The City as a Historical Actor:

The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

By

Hasan Karatas

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Near Eastern Studies

in the

Graduate Division

of the

University of California, Berkeley

Committee in charge:

Professor Hamid Algar, Chair

Professor Leslie Peirce
Professor Beshara Doumani
Professor Wali Ahmadi

Spring 2011
The City as a Historical Actor: The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order
by the City of Amasya in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

©2011

by Hasan Karatas
 Abstract

The City as a Historical Actor:

The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

by

Hasan Karatas

Doctor of Philosophy in Near Eastern Studies

University of California, Berkeley

Professor Hamid Algar, Chair

This dissertation argues for the historical agency of the North Anatolian city of Amasya through
an analysis of the social and political history of Islamic mysticism in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries Ottoman Empire. The story of the transmission of the Halvetiye Sufi order from
geographical and political margins to the imperial center in both ideological and physical sense
underlines Amasya’s contribution to the making of the socio-religious scene of the Ottoman
capital at its formative stages. The city exerted its agency as it urbanized, “Ottomanized” and
catapulted marginalized Halvetiye Sufi order to Istanbul where the Ottoman socio-religious
fabric was in the making.

This study constitutes one of the first broad-ranging histories of an Ottoman Sufi order, as a
social group shaped by regional networks of politics and patronage in the formative fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries. A prosopographical approach to the earliest Ottoman biographical works on
Sufi orders brings the regionalist coloring in the rivalry between major Sufi orders to the fore.
The ancient socio-political rivalry between two Anatolian regions surfaced in the strife between
different Sufi orders in the socio-religious scene of the nascent imperial capital Istanbul. One of
the contending Sufi orders, the Halvetiye was the product of the north central Anatolian city of
Amasya. At the outset of the fifteenth century, the local landholding practices in Amasya in
combination with contemporary political developments resulted in the proliferation of a
particular type of Sufi architecture and the concurrent urbanization of Sufi activities. In the first
half of the fifteenth century, the Halvetiye Sufi order, which originated in the rural areas of
Azerbaijan, was appropriated by the city and assumed an urban identity. In Amasya, the
Halvetiye, which was challenged by more established urban orders elsewhere in the Islamic
world, found a safe haven and established its first contacts with the Ottoman elite. The final
phase in the “Ottomanization” of the Halvetiye order took place in the second half of the
fifteenth century. During the succession struggle of the late fifteenth century, the Halvetis joined
a political faction led by Prince Bayezid (d.918/1512) who eventually succeeded to the Ottoman
throne. Through association with one of the contending political parties via Halvetiye order,

1
Amasya made a bid for influence in the socio-religious domain in the Ottoman core lands,
especially in the imperial capital at its formative period.

This dissertation concludes by problematizing the modern perception of the early Ottoman
Anatolia as unified and monolithic, and a backwater to the rising Ottoman world. In so doing it
attempts to shift the formative process of the Ottoman polity from the “core lands” covering
Western Asia Minor and Southern Balkans to the Anatolian provinces.

2
 To Kevser

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables v

Abbreviations vi
Note on Transliteration vii
Acknowledgements viii

Introduction 1

Chapter One:
The Ottomanization of Amasya and the Urbanization of the Sufi Activities 16

Part One: Pre-Ottoman Background (468/1075-789/1387) 17

Urban Lodges 18
Rural Lodges 19
Concluding Remarks 20
Part Two: The Establishment of the Ottoman Rule (789/1387-825/1421) 21
The Arrival of the Ottomans 22
Lodge- Mosques 23
The Sufi lodges constructed in the first period 27
Concluding Remarks 38
Part Three: Autonomous Amasya (825/1421-870/1465) 39
Consolidation of Yörgüç Pasha’s Rule 39
The Sufi lodges constructed in the second period 40
Trouble in the East: Rise of Amasya as the Eastern Ottoman capital 42
Yörgüç Pasha Waqfiya: A Collective Endowment? 43
Ottoman-Amasyan Destruction of Karaman 46
After Yörgüç Pasha (845/1441-870/1465) 48
Concluding Remarks 49
Part Four: Marginalization of Amasya (870/1465-886/1481) 50
Dynastic Struggles and the Fragility of the Princes’ Treasure 52
Patronage of Sufis through Alternative Channels 53
Concluding Remarks 55

Chapter Two:
The Urbanization of the Halvetiye: Amasyan Gümüşlüoğlus (807/1405-870/1465) 59

Part One: Pir İlyas and the Foundation of the Gümüşlüoğlu Community (804/1402- 60
815/1412)
Pir İlyas in Shirvan 61
An Attempt at Reconstruction of the early History of the Halvetiye before 1400 62
Sadreddin-i Hıyavi (after 1400) 64
Back to Pir İlyas’s Story: The Foundation of a Community 67
ii
 Urban Context: Urbanization of Sufi Activities via Lodge-Mosques 68
Part Two: The Çilehane: A Dervish Factory? 69
Location and Plan of the Çilehane 70
Part Three: Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis under the leadership of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami 73
A Historical Riddle: Who was Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami? 74
First Zeyni Challenge: The Arrival of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni 75
Coping with the Zeynis: Invention of Dreams 79
Coping with the Zeynis: Appropriation of Zeyni Methods of Training? 79
Part Four: Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis in the court Prince Bayezid (870/1465-887/1482) 81
Conclusion 83

Chapter Three:
The Ottomanization of the Halvetiye: Halvetis as members of Political Factions (870/1465- 85
886/1481)

Part One: Istanbul: The Sultan Mehmed II and the Zeynis 86

The second Zeyni Challenge: Abdüllatif-i Kudsi and the aggressive turn 87
The Zeynis of Istanbul and Shaykh Vefa 89
Part Two: Amasya: Prince Bayezid and the Tale of Two Halveti Shaykhs 92
The Coming of Age of Prince Bayezid and the Sufis of Amasya 92
Çelebi Halife: The Initiator of the Rumi Branch of the Halvetiye 95
Konya and the Shaykh in Black 95
Tokat and the Illiterate Turcoman Shaykh 97
Erzincan and the Shaykh of the Mantle 98
Habib-i Karamani: The Initiator of the Karamani Branch of the Halvetiye 100
Part Three: The Dynastic Struggle of 886/1481 as the final phase in the Ottomanization of 103
the Halvetiye
Amasya in the winter of 1481 104
Habib-i Karamani’s tough decision 105
Habib-i Karamani’s Dreams 106
Habib-i Karamani’s Mystical Experiences 108
Çelebi Halife, Shaykh Vefa and the Third Challenge of the Zeyniye 109
Taşköprüzade’s Twist 110
Conclusion 111

Chapter Four:
The Ottoman Halvetiye: A Sibling Rivalry between Two Dynastic Struggles (886/1481- 114
969/1561)

Introduction: Who are the Rumi and Karamani Shaykhs? 114

Bayezid II (886/1481-918/1512) and the Friendly Years 117
Selim I (918/1512-926/1520) and the Grim Years 118
Lami‘i’s Criticisms: Echoes of the Zeyniye? 119
iii
 The Arrival of the Old Foe: Karamani Halvetiye in Istanbul 122
Süleyman I (926/1520-974/1566) and the Magnificient Years 125
Conclusion 128

Conclusion:
The Role of the Rival Anatolian Geographies in the Formation of the Ottoman Empire 130

Bibliography 133

Appendix: Halvet, Halvetiye, Practice and Doctrines 143

iv
 FIGURES AND TABLES

The plan of the Yakub Pasha Lodge-Mosque (Çilehane) 32

The plan of the Bayezid Pasha Lodge-Mosque 36
The plan of the Yörgüç Pasha Lodge-Mosque 44
The plan of the Hızır Pasha Lodge-Mosque 49
Çilehane positions and distribution of the endowment income 69
Approaching Amasya from Samsun or a view from southeast in 1915 71
Approaching Amasya from Tokat or a view from Northwest in the nineteenth century 72
Seventeenth century depictions of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni and Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami 78
Topographic map of the major buildings before 886/1481 84
Map of the Sufi orders in Anatolia before 886/1481 92

v
 ABBREVIATIONS

Balābil Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil al- Rāsiyya fi Riyad al-
Masā'il al Amāsiyya” (Istanbul Suleymaniyye Library, n.d.), 34b-35a,
Yazma Bagislar 3267. )
BOA Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives),
Istanbul
Lemezāt Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye ez Leme‘āt-ı ‘Ulviyye,
trans. Mehmed Serhan Tayşi (Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993)
Menākıb Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577). Menākıb-ı şerīf ve tarīkatnāme-i pīrān ve
meşāyih-i tarīkat-ı ‘aliyye-i Halvetiye. Istanbul, 1874
Shaqā’iq Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561). al-Shaqā'iq al-nu'mānīya fī
'ulamā al-dawla al-'Uthmānīya. Istanbul: Jāmi'at Istānbūl, Kullīyat al-
Ādāb, Markaz al-Dirāsāt al-Sharqīyah, 1985.
TDİA Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet
Vakfı, 1999
Terceme-i Nefehāt Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532). Futūh al-Mucāhidīn li Tarwih al-Mushāhidīn.
Edited by Süleyman Uludağ. Istanbul: Marifet Yayınları, 1980.
Tevārih Aşıkpaşazade (d. ca. 1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” in Osmanlı
Tarihleri: Osmanlı Tarihinin Anakaynakları Olan Eserlerin,
Mütehassıslar Tarafından Hazırlanan Metin, Tercüme veya
Sadeleştirilmiş Şekilleri Külliyatı, ed. Nihal Atsız, vol. 1 ([Istanbul]:
Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949)
TSA Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (Topkapı Palace Museum Archives),
Istanbul
VGMA Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi (The Archives of the General
Directorate of Endowments), Ankara

vi
 NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

Making the text more accessible in a consistent and scholarly manner is the main concern in the
transliteration system of this study. Therefore, I chose the common Anglicized forms of terms,
names of places and dynasties. For instance, I use shaykh, not şeyh or şeyh, Azerbaijan not
Azerbaycan or Ādharbāydjān and Karamanid not Karamanlı. The exceptions are;

• Names of people and Sufi orders, and the terms of ijaza and shaykh al-Islam, where the
Modern Turkish orthography is preferred. For example, Halvetiye, not Khalwatiya,
Yahya-yı Şirvani not Yahya al-Shirvani, Gök Medrese Vakfiyesi not Gok Madrasa
Waqfiya, and icazet not ijaza.

• Book titles and lunar months, where the system of the International Journal of Middle
East Studies is adopted. For instance, Jumada al-Uhra not Cemaziyelevvel, and Lemezāt-
ı Hulviyye ez Leme‘āt-ı ‘Ulviyye not Lemazat-ı Hulviyye ez Lemeat-ı Ulviyye.

vii
Acknowledgements

This dissertation is a product of the years spent in three metropolitan areas; San Francisco Bay
Area, Istanbul and New York City. Perhaps my strong conviction for the heavy role of the cities
in shaping history should be attributed to this. My presence in these great cities made possible by
a number of institutions. I owe a great deal of gratitude to Magistretti Foundation, Department of
Near Eastern Studies, Graduate Division and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at University
of California, Berkeley for supporting my project.

Since the beginning of my graduate studies, I was blessed by the company of great scholars,
teachers and friends. My advisor Hamid Algar has been a constant source of knowledge and
inspiration. I am eternally grateful to him for especially guiding the most critical phases of this
long project with utmost patience. Without Leslie Peirce’s encouragement and support this
dissertation could hardly see the light of the day. Her creative feedbacks gave a perspective and
orientation to an otherwise haphazard collection of research materials. Beshara Doumani’s
support was always perfectly timed and his suggestions were to the point. Wali Ahmadi
generously agreed to join my dissertation committee at the last moment and provided an
immense support in that limited time. I could not have asked for a better dissertation committee.

I owe my passion for the Ottoman history to a group of gifted scholars and teachers in Boğaziçi,
Koç, Sabancı, Bilkent and İstanbul Universities in Turkey, who trained me as a historian,
encouraged me for pursuing graduate study, directed me to right sources during my research
phase and supported me at times I had my own doubts. I am immensely grateful to Professors
Edhem Eldem, Selim Deringil, Günay Kut, Lucienne Thys-Şenocak, Anthony Greenwood, Halil
Berktay, Hakan Erdem, Tülay Artan, Akşin Somel, Cemil Koçak, Çiğdem Kafesçioğlu, Feridun
Emecen and Oktay Özel.

In Berkeley, I was surrounded by wonderful people who made me forget the troubles of
homesickness and the challenges of the earlier phases of the graduate study. I thank Ayla Algar,
Murat Dağlı, Alan Mikhail, Malissa Taylor, Heather Ferguson, Hakan Doğan, Mehmet Gümüş,
Tufan Karalar, Ferhan Tunagür, Dr. Jaleh Pirnazar, Prof. Carla Hesse, Prof. Carol Redmount,
late Prof. Cathleen Keller and Shorena Kurtsikidze.

In Istanbul and Ankara, I thank the staffs of the Süleymaniye, ISAM, Nuruosmaniye, Bayezid,
Turkish National, Amasya Bayezid, Çorum and İskilip Public Libraries, and the archives of the
Prime Ministry, Topkapı Museum and the General Directorate of Endowments, for facilitating
my research. During my time in Istanbul, I had the chance to meet great friends whose
contribution to this study cannot be overstated. I thank Alidost Numan, Side Emre, Kahraman
Şakul, Yunus Uğur, Tunç Şen, İrfan Kokdaş, Emre Erol, Emre Sunu, Sinan Ciddi and Mehmet
Kuru.

In New York, during the writing phase of this work, I was fortunate to seek the advices of great
friends and colleagues. I owe lasting gratitude to Khaled Fahmy, Zachary Lockman, Sibel Erol,
Dina LeGall, Ebru Turan, Abdurrahman Atçıl, Necmettin Güney, Cenk Palaz and Ahmet

viii
Karamustafa. Also it gives me a great pleasure to thank Necmettin Kızılkaya and Alison
Anderson for translating critical materials for my work, John Curry for kindly sharing his
unpublished material, Jeff Culang for editing my chapters, my deer friends all over the world,
among them Adem Can for being a source of moral support in darker times.

I owe special thanks to İsmail Karataş for not only helping me prepare the maps and figures but
also for giving me the push that I occasionally needed, Guy Burak for reading the first draft of
this work and providing insightful commentaries, Lutfi Sunar for being a great intellectual
company at a very critical time, Günhan Börekçi for selflessly offering his comments and his
collection of sources, and Yunus Kaya, a lifelong dost and colleague, for simply being there.

Finally my family, Ramazan, Feriha, Hüseyin, Yunus, Ayşenur Karataş, and my beloved
daughter Gülru fully supported me when my quest for knowledge took me to the other end of the
world. They gracefully forgave my absences even though they had to endure long periods of
separation. Most of all, my wife Kevser Karataş provided nothing but patience, generosity and
good humor since the very beginning and it is to whom I dedicate this dissertation.

ix
Introduction

This poor one of many faults, and suffering from the calamity of sins, Yusuf b.
Yakub, presently… wishes to compile a pleasant tract in order to make known my
devotion to the Imperial Stirrup and the proximity and auspiciousness of the
Imperial Majesty of the Esteemed Sultan. And that [shall tell] which people were
the reason and cause of the coming and spread of the Halveti tarikat in the lands
of Rum [Ottoman Empire]. And who are the most famous ones [among them]?
Let me explain fully and describe also the well-known names among their
successors. 1

These words belong to Yusuf b. Yakub (d. circa 989/1581), the brother of the head shaykh of the
central Halveti lodge in Istanbul, who compiled the oral traditions of his order and presented
them to Sultan Murad III (982/1574-1003/1595) a few years after his accession to the throne.
This study has the same aim as that put forward by a Halveti dervish more than four hundred
years ago: to provide an account of the story of the Halvetiye’s Ottomanization. And located at
the center of this story is the north Anatolian city of Amasya.

The city of Amasya was known as a home to scholars, poets, princes and artists throughout its
history. It was initially inhabited by pagans and Christian monks who founded a number of
monasteries. The city also served as an ecclesiastical center during the Byzantine era. 2 The local
population was also aware and proud of the scholastic past of their city. For instance, Mustafa
Vazih, the late eighteenth-century mufti and a historian of Amasya, lists the names of twelve
monasteries in pre-Islamic Amasya. 3 Vazih also narrates a folk tradition tying the city to Islam,
in which the Byzantine emperor consults the priests of Amasya after receiving a letter from the
Prophet Muhammad inviting the emperor to become Muslim. 4 Early modern and modern
travelers alike called Amasya “the Oxford of Anatolia,” “Baghdad al-Rum/Baghdad of Anatolia”
and “Medina al-Hukema/The City of Philosophers.”

Amasya also has a unique geostrategic location, and hence history. It is situated in north-central
Anatolia (six hundred kilometers east of Istanbul) at the junction of trade routes stretching from

1
Most of the translation belongs to John Curry. John J. Curry, “The Growth of Turkish Language Hagiographical
Literature within the Halveti Order of the 16th And 17th Centuries,” ed. Hasan Celal Güzel, The Turks 3 (2002):
912. I made some additions based on the version I use in this study.
2
“Amasea,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912),
htttp://[Link]/cathen/[Link].“Amasea: A titular see and metropolis of Pontus in Asia Minor on
the river Iris, now Amasiah. Its episcopal list dates from the third century (Gams I, 442).”
3
Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil,” 34b-35a. Kani Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel
Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi” (Ph.D, Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 1994), 24-32.
4
Mustafa Vazih has also an ulterior motive in praising the scholastic tradition of his native city. As a scholar
presenting his work to the newly appointed Ottoman governor of the region, he is indeed underlining his own value
by honoring the past Amasyan scholars. Vazih’s knowledge about the non-Muslim past comes from his knowledge
of Latin, which he learnt while he became acquainted with a friend in Galata, Istanbul, and utilized his library.
Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil,” 35b-36a.
1
the Black Sea to Syria, and from the Iranian plateau to Istanbul. 5 The city lies on the banks of the
Iris River in a narrow valley surrounded by almost vertical cliffs that provide natural defenses.
Such a location made it a significant garrison city along an ancient military road from Istanbul to
Armenia. 6 The tops of the two cliffs housed two castles, likely explaining why Amasya earned
the nickname Khayber-i Rum, referring to a strong fortress at the time of the Prophet. 7
Moreover, a nearby Kazovası (literally, “plain of the geese”) provided large armies a place to
camp while their leaders safely enjoyed the amenities of the city, devised war strategies and
received emissaries. 8

Throughout its history, Amasya served as either a regional center of large empires or the capital
of local kingdoms or emirates. The city was first inhabited by Pontic kings, and then became the
ecclesiastical and administrative center of the Roman and later Byzantine province of Pont. At
the turn of the first Gregorian millennium (circa 468/1075), the Turcoman Danishmendid
principality captured the city, along with the rest of the province. 9 One century later (571/1175),
the city was annexed by the Anatolian Seljukids. After two centuries of Seljukid and
Ilkhanid/Eretnid rule, Amasya enjoyed its independence for a brief period of time (762/1360-
789/1387) before it was forced by its threatening neighbors to join the eastward expanding
Ottoman polity toward the end of the fourteenth century. The Ottomans kept the administrative
boundaries of this province intact and named it “Rumiyye-i Suğra,” meaning “the little Rome,”
Ottomans themselves being the larger one.

Amasya and the Ottomans

During Amasya’s first century under the Ottomans, the city enjoyed a privileged relationship
with the sultans. Almost a decade following its integration, following the Ottoman defeat by
Timur, Amasya became the headquarters of one of the Ottoman princes vying for the throne.
This young prince, Mehmed I (816/1413-824/1421), had the least chance of success among all
his brothers, but he managed to become the sultan. In exchange for its support in tough times, the
Ottomans made Amasya the administrative center of the Rum province (including the cities of
Sivas, Tokat, Çorum and Amasya) and rewarded it with numerous pious endowments, such as
madrasas (colleges), soup kitchens and Sufi lodges. As a special privilege, the city was entrusted
with young Ottoman princes to be trained as future sultans. All four of the fifteenth-century
Ottoman sultans were trained in Amasya. Each sultan maintained a special relationship with the

5
For the city’s location on the silk trade route between Bursa and Azerbaijan, see Feridun Nafiz Emecen and İlhan
Şahin, “Amasya,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 3 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm
Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1991), 1-2. The city was also located on the slave trade route between the Black
Sea port of Samsun and the Mamluk Aleppo in norther Syria. This must have been a lucrative enterprise considering
the role of slave soldiers in the Mamluk Empire. I thank Sara Nur Yıldız for reminding me of this.
6
Steven Runciman, Byzantine Civilization, 4th ed. (New York: Meridian books, 1960), 168.
7
Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil,” 34b.
8
See Giovanni Angiolello, Seyyahların Gözüyle Sultanlar ve Savaşlar : Giovanni Maria Angiolello,Venedikli Bir
Tüccar ve Vincenzo D'Alessandri'nin Seyahatnameleri, trans. Tufan Gündüz (Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2007).
9
For a detailed pre-Ottoman Islamic history of the city see Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının
Tarihsel Gelişimi,” 33-45. Adnan Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı”
(Ankara Üniversitesi, 1993), 17-25.
2
city. These sultans granted a certain degree of autonomy to the city, rewarded its population and
honored its scholars and Sufis (Muslim mystics) with lucrative endowments, and employed its
elites in prestigious positions in the Ottoman capital.

In exchange for autonomy and patronage, what did the city of Amasya give back to the Ottomans
other than a safe haven during dynastic struggles and a garrison city on the eastern frontier? In
other words, how can one fully portray the nature of the relationship between the Ottoman center
and the Amasyan periphery? Within such a portrait, to what extent ancient regional rivalries
between political geographies do play a role? And what does it tell us in terms of the role of
regionalism in the formation of empires and center-periphery relations? I contend in this study
that one can indeed attribute particular socio-religious and historical characteristics to cities, and
such characteristics are key components in understanding their relationship with both the
imperial center and their regional rivals. Moreover, certain cities that established a privileged
bond with the imperial centers, such as Amasya, can have a direct role on the formation of
empires, especially during critical junctures in imperial histories.

There are three such critical junctures in the fifteenth-century Ottoman history. The first two are
the dynastic struggles at the beginning and end of the fifteenth century, which also mark the
chronological limits of this study. The third critical juncture began in the middle of the century
and continued into the next one; the conquest of Istanbul in 857/1453 and its ensuing evolution
as the center of Ottoman Empire. Dynastic struggles are critical turning points in the course of
Ottoman history not necessarily because of the centrality of the reigning sultan’s personality and
court in the Ottoman world. I argue in this study that the dynastic struggles, especially of the
fifteenth century, enabled the Anatolian provinces a political leverage in the Ottoman capitals
when their candidates for the Ottoman throne succeeded. In other words, dynastic struggles of
this century should be seen not only as competition between different political factions in the
Ottoman capital, but also as a struggle between different political geographies in Anatolia where
competing candidates for the Ottoman thrones are based. For example, the ascendancy of the
Halvetiye Sufi order in the Ottoman capital in the late fifteenth century is conventionally
attributed to its close relationship with Bayezid II, which was established during the latter’s
governorship in Amasya. But the alliance between Bayezid II and the Halvetiye is better
understood if one situates the dynastic struggle of the period within centuries-long regional
rivalry between the cities of Amasya and Konya, and the orders of Halvetiye and Zeyniye
respectively based in these cities. This study, by looking into the local Anatolian context that
decided on the composition of Bayezid II’s political faction, aims to shift the historical agency
from the sultans or the factions of the Ottoman capital to the Anatolian cities where they were
trained in the fifteenth century.

Two valuable dissertations written in the past decade on the dynastic struggles of this period are
welcome contributions to this understudied field. Dimitris Kastridis’s work on the Ottoman
interregnum (804/1402-816/1413) reconstructs the chronology of events and is interested in
representation and legitimation in historiography. 10 Kastridis does not focus on regionalism in
10
Dimitris Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402-
1413 (Leiden;Boston: Brill, 2007).Kastritis kitapa referans
3
the center-periphery relations, because it is simply impossible to talk about a single imperial
center in the pre-Istanbulite Ottoman history, let alone during the civil war between different
factions. Erdem Çıpa’s study of the succession struggle of the early sixteenth century between
the princes of Bayezid II, employs the center-periphery paradigm as the Ottomans by that
moment had an imperial center, Istanbul. 11 As Çıpa skillfully argues, this imperial center is still
not quite developed enough to be the main determinant of the outcome of the succession
struggle. This study revolves around the dynastic struggle that is situated in the middle of the two
studied in Kastridis’s and Çıpa’s works. And in the period under study, the Ottoman center,
especially its socio-religious scene was in the early years of its formative phase, which makes it
more susceptible to the influence of the Anatolian periphery.

The role of the Anatolian periphery in the formation of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth
century is a rather novel perspective. Ottoman historians conventionally explain the trials and
tribulations of the fifteenth century, a dramatic period of empire building, through a discussion of
the social and political dynamics of the Ottoman “core lands” comprised of two provinces that
cover Western Asia Minor and the Southern Balkans. The composition and nature of the sources
studied so far account for current historiography’s depiction of political figures and groups as
primary agents of historical change and therefore their representation of these two provinces as
the core Ottoman lands. My research uses previously untapped sources and takes a more
comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach to the formation of the Ottoman Empire by
introducing religious actors. The methods and analytical tools borrowed from architecture, urban
and network studies and Sufism reveals the role of the third Ottoman province, the Rum centered
on the northern Anatolian city of Amasya, in the empire building process.

My conviction about Amasya’s role is particularly inspired by three studies done in the mid-
twentieth century. Paul Wittek, the first to point out the role of Amasya in his famous article on
the dynastic struggle following the Battle of Ankara at the beginning of the fifteenth century,
depicted Amasya as an ancient frontier city where the Ottomans were reminded of their original
Turkish and ghazi characteristics. 12 A few years later, Sidney N. Fisher, in his article on the
dynastic struggle following the death of Mehmed II (848/1444-850/1446 and 855/1451-
886/1481) towards the end of the fifteenth century, underlined similar characteristics for Amasya
as opposed to traditional Islamic features of Konya where the other princely faction was based. 13
The third study is Franz Babinger’s monograph on Mehmed II, in which Amasya appears as a
center for oriental mystics and bigots where the future sultan Bayezid II’s mind and personality
were formed. Bayezid II in turn changed the course of Ottoman history when he became sultan. 14

11
Hakkı Erdem Çıpa, “Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I, 1487-1512” (Ph.D, Harvard
University, 2007).
12
Paul Wittek, De la défaite d'Ankara à la prise de Constantinople un demi-siècle d'histoire Ottomane. (Paris:
[P.]Geuthner, 1938).
13
Sydney N. Fisher, “Civil Strife in the Ottoman Empire, 1481-1503,” The Journal of Modern History 13, no. 4
(1941): 449.
14
Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, trans. William C. Hickman (Princeton, N.J: Princeton
University Press, 1978).
4
Each of these three historians has been criticized in many ways. 15 Some have described their
methodologies as crude and unacademic. 16 Nevertheless, it is my contention that they do have a
valid argument when attributing a certain degree of agency to Anatolian cities and the rivalry
between them. 17 In this dissertation I attempt to test and fine tune their argumentation by limiting
my scope of study to a more workable framework: the socio-religious aspect of Amasyan
regional identity and its significant contribution to the religious scene in Istanbul, the Ottoman
imperial center in the making. I argue that the religious aspect of Amasya’s contribution to the
Ottoman imperial fabric transpired in the context of the city’s role in the urbanization,
institutionalization and “Ottomanization” of marginalized Halvetiye Sufi order. The city of
Amasya, by transmitting the Halvetiye Sufi order from geographical and political margins to the
imperial center in both ideological and physical sense, exerted a certain degree of agency in the
making of the Ottoman capital.

Halvetiye and the Ottomans

Halvetiye, like many of other Sufi orders, was introduced to the Ottoman world in the fifteenth
century. And in conjunction with the evolution of many Ottoman social and political institutions
during this century, these Sufi orders went through formative stages that resulted in relatively
institutionalized Sufi orders of what we know today. Here I employ the term
“institutionalization” in order to describe the organizational centralization of a Sufi order, usually
around an endowed lodge and shaykhly family, along with the creation of common identity and
self-consciousness, and standardization of doctrines and practices. However especially during the
period under study one can talk neither of the above about the Halveti dervishes, hence Halvetiye
as an institutionalized Sufi order. And the process of the institutionalization of the Halvetiye
order is closely related to its incorporation to the Ottoman world of politics.

The political support was especially critical in the context of the formation of Sufi orders and the
making of the Ottoman imperial capital Istanbul in the second half of the fifteenth century. The
Ottoman state during its formative period had an unmatched control over rural land and urban
property. Full private ownership of rural land was quite rare in the core lands of the empire. If

15
For instance, see Halil İnalcık, “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time,” Speculum 35, no. 3 (1960):
408-427. Colin Imber, “Paul Wittek's "De la défaite d'Ankara à la prise de Constantinople",” Osmanlı Araştırmaları
5 (1986): 65-81.
16
For Imber’s criticism of Wittek, see Ibid. For a more balanced discussion of Wittek’s legacy, see Cemal Kafadar,
Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). And
Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 12-22. As a solution to the problem, Kastridis proposes that a “solid, source-based
understanding of the political and institutional history of the Ottoman state going back at least as far as the reign of
Bayezid I, and ending with that of Mehmed II the Conqueror (855/1451–886/1481)“ is needed. This dissertation is a
response to this need. Yet such a “solid, source based” study could only be achieved on smaller scales, which is the
reason I chose to focus on the socio-religious aspect of the relationship between the Ottoman center and a critical
city in Anatolia.
17
Both Wittek and Fisher do not directly pronounce “agency.” And I don’t agree with the characteristics that Wittek
and Fisher attributed to Amasya or other cities for that matter. Yet, the idea of a city or a region having a particular
socio-religious character and being able to impose those characteristics on the imperial core lands is quite appealing
to me. Also my understanding of regional characteristics, unlike that of earlier authors, is based on the nature of
social, political and religious networks that is dominant in a particular region.
5
one considers the significance of endowment of land revenues or urban property in financing
Sufi orders, having the support of the political authority was critical for the foundation a Sufi
community.

Halveti dervishes, especially in the first two hundred years of their existence in the Ottoman
lands, frequently became subjects of or actors in political controversies, a fact which
distinguishes their history and its representation from those of other prominent Ottoman Sufi
orders. I argue, at the risk of sounding state-centric and a bit cynical, that public opinion about
the Halveti dervishes were always parallel with that of the political establishment. Especially
certain sections of the Ottoman ulema and the rival Sufi orders always remained critical of their
practices. This uneasiness in turn led Halveti dervishes to seeking for political protection, which
would make condemnation of Halveti practices less openly pronounced. And when this
protection was lifted, Halveti dervishes became vulnerable to criticisms, if not to serious political
encroachment.

Related to these two facts, the history of Halvetiye in the first two hundred years was largely
influenced by the ebb and flow of Ottoman dynastic favor. In the fifteenth century, Mehmed II
tried to keep them out of his nascent capital, while his son Bayezid II treated them with the
highest regard as they were bestowed a nice lodge in Istanbul. Bayezid II’s reign (886/1481-
918/1512) was followed by that of terror for the Halveti dervishes in the sixteenth century, which
began with Selim I’s (918/1512-926/1520) attempt at demolishing their central lodge. They
gained back the favor of the Ottoman dynasty as the influential Merkez Muslihiddin (d.
959/1551) established close connections with the mother of Süleyman I (926/1520-984/1576).
This alternation of dynastic favor and disfavor continued in the seventeenth century as the
Kadizadeli movement twice challenged their existence.

Despite their overtly political nature, Halvetiye order still does not receive enough attention from
the academic community; a fate shared by the cultural and religious aspects of the Ottoman
history. Following the pioneering article of Hans Joachim Kissling in 1953, there is a forty years
long hiatus in the study of the Ottoman Halvetiye until the publication of Nathalie Clayer’s work
on the Halvetiye in the Balkan provinces. 18 Clayer mainly argues that the Halvetiye worked in
cooperation with the Ottoman state in the Islamization of Balkan territories. 19 This view is
recently challenged by John Curry, whose recent monograph traces the transformation of
Halvetiye in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by focusing on its Şabaniye sub-branch. 20
Another welcome study in this field is a dissertation written by Side Emre on İbrahim-i Gülşeni
(d.940/1534,) the charismatic founder of the Gülşeniye branch of the order, who resided mostly
in Cairo. Emre relates the story of İbrahim-i Gülşeni within the context of the city of Cairo and
18
With the exception of Martin’s article which appeared 1972. However Martin’s article mostly summarizes what
Kissling had written two decades earlier. B. G. Martin, “A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes,” in
Scholars, Saints, and Sufis; Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500, ed. Nikki Keddie
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 275-305.
19
Nathalie Clayer, Mystiques, Etat et société : les Halvetis dans l'aire balkanique de la fin du XVe siècle à nos jours
(Leiden ;New York: E.J. Brill, 1994), [Link], 363
20
John J Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise of the Halveti
Order, 1350-1650 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010).
6
its incorporation by the Ottoman Empire in the early sixteenth century. Unfortunately none of the
later studies significantly add to the information provided in Kissling’s article about the initial
transmission of the Halvetiye order to the Ottoman lands in the fifteenth century. Kissling
however heavily depends on narrative sources and usually fills in the information gaps with
informed speculation.

This study fills this gap in the history of the Halvetiye in the Ottoman lands by attempting at two
things; (1) bringing in the urban environment and political geographies in Anatolia to the study
of the early Halvetiye and (2) focusing on inter-Sufi order rivalry, thus achieving a better
understanding of religio-political networks in the period. In this way, I hope to explain the story
of Halvetiye’s subscription to Ottoman networks; a process named Ottomanization in this study.
Halvetiye’s rivalry with the Zeyniye order often overlapped with the respective competition
between the cities of Amasya and Konya. However, Zeyniye was much more welcomed to the
Ottoman core lands because of the influence of their regional network among the Ottoman
ulema. This situation translated into marginalization of the Halvetiye for the good part of the
fifteenth century. In such a context, the sui generis land tenure system and the privileged
autonomy of Amasya made the city a safe haven for the Halvetiye order, where it subscribed to
the princely faction of Bayezid and eventually became part of the Ottoman core lands.

Sources and Approach

A widely shared conviction in the field of the Ottoman studies is that the centuries preceding
Suleyman I’s reign (926/1520-973/1566??) does not easily lend itself to field research. The
situation gets worse if one moves his/her scope away from the “core lands” of the empire, which
covers both sides of the Marmara Sea. One frequently feels like an archeologist in the archives of
Istanbul when making research as especially the documentary evidence is scarce, hard to locate
and often inaccessible due to regulations or inconsistent cataloguing. Ottomans too did not leave
much historical evidence in this period as their legendary recording practices began only at the
turn of the sixteenth century. In this study I demonstrate that this obstacle can be overcome
through a methodological innovation that is the fusing of the study of architecture, urban and
network studies and Sufism. 21 Studying Sufi orders as the products of a particular urban context
and tracing their networks and transformation along with the history of that city and opens up a
wide array of sources. In this study sources are classified as soft, hard and hardest evidences
according to the receptiveness of the information they provide to the effects of time and authorial
intentions. Therefore the narrative sources, i.e. the hagiographies, biographical dictionaries and
chronicles constitutes the soft evidence, while the archival documents such as endowment deeds
or land surveys are the hard evidence. The hardest evidence is the architectural evidence,
epigraphic material, and the geographical position and layout of the city.

Narrative Sources: Soft Evidence

21
This methodology is employed by the historians of pre-Ottoman Anatolia as illustrated by Wolper. See Ethel Sara
Wolper, Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia (University Park,
Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003).
7
Four major narrative sources employed in this study. The earliest of all, the Tevārih-i Āl-i
‘Osmān (Histories of the House of Ottoman) was authored by Aşıkpaşazade Derviş Ahmed (d.
ca. 907-8/1502,) who was a member of the oldest shaykhly family of Amasya region.
Aşıkpaşazade is the first author to use the moniker Halveti as a collective name for the dervishes
under study. At the end of his history, Aşıkpaşazade provides biographical entries about the
shaykhs and holy men of the early Ottoman world. In this sense, his work should be treated as
the first Ottoman biographical dictionary. Moreover, being a son of Amasya where the Halveti
order flourished, Aşıkpaşazade gives accurate and critical information about the early Halvetis.

The second source, which is also the most comprehensive and reliable account of the early
Halvetis is the Futūh al-Mucāhidīn li Tarwih al-Mushāhidīn (The Warriors’ Conquests of for the
Respite of the Hearts of the Witnesses) of Lami'i Çelebi (d.938/1532.) Lami‘i’s work is the
translation of Abdurrahman Jami’s (817-898/1414-1492) biographical dictionary, Nefehāt-
al’Uns min Hadarāt-al’Kuds (Familiar Breezes from Holy Presences) hence its Ottoman
nickname, Terceme-i Nefehāt-al’Uns (Translation of Nefehāt-al’Uns.) Abdurrahman Jami was a
celebrated scholar, poet and a Nakşibendi shaykh who lived in the Timurid Empire. 22 He was
very well known and respected in the Ottoman world. Lami‘i Çelebi was in fact called Jami-i
Rum (the Jami of the Ottoman lands) because of his translation of Jami’s work and their shared
Sufi order affiliation. In his translation, Lami‘i adds biographies of a number of Ottoman
shaykhs, though relatively small amount compared to the 567 counted by Jami. Lami'i Çelebi
wrote in the first decades of the sixteenth century when the institutionalization and public
visibility of the Sufi orders in the Ottoman Empire intensified. This can be seen in the format of
Terceme-i Nefehāt. Lami'i Çelebi organizes the biographies of the shaykhs around the initiatic
chains of the orders instead of chronology.

The third narrative source is the al-Shaqā'iq al-nu'mānīya fī 'ulamā al-dawla al-'Uthmānīya
(Red Anemones among the Scholars of the Ottoman Empire) of Taşköprüzade Ahmed
İsamüddin (d.968/1561). Taşköprüzade’s work contains the biographies of 502 scholars and
Sufis (including himself) who lived in the reigns of the first ten Ottoman Sultans. Although he
does not clearly acknowledge his debt to Lami'i Çelebi, it is clear that for the biographies of pre-
1500 Sufis, Terceme-i Nefehāt served as the main source for his work. However, Taşköprüzade,
as the progeny of an old scholarly family, had an access to a mine of knowledge untapped
before. Moreover, he spent a considerable time in Amasya during his education. All these factors
make his work a credible and critical source for the study of the Sufi orders of the period.

The fourth major narrative source employed in this study is the Menākıb-ı şerīf ve tarīkatnāme-i
pīrān ve meşāyih-i tarīkat-ı ‘aliyye-i Halvetiye of Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca. 985/1577.) This is the
first Halveti hagiography, written by a Halveti dervish and exclusively devoted to the
biographies and miraculous deeds of the Halveti shaykhs. Curiously enough, the members of
Halvetiye, despite all the commotion about their practices, did not write about their history, until
the last quarter of sixteenth century. Yusuf b. Yakub was the son of the head shaykh of the
central lodge of Halvetiye in Istanbul. In his work, one finds him penning down the oral tradition
22
For Jami see, Hamid Algar, “Jāmi and Sufism,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2008,
[Link]
8
within the Halvetiye and revealing details about the Halveti perception of their own history and
surroundings in the sixteenth century. Yusuf b. Yakub’s work does not add to our knowledge
about the history of Halvetiye in the fifteenth century. He simply reiterates what is provided in
Lami'i Çelebi’s Terceme-i Nefehāt. However he supplies very critical information about the
rivalries within the Halvetiye order.

In addition these four narrative sources, a variety of Ottoman hagiographies and biographical
dictionaries are consulted in this study. These sources, when properly contextualized and cross-
checked with each other, communicate more than biographical data, but also significant
information about the contemporary mentalities, perceptions and especially the scholarly and
Sufi networks. The general tendency among the Ottomanists is to treat these sources as modern
reference works by limiting their research with a particular biographical entry and placing too
much trust on the information provided. However a more holistic treatment is required when
using biographical dictionaries. One usually finds information about a Sufi or scholars in the
entries about other people. Such an approach also reveals the author’s attitude towards particular
social groups, networks and even sultans. For example, Mehmed II negatively depicted in
Shaqā'iq, probably because Taşköprüzade’s great grandfather had a disagreement with the
sultan.

There are other methodological challenges in dealing with the soft evidence due to the fact that
the earliest narrative sources for the emergence of the Halvetiye were produced after the order
institutionalized. These sources represent Halveti dervishes more unified and monolithic than
they originally were. They reflect their contemporary issues and perceptions in retrospective
when reconstructing their early history. They also tend to suppress the rivalries between the
shaykhs or political controversies for various reasons, such as their respect for the past figures or
fear of being unnecessarily provocative. Finally, one should never lose sight of the fact that these
sources narrate the vitae of the shaykhs, not the history of their followers. One cannot really be
sure about how a certain deed of a shaykh was received amongst his followers unless it is very
explicitly mentioned by our sources. Our characters are mostly silent except when they were
made speak in the hagiographical/biographical literature. Also the intellectual output of the main
characters in this story is untreated as these works require to be contextualized in a long tradition
of Sufi writings in order to detect their distinct qualities; a task that is beyond the limits of this
dissertation. Such qualities, when socially and politically situated in their time period will
definitely talk much about their authors and the intellectual milieu. Otherwise the content of
these works would appear repetitive or derivative to an untrained eye.

These challenges are of course not limited to the historiography of Halvetiyye. Similar problems
are encountered by the researchers of the history of other orders. However the abovementioned
political relations of the Halvetiye make its history rather idiosyncratic. It is imperative to locate
narrative sources chronologically as well as to assess the personal leanings of the author before
utilizing a source. To overcome these challenges a researcher should let the narrative sources
engage in a dialogue with “harder evidences” such as archival documents, physical remains etc.

9
In other words, the hard evidence provides us historians the metaphorical skeleton 23 to our
narratives, which is lacking in some modern Sufi studies. 24

Documentary Sources: Hard Evidence

Halvetiye Sufi community was a community before anything else. And contrary to what their
moniker indicates, they were not isolated from the society, in which they flourished. Similar to
other social entities of the period, they had collective or private political interests, belonged to
social and economical networks and were subjects to/agents of larger historical change. And it is
equally imperative to trace the Halveti experience in its totality by using the sources of social
historians, i.e. the archival material. For the city and the period under study archival sources can
be grouped into two as those belonging to the central and local archives. The documents in the
Ottoman central archives are located in the Prime Ministry and Topkapı Museum archives in
Istanbul. These are mainly composed of land and tax survey registers, imperial orders, royal
correspondences and bookkeeping account of Bayezid II’s princely household in Amasya. Local
archives on the other hand are the endowment records produced in Amasya and currently being
kept in the archives of the general directorate of endowments in Ankara.

The most rewarding research experience of the present researcher took place in the archives of
the Topkapı Museum. These archives include a variety of documents, among which is the royal
correspondences. This study brings two of such letters under academic scrutiny for the first time.
These letters are critical in understanding the incorporation of the Halvetiye order into the
Ottoman world and the dynastic politics in the fifteenth century. Both of these letters were
addressed to Mehmed II around 885/1480. The first letter is written by Mehmed II’s spy in the
princely household of his eldest son Bayezid in Amasya. 25 Mehmed II’s relationship with his
eldest son became increasingly tense towards the end of the sultan’s life. This letter shows that
Mehmed II kept surveillance of and was very much disturbed with his son’s activities. More
importantly, the letter implies that one of the aims of Mehmed II’s last military campaign in the
spring of 886/1481 was eliminating Bayezid and his household. Mehmed II did not declare the
direction of this campaign and died on the road. This is a widely discussed subject in the works
of contemporary and modern authors. This letter partially answers this question. The author of
the letter is unknown. His observations not only enlighten a question about the dynastic politics
of the period, but also significant information about Mehmed II’s deteriorating health. Plus we
learn from this letter that the entourage of Bayezid fell into a great panic after learning the
direction of Mehmed II’s campaign.

23
Cornell H Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire the Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600)
(Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1986), 4.
24
On the other hand, the failures of placing too much trust in the archival evidence has its own trappings. Some of
these sources are not only formulaic, repetitive and prescriptive but also to some extent constructed and mostly
representative of the political authority’s perspective. Plus exclusive dependence on the archives would dry up the
narrative.
25
Topkapi Palace Archives (TSA) E.8335
10
The second letter is the product of this aura of panic and provides significant information about
the political history of the early Halvetiyye. 26 The letter is signed by Seyyidi (or Seydi) Halife
(d.940/1533-34), who lived and died in a Halveti Sufi lodge in Amasya. 27 This letter discloses
very critical information about the Halveti attitudes during the dynastic struggle around the time
of Mehmed II’s death in 886/1481. It is a statement of support for Prince Cem, the rival and
brother of Prince Bayezid. This letter demonstrates that Halveti dervishes of the period, contrary
to the widely held belief in the secondary literature, did not fully support Prince Bayezid against
his brother. And it shows that Halveti dervishes of the period were not a monolithic social entity
devoid of inner conflicts. Moreover, the letter is signed as “the wretched and the poor Halveti
Seyyidi.” 28 His presentation himself as “halveti” is also the earliest written example of such self-
labeling. This seems to be a bit early for the Ottoman Sufi orders in general, since these orders,
with the notable exception of Mevleviye, were not sufficiently institutionalized yet. The contents
of the letter, in relation with the personal connections of its author will be subject of a more
detailed analysis in the third chapter.

The central Ottoman archives also include registers of land and tax surveys done as a result of
the Ottoman expansion and centralization policies. Two of these surveys that cover the region
under study are dated from 881/1476 and 937/1530. 29 One learns from these surveys that the
predominant land holding practice in the region is malikane-divani, which is the double
ownership of land or land tax by the central authority and local notables. This land holding
practice is nearly exclusive to the Rum province because of region’s idiosyncratic history. It
allowed the local elite a relative independence from the centralistic land policies, especially
towards the end of the Mehmed II’s reign. 30 Survey registers not only provide the names and
incomes of tax payers but also the list of tax-exempt endowments, their properties and
beneficiaries. They are especially critical in understanding the network of income flow between
the city’s rural hinterlands to the urban elite through the medium of endowed institutions.
Unfortunately the 881/1476 register is in abridged form and only includes the revenues of Prince
Bayezid and his household. The 937/1530 register however lists all the endowed institutions with
their properties and beneficiaries and is extensively used in this study.

These survey registers form the basis of a legion of dissertations written on urban history in
Turkish universities today. 31 However only a small portion of these registers survived from the
fifteenth century and they are mostly in abridged form as exemplified above. The scarcity of
these registers as well as the dearth of legal records, the most helpful aide of an Ottoman urban

26
Topkapi Palace Archives (TSA) E.6451
27
Mehmet Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani (Beşiktaş, İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı ve Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih
Vakfı, 1996), 1499.
28
“el-hakir el-fakir Halveti Seyyidi”
29
BOA, TT 15 (881/1476) and BOA, TD 387 (937/1530)
30
See Oktay Özel, “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's "Land Reform" Revisited,” Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 42, no. 2 (1999): 226-246.
31
However descriptive and source oriented these works are, they provide a systematic and often quantitative
analysis of the Ottoman survey registers and facilitate further research in the field of urban studies.
11
historian, is an important setback for the purposes of this study. 32 Nevertheless a unique feature
of Amasya avail a new set of sources, i.e. the endowment deeds (waqfiya). The city of Amasya
had a privileged relationship with the Ottoman dynasty, thus was spared from the destruction
caused by the Ottoman expansion in Anatolia and at the same time became a significant site of
urban development in the fifteenth century. The amount of the fifteenth century construction
activity in the city can only be surpassed by those of Bursa, the ancient Ottoman capital in
northwest Anatolia. 33 The construction activity mostly focused on lodge-mosques (zaviyeli
camiler) and almost exclusively coupled with establishment of an endowment for their expenses.
The frequent endowment activity in Amasya left modern urban historians an unmatched
document trail, through which one can trace the incorporation of the city to the Ottoman
enterprise, the relationship between the Ottoman center, the local elite and increasingly
urbanized Sufi activities. 34

There is also a very local trait in the endowment activity. Endowments that were made by the
local elite were usually geared towards protecting property from the encroachment of central
authority in the form of confiscation or taxation. This is the reason why the waqfiyas are very
well protected and reproduced by the local families for generations. They were very precious
sources of information about the control of endowments and were frequently consulted in legal
disputes. In this respect, endowment deeds tell us the story of the formation of the Ottoman
empire from the perspective of the Ottoman periphery; the central concern of this dissertation
and a novel point of view in the fifteenth century Ottoman historiography.

Lastly the social and economic aspects of the history of Halveti dervishes can be grasped better
by utilizing the waqfiyas. 35 These dervishes were the residents of endowed institutions. The
waqfiyas of these institutions provide a tangible link between the Sufis and the local notables, the
city and its rural hinterland, and socio-economical and relationship with the imperial center. The
stipulations and the name of the witnesses included in these documents provide very valuable
data about the daily lives of its residents, local power networks etc. Finally, they enrich and
sometimes invalidate the information provided in narrative sources and secondary literature. A
good example can be given from the endowment deed of the Yakup Paşa Lodge (Çilehane),
which was built in 815/1412 for the Halveti dervishes. This lodge has a significant place in the
transmission of Halvetiye to Anatolia and it concurrent urbanization in the fifteenth century.
However its construction date was subject to discussion. Hüseyin Hüsameddin Yaşar, who has
seen the document, correctly date the construction of this lodge and because he does not refer the
location of the endowment deed later historians either used this information with caution

32
The earliest surviving court record is dated from 1601. See Fikret Yılmaz, “Amasya'nın Bir Numaralı Şer'iye
Sicili” (MA, İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi, 1987).
33
Ekrem Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-1451)]
(Istanbul: Damla Ofset, 1989).
34
Perhaps it is no surprise that one of the translators of these documents, Hüseyin Hüsameddin Yaşar became one of
the pioneers of the Turkish urban historiography.
35
Adnan Gürbüz’s comprehensive survey of the endowment activity in Amasya in the fifteenth and sixteenth
century is a great contribution to the field. See Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya
Sancağı.”
12
[unfortunately sometimes without caution] or completely ignore it. 36 As a result of a fortunate
coincidence, I was handed the original document in the archives of the general directorate of
endowments in Ankara. This document is subjected to scholarly inspection for the first time in
this study. As will be elaborated in the second chapter, the information provided in the
endowment deed of Yakup Paşa lodge sheds light on what is properly called as “the Halveti dark
ages.” 37

Physical Remains: The Hardest Evidence

History is pretty much written on stone in the period under study. The architectural and
epigraphic evidence is abundant for the history of the fifteenth century Amasya. The epigraphic
evidence consists of tombstones and the building inscriptions of lodge-mosques. They include a
variety of information from biographical data of historical personalities to the endowed
properties of a particular institution. The titles or nicknames employed for the founder of a
lodge-mosque or the deceased buried in a tomb complex also provide significant clues about the
social relations, local networks and to some extent the mentalities. These materials are easily
accessible to researchers thanks to an early twentieth century survey done in the region by Ismail
Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. 38 One also finds the epigraphic material deciphered in monographs done on a
particular lodge-mosque or in more general works on the city’s epigraphic legacy. 39

One of the findings of my study is that Amasya’s Sufi tradition, unique private land-ownership
practices, and privileged connection with the Ottoman center translated into a shared
architectural design in religious structures. This is most evident in the frequency of the
construction of lodge-mosques in both the Ottoman core lands and Amasya in the fifteenth
century. Nearly all of the lodge-mosques constructed in this period are intact in modern day
Amasya. In addition to the density of their construction activity in this period, the plans and
locations of these lodges are also telling evidences of the initial stages of the formation of Sufi
communities and their social and political connections. The abovementioned Yakup Paşa Lodge
(Çilehane) again gives us a perfect example in this matter. The organization of space in this
lodge indicates that this building was specifically designed for the practice of halvet, i.e. ascetic
retreat. The layout of the halvet cells around the main prayer hall and their double-gated design
reveals much about the idea of communality versus individuality among the early Halveti
dervishes. Moreover the location of this lodge, its placement on a hill overlooking the road to
Azerbaijan, where Halvetiye order originated and its proximity to princes’ residence are
important signifiers. This lodge is central to the history of Halvetis in Amasya. Not only its
architectural features and location, but also its inhabitants, patron and their relationship with the
Ottomans is critical in understanding the initiation of Halveti activities in the city. The sketch of
the lodge, along with the city map will be presented further in the second chapter.

36
Wolper dates the building in the fourteenth century. Wolper, Cities and Saints, 58.
37
Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire, 28.
38
İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Kitabeler (Istanbul: Milli Matbaası, 1927). Ali Yardım, Amasya Kaya Kitabesi: Bayezid
Paşa İmareti Vakfiyesi, 1st ed. (Ankara: T.C. Amasya Valiliği, 2004).
39
Günnur Aydoğdu, “Amasya Mezartaşları” (MA, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi, 1997).
13
Lastly, the city of Amasya today provides a seldom opportunity for researchers, since its
fifteenth century landscape is almost crystallized because of various factors. The flourishing of
the city ceased as it lost the favor of the Ottoman dynasty in the sixteenth century and became
one of the centers of Celali uprisings in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. And when
the city began to prosper again, its unique topography pushed new settlements outside the
boundaries of the old city. Most of the monuments of the fifteenth century remain intact and for
those few that are lost, there is a very useful travel literature and secondary sources from
sixteenth century onwards. The architectural features of the physical remains of these
monuments accompanied with their location in the layout of the city fulfills more than the
expectations of an art historian. Sara Wolper’s ingenious reading of the monuments of the
greater region of Sivas, Tokat and Amasya in relation to the local power struggles and the urban
space in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries can more easily be applied to our context. 40

Chapter Organization

Utilizing the waqfiyas the first chapter of this study attempts to reconstruct the political and
economic basis of regional Sufi identity in the context of fifteenth-century Amasya. The type,
benefactors, locales and beneficiaries of these endowments, as well as the composition of the
endowed properties all point to the existence of a regional infrastructure and network of
endowments, which facilitated and later homogenized Sufi activities to a certain extent. This
infrastructure was a product of the combination of the existing landholding system in Amasya
and the process of the establishment of “Pax Ottomanica” in central Anatolia. Its manifestations
were the proliferation of a particular type of Sufi architecture called lodge-mosques and the
concurrent urbanization of Sufi activities. In the first half of the fifteenth century, the Halvetiye
Sufi order, which originated in the rural areas of Azerbaijan, was incorporated by this regional
infrastructure and assumed an urban and Amasyan identity. 41 Amasya provided a safe haven for
the Halvetiye Sufi order, which was challenged by urban and more established rival orders in the
East and West. 42 The formation of a regional Sufi identity through the fusing of Halveti and
Amasyan identities is the subject of the second chapter. In the second half of the fifteenth
century, the Halveti/Amasyan regional identity overlapped with that of a princely faction led by
Prince Bayezid who eventually vied for the Ottoman throne. The third chapter is about the
Halveti/Amasyan bid for influence in the religious domain in the Ottoman imperial core lands,
especially in the imperial center at its formative period, through association with one of the

40
Wolper, Cities and Saints.
41
For the doctrine and practices of the Halvetiye, see Appendix.
42
J Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 91. The story of the
Halvetiye’s survival thanks to the city of Amasya has implications on a larger historical background. In the post-
Mongol fifteenth century and the wake of the three large early modern empires (the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal),
the Islamic world witnessed urban growth and rise of Sufi orders. Among these orders, those originating in the
major intellectual centers of the Islamic world, such as Bukhara or Cairo, had better chance to reach out to urban
population and the elite, while others were either marginalized or incorporated by the urban orders. The Halvetiye,
which originated on the mountainous northern frontiers of the Islamic world (Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus),
went through the same challenges. And while the Halvetis of the east were marginalized by the Kübrevis (read
Zeynis in the fifteenth century Ottoman context) and Nakşibendis, the Western Halvetis managed to survive thank to
the safe haven provided by Amasya.
14
contending political parties. The fourth and last chapter of this dissertation draws on the narrative
sources and demonstrates regionalism in the Ottoman Empire as experienced in the rivalry
between the Sufi orders of the Ottoman capital in the sixteenth century. It is an attempt to
underline the conflict between two branches of Halvetiye order, which belonged to competing
political/regionalist factions. This chapter concludes that regional Sufi identities significantly
contributed to the formation of the socio-religious domain in the Ottoman capital Istanbul and
persisted until after Istanbul became a hegemonic imperial center in the late sixteenth century.

In conclusion, the religious contribution of Amasya to the rising Ottoman world against the
backdrop of political factionalism, interregional rivalry and Sufism challenges some of the key
assumptions about the center-periphery relations in the process of empire building in the early
Ottoman period. The city exerted a degree of historical agency as it urbanized and Ottomanized
the Halvetiye order. In the process, it eliminated a Sufi tradition that had a close connection to
its historical rival: the Zeyniye Sufi order of Konya. This leads us to question the modern
perception of fifteenth-century Anatolia as unified and monolithic, and a backwater to the rising
Ottoman world. The regionalist colors in Istanbul’s socio-religious fabric indicate that the
Anatolian provinces played active roles in the formation of the Ottoman Empire to a great extent.

15
Chapter One
The Ottomanization of Amasya and the Urbanization of the Sufi Activities

Introduction

This chapter sets the socio-religious scene in the north central Anatolian city of Amasya in the
fifteenth century as a background to urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye. What is
attempted below is the reconstruction of the infrastructure and the network of the political and
economic basis of regional Sufi tradition through a close study of endowment activities. Utilizing
waqfiyas, the richest yet still understudied sources for the fifteenth century Ottoman Empire, I
extracted information about the types, locales, patrons, administrators and beneficiaries of these
endowments, as well as the composition of the endowed properties, all of which enable one to
explore the processes, conflicts and outcomes of the incorporation of the region by the Ottomans
and the subsequent urbanization of Sufi activities.

This chapter is organized chronologically and limited to the period between the Islamic conquest
of Amasya in the twelfth century and the enthronement of Bayezid II in 886/1481, the latter date
marking the end of the first century of Ottoman rule in Amasya and the transmission of the
Halvetiye Sufi order to the imperial capital. After an introduction on pre-Ottoman Sufi activities
in the city, this chapter details the history of the patronage of Sufism in Amasya under Ottoman
rule. 43 The pre-Ottoman period, which is briefly narrated in the first part, is marked by the
activities of the Turcoman shaykh Baba İlyas-ı Rumi (d.638/1240), whose legacy influenced
regional Sufi orders in later centuries. The Turcoman shaykh Baba İlyas-ı Rumi might simply be
called the founder of the regional Sufi tradition. The second part covers the period between
789/1387 and 825/1421. This period was a very turbulent one since it witnessed the arrival of the
Ottomans in the region (789/1387), the Timurid invasion (805/1402-807/1405), the Ottoman
interregnum (805/1402-816/1413) and the reign of Mehmed I (816/1413-824/1421.) In this part
there is also a discussion of the lodge-mosques, which became the dominant mode of endowment
in the Ottoman lands until 886/1481. The proliferation of these types of buildings has multiple
implications concerning the center-periphery relationship. The subsequent period in Amasyan
history, which is treated in the third part of the chapter, is marked by the privileged autonomy of
the city. During this period, which stretches from 825/1421 to 870/1465, patronage activities
were led by the local ruling family, that of Yörgüç Pasha. The rest of the benefactors of the Sufi
lodges, or any other endowment for that matter, were local figures, a fact underlining the
autonomy of the city. Also in this period, Amasya took on the role of a diplomatic center as the
Ottomans became increasingly involved in the politics of their eastern neighbors. 44 In the last

43
Beside the scope of this study, there is also a technical reason why I chose to concentrate on the patronage of
Sufism; the relative lack of primary sources other than waqfiya (endowment deeds). And because of the nature of the
richest sources at hand, i.e. waqfiyas, historians build up their narratives around endowment activities and their
participants. This is observable in all the urban histories of Amasya. See Hüseyin Hüsameddin Yaşar, Amasya
Tarihi, vol. 3 (Dersaadet [d.i. Istanbul]: Necm-i İstikbal Matbaası, 1927).; Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-
Balābil.” This study follows the tradition of urban history writing in Amasya.
44
Amasya maintained this status until the Ottomans consolidated their hold over Mamluk territories and pushed the
borders with Iran to Azerbaijan in the mid-sixteenth century. And until that time, Amasya kept hosting the Ottoman
princes as governors.
16
part of Amasyan history under study, that between 870/1465 and 886/1481, the glaring absence
of the construction of lodges and the significantly decreased endowment activity in general are
explained in the context of the aggressive centralization policies of Sultan Mehmed II and the
tense political atmosphere due to the upcoming dynastic struggle. The last part concludes with a
discussion of the sui generis land tenure system in the region and its role in connecting the rural
hinterland of the city to its urban center through endowment activities. Such connections account
for a regional Sufi identity shared by the city dwellers and the rural populations. Instead of one
general conclusion, I included concluding remarks at the end of each part.

Part I: Pre-Ottoman Background, 1075-1387

One of the historical sources for the traits of the cultural/mystical environment of Amasya and
the greater Rum region is also one of the earliest Anatolian hagiographies, namely Elvan
Çelebi’s (d. after 760/1358-59) Manāqib al-Qudsiyya fi Manāśib al-Unsiyya. Originally written
in a village situated fifty-six kilometres west of Amasya, 45 it narrates the exploits of a Turcoman
shaykh Baba İlyas-ı Rumi who lived and initiated a popular revolt around Amasya. The revolt
was suppressed by the Anatolian Seljukids and Baba İlyas was executed in Amasya castle, 46 but
Baba İlyas’s descendants and khalifas became very influential in the following centuries. In
many ways, Baba İlyas and his family provide an archetype for the shaykhly families of later
centuries. The lodge of Elvan Çelebi, which was founded in the mid-fourteenth century, probably
owned the lands around it. Gradually a village, most likely composed of Baba İlyas’ followers,
developed around the lodge. The transmission of the lodge’s leadership passed through male
heirs, another archetypal feature for some Sufi brotherhoods of later centuries. The foundation of
this lodge is one of the earliest instances in Anatolia where the issues of family, property and
mysticism intersected in the establishment of a Sufi brotherhood. Among Baba İlyas’ followers
were the mentor to Osman Ghazi (d.724/1324), Shaykh Edebali (d.724/1324), and the father of
the founder of the Karamanid dynasty, Nure Sofi (d. unknown). 47 Baba İlyas’ Sufi tradition
remained alive and was perpetuated by the followers of another khalifa, namely Hacı Bektaş-ı
Veli (d.670/1271). It is highly possible that Baba İlyas himself provided an archetypical figure
for later local saints - including some among the Halveti shaykhs of Amasya - both in oral and
written traditions.

Baba İlyas’s revolt made local rulers aware of the political potential of the Sufi lodges, either as
a threat or as a means of self-legitimatization. 48 As Sarah Wolper points out, this awareness
accompanied by political instability following the Kösedağ battle in 641/1243 and a new

45
Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “Elvan Çelebi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 11 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988), 62.
46
For more information on this revolt, see Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, La révolte de Baba Resul, ou, La formation de
l'hétérodoxie musulmane en Anatolie au XIIIe siècle (Ankara: Impr. de la Société turque d'histoire, 1989).
47
Kemalpaşazade Şemsüddin Ahmed (d.1534), Tevarih-i Al-i Osman: II. Defter, trans. Şerafettin Turan, vol. 2
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1983), 64-69. ; Ahmet Şikari (d.1584), Karamanname: Zamanın
Kahramanı Karamanilerin Tarihi, ed. Metin Sözen and Necdet Sakaoğlu (Istanbul: Karaman Valiliği Karaman
Belediyesi, 2005), 21.
48
Wolper, Cities and Saints, 11.
17
aggressive land regime under the Mongols, led to a new kind of building and patronage
activities. 49 Both centripetal (Seljukid and Mongol governors) and centrifugal forces (old local
families) began endowing property to madrasas and Sufi lodges, though with diverse
motivations; the former intended to obtain legitimacy, hence local support, while the latter tried
to protect their private property.

Urban Lodges

Before the revolt of Baba İlyas, there were two Sufi lodges in the city, namely Hankah-ı Mesudi
(built in 545/1150 by the Seljukid ruler Sultan I. Rükneddin Mesud [510/1116-551/1156]) 50 and
Kuba Hankahı (built sometime before 585/1189). 51 According to Hüseyin Hüsameddin, the
celebrated urban historian of Amasya at the beginning of the twentieth century, the
aforementioned Baba İlyas and his successors inhabited the first one, which intermittently
remained open throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Kuba Hankahı, on the other
hand, could have been the Sufi lodge visited and described as an Akhi lodge by the fourteenth-
century Arab traveler Ibn Batuta. 52 After the Baba İlyas revolt, the Gök Medrese lodge was built
in 665/1266 by Torumtay ibn Abdüsselam, the governor general of the region. 53 Some scholars
consider this building only the tomb of the founder, 54 but as Wolper demonstrates tombs were
also locales of Sufi activities and a building’s two simultaneous functions would not necessarily
cancel each other out. This building must have served as a lodge until at least the late
seventeenth century since Evliya Çelebi includes it among the city’s Sufi lodges. 55 Wolper also
dates the Yakup Pasha Lodge to this period, but a recently discovered waqfiya suggests that this
lodge was built exactly a century later. 56

Another historical source, namely Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki’s (d.762/1360) Manāqib al-
Ārifīn, informs us about the presence of Mevlevi dervishes in the city before 683/1284. Aflaki
states that Mevlana Alaeddin bin Bayram (d. after 716/1316), a pupil of Hüsameddin Çelebi
(d.683/1284), came back to his native town with an icazet given by his master. Mevlana
Alaeddin-i Amasyevi, as described by Aflaki, began preaching and sending out khalifas around

49
Ibid., 11,25.
50
Hüseyin Hüsameddin Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I (Mukaddime), trans. Ali Yılmaz and Mehmet Akkuş (Ankara,
1986), 189. Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s date is confirmed by the waqfiya of Halifet Gazi Madrasa. See Halifet Gazi
Madrasa Waqfiya VGMA, 610/46 p. 37
51
Kaya Paşa Cami’i Sağir Waqfiya VGMA, 582/211 p.307
52
Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “Zaviyeler,” Vakıflar Dergisi 12 (1978): 269. Referred in Wolper, Cities and Saints, 58.
When Ibn Batuta visited the city, he was hosted by the Rıfai shaykh Seyyid Ahmed Kuçek Rıfai.
53
Ibid., 57.
54
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 166. Albert Gabriel, Monuments turcs d'Anatolie., vol. 2 (Paris: De Boccard, 1934), 59.
Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi,” 41.
55
Wolper, Cities and Saints, 70. Evliya Çelebi (1611?-1682?), Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi: Topkapı Sarayı
Bağdat 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu, dizini, trans. Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman, and Yücel Dağlı
(Beyoğlu, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996), 97.
56
This waqfiya discovered by coincidence. Here I owe special thanks to Nazif Öztürk, who graciously provided me
the documents from the archives of General Directorate of Endowments in Ankara.
18
Amasya, which earned him a good reputation in the city by the turn of the fourteenth century. 57
He established a lodge 58 where he hosted Arif Çelebi (d.719/1320) when the latter appeared in
Amasya around 1316. 59 Mevlevi dervishes were apparently respected by the city notables. For
instance, the city commander Muhammed Bey b. Torumtay arranged a gathering in honor of Arif
Çelebi, during which the guest of honor clashed with Mevlana Alaeddin over his wine-drinking
habits. 60 Aflaki notes that although Mevlana Alaeddin came to accept Arif Çelebi’s spiritual
ascendance, he could not escape the calamities that would befall him, as later his lodge twice
caught fire and burned downed completely, and his followers left him to become disciples of
Arif Çelebi. 61 Among these disciples was the judge of the city, Mevlana İmadeddin bin Kurdi, 62
who accompanied his shaykh throughout his travels in the region. 63 Aflaki, himself a disciple of
Arif Çelebi, might not be a reliable source on the “grim” fate of Mevlana Alaeddin and his lodge.
Later historical sources suggest that this Mevlevi lodge survived until the mid-nineteenth
century. 64 For instance, Evliya Çelebi ([Link]), an Ottoman traveler of the seventeenth
century, counts this Mevlevi lodge as the most perfect one among all the lodges in Amasya. 65

Rural Lodges

Compared with the city center, the countryside was brimming with Sufi activity. 66 In İlyas
(formerly Çat) village, located sixteen kilometers south of Amasya, a tomb and Sufi lodge were
built over Baba İlyas’ grave sometime after his execution in 638//1240. In the summer of
714/1314, two brothers, Mahmud and Yakup Şah Çelebis, endowed their properties to a lodge
located in Geldikalan village. 67 A certain Shaykh Bahsayis b. es-Shaykh Ghazi built a lodge for
himself in 745/1344 in Ilisu village situated forty-five kilometers southwest of Amasya. 68 About
a few kilometers north of this lodge, Elvan Çelebi, a descendant of Baba İlyas, built his own
lodge in 753/1352, in the village posthumously named after him. 69 A similar association between

57
Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki (d.1360), Manāqib al-'ārifīn, ed. Tahsin Yazıcı (Ānqarah: Chāpkhānah-i Anjuman-i
Tārīkh-i Turk, 1959), 874.
58
Hüseyin Hüsameddin claims that a certain Alaeddin Ali Pervane Bey, allegedly a descendant of an elite Anatolian
Seljukid family, had this lodge built in 714/1314. This claim is unfounded and unfortunately led some modern
researchers to false conclusions. (See Wolper, Cities and Saints, 58. and Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri
Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 243.) The late Kani Kuzucular’s dissertation, however, is the one that
reminded this researcher to check Manāqib al-Ārifīn and saved him from becoming another victim of Hüseyin
Hüsameddin’s imaginary Amasya. Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi,” 42.
59
Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki (d.1360), Manāqib al-'ārifīn, 874.
60
Ibid., 877-878.
61
Ibid., 876, 879.
62
Ibid., 876.
63
Ibid., 931-932.
64
Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi,” 106.
65
Ibid., 42.
66
As Wolper suggests, the urbanization of Sufi actitivies began after the Baba İlyas revolt. Yet the pace of the
urbanization was not as fast as Wolper argues. Wolper, Cities and Saints, 100. Such dramatic change only came
with the arrival of the Ottomans at the turn of the fifteenth century.
67
Mahmud and Yakup Şah Çelebi Waqfiya VGMA, 610/45 p.36, Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 286.
68
Shaykh Bahsayis b. es-Shaykh Ghazi Waqfiya VGMA, 581/325 p.332, Sadi Kucur, “Sivas, Tokat ve Amasya'da
Selçuklu ve Beylikler Devri Vakıfları” (Ph.D, Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993), 76.
69
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 248.
19
a village and its lodge occurred in a certain Umurbey village in Ladik district, where tax
revenues were endowed for the Shaykh Savcı lodge built in the mid-fourteenth century. 70 About
a decade later, the Seyyid Yahya Lodge was constructed in Hakale (modern-day Yolpınar
village, approximately eight kilometers northwest of Amasya) for Shaykh Seyyid Necmeddin
Yahya er-Rıfai (d.771/1369). 71 Along with these Sufi lodges, Adnan Gürbüz, in his study on
Amasya endowments, extracts the names of three other Sufi lodges outside of the city, including
those of Shaykh Bayezid, Çavrıcı and Oruç Bey, from the survey register dated 937/1530. 72
However, the exact dates of construction for these lodges are unknown.

Concluding Remarks

The locales of the lodges built in the period following Baba İlyas revolt (638/1240) and the
Kösedağ Battle (641/1243) were predominantly rural. Only a Mevlevihane and a Gök Medrese
lodge were built in the city center, while at least six lodges were constructed in the countryside
between 648/1250 and 772/1370. The urbanization of Sufi activities, which would take place in
the fifteenth century, is closely related to Ottoman incorporation of the region.

An interesting detail worth noting is that during the pre-Ottoman period, three major madrasas
were constructed in the city center. Does this fact support the historiographical dichotomy
between urban/high/madrasa Islam versus rural/low/tekke Islam? Not necessarily. First of all, it
was the ulema of the cities that endorsed and certified the waqfiyas of all rural lodges. Second,
the locale and the nature of these endowment activities do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to ascribe an “ideological” motivation to the endower. As Wolper points out, endowers
might very well have chosen to establish a Sufi lodge simply because it was relatively
inexpensive. 73

The order affiliations of the Sufis that resided in these lodges, on the other hand, are rarely
known. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is related to the available sources. The
late fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Ottoman surveys, the major source for Ottomanists working
on this period, did not specify the names of the Sufi orders to which the resident dervishes
belong. An exception to this practice occured when Sufi orders occupying lodges used a more
specific name for their places of gathering rather than the generic term “lodge.” For example, the
Mevlevi order called their lodge “Mevlevihane,” meaning the lodge of Mevlevi dervishes. 74 We
know there were two Mevlevihanes in Amasya - one in the city center and the other in the

70
Hüseyin Hüsameddin give 756/1355 , as a date of construction. His source is certain Gazi Çelebi Waqfiya, which
I could not locate. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 340. Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda
Amasya Sancağı,” 249.
71
For his date of death written on his tombstone, see Sadi Bayram, “Samsun-Ladik ve Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebir
Hazretleri,” Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 5 (1990): 11-22. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 281.
72
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 249-250.
73
Wolper, Cities and Saints, 25.
74
Other examples are the term “Kalenderhane” for Kalenderis and Hayderis, and “Ishakhane” for the Kazerunis.
Ahmet Yaşar Ocak and Suraiya Faroqhi, “Zaviye,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 13 (Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1967),
468-476. Ibid.
20
excursion spot outside Amasya - both recorded by the Ottoman survey of 937/1530. 75 The
second reason accounting for the lack of information on Sufi order affiliations for lodge-mosques
in the sources is simply the absence of most of the Sufi orders at that time. The aforementioned
period when lodge-mosques were frequently constructed overlaps with the second half of the era
associated with “the rise of organized Sufism” which took place in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. The Halvetiye, Zeyniye, Nakşibendiye and Bayramiye Sufi orders were all in their
initial formative stages at this point. Among them only the Halvetiye and Zeyniye were about to
appear in a city’s Sufi scene whereas the others were absent until the sixteenth century.

Two Sufi orders proved to be exceptions to the general lack of Sufi order affliation of lodges: the
above-mentioned Mevleviye order and the Rıfaiye order. I briefly touched upon the Mevleviye
order above in the context of the foundation of the Amasya Mevlevihanesi. As for the Rıfaiye
order, it was founded by Ahmed el-Rıfai (d. 578/ 1182) in Iraq and became widespread in central
Anatolia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 76 The Rıfaiye order happened to be very
active in Amasya in particular. They had two lodges there that, similar to the Mevlevihane
lodges, were located in the city and the countryside respectively. As mentioned above, Ibn
Batuta visited the Rıfai lodges in the city and was hosted by the shaykh Seyyid Ahmed Kuçek
Rıfai (d.752/1351). One also encounters Seyyid Ahmed Kuçek’s name in the Aflaki’s
abovementioned hagiography, in which the Rıfai shaykh goes to visit Arif Çelebi, when the latter
came to Amasya. 77 Mevlevi and Rıfai lodges were founded in the fourteenth century. In the
following century there are three names with the sobriquet “el-Rıfai” among the witnesses of the
endowment of the Bayezid Pasha lodge-mosque built in 817/1414. The fact that these names
were among those of the witnesses shows that by that time Rıfais had become respected
members of the urban community. It could also indicate that the Rıfai dervishes occupied the
Bayezid Pasha lodge-mosque. 78

Part II: The Establishment of Ottoman Rule (789/1387-824/1421)

For almost a century Amasya remained the oldest “Islamic city” in the hands of the Ottomans. 79
Holding and cherishing Amasya and the Rum province where travelers from the East entered the

75
Ahmet Özkılınç, ed., Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Karaman ve Rum defteri: (937/1530) (Amasya, Çorumlu, Sivas-Tokat,
Sonisa-Niksar, Kara-hisar-i Şarki, Canik, Trabzon, Kemah, Bayburd, Malatya, Gerger-Kahta ve Divrigi-Darende
Livalari : Dizin ve Tıpkıbasım) (Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire
Başkanlığı, 1997), 355-356, 363, 365, 380. For other Sufi order affliations, I had to resort to other sources to figure
out the affiliation of a particular lodge. An example is provided in the next chapter where I match the numbers
provided in a biography of a Zeyni shaykh and a contemporary waqfiya in order to reach a conclusion about the
affiliation of a certain lodge in the district of Merzifon, near Amasya.
76
C.E. Bosworth et al., eds., “Rifa’iyya,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. (Brill, 2010),
<[Link]
77
Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki (d.1360), Manāqib al-'ārifīn, 915.
78
BOA, Ali Emiri, Mehmed I/ 2
79
Amasya had two hundred more years of Islamic history than the oldest city in the hands of the Ottomans until the
conquest of Konya in the second half of the fifteenth century. The cities of the frontier principalities, such as
Ayasuluğ or Kütahya, were less developed as an Islamic city than Amasya. Hüseyin Hüsameddin Yaşar and Mustafa
Akdağ, point out this feature of Amasya by underlining the Rum Seljukid heritage, hence the prestige of the city and
21
Ottoman realm, must have been a matter of prestige for Ottoman sultans. 80 Moreover, by sending
their princes to the city, the Ottomans provided them a place where they could learn to become
Islamic rulers by governing an Islamic city. Amasya had greater significance in the immediate
political geography. Following Amasya’s conquest, the Ottomans inherited the city’s centuries-
long rivalry with Konya, which was held by the Ottomans’ main rivals in Anatolia, the Karamani
dynasty. Akdag surmises that Amasya and Konya were the two Seljukid capitals in Anatolia,
which respectively controlled the right and left frontier commands (uç beylerbeğiliği). He also
asserts that the Ottomans, who belonged to the left frontier, were aware of the significance of
holding Amasya in the eyes of the political remnants of the Seljukid state. 81 Although this
argument needs qualification, it does help explain why the period of Amasya’s rise as a urban
center in the region overlaps with that of the Ottoman rivalry with the Karamanids, both
corresponding to the dates between 788/1386 and 889/1483.

The Arrival of the Ottomans

In the fifteenth century - the first century of the Ottoman period for Amasya, which began with
Bayezid I’s (791/1389-805/1402) annexation of the city in 789/1387 and concluded with
Bayezid II’s accession to the Ottoman throne in 886/1481 - the urban center of Amasya
witnessed an exponential increase in the number of Sufi lodges. At least twelve Sufi lodges were
built in the city center, while three others were constructed in the countryside. In the first century
of Ottoman rule, Amasya became the most vibrant urban center in central Anatolia. As the
Ottomans began to appear as major political actors in the region, they simultaneously became the
primary agent of change in the history of the city, especially in the first decades of their rule.

The Ottomans first appeared in the region of Amasya thanks to the activities of the ambitious and
energetic Ottoman prince Bayezid (the future Bayezid I). Bayezid offered Amasya, which had
been enjoying its independence from the Eretnid state since 762/1360, protection against its
encroaching and more powerful neighbors in the east and north. Amasya in turn provided the
Ottomans with a garrison city they needed to fulfill their plans to expand further east and south.
Over the next few years the region became a battleground between the Ottomans based in
Amasya and their rivals. Following the death of Kadı Burhaneddin (d.801/1398), the powerful
rival of the Ottomans and the sworn enemy of Amasya, the region completely surrendered to
Bayezid I. The youngest of Bayezid’s sons, Mehmed, who was nine-years-old, became the
nominal governor of the city in 801/1398.

its key significance in the eyes of the fifteenth century Ottomans. The term “Islamic city” itself is a subject of
historiographical debate. By the term “Islamic city”, I not only mean the comparatively older existence of Islamic
institutions in the city, but also the resulting operating modes and networks of relationships established and between
between the urban actors such as the ‘ulema, Sufis, soldiers and non-Muslims. One should also add the comparative
prevalence of the private property, hence a relatively independent local land holding elite, to this definition. Lastly,
with its urban spatial and architectural order and a “perfect” blend of Muslim, Christian and Jewish population,
Amasya proved to be a miniature Muslim metropolis to be ruled by a prince in training.
80
Mehmed II’s harsh reaction to the razing of Tokat (one of the urban centers of the region) by Uzun Hasan should
be understood in this context. Uzun Hasan’s act should have been taken as a great insult to Mehmed II’s image in
the Islamic world.
81
Mustafa Akdağ, Türkiye'nin İktisadi ve İçtimai Tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1959), 252-255.
22
But the turn of the fifteenth century proved disastrous for the nascent empire of the Ottomans.
Bayezid I’s defeat in the Battle of Ankara and his subsequent capture and death, spoiled his
imperial project. Bayezid’s sons began to fight each other and his territorial acquisitions were
taken back by previous rulers. Amasya, on the other hand, chose to stick with the Ottomans
despite the fact that it had only recently come under Ottoman rule. The city later became the
capital of Mehmed I and remained an Ottoman capital for much of the Ottoman interregnum
(804/1402-816/1413), a period of internecine strife between the sons of Bayezid I after the defeat
in the Battle of Ankara.

During the Ottoman interregnum and the subsequent reign of Mehmed I, Amasya’s landscape
underwent a substantial change. As the bid of Amasya’s candidate for the Ottoman throne
proved successful, the “golden age of Amasya” began and the city became a site of patronage
comparable only to the two former Ottoman capitals, Bursa and Edirne. 82 The source of
patronage was varied; there were non-local Ottomans, local non-Ottomans and local Ottomans. 83
However, the overarching characteristic of all of these endowment activities in this period was
their heavily urban location compared to those of the thirteenth century mentioned above. In
addition, the nature of patronage was almost monolithic until the end of the period under study;
almost all of the endowments in Amasya were made for the lodge-mosques. A lengthy
discussion about the lodge-mosques is in order because they provide architectural evidence for
the connection between the Ottoman corelands and the Amasyan periphery in terms of religious
practice.

Lodge- Mosques

Before analyzing the origins and significance of lodge-mosques, I should note that in the
secondary literature some lodge-mosques are not put into the category of dervish lodges. Certain
scholars tend to reduce the function of a particular building to a single activity and lose the
totality of both the meaning of the space and the endowment activity. Wolper gives the example
of the aforementioned Gök Medrese dervish lodge, which is categorized as a tomb in the
secondary literature because of its architectural style. 84 Yet the building inscription does not
define the building as a tomb. Although there is indeed a crypt below, the second floor of the

82
Another unique feature of the city is the existence of an equal amount of pre-Ottoman and Ottoman architectural
patronage, which is most probably unmatched in the Ottoman Empire. Coupled with the very conspicuous pre-
Islamic remains, all of these buildings provided an image to the local population, of their city that survived differing
ruling polities over more than two thousand years. The notion of historical continuity in the minds of Amasyans
perhaps explain why the city produced one of the earliest comprehensive urban histories in the Ottoman Empire. See
Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil.” “Golden age” is a commonplace term describing this period in
the history of Amasya. For instance, see Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi,” 52.
83
Who is an Ottoman? This question is still not quite answered. In this study, the term “Ottoman” defines people
who are or have been actively in the service of the Ottoman dynasty, more particularly the household of Sultan
Mehmed I. In this context, the term “local Ottomans” refer to the local elite who served Mehmed I in various
positions.
84
Wolper, Cities and Saints, 70.
23
building is designated as a place where the poor and the dervishes were served food daily. 85 A
more likely scenario is that the dervishes used this space for activities like reciting Quran or
remembrance, all of which would not conflict with the building’s dual “lodge-tomb” function. 86
Roughly four hundred years later, the Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi would name this building
among the lodges of the city. 87 This shows that one of the services performed in a lodge-mosque
might predominate at a certain time and become the characteristic function of the building.

The shift in the meaning and use of space, particularly in the context of early Ottoman Sufi
lodges, is worth close examination. For example, a historical process similar to that of “lodge-
tombs” happened with mosques, which were originally built to be more than places of prayer.
Most of these mosques had a ⊥ shaped plan. As seen in the Bayezid Pasha mosque plan below,
the rectangular main prayer hall is flanked by almost equally large and quasi-separated rooms on
both sides, which gives them a reverse T shape – hence the name of the category used by
Ottoman architectural historians. Semavi Eyice, the Ottoman architectural historian, objects to
such a taxonomy based on the architectural layout of the building and finds modern
categorization of these buildings too simplistic and anachronistic. This is similar to Wolper’s
approach to lodge-tombs above. Both authors build an argument in favor of the historical
contingency of social uses of these spaces by using other historical sources, more specifically
waqfiyas. These spaces were the sites of more than daily prayers and Friday congregations. The
rooms on both sides in particular were locales of Sufi activities. One cannot call these places
complexes because they are smaller in size and lack affixed buildings, such as madrasas. They
also cannot be called mosques with soup houses (tabhaneli camiler), since this would preclude
the other services performed on the premises. The best-fitting term for these buildings is
therefore “lodge-mosques” (zaviyeli camiler.) 88

What remained from the lodge-mosques by the mid-twentieth century was surveyed by Eyice in
an article in which he also provides reasons for the changes in their structure. The first reason
for such changes was the Islamization of Ottoman cities, thus increasing the number of people
who attended congregational prayers at mosques. Eyice provides architectural evidence for the
removal of walls separating the rooms that were previously used for other purposes and now
would be incorporated into the main prayer hall. In fact, the vaults connecting the lodge to the
main prayer hall in the Bayezid Pasha mosque below exhibit signs of exactly this transformation.
The second reason is the perishable nature of construction material of the lodge-mosques. As a
lodge-mosque lost its attraction as a Sufi center, its followers and benefactors chose not to
patronize it, hence letting it crumble over time. The most striking example of this is the
Yakutiye lodge, described in detail below. Although the Yakutiye lodge’s waqfiya depicts a huge
85
Abdüsselam oğlu Torumtay Madrasa Waqfiya VGMA, 490/2 p.100
86
Not every tomb was a lodge-tomb. For instance in the waqf dated from thirteenth century, there is no mention of
feeding the dervishes or the poor (fuqara). See, Emir Zeynüddin bin Berekat Waqfiya (648/1250) VGMA, 608/204,
p.175. Similarly, two tombs built in the mid-fifteenth century do not appear as locales for Sufi activities. See
İskender Bey oğlu Muhiddin Mehmet Çelebi Waqfiya (847/1443) VGMA 582/122 p.182 and Ali b. Aydın Waqfiya
(850/1443) VGMA 608/315 p.370.
87
Evliya Çelebi (1611?-1682?), Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 97.
88
Semavi Eyice, “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini-İçtimai bir Müessesi, Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli Camiler,” İstanbul
Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23, no. 1 (March 1962): 55-57.
24
cluster of buildings that include such components as separate kitchens and a bakery, virtually
nothing – not even a foundation - is left of this lodge today. 89 This suggests that the lodge-
mosque had a wood structure. The last reason for the changes in structure, similar to the first one,
is the change in the function of the lodge-mosque. The state or the local population sometimes
converted them into madrasas. The lodge-mosque of Yakub Pasha is a good example of this. As
its waqfiya clearly indicates, the building was initially designed as a lodge-mosque, but was later
converted into a madrasa. 90 As it happens, the Yakup Pasha lodge hosted the first Halveti
community in Anatolia.

Eyice attributes Central Asian origins to these structures by observing their layout and their use
in profane architecture such as bathhouses or residential buildings. 91 He argues that all of them
originated from Central Asian structures with a courtyard surrounded by four iwans (a vaulted
room with one side open to a court.) 92 Anatolian Seljukids put a dome above the courtyard. Yet
it was the Ottomans, who extensively built these lodge-tombs that gave the final shape by adding
another dome over the prayer niche and giving the prayer hall a rectangular shape with rooms on
both sides, which served as sites of Sufi activities. The changes the Ottomans initiated beg
several questions: Why did they make such changes? What kind of social and political factors
were operating behind their architectural choices? These questions cannot be answered easily.
However, one can obtain some hints as to their answers by looking at the chronological and
geographical distribution of these lodge-mosques.

Eyice notes that the earliest example of a lodge-mosque is the Sahib Ata Hankahı, built in Konya
in 678/1279. This lodge-mosque is also apparently the last example of its kind in Konya and the
larger Karaman region. In the following century, one can observe five other examples of these
buildings, two of which were located in the region of Rum: Çöreği Büyük lodge in Niksar –
approximately hundred kilometers east of Amasya - and the abovementioned Elvan Çelebi lodge
in Amasya. 93 The dates of construction for both lodge-mosques are not quite certain but
historical sources indicate they were built in the mid-fourteenth century. With the rise of the
Ottomans in the mid-fourteenth century and onward, one observes an almost exponential
increase in the number of lodge-mosques in Anatolia and the Balkans. This trend reached its
peak in the fifteenth century despite a hiatus during Mehmed II’s rule. 94 The building of lodge-
mosques resumed when Bayezid II took the Ottoman throne and it continued until the mid-
sixteenth century. One should contextualize the sudden appearance during this period of a large
number of mosque-lodges, however, by looking at their geographical distribution. As Eyice
notes, these structures were built almost exclusively by the Ottomans and spread parallel to

89
Yakut Pasha Waqfiya VGMA, 608/334 p.388
90
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 252.
91
Eyice, “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini-İçtimai bir Müessesi, Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli Camiler,” 17.
92
Ibid., 16.
93
These are the Mevlevihane of İshak Çelebi in the western Anatolian city of Manisa, the Seyyid Battal Gazi lodge
in Eskişehir, which is located in the central western Anatolia and the Ahi Evren lodge in Kırşehir in the central
Anatolia. Ibid., 20.
94
Does it have to do with Mehmed II’s distaste with the Sufi orders? Or is it because of constant warfare, which
affected the economy? Or is it because of the rising devshirme elite? These issues will be revisited below, in the
context of Bayezid’s lack of large-scale patronage activity during his governorship in Amasya.
25
Ottoman expansion. Their geographical and chronological distributions clearly demonstrate that
they were an Ottoman phenomenon, though they did not start out as such.

These lodges are also known as the “Bursan type” mosques, a term underlining the
“Ottomanness” of this type of building. However, attributing a single source of origin to them
would prevent us from considering the larger socio-religious structure prevalent in the region
during this period. As mentioned above, these buildings existed, though rarely before and outside
the lands of the Ottomans. 95 The geographical distribution of these buildings in the periphery,
especially the western and northern frontiers of the Anatolian Seljukid state, indicate that they
are the product of frontier conditions, as were the Ottomans themselves. One should see the rise
of the lodge-mosques and the Ottoman enterprise as concomitant to each other, instead of
proposing one as the reason for [Link] the origins of these buildings is critical for the
purposes of this study because it gives us an idea about the nature of the connection between the
new frontier (the Ottoman polity established in estern Asia Minor and the southern Balkans) and
the former one (the region of Rum with Amasya at its center, see figure VIII). 96

Among the earliest examples of these types of lodges are the Elvan Çelebi and Çöreği Büyük
lodges located in the region of Rum. The other three prototypes are scattered in the cities of
different regions mentioned above. Two examples outside Ottoman boundaries were located
between the old and new frontier in the region south of the northern Anatolian Pontic Mountain
range. When the Ottomans began to build these lodges extensively later in the fifteenth century,
there was a comparative density of this type of buildings in this region stretching from Bithynia
to Trabzon. 97 This is another indication of the existence of a northern Anatolian Sufi tradition.
These buildings, thanks to their similar systems of operation, patronage networks and sources of
income, formed one aspect of a social, fiscal and political infrastructure that accounts for a
regional Sufi identity, which in turn expressed itself in the rivalries between the emerging Sufi
orders of the fifteenth century.

Another factor behind the proliferation of these types of lodges is the establishment of the ‘Pax
Ottomanica’ in these lands. 98 The construction of these lodges ended in the mid-sixteenth
century when the Ottomans finally consolidated their hold over these regions. As Eyice

95
Only two lodge mosques built outside the Ottoman boundaries in the fifteenth century; İmaret Camii in the
western Anatolian town of Kütahya by Germiyanoğlu Yakub Çelebi in 814/1411 and the İsmail Bey Lodge-Mosque
in Kastamonu in northern Anatolia, by Candaroğlu İsmail Bey in 858/1454. Eyice, “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini-
İçtimai bir Müessesi, Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli Camiler,” 40-41.
96
Sedat Emir’s work on the multifunctional mosques came to my attention after I wrote this section. Emir argues
that the roots of this architectural form lies in the Rum region, specifically in Tokat, southern neighbor of Amasya.
See Sedat Emir, Erken Osmanlı Mimarlığında Çok İşlevli Yapılar: Kentsel Kolonizasyon Yapıları Olarak Zaviyeler,
1st ed. (Izmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1994).
97
Out of a total of sixty four lodges listed in Eyice’s article, ten of them are located in the Rum region, and one in
Karaman region, fourteen in Bithynia and nine in the Balkans and thirty one in the rest of the empire. Eyice omits
one mosque (Hızır Pasha) in Amasya and hesitates to include three others (Yakup Pasha, Bayezid II and Mehmed
Pasha) in Amasya. If one counts these too, the total number of lodge-mosques built in the south of Pontic Mountain
range reaches fourteen, comparable only to those built in Bursa and the larger Bithynia region. Eyice, “İlk Osmanlı
Devrinin Dini-İçtimai bir Müessesi, Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli Camiler,” 22, 54.
98
Ibid., 52-53.
26
concludes, the Ottomans ceased to patronize these buildings since they no longer needed the
support and legitimation of “real” and “colonizing” dervishes. I agree with Eyice’s conclusion
that these institutions were closely related to the establishment of the Pax Ottomanica, though
some elaboration and qualification are needed. Besides the fact that the Ottomans needed the
support of the dervishes, be they real or “lowly” (sufli), until the very end, Eyice ignores the
social and political upheaval during the establishment of Pax Ottomanica. Ottoman conquests
displaced the local population and rearranged the local land/revenue holding regimes.
Establishment of lodge-mosques should also be contextualized within the exiled/immigrant
communities in the Ottoman core lands, forcefully caused to migrate by the conquerors, who
increased their wealth with income from newly appropriated lands. These conquerors endowed
their properties both to respond to the social upheaval caused by the recent conquests and more
importantly to secure their holdings from state encroachment in the case of political misfortune
or an aggressive attempt at centralization. Lastly, as the story of Yar Ali b. Siyavuş (d.812/1409-
10) below demonstrates, these lodges provided positions for the Sufis and scholars of the
incorporated lands. This is especially true in the case of the Ottoman conquests in Anatolia. 99

The Sufi lodges constructed in the first period (1387-1421)

The earliest building activity in the Ottoman period dates from the winter of 807/1405 that
included a soup house and a school for hüffaz (people who memorized the entire Quran: singl.
hafız). 100 The patron of this complex was Hacı Mahmud Çelebi b. Kadı Müeyyedüddin Mehmed,
a scholar and a former judge. Little is known about Hacı Mahmud Çelebi, though he probably
belonged to a local scholarly family. But his complex is another example of the
multifunctionality of lodges. In this case, the building functioned as a school rather than a
mosque, different than the lodge-mosques discussed above. This confirms the conclusion above
about the historical context of the lodge-mosques because the idea of the combination of Sufi
and charitable purposes in a single building envisioned by the patron of the endowment Hacı
Mahmud Çelebi, is owed, though not exclusively, to the same socio-religious context that
produced lodge-mosques. There is also an immediate historical context behind these endowment
activities, which is the devastation of the region by the Timurid invasion.

The foundation of a school that would train hüffaz also indicates there was a demand for hüffaz
in the city and its environs. The school itself was to employ six hüffaz, who were hired to recite
the whole Quran every week, more specifically on Mondays and Thursdays. In addition to these
six positions, various endowments opened twenty-two other positions for hüffaz in Amasya by
the time the school was opened. The number of such positions in Amasya would reach at least
one-hundred-and-three by the end of the fifteenth century. 101 There could also be a regional

99
The best evidence for this statement is provided by the lives of founders of the two branches of the Anatolian
Halvetiye, Çelebi Halife and Habib-i Karamani, both of whom were born in the Karaman region but escaped from
the social upheaval by taking refuge to Amasya where they established their orders.
100
Hacı Mahmud Çelebi bin Kadı Müeyyidüddin Mehmed Waqfiya (807/1405) VGMA, 594/186 p.249
101
Also there might be a demand from the administrators of the family waqfs, who were supposed to recite Quran
periodically as a part of the stipulations set in the family endowments. For instance see Mahmud Çelebi ve Yakup
Şah Çelebi Waqfiya (714/1314) VGMA, 610/45, p.36.
27
demand for hüffaz, considering that Hacı Mahmud Çelebi’s school was one of the two schools
for hüffaz opened in the greater Rum region, where at least thirty-one hüffaz positions opened in
addition to those in Amasya. 102 The foundation of this school was a response to local demand.
The most significant part of the endowment for the purposes of this study is the stipulation of the
endower that the administrator and teacher of the school be a Sufi shaykh with a specialty in the
science of Qur’an reciting. 103 The endower did not specify a particular affiliation for the Sufi
shaykh. However, the hüffaz educated under the supervision of the shaykh would clearly have
been trained in the customs of the Sufi order to which the shaykh belonged. On graduating, these
Sufi hüffaz would be employed by the administrators of lodges, mosques, tombs, etc., who were
sympathetic to, if not adherents of, the Sufi order with which the hüffaz were associated. If the
shaykh of the school and his prospective students were to be the dervishes of a Sufi order that
was in conflict with the regional Sufi tradition or a certain established Sufi order in the region,
they would not have many employment opportunities. Linked to the local Sufi network in this
way, the endowment of Hacı Mahmud Çelebi’s school demonstrates another instance where the
endowment activities account for a regional Sufi network and identity.

One witness listed in Mahmud Çelebi’s endowment is young Ali Çelebi bin Müeyyed Çelebi
(d.888/1483). Ali Çelebi was the ancestor of a celebrated scholarly family of the sixteenth
century and his own endowment will be treated below. The story of Ali Çelebi’s grandfather,
Yar Ali b. Siyavuş, is worth close examination since it demonstrates the role of endowments in
Amasya in the integration of local educated elites in the Ottoman enterprise. 104 Known to the
Ottomans as Yar Ali Şirazi, Yar Ali b. Siyavuş was a respected regional figure that had been
politically active in the recent history of the region. 105 His family was originally from the Divriği
district of the neighboring city of Sivas in central Anatolia, which was ruled by Kadı
Burhaneddin in the second half of the fourteenth century. Kadı Burhaneddin was apparently
influenced by this Sufi and scholar. In Bezm-ü Rezm, the historical account of the life and deeds
of Kadı Burhaneddin by Astarabadi (d. ca 800/1398), Yar Ali emerges as Kadı Burhaneddin’s
şeyhülislam and trustworthy companion. 106 In one instance, Kadı Burhaneddin sends Yar Ali on

102
The other school is in the Turhal district of the nearby Tokat. Kucur, “Sivas, Tokat ve Amasya'da Selçuklu ve
Beylikler Devri Vakıfları,” 38. For the total number of hafiz positions see Ibid., 46, 95.
103
Hacı Mahmud Çelebi bin Kadı Müeyyidüddin Mehmed Waqfiya (807/1405) VGMA 594/186, p.249
104
Bağdatlı İsmail Paşa Babanzade, Hadiyya al-Arifin Asma al-Muallifin wa Athar al-Musannafin, (Ankara: Milli
Eğitim Basımevi, 1955), 728. Hüseyin Hüsameddin claims that he died six years later in 818/1415-16. Yaşar,
Amasya Tarihi, 3:193.
105
When it comes to providing more detailed biographical information, the biographical dictionaries are not very
revealing. The single Ottoman source to briefly mention him, i.e. the Shaqā'iq presents him among the scholars of
Bayezid I’s reign and praises his ability to handle complicated legal matters. The sobriquet used to describe him i.e.
Shirazi, implies that he or his ancestors might be from southwest Iran, though Shaqā'iq does not exactly point to a
specific geography such as where he lived or from which region his family originated. Also interestingly enough,
our source does not relate Yar Ali to his much renowned great-grandson, Müeyyedzade Abdurrahman Efendi.
Therefore, one may safely assume that he was a rather shadowy figure to the Ottomans. Taşköprüzade Ahmed
İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya fī 'ulamā al-Dawla al-'Uthmānīya (Istanbul: Jāmi'at Istānbūl,
Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Markaz al-Dirāsāt al-Sharqīyah, 1985), 36.
106
The position of şeyhülislam, in the context of Anatolian emirates, was the administrative head of the scholars,
Sufis and students of a city. In contrast its Ottoman counterpart, the post of şeyhülislam was a local one. According
28
a mission to arbitrate a conflict in the Amasya region. When the Mamluk governor of Aleppo
shows up in front of the walls of Sivas, it is Yar Ali who concludes peace agreements. 107 Yar Ali
also seems to spark Kadı Burhaneddin’s interest in Sufism. Indeed, as noted in Bezm-ü Rezm,
Kadı Burhaneddin decided to send two precious carpets as a gift to the tomb of Sadreddin-i
Konevi (d.672/1273) thanks to a conversation between the two men on Sufism. 108 Yar Ali stayed
with Kadı Burhaneddin until the latter’s death. He was probably in Sivas when the city was
annexed by Bayezid I afterwards. 109 This was likely the first time Yar Ali directly interacted
with the Ottomans. No other sources to my knowledge, with the exception of Amasya Tarihi,
provides information on the whereabouts and activities of Yar Ali after this point, until his name
appears in the waqfiya of the aforementioned Hacı Mahmud Çelebi complex drawn up in
807/1405. 110

Yar Ali appears in waqfiyas for a second time a few years later, as a shaykh and administrator of
a Sufi lodge built by an Ottoman vizier with local roots. The words describing Yar Ali in the
waqfiya of the Yakutiye Complex (810/1407) are as follows: “The pride of Islam and Muslims,
the leader of the friends of God, the flower of the inquisitive scholars, a learned, virtuous and
perfect shaykh…” 111 The patron of the building was Yakut Pasha (d. after 810/1407), who was
among the viziers of Mehmed I when the latter was based in Amasya. Before joining Mehmed I,
Yakut Pasha apparently served as the tutor of Bayezid I’s son Süleyman (d.811/1411) in the
nearby city of Sivas. When Süleyman succeeded to the Ottoman throne in Edirne, he took Yakut
Pasha with him to the capital. In his work on Edirne, Gökbilgin lists Yakut Pasha’s name as
being among the founders of the city. Infact Gökbilgin notes that there is a neighborhood in
Edirne named after Yakut Pasha. 112 In another document published in the same study, Yakut

to Mustafa Akdag, every Anatolian town had its şeyhülislam, For instance, the renowned scholar and shaykh
Sadreddin Konevi was the şeyhülislam of Konya. Akdağ, Türkiye'nin İktisadi ve İçtimai Tarihi, 20-22.
107
Aziz ibn Ardashir Astarabadi (d. ca. 800/1398), Bezm ü Rezm (Eğlence ve Savaş), trans. Mürsel Öztürk (Ankara:
Kültür Bakanlığı, 1990), 311, 325.
108
Ibid., 355.
109
There is a discrepancy between Amasya Tarihi and Bezm-ü Rezm on the date of Yar Ali’s refuge in the Ottomans.
Although Amasya Tarihi states that Yar Ali presented an ode to Bayezid I in 790/1388 and joined his entourage, this
information does not fit into Bezm-u Rezm’s account of events. Ibid., 144. According to Astarabadi, Yar Ali was
around Kadı Burhaneddin when the news of Murad I’s death in Kosovo reached Sivas in 791/1389. Ibid., 354.
Considering the fact that Bezm-ü Rezm is the only contemporary source, one should accept that Yar Ali stayed with
Kadı Burhaneddin till the latter’s death in 800/1398.
110
According to Hüseyin Hüsameddin, Bayezid I took Yar Ali and many other local notables with him as he left the
region for Bursa. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:144. Although there is no hard proof of Yar Ali’s days in Bursa, it is not
too farfetched to assume that Bayezid I might have brought him back to Bursa since Yar Ali was an important figure
in the “ancien regime” in Sivas, i.e. the Kadı Burhaneddin state. Besides, the fact that Yar Ali was presented as one
of the scholars of Bayezid I’s reign in the Shaqā'iq, supports this argument. And when the Battle of Ankara
occurred, Yar Ali was among many other members of the central Anatolian elite who returned to their homeland.
Ibid., 3:162. Here again Hüseyin Hüsameddin lists various other names who returned to Amasya, but he does not
refer to any original source.
111
Yakut Pasha Waqfiya (810/1407) VGMA, 608/334 p.338
112
M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası, Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar (Istanbul, 1952),
23.
29
Pasha [in this document he is referred to as Yakut the Tutor (lala)] grants a piece of land to a Sufi
who lived in the Rum region. 113

One can surmise that Yakut Pasha belonged to a local prominent family based on the fact that he
was the tutor of an Ottoman prince. 114 Yar Ali and Yakut Pasha probably knew about each other
from the court of the aforementioned Kadı Burhaneddin. Following the death of Kadı
Burhaneddin and the annexation of his lands by the Ottomans, Shaykh Yar Ali and Yakut Pasha
joined the new masters of the region. During the years of turmoil after the Ankara battle, they
must have decided to establish an alliance formed around the complex built in Amasya. The
complex consisted of a bakery, a kitchen and multiple rooms. 115 One of these rooms was
probably devoted to Sufi activities. Yakut Pasha stipulated the appointment of a righteous shaykh
whose salary was to be paid in both cash and kind. 116 He also appointed himself, and upon his
death Yar Ali followed by his male progeny, to serve as administrator, shaykh and supervisor of
the complex. 117

Another historical figure from the entourage of Prince Mehmed, his preceptor Bayezid-i Sufi,
also established a lodge in the early decades of the fourteenth century. 118 Hüseyin Hüsameddin
claims that Bayezid-i Sufi lived in the Üçler neighborhood 119 and died in Zilkade 814/January-
February 815/1412. 120 He does not refer to a Sufi lodge built by Bayezid-i Sufi, but Adnan
Gürbüz, by combining this information with that collected from survey registers, concludes that

113
This Sufi’s name is Shaykh Aydın, whose lodge is located in the town of Kargı, which is about eighty four
kilometers west of Amasya on the road to Ankara. Ahmet Kankal, “16. Yüzyılda İdari-İktisadi ve Sosyal Açıdan
Kargı Kazası,” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), no. 3 (1992):
234.
114
All of the princely tutors until 870/1465 were from local families. Hüseyin Hüsameddin constructs an elaborate
story of how Yakut Pasha joined Mehmed I. According to him, Yakut Pasha comes from an Amasyan aristocratic
Turkish family, which ruled the cities of the Rum in the fourteenth century. This family was the Kutluoğulları. At
the time of the annexation of Sivas by the Ottomans, Yakut Pasha’s brother Kutlu Şah was the ruler of Sivas. Yakut
Pasha was appointed as the second tutor of the prince Mehmed, who was sent as the governor of Amasya. When
Mehmed went to fight Timur, Yakut Pasha was left in Amasya as his deputy. He was then was chosen as the ruler of
Amasya by the local notables, when Mehmed fled to mountainous areas of the Bolu region after the Ottoman defeat
at Ankara. When Mehmed came back to Amasya, Yakut Pasha joined his entourage. In 1411/814, Yakut Pasha
talked Mehmed I into campaigning over his brother Musa, who declared his sultanate in Edirne in the same year.
Mehmed I acted under the influence of Yakut Pasha. The two armies confronted eachother in Incegiz region near
Istanbul and Mehmed I was defeated. Yakut Pasha died in this battle in 1412/815. Hüseyin Hüsameddin does not
reveal his sources. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:162, 188. The contemporary Byzantine and Ottoman sources do not
mention a Yakut Pasha. According to these sources, it was Çandarlı Ali Pasha who encouraged Mehmed to confront
his brother Musa. Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 179-180.
115
No traces of this complex are left in modern day Amasya.
116
Again the particular Sufi affiliation of neither Shaykh Yar Ali nor the shaykh to be appointed is clear in the
waqfiya.
117
In the waqfiya of the Yakutiye lodge, the positions of the administrator (mütevelli) and the supervisor (nazır) are
mentioned separately, though they are combined in a single person.
118
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 63.
119
Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s source for this claim is Kadı Abdurrahman-ı Muslihi’s Waqfiya, dated 850/1447. (Yaşar,
Amasya Tarihi I, 87.) I could not locate this document.
120
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:187.
30
Bayezid-i Sufi was the founder of the Shaykh Sufi lodge. 121 Similar to Yakut Pasha, Bayezid-i
Sufi was an influence on Mehmed. He must have been a respected figure in the region
considering that the young prince sent him on an “apologetic” diplomatic mission to Timur.122
Survey registers, the only source for the existence of the lodge, do not provide information on the
layout or the Sufi order affiliation of the lodge.

In the spring of the year Bayezid-i Sufi died, in May 1412/Safer 815, the waqfiya of the Yakup
Pasha Lodge (Çilehane) was drawn up. 123 Çilehane is one of the most fascinating, yet least
studied Sufi lodges built in Ottoman lands. Its layout, with twelve small rooms on both sides of
the main prayer hall for ascetic retreat (Çilehane), is unique as shown below. The architectural
layout of the lodge as well as the network built around it will be scrutinized in detail in the next
chapter. Suffice it to say here that the Çilehane was the first Halveti lodge built in the Ottoman
Empire and has similar characteristics to other lodge-mosques mentioned in this chapter.

121
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 249. The association made by
Gürbüz is highly possible, though one cannot verify the date of death provided by Hüseyin Hüsameddin. Bayezid-i
Sufi could have been alive when Mehmed I captured Edirne in 811/1413, because Tayyib Gökbilgin, in his
abovementioned study, notes that Bayezid Sufi built a mosque in Edirne and there is a neighborhood named after
him in the same city. (Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası, Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 22.)
Then again he could have built the mosque in Edirne before his appointment as the preceptor of Mehmed and move
to Amasya. Either way, the existence of a Sufi lodge built by Bayezid-i Sufi in the early decades of the fifteenth
century is certain thanks to the survey registers.
122
Anonymous, “Ahvāl-i Sultān Mehemmed,” in The Ottoman Interregnum (1402-1413): Politics and Narratives of
Dynastic Succession, by Dimitris James Kastritsis (Harvard University, 2005), 338.
123
Yakup Pasha (Çilehane) Waqfiya VGMA 608/23 and 608/32
31
 Figure I: Yakub Pasha Lodge-Mosque (Çilehane) 124

The Ottoman patron of the Çilehane, Yakup Pasha ([Link] 815/1412), has an even more
fascinating story in terms of the dynamics of the Ottoman interregnum and patronage
relationships established in Amasya. Yakup Pasha belonged to a family of hereditary governors

124
Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-1451)], 27.
32
of Ankara. 125 His father, Firuz Bey, was the governor of the city in 789/1387 and Yakup Pasha
succeeded his father in 800/1399, ruling the city until his imprisonment in the early spring of
814/1412. 126 Following the Inceğüz defeat in the late winter of 814/1412 Mehmed I retreated to
Bursa only to be informed about troubles in the region of Izmir in Western Anatolia. The Sultan
immediately sent his men around to gather an army in Bursa. Yakup Pasha refused to join
Mehmed’s army on the grounds that Ankara could not be left unguarded as it was precariously
close to the rival Karamanis. Mehmed I was furious despite the fact that Yakup Pasha later
personally travelled to Izmir to apologize. 127 The sultan initially decided to execute him but the
sultan’s viziers objected, arguing that Yakup Pasha’s death would lead to the loss of Ankara. 128
The sultan could not take action against Yakup Pasha, not before the sultan arrived and
personally secured Ankara. Only then was he able to put Yakup Pasha in the prison of the city of
Tokat, near Amasya. 129 The only source about the later fate of Yakup Pasha is the waqfiya of the
Çilehane. 130

At the time of Yakup Pasha’s imprisonment, the Çilehane had likely already begun operating.
Yakup Pasha was most probably just out of prison when the waqfiya of his Çilehane was drawn
up, because the waqfiya refers to him as the vizier of Mehmed I. The size and plan of the
building suggest that its construction had started at least a year before the official endorsement of
the waqfiya in Safer 815/May1412. Here the question arises of why someone with almost no link
to the city would undertake such a sizeable construction project. The answer can be found in the
waqfiya, which mentions that Yakup Pasha was a disciple of the Halveti shaykh of the lodge,

125
Yakup Pasha is the paternal uncle of Tursun Beg (d. after 897/1491), the bureaucrat and chronicler of Mehmed II.
For the family of Tursun Bey, see Tursun Bey (d. after 896/1491), The History of Mehmed the Conqueror, ed.
Rhoads Murphey and Halil İnalcık (Minneapolis, 1978), 251.
126
Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 115.
127
Yakup Pasha’s fall from the favor of Mehmed I goes back to 812/1410 when the former surrendered the Ankara
castle to his rival Emir Süleyman. Yakup Pasha might have decided to establish connections in Amasya after this
date.
128
Ankara was critical to Mehmed I because it possessed a fort strategically located on the road between Bursa
(Ottoman corelands) and his base Amasya (the Rum province.) Both Yakup Pasha and Mehmet I’s viziers underline
the strategic importance of holding Ankara by saying that the city is the gate of Karaman. (Karaman ağzıdur.) See
Anonymous, “Ahvāl-i Sultān Mehemmed,” 375-76.
129
This prison is referred as “Bedevi Cardağı” in the sources. It was the most secure prison in the region. Both
Mehmed I and his successor Murad II sent important dignitaries, in one case an Ottoman prince, to this prison. For
an early nineteenth century description of the prison see Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil,” 54. Both
sultans’ actions indicate that they perceived the Rum province as their secure bases where they can keep their
political rivals under custody. One should consider Ottoman practice of sending princes as the governors of Amasya
in this light as well.
130
Yakup Pasha is not a very well known figure in Ottoman history. Both the primary sources and modern studies
confuse him with other historical personalities, often with either the aforementioned Yakut Pasha or Hadım Yakup
Pasha (d.916/1510) the grand vizier of Bayezid II. See Wolper, Cities and Saints, 28. For the confusion between the
two Yakup Pashas, see Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” in Osmanlı Tarihleri: Osmanlı
Tarihinin Anakaynakları Olan Eserlerin, Mütehassıslar Tarafından Hazırlanan Metin, Tercüme veya Sadeleştirilmiş
Şekilleri Külliyatı, ed. Nihal Atsız, vol. 1 ([Istanbul]: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949), 246.; Hedda Reindl, Manner um
Bayezid : eine prosopographische Studie uber die Epoche Sultan Bayezids II, 1481-1512 (Berlin: [BRD] ;K.
Schwarz, 1983), 346-347. Gökbilgin also points out a similar confusion in Edirne context. Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI.
Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası, Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 24-26. In fact the present researcher found the
waqfiya of Yakup Pasha lodge when searching for the copies of the Yakut Pasha lodge waqfiyas.
33
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami (d. unknown). One can never fully know the degree of Yakup Pasha’s
sincerity in joining a Sufi order, but his association with a respected Amasyan shaykh clearly
helped him to get his freedom back. By undertaking a considerable patronage project in the
capital of Mehmed I, Yakup Pasha secured himself connections that would later enable him to
exert some influence on the sultan. One could find other examples of the benefits of establishing
such connections in the reign of Mehmed II (855/1451-886/1481), when dismissed pashas took
refuge from the fury of the sultan in the Zeyni lodges. 131

The first Sufi lodge founded in this period with a clearly stated affiliation to a particular Sufi
order was, not surprisingly, the Mevlevi lodge in the village of Kelkis on the western outskirts of
the city, which was used as a popular excursion spot until the beginning of the twentieth
century. 132 This is a very interesting development considering the urban nature of the Mevlevi
order and the urbanization of Sufi activities in this period. As other Sufi orders began to appear
in the urban centers, the Mevlevi order in the city apparently chose to isolate itself by retreating
to rural areas. 133 The village and its environs were later named after the founder of this
Mevlevihane, Shaykh Cui ([Link] 817/1414). 134 Shaykh Cui, whose full name was Mehmed bin
Osman, built a lodge and a stable in 817/1414. He appointed himself, and upon his death his
daughter Hacer Hatun and her “scholar descendants,” as administrator, and Hacı Ahmed b. Emir
Ali as the shaykh and Masnawi (collection of the poems of the founder of the Mevleviye order)
reciter of the lodge.

About half-a-kilometer north of the Yakut Pasha lodge along the banks of the Iris river, Bayezid
Pasha (d. 824/1421), the rising star of the Ottoman interregnum and the grand vizier of Mehmed
I, completed the building of his lodge-mosque in the spring of 817/1414. 135 Bayezid Pasha’s
endowment activities mark the end of the first period in the history of Amasya. An Amasyan
who was initially appointed as the tutor of Prince Mehmed, Bayezid Pasha emerged as the most
influential Ottoman statesmen of the period, successfully serving his Sultan through many
predicaments of the early decades of the fifteenth century. 136 His appointment as lala of
Mehmed suggests that Bayezid Pasha belonged to one of the notable families of the region. 137
Bayezid Pasha remained with Mehmed I throughout the challenges of the interregnum and the

131
See the story of Molla Sinan Pasha, who was saved from imprisonment thanks to his close relationship the
Zeynis in Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 175.
132
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 67.
133
One should of course keep in mind that the Mevlevi lodge in the city was still active. So Shaykh Cui’s choice
could be a personal one rather than reflecting a general trend.
134
Şeyh Mehmed bin Şeyh Osman Waqfiya (817/1414) VGMA, 600/96, p.76. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:188.
135
Uzunçarşılı, Kitabeler, 112. And he had the waqfiya drawn in the Dhu al-ka’de 820/January 1418.
136
Taneri also argues that Bayezid Pasha was raised in the Ottoman palace but does not refer to any specific source.
Aydın Taneri, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun Kuruluş Döneminde Vezir-i 'Azamlık (1299-1453) (İzmir: Akademi
Kitabevi, 1997), 37, 62, 71, 95.
137
Bayezid Pasha’s ancestry and ethnic origin are debated. According to Mustafa Vazih, Bayezid Pasha was from a
Bosnian aristocratic family. (Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil,” 44a.) Hüseyin Hüsameddin
however argues that Bayezid Pasha was Turkish and his ancestry went back to Emir Seyfeddin Sungur who died at
the turn of the fourteenth century. (Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 262.) Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s claim seems more
reasonable considering that Bayezid Pasha’s father is listed as “Yahşi Bey” in the waqfiya of his mosque. Bayezid
Pasha Waqfiya (820/1418), VGMA, 605/330 p. 244
34
subsequent Shaykh Bedreddin revolt. He also played a significant role in the enthronement of
Murad II and became the latter’s governor general of Rumeli.

Before building the lodge-mosque in Amasya, Bayezid Pasha took on the repair of the Orhan
Gazi mosque in Bursa and built a madrasa there in 815/1413. Nevertheless, his lodge-mosque in
Amasya is the most significant, if not the only memorable legacy of his power and influence.
The complex was built on the site where he and Prince Mehmed resided during the
interregnum. 138 Bayezid Pasha, upon his departure with Mehmed I for the Ottoman core lands,
may have decided to turn his former residence in Amasya into a complex housing a soup house,
a lodge, stables and a mosque. Bayezid Pasha did not delegate the lodge to a particular Sufi
order. Yet there are four people with the sobriquet “er-Rıfai” among the witnesses of the
waqfiya, which might suggest that the complex was a Rıfai lodge. Another interesting sobriquet
employed by five of the witnesses is “Sivasi,” which indicates their recent immigrant status. 139
Similar to the story of Yar Ali above, these witnesses probably left their hometown Sivas and
took refuge in Amasya either during the Ottoman conquest or the Timurid devastation that
followed it. Their existence, especially in the absence of demographic sources, is significant
proof of the link between the establishment of Pax Ottomanica and the proliferation of lodge-
mosques.

138
The place was the estate and residence of Bayezid Pasha (Bayezid Paşa Çiftliği), tells Vazih, and adds that
Ottoman princes resided before a new one constructed by prince Bayezid in 880/1475-76. Mustafa Vazih Efendi
(d.1247/1831), “al-Balābil,” 44a. For the date of the construction of the new residence see the chronogram of
Abdurrahman Efendi in Tacizade Sadi Celebi (d.1516), Taci-zade Sa'di Çelebi Münşe'atı, ed. Adnan Erzi and Necati
Lugal (Istanbul, 1956), 59. The following description of the complex in the waqfiya also support this argument and
gives us an idea about Mehmed I’s palace during the interregnum: “And the building was composed of rooms
embellished from in and out, a heavenly hall, two winter quarters and two small rooms next to eachother in an
elevated platform, an indoor toilet, a pool and a fountain.” Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya (820/1418), VGMA, 605/330 p.
244. Kuzucular points out the interesting detail of an indoor toilet in the complex, which is unique in the
architecture of the period. (Kuzucular, “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi,” 57.) The existence
of an indoor toilet shows a concern for privacy, which confirms that this place was the residence of the princes. The
waqfiya of the complex is carved on the walls of the mosque, which is another unique aspect of the building. One
could only speculate that Bayezid Pasha’s decision to have the waqfiya carved on a stone shows his concern about
the future of his waqf and demonstrates the degree of political instability in the region. Yardım, Amasya Kaya
Kitabesi.
139
BOA, Ali Emiri, Mehmed I/ 2, 3
35
 Figure II: Bayezid Pasha Lodge-Mosque 140

The waqfiya of the lodge-mosque was drawn up four years after the construction of the complex
on 11 Zilhicce 821/19 January 1418. In the same year, Bayezid Pasha enriched his endowment
twice. The first addendum, which was produced in a few months after the original waqfiya,

140
Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-1451)], 7.
36
employs the term “aforementioned” very frequently. 141 As it happens, Bayezid Pasha –mostly
through marriage and inheritance – acquired the rest of the properties, a portion of which he
previously endowed. He also added new shares to his endowment. The second addendum came
in the fall, which added the income of a nearby village to his lodge-mosque in Amasya. 142 The
following winter a second set of addenda were issued. In both of the documents one encounters
Bayezid Pasha purchasing and endowing the real estate neighboring the endowed properties for
his lodge-mosque. 143 The years of Bayezid Pasha’s endowments (819/1417-825/1421) overlap
with his most powerful years as the grand vizier. 144 Together with Prince Murad, the governor of
Amasya (later Murad II), Bayezid Pasha, engaged in numerous military exploits, some of which
took place in the vicinity of Amasya. 145 All of these military operations must have enriched him
and in turn he must have thought to secure his properties by attaching them to an endowment.

Bayezid Pasha would probably have added more properties to his endowment if he was not
executed the following winter. He was the first Amasyan figure to have a considerable political
influence in the Ottoman capital and his ascendancy to power caused discomfort among the
established Ottoman elite. Primary sources maintain that other viziers, among them Çandarlı
İbrahim (d. 832/1429), convinced Murad II to send Bayezid Pasha against the army of Prince
Mustafa (Murad II’s uncle and also known as Mustafa the Pretender [d.825/1422]), which was
considerably more powerful than the one under Bayezid Pasha’s command. 146 Bayezid Pasha
ultimately had to surrender to Prince Mustafa and was executed the next day in nearby Edirne,
where he was also buried. Aydın Taneri, who wrote a monograph on the grandviziers of the early
Ottoman period, is convinced of Bayezid Pasha’s Bosnian ancestry and claims that the rivalry
between these two viziers was ethnically based. However Bayezid Pasha’s Turkish ancestry is
quite clearly demonstrated in his waqfiya. 147 The rivalry between Bayezid Pasha and the other
viziers should instead be explained in terms of a competition between factions representing the
Ottoman corelands and the Rum province. By sending Bayezid Pasha, the representative of the
Rum province, to fight Prince Mustafa, who was supported by the elite of the Rumeli (Balkan)
provinces, the established factions of the Ottoman capital employed a typical imperial strategy to
maintain its power over its provinces. This tension is revisited below in the context of another

141
Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya Addendum I (821/1418), VGMA, 605/332 p. 248
142
Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya Addendum II (821/1418), VGMA, 605/333 p. 248
143
Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya Addendum III (823/1420), VGMA, 605/334 p. 249 and Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya
Addendum VI (823/1421), VGMA, 605/331 p. 249
144
Bayezid Pasha’s in patronage activities in his hometown while engaging in the military exploits on the Ottoman
western frontiers has an interesting counterpart on the other side of the battlefield. A Florentine family named
Scolari joined the ranks of Hungarian nobility at the turn of the fifteenth century for wealth and adventure. With the
wealth they gained on the Ottoman frontier, they patronized religious institutions in Florence around the time
Bayezid Pasha had his lodge-mosque built. Bayezid Pasha and the Florentine family had shared purposes: prestige
and legitimation and securing family property from the laws, especially those pertaining to inheritance, of Ottoman
and Hungarian polities. I thank Katyln Prada for sharing her paper titled “Acting as one: Common Action,
Collectivity and Property Strategies in the Case of a Double-rooted Florentine Kinship Network” and presented at
the European Social Sciences and History Conference at Ghent in 2010.
145
Halil İnalcık, “Murad II,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 8 (Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1963), 598.
146
Ibid., 612.
147
Even if one accepts that Bayezid Pasha had “kul” origins, this date seems too early for such a rivalry as the “kul”
faction were not powerful enough to challenge established Turkic aristocracy.
37
Amasyan figure, Yörgüç Pasha (d.845 /1441), who was the tutor of Murad II when the latter was
the prince-governor of the city. 148

Concluding Remarks

Bayezid Pasha’s death in 824/1421 signaled the end of the first period of construction as there
was no endowment activity in Amasya during the ensuing decade. This period was marked by
the arrival of the Ottomans in the last decade of the fourteenth century and the subsequent
Ottoman interregnum after their defeat at the hands of Timur. These developments not only
brought new political actors to the urban scene but also abruptly turned the landholding regime
and the demographics in the region upside down. The emerging Pax Ottomanica resulted in a
series of endowment activities; an argument supported by the make up of the endowers and the
nature of the endowments.

Among a total number of six endowers mentioned above, two were local figures and four were
associated with the Ottomans, the new rulers of the region. Of these latter four endowers, two
were local figures who joined the Ottomans (local Ottomans) while the rest were foreigners who
came to the city with the Ottomans. The local endowers were Hacı Mahmud Çelebi, son of the
former judge of Amasya who founded a lodge-hüffaz school (807/1405), and Shaykh Cui, the
shaykh who established a Mevlevi lodge (817/1414). The Ottomans who made endowments in
the city were Bayezid-i Sufi, Mehmed I’s preceptor, who founded a lodge (circa 813/1410), and
Yakup Pasha, the former governor of Ankara who constructed the Çilehane in 815/1412. The
local Ottomans were Yakut and Bayezid Pashas, the viziers of Mehmed I, who established lodge-
mosques in 805/1407 and 817/1414 respectively. The even distribution of endowment activities
between locals, local Ottomans and the Ottomans shows that the transition of Amasya from local
to Ottoman rule was a gradual one. Of course the peaceful incorporation of Amasya into the
Ottoman enterprise and the subsequent Ottoman interregnum played a significant role in the
gradual nature of the transition. Distracted by other problems, the Ottomans were obliged to
pursue a non-aggressive policy of incorporation in Amasya. The variety in the make up of the
endowers is reflective of the diverse nature of their endowment motives, ranging from securing
property from the encroachment of the new elite, as seen in the case of Hacı Mahmud Çelebi, the
son of the former judge, gaining influence in Amasya, as seen at Yakup Pasha when his
relationship with Mehmed I turned sour after the fall of Ankara in 812/1410.

In complete contrast to the diversity of the endowers and their motivations in this period, there
was only one type of endowment: Sufi lodges. All six of the endowments were made for Sufi
lodges, though some of the lodges differed in their secondary functions. For instance, Hacı
Mahmud Çelebi’s lodge also served as school for hüffaz, while the lodges of Yakutiye, Yakup
Pasha and Bayezid Pasha were all part of larger complexes. The lodges of Bayezid-i Sufi and
Shaykh Cui, on the other hand, did not have secondary functions. The concentration of building
activity on lodges was the result of the social upheaval brought about by the Timurid invasion
and the ensuing period characterized by the painful establishment of Pax Ottomanica. The story

148
For the date of death of Yörgüç Pasha on his tombstone, see Uzunçarşılı, Kitabeler, 117.
38
of Yar Ali or that of the Sivasis in the waqfiya of Bayezid Pasha points to the fact that Amasya
gained an immediate ascendancy in the region at the particular expense of neighboring Sivas,
which was the capital of the region in the previous century, serving as a center of attraction for
both the local population and travelers. 149

Part III. Autonomous Amasya (825/1421-870/1465)

Bayezid Pasha’s death was the turning point for the Amasyans in the Ottoman capital. Two years
after his passing, the influence of an Amasyan clique in the Ottoman center gradually faded and
eventually came to an end when Murad II sent his former tutor Yörgüç Pasha back to Amasya.
The elite and the army of Amasya (Amasya Leşkeri) consistently supported Murad II throughout
the ordeals that helped to establish his authority. 150 It was Yörgüç Pasha who convinced Murad
II to fight his brother Mustafa, especially after Mustafa sieged Bursa with the support of the
Anatolian and Balkan emirates in the winter of 825/1422. On seeing the size of Mustafa’s army
the following spring, Murad II seriously pondered the possibility of retreating to Amasya, a fact
that demonstrates his reliance on and confidence in Amasyan loyalty. 151 However, after
defeating his brother, Murad II fell under the influence of the aforementioned Çandarlı İbrahim
Pasha and decided to send his tutor Yörgüç Pasha away from the capital by appointing him the
governor general of the Rum province. 152

Consolidation of Yörgüç Pasha’s Autonomous Rule in Amasya

While Murad II was occupied on the European front of the empire between 827/1423 and
834/1430, Yörgüç Pasha strengthened his grip on the Rum province. The fifteenth century
chronicler Aşıkpaşazade, a contemporary native of Amasya, narrates Yörgüç Pasha’s exploits in
detail. The latter began his quest for influence by eliminating the nomad Turcomans led by the
four sons of Kızıl Koca. According to Aşıkpaşazade, these Turcomans harassed the city folk and
the general population. As a trap, Yörgüç Pasha invited the Turcomans’ leaders to Amasya with
a fake imperial decree, got them drunk and executed every one of them. He then attacked their
base, pillaged the livestock and enslaved their families. 153 Having eliminated the Kızıl Koca
Turcomans, Yörgüç Pasha next attempted to take control of a local castle called Koca Kayası

149
Ronald C. Jennings, “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: A Study of Kayseri, Karaman,
Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 7, no. 01 (1976): 25, 37.
150
İnalcık, “Murad II,” 600. For the term “Amasya Leşkeri” see Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i
‘Osmān,” 144.
151
In fact, Amasyan troops were the only Anatolian military support Murad had. İnalcık, “Murad II,” 600.
152
Çandarlı İbrahim remained as grand vizier until his death in 833/1429 and was replaced by another Amasyan,
Koca (or Hoca) Mehmed Pasha (d. after 844/1440) Mehmed Pasha built a lodge-mosque in his native town
Osmancık, 112 kilometres west of Amasya in 834/1430. See Ibid., 608-609.
153
“A sheep was sold for a single silver coin (akçe)” narrates Aşıkpaşazade in order to show the amount of the
livestock plundered by the Amasyan army. Apparently disturbed by the enslavement and pillaging, Aşıkpaşazade
tries to legitimize Yörgüç Pasha’s acts by arguing that these Turcomans were the sources of all evil and they used to
instigate the neighboring dynasties to invade the region. See Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i
‘Osmān,” 169-170.
39
(The Rock of the Elderly), named after its aging commander who refused to serve anybody.
Yörgüç Pasha eventually took the castle by bribing one of the commander’s retinue into burning
the treasury and provisions. After capturing the castle, Yörgüç Pasha prepared the conquest of
the lands of Canik held by Alparslanoğlu. He invited Alparslanoğlu to Amasya for a wedding
and the latter refused, sensing the invitation was a trap. Alparslanoğlu actually wanted to
surrender to Murad II, hoping that the sultan would grant him land elsewhere. Yet, as
Aşıkpaşazade notes, Yörgüç Pasha preferred a military conquest rather than peaceful surrender
as the former would increase his hold in the region. 154 Alparslanoğlu was aware of Yörgüç
Pasha’s intentions and therefore in 831/1427-28 he personally showed up in Amasya to
surrender. Yörgüç Pasha sent Alparslanoğlu to Bursa while keeping his household hostage in
Amasya. This event marked the completion of Yörgüç Pasha’s consolidation of power in the
region in the 1420s. All three military ventures were in continuation of Mehmed I and Bayezid
Pasha’s earlier attempts to control the region in the first two decades of the fourteenth century.
What was different in the case of Yörgüç Pasha’s campaigns was his autonomous actions against
the Ottoman center in Edirne. It must have been during this period that Yörgüç Pasha began
inscribing his name on silver coins (Yörgüç Pasha Akçesi), a gesture declaring the degree of
autonomy he enjoyed in the region. 155

The Sufi lodges constructed in the second period

It seems that the urban center of Amasya reaped the benefits of Yörgüç Pasha’s military
ventures, as three endowments were made in the years 835/1431 and 836/1432. The first one
was, not surprisingly, by a minter named Şemseddin Akhi Ahmed Çelebi bin Akhi Mahmud.
Şemseddin Ahi Çelebi perhaps increased his wealth thanks to business brought by Yörgüç Pasha
Akçesi. The city had one of the few Ottoman mints thanks to a nearby silver mine in the district
of Gümüş. 156 In his Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, Pamuk notes that the Ottomans
did not have full control over the operation of the silver mines and mints until the second half of
the fifteenth century. 157 Therefore, the autonomy of the city – and its mines and mints - when
coupled with the political stability under the rule of Yörgüç Pasha, could have made the local
minter wealthier. The local minter in turn secured his properties by building a lodge in the name
of his father. In Jumādā al-Ākhirā 834/February 1431, Ahmed Çelebi, who was also an Akhi
shaykh, stipulated that only people firmly believing in the Qur’an and sunnah (the traditions of
154
If there was an army already prepared for battle, a soldier would prefer fighting to accepting submission by the
enemy, in hopes of getting booty. See the story of Mehmed II’s conquest of Bosnia in Ibid., 171.
155
Mehmed Neşri (d. ca. 1520), Kitāb-ı Cihānnümā, ed. Mehmet Altay Köymen and Faik Reşit Unat, 3rd ed.
(Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995), 593. There is no numismatic evidence about Yörgüç Pasha coins.
156
Although Evliya Çelebi praises the silver mines of Amasya, apparently they did not possess major silver deposits
according to Pamuk. Evliya Çelebi (1611?-1682?), Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 95. Pamuk notes that the only
mine worth mentioning in Anatolia was the one located in Gümüşhane in the northeast. Şevket Pamuk, A Monetary
History of the Ottoman Empire (New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 38. Nevertheless, if one
considers that Gümüşhane was conquered later in the fifteenth century, the importance of the silver mine and the
mint in Amasya increased in the eyes of the Ottomans. Yörgüç Pasha built a mosque in this district in 833/1429.
Also located in the same district was a madrasa built by Hacı Halil Pasha, former administrator of silver mines and
the governor-general of Anatolia, in 818/1415. Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya
Sancağı,” 217, 232.
157
Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, 37.
40
the Prophet), and observant of Islamic law should be hosted in his lodge. 158 He appointed
himself as the shaykh and co-administrator, the other one administrator being his full brother
Hayrettin Hızır. Hüseyin Hüsameddin notes that the lodge was later inhabited by Rıfai shaykhs,
and that its remains were still extant in Amasya at the turn of the twentieth century. 159

Almost a year later, in Jumādā al-Ūlā 836/late December 1432, the waqfiya of Şemseddin
Ahmed Çelebi b. Abdülvehhab Çelebi was drawn up. Şemseddin Ahmed Çelebi endowed his
properties for the expenses of a mosque built by his ancestors, and he appointed his son Pir
Mehmed, and upon his death his male and female progeny on the basis of seniority, as the
administrator. 160 The names of these villages do appear in the list of endowments made for the
Hoca Sultan Lodge in the register of the Ottoman survey completed in the sixteenth century. 161 It
seems this lodge was initially built as a lodge-mosque, but its function as a Sufi lodge dominated
other functions of the building later in the fourteenth century. The remains of the lodge do not
exist; neither does a description of the mosque in the waqfiya. The name of the lodge, meaning
either “sultan’s teacher” or “teacher sultan,” leads to some very interesting connections. In my
view, the second meaning is closer to the truth. During the second half of the fifteenth century,
the prince-governor of the city Bayezid apparently befriended Şemseddin Ahmed’s
aforementioned son and the administrator of the lodge, who was also known as Shaykh Mehmed.
Probably as a result of this friendship, Shaykh Mehmed’s son, Bedreddin Mahmud, became the
student of the prominent scholar Muarrifzade (d. after 918/1512), also the preceptor of and a
great influence on Bayezid, as the prince himself admitted. 162 Bedreddin Mahmud later became
the prayer leader of the sultan when Bayezid succeeded to the throne. 163 His appointment was
158
Bedreddin Mahmud Zaviyesi/Ahi Darbhaneci Zaviyesi Waqfiya VGMA, 605/165 p. 119. This is quite an unusual
stipulation because generally the endower stipulates only the qualifications of the future employees, not those of the
beneficiaries. The emphasis on observance of the Islamic law in the stipulation is also worth underlining. This
stipulation is evidence of the tensions during the process of urbanization of Sufi activities, as it clearly demonstrates
the urban population’s reaction to the antinomian practices and beliefs of the recently migrated rural masses.
Kemalpaşazade narrates how the peasants of Bursa flocked to the city center because of Orhan Gazi’s lodge-mosque
and brought Anatolian abdals (antinomian dervishes) with themselves. Following the complaints, Orhan Gazi had
some of these Sufi figures expelled from the city. Kemalpaşazade Şemsüddin Ahmed (d.1534), Tevarih-i Al-i
Osman: I. Defter, trans. Şerafettin Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1983), 90. Quoted in Ali
Anooshahr, “Writing, Speech, and History for an Ottoman Biographer,” Journal of Near Eastern studies. 69, no. 1
(2010): 61. The Halvetiye, in this context, accommodated the demands of both urban and rural populations; one of
the reasons why it became successful in the Amasya region and later in Istanbul.
159
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:192.
160
Şemseddin Ahmed Çelebi bin Abdülvehhab Çelebi Waqfiya (836/1432) VGMA, Defter 608/40 p.35
161
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 246.
162
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 194.
163
Kappert notes that Bedreddin Mahmud authored a thirty-volume work on mysticism. (Petra Kappert, Die
osmanischen Prinzen und ihre Residenz Amasya im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, 1976, 48-49.) According to Shaqā'iq,
Bedreddin Mahmud later became the judge of Bursa and advanced his career until he retired as the military judge of
Anatolia. (Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 310.) Bedreddin Mahmud’s story
is very similar to that of another Amasyan figure, Müeyyedzade Abdurrahman (d.922/1516), who became a very
prominent figure in the Ottoman academia. Müeyyedzade’s father, Ali Çelebi who is mentioned in the context of
Hacı Mahmud and Yakutiye lodges above, was also among the entourage of Prince Bayezid. And similar to
Bedreddin Mahmud, Müeyyedzade enjoyed the favor of the sultan throughout his career. Bayezid seems to have
included the sons of the shaykhly families of Amasya in his entourage and kept his relationship with them strong
after he became sultan. In this way he created a loyal group of judges and academicians to whom he could entrust
41
either due to his father’s friendship with or his teacher’s influence over the sultan. The lodge on
the other hand was probably named after its connections to sultan Bayezid II, via his preceptor
and prayer leader. 164

In the summer of 834/1430, prior to the establishment of the two endowments mentioned above,
Yörgüç Pasha himself patronized a more conspicuous addition to the city’s landscape: a lodge-
mosque. 165 Similar to Bayezid Pasha above, Yörgüç Pasha did not attach any endowments to his
lodge-mosque immediately after its construction. He waited seven years, a period that witnessed
the rise of Amasya in Ottoman politics again. Before focusing on Yörgüç Pasha’s endowments,
let us take a brief look at the history of Amasya in the 1430’s.

Trouble in the East: Rise of Amasya as the Eastern Ottoman capital

Three major developments in the nine years between 838/1434 and 847/1443 underline the
significance of the city of Amasya in Ottoman history in the fifteenth century. During this
period, an Amasyan, Hoca (or Koca) Mehmed Pasha served as the grandvizier of Murad II. And
the city of Amasya served as the place of education for three Ottoman princes, a refuge for
ousted political figures of neighboring states and a central command center for the military
operations in the east. In 838/1434, Murad II sent his eldest son, fourteen-year-old Ahmed Çelebi
(823/1420-840/1437) to Amasya as a nominal governor under the tutorship of Yörgüç Pasha. 166
While Ahmed Çelebi was being educated in the city, Amasya served as the capital of the
Ottomans on the increasingly critical eastern frontier. These years were marked by struggles
between the Ottomans (supported by the Turcoman dynasties of Dulkadirid and Karakoyunlu)
and the Karamanids, who were in alliance with the Mamluks. 167 In 839/1435, Amasya briefly
hosted the Mamluk contender to the throne, Canbek al-Sufi, before he went on to attack the
Mamluk holdings in the south of the Ottoman Rum province. In the fall of the same year, the
leader of a Turcoman Karakoyunlu tribe, İskender Beg, took refuge in Amasya from the Timurid
army, which under the command of the Timurid ruler Shahruh’s (d.850/1447) son pushed him
west. Both the Ottomans and the Mamluks were anxious about the possibility of Shahruh’s
personal appearance in the region with an army as sizeable as that of his father Timur. Yet
Shahruh embarked on a western campaign that year and spent the winter in Azerbaijan. The
Ottomans realized they could no longer afford to provide protection for Shahruh’s adversary, and
thus Yörgüç Pasha asked İskender Beg to leave the region. When the latter refused, Yörgüç
Pasha forced him out of the Ottoman lands using reinforcements sent by Murad II.

the important bureaucratic positions of the empire. Another such figure is the celebrated calligrapher Shaykh
Hamdullah, whose story will be narrated in the following chapter.
164
Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s claims about the founder and later inhabitants of the lodge, however tempting they are,
should not be trusted as he does not reveal his sources and prove self contradictory in later pages of his work.
Hüseyin Hüsameddin argues that Şemseddin Ahmed Çelebi was the preceptor of Prince Bayezid and the lodge was
inhabited by Çelebi Halife, one of the founders of the Ottoman Halvetiye. But a few pages before this argument,
Hoca Sultan appears as one of the prominent merchants of Amasya. He is clearly confusing the founder with
Şemseddin Ahmed b. Musa who died in 1475. See Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 160, 186.
165
Uzunçarşılı, Kitabeler, 117.
166
A. Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman dynasty, by A. D. Alderson. (Oxford: Clarendon press, 1956), 22.
167
İnalcık, “Murad II.” Unless otherwise noted, the source for the events of the period is Inalcik’s article.
42
As Shahruh’s western campaign began to severely restrict Ottoman actions in central and eastern
Anatolia, the Karamanis, freed from Ottoman pressure, revived their hopes of expansion. In the
summer of 839/1435, around the time that the abovementioned Canbek el-Sufi sought the
protection of the Ottomans, an alliance of the Karamanids and the Mamluks defeated the
Ottoman ally Dulkadirids and conquered the Kayseri region in central Anatolia. When Shahruh
decided to return east in the spring of 840/1436, the Ottomans were relieved and freely supported
the Dulkadirids against the Karamanids. In the winter of 840/1436-37, Karamanid forces went
as far north as the Rum region and harassed Yörgüç Pasha’s army as a response to Ottoman
support for their rivals. The following spring, the Ottomans, together with the Dulkadirids,
embarked on a military campaign against the Karamanids and defeated them. The Karamanid
ruler İbrahim Bey (d.869/1464) sought peace, and in response Murad II sent Amasyan scholar
and historian Mevlana Şükrullah to conduct peace negotiations. 168 During these tumultuous years
Amasya’s nominal governor was Murad II’s eldest son Ahmed Çelebi. Ahmed Çelebi passed
away in Amasya after the Karamanid campaign, when the Ottoman eastern frontiers were
relatively settled. In the same year, perhaps as a result of his eldest son’s death, Murad II sent his
two sons, Alaeddin Ali (833-847/1430-1443) and Mehmed (later Mehmed II, 835/1432-
886/1481), to the cities of Amasya and Manisa respectively.

Yörgüç Pasha Waqfiya: A Collective Endowment ?

Yörgüç Pasha remained the governor-general of the province and tutor to the princes throughout
this period, and turbulent events such as these account for his decision to endow his properties on
the lodge-mosques built at the start of the 1430s. A second Timurid invasion was pending and
there was a constant threat from the Karamanids in the south. Yörgüç Pasha must have intended
to secure his properties - most of which were acquired during his consolidation of power in the
previous decade - by endowing them to the lodge-mosque that he had built seven years earlier. 169
In such a political context, the following words taken from his waqfiya in regards to Yörgüç
Pasha’s motivations for the endowment should be taken in the literal sense, not as a formula for a
typical waqfiya: “The great ruler Yörgüç Pasha understood that the world is a place of illusion,
not a site of happiness. It constantly changes and nothing ever stays the same.” (Emir-i kebir
Yörgüç Paşa anladı ki dünya gurur mahallidir, sürur yeri değildir, daima döner, bir karar üzere
durmaz.)

Such formulas in the waqfiyas usually imply the wisdom of the endower gained by age (similarly
most of the endowers seem to be elderly). The young endowers are the exceptions in these
documents. Yörgüç Pasha’s son Mustafa Bey ([Link]) was young enough that his youth was
seen as worth underlining in the waqfiya he drew up on 21 Zilka’de 840/27 May 1437 for the
lodge-mosque he built in Havza (forty-seven kilometers north of Amasya): “the son of Yörgüç
Pasha, the great ruler Mustafa Bey, in his young age understood that the world is a place of
illusion, not a site of happiness.” (Yörgüç Paşa oğlu emir-i kebir Mustafa Bey gençlik çağında,

168
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 94.Şükrullah does not mention his mission
to the Karamanids in his history.
169
Yörgüç Pasha Waqfiya (840/1436) VGMA, 747/245 p. 352
43
genç yaşında bildi ki bu dünya gurur mahallidir.) In the spring after he established his
endowment, Yörgüç Pasha once again appeared before the Amasya court, this time with his son
Mustafa Bey. Yörgüç Pasha made some additions to his endowment while his son had the
abovementioned waqfiya drawn up. Although the political atmosphere was relatively calm after
the defeat of the Karamanids and the departure of Shahruh from the region, Yörgüç Pasha and
Mustafa Bey’s endowments should understood as an extension of their strategy to consolidate a
hold on their properties. Indeed, the format, stipulations and witnesses of Mustafa Bey’s
endowment are the same as those of his father. The villages endowed in Mustafa Bey’s
endowment, on the other hand, were possibly passed on to the family during Yörgüç Pasha’s
abovementioned campaign against Alparslanoğlu, as they are located in the vicinity of Canik.

Figure III: Yörgüç Pasha Lodge-Mosque 170

The plan of Yörgüç Pasha’s mosque is a clear example of the lodge-mosque typology outlined in
Eyice’s article. The space within the mosque could indeed be used as a locale for a variety of
activities, but its waqfiya depicts a picture of the complex much larger than that which is left
today. Surrounded by a wall, this complex included a winter house and a hall, a stable, a
warehouse, a kitchen, a bathhouse and a madrasa. It is highly possible that it also served as one
of Yörgüç Pasha’s residences in the city. According to its waqfiya, a righteous shaykh was to be
appointed as overseer of the daily activities performed by a prayer leader, a muezzin and four
hüffaz. The kitchen staff included four people: a cook, a bread maker and their two footboys. A
secretary and a warehouse manager were also to be employed in order to keep the accounts of

170
Gabriel, Monuments turcs d'Anatolie., 2:32.
44
the complex. The size of the staff, totaling fourteen people and the largest until that point in
Amasya, suggests that it served a considerable community. Yörgüç Pasha designated himself as
the administrator of the complex, and upon his death his son Mustafa Bey and his progeny.
Mustafa Bey’s lodge-mosque in Havza, on the other hand, was a small replica of that of his
father. It included two winter houses, a porch and a warehouse, all surrounded by a wall. Again,
a righteous and scholarly shaykh was appointed to host the guests and manage activities in the
complex. Mustafa Bey appointed himself and his progeny as administrators who would manage
a staff similar to that employed in his father’s complex, though slightly smaller in size.

In both Yörgüç Pasha’s and his son’s waqfiyas there exists an unusual condition that deserves a
few words of attention here. After listing the properties to be endowed, both documents exempt
those villages that belong to other individuals, the public, or which are included in other
endowments. 171 In theory, one cannot legally endow a property that one does not own. There is
only one occasion on which it actually happened in Amasya, which is mentioned in Bayezid
Pasha’s waqfiya, in the context of one of the villages endowed. Bayezid Pasha’s exemption looks
like a precaution against a possible mix-up because it is confined to only a very small portion of
the properties endowed. This rule apparently applies to all the properties endowed in both
Yörgüç Pasha’s and his son’s waqfiyas. Such a blanket exemption could be explained in three
ways. First, it was perhaps the result of Yörgüç Pasha’s power in the city, as he seemed to be
able to endow properties the ownership of which was in doubt.

The second explanation is speculative. The impending threat of invasion might have pushed the
Amasyans to resort to a collective endowment for the lodge-mosque of Yörgüç Pasha so that
their properties would be safe against any prospective Muslim invaders, whether the Karamanid
or Timurid. Endowing property to an already established and prestigious institution was perhaps
more effective than keeping it as private property or turning it into a family endowment, since in
the latter case the property was more susceptible to state encroachment as developments later in
the fifteenth century would prove. 172 When Yörgüç Pasha made additional endowments in the
late spring, another Amasyan endowed his property to the Yörgüç Pasha lodge-mosque along
with him. In the same court session the objection of the administrator of another endowment,
who claimed two of the villages listed in Yörgüç Pasha’s waqfiya for another waqf, was also
recorded. This leads us to the third explanation: Yörgüç Pasha’s endowment probably provided
Amasyans a venue for a legal maneuver that would help them certify the ownership of their
properties. By subjecting their properties to a legal conflict, Amasyans reasserted and recorded

171
Yörgüç Pasha Waqfiya (840/1436) VGMA, 747/245 p. 352
172
In the late fifteenth century, the “land reform”of Mehmed II, targeted these endowments as it reallocated them to
state officials. Another example of the strategy of collective registration property in the name of village elders is
seen in nineteenth century northern Syria, as a reaction to the implementation of the Land Code of 1275/1858.
Martha Mundy, “Shareholders and the State: Representing the Village in the Late 19th Century Land Registers of
the Southern Hawran,” in The Syrian Land in the 18th and 19th Century: The Common and the Specific in the
Historical Experience, ed. Thomas Philipp, vol. 5, Berliner Islamstudien (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992),
217-239. Moshe Ma‘oz, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine 1840-1861: The Impact of Tanzimat on Politics and
Society (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1968), 162.
45
their ownership or regency over the property in question. 173 This might have been especially
preferable for those who did not have an original document of ownership or a waqfiya. Those
who possesed such documents chose to have them certified in front of the court, as one sees in
the case of serial certification in the court of the nearby district of Zile during the “land reform”
of the late fifteenth century.

Ottoman-Amasyan Destruction of Karaman

All of the endowment activities described above took place in the court of Abdurrahman bin
Muhammed Muslihi (d. unknown), the judge of Amasya during the reigns of Murad II and
Mehmed II. Abdurrahman-ı Muslihi belonged to a family of hereditary judges in Amasya. A
Sufi lodge named after him was built some time before the city was surveyed in 937/1530. Little
is known about his life except for what the abovementioned waqfiyas and a particular fatwa
(legal opinion) produced in his court tell us. The legal opinion was about the permissibility of
attacking the Karamanids because of their alliance with the Byzantines against the Ottomans. 174
In the fatwa, the opinions of five scholars, from different parts of the Islamic world and various
schools of law, were sought in this matter. 175 After listing these scholars’ opinions,
Abdurrahman-ı Muslihi issued a fatwa on the permissibility of attacking Karamanids. The fact
that the Ottomans sought the fatwa of an Amasyan scholar instead of a scholar in Bursa or
Edirne where their highest institutions of learning were located is itself interesting and begs for
an explanation. 176 Two explanations can be briefly put forward here. First, the Ottoman ulema
based in Bursa and Edirne in this period maintained close relations with those of Konya, the
capital of Karamanids. They may have been unwilling to issue such an opinion. As a second
explanation, one may invoke the historical rivalry between the political geographies of Karaman
and Rum (where Amasya is located) since the regions’ initial conquest by the Turks. One of the
manifestations of this rivalry was between the Sufi orders of Halvetiye and Zeyniye, which is
central to this dissertation. An Amasyan scholar might have been more eager to issue a fatwa
against the centuries-long rival of his hometown. 177

173
Here, one is reminded of Leslie Peirce’s assessment of the local court as a platform for the local population’s
resistance, adaptation and ‘exploitation’ of imperial legal system during the incorporation of southern Anatolian city
of Ayintab. See Leslie Peirce, Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2003). Similar to the people of Ayintab, who utilized court to register their public
honor in an imperially recognized public venue, Amasyans could have thought of certifying their ownership of their
property in the wake of a probable foreign invasion.
174
Ramazan Boyacıoğlu, “Osmanoğullarının Karamanoğlu İbrahim Bey Hakkı Aleyhine Aldığı Fetvalar,” in Pax
Ottomana studies in memoriam Prof. Dr. Nejat Göyünç (Ankara, 2001), 641-657.
175
These scholars are Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Sa’d al-Din al-Dayri, Badr al-Din al-Tunusi, Badr al-Din al-Baghdadi
and Abd al-Salam al-Baghdadi. Ibid., 648. There is no information on why these scholars selected and how they
were contacted.
176
The present researcher is unaware of any other extinct Ottoman fatwas against the Karamanids. Further research
is needed on this topic. Of course it is presumed that Abdurrahman-ı Muslihi gave this fatwa upon the request of the
Ottomans. He could very well have issued this fatwa without anybody requesting it from him. This makes the story
of the fatwas even more telling in terms of the regional conflict.
177
The contemporary chronicles are full of evidences about the birth, development and occasional severity of the
rivalry between two political geographies. See for instance Aziz ibn Ardashir Astarabadi (d. ca. 800/1398), Bezm ü
Rezm (Eğlence ve Savaş). ; Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān.” Ahmedi (d.1413), Tevārīh-i
46
The exact timing of this fatwa is unknown, though its content and the identity of its author point
to the first years of the 1440’s, when the Karamanid ruler, encouraged by a series of Ottoman
defeats at the hands of Hungarians, sent envoys to the Byzantine Emperor to offer a coordinated
attack on the Ottomans. The peace reached between the Ottomans and the Karamanids in
841/1437 was about to be broken at the turn of the decade. Since the time of that peace
agreement, Murad II was occupied in the western provinces and Amasya was relatively peaceful.
In 843/1439, Murad II sent Prince Mehmed, the nominal governor of the city to the western
Anatolian town of Manisa and entrusted Mehmed’s elder brother Alaeddin Ali to Yörgüç Pasha
as the tutor and governor-general of the Rum region, a position stationed in Amasya. 178 Two
years later, in 845/1441, Yörgüç Pasha passed away and his brother Hızır Pasha became the tutor
of the Prince Alaeddin Ali. Prince Alaeddin Ali was the favorite son of Sultan Murad II, thus the
most likely candidate for the Ottoman throne. For the young prince - barely thirteen-years-old -
an opportunity of demonstrating his prowess presented itself when the Karamanid forces
captured some western Anatolian Ottoman towns in 847/1443. Prince Alaeddin Ali commanded
the Amasyan troops when they, together with the imperial army under the leadership of Murad
II, sacked the Karamanid lands in response to Karamanid actions. The severity of the Ottoman
actions was unparalleled in the conflict between the two Anatolian powers. Indeed, chroniclers
that were contemporaries of this attack record it as one of the two great Ottoman devastations on
Karamanid lands . 179 Aşıkpaşazade, an Amasyan chronicler who was in the region, tried to
legitimize these Ottoman actions by citing the Karamanid treachery; a discourse resembling that
of the abovementioned fatwa. 180 Understandably, he refers neither to Prince Alaeddin Ali, nor to
the role of the Amasyan army. In such a context, a legal opinion endorsed by Islamic scholars
from different parts of the Muslim world could have been exactly what the Ottomans needed to
legitimize their actions and mobilize their Muslim troops. The aforementioned Amasyan judge
and scholar Abdurrahman-ı Muslihi was ready to deliver that legal opinion.

Prince Alaeddin emerged as the favorite candidate for the Ottoman throne after the Karaman
campaign of 847/1443, a development that disturbed certain factions in the capital. 181 Indeed,

Mülūk-i Āl-i Osmān Ġazv-ı Īşān Bā-Küffār (Harvard Üniversitesi: Yakındoğu Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Bölümü,
2004).
178
Prince Mehmed (later Mehmed II) possibly never remembered his years in Amasya as he was five years old
when he became the nominal governor of the city. He remained in the city for two years and then he and his brother
Alaeddin Ali exchanged their posts.
179
Aşıkpaşazade implies the mass rape of the population by the Ottoman army. (Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502),
“Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 182.) Ottoman fought with the Karamanids many times before but the historical chronicles
note two great devastations of the Karaman at the hand of the Ottomans. First came in this period, and the second at
the time of Mehmed II. There are interesting parallels between the two military campaigns. In both of the
campaigns, the favorite princes of the sultans (Alaeddin Ali, son of Murad II and Mustafa son of Mehmed II) took
active roles and distinguished themselves. And both of them died under suspicious circumstances following the
defeat of the Karamanids, a development which triggered succession struggles in both periods.
180
Ibid.
181
According to Hüseyin Hüsameddin, Prince Alaeddin Ali’s appointment to Amasya was in fact the result of his
father’s fear of him taking over the Ottoman throne. I argue otherwise. At this time, Amasya was the most critical
Ottoman province and by entrusting it to Prince Alaeddin Ali, Murad II demonstrated his confidence in his eldest
47
Prince Alaeddin was executed on his return to Amasya, as was his infant son later that year. Who
or which faction was behind the execution decision is not quite clear. 182 Contemporary sources
are silent on this issue. What is obvious, however, is that the deep sorrow caused by Alaeddin
Ali’s death was one of several reasons for Murad II’s abdication of the throne in the following
year, 848/1444. During the ensuing fifteen years, while the Ottomans were occupied with a
series of political crises and military operations in the west, Amasya did not host an Ottoman
prince and its political scene appeared quite calm.

After Yörgüç Pasha (845/1441-870/1465)

The Yörgüç Pasha family maintained its hold over the region. Yörgüç Pasha’s brother, Hızır
Pasha (d.871/1467), 183 remained the governor of Amasya. In 848/1448, Murad II asked Hızır
Pasha to send his wife to pick one of the daughters of the Dulkadirid ruler Süleyman Bey as a
bride for his son Mehmed. 184 In fact, Murad II’s mother was herself from the Dulkadirid house.
By that time, it had become a tradition for Ottoman sultans to marry the daughters of the
Dulkadirid house in order to strengthen ties between the two polities. These ties were critical in
the power struggle in Anatolia, especially for the Ottomans in their struggle against their
archrivals in the East, the Karamanids. The city of Amasya served as an intermediary between
the two households since its incorporation by the Ottomans.

Three years later, in 855/1451, Murad II passed away, leaving his throne to the heir-presumptive
Mehmed, who later became Mehmed II (the Conqueror.) Mehmed II immediately began
preparations for his conquest of Istanbul. Shortly after the conquest, in 858/1454 to be exact,
Mehmed II sent his two sons Bayezid and Mustafa to Amasya and Manisa respectively as
nominal governors. Bayezid was five years old at the time. And the reigns of government in the
Amasya region were to remain in the hands of the Yörgüç Pasha family for the next eleven years,
as Hızır Pasha became the tutor of the prince.

Hızır Pasha remained the governor-general of the region and the tutor of Prince Bayezid until
870/1465. In the meantime, he joined Mehmed II’s Trabzon campaign. When Trabzon was
conquered, it was added to the Rum province, which was at that time under the control of Hızır
Pasha based in Amasya. 185 After the Trabzon campaign, Hızır Pasha constructed a complex on
the northwestern outskirts of Amasya that included a lodge-mosque, madrasa, bathhouse,
fountain and a tomb for his grandson Oruç b. Kasım. In the fall of 870/1465, probably around the
time he retired, Hızır Pasha endowed his properties for the maintenance of this complex and

son. Also historical evidence points out that Murad II loved his son deeply, as he asked to be buried next to him after
his death.
182
Hüseyin Hüsameddin, without referring to any source, blames the non-Turkish viziers (devşirme) for the plot.
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:212-213. Considering that Prince Mehmed and his devşirme tutors profited most out of this
event, there is a reasonable doubt.
183
Hanefi Bostan, “XV-XVI. Asırlarda Trabzon Sancağında Sosyal ve İktisadi Hayat” (Marmara University, 1993),
39.
184
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 188-189.
185
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 227. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı,
Osmanlı Tarihi, 3rd ed. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1975), 52.
48
appointed himself, and upon his death his son, as the administrator of the endowment. 186 The
mosque, bathhouse and tomb remain today. The madrasa was probably only recently destroyed
considering the fact that Hüseyin Hüsameddin was able to provide the name of its professor in
1900. 187 The layout of Hızır Pasha’s lodge-mosque and sixteenth-century survey registers
suggest that the mosque was also the center of Sufi activities. 188

Figure IV: Hızır Pasha Lodge-Mosque 189

Concluding Remarks

Hızır Pasha’s replacement by a centrally appointed governor and tutor in 870/1465 marks the end
of the family of Yörgüç Pasha’s nearly half-a-century-long rule of the region. This was a period
when Amasya retained its autonomy, as the Ottoman center was occupied with internal strife and
external threats. Amasya’s autonomy was the product of the Ottoman political scene after the
battle of Ankara. In the half century following Bayezid I’s defeat at the hands of Timur, the
Ottomans tried to recoup their losses in their provinces and calm down internal politics. Only
with the conquest of Istanbul and the ensuing conquests did the Ottoman center become settled
and thus able to more forcefully reassert its control over the provinces. Until then, Amasya
remained under the control of local actors. The three Ottoman princes who lived in the city
between 838/1434 and 1447/1443 increased its ties with the Ottoman center for a period of time,
though this was in the way of three short-lived and unsustained experiments. The domination of
local actors in the patronage of Sufi activity or any other endowment activity in Amasya in this
period clearly demonstrates this fact.
186
Hayreddin Hızır Pasha Waqfiya (870/1465) VGMA, 608/367 p.337
187
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:229.
188
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” [Link] Ayverdi, Osmanlı
Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Fatih Devri 855-886 (1451-1481)] (Istanbul: Damla Ofset, 1989), 30.
189
Gabriel, Monuments turcs d'Anatolie., 2:28.
49
A total of four Sufi lodges were built in Amasya in this period, all of which were patronized by
local actors (two of them by the Yörgüç Pasha family) and built as a part of lodge-mosques.
Aside from those endowments for Sufi lodges, five other endowments were made in this period.
Two of these were for the salaries of hüffaz and other expenses connected to two separate
tombs. 190 The other three endowments were for the water fountains built in various parts of the
city. 191 These five endowments were also made by the local elite. Unlike during the previous
period in Amasyan history, there were no endowments by people directly linked with the
Ottoman center during this period.

As for the locales of endowment activities, one observes continuity in the urbanization process.
Only three of the twelve endowments were located in the rural towns or districts of Amasya. All
three nonurban endowments belonged to the Yörgüç Pasha family. Along with the mosque in the
city center, Yörgüç Pasha had two mosques built in 833/1429 and 835/1431 in the districts of
Gümüş and Köprü respectively. His son Mustafa Bey built a lodge-mosque in Havza in
840/1436. All of this construction seems to have been part of the Yörgüç Pasha family’s effort to
mark the territories under their domination and to legitimize their rule in the region.

Part IV. The Marginalization of Amasya (870/1465-886/1481)

The construction of lodges, or any other religious building for that matter, abruptly ceased after
the completion of the Hızır Pasha complex in 870/1465 and did not begin again until 888/1483
when Pir İlyas’s tomb was built under the patronage of Bayezid II. This is a period in which
Prince Bayezid emerged as a political figure and began to form his own faction. From this point
on, Bayezid’s dealings with the Sufis should be seen as political moves. Bayezid’s father tried to
control his moves by sending tutors from Istanbul rather than entrusting his potential rival, i.e.
his son to the local elite. However, Bayezid seemed to have neither the means nor the desire to
undertake large-scale construction activities as a result of two factors: the upcoming dynastic
struggle and the marginalization of Amasya from the eastern affairs of the Ottoman Empire due
to the annexation of Konya.

190
İskender Bey oğlu Muhiddin Mehmet Çelebi Waqfiya (847/1443) VGMA, 582/122 p.182 and Ali b. Aydın
Waqfiya VGMA, (850/1443) 608/315 p.370
191
Three fountains were endowed in the period between 870/1465 and 872/1467, those of Hızır Pasha, Hoca Hacı
Acem Ali and Temenna. Hüsameddin Ağa bin Abdüssamed Temenna Fountain Waqfiya (872/1467) VGMA,
586/256 p.260 and Hoca Hacı Acem Ali Waqfiya (870/1465) VGMA, 587/133 p.108. The density of the fountain
endowments in this period suggests an increase in the local demand for water either because of the population
growth or local drought. The increase in local population could be ruled out because some of region’s population
was forcefully immigrated to recently conquered Trabzon. Local drought is a more probable scenario, considering
that Hızır Pasha built another fountain in the nearby city of Trabzon. For the forceful immigration see Heath Lowry,
Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992), 53. For
Hızır Pasha’s fountain see Bostan, “XV-XVI. Asırlarda Trabzon Sancağında Sosyal ve İktisadi Hayat,” 39.
50
It is not surprising that the benefactor of the last large-scale construction in Amasya, Hızır Pasha,
was the first governor of Trabzon following the city’s conquest in 866/1461. The Trabzon
campaign must have been a lucrative enterprise for the Amasyans in particular since the region
was part of the province that had Amasya as its capital. Moreover, the campaign involved the
incorporation of non-Muslim lands in which property rights were to a certain extent less immune
to state encroachment. After three years of peace, another conflict broke out in the east
following the death of Karamanid İbrahim Bey in 869/1464. This conflict eventually brought the
Ottomans and the Akkoyunlus onto the battlefield of Otlukbeli in 878/1473 and resulted in an
Ottoman victory. However, the complete subduing of the Karamanids and the full integration of
the region in the Ottoman Empire did not occur until 888/1483.192

During these conflicts, Bayezid rarely joined the military expeditions, and he was therefore
deprived of the spoils of war. When he did join an expedition, as for example during the
Otlukbeli battle, there was little territorial gain. The territories gained from the Karamanids were
more immune to Ottoman encroachment since they belonged to Muslims and were mainly
attached to local pious foundations. Attempting to obtain them, as Karamani Mehmed Pasha did
after 883/1478, would have caused a tremendous public reaction. Any gain brought about by
these military operations benefited Bayezid’s rival Mustafa and Cem, whose capital Konya was
the headquarters of the military operations in the East after 871/1466. Bayezid simply could not
afford to undertake patronage activity through large-scale construction.

Prince Bayezid had his own reasons for not patronizing a Sufi lodge construction, but what about
the Amasyan elite? Why did they not endow? The answer to this question lies in the first period
in Amasyan history discussed above and the fifteen-year period following Bayezid II’s accession
to the throne, both of which witnessed dense waqf activities. What was present during those two
periods and absent between 870/1465 and 886/1481 was the Amasyan elite’s influence in the
Ottoman capital. From 870/1465 onward, the Ottoman Empire witnessed very aggressive
centralization and simultaneous marginalization of the provincial Turkish elites. The region lost
a considerable portion of its population as they were forcibly resettled in the newly conquered
Trabzon region in 866/1461. 193 In subsequent years, Amasya lost all vestiges of its autonomous
days when Mehmed II standardized the currency and centralized the administration of mines and
mints. 194 There were no longer any Yörgüç Pasha Akçesi. More importantly, local silver mines
and mints began to be controlled by centrally appointed officials. The opening of Sahn-ı
Semaniye Medresesi in Istanbul in 875/1470 and the creation of a centralized learned hierarchy
negatively influenced local educational institutions, though the madrasas of Amasya did not

192
Doğan Yörük, “Karaman Eyaletinde OsmanlıTımar Düzeninin Tesisi (1483),” Ankara Üniversitesi DTCF Tarih
Araştırmaları 25, no. 40 (2006): 177-202.
193
“These communities include groups from the following Anatolian towns: Niksar, Sonusa, Ladik, Amasya, Tokat,
Bafra, Osmancık, İskilip, Çorumlu, Gümüş, Merzifon and Samsun. The population of these forcibly deported and
resettled cema'ats (communities) accounted for 202 hanes (households), or 78.30% of Trabzon's Muslim population
in 1486-87.” Lowry, Studies in Defterology, 53.
194
Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, 40-59. Two of the abovementioned endowments were made
by people who were in charge of the silver mine and mints in Amasya.
51
immediately lose their significance. 195 The last stroke came when Karamani Mehmed Pasha
initiated his land reform in 883/1478, which abolished many land holdings in the region that had
formed the financial basis of most of the endowments. 196

In such a context, Bayezid’s refusal to send a rich merchant to Istanbul upon his father’s request
should be seen as a desperate attempt at resistance to Mehmed II’s policies. The construction
activity resumed immediately after Bayezid became sultan. In the fifteen years following
Bayezid’s enthronement, one observes a very dense endowment activity matched only by the
period following the Ottoman interregnum. This time, however, the composition of the endowers
was different. The endowers of this period were members of Bayezid’s princely household
composed of the devshirme, in contrast with the earlier endowers who had Turkish origins. This
means that the centralization process continued, though Amasya reestablished its connection
with the center in a different mode or through different actors. 197

Dynastic Struggle and the Fragility of the Princes’ Treasure

In fact, Ottoman prince-governors rarely undertook a large-scale construction project in cities

where they ruled. Rather, they promised to make considerable endowments to the cityfolk in the
event they became sultan. There is one such story behind Bayezid II’s complex in Amasya.
Bayezid was true to his word to such an extent that the complex he built had the richest
endowment in Anatolia. It even surpassed similar complexes in Bursa and Konya. 198 Such stories
behind post enthronement endowments are quite common in the sources. The truth of the matter,
however, is that princes never had enough money and when they did have expendible income
they spent it to muster power for a possible succession struggle.

The fragility of a prince’s treasure and the concern for the future of his household is apparent in
the endowment activity of his mother. Bayezid’s mother, Gülbahar Hatun, was apparently quite
concerned about the future of her son, and related to that, her own properties. In order to secure
her properties, she endowed the incomes of certain villages and fields to the Enderun mosque in
879/1474. 199 Among the endowed properties was the village of Ağılcık, which was turned back
into a Timariot village in 884/1479 during the land reform. 200 This shows that Mehmed II, or
more probably his grand vizier Karamani Mehmed Pasha, the initiator of land reform that
belonged to the rival princely faction, was aware of the property strategy employed by Bayezid’s

195
In this context the story of Taşköprüzade’s ancestor, who was a scholar in a north central Anatolian town and
refused Mehmed II’s offer of a position in Sahn-ı Seman demonstrates the local ulema’s reaction to centralization
policies. Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 121-122.
196
Özel, “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's "Land Reform" Revisited,” [Link].
197
Amasya no longer sent military and administrative manpower to the imperial center. Instead it provided religious
and intellectual manpower as the central bureaucracy was taken over by devşirme families. Of these devşirme
bureaucrats, some who happened to be in the household of Bayezid during his governorship of Amasya, extensively
built madrasas and lodges in and around the city.
198
Kayhan Orbay, “The Financial Administration of an Imperial Waqf in an Age of Crisis:
A Case Study of Bayezid II’s Waqf in Amasya (1594-1657)” (MA, Ankara: Bilkent University, 2001).
199
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 209.
200
BOA, Ali Emiri, Mehmed I/ 2, 3
52
mother. When Bayezid became sultan, he rescinded this order and restored the endowments of
the mosque. And history repeated itself on the eve of Bayezid’s son Ahmed’s succession struggle
three decades later, when the prince’s mother Bülbül Hatun endowed a portion of her properties
to the same Enderun mosque in 911/1505. 201 In 917/1512, Bülbül Hatun built another complex
and endowed a significant amount of property for its expenses. She designated her son Prince
Ahmed, and upon his death Ahmed’s eldest daughter and her daughters, as the administrator of
the endowment. 202 Bülbül Hatun’s delegation of the regency of the endowment through the
matrilineal line after his son Ahmed clearly demonstrates that this endowment was established as
a precautionary measure in the event that Ahmed failed in his bid for the sultanate. 203

Patronage of Sufis through Alternative Channels

Returning to the period between in 870/1465 and 888/1483, there are almost no Sufi lodge
waqfiyas available for the city of Amasya, which deprives us of the most significant set of
evidence for the Sufi activities in the city. 204 In the absence of waqfiyas, biographical
dictionaries provide alternative sources for the life and deeds of the Amasyan Sufis. For
instance, Taşköprüzade Ahmed Efendi (d.968/1561), the author of a pioneering biographical
dictionary Shaqā’iq spent part of his youth in Amasya and could be a reliable source on local
stories about the shaykhs who lived in the fifteenth century, though these stories must still be
cross checked against other historical sources. Taşköprüzade mentions the father of a certain
Molla Seyyid İbrahim (935/1528-29) who lived in the 1460’s in the Yenice village in the
environs of Amasya. Taşköprüzade provides neither his name nor his affiliation, but he notes that
Bayezid, the prince-governor of Amasya, used to frequent Seyyid İbrahim’s father to ask for his
prayers. Bayezid apparently used to call this shaykh “father,” which gives us an idea of the
respect he had for him. 205 One also encounters in Taşköprüzade’s narrative the story of
Abdurrahman-ı Erzincani (d. unknown) who lived in seclusion in the mountainous areas of
Amasya at beginning of the fifteenth century. 206 He was the representative of Safiyüddin-i

201
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 210.
202
Bülbül Hatun Waqfiya VGMA (917/1512)
203
A comparable case of endowment is that made by the mother of Mehmed I, Devlet Hatun exactly ten months
after the death of his son in 824/1421. Devlet Hatun acts with the same motive, i.e to protect her own property. In
the waqfiya she explains how the property endowed is the private property of his son Mehmed and legally inherited
by her. Her explanation is most probably out of her fear of confiscation.
204
In Amasya, two endowments were made in this period. The first one is for the Temenna Fountain, in 872/1468,
built by the manumitted slave of the aforementioned Hızır Pasha. This waqfiya also proves our point that wealth and
power in Amasya were concentrated in the hands of Yörgüç Pasha family in the 1460’s and when Hızır Pasha retired
in 870/1465, his household also sought ways to secure their property. The story of the second endowment is even
more interesting. It is by Müeyyedzade Ali Çelebi (d.888/1482), the father of the abovementioned Müeyyedzade
Abdurrahman. This is a mixed endowment for his family and the mosque he had built in the city. The timing of the
endowment is worth highlighting. Müeyyedzade Ali endowed his properties around the time an investigation into
his son’s dealings with the Prince Bayezid was ordered by Mehmed II. Müeyyedzade was probably concerned about
a possible confiscation and established an endowment to protect them. He proved to be right as the execution order
for his son arrived in Amasya a few years later. For the details and the dating of the investigation see Kappert, Die
osmanischen Prinzen und ihre Residenz Amasya im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, 38.
205
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 306.
206
Ibid., 57-58.
53
Erdebili 735/1334 and likely temporarily fled the Timurid invasion. Abdurrahman-ı Erzincani
apparently had quite a number of descendants dispersed around modern day Malatya, Adıyaman
and Antep, which explains his multiple burial sites. 207 Similarly in the Terceme-i Nefehāt of
Lami‘i (d.938/1532), there is a story related by Bayezid’s prayer leader in Amasya, Molla İmam
Ali (d.927/1521), 208 who in passing mentions that his father was among the disciples of Hacı
Bayram-ı Veli (d.833/1429). 209 It is highly possible that Molla İmam Ali was raised in a Bayrami
lodge in Amasya established by his father following the passing of his shaykh Hacı Bayram in
834/1430. Lastly, for the life of Çelebi Halife (d. 899/1494), the most prominent figure in the
transmission of Halvetiye Sufi order to the imperial center, only narrative sources survived.

These might be the two factors behind the lack of any princely patronage activity through large-
scale construction of lodges or complexes in Amasya before 886/1481. Bayezid, however,
supported Sufi orders through cash donations or land grants. The respective initiators of the
Karamani and Rumi branches of the Halvetiye order, Çelebi Halife and Habib-i Karamani
(d.902/1496) were both the beneficiaries of Bayezid’s patronage. In the famous story of his aid
to Bayezid during the succession struggle in the spring 886/1481, Çelebi Halife was given three-
thousand silver coins to be used for the expenses of his lodge. Habib-i Karamani, on the other
hand, mentions a plot of land in the town of İskilip and the incomes of two nearby villages as
gifts of Prince Bayezid in the waqfiya of his mosque built in 881/1476. Also, Muhyidddin-i
Iskilibi, a Bayrami shaykh, appears in the accounts of both Taşköprüzade and Lami‘i as a close
confidant of Bayezid. 210 All of these figures were involved in the succession struggle of Bayezid;
thus Bayezid’s dealings with them should also be treated as calculated political maneuvers.

The other source that could fill the void left by the absence of waqfiyas is the Ottoman survey
registers. The earliest detailed Ottoman survey listing the endowments dates from 937/1530 and
provides the names and incomes of five other lodges in and around the city. 211 Although
Hüseyin Hüsameddin attributes a date of construction that falls in the period under study and an
initiatic affiliation to these places, his claims remain unsubstantiated, and hence useless, without
any supporting sources. Yet one could be sure that these lodges were active when this survey
was done around 937/1530. Hence, I will list them assuming that some of them were active
during the period under study. Three of these lodges were located in the city (those of Selamet
Hatun, Ahi Sadeddin and Hamza Bey) and the others were located in the countryside (those of
Shaykh Sadi, located approximately fifteen kilometers southeast of Amasya on the road to Tokat,
and Shaykh Bayezid, located several kilometers north of Shaykh Sadi lodge). Here I should note
that Ottoman survey registers only record those lodges that were supported by an endowment of
mostly immovable property. There might very well be other locales for Sufi activities that fell

207
One of his descendants, namely Shaykh Muhyiddin, founded a madrasa complex in the southern Anatolian city
of Gaziantep. Shaykh Muhyiddin also appears in a local story where he helps Selim I in defeating Mamluk army in
Marj Dabik. Peirce, Morality tales, 47, 44.
208
For his date of death Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 309.
209
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Futūh al-Mucāhidīn li Tarwih al-Mushāhidīn, ed. Süleyman Uludağ (Istanbul: Marifet
Yayınları, 1980), 685.
210
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 343.;Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i
Nefehāt, 580.
211
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 241-253.
54
under the radar of Ottoman surveyors, such as lodges that were not supported by any
endowment, or private residences of shaykhs who kept their distance from the city’s notables
and/or the Ottoman officials.

Concluding Remarks

In his dissertation on the endowments of Amasya, Adnan Gürbüz extracts the names of twenty
other lodges from the Ottoman survey registers of 937/1530 and 984/1576. He counts them
among the Sufi lodges of Amasya but because he could not date and locate these lodges he puts
them under the heading, “lodges with unknown dates and locations.” 212 However, these lodges
were probably established outside the boundaries of the city and are listed in the Ottoman
records as the beneficiaries of the endowment made out of the tax income of a particular village
located in Amasya. An example might be given from the Shaykh Nusret lodge, which Gürbüz
lists as a lodge in Amasya. 213 Ottoman records show that the revenues of Şeyhler and Yağlağu
villages of Amasya were endowed for this lodge, though other documents point out that it was
located in Tokat. 214 Similarly, on finds the names of villages outside Amasya, incomes of which
were endowed for a lodge in Amasya. These villages were almost exclusively located in the Rum
province.

A brief word on the characteristic of the landholding practice of the region (malikane-divani)
would be suitable here. This land regime required the division of land taxes between state and
local landholding classes, and in some cases the double taxation of the peasantry. 215 The nature
of malikane ownership, in other words the rights of malikane holders over land, is subject to
historiographical debate. Still, the malikane holders of this region enjoyed a freedom and
privilege unmatched in other parts of the Ottoman state. Ottomans, on the other hand, were not
fond of this arrangement and never missed an opportunity to interfere in land relations, whether
by imposing new obligations on landholders, abrogating the rights of some landholders or
abrogating certain rights all together. However, the Ottomans never enjoyed full control over the
region since its incorporation into the empire and thus never had the opportunity to completely
abolish the system. Local landholders, on the other hand, were aware of the Ottomans’ intentions
and always tried to keep their properties away from Ottoman encroachment by establishing
endowments.
212
Ibid., 243, 250-253.
213
Ibid., 251.
214
See BOA, Ali Emiri Bayezid I/1, Murad I/1-9, Mehmed II/51. All of these documents are waqfiyas belonging to
the previous century, yet certified by certain Mehmed Behçet, the judge of Zile during the reign of Mehmed II. The
format and paper quality of almost all of the documents are identical. The dates of certification are not on the
documents. However, one may speculate that the Ottoman centralization attempts at reallocating land in this period
might be behind serial certification as a resistance strategy. Similarly to the abovementioned collective endowment
strategy to the Yörgüç Pasha lodge-mosque, the population of Zile could have planned to collectively endow their
properties to a well established local lodge in order to protect them from state encroachment.
215
This land regime is sporadically observed in the other provinces of the Ottoman Empire. But at this time, those
provinces were not the part of the empire yet. Moreover in none of the other provinces, was this land holding
practice as common as in the environs of Amasya. For a good summary of the scholarly discussion on this land
regime and its probable origins see Özel, “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's "Land Reform" Revisited,” 230-
234.
55
Most of the endowed properties were in the form of malikane revenues of the villages in the
region. And in many endowments, especially the sizeable ones, one observes malikane incomes
of villages outside the boundaries of a particular city endowed for endowments in that city’s
center. For instance, in the waqfiyas of Bayezid Pasha or the Yörgüç Pasha family, the names of
villages around neighboring cities and towns such as Tokat, Çorum, etc., can be found among the
listed properties. 216 The result is a regional network of endowed properties organized around a
Sufi lodge in the urban center, and hence the material infrastructure of regional Sufi identity.

These networks served as one of the ways in which rural surplus was channeled into cities,
which in turn made the city a platform where property relations were subject to various
commercial, legal and political transactions. The revenue of the village of Bağluca is the perfect
example in this context. This village was exempted from the obligation of raising a cavalryman
(eşküncü) for the Ottoman army and in 872/1468 given to the mother of Bayezid, Gülbahar bt.
Abdüssamed by Mehmed II. 217 After six years, in 878/1473, Gülbahar Hatun sold the village to
Taceddin Bey b. Hamza Bali (d. 890/1486), the book keeper of Bayezid’s court. 218 In 883/1478,
the village’s exemption was abolished and granted back to Gülbahar Hatun probably as a result
of the abovementioned land reform. 219 This order was reissued a year later at the request of a
certain Mevlana Şemseddin Ahmed, which means that the village had not reverted back to
Gülbahar Hatun and had likely become subject to a legal dispute. 220 Another example can be
provided from Aşıkpaşazade’s history, where he relates an anecdote about the wasteful son of a
certain Hasan Pasha. This son was designated as the administrator of his father’s foundation but
had to sell his share in the endowment because he became poor. 221 The urban environment in this
context provided a market where malikane properties –endowed or private property - were being
sold, bought and used as collateral for loans. The complexity of malikane holdings and the
endowment strategies probably facilitated this process. 222 The city also had the political and legal
institutions where these relations were authenticated, reallocated or dissolved.

216
See Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya, BOA, Ali Emiri, Mehmed I/ 2 and Bayezid Pasha Waqfiya (820/1418), VGMA
605/330 p. 244. For the villages in Yörgüç Pasha’s endowment see Yörgüç Pasha Waqfiya (840/1436) VGMA,
747/245 p. 352
217
Ali Emiri, Mehmed II/28
218
Ali Emiri, Mehmed II/34
219
Ali Emiri, Mehmed II/32
220
Ali Emiri, Mehmed II/24
221
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 240.
222
In the waqfiyas, one usually encounters the term “sehim”, which literally means “share.” Usually some of these
sehims were endowed, while others were given as inheritance, as gifts or were sold. For instance, in Habib-i
Karamani’s endowment, the malikane tax rights were divided into sixty shares, out of which twelve were assigned to
the administrator, while fifteen were endowed for his mosque, two for the scholars of Madina and four-and-a-half
for his three sons. Out of the remaining shares, Karamani gave six to his sister as inheritance, six to his daughter as a
gift and twenty-three to his wife as her dower (mihr). After dividing his malikane tax rights in this way, Karamani
endowed the shares given to the female members of his family (his sister, daughter and wife) to various charitable
and non-charitable ends. He endowed the second set of properties to his mosque and his son Mahmud. Such
division makes the collection of income almost impossible for the people in charge. That is why Habib-i Karamani
stipulated that the income of the villages should be brought to the door of the administrator. Habib-i Karamani
Waqfiya (881/1476), VGMA, 601/204 No: 269
56
Another factor that contributed equally to urbanization and to the increase in endowment activity
was the Pax Ottomanica. Amasya joined the Ottomans much earlier than other cities of Central
Anatolia, which gave it an advantageous position in the region. It was left untouched by Timur,
who razed the city of Sivas at the beginning of the century. Similarly, in 877/1472, Uzun Hasan
chose to burn the nearby city of Tokat rather than Amasya as a result of Prince Bayezid’s
presence in the city. While Amasya was being kept safe by the Ottomans, it also benefited from
Ottoman conquests elsewhere. As the Ottomans conquered the surrounding regions, they
confiscated land from elites and the local population. For instance, Mehmed I exiled the Tatars
of İskilip to the Balkan town of Filibe and confiscated their lands at the beginning of the fifteenth
century. 223 From these lands, Bayezid likely gave a gift to Habib-i Karamani before 881/1476 in
order to encourage him to settle in the vicinity. Habib-i Karamani later endowed the lands for his
lodge mosque in 881/1476. 224

As the center of regional Ottoman operations, Amasya benefitted from these conquests. But the
increasing power of the Ottomans in the region also had negative consequences for the local
landholding population. The Ottomans never missed an opportunity to interfere in local property
relations and always sought further taxation. Luckily for the Amasyans, the Ottomans could not
muster enough power to consolidate their hold over the region for a good part of the fifteenth
century. Nevertheless, there existed a continuous concern on the part of the landed elite over the
future of their properties. This concern is one of the factors that encouraged endowment
activities. In other words, Pax Ottomanica increased endowment activities in two ways. While
providing the local elite imperial courts where they can endorse their endowments, the Ottoman
center simultaneously pushed them to seek strategies to protect their malikane holdings against
taxation and possible confiscation.

In the first paragraph of this conclusion, I mentioned that the malikane incomes of more than
twenty villages in the vicinity of Amasya were endowed for the lodges outside of the boundaries
of the city. This was also true for the villages of other cities in the region. Hence, regional
networks of malikane properties were woven around endowments in the urban centers. In the
countryside, peasants, on various occasions, came into contact with some of the residents of a
particular lodge that was supported by their taxes. They might even be hosted in that lodge when
in the city for legal or commercial business. Some lodges were even engaged in commercial
activities. 225 It is not too farfetched to assume that peasants could associate themselves with the
lodge they supported with their taxes.

The same association existed between the urban population and the dervishes. A part of the
population benefited from the endowments of a Sufi lodge. The Sufi lodge was a place where
many local people were employed and many families were supported. It was also a major
customer for local goods. In addition to providing commercial benefits, these lodges offered the
urban population spaces for social interaction. One may safely conclude that both rural and urban

223
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 153.
224
Habib-i Karamani Waqfiya (881/1476), VGMA, 601/204 No: 269
225
Ocak and Faroqhi, “Zaviye,” 472.
57
populations were interconnected through endowment activities, which formed an infrastructure
that could homogenize the regional Sufi affiliation. This infrastructure in Amasya was filled with
Halveti colors in the period under study. The following two chapters are the story of Halveti
coloring of the region in the context of regional rivalries, center-periphery relations and the
Ottoman incorporation of central Anatolia.

58
Chapter Two
The Urbanization of the Halvetiye: Amasyan Gümüşlüoğlus (804/1405-870/1465)

Introduction:

In the first half of the fifteenth century, the Halvetiye Sufi order, which originated in the rural
areas of Azerbaijan, became a part of Amasyan socio-religious scene and assumed its urban
identity. Amasya provided a safe haven for the Halvetiye order, which was challenged by urban
and more established rival orders in the East and the West for the entire fifteenth century. 226The
fusing of Halveti and Amasyan identities, which is the first step in the urbanization and
“Ottomanization” of Halvetiye order, is the subject of this chapter. The history of the first
documented Halveti community in Anatolia until the mid fifteenth century will provide a
narrative framework. 227 This community is named after its founder, Gümüşlüoğlu Pir İlyas (d.
before 815/1412) and did not expand beyond the boundaries of the city. It was led by a local
Gümüşlüoğlu family and financially supported by the endowments made by an Ottoman vizier in
the early decades of the fifteenth century. This chapter concludes that the formation and
development of the Gümüşlüoğlu Sufi community is indicative of both local events and region-
wide trends. The aforementioned process of the urbanization of Sufi orders following the
Ottoman incorporation of the region is exemplified in the case of the first Halveti community in
Anatolia. The story of the foundation and development of this community is the first step in the
urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye order.

The chapter is divided into four parts. The first part is the foundation of the Halveti community
(hereafter Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis) by Gümüşlüoğlu Pir İlyas in the first decade of the fifteenth
century. In this part, the life and deeds of Pir İlyas will be narrated with reference to the urban
context in which he operated and the first signs of the transformation (institutionalization and
urbanization) of Halvetiye order under the leadership of Sadreddin-i Hıyavi (d. circa 1420) Pir
İlyas’s shaykh. 228 The second part will concentrate on the foundation and architectural
implications of the Yakup Pasha Çilehanesi; the Sufi lodge that is the center of the Gümüşlüoğlu
Halvetis and will be referred as the Çilehane hereafter.) This lodge was constructed immediately
after Pir İlyas’s death and named after its patron Yakup Pasha. The size of the lodge suggests
that it was planned and possibly started to be built when Pir İlyas was still alive. All aspects of
the Yakut Pasha lodge, its benefactor, architectural layout, location and the network built around
it will be analyzed in this part. In the chronological sense, the first two parts overlap with the first

226
See footnote no:18 above.
227
Available narrative sources give names of various ‘Halveti’ shaykhs who were active in Anatolia and in other
parts of the Muslim world in the fifteenth century. However these sources do not provide information beyond the
names of the shaykhs. Moreover the authenticity of the Halveti affiliation of most of these shaykhs is questionable.
The Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti community is unique in the sense that it is documented by other historical sources, i.e. the
waqfiya and the Sufi lodge in which they operated. These sources give information about the dervishes, the patron
of the lodge and the network built around the endowment activity.
228
Although modern authors claim that he died in 860/1455, basing their arguments on Mahmud Hulvi’s statement
(Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 384.), this date does not make sense when crosschecked against the
biographies of his disciples.
59
period of the Amasyan history (789/1387-825/1421) narrated in the previous chapter. The third
part is about the flourishing of this community under the leadership of Pir İlyas’s grandson
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami ([Link] 1460), which falls into the second period recounted before; i.e.
autonomus Amasya under the rule of the Yörgüç Pasha family between 825/1421-870/1465. In
this period the Gümüşlüoğlu community faced competition from the Zeyniye Sufi order, as the
first Zeyni khalifa settled in the nearby town of Merzifon. At the end of this period, a new wave
of Halveti propagators appeared in Anatolia, this time the khalifas of the celebrated Yahya-i
Şirvani (d.868/1463), also a fellow disciple (pirdaş) of Pir İlyas in the circle of Sadreddin-i
Hıyavi. The fourth part covers the period between 870/1465 and 886/1481, the third period in
Amasya’s history which was marked by the activities of prince Bayezid. It is about the waning of
this community in Anatolia, in the face of the newfound aggressiveness of the Zeyniye order and
the marginalization of Amasya. This period also witnessed a very close relationship between
Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis and Prince Bayezid, the rising political actor in the region.

Part I: Pir İlyas and the Foundation of the Gümüşlüoğlu Community (804/1402-815/1412)

The Timurid invasion of Anatolia in the early fifteenth century was in many ways decisive in the
later history of the region. Timur, intentionally or unintentionally circulated the local elites and
populations by devastating the cities, and exiling some and forcing others to flight. The
introduction of the Halvetiye to Anatolia is much related to this historical process. Pir İlyas, the
Amasyan scholar who later became a Halveti elder and initiated the first Halveti community in
Anatolia, met the Halvetiye path thanks to his forced residence by Timur in Shirvan located in
Northern Azerbaijan. 229 By that time, the Halvetiye order, which was established by Ömer -el-
Halveti ([Link]) in the first part of the fourteenth century and mostly active mostly in the
rural areas, was ready to expand in the cities.

Pir İlyas was a member of a prominent local family, originally from the Gümüş district, hence
the nickname Gümüşlüoğlu. 230 Hüseyin Hüsameddin on the other hand, argues that the name of
the family comes from its ancestor, an Anatolian Seljukid commander Gümüşlü Muinüddin
Yunus-u Müstevfi who died in 670/1272. Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s sources are unknown but it is
still safe to assume that Gümüşlüoğlu family was an old and a quite influential one, for their
mansion was located at one of the prestigious spots in the city. The site was later to be occupied
by the Ottoman palace for the princes-in-residence.

One can divide Pir İlyas’ life into two major phases, before and after gaining affiliation with the
Halvetis. Before his exile, Pir İlyas appears as a well-known local scholar in the biographical
dictionaries and chronicles. Hüseyin Hüsameddin claims that he became the mufti in Amasya in
798/1395-96, and was occupying the same position at the time of Timur’s invasion. Amasya was

229
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 573.
230
The district of Gümüş is mentioned in the previous chapter, in the context of silver mines and mints during the
autonomous period of Amasya. For the nickname of Pir İlyas see the epitaph on the entrance of his tomb, published
in Uzunçarşılı, Kitabeler, 121. Osman Fevzi Olcay, “Amasya Meşahiri” (Ankara, 1942), 13, Microfilm No: A-2797,
Istanbul University Library.
60
fortunate to be spared by Timur, who decided to go westward, directly to Ankara. Nevertheless,
Timur sent a local lord with a military contingent to gain control of Amasya. 231 Since this local
lord had a notorious history in the region, the prominent Amasyan families formed an alliance
against him and sent a delegation to Timur for intervention. According to Hüseyin Hüsameddin,
Pir İlyas, as the mufti of the city, was the head of this delegation, which also included a
prominent shaykh, a scholar and the city’s judge. 232 This delegation petitioned Timur to change
his decision to send the notorious local lord to rule Amasya. As an answer to this petition, Timur
decided to send his son, accompanied with a prominent scholar and a considerable military force,
to inspect the situation in place and to test the academic proficiency of the local ulema. It was Pir
İlyas, who stepped forward and convincingly provided answers to the questions of Timur’s
delegation and saved the city from ultimate devastation. In the end, as a ‘reward’ for his services
to Amasya, Timur assigned a position/exiled Pir İlyas to Shirvan in Northern Azerbaijan.

One can neither historically verify nor completely deny Pir İlyas’ feat with Timur. The earliest
Ottoman sources, the biographical dictionaries of Lami‘i and Taşköprüzade, clearly state that it
was Timur who sent Pir İlyas to Shirvan. This fact is enough to conclude that Pir İlyas should
have had a certain degree of popularity and significant political connections which made his
presence in Amasya intolerable for Timur. Another reason might be, as suggested by Curry, is
Timur’s intention of benefiting from Pir İlyas’s scholastic and political aptitude in support of his
empire by assigning a position in Shirvan. 233 In fact Timur could have taken Pir İlyas with
himself when he left Anatolia in the summer 805/1403 for his Georgian campaign, as suggested
by Hulvi Mahmud Cemaleddin Efendi, (d.1064/1654, hereafter Hulvi), the seventeenth century
Halveti hagiographer. 234 This scenario is highly possible considering that Timur spent the winter
of 806/1404 around Northern Azerbaijan before he returned to Samarkand at the end of the same
year. 235

Pir İlyas in Shirvan

Pir İlyas, during his years in exile, made the acquaintance of the dervishes of the Halveti shaykh
Sadreddin-i Hıyavi, and later became one of them. In this part, a brief detour from Pir İlyas’
story is in order for a contextualization of the Sufi community under the leadership of Sadreddin
Hıyavi in larger historical trends as well as in the developmental trajectory of the Halvetiye order
from a rural, non-institutional group of mystics to an urbanized and institutionalized Sufi order
proper.

231
For the story of the defeat of this local lord, see Anonymous, “Ahvāl-i Sultān Mehemmed,” 317-319.
232
What follows is Huseyin Hüsameddin’s account of the events and therefore further research is needed to
substantiate this story. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:165.
233
John J. Curry, “Defending Islamic Mysticism in an Age of Transformation: The Foundation and Development of
the Sabaniye Branch of the Halveti Order in the Ottoman Empire as Reflected in Its Hagiographical Writings, 1500-
1750” (Ohio State University, 2005), 23.
234
Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 393 .
235
Lami‘i’s grandfather, Nakkaş Ali was also among the scholars and artists who were taken by Timur back to
central Asia. Barbara Flemming, “Glimpses of Turkish Saints: Another Look at Lamii and Ottoman Biographers,”
Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 18 (1994): 65 .
61
In the fifteenth century the Islamic world witnessed major transformations that were triggered in
part by the Mongol and Timurid invasions of the preceeding two centuries. These
transformations contributed to the birth to the three early modern Muslim empires in the
sixteenth century, i.e. the Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals. In the socio-religious domain
however, some of the Sufi orders as we know today, began burgeoning in the cities. It is not a
coincidence that one encounters the concentration of figures who are the eponyms and “the
second founders or masters” of the Sufi orders in the first half of the fifteenth century. Among
these were the eponyms of the Bayramiyye and the Zeyniye, respectively Hacı Bayram-ı Veli
and Zeyneddin-i Hafi (d.838/1435.) Again around 1430s, Yahya-yı Şirvani and Hace Ubeydullah
Ahrar (d. 895/1490), two young shaykhs began passionately proselytizing, which made them in
retrospect very significant figures in the histories of the Halvetiye and the Nakşibendiye in that
order. 236 This period is critical in the evolution of the Sufi orders, where Sufism turned into a
popular movement, and Sufi masters transmitted not only doctrine and rule to their disciples but
also an allegiance to the particular ‘corporation’ or ‘order’. 237 This in turn, by the end of fifteenth
century, led to “separate crystallization of initiatic chains”, an essential part of a Sufi order
proper. 238

One of the major traits of this period was the expansion of Sufi orders in the cities through an
organizational innovation, namely sending out representatives (khulafa’, sing. khalifa.) 239
Lami‘i, in the context of criticism of the indiscriminate and excessive use of this ‘organizational
innovation’ attributes its origins to Yahya-yı Şirvani. 240 A previously unearthed historical
document, the endowment deed of the Çilehane indicates that although Yahya-yı Şirvani was
famous for his number of disciples in the mid-fifteenth century, the use of this organizational
innovation in Halvetiye should be viewed as a result of its evolution and the urbanization of Sufi
activities in the post-Mongol Islamic world.

An Attempt at Reconstruction of the early History of the Halvetiye before 1400

The Halvetiye order had its origins in the rural areas of the northwestern Iran in the fourteenth
century. The foundation of the order was attributed to Ömer el-Halveti by the Halvetis of the
late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a period from which the earliest Halveti records survive.
Modern researchers have discussed the origins of Halvetiye from many perspectives. Some

236
Hamid Algar, “Bahaeddin Nakşibend,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 4 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989), 459.
237
Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, [Link], 103.
238
Hamid Algar, “A Brief History of the Naqshbandi Order,” in Naqshbandis : cheminements et situation actuelle
d'un ordre mystique musulman : actes de la Table ronde de Sèvres, ed. Thierry Zarcone, Marc Gaborieau, and
Alexandre Popovi ć, Varia Turcica 18 (Istanbul ; Paris: Isis Press, 1990), 3 .
239
I owe the term to Leslie Peirce, “Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: The Early Centuries,”
Mediterranean Historical Review 19, no. 1 (2004): 23.
240
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 575. When asked about this habit of his, according to Lami‘i, Yahya-
yı Şirvani used to say that a shaykh has only one real successor who would inherit his power of spiritual guidance,
and the rest of his representatives are merely for teaching the manners of the path. Partly due to this habit, Yahya-yı
Şirvani’s disciples and sympathizers had reached approximately to ten thousand, which earned him the posthumous
title, pir-i sani, i.e. the second founder/second elder.
62
maintained that Ömer el-Halveti could not be the founder of the order 241, while others tried to
trace back the origins of the Halvetis to the Akhi fraternities of earlier centuries. Regarding this
discussion, one must first be reminded of what John Curry elegantly states: “given the state of
our sources on late fourteenth-century northwestern Iran, perhaps it would be best to avoid
seeing an absence of evidence as evidence of absence.” 242

Yet, the origins of this order are not completely in the dark. Very careful reading of available
historical sources of later centuries provides glimpses of the foundation the Halvetiye order. For
instance, in Lami‘i Terceme-i Nefehāt –one of the earliest sources on the Halvetiye, the silsilas
(Sufi inititatic chain of masters reaching to Prophet Muhammad) of the Eastern (Iranian and
Central Asian) and the Western branches (Anatolian, North African and South European) meet in
Ömer el-Halveti. Lami‘i tries to disassociate the Eastern and more educated Halvetis from the
Western ones, which were his rivals in the Ottoman Empire. 243 Still, the silsilas provided in his
work shows that certain Sufis started to identify themselves or were called by others with the
sobriquet of Ömer el-Halveti; a fact sufficient in itself to prove Ömer el-Halveti’s role as the
founder.

In addition, one should abandon the anachronistic and ahistorical understanding of the
foundation and the development of Sufi orders. The emergence of Halvetiye as an urban and
institutionalized order at the beginning of the sixteenth century was the result of a two centuries
long evolutionary process not devoid of tensions and not necessarily in a linear direction. Ömer
el-Halveti and his followers probably resembled itinerant antinomian dervishes, rather than urban
Halveti shaykhs in the mid-sixteenth century. Below is a brief attempt at reconstructing a loose
account of the Halvetiye in the fourteenth century, mostly based on the earliest available
narrative source that devotes separate entries for the earliest Halveti figures, i.e. Lemezat. In
Lemezat, a sense of evolution comes to the fore between the lines that describe the lives and
miraculous deeds of the earliest Halveti shaykhs.

Ömer el-Halveti, in Lemezat, appears more like a rural antinomian dervish than an urban Halveti
shaykh. Although he was from an urban elite family, Ömer el-Halveti chose to live the life of a
dervish in the mountains, adopted a vegetarian diet and spent most of his time in ascetic retreats
in the hollows of trees. When his shaykh died, Ömer el-Halveti initially refused to replace him as
the head of the lodge, but later was miraculously convinced. One of his khalifas, shaved off the
moustache of a new initiate and puts on him a woollen cloth -markers of antinomian dervishes --
and proclaimed accordingly: “Now you look like a Sufi!” 244 One also sees Ömer el-Halveti
staying distant from political figures. In one instance, he reproaches a local ruler for hunting the
gazelles of his mountain. 245 In another instance, when initiating Ahi Mirem Halveti

241
Hans Joachim Kissling, “Einiges über den Zejnije-Orden im Osmanichen Reiche,” in Dissertationes Orientales et
Balcanicae Collectae I: Das Derwischtum (München: Trofenik, 1986), 312-348. Martin, “A Short History of the
Khalwati Order of Dervishes,” 276-277.
242
Curry, “Defending Islamic Mysticism,” 23.
243
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 571.
244
The hagiography of Seyfeddin-i Halveti in Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 352.
245
Ibid., 349.
63
([Link]), Ömer el-Halveti convinces his disciple not to seek the favors of political figures. 246
Ahi Mirem Halveti, who is the second figure in the Halveti silsila, is the first Halveti shaykh to
clash with the ulema. 247 Such a clash indicates that with Ahi Mirem, Halvetis began to appear in
urban environments and the ulema, an exclusively urban class, were disturbed by their
activities. 248 But Halvetis, at this point in their history, discover two things essential for their
survival in the city; aggressive proselytization and political protection. Ahi Mirem propounds the
idea of expanding the Sufi order within the larger region of northwestern Iran, yet he still keeps a
distance between himself and political authorities. 249

It was with Ahi Mirem’s successor in the silsila, namely İzzeddin-i Türkmani, that the Halvetiye
order began to establish a close relationship with the political authorities and expanded the base
of the order within urban classes, such as merchants. İzzeddin-i Türkmani was himself a
merchant and in his hagiography one observes him or his dervishes miraculously helping the
merchants in need. İzzeddin-i Türkmani is also the first figure in the Halveti silsila to establish
close relations with the political authorities. In one instance, he dines with Timur, who serves the
shaykh illegally acquired (haram) food in order to test his genuineness. İzzeddin-i Türkmani
miraculously passes the test, silencing both Timur and those who criticize him for accepting
royal invitations. Another incident, a more revealing one in terms of the conflicts during the
urbanization and institutionalization of the order, transpired between İzzeddin-i Türkmani and
his son Pirzade Muhammed Takiyüddin. Pirzade chose the life of an antinomian dervish as a
reaction to his father’s close relationship with the political authorities. 250 When Pirzade’s father
İzzeddin-i Türkmani try convince him to give up his drinking habits, Pirzade accuses his father
of hypocrisy because of the latter’s lack of criticism when the local ruler in his company
displayed the same behaviors. According to Hulvi, Pirzade repented of his antinomian behaviors
and became the dervish and son-in law of Sadreddin-i Hıyavi, who replaced his father as the
head of the lodge.

Again, until this point in the history of the Halvetiye, the only source at hand is the seventeenth
century hagiographer Mahmud Hulvi’s Lemezat; a fact that makes the story above to some
extent speculative. However the motifs in the stories around the lives of earlier figures show a
gradual institutionalization and urbanization of the order within the first three generation of
Halveti masters. And with Sadreddin-i Hıyavi taking over the “leadership of the order” at the
turn of the fifteenth century, historians began to have more information about the early history of
Halvetiye, a fact itself indicative of the increasing presence of the Halveti order in the cities. But
it would take another century for the Halvetiye to be a full-fledged urban order.

Sadreddin-i Hıyavi (after 1400)

246
Ibid., 358.
247
In the story, Ahi Mirem argues that it is the Sufis, not the ulema, are the heirs to the prophetic knowledge. Ibid.,
359.
248
Ibid., 359, 361.
249
Ibid., 360.
250
Ibid., 388.
64
Sadreddin-i Hıyavi was an illiterate shaykh and also a weaver who lived around Mushekka
village nearby the city of Shirvan in Northwestern Iran, and died near the town of Shamakhi,
both located in northern Azerbaijan. 251 Sadreddin-i Hıyavi is quite significant figure in the
history of the Halvetiye, as demonstrated by the fact that he is the earliest figure in the Halveti
chain of initiation, to be treated in a separate entry by the earliest Ottoman biographers. 252 First
and foremost of all, he is the shaykh who trained Pir İlyas and Yahya-yı Şirvani; two shaykhs
who could be credited with the foundation of the Ottoman Halvetiye. This could be the reason
why Ottoman biographers had much information about him, as most of the stories about
Sadreddin-i Hıyavi, in these sources, revolve around his relationship with the abovementioned
two Sufi masters.

Sadreddin-i Hıyavi’s only recorded deed to these two figures is the one with a well-educated
disciple. In a state of spiritual ecstasy, this disciple proclaims that the source of Sadreddin-i
Hıyavi’s greatness is his learned disciples. Hıyavi, offended by this statement, makes an analogy
between that disciple and a child who is spoiled by his father. He also hints that his disciples will
be destroyed if he witholds his mystical support from them. Three days later, that disciple dies of
diarrhea. The circulation of such stories shows that Sadreddin-i Hıyavi’s illiteracy was criticized
in the urban educated circles. Also the story hints at Sadreddin-i Hıyavi’s special treatment of the
scholars who decided to join Halvetiye. Such a treatment is in fact within the realm of
possibility because the appreciation of scholars of the Halvetiye could help the order to survive
in urban environments.

Sadreddin-i Hıyavi appears to be the first Halveti shaykh to have moved his lodge near a city -
Shamakhi the capital of the northwestern Shirvan region. In his hagiography one could find
signs of the reactions that Halveti dervishes received from the urban folk. For instance, in the
initiation story of Yahya-yı Şirvani, Yahya-yı Şirvani’s father suspects Halveti dervishes of
pederasty and even conspires to kill Sadreddin-i Hıyavi. In another instance, Sadreddin-i Hıyavi
secretly visits Yahya-yı Şirvani by entering the house from the chimney. Yahya Şirvani’s father,
upon being warned by one of the servants asks his son Yahya: “Your shaykh presents himself as
sharia-abiding. Then what is the reason for coming down the chimney while the door was open?”
253
It seems that the Halveti dervishes either represented themselves as law-abiding or were
perceived as pretenders by the local population, or both were the case. In all cases one observes
an effort on the part of the Halveti dervishes to be accepted by the urban folk. And after
Sadreddin-i Hıyavi, all the Halveti figures in various chains of initiation were all urban educated
figures –another point highlighting the importance of Sadreddin-i Hıyavi as a turning point in the
urbanization of the order. But still one cannot really talk about the Halvetiye as a fully urbanized
order. Sadreddin-i Hıyavi himself was buried in a village on the margins of Shamakhi. 254 It is

251
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 572.
252
The rest of the Halveti chain is given in Hiyavi’s biography by Lami‘i as follows; Hiyavi’s shaykh Hacı İzzeddin,
Ahi Mirem, Pir Ömer, Ahi Muhammed, İbrahim Zahid-i Geylani and lastly Cemaleddin-i Tebrizi. The activities of
the other Sufi masters in the Halveti chain of initiation are beyond the scope of this study. The source of this chain,
admits Lami‘i , is from a Nakşibendi shaykh named Uzun Muslihiddin Halife ([Link]), Ibid.
253
Ibid., 574.
254
Ibid., 572.
65
highly probable that his lodge was located nearby his tomb. It was his disciples Yahya-yı Şirvani
and Pir İlyas who moved the order’s activities to urban centers.

Another development along with the urbanization of the Halvetiye is the institutionalization of
the order around an endowed lodge as a center for Sufi activities. There is no surviving
endowment deed, nor does any other specific historical evidence that would clearly point out to
the existence of an endowed lodge where Sadreddin-i Hıyavi operated. Yet one may deduce a
certain degree of institutionalization from Sadreddin-i Hıyavi’s family relations and the events
following his death. Sadreddin-i Hıyavi accepted the son of his shaykh İzzeddin-i Türkmani, the
abovementioned Pirzade as son-in-law. This decision was either taken by Sadreddin-i Hıyavi or
his shaykh İzzeddin-i Türkmani. In both cases, it could be aimed at keeping the leadership of the
lodge/order within the family. This strategy, which was to become quite common among the Sufi
orders of later centuries, was employed by the Sufi shaykhs in order to satisfy the demands of his
both physical and spiritual descendants, i.e. progeny and disciples in that order. On the one hand,
a shaykh desired to keep his Sufi community intact after his death by leaving a successor who is
acknowledged by his disciples. The successor will at the same time control the properties
endowed to the Sufi lodge, on which the family of the deceased shaykh claim legal rights
through inheritance. There would not be any conflict between the family and the disciples if the
deceased shaykh’s son is accepted by the Sufi community founded by his father. Otherwise, the
shaykh could avert a potential tension between his progeny and disciples only by taking up one
of the able disciples as his son-in-law. One may in fact argue that in this way the leadership of an
order passes down to generations through matrilineal line. And the establishment of an
endowment for a Sufi lodge becomes a process through which the family, disciples and in some
case political authorities negotiate over their respective rights over the endowments and
indirectly the future of the order. 255 The establishment of kinship between Sadreddin-i Hıyavi
and his shaykh İzzeddin-i Türkmani through the latter’s son could be seen in the same light, i.e.
as a strategy aimed towards keeping the family, Sufi community and the endowed properties
from devolution through inheritance and succession struggles. One may even speculate that
İzzeddin-i Türkmani’s close relationship with the political authorities might have resulted in land
or tax revenue grants from the state to his Sufi community, which were endowed later to his Sufi
lodge. Moreover, the dispute over the leadership of the order after Sadreddin-i Hıyavi’s death,
between Pirzade –his son in-law and Yahya-yı Şirvani -his most able disciple, suggests that the
process of institutionalization of the order around an endowed lodge began to take place at the
time of Sadreddin-i Hıyavi. 256

Yahya-yı Şirvani had to move from Shamakhi to Baku (a port town on the Eastern shores of
Caspian Sea), after his fellow dervishes in Sadreddin-i Hıyavi’s lodge chose Pirzade as their next
leader. These two cities, Shamakhi and Baku, flourished under the Shirvanshah dynasty, with
whichYahya-yı Şirvani maintained very good relations. 257 When somebody prayed for his
longevity, it is said, Yahya-yı Şirvani asked the person to pray for Sultan Halil’s (d.867/1462)
life too, adding that his years are bound to the those of the latter’s. After thirty years of

255
See the establishment of Habib-i Karamani lodge in Iskilib below.
256
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 575.
257
W. Barthold, “Şirvanşah,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 11 (Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1967), 575.
66
preaching and training Sufis, Yahya-yı Şirvani died (nine months after Sultan Halil’s death,
reports Lami‘i) in Baku, leaving very able disciples through whom the initiatic chain of
Halvetiye branches out into four. And when Halveti dervishes began to write their histories
towards the end of the sixteenth century, they began to perceive Yahya-yı Şirvani as pir-i sani
(the second founder or elder) as the chain of initiations of all exclusively derived from him.
Yahya-yı Şirvani’s prestigious status in Halveti history is largely due to his aggressive
proselytization which resulted in thousands of sympathizers, disciples and representatives in
Iran, Anatolia and Egypt. Thanks to his aggressive proselytization, the Halvetiye order survived
into the sixteenth century. And by the time the earliest Halveti hagiographies were being penned,
only those whose silsila reaches to Yahya-yı Şirvani survived.

Yahya-yı Şirvani’s aggressive proselytization is attributed either to his rivalry with Pirzade or to
the rise of the militant Safaviye order in the region where he operated. While both explanations
are quite valid, they tend to limit this development to a particular time and geography, i.e.
Shirvan in the mid-fifteenth century. However, the available sources maintain that Halvetis kept
aggressively -and at times indiscriminately according to Lami‘i, proselytizing in the late fifteenth
and sixteenth century, in places where no Safavid threat existed. In addition, the plan of the
Çilehane in Amasya below suggests that the idea of aggressive proselytization existed before
Yahya-yı Şirvani. The high number of “çile” cells (rooms for ascetic retreat) in the Çilehane
suggests that the building was designed for simultaneous training of numerous disciples in order
to expand the following base of the order. 258 Sadreddin-i Hıyavi, being the shaykh of both
Yahya-yı Şirvani and Pir İlyas, should be credited with the idea of aggressive proselytizing.

In conclusion, the relatively high acquaintance of the Ottoman Halvetis with Sadreddin-i Hıyavi
by comparison with the rest of the Halveti elders of the thirteenth century may not be the only
reason why Sadreddin-i Hıyavi was treated in a separate entry in Terceme-i Nefehāt. Sadreddin-i
Hıyavi seems to stand at a critical conjunction in the developmental trajectory of the Halvetiye,
after which the Halveti dervishes started to be more institutionalized, urbanized and expanded
their following in the region. Sadreddin-i Hıyavi, not Yahya-yı Şirvani contrary to the
conventional argument of the Ottoman Halvetis of later centuries and the modern researchers,
could be regarded as the second founder of the Halvetiye order.

Back to Pir İlyas’ Story: The Foundation of a Community

Pir İlyas finds the Halveti community in Shirvan in the abovementioned state, that of as a quasi-
urbanized and institutionalized Sufi order led by an illiterate shaykh. Perhaps because of this, he
cannot not bring his ego to fully submit to training by Sadreddin-i Hıyavi. Pir İlyas decides to
return to his hometown Amasya, probably after Timur’s death in 807/1405, which freed him
from any obligations that might have forced him to stay in Shirvan.

After twelve years of rigorous self-discipline and training in Amasya, according to the tradition
related by Lami‘i, Pir İlyas decided to join the dervishes of Zeyneddin-i Hafi whose fame had
258
For the description of “çile” see Hamid Algar, “Čella,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1990,
[Link]
67
reached Anatolia. Zeyneddin-i Hafi, the founder and eponym of the Zeyniye Sufi order, was a
well-educated shaykh from Khurasan who mastered both exoteric and esoteric sciences, a
characteristic which should have appealed to Pir İlyas. 259 But in the night of the day he decided
to leave Amasya for Khurasan, Pir İlyas finds himself instructed by the Prophet in his dream to
go back to Sadreddin-i Hıyavi. He immediately travelled back to his initial shaykh Hıyavi, who
had miraculously foreseen Pir İlyas’ arrival and instructed his dervishes to welcome him. After
Pir İlyas kissed his hand, Hıyavi, by performing yet another miracle, revealed Pir İlyas’s dream
and told his repentant dervish that only a few are blessed with the direct guidance of the Prophet
himself. 260 Pir İlyas stayed with the shaykh for a long time, until before returning to his native
city in order to visit his parents. He then decided to stay in Amasya upon hearing the passing of
Sadreddin-i Hıyavi.

This part of Pir İlyas’s story is probably altered or even completely fabricated after his death.
First of all, the length of his initial stay in Amasya cannot be twelve years as suggested by
Lami‘i because the endowment deed of the Çilehane shows that Pir İlyas lived at most seven
more years following his initial return to Amasya. Also the fact that another story with almost
identical motifs too originated from Amasya in the mid-fifteenth century, does lead one to
conclude that both of these stories were the products of the local Sufi culture at the time. Still,
this story gives us clues about the establishment of the first known Halveti community in
Anatolia. As it suggests, Pir İlyas most probably spent some time in Amasya engaged in inward
struggle for self-perfection rather than reaching out to the people. His ensuing quest for another
Sufi master, hence a “better” link to a commendable/popular chain of mystical authority,
however, indicates that at some point circa 1410, he must have decided to form a Sufi
community and began proselytizing.

Urban Context: Urbanization of Sufi Activities via Lodge-Mosques

The urban context, i.e. the flowering of the city thanks to its newfound political identity and
concurrent urbanization of Sufi communities around newly established lodges, also could have
contributed to Pir İlyas’s decision. The concentration of building activity on lodge-mosques
(three out of fıve buildings in nine years) indicates that the city, which was untouched by Timur,
became a center of attraction, for the wretched and displaced population of the neighboring
cities. Moreover, because it hosted one of the three princely courts of the Ottomans, it constantly
received émigré scholars and Sufis who were looking for new patrons. For instance, the
aforementioned Yar Ali bin Siyavuş migrated from Sivas, with his family and later became the
shaykh of the Yakutiye lodge. In such a chaotic environment, as Wolper puts it, these lodges
provided a safe social platform where “a series of compromises and cooperative agreements
between their founders, benefactors and users” took place and laid the foundation for the
formation of new identities. 261 In this context, the Amasyan dervish and chronicler Aşıkpaşazade
Ahmed’s (d.907-8/1502) complaint about the doorkeepers of lodge mosques who does not let
people in because they frequented another one in the city, is quite an illustrative example of how

259
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 547.
260
Ibid., 573.
261
Wolper, Cities and Saints, 13.
68
these ‘buildings were central to the identity formation.’ 262 Doorkeepers of lodge-mosques not
only supervised the beneficiaries of their lodge-mosques, but they also watched over the
boundaries between different Sufi communities that were in the making.

Part II: The Çilehane: A Dervish Factory?

The Çilehane, the first surviving Halveti lodge was built in this urban context. The Çilehane’s
plan suggests that it is one of the lodge-mosques built in the fifteenth century Amasya. In terms
of its ⊥ shaped plan, the Çilehane is quite typical of its age. (see figure I) What makes it unique
in the history of Ottoman religious architecture, however, is its twelve small rooms located on
each sides of the main prayer hall for ascetic retreat. Moreover, the endowment deed of the
Çilehane is the earliest available document on the history of Halvetiye. This document provides
information about the networks of patronage relations, sources of income as well as the Sufi
practices and daily lives of early Halvetis. Besides its content, the endowment deed itself is the
written evidence for the first contact between the Ottomans and the Halvetis. Lastly, it
demonstrates the role of the lodge-mosques as the “missing links” in the evolution of the Sufi
orders in the Ottoman Empire, from rural group of mystics to institutionalized urban orders.

The endowment deed of the Çilehane was drawn up in Safer 815/May 1412, which suggests that
its construction began circa 811/1410. The Çilehane’s benefactor was an Ottoman vizier named
Yakub Pasha who was from a family of hereditary governors of the nearby city of Ankara.
Yakub Pasha later became the governor of the same city until his dismissal early in the spring of
814/1412. The endowment deed of the Çilehane states that Yakup Pasha was a disciple of the
Halveti shaykh of the lodge. Yakub Pasha’s biography as well his probable motives for
patronizing a Sufi lodge in Amasya have been explained within the dynamics of the Ottoman
interregnum and patronage relationships in the previous chapter.

The endowed properties include the tax revenues of Yıgılgan village and three fields in the
environs of Amasya, and of two villages in the vicinity of the nearby city of Sivas. These
properties were divided into twenty nine shares and allocated to the following positions and
expenses:

Position Shares
Shaykh and his servant 7
Accountant 4
Administrator 2
Supervisor 1
Quran Reciter 3
Preacher 2
Müezzin (one who calls to prayer) 2
Six Hafiz 6
262
Ibid., 3.; Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 247.
69
 Door keeper 1
Expenses of Candles 1

Table I: Çilehane positions and distribution of the endowment income

Yakup Pasha underlines that his rights to the tax revenues of the villages of Sivas were granted
as private property (temlik) by the sultan; a statement that could have been necessitated by fear of
confiscation. Yakup Pasha’s fears might have been justified because only the tax revenues of the
Yıgılgan village are listed in the sixteenth century survey registers. 263 The rest of the endowed
properties could either be confiscated by the state or sold by the lodge’s inhabitants in the course
of the fifteenth century.

The administrator, supervisor and shaykh positions are combined and entrusted by Yakup Pasha
to a certain Mehmed Buhari and his male descendants, and upon their extinction to Yar Ali b.
Siyavuş and his son Müeyyed and their male offsprings. Here again, for the third time, one
encounters the family of Yar Ali b. Siyavuş in the endowment deeds. This family apparently was
quite prestigious in Amasya during this period. And one could argue that their social capital was
well invested in the rest of the fifteenth century as Müeyyed’s two sons, Abdurrahman
(d.922/1516) and Abdürrahim (d.944/1537-38) became influential academic and Sufi figures in
the sixteenth century Istanbul. Mehmed Buhari, the designated administrator, supervisor and
shaykh of the Çilehane on the other hand raised a son who would later become the founder of the
Ottoman calligraphy school and known as Shaykh al-Hattatin (Master of Caligraphers)
Hamdullah Efendi (d.926/1520.) In sum, the networks built around this Halveti lodge were the
first steps in the “Ottomanization” of the Halvetiye. And as the future decades demonstrate,
Halvetis not only became Ottomans, they also actively contributed to the molding of the
“Ottoman identity.”

Location and Plan of the Çilehane

Çilehane was built on a hill located in the southeastern banks of the Iris River, overlooking both
the Ottoman princes’ residence near the river and the roads to Black Sea port of Samsun and the
city of Erzincan in the East. The site of the Çilehane was called Sevadiye gardens by the local
population and belonged to the Gümüşlüoğlu family. Pir İlyas’s house, lodge and tomb were all
located on the site. This part of the city was also the prime spot during the first decades of the
fifteenth century. Along with the Çilehane, the residence of Mehmed I, the Yakutiye and
Bayezid Pasha lodges were all built in this period. The patrons of the lodges built in this area
during this period (Yakutiye, Bayezid Pasha and Çilehane) were all viziers of Mehmed I. It must
have been the sultan who encouraged his viziers to cherish Amasya in general and this part of the
city in particular, where his headquarters were located. Or, as in the case of the construction of
the Çilehane, viziers could have volunteered to patronize these lodges in order to impress the
sultan. In any case, one may safely conclude that the southeastern section of the city was the
locale that most benefited from the interregnum period. Mehmed I’s and his viziers’ choice of

263
Gürbüz, “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı,” 236.
70
this part of Amasya might be related to security purposes. Mehmed I’s residence was located on
the other side of the city from the road to Tokat, from where Timur or a rival Ottoman prince
could enter Amasya. An approaching army had to pass the city and two forts surrounding it
before reaching to Mehmed I’s headquarters. (See figures V and VI)

Figure V: Approaching Amasya from Samsun or a view from southeast in 1915. 264

264
Underwood & Underwood, Amassia with its great natural defenses, April 21, , Library of Congress Prints and
Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, [Link]
71
 Figure VI: Approaching Amasya from Tokat or a view from Northwest in the nineteenth
century. 265

The most characteristic feature of the Çilehane is its physical layout. As seen in the plan above,
(see p. 39) the main prayer hall at the center was surrounded by twelve cells for ascetic retreat.
The cells adjacent to the prayer hall have two doors, one opening to the main prayer hall and the
other to the corridors on both sides. Three of these rooms, the waqfiya stipulates, were for the
prayer leader, muezzin and preacher, and six were for the hüffaz. The waqfiya also lays down the
condition that all residents of these cells were to be dervishes. So we can assume that the prayer
leader, muezzin, preacher and the six hüffaz, along with the residents of the remaining three
cells, were all –most probably unmarried- disciples in training at the lodge. 266 The varying
amounts from the endowment income were allocated to these dervishes; a fact suggesting that
these dervishes were resident fellows with stipends and there existed an overlapping division of
labor and degrees of hierarchy between them. These dervishes, in addition to their specifically
assigned duties, were supposed to join the classes of the shaykh and participate in collective
dhikr al-tawhid (recitation of the formula “there is no God but Allah”) after the morning and

265
Bozoklu Osman Şakir, “Musavver İran Seyahatnamesi,” 1810, no: 822, Fatih Millet Library.
266
Hüffaz were most likely the first graduates of the Hacı Mahmud Çelebi lodge and school for Hüffaz built in
807/1405. One of the witnesses of the waqfiya of this school was the grandson of Yar Ali b. Siyavuş, who was to be
the shaykh of the Çilehane in the event of the present shaykhs death without heirs. Connected in this way, both the
Çilehane and Hacı Mahmud Çelebi lodge and school of hüffaz, demonstrate how the regional network of lodges
operated.
72
afternoon prayers. The main prayer hall in the middle was designed for the classes and the hall
in north for dhikr gatherings. One of the two rooms flanking the dhikr hall was the burial ground
of the shaykhs, while the other was most probably the room where the shaykh himself resided.

In conclusion, the waqfiya of Yakup Pasha Çilehanesi provides the written evidence of three
interconnected historical processes in the evolution of the Halvetiye order; institutionalization,
Ottomanization and urbanization. The network established at the foundation of the Çilehane,
between an Ottoman patron, local elite and Halveti dervishes was the first step in the
“Ottomanization” of Halvetiye. The regulation of the hierarchy and practices of the order, which
is expressed in the endowment deed and dictated by the architecture of Çilehane, indicates a
certain degree of institutionalization. Finally the location of the Çilehane, i.e. its physical
proximity to the flourishing urban center including political and religious institutions, suggests
the urbanization of Halvetiye.

Lastly, the physical layout of the Çilehane leads one to revisit the conventional belief that
Yahya-yı Şirvani initiated the Halveti habit of “aggressive proselytization,” thus to reconsider
the argument that he is the second founder of Halvetiye. The unusually high amount of çile cells
were most likely the idea of Pir İlyas. Pir İlyas, similar to Yahya-yı Şirvani but decades earlier,
must have been inspired by Sadreddin-i Hıyavi to train as many khalifas as possible. Although
Pir İlyas did not live to see the end of the construction of the Çilehane, his successors, thanks to
Pir İlyas’s vision, became able to closely supervise the training of at least twelve disciples at the
same time. One might even say that Çilehane was as envisioned by Pir İlyas as a “dervish
factory” that is designed for “mass production” of khalifas in order to expand the following base
of the order, which would in turn make Amasya a significant Halveti center in the Ottoman
Empire and the rest of Anatolia. To sum up, this building is the architectural materialization of
the most critical phase in the evolution of the Halvetiye from a rural Azerbaijani order to an
urban Ottoman one.

Part III: Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis under the leadership of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami

Pir İlyas died before the endowment deed of the Çilehane was drawn up in 815/1412. 267 His
activities in the city were probably centered on his private residence located a few hundred
meters northeast of the mosque built by his family, i.e. Gümüşlüoğlu or Taciye mosque. 268 After
his death, his prominent dervishes went into retreat to look for a sign from God about their next

267
Although the exact date of his death is unknown, one can safely assume that he died sometime before May 1412.
Both original sources and the secondary literature give diverse answers to the question of dating Pir İlyas’s death.
Aşıkpaşazade counts him among the Sufis of the reign of Murad II (824/1421-855/1451), while according to
Taşköprüzade he emerged at the time of Mehmed I (815/1413-824/1421.) Such categorizations, of course do not
give us the exact date. Besides, since his family name, i.e. Gümüşlüoğlu, was shared by his descendants which have
the Ottoman sources confuse him with his grandson Abdurrahman-ı Sani (d.903/1497-98)
268
Hüseyin Hüsameddin, again without giving an explicit reference to the foundation deed of this mosque gives
1325 as the date of construction. He also says that Pir İlyas established the Taciye Dergahı before his death in
813/1410-11. This date is probably an approximation of Hüseyin Hüsameddin based on the Çilehane’s waqfiya
since it is absent in the available historical sources. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 194.
73
shaykh; a practice indicating that Pir İlyas had formed a Sufi community in Amasya which had
to be sustained under a new leadership. 269 In the end, dervishes reached a consensus on Shaykh
Zekeriya (d. before 815/1412), about whom nothing but the location of his grave, the enclosure
of the Saraçlar mosque in Amasya, is known. 270 The fact that Shaykh Zekeriya was buried at a
place other than next to his master does lead us to two conclusions; the Sufi community he
inherited did not have a proper asitane, i.e. a center for their activities and/or he was not family.

In fact, the developmental trajectory of the Gümüşlüoğlu Sufi community following its founder’s
death is quite a reminiscent of the events following the passing of Celaleddin-i Rumi in 672/1273
and the subsequent formation of the Mevleviye Sufi order. 271 Rumi, for a decade, was replaced
by Hüsameddin Çelebi, who was his most prominent disciple, though not related to the family.
When Hüsameddin Çelebi died in 683/1284, unlike Shaykh Zekeriya whose master did not have
a proper tomb, he was buried next to his master’s grave over which a baldachin tomb had been
built a year after Rumi’s death. 272 Following Hüsameddin Çelebi’s death, Rumi’s son Sultan
Veled (d.712/1312), also a disciple of his father’s successor, took over his community. And
under Sultan Veled’s long leadership the community of Rumi’s sympathizers transformed into
the Mevleviye Sufi Order.

It seems that Pir İlyas did not have a son or more preferably a son in-law/disciple to take over his
community of dervishes. His son-in-law, a scholar named Molla Hüsameddin, was not devoted
to practicing Sufism, but Hüsameddin’s son was. 273 Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami ([Link] 1450), who
took the penname Hüsami after his father, was among the disciples of his grandfather’s successor
Shaykh Zekeriya. After his shaykh died, Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami took over his grandfather’s
‘prayer rug,’ i.e. the leadership of the order. The Sufi community founded by Gümüşlüoğlu Pir
İlyas, was back under the leadership of the Gümüşlüoğlus and this Sufi community always
remained a family enterprise. Yet Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s historical persona has presented a
riddle to both contemporaneous and modern authors. For the purposes of this study
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s identity and thus his legacy are quite critical.

A Historical Riddle: Who was Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami?

The oldest and also the most reliable historical evidence at hand, the endowment deed of the
Çilehane clearly states that Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami was the mufti of Amasya around 1412 and

269
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 573.
270
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, [Link]'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 573.
271
Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, “Mevlevilik,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 8 (Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1967), 165.
272
Haşim Karpuz, “Mevlana Külliyesi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 29 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1991), 448.
273
It is highly possible that this could be Molla Hüsameddin Tokadi (d.1456 or 1460), also known as Ibn Meddas.
He was the teacher of Taşköprüzade’s great uncle Mehmed b. İbrahim Niksari. Although Taşköprüzade does not
establish a connection between Hüsameddin Tokadi and Pir İlyas’s, the facts that he was from Tokat, he authored a
treatise defending the Sufi practice of devran and was the only Hüsameddin among the scholars of the reign of
Murad II provide a weighty circumstantial evidence for his relation to this family. Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin
(d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 102-103. For his date of death see Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, 686.; Nihat
Azamat, “II. Murad Devri Kültür Hayatı” (Ph.D, Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1996), 61.
74
the successor to his grandfather Pir İlyas’s post. A part of Yakup Pasha Çilehanesi was
designated to be the tomb of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami in this endowment deed. This endowment
deed, which until now was undiscovered, clearly settles the questions about the identity of
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami. However, the tomb in the Çilehane gives 903/1497-8 as the date of
death of the one buried there, who is also identified as Shaykh Hüsami, descendant of Pir İlyas. It
would be a forced interpretation to accept this date as that of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s death,
because in that case he would have lived for 111 years, given that he was the mufti of the city at
the age of 25. Even if one accepts such a lengthy period of life, the tombstone negates this
argument by clearly stating that Shaykh Hüsami lived 63 years. In this case the person buried
within the Çilehane must be the son or grandson and the successor of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami. In
conclusion, it is hard to establish the succession of shaykhs after Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami, though
we are positive that Gümüşlüoğlus were in charge of the Çilehane in the fifteenth century. 274

The problem of establishing the true identity and the succession of the Gümüşlüoğlu shaykhs has
implications for the treatment of two major Ottoman narrative sources at hand. The biographical
dictionaries of Lami‘i and Taşköprüzade, apparently deprived of the knowledge provided by the
endowment deed, argue that the grave inside the Yakup Pasha Çilehanesi belongs to
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami. Moreover, they both err in explaining the nickname ‘Gümüşlüoğlu’ by
attributing it to the geographical origins of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s father. Such mistakes do
not necessarily make these sources less credible or even useless. The fact that these sources
attribute the Gümüşlüoğlu nickname to Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami, rather than to his grandfather
indicates that Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami was the source of the Gümüşlüoğlu family’s oral history.

According to both Lami‘i and Taşköprüzade, Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami was a melancholic shaykh
who loved sema and writing poetry. (See figure VII below.) 275 They also add that he was
matchless in dream interpretation, a skill that probably aided the first Halvetis of Anatolia to
cope with the competition brought by another nascent Sufi community in Anatolia, namely the
Zeyniye. The abovementioned story of Pir İlyas’s longing to be a disciple of Zeyneddin-i Hafi,
his subsequent dream and his final return to the Halveti way is altered or fabricated by either
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami or his dervishes around the time the first Zeyni khalifa began preaching
in the nearby town of Merzifon in 1430’s.

The First Zeyni Challenge: The Arrival of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni 276

From the 1430’s on, along with the Halvetiye two other Sufi orders began to emerge in the
Ottoman lands; namely the Bayramiyye and the Zeyniye. The Bayramiye, founded by Hacı
Bayram-ı Veli of Ankara, not only shared a common initiatic ancestry with the Halvetiye but

274
This confusion persists and even augments in the works of modern authors. For instance, Uzunçarşılı who reads
the tombstone in his work on the epitaphs of the region attributes the tomb to Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami. Uzunçarşılı,
Kitabeler, 122.
275
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 574 .
276
The second Zeyniyye challenge came from the followers of Taceddin İbrahim when Alaeddin-i Halveti showed
up in Bursa and Istanbul in the early 1460’s. (See p.144 and 152) The third challenge was intertwined with the
Ottoman dynastic struggle, as Çelebi Halife countered Shaykh Vefa in 1481. (see p.177)
75
also was a product of same political geography; i.e. the Rum. However the Bayramiye never
grew out to be a rival of Halvetiye, despite the fact that both orders contested the same
territory. 277 But Zeyniye, thanks to its scholarly founder and connections to the rival Karaman
region, did pose a serious challenge to both of these orders.

The Zeyniye Sufi order is one of the most significant socio-religious actors in the fifteenth
century and it is, to the same degree, understudied in the literature. 278 The history of the Zeyniye
is better documented than that of the Halvetiye, due to latter’s relatively more recent history and
its more scholarly and urban character. The founder and the eponym of the order, Zeyneddin-i
Hafi was a native of Khwaf in Khurasan, where he was born in 757/1356. 279 After years of study
in major centers of the Islamic world, Zeyneddin-i Hafi was initiated to the Sufi path in Egypt,
by Nureddin el’Mısri ([Link].) 280 His activities were mostly concentrated in and around
Herat, the Timurid capital in Khurasan. During his travels to Egypt and the holy cities, he
established lodges and left behind able khalifas to sustain his efforts to expand Zeyniye in the
heartlands of the Islamic world. These travels provided opportunities for Zeyneddin-i Hafi to
establish new contacts and strengthen his relationships with scholars and other Sufi shaykhs and,
as a result, increase his fame in the Islamic world in the first half of the fifteenth century.

Zeyneddin-i Hafi’s first khalifa in Anatolia was a certain Shaykh Muhammed ([Link]), who
came to the western Anatolian city of Ayasuluğ at the turn of the fifteenth century. Ottoman
sources mention his name in the context of the biography of his scholar disciple Şihabüddin
Sivasi (d.860/1456.) 281 Apparently Shaykh Muhammed was not successful in spreading the
order, as one does not encounter any Zeyni activity in the city and the region later in the fifteenth
century.

Another khalifa of Zeyneddin-i Hafi, also a native of Merzifon located forty kilometres
northwest of Amasya, came back from his training in Khurasan towards the end of the 1430’s.
This shaykh, namely Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni (d.865/1461) became the first local Sufi in
Amasya region with a known affiliation and a direct dynastic patronage. 282 Abdürrahim-i
Merzifoni was from a scholarly family in Merzifon, where he was a madrasa student at the time
of his decision to become one of the dervishes of Zeyneddin-i Hafi. 283 He joined his shaykh

277
This is evident from the biographies of the Bayrami shaykhs who never took an antagonistic attitude towards
Halvetis in the following centuries. The closeness between the two orders could partially be explained by their
subscription to the same political network. (See the alliance between them around the dynastic struggle of 886/1481
in pp.161-165
278
Hans Joachim Kissling is one of the first to point out the significance of this order in understanding the networks
of scholars and Sufis in the fifteenth century. Kissling, “Einiges über den Zejnije-Orden im Osmanichen Reiche.”
For a detailed account of Zeyniye’s history, practices and doctrines see a recent monograph in Turkish (Reşat
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı: Zeyniler (Zeynis: The Sufi Order of Intellectuals), 1st ed. (Istanbul: İnsan
Yayınları, 2003).)
279
D. S. Margoliouth, “Zeynüddin,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 13 (Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1967), 556.
280
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 547-548. Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 15.
281
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 31.
282
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 75.
283
Berin Taşan, “Merzifonlu Şeyh Abdürrahim Rumi ve Vakfiyesi,” Vakıflar Dergisi 13 (1981): 91-100.; Lami'i
Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 553-555.
76
when the latter was in Egypt in the 1420’s and he traveled with him back to Khurasan. His
icazetname is dated Muharem 832/October 1428, which means that he returned to his hometown
around 1430.

The town of Merzifon, in this period, is the closest urban center to Amasya. It was also the first
place in the region, to have a direct dynastic patronage, as Mehmed I had his madrasa built in
817/1414-15. 284 One of the professor of this madrasa was probably Molla İlyas-ı Rumi ([Link]
821/1418-1419), a sympathizer of Sufi activities who also served as the judge and the mufti of
the town. 285 Although Taşköprüzade does not list him among the Sufis of the Murad II’s reign,
he implies that Molla İlyas had Sufi tendencies, and adds that he received his education in
Islamic law from Hace Muhammed Parsa, a notable shaykh in the Nakşibendi silsila. The town
also hosted another local Sufi figure from the other end of the sharia-abidance spectrum, an
antinomian dervish named Piri Baba (d. after mid fifteenth century). 286 Although Bektaşis of
later centuries claimed this dervish as one of their own, Piri Baba’s initiatic affiliation cannot be
determined. He apparently lived in the bathhouse and demonstrated ecstatic outbursts. Among
his miraculous deeds recounted in the oral tradition; one of them is particularly telling for our
purposes since it underlines the rivalry between Amasya and Merzifon as two urban centers. In
this story, Piri Baba answers the religious question of a scholar from Iran, who was not satisfied
with the answer provided by the scholars of Amasya. 287

At the time of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni’s return, there was already a Sufi lodge existing in the
town that had been operating for almost a decade. 288 Devlet Hatun bt. Abdullah ([Link])
had this lodge built and endowed the properties she inherited from her son Mehmed I. A certain
Yusuf b. Abdullah and his progeny, and upon their extinction the person selected by the judge of
Amasya, were designated as the administrator. Among the stipulations of the endowment deed
was the appointment of a shaykh who would attend the guests in observance of their ranks. 289
The lodge was composed of a porch and two separate dwellings and was adjacent to the madrasa
built by the same sultan in 820/1418-19. The lodge was run by seven people; an administrator, a
shaykh, a prayer leader, a nakip who was responsible for maintenance, a cook, a bread maker and
a wood cutter. These people were paid both in Ottoman silvers and multiple müdds (two
handfuls, approximately 500 grams) of wheat. It was moderately sized community, probably
served not only guests or the local indigent, but also the students of the nearby madrasa.

284
Türkiye'de Vakıf Abideler ve Eski Eserler I: Adana, Adıyaman, Afyon, Ağrı, Amasya, Ankara, Antalya, Aydın
(Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1972), 316.
285
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 104-105.
286
Suraiya Faroqhi tries to determine the historical accuracy of his hagiography and concludes that he lived around
mid-fifteenth century. Suraiya Farooqhi, “The Life Story of an Urban Saint in the Ottoman Empire: Piri Baba of
Merzifon,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 32 (1978): 662-3.
287
Ibid., 672.
288
The endowment deed at hand was drawn up approximately a year later than Mehmed I’s death, exactly on 16
April 1422/23 Rebiulevvel 825. It is probably like Mehmed I’s other mosques in Dimetoka and Bursa, the
construction of which was completed by Murad II following his father’s death. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk
Devri [Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-1451)], 191.
289
Devlet Hatun Waqfiya, VGMA, 746/27 p.58 .
77
Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni became the shaykh of this lodge. (see figure VII) Lami‘i claims to have
seen the imperial order assigning Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni with a five Ottoman akca and ten
müdds of wheat as a daily pay in 835/1431-32 and another one dated 843/1439-40 that increased
his salary by three akcas. Among various reasons for Ottomans’ preference for Zeyni shaykhs,
especially that of the Ottoman ulema, two are their urban and scholarly characters. Particularly in
this period, the Ottoman ulema were composed of the alumni of the colleges in the cities where
Zeyni dervishes were active. It is no coincidence that the most influential Ottoman scholarly
family, the Fenaris, was both sympathizers of the Zeyniye and graduates of Cairo madrasas. 290
Similarly, Molla Musannifek (875/1470-71) of Herat probably met Zeyni dervishes back at
home. Of course this fact alone does not explain the appeal of Zeyni shaykhs; they were also
scholars with academic works and pages long icazetnames. The fact that Lami‘i was able to
reproduce Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni’s icazetname in the 1510s and decided to include it in his
work, proves the extent of these icazetnames’ prestige and circulation among the Ottoman elite.
The ulema and the statesmen found the Zeyniye prestigious enough to embrace. And finally such
a status and support could have made the Zeyniye quite popular among lower classes since
affiliation to this order could have been perceived as a social ladder.

Figure VII: Seventeenth depictions of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni (left) and Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami
(right) 291
290
For example see Molla Fenari’s (d.834/1431) ode celebrating the arrival of one of the Zeyni khalifas to Anatolia
in Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 26-27.
291
Although this depiction is from early seventeenth century, its presentation of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni as more
scholarly as opposed to Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami is quite illustrative of the point made in this section. The illustration
belongs to Ahmed Nakşi, who was commissioned in 1619 by the grand vizier Öküz Mehmed Pasha. The manuscript
78
Coping with the Zeynis: Invention of Dreams

The coping strategies of rival local shaykhs combatting Zeyni popularity were threefold;
criticizing the state-sponsorship, offering dream stories as an alternative to the illustrious Zeyni
icazetnames and lastly appropriating Zeyni methods of training. The Halveti dervishes of
Amasya led by Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami most probably were not among the Sufis who criticized
the Zeynis, more particularly Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni for being supported by the Ottoman
dynasty, since their situation was somewhat similar in that respect. But apparently there were
other critics, perhaps the abovementioned Piri Baba, to whom Merzifoni replied by saying that
he merely reduced the multiple sources of income (rızk) to one in order to curb the demands of
the ego, (nefs.) 292

The initiation story of the Bayrami shaykh Akşemseddin is quite an illustrative example of both
strategies. This story is fabricated. 293 Akşemseddin (Mehmet Şemseddin Bin Hacı Hamza,
d.863/1459), a young scholar in Osmancik (located 50 kilometres west of Merzifon, 100
kilometres west of Amasya) with a prestigious ancestry, initially despises Hacı Bayram-ı Veli
and his dervishes for their occasional mendicancy. Upon hearing of Zeyneddin-i Hafi’s fame, he
decides to join his dervishes in Egypt. 294 On his way to Egypt, he stops at Aleppo. And in the
night before his departure, he sees himself in a dream, with a chain around his neck, the end of
which is held by Hacı Bayram in Ankara. Akşemseddin repents of his decision and goes back to
Ankara, and finds Hacı Bayram and his dervishes harvesting vetch as a means to support
themselves.

Akşemseddin’s story originated in Amasya in the second half of the fifteenth century. The father
of one Bayezid II’s military judges, namely Ali Efendi (d.927/1520-21), narrated this story to
Lami‘i. Ali Efendi was the prayer leader of Bayezid II, when the latter was the prince-governor
of Amasya. Ali Efendi’s father, who was a disciple of Hacı Bayram, told this story to his son. 295
The similarity of Akşemseddin’s and Pir İlyas’s stories, in addition to the fact that they were
contemporary residents of Amasya region, constitutes solid circumstantial evidence that they
were fabricated by Bayrami and Halveti communities to counter the challenge posed by Zeyni
shaykhs in the region. One might even speculate that Lami‘i’s remarks about the dream
interpretation skills of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami could be an allusion to the fabrication of Pir
İlyas’s dream story.

Coping with the Zeynis: Appropriation of the Zeyni Methods of Training?

is located in the Topkapı Palace Museum Library (H. 1263) and published in Taşköprülüzade Ahmed Isamüddin
(d.1561), Osmanlı Bilginleri : Es-sakaiku'n-nu'maniyye fi ulema-id-devleti'l-Osmaniyye, trans. Muharrem Tan
(Istanbul: İz, 2007), 78-79. For Ahmed Nakşi see “[Link]: Resource Library: Ahmed Naksi,” n.d.,
[Link]
292
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 555.
293
Ali İhsan Yurt, Akşemseddin, 1390-1459: Hayatı, Eserleri (Aş‘ār, Hall-i Müşkilāt, Mādda al-Hayāt, Maktūbāt,
Makāmāt-ı Evliyā, Vakfnāme) (Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, İlahiyat Vakfı, 1994), 22-23.
294
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 226-227.
295
Lami‘i , 685
79
This story could also be an allegory for the oscillation of the Gümüşlüoğlu Sufi community
between the Halvetiye and the Zeyniye, around the time of its establishment. By the person of
Pir İlyas, the Gümüşlüoğlu Sufi community could be implied. This was a period when the both
the Halvetiye and the Zeyniye orders were not yet fully institutionalized. Their identities were
not crystallized to the degree of mutual exclusivity. For example, one cannot find a reference to
the Halvetiye in the endowment deed of the Çilehane. In fact, the earliest written record to
mention “Halveti” as a Sufi affiliation is in a letter to Mehmed II, written by penned by Seyyidi
Halveti (d.940/1533-34) in the late 1470’s. 296 Moreover, some of the Sufi practices stipulated in
the Çilehane’s endowment deed do resemble those prescribed by Zeyneddin-i Hafi in his al-
Wasaya al-Qudsiyya. According to both, dervishes are expected to perform dhikr al-tawhid after
the morning and afternoon prayers. Again both documents encourage study of the Islamic
sciences, though the Çilehane waqfiya prescribes attendance at a lecture by the shaykh while in
al-Wasaya al-Qudsiyya dervishes are supposed to make an individual study. 297

In addition, Aşıkpaşazade’s history, the earliest narrative source to mention the Gümüşlüoğlus
does not bring up their Halveti affiliation. And some versions of Aşıkpaşazade’s chronicle, list
Gümüşlüoğlu Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami among the Zeyni shaykhs living at the time of Mehmed II.
One cannot argue that Aşıkpaşazade has confused both orders since he appears conscious of the
distinction between the Halvetis and the Zeynis. For example, he lists Alaeddin-i Halveti
(d.867/1462-63) as the first Halveti shaykh in Anatolia, while including the name of the
abovementioned Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni among the Zeynis of the mid-fifteenth century. Lastly
Aşıkpaşazade himself was the shaykh of a Zeyni community when he began composing his work
in 881/1476, a time when the relationship between Zeynis and Halvetis was quite strained. It
would be wrong to imagine Aşıkpaşazade, eighty three years old at the time, sitting down on
long Istanbul nights by himself and trying to write down what he could remember. His work was
probably a result of his dictation and a process of editing by a group of his disciples headed by
his son-in-law and successor Seyyid Velayet (d. 929/1523.) As the modern discussion about the
original section of Aşıkpaşazade’s work suggests, this group probably kept writing even after the
death of their shaykh. 298 In sum, one should not artificially prefer one of these versions over the
other or simply dismiss them all together as the tricks played by Aşıkpaşazade’s aging mind or
the product of a meddling copyist. Aşıkpaşazade, an inquisitive mind who grew up in the Elvan
Çelebi lodge nearby Amasya, was an eye witness to many events around Amasya and met many
historical figures in person and should be considered a reliable source on many issues.

In conclusion, it is probable that under Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s leadership, the Gümüşlüoğlu

Sufi community seriously considered associating themselves with the then powerful Zeyniye, but
later decided to revert to their Halveti origins. And Pir İlyas’s dream story, in this context, could
be an allegorical representation of the recent history of the Gümüşlüoğlu Sufi community.

296
This letter was recently discovered and is of critical importance for the bifurcation of the Halvetiye tradition.
297
Yakup Pasha (Çilehane) Waqfiya 608/23 and 608/32, Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 183-184.
298
Please see Atsız’s discussion at Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 81-90. Kaya Şahin,
“Ashikpashazade as Historian: A Study on the Tevarih-i Al-i Osman” (MA, Istanbul: Sabanci University, 2000), 49.
80
Part IV: Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis in the court of Prince Bayezid (870/1465-887/1482)

Regardless of how Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami presented himself, he had close relations with the
Ottomans, more particularly with the members of the Ottoman dynasty. The sixteenth century
historian Mustafa Ali relates a story of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami and the princes of Murad II. In
this story, the sultan sends his three sons to Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami in order to get the shaykh’s
blessings. And during their visit, Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami miraculously discovers the destinies of
the princes and the conquest of Istanbul by the youngest of them, Mehmed. This story does not
take place in Taşköprüzade’s or Lami‘i’s works. Mustafa Ali probably heard this story during his
soujourn in the Amasya region in 1003/1595 because earlier sources do not mention it. 299 It is
hard to substantiate details of this story from other sources, but the main theme is quite clear;
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami was a respected shaykh in the 1440s, when Murad II was the sultan. 300

Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s date of death cannot be established. The fact that different versions of
Aşıkpaşazade’s history list him both among the shaykhs of Murad II and of his successor
Mehmed II points to the mid-fifteenth century as the approximate time of his death. In fact, the
successors of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami do not find a place in the Ottoman biographies. Other
contemporary sources are also silent. Hüseyin Hüsameddin, a local historian who lived at the
turn of the twentieth century, happens to be the only available source for the leadership of the
Gümüşlüoğlu family in the rest of the fifteenth century. 301 According to Hüseyin Hüsameddin,
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami was buried next to his grandfather Pir İlyas, while his son Hayreddin
Hızır replaced him as the shaykh of the Çilehane. 302

Around the time of Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami’s death, the eldest prince of Mehmed II, Bayezid was
sent to Amasya as a nominal governor. Hayreddin Hızır must have led the Gümüşlüoğlu Sufi
community during prince Bayezid’s governorship in Amasya (860/1457-886/1481) Available
sources do not give any information about Bayezid’s relationship with Hayreddin Hızır. Bayezid
is known to have close relations with the Sufi shaykhs. The silence of Ottoman sources on his
relationship with Hayreddin Hızır, the head of a prominent Sufi community in Amasya, is
curious.

Towards the end of Bayezid’s governorship, in 881/1475-76 the Sevadiye gardens, the location
of Çilehane, became even more prominent in the city and the larger region as a result of

299
Cornell Fleischer notes that Mustafa Ali was inspired by the local Sufis who were buried in Amasya. Among
these Sufis were Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami to whom he addressed as one of ‘the two poles of the world, the two
protectors of Rum, who make the candle of my aspirations burn brightly.” Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in
the Ottoman Empire the Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600), 166-167.
300
And considering that the youngest of princes, Mehmed II, was born in 835/1432, this story should have taken
place in the 1440’s.
301
From this point until the construction of Pir İlyas’s tomb, Amasya Tarihi, which does not openly refer to any
archival or narrative sources, is the only source for the history of the Gümüşlüoğlu family
302
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 153.
81
Bayezid’s decision to move his headquarters literally next door to the Çilehane. 303 Some
members of the Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti community joined Prince’s inner circle. For instance, the
son of the administrator of the Çilehane, Shaykh Hamdullah became Bayezid’s calligraphy
teacher. Müeyyedzade Abdurrahman, descendant of abovementioned Shaykh Yar Ali, became
prince’s müsahip (close confidant.) Kemalpaşazade (d.940/1534), the prominent sixteenth
century historian and scholar whose father and grandfather were among the retinue of Bayezid in
Amasya, probably spent a part of his childhood in Sevadiye; he reminisces concerning those
days in the following words: 304

The water of its stream is from the heavenly fountain of Kawthar

Its pure soil smells like musk and ambergris
Come and enjoy Sevadiye
Look and see what is inside the palace of the time
If not the pupils of the world’s eye, they are
The mole on the cheek of the beauty of seven kingdoms

Perhaps in tribute to his memories in Sevadiye, or by way of offering thanks for Halveti
companionship, Bayezid II, upon becoming sultan, had Pir İlyas’s tomb rebuilt. 305 Around this
time Hayreddin Hızır was succeeded by his son Abdurrahman-ı Sani (d.903/1497-98.) 306
Abdurrahman-ı-i Sani is the shaykh who is buried in the Çilehane and mentioned above in the
context of the riddle around his grandfather’s identity. He died in 903/1498 at the age of sixty
three.

Conclusion

In the biographical dictionaries, the succession of Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti shaykhs ends with
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami. The rest of the shaykhs, including Hayreddin Hızır and Abdurrahman-ı
Sani, are not listed in separate entries but in a scattered fashion, referred to in the biographies of
other historical figures. For instance, in the Hadā’iq al-Haqāiq fī Tekmīla al-Shaqāiq of
Nevizade Atai (d.1045/1635) one finds the biography of Yusuf Sinaneddin (d.986/1578), who is
the son of Abdurrahman-ı Sani. 307 Yusuf Sinaneddin, along with abovementioned
Kemalpaşazade, became a pupil of Müeyyedzade Abdurrahman first. He then continued his
career as a scholar and a judge in major cities of the Ottoman Empire until his death in Istanbul
in 986/1578. Apparently the network established around the Çilehane lodge and Bayezid’s
residence in Amasya in the 1470’s, helped the sons of the Amasyan elite to pursue major empire-
wide positions in the Ottoman academic and legal hierarchy. One may speculate that the other
303
Taceddin İbrahim (d.890/1485-6), Münşeāt-i Tācī (Wien, Nationalbibl. H. O. 161), ed. Necati Lugal and Adnan
Erzi (Istanbul: İstanbul Fethi Derneği, 1956), 59.
304
Kemalpaşazade Şemsüddin Ahmed (d.1534), Tevarih-i Al-i Osman: II. Defter, 2:28.
305
Uzunçarşılı, Kitabeler, 122.
306
The nickname “Sani” (the second) is invented by Hüseyin Hüsameddin to distinguish him from his grandfather
Abdurrahman-ı Hüsami.
307
Nevizade Atai (d.1635), Hadā’iq al-Haqāiq fī Tekmīla al-Shaqāiq (Istanbul: Çagri Yayinlari, 1989), 248. Olcay,
“Amasya Meşahiri,” 162.
82
sons of the Gümüşlüoğlu shaykhs followed similar careers and chose to become judges and
scholars instead of taking over their fathers’ position in the Çilehane.

The influence of the Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti community in the environs of Amasya and the larger
region is also unknown. One encounters the Turcoman shaykh Tahiroğlu ([Link] 870/1465) in
the nearby city of Tokat in the 1460s. Muhammed Nazmi (d.1112/1701), a seventeenth century
hagiographer, maintains that Tahiroğlu was a disciple of Pir İlyas. Nevizade, another
seventeenth century author, notes that the above Yusuf Sinaneddin was born in the Sonisa
village of Amasya, which suggests that his father was sent there around 893/1490 for
propagating the Halvetiye by the shaykh of the Çilehane.

The lack of influence of Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti shaykhs in the region, despite the construction of
a “dervish factory” at such an early date, is quite curious. The scarcity of available sources, and
the Istanbul oriented nature of those that are available, partly account for the lack of knowledge
about them. Still, one expects to see traces of a pattern of expansion documented in the available
sources, even in the form of small references. The almost complete lack of reference to
Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti activity in the larger region leads to the conclusion that Pir İlyas and
Abdurahman Hüsami’s plan to expand the order failed.

The reason for the failure of the Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti community to establish the Halvetiye in
the Ottoman core lands (Istanbul, Edirne and Bursa) can be explained in terms of the
developments of the second half of the fifteenth century. Some of these developments were the
gradual marginalization of the city of Amasya on the imperial political scene as well as the rising
competition in the cities brought by newly established orders such as the Nakşibendiye. Also the
transformation of Zeyniye into a more aggressive order in the Ottoman corelands with the arrival
of the third khalifa of Zeyneddin-i Hafi in Anatolia in the mid-fifteenth century did contribute to
the eclipse of Gümüşlüoğlu Halveti community. As a response to these challenges, the Halvetiye
order regenerated itself in Anatolia and met the challenge of the Zeyniye thanks to the khalifas of
Yahya-yı Şirvani. In the absence of the similar challenges in Azerbaijan, Yahya-yı Şirvani found
the opportunity to expand the Halvetiye and was able to draw disciples from Anatolia. And the
Halvetiye order waited for a dynastic struggle in the second half of the fifteenth century to
become a full-fledged Ottoman urban Sufi order.

83
Figure X. Topographic map of the major buildings before 886/1481 [(1) Fortress, (2) Palace of
the Pontic Kings, (3) Fethiye Mosque, (4) Halifet Ghazi Tomb, (5) Doğrakiye Medresesi, (6)
Enderun Mosque, (7) Burmalı Minare Mosque, (8) Gök Medrese, (9) Turumtay Tomb, (10)
Sultan Mesud Tomb, (11) Tımarhane (Hospital), (12) Gümüşlüzade Mosque, (13) Saraçhane
Mosque, (14) Şadgeldi Tomb, (15) Çilehane, (16) Bayezid Pasha Lodge-Mosque & Princes’
Residence before 881/1475-76, (17) Yörgüç Pasha Lodge-Mosque, (18) Hızır Pasha Lodge-
Mosque, (19) Princes’ Residence after 881/1475-76, (20) Pir İlyas Tomb] 308

308
Based on Gabriel, Monuments turcs d'Anatolie., 2:13.
84
Chapter Three:
The Ottomanization of the Halvetiye: Halvetis as members of Political Factions (1465-1482)

Introduction:

The second half of the fifteenth century started out with a matchless military feat of the
Ottomans, the conquest of Istanbul in 857/1453. Mehmed II not only conquered the city; he also
made it the central piece in his imperial designs. 309 As this victory earned Mehmed II the title of
Conqueror and signaled his rise as a powerful and autocratic monarch, it also brought a
significant urban platform to the Ottoman world. The following century witnessed Istanbul’s
transformation into an imperial Muslim capital. And in the process of the making of Istanbul, the
city became a contested space between old and new actors operating in the often intersecting
social, political and religious domains. Among these actors were the nascent Halvetiye and
Zeyniye orders, each of them based in different Anatolian cities.

The initial struggle between these two orders, the Halvetiye and Zeyniye around Amasya in the
first half of the fifteenth century, ended up with the survival of Halvetiye in north-central
Anatolia. However, the Halveti Gümüşlüoğlu family and the Zeyni Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni each
yielded their places to new Halveti and Zeyni actors who operated in a larger geographical
setting, that included Istanbul. While the Zeynis firmly established themselves in the former
Ottoman capitals of Edirne and Bursa, new Halveti dervishes, the khalifas of Yahya-yı Şirvani,
travelled around the Ottoman corelands to find a niche for their order. (see figure VII below)
This chapter is about the struggle between the next generation of Halvetis and Zeynis for
domination in the Otttoman corelands, especially in Istanbul. The comptetition between the two
reached its peak in the context of a dynastic struggle in late 1470’s. Two Halveti shaykhs became
or found themselves part of this political strife, which in turn influenced the fate of their Sufi
communities in the following decades. These Halveti shaykhs, by subscribing to competing
Ottoman political networks, took the last steps in the completion of the Ottomanization process
of the Halvetiye. From that point on until the disintegration of the empire in the early twentieth
century, the Halvetiye order remained an integral part of the Ottoman socio-religious scene.

After introducing the socio-religious scene of Istanbul during the reign of Mehmed II and the
transformation of the Zeyniye in the third quarter of the fifteenth century, this chapter will
narrate the stories of two Halveti shaykhs, namely Çelebi Halife and Habib-i Karamani and their
subsequent involvement in the dynastic struggle of 1481. This chapter will conclude with the
perception of the foundational story of the Halvetiye in Istanbul by the Sufis of the late fifteenth
and early sixteenth century.

Part I: Istanbul: Sultan Mehmed II and the Zeynis

See Gülru Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
309

Centuries (New York, N.Y: Architectural History Foundation, 1991). Çiğdem Kafesçioğlu,
Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital
(University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009).
85
Mehmed II had a very conflicted, if not antagonistic, relationship with the Sufi shaykhs in
general, and those of the Halvetiye in particular. He always shunned close association with Sufis,
and did not hesitate to confront them on multiple occasions. Although the Sufi shaykhs,
especially the khalifas of Hacı Bayram-ı Veli, supported Mehmed II all through his risky
undertaking of the siege of Istanbul, the young Sultan gradually turned his back on them once he
took hold of the reins of power.

Mehmed II’s relationship with his spiritual mentor, Akşemseddin, is quite illustrative in terms of
how the young Sultan treated Sufis. Before and during the conquest of Istanbul, Akşemseddin
provided full support, even at times when Mehmed II himself was faltering. 310 According to the
tradition, Akşemseddin discovered the tomb of one of the Prophet’s companions, Halid b. Zeyd
(d.576/645, better known as Eyüb Sultan), which immensely increased his prestige in the eyes of
the Sultan to such a degree that he wanted to become one of the shaykh’s dervishes. 311 The truth
of the matter, however, is that Mehmed II alienated his mentor by claiming that the conquest of
Istanbul was the result of his military might when Akşemseddin ascribed this feat to the prayers
of the saints. 312 Perhaps because of this attitude, Akşemseddin’s short presence in the city was
limited to his academic activities as a scholar in the Zeyrek madrasa rather than as a Sufi shaykh.
313

Akşemseddin returned to his hometown, Göynük, and despite Mehmed II’s insistence, he never
came back to Istanbul. When he set foot on the shores of Uskudar on leaving the city he said:
“My heart was illuminated as I crossed the Bosphorus. I was beginning to lose my inspiration
because of the multitude of infidels in Istanbul.” 314 Apparently such a perception of the city was
common among the Sufis. The hagiography of an antinomian dervish named Otman Baba
(d.883/1478) states that Mehmed II only conquered Istanbul exoterically, yet it needed to be
conquered in the esoteric sense in order to be a full and complete Muslim city. 315

Otman Baba was one of the antinomian dervishes who were active in the newly conquered city.
Mehmed II had an often indifferent attitude towards these dervish communities. At the
beginning, as Otman Baba’s hagiography relates, Mehmed II confronted or even planned to
destroy them. But later the sultan changed his mind and had this group settled in a Sufi lodge

310
In a letter to Mehmed II during the siege of Istanbul, Akşemseddin gives moral support and advice to the young
Sultan. TSA, E.5584; Halil İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi, 1954), 217-219.
311
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 687.
312
Halil İnalcık, “Otman Baba ve Fatih Sultan Mehmed,” in Doğu Batı / Makaleler I (Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları,
2005), 144.
313
Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Fatih Devri 855-886 (1451-1481)], 537.; After Akşemseddin died in
1459, his endowed properties were confiscated by the notorious grand vizier of the time, Karamani Mehmed Pasha.
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 236.
314
Ibid., 230.
315
İnalcık, “Otman Baba ve Fatih Sultan Mehmed,” 146.
86
near the Silivri gate of the city. 316 Otman Baba’s hagiography also provides the names of two
other lodges in the city, the first belonging to a different antinomian group called the Edhemiler,
and another lodge known as that of the Hindiler. 317 Kafescioğlu adds two other lodges to the list,
namely those of Karaca Ahmed and Aşıkpaşazade, the latter being the only one that gave its
name to the quarter where it was located. 318 The Aşıkpaşazade lodge was also the earliest Sufi
lodge affiliated to the only Sufi order that remained active in Mehmed II’s Istanbul, the Zeyniye.
To sum up, the Sufi scene of Mehmed II’s Istanbul was occupied by mostly antinomian dervish
groups with a very significant exception, the Zeyniye order. Here a brief account of the
transformation of Zeyniye in the second half of the fifteenth century is in order, before listing the
active Zeyni lodges in Istanbul.

The second Zeyni Challenge: Abdüllatif-i Kudsi and the aggressive turn

The Zeyniye order first tried to establish itself by two khalifas of Zeyneddin-i Hafi in the first
half of the fifteenth century. These khalifas were not able to establish base of followers in the
Ottoman lands. One of them, Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni settled in Merzifon where he was faced
with resistance by local Halveti and Bayrami shaykhs. But the Zeyniye’s attitude towards rival
orders took a significantly more aggressive tone with the arrival of the third Zeyni khalifa,
namely Abdüllatif-i Kudsi (d.856/1452) in Konya. Originally from Jerusalem, hence the
nickname Kudsi, Abdüllatif joined his shaykh Zeyneddin-i Hafi when the latter was on his way
back to Khurasan from pilgrimage in 825/1421. 319 After three years of training, Kudsi was sent
back to his hometown with an icazet. Kudsi then spent some time in Damascus, Cairo and briefly
in Anatolia, and even made the acquaintance of Ottoman and Mamluk Sultans before his second
and longer trip to Anatolia. In December 1447, he left Damascus for Konya, where he spent four
years. During his years there, Abdüllatif-i Kudsi maintained good relations with the Karamanid
rulers. He also became involved in a polemic with Shaykh Cüneyd-i Safavi, a Sufi with political
aspirations. 320 These activities probably gained him an excellent reputation among the educated
elite of Bursa, as they welcomed Abdüllatif-i Kudsi with enthusiasm in the fall of 1451. 321 One

316
Inalcik gives the name of the convent from hagiography as Kılıç Manastırı (The Convent of the Sword). (Ibid.)
Kafescioglu states that this could be the place where he was kept under custody. Çiğdem Kafesçioğlu, “The Ottoman
Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the Fifteenth Century” (Ph.D, Harvard University,
1996), 326.
317
The existence of the Hindiler lodge is confirmed by a contemporary source (the hagiography of the
abovementioned Otman Baba) but the lodge’s Sufi order affiliation is subject to debate. It is been ascribed to the
Nakşibendiye order by two eighteenth century sources, i.e. the survey of the mosques by Ayvansarayi (d. 1786 or 7)
and the history of Hammer-Purgstall (d. 1856.) For the discussion see Thierry Zarcone, “Histoire et croyances des
derviches turkestanais et indiens à Istanbul,” in Anatolia Moderna = Yeni Anadolu II: Travaux Et Recherches de
l'Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul:Derviches et Cimetières Ottomans, ed. Jean-Louis Bacqué-
Grammont (Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient, Adrien Maisonneuve, Jean Maisonneuve Successeur, 1991),
170-174 .
318
Kafesçioğlu, “The Ottoman Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the Fifteenth
Century,” 326.
319
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 78.
320
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 249-50.
321
Lami‘i Çelebi notes that Abdullatif-i Kudsi went into a month long retreat with the ulema of Bursa immediately
after his arrival in the last days of Shaban of 855/1451. Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 550.
87
must also add that the educated elite of Bursa was composed of scholars and judges, most whom
had close relations with the city of Konya and the larger Karaman region. It is highly probable
that Abdüllatif-i Kudsi began establishing contacts with the Ottoman elite while he was still in
Konya. In other words, the city of Konya was the gate of the Karamani ulema network, which
has considerable power in the Ottoman core lands. Shortly after arriving in Bursa, Kudsi died in
the following spring, leaving behind a considerable Sufi community led by his disciple -and
sworn enemy of the Halvetis- the Karamani Taceddin İbrahim. 322

Although Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni arrived much earlier than his pirdaş Abdüllatif-i Kudsi, it was
through the khalifas of the latter that the Zeyniye established itself in the Ottoman lands. And
unlike Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni, who warded off his critics by a simple remark, Abdüllatif-i
Kudsi took a more active and aggressive stance against the rival orders. He introduced the
principle of “engagement for repulsing harm and attracting benefit, assisting friends and
retaliating against foes” 323 This principle, according to some Zeyni dervishes contemporary with
Lami‘i, was absent from the teachings of Zeyneddin-i Hafi and Abdüllatif-i Kudsi acquired it
from his previous master, Abdülaziz-i Fernevi. 324 Abdüllatif-i Kudsi’s aforementioned
confrontation with Shaykh Cüneyd and his initial visits to the tombs of Celaleddin-i Rumi
(d.672/1273), Sadreddin-i Konevi (d.673/1274) and Şems-i Tebrizi (d.645/1247) upon his arrival
in Konya should all be understood in the light of this principle. During his visit to Celaleddin-i
Rumi’s tomb, narrates Kudsi, he felt completely naked. And then he visited Sadreddin-i
Konevi’s tomb where the buried saint’s sprit pulled Kudsi toward his grave. Apparently
Abdüllatif-i Kudsi took this as a welcoming sign and he stayed there for the next four years. His
relationship with the Mevlevis on the other hand was probably a little distant, as his experience
at the tomb of Celaleddin-i Rumi suggests. Still, Abdüllatif-i Kudsi avoided confronting the
Mevleviye, the ever dominant order in Konya. One of his disciples, Shaykh Vefa (Muslihiddin
Mustafa el-Konevi, d. 896/1491) even strengthened his ties with them by marrying his daughter
to one of the descendants of Rumi, namely Abid Çelebi. 325 However Abdüllatif-i Kudsi did not
hesitate to clash with the less well-rooted Sufi orders, such as the abovementined Safaviye, when
it tried to establish itself in Anatolia.

Kudsi died in the spring of 1452, before having a chance to establish his order in Istanbul. But
his two disciples, namely Shaykh Vefa and Taceddin İbrahim-i Karamani, with the help of the
sympathetic ulema, were able to become a part of Istanbul’s socio-religious scene. Not only
Istanbul’s elite, but also the newly settled Muslim populations of the city were receptive to the
Zeyni dervishes. The population of Istanbul was familiar with the Zeyniye order because a
considerable portion them were the Karamani communities who were exiled upon the the initial

322
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 95.
323
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 552.
324
Further research is needed for more information about Fernevi.
325
Franz Babinger, “Yakup Paşa: Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Özel Tabibi Gaeta'lı Jacopo Usta'nın Hayatı, Akibeti,” in
Fatih Sultan Mehmed Zehirlendi mi Eceli ile mi öldü?, trans. Feridun Nafiz Uzluk (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi
Basımevi, 1965), 18. For Abid Çelebi’s life see Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-
Nu'mānīya, 323-324.
88
conquest of Karaman in 872/1468. 326 Regarding the rivalry with other orders, especially with
Halvetiye, who tried to establish themselves in Istanbul and Bursa, Shaykh Vefa and Taceddin
İbrahim followed their master Abdüllatif-i Kudsi’s new rules of engagement and actively
confronted them.

The Zeynis of Istanbul and Shaykh Vefa

Zeyniye was the only Sufi order that was appreciated by Sultan Mehmed II. It was perhaps
because one of the sultan’s tutors, Molla Ayas (d.861/1457), was a Zeyni shaykh or because of
the Zeynis’ cordial relationship with the ulema of the period. Throughout Mehmed II’s reign, the
Zeyniye order almost exclusively dominated the socio-religious scene of Istanbul. There existed
four separate Zeyni communities in Mehmed II’s Istanbul.

The first one was established by Aşıkpaşazade immediately after the conquest of the city. 327 In 326F

869/1464-65, a Sufi lodge was built and endowed for Aşıkpaşazade’s community by Sinan the
Architect (d.876/1471-72.) 328 This lodge was part of a huge building cluster and gave the
327F

neighborhood its name. In this neighborhood, there was also another Zeyni community founded
by Muhyiddin-i Kocavi (‫ﻗﻮﺠﻮﻯ‬, d.885/1480.) 329 Kocavi came to the city upon the instructions of
328F

his shaykh Piri Halife (d.854/1460) and founded a lodge and a mosque, which was known as
Karanlık Mescid. 330 Also there was Süleyman Halife ([Link] 904/1498-99) 331, a somewhat
329F 30F

disgruntled Sufi who is reported to have said that he had not yet encountered a true seeker of
God in Istanbul. 332 These words must be a reaction to the ascendancy of rival Sufi shaykhs
31F

following the death of Mehmed II, because Taşköprüzade informs us that he had at least one
disciple who succeeded him at his Sufi lodge. 333 Süleyman Halife apparently occupied one of the
32F

former Byzantine structures in Zeyrek, which later turned into a mosque named after him. 334 The 3F

concentration of lodges around the Zeyrek Complex, which was also the only madrasa till the
opening of Sahn-ı Seman colleges after 874/1470, reminds us of the spatial proximity between
the first Zeyni lodge in Anatolia, that of Abdürrahim-i Merzifoni (d.865/1461), and the Çelebi

326
Baha Tanman, “Tarikatler,” in Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı ve Türkiye
Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1993), 213-217.
327
Aşıkpaşazade was in Istanbul in 861/1457. Halil İnalcık, “How to Read Ashık Pashazade's History,” in Essays in
Ottoman History (Istanbul, 1988), [Link], How to Read,
328
See Kafesçioğlu, “The Ottoman Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the Fifteenth
Century,” 328-334.
329
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 125.
330
Ibid.
331
Semavi Eyice, “Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi,” in Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı
ile Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı'nın ortak yayınıdır, 1993), 172.
332
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 249.
333
Ibid.; Kissling, “Einiges über den Zejnije-Orden im Osmanichen Reiche,” 170. Öngören does not find Shaqā'iq’s
claim that Sinan Halife succeeded his shaykh Süleyman Halife acceptable. Considering that Sinan Halife lived at the
time Shaqā'iq was being written, it is hard to argue that Shaqā'iq might refer to anyone besides Süleyman Halife.
One might even argue that the information in Shaqā'iq about Süleyman Halife comes from Sinan Halife. Öngören,
Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 100.
334
Eyice, “Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi.”
89
Sultan Mehmed Medresesi in Merzifon, Amasya. This was quite typical of the Zeyni shaykhs,
who were themselves scholars and always cherished their relationship with the local ulema.

The Zeyrek Complex (formerly the Church of the Pantocrator) and the three abovementioned
Zeyni lodges were located on the fourth hill of Istanbul, which was the former neighborhood of
Byzantine scholars. Immediately across the valley, on the western slopes of the third hill, was
located the lodge of the most prominent Zeyni shaykh of Mehmed II’s Istanbul, that of Shaykh
Vefa. He was initiated to Sufism by Shaykh Muslihiddin of Edirne ([Link]), a sympathizer
of the Zeynis who was known as “the prayer leader of the tanners” (Debbağlar İmamı.) 335 His
shaykh after a while directed him to Abdüllatif-i Kudsi who was then the shaykh of the
Sadreddin-i Konevi lodge in Konya. 336 Probably after Abdüllatif-i Kudsi’s departure for Bursa in
1451, Shaykh Vefa established his own community in the Meram quarter, located on the
southern outskirts of the city, where the Karamani ruler İbrahim Bey (d.868/1463) had a mosque
and a lodge built for him. 337 Apparently Vefa maintained a very cordial relationship with the
Karamanis, since the same İbrahim Bey saved Vefa by paying his ransom to the pirates from
Rhodes when he was captured on his way to the Hajj. 338 So when Mehmed II annexed Konya to
his dominions in 873/1466, Shaykh Vefa was already a venerated Sufi figure in the region.

Mehmed II’s close relationship with Shaykh Vefa began immediately after the conquest of
Konya. The sultan left Shaykh Vefa’s endowments untouched and even augmented them by
granting tax privileges. 339 On his way back to Istanbul, Mehmed II probably took Shaykh Vefa
with himself as part of his policy of repopulating Istanbul. Mehmed II’s affection for the shaykh
did not escape the state dignitaries of the time. Many pashas frequented the lodge; some even
became his disciples. Some of them perhaps took refuge in Shaykh Vefa’s lodge from possible
execution after being dismissed from office. 340 In 1476, Mehmed had a complex built for Shaykh
Vefa, which included a mosque, a kitchen, a library, a bathhouse and multiple cells for the
resident dervishes. 341 The Sultan also donated the income of a village from the hinterland of
Istanbul and the plot of land near the mosque, which most likely gave Shaykh Vefa an option to
create his neighborhood community. The layout of the mosque, typical of the 15th century lodge-
mosques and similar to those built around Amasya, also made it possible to be used as a Sufi
lodge.

335
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 112.; Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i
Nefehāt, 559.
336
He must have met Aşıkpaşazade in Konya, who was also a dervish in the same lodge, though the latter does not
mention him in his chronicle.
337
İbrahim Hakkı Konyalı, Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1964),
[Link], (1964),; Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 130.
338
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 560.
339
Konyalı, Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi, 552-556.; Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 137.
340
Sinan Pasha b. Hızır Çelebi (d.891/1486) and Veliyüddin oğlu Ahmed Pasha (d.902/1496-97), two viziers with
madrasa origins, were his disciples. For Sinan Pasha, see Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 560. And for
Sinan Pasha’s poem for Shaykh Vefa, see Öngören, Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 143-147.; For the poem of
Veliyüddin Ahmed Pasha, see Ibid., 150-152. Sinan Pasha’s connections apparently paid off, since Shaqā'iq relates
that the ulema of Istanbul protested heavily when Sinan Pasha was put in prison. Mehmed II had no choice but to let
Sinan Pasha go. Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 175.
341
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 138.
90
Even with the Zeyni lodges the total number of the Sufi lodges (at most ten, compared to twelve
in contemporary Amasya) established during Mehmed II’s reign remains unimpressive, which is
the most telling evidence of his attitude towards the Sufis. On top of the reasons for Mehmed II’s
distaste for certain Sufi orders, we can place his penchant for autocracy. Mehmed II never
wanted an independent authority in his domains, particularly in his capital. He did not have a
particular problem with unorganized Sufi communities but new Sufi orders with their
standardized practices, networks and centralized hieararchies were all causes of concern for the
Sultan. However, Mehmed II is not the only one on whom to put the ‘blame.’ The Zeynis of the
period, noticeably the only active Sufi order in Istanbul, were quite territorial too. Only those
who were endorsed by Shaykh Vefa could stay in the capital. 342 There were those who were not
welcomed as well. Abdullah-ı İlahi (d.896/1491), the first Nakşibendi khalifa in the Ottoman
lands then based in west Anatolian town of Simav, sent his proxy and the closest disciple, Emir
Buhari (d.922/1516) to Istanbul for exploring the possibilities of founding a community.
Apparently Shaykh Vefa’s lodge was the best place for an itinerant Sufi to stay in the city, so the
young Nakşibendi alighted there. Although Shaykh Vefa warmly welcomed his guest at first,
after three nights and a cautionary dream, the young Sufi wrote his master not to come to
Istanbul. Abdullah-ı İlahi waited for the death of Mehmed II, and then made his journey to
Istanbul. 343

The Zeynis were not similarly discreet towards the Halvetis when Alaeddin-i Halveti
(d.867/1462-63), one of the first Halveti shaykhs in the Ottoman corelands, appeared first in
Bursa and then in Istanbul, around 1462. Taceddin İbrahim-i Karamani (d.872/1467), the head of
the Bursa Zeyni lodge, had his disciples involved in the expulsion of Alaeddin-i Halveti and his
companions from Istanbul. Although Lami‘i does not give the name of the Zeyni shaykh in
Istanbul, other historical sources point to Süleyman Halife, the only khalifa of Taceddin İbrahim
in the city. Shaykh Vefa probably was in Konya at that time, which explains why Alaeddin-i
Halveti bypassed this city and settled in Larende. Most likely he was not welcomed in Konya
either.

342
For instance, see the biography of certain Shaykh Muslihiddin-i Kocavi ([Link]). According to Shaqā'iq,
Shaykh Vefa sent some of his disciples to welcome Shaykh Muslihiddin Kocavi. Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin
(d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 246-247.
343
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 468-69.
91
 Edirne
Taskopru

ISTANBUL
Iznikmid Merzifon

Iskilip
AMASYA
Goynuk
Tokat
BURSA
RUM Erzincan
Ankara
Sivas
OTTOMAN Kutahya
CORELANDS
KARAMAN Kayseri

Egirdir KONYA
Sufi Orders

Larende Zayniya
Khalwatiya
Naqshbandiya
Bayramiya

Aleppo
Trade Route

Figure VIII: Map of Sufi orders in Anatolia before 886/1481

Part II: Amasya: Prince Bayezid and the Tale of Two Halveti Shaykhs

As the Zeynis tightened their grip on Bursa and Istanbul by the late 1460’s, Amasya became the
only Ottoman urban center that tolerated and even encouraged the Halveti activities. The
Amasya of 1465’s onwards was witnessing the rise of an important political figure with the
coming of age of Prince Bayezid, who turned eighteen in that year. Moreover, from this period
on, the Karamanid lands began to be conquered and assimilated, while Prince Mustafa (the
favorite son of Mehmed II) was appointed as the governor of Konya where he ruled until his
death in 879/1474. These two developments shifted the center of power struggles towards the
east, into the heart of Anatolia. Political history is beyond the scope of this study though
occasional references will be made below in the context of the survival and victory of the
Halvetiye in the face of the third Zeyniye challenge. 344 Here, Prince Bayezid’s rise as a political
actor and his subsequent policy of befriending Sufi orders with special reference to his
relationship with Mehmed II will be seen as critical in understanding the Halveti involvement in
the dynastic struggle and their consequent Ottomanization.

The Coming of Age of Prince Bayezid and the Sufis of Amasya

344
The first Zeyniye challenge was in 1430’s as Abdürrahim-i Rumi arrived in Merzifon, a district of Amasya. See
above, p.116
92
Prince Bayezid was seven years old when he became the nominal governor of Amasya in
858/1454. The Yörgüç Pasa (d.845/1441) family had been ruling the city since the death of
Bayezid’s uncle Prince Alaeddin in 846/1442. Bayezid’s father, Mehmed II, entrusted his son to
this family as he made Yörgüç Pasha’s brother Hızır Pasha (d.871/1467) the tutor (lala) of the
child-prince. Bayezid, along with his brother and nominal governor of Kastamonu, Prince
Mustafa, was circumcised in 861/1457. It is hard to talk about Bayezid as a political actor during
his childhood and adolescent years. He probably spent his time on studying, archery and other
leisure activities in and around Amasya under the guardianship of his mother and Hızır Pasha.
However, in 864/1460, when he was thirteen, his first son Şehinşah was born, which signaled
Bayezid’s reproductive, hence political maturation. 345 Still, if one is to pick a critical point when
Bayezid began to be perceived as an independent and threatening political figure by his father,
870/1465 could be the best option. It was the year when Bayezid became eighteen, his second
son Ahmed was born and most significant of all, his tutor Hızır Pasha, was replaced by Kemal
Pasha (d.875/1470.) 346

Hızır Pasha, who is mentioned in the context of his endowments in the previous chapter, was a
local figure, already the governor of the city when the child-prince arrived in 1457. He was the
first and only local figure to be the lala of Bayezid. After Hızır Pasha, Bayezid’s lalas were sent
directly from the court of Mehmed II, a fact suggesting that the duties of the lalas were redefined
as Bayezid became a viable alternative to his father. 347 Kemal Pasha, the grandfather of the
celebrated historian and mufti Kemalpaşazade, was not from a local family. He served for two
years and was then replaced by Şarabdar Hamza Bey. 348 Mehmed II entrusted his son to his most
reliable men because he wanted not only to protect his progeny but also to keep an eye on a
potential rival. Bayezid’s political career as a prince-governor of Amasya is beyond the scope of
this study; our concern here is that from 870/1465 on, some of Bayezid’s dealings with the Sufi
shaykhs, along with his other actions, should be treated as calculated political moves, or at least
that they were perceived as such by his father Mehmed II.

It is hard to pinpoint the exact dates of Bayezid’s contacts with the Sufi shaykhs. They probably
began in the early 1470’s and gradually increased till Bayezid went through a spiritual
transformation and became a devout Muslim towards the end of the decade, or he began to
present himself as such. Our sources, Terceme-i Nefehāt and Shaqā’iq, narrate three stories about
Bayezid’s encounters with the Sufi shaykhs during his prince-governorship. The first story is
about the father of a certain Seyyid İbrahim, who happens to be the source of this story. Bayezid,
reports Shaqā’iq, used to call this shaykh “father”, which gives an idea of the respect he had for
him. This shaykh appeared before Bayezid, during a hunting party, riding a gazelle which the

345
Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman dynasty, by A. D. Alderson., 167.; Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem:
Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 53.
346
Kemal Pasha is the grandfather of the celebrated jurist and historian Kemalpaşazade. However, Kappert has
doubts about the relationship between Kemalpaşazade and this Kemal Pasha. Kappert, Die osmanischen Prinzen und
ihre Residenz Amasya im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, 26.
347
Another reason for Mehmed’s removal of Hızır Pasha from the tutorship of Bayezid might be a wish to prevent a
stronger alliance between the prince and a powerful local family. Ottoman sultans frequently changed the tutors of
their princes in order to keep them loyal to the central authority. Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 48.
348
Kappert, Die osmanischen Prinzen und ihre Residenz Amasya im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, 59.
93
prince tried to shoot with an arrow. He reminded Bayezid of his prior repentance from hunting
and thus saved the animal’s life. 349 It is hard to substantiate this story in the historical sense and
date it. Moreover, its theme and motifs are frequently encountered in hagiographical literature. 350
Its circulation, along with other stories about Bayezid’s sainthood on the other hand is much
more indicative of how he was perceived in the Sufi circles during his sultanate. The second, also
more famous story is much more verifiable historically. It concerns Çelebi Halife’s aid against a
scheming grand vizier, which is the core of this chapter and is narrated below. In this story,
Bayezid mentions, in passing, the name of Shaykh Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi as his supporter, around
whom the third story revolves. Bayezid met Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi circa 880/1475 in Iskilib near
Amasya and granted land for his lodge. This shaykh, according to Shaqā’iq, assured the
anguished prince that he would be Sultan, before his departure on the pilgrimage in the fall of
886/1480. 351

Two of the three stories above about Bayezid’s dealings with the Sufi shaykhs are narrated in the
context of his struggle for succeeding to the Ottoman throne. Two reasons account for this
emphasis; the Istanbul/state-centrism of the Ottoman sources, and the fact that Bayezid became
close to these Sufi shaykhs at a time when the dynastic struggle was intensifying. The second
explanation is reinforced by the fact that Bayezid’s father, Mehmed II was quite antagonistic
towards the Sufi orders. A historian cannot determine the genuineness of Bayezid’s belief in the
power, be it mystical or political, of the Sufi shaykhs. Yet one might argue that he tried to
capitalize on the estrangement of certain Sufi orders in order muster support for the dynastic
struggle to come. Bayezid, unlike his father, was aware of the power of Sufi orders, as new urban
actors shaping public opinion.

Among the rising Sufi orders in Anatolia was the Halvetiye. Although it had almost a half
century history in Amasya, the Halvetiye order could not quite expand beyond the borders of the
city. But from the mid-fifteenth century on, thanks to enthusiastic proselytization by Yahya-yı
Şirvani, the Halvetiye order regenerated its efforts to establish itself in Anatolia and the Ottoman
core lands. And after 870/1465, along with Bayezid on the political scene, the city Amasya
displayed two Halveti shaykhs on the socio-religious landscape of the Ottoman Empire.

One of these shaykhs was Çelebi Halife, who can be counted as one of the most important
Halveti figures in the whole of Ottoman history and culture. He is credited with the foundation of
the Ottoman Halvetiye. He and Bayezid II are the first example of a long partnership between
Halveti shaykhs and the Sultans. The other and less known shaykh is Habib-i Karamani. Around
this time, Habib-i Karamani was the only surviving khalifa of the celebrated Yahya-yı Şirvani in
the Ottoman lands. He, unlike Çelebi Halife, had a fluctuating relationship with Bayezid both
during and after his governorship of Amasya. The involvement of these two shaykhs in
Bayezid’s struggle against his brother to succeed to the Ottoman throne marked the final phase
of the Ottomanization of the Halvetiye. The stories of both shaykhs are the first detailed accounts
of the the history of Halvetiye in Anatolia in the third quarter of the fifteenth century, decades

349
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 305-306.
350
Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 349.
351
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 343.
94
leading to the dynastic struggle that would catapult them to the center of the Ottoman world.
Their stories, especially that of Çelebi Halife, deserve close attention as they provide information
about practices of the Halvetis as well as the geographical scope of their activities between 1450
and 1475.

Çelebi Halife: The Initiator of the Rumi Branch of Halvetiye

Çelebi Halife was born at an unknown date in Aksaray in central Anatolia, as Muhammed b.
Hamiduddin b. Mahmud b. Muhammed b. Cemaleddin el-Aksarayi. 352 He belonged to a
scholarly and prestigious family. 353 His great-great-grandfather, Cemaleddin el-Aksarayi
(d.791/1388) was a celebrated scholar of the time; Ottoman sources relate that Molla Fenari (d.
834/1431), one of the pioneering figures of Ottoman academia, was among his students. 354
Hüseyin Hüsameddin also claims that Cemaleddin Aksarayi briefly served as the qadi of pre-
Ottoman Amasya. 355

Çelebi Halife’s life can be divided into three periods: his early Sufi training, his years in
Amasya, and the Istanbul years. The following is the story of the first phase in his life, drawn
exclusively from the oldest historical source, Lami‘i’s Terceme-i Nefehāt. Lami‘i personally met
Çelebi Halife, when he was a student at the Semaniye Medresesi in Istanbul and the latter came
to visit his teacher, Kasım b. Cemaleddin (d.910/1504-05) Lami‘i relates that he witnessed
overwhelming signs of ecstasy in the shaykh. 356 Lami‘i had a chance to listen to his subject
while he was alive for he narrates Çelebi Halife’s early Sufi training as he heard from him.
Çelebi Halife, according to his own account, resolutely stayed with his Sufi masters until their
death. Thanks this habit of his, a chronology of his Sufi training can be sketched out.

Konya and the Shaykh in Black

Çelebi Halife decided to take the Sufi path while he was reading Muhtaśar al-Ma‘ānī of
Saadeddin Taftazani (d.791/1389), which indicates that he was at the beginning of his studies,
probably in a minor madrasa in Larende, the capital of the Karaman region. 357 He was

352
Mehmed Serhan Tayşi, “Cemal-i Halveti,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 7 (Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988), 301.
353
For more information on this family, please see Yusuf Küçükdağ, II. Bayezid, Yavuz ve Kanuni Devirlerinde
Cemali Ailesi (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1995).
354
Mustafa Öz, “Cemaleddin Aksarayi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 7 (İstanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988), 308.; Azamat, “II. Murad Devri Kültür Hayatı,” 50-
55.
355
Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:76.
356
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 570. For the biography of Kasım b. Cemaleddin see Taşköprüzade
Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 285.
357
One can speculate on the level of Çelebi Halife at the time of his initiation by locating the aforementioned
textbook in the madrasa curriculum, though the fact that the curriculum was subject to change according to time and
place should be kept in mind. Muhtasar, which is mentioned by Çelebi Halife was taught at the introductory level.
[More information on Muhtasar] Cahid Baltacı, XV-XVI Asırlar Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilat: Tarih (Istanbul:
İrfan Matbaası, 1976), 38.; For more on local madrasas in the region, see Hüseyin Köroğlu, Konya ve Anadolu
Medreseleri (Konya: Fen Yayınevi, 1999).
95
introduced to the Sufi path by a certain Abdullah, khalifa of the celebrated Halveti shaykh,
Alaeddin-i Halveti. A while later, Alaeddin-i Halveti himself shows up in Larende, dressed head
to toe in black and mounted on a black horse, as described by Çelebi Halife.

Alaeddin-i Halveti was one of the five major khalifas of Seyyid Yahya-yi Şirvani (d.868/1463-
64), the towering figure in the early history of Halvetiye. Alaeddin-i Halveti’s younger brother,
Dede Ömer Ruşeni (892/1486-87), also a major khalifa of Seyyid Yahya, is better known among
the Halveti circles thanks to his able disciple, İbrahim-i Gülşeni (d. 940/1534), the founder of the
Egypt based Gulseniye branch of the order. 358 Initially a madrasa student in Bursa, Ömer Ruşeni
later became the disciple of Seyyid Yahya and instead of going back to his homeland as some of
Seyyid Yahya’s disciples did, he stayed in Azerbaijan where he developed a cordial relationship
with the Akkoyunlu ruler Uzun Hasan (d.882/1478) and his wife Selçuk Hatun (d.896/1490). 359
Selçuk Hatun became Ömer Ruşeni’s disciple and had a Sufi lodge built for him in Tabriz. 360

Alaeddin-i Halveti on the other hand was not quite welcome in the Ottoman corelands. He was
criticized by the ulema of Bursa when he inspired people to imitate his ecstatic outbursts. Lami‘i
narrates the story of the future şeyhülislam Molla Alaeddin Arab (d.901/1496), initially objecting
to and later becoming a disciple of Alaeddin-i Halveti. And his relationship with Mehmed II, was
not of the same as that developed by his brother with Mehmed II’s rival, Uzun Hasan.
Apparently irritated by the popularity of this ecstatic shaykh, Mehmed II asked Alaeddin-i
Halveti to leave Istanbul; so the Shaykh left for Larende, the capital of the rival Karamanid
dynasty. 361

Alaeddin-i Halveti’s decision to leave Istanbul for Larende, the capital of the Karamanid
dynasty, was by no means accidental. The region of Karaman in general and the city of Konya in
particular frequently served as the closest alternative urban center and source of patronage for the
alienated Sufis and ulema of the Ottoman cities in the first half of the fifteenth century.
Considering that hosting a prominent scholar or a Sufi was a matter of prestige for a certain city
or a dynasty, there must have been a ceremonial aspect to the arrival of a celebrated shaykh.
Within such a context, Alaeddin-i Halveti’s black attire, as recollected by Çelebi Halife, was
perhaps a way of protesting the unwelcoming attitude he faced in Istanbul. Çelebi Halife does
not openly interpret Alaeddin-i Halveti’s attire in this way but one can assume that as a young
Halveti dervish residing in the Karamanid lands, he did not cherish pleasant feelings for the
Ottoman Sultan.

Çelebi Halife relates an interesting anecdote concerning himself and Alaeddin-i Halveti. When
he expressed his desire to become a dervish of Alaeddin-i Halveti, the latter offered him his
mantle (cübbe) as a sign of making him a khalifa. Alaeddin-i Halveti’s eagerness to initiate and
immediately designate Çelebi Halife as a khalifa indicates that the Halvetis of the time were

358
For a recent study on İbrahim-i Gülşeni, see Side Emre, “İbrahim-i Gülşeni (ca. 1442-1534): İtinerant Saint and
Cairene Ruler” (Ph.D, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009).
359
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 576.
360
Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 513.
361
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 577.
96
really in a tight spot and in need of able disciples. Alaeddin-i Halveti was the one of the two
active Halveti shaykhs (the other being Habib-i Karamani) in Anatolia and he was on a mission
to spread the Halveti path. Still, Çelebi Halife refuses this offer on the grounds that he has not
completed his training, and hence does not deserve it. “From now on, you will need my disciples
to have a Halveti training” replies Alaeddin-i Halveti, foreseeing his imminent death. 362
Alaeddin-i Halveti’s prophecy is realized when both Alaeddin-i Halveti and his khalifa Abdullah
pass away, leaving Çelebi Halife without a shaykh. Taşköprüzade relates that Alaeddin-i Halveti
had another khalifa named Molla Mesud of Edirne (d. around 1480) who had established a Sufi
community in his hometown. 363 Instead of going to Edirne, possibly because of his anti-Ottoman
sentiments, Çelebi Halife chooses to go to the East, the source of the Halveti teachings.

Tokat and the Illiterate Turcoman Shaykh

Çelebi Halife’s next stop is in Tokat, a north central Ottoman border town. He becomes a dervish
of Tahiroğlu, a Halveti shaykh residing in Tokat. Tahiroğlu was an illiterate Turcoman, to such a
degree, Çelebi Halife narrates, that he would confuse the words feyz (divine blessing) and hayz
(menstruation.) On the other hand, Tahiroğlu was spiritually quite powerful, admits Çelebi
Halife. His days in Tokat give us hints about the early Halveti training practices in Anatolia.
Tahiroğlu first uses Çelebi Halife as a laborer in constructing his lodge and mosque. 364 And then
he puts Çelebi Halife along with other dervishes in a hole in the ground, and exposes them to
ascetic discipline and hunger. The other dervishes cannot endure hunger and they break their fast
with food brought from a nearby village. When Tahiroğlu discovers this incident, he dismisses
all of the dervishes including Çelebi Halife. But Çelebi Halife persists until he is about to die of
hunger. When dervishes relate his situation to Tahiroğlu, the latter replies with the
unsymphatetic remark: “let him die.” This strict training continues till a mystical experience
(kashf, an unveiling) 365 happens to Çelebi Halife. When he recounts it to his shaykh, Tahiroğlu’s
attitude to him changes in a positive way.

Lami‘i, the reporter of this story heard this account in the late 1480’s from Çelebi Halife when he
was trying to establish his order in Istanbul. Its content when combined with the historical
context gives us hints about how the narrator (Çelebi Halife) perceives himself, past Halveti
figures and his order in retrospect. One of the challenges Çelebi Halife faced was the reception
of the Halvetiye by the ulema, most of whom were disapproving of some Halveti practices and
ecstatic modes of behavior. Besides, Çelebi Halife had to compete with the rival Zeyni dervishes

362
Ibid., 579. One wonders why Çelebi Halife recounts this incident.
363
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, [Link]ā’iq also mentions Shaykh
Sinanüddin Yusuf from a village in the environs of Istanbuland a halife of a certain Alaeddin Abdal. (Ibid., 270.)
This could be another name for Alaeddin-i Halveti, because he appears as such in the chronicle of Aşıkpaşazade.
364
Mescid-i Tahiroğlu, is among the names of the Tokat neighborhoods in the 937/1530 survey register. (BOA, TD
387, p.431.) The fact that the same register does not list a mosque named Tahiroğlu implies that this building was
initially built as a lodge-mosque and gave its name to the neighborhood. Tahiroğlu’s lodge was still active in the late
sixteenth century and trained many Sufis, among whom was the celebrated Halveti shaykh of the sixteenth century,
Şemseddin Sivasi (d.1006/1597).
365
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 579. Kashf is described as “uncovering, disclosure, revelation in its
literal meaning, taking away of the veil” in the glossary provided in Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 305.
97
headed by the above mentioned Shaykh Vefa, who was quite popular among the ulema. Within
this context, Çelebi Halife’s reference to a textbook used in the madrasa curriculum, Muhtaśar-
al-Ma‘ānī suggests that the audience of Çelebi Halife’s Halveti teachings in Istanbul was the
ulema and he was trying to establish a rapport with the educated elite of Istanbul. His scholarly
output, as Curry notes, also supports this argument. 366

His quasi-pejorative remarks about the illiteracy and training methods of his “Turcoman” shaykh
Tahiroğlu in Tokatcould also be taken in the same vein, though this story has more
implications. 367 First of all, it has many elements and motifs one frequently encounters in the
hagiographical literature, especially that relating to the Halvetiye. These stories are about young
ulema who disdain the ignorance or even illiteracy of a Sufi shaykh at first and eventually find
themselves willingly or unwillingly submitting to the training hands of that shaykh thanks to
latter’s spiritual power. The moral of these stories is that the ulema should not criticize the
seeming deficiencies of the shaykhs and should accept their spiritual authority. What is different
in this story is that Çelebi Halife bestows on himself more credit/agency than this literature gives
to its average protagonists. According to Çelebi Halife, although his shaykh was an illiterate,
hunt-loving and somewhat inhumane Turcoman who does not properly train him, he is the one
who notices his shaykh’s spiritual potency, takes a leap of faith and persists till the end. Of
course, the subtext here is that Çelebi Halife is a worthy spiritual guide and his disciples should
submit to his training methods.

The tension between the educated and the illiterate mentioned above was sometimes translated
into ethnic terms, as in the case of Çelebi Halife describing his previous shaykh as terakime
taifesinden, i.e. from the Turcoman people/sort. A similar ethnic tone can be detected in the
episode between Mehmed II and his mentor Akşemseddin. When Akşemseddin repeatedly
refused Mehmed II’s wish to be put into halvet or to be exposed to solitary ascetic discipline for
a few days, Mehmed II complains as follows; “you would put a Turk into halvet even if he asks
you once, but you do not accept my wish although I asked you several times.” 368 These ethnic
references should also be placed in the context of the urban/rural dichotomy. Turcoman or Turk
in the fifteenth century Ottoman context meant uneducated peasants or nomads who lived in the
rural areas.

Erzincan and the Shaykh of the Mantle

After earning the appreciation of Tahiroğlu, Çelebi Halife had to leave Tokat because his shaykh
died. Çelebi Halife’s destination this time is Baku in Azerbaijan, where Yahya-yı Şirvani’s
lodge is located. On the road to Azerbaijan, in Erzincan, Çelebi Halife meets Muhammed
Bahaeddin-i Erzincani, otherwise known as Molla Piri (d. circa 869/1464-65), another major
khalifa of Yahya-yı Şirvani. Although he was set on reaching Baku, Çelebi Halife, at some point,
must have considered an offer to stay in Erzincan, since he mentions that he was not quite

366
John J. Curry, “The Intersection of Past and Present in the Genesi of an Ottoman Sufi Order: The Life of Cemal
el-Halveti (d.900/1494 or 905/1499),” Journal of Turkish Studies 32 (2008): 31.
367
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 579.
368
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 229.
98
satisfied there and decided to leave the city. Two days following his departure, the news of
Yahya-yı Şirvani’s death reaches him and he returns to Erzincan to become a dervish of Molla
Piri. Shortly after, Çelebi Halife was again on the road, but this time holding an icazet and
travelling in the direction of “the center of the Rum.” His first stop was the center of ancient or
little “Rum”, i.e. Amasya.

Molla Piri is quite an obscure figure in the Ottoman sources. He appears in both Lami‘i’s and
Taşköprüzade’s accounts within the context of his relationship with Çelebi Halife. On the other
hand, Halveti hagiographers give more information about Molla Piri, though they differ from the
earlier sources on his role in the training of Çelebi Halife. These hagiographers, namely Yusuf b.
Yakub, Mahmud Hulvi and Muhammed Nazmi, try to downplay the role of Molla Piri for the
purpose of establishing a more direct link between Çelebi Halife and Yahya-yı Şirvani. For
instance, Yusuf b. Yakub claims that it was Yahya-yı Şirvani himself who guided Çelebi Halife
back to Erzincan via dreams. Similarly, Muhammed Nazmi argues that Molla Piri the shaykh of
the mantle (hırka ve kisvesi şeyhi) of Çelebi Halife and states that he was only the nominal
shaykh. 369

These hagiographers’ concern was not historically unfounded. Çelebi Halife’s insistence on
becoming a dervish of Yahya-yı Şirvani and his attempts at bypassing two major khalifas of the
latter, Alaeddin-i Halveti and Molla Piri, support this point. “To become a Sufi is to affiliate
oneself with a genealogy of masters going back to the Prophet…”, states Massignon. 370 The
“right” shaykh, hence an appropriate genealogy, would provide Çelebi Halife with a strong
mystical authority, not to mention connections and recognition. Still, more important than that,
as is evident from Çelebi Halife’s attempts, is one’s place in the genealogy, his relative closeness
to the source of mystical authority. And the account above is the quest of an inexperienced,
ambitious yet educated dervish seeking the right shaykh, who would train and subsequently link
him to a respected genealogy as directly as possible. The death of Yahya-yı Şirvani left no
choice for Çelebi Halife but Molla Piri as the most plausible link to the former. This also
explains why Çelebi Halife chose not to go to Amasya, a city with a half-century history of
Halveti activities, in the first place. Yahya-yı Şirvani must have had a very wide reputation
among the Halvetis of the period.

In conclusion, the account of Çelebi Halife’s travels and training is very important because it is
one of the earliest records of Halveti activities in the Ottoman lands and Anatolia. Çelebi
Halife’s travels in pursuit of a Sufi master help us in partially mapping out the Halveti presence
prior to 1500 with some certainty. 371 Çelebi Halife initially began his training in Karaman, then

369
“Hülasa-yı kelam, Pir Muhammed-i Erzincani, Çelebi Halifenin hırka ve kisvesi şeyhidir. Terbiye ve tesellileri,
Mevlana Seyyid Yahya’nın ruhaniyetlerinden olmuştur.” Muhammed Nazmi (d.1112/1701), Osmanlılarda
Tasavvufi Hayat: Halvetilik Örneği: Hediyyetü'l-Ihvan, 1st ed. (Istanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 2005), 492.
370
Louis Massignon, The passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam, trans. Herbert Mason (Princeton
University Press, 1994), 10. One must note that Massignon assumes that these genealogies are authentic in all of
their links. However their earliest links are probably not true. I thank Professor Algar for pointing to this fact. Here
I am interested in Çelebi Halife’s or any other Sufi’s perception of these genealogies rather than their authenticity.
371
Later historical sources, especially those of the Halvetiyye, count many other Halveti shaykhs who were active
in parts of Anatolia other than the cities that Çelebi Halife visited. Still, one should approach such information with
99
under the rule of a dynasty with the same name. And then he traveled to Tokat, a town on the
eastern frontiers of the Ottomans. Lastly on the way to Baku, which was under the rule of
Shirvanshah Dynasty, he stopped at Erzincan which was governed by Akkoyunlus. As Çelebi
Halife’s travels indicate, the Halveti activities in this period are concentrated around the eastern
margins or outside of the Ottoman polity. The concentration of the Halveti presence on the
eastern margins of the Ottoman lands is definitely linked to the lack of welcome accorded them
by the Ottoman elite, especially by the Sultan.

And as a Halveti shaykh, Çelebi Halife had no choice of destination but the city of Amasya. If he
were to stay in Eastern Anatolia, or to travel further to the east, to Azerbaijan or Iran, he would
not have had his most precious possession, i.e. his social capital, a must for an upcoming Sufi
shaykh. Especially with such a prestigious genealogy, he would have had no option but to go
back to his homeland if his plan was to establish a Sufi community. However, Konya and its
environs were not the ideal place around 870/1465, because of the ongoing Ottoman conquest
which had turned the region into a war zone between the Ottoman, Karaman and Akkoyunlu
polities. This situation combined with the strong Zeyni presence in Konya made Amasya quite
an appealing alternative. 372

Habib-i Karamani: The Initiator of the Karamani Branch of Halvetiye

Another Halveti shaykh in the environs of Amasya circa 1470 was Habib-i Karamani. Habib-i
Karamani’s maternal and paternal ancestry is said to have gone back to the first and the second
caliphs respectively. 373 He was from Ortaköy, a village located approximately 50 kilometres
north of Aksaray where Çelebi Halife was born and raised. Similar to Çelebi Halife, he decided
to join the dervishes of Seyyid Yahya when he was a madrasa student. Suspicious of Sufism at
the beginning, Habib-i Karamani ended up staying with Seyyid Yahya for twelve years before
being sent to Anatolia for propagating the Halveti way. He initially resided in the Hacı Bayram
lodge in Ankara and met with Akşemseddin, which means he was back in Anatolia some time
before the latter’s death in 1459. 374 Lami‘i, who had met him in Konya, states that Habib-i
Karamani was on the move most of the time, traveling between the Aydın, Karaman and Rum
regions, probably seeking a fertile ground to establish his community. Considering the attitude of
the Ottoman elite to the Halvetis mentioned above, it is quite understandable that he never
traveled to Bursa or Istanbul. Habib-i Karamani had also been to Kayseri to visit the
abovementioned İbrahim-i Tennuri, in whose lodge he probably met his future father in-law,
Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi. 375

extra caution since these sources tend to claim local saints for their order retrospectively. Lami‘i Çelebi’s narrative,
in this context, is quite reliable on two accounts: firstly Lami‘i Çelebi himself does not adhere to the Halveti path,
and secondly he personally heard Çelebi Halife tell of his own Sufi training.
372
According to Hüseyin Hüsameddin, Çelebi Halife was forcibly sent to Amasya upon the incorporation of
Karamanid lands after 1466. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi, 3:227.
373
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 577.
374
Ibid., 578.
375
Habib-i Karamani Waqfiya (881/1476), VGMA, 601/204 No: 269
100
Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi (d.920/1514-15,) also known as Shaykh Yavsi, was the son in law of the
famous scholar Ali Kuşçu (d. 879/1474), the father of Ebu-s’Suud, the celebrated şeyhülislam of
the sixteenth century, and the father in-law of both Habib-i Karamani and Müeyyedzade
Abdürrahim, two influential Sufi shaykhs at the turn of the sixteenth century. Muhyiddin-i
Iskilibi initially studied with Ali Kuşçu and following his master’s death in 879/1474, he became
the disciple of a Zeyni shaykh by the name of Muslihiddin-i Kocavi (d. unknown). 376 Apparently
dissatisfied with the Zeyni way, he turned to one of the khalifas of Akşemseddin, İbrahim-i
Tennuri of Kayseri (d.887/1482.) The length of his Sufi training is unknown but in the sources he
appears as a Bayrami shaykh giving counsel to Prince Bayezid before his pilgrimage in the fall
of 1480. Most likely because of this support, he developed a very close relationship with
Bayezid. The intimacy between the two increased after Bayezid sat on the throne, as the young
sultan invited him to Istanbul, had a lodge built for him and hosted him in the palace on many
occasions. The sultan’s affection made Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi very prestigious and influential
among the high dignitaries of Bayezid II’s reign and earned him the nickname “Shaykh of the
Sultan/Hünkar Şeyhi.” 377

The relationship between Habib-i Karamani and Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi and their respective
connections to Bayezid are thought-provoking and worthy of close examination as they provide
glimpses about the role of family and property relations in the foundation of Sufi orders. First, let
us take a closer look at the alliance between the two established through marriage. It appears
from the sources that Habib-i Karamani was a much older and more experienced Sufi than
Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi when he married his daughter, Rukiyye Hatun, around 1476. In an
endowment deed drawn up in the fall of 1476, Habib-i Karamani donates a portion of his income
from a number of surrounding villages to Rukiyye Hatun, daughter of Muhyiddin-i İskilibi, in
exchange for her dowry in the amount of ninety thousand silver coins. Habib-i Karamani must
have been past his fifties, while his bride was scarcely fifteen, for she was still alive according to
an endowment deed dated 1566. 378 Besides, Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi must have been at most in his
mid-thirties then, since he was, if Taşköprüzade is right, a student of Ali Kuşçu till his master’s
death in 1474. The age difference between the groom and the bride is not too odd by the
standards of the time, yet it clearly suggests that it was a marriage specifically arranged for
establishing an alliance between an experienced Halveti shaykh and a young Bayrami one. What
could be the reason behind such an alliance?

The two probably left Kayseri together for İskilip, located 115 kilometers east of Amasya. The
town of İskilip, at that time, was familiar with Sufi activities. Akşemseddin himself had briefly
stayed in one of the nearby villages. 379 One of his disciples, namely Attaroğlu Muslihiddin
([Link]), remained as his khalifa after Akşemseddin had departed. 380 Bayezid used to come

376
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 342.; His date of death, according to Sicill-
i Osmani, was around 1460. Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, 1127.
377
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 343.
378
Ebussuud Waqfiya VGMA, 633/ 286 No: 101
379
Orhan F. Köprülü and Mustafa Ün, “Akşemseddin,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 2
(Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988), 299.
380
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 235.
101
to a nearby town named Katar for hunting excursions, 381 and it was probably during one of these
festivities that Habib-i Karamani and Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi met the Sufi revering prince. Bayezid
donated a plot of land in the town and the income of two nearby villages to Habib-i Karamani.
These properties were later assigned for the expenses of the mosque Habib-i Karamani founded
in the tanners’ district in 1476. 382 Habib-i Karamani appointed himself as the administrator and
supervisor of the endowment.

In the endowment deed, Habib-i Karamani, employs a very affectionate language for Bayezid; he
calls him “su ve balçık sülalesinden karındaşım/my brother among the descendants of the one
fashioned of water and clay”, referring to the creation of Adam and the brotherhood of all
men. 383 One would normally expect that such an affection between a Sufi loving prince and a
shaykh with notable ancestry, both in the initiatic and the genealogical senses, would be
transformed into a long and prosperous cooperation when the prince became sultan. But in the
case of Habib-i Karamani something must have gone wrong between 1476 and 1481, the date
when Bayezid came to the throne. While Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi became the sultan’s shaykh,
Habib-i Karamani left Amasya for Karamanid lands and started to develop better relations with
the rival Zeyniye order.

Still, Habib-i Karamani’s sudden move away from the orbit of Bayezid between 1476 and 1481,
and his inclination to the Zeyniye, beg for an explanation. In what conditions did Habib-i
Karamani, despite having founded a well-endowed mosque and a community, leave İskilip and
pursue a peripatetic career? One may put forward various explanations such as Habib-i
Karamani’s passion for spreading his way or his distaste for worldly attachments, but these are
all historically unverifiable. Lami‘i hints at an answer by saying that a great conflict occurred
between him and his father in-law Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi, which in the end was resolved thanks to
their spiritual vigor/dervişlik kuvveti. 384 The conflict, claims Kamil Şahin, was over the control
of the endowed lands, as Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi wanted to designate his progeny as the
administrators, while Habib-i Karamani objected to that. 385 Kamil Şahin does not mention his
sources, and our sources indicate otherwise. In Habib-i Karamani’s endowment deed mentioned
above, he endows his property to his wives, sons, daughters and grandsons. He even assigns a
portion of his properties (23 shares out of 60) to his wife and Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi’s daughter in
exchange for her dowry. 386 Habib-i Karamani appears as the founder of a family waqf, not the
one who objects it.

A recently discovered letter from the Topkapi Palace archives points to the dynastic struggle of
886/1481 as the reason for the conflict between Habib-i Karamani and Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi and

381
TSA, E. 8335
382
The approximate date is 10-29 Ekim 1476. Habib-i Karamani Waqfiya (881/1476), VGMA, 601/204 No: 269
383
Habib-i Karamani Waqfiya (881/1476), VGMA, 601/204 No: 269
384
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 578.
385
Kamil Şahin, “Habib-i Karamani,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 14 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988), 371.
386
These shares, however, were to remain under Habib-i Karamani’s control since he stipulated that they would be
used for the salaries of Qur’an reciters in her name.
102
the subsequent severance of the former’s ties with Prince Bayezid. But before getting to this
letter, the political tensions in the winter of 886/1481 should briefly be explained.

Part III: The Dynastic Struggle of 886/1481 as the final phase in the Ottomanization of the
Halvetiye

The origins of the dynastic struggle between the Bayezid and Cem factions go back to the battle
of Otlukbeli with the ruler of the Akkoyunlu tribal federation, Uzun Hasan, in the summer of
878/1473, and the events surrounding it. During this battle, as the commander of the right wing
of the Ottoman army, Bayezid pushed back the enemy forces. But Prince Mustafa, as many
historians argue, was the man of the day as he crushed the left wing of the Akkoyunlu army and
killed Uzun Hasan’s son, Zeynel. 387 This battle, however, was the beginning of the end for
Mehmed II’s famous grand vizier Mahmud Pasha. Mehmed II dismissed Mahmud Pasha on the
grounds of his incompetence during the battle. Apparently Bayezid was closely watching all
these developments. In a letter addressed to Mahmud Pasha, Bayezid cautioned him against the
slanderers. 388 Of course Bayezid was interested in capitalizing on the enmity between a
powerful pasha and his potential rival thus so far.

However, in the summer 1474 these two significant political actors completely disappeared from
the Ottoman political scene with the passing of Sehzade Mustafa, the favorite prince of Mehmed
II, and the execution of Mahmud Pasha. Sehzade Mustafa’s escapade with the wife of Mahmud
Pasha and the resulting enmity between the two were common knowledge at the time. Many
contemporary chronicles suggest a link between two events. Some of them recount that Mahmud
Pasha’s negligence in showing a proper mourning for the death of a prince angered the Sultan.
Other sources, on the other hand, hint that Mahmud Pasha was the one who plotted against the
poor prince. 389 Moreover, Mehmed II chose to isolate himself in his new palace, possibly
because of his gradually deteriorating health. By the end of 1474, as these two political figures
vanished and Mehmed II began to isolate himself in his newly built palace, two political factions
began to emerge in order to fill a possible power vacuum. And for almost a decade, these
factions fought each other in a bid to shape the future of a nascent empire.

Finally, in the winter of 886/1481, a messenger bearing the news of a new military campaign of
Mehmed II arrived in the north central Anatolian city of Amasya. As usual, the exact direction of
the sultan’s military plans was not quite certain, but in all its probability it was towards some
place in the East, since Mehmed had asked his governor-generals to meet him in the city of
Konya. This city was first the base of Prince Bayezid’s brother Mustafa until his death in
879/1474 and then passed onto Cem, the youngest son of Mehmed II. This news was received
with shock and despair in Amasya, especially in the inner circle of the princely court, and it led

387
Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 371.
388
Tacizade Sadi Celebi (d.1516), Taci-zade Sa'di Çelebi Münşe'atı, 2-3.
389
For a detailed discussion of the enmity between the two, see Theoharis Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life
and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453-1474) (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 344-
352.; Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 327-332.
103
to a chain of events which resulted in the ascension of Prince Bayezid to the Ottoman throne on
Safer 20,886/ May 20th, 1481. Among these events was the Halveti involvement in the dynastic
struggle, as a consequence of which a minor Halveti community in Amasya was catapulted to
Istanbul, the burgeoning heart of the Ottoman Empire. During this struggle the Halvetis, for the
third time in the fifteenth century, clashed with the rival Zeyniye order; this time behind their
respective candidates for the Ottoman throne.

Amasya in the Winter of 1481

Amasyans and Bayezid in particular were aware that Mehmed II’s decision for an expedition to
the east could only mean the elimination of the Bayezid/Amasyan faction (including the
Halvetiye order), if not the execution of the prince. First of all, Sultan’s personal participation in
this campaign raised suspicions. For the previous three years, Mehmed the Conqueror, then at
the age of forty nine, yet heavily stricken with illness, had secluded himself in his newly built
palace in Istanbul and sent his generals on military campaigns. The Sultan’s poor health was
common knowledge in both Ottoman and Western circles. 390 In addition to this, the Conqueror
had not set foot in the Asian provinces of the empire for the previous eight years, since the time
of his victory over Uzun Hasan in 1473.

During these eight years, the relationship between the father in Istanbul and the son in Amasya
became increasingly strained. For instance, when the Conqueror demanded that his son should
send a rich merchant to Istanbul, Bayezid refused to obey. Similarly, when his father ordered the
execution of his two confidants (the aforementioned Müeyyedzade Abdurrahman and a certain
Haseki Mahmud), Bayezid again challenged his father by helping Müeyyedzade to escape to
Aleppo. The tension between the father and the son reached such an extent that a European
account reports the rumor of a serious intention on the part of the sultan to kill Bayezid. 391
Making things worse, was the scheming of Karamani Mehmed Pasha, grand vizier to the sultan
and a staunch supporter of the Ottoman prince Cem, rival to Bayezid.

A secret letter written by the Sultan’s spy in Amasya informs us the level of panic observable in
Bayezid’s court. 392 According to this letter, the governor-generals of the Conqueror -among them
the son in law of Bayezid and the governor-general of Anatolia- had been trying to prevent the
Sultan appearing in the Anatolian provinces, since they were on Bayezid’s side. When the Sultan
ordered these governors to meet him in Konya, as the spy narrates, Bayezid was devastated.
Moreover, upon hearing this news, most of the people in Bayezid’s faction turned against him,
and joined his father’s party.

390
For instance, a book of fortunes (Falnāme) dated May 1480, very closely approximates the date of Mehmed II’s
death in the following year. “Tāli’-i Mevlūd-u Merhūm Ebu’l-Feth Sultān Mehmed Han,” n.d., 86b, Esat Ef., 1997,
Süleymaniye Library. Also for the grave description of the Sultan’s health by his contemporary Philippe de
Commynes, see Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 424.
391
Zinkeisen, referring to a contemporary account by Tubero, in Johann Zinkeisen, Geschichte des osmanischen
Reiches in Europa, etc. (Vom Anfange ... bis zum Frieden mit Russland zu Bucharest im Jahre 1812.), vol. 2 (7 Bde.
1840-63., 1840), 495.
392
TSA, E.8335
104
The Halveti dervishes, at such a critical time, were faced with a very difficult decision. On the
one hand, they were needed by Bayezid, who was their most distinguished patron. On the other
hand, as long as his father alive, Bayezid was the least likely candidate for the Ottoman throne,
and open support for him could have dissolved Halveti hopes of ever establishing themselves in
the Ottoman capital. Some of the Halveti dervishes, put in such a quandary by their patron
Bayezid, chose to be loyal, and others tried to switch horses in the mid-stream.

Habib-i Karamani’s Tough Decision

The same winter a letter from a Halveti dervish reached Mehmed II. It was signed by Seyyidi (or
Seydi) Halveti (later known as Seyyidi Halife), a disciple of Habib-i Karamani. 393 Seyyidi Halife
was apparently one of his shaykh’s favorite disciples, since he replaced his master as the head
shaykh of the Mehmed Pasha Sufi lodge in Amasya, where he spent the rest of his life. 394
Taşköprüzade, who probably met Seyyidi Halveti when he was a young student in Amasya,
notes that Seyyidi Halveti was a person of dignified calmness with a distinguished piety and a
fear of God who used to spend his days fasting and his nights praying. 395

Seyyidi Halveti, according to a safe calculation based on his date of death (939/1533), was a
young Sufi in the lodge of Habib-i Karamani at the time of the letter (886/1481). Dreams have a
significant place among the methods of training in the Sufi orders. They signify the level of the
disciple on his spiritual journey. The disciple rarely shares his dream with anyone other than his
shaykh, let alone publicizes it via a letter to sultan. So it is hard to assume that a Sufi disciple
would write and sign such a letter without the prior knowledge of his own shaykh. 396 Moreover,
the source of the unveiling experience narrated in the dream implies the involvement of others in
this enterprise. In the letter, unveiling happens from the direction of the spiritual axis of the time
(kutup), by whom is intended Seyyidi’s own shaykh, Habib-i Karamani. Hüseyin Hüsameddin
notes that Habib-i Karamani was among the three Halveti shaykhs of Amasya who were called
the three axes, (üç kutuplar) around the early 1490’s. 397 In conclusion, one can safely argue that
Habib-i Karamani was the real author of this political letter, and the dreams and mystical
experiences all belong to him.

The content, tone and timing of the letter are quite critical in understanding the psyche of the
Halveti dervishes as well as the dynamics of the dynastic struggle of 886/1481. The letter also
sheds light on why Bayezid and Habib-i Karamani fell apart after the former became the sultan.
This letter, first and foremost of all, is a statement of support for Mehmed II’s candidate for the
throne, Prince Cem. The message is communicated via four dreams and two mystical

393
Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, 1499.
394
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 438-439.
395
Ibid., 439.
396
For more on the dreams refer to Mustafa Tatçı and Halil Çeltik, Türk Edebiyatından Tasavvufi Rüya
Tabirnameleri: Kürd Muhammed el-Halveti, Niyazi-i Mısri el-Halveti, Karabaş-ı Veli el-Halveti, Yiğitbaşı Ahmed
Marmaravi el-Halveti (Ankara, 1995).; Cemal Kafadar, “Mütereddid Bir Mutassavvif: Üsküplü Asiye Hatun'un
Rüya Defteri 1641- 43,” Topkapi Sarayi Yilligi 5: 168-222.
397
The other two were Gümüşlüoğlu Pir Hayreddin Hızır Çelebi (d.890/1485) and Çelebi Halife(d.899/1493) Yaşar,
Amasya Tarihi, 3:236.
105
experiences, i.e. an unveiling or revelation (kashf) and a good omen from the Prophet
Muhammad (sırr-ı resul/prophetic secret) in the World of the Spirits (alem-i ruhaniyet). 398 All
of the dreams and experiences recounted in the dream also reveal an anxiety on the part of some
Halveti dervishes for their acceptance by the Ottoman elite, thus a better future of their order.
Lastly, this letter is the first document that carries the title “Halveti” as a collective name used by
a Halveti dervish for self description.

Habib-i Karamani’s Dreams

In the first dream, Murad II, the deceased father of the sultan accompanied by Şems-i Tebrizi,
Seyyid Buhari (better known as Emir Sultan (d.833/1429), and Hacı Bayram-ı Veli on his right,
sits across from the Prophet. Murad II asks for a prayer from Seyyid Buhari on behalf of his son
Mehmed, arguing that the latter has a multitude of enemies. Seyyid Buhari and the Prophet pray
for Mehmed that he be victorious wherever he turns. In the second dream, the sun prostrates
itself before Mehmed II and the moon appears above his head. Following that, an elderly person
makes Mehmed II mount a heavenly steed (burak) and then escort him to an exalted throne, a
journey recalling the ascension (mi’raj) of the Prophet. 399 When asked about his identity and the
meaning of the prostrating sun, elderly person replies that he is the prophetic secret of
Muhammad, and that the prostration of the sun represents political fortune and the conquest of
the Arab lands. In the third dream, the Prophet calls for a ghaza, towards Belgrade. In the last
dream, the Prophet Moses gathers an army in Filibe (modern day Plovdiv) and marches in the
direction of Hungary. Suddenly the Prophet Moses disappears and Mehmed II takes his place
and marches as far as Frengistan (probably the Italian peninsula), following the prominent saints
of the time.

“Historians need to bear constantly in mind the fact that they do not have access to the dream
itself but at best to a written record, modified by the preconscious or conscious mind in the
course of recollection and writing,” states Peter Burke. 400 One cannot question or verify the
existence of Habib-i Karamani’s dream, and does not “have access to the associations of the
dreamer to the incidents of the dream.” 401 Also, the private meaning of the dream in relation to
the mystical journey of the author is beyond the scope of this study. Nonetheless, this dream can
be located within a certain genre and its author in an historical context in order to gauge the
mindset of a Halveti dervish of the mid-fifteenth century.

First, it is not uncommon in Ottoman historical writing that dream letters to the Sultans or the
narratives of Sultans’ dreams should be laden with political symbols and messages. 402 In most of
the Ottoman historical narratives, it is the Sultan who experiences the dream, which is interpreted

398
Translated as “mystery” or “secret.” Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 311.
399
Burak, in Islamic mythology, is the mount that conveyed the Prophet on the Mi’raj.
400
Peter Burke, Varieties of Cultural History, 1997, 28. Quoted in Ahmet Tunç Şen, “The Dream of a 17th Century
Ottoman Intellectual: Veysi and his Habname” (MA, Sabanci University, 2008), 79.
401
Burke, Varieties of Cultural History, 28.
402
Elias Kolovos, “The Saints in the Sultan’s Dream,” Archivum Ottomanicum 23 (2005): 205-217. Şen, “The
Dream of a 17th Century Ottoman Intellectual: Veysi and his Habname,” 3.
106
by a major religious figure of the time, like an influential Sufi shaykh. In these sources, Sultans’
dreams are considered to contain critical signs about a future venture or a past accomplishment.
For instance, when Mehmed II saw himself wrestling in a dream with Uzun Hasan and ripping a
piece from his opponent’s chest, it was interpreted as victory in the battle of Otlukbeli and the
subsequent death of Uzun Hasan’s son. 403 The Ottoman archives are relatively rich in dream
letters to the Sultan. These dreams are usually filled with good omens and signs communicated
by the Prophet and/or major religious figures. The letters were usually written in expectation of a
gift from the Sultan and in some instances the dreamers’ expectations were met. 404 Dreams such
as these became more frequent especially after the seventeenth century and they rarely express a
direct political message. They instead include vague auguries of a long life and rule or a military
victory for the Sultan etc. 405

The first part of Habib-i Karamani’s letter fits in with this type of documentation, in terms of its
both form and content. There is nothing, in this part of the letter, to infuriate the suspicious and
unpredictable Sultan, and it seems to be written solely for providing moral support. All four
dreams pertained to the foreign affairs of the Ottoman polity. The Prophet’s call for a ghaza
against Belgrade, the Prophet Moses’s gathering of soldiers in Filibe and their marching towards
Europe, are all parallel to Mehmed II’s foreign policy. Similarly, the idea of conquering the Arab
lands seems to have been prevalent among the ruling elite at the time. For instance, in another
undated letter, Mehmed II’s tutor Akşemseddin encourages the sultan to undertake the conquest
of the Arab lands. 406

Another way to interpret this letter is to see it as the reflection of a specific mindset, perhaps of a
particular anxiety. The tone and the content suggest a certain anxiety on the part of some Halveti
dervishes, who were eager to expand their influence in the Ottoman core lands, yet undecided
about their position in the upcoming political struggle. For instance, the names of the saints
mentioned in the first dream, Şems-i Tebrizi, Seyyid Buhari and Hacı Bayram-ı Veli seem to
have been carefully picked by Habib-i Karamani. These saints, unlike those of Halvetiye of the
time, were all known and venerated by the Ottomans. Especially Emir Buhari and Hacı Bayram
were very close to Murad II, the father of Sultan. And lastly, the roots of the silsila of all three go
back to Iran. In particular that of Hacı Bayram intersects with the Halvetiye silsila in the early
fourteenth century in the person of İbrahim Zahid-i Gilani. As a Halveti dervish, by associating
himself and his silsila with relatively more legitimate/established historical figures of other Sufi

403
Mehmet Hemdemi Çelebi Solakzade (d.1657), Solakzāde Tarihi, ed. Vahid Çabuk (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı,
1989), 329.; Oddly enough, Feridun Bey (d.991/1581), who put the dream interpretation letter in his compilation,
mistakenly ascribes this interpretation to Akşemseddin , though the latter died almost fourteen years before the
Otluk beli battle. One explanation for such an obvious mistake might be the lack of major Sufi figures around
Mehmed II. Akşemseddin almost exclusively appears in all of the mystical experience narratives about Mehmed II.
Feridun Bey (d.1583), Mecmūa-ı Münşeāt al-Selātīn (vol. I) (Istanbul, 1858), 282.
404
Şen, “The Dream of a 17th Century Ottoman Intellectual: Veysi and his Habname,” 3.
405
Şen traces back the earliest example of this documentation to the eighteenth century, to a letter of certain
Mehmed Edhemzade of Niğbolu who is announcing the conquests of various castles in Balkans. Ibid.
406
TSA, E.5862 These remarks prove that the Ottoman expansion to the East in the sixteenth century is by no means
a coincidence, or a reaction/defensive action against the encroachment of the Mamluks or Iranian polities, but a
product of decades -long planning.
107
silsilas, Habib-i Karamani was trying to present his own silsila as less threatening to the Ottoman
polity in Istanbul.

Habib-i Karamani’s Mystical Experiences

The nature and the content of the mystical experience, however, change in the rest of the letter.
The messages are communicated by different means than dreams. And the focus shifts to internal
politics, in other words to delicate matters, considering that it was written by a member of a Sufi
silsila under suspicion to a Sultan who is extremely jealous of his rule. The rest is as follows;

And also an unveiling occurred from the direction of the spiritual axis of the time.
(I saw that) all of the sufis and the souls of the deceased saints had gathered in
Iznik. The sultan emerged from the sea holding the hand of Cem Sultan and said;
Oh friends of God, I entrust Cem Çelebi to you. 407 Moreover in an auspicious
moment the Prophet Muhammad gave me the glad tidings that my Sultan will rule
for seventy years, with the help of the Exalted God. My sultan knows that these
dreams have outer and inner meanings. And they refer to past, present and future.
And they are the result of certain actions. They are supposed to be interpreted
both exoterically and esoterically. If interpreted, it would be speaking too much
and revealing the secret. 408

In this part of the letter, dreams are replaced by two different, perhaps more elusive mystical
experiences; an unveiling and a good omen from the prophetic secret in the world of spirits. An
unveiling, a lifting of the things that curtain the world of the unseen, comes to the Sufi as he
polishes his heart with invocation and recitation of the Qur’an. 409 It is attainable by one who has
reached a certain stage on the path he has taken. Furthermore, seeing the sea in the dream, as
Habib-i Karamani did, indicates that the Sufi has reached the last step in his journey and is
capable of kashf. 410 Both the nature and the content of this experience imply a claim of mystical
authority on the part of our author. A confirmation of this claim comes at the end of the letter as
Habib-i Karamani tells the Sultan that although he could provide more interpretation of these
dreams and experiences he would not do so, in order to keep the letter short and the secret safe.

Considering the content of this part, it is logical for Habib-i Karamani to change the way in
which he communicates his messages. Up until to this point, the messages conveyed in the letter
are less daring in terms of their subject matter. In this section, however Habib-i Karamani
Halveti deals with a political controversy. By stating that Mehmed II has left or should leave the
fate of Prince Cem in the hands of the Sufis, he claims a position for himself and the other Sufis
407
Literally; “I leave Cem Çelebi before your skirts.”
408
TSA, E.6451
409
William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, 1989, 225.; Süleyman Uludağ, “Keşf,” in Turkiye Diyanet
Vakfi İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 25 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989),
314.
410
See the Tabirname of Shaykh Kürd Muhammed Efendi el-Halveti (d.1587), in Tatçı and Çeltik, Türk
Edebiyatından Tasavvufi Rüya Tabirnameleri: Kürd Muhammed el-Halveti, Niyazi-i Mısri el-Halveti, Karabaş-ı
Veli el-Halveti, Yiğitbaşı Ahmed Marmaravi el-Halveti, 11.
108
right at the heart of the politics of the day. At this point, Habib-i Karamani Halveti, with his Sufi
identity, almost blatantly steps out of the boundaries Mehmed II had envisioned for the Sufi
orders.

In the face of an upcoming dynastic struggle, Habib-i Karamani chose to make a safe bet by
allying himself with the candidate more favored for the throne. The reason why he had his
disciple sign the letter instead of himself is not quite clear, however. His proximity to Prince
Bayezid might have caused him to refrain from openly becoming a turncoat. Perhaps he tried to
play on both sides or had to do so in order to guarantee the future of his order. Alternatively, he
may have been too august or venerable to engage in a prophecy pertaining to daily politics.
Whatever the reason, the fact that Bayezid, once he became Sultan, did not support Habib-i
Karamani clearly indicates that he was, or later became aware, of Habib-i Karamani’s last minute
political move.

Çelebi Halife, Shaykh Vefa and the Third Challenge of the Zeyniye

The earliest written source on Çelebi Halife’s involvement in the dynastic struggle, the Terceme-
i Nefehāt of Lami‘i (d.938/1532) was penned almost forty years after the events took place.
However, it relies on the report of a certain Tacizade Cafer Çelebi (d.920/1515), a military judge
early in the sixteenth century. Tacizade Cafer Çelebi was the son of Taci Bey (Taceddin İbrahim
d.890/1485-6), the treasurer of Bayezid’s princely court in Amasya. 411 Taci Bey, as reported by
his son, was an eye-witness to the developments of the period, since he served as interlocutor
between Bayezid and Çelebi Halife (d.899/1494), one of the Halveti shaykhs residing in
Amasya.

According to this account, in the early days of April 886/1481, possibly upon hearing news of his
father’s passing over the Bosphorus, Bayezid hands three thousand silver coins to Taci Bey and
orders him to give them to Çelebi Halife. “Let him feed his dervishes with these coins,” says
Bayezid, and he adds “I have a wish and if he (Çelebi Halife) would be so kind as to be
concerned with it, I hope that my wish may be realized.” When Taci Bey attempts to inquire
about Bayezid’s wish, the latter does not reveal it and argues that Çelebi Halife would discover it
himself. Upon receiving the money, Çelebi Halife asks about Bayezid’s wish. Taci Bey gives the
answer Bayezid gave him. It would be good if he had described his wishes, Çelebi Halife
grumbles. The following day Çelebi Halife invites Taci Bey to his lodge and reveals Bayezid’s
wish to be the destruction of grand vizier Karamani Mehmed Pasha (d.886/1481). “Mehmed
Pasha carries a wafq (a square talisman) in his turban which fends off all [negative] celestial
incidents (kaza) and Shaykh Vefa has drawn an impenetrable protective circle around him” adds
Çelebi Halife. Despite this obstacle, Çelebi Halife gives “the good news” that Bayezid’s wish
will be realized. Yet he asks the anguished prince to wait for thirty three days till a colossal event
happens.

411
Taci Bey’s name appears in the expense account of Prince Bayezid dated 1476; TSA, D. 7591
109
When this news was brought to Bayezid, his face bashfully turns red at what Çelebi Halife had
said; “I swear to God, I would not wish for somebody’s destruction without a reason but this
oppressor [Mehmed Pasha], espousing the cause of my brother Cem and desiring my father’s
scorn for me, kept maliciously reporting on me to my father.” Bayezid, impressed by Çelebi
Halife’s accurate prognostication, states that another shaykh, Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi, also knew
about his intention for a while and adds, “I wonder what would that colossal event be?” In fact
thirty three days later, on 8 Rebiulevvel 886/12 May 1481 a messenger brings the news of the
sultan’s death and invites Bayezid to succeed to the throne. On the way to Istanbul and exactly
on the thirty ninth day following Çelebi Halife’s prophecy, the news of Mehmed Pasha’s murder
reaches Bayezid.

According to Tacizade Cafer Çelebi, the original source of this story, this incident was verified
and clarified by Karamani Mehmed Pasha’s son, though unknowingly. In a conversation between
Mehmed Pasha’s son and Tacizade Cafer Çelebi, the former mentions a wafq worn by his father.
He tells Tacizade that the writings on the wafq were accidentally rubbed off because of Mehmed
Pasha’s excessive perspiration while he was under the stress of dealing with the situation
following the Sultan’s death. Mehmed Pasha sends his wafq to Shaykh Vefa for repair, thus
lifting the protection it provided. As his son relates, Mehmed Pasha was murdered on the same
day. Apparently Mehmed Pasha’s son relates this anecdote as a sign of Shaykh Vefa’s mystical
powers, but obviously our narrator Cafer Çelebi took it as evidence for Çelebi Halife’s prowess.

Taşköprüzade’s Twist

Taşköprüzade most probably heard this story when he was residing in Amasya because of his
father’s teaching position at the Hüseyniye Medresesi. He narrates the feat of Çelebi Halife with
more detail and a special reference to a political controversy of the time. 412 In his work, no
exchange of money is mentioned and Çelebi Halife acts for pious reasons. He appears
halfhearted in reacting to Bayezid’s plea at first. Later on, he cannot resist Bayezid’s dogged
insistence and enters into the world of the unseen, only to see that the shaykhs of Karaman are
siding with Prince Cem. These Sufis return Çelebi Halife’s attempts to sway them by throwing
fires at him. One of these fires hits Çelebi Halife’s daughter and a few days later these visions in
the unseen world materialize in the real world when the unfortunate girl dies. Despite the lack of
success in this initial attempt, upon Bayezid’s strong insistence, Çelebi Halife once again finds
himself in the world of the unseen. This time, the Karamani shaykhs inquire about Çelebi
Halife’s motives and in return Çelebi Halife engages in a polemic by arguing that Karamani
Mehmed Pasha had abolished Muslim pious foundations and confiscated their properties for the
royal treasury. Persuaded by this answer, the Karamani shaykhs, with the notable exception of
Shaykh Vefa, withdraw their support from Karamani Mehmed Pasha, thus also from Cem. Then
Çelebi Halife notices a protective circle drawn by Shaykh Vefa around Karamani Mehmed
Pasha. He tells Bayezid that he penetrated this circle with great effort and asks him to wait for
thirty three days. The rest of the story is the same as Lami‘i’s account.

412
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 268-269.
110
Taşköprüzade, perhaps for the sake of authenticating his story, reports an intriguing anecdote
from a relative of Çelebi Halife. This relative claims that at the time of Çelebi Halife’s attempts
at penetrating the aforementioned protective circle, various forms of calamities hit forty people
with the name Mehmed in the city of Amasya. Among these were the narrator himself, who
reportedly fell off a tree. Taşköprüzade could have mentioned this anecdote to point out the
power of Çelebi Halife’s piercing curse. However, the emphasis on the name “Mehmed” in the
anecdote might also be taken as an allusion to Çelebi Halife’s role in the death of Mehmed the
Conqueror, instead of or along with the murder of Karamani Mehmed Pasha. Assuming that
there was such an allusion, curiously enough, it was toned down or covered up by some of the
historians and Halveti hagiographers of later decades. For instance, the earliest Halveti
hagiographer, Yusuf b. Yakub, does not mention the calamities that hit the “Mehmeds of
Amasya” and when talking about the scheming grand vizier he replaces the name “Mehmed”
with “Ahmed” 413. Similarly in the Kunh al-Ahbār of the celebrated sixteenth century historian
Mustafa Ali (d.1008/1600), Karamani Mehmed Pasha is executed before the death of Mehmed
the Conqueror, as the his wafq/talisman breaks because of excessive perspiration while he is
organizing the circumcision ceremony of the princes. 414

Conclusion

The story of Çelebi Halife’s aid to Bayezid in succeeding to the throne is not the simple
hagiographical account of a miraculous deed. It is the foundational story of Halvetiye in the
413
Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf ve Tarīkatnāme-i Pīrān ve Meşāyih-i Tarīkat-ı ‘Aliyye-i Halvetiye
(Istanbul, 1874), 19.
414
Mustafa Ali (d.1600) , Kunh al-Ahbār (C. II: Fatih Sultan Mehmed Devri, 1451-1481), trans. M. Hüdai Şentürk
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003), 247. Certain modern authors take such allusions and omissions to be
part of the “circumstantial evidences” of a Halveti conspiracy against the sultan and conclude that Halveti dervishes
were somehow involved in the poisoning Mehmed II. (Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 404-405.;
Hans Joachim Kissling, “Aus der Geschicte des Chalvetijje-Ordens,” in Dissertationes Orientales et Balcanicae
Collectae I: Das Derwischtum (München: Trofenik, 1986), 250-251.; Martin, “A Short History of the Khalwati
Order of Dervishes,” 282.) However, this argumentation is not quite convincing. First, none of the contemporary
sources –Ottoman, Western or Egyptian mention poisoning as the reason behind the Sultan’s death. Even
Taşköprüzade himself argues that Mehmed the Conqueror died because of incorrect medical treatment, for which he
blames Karamani Mehmed Pasha. Also, the three thousand silver coins in question are an insignificant amount of
money for poisoning the most powerful monarch of the fifteenth century. And lastly, reaching such conclusions
would be an anachronistic overstatement of Halveti influence and power. Halveti dervishes were still on the margins
of the main power structure of the Ottoman polity. A marginalized Halveti shaykh would not be able to achieve
what the Venetian Republic, despite all its power and connections, had been trying to do for a decade. (V. I
Lamanskii, Secrets d'État De Venise; Documents, Extraits, Notices, Et Études Servant À Éclaircir Les Rapports De
La Seigneurie Avec Les Grecs, Les Slaves, Et La Porte Ottomane À La Fin Du XVe Et Au XVIe, vol. 1 (New York:
B. Franklin, 1968), 25.; Babinger, “Yakup Paşa: Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Özel Tabibi Gaeta'lı Jacopo Usta'nın
Hayatı, Akibeti,” [Link] allusions, at best, suggest the existence of a rumor in various Istanbulite circles of the
time. In fact, Aşıkpaşazade’s couplet attached to the description of the events surrounding Mehmed II’s death,
which actually attempts to negate such a rumor, points out its existence. (Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502),
“Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 249.) The abovementioned changes in the accounts of Yusuf b. Yakub and Mustafa Ali, if
they are not simple mistakes, should too be understood in the same manner; as an attempt to cover up a rumor, not
as the report of an actual deed. In conclusion, such allusions give hints about the Halvetiyye and its perception from
the sixteenth century onwards rather than factual information on their history in the period under study.
111
Ottoman core lands. It depicts the last phase of the Ottomanization of Halvetiye. This story, at
the time of its inception, was more about the triumph of one Sufi order over another than of an
Ottoman prince over his brother. What was at stake, more than Bayezid’s political career, was
the future of the Halvetiye in the Ottoman lands. The Halvetis for almost a century struggled to
be accepted by the Ottoman elite, which would guarantee the future of their order in the brave
new world of the “Rum.” The most intractable obstacle in their way was the Zeyniye Sufi order,
which jealously guarded its prestige among the Ottoman elite. So in the late fifteenth century,
when this story was being circulated in the lodges, gatherings and mosques of Istanbul, it was
possibly being offered as an answer to the question about the sudden appearance of Halveti
dervishes in Istanbul. Analogous to the Ottoman dynasty, these Sufi orders felt the need to
explain their claim to Istanbul. 415 The Halvetis, by relating the feat of Çelebi Halife, declared
that they deserved to be part of the new imperial center that was in the making.

Moreover, although the story was embellished with supernatural elements, its core conceals a
significant historical truth about the establishment of Halvetiye in the Ottoman lands. For
instance Çelebi Halife’s mastery in breaking the powerful protection of the wafq drawn by
Shaykh Vefa was probably told in the Sufi circles of Istanbul and Amasya as a proof of Çelebi
Halife’s spiritual vigor and thus his worth as a Sufi master. In this way, Çelebi Halife, whose
initiatic chain was rather unknown and less prestigious than that of Shaykh Vefa, was able to
establish his Sufi order in Istanbul thanks to his reputation for the mastery of the occult
[Link] mastery of an occult science, which could prove practical for the urban elite, was
one of the ways in which a recently urbanized Sufi order, Halvetiye, engaged in the competition
with the more urban Sufi orders, which had an extensive following among the urban elite.
Halvetiye, in this way, demonstrated the adaptability of its message according to the needs of
new audiences, or in this case, to new political configurations.

This story also narrates the survival of the order in the face of the final and the most powerful
challenge of the rival Zeyniye order. This was the third Zeyni challenge the Halvetis of the
fifteenth century faced. The Zeynis were able to preserve their ascendancy among the Ottoman
elite in the first two confrontations. The final clash between the two orders came in the spring of
886/1481 when they supported the opposite candidates for the Ottoman throne. 416

Contrary to their self-presentation, these orders were neither the decisive factors in the Ottoman
succession struggle of 886/1481, nor were they completely irrelevant to its outcome. The
approach of modern scholarship to the extent of the role of Çelebi Halife in these events is
twofold. Certain historians dismiss the account of Çelebi Halife’s feat as “an ex post facto

415
Perhaps the rise of Ottoman historiography in the late fifteenth century, was just not confined to the histories of
the dynasty. Other groups in the capital too tried to legitimize their presence in the city through oral or written
histories.
416
Neither order ever formed a completely intact political bloc. There were faltering Halvetis, as mentioned above,
as there were wavering Zeyni dervishes. Aşıkpaşazade, despite being the disciple of Abdullatif-i Kudsi, kept
criticizing the most powerful Zeyni backer in the capital, Karamani Mehmed Pasha. Similarly, the successor of the
aforementioned Taceddin-i Karamani at the Bursa Zeyni lodge, namely Hacı Halife-i Kastamoni (d.894/1489)
prided himself on sending one of his disciples to the aid of Prince Bayezid in Amasya. Taşköprüzade Ahmed
İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 204.
112
attempt in order to weave a group’s history into the fabric of the formative periods of Ottoman
history and culture” 417 and argue that the role of the Halvetis was at best slight. Others take it at
its face value and try to explain how the Halvetis did change the course of the Ottoman history
by inventing conspiracies. By introducing other Sufi characters into the story and exposing
political/religious parties, I have tried to argue that although carrying political overtones, Çelebi
Halife’s account is actually about the struggle between an established Sufi order and an
upcoming one over their future on the socio-religious scene of the nascent Ottoman capital.

However, what happened in Amasya in the winter of 1481 did not stay there. The full
establishment of the Halvetiye in the Ottoman core lands (Istanbul, Bursa and Edirne) was never
a smooth process. The repercussions of the Halveti feat in 886/1481 continued on for almost a
century. The Halvetiye order bifurcated into Rumi and Karamani branches according to the
respective membership of their initiators, Çelebi Halife and Habib-i Karamani to different
political networks in 886/1481. Gradually the political differences between two branches
translated into divergences in their approaches to major Halveti practices and competing Sufi
orders, among them the Zeyniye and the Nakşibendiye. And as the Halvetiye increasingly
became an integral part of the socio-religious scene in Istanbul, it came to be directly influenced
by the vicissitudes of imperial factional politics that were considerably shaped by competing
regionalist networks. In other words, Çelebi Halife’s feud with the “Karamani shaykhs” as an
Amasyan shaykh in the world of the unseen was pursued by him and his disciples in the Ottoman
imperial setting in the ensuing decades of the sixteenth century.

417
Curry, “The Intersection of Past and Present in the Genesi of an Ottoman Sufi Order: The Life of Cemal el-
Halveti (d.900/1494 or 905/1499),” 3. Curry argues against this point and concludes that Çelebi Halife was actually
involved in these events.
113
Chapter Four:
The Ottoman Halvetiye: A Sibling Rivalry between Two Dynastic Struggles (886/1481-
969/1561)

Introduction: Who are the Rumi and Karamani Shaykhs?

You cannot find a single decent friend among the Karamanis

Even their shaykhs are impudent and importunate rogues
Karamanis promise, assure and guarantee
Take an oath and later deny all
Their rulers, judges, professors and shaykhs
All of them are preoccupied with deception and trickery
If you boil us together in a cauldron
They would refuse to be mixed with us
If you are a believer, let us be friends, you say
And they answer: I am the oppressor of believers
Especially if you are an Ottoman
They turn even more tyrannical
Arrogant, presumptuous inept they are
That is why God the Wrathful is continuously ravaging them 418

These are the words of Aşıkpaşazade, the fifteenth century Amasyan dervish/chronicler in the
Ottoman Empire, about the Karamanis in general and their shaykhs in particular. The
unflattering content of the poem is because of Aşıkpaşazade’s Rumi identity. What these
identities (Karamani versus Rumi) meant in the Ottoman world in the period from Halvetiye’s
first move to Istanbul in 886/1481 to the composition of the first Halveti hagiography around
981/1581 is the subject of this chapter. Part of the answer to this question lies a bit in the life and
chronicle of Aşıkpaşazade.

Aşıkpaşazade was born in the Elvan Çelebi lodge in the environs of Amasya and belonged to a
prestigious Sufi family dating back to Baba İlyas-ı Rumi.419 This family was the oldest and the
most famous shaykhly family in the province of Rum. As a member of the Baba İlyas family,
Aşıkpaşazade must have been welcomed by the Ottomans when he decided to join the forces of
Çelebi Mehmed I in his fight against his brother Musa Çelebi in 816/1413. 420 However, his
illness forced him to stay behind the army at the house of Yahşi Fakih, in Geyve in north central
Anatolia. Aşıkpaşazade there found a copy of Yahşi Fakih’s chronicle, the only narrative source
to describe the origins and the first hundred years of the Ottoman dynasty. In 825/1422,

418
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 151.
419
The main source for Aşıkpaşazade’s life is his chronicle. The narrative above therefore deals with what
Aşıkpaşazade chose to tell us about his life. However, the coexistence of different writing styles in this chronicle
and the differences between the extant copies is a matter of a debate in terms of the authenticity of certain parts of
the work. This debate is of course closely related to the dates of Aşıkpaşazade’s birth and death. For the discussion
see İnalcık, “How to Read Ashık Pashazade's History.”
420
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 80.
114
Aşıkpaşazade once again set out to join an Ottoman expedition, this time on the side of Murad II
(824/1412-848/1444 and 850/1446-855/1451) against his uncle Düzmece Mustafa. A few years
later, one finds Aşıkpaşazade at the lodge of Sadreddin-i Konevi being initiated to the Zeyniye
Sufi order by the aforementioned Abdüllatif-i Kudsi, before his pilgrimage in 840/1437. Upon
his return, Aşıkpaşazade settled in the Balkan town of Üsküp (modern day Skopje) under the
patronage of a frontier lord. From this date until the conquest of Istanbul in 857/1453,
Aşıkpaşazade participated in numerous wars and expeditions, which he narrates in detail in his
chronicle. After the conquest, Aşıkpaşazade turned a former Byzantine building in Istanbul into a
Sufi lodge and stayed in it until his death circa 907-8/1502. 421

Aşıkpaşazade began composing his work in 881/1476 at the age of eighty three. 422 Yet it would
be wrong to imagine him sitting down by himself through long Istanbul evenings trying to write
down what he could remember. He probably completed his work through dictation and with the
help of his disciples’ editing, led by his son-in-law, the famous Zeyni shaykh, Seyyid Velayet.
Aşıkpaşazade’s history is among the sources of a more systematized and comprehensive
biographical compendia and chronicles produced in the sixteenth century. His work is the first
Ottoman narrative that contains a section on the Sufis of Ottoman lands and Anatolia, the brevity
of which is in inverse proportion to its significance for the early history of the Sufi orders in the
fifteenth century Otttoman Empire.

What could have motivated Aşıkpaşazade to list the dervishes of Ottoman Empire? His Sufi
background is the first explanation that comes to mind. But the immediate historical context does
also account for Aşıkpaşazade’s interest in the Sufi orders. Following the enthronement of
Bayezid in 886/1481, the Ottoman capital opened its gates to all Sufi orders. The dervishes of
different, and frequently competing Sufi orders became increasingly visible in Istanbul’s socio-
religious scene. Aşıkpaşazade was likely asked at various gatherings about the authenticity of
claims made by these Sufi orders. His work was in response to a demand on the part of the
Ottoman educated elite who did not know much about the Sufi orders, except for Zeyniye which
dominated the Sufi scene until 886/1481.

In Bayezid II’s Istanbul, unlike that of his father Mehmed II, there was a great diversity in terms
of the Sufi orders operating in the socio-religious domain. In terms of their affliation with
political networks these orders were organized around two camps, which could suitably be
named after their affliation to rival political geographies in Anatolia as Rumi and Karamani.
Rumi camp was composed of the Rumi Halvetiye and Bayramiya, the shaykhs of whom (Çelebi
Halife and Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi) supported Bayezid’s bid for the throne in 886/1481 from his
base in the Rum region. The Zeyniye and Karamani Halvetiye fell into the Karamani camp,
which included of the representatives of the ancien regime of Mehmed II, a considerable
segment of the ulema and the Karamani population of Istanbul, who were forcibly settled there
after 870/1465. The Karamani camp, as seen above, supported Prince Cem, favorite son of
Mehmed II who was based in the Karaman region during the dynastic struggle of 886/1481.

421
The date of Aşıkpaşazade’s death is again debated among historians, but as Inalcik clearly illustrates, he appears
to have been alive as late as this date. İnalcık, “How to Read Ashık Pashazade's History,” 31.
422
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 80.
115
After Bayezid’s succession to the throne, the Zeyniye came to be strongly challenged by the
Rumi Halvetiye and the Bayramiya thanks to the backing of Bayezid II and his court, most of
whom had close relations with the city of Amasya and the larger Rum region. The Karamani
Halvetiye, founded by Habib-i Karamani, however, had to wait until the end of Bayezid’s reign
to appear on Istanbul’s socio-religious scene.

Aşıkpaşazade’s work began to be composed around the time of the accession of Bayezid II, after
which the competition between two Sufi/political camps was carried from Anatolia to Istanbul.
And Aşıkpaşazade, although he was Zeyni by initiation, was an idiosyncratic shaykh in the sense
that he supported the Rumi camp. His sympathetic approach to Alaeddin-i Halveti is a good
example. When Alaeddin-i Halveti appeared in Istanbul, the Zeynis of Istanbul provoked
Mehmed II into “kindly” requesting the newcomer Halveti shaykh to leave Istanbul.
Aşıkpaşazade while employing a sympathetic language to describe Alaeddin-i Halveti in his
work, he does not mention Taceddin İbrahim among the shaykhs of the period. Another example
is Aşıkpaşazade’s attitude toward Karamani Mehmed Pasha, the leader of the Karamani camp in
the dynastic struggle following Mehmed II’s death. While the Zeynis supported Karamani
Mehmed Pasha, Aşıkpaşazade uses very harsh words in discussing the vizier’s policies. 423
Aşıkpaşazade’s sympathy for the Halvetis and revulsion for Karamani Mehmed Pasha, along
with his strong words about the Karamanishaykhs at the beginning of this chapter shows how
powerful his regional affiliation was. His Rumi background was the reason he acted differently
from the rest of the contemporary Zeyni shaykhs. He simply could not turn his back on the
Halvetiye or Bayezid who were both the products of his hometown Amasya.

In sum, Aşıkpaşazade’s case demonstrates that in this period it is not easy to categorize the
Ottoman shaykhs as Karamani or Rumi according to their places of birth or Sufi order affiliation.
The main determinant categorizing them in this study is rather their political affiliation which
almost exclusively overlaps with the regional identities. Karamani shaykhs were the Sufis
affiliated to the orders that were active in the Karaman region or had better relations with the
orders originating in that region. Habib-i Karamani’s branch is named as Karamani, not because
of the sobriquet of its founder but for the fact that it is the only Halvetiye branch that was active
in Karaman region and maintained good relations with the Zeyniye order. Similarly, the branch
of Halvetiye founded by Çelebi Halife could be called Rumi because it had more powerful
political and social connections to the Rum region than had the Karamani Halvetiye, despite the
fact that its founder Çelebi Halife was in fact a native of Aksaray, an important town in
Karaman. 424 Mostly through these regional identities, the Sufi orders of Anatolia in the fifteenth
century associated themselves with different Ottoman imperial factions, hence the agency of the
Anatolian cities, especially Amasya in the Ottomanization of the Sufi orders.
423
Aşıkpaşazade’s harsh words for him can be attributed to political opportunism as he wrote during the time of
Bayezid II, the archenemy of Karamani Mehmed Pasha. But I believe in Aşıkpaşazade’s genuineness, especially in
the context of Karamani Mehmed’s land reform that alienated the Sufi orders. Otherwise it would be too simplistic
to explain Aşıkpaşazade’s sympathy for Bayezid II with patronage relations.
424
Most likely the dervishes of both branches called themselves simply Halvetis. For example, see Seyyidi Halveti’s
letter below. However, when writing the history of these orders, both the Ottoman and modern studies name these
branches after their founders. The Rumi branch is usually called “Cemali”, after the first name of its founder Çelebi
Halife.
116
Bayezid II (886/1481-918/1512) and the Friendly Years

The Rumi branch of the Halvetiye order, which was founded by Çelebi Halife, was among the
newly arriving Sufi orders after the accession of Bayezid (hereafter Bayezid II). Along with
Çelebi Halife arrived a significant group of Amasyan artists, scholars, statesmen and Sufis came
to Istanbul. Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi, the Müeyyedzade brothers (Abdurrahman and Abdürrahim,
sons of the aforementioned Müeyyed family), Shaykh Hamdullah and his cousins (sons and
nephews of Mehmed Buhari, the administrator of the aforementioned Çilehane) were some of the
Amasyans who would later became very prominent academic, religious and artistic personalities
in the Ottoman history. The most influential son of Amasya who came to Istanbul in this period
was of course Bayezid himself. Bayezid spent twenty seven years in Amasya, covering the
period of his childhood, adolescent years and the formative part of adulthood. Bayezid
immediately had a lodge built for Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi on one of the hills overlooking the Golden
Horn. He also asked his confidant (later Grand vizier) Koca Mustafa Pasha (d.918/1512) to
endow a former Byzantine nunnery in the southeast of Istanbul for the arriving Çelebi Halife and
his dervishes. Koca Mustafa Pasha was among the retinue of Bayezid in Amasya and met his
shaykh Çelebi Halife there. The nunnery, which became a lodge named after Koca Mustafa
Pasha in the coming centuries, became one of the major Halveti lodges, if not the most
influential one in the whole empire. 425 Koca Mustafa Pasha Lodge carries the characteristics of
the Çilehane of Amasya in the sense that it included a high number of cells for ascetic retreat. 426
The manifestation of the desire to spread Halvetiye in the architecture of Sufi lodges, which had
its earliest example in the Çilehane, was continued in the imperial capital.

During his reign, Bayezid and his Amasyan entourage visited the lodges of Çelebi Halife and
Muhyiddin-i Iskilibi regularly. Both shaykhs, however, sought acceptance among the educated
elite of Istanbul. Çelebi Halife frequented the Sahn-ı Semaniye Medresesi where the future
Ottoman elite was being trained. He produced scholarly works in Arabic, the audience for which
could only be the ulema of the city. To a certain extent he was successful in recruiting the ulema,
thanks to his skills and the royal support by Bayezid II and the patronage of the grand vizier
Koca Mustafa Pasha. Following the plague of early 1490’s, Bayezid II asked Çelebi Halife to
pray for the Istanbulites in Mecca. Çelebi Halife accepted Bayezid II plea and left Istanbul. On

425
It is relatively hard to talk about the Halvetiye order as centralized organization because of its tendency to expand
through the establishment of sub-branches. But at this point in history, their chain of initiation was definitely set and
the practices and doctrines of the order were relatively standardized. Although the Halvetiye never had a powerful
central lodge as the Mevleviye or Bektaşiye orders did, it still had the Sufi lodge in Koca Mustafa Pasha, where
some of the elders of the order were buried. This Sufi lodge served as the center for the Halveti dervishes in the core
lands of the empire. For instance, when Süleyman I’s mother Hafise Hatun (d.940/1534) built a Sufi lodge in
Manisa, she requested a shaykh from the head shaykh residing in Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge. The shaykh that was
sent to Manisa was later called back to Istanbul to succeed his master in the central lodge. Yusuf b. Yakub (d.
ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf, 48-49.
426
There were forty cells in the Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge. Küçükdağ, II. Bayezid, Yavuz ve Kanuni Devirlerinde
Cemali Ailesi, 39.; Klaus Kreiser, Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, and Paul Dumont, “Medresen und
Derwischkonvente in Istanbul: Quantitative
Aspekte,” in Economies et societes dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe- debut du XXe siècle) (Paris, 1983), 114.
117
his way to Macca, in 899/1494 Çelebi Halife passed away in Tabuk, in Syria, where he was
buried.

Çelebi Halife was replaced by Sünbül Sinan Efendi (d. 936/1529), another son of Amasya.
Sünbül Sinan Efendi was initially a madrasa student who looked down on the dervishes of Çelebi
Halife. After repeatedly being invited to the Rumi Halvetiye in his dreams, he finally submitted
to the training hands of Çelebi Halife. After a while, Çelebi Halife sent Sünbül Sinan to Egypt to
establish the order there. On his last journey to Mecca, Çelebi Halife asked Sünbül Sinan to meet
him in the holy lands. Sünbül Sinan learned of the death and the last will of his shaykh in Egypt.
In his will, Çelebi Halife asked Sünbül Sinan to succeed to his post in Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge
and marry his daughter Safiye Hatun ([Link].) Sünbül Efendi accepted and successfully
served as the shaykh of the Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge, especially in the second half of his tenure
when the Rumi Halvetiye was once more challenged by the political authority.

Selim I (918/1512-926/1520) and the Grim Years

With the deaths of Bayezid II and his grand vizier Koca Mustafa Pasha in 918/1512, the Halvetis
were left unprotected. Their support for Prince Ahmed (d. 919/1513) against the future Sultan
Selim I (d. 918/1512-926/1520) did not help their situation either. And the first few decades of
the sixteenth century turned out to be very unpleasant for the Rumi Halveti dervishes.

Pro-Selim faction was composed of Janissaries, a small segment of state dignitaries in Istanbul
and most of the power holders in empire’s Balkan provinces. Prince Ahmed, the most formidable
rival of Selim, also the most favorite son of Bayezid II, however was based in Amasya and
central Anatolia and supported by almost all of the dignitaries of Bayezid’s court, who also
happened to have close connections to Amasya. Among the Sufi orders, Rumi Halvetiye because
of its affiliation with Amasya and Bayezid II, was especially Pro-Ahmed. Selim I was aware of
Rumi Halvetiye’s support behind Prince Ahmed. Upon becoming sultan, Selim I executed Rumi
Halvetiye’s most powerful supporter Koca Mustafa Pasha and tried to demolish the Halvetiye
lodged named after him. Selim I then went on to crush Prince Ahmed’s faction in both the
capital and the provinces, among them Gümüşlüoğlu Halvetis of Amasya. Their shaykh
Gümüşlüoğlu Mehmed was imprisoned and brought to Istanbul only to get his freedom with the
intercession of another Amasyan, Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi (d.967/1567.) 427

Gümüşlüoğlu Mehmed was accused of supporting the third candidate for the Ottoman throne,
Prince Korkud. Whether this accusation was true or not is not certain, however the real supporter
of Prince Korkud was another Rumi Sufi community; Aşıkpaşazade’s dervishes. By the time
Selim I launched his campaign for the Ottoman throne, Aşıkpaşazade was long dead. However
his successor and son-in-law Seyyid Velayet was the proponent of Prince Korkud’s candidacy.
For instance, one of the copies of Aşıkpaşazade’s chronicle was presented to Prince Korkud. 428

427
İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Onaltıncı Asır Ortalarında Yaşamış Olan Iki Büyük Şahsiyet: Tosyalı Celalzade
Mustafa ve Salih Çelebiler,” Belleten 22 (1958): 392 n.6. I thank İbrahim Kaya Şahin for bringing this article to my
attention.
428
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 92.
118
Following Prince Korkud’s execution in 919/1513, Selim I insistently invited Seyyid Velayet to
his palace in order to get the shaykh’s blessings. Seyyid Velayet first rejected the invitation and
but later went to visit the sultan only to give him the ‘good news’ that his sultanate will be a
short lived one. 429

Lami‘i’s Criticisms: Echoes of the Zeyniye?

With the lifting of the political protection provided by Bayezid and his Amasyan friends, the
Rumi Halveti dervishes began to be publicly and severely criticized. The most lucid criticism of
the Rumi Halvetis is found in the earliest narrative source relating the vitae of Halveti Shaykhs,
i.e. Lami‘i’s Terceme-i Nefehāt.

“Lami‘i was an Ottoman Turkish poet, prose writer, and thinker of some caliber,” says Günay
Kut Alpay, who initially introduced him to the Anglophone academy. 430 Lami‘i (Mahmud b.
Osman), was born into a distinguished family of artists and bureaucrats in Bursa. His grandfather
Nakkaş Ali is accepted by some as the founder of the school of Ottoman architecture, 431 and his
father Osman Çelebi was Bayezid II’s finance minister. Lami‘i attended the Semaniye
Medresesi and became a student of prominent Ottoman scholars. 432 He also joined the dervishes
of the Nakşibendi shaykh Emir Buhari (d. 922/1516), who had a Sufi lodge near the Semaniye
Medresesi. 433 Following his graduation, Lami‘i served as a professor in an unknown
madrasa. 434 His teaching career must not have lasted too long since he retired with a daily salary
of thirty-five akchas. 435 On retiring, Lami‘i probably settled in his native town and established a
Sufi lodge of his own. He spent his time on training his disciples and literary pursuits until his
death in 938/1532.

Composing Terceme-i Nefehāt was something of a political act for Lami‘i. The work was
presented to Süleyman I on the eve of the sultan’s Belgrade campaign, hence its full original title
Futūh al-Mucāhidīn li Tarwīh al-Kulūb al-Mushāhidīn (The Warriors’ Conquests for the Respite
of the Hearts of the Witnesses). 436 Unlike Lami‘i’s other translations from Persian, all of which
were commissioned, Terceme-i Nefehāt was completed on Lami‘i’s own initiative. In presenting
it to the Sultan, Lami‘i was effectively providing a report on the current situation of the Sufi
orders to the highest political authority of his time. The work may therefore have represented in
part an attempt to guide or influence the political establishment’s attitude toward Sufi orders,
which was extremely important for the Ottoman Sufis, and especially the Halvetis.

429
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 347.
430
Günay Kut, “Lamii Çelebi and his Works,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, no. 2 (1976): 73.
431
Ahmet Ersoy, “Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Tanzimat Period,” Muqarnas 24 (2007):
127.
432
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 580.
433
Ibid., 467., Kut, “Lamii Çelebi and his Works,” 75.
434
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 438.
435
Richard Repp, The Mufti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy, 1st ed.
(London: Ithaca Press for the Board of the Faculty of Oriental Studies Oxford University, 1986), 20.
436
Flemming, “Glimpses of Turkish Saints: Another Look at Lamii and Ottoman Biographers,” 63.
119
Lami‘i’s account includes nine biographies of shaykhs belonging to the Halvetiye order,
beginning with Sadreddin-i Hıyavi and ending with Çelebi Halife. Lami‘i is respectful yet distant
in his narration of the lives of these shaykhs. His sources largely include his own experiences or
the accounts of eyewitnesses. The section following the Halveti biographies is a two-page long
assessment of contemporary Halveti practices. 437 In this piece, Lami‘i starts out with a warning
that it is offensive, narrow-minded and not void of bigotry to vilify the Halvetiye path. He goes
on to add that the denial of the way of the shaykhs is a justification for divine wrath. Lami‘i
admits there are times when Halveti shaykhs acted out of negligence or worldly desires (tehavün
ve meyl-i dünya) and some of their acts fell outside the boundaries of Islamic law. However he
never explicitly mentions these acts in his section on the biographies, which shows that Lami‘i
had filtered a portion of the oral tradition when composing his work. To him, although it was
permissible to criticize these acts, one should refrain from doing so because such acts were
tolerable when committed by those spending much of their time in prayer or practicing ascetic
discipline. 438 Even if some shaykhs might have denounced each other (nefy eylemek), their
reasons for doing so are unbeknown to all. It is not appropriate for dervishes to emulate their
shaykhs in this matter.

The last few sentences of Lami‘i’s introduction are especially meant to control the behavior of
his disciples in their interactions with Halvetis. It is also geared toward legitimizing his discourse
later on. Lami‘i, in typical fashion when it comes to this genre, does not extend such restraint and
tolerance to the followers of those shaykhs. 439 And what started out as a detached assessment
turns into a severe criticism as Lami‘i condemns many contemporary Halveti practices. 440

“However it is permissible to say that in our times the Sufi path has been altered
and ascetic practice has degenerated everywhere. They began to give permission
to train to women and boys for the sake of increasing the number of their
followers. They allow women into their ascetic retreats. They bring innovations to
their gatherings. They give more attention to being popular. They justify their acts
by citing the acts and sayings of other shaykhs and respectable figures as
evidences…..They confuse dance, singing, carnal passions and pleasures with
sema, spiritual states and pleasures, and the love of God. They don’t have any
idea about what sema is or understand its conditions. Sema has to be free from the
presences of the commoners, young men and the beardless boys. All of these are
the sources of sedition (fitne) in the gatherings. [The Prophet says that] fitne is
asleep and may God curse whoever wakes it up. People of sema, should have
dead egos (nefsi mürde) and alive hearts (kulubu zinde.) One should avoid making
a habit out of it…. [Real] friends of God hid themselves, while pretenders
437
Mustafa Kara, in his compilation of Sufi texts representing each order, chose to include this piece under the
heading of Halvetiye. His choice of this piece from a vast amount of Halveti literature is an interesting coincidence.
Kara is a modern author who has written extensively on Bursan Sufis. He might even be called a “modern Lami‘i”
in this sense. Mustafa Kara, Metinlerle Osmanlılarda Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar (Bursa: Sır Yayıncılık, 2004).
438
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 581.
439
Lami‘i approaches Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli and his contemporary followers in the same manner. Ibid., 691. One finds
similar argumentation in Aşıkpaşazade’s work too. Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502), “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān,” 238.
440
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 581-582.
120
 increasingly took the scene. They claim to be shaykhs and to train disciples. They
act as if they could lead disciples to perfection, though they themselves are not
trained enough. Without having attained a firm belief [in God] (yakin), they
deceive people with lies and confused habits. May God protect us from being
associated with these people. They abandoned this world [in outward appearance],
but [only] for the sake of wordly gain and chose form over the meaning. Because
our purpose in this compendium is not disparaging the pretenders, let us turn to
biographies of real shaykhs. 441

Lami‘i’s criticisms are partly due to his belonging to the Nakşibendiye Sufi order, which was in
competition with Halvetiye. 442 However, the urban environment in which Lami‘i was raised also
played a significant role in his distaste for Halveti ways and even his joining the Nakşibendiye
Sufi order. 443 When Lami‘i was a child, it was the Zeyniye order that dominated the urban Sufi
scene in Bursa. It might be useful here to briefly elaborate on the relationship between the
Zeyniye and the Nakşibendiye orders and the story of their respective ascendancy in Bursa.
Western Anatolian town of Bursa had long established itself among the Ottomans as “the city of
scholars” (Muhayyam al-‘Ulemā), which translated into heavy influence for the ulema in the
city’s social and political scenes. 444 And the fifteenth-century Ottoman ulema were extremely
fond of the Zeyniye Sufi order. In the fall of 855/1451, the educated elite of Bursa
enthusiastically welcomed Abdüllatif-i Kudsi (d. 856/1452), the representative and successor of
the founder of the Zeyniye order. 445 Kudsi died the following spring, leaving behind a
considerable Sufi community led by his disciple, Taceddin İbrahim-i Karamani. 446 Taceddin
İbrahim was later replaced by Hacı Halife Kastamoni (894/1489), and upon the latter’s death,
Nasuh-u Tosyevi (circa 923/1518) took over the leadership.

441
On of the targets of these attacks could be Sünbül Sinan. Lami‘i ’s words about giving permission to train to boys
could also refer to Sünbül Efendi. He was a teenager when his shaykh sent him to Egypt to propagate the Halvetiye
path. He could even still have been a teenager when he took over his shaykh’s post in Koca Mustafa Pasha’s
[Link] Yazıcı, “Fetihten sonra İstanbul’daki ilk Halveti Şeyhleri: Çelebi Muhammed Cemaleddin, Sünbül
Sinan ve Merkez Efendi,” Istanbul Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 2 (1956): 97-100.
442
The Ottoman sources are replete with stories of Sufis choosing the Nakşibendiye order as opposed to the Rumi
Halvetiye. In one instance, Abdullah-ı İlahi discredits a Rumi Halveti shaykh by making him appear in the guise of a
priest to his newly initiated disciple. (Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, [Link].) The disciple who related
this story is Gevrelü Uzun Muslihiddin (d. unknown), who later became a Nakşibendi shaykh in Bursa. He died after
forty days of reciting the Quranic chapter of Yasin near the tomb of the aforementioned Karamani Zeyni shaykh
Taceddin İbrahim and was buried adjacent to him. This could be read as important gesture symbolizing the
closeness of Zeynis and the Nakşibendiye order. (Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-
Nu'mānīya, 363.) As Prof. Algar pointed out to me in an e-mail, many of the criticism put forward by Lami‘i Çelebi
are equally reminiscent of Nakşibendi doctrine.
443
The Halvetiye was not welcomed in Bursa for a long time. See the story of Alaeddin-i Halveti in Ibid., 264. and
of Merkez Muslihiddin, the successor of Sünbül Efendi, in Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf, 50-51.
444
Literally meaning “the camp of scholars.” Abdurrahman-ı Bistami (d. 857/1453) Durra al-Tāc al-Rasā’il ve
Gurra Minhāc al-Wasā’il (Nuruosmaniye, nr. 4905.) Cited in İhsan Fazlıoğlu, “Şehir Tarihi Çalışmalarında Yazma
Eserlerden Nasıl İstifade Edilebilir?,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3, no. 6, TALID (2005): 523.
445
Lami‘i notes that Abdüllatif-i Kudsi went into a month long retreat with the ulema of Bursa immediately after
his arrival in the last days of Shaban, 855/1451.; Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 550.
446
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 95.
121
The Zeyniye order was always close to the Nakşibendiye, the order which Lami‘i subsequently
joined. Lami‘i relates two instances when both Abdullah-ı İlahi and Emir Buhari, the founders of
Ottoman Nakşibendiye, displayed respect for Shaykh Vefa, the most prominent Zeyni shaykh of
the second half of the fifteenth century. 447 The eponym of the Nakşibendiye, Hace Bahaeddin
Nakşibend visited the founder of Zeyniye in Herat on his way to the pilgrimage. 448 Similarly
Lami‘i notes the words of another significant Nakşibendi shaykh Muhammed Parsa, praising
Zeyneddin-i Hafi in the biography of the latter. 449 Zeyneddin-i Hafi corresponded with
Muhammed Parsa. When Muhammed Parsa died in Madina in 822/1420, it was Zeyneddin-i
Hafi who had his tombstone made. 450 The close relationship between two orders continued in the
Ottoman core lands (specifically in Bursa and Istanbul.) This relationship was later fostered by
shaykhs who were trained in both orders. Lami‘i is the most prominent example. He had a very
close relationship with the Zeynis thanks to his Bursan upbringing. As a child, his father took
him to the grand shaykh of the Zeyniye in Bursa, where the young Lami‘i kissed the shaykh’s
hand. 451 When in Istanbul for his education, he visited the aforementioned Shaykh Vefa after a
Friday prayer and kissed his hand too. And after returning to Bursa, he developed such a cordial
relationship with another Zeyni shaykh that the shaykh called him son. 452 To conclude, although
he was a Nakşibendi at the time he compiled Terceme-i Nefehāt, Lami‘i’s criticisms can be
regarded as giving voice to the Zeyniye after thirty one years of silence during the reign of
Bayezid II.

The Arrival of an Old Foe: The Karamani Halvetiye in Istanbul

Another Sufi order silent during the reign of Bayezid II was the Karamani Halvetiye, which
originated with Habib-i Karamani. Ottoman sources record nothing about Habib-i Karamani’s
relationship with Bayezid who is famous for his beneficence to his companions in Amasya, both
before and after his accession to the throne. Habib-i Karamani, after falling out with Bayezid II,
went first to Konya towards the end of the 1480’s and then to Amasya, some time before his
death in 902/1496. He intentionally stayed away from Istanbul or perhaps was never allowed to
enter the city. His disciples too kept themselves away from Istanbul till the end of Bayezid’s
reign. His two khalifas, Davud ([Link]) and Cemaleddin İshak (d. 933/1526), remained in
Karaman region during this period. His order is the only Halveti branch that could establish itself
in the Karaman region in the fifteenth century. Perhaps dictated by the political/Sufi geography
in which he operated, Habib-i Karamani maintained good relations with Nakşibendi and Zeyni
shaykhs. He is reported to have been influenced by some of the methods of training and rituals of
both orders. Lami‘i relates that he was a believer in the paths of the Bayramis and the

447
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 465, 559. For the life of Abdullah-ı İlahi, see Hamid Algar,
“Abdullah-ı İlahi,” in Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 1 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm
Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989), 109-110.
448
Algar, “Bahaeddin Nakşibend,” 459.
449
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 547.
450
Öngören, Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı, 19.; Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532), Terceme-i Nefehāt, 433. I thank Prof. Algar for
pointing out this fact.
451
Ibid., 556.
452
Ibid., 563.
122
Nakşibendis, but adds that Habib-i Karamani especially admired the Zeyni way. 453 This method
of training perhaps enabled Habib-i Karamani’s disciples to switch between these orders with
relative ease, as in the case of Kalenderhane İmamı (d.953/1546-47) who later became a dervish
first of the Zeyni Shaykh Vefa and then of the Nakşibendi Emir Buhari. 454

The passing of Bayezid II and the elimination of the Amasyan clique in the capital opened the
gates of Istanbul to Karamani Halvetiye. Selim I’s vizier Piri Mehmed Pasha (d.939/1532-33)
had three lodges built in Istanbul for Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani; in the districts of Zeyrek
(923/1517), Fındıkzade (927/1521) and Sütlüce (before 933/1526.) 455 Piri Mehmed Pasha was
also related to Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani on his father’s side. 456 However Mehmed Pasha’s
attempt to expand the following of Karamani Halvetiye in Istanbul should be attributed also to
reasons beyond family connections. Building three lodges over a span of nine years demonstrates
an attempt by the Karamani camp to effectively counter the challenges of the Rumi camp. Piri
Mehmed Pasha was himself a native of Karaman and built numerous endowments in that region.
One might say that he was fond of the Sufi orders of his native Karaman region, considering the
fact that he made endowments for the Mawlaviya order as well. The Karamani Halvetiye on the
other hand with the help of the political conjuncture and an important connection in Selim I’s
court (Piri Mehmed Pasha,) became able to become part of the socio-religious scene of Istanbul.

The Rumi camp, of course did not welcome the arrival of the Karamani Halvetiye to Istanbul. In
a gathering at the lodge of Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani in Zeyrek, Istanbul, Seyyid Velayet, the
son-in law and successor of Aşıkpaşazade, told the audience, which included Piri Mehmed Pasha
that the Cemalettin İshak’s lodge woud cease to be a Sufi lodge after its shaykh’s death. Seyyid
Velayet’s prognostication came true when Piri Mehmed Pasha turned Cemalettin İshak’s lodge
into a madrasa following the shaykh’s death in 933/1526.

Among the sympathizers of Cemalettin İshak was Taşköprüzade, the author of the Shaqā’iq. 457
Taşköprüzade was near Cemaleddin İshak-ı Karamani on his death bed and asked for advice

453
Ibid., 578.
454
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 551-552.
455
Reşat Öngören, “Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 24 (Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989), 448.
456
Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont et al., “Deux cimetières du quartier de Findikzade à Istanbul,” in Anatolia
Moderna = Yeni Anadolu V: Travaux et Recherches de l'Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul, ed.
Jacques Thobie (Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient, Adrien Maisonneuve, Jean Maisonneuve Successeur, 1994),
267.
457
In his Shaqā'iq, Taşköprüzade neither explicitly states his Sufi affiliation nor singles out a particular shaykh as
his master. Modern authors maintain that Taşköprüzade belonged to the Halvetiye. (For instance see Flemming,
“Glimpses of Turkish Saints: Another Look at Lamii and Ottoman Biographers,” 62.) There is also reasonable
suspicion that he might have been a Zeyni, as he was buried next to a Zeyni shaykh whom he respectfully and
affectionately mentions in his Shaqā'iq. Alternatively, in his Hadā’iq-al-Haqāiq, the earliest Ottoman source to
associate Taşköprüzade with a particular Sufi order, Nevizade Atai argues that Taşköprüzade was a Nakşibendi.
Taşköprüzade, as he admits, frequented the gatherings of Nakşibendi shaykh Mahmud Çelebi (d. 938/1531-32) and
speaks highly of him in his work. This must be the reason why Atai assumed that Taşköprüzade was a Nakşibendi.
Of course, Taşköprüzade’s long biographies of Nakşibendi shaykhs might have strengthened Atai’s conviction that
he was a Nakşibendi. (Nevizade Atai (d.1635), Hadā’iq al-Haqāiq fī Tekmīla al-Shaqāiq, 9.) The three claims do
123
about whom to follow after the shaykh’s death. “Don’t follow the path of the Sufis because there
is no one left to guide on that path, where it is now hard to distinguish tawhid [repetition of the
formula “there is no God but Allah”] from faithlessness (mülhidlik)” said Cemaleddin İshak. He
then added: “If you still are interested in the way of the Sufis, look for the observance of Islamic
law among the traits of your shaykh before anything else. The basis of the Sufi path is observing
the laws and customs (adab) of Islamic law.” 458

The Sufi careers of Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani’s son and Taşköprüzade demonstrate that his
followers obeyed their shaykh’s last will. Taşköprüzade attended the gatherings of the
Nakşibendi shaykh Mahmud Çelebi (d. 938/1531-1532) 459 Similarly Cemalettin İshak’s son
Mehmed Efendi (d.993/1585) eventually became a Nakşibendi shaykh at the Emir Buhari
lodge. 460 The choice of Taşköprüzade and Mehmed Efendi of the Nakşibendiye orders had to do
with the Nakşibendiye’s particular emphasis on observing the shari’a. In sum, Cemaleddin
İshak’s death was a serious blow to the Karamani Halvetiye in Istanbul. His lodge in the Zeyrek
district of Istanbul was turned into a madrasa. Although Cemalettin İshak’s disciples established
lodges in the western Anatolian town of Tire, Konya and Amasya, by the eighteenth century,
only the Fındıkzade lodge survived as a center of the Karamani Halvetiye in the Ottoman core
lands. 461

By itself, there is nothing exceptional in Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani’s advice for the
observance of the shari’a. The dying shaykh could very well have given advice of a general
nature to his disciples. But is it also possible to take this advice as a warning for his disciples to
stay away from the Rumi Halvetiye? In other words, are these words indicative of the rivalry
between the Rumi and Karamani branches of Halvetiye? The textual evidence at hand, i.e.
Taşköprüzade’s biographical dictionary and the first Rumi Halveti hagiography written by Yusuf
b. Yakub in circa 985/1577-78, suggests an affirmative answer to this question.

Taşköprüzade’s treatment of the shaykhs of the Karamani and the Rumi branches of the
Halvetiye in his Shaqā’iq is indicative of his impressions about both. A few words about
Taşköprüzade’s Shaqā’iq are in order for a better understanding of his approach to the Rumi
versus Karamani rivalry. As Repp puts it, Taşköprüzade was “intimately and immediately
connected with the living tradition,” 462 which was closely related to the Rum province. Such a

not necessarily contradict each other; they could in fact be reconciled and explained. I believe that Taşköprüzade
joined the gatherings of various Sufi orders in different phases of his life, but never exclusively devoted himself to
any particular one or defined himself as a dervish. However, his sympathy for the Sufi orders of the Zeyniye,
Nakşibendiye and the Karamani Halvetiye could be explained by these orders’ particular emphasis on the
observation of the Islamic law in their doctrines.
458
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 371.
459
In his entry on Mahmud Çelebi, Taşköprüzade includes a conversation he had with the shaykh about the critical
importance of observing Islamic law in the path of the Sufis. (Ibid., 535.)
460
Baha Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 11 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989), 125.; Küçükdağ, II. Bayezid, Yavuz ve Kanuni
Devirlerinde Cemali Ailesi, 143.
461
Öngören, “Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani.”
462
Repp, The Mufti of Istanbul, 5.
124
connection provided Taşköprüzade with a mine of previously untapped knowledge. His narration
of the life of Abdurrahman-ı Erzincani (d. unknown), who lived in seclusion in the mountainous
areas of Amasya during the time of Bayezid I, is a good example of his access to Amasyan
sources. 463 He also spent considerable time in Amasya as an adolescent accompanying his father
and teacher. Moreover, the additions Taşköprüzade gives in the account of the Rumi Halveti
shaykh Çelebi Halife show that he was receptive to local oral traditions during his stay in
Amasya. Similarly, Taşköprüzade kept in contact with the migrant Rumi community in Istanbul.
When narrating an anecdote between a Sufi and Prince Bayezid in Amasya, he relies on
information provided by the shaykh’s son who migrated to the Eyüp quarter of Istanbul. 464 He
must have had numerous connections in both Istanbul and Amasya, which could have provided a
wealth of information about two grand shaykhs of Rumi Halvetiye in the sixteenth century,
namely Sünbül Sinan and Merkez Muslihiddin (d. 959/1551.) However, while Taşköprüzade
devotes longer sections to the shaykhs of the Karamani Halvetiye, his narration of the lives these
two celebrated shaykhs is conspiciously brief. Again, while he does not see any harm in relating
the potentially controversial and aforementioned story of Çelebi Halife’s curse on “Mehmeds,”
Taşköprüzade suppresses a similar anecdote between Sünbül Sinan and Selim I, which should
have been quite popular in the Sufi circles of Istanbul and Amasya. 465 There could be many
reasons for Taşköprüzade’s authorial choices. But one among them was probably his sympathy
for the Karamani Halvetiye, which was in competition with the Rumi branch. Taşköprüzade’s
silence is indeed quite a telling statement of his own perception of the rival Rumi Halvetis. Still
how can one really be sure about the degree of rivalry between the Karamani and Rumi
branches? The answer lies in the text produced by the other side of the polemic, i.e. the first
(Rumi) Halveti hagiography written by Yusuf bin Yakub.

Süleyman I (926/1520-974/1566) and the Magnificent Years

The Rumi Halvetiye survived the challenges of the political establishment and the competition
brought by other orders thanks to the succession of two able shaykhs, Sünbül Sinan and Merkez
Muslihiddin (959/1551). Sünbül Sinan wrote treatises and engaged in public polemics in order to
defend the Halveti practices. One of these polemics was witnessed by Yakub-u Germiyani (d.
979/1571,) the successor of Merkez Muslihiddin and the father of Yusuf b. Yakub, the narrator
of the story. Sünbül Sinan was invited to the Fatih mosque, where a group of scholars and Sufis,
including the judge of Istanbul Sarı Gürz (d.927-928/1520-1522) and a professor from Sahn-ı

463
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 57-58. Hüseyin Hüsameddin claims that
Abdurrahman-ı Erzincani’s tomb is in Amasya. Yaşar, Amasya Tarihi I, 167.
464
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya, 305-306.
465
Taşköprüzade most probably heard the story of Çelebi Halife’s curse during his stay in Amasya, because of his
father’s teaching position at the Hüseyniye Medresesi circa 1512. One of Taşköprüzade’s classmates, Muhaşşi Sinan
Efendi was the son of the Halveti shaykh the abovementioned Çilehane in Amasya. And it was around the time when
Selim I crushed Prince Ahmed’s faction in both the capital and the provinces, including the Halvetiye Sufi order,
hence the circulation of a story with a subtext of Halveti shaykh’s mystical power against an aggressive sultan or
state dignitary.
125
Semaniye, Gürz Seyyidi (923/1516-1517). 466 Sünbül Sinan, according to the reporter of the
story, effectively wins the argument. He even calls Sari Gürz an idiot and imputes hypocrisy to
Gürz Seyyidi by referring to his earlier sympathy for the Rumi Halvetiye when it was supported
by the political establishment before Selim I.

Eventually the political pressure on the Halvetiye gradually diminished and following the death
of Selim I in 926/1520, the Halvetiye once again found favor in the eyes of the Ottoman dynasty.
Apparently, Selim I’s immediately family did not share his views about the Rumi Halvetiye. One
of his women, who also the mother of Selim I’s successor Süleyman I (d.974/1566) was Hafise
Hatun (d.940/1534), who built a lodge in the western Anatolian town of Manisa in 929/1523.
Hafise Hatun asked Sünbül Sinan to send one of his khalifas as the shaykh of the Manisa
lodge. 467 Sünbül Sinan chose his able khalifa Merkez Muslihiddin, who who would later succeed
his shaykh at Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge and restrengthen the ties between the Rumi Halvetis and
the Ottoman dynasty. The story of Merkez Muslihiddin’s initiation to the Rumi Halvetiye makes
the rivalry between the Rumi and Karamani branches of Halvetiye evident. Moreover because it
was recorded by a Rumi Halveti Yusuf b. Yakub, it reveals their perception of the rival
Karamani Halvetiye.

Here the role of Habib-i Karamani in the initiation story of Merkez Muslihiddin is very much
worth underlining. According to the story, Merkez Muslihiddin initially tries to become the
dervish of Habib-i Karamani. Habib-i Karamani rejects his pleas on the grounds that he is not the
shaykh destined to train him. In other words, Habib-i Karamani “miraculously” discovers his
inability to guide/train Merkez Muslihiddin, and hints at their future and more worthy shaykh.
After a long period, the conversation between Merkez Muslihiddin and Habib-i Karamani is
mystically discovered by Sünbül Sinan. Yusuf b. Yakub both praises Habib-i Karamani and
argues for Sünbül Sinan’s supremacy over him at the same time. Yusuf b. Yakub continues the
story of Merkez Muslihiddin’s initiation as follows: 468

[Merkez Muslihiddin] used to frequent the gatherings of all the eminent shaykhs
of Istanbul, except that of Sünbül Efendi. He used to denounce him. He criticized
their devran and arguments in favor of unity of being (vahdet-i vucud.) [The
reason for Merkez Muslihiddin’s denial] was his earlier experience with Molla
Habib [Karamani], in whom Seyyid Yahya’s abstemiousness (vera’) was
manifested. Merkez Muslihiddin’s abstemiousness, ascetic restraint (zühd) and
piety (takva) used to affect his decisions. 469

466
For the biographies of both scholars see Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561), al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya,
297-298. Taşköprüzade has nothing but compliments for these two scholars, while Yusuf b. Yakub underlines the
rude manners of especially Sarı Gürz. Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf, 41.
467
Ibid., 48-49.
468
A similar story of initiation takes places between another Rumi Halveti Maksud Dede (d.970/1562-63) and again
Habib-i Karamani. For the initiation stories of Maksud Dede and Merkez Muslihiddin see Ibid., 37, 46. For Maksud
Dede’s date of death see Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, 929.
469
Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf, 47. For the differing views on vahdet-i vucud, see the appendix.
126
“Despite” his background in the Karamani Halvetiye, Merkez Muslihiddin becomes the dervish
of Sünbül Sinan. And after a while Sünbül Sinan appoints him as the shaykh of one of the lodges
in Istanbul. And following the construction of the abovementioned Manisa lodge, Merkez
Muslihiddin leaves Istanbul for the next six years until his shaykh Sünbül Sinan’s death in
936/1529. Under Merkez Muslihiddin’s leadership, the Rumi Halvetis returned to the happy days
during the reign of Bayezid II when their relationship with the political establishment was nearly
impeccable. Besides the one in Manisa, another lodge (Davud Pasha Lodge) with royal
patronage was built in Istanbul in 950/1542-43. The benefactress of this lodge was Şah Sultan
(d.980/1572), the sister of Süleyman I and wife of grand vizier Lütfi Pasha (d.971/1564.) 470 The
same year Merkez Muslihiddin was appointed as the shaykh of the Ottoman army by Süleyman
I, in his expedition to Korfu in the Adriatic. 471

Nevertheless the tension between the Rumi and Karamani branches must have reached its peak at
the time of Merkez Muslihiddin. A sixteenth-century hagiography reports that Merkez
Muslihiddin used to avoid the Karamani neighborhood in Istanbul on his way to the Koca
Mustafa Pasha lodge from the Fatih mosque. 472 Between the two places was located the
abovementioned Fındıkzade lodge of Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani, who had been long since
been replaced by his son Mehmed Emin. In fact, the Karamani branch was more fierce in its
objection to the Rumi branch as seen in the words of one of their members, who says, “we are
Halvetis, not dancers!,” in order to criticize the “overindulgence” of the ecstatic branch in sema
and devran. 473

After establishing multiple lodges in the Ottoman core lands and training numerous khalifas,
Merkez Muslihiddin died in 959/1551 and was succeeded by Yakub-u Germiyani (d. 979/1571.)
Yakub Germiyani, a native of the western Anatolian city of Kütahya, was initially a dervish in
the Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge. During Merkez Muslihiddin’s tenure, he was sent to the Balkan
town of Yanya (Ionina), where he founded a lodge around 945/1539-40. 474 He then moved to the
Davud Pasha Lodge in Istanbul upon the request of its royal benefactress, Şah Sultan. 475 Yakub
Germiyani served as this lodge’s shaykh for the next eight years until Merkez Muslihiddin’s
death in 959/1551.

At the time of Yakub Germiyani’s tenure at the Koca Mustafa Pasha, a political controversy took
place, which is quite reminiscent of the one that catapulted Halvetiye to Istanbul eighty years
earlier. This controversy is well documented thanks to Yakub-u Germiyani’s son, the
aforementioned Halveti [Link] b. Yakub relates that around 967/1560, Süleyman I
called for a public gathering at the Okmeydanı in Istanbul to collectively pray for rain. These

470
Ibid., 63.
471
Ibid., 53.
472
Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 466.
473
See the biography of “Molla Ahmed bin Mahmud el Esam” in Nevizade Atai (d.1635), Hadā’iq al-Haqāiq fī
Tekmīla al-Shaqāiq, 43. Yusuf b. Yakub notes that Sünbül Sinan himself was fond of sema to such an extent that he
used to join his dervishes during its performance. “hazret-i shaykh ehl-i sema idi, kendu bile kalkar idi.” Yusuf b.
Yakub (d. ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf, 41.
474
Ibid., 62.
475
Ibid., 63.
127
gatherings were critical in shaping public opinion and provided an effective ground for
propaganda. Yusuf b. Yakub notes that although Sultan Süleyman declared the reason for the
gathering to be a drought, the people of Istanbul were aware of his ulterior motive: to gather
support for his prince Selim (later Selim II 974/1566-982/1574), who was about to fight the
sultan’s other son Prince Bayezid (d. 969/1561).

Prince Bayezid was based in Amasya and began building an army with the support of the local
population. 476 Süleyman I, on the other hand, sought the support of the population, when he
received a legal opinion from his chief jurisconsult Ebu-s’Suud Efendi (982/1574) on the
legitimacy of fighting Bayezid and his followers. As people gathered in the Okmeydanı,
supposedly to pray for rain, Süleyman I first requested Ebu-s’Suud Efendi to lead the prayer.
Ebu-s’Suud Efendi courteously refused, telling the sultan it should be him or somebody
designated by him that led the prayer. Süleyman I then requested to his soldiers bring Yakub-u
Germiyani and have him lead the prayer. Hearing this, Yakub-u Germiyani secretly went into
hiding. Süleyman I’s soldiers sought out Yakub-u Germiyani while reading aloud to him the
Quranic verse “Obey God, obey the Prophet and those in authority amongst you.” 477 In the end,
Yakub Germiyani was forced to lead the prayer. Yusuf b. Yakub explains his father’s
disobedience through his humility and desire to prevent his mystical secret from being revealed.
However, Süleyman I insisted that Yakub-u Germiyani lead the prayer because his order had
influence over the people of the Amasya region. The same influence likely kept Süleyman I from
punishing the shaykh, though he was not as tolerant to other shaykhs. 478

Even eighty years after their sojourn in Amasya, the regional identity of the Rumi Halvetiye was
still powerful enough to become a political liability at times of dynastic struggle in Istanbul. And
through the political and social networks established around the Sufi orders over the Anatolian
regions of Rum and Karaman were able to exert agency over the population and elite of the
Ottoman capital.

Conclusion:

Of all [Yahya-yı Şirvani’s] dervishes, four of them became distinguished as

outstanding disciples among others and were chosen and given license [to
initiate.] First of them is Shaykh Molla Pir Muhammed Erzincani, in whom
knowledge of God (marifetullah) is manifested. The second one is Dede Ömer
Ruşeni, in whom love of God (aşk-ı ilahi) is manifested. The third one is Molla
Ali Halveti, in whom attraction of God (cezbe-i ilahi) is manifested. The fourth
one is Molla Habib-i Karamani, in whom abstemiousness (vera’), ascetic restraint
(zühd) and piety (takva) are manifested. 479

476
Şerafettin Turan, “Şehzade Bayezid,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 5 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989), 231.
477
Quran, 4:59
478
For the story of two shaykhs imprisoned for supporting Prince Bayezid, see Curry, “The Growth of Turkish
Language Hagiographical Literature within the Halveti Order of the 16th And 17th Centuries,” 920.
479
Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577), Menākıb-ı Şerīf, 15.
128
 And Molla Pir Muhammed Erzincani is a shaykh with beautiful qualities who is
the most senior and comes before all [of the above shaykhs]. He is the shaykh of
our fortunate pillar Çelebi Efendi. 480

Dede Ömer Ruşeni states that although there was no end to the virtues of hazret-i
seyyid [Yahya-yı Şirvani], [the abovementioned] four people received them. And
all of these virtues were put in a sealed bag and entrusted to Çelebi Halife, with
whom they went to the Rum. 481

The above quotes demonstrate the rivalry between different branches of the Halvetiye order.
Yusuf b. Yakub classifies the traditions of different branches according to their emphasis or the
character of their respective founders. And the perfect blend of all four traditions is personified
in Çelebi Halife through his master Pir Muhammed Erzincani. 482 In the opinion of Yusuf b.
Yakub, Pir Muhammed Erzincani was the most eminent of Seyyid Yahya Şirvani’s successors.
And Çelebi Halife by being the most able disciple of Pir Muhammed was the true heir to the
Halvetiye tradition.

Nevertheless, Yusuf b. Yakub’s classification of the Halveti traditions is largely arbitrary and
somewhat euphemistic. There was indeed a competition between different branches of the
Halvetiye order, which was in fact more influenced by the political alliances around regionalist
networks, rather than doctrinal or practical differences. And the origins of the competition lie in
1470s Amasya, a time and place that are at the heart of this dissertation.

Both the Rumi and Karamani branches of Halvetiye originated in the Rum region. The Rumi
branch initiated by Çelebi Halife became part of the Ottoman capital through the political
network established in Amasya around 1470’s. The Karamani branch on the other hand had close
connections with the Karaman region with the city of Konya at its center and with the Zeynis
because of the political decision made by its initiator Habib-i Karamani, again in the Amasya of
the 1470’s. In conclusion, these Sufi orders were more or less the product of the Anatolian
regions of Rum and Karaman, with Amasya and Konya as their respective centers. Through the
political networks in which these orders operated, the cities of Amasya and Konya influenced the
Sufi scene of Istanbul, hence the agency of Anatolian cities in the making of the imperial socio-
religious fabric.

480
Ibid., 16.
481
Ibid., 27.
482
In the original text, it is Ahmed Erzincani. Yusuf b. Yakub replaces the names Mehmed with Ahmed for curious
reasons. He does the same with the name “Karamani Mehmed Pasha.” A later Halveti source, in order to reconcile
Yusuf b. Yakub’s confusion with other sources, argues that both Ahmed Erzincani and Mehmed Erzincani were
separate historical personalities. Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654), Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye, 411-418.
129
Conclusion:
The Role of the Rival Anatolian Geographies in the Formation of the Ottoman Empire

The incorporation of the Halvetiye order into the Ottoman world (Ottomanization) highlights the
critical role of political geography in the formation of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth
century. The Ottomanization process shows how a variety of networks fostered in the competing
political geographies of the periphery and later became integral parts of the imperial capital that
was in the making. In the process, the ancient rivalries among different political geographies
reasserted themselves in the imperial urban platform through these networks. Amidst the
conflicts and negotiations between competing regionalist networks in an imperial urban setting,
the Ottoman institutions were constituted.

The eastern territories of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth century were covered by two such
rivaling political geographies; Rum and Karaman, with cities of Amasya and Konya at their
respective centers. These two cities served as intellectual and cultural centers of Anatolia since
its initial Turkish conquest in the late eleventh century. They also served as seats of competing
political entities. Immediately after their incorporation by the Turkish invaders, the cities of
Amasya and Konya became capitals of the the Danishmendid and Seljukid dynasties,
respectively. The conflict between the two dynasties continued for a century until the elimination
of the Danishmendid in 570/1174-75. After a century of relative tranquility, the most formidable
challenge to the Seljukid authority once again rose from Amasya in the form of a religio-political
rebellion led by a Turcoman shaykh called Baba İlyas. With much difficulty, the Seljukids were
able to suppress the rebellion and execute Baba İlyas in Amasya 638/1240.. Fleeing the Seljukid
persecution, some of the Babai dervishes took refuge in the Byzantine frontier, only to come
back with the Ottomans one hundred and fifty years later. In the meantime, the Seljukid Empire
collapsed and its capital, Konya fell into the hands of the Karamanid dynasty. The Karamanids,
who fought with whoever held Amasya and controlled the Rum region in the fourteenth century,
confronted the Ottomans for the first time only after their incorporation of Amasya in late
fourteenth century. Throughout the fifteenth century, the Ottoman and Karamanid dynasties
fought for domination in Anatolia and Amasya became a very critical center for the Ottomans.
Following the Ottoman conquest of Konya in 871/1467 and the subsequent elimination of the
Karamanid dynasty, the rivalry between two cities took another form as the two competing
princely factions; those of Bayezid and Mustafa (later Cem) adopted these cities as their
headquarters.

Against this historical, geographical, and political background, multiple networks of political,
religious, and commercial nature flourished in the Rum and Karaman regions. Among these
networks were the Sufi orders, which by the mid-fifteenth century emerged as a new socio-
religious actor in the Ottoman urban spaces. These Sufi orders were trans-imperial organizations
with connections in the major cities of the Islamic world. For example, a dervish trained in a
lodge in Herat in central Asia could be hosted in Medina in the Arabian Peninsula, by the
dervishes of the same Sufi order. Similarly, a scholar who met the members of a particular Sufi
order in Shirvan in the southern Caucasus could socialize with the fellow dervishes in the Cairo

130
lodge of that order. Increasing political stability and urbanization brought by the dynasties of the
Ottoman, the Akkoyunlu, the Mamluk and the Timurid also helped these Sufi orders to foster
their networks. Yet, some of these Sufi orders had to subscribe to particular political networks
within these empires to be able to survive through the competition with the local and more
established Sufi communities.

Being a part of a political network was especially important in the Ottoman context because of
state’s heavy control over land ownership and taxation rights, the endowments of which was a
major source of income for most of the Sufi lodges. In the fifteenth century, the cities of Amasya
and Konya served as platforms where the orders of the Halvetiye and Zeyniye, respectively,
subscribed to the Ottoman networks, through which they negotiated their incorporation into the
Ottoman enterprise. In a sense, these cities acted as the nerve endings of the nascent body
Ottoman in the east, which made it susceptible to the socio-religious developments of the Islamic
heartlands.

In the case of Zeyniye, the incorporation process took place in Konya thanks to the efforts of
Abdüllatif-i Kudsi. By the time Abdüllatif-i Kudsi of the Zeyniye appeared in Konya in
850/1447, his order had already attempted twice to establish itself in Anatolia, which proved to
be failures. Abdüllatif-i Kudsi, who embodied the third attempt of the Zeyniye, was successful
because of his ability to establish good relations with the local ulema and Sufi orders. Abdüllatif-
i Kudsi and his disciples resided in the Sadreddin-i Konevi lodge, a major center of Sufi
activities in the city and always maintained good relations with the Mawlawiya order, which was
the most dominant Sufi order in the region. Abdüllatif-i Kudsi’s conflict with Shaykh Cüneyd,
the leader of the militant Safaviya order must have elevated his position in the eyes of the ulema.
After spending three years in Konya, Abdüllatif-i Kudsi established a great reputation in
Anatolia; to the extent that he was invited and officially welcomed by the Ottoman ulema when
he moved to Bursa. The next thirty years witnessed Zeyniye’s rise in the Ottoman world. The
Zeyniye’s success in the Ottoman world was mostly because of its subscription to the Karamani
network, whose members included the influential statesmen, the ulema and Sufis of Mehmed II’s
reign. And it was this network that partially accounted for the Zeyniye’s rivalry with the
Halvetiye.

Amasya, on the other hand, provided more than opportunities of networking to the Halvetiye.
Unlike the Zeyniye, the Halvetiye originated in the rural areas at the margins of the Islamic
world; in small towns of the southern Caucasus. And the Halvetiye’s acceptance as a respectable
Sufi order by the urban populations of the major Islamic centers was a process full of conflicts
and tensions. Roughly a century after its foundation, the Halvetiye order made its appearance in
the Ottoman lands with the arrival of Pir İlyas to Amasya at the turn of the fifteenth century.
Amasya was one of the earliest urban environments where the Halvetiye operated. In Amasya,
the Halvetiye took its most significant step towards urbanization and made first contacts with the
Ottoman polity. However, the process of the Ottomanization of the Halvetiye was disrupted by
the domination of the Zeyniye in the Ottoman heartlands and marginalization of Amasya from
the Ottoman power structure during the reign of Mehmed II. The Halvetiye and Amasya had to
wait for the arrival of the able khalifas of Yahya-yı Sirvani and the emergence of Bayezid II as a

131
political actor after 870/1465 in order to become major actors in the Ottoman political and
religious scene. The Halvetiye, as an urban Ottoman order, was the product of the city of
Amasya. As a part of Amasyan networks, the Halvetiye naturally inherited the city’s historical
rivalry with Konya, and the larger Karaman region.

The rivalry between the Halvetiye and the Zeyniye Sufi orders was mostly dictated by the
political geography of Anatolia in the fifteenth century. The cities of Amasya and Konya availed
the Halvetiye and the Zeyniye urban platforms where they could subscribe to regionalist political
networks and, subsequently, become part of the Ottoman enterprise. In other words, these
Anatolian cities ‘Ottomanized’ these Sufi orders which were born outside the boundaries of the
Ottoman Empire. In so doing, these cities served as the northern and southern gates of the brave
new world of the Ottomans opening to the Islamic world.

In conclusion, contrary to the implicit perception of modern historiography, Anatolia in the

fifteenth century had never been a monolithic political, religious and ethnic entity, or a
backwater to the rising Ottoman enterprise. By ‘Ottomanizing’ two Sufi orders that have origins
outside the Ottoman lands, these cities played exerted agency in the formation of the Ottoman
Empire.

132
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Unpublished Primary Sources:

Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (Topkapi Palaca Museum Archives), Istanbul

E.5584
E.5862
E.6451
E. 8335
D. 7591

Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives), Istanbul

Ali Emiri, Bayezid I/1

Ali Emiri, Mehmed I/2,3
Ali Emiri, Murad I/1-9
Ali Emiri, Mehmed II/51
TT 15 (Tapu Tahrir Defteri)

Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi (The Archives of the General Directorate of Endowments),
Ankara

Bülbül Hatun Waqfiya (917/1512)

490/2, p.100
581/325, p.332
582/122, p.182
582/211, p.307
586/256, p.260
587/133, p.108
594/186, p.249
594/186, p.249
600/96, p.76
601/204, No: 269
605/165,p. 119
605/330, p. 244
605/331, p. 249
605/332, p. 248
605/333, p. 248
605/334, p. 249
608/23
608/32
608/40, p.35
608/204, p.175
608/315, p.370

133
608/334, p.388
608/334, p.338
608/367, p.337
610/45, p.36
610/46, p. 37
633/ 286, No: 101
746/27, p.58
747/245, p. 352

Manuscripts

Bozoklu Osman Şakir. “Musavver İran Seyahatnamesi,” 1810. Fatih Millet Library, No: 822.
Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1831). al-Balābil al- Rāsiyya fi Riyād al-Masā'il al-Amāsiyye. Istanbul
Süleymaniyye Library, Yazma Bağışlar 3267.
Olcay, Osman Fevzi. Amāsya Meşāhiri. Ankara, 1942. Istanbul University Library. Microfilm
No: A-2797.
Tāli’-i Mevlūd-u Merhūm Ebu’l-Feth Śultān Mehmed Hān, 885/1480. Istanbul Süleymaniyye
Library,Esat Ef., 1997.

Published Primary Sources and the secondary literature

Ahmedi (d.1413). Tevārīh-i Mülūk-i Āl-i Osmān Ġazv-ı Īşān Bā-Küffār. Harvard Üniversitesi:
Yakındoğu Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Bölümü, 2004.
Ahmet Şikari (d.1584). Karamanname: Zamanın Kahramanı Karamanilerin Tarihi. Edited by
Metin Sözen and Necdet Sakaoğlu. Istanbul: Karaman Valiliği Karaman Belediyesi,
2005.
Akdağ, Mustafa. Türkiye'nin İktisadi ve İçtimai Tarihi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,
1959.
Alderson, A. The Structure of the Ottoman dynasty, by A. D. Alderson. Oxford: Clarendon press,
1956.
Algar, Hamid. “A Brief History of the Naqshbandi Order.” In Naqshbandis : cheminements et
situation actuelle d'un ordre mystique musulman : actes de la Table ronde de Sèvres,
edited by Thierry Zarcone, Marc Gaborieau, and Alexandre Popovi ć, 3-44. Varia
Turcica 18. Istanbul ; Paris: Isis Press, 1990.
———. “Abdullah-ı İlahi.” In Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi İslam Ansiklopedisi, 1:109-110. Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989.
———. “Bahaeddin Nakşibend.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 4:457-460.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989.
———. “Čella.” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1990. [Link]
referring-to-any-forty-day-period.
———. “Jāmi and Sufism.” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2008. [Link]
ii.
“Amasea.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912.

134
 htttp://[Link]/cathen/[Link].
Angiolello, Giovanni. Seyyahların Gözüyle Sultanlar ve Savaşlar : Giovanni Maria
Angiolello,Venedikli Bir Tüccar ve Vincenzo D'Alessandri'nin Seyahatnameleri.
Translated by Tufan Gündüz. Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2007.
Anonymous. “Ahvāl-i Sultān Mehemmed.” In The Ottoman Interregnum (1402-1413): Politics
and Narratives of Dynastic Succession, by Dimitris James Kastritsis. Harvard
University, 2005.
Anooshahr, Ali. “Writing, Speech, and History for an Ottoman Biographer.” Journal of Near
Eastern studies. 69, no. 1 (2010): 43.
“[Link]: Resource Library: Ahmed Naksi,” n.d.
[Link]
Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 907/1502). “Tevārih-i Āl-i ‘Osmān.” In Osmanlı Tarihleri: Osmanlı
Tarihinin Anakaynakları Olan Eserlerin, Mütehassıslar Tarafından Hazırlanan Metin,
Tercüme veya Sadeleştirilmiş Şekilleri Külliyatı, edited by Nihal Atsız. Vol. 1. [Istanbul]:
Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949.
Aydoğdu, Günnur. “Amasya Mezartaşları.” MA, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi, 1997.
Ayverdi, Ekrem. Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855
(1403-1451)]. Istanbul: Damla Ofset, 1989.
———. Osmanlı Mimarisinin İlk Devri [Fatih Devri 855-886 (1451-1481)]. Istanbul: Damla
Ofset, 1989.
Azamat, Nihat. “II. Murad Devri Kültür Hayatı.” Ph.D, Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1996.
Aziz ibn Ardashir Astarabadi (d. ca. 800/1398). Bezm ü Rezm (Eğlence ve Savaş). Translated by
Mürsel Öztürk. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1990.
Babinger, Franz. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Translated by William C. Hickman.
Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1978.
———. “Yakup Paşa: Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Özel Tabibi Gaeta'lı Jacopo Usta'nın Hayatı,
Akibeti.” In Fatih Sultan Mehmed Zehirlendi mi Eceli ile mi öldü?, translated by Feridun
Nafiz Uzluk, 56. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1965.
Bacqué-Grammont, Jean-Louis, Nathalie Clayer, Thierry Zarcone, and Semavi Eyice. “Deux
cimetières du quartier de Findikzade à Istanbul.” In Anatolia Moderna = Yeni Anadolu V:
Travaux et Recherches de l'Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul, edited by
Jacques Thobie, 233-318. Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient, Adrien Maisonneuve,
Jean Maisonneuve Successeur, 1994.
Bağdatlı İsmail Paşa Babanzade. Hadiyya al-Arifin Asma al-Muallifin wa Athar al-Musannafin,
Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1955.
Baltacı, Cahid. XV-XVI Asırlar Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilat: Tarih. Istanbul: İrfan Matbaası,
1976.
Barthold, W. “Şirvanşah.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 11:573-575. Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1967.
Bayram, Sadi. “Samsun-Ladik ve Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebir Hazretleri.” Ondokuz Mayis
Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 5 (1990): 11-22.
Bostan, Hanefi. “XV-XVI. Asırlarda Trabzon Sancağında Sosyal ve İktisadi Hayat.” Marmara
University, 1993.
Bosworth, C.E., P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs,
eds. “Rifa’iyya.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second Edition. Brill, 2010.

135
 <[Link]
Boyacıoğlu, Ramazan. “Osmanoğullarının Karamanoğlu İbrahim Bey Hakkı Aleyhine Aldığı
Fetvalar.” In Pax Ottomana studies in memoriam Prof. Dr. Nejat Göyünç, 641-657.
Ankara, 2001.
Bozoklu Osman Şakir. “Musavver İran Seyahatnamesi,” 1810. No: 822. Fatih Millet Library.
Burke, Peter. Varieties of Cultural History, 1997.
Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge, 1989.
Çıpa, Hakkı Erdem. “Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I, 1487-1512.”
Ph.D, Harvard University, 2007.
Clayer, Nathalie. Mystiques, Etat et société : les Halvetis dans l'aire balkanique de la fin du XVe
siècle à nos jours. Leiden ;New York: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Curry, John J. The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise
of the Halveti Order, 1350-1650. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.
Curry, John J. “Defending Islamic Mysticism in an Age of Transformation: The Foundation and
Development of the Sabaniye Branch of the Halveti Order in the Ottoman Empire as
Reflected in Its Hagiographical Writings, 1500-1750.” Ohio State University, 2005.
———. “The Growth of Turkish Language Hagiographical Literature within the Halveti Order
of the 16th And 17th Centuries.” Edited by Hasan Celal Güzel. The Turks 3 (2002): 912-
920.
———. “The Intersection of Past and Present in the Genesi of an Ottoman Sufi Order: The Life
of Cemal el-Halveti (d.900/1494 or 905/1499).” Journal of Turkish Studies 32 (2008):
121-141.
De Jong, F. “Khalwatiya.” In , IV:991-993. New ed. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Elias, Jamal J. The Throne Carrier of God: The Life and Thought of Alā ad-Dawlah as-Simnānī.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Emecen, Feridun Nafiz, and İlhan Şahin. “Amasya.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi, 3:1-2. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel
Müdürlüğü, 1991.
Emir, Sedat. Erken Osmanlı Mimarlığında Çok İşlevli Yapılar: Kentsel Kolonizasyon Yapıları
Olarak Zaviyeler. 1st ed. Izmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1994.
Emre, Side. “İbrahim-i Gülşeni (ca. 1442-1534): İtinerant Saint and Cairene Ruler.” Ph.D,
Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009.
Ersoy, Ahmet. “Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Tanzimat Period.”
Muqarnas 24 (2007): 118-139.
Evliya Çelebi (1611?-1682?). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 304
Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu, dizini. Translated by Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman,
and Yücel Dağlı. Beyoğlu, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996.
Eyice, Semavi. “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini-İçtimai bir Müessesi, Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli
Camiler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23, no. 1 (March 1962): 1-80.
———. “Şeyh Süleyman Mescidi.” In Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, VII:172. Ankara:
Kültür Bakanlığı ile Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı'nın ortak yayınıdır,
1993.
Farooqhi, Suraiya. “The Life Story of an Urban Saint in the Ottoman Empire: Piri Baba of
Merzifon.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 32 (1978): 653-678.

136
Fazlıoğlu, İhsan. “Şehir Tarihi Çalışmalarında Yazma Eserlerden Nasıl İstifade Edilebilir?.”
Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3, no. 6. TALID (2005): 517-526.
Feridun Bey (d.1583). Mecmūa-ı Münşeāt al-Selātīn (vol. I). Istanbul, 1858.
Fisher, Sydney N. “Civil Strife in the Ottoman Empire, 1481-1503.” The Journal of Modern
History 13, no. 4 (1941): 449.
Fleischer, Cornell H. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire the Historian Mustafa
Ali (1541-1600). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Flemming, Barbara. “Glimpses of Turkish Saints: Another Look at Lamii and Ottoman
Biographers.” Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 18 (1994): 59-73.
Gabriel, Albert. Monuments turcs d'Anatolie. Vol. 2. Paris: De Boccard, 1934.
Gökbilgin, M. Tayyib. XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası, Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar.
Istanbul, 1952.
Gölpınarlı, Abdülbaki. “Mevlevilik.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 8:164-171. Milli Eğitim Basımevi,
1967.
Gündoğdu, Cengiz. Bir Türk Mutasavvıfı Abdülmecid Sivasi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tasavvufi
Görüşleri. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2000.
Gürbüz, Adnan. “Toprak-Vakıf İlişkileri Çervesinde XVI. Yüzyılda Amasya Sancağı.” Ankara
Üniversitesi, 1993.
Imber, Colin. “Paul Wittek's "De la défaite d'Ankara à la prise de Constantinople".” Osmanlı
Araştırmaları 5 (1986): 65-81.
İnalcık, Halil. Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi, 1954.
———. “How to Read Ashık Pashazade's History.” In Essays in Ottoman History, 31-50.
Istanbul, 1988.
———. “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time.” Speculum 35, no. 3 (1960): 408-
427.
———. “Murad II.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 8:598-615. Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1963.
———. “Otman Baba ve Fatih Sultan Mehmed.” In Doğu Batı / Makaleler I. Ankara: Doğu Batı
Yayınları, 2005.
Jennings, Ronald C. “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: A Study of
Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum.” International Journal of Middle
East Studies 7, no. 01 (1976): 21-57.
Kafadar, Cemal. Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996.
———. “Mütereddid Bir Mutassavvif: Üsküplü Asiye Hatun'un Rüya Defteri 1641- 43.”
Topkapi Sarayi Yilligi 5: 168-222.
Kafesçioğlu, Çiğdem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the
Construction of the Ottoman Capital. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2009.
———. “The Ottoman Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the
Fifteenth Century.” Ph.D, Harvard University, 1996.
Kankal, Ahmet. “16. Yüzyılda İdari-İktisadi ve Sosyal Açıdan Kargı Kazası.” Ankara
Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), no. 3
(1992): 223-245.

137
Kappert, Petra. Die osmanischen Prinzen und ihre Residenz Amasya im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,
1976.
Kara, Mustafa. Metinlerle Osmanlılarda Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar. Bursa: Sır Yayıncılık, 2004.
———. Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar Tarihi. 1st ed. Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1985.
Karpuz, Haşim. “Mevlana Külliyesi.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 29:447-451.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1991.
Kastritsis, Dimitris. The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman
Civil War of 1402-1413. Leiden;Boston: Brill, 2007.
Kemalpaşazade Şemsüddin Ahmed (d.1534). Tevarih-i Al-i Osman: I. Defter. Translated by
Şerafettin Turan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1983.
———. Tevarih-i Al-i Osman: II. Defter. Translated by Şerafettin Turan. Vol. 2. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1983.
Kissling, Hans Joachim. “Aus der Geschicte des Chalvetijje-Ordens.” In Dissertationes
Orientales et Balcanicae Collectae I: Das Derwischtum, 234-236. München: Trofenik,
1986.
———. “Einiges über den Zejnije-Orden im Osmanichen Reiche.” In Dissertationes Orientales
et Balcanicae Collectae I: Das Derwischtum, 312-348. München: Trofenik, 1986.
Kolovos, Elias. “The Saints in the Sultan’s Dream.” Archivum Ottomanicum 23 (2005): 205-217.
Konyalı, İbrahim Hakkı. Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi. Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi,
1964.
Köprülü, Orhan F., and Mustafa Ün. “Akşemseddin.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi, 2:299-302. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel
Müdürlüğü, 1988.
Köroğlu, Hüseyin. Konya ve Anadolu Medreseleri. Konya: Fen Yayınevi, 1999.
Kreiser, Klaus, Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, and Paul Dumont. “Medresen und
Derwischkonvente in Istanbul: Quantitative
Aspekte.” In Economies et societes dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe- debut du XXe
siècle), 109-27. Paris, 1983.
Küçükdağ, Yusuf. II. Bayezid, Yavuz ve Kanuni Devirlerinde Cemali Ailesi. Istanbul: Enderun
Kitabevi, 1995.
Kucur, Sadi. “Sivas, Tokat ve Amasya'da Selçuklu ve Beylikler Devri Vakıfları.” Ph.D, Istanbul:
Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993.
Kut, Günay. “Lamii Çelebi and his Works.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, no. 2 (1976):
73-93.
Kuzucular, Kani. “Amasya Kenti'nin Fiziksel Yapısının Tarihsel Gelişimi.” Ph.D, Istanbul:
Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 1994.
Lamanskii, V. I. Secrets d'État De Venise; Documents, Extraits, Notices, Et Études Servant À
Éclaircir Les Rapports De La Seigneurie Avec Les Grecs, Les Slaves, Et La Porte
Ottomane À La Fin Du XVe Et Au XVIe. Vol. 1. 2 vols. New York: B. Franklin, 1968.
Lami'i Çelebi (d.1532). Futūh al-Mucāhidīn li Tarwih al-Mushāhidīn. Edited by Süleyman
Uludağ. Istanbul: Marifet Yayınları, 1980.
Landolt, H. “khalwa.” In The New Encyclopedia of Islam, IV:90. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press,
2002.
Lowry, Heath. Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.

138
 Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992.
Ma‘oz, Moshe. Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine 1840-1861: The Impact of Tanzimat on
Politics and Society. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1968.
Mahmud Hulvī (d.1654). Lemezāt-ı Hulviyye ez Leme‘āt-ı ‘Ulviyye. Translated by Mehmed
Serhan Tayşi. Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1993.
Margoliouth, D. S. “Zeynüddin.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 13:556. Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1967.
Martin, B. G. “A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes.” In Scholars, Saints, and
Sufis; Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500, edited by Nikki
Keddie, 275-305. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Massignon, Louis. The passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam. Translated by Herbert
Mason. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Mehmed Neşri (d. ca. 1520). Kitāb-ı Cihānnümā. Edited by Mehmet Altay Köymen and Faik
Reşit Unat. 3rd ed. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995.
Mehmet Hemdemi Çelebi Solakzade (d.1657). Solakzāde Tarihi. Edited by Vahid Çabuk.
Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1989.
Muhammed Nazmi (d.1112/1701). Osmanlılarda Tasavvufi Hayat: Halvetilik Örneği:
Hediyyetü'l-Ihvan. 1st ed. Istanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 2005.
Mundy, Martha. “Shareholders and the State: Representing the Village in the Late 19th Century
Land Registers of the Southern Hawran.” In The Syrian Land in the 18th and 19th
Century: The Common and the Specific in the Historical Experience, edited by Thomas
Philipp, 5:217-239. Berliner Islamstudien. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992.
Mustafa Ali (d.1600). Kunh al-Ahbār (C. II: Fatih Sultan Mehmed Devri, 1451-1481).
Translated by M. Hüdai Şentürk. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003.
Mustafa Vazih Efendi (d.1247/1831). “al-Balābil al- Rāsiyya fi Riyad al-Masā'il al-Amāsiyya.”
Istanbul Suleymaniyye Library, n.d. Yazma Bagislar 3267.
Necipoğlu, Gülru. Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth
and Sixteenth Centuries. New York, N.Y: Architectural History Foundation, 1991.
Nevizade Atai (d.1635). Hadā’iq al-Haqāiq fī Tekmīla al-Shaqāiq. Istanbul: Çagri Yayinlari,
1989.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. “Elvan Çelebi.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 11:62.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988.
———. La révolte de Baba Resul, ou, La formation de l'hétérodoxie musulmane en Anatolie au
XIIIe siècle. Ankara: Impr. de la Société turque d'histoire, 1989.
———. “Zaviyeler.” Vakıflar Dergisi 12 (1978): 269.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar, and Suraiya Faroqhi. “Zaviye.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 13:468-476. Milli
Eğitim Basımevi, 1967.
Olcay, Osman Fevzi. “Amasya Meşahiri.” Ankara, 1942. Microfilm No: A-2797. Istanbul
University Library.
Öngören, Reşat. “Cemalettin İshak-ı Karamani.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi,
24:448. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989.
———. Tarihte Bir Aydın Tarikatı: Zeyniler (Zeynis: The Sufi Order of Intellectuals). 1st ed.
Istanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 2003.
Orbay, Kayhan. “The Financial Administration of an Imperial Waqf in an Age of Crisis:
A Case Study of Bayezid II’s Waqf in Amasya (1594-1657).” MA, Ankara: Bilkent

139
 University, 2001.
Öz, Mustafa. “Cemaleddin Aksarayi.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 7:308.
İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988.
Özel, Oktay. “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's "Land Reform" Revisited.” Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 42, no. 2 (1999): 226-246.
Özkılınç, Ahmet, ed. Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Karaman ve Rum defteri: (937/1530) (Amasya,
Çorumlu, Sivas-Tokat, Sonisa-Niksar, Kara-hisar-i Şarki, Canik, Trabzon, Kemah,
Bayburd, Malatya, Gerger-Kahta ve Divrigi-Darende Livalari : Dizin ve Tıpkıbasım).
Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire
Başkanlığı, 1997.
Pamuk, Şevket. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
Peirce, Leslie. “Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: The Early Centuries.”
Mediterranean Historical Review 19, no. 1 (2004): 6-28.
———. Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2003.
———. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Reindl, Hedda. Manner um Bayezid : eine prosopographische Studie uber die Epoche Sultan
Bayezids II, 1481-1512. Berlin: [BRD] ;K. Schwarz, 1983.
Repp, Richard. The Mufti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned
Hierarchy. 1st ed. London: Ithaca Press for the Board of the Faculty of Oriental Studies
Oxford University, 1986.
Runciman, Steven. Byzantine Civilization. 4th ed. New York: Meridian books, 1960.
Şahin, Kamil. “Habib-i Karamani.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 14:371-372.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988.
Şahin, Kaya. “Ashikpashazade as Historian: A Study on the Tevarih-i Al-i Osman.” MA,
Istanbul: Sabanci University, 2000.
Şapolyo, Enver Behnan. Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar Tarihi. İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1964.
Şen, Ahmet Tunç. “The Dream of a 17th Century Ottoman Intellectual: Veysi and his
Habname.” MA, Sabanci University, 2008.
Serin, Rahmi. İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler. Istanbul: Petek Yayınları, 1984.
Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki (d.1360). Manāqib al-'ārifīn. Edited by Tahsin Yazıcı. Ānqarah:
Chāpkhānah-i Anjuman-i Tārīkh-i Turk, 1959.
Stavrides, Theoharis. The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir
Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453-1474). Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001.
Süreyya, Mehmet. Sicill-i Osmani. Beşiktaş, İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı ve Türkiye Ekonomik ve
Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1996.
Taceddin İbrahim (d.890/1485-6). Münşeāt-i Tācī (Wien, Nationalbibl. H. O. 161). Edited by
Necati Lugal and Adnan Erzi. Istanbul: İstanbul Fethi Derneği, 1956.
Tacizade Sadi Celebi (d.1516). Taci-zade Sa'di Çelebi Münşe'atı. Edited by Adnan Erzi and
Necati Lugal. Istanbul, 1956.
“Tāli’-i Mevlūd-u Merhūm Ebu’l-Feth Sultān Mehmed Han,” n.d. Esat Ef., 1997. Süleymaniye
Library.

140
Taneri, Aydın. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun Kuruluş Döneminde Vezir-i 'Azamlık (1299-1453).
İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1997.
Tanman, Baha. “Emir Buhari Tekkesi.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 11:125-
128. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989.
———. “Halvethane.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 15:388. Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1997.
———. “Tarikatler.” In Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, VII:213-217. Ankara: Kültür
Bakanlığı ve Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1993.
Taşan, Berin. “Merzifonlu Şeyh Abdürrahim Rumi ve Vakfiyesi.” Vakıflar Dergisi 13 (1981):
91-100.
Taşköprülüzade Ahmed Isamüddin (d.1561). Osmanlı Bilginleri : Es-sakaiku'n-nu'maniyye fi
ulema-id-devleti'l-Osmaniyye. Translated by Muharrem Tan. Istanbul: İz, 2007.
Taşköprüzade Ahmed İsamüddin (d.1561). al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'mānīya fī 'ulamā al-Dawla al-
'Uthmānīya. Istanbul: Jāmi'at Istānbūl, Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Markaz al-Dirāsāt al-Sharqīyah,
1985.
Tatçı, Mustafa, and Halil Çeltik. Türk Edebiyatından Tasavvufi Rüya Tabirnameleri: Kürd
Muhammed el-Halveti, Niyazi-i Mısri el-Halveti, Karabaş-ı Veli el-Halveti, Yiğitbaşı
Ahmed Marmaravi el-Halveti. Ankara, 1995.
Tayşi, Mehmed Serhan. “Cemal-i Halveti.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 7:301-
303. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988.
Terzioğlu, Derin. “Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri (1618-1694).”
Ph.D, Harvard University, 1999.
Trimingham, J Spencer. The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Turan, Şerafettin. “Şehzade Bayezid.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 5:231.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989.
Türkiye'de Vakıf Abideler ve Eski Eserler I: Adana, Adıyaman, Afyon, Ağrı, Amasya, Ankara,
Antalya, Aydın. Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1972.
Tursun Bey (d. after 896/1491). The History of Mehmed the Conqueror. Edited by Rhoads
Murphey and Halil İnalcık. Minneapolis, 1978.
Uludağ, Süleyman. “Halvetiye.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 15:392-395.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988.
———. “Keşf.” In Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi İslam Ansiklopedisi, 25:314-316. Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1989.
Underwood & Underwood. Amassia with its great natural defenses, April 21, . Library of
Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.
[Link]
Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Kitabeler. Istanbul: Milli Matbaası, 1927.
———. “Onaltıncı Asır Ortalarında Yaşamış Olan Iki Büyük Şahsiyet: Tosyalı Celalzade
Mustafa ve Salih Çelebiler.” Belleten 22 (1958): 391-441.
———. Osmanlı Tarihi. 3rd ed. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1975.
Vicdani, Sadık. Tōmār-ı Turūk-ı ‘Aliye. Istanbul: Evkaf-ı İslamiye Matbaası, 1919.
Wittek, Paul. De la défaite d'Ankara à la prise de Constantinople un demi-siècle d'histoire
Ottomane. Paris: [P.]Geuthner, 1938.
Wolper, Ethel Sara. Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in

141
 Medieval Anatolia. University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003.
Yardım, Ali. Amasya Kaya Kitabesi: Bayezid Paşa İmareti Vakfiyesi. 1st ed. Ankara: T.C.
Amasya Valiliği, 2004.
Yaşar, Hüseyin Hüsameddin. Amasya Tarihi. Vol. 3. Dersaadet [d.i. Istanbul]: Necm-i İstikbal
Matbaası, 1927.
———. Amasya Tarihi I (Mukaddime). Translated by Ali Yılmaz and Mehmet Akkuş. Ankara,
1986.
Yazıcı, Tahsin. “Fetihten sonra İstanbul’daki ilk Halveti Şeyhleri: Çelebi Muhammed
Cemaleddin, Sünbül Sinan ve Merkez Efendi.” Istanbul Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 2 (1956):
87-113.
Yılmaz, Fikret. “Amasya'nın Bir Numaralı Şer'iye Sicili.” MA, İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi, 1987.
Yörük, Doğan. “Karaman Eyaletinde OsmanlıTımar Düzeninin Tesisi (1483).” Ankara
Üniversitesi DTCF Tarih Araştırmaları 25, no. 40 (2006): 177-202.
Yurt, Ali İhsan. Akşemseddin, 1390-1459: Hayatı, Eserleri (Aş‘ār, Hall-i Müşkilāt, Mādda al-
Hayāt, Maktūbāt, Makāmāt-ı Evliyā, Vakfnāme). Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, İlahiyat
Vakfı, 1994.
Yusuf b. Yakub (d. ca.1577). Menākıb-ı Şerīf ve Tarīkatnāme-i Pīrān ve Meşāyih-i Tarīkat-ı
‘Aliyye-i Halvetiye. Istanbul, 1874.
Zarcone, Thierry. “Histoire et croyances des derviches turkestanais et indiens à Istanbul.” In
Anatolia Moderna = Yeni Anadolu II: Travaux Et Recherches de l'Institut Français
d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul:Derviches et Cimetières Ottomans, edited by Jean-
Louis Bacqué-Grammont, 137-200. Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient, Adrien
Maisonneuve, Jean Maisonneuve Successeur, 1991.
Zinkeisen, Johann. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, etc. (Vom Anfange ... bis
zum Frieden mit Russland zu Bucharest im Jahre 1812.). Vol. 2. 7 Bde. 1840-63., 1840.

142
Appendix: Halvet, Halvetiye, Practice and Doctrines

Halvet

The term is translated as seclusion, retreat or retirement in many articles on Sufism. It comes
from the Arabic root kh-l-w, which means, “to be alone.” In Sufism, it has the following
meanings; isolation in a solitary place or a cell and involving in spiritual exercises 483, secluding
oneself and praying in a dark and isolated place on the orders of the shaykh, secretly talking to
God 484, conversation of the human soul with God in a place where there is no worldly possession
or a person 485, “isolation of the heart from what is other than the Lord, and attachment to him,
thereby reaching Him and being near unto Him.” 486

The word “Halvet” was first used by Dhu al’Nun al-Mısri (d.245/860) as a Sufi technical
term, 487 but obviously the roots of this practice goes way back before him. Although some
writers tend to look for Christian origins for this practice 488, most of the Sufi writers chose to
explain it more as an Islamic phenomenon. According to the latter, Halvet was the practice of the
Prophet Moses 489. The retreat of Mary during her pregnancy could also be given as an example
from Quran. In addition to them, this practice finds a basis in Prophet’s tradition too. In spite of
the discussions on the nature of prophetic practices before the revelation, many of which
Halvetis chose to ignore, they consider the retreat of the Prophet in Mt. Hira before revelation as
a Sunnah, thus a sound support for their practice.

The normal duration of a Halvet is forty days. 490 The number of forty is inspired by the practice
of the Prophet Moses and it symbolizes forty stages in the mystic journey towards the unification
with God. 491 It is thus, that in the Turkish Halvetiye, Halvet was also called ‘erba‘īn çıkarmak’,
which has the meaning of completing forty days in retreat. Halvet does not require a certain
place but it usually takes place in a completely isolated cell, which is hardly big enough to pray
483
H. Landolt, “khalwa,” in The New Encyclopedia of Islam (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2002), 90.
484
Enver Behnan Şapolyo, Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar Tarihi (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1964), 172.; Rahmi Serin,
İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler (Istanbul: Petek Yayınları, 1984), 67.
485
Cengiz Gündoğdu, Bir Türk Mutasavvıfı Abdülmecid Sivasi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tasavvufi Görüşleri (Ankara:
T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2000), 169.
486
Quoted and translated from as-Simnānī, in Jamal J Elias, The Throne Carrier of God: The Life and Thought of
Alā ad-Dawlah as-Simnānī (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 119.
487
Landolt, “khalwa,” 990.; Martin, “A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes,” 275.; Mustafa Kara,
Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar Tarihi, 1st ed. (Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1985), 106.; Nevertheless, Gündoğdu argues that
this term was first used far later than Dhu’l-Nun al-Mısri, by İbrahim Zahid Gilani (d.705/1305.) Gündoğdu, Bir
Türk Mutasavvıfı Abdülmecid Sivasi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tasavvufi Görüşleri, 169.
488
Martin, “A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes,” 275.; Landolt, “khalwa,” 990.
489
Quran 7/138-142; Gündoğdu, Bir Türk Mutasavvıfı Abdülmecid Sivasi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tasavvufi Görüşleri,
169.; Serin, İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler, 67.; Şapolyo, Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar Tarihi, 172.; Baha
Tanman, “Halvethane,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 15 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı,
İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1997), 388.
490
Algar, “Čella.”
491
Landolt, “khalwa,” 990.; Gündoğdu, Bir Türk Mutasavvıfı Abdülmecid Sivasi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tasavvufi
Görüşleri, 169.; Serin, İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler, 67.; Şapolyo, Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar Tarihi,
172.
143
in and in which scarcely exists any distraction even a light. These places are called ‘Halvethane’
in Turkish Sufism and they are usually in the vicinity of or even within the mosque, in order to
enable murid to make his ablutions, and to attend congregational Friday prayer, while having the
least interaction possible with the outer world. 492 In this way, “closing up of the external senses
and the opening of the internal senses” is intended. 493 There are eight principles in this seclusion
that are attributed to Junayd al-Baghadi;

1. Controlling the external senses

2. Maintaining a continual state of ritual purity
3. Continual fasting
4. Continual silence
5. Continual repetition of the formula “There is no god, but God.”
6. Continual banishing of distracting thoughts
7. Fixing the heart totally on the mystical guide
8. Ceasing to raise objections to God. 494

During this period of Halvet, the murid should report all his mystical experiences and dreams to
his sheikh. Spiritual guidance is vital in this process, because these experiences may lead the
murid to undesirable states.

The practice of Halvet is one of the debated points among the Sufis. Because of the hadith
“There is no monasticism in Islam” and of various other Islamic factors in the Quran and the
tradition of the Prophet, “spiritual seclusion” within society, which is called halvet der encumen
by Nakşibendi order, is considered more favorable than material halvet by many other Sufis 495
Also Celaleddin-i Rumi, the founder of the Mevlevi order condemns this practice and
recommends his murids to undertake their mystical journey, namely suluk, within society. 496

Doctrines and Practices of the Halvetiye Order

When talking about the doctrines and practices of such a widespread Sufi order, it is obvious that
a single idea or practice is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, one can still argue for some
general characteristics in their doctrine, for example, the influence of the idea of unity of being
derived from Ibn al-‘Arabi’s thought. Yet, the degrees of this influence differ from one branch to
another. While some branches are adhering to it altogether, some others argue that the ultimate
point in a human’s mystical journey is not the unification but conjunction, since the human soul
and God are separate existences. 497 Although rare, one could also see some Shiite conceptions in
some branches of Halvetiye, such as Üveysiye of Davud Halife in the 16th century. 498
492
Tanman, “Halvethane.”
493
Landolt, “khalwa,” 991.
494
Elias, The Throne Carrier of God, 120.
495
Landolt, “khalwa,” 990.
496
Serin, İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler, 68.
497
F. De Jong, “Khalwatiya,” in , New ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 992.; Mısriye of Niyazi-i Mısri can be given as an
example of adhering this principle. Süleyman Uludağ, “Halvetiye,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi,
vol. 15 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1988), [Link] the views of
144
Halvet is required for a dervish in most of the branches, despite the fact that there are various
sets of rules in each of them. The length of this halvet may vary from three to forty days. The
rules about who may enter the halvet are also varied. While some branches recommend it for a
newly recruited dervish, others do not allow it for anyone who has not reached a certain level in
the mystical journey. In this journey, there are seven levels each of which is called makam. 499
Moreover, to each makam, remembrance of one of the seven names of God (Allah, Hu, Hayy,
Hakk, Kayyum and Kahhar) is attached, and these are called usul or esma-yı fenaiye. Keeping
these names as their basis, some branches added other names to their list as well. 500 In the
remembrance ceremonies, which are done a few times a week and in a collective manner,
musical accompaniment and rotation, sema and devran, has an important place. This practice is
one of the points later attacked by mainstream ulema and the Kadızadelis. 501 Otherwise, private
remembrance also has a crucial role in the mystical journey of the dervish.

Another common element in all branches is the reading of Yahya Şirvani’s Wird al-Sattār at
certain times. “It consists of three sections which glorify the oneness of God, the Prophet and his
prophethood, and the Companions.” It is read aloud, and listening to it is considered more
beneficial than remembrance, since it is thought that these kinds of occasions of external union
with the other dervishs may lead to an internal union. 502

Niyazi Misri on vahdet-i vucud see Derin Terzioğlu, “Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri
(1618-1694)” (Ph.D, Harvard University, 1999), 369-374.
498
Martin, “A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes,” 28.; De Jong, “Khalwatiya,” 992.
499
Sadık Vicdani, Tōmār-ı Turūķ-ı ‘Aliye (Istanbul: Evkaf-ı İslamiye Matbaası, 1919), 33-34.; De Jong,
“Khalwatiya,” 992.; Serin, İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler, 43.
500
De Jong, “Khalwatiya,” 992.; Uludağ, “Halvetiye,” 394.; Serin, İslam Tasavvufunda Halvetilik ve Halvetiler, 72.;
Gündoğdu, Bir Türk Mutasavvıfı Abdülmecid Sivasi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Tasavvufi Görüşleri, 165.
501
Vicdani, Tōmār-ı Turūķ-ı ‘Aliye, 31.; Uludağ, “Halvetiye,” 394.; Şapolyo, Mezhepler ve Tarikatlar Tarihi, 174.
502
Vicdani, Tōmār-ı Turūķ-ı ‘Aliye, 26.; De Jong, “Khalwatiya,” 992.; Uludağ, “Halvetiye,” 394.
145