493

 AHMET RIFAT EFENDİ’S MİRÂTÜ’L-MEKÂSİD:
THE POSSIBILITY OF A SUNNI BEKTAŞİYYE IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY

Ahmet Rıfat Efendi’s Mir’âtü’l-Mekâsid:
The Possibility of a Sunni Bektaşiyye in the Nineteenth Century
The thesis of Metin Kiper
has been approved by:

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

• I am the sole author of this thesis and that I have fully acknowledged and
documented in my thesis all sources of ideas and words, including digital resources,
which have been produced or published by another person or institution;
• this thesis contains no material that has been submitted or accepted for a degree or
diploma in any other educational institution;
• this is a true copy of the thesis approved by my advisor and thesis committee at

Ahmet Rıfat Efendi’s Mir’âtü’l-Mekâsid:
The Possibility of a Sunni Bektaşiyye in the Nineteenth Century
This thesis focuses on the work Mir’âtü'l-Mekâsid fî Def'i'l Mefâsid, which was
written by a Bektaşi intellectual, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi in 1875. Although the Bektaşi
order left its mark on the Ottoman Empire and had a long-standing association with
the Janissary corps, it was also known for its heterodox and non-Sunni orientation.
Yet, in Mir’âtü'l-Mekâsid, the author describes a Sunni Bektaşiyye. In this work, the
Bektaşi order is represented as a Sufi order that was no different from the other Sunni
Sufi orders. In particular, the author's efforts to bring together the Halidi branch of
the Nakşibendi order and the Bektaşi order stand out.
Why did Ahmet Rıfat Efendi represent Bektaşis in this way? This thesis argues that
the answer to this question lies in the new challenges faced by Bektaşis in the
nineteenth century. In 1826, the Bektaşi order was abolished along with the Janissary
corps and many Bektaşi lodges were destroyed or given over to Nakşibendi sheikhs.
Despite these setbacks, however, the Bektaşi order could survive and gradually
recuperated. Yet, the attacks on the Bektaşis did not cease. In 1875, Harputlu Ishak
Hoca penned a polemical work against the order. This thesis argues that Ahmet Rıfat
Efendi penned his work in response to this and similar attacks and aimed to create.
The necessary conditions and concessions for the Bektaşi order continue to exist in
the late 19th-century Ottoman world.
v
ÖZET
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi’nin Mirâtü’l Mekâsid’i:
On Dokuzuncu Yüzyılda Sünni Bir Bektaşilik İhtimali
Bu tez, bir Bektaşi aydını olan Ahmet Rifat Efendi tarafından 1875 yılında kaleme
alınan Mirâtü'l Mekâsid fî Def'i'l Mefâsid adlı esere odaklanmaktadır. Bektaşi
tarikatı, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’na damgası vurmuş olan, Yeniçeri ocağı ile yakın
bağlara sahip olan, heterodoks ve Sünni olmayan yönelimi ile biliniyordu. Ancak
Mirâtü'l Mekâsid'de müellif Sünni bir Bektaşiliği anlatmaktadır. Bu eserde Bektaşi
tarikatı, diğer Sünnî tarikatlardan farkı olmayan bir tarikat olarak tasvir edilmektedir.
Özellikle yazarın Nakşibendi tarikatının Halidi kolu ile Bektaşi tarikatını bir araya
getirme çabaları göze çarpmaktadır.
Neden Ahmet Rıfat Efendi Bektaşileri bu şekilde tasvir etmiştir? Bu tez, bu sorunun
cevabının 19. yüzyılda Bektaşilerin karşı karşıya kaldığı yeni zorluklarda yattığını
iddia etmektedir. 1826 yılı itibariyle Yeniçeri Ocağı ile beraber Bektaşi tarikatı da
kaldırılmış ve birçok Bektaşi tekkesi yıkılmış veya Nakşibendi şeyhlerine
devredilmiştir. Ancak yaşanan tüm bu aksiliklere rağmen Bektaşi tarikatı ayakta
kalabilmiş ve yavaş yavaş toparanabilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, Bektaşilere yönelik
saldırılar durmamıştır. 1875 yılında Harputlu İshak Hoca, Bektaşi tarikatına karşı bir
çalışma kaleme almıştır. Bu tez, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi'nin bu ve benzeri saldırılara
karşı eserini kaleme aldığını ve Bektaşilerin lehine bir polemik yaratmayı
amaçladığını savunmaktadır. Bektaşilik’in yaşaması için gerekli olan birtakım şartlar
ve tavizler 19. yüzyıl sonu Osmanlı dünyasında varlığını sürdürmektedir.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people supported me during my research. I would like to thank everyone who
did not leave me alone during this era. First and foremost, I would like to express my
deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor Derin Terzioğlu. She was always unceasingly
supportive, patient and encouraging to me with her insightful comments. I feel
mysely very lucky for studying with her because she had an enormous effect in
improving my academic skills. I am indebted to all my professors in the history
department. During my undergraduate and graduate studies, they broadened my
perspective on events and made me see the world from a different perspective.
I would like to thank Zeynep Sabuncu and Ayfer Karakaya-Stump who
kindly accepted to attend my thesis committee. They carefully read my thesis and
they supported with their precious comments. I wish to thank Zeynep Oktay who
encouraged me to pursuit an academic career during my senior year of my BA.
I am indebted to my parents and my brother who supported me from many
aspects and helped me to go through difficulties. I am grateful to my friends Asu Ege
Zorlu, Mehmet Çevik, Feyzi Can Bağbozan, Ezgi Pelin Demirci, Orhun Yalçın,
Büşra Nur Gümüş, Selçuk Can, Muhammed Bedreddin Kaymaz and Şiar Bozyer
who did not leave me alone during my research and writing process.
It is far beyond my thesis, many thanks go to Hasret Gültekin who nourish
my soul with his songs. I wish to dedicate my present thesis to him. May his memory
light my way.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………...…... 1
1.1 The case ………………….………………………………………..….… 1
1.2 Review of secondary sources ……………………………………..…..... 3
1.3 Primary sources and approach of this study ………................................. 9
1.4 Thesis summary ……………………..……………………………...… 11
CHAPTER 2: BEKTAŞİS AFTER THE VAK’A- I HAYRİYYE ……..…...……… 12
2.1 Abolition of the Bektaşi order ….……………………………………... 12
2.2 Appointment of Nakşibendis to Bektaşi lodges …………….………… 15
2.3 Recovery of the Bektaşi order ………………………….……………... 18
CHAPTER 3: A REFUTATION AND A DEFENSE OF THE BEKTAŞİ ORDER
…………………………………………………………………………………….... 21
3.1 Kâşifü’l-Esrâr and Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s charges against the Bektaşis
……………………………………………………………………………………... 21
3.2 Analysis of Mir’âtü’l-Mekâsid ……………………….………………. 30
3.3 The background of Mir’âtü’l-Mekâsid ………….……………………. 47
3.4 Impact of Mir’âtü’l-Mekâsid …………………….…………………… 62
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION …………………………………...………………. 63
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Case
The Ottoman Empire had a very colorful religious scene, as the Ottomans ruled over
multiple religious communities throughout the six centuries of their existence. While
Sunni Islam was the religion of the dynasty as well as of most of its ruling elites, a
wide variety of Islamic communities and groups also existed under Ottoman rule.
The Sufi orders, which developed relations with both the civilian population and the
Ottoman administration, were especially prevalent. Among the Sufi orders,
Bektaşiyye had a particularly interesting place. On the one hand, Bektaşi teachings
contradicted certain aspects of the official Ottoman understanding of Islam and bore
a distinct similarity to the beliefs and practices of the persecuted Kızılbaş-Alevi
communities. On the other hand, despite its confessional divergence, from at least the
fifteenth century onwards the order developed a close relationship with the Janissary
corps and was able to flourish relatively unhindered until the destruction of the
Janissary corps in 1826. Moreover, even after this event and after the Ottoman ban
on their order, Bektaşis managed to survive this debacle and were able to make an
impact in various regions until the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
Although the Bektaşi order could not be completely erased from history, its
adherents were affected by the new challenges of the era. Bektaşis not only had to
cope with the pressures placed on them by the authorities and some of the civilian
population, but they also had to prevent possible new dangers early. Therefore,
Bektaşis had to hide themselves from time to time. However, this state of selfconcealment
was not exactly an introversion, it entailed adapting to the conditions
2
according to the degree of pressure on the order. At the same time, it should be kept
in mind that as it other orders, there was no uniformity among the members of the
Bektaşi order, and that Bektaşis with different views could find a place in the same
order. Moreover, while examining the Bektaşi order in the nineteenth century, the
specific time and place could make a big difference. In the aftermath of the massacre
of Janissaries and the ban on the Bektaşi order during the reign of Mahmud II,
Bektaşis had to be particularly mindful of the authoritarian atmosphere. In
comparison, the relatively liberal atmosphere of the Tanzimat era eased the tension
of the Bektaşis to a significant degree. Yet in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century, Muslim backlash against the Tanzimat’s liberal religious policies began to
make itself felt also against the Bektaşis.
This thesis focuses on a text written about the Bektaşi order by a selfdescribed
Bektaşi towards the end of the Tanzimatera. The text in question is
Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid fî Def'i'l Mefâsid (Mirror of Intents and Removal of Iniquities),
written in 1875. Its author, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi was an Ottoman bureaucrat and a
Bektaşi, who openly described himself as such. What is interesting about this work is
that it made the case for a rather Sunni Bektaşiyye. Specifically, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi
tried to reconcile the Bektaşi rituals and the general rules of the order with Sunni
Islam and with the beliefs and rituals of the Sunni Sufi orders, especially the
Nakşibendis. In fact, the confessional status of the Bektaşi order cannot be easily
categorized inside Ottoman Sunnism, and there was a strong opinion among the
general publicthat Bektaşis were indifferent to the principles of Sunni Islam.
So, why did Ahmet Rıfat Efendi try to convince his readers to reconsider the
general opinion about Bektaşiyye? Did he represent the Bektaşiyye in the way he did
because the order had indeed gone through a radical religious, and specifically
3
creedal transformation after it was closed? Or didAhmet Rifat represent a more
Sunni wing of the Bektaşiyye that had always been in existence? Or was his aim
simply to protect his order from experiencing a repeat of the disaster that had be
fallen it in 1826? These are the principal questions that this thesis tries to answer.
Before discussing how I will try to answer these questions in this thesis, however, it
is necessary to see how the modern scholarship has dealt with the question of
Bektaşireligious beliefs and practices.
2.1 Review of Secondary Sources
Although Bektaşi studies made a big leap about 40 years ago, its history goes back to
the end of the 19th century. An order, that found countless supporters from both the
subjects and the ruling class of an empire that ruled the Near East for six centuries,
attracted the attention of many researchers. In terms of his influence on later
historians, the most important of these researchers was Mehmet Fuat Köprülü. Even
though Köprülü did not write a monograph on the Bektaşi order, his discussion of the
early Sufis of Anatolia set the framework for decades of scholarship on the Bektaşis.
In his analysis, Köprülü relied heavily on the concepts of orthodoxy and heterodoxy
and paired them with high, urban Islam and low, folk Islam respectively. In
particular, he saw in the folk Islam of Anatolia the continuation of the shamanic
culture of Turks in Central Asia. According to Köprülü, Bektaşiyye represented an
interpretation of Islam that the Turks could understand, unlike the orthodox Islam of
the urban elites.1 Furthermore, Köprülü traced the Nakşibendis and Bektaşisto a
common origin through the Yesevi order, but treats Bektaşiyye as an interpretation of
Islam that the uneducated Turks could understand, unlike the orthodox Islam of the
1For more information, see, Köprülü, Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavvıflar, 243.
4
urban Muslims.2 Notwithstanding, Köprülü’s approach changed over time on some
matters such as the confessional inclination of Ahmed Yesevi and the Shiite and Alid
tendencies of Bektaşis.
His student Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı also contributed to Bektaşi studies.
Especially his contribution to Bektaşi and Alevi literature is still appreciated.3
Although AbdülbakiGölpınarl had studied with Köprülü, asa practicing Sufi and a
Shiite, he was much more aware of the Alid orientation of many of the Sufi orders
and of course also the Bektaşis.4
Köprülü’s followers Irene Melikoff and Ahmet Yaşar Ocak took forward
Köprülü’s views but they continued to defend his dichotomical approach such as a
concept of “heterodox” Islam against orthodox and institutionalized Islam with a
range of syncretism and the influence of old Turkic pre-Islamic beliefs.5
Suraiya Faroqhi’s Der Bektaschi-Orden in Anatolia is another important
study about Bektaşis. In her work, she focused more on the socio-economic
conditions of Bektaşi lodges than on the religious. As far as Bektaşi religious
orientations go, she gave credence to the argument of Beldiceanu-Steinherr that the
Ottoman authorities had initially encouraged Bektaşis to propagate Sunnism among
the Turcoman tribes of east-central Anatolia but that in the process the Bektaşi
dervishes themselves came under the influence of Shii-inflected popular Islam of the
region. Nevertheless, in her own disinctive contribution, Faroqhi underlined the
economic capability of the Bektaşi order as a reason for the abolution of the order in
2 For more information, see, Köprülü, Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavvıflar, 243.
3 For more information, see, Gölpınarlı, Alevi Bektaşi Nefesleri.
4 For more information, see, Gölpınarlı, 100 Soruda Tasavvuf.
5 For more information see, Melikoff, Uyur İdik Uyardılar; Ocak, Türk Sufiliğine Bakışlar; Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu'nda Marjinal Sûfîlik: Kalenderîler : XIV-XVII. Yüzyıllar.
5
the early nineteenth century and states that Shiite beliefs did not play an important
role in taking this decision.6
Since the 1980s, the Köprülü paradigm has been questioned from different
perspectives. An especially early critic was Ahmet Karamustafa. In his monograph
God’s Unruly Friends, Karamustafa criticized Köprülü for regarding nonconformist
dervishes as lightly Islamized shamans. Instead Karamustafa argued that
nonconformist dervish piety took shape in the late middle period of Islam as a
movement of protest at institutionalized Sufism. Far from being ignorant rural or
tribal folk, the leaders of nonconformist dervish groups were often from urban and
educated backgrounds. In both this book and a separate article Karamustafa
identified the Bektaşis as a group that was part of this wave of nonconformist piety
but which was itself transformed and became an institutionalized (but still
nonconformist) tariqa starting in the sixteenth century.7 Other scholars who
questioned aspects of Köprülü’s argument include Cemal Kafadar, Devin Deweese,
Markus Dressler, Ayfer Karakaya-Stump and Zeynep Oktay. These scholars have
critiqued him for making to a sharp distinction between high Islam and folk Islam,
orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and on his insistence on the so-called Shamanic originsof
various currents of Islamic piety in late medieval Anatolia. In particular, Markus
Dressler has argued that Köprülü put forth his principal arguments to help the
building of a nationalist discourse at the dawn of a Turkish nation state. It was thanks
to his efforts that Alevism came to be associated with Turkishness in the young
Republic of Turkey. The religious origins of Alevism and Bektaşiyye were attached
6 Faroqhi, Der Bektaschi-Orden in Anatolia, 186-187; Popovic and Veinstein, Bektachiyya: Etudes
sur l’ordre mystique des Bektascis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach, 171-184.
7 Karamustafa, God's Unruly Friends : Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period, 1200-
1550
Karamustafa, “Kalenders, Abdals, Hayderis: The Formation of the Bektaşiye in the Sixteenth
Century” in Süleyman the Second and His Time, ed. İnalcık and Kafadar, 121-129.
6
to the Central Asia Turkish mythology and contemporary Alevis were regarded as
superficial Muslims that had not any conditions to understand the details of Islam.
Put differently, Alevism and Bektaşiyye were the surviving Shamanism under a
superficial Islamic cover. This attitude disregards the very existence of Kurdish/Zaza
Alevis and the cultural diversity of Alevi population and history. By being stuck
inside of a Central Asia originated discourse is also an underestimation for the
cultural sources of the Near Eastern geography.8
Ayfer Karakaya Stump’s publications have offered new perspectives on the
history of both the Bektaşis and theKızılbaş.The geographical and genealogical
foundations of antinomian Islam are being gotten closer to the Middle East as it has
to be. For instance, traces of Wafai order on the religious structure of Anatolia and
ocak networks in Anatolia should be regarded as revolutionary leaps on thinking of
Islam in Anatolia. Another significant assertion of Karakaya-Stump is about the
formation of Kızılbaş Movement. She argues that ongoing and diverse religious
groups in Anatolia and North Syria formed a coalition at the end of the 15th century.
Anatolian Kızılbaşism was a consequence of this coalition. This was a response to
Ottoman persecution and Sunnitization policies.9 Karakaya-Stump claims that
Bektaşi tekke in Karbala had a function of mediation between Anatolian Kızılbaş
community and Iran Safavid religious and political authority.10 In other words,
Anatolian Kızılbaşes could establish connections via Bektaşi institution with Safavid
authority.
Rıza Yıldırım’s recent studies have contributed important point of views to
the Bektaşi literature. In his recent work, he considers the birth of Bektaşiyye and its
8 For more information, see, Dressler, Writing Religion: The Making of Turkish Alevi Islam.
9 Karakaya-Stump, Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık: Alevi Kaynaklarını, Tarihini ve Tarihyazımını
Yeniden Düşünmek, 2015; The Kızılbash-Alevis in Ottoman Anatolia : Sufism, Politics and
Community .
10 Karakaya-Stump, “Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah”
7
transformation in the historical context. The relationship between the Bektaşi order
and Kızılbaş population of Anatolia is considered in his studies. According to him,
after the demise of the Safavid state in the eighteenth century, the spiritual leadership
for Kızılbaş population turned from Ardabil to Hacıbektaş.11
Zeynep Yürekli contextualizes the early modern Ottoman religious landscape
and she focuses on the relationship and contradiction between the Bektaşi shrine
culture and the centralization policies of the Ottoman Empire. According to her,
gazis, abdals and various non-Sunni groups gathered under the Bektaşi umbrella,
redefined themselves against the exclusionary Ottoman center and Seyyid Gazi and
Hacı Bektaş lodges became significant locations for these groups.12
Derin Terzioğlu and Tijana Krstic’s studies on the processes of Sunnitization
and confesionalization in the early modern Ottoman Empire have also been
important for our understanding of the broader context of the Bektaşiyye. Especially
Terzioğlu’s “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization” and “Confessional
Ambiguity in the Age of Confession-Building” articles are very helpful to understand
the complexities of Ottoman Sunnism and the Sunnitization process. In the latter
article Terzioğlu explains the close connection between Alid-loyalty (also called
Ahl-al Baytism) and Sufi piety in the early Ottoman Empire and discusses how Alid
loyalist Sufis, including Bektashis, were impacted by Ottoman Sunnitization during
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.13
Other scholars have shed light on the 19th-century history of the Bektaşis.
Before discussing these scholars, however, it is necessary to mention the
11 Yıldırım, Bektaşiliğin Doğuşu.
12 Yürekli, “Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The Politics of Bektaşi Shrines in
the Classical Age”, 20.
13 Terzioğlu, “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization”, 301-338; Terzioğlu, “Confessional
Ambiguity in the Age of Confession-Building”, 563-609; Krstić T. & Terzioğlu, D. Historicizing
Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450-c. 1750.
8
contributions of Butrus Abu Manneh. In his exploration of the religious roots of the
Tanzimat, Abu Manneh has questioned the dichotomy between reformism and
Islamization and shown how the Nakşibendi-Halidi efforts at Sunnitization and
Ottoman efforts at centralization and administrative and military reform went hand in
hand in the first part of the 19th century. According to this view, the Bektaşi order
was positioned as a reactionist place but Nakşibendis were more progressive.
Actually, this approach may regenerate another problematic dichotomy because both
Bektaşis and Mujaddidis composed some places in state mechanism and yet we do
not know properly theirreal role behind the reforms.14
Yılmaz Soyyer’s book 19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik (Bektaşism in the 19th
Century) is another elaborative source on Alevi Bektaşi studies. The Bektaşi rituals
and the order’s iner structure are detailed in this work. This work also reveals
relationships that Bektaşis developed after the abolition and how Bektaşis could
breast the pressures and persecutions during the abolition process.15
Fahri Maden’s studies were also remarkable. His book “Bektaşi Tekkelerinin
Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları” (The Abolition of Bektaşi Lodges
and the Prohibited Years of Bektaşism) indicates how Bektaşis could survive after
the abolition. His work also illuminates us the relationship between Bektaşis and
other orders. It is an interesting point that Bektaşis could shelter theirselves by the
help of other Sunni and sharia normed orders. According to him, we can see
solidarity between some of these orders.16
Salih Çift’s works related post-abolition process of the Bektaşi order were
other important studies. Even though his main point of view is inclined to justify the
14Abu-Manneh, “The Islamic Roots of the Gülhane Rescript”, 173-203; Abu-Manneh, “The
Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ottoman Lands in the Early 19th Century”.
15 Soyyer, 19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik, 76-79.
16 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 205.
9
assigned Sunnism on Bektaşis, he sheds light on the publication activities and some
of the remarkable intellectuals’ productions of the Bektaşi order.17
This thesis makes use of other M.A and PhD thesis in that respect shed light
on the 19th century Bektaşism portrait. Özkan Karabulut’s The Rehabilitation of the
Bektaşi Order in the 19th Century is a comprehensive work which detailed the
Bektaşi order between 1826-1876. Additionally, İbrahim Altuntaş’s M.A thesis
Yeniçeri Ocağının Kaldırılmasından Sonra Bektaşi Tekkeleri ve Osmanlı Yönetimi
also focuses on the post-abolition period. These theses problematized the conditions
that Bektaşi order had confronted. Muharrem Varol’s extensive PhD thesis
Bektaşiliğin İlgası Sonrasında Osmanlı Devleti’nin Tarikat Politikaları (1826-1866)
emphasizes the state’s control effort of the Sufi orders in the modernization process.
1.3 Primary sources and approach of this study
The main primary source of this thesis is Ahmet Rıfat’s Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid fi Defi’i
Mefâsid. In this work, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi depicts Bektaşiyye as a Sunni Sufi order.
Bektaşi rituals, traditions, creed and basic concepts of Bektaşiyye are represented in
a Sunni framework and as being compatible with other Sunni Sufi orders. Moreover,
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi expresses a favorable opinion of all the Sufi orders. However, he
deliberately avoids touching upon some controversial points such as the abolition of
the Bektaşi order, the Janissary-Bektaşi alliance or the participation of women in cem
rituals.
Among the Sunni critics of Bektaşiyye, Es’ad Efendi, Ubeydullah Kuşmani,
Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Cevdet Paşa and Ahmed Lütfi Efendi were important figures
who provided us with significant primary sources. Ubeydullah Kuşmani’s work
17 Çift, “1826 Sonrasında Bektaşilik Ve Bu Alanla İlgili Yayın Faaliyetleri”, 250-266.
10
Zebîre-i Kuşmânî fî ta‘rîfi nizâmı İlhâmî was a useful source to understand a
dimension of the objections against Bektaşiyye.18 It is interesting that the military
deficiencies of the last century and so-called moral degeneration in society were
considered together in the very existence of the Janissaries corps and Bektaşis were
held responsible from this degeneration. Es’ad Efendi’s work Üss-i Zafer was written
to justify the abolition process of the Janissaries.19 This work directly reflects the
official Ottoman ideology. Cevdet Paşa and Lütfi Paşa’s works Tarih-i Cevdet and
Lütfi Tarihi are other notable sources to pursue the traces of the Bektaşi and
Janissary images inside the mind of reformist bureaucrat circles.20 Harputlu Ishak
Hoca was a plainspoken critic of the Bektaşis and he must have frightened them. His
work provides us a harsh defamation of the Bektaşi order.21 On the other hand,
Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s claims do not depend on verified sources. He generally relied
on hearsay.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi’s work Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid fi Def’i’l Mefâsid can be
regarded as a response to the texts of criticism. Of course, he was not the only person
who wrote in defense of Bektaşiyye against the order’s detractors at the time. Ahmet
Rifki and Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba penned apologetic treaties on behalf of the
Bektaşi order, too. Ahmet Rifki published Bektaşi Sırrı and Mehmed Ali Hilmi
Dedebaba published Kâşifü’l-Esrâr Reddiyesi.22 In these works, they followed the
example of Ahmet Rıfat Efendi and argued that the Bektaşi order is a Sunni order,
adhering to the Hanefi-Maturidi creed. Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba strongly
18 Dihkanizade Ubeydullah Kuşmani, Nizam-ı Cedid’e Dair Bir Risale: Zebîre-i Kuşmânî fî ta‘rîfi
nizâmı İlhâmî.
19 Esad Efendi, Üss-i Zafer, 1243. For more information, Arslan, Üss-i Zafer : (Yeniçeriliğin
kaldırılmasına dair).
20 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet, vol.XII, 1871-1892; Ahmet Lütfi, Tarih-i Lütfi, 1873.
21 Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Kâşifü’l esrâr ve dâfiü’l eşrâr. For more information, Zübeyde Kafesçi,
“İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l esrâr ve dâfiu’l esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından
Değerlendirilmesi”, Unpublished MA Thesis.
22 Yüksel, Bektaşilik ve Mehmet Ali Dedebaba; Ahmet Rıfkı, Bektaşi Sırrı Nam Risaleye Müdafaa,
1909.
11
objected to Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s claims that Bektaşis were infidels and he directly
polemicized with anti-Bektaşi accusations.
The critics of Bektaşis were active throughout the 19th century. In my
opinion, these names were not just Sunni reactionaries acting on their own initiative
but were rather representatives of a new wave of Sunnitization in the 19th century.
Their disapproval of Bektaşiyye stemmed from a combination of religious and
political reasons and these waves had been periodically repeated through the
Ottoman history to some extent. Especially, the polemics around these names were
very illuminating sources to understand the contemporary era. Ahmet Rıfat’s
Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid can be regarded as a response to Harputlu Ishak Hoca and it is
very important to highlight on the reasons why he wrote this book. Therefore, Ahmet
Rıfat Efendi’s affairs about Bektaşiyye and accusations on Bektaşiyye can be
evaluated in terms of a part of this new Sunnitization wave.
1.4 Thesis Summary
This thesis focuses on the work titled Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid fi Defi’lMefâsid written by
Ahmet Rifat Efendi. This work by Ahmet Rıfat Efendi is the first work written by a
Bektaşi that describes the order in a compact manner. More strikingly, the work
projects a very Sunni image of the Bektaşiyye. My aim is first to situate this work in
its historical context, second to determine whether its representation of the
Bektaşiyye conforms to the historical record, and third and last to conclude with
some thoughts about why Ahmet Rıfat represented the Bektaşiyye in this manner.
In the second chapter, I set the larger scene by discussing the abolitionof the
Bektaşi order and its aftermath. I discuss how the Ottoman authorities persecuted the
Bektaşis and how the Bektaşis in turn tried to protect themselves. The appointment
12
of Sufi sheikhs from more conformist Sunni orders to Bektaşi lodges is also
discussed as an attempt by the Ottoman authorities to instill social discipline.
Chapter Three examines Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid fi Def'il
Mefâsid in the context of a new wave of Sunnitization that started in the 1870s. With
this aim, the first part of this chapter introduces Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s Kâşifü'l-Esrâr
ve Dâfi-ü'l Eşrâr, which was a refutation of the Bektaşiyye written in 1871. The
work is contextualized by detailing the social, political and cultural environment in
which Harputlu Ishak Hoca lived and the ways in which that environment shaped his
views. Especially the missionary activities in the Ottoman lands and the revival of
Bektaşis are identified as factors that must have provoked Ishak Hoca to pen a work
of refutation.
The second part of Chapter Three examines Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's Mirâtü'l-
Mekâsid fi Def'il Mefâsid. His religious stand and claims were important because he
was the first Bektaşi author that had written a systematic book on Bektaşiyye. I
compare the Bektaşis described by Ahmet Rıfat Efendi with the creed of the
Bektaşisas described inother sources. I argue that what we know about the historical
Bektaşis does not match with how Ahmet Rıfat Efendi portrayed them. Then, I
expound why Ahmet Rıfat Efendi represented the Bektaşiyye in this way. I argue
that his work was an attempt to protect the surviving Bektaşis against a new wave of
Sunnitization wave that had started in the 1870s. The case for a Sunni Bektaşiyye in
the 19th century seems to have been made mainly as a defense mechanism against the
possibility of a new purge against the order.
13
CHAPTER 2
BEKTAŞİS AFTER THE VAK’A-I HAYRIYYE
2.1 Abolition of the Bektaşi Order
After the abolition of the Janissaries, a meeting was held in the mosque in Topkapı
Palace on July 8, 1826, to discuss the situation of the Bektaşi order.23 Among the
participants were the grand vizier, the former and the current Şeyhülislam, and
Nakşibendi, Mevlevi, Celveti and Halveti sheikhs.24 At the meeting, it was decided to
close the Bektaşi order. According to the decision, Bektaşi dervish lodges that had
been in existence for longer than sixty years were to be transferred to a sheikh "from
the right path and ehl-i sünnet ve’l-cemaat", while the more recent lodges would be
demolished, and the Bektaşi sheikhs and dervishes them would be exiled to cities
with a strong ulema presence such as Kayseri and Birgi where they could be
pressured to correct their beliefs. Lodges that had been built in the last sixty years
would be demolished except for the adjacent tombs and shrines and officers would
be appointed for this task.
One of the issues discussed at the meeting was the confessional status of
Bektaşis.25 According to Şeyhülislam Kadızade Mehmed Tahir Efendi, who opened
the meeting, Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli had been a Sunni Sufi. Despite this, he stated that
some ignorant people, in the name of Bektaşiyye, by following their own nefs, had
corrupted the Bektaşiyye with acts against religion.26 One of the striking elements in
the meeting was that sheikhs from other orders remained silent about the accusations
directed by the Şeyhülislam against the Bektaşis. They avoided expressing a definite
23Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Tarihi Cevdet XII, 1309, 181.
24 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Tarihi Cevdet XII, 1309, 181.
25 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, 181-182, Esad Efendi, Üss-i Zafer 1243, 207.
26 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Tarihi Cevdet, XII, 1309, 182, Esad Efendi, Üss-i Zafer, 1243, 209.
14
opinion, saying "Since we do not have relations with members of this order, we do
not know their status and attitudes".27 Although it was agreed at the end of the
meeting that Bektaşis committed acts against religion, the silence of the orders on
this issue and their failure to provide supporting testimony suggests that there were
significant hesitations among them about the closure of this Sufi order. According to
the historian Lütfi, some Sufi sheikhs were not eager to close down the Bektaşi
order.28 Despite this, in the end the participants in the meeting voted unanimously to
close down the order, a decision that they seem to have reached under pressure.
Significantly, the Bektaşis were accused not only of acts against religion
but also of acts against the state. It was claimed that the Bektaşis had tried to
cooperate with the Greeks during the Greek Revolt in 1821 and offered an alliance.
Moreover, the Bektaşis in Anatolia were accused of having supplied the Iranians
with weapons on the even of the war with Iran in between 1821-1823.29 Furthermore,
if we consider the teachings of Nakşibendi-Halidis were spreading in the elites, the
widespread ideological power of this era would be understood more clearly.30One of
the most important decisions which were taken at the meeting and which will be
discussed below is the appointment of sheikhs from the Nakşibendi order to most of
the Bektaşi lodges.
Another significant issue regarding the prohibition of Bektaşiyye was the
greater influence that Sunni oriented orders gained as a result. Among these,
especially the Halidi branch of the Nakşibendi order assumed a remarkable role.31
The fact that Bektaşi beliefs were in complete opposition to the Nakşibendi-
27 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Tarihi Cevdet XII, 1309, 237.
28Ahmed Lütfi Efendi, Tarih-i Lütfi, v. I, 169.
29 Şirvanlı Fatih Efendi, Gülzar-ı Fütuhat ed. Mehmet Ali Beyhan, 19.
30Abu-Manneh, “Between Heterodox and Sunni Orthodox Islam: The Bektaşi Order in the Nineteenth
Century and Its Opponents”, 212.
31 Soyyer, 19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik, 59.
15
Mujaddidi principles and the latter order’s influential position in Istanbul and in the
eyes of the state officials also had an impact. In the end, it was understood that the
Nakşibendi trend had a role in the prohibition of Bektaşiyye, and the Nakşibendi-
Mujaddidi branch, which led the orthodox Sunni trend, gradually increased its
effectiveness in Istanbul, the center of the state.32 The prohibition of Bektaşiyye was
closely related to the modernization initiated by the state, and this was carried out
together with the Sunnization process. The fact that the Ottomans engaged in a
Sunnization effort towards Bektaşis until the 20th century had an effect on the way
the issue was handled through Bektaşiyye. It was believed that Bektaşis, whose
beliefs were "corrected" by the sanctions to be implemented, would become
acceptable citizens.33
2.2 Appointment of Nakşibendis to Bektaşi Lodges
The date of 1826 brought great destruction but not complete extinction for Bektaşis.
Bektaşis were subjected to severe persecution in Anatolia and Rumelia, especially in
Istanbul. The babas and their followers in the Istanbul lodges were gathered and
imprisoned in the Darbhane dungeon. Shortly after, Salih Baba, Kıncı Baba and
İstanbul Ağasızade Ahmed Efendi were executed.34 However, mass executions were
not carried out, and Bektaşis were weakened through exile. Others were
administrated the faith test by Şeyhülislam Efendi and their Sunnism was checked.
As a result of the interrogations, it was determined that the Bektaşis who were not
executed did not have deep knowledge in Islamic sciences but were not zındık and
mülhid. Still, it was decided to exile all of them politically. In Rumelihisarı, Mahmud
Baba and his seven followers from the Şehitlik Lodge were exiled to Kayseri,
32 Abu-Manneh, Studies on Islam and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century (1826-1876), 65.
33 Soyyer, 19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik, 79.
34 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 87.
16
Ahmed Baba in the Öküz or Paşalimanı lodge and Hüseyin Baba in the Kazlıçeşme
lodge with two followers were exiled to Hadim, Mustafa Baba from Sütlüce lodge
and Mustafa Baba from Karyağdı Lodge in Eyüp, and his three followers were exiled
to Birgi, Yusuf Baba from the Karaağaç Lodge, was exiled to Amasya, Mustafa Baba
from Ayıntablı was exiled to Güzelhisar, Kıncı's brother Mehmed Baba, and the
other Mehmed Baba from the Merdivenköy lodge were sent to Tire with four of his
followers.35 According to Esad Efendi, the choice of these places of exile was due to
the strong presence of Sunni ulama there and the aim of assimilating the Bektaşis.36
Many Bektaşi lodges were destroyed, and their foundations were
confiscated and transferred to the treasury to cover the expenses of the new army.37
Bektaşi lodges older than 60 years were not touched, and Nakşibendi sheiks were
appointed to these lodges.38 Hamdullah Çelebi was exiled from the Hacı Bektaş
lodge in Nevşehir to Amasya. After his brother Veliyüddin Efendi, who promised to
rule the lodge according to the Nakşibendi rules, in 1834, Mehmed Said Efendi, who
was directly from the Nakşibendi order, was appointed as the head of the lodge.39 In
addition, some Bektaşi lodges younger than 60 years were demolished, and some
were allocated to mosques, madrasas and schools.40 The state acted hastily in
demolishing some Bektaşi structures. On the day of the verdict that Bektaşi buildings
were demolished; Bektaşi buildings in Rumeli Fortress, Eyüb, Südlüce, Kara Ağaç,
Yedikule, Çamlıca and Nerdübanlı Village were demolished.41
During this period, many sheikhs who had the title of "baba" at the end of
their names, although they were not Bektaşi, also suffered the same fate. For
35 Birge, The Bektaşi Order of Dervishes, 1937, 77, Cevdet Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet v.XII 182
36 Es’ad Efendi, Üss-i Zafer, 175.
37 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 109-112
38 Cevdet Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet v.XII 182.
39 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 92.
40 Gündüz “Yeniçeri Ocağı’nın İlgası’ndan Sonra Meydana Gelen Bazı Tasavvufi Gelişmeler”, Üss-i
Zafer, 211, Barnes, An Introduction To Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire, 90-91.
41 Barnes, An Introduction To Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire, 88-89
17
example, Bayram Baba in Aleppo his lodge was closed first, and his property was
confiscated. Since it was understood in the examination that it was not a Bektaşi but
a Halveti lodge, it was reopened in 1831 and Abdülhamid Dede was appointed
again.42
Undoubtedly, the Ottoman Empire, with this policy, wanted to dissolve the
Bektaşis within the official orthodox Sunni interpretation as soon as possible and to
erase the name Bektaşi. At the same time, it gives clues that this movement did not
develop spontaneously but was planned in advance. As another result of this process,
communication and interaction between the Nakşibendis and the oppressed Bektaşis
increased. One of the most important duties imposed on the Nakşibendis was to
ensure that the Bektaşis perform the five daily prayers in congregation in mosques.43
As it can be understood, from the perspective of the Ottoman Empire at that time, the
Bektaşis were an order with strong heterodox tendencies. We should not ignore the
role of the Halidi Nakşibendis in the formation of this point of view.44 At the end of a
long historical process, the Nakşibendis were able to establish themselves in the
Ottoman lands and they could penetrate the power elites. It is a consuquence of a
constant policy because Nakşibendi mission from the Mujaddidi branch could not be
reduced to gather new followers but to spread elite circles.45 However, it is
inconvenient to consider the Nakşibendis only as a strictly orthodox sharia-abiding
order. Mystical superiority and the mystical teachings of Ibn Arabi occupied a place
within the Nakşibendi order.46
42 Soyyer, Sosyolojik Açıdan Alevi Bektaşi Geleneği, 115
43 Ortaylı, “Tarikatlar ve Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Yönetimi, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İktisadi
ve Sosyal Değişim”, 347
44 For more information, Abu Manneh, “The Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ottoman Lands in
the Early 19th Century”, 1-36
45 Yaycıoğlu, “Guarding Tradition and Laws”, 1586.
46 Le Gall, A Culture of Sufism Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World 1450-1700, 180.
18
2.3 Recovery of the Bektaşi Order
The Bektaşi order entered a difficult period after it was closed in 1826. The
demolition of Bektaşi dervish lodges, the appointment of representatives of Sunni
Sufi orders, mainly Halidi Nakşibendis, to the lodges that were not demolished, the
exile of the sheikh in the central Hacı Bektaş lodge and many other Bektaşis were
some of the concrete forms of oppressions that the Bektaşis faced. In the face of all
these measures, Bektaşis seem to have felt the need to hide their identities for a
period. Although the order was too widespread to be completely eradicated, fear for
their lives forced the Bektaşis to hide or dissumulate.47 In this period, the need to
hide themselves was of vital importance for Bektaşis. As Ahmed Safi said, “We wore
the clothes of Sharia and to seemed to the Yazids.” speech can summarize their
situation.48 However, these pressures were not always of the same severity, and the
strategy of Bektaşis against these pressures also changed over time. In addition, it is
a fact that Bektaşis developed some different solutions to overcome the state pressure
on them. For instance, they hided themselves in other order lodges like Halveti, Rifai
or Mevlevi and this situation gave way to a kind of fusion in these lodges.49
It is known that Bektaşiyye became operational in 1839, the date when
Sultan Abdülmecid ascended the throne and Tanzimat was declared, thanks to Halil
Revnaki Baba and the sheikh of Merdivenköy Şahkulu Sultan Lodge Ahmed Baba.50
It is even known that during the reign of Mahmud II, that is, before 1839, some
exiled Bektaşis were pardoned. For example, in the petition for the pardon of
Mahmud Baba, the sheikh of the Şehitler Lodge, who was exiled to Kütahya, it was
47 Birge, The Bektaşi Order of Dervishes, 93.
48“Şeriata büründük, Yezidlere göründük“
Ahmed Safi, Sefinetü’s Safi, v.4, 361, cited in Maden, “Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve
Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları”, 196.
49 For more information, Koç, “Determinations in Revnakoğlu’s Documents Regarding Bektaşization
among Bektaşi Fathers and Other Dervish Lodges”, 391-409.
50 Zarcone, “Bektaşiliğin Rönesansı: Batı Karşısında Mistik Bir İdeoloji”, 27 cited in Yılmaz Soyyer,
19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik, 75.
19
stated that the sheikh had given up Bektaşiyye and joined the Nakşibendi order.51
This pardon entailed the refutation of the Bektaşi identity. After the abolition of the
Janissaries, the dissolution of Bektaşiyye must have reached a satisfactory level, and
Mahmud II did not see any harm in some Bektaşis continuing their activities in
Istanbul.52 After Mahmud II, there was an increase in the number of Bektaşis who
were forgiven and returned to their lodges.53 With these developments, the
prohibitive policy softened a little, and Bektaşis started to carry out their activities
openly.54 This situation led to the formation of a de facto two-headedness in the
dervish lodges. After the middle of the century, a new separation occurred between
Nakşibendi sheikhs and the Bektaşi babas in Bektaşi lodges beside the historical
separation between Babagan and Çelebi branches.55
Towards the middle of the 19th century, Bektaşiyye not only recovered, but
also spread among the elites. Bezmi Sultan, who was the legal wife of Sultan
Abdülmecid, attributed her ascent to this position to her stepping on a wish stone at
the famous Bektaşi lodge in Merdivenköy, near Istanbul.56 A British traveler Charles
MacFarlane noted that the Bektaşi order could recover itself in 1840s in Bursa and
area around.57 Bektaşis gained greater freedom with the accession of Sultan
Abdülaziz to the throne. According to Melikoff, the sultan's sympathy for the Bektaşi
order played an important role in this development.58 On his trip to Europe, Sultan
Abdülaziz visited Gül Baba lodge, a Bektaşi lodge in Budapest, and his mother
51 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 205.
52 Ayar, “Yeniçeri Ocağı’nın İlgasından Sonra Bektaşi Tarikatı”, Unpublished MA Thesis, 64.
53Soyyer, 19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik, 76-79.
54 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 208.
55 For more information. Noyan, “Bütün Yönleriyle Bektaşilik” vol.1 p.318-319 cited in Özkan
Karabulut, “Rehabilitation of the Bektaşi Order (1826-1876)”, Unpublished MA Thesis, Sabancı
University, 44.
56 Birge, The Bektaşi Order of Dervishes, 93.
57 MacFarlane, Turkey and its Destiny, 499.
58 Mélikoff, Hacı Bektaş Efsaneden Gerçeğe, 305 cited in Fahri Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin
Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 209.
20
Pertevniyal Valide Sultan built a lodge for the Bektaşi sheikh Emin Baba in
Edirnekapı.59 Although they were not officially reopened and faced some pressures,
the Bektaşi lodges were able to recover considerably 40 years after they were closed.
Although the Bektaşis were able to continue their activities in this period, they could
not officially end the existence of the appointed sheikhs. The fact that Bektaşis did
not fulfill their wishes despite the freedom granted by the state shows that the
Ottomans were determined to keep the control of Bektaşis within the Sunni circle.
The fact that people who wore Bektaşi dresses in Istanbul in 1853 were asked to be
warned not to wear them again shows that Bektaşis were no longer hiding
themselves, but they were never officially recognized as they were before 1826.60
This situation occurred partly thanks to the connivance of the new Ottoman policy.
Probably, the religious tolerance brought by the Tanzimat period also diffused the
tensions. Therefore, Bektaşiyye had a structure that continued its activities de facto
for a few decades after its abolition and still accepted its existence de facto.
During this period, our sources of information about Bektaşiyye increased.
The Bektaşi tradition, which had been generally transmitted orally and with
dispersed manuscripts, embraced written culture to a much greater extent. Of course,
it can be predicted that the quality of the works published in this period was different
from the standards of the pre-1826 period. Despite this, the same situation
undoubtedly points to a cultural revival related to Bektaşiyye. At this point, the
publication of the Nesimi Divan and the Işkname in this period is a very important
event.
59 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 209.
60Ibid.
21
CHAPTER 3
A REFUTATION AND A DEFENSE OF THE BEKTAŞİ ORDER
3.1 Kâşifü’l-Esrâr and Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s Charges against the Bektaşis
At a time when Bektaşis were trying to position themselves according to new social
balances, the reaction of Sunni circles to the publication of works related to
Hurufism emerged. This reaction can be considered as a part of a new Sunnitization
wave in the case of the Ottoman Empire which had begun at the beginning of the
1870s. At this point, one of the most prominent names is Harputlu Ishak Hoca. He
was born in Perçene village of Harput in 1801 and his father was Abdullah Efendi,
one of the famous scholars of Harput.61 Harputlu Ishak Hoca completed his primary
education in Harput, then went to Istanbul and completed his education at Fatih
Sahn-ı Seman Madrasahs and received his diploma. After Harputlu Ishak Hoca
returned to Harput, he was appointed as a teacher at the Meydan Mosque Madrasa.
After staying in Harput for two years, he returned to Istanbul and started to teach in
Fatih madrasahs, where he received his licence, and later taught at the Valide School.
By proving his scholarly competence, he was appointed as the Shahzada’s tutor at
the Palace, and his success here won the love and favor of Sultan Abdülaziz Han, and
he was given the duty of chief tutor.62 Harputlu Ishak Hoca received the honorary
rank of the Kadi Istanbul (Istanbul Payeliği) during the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid
II.63 After receiving this rank, he was appointed as a member of a commission in the
Ministry of Foundations. Ishak Efendi died on April 11, 1892 and was buried in the
61 Sunguroğlu, Harput Yollarında, 125.
62 Demirpolat, Harputlu İshak Hoca’nın Hayatı ve Eserleri, 2.
63 Ibid.
22
Fatih Mosque. His son, Cemaleddin Molla, was the last person to be a judge in Egypt
in the Ottoman Empire.64
To understand the mentality of Harputlu Ishak Hoca, it is important to look
at Harput, the region where he was born. During his lifetime, Harput was a region
where American missionaries were active. In 1847, Harput, which was designated as
a missionary base due to the difficulty of managing the activities from Istanbul.65
These activities mainly aimed to proselytize Protestantism among the Armenian
community. However, it is worth considering how the Muslim majority in the region
welcomed these missionary activities and what kind of reactions these activities
evoked in them. Harputlu Ishak Hoca must have had his share from this point of
view. It would not be logical to think that Harputlu Ishak Hoca, who was born in
Harput and received his early education there, would be indifferent to the educational
activities of foreign Christian elements in the region.
As a matter of fact, Harputlu Ishak Hoca, in his work titled Şemsü’l-
Hakika, refutes the claims made by Christian missionaries and asks some questions
about them. Another work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca Ziyâü'l-Kulûb was written with
the aim of responding to the efforts of Christian missionaries, especially Protestants,
on a scholarly platform. In this work, he especially brings up the issue of the
authenticity of the Gospels for discussion.66 He also participated in the religious
debates in the Palace and engaged in discussions with the missionaries.
In the light of this information, we can argue that the social and religious
situation of the region where he was born informed Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s attempt to
defend the religion of Islam against missionaries. Furthermore, the relatively liberal
64 Kara, “Harputlu İshak Efendi”, TDVİA, 531.
65 Kılıç, “Kendi Yazdıkları Işığında Amerikan Misyonerlerin Harput’taki Faaliyetleri”, 479.
66 Alıcı, “Osmanlı Son Döneminde Müslüman-Hıristiyan Tartışmalarına Dair Bir Karşılaştırma:
Şemsü’l-Hakîka ve Râfi’u’ş-Şübühât y’ani, Cevâb-i Risâle-i Şemsü’l-Hakîkat”, 32.
23
atmosphere of the Tanzimat erahad alienated a considerable cross section of the
Ottoman Muslims. In the 1870s, the need for a religious response to this relatively
liberal atmosphere as well as to the missionary activities took the form of a new
Sunnitization wave. This inclination is generally identified with the policy of
Abdülhamid II’s reign even though its origins went back a few years ago before
Abdülhamid II’s reign.67
The work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca, titled Kâşif'ül-Esrâr ve Dafi-ü'l Eşrar
was a very comprehensive rejection against Bektaşiyye. After this treatise, Harputlu
Ishak Hoca wrote another work called Îzâhü'l-esrar, and tried to corner the Bektaşis
with the questions he asked. These works were written in a very aggressive language.
Although these were quite original, even if they were not the first criticism of
Bektaşism in history. Kâşifü'l-Esrâr, published in 1871, is a reaction to these works
since it was written at a time when Bektaşi publications were being printed more and
more. According to Ahmed Rıfkı, the aim of Harputlu Ishak Hoca was to organize a
second Vaka-i Hayriyye that would eradicate the remaining Bektaşis.68 This
possibility could not be disregarded by the Bektaşis. Harputlu Ishak Hoca, on the
first page of Kâşifü'l-Esrâr, treats the Bektaşis as an order that leads Muslims to
heresy.
Let it be known that the most significant group that tries to lead the Muslim
community astray with their words and deeds is the Bektaşi order an deven if
everybody knows their aim, they clearly revealed in 1288 that they do not
belong among the people of Islam.69
67 Abu-Manneh, “Between Heterodox and Sunni Orthodox Islam”, 203-218; Berkes, The Development
of Secularism in Turkey, 269.
68 Ahmet Rıfkı Efendi, Bektaşi Sırrı, vol. 1, 126-127 cited in Unpublished MA Thesis of Ozkan
Karabulut.
69Ve sonra ma’lum ola ki Ehl-i İslâm’ı ıdlâl ile meşgul olan taifenin en başlıcası Taife-i Bektaşiyan
olup hâlbuki bunların akval ve ef’allerinden, Ehl-i İslam’dan olmadıkları ma’lum ise de 1288
tarihinde bütün bütün izhar eylediler. Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Kaşifü’l esrar ve dafiü’l eşrar, cited in
Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l esrâr ve dâfiu’l esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri
Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, 86.
24
However, Harputlu Ishak Hoca sees Bektaşis as Hurufi and considers the publication
of Firişteoğlu's work, Câvidân, which is called Işkname, as a dangerous situation. He
states that his purpose in writing the work is to prevent this danger.
The books they published under the title of "Cavidan" consist of six versions.
One version belongs to their actual misleader Fazli Hurufi and the other five
versions belong to his successors. As their blasphemy is very apparent in the
abovementioned five versions, they taught and learned the secret among
themselves, but since their blasphemy is somewhat concealed in Firişteoğlu’s
Câvidân titled Işknâme, they dared to publish it in 1288. Since it is without
doubt a duty upon the community (farz-ı kifâye) to inform the people of faith
about their state and about the blasphemies in these books, I put my trust in
God and set out to write this treaties in three parts.70
Harputlu Ishak Hoca, who often identifies Bektaşiyye with Hurufism in his work,
claims that Aliyyü'l Âla, the disciple of Fazlullah Hurufi, mixed Hurufi principles
into Bektaşiyye when he came to the Hacı Bektaş lodge, and kept Hurufism alive
under a veil of secrecy.
After Timur's son murdered Fazlı Hurufi, tied a rope to his leg, and had him
dragged in front of the people in the marketplace, subjected him to different
kinds of insults, and removed his filthy body from the world, his followers
fled and scattered all around the lands of Muslims and began to corrupt and
lead the community of Islam astray. His disciple, known as Aliyyü'l-Âlâ,
came to the Hacı Bektaş lodge in Anatolia, went into seclusion and secretly
taught the Câvidân to the people of the lodge. He said that this is the way of
Hacı Bektaş Veli, and because the people of the dervish lodge were all
ignorant, they denied the sublime injunctions in accordance with Câvidân and
accepted its teachings, as they were in agreement with the imperious self
(nefs-i emmare). They called it secret and urged everyone to keep it secret.
They were so careful that if someone who took part in their rituals were to
disclose the secret, they would order this person to be killed. What they call
secret are those blasphaemous parts of the Câvidân that are marked by the
letters which are non-connectors like (elif, vav, cim, ze), and they wrote a
70 Bunların “Câvidân” tesmiye eyledikleri kitapları, 6 nüsha olup, birisi asıl mudilleri olan Fazlullah
Hurufi’nin ve beşi hulefasının tertibatı olup, nüsha-i hamse-i mezkûrede küfürleri pek zâhir
olduğundan beynelerinde sırrı tâlim ve taallüm eyleyip Firişteoğlu’nun “Işknâme” tâbir olunan
Câvidân’ında küfriyatını bir miktar mesrurane tuttuğundan 1288 tarihinde tabedip neşre cür’et
eylediklerinden bunların ahvalini ve kitaplarında olan küfriyatını Ehl-i İman’a ehbar için bir risale
kaleme almak bişek farz-ı kifaye olduğundan mütevekkilen Alellah üç bâbı müştemil olarak tahrire
ictisar eyledim. Harputlu İshak Efendi, Kaşifü’l esrar cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin
Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve Dâfiu’l Esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi,
86-87.
25
treatise by the title of Miftâhu'l-Hayat regarding these signs and called it
"secret.71
We need to approach the claims that equated the Bektaşiyye with Hurufism carefully.
Ahmed Rıfkı states in his book Bektaşi Sırrı that Hoca Ishak Efendi confused
Bektaşiyye and Hurufism, and that Bektaşiyye and Hurufism have no relation.72 This
inference that there is no relationship between Bektaşiyye and Hurufism is a forced
conclusion. J. K. Birge, on the other hand, approaches this issue a little more
cautiously. He points out that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries some Hurufis
had continued their activities under th eguise of Bektaşiyye. As a result, there were
indeed some Bektaşis who inclined towards Hurufi writings but
unlike Harputlu Ishak Hoca, he also points out that there are also many Bektaşi
works that reject Hurufism.73 According to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, the author of the
work Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid, which I will mention in the next section, neither Bektaşis
were Hurufis nor Hurufis were Bektaşis. However, Hurufis say that the book
Câvidân is a work of Bektaşi in order to cause strife. He denies that there are
Bektaşis who are currently inclined towards Hurufism.74 The fact that Ahmed Rıfat
Efendi wrote his work in a time period when Bektaşiyye was associated with
Hurufism brings to mind that this is a defense statement.
71 Timur’un oğlu, Fazlı Hurufi’yi katleyleyip bacağına ip takıp, çeşitli hakaretlerle çarşı ve pazarda
insanlar önünde sürükletip vücud-u habaisi, ol dini âlem-i dünyadan defettikten sonra hulefası firar
ederek bilâd-ı müslimine münteşir olup millet-i islâmiyeyi idlâl ve iğfal ile meşgul oldular. Lâkin
Aliyyü’l-Âlâ ismiyle müsemma olan halifesi, Anadolu’da Hacı Bektaş tekkesine gelip inziva ederek
ve Câvidân’ı hafiyyen ehl-i tekkeye tâlim ederek ve bu tariki Hacı Bektaş Veli’nin tarikidir dedikte,
ehl-i hankah dahi cümlesi câhil ve nâdân olmasıyla mukteza-yı Câvidânı cümle teklifat-ı aliyyeyi
inkâr ve nefsi emmarenin hevasına muvafakatı aşikar olduğundan kabul eyleyip, ismini sır koyup
gayet-i ihfayı tembih eylediler. O derece ihtimam ettiler ki bir kimse dâhil-i ayinleri olup, sırrı ifşa
ederse ol kimsenin katlini iltizam eylerler. Ve bu sır dedikleri şey Câvidân’ın içinde olan küfür
mahalleri (elif, vav, cim, ze) gibi huruf-ı mukatta ile remz ve işaret olunup ve bu rumuzat için
Miftâhu’l-Hayat namında bir risale telif eyleyip ismini “sır” koydular.” Harputlu İshak Hoca, Kaşifü’l
esrar, cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l esrâr ve dâfiu’l esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam
Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, 90-91.
72 Ahmed Rıfkı, Bektaşi Sırrı, 6-7.
73 Köprülü, Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavvıflar, 283.
74 Ahmed Rıfat Efendi, Mirâtü’l mekâsid (Gerçek Bektaşilik), 231.
26
On the other hand, the fact is that there is no evidence of an actual Hurufi
or Noktavi existence, whether in or outside the Bektaşi order in the 19thcentury. As a
matter of fact, we would say that the criticism against Bektaşis by charging them
with Hurufism was a defamation policy. It is another fact that Bektaşiyye contained
some Hurufi elements but the function of Hurufism here appears as a defamation
label. In other words, misunderstandingly, any publications about Hurufism were
directly related with the interests of Bektaşis.
Harputlu Ishak Hoca claimed that Bektaşis took great care to protect their
secrets, and that their members were secretly carrying out their activities in the
Nakşibendi, Rufai, Kadiri dervish lodges during the time the order was closed, even
though they seem to be trying to have a respectful attitude towards the Ehl-i Beyt by
appearing from the Shia. He claims that they deem wine-drink to be licit and this is
an unbecoming manner.
Does have any doubt that the way you have embarked on entails the
proclaimation of wine and raki to be halal just like Yazid and the
abandonment of the namaz prayer following the path of Yazid?75
According to Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Bektaşis were not actually Shias, they were
idolators (taife-i müşrikin), they approved of Jews and Christians, but they could not
attract them, and they attracted Shiites by pretending to be from Shia. When you ask
a question to the Bektaşis, they say, "We are Jafari", but they do not know about him
either.76 He also states that Bektaşis lead the congregation to evil, and that they do
not recognize and practice outward acts of worship such as prayer and fasting.
Harputlu Ishak Hoca evaluates the examples he gave in the axis of Ali's adherence to
75 İşte sizin gittiğiniz yol dahi Yezid misilli daima şarap ve rakı istihlal ve savm ve salatı terk ederek
meslek-i Yezid’e sâlik olmanızda kimsenin şüphesi var mıdır?, Harputlu Ishak Efendi, Kâşifü’l esrâr,
cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve dâfiu’l esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam
Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, 94.
76 Harputlu İshak Efendi, Kâşifü’l esrâr, cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l esrâr ve
dâfiu’l esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, 89.
27
the sharia and often considers Bektaşis as an element that puts strife among Muslims
and puts forward esotericist (batıni) views on apparent worship.
This poor one, I asked: Can there be namaz without standing, recitation,
bowing and prostration? He answered: Of course, the namaz performed
inwardly is without standing, recitation, bowing and prostration. This poor
one said: You became an infidel. Because the namaz that our lord, pride of
the cosmos, upon him be the most perfect of the salutations, and his
distinguished companions, upon them all be the satisfaction of God, prayed is
the namaz that we have been praying until now. Even there are occasions they
could not perform the namaz, they did not intend to perform it in an esoteric
way. It has been understood that what you call esoteric namaz is nothing but
drinking wine and rakı, geting drunk pulling your cap over your eyes and
entertaining false dreams and other delusion.77
In addition, Harputlu Ishak Hoca mentions Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli as a perfect
mentor, but claims that Bektaşis later went astray by acting in accordance with the
Câvidân.
We answer: Hacı Bektaş Veli, may his secret be blessed was a perfected and
perfecting master and like other great masters, he observed the immaculate
sharia and the exalted Sunnas of the Prophet, but those of his successors who
observed his way passed away in a very short while. Some people who sought
the path of God in the darkness of ignorance and not-knowing and in the
article of unbelief and error, and who sought every opportunity to follow the
inclination of their imperious soul claimed to be followers of Hacı Bektaş and
thus landered him, just as idolaters claim to follow the path of religion of
Jesus Christ and just as Shiites (Rafıdites) claim to follow the way of Jafar al-
Sadiq. There is no doubt that Hacı Bektaş would have been the first person to
denounce such people.78
77 Fakir sual ettim ki: “Kıyamsız, kıraatsız, rükûsuz, secdesiz böyle bir namaz var mıdır?” Cevap
eyledi ki: “Elbette batınca namaz kıyam ve kıratsız, rükû ve secdesiz olacak.” Fakir dedim ki: “Sen
kâfir oldun, zira (Fahr-i Kâinat) Aleyhi Ekmeli’t-Tahiyyat Efendimiz ve Ashab-ı Güzin rıdvanullahi
teala aleyhim ecmein hazeratının kıldıkları namaz bizim kıldığımız erkan-ı maluma ve ef’al-i
mahsusadır, hatta bir vakit namazları kazaya kalsa, kütüb-ü ehadiste mestur ve mazbut ve cümle
ulemay-ı eğlam ve meşayih-i kiram ve cümle ehl-i iman ila yevmuna haza kıldıkları namaz yine bu
erkan-ı maluma üzere olup hiçbirisi bu erkanı terkedip “batınca namaz” diyerek başka bir yol
tutmamış. Anlaşıldı ki senin bâtınca namaz dediğin şarap ve rakı nûş edip, mest ve medhuş olarak
külahı gözünün üstüne indirip kâh hülyay-ı fasideleri ile birtakım kuruntunun adını salat-ı batına
koydunuz”.
Harputlu İshak Efendi, Kâşifü’l-Esrâr, (İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve Dâfiu’l Eşrâr Adlı Eserinin
İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi), 92.
78 Cevap veririz ki; Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli kuddıse sırruhu hazretleri mürşid-i kâmil ve mükemmil ve
mesleki sâir piran-ı izam gibi şeriat-ı mutahhara ve sünen-i seniyye-i rasulü kibriyaya mutabık olup
ancak halifesinden süluk üzere hareket edenler az müddet içinde dâr-ı bekaya rıhlet etmiş. Ve birtakım
zulmet-i cehl ve nâdânîden ve itikadat-ı küfr ve dalâlden tarik-i hak arayanlar ve meyl-i nefs-i
emmarelerini icraya tarik-i vesile ittihaz eden müşriklerin Hazreti İsa Salevatullah-i âla Nebiyyina ve
Aleyh Efendimize mensubiyet iddiasında bulundukları ve Rafizîlerin İmam Ca’fer-i Sâdık radiyallahu
anh hazretlerine mensûbiyet davasında bulundukları
gibi bunlar kendilerini (Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli) Kuddîse Sîrruh Hazretlerine mensup tutup
28
In this respect, the author embraces the classical Ottoman discourse that criticizes the
behavior of some Bektaşis against the law. Namely, he depicts Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli is
a perfected sheikh while he deems the latter day Bektaşhis as heretics who have gone
astray. The influence of Kuşadalı İbrahim Halveti, who equates being a non-shariaabiding
Muslim with being a Bektaşi, finds a wide place in the work.79
Harputlu Ishak Hoca devotes an important part of his work to the
blasphemous claims in the Câvidân and attributes them to the Bektaşis. According to
him, Fazlı Hurufi's claim of divinity and his antinomianism (ibahiye) and abolishing
the provision of worship directly penetrated Bektaşiyye.
God forbid, they dismiss the canonical prayer as one of the exoteric/apparent
(meanings of the divine world) and claim that another form of worship is
meant by it esoterically. The aim of Fazli Hurufi is to deny the exoteric
meaning of sharia rules (ahkam-ı şeriyye) like the canonical prayer to claim
each one (of these rules) means something else esoterically, and to deny all
the valid sharia rules through forced interpretation (ala tariki’t-tevil) and to
subscribe to the divinity of Fazli Hurufi. 80
Even though such beliefs as denial of the resurrection, considering
Fazlullah Hurufi to be superior to the prophets, and disregard for the canonical forms
of worships, were not held by the early Bektaşis, they later spread among them
because of Fazlullah Hurufi's disciple. Indeed, Fazlullah Hurufi is at the center of all
blasphemies. According to him, Fazlı Hurufi, as an ignorant figure who gives
mürşid-i müşarûn ileyh hazretlerine birtakım iftiralar eyledikleri erbâb-ı vukûfun malumu
olunduğundan onların birinci davacısı kendileri kat’a olacağından şek ve şüphe yoktur.
Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Kaşifü’l esrar ve dafiü’l eşrar cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin
Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve Dâfiu’l-Esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi,
98-99.
79 Öztürk, Kuşadalı İbrahim Halveti, 5.
80 Haşa, salâtı, zâhirinden sarf ederek bâtınca başka namaz murâddır, derler. Bu Fazlı Hurûfî’nin
murâdı, salât misillü cümle ahkâm-ı şer’iyyeyi bütün bütün zâhirden menedip her birini bu ahkâmdan
murad bâtınca başka birşeydir, diyerek cemî ahkâm-ı zâhib-i şer’iyyeyi ala tarîki’t-te’vil inkâr eyleyip
ve Fazlı Hurûfî’nin ulûhiyetine zâhib olmuştur. Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Kaşifü’l esrar ve dafiü’l eşrar
cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve Dâfiu’l Esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam
Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, 103.
29
meaning to letters, is the leading actor in the way the Bektaşis go astray and
misinterpret religion.
Even though there are so many other blasphemies of this kind, I have
refrained from discussing them in detail. Let it not be concealed that as
described above Fazli Hurufi claimed, God forbid, that he was God himself
and that it was also Fazli Hurufi who was meant by Adam. Hence throughout
his life he had prostrated to himself and after him, according to their false
belief, (believers) were joined to prostrate as the vicegerents of God
(halifetullah). This was the gist of his commands.81
Therefore, he attributes the immorality in social life to Bektaşiyye through Hurufism
and attributes the whole burden of social degeneration to Bektaşiyye. He explains
that the words of Bektaşis lead people to disbelief, with the events, people and
examples he chose from Islamic history and mythology, and attacks Bektaşiyye
through Hurufism. However, Harputlu Ishak Hoca does not base these accusations
on solid documents, he generally only repeats the claims he claims to have heard
from others. This situation greatly damages the credibility of Harputlu Ishak Hoca's
work. Besides, bringing together Bektaşiyye and antinomianism is not something
Harputlu Ishak Hoca put forward. Beginning from Eflaki's Menâkıbü'l Arifin, it is a
common view in the public opinion that Bektaşiyye had a distance to nominal
religious obligations. This situation has been shaped as Bektaşi anecdotes in the
social subconscious.82 In this type of anecdote, the Bektaşi hero, who does not obey
the religious rules but has some social sensitivity, gives various lessons of virtue
through the funny events he has lived. In brief, Harputlu Ishak Hoca equated
Bektaşiyye with irreligiousness and blamed the Hurufi influence that permeated into
the real Bektaşiyye for this situation. Another work that was written in this period
81 Ve bu bâbda birçok küfür var ise de tafsîlinden sarfı nazar olundu ve hafî olmaya ki bâlâda tasrih
olunan vech üzere Fazlı Hurufi haşa kendisi Allah olup, Âdem’den de murad yine Fazlı Hurufi
olduğundan daima hayatında kendisine secde ve kendisi murad olduktan sonra zu’m-ı bâtıllarınca
halifetullah olan Bektaşi babalarına secde etmek ile emretmek olup cemi talimatı bunlardan ibarettir.
Harputlu Ishak Hoca, Kaşifü’l-Esrar ve Dafiü’l Eşrar cited in Zübeyde Kafesci, İshak Efendi’nin
Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve Dâfiü’l Esrâr Adlı Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi,
123.
82 For more information, Yıldırım, Türk Edebiyatında Bektaşi Fıkraları.
30
and continues the criticism style of Harputlu Hoca Ishak Efendi is Îzâhü'l-Esrâr. The
main theme of Îzâhü'l-Esrâr is that Bektaşism emerged from Hurufism, acts against
religious rules, Bektaşi lodges became a nest of mischief, Dedebabas were sinners,
and Babas deceived those around them, as in Kâşifü’l-Esrâr.83 In the work, it is seen
that Nakşibandiyye is recommended against Bektaşiyye from time to time.84 He also
mentions important muderrisses and hodjas who did religious science in Anatolia,
emphasizing that most of them are Halidi. Manisa mufti Hacı Evliyazade illuminated
Aydın, Antepli Hoca from Uşak gave ijaza to 1200 people, Süleyman Efendi made
ijaza in Karaağaç, and also Beyzâde Ali Efendi and Eskişehir mufti Süleyman Efendi
in Harput. Reminding the prophets, he repeats that all of these people are
Nakşibendi-Halidi. However, there is not enough information about whether
Harputlu Ishak Hoca was a Halidi. The fact that Harputlu Ishak Hoca wrote his work
during the grand vizierate of Mehmed Rüşdi Pasha in 1873 or 1874, the son of the
Caucasian İsmail Siracüddin Şirvani, who was a Nakşibendi sheikh, is also a sign
that Harputlu Ishak Hoca had a strong Nakşibendi-Halidi side.85 This situation shows
us the rising Nakşibendi disposition in the 19th century could determine the religious
conversations in public manner.
3.2 Analysis of Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid
The refutation of Harputlu Ishak Hoca, called Kâşifü'l-Esrâr, was met with concern
by Bektaşi circles. Therefore, some works were written in response to this work.
Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba's Kâşifü’l-Esrâr’a Reddiye is one of them. Ahmet
Rıfkı’s Bektaşi Sırrı is another one. In all of these works, the Bektaşi order is
considered a Sunni order, refuting Harputlu Ishak Hoca’s Hurufism and infidelity
83 Varol, “Kâşifü’l Esrar’ın İzinde” 49-57.
84 Varol, “Kâşifü’l Esrâr’ın İzinde”, 38.
85 Yücer, Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvuf, XIX. Yüzyıl, 711.
31
accusations. According to these works, Bektaşis strictly follows the religious
obligations. However, even if there is no other direct refutation of Kâşifü'l-Esrâr, we
will examine the work of Ahmed Rıfat Efendi called Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid ve defiü'l
mefâsid, which was published right after the publication of this work.
Before examining this work, it would be useful to examine Ahmed Rıfat
Efendi and the historical conjuncture he was in. We have limited information about
the life of Ahmed Rıfat Efendi, he was a sayyid according to his own statement.86 In
one of his works, Ahmed Rıfat Efendi describes himself as “Dersaadet Muhasebecisi
es-Seyyid Ahmet Rıfat b. İsmail”87 He was born in Istanbul. In the sources, there is
no information about his family, education life and upbringing, and there is little
information about him in his works. He started his civil service life in the finance
department. He was a member of the Divân-ı Muhâkemat, Finance Department.
Then, working in the Department of Customs, he became an accountant of this
department in 1863 and continued in this position until 1865. In 1869, he worked as
the Bursa treasurer. Later, he left this job and returned to Istanbul. According to
Franz Babinger, after he quited his job, he took a rest in his father’s hometown Bursa
for a while. He was also described as “lame” because of his problem in his leg.88 He
was buried in the cemetery outside Edirnekapı after his death.89 Although his date of
birth is not known, 1875, 1876 or 1891 are given about his death date. The date of
death is given as 1875 in Mehmed Süreyya's collective biography "Sicill-i Osmani".
However, considering that Ahmed Rıfat Efendi presented his work to Murat V, it is
understood that this date is wrong.90 Ahmed Rıfkı, who gave the date of his death as
86 Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 165.
87 Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, “Ravzatü’l Aziziyye”, 3 cited in Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik
(Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 15.
88 Babinger, Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri, 394.
89 Beyhan, “Rıfat Efendi, Topal” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi v.35 104.
90 Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani v.II 408.
32
1891, probably confused Ahmet Rıfat Efendi with Rumelian Rıfat Efendi, so the
most accurate date should be 1876. It is not known how Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, who in
some parts of his work implies that he is also a Bektaşi, entered the Bektaşi Order,
from whom he took possession, and his position in the order.91 However, considering
that he has the most detailed information about the Bektaşi order, we can say that he
was a Bektaşi. The manuscript of Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid, the masterpiece of Ahmet Rıfat
Efendi, who wrote many works in prose and verse, should be between May 25 and
August 31, 1876, as it was dedicated to Murat V. Apart from his masterpiece
Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid, he published a few works which were compilations of the
Ottoman statesmen’s biographies. The titles of these works are Devhatü’l-Meşâyih
ma’zeyl, Devhatü’l-Nükabâ, Verdü’l-hadâ’ik and Ravzetü’l-Aziziyye.92 The
biographies of the Ottoman sadrazams, Şeyhülislams, nakib-al eşrafs (the
descendants of the Prophet) and the Ottoman rank holders were compiled in these
works. Another important relationship of Murat V in terms of Bektaşiyye history is
his relationship with Ruhi Baba, one of the followers of Nafi Baba Lodge in Istanbul.
Ruhi Baba was a Bektaşi Baba who had a close relationship with Murat V.93
However; we do not have any information about the relationship between Ruhi Baba
and Ahmet Rıfat Efendi. J.K. Birge's claim regarding the publication of the work is
that Pertevniyal Valide Sultan, the mother of Sultan Abdülaziz, covered the printing
costs of the work.94 In the light of all this information, we can claim that there were
various relations between Bektaşi circles and the Ottoman palace. However, we
should not forget that Bektaşiyye was formally banned during this period and
Nakşibendi sheikhs were officially in charge of Bektaşi lodges. From this, we come
91Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 304.
92 Babinger, Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri, 394-395.
93 Işın “Bektaşilik” İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, 137.
94 Birge, The Bektaşi Order of Dervishes, 81.
33
to the conclusion that although Bektaşiyye had partial freedom, the Ottomans
persisted in their policy of controlling the religious orders. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi
explains Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid was written to vindicate Bektaşiyye, pointing to the
activities of malicious people who have recently been involved in Bektaşiyye,
inclined to Noktavi and Hurufi.95 It is significant that the work was published two
years after Harputlu Ishak Hoca's rejection of Bektaşiyye titled Kâşifü'l-Esrâr, and
that Ahmet Rıfat attributes the deterioration of Bektaşiyye to the influence of Hurufi
and Noktavi. In our opinion, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, with this work, made a refutation
against the understanding of Harputlu Ishak Hoca who criticizes Bektaşiyye and
Hurufism. However, neither Ahmet Rıfat Efendi mentioned Harputlu Ishak Hoca or
his work. However, unlike Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba, he did not dare to confront
Harputlu Ishak Hoca directly. He would have hesitated to directly polemicize with
Harputlu Ishak Hoca.
The language generally used by Bektaşis in their written and oral literary
works was written in plain and understandable Turkish. But Ahmet Rıfat Efendi is
outside of this generalization. Because the language used in the work is quite heavy.
The work of the author, who tries to express himself by creating many phrases
consisting of Arabic and Persian words from time to time, clearly appeals to a limited
readership from the Ottoman intellectual class rather than ordinary readers. When the
sources of the work are examined, it should not be overlooked that the author has
benefited from many mystical works and is at a level of education that can read and
understand the books written for the Ottoman ulama group.96
95Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 271.
96 For more information, Çift “Modern Anlamda İlk “Bektaşilik Kitabı” Olarak Mir’âtü’l-Mekâsıd ve
Kaynakları”, 199-204.
34
At the very beginning of his book, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi states that Ali and
Abu Bakr were the originators of the Sufi paths. Practices of these Sufi paths issued
from Ali and Abu Bakr.
And after this, as is not secret to the people of knowledge and gnosis, the
matter of spiritual guidance (irşad), pledging of allegiance (ahz-ı biat), and
oral communication (telkin) of zikr (remembrance and chanting of the names
of God) issued from two people of high repute: One was trained by vocal
dhikr, the other by silent dhikr.97
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi then gives information about Islamic mythology and
terminology. Then, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi begins with the subtitle like "Der-Beyân-ı
Çehar-yârı Güzin" on the front page of his work and gives information about the first
four “rightly guided” caliphs starting from Abu Bakr and uses expressions full of
praise.98 This attitude is in full harmony with the Sunni perspective that dominates
the work in general. For instance, he writes:
It was said: “Who are the ones who will achieve salvation?” It was said: “The
ones who obey me and my companions”. It is understood that those who will
achieve salvation are those who follow my path and that of my
companions’.99
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's knowledge of other orders is also interesting. Because in the
next chapter, the author gives the lineages of many orders and general information
about these orders. He talks about all these orders. But interestingly, after giving the
97 Emmâ ba’d: Nezdi ashâb-ı ilm u irfânda hafî olmadığı üzere tarîki’l irşâd ahz-ı bî’at ve telkîn-i zikr
husûsu iki zât-ı celîlu’l-ünvândan münşe’ibdir ki, birisi zikr-i hafî ve ol birisi zikr-i cehrî ile
mürebbâdırlar.
Ahmet Rifat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 111.
98Akdem-i ashâb-ı safâ intisâb-ı yâr-ı gâr Habîb-i rabbi’l-erbâb büzürgvâr-ı âl-i mikdâr mazhar-ı
sâniye’sneyni fi’l-gâr sıddîk-i celîlu’l-kadr bâhiru’t-tasdîk halîfe-i rasûlillâh ale’t-tahkîk Ebû Bekir es-
Sıddîk radiyallâhu anh.
A’del-i ecille-i ashâb ekmel-i edille-i şâh-ı râh-ı ecr u sevâb zînet efza-i minber u mihrâb rehnümâ-i
tarîk-i sıdk u sevâb a’nî emîru’l-mü’minîn Ömer ibn el-Hâttab radıyallâhu anh.
Sâhib-i envâr-ı hayâ ve îmân câmi’-i âyâti’l-Kur’ân suffe-i ashâb-ı safâya zan sâlisu şeyhayn akdem-i
hatneyn emîru’l- mü’minîn Osman zi’n-nûreyn radıyallâhu anh.
Hâtem-i evliyâ imâm-ı Hüdâ vasıyy-yı muhtâr-ı Mustafâ gârşk-i bahr-i belâ harîk-i nâr-ı velâ râfi’-i
alem-i rasûl-i müctebâ mazhar-ı ene medînetü’l-ilmi ve Aliyyun bâbuhâ zevc-i betûl ibn ammi rasûl
sâhib-i mehâsin-i menâkıb emîru’l- mü’minîn Ali ibn Ebî Tâlib radıyallâhu anh
Ahmet Rifat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 121.
99 Denildi ki: “Ehl-i necât olan ne halli kimselerdir?” Buyruldu ki: “Benim ve ashâbım tarîkine
gidenlerdir.” Anlaşıldı ki fırka-i nâciye Rasûlullah’ın ve ashâbının tarîkine gidenlerdir.
Ahmet Rifat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 125.
35
lineage of the Nakşibendi order, he also gives the lineage of the Halidi branch of the
Nakşibendi order. After that, he finally gives the lineage of the Bektaşi order.100 This
situation brings to mind the effort of the author to bring together the Bektaşi order
and the Halidi branch of the Nakşibendi order. Finally, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi
surprisingly adds the Bektaşi order to the list of orders on the right track, whose
lineage is linked to Abu Bakr. Until the author wrote this claim, the Bektaşi order
was known as a Sufi order based on a silsila going back to Ali, but the claim of bakri
silsila was not found. The author must have been aware of this situation because he
followed a path like this. He connected all the orders to Jafar Sadik via Junayd-i
Bagdadi and from there to Ali. Therefore, according to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, all
orders are ’alevi orders. The superiority is to be bekri-originated order. This
superiority is shared by Nakşibendi, its Halidi branch, and Bektaşiyye.
It has been established by the books of the tariqa that as will be discussed
below the lineage of exalted path of the Nakşibendiyye and Bektaşiyye and
others goes back to Sıddîk-ia’zam, the first “rightly guided” caliph. These
(orders, in turn,) have branched into different sub-orders and many great men
of God have come down via these lineages.101
The author often mentions the names of these two orders together where he attempts
to explain the link between these lineages.
Therefore, Ebu’l Hasan Harakânî who appears in the abovementioned
lineages of Nakşbendiyye and Bektaşiyye, having come to the world after
Bâyezîd-i Bistâmi, was trained by the spiritual presence of Bâyezîd...102
In my opinion, his endeavor to bring these two orders can only be
explained by the Halidi influence on the Bektaşi order after the latter’s abolition. In
100 Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 157.
101Bâhusus zikri mürûr edeceği vechile silsile-i tarîkatta Sıddîk-i a’zam ve halîfe-i akdem hazretlerine
peyveste olan tarîkat-ı aliyye-i Nakşbendiyye ve Bektâşiyye ve sâire ki bunlar da bir hayli şu’abâta
munkasım olarak bu koldan dahî nice ehlullah-ı izâm zuhûra geldiği kütüb-i tarîkat ile sâbittir.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 141.
102Pes, bâlâda mezkûr silsile-i Nakşbendiyye ve Bektâşiyye’de vâki’ Ebu’l Hasan Harakânî dahî
Bâyezîd-i Bistâmî Hazretleri’nin intikallerinden sonra dünyâya gelmiş olmakla rûhâniyyet-i Bâyezîd
ile mürebbâ oldukları misillû…
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 160.
36
fact, the effort to bring Abu Bakr and Ali side by side stands out on the first page of
the work. In the issue of separation between the orders, he argues that the audible
dhikr is characteristic of the orders based on Ali and the silent dhikr on Abu Bakr. As
a result, he adds that both ways are permissible. In this work, the author approves all
Sunni orders, includes the Ehl-i Sünnet and tries to bring the Nakşibendis together
with the Bektaşis. It is also important that another endeavor is to bring together bekri
origin with the ‘alevi origin.
Because the connecting name inthe lineages of Nakşibendiyye and
Bektaşiyye is Bâyezîd-i Bistâmî, in the scrolls this has been recorded as
“through the spirituality of Imam Jafar-i Sadiq..103
This can be another proof of Nakşibendi influence on Bektasis. In the next chapters,
the author gives information about basic religious issues. Dhikr, deeds, spirit,
attraction, preservation of gifts and trusts, five daily namaz, fasting, zakat and
pilgrimage are among the leading ones. These parts take up most of the work.104
The rest of the book is devoted to the Bektaşi order. Here, there is detailed
information about Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli, the rites, rituals and methods of Bektaşiyye.
How to enter the Bektaşi order, the structure of the order and religious information
about the order are included. After giving this detailed information about the Bektaşi
order, the author also responds to the criticisms of the order, especially the criticisms
of Hurufism. In the following sections, detailed information about the Ahl al-Bayt is
given, along with the birth and death dates of the 12 Imams. The names of the
members of the Ehl-i Beyt who were killed in Karbala are given.105
One of the important points in terms of the style that dominates the work is
related to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's attitude towards other members of the order. Ahmet
103 Silsile-i Nakşiyye ve Bektâşiyye’de vâsıta bend-i tarîk Bâyezîd-i Bistâmî Hazretleri olmakla
tomarlarda an rûhâniyyeti’l İmâm Ca’fer-i Sâdık diyerek yazılmıştır.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 159.
104 Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 161-295.
105 Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 361.
37
Rıfat Efendi uses tolerant language towards other order members in this work. He
wants to stay away from polemics as much as possible, as in the example that all
orders are one and the difference is due to the types of dhikr. However, this attitude
of his is completely different when it comes to those who interpret the shari'a
provisions in an esoteric way. It insists on the fulfillment of the basic daily religious
practices of the religion of Islam. What he is trying to do throughout his work is to
respond to the claims that Bektaşiyye is trying to be portrayed as a gathering place
for those who want to live a religiously unruly life. He tries to express that the real
Bektaşiyye abides by the rules of sharia and lives in a religiously and mutually, like
many other orders.
Thus, since the majority of those who make this mistake do not know the
secret of the words of the great sheikhs and do not have the ability to interpret
and verify, they take them literally and fallin to error and those who are their
companions also fallin to the same abyss. For instance, they interpret what the
venerable Junayd-i Baghdadi (according to their fancy) and make their case
based on it. Or, they keep it a secret and(only) tell it to their confidants. God
forbid that this saying of Junayd-i Baghdadi amount to a nullification of the
obligations of the sharia! The profession of faith, canonical prayer, ritual
fasting, pilgrimage, alms and other duties like these are religious obligations
based on the divine word and the normative traditions of the Prophet. There is
no need for forced interpretation and wordplay (şathiyyat) on this matter.106
Bektaşiyye as represented by Ahmet Rıfat Efendi is a religious tradition
that disapproves of the forced interpretation of sharia provisions. It is also ehl-i
sünnet ve’l-cemaat. At this point, we need to explain what Ahmet Rıfat Efendi
understands from part of ehl-i sünnet ve’l-cemaat. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi refers to the
106 Fe-emmâ bu vartaya düşenlerin ekseri kelimât- meşâyih-i izâmın sırrını bilmediklerinden ve te’vîl
u tahkîke kâdir olmadıklarından nâşî zâhirine haml ile bu vartaya düşüp bunlara musâhib olanlar dahî
bu girdâba giriftâr olurlar. Ve bu takımdan Hazret-i Cüneyd-i Bağdadi’nin buyurduklarını semtte’vîle
çekip hüccet ibrâz eylerler. Veyâhut derûnlarında saklayıp mahrem-râzlarına söylerler. Hâşâ ki
Cüneyd-i Bâğdâdî’nin bu kelâmından iskât-ı teklîfât-ı şer’iyye ola. Kelime-i şehâdet ve salât ve savm
ve hacc ve zekât ve bu gibi teklîfât-ı ferâiz-i İlâhiyye ve sünen-i seniyye-i Peygamberîye’den olup
Müslüman olanlar bunların icrâ ve ifâsıyla mecbûr u mükelleftir. Bu bâbda bir gûne te’vîl ü şathiyyât
gerekmez.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 293.
38
well-known hadith that Muslims will be divided into 73 sects and out of those only
one will reach salvation, and that is the ehl-i sünnet ve’l cemaat.107
Now, as indicated in the noble hadith, only one of the aforementioned sects
will reach salvation, while the rest are bound for Hell. “And what is meant by
the sect that will reach salvation is Ehl-i sünnet ve'l cemâ'at. And Ehl-i sünnet
ve'l cemâ'at are the Mâturidiyye and Eş’ariyye in creed. What is meant by
Mâturidiyye is the creed of Ebu Mansur Maturidi and what is meant by
Eş’ariyye is the creed of Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari. The sheikh of the Hanefis in
creed is Ebu Mansur Maturidi, and the sheikh of the Shafiis in creed is Ebu’l-
Hasan Eş’ari. Oh follower of the order! In the previous age there were many
mujtahids. However, after that, (the community) decided on the madhhab of
thefour imams. The first of thefour imams is the Greatest Imam Ebu Hanife
Nu'mân b. Sabit, may God be satisfied with him. His wondrous deeds and
virtues (menakıb) have been narrated above. Now, it is necessary for a
dervish to know his Imamin both practice and creed and to remain stead fastin
following the madhab of Ehl-i sünnet ve'l cemâ'at.108
Therefore, the understanding of Ahl as-Sunnah meant by Ahmet Rıfat Efendi does
not differ significantly from the prevailing understanding of ehl-i sünnet ve’l-cemaat
in his time. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi is an inconspicuous Hanafi for his time. Besides, he
is a Bektaşi who emphasizes his loyalty to the Ehl-i Beyt.
According to the sources written about Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli about a century
after his death, Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli is known for not obeying the sharia beyond being
a respected saint.109 His treatment of basic Islamic practices is more esoteric rather
than regular.110 In the Velayetname, it is seen that Hacı Bektaş did not go to the
mosque and prayed together with his abdals, even though he was standing on prayer
times, often mixed with miracles. All at once, they were climbing up to Hırkadagi
107 Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 221.
108 İmdi fırka-i mezbûreden ber-mûcib-i hadîs-i şerîf birisi nâciye, ma’dâsı hâlikedir. Ve fırka-i
nâciyeden murâd ehl-i sünnet ve’l cemâ’attır. Ve ehl-i sünnet ve’l-cemâ’at i’tikâdda Mâtüridiyye ve
Eş’ariyye’lerdir.Mâtüeidiyye’den ve Eş’ariyye’den murâd Ebû Mansûr Mâtüridî ve Ebu’l-Hasan
Eş’arî’dir. Ve Hanefiyye’nin i’tikâdiyyâtında şeyhi Ebû Mansûr Mâtüridî ve Şâfi’iyye’nin Ebu’l-
Hasan Eş’arî’dir. Ey tâlib-i tarîkat! Ahd-i sâbıkda müctehidin bisyâr idi. Lâkin sonra eimme-i
erba’anın mezâhibi üzerine karardâde oldu. Ve eimme-i erba’anın evvelkisi İmâm-ı A’zam Ebû
Hanîfe Nu’mân b. Sâbit radıyallâhu anh’dır. Menâkıb-ı celîleleri sâbıkda zikrolundu. İmdi dervîş
olana lâzım olan amel ü i’tikâdda İmâmını tanıyıp ehl-i sünnet ve’l-cemâ’at mezhebi üzere kâim u
müdâvim olmak lazım gelir.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 222.
109 Elvan Çelebi, Menâkıbü’l-kudsiyye, 98, Ahmet Eflaki, Ariflerin Menkıbeleri.
110 Soileau, “Conforming Haji Bektash”, 430.
39
and going to a secluded place.111 However, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi does not mention this
aspect of Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli in his work.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi tried to reflect the love of the Ehl-i Beyt at the highest
possible level in his work, in which he took care to emphasize the ehl-i sünnet ve’lcemaat.
This situation sometimes leads to the emergence of interesting comments at
a remarkable level. For example, in the section where he gives information about
Abu Hanifa, after talking about his virtues, he focuses on Abu Hanifa's ties with the
Ehl-i Beyt and savings leaders and says the following:
In fact, the Greatest Imam (i.e., Ebu Hanife) and Hasan Basrî are of the same
spiritual disposition (meşreb) as the prophets Musa and Hızır, upon them be
peace. Exoteric knowledge dominated the spiritual constitution (neş’e) of
Imam-i A'zam, esoteric knowledge prevailed over the spiritual constitution of
Hasan-i Basrî, upon them be the mercy of God.Yet, both of them reached the
Real and the truth. Someone who is more virtuous (in one respect) is less
virtuous in another respect. It is incumbent on a person possesssed of reason
that he thinks well of the mujtahid imams., for as the great men of God say, it
is unlikely for the leaders of a people to be deficient and the people
themselves to be perfect. Imam-i A'zam was born in the city of Kufa in the
eightieth year after the Hijra. His father Sabit received many prayers from
Imam Ali, and he himself, when he was just three years old, was blessed with
the good opinion of Almighty Zeyne'l-Abâ... In fact, he was educated by
Imam Jafar-i Sadiq himself.112
As can be clearly seen, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi firmly underlines the relationship
between the leaders of the Ahl al-Bayt and Abu Hanifa, the founder of the Sunni
Hanafi school. The underlying reason for this interpretation of his must have been to
try to bring Bektaşiyye into a circle with Sunni Hanafi and Maturidi, but also to
combine it with the strong philo-Alidist tendency in Bektaşiyye. Actually, this
111 Mélikoff, Hacı Bektaş Efsaneden Gerçeğe, 125.
112 “Hattâ İmâm-ı A‘zam ile Hasan Basrî Hazerâtı Mûsâ ile Hızır Aleyhime’s-selâm
meşreblerindendir. İmâm-ı A’zam Hazretlerinin neş’esinde ilm-i zâhir gâlip ve Hasan-ı Basrî
rahimehullahın neş’esinde ilm-i bâtın gâlib idi. Lâkin ikisi de Hakk’a ve hakîkate vâsıl idiler. Efdal
olan kimesne min-vechin mefdûl olur. Pes âkile lâzım olan budur ki eimme-i müctehidîn hakkında
hüsn-i zan üzre ola. Zîra bir kavmin muktedâları nâkıs olub kendileri kâmil olmak ba’îd olduğunu
ehlüllâh-ı izâm hazerâtı beyân eder. İmâm-ı A’zam Hazretleri dahî hicretin sekseninci senesinde Kûfe
şehrinde vücûda gelmiştir. Pederleri Sâbit Hazret-i İmâm Ali’nin hayli du’âsın almıştır. Ve kendileri
dahî üç yaşında iken Cenab-ı Zeyne’l-Abâ’nın hüsn-i nazarına mazhar olmuştur… Bâ-husûs ki İmâm
Câ’fer-i Sâdık radıye anhu’l Hâlik Hazretleri’nden ta’lîm-i ilm eylediler.
Ahmet Rifat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 202.
40
tendency is not so far from the Ottoman Sunnism viewpoint which had a significant
Ehl-i Beytist disposition.113 Not only Abu Hanifa and the leaders of the Ehl-i Beyt,
but also Imam Ghazali and Yunus Emre are remembered with respect. Ahmet Rıfat
Efendi's way of dealing with Yunus Emre is an issue that needs to be emphasized on
its own. The author compares the ontological status of Muhammad and Ali by
referring to Yunus Emre.
When the venerable Ali said ‘I am the dot under the (letter) ba (…)’ he was
speaking in the language of the perfected man, who is nothing but the coming
together of all the levels of divinity and existence, be they prophets (nebi) or
saints (veli). The fact that the Muhammadan reality is the first entification
(taayyün-i evvel) does not prevent the Alid reality from (also) being the first
entification. For, all of the perfect humanbeings are from the first row (saff-ı
evvel); they are united (müttehid) in existence (vücud). This is why Yunus
Emrem, may his secret be blessed, who was one of the masters of this great
secret, said, “I came from the road ahead through the roada head.” (With
these words) he was pointing to the world of the dot, which is the meeting
place of the levels of divinity and existence and is a copy of the celestial and
temporal worlds.114
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi does not put Ali's ontological status ahead of Muhammad's, but
considers him as one of the perfect human beings in Bektaşi philosophy, and argues
that Ali has a self-declared secret and that he shares this secret with many other
perfect people. Accordingly, Ali's ontological status is not equated with Muhammad,
as in various esoteric interpretations. The fact that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi refers to
Yunus Emre in this deduction can be understood as an effort to melt the names
related to Bektaşiyye in his own Sunni Hanefi and Maturidi pot. On the other hand, it
113 Erginbaş, “Reading Ottoman Sunnism through Islamic History: Approaches toward Yazîd b.
Mu’âwiya in Ottoman Historical Writing”, 473, in Krstić & Terzioğlu, Historicizing Sunni Islam in
the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450-c. 1750.
114 “Pes Hazret-i Ali “taht-ı “bâ”da olan nokta menem buyurduğu cemi’-i merâtib-i İlâhiyye ve
kevniyyenin cem’inden ibâret olan insane-ı kâmil lisânındandır, gerek nebî olsun ve gerek velî olsun.
Zîra hakîkat-ı Muhammediyye’nin ta’ayyün-i evvel olması hakîkat-ı Aliyye’nin ta’ayyün-i evvel
olmasını mâni değildir. Zîra insane-ı kâmilin cümlesi saff-ı evveldendir, vücûdda müttehiddir. Bu sırrı
azîmin âgâhlarından Yûnus Emrem kuddise sırruhûnun “İleri yoldan geldim ileri yol ile” dediği
âlem-i noktaya işâret eder ki mecme-i merâtib-i İlâhiyye ve kevniyye ve nüsha-i avâlim-i âfâkiyye ve
enfüsiyyedir.”
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 253.
41
is clear that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi was inclined to consider Yunus Emre as a Sunni
sufi. In other words, he saw at Yunus Emre what he wanted to see by
decontextualizing him. In fact, Ali's status, according to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, is on
the same level as Omar and Osman, behind Abu Bakr. “Because of this reason, any
new thing came from Jafar-i Sadiq but he was the most virtous person in the ummah.
Moreover, Omar, Osman and Ali were the caliphs of the umma and these ones were
also the most virtuous people of the umma.”115 Equating Ali’s ontological status with
the other Rashidun caliphs and putting forward Abu Bakr as the superior one seems
unfamiliar for a Bektaşi Sufi.
Another important issue that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi focused on is tevella and
teberra. According to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, tevella and teberra mean the following.
The apparent meaning of tevella and teberra is that we love what the Prophet
loved and we praise it; and we dislike what the Prophet disliked and we
condemn it. As for the true meaning of tevella and teberra, the tevella of the
people of spiritual state is God’s approval and their teberra is all else besides
God such that the person even gives up his own self. Good deeds are tevella
in that they meet God’s approval. Bad deeds are teberra in that they do not
meet God’s approval.116
First, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi dealt with tevella and teberra with the liking or
hating the enemies of Muhammad, then put these concepts in a metaphorical
meaning. According to the author, in the real sense, tevella and teberra refer to attain
the grace of God. In substance, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi generally tries to reject the
esoteric interpretations of the religious matters but in that sense he applies to evaluate
115 “Onun için Cenâb-ı Sıddîk’ten hârik-i âdât nesne zuhûr etmemiştir. Ma’a hâzâ efdalü’l ümmedir.
Hazret-i Ömer, Osman ve Murtezâ Ali radıyallahu anhum hazerâtı dahî halîfe-i Râsûlüllah olub
ümmetin efdali ve eşrefi bunlardır.”
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 128.
116 “Tevellâ ve teberrânın ma’nâ-yı zâhiri Risâlet-penâh Efendimiz hazretlerinin sevdiğini sevip
tevellâ ederiz ve sevmediklerini sevmeyip teberrâ eyleriz demektir… Fe-emmâ işbu tevellâ ve
teberrânın ma’nâ-yı hakîkîsine gelince: Hâl ehlinin tevellâsı rızâ-yı Hakk’dır, teberrâsı mâ-sivâllahtır.
Hattâ kendi nefsinden dahî geçe. Hakîkat-ı tevellâ ve teberrâ budur ki kişi bunları kendi nefsinde
bulmak lâzım gelir. Hüsn-i a’mâl Hakk’ın rızâsına muvâfık olmakla tevellâdır. Akbeh-i ef’âl Hakk’ın
rızâsına gayr-ı muvâfık bulunmakla teberrâdır.”
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 127.
42
these concepts in a esoteric meaning. It seems that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi had
considerable hesitations on controversial issues like the nature of teberra which
might evoke Sunnism – Shi’ism difference
So far, we have witnessed that Bektaşis are handled in line with the ehl-i
sünnet ve’l-cemaat, according to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's interpretation. At this point,
the issue of vital importance is the issue of the Bektaşi Jafarism. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi,
while discussing the relationship between Bektaşiyye and Jafarism, embraces the
concept of becoming Jafari. However, he adds that this Jafari occurrence has been
misinterpreted. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, who has a couplet like
“None of the seventy-two paths were saved
If you are right, be a Jafari, always“
points to the ehl-i sünnet ve’l-cemaat as a madhab.117 To clear up the confusion at
this point, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi argued that Imam Jafar-i Sadiq was not a sahib-i
mezheb, and being a member of Imam Jafar madhab means following the right path,
that is, following the path of Jafar al-Sadiq himself.
“I am from the Jafari madhhab. In meaning, madhhab refers to the path that has to
be followed; it also denotes the path one follows as a member of the singular umma
of the Prophet in terms of the branches of jurisprudence (füruat). Since the
aforementioned venerable (Ja’far al-Sadiq) did not delve into that field, he does not
have a madhab (in the latter sense).”118
In other words, according to him, being a member of the Jafari madhhab
means following Imam Jafari Sadiq, who was in any case part of the ehl-i sünnet
ve’l-cema’at. It does not imply affiliation with a legal school outside the four Sunni
117Yetmiş iki milletin hiçbiri nâci olmadı
Mezheb-i hak ister isen Ca’ferî ol dâimâ
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid),224.
118İmâm Ca’fer mezhebindenim. Mezheb bi-ma’nâ tutulacak yol ve dîn-i vâhid yani peygamber-i
vâhid ümmetinden olarak fürû’atta ayrıca tutulan tarîk demektir. Müşârun-ileyh hazretleri
kendilerince bu vâdiden müstağni olmakla sâhib-i mezheb değildirler.
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 396.
43
legal schools. According to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, those who make this claim, that is,
those who treat Ja’farism as a separate legal school are malicious people who have
infiltrated into the Bektaşi order.
“Therefore, to be from the Jafari madhab means to be on the path that they followed
in the path of the Real. It does not have the false meaning that some people of
blameworthy innovation (ehl-i bid’at) have attributed to it, so understand”119
This attitude was unfamiliar in the Bektaşi tradition. Thus, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi
argues that Jafar-i Sadiq was not the founder of a separate madhab as claimed by
Shiites, but he took four basic Sunni madhabs as reference. He claims that the
Bektaşi order also adopted this principle. At this point, we have to underline what we
understand by Jafari Shiism. In fact, Jafari Shiism has a strong tevella and teberra.120
This is an approach that was accused of heresy and atheism by the Ottoman Sunni
ulema, and it was almost impossible for it to flourish in the Ottoman lands without
any problems.121
Another striking element in Bektaşiyye, which Ahmet Rıfat tries to
describe in this work, is the issue of seclusion and forty-day penitences. Ahmet Rıfat
Efendi argues that these elements existed at the beginning of the order but were
forgotten later. His approach can be considered as an endeavor to indicate Bektaşiyye
has had many common points with other Sunni Sufi paths.
“In fact, Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli, may his secret be blessed, spent his saintly life in
seclusion and forty-day penitences. All of the people on the path of God are like that.
Just as in the Mevleviyye and other Sufi paths, so also in the Bektaşiyye,
withdrawing from the people and occupying oneself with seclusion and forty-day
penitences is the custom of the pir and the rite of the path. However, because of the
veils that have fallen over them, most of them are prevented by a veil and a thickness
from the elemental in toxication and the colorful garments of entification and hence
119Binâenaleyh mezheb-i Ca’ferî’denim demek tarîk-i hakda onların girdikleri yola girdim demektir.
Yoksa birtakım ehl-i bi’datın verdikleri ma’nâ-yı bâtıl gibi değildir, fe’f-hem.
Ahmet Rifat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’âtül-Mekâsid fi Def’i’il Mefâsid), 397.
120 For more information, Daftary, A History of Shi’i Islam.
121 For more information, Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler: 15-17. Yüzyıl.
44
there is no trace of a spiritual state in the mirror of their understanding, and oblivion
has entirely come over them so that now there are very few who know and perform
this rite. Despite this, many of those who enter the order before reaching maturity,
namely the age of 40 violate their oath of allegiance in a shortwhile. This is why the
spiritual countanenance of dead-looking followers like this is blackened. In the
origina lpath of Bektâşiyye, one would not be accepted into the path as a mücerred
(celibate), if one had not yet passed the age of forty, and had not served in the
kitchen, at the bread oven, in the houses of the guides and in the meydan for twelve
years, and occupied oneself with seclusion and forty-day penitences in the path of the
Real, and neither would one’sears be pierced and one admitted into the circle of the
slaves with pierced ears.”122
The most important point that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi tried to emphasize in
Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid was to show the Bektaşis as sharia-abiding and ahl-al Sunna order.
Although a strong philo-Alidism marks the work, this is its general purpose. On the
other hand, the Ottoman Sunnism was not far away from philo-Alidist tendencies.
Ottoman historians usually prevailed the ruling right of Alid lineage over the
Umayyids.123 This is a very strong and contrary claim. Because Bektaşis are known
as the only non-Sunni and heterodox order allowed by the Ottoman Empire.124 As I
mentioned above, Vahidi's depiction of Bektaşi is not much different from the
Bektaşi understanding of these works, at least compared to the Bektaşi's attitudes
towards sharia-abiding and Sunnis. Lâmi‘î Çelebi says that, even though Hacı
Bektaş-ı Veli was a evliyaullah, a perfect mystic, his followers went astray as sinful
122 “Hattâ Hacı Bektâş-ı Veli kuddise sırruhû’l-celî hazretleri müddet-i ömr-i azîzlerini çile ve erba’în
ile geçirdiler. Cümle tutuk-ı hak ehli de böyledir. Mevleviyye’de ve sâir turukda olduğu gibi
Bektaşiyye’de dahî halktan uzlet ile çile ve erba’în ile meşgûl olmak kânûn-ı pîr ve âyin-i tarîktandır.
Velâkin istilâ eden gavâşî cihetiyle ekserinin neş’e-i unsûriyye ve melâbis-i mütelevvine-i
ta’ayyunâttan hicâb ve kesâfet ârız olup âyine-i idrâklerinde sûret-i hâlden eser kalmayıp bi’l külliye
nisyân gelmekle şimdi min-gayr-ı tahsîs bu usûlü ârif olup icrâ edenler kâti nadir kalmıştır. Ve ma’a
hâzâ devr-i kâmili devr etmeyen yani sinnen kırkını tecâvüz etmeyip de dest-i inâbet bulan ve telkîn-i
tevbe alanların pek çoğu zamân geçmeyip nakz-ı ahd etmektedirler. Onun için bu misillû mğrde-sîret
müridlerin sûret-i bâtınaları memsûh olmaktadır. Târîk-i Bektâşiyye’de fi’l-asl mücerred takınmak
kırk sinnini tecâvüz etmeyen ve sırasıyle on iki sene matbahta ve etmek ve mihmân evlerinde ve
meydanda hizmet etmedikçe tarîk-i hak’da çile erba’în ile isbât-ı vücûd etmedikçe ne ikrârı alınır ve
ne de kulakları delinip bende-i halka-i begûş alâmeti ta’lîk olunurdu.”
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, Gerçek Bektaşilik (Mir’atül-Mekasid fi Def’i’il Mefasid), 121.
123 Erginbaş, “Reading Ottoman Sunnism through Islamic History: Approaches toward Yazîd b.
Mu’âwiya in Ottoman Historical Writing”, 473, in Krstić & Terzioğlu, Historicizing Sunni Islam in
the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450-c. 1750.
124 Ocak, “Bektaşilik”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi.
45
dervishes.125 A 16th-century Ottoman historian, Gelibolulu Ali depicted Bektaşis
with these words: “Bektaşi dervishes in our time, and those who are far from fasting,
whose madhhab is unknown, and who wander around in a group. Their affiliation
with Hacı Bektaş Veli is only with their words; their relation to it in terms of deeds
and beliefs there is none. The saints, who are called the sons of that Veli, could not
be like him.”126 These authors generally blamed Bektaşis but they kept apart Hacı
Bektaş Veli from these accusations. Therefore, being a Bektaşi had been equated
with being a non-sharia abiding person in many times.
An important exception at this point is Evliya Çelebi's Seyahatname. At
this point, we also remind that Evliya Çelebi had come from a very different social
structure than the aforementioned Bektaşi authors. Evliya Çelebi's Seyahatname, one
of the most important sources of the 17th century, offers us stronger descriptions of
Bektaşis. Evliya Çelebi, who claims that he visited dozens of Bektaşi lodges in his
travel book, expressed the sights he saw in these Bektaşi lodges. Evliya Çelebi, who
visited the Koyun Baba lodge and tomb in Osmancık, says that there is no shortage
of visitors here and that food is constantly cooked in his kitchen. It had a tomb,
mosque and a large dervish lodge built on the site of the tomb of Koyun Baba, one of
the disciples of Hacı Bektaş Velî. There were dervishes like sheep and lambs, mildtempered,
ahl al-sunna ve'l-cemaat, abdullah and arif-i billah in the lodge. When
Evliya Çelebi came to the city of Osmancık, whose people were Bektaşi, he visited
Koyun Baba's grave and read a hatim for his soul. Upon this, the sheikhs and
dervishes in the lodge put a Bektaşi coin on Evliya's head with dhikr and takbirs,
praying for health, well-being and blessings for Evliya, and recited the Gülbang-ı
125 Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefehâtü’l-üns: Evliyâ Menkıbeleri, ed. Süleyman Uludağ and Mustafa Kara, 1995,
18-47.
126 Schmidt, Pure Water for Thirsty Muslims: A Study of Mustafa ʿÂli’s of Gallipoli’s Künhü’l-Ahbâr
For more information, Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire. The Historian
Mustafa Âli (1541-1600).
46
Muhammedî and recited Fatiha sura.127 However, it would be useful to make a
critical analysis of Evliya Çelebi. Suraiya Faroqhi advises to approach carefully what
Evliya Çelebi said about the devotion of the dervishes living in these lodges to the
sharia.128 If we consider that Evliya Çelebi was a figure of the Sufi world in the 17th
century, a philo-Alidist Gülşeni, we can understand why he avoid saying negative
words about Bektaşis.129 As a matter of fact, when Evliya Çelebi went outside the
borders of the Ottoman realms, he said that the Bektaşi lodges in Iran were not
Sunni. It should be noted that Evliya Çelebi also showed this attitude about other
Sufi groups in Iran. However, Evliya Çelebi does not display this attitude towards
Anatolian Kızılbaş, Iraqi and Iranian Jafaris.130 It turns out that the discussions on the
axis of Sufism rather than madhab orientations are decisive in the conflict of
historical subjects. Therefore, a Sunni can take a position of defending the Sufi
orders, even if his viewpoint on sharia is different when appropriate. This is
explained by a poem by the Kadızadelis, who are known for their extensive attacks
on the Sufis. The poem, which treats the Mevlevi, Bektaşi and Kadiris as centers of
evil, attacks the Sufi identity of these orders, regardless of their view of sharia and
sectarian differences.
“Mevlevis are the chief of heretics/Bektaşis are their brothers/Kadiris are the
confidants of the Devil.”131
Another point that draws attention at this point is that there are no records
in the Mühimme registers complaining about the Bektaşis. Accusations such as being
127 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi ed. Dankoff, Kahraman,
Dağlı, 89.
128 Faroqhi, Der Bektaschi Orden in Anatolia, 37.
129 Terzioğlu, “Confessional Ambiguity in the Age of Confession-building: Philo-Alidism, Sufısm
and Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, 1400–1700”, 596.
130 Ibid; Karakaya-Stump, “Irak’taki Bektaşi Tekkeleri”, 689-720.
131 “Mevlevîlerdür mülhidün başı/Bektaşilerdür anun kardaşı/Kadirîlerdür şeytân sırdâşı”
Terzioğlu, cited in “Confessional Ambiguity in the Age of Confession-building: Philo-Alidism,
Sufısm and Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, 1400–1700”, 597.
47
non-sharia-abiding, performing rituals together with men and women, and blasphemy
against the first three Rashidun caliphs and Aisha against Kızılbaş are not used in the
person of Bektaşis. However, the beliefs and rituals of the Kızılbaş and Bektaşis
show great similarities.132 The factor that caused this situation can be read as the
Bektaşis being accepted by the state, the Ottoman political mechanism being
considered as an element, that is, its inclusion in the system. This language will not
be abandoned until the beginning of the 19th century, when the balances in the
Ottoman state mechanism would be reshaped. Therefore, we can conclude that the
ilmiye class in the Ottoman Empire used a measured language when talking about
Bektaşis. In this case, being accepted by the state comes to the fore as a matter of
political standing rather than religious orientations.
In summary, there is a profound difference between the Bektaşiyye that
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi describes and the historically lived Bektaşiyye. Bektaşis, if we
take into account the non-sharia-abiding groups they have gathered, have generally
been indifferent to sharia norms. Although they did not have a teberra understanding
that directly insulted the first three Rashidun caliphs like the Kızılbaş, they cultivated
an intense love of the Ehl-i Beyt, emphasized the ontological unity of Muhammad
and Ali, and did not generally praise the first three Rashidun caliphs, who were the
main pillars of the Sunni creed. This situation must have been a necessary
consequence of living in the Ottoman country. As I cited above, Sunnism label ends
for Bektaşis outside the Ottoman borders as Evliya Çelebi recorded. In the next
chapter, I will discuss why Ahmet Rıfat Efendi wrote such a work and why he
portrayed such a sharia-abiding and Ehl-i Sünnet Bektaşiyye.
132 Yıldırım, “Bektaşi Kime Derler?: “Bektaşi” Kavramının Kapsamı ve Sınırları Üzerine Tarihsel Bir
Analiz Denemesi”, 34.
48
3.3 The Background of Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid
In the Ottoman Empire, religion has been a dynamic concept. Religion has always
played a role in the structure of Ottoman institutions, social organization and the
development of political events. Central authority’s relationship with religion is
inevitably strong. Although the concepts of orthodoxy, Sunni, Hanafi and Maturidi
come to mind when it comes to the religious foundations of the Ottoman Empire, the
way these concepts were handled and applied has also changed and developed in the
historical process. Religion has a sociological dimension, as it is not only the work of
a narrow circle of intellectual ulama, but is effective in controlling the masses and
directing the movement of the masses. Therefore, the more dynamic the social
structure is, the more dynamic is the understanding and practice of religion with its
many dimensions.
Especially after the Mongol invasion, preponderance of Alid tendencies
were common in Islamic geography, and the distinction between Sunnism and
Shi'ism was less sharper than it was in the 16th century.133 Cemal Kafadar uses the
term metadoxy for this period when there was no political and religious central
authority to inculcate the true religion.134 The veneration of Ali, Ehl-i Beyt and even
the Twelve Imams could be observed in the Sunni communities. In Ottoman context,
historiographers like Ahmedî, Enverî and Yazıcıoğlu expressed philo-Alidist
tendencies and they criticized Yazid and Umayyids in the 15th century. Although the
position of Ottoman Sunnism on the assessment of Umayyid dynasty moderated in
time, Ottoman intellectuals did not develeop a rigid Sunni discourse that justify the
133 Karakaya-Stump, Kizilbash Alevis in Ottoman Anatolia, 258.
134 Kafadar, Between The Worlds, 76.
49
consequences of early Islamic history.135 It was the way of Ottoman Sunnism that
continued to venerate ahl al-Bayt and upheld the ruling right of the sons of Ali over
the Umayyid dynasty’s right.
Terzioğlu points to the second half of the 15th century for the first
Sunnitization era in the Ottoman Empire. During this period, the self confident
imperial learned bureaucracy must have laid the building blocks for such a process.
The centralization efforts of Mehmed II and the political centralism of the conqueror
of Istanbul, who was responsible for protecting his subjects, must have also found its
religious meaning. At the same time, the formation of a state religious discourse that
determines what true belief is cannot be explained by top-down policies alone.
Because during this process, state-independent middling literati and preachers also
contributed to the creation of a new kind of Sunni normativity.136 Rumi scholars,
too, must have contributed to the era of Sunnitization among themselves and
independently of state enforcement. In fact, these Sufis play an important role in the
Sunnitization process, at least as much as the state-affiliated ulema class, even
though they are not assigned by the state. The struggle of the Halveti dervishes at the
end of the 17th century in the Balkans is one of the best examples of this.137 At this
point, it should be reminded that there had not always been a deep conflict between
the Sufis and the ulama, and that they can sometimes unite on the same goal.
However, the effects of the Safavid Ottoman conflict and the Ottomans' opening to
the Middle East should not be ignored. Although, as Terzioğlu and Krstic show us,
the Sunnitization tendency of the Ottoman Empire had showed itself up beyond the
135 Erginbaş, “Reading Ottoman Sunnism through Islamic History: Approaches toward Yazîd b.
Mu’âwiya in Ottoman Historical Writing”, 460, in Krstić & Terzioğlu, Historicizing Sunni Islam in
the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450-c. 1750.
136 Terzioğlu, “How to conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization”, 322, Krstic, Entangled
Confessionalization, 72.
137 For more information, Terzioğlu, “Sunna-minded sufi preachers in service of the Ottoman state:
the nasihatname of Hasan addressed to Murad IV”; Terzioğlu, “Sufis in the age of state building and
confessionalization,” in The Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead.
50
religious and political competition between the Ottoman and Safavid Empires.
Congregational prayers as a religious policy, Sunnitization agencies like imam,
müezzin, namazcı and judge were elements of this tendency.138 In addition, it should
be noted that the messianic expectation, which generally showed its effect in the
Mediterranean at the beginning of the 16th century, was also effective at the
beginning of the Sunnitization era.139
The performance of religious rituals is one of the most important features
of the Sunnitization era. In the 16th and 17th centuries, as described by Terzioğlu,
congregational performance of supererogatory prayers, Friday mosques were
effective instruments.140 This created a class of middling literati and preachers that
produced an Ottoman styled Sunni normativity in many parts of the empire. It would
be appropriate to look for the social origin of the Kadızadeli movement, which left its
mark on the 17th century, here. Kadızadelis occupied the Ottoman agenda for a long
time and created social polarization, especially with the war they waged against some
Sufis and their violence against bid'ats.141 Even though Kadızadelis, who had
complex relations with the state that changed according to the period, lost its
influence as of the end of the 17th century and was left alone by the state, we can see
the Kadızadeli movement especially in various provinces during the 18th century.
This is a sign that the Sunnitization wave that took place in the personality of the
Kadızadelis may have occurred independently of the state.142 The process that started
with the murder of Feyzullah Efendi in 1703, on the other hand, corresponds to a
break for Sunnitization policies. In this process, the visibility of radical religious
138 Terzioğlu, “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization”, 313-315.
139 Fleischer, “A Mediterranean Apocalypse”, 19.
140 Terzioğlu, “‘Bid‘at, Custom and the Mutability”.
141 For more information on Kadızadelis, see Terzioğlu, “Sunna-minded sufi preachers in service of
the Ottoman state”, 241-313; Zilfi, “The Kadızadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century
Istanbul”, 251-269.
142 Terzioğlu, “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization”, 301-338.
51
movements decreases and cultural diversity and intellectual interests increase.143 In
this conformity process, even the move that suggested softening the borders between
Sunnism and Shi'ism from Iran is noteworthy.144
At the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, a new
Sunnitization wave appeared in the Ottoman Empire that would end the existence of
Janissaries and almost Bektaşis. As I have summarized above, this process
corresponds to a period of Sunnism and reform. As Butrus Abu Manneh has stated,
we need to look for the origins of the Tanzimat here.145 The pressures and
prosecutions against Bektaşis during the reign of Mahmud II are the results of the
new state of the Ottoman religious structure. The fact that the orders were tied to the
central authority in this process is one of the signs that the state is trying to control
religious life in this way is a remarkable development. In the following period, there
was a period of relatively tolerance towards Bektaşis and even the functioning of
other orders in the Ottoman Empire. This period corresponds to the reign of
Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz (1839-1875) and the effects of Tanzimat bureaucrats
were too widespread. Bektaşis recovered in this period and accelerated their
publishing activities. Indeed, there was a considerable development in Bektaşi
publications during the reigns of Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz (1839-1875). A number
of works on Bektaşiyye were published, which produced many polemics. Bektaşiyye
also expanded its influence.146 The Bektaşi order could not formally reopened. They
could not get rid of the Nakşibendi sheiks who were appointed to their orders.147 On
the other hand, it is clear that the Bektaşi order enjoyed this relatively freedom era
143 For more information on the deconfessionalization in the early 18th century Ottoman case, Küçük,
Early Enlightenment in Istanbul, Unpublished PhD Thesis.
144 Tucker, “The Peace Negotiations of 1736: A Conceptual Turning Point in Ottoman-Iranian
Relations”, 16-37.
145 Abu-Manneh, “The Islamic Roots of the Gülhane Rescript”, 173-203.
146 Çift, “1826 Sonrasında Bektâşilik ve Bu Alanla İlgili Yayın Faaliyetleri, 249-268.
147 Kılıç, “Yenileşme Döneminde Meşruiyetten Gayrimeşruluğa Bektaşilik: Otorite, İtaat, Mücadele”,
169-184.
52
from some aspects. It does not mean the Ottoman political system only facilitated
activities of the Bektaşi order. Many other orders such as the Mevlevi and
Nakşibandis were supported by the state in this period and continued their activities
by increasing them.148 This situation should be considered as a general policy of the
Tanzimat period.
In the same years, we see an increase in missionary activities. Cultural and
religious diversity increased in the Ottoman lands as a result of the wave of relative
liberation, brought by the Tanzimat and the Islahat Edicts. Here we need to state that
the Tanzimat Edict did not remain only as a written text. It caused widespread
movements within the empire and caused deep shocks in the traditional social
structure.149 These shocks mainly originated from the change in the classic Ottoman
understanding. According to classical social formation of the Ottoman Empire,
Muslims could enjoy the superiority over non-Muslims. Although Tanzimat Edict
was written in the need of equality to prevent the dissolution of the Empire. It means
that Muslims could lose their superiority over the society. Nonewithstanding, the
Tanzimat Edict did not aim to equalize all the religious differences over the
society.150 Muslims had never equalized completely with Muslims. On the other
hand, the Muslim majority of the Ottoman Empire looked suspiciously to this way of
reforms. The missionary schools that were established were also training thousands
of students from the Ottoman Muslim subjects, and the Ottoman cultural and
educational life was getting richer.151 At the same time, the rights granted to
Christians by these edicts were also an important issue, which drew the reaction of
Muslim subjects. Furthermore, Harputlu Ishak Hoca complained harshly about the
148 Varol, “Bektaşiliğin İlgası Sonrasında Osmanlı Devleti’nin Tarikat Politikaları (1826-1866)”
Unpublished PhD Thesis, 190.
149 İnalcık, “Tanzimatın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler”, 646.
150 Engelhardt, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma Hareketleri: Tanzimat, 77.
151 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire: 1856-1876, 204.
53
increase in Bektaşi activities. I mentioned above that the basis of his reaction would
have been the non-Muslim missionary activities. This situation can be read as an
expression of a reaction to the partial freedom and cultural enrichment process
created by the Tanzimat process. This environment of partial freedom during the
reigns of Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz (1839-1875), the increase in the activities of
local and foreign Christians, the increasing foreign interventions in favor of non-
Muslims, must have organized a reaction among Muslims against foreign elements
since the 1870s.152 Considering the previous privileged position of Muslims for
centuries in the Ottoman Empire, the fact that Christians began to play a role in the
administration must have drawn the reaction of Muslims. Along with the Islahat
Edict, there were Christians who were able to enter the administrative system. A
significant part of these names originated from well-established families with a high
level of wealth. The military service was another significant point. The non-Muslims
individuals could be exempt from the military service.153 It would be more correct to
say non-Muslim individuals had options either doing military service as an equal
citizen or paying an amount of money. Muslim individuals had only one option,
doing military service for long years. Therefore, this situation might have gotten
reaction from the Muslim community. Because in the reform policy, some issues
were regulated to equality theoritically but practically it would be in favor of non-
Muslim communities. The increasing influence of the Ottoman non-Muslim
community was under the guarantee of the Ottoman Empire itself by the edicts that
were under the surveillance of the Westerners. It is a plausible option that the
Bektaşis, as a non-Sunni community, had their share as a result of their increasing
activities. It is quite possible that the Bektaşis were made the focal point of
152 Alkan, “The Ottoman Policy of ‘Correction of Belief(s)” in Ottoman Sunnism, 177.
153 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire: 1856-1876, 93.
54
opposition to foreigners and alienating reforms, especially given how demonized
they were by the political authority in the milieu of fifty years ago. Targeting the
Westerners and non-Muslim community would be more dangerous than targeting a
non-Sunni element. This work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca might have been written as a
result of this impulse. Well, was the work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca really the subject
of a wave of Sunnitization? In order to understand this, we need to examine the
events before and after the work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca. The relatively 'liberal'
periods of Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz correspond to the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s.
Abu-Manneh indicates roles of Ali and Fuad Pasha for the liberal atmosphere in this
era.154
In this period, the freedom for convertion to Muslim Ottoman citizens and the
guarantee that conversion would not be punished was an indication of the religious
liberalism of this period. Ottoman Empire could tolerate the conversions.155 This
relative liberalization was manifested not only religiously, but also in many areas of
education and administration.156 It should also be kept in mind that institutions that
provide education in the Western sense were opened and more and more Westerners
are involved in the determination of the curriculum of these institutions.157 The
increasing Western image must have gotten a reaction from the Muslim population.
However, the relative liberalization brought by the Tanzimat era should be
read correctly. This relative liberalization, as well as allowing the existence of orders,
also aims to prevent the orders from getting involved in the state administration.
Tanzimat bureaucrats are very sensitive about this issue. For this reason, the Meclis-i
154 Abu-Manneh, “Between Heterodox and Sunni Orthodox Islam: The Bektaşi Order in the
Nineteenth Century and Its Opponents”, 216.
155 Ortaylı, “Tanzimat Döneminde Tanassur ve Din Değiştirme Olayları”, 314.
156 For more information, Somel, The Modernization of Public Education.
157 Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey, 236.
55
Meşayih was established in order to bring the orders under state control.158
Therefore, a situation arose where the central government opened up space for the
religious orders but directly supervised them.
In 1871, that is, in the last years of Abdülaziz's reign, we come across the
discourse and policies of correction of creed. Berkes talks about the years 1871-
1876, when the Islamist movement took a sharp form, the radical reforms carried out
for Westernization for fifty years stopped, and the Islamic discourse became
widespread.159 Davison asserts that during the chaos that started with the death of Ali
Pasha in 1871; secularization, taking the Ottomanism as a basis and therefore the
general modernization policies were interrupted.160 In any circumstance, the
beginning of 1870s must have brought a conservatism wave to the Ottoman Empire
by various scholars. It is the point that reinforces my argument about the
Sunnitization wave that Ottoman Empire experienced at the beginning of 1870s. The
anti-Tanzimat reaction, which showed its effect socially in this period, must have
taken on a conservative character and established itself in the religious, social and
political arena. It is important to evaluate the work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca in this
context. It is an interesting fact that the reaction against this relatively liberalization
period did not thoroghly direct to the non-Muslim subjects or Westerns. Instead of
directing this reaction to the non-Muslim groups Westerns, coming over non-Sunni
groups would be a more preferable attitude. Therefore, this can be summarized by
the power balances of the era. Bektaşis were kept in the minds of public opinion in
the 19th century as a useful subject to accuse scapegoat. Especially after the 1826
158 Varol, “Bektaşiliğin İlgası Sonrasında Osmanlı Devleti’nin Tarikat Politikaları (1826-1866)”
Unpublished PhD Thesis, 441.
159 Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey , 309.
160 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876, 26.
56
abolition, accusing of Bektaşis must have been so much easy. As a non-Sunni
subject, Bektaşis provided a target for them. This target is theirselves.
In an article in the newspaper titled Hakayik-i Vekayi, it is mentioned that
there were soldiers belonging to various Islamic madhabs in the Ottoman Empire
Army, which were not within the circle of Sunnism, and that the beliefs of these
soldiers had to be corrected by the officials. Among these 'wrong' madhabs are the
Kızılbaş, Zaydis, Nusayris, Yezidis, Druze and Wahhabis. It is recommended to
prevent their diffusion and to send the assigned dais to various parts of the Empire by
training. 161 The fact that the Ottoman Empire followed a religious standardization
policy within the army and accepted Sunni Islam as the only valid Islamic form, it is
an issue that needs to be emphasized. Religious uniformity might be instrumentalised
as a tool in the hands of the ruling class to impose some sort of behavior standards on
the population. In the reign of Abdülhamid II, the Islamic identity became the
ideological basis of the empire’s policy.162 In fact, this disposition started in 1872, a
few years before Abdülhamid II's accession to the throne. Abdülhamid II's pan-
Islamism was the child of this disposition rather than the creation of a strong
monarchy.163 However, this situation also served to strengthen the monarchy and
paved the way for the strong application of the central authority.164 This happened as
a result of the liquidation of liberal bureaucrats and claimed that the Muslim
population was based on traditional loyalty and faith.165
Another Ottoman writer and soldier named Mehmed Arif states in his
memoirs that a quarter of the Ottoman soldiers belonged to other Islamic madhabs
161 Hakayık el-Vekayi, No. 416, 6 Ramazan 1288/18 November 1871, 2–3 in Alkan, “The Ottoman
Policy of ‘Correction of Belief(s)” in Ottoman Sunnism, 178.
162 Duguid, “The Politics of Unity: Hamidian Policy in Eastern Anatolia”, 139-155.
163 Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey, 269.
164 Landau, The Politics of Pan-Islam, 9–79; Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 155-183.
165 Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 165.
57
and that this situation should be urgently corrected. The author attributes the loss of
the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War to the lack of religious unity among the soldiers.
The author describes Bektaşis as close to paganism.166 In terms of discourse, the
author’s work resembles the treaties that were written at the beginning of the 19th
century. In this book, the author strictly underlined the disheveled structure of the
Ottoman Army and Muslim Ottoman society diminish to get the will of Allah.
Protestant missionary activities attracted the attention of the Muslim public
during the reign of Abdülhamid II. Abdülhamid II stated that these activities were
very harmful for the Ottoman Empire in the 1880s and 90s, when missionary
activities increased.167 There were fears that many regions might convert to
Christianity as result of their missionary activities. It was a common practice for
Abdülhamid II to send clergy to various parts of the country.168 Especially when it
comes to various Islamic madhabs outside the circle of Sunni Islam, the Ottoman
political authority did not hesitate to make counter moves. The politicization of
Sunni Islam as an imperial ideology focuses on this area. It is known that the
Ottoman Empire revoked the Protestant schools in the Nusayri regions in the 1880s
and 90s. Missionary activities were prevented, the Nusayris were tried to be
converted to Sunni Islam, the Ottoman authorities of the period identified Nusayris
as ignorant and needed to be educated, and they developed a political reflex in this
direction.169 In order to achieve this goal, the Ottoman political authorities both gave
importance to counter-educational activities and made direct meetings with the tribal
166 Mehmed Arif, Başımıza Gelenler, 394.
167 Salt, "A Precarious Symbiosis: Ottoman Christians and the Foreign Missionaries in the Nineteenth
Century”, 56.
168 Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, 75-91.
169 Alkan, “The Ottoman Policy of ‘Correction of Belief(s)” in Ottoman Sunnism, 183; Kramer, Arab
Awakening, 191; Deringil, ‘The Invention of Tradition’, 14.
58
leaders.170 Therefore, throughout the 1880s and 90s, the official Sunni Hanefi
madhhab was imposed on groups marginalized by the central authority in the empire
such as Yezidis, Nusayris, Shi'is and Kızılbaş. We can say that these efforts of the
Ottoman authorities were sometimes met. To a certain extent, these "marginal"
elements surrendered to this imposition, and some local Nusayri leaders contacted
the central authority to convert to the Hanafism.171 We know that in the 1890s, the
Ottoman Empire made similar religious imposition efforts against the Shiite elements
in Iraq. It is appropriate to think that especially Iran's propaganda activity against the
Shiite elements in the region has accelerated this situation. Süleyman Pasha, one of
the Ottoman officers who served in the region in those years, and Mehmet Rıfat
Menemenlizade, the treasurer of Baghdad, were very careful against the Shiite
propagandists in the region. He states that Süleyman Pasha saw religious
unorthodoxy as a big problem and that a religious imposition should be entered in a
Sunni Hanefi roof through primary and secondary education. Through this education,
the love of religion, homeland and nationality will be instilled, and Muslims will be a
society free from differences under the Caliph.172 These cases can be regarded as a
continuation of the new Sunnitization wave that began in the beginnings of 1870
which corresponded to the publication of Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid fî Def’i’l Mefâsid.
As a result, increasing missionary activities and expansions in minority
rights in the period following the Tanzimat Edict, the Western influence being felt
more and more in all areas. The formation of a colorful cultural sphere with the
missionary schools, rising Bektaşi activities and publications would have drawn
attention of some circles. It is very plausible to think that these policies created a
170 Somel, The Modernization of Public Education.
171 Deringil, The Invention of Tradition, 12-29.
172 Deringil, “The Struggle against Shiism in Hamidian Iraq: A Study in Ottoman Counter-
Propaganda”, 53.
59
Sunnitization wave like the one at the beginning of the 19th century. Interestingly, in
the first Sunnitization process at the beginning of the 19th century coincided with the
Greek Revolt in 1821. The hostility and fear against a non-Muslim community must
have helped to organize a Sunnism wave against a non-Sunni subject, Janissaries
corps that sympathized to the Bektaşi order. At this time, reaction against the rising
Western influence and missionary activities would have organized a new destructive
wave against the Bektaşi order that becoming visible. This Sunnism wave showed
itself towards Bektaşis in the work of Harputlu Ishak Hoca. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's
work, Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid, is a product of Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's reflex to protect the
Bektaşi order against the coming new wave of Sunnitization and to prove to the
public that Bektaşiyye is on a Sunni line. Undoubtedly, the memory of events that
took place fifty years ago had a great influence on the formation of this reflex.
Whether it was Ahmet Rıfat Efendi himself or the circles that encouraged Ahmet
Rıfat Efendi to write this work, the effort to describe the Bektaşi order in a Sunni
way must have seemed the only way out. The fact that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi carries
Bektaşiyye to a completely different dimension and shows it in harmony with Sunni
and other orders in this work is an indication of his desire to fully adapt to the
system. As a matter of fact, the political process including the writing history of this
work, namely the 1870s, 80s and 90s, has been a process that imposed Sunni Hanafi
Islam on non-Sunni belief groups throughout the empire.173 It is also an other fact
that Bektaşi publications stopped during in 1870s.174 This Sunnitization wave found
its expression in the reign of Abdülhamid II and Bektaşis were oppressed in this era.
According to Abdülhamid II's regime, Bektaşiyye is seen in the form of masses
living in brutality, ignorance and perversion. Bektaşiyye is described as idolatry and
173 Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, 75-91.
174 Çift, “1826 Sonrasında Bektâşilik ve Bu Alanla İlgili Yayın Faaliyetleri”, 249-268; Abu-Manneh,
“Between Heterodox and Sunni Orthodox Islam”, 203-218.
60
a harmful creed. They were trying to be drawn into Hanafism, which is the official
ideology. For the “education” of Bektaşis, building of mosques, madrasahs and
schools were advised.175 This situation shows us that the central authority and low
ranking conservative Ottoman officials had a harmony in terms of insulting the non-
Sunni Muslim religious groups and they had common ideas on the education of these
masses. Under these conditions, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi probably wrote this work to
save Bektaşi order from a new 1826 destruction. It is also interesting that there is no
mention of the prohibition of the Bektaşi order in the work, although only fifty years
have passed since 1826. It is clear that the author must have not wanted to remind of
previous negative memories of Bektaşis to the audience. It can be recognized that the
same attitude is valid for the cem rituals and the participation of women in these
rituals. It is hard to imagine that the author had tried to deliberately mislead his
audience. However, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi may have tried to show the efforts of
Sunnitization reached its goals. In this way, the main readership would be imagined
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi might be the one who indoctrinated the Sunnitization policy to
the public. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi may have responded to this readership by his work,
Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid, for the ruling class’ policy implemented by some of the Bektaşis.
Otherwise, the possibility of repetition of 1826 must have been a strong memory in
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi’s mind. The dreadfulness of the 1826 abolition process may have
obligated Ahmet Rıfat Efendi to depict such a Sunni-oriented Bektaşiyye.
The main goal of the author is to resist a possible calamity. For this reason,
the author claims that the Bektaşi order was later corrupted, that it was essentially a
Sunni order, and that he would reveal the original of the order with this work. In
addition, the effort to establish a similarity between the Halidi Nakşibendis and the
175 Akpınar, “II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Devlet Zihniyetinin Alevi Algısı”, in Kızılbaşlık Alevilik
Bektaşilik Tarih-Kimlik-İnanç-Ritüel ed. Çakmak and Gürtaş, 215.
61
Bektaşis in the work is quite interesting. Both the similarity of the items used by both
orders, their similarities in lineage, and the fact that these two orders are generally
tried to be mentioned together in the work can be explained by the author's seeing the
Halidi Nakşibandis as a shelter. At the same time, it is necessary to think about the
connection of Harputlu Ishak Hoca with the Nakşibendi order. Ahmet Rıfat Efendi,
who tried to respond to Harputlu Ishak Hoca, who perhaps exhibited the biggest
criticism of Bektaşiyye, may have aimed to fend off the criticisms from the
Nakşibendiyye in this way. Therefore, we can state that the Nakşibendis played an
important role in the new Sunnitization wave that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi tried to face,
and that the Nakşibendi sheiks appointed to the Bektaşi lodges had an impact on the
Bektaşis. For instance, Erkânname of Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba contains Sunni
elements like praying namaz five times in a day and fasting oruç in Ramadan.176 His
guide and master, Mehmet Sait Efendi was a Halidi Nakşibendi sheikh formerly but
he converted to Bektaşiyye when he had appointed to Bektaşi lodge. In that respect,
his caliph Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba decided to make a differentiation on the
traditional Erkânname of Balım Sultan and he embedded Sunni creedal rituals into
the Bektaşiyye. The publication of this work was at the beginning of the 20th century
but Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba ordered writing of this work in 1876. Therefore, it
can be concluded that 1870s were the scene of a reorganization process of the
Bektaşi order. This reorganization process depended on reframing the Bektaşi order
in terms of a Sunni framework. The reason of this policy must have stood up to the
possible destructive effecst of the new confessionalization wave in the 1870s.
Therefore, possibility of a Sunni Bektaşiyye in the 19th century indicates the defence
176 Erdem, “Muhammet Ali Hilmi Dedebaba Erkân-namesi”, 248-255.
62
mechanism for Bektaşis who strived to survive against the possibility of a new 1826
calamity.
3.4 Effects of the Mirâtü’l-Mekâsid
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi died shortly after his work was published. Therefore, he could
neither contribute to the polemics about his work nor have an idea about the
prevalence of his work. The first criticism of this work of Ahmet Rıfat Efendi was
put forward by Ahmet Rıfkı. In addition, this criticism is not very wide-ranging and
is about whether the lineage of Hacı Bektaş continues.177 Therefore, he did not
criticize the theological dimension of Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's work. Besim Atalay was
the first to criticize Ahmet Rıfat Efendi for glorifying Bektaşiyye. He stated that “I
have been very careful to be impartial in my writings. Neither did I rant against
Bektaşis like the owner of Kâşifü'l-Esrâr ve Dâfiü'l Esrâr, nor did I take to the skies
like Miratü'l-Mekâsid fi Def'i'l Mefâsid"178 and he claimed that Bektaşis were
depicted differently than in Ahmet Rıfat Efendi’s work. As for the prevalence of the
work, John Kinsley Birge gave a list of works introducing the Bektaşi order to
Tiranlı Sülo Bey, whom he met personally during his research, the first work in this
list was Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid. This shows us that the work has become very popular in a
short time and polemics have been produced about it. Therefore, by publishing this
work, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi enabled the discussion of the creedal dimension of
Bektaşism and served as an ideological shield on the Bektaşi creed. This shows that
unlike the process going back to 1826, when Bektaşis were slammed in the
intellectual public opinion, Bektaşis developed defenses to protect themselves. The
177 Ahmed Rıfkı, Bektaşi Sırrı, 16.
178 “Yazılarımda bî-taraf olmaya çok dikkat ettim. Ne Bektaşilerin aleyhinde Kâşifü’l-Esrâr ve Dâfiü’l
Eşrâr sahibi gibi atıp tuttum, ne de Mirâtü’l mekâsid fî def’i’l mefâsid gibi göklere çıkardım.”
Atalay, Bektaşilik ve Edebiyatı, 3.
63
necessity of this defense is to adopt the discourse of the developing Sunnitization
wave and to portray Bektaşiyye in a way that is compatible with this Sunnitization
process, albeit formally. On the other hand, it should be strongly indicated that the
Ottoman Empire’s desires on Bektaşis in terms of performing the religion could not
reach its goal.179 Therefore, there was no adequate prof that Bektaşis experienced a
religious transformation in this process. These Bektaşi authors’ claims should be
understood as a kind of endevour to show Bektaşis as an acceptable order against the
public opinion. By this way, they also gave message to the ruling class that enforced
Sunnitization to the society. The content of message can be understood as Bektaşis
adopted to the Sunnitization policies and they signed this situation by writing books
that proposed a Sunnified Bektaşiyye. On the other hand, there is no sign that
millions of Bektaşi in a vast geography experienced a transformation in terms of their
creedal attitudes. These Bektaşi authors generated polemics to some extent and they
aimed to defend Bektaşiyye against new tragedies. Because the memory of the 1826
abolition was not so old.
179 Maden, Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin Yasaklı Yılları, 195.
64
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
Bektaşis have left their mark on the history and geography of the Ottoman Empire
for centuries. In terms of their ability to reach large masses, the relations they
established with the Ottoman administrative and military bureaucracy, and the social
base they represented, Bektaşiyye was able to make its presence felt both during the
establishment and collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Not only Bektaşis influence the
Ottoman Empire and its institutions, but the political conditions of the Ottoman
Empire also affected Bektaşiyye closely. Even today, Hacı Bektaş Veli is at the level
of a great saint, to whom millions of people have attached with love in wide
geography, and the Alevi-Bektaşi community constitutes the most populous religious
element in Turkey after Sunnism. Therefore, social, political, and historical analyzes
related to Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Balkan geography cannot be made by
excluding Bektaşiyye. Although a considerable level of research on Bektaşiyye has
reached in the last hundred years, there are still many points that remain in the dark
and need to be clarified. As these points illuminated, our ability to understand this
geography and history will increase.
In this thesis I focused on the creed of Bektaşiyye after it was closed in the
19th century. The increasing publication activities on Bektaşiyye, especially in the
19th century, provided a significant opportunity for Bektaşis to express themselves.
Although there is a dominant view in the general public that the Bektaşis are an
antinomian order, a remarkable part of these publications have been quite different
from the generally conceived Bektaşi understanding. The main primary source of this
thesis, the work titled Mirâtü'l-Mekâsid fi Def'i'l Mefâsid, and the following works of
65
Ahmet Rıfkı Efendi's Bektaşi Sırrı and Mehmet Ali Hilmi Dedebaba's Kâşifü'l-
Esrâr’a Reddiye drew a quite Sunni narrative in Bektaşiyye. According to these
works, Bektaşiyye was at first a Sunni and nomian order, later non-Islamic elements
were included in it. Analyzing this approach, which can be called a defense
mechanism, is the main point of my thesis.
In the second chapter, I mainly discussed the appointment of Nakşibendi
sheikhs to Bektaşi lodges. I summarized where the Nakşibendi sheikhs were
appointed and what their duties were. In the next section, I argued that the Bektaşis
were able to gradually overcome the conditions they were in in the 19th century, not
only recovered but also spread to the elite classes, and in this way, they became an
important and rich power center again.
In Chapter III, I studied on Harputlu Ishak Hoca, who emerged as a
reaction to the increasing Bektaşiyye activities, and his work Kâşifü'l-Esrâr ve
Dâfiü'l Eşrâr. In particular, I examined the impact of the missionary activities on
Harputlu Ishak Hoca on the development of his ideas. I focused on the harsh
criticism of Harputlu Ishak Hoca against the Bektaşis. Even though Harputlu Ishak
Hoca had not cited sources of his assertations, I stated that these criticisms helped to
indicate the world of thought of that period.
In the next section, I analyzed the text of Ahmet Rıfat Efendi's Mirâtü'l-
Mekâsid fi Def'i'l Mefâsid, which was written a few years after the publication of
Harputlu Ishak Hoca's work. I noted how much of a Sunni and sharia-abiding
Bektaşiyye Ahmet Rıfat Efendi portrayed. I expressed how Bektaşiyye and
Nakşibandiyya are tried to be brought together in this work, the correlation that
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi tried to establish between these two orders, the common order
items and the silsila. I have tried to summarize what this effort means. Ahmet Rıfat
66
Efendi's views on theological issues; I examined the relationship between Hurufism
and Bektaşiyye, and how the basic worships and Islamic prohibitions were
approached according to Ahmet Rıfat Efendi in Bektaşiyye. By the way, I stated that
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi did not deal with controversial issues such as the cem ritual and
the prohibition of Bektaşiyye fifty years ago, and he interpreted some items and
traditions in the order in a different way. Then, I consulted historical data to test how
similar the Bektaşiyye that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi described was to the actual
Bektaşiyye. I saw that the Bektaşiyye described by Ahmet Rıfat Efendi and the
Bektaşiyye that had actually experienced did not match, at least for the most part,
and that Ahmet Rıfat Efendi made taqiya and distorted some historical data.
In the next section, I explained why Ahmet Rıfat Efendi followed such a
path, and under what concerns he described this form of Bektaşiyye. Beginning in
the 1870s, I found that a new wave of Sunnitization flourished in Ottoman
geography. I argued that the atmosphere of relative freedom in the reigns of
Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz increased both Bektaşi activities and foreign influence,
cultural diversity emerged, a kind of conformity environment was created, and a new
wave of Sunnitization emerged as a reaction to this situation. Just as the process
leading up to 1826 led to a Sunnitization wave and had devastating consequences for
Bektaşis, I stated that Bektaşis faced a similar situation in the 1870s. I correlated the
reaction created by the Muslim public opinion of the Greek Revolt before 1826 and
the reaction created by the missionary activities. I found that these two effects
triggered or at least strengthened the wave of Sunnitization. As a result of the
Sunnitization process that started in the 1870s, I cited the decrease in Bektaşi
broadcasting activities. Also, I asserted the indoctrination of the state religion to non-
Sunni groups, and the emergence of a wave of religious stereotyping, especially in
67
the army. The point of view of Abdülhamid II’s regime to the Bektaşis and the
policies implemented on Bektaşis are the other important points. I stated that some
Bektaşi writers, led by Ahmet Rıfat Efendi, tried to integrate Bektaşiyye into the new
religious discourse by appearing to accept the standardization to withstand this wave
and save Bektaşiyye from a new 1826 calamity. The concept of Sunnitization, which
the Ottoman Empire faced twice in the 19th century, is an ebbed and flowed concept.
In this period, the concept of Sunnitization, which can be considered together with
Ottoman modernization, was a process that could be triggered by domestic and
foreign influences, and the reaction was usually shown to the nearest non-Sunni or
alleged groups. The interlocutors who had resolved this situation found various ways
to survive. By doing this, the polemic about Bektaşiyye was produced. With these
polemics, the public was prevented from taking a stand against the Bektaşis.
In this study, I tried to show how the Bektaşi order struggled with the wave
of Sunnitization that emerged in the second part of the 19th century. I believe that
this study will contribute to the 19th century section of Bektaşi literature. The
dimensions of social transformation went hand in hand with religious dynamics and
the belief systems were being shaped in terms of this dialectical relationship.
Especially, understanding the dynamic nature of Ottoman Sunnism and its
dimensions would be helpful to imagine how religion was perceived in the historical
process.
In this present thesis, I tried to reveal the condition of surviving as a
religious group at the second half of the 19th century, the dawn of nation building
process and the last Sunnitization wave in the history of Ottoman Empire. The
implementation of Sunnitization wave in the second half of the 19th century and
response of a Bektaşi intellectual, Ahmet Rıfat Efendi are the focus of this thesis.
68
Defining the historical paths of the Alevi-Bektaşi identity, which is being reshaped
today, will help us to understand the transformations of this identity have gone
through and will experience.
69
REFERENCES
Abu-Manneh. (2017). Between Heterodox and Sunni Orthodox Islam: The Bektaşi
Order in the Nineteenth Century and Its Opponents, Turkish Historical
Review, 8(2), 203-218.
Abu-Manneh, Butrus. (2001). Studies on Islam and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th
Century (1826-1876). İstanbul: The Isis Press.
Abu-Manneh, Butrus. (1994). The Islamic Roots of the Gülhane Rescript. Die Welt
des Islams. New Series, 34(2). 173-203.
Abu-Manneh, Butrus. (1982). The Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ottoman
Lands in the Early 19th Century, Die Welt des Islams, New Series, 22(1/4), 1-
36.
Ahmet Cevdet Paşa. (2018). Tarih-i Cevdet. transcribed. Abdülkadir Özcan, Şevki
Nezihi Aykut, Mehmet İpşirli. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Ahmet Lütfi (1912). Tarih-i Lütfi. İstanbul: Sabah Matbaası
Ahmed Rıfkı, (2017). Bektaşi Sırrı transcribed. Dursun Gümüşoğlu. İstanbul: Post
Ahmet Rıfat Efendi. (2007). Gerçek Bektaşilik: Miratü’l Mekasid fi def’i’l Mefasid.
transcribed by Salih Çift, İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık.
Akpınar, Alişan. (2015). II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Devlet Zihniyetinin Alevi Algısı,
Kızılbaşlık, Alevilik, Bektaşilik (Tarih-Kimlik-İnanç-Ritüel), ed. Yalçın
Çakmak and İmran Gürtaş, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 215-225.
Aksu, Hüsamettin. (1996). Firişteoğlu Abdülmecid. TDV İslam Araştırmaları
Merkezi.
Alıcı, Mustafa. (2010). Osmanlı Son Döneminde Müslüman-Hıristiyan
Tartışmalarına Dair Bir Karşılaştırma: Şemsü’l-Hakîka ve Râfi’u’ş-Şübühât
y’ani, Cevâb-i Risâle-i Şemsü’l-Hakîkat, İnanç, Kültür ve Mitoloji
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(3).
Alkan, Necati. (2019). The Ottoman Policy of ‘Correction of Belief(s) In Vefa
Erginbaş (eds) Ottoman Sunnism: New Perspectives Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 166-192.
Aslan, Murat. (2021). Hurûfî-Bektâşî Şair Arşî’nin Şiirlerinde Hz. Ali Algısı. Asya
Studies: Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar, 5(15), 33-45.
Aşıkpaşazade. (2003). Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, editing. Hayati Develi. İstanbul: K
Kitaplığı.
Atalay, Besim. (1991). Bektaşilik ve Edebiyatı transcribed. Vedat Atila. İstanbul: Ant
Yayınları.
70
Ayar, Mesut. (1998). Yeniçeri Ocağının Kaldırılmasından Sonra Bektaşi Tarikatı,
Unpublished MA Thesis. İstanbul, Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat
Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
Babinger, Franz. (1982). Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri translated by Coşkun
Üçok. Ankara : Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
Baha Said Bey. (2006). Türkiye'de Alevî-Bektaşî, Ahi ve Nusayrî Zümreleri
transcribed by İsmail Görkem. Istanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları.
Barnes, John Robert. (1987). Introduction To Religious Foundations in the Ottoman
Empire, Leiden: Brill.
Berkes, Niyazi. (1964). The Development of Secularism in Turkey, Montreal : McGill
University Press.
Beyhan, Mehmet Ali. (2008). Rifat Efendi, Topal, TDV İslam Araştırmaları
Ansiklopedisi, 35, 104.
Birge, John Kinsley. (1994). The Bektaşi Order of Dervishes. London: Luzac
Oriental.
Çift, Salih. (2003). 1826 Sonrasında Bektaşilik ve Bu Alanla İlgili Yayın Faaliyetleri,
Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 249-268.
Çift, Salih. (2006). Modern Anlamda İlk “Bektaşilik Kitabı” Olarak Mir’atü’l-
Mekasıd ve Kaynakları, Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi,
15(1). 187-212.
Daftary, Farhad. (2014). A History of Shi’a Islam. The Institute of Ismaili Studies,
Shiʿi Heritage Series, London: I.B. Tauris.
Davison, Roderic. (2016). Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
De Nicola, Bruno& Peacock, A.C.S. and Yildiz, Sara Nur. (2020). Islam and
Christianity in Medieval Anatolia. London: Routledge.
Demirpolat, Enver. (2003). Harputlu İshak Hoca’nın Hayatı ve Eserleri, Selçuk
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi.
Deringil, Selim. (1993) The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late
Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908. Comparative Studies in Society and History,
35(1), 3-29.
Deringil, Selim. (1990). The Struggle against Shiism in Hamidian Iraq: A Study in
Ottoman Counter-Propaganda, Die Welt des Islams, New Series, 30(1/4), 45-
62
Deringil, Selim. (1998). The Well-protected Domains :Ideology and the Legitimation
of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909. London ; New York : I.B.
Tauris.
71
Dihkanîzade Ubeydullah Kuşmani. (1990). Zebîre-i Kuşmânî fî Ta‘rîfi Nizâmı
İlhâmî transcribed. Ömer İşbilir, Unpublished MA Thesis, İÜ Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü.
Dressler, Markus. (2013). Writing Religion: The Making of Turkish Alevi Islam,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duguid, Stephen. (1973). “The Politics of Unity: Hamidian Policy in Eastern
Anatolia” Middle Eastern Studies, 9(2), 139-155.
Duran, Hamidiye. (2014). Velayetname,- Hacı Bektaş Veli. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı.
Elvan Çelebi. (1984). Menâkıbu'l-kudsiyye fı menâsıbi'l-ünsiyye : Baba İlyas-ı
Horasânı ve Sülâlesinin Menkabevı Tarihi editing. İsmail E. Erünsal, A.
Yaşar Ocak. İstanbul : İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi.
Engelhardt, Edouard-Philippe, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma Hareketleri translated,
Örgen Uğurlu, İstanbul: Örgün Yayınevi
Erdem, Cem. (2011). Muhammet Ali Hilmi Dedebaba Erkân-Nâmesi. Türk Kültürü
ve Hacı Bektaş Velî Araştırma Dergisi, 57.
Es’ad Efendi. (2005) Üss-i Zafer: Yeniçeriliğin Kaldırılmasına Dair transcribed,
Mehmet Arslan. İstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî. (2008). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi ed.
Robert Dankoff, Kahraman Dağlı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. (2003). Anadolu’da Bektaşilik. translated by Nasuh Barın, İstanbul:
Simurg Yayınevi.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. (1995). The Bektaşis: An Historical Survey in Bektachiyya, Études
sur l'ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektash,
edited by Alexandre Popovic and Gilles Veinstein, Istanbul: The Isis
Publications.
Fleischer, Cornell. (2018). A Mediterranean Apocalypse: Prophecies of Empire in
the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient, 61, 18-90.
Fleischer, Cornell. (1986). Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The
Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gölpınarlı, Abdülbaki. (1969). 100 Soruda Tasavvuf. İstanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi.
Gölpınarlı, Abdülbaki. (1963). Alevi Bektaşi Nefesleri, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Gündüz, İrfan. (1997). Yeniçeri Ocağı'nın İlgası'ndan Sonra Meydana Gelen Bazı
Tasavvufî Gelişmeler, İLAM Araştırma Dergisi, 2(1), 7-22.
Hasluck, Frederick William. (1928). Bektaşilik Tetkikleri. translated by Ragıp
Hulusi, İstanbul: Anadolu'nun Dini Tarih ve Etnografyasına.
72
Hasluck, Frederic William. (2000). Christianity and Islam Under the Sultans, 1-2,
Istanbul: Isis Press.
Işın, Ekrem. (2010) Bektaşilik. in İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul : NTV Yayınları,
137.
İnalcık, Halil. (1964). Tanzimat’ın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler, Belleten, 112,
623-690
Schmidt, Jan. (1992). Pure Water for Thirsty Muslims. A Study of Muṣṭafa ʿĀlī of
Gallipoli’s Künhü’l-Aḫbār, Leiden: Het Oosters Instituut.
Kafadar, Cemal. (1996). Between Two Worlds The Construction of the Ottoman
State. Berkeley: California University Press.
Kafesçi, Zübeyde. (2019) İshak Efendi’nin Kâşifü’l Esrâr ve Dâfiu’l Esrâr Adlı
Eserinin İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Unpublished
MA Thesis. Çorum: Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Temel İslam
Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı.
Kara, Mustafa. (2000). Harputlu İshak Efendi. TDV İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 22,
531-532.
Karabulut, Özkan. (2017) The Rehabilitation of the Bektaşi Order (1826-1876)
Unpublished MA Thesis, Sabancı University.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. (2007). Irak’taki Bektaşi Tekkeleri, TTK: Belleten, 71(261),
689-720.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. (2008). Subjects of the Sultan, disciples of the Shah:
Formation and transformation of the Kizilbash /Alevi communities in
Ottoman Anatolia, Harvard University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. (2019). The Kizilbash-Alevis in Ottoman Anatolia, Sufism
Politics and Community. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. (2013) The Wafā‘iyya, the Bektaşiyye and Genealogies of
‘Heterodox’ Islam in Anatolia: Rethinking the Köprülü Paradigm, Turcica
(44), 279-300.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. (2016). Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık: Alevi Kaynaklarını,
Tarihini ve Tarihyazımını Yeniden Düşünmek. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
Karamustafa, Ahmet (2006). God's Unruly Friends : Dervish Groups in the Islamic
Later Middle Period, 1200-1550. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Karamustafa, Ahmet (1993). Kalenders, Abdals, Hayderis: The Formation of the
Bektaşiye in the Sixteenth Century in Süleyman the Second and His Time, ed.
İnalcık and Kafadar, İstanbul: Isis Press, 121-129.
73
Karataş, Hasan. (2018). Tasavvuf Tarihçiliğinin Yirminci Yüzyılda Zuhûr ve
Neşvünümâsı: Tarihyazımında Bir Eşzamanlılık Vakası yahut Bir
Dönemlendirme Denemesi, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 16(31-
32), 9-46.
Karpat, Kemal. (2002). The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State,
Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kılıç, Orhan. (2007). Kendi Yazdıkları Işığında Amerikan Misyonerlerin Harput’taki
Faaliyetleri. İslami Araştırmalar Dergisi, 20(4).
Kılıç, Rüya. (2005) Yenileşme Döneminde Meşruiyetten Gayrimeşruluğa Bektaşilik:
Otorite, İtaat, Mücadele, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları 2,
169-186.
Koç, M. (2021). Bektaşî babaları ve Diğer Tekkelerde Bektaşîleşmeye Dair
Revnakoğlu Dosyalarından Tespitler. TUDED, 61(1), 379–409.
Köprülü, Fuat. (1966). Türk Edebiyatı'nda İlk Mutasavvıflar. Ankara : Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basımevi.
Kramer, Martin. (1996). Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival : The Politics of Ideas
in the Middle East, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Krstić, Tijana. (2022). Can We Speak of 'Confessionalization' beyond the
Reformation? - Ottoman Politics of Piety and Empire-Building in an Early
Modern Eurasian Perspective, In Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu
(eds), Entangled Confessionalizations? Dialogic Perspectives onthe Politics
of Piety and Community-Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th-18th
Centuries. Gorgias Press.
Krstić T. & Terzioğlu, D. (2020). Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire,
c. 1450-c. 1750. Leiden: Brill
Küçük, Bekir Harun. (2012). Early Enlightenment in Istanbul, Unpublished PhD
Thesis. San Diego: University of California.
Lamiî Çelebi. (1995). Nefehâtü’l-üns: Evliyâ Menkıbeleri, ed. Süleyman Uludağ and
Mustafa Kara. İstanbul: Pinhan Yayınları.
Landau, Jacob. (1990). The Politics of Pan-Islam (Ideology and Organization),
Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
Le Gall, Dina. (2005). A Culture of Sufism : Naqshbandīs in the Ottoman world,
1450-1700. Albany: State University of New York Press.
MacFarlane, Charles. (1850). Turkey And Its Destiny: The Result Of Journeys Made
In 1847 And 1848 To Examine Into The State Of That Country. Oxford: Nabu
Press.
74
Maden, Fahri. (2013). Bektaşi Tekkelerinin Kapatılması (1826) ve Bektaşiliğin
Yasaklı Yılları. Ankara: TTK.
Mehmet Arif. (2016). 93 Osmanlı-Rus Harbi: Başımıza Gelenler. ed. Yahya Kemal
Taştan. Ankara : Akçağ Yayınları
Mehmed Süreyya. (1996). Sicill-i Osmani. transcribed, Seyid Ali Kahraman.
İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı ile Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.
Melikoff, Irene. (2010). Hacı Bektaş Efsaneden Gerçeğe, İstanbul: Cumhuriyet.
Melikoff, Irene. (1993). Uyur İdik Uyardılar: Alevilik ve Bektaşilik Araştırmaları.
İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1993.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. (2015). Alevi ve Bektaşi İnançlarının İslam Öncesi Temelleri.
İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. (1992). Bektaşilik. TDVIA, 5. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları: 373-
379.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. (1994). Bektaşilik Bir Tarikattır Ama Alevilik Bir Tarikat
Değildir, Türk Yurdu, 88.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. (2014) Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler: 15-17.
Yüzyıl, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. (2016). Türk Sufiliğine Bakışlar, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Ortaylı, İlber. (1994). Tanzimat Döneminde Tanassur ve Din Değiştirme Olayları In
Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 481-487.
Ortaylı, İlber. (1995). Tarikatlar ve Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Yönetimi, OTAM
Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi,
6(6) , 281-287.
Öztürk, Yaşar Nuri. (1982). Kuşadalı İbrahim Halvetî, Hayatı, Düşünceleri,
Mektupları, İstanbul: Yeni Boyut.
Salt, Jeremy. (1986). A Precarious Symbiosis: Ottoman Christians and the Foreign
Missionaries in the Nineteenth Century, In International Journal of Turkish
Studies, 3, 53-67.
Popovic, A. & Veinstein, G. (1995). Bektachiyya: Etudes sur l’ordre mystique des
Bektascis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach, Istanbul: Les Editions
Isis.
Schmidt, J. (1992). Pure Water for Thirsty Muslims. A Study of Mustafa ʿĀlī of
Gallipoli’s Künhü’l-Ahbâr, Leiden: Het Oosters Instituut.
Soileau, Mark. (2014). Conforming Haji Bektash: A Saint and His Disciples
Between Orthopraxy and Heteropraxy, Welt Des Islam, 454, 423-459.
75
Somel, Selçuk Akşin. (2001). The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman
Empire, 1839-1908 : Islamization, Autocracy, and Discipline. Leiden;
Boston: Brill.
Soyyer, Yılmaz. (2000). 19. Yüzyılda Bektaşilik. İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi.
Soyyer, Yılmaz. (1996). Sosyolojik Açıdan Alevi Bektaşi Geleneği. İstanbul: Seyran
Kitabevi
Sunguroğlu, İshak. (2013). Harput Yollarında. İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları.
Şirvanlı Fatih Efendi. (2001) Gülzar-ı Fütuhat. transcribed. Mehmet Ali Beyhan.
İstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları.
Terzioğlu, Derin. (2021). Bid‘at, Custom and the Mutability of Shar‘i Judgments: the
Debate on the Congregational Performance of Supererogatory Prayers in the
Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire, In Akşin Somel and Seyfi Kenan
(eds), Realms of Transformation in the Ottoman World: Articles in Honor of
Metin Kunt, Leiden: Brill, 323-366.
Terzioğlu, Derin. (2022). Confessional Ambiguity in the Confessional Age: Philo-
Alidism, Sufism and Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, 1400-1700. In
Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu (eds), Entangled Confessionalizations?
Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety and Community-Building in the
Ottoman Empire, 15th-18th Centuries. Gorgias Press, 563-624.
Terzioğlu, Derin. (2012). How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A
Historiographical Discussion. Turcica, (44), 301-338.
Terzioğlu, Derin. (2011). Sufis in the age of state-building and Confessionalizatio, In
Christine Woodhead (eds), The Ottoman World, London: Routledge, 86-99.
Terzioğlu, Derin. (2011). Sunna Minded Sufi Preachers in Service of the Ottoman
State: The Nasihatname of the Hasan to Murad IV In Györgi Hazai (eds),
Archivum Ottomanicum. Göttingen: Hubert&Co, 563-625.
Tucker, Ernst. (1996). The Peace Negotiations of 1736: A Conceptual Turning Point
In Ottoman-Iranian Relations in Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20 (1),
Indiana University Press, 16-37.
Usluer, Fatih. (2009). Hurufilik: İlk Elden Kaynaklarla Doğuşundan İtibaren.
İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınları.
Varol, Muharrem. (2016). Kaşifü’l Esrar’ın İzinde: Harputlu İshak Hoca’nın İzâhü’l
Esrâr Adlı Bilinmeyen Bir Risalesi Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli
Araştırma Dergisi, 78, 35-80.
Yaycıoğlu, Ali. (2018). Guarding Traditions and Laws - Disciplining Bodies and
Souls: Tradition, Science, and Religion in the Age of Ottoman Reform.
Modern Asian Studies 52, Cambridge University Press, 1542-1603.
76
Yıldırım, Dursun. (1999). Türk Edebiyatında Bektaşi Fıkraları. Ankara: Akçağ
Yayınevi.
Yıldırım, Rıza. (2010). Bektaşi Kime Derler?: “Bektaşi” Kavramının Kapsamı ve
Sınırları Üzerine Tarihsel Bir Analiz Denemesi. Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş
Velî Araştırma Dergisi, 0(55).
Yıldırım, Rıza. (2017). Bektaşiliğin Doğuşu: Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli’den Balım Sultan’a.
İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Yücer, Hür Mahmud. (2003). Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvuf 19. Yüzyıl. İstanbul:
İnsan Yayınları.
Yüksel, Müfid. (2002). Bektaşilik ve Mehmed Ali Hilmi Dedebaba. İstanbul: Bakış
Yayınevi.
Zarcone, Thierry. (1995). Bektaşiliğin Rönesansı: Batı Karşısında Bir Mistik
İdeoloji, translated. Hakan Yücel, Nefes, 34.
Zilfi, Madeline C. (1986). The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-
Century Istanbul, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 45(4), 251–269.