, Đstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 2003.

 

Mikkeli, Heiki, Europe as an Idea and an Identity, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

 

Millward, James A., Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang, New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

 

Millward, Robert, Private and Public Enterprise in Europe: Energy, Telecommunications and Transport, 1830-1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

 

Moalla, Asma, The Regency of Tunis and the Ottoman Porte, 1777-1814: Army and Government of a North African Ottoman Eyalet at the End of the Eighteenth Century, London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2004.

 

Mobini-Kesheh, Natalie, The Hadrami Awakening: Community and Identity in the Netherlands East Indies, 1900-1942, Ithaca, NY: SEAP Publications, 1999.

 

Moeran, Brian, Language and Popular Culture in Japan, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1989.

 

Molnar, Thomas, The Decline of the Intellectual, New York: Arlington House, 1973.

 

Nance, Susan, “A Facilitated Access Model and Ottoman Empire Tourism,”

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 2007): 1056–1077.

 

Nayak, Meghana V. and Malone, Christopher, “American Orientalism and American Exceptionalism: A Critical Rethinking of US Hegemony,” The International Studies Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (June, 2009): 253-276.

 

Needham, Gerald, “Orientalism in France,” Art Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, The Crisis in the Discipline (Winter, 1982): 338-341.

Neumann, Christoph, Araç Tarih Amaç Tanzimat: Tarih-i Cevdet’in Siyasi Anlamı, translated by Meltem Arun, Đstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2000.

 

Newby, L. J., The Empire and the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations with Khoqand, c. 1760-1860, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005.

 

Ngai, Mae M., “American Orientalism,” Reviews in American History, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 2000): 408-415.

 

Nishihara, Daisuke, “Said, Orientalism, and Japan,” Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, No. 25, Special Issue: Edward Said and Critical Decolonization, (2005): 241-253.

 

Ocaklı, Arzu, “XIX. Yüzyıl Sonu ve XX. Yüzyılın Başında Çin Müslümanları ve Osmanlı Đlişkileri,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 1, 588-593.

 

Oergel, Maike, Culture and Identity: Historicity in German Literature and Thought, 1770–1815, Berlin: Walter de Grutyer, 2006.

 

O’Hagan, Jacinta, Conceptualizing the West in International Relations: From Spengler to Said, Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

 

Okay, Orhan, Batı Medeniyeti Karşısında Ahmet Mithat Efendi, Ankara: Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1975.

 

Orhonlu, Cengiz, Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu’nun Güney Siyaseti: Habeş Eyaleti, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1996.

 

Ortaylı, Đlber, Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu’nda Alman Nüfuzu, Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları 1998.

 

Oschenwald, William L., “Ottoman Subsidies to the Hijaz, 1877-1886,”

International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3 (July, 1975): 300-

307.

 

Özalp, Ömer Hakan, ed. Mehmed Ubeydullah Efendi’nin Malta, Afganistan ve Đran Hatıraları, Đstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2002.

Özay, Mehmet, Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery, London: Routledge, 1990.

 

Özbaran, Salih, Portekizli Seyyahlar: Đran, Türkiye, Irak, Suriye ve Mısır Yollarında, Đstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2007.

 

Özcan, Azmi, Pan-Islamism: Indian Muslims, the Ottomans and Britain (1877-1924), Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.

 

  , “Sultan Abdülhamid Döneminde Osmanlılar ve Hindistan Müslümanları,” in Güzel, Hasan Celal, [et. al.] eds. Türkler, 21 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 13, 138-143.

 

Özendes, Engin, Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu’nda Fotoğraf, Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları, 1995.

 

Özey, Ramazan, “Osmanlı Devleti Döneminde Coğrafya ve Öğretimi,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 8, 326-333.

 

Özgül, Kayahan, XIX. Asrın Benzersiz Bir Politekniği: Münif Paşa, Ankara: Elips Kitap, 2005.

 

Öztuna, Yılmaz, Devletler ve Hanedanlar, 6 Volumes, Ankara: T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2005.

 

Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimler Sözlüğü, 3rd Edition, 3 Volumes, Đstanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.

 

Pala, Đskender, Ah Mine’l Aşk, Đstanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2004.

 

Pamuk, Şevket, “The Ottoman Empire in the ‘Great Depression’ of 1873- 1896,” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Mar., 1984): 107-

118.

 

Panayotova, Boriana, “Soi et I'Autre dans la perspective de I'antagonisme ‘barbarie-civilisation’: le cas de la Bulgarie et de ses voisins balkaniques,” Canadian Joumal of History/ Annales canadiennes d'histoire, Vol. 38, No. 2, (Aug. 2003): 199-229.

Paolini, Albert J., Navigating Modernity: Post-Colonialism, Identity and International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publications, 1999.

 

Parlatır, Đsmail, “XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Türkçesi,” in Eren, Güler, ed.

Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 9, 471-

481.

 

Patterson, Thomas, Inventing Western Civilization, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1997.

 

Pennycook, Alastair, English and the Discourses of Colonialism, London and New York: Routledge, 1998.

 

Peretz, Don, The Middle East Today, Westport: Preager, 1994.

 

Perin, Robert G., “Herbert Spencer's Four Theories of Social Evolution,” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 81, No. 6, (May, 1976): 1339-1359.

 

Philipp, Thomas, “Bilād al-Šām in the Modern Period: Integration into the Ottoman Empire and New Relations with Europe,” Arabica: Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies/Revue d'études arabes et islamiques, Vol. 51, No. 4, (2004): 401-418.

 

Pınar, Đlhan, Hacılar, Seyyahlar, Misyonerler ve Đzmir: Yabancıların Gözüyle Osmanlı Döneminde Đzmir, 1608-1918, Đzmir: Đzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2001.

 

Pratt, Mary Loise, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, London: Routledge, 1992.

 

Quataert, Donald, The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

 

Rabi, Uzi, “British Possessions in the Persian Gulf and Southwest Arabia: The Last Abandoned in the Middle East,” in Levey, Zach and Podeh, Elie, ed. Britain and the Middle East: From Imperial Power to Junior Partner, Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press, 2008, 264-282.

Ravi, Srilata, “Adventure in Malaya: Henri Fauconnier and French Orientalism,” Asia-Europe Journal, Vol.1, No. 3, (Aug., 2003): 419-432.

 

Raymond, André, “Ottoman Legacy in Arab Political Boundaries,” in Brown, L. Carl, ed. Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, 115-128.

 

Reeves, Julie, Culture and International Relations: Narratives, Natives and Tourists, London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

 

Reid, Anthony, “Nineteenth Century Pan-Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia,”

The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Feb., 1967): 267-283.

 

  , An Indonesian Frontier: Achenese and Other Histories of Sumatra, Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2005.

 

Renan, Ernest, L’Islam et la Science, Paris: M. Levy, 1883.

 

Ricklefs, M[erle] C[alvin], A History of Modern Indonesia since c. 1200, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.

 

Rigger, Monica, “The Discourse on Modernization and the Problem of Cultural Integrity in the Nineteenth Century Iran,” in Matthee, Rudi and Baron, Beth, eds. Iran and Beyond: Essays in Middle Eastern History in Honor of Nikkie R. Keddie, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2000.

 

Robertson, Jennifer Allen, Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

 

Roudik, Peter L., The History of Central Asian Republics, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007.

 

John Ruedy, Modern Algeria: The Origins and Development of A Nation, 2^nd Edition, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005.

 

Runion, Meredith L., The History of Afghanistan, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007.

Said, Edward, Orientalism, London: Routledge&Kegan Paul Ltd, 1978.

 

Sakal, Fahri, “Osmanlı Ailesinde Kitap,” in Eren, Güler, ed. Osmanlı, 12 Volumes, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999, Vol. 11, 732-738.

 

Salter, Mark, Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations, London: Pluto Press, 2002.

 

San-eki, Nakaoka, “The Yoshida Masaharu Mission to Persia and the Ottoman Empire during the Period 1880-1881,” in Collected Papers of Oriental Studies in Celebration of Seventy Years of Age of His Imperial Highness Prince Mikasa, Shogakukan: Japan Society for Near Eastern Studies 1985, 203-235.

 

Sanderson, Stephen K., Social Evolutionism: A Critical History, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

 

Saray, Mehmet, Afganistan ve Türkler, Đstanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1987.

 

  , Rus Đşgali Devrinde Osmanlı Devleti ile Türkistan Hanlıkları Arasındaki Siyasi Münasebetler (1775-1875), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1994.

 

         , Türk-Đran Đlişkileri, Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları, 1999.

 

   , The Russian, British, Chinese and Ottoman Rivalry in Turkestan: Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Printing House, 2003.

 

Schmidt, Jan, Through the Legation Window, 1876-1926: Four Essays on Dutch, Dutch-Indian and Ottoman History, Đstanbul: Nederlands Historisch- Archaeologisch Instituut te Đstanbul, 1992.

 

Schofield, Richard, “Narrowing the Frontier: Mid-Nineteenth Century Efforts to Delimit and Map the Perso-Ottoman Boundary,” in Farmanfarmaian, Roxane, ed. War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implications Past and Present, London and New York: Routledge, 2008, 149-173.

Schuyler, Eugene, Turkestan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkestan, Kokand, Bukarha and Kuldja (New York: Scibner-Armstrong, 1876), translated by Kolağası Ahmed Bey as Musavver Türkistan Tarihi ve Seyahatnamesi, Dersaadet [Đstanbul]: Basiret Matbaası, 1294, [1877].

 

Schwab, Raymond, The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Discovery of India and the East (1680-1880), translated by Gene Patterson-Black and Victor Reinking, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.

 

Schweinfurth, George August, Im Herzen von Afrika: Reisen und Entdeckungen im centralen äquatorial-Afrika während der Jahre 1868 bis 1871, 2 Volumes, Leipzig, F. A. Brockhous, 1874, translated by Ahmed Bey and Mustafa Said Bey as Şıvınfort'un Afrika Seyahatnamesi, Dersaadet [Đstanbul]: Basiret Matbaası, 1291 [1874-1875].

 

Schwoebel, Robert, The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turk, 1453-1517, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1967.

 

Sevük, Đsmail Habib, Tanzimattan Beri Edebiyat Tarihi, 2 Volumes, Đstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1942.

 

Shaner, Ralph F., “Lamarck and the Evolution Theory,” The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Mar., 1927): 251-255.

 

Sharkey, Heather Jane, Living with Colonialism: Nationalism and Culture in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003.

 

Sharon, Moshe, “Palestine under the Mameluks and the Ottoman Empire (1291-1918),” in Avi-Yonah, Michael, ed. A History of Israel and the Holy Land, New York and London: Continuum, 2003, 272-322.

 

Shaw, Stanford J. and Shaw, Ezel Kural, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 Volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

 

Shaw, Stanford J., “Iranian Relations with the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Avery, Peter, Hambly, Gavin and Melville, Charles, eds. The Cambridge History of Iran, From Nader Shah to the Islamic Republic, 7 Volumes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, Vol. 7, 297-313.

Shields, Sarah D., “Regional Trade and 19th-Century Mosul: Revising the Role of Europe in the Middle East Economy,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Feb., 1991): 19-37.

 

Shuval, Tal, “The Ottoman Algerian Elite and Its Ideology,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Aug., 2000), 323-344.

 

Skrine, Francis Henry and Ross, Edward Denison, The Heart of Asia: A History of Russian Turkestan and the Central Asian Khanates from the Earliest Times, London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2005.

 

Smethurst, Paul, “Introduction,” in Smethurst, Paul and Kuehn, Julia, eds., Travel-Writing Form and Empire: The Poetics and Politics of Mobility, New York and London: Routledge, 2009.

 

Soucek, Svat, “Piri Reis,” Encyclopedia of Islam, 12 Volumes, Leiden: Brill, 1960-2005, Vol. 8, 308-309.

 

   , A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

 

Soykut, Mustafa, Image of the ‘Turk’ in Italy: A History of the ‘Other’ in Early Modern Europe, 1483-1683, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2001.

 

Spagnolo,John P., France & Ottoman Lebanon, 1861-1914, London: Ithaca Press, 1977.

 

Spivak, Gayatri, Outside in the Teaching Machine, New York, Routledge, 1993.

 

Steiner, Phillippe, “Physiocracy and French Pre-Classical Political Economy,” in Biddle, Jeff E. [et. al.], eds. A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, London: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

 

Stora, Benjamin, Algeria, 1830-2000: A Short History, translated by Jane Marie Todd, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2001.

 

Strathern, Paul, Napoleon in Egypt, New York: Bantam Books, 2008.

Strauss, Johann, “Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th Centuries)?,” Middle Eastern Literatures, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jan. 2003): 39-76.

 

Suleski, Ronald, “Modern Chinese Studies in Japan and the West: Coming Closer Together,” The China Quarterly, No. 75 (Sep., 1978), 655-659, 655

 

Süslü, Zeynep, and Kara, Đsmail, “Şemseddin Sami’nin ‘Medeniyet’e Dair Dört Makalesi” Kutadgubilig, No. 4 (Oct. 2003): 259-281.

 

Şeyhun, Ahmet, Said Halim Paşa: Ottoman Statesmen, Islamist Thinker (1865-1921), Đstanbul: ISIS Press, 2003.

 

Şirin, Đbrahim, Osmanlı Đmgeleminde Avrupa, Ankara: Lotus Yayınevi, 2006.

 

Şişman, Adnan, Tanzimat Döneminde Fransa'ya Gönderilen. Osmanlı Öğrencileri (1839-1876), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2004.

 

Taboada, Hernan G. H., “Latin American Orientalism: From Margin to Margin,” in Sylvia Nagy-Zekmi, Paradoxical Citizenship: Edward Said, Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006.

 

Talbi, Mohammed, “Ibn Haldūn et le sens de l'Histoire,” Studia Islamica, No. 26 (1967): 73-148.

 

Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi, Edebiyat Üzerine Makaleler, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1969.

 

Tansel, Fevziye Abdullah, ed. Namık Kemal’in Hususi Mektupları, 8 Volumes, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1967-1986.

 

Tarakçı, Celal, “Cenap Şehabettin,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 37 Volumes (continues to be published), (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988 onwards), Vol. 7, 346-349.

 

Tekeli, Đlhan and Đlkin, Selim, Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu’nda Eğitim ve Bilgi Üretim Sisteminin Oluşumu ve Dönüşümü, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1999.

Thornton, Lynne, Les Orientalistes: Peintres Voyageurs, 1828-1908, Paris: ACR Edition, 1983.

 

    , La Femme dans la Peinture Orientaliste, Paris: ACR Edition, 1993.

 

Tibawi, A[bdul] L[atif], “English Speaking Orientalists: A Critique of Their Approach to Islam and Arab Nationalism,” Part I, Islamic Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1-2 (Jan.-June, 1964): 25-45.

 

   , “English Speaking Orientalists: A Critique of Their Approach to Islam and Arab Nationalism,” Part II, Islamic Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3-4 (July-Dec., 1964): 73-88.

 

            , “Second Critique of the English-Speaking Orientalists,” Islamic Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1979): 3-54.

 

Toledano, Ehud R., State and Society in Mid-Nineteenth Century Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

 

Trimingham, J. Spencer, Islam in Ethiopia, London: Frank Cass, 2008.

 

Tripp, Charles, A History of Iraq, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Tromans, Nicholas, ed. The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting, London: Tate, 2008.

 

Tucker, Ernest, “Nader Shah and Jafari Maddhab Reconsidered,” Iranian Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1-4, (1994): 163-179.

 

Tunaya, Tarık Zafer, Türkiye’nin Siyasi Hayatında Batılılaşma Hareketleri,

Đstanbul: Yedigün Matbaası, 1960.

 

         , Đslamcılık Cereyanı: Đkinci Meşrutiyetin Siyasi Hayatı Boyunca Gelişmesi ve Bugüne Bıraktığı Meseleler, Đstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1962.

 

Tuncer, Hadiye and Tuncer, Hüner, Osmanlı Diplomasisi ve Sefaretnameler, Ankara: Ümit Yayıncılık, 1997.

Turan, Şerafettin, “Seydî Ali Reis,” Đslam Ansiklopedisi, 13 Volumes,

Đstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1945-1986), Vol. 10, 528-531.

 

Turner, Bryan S., Marx and the End of Orientalism, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978.

 

  , “Outline of A Theory of Orientalism,” in Bryan S. Turner (ed.) Orientalism: Early Sources, 12 Volumes, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, Vol. 1, 1-31.

 

Tyler, Christian, Wild West China: The Taming of Xinjiang, London: John Murray Publishers, 2003.

 

Unat, Faik Reşit, Osmanlı Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1992.

 

Uzunçarşılı, Đsmail Hakkı, Osmanlı Devletinin Đlmiye Teşkilatı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1988.

 

Üçel-Aybet, Gülnur, Avrupalı Seyyahların Gözünden Osmanlı Dünyası ve

Đnsanları, Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları, 2003.

 

Van Dijk, Kees, The Netherlands Indies and the Great War 1914-1918, Leiden: KITLV Press, 2007.

 

Vatin, Nicolas, “Itinéraires d’agents de la Porte en Italie (1483-1495): Réflexions sur l’organisation des missions ottomanes et sur la transcription des noms de lieux italiens,” Turcica, No. 19 (1987): 29-50.

 

   , “Bir Osmanlı Türkü Yaptığı Seyahati Niçin Anlatırdı?,” translated from French by Işık Ergüder, Cogito, No. 19, Osmanlı Özel Sayısı (1999): 161-178.

 

Verga, Marcello, “European Civilization and the ‘Emulation of the Nations’: Histories of Europe from the Enlightenment to Guizot,” History of European Ideas, Vol. 34, No. 4, (Dec. 2008): 353-360

Verne, Jules, Les Tribulations d’un Chinois en Chine, Paris: Hetzel, 1879, translated by Ahmed Đhsan as Çin’den Seyahat, Đstanbul: Alem Matbaası, 1308 [1891].

 

            , Deux Ans de Vacances, 2 Volumes, Paris: Hetzel, 1888, translated by Ahmed Đhsan as Mektep Tatili, Đstanbul: Matbaatü'l-Alem, 1308 [1891].

 

   , César Cascabel, 2 Volumes, Paris: Hetzel, 1890, translated by Ahmed Đhsan as Araba ile Devr-i Alem Yahud Sezar Kaskabel, Đstanbul: Matbaatü'l-Alem, 1309 [1892].

 

Vernoit, Stephen, “The Rise of Islamic Archaeology,” Muqarnas, Vol. 14, (1997): 1-10.

 

Vlahakis, George N. [et.al.], Imperialism and Science: Social Impact and Interaction, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006.

 

Warburg, Gabriel, “Islam in the Sudan under the Funj and the Ottomans,” in Wasserstein, David J. and Ayalon, Ami, eds. Mamluks and Ottomans: Studies in Honour of Michael Winter, London and New York, Routledge, 2006, 206-225.

 

Wasti, Syed Tanvir, “Two Muslim Travelogues: to and from Đstanbul”,

Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1991): 457-476.

 

         , “The Political Aspirations of Indian Muslims and the Ottoman Nexus,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 42, No. 5, (Sep., 2006): 709-722.

 

Wendt, Alexander, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Summer, 1987), 335-

370.

 

         , “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), 391-425.

 

            , “Constructing International Politics,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), 71-81.

Wescott, Roger, “The Enumeration of Civilizations,” History and Theory, Vol. 9, No. 1, (1970): 59-85.

 

Williamson, Jeffrey G., Globalization and the Poor Periphery before 1950, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2006.

 

Winter, Michael, Egyptian Society under Ottoman Rule 1517-1798, London and New York: Routledge, 1992.

 

Wokoeck, Ursula, German Orientalism: The Study of the Middle East and Islam from 1800 to 1945, London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

 

Wolfson, Harry A., “The Twice-Revealed Averroes,” Speculum, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1961): 373-392.

 

Wunder, Amanda, “Western Travelers, Eastern Antiquities and the Image of the Turk in Early Modern Europe,” The Journal of Early Modern History, Vol. 7, No. 1-2 (2003): 89-119.

 

Yaslıçimen, Faruk, “Sunnism Versus Shi’ism? Rise of the Shi’i Politics and of The Ottoman Apprehension in Late Nineteenth Century Iraq,” Unpublished MA Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, 2008.

 

Yazıcı, Nesimi, “Osmanlı Haberleşme Kurumu,” ,” in Yıldız, Hakkı Dursun, ed. 150. Yılında Tanzimat, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1992, 139- 209.

 

  , “Layihalar Işığında II. Abdülhamid Döneminde Libya Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler,” in Sultan II. Abdülhamid ve Devri Semineri, 27-29 May 1992, Đstanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1994, 47-84.

 

         , “Osmanlı Son Döneminde Libya’da Türk Dilinin Öğretimi Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler,” Belleten, Vol 59 (Apr. 1995): 121-132.

 

Yılmaz, Faruk, Devlet Borçlanması ve Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Dış Borçlar: Duyun-u Umumiye, Đstanbul: Birleşik Yayıncılık, 1996.

 

Young, Robert J. C., Post-Colonialism: An Historical Introduction, Oxford and Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

Yurdusev, A. Nuri, International Relations and the Philosophy of History: A Civilizational Approach, London and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2003.

CURRICULUM VITAE

 

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Surname, Name: Palabıyık, Mustafa Serdar Nationality: Turkish (TC)

Date and Place of Birth: 3 May 1982, Đnebolu Marital Status: Single

Phone: +90 312 3177795

Fax: +90 312 2107983

email: spalabiyik@gmail.com

 

EDUCATION
Degree	Institution	Year of Graduation
MSc	METU International Relations	2005
BSc	METU International Relations	2003
High School	Yıldırım Bayezit Anatolian High School, Ankara	1999

 

WORK EXPERIENCE

 

Year                       Place                                                             Enrollment

2005- Present         Middle East Technical University                Research Assistant

2005 February - October

Turkish Grand National Assembly              Deputy Advisor

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Advanced English, Intermediate French, Beginner Italian, Ability to write and read the Ottoman Turkish

 

PUBLICATIONS

1.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık (ed.), Batı’da Jeopolitik Düşünce, (Ankara: Orion Yayınevi, 2009).

2.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “Savaşın Peygamberleri: Jomini ve Clausewitz,” Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık (ed.), Batı’da Jeopolitik Düşünce, (Ankara: Orion Yayınları, 2009)

3.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık ve Ali Yıldız, Avrupa Birliği, (Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık, 2006).

4.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “The Ottoman Perception of War: From the Foundation of the Empire to Its Disintegration,” Avery Plaw and Axel Augé (ed.), War, Virtual War and Human Security, (Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers, 2010) (forthcoming).

5.     Mustafa  Serdar  Palabıyık,  “Türkiye’de  Savaş  Düşüncesi”,  Uluslararası

Đlişkiler, Vol. 4, No. 14, Yaz 2007, pp. 185-215.

6.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “Establishment and Activities of French Legion d’Orient (Eastern Legion) in the Light of French Archival Documents,” Review of Armenian Studies, No. 10, (2006), 79-98.

7.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “Establishment and Activities of French Legion d’Orient (Eastern Legion) in the Light of French Archival Documents (November 1916 – May 1917),” Review of Armenian Studies, No. 13-14, (2007), 143-166.

8.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “Establishment and Activities of French Legion d’Orient (Eastern Legion) in the Light of French Archival Documents (July 1917 - November 1917)” Review of Armenian Studies, No. 15-16, (2007),

149-168.

9.      Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “Establishment and Activities of French Legion d’Orient (Eastern Legion) in the Light of French Archival Documents (November 1917 – April 1918)” Review of Armenian Studies, No. 17, (2008),

45-62.

10.  Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “Establishment and Activities of French Legion d’Orient (Eastern Legion) in the Light of French Archival Documents (November 1918-1921)” Review of Armenian Studies, No. 18, (2008), 101-

120.

11.  Mustafa Serdar Palabıyık, “A Literature between Scientificity and Subjectivity: A Comparative Analysis of the Boks Recently Written on the Armenian Issue,” Review of Armenian Studies, No. 11-12, (2007),121-156.

 

HOBBIES

Swimming, Turkish Classical Music, Trekking