Alam Ilmi: The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire: 1808

The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire: 1808 – 1876

E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

Abstract

This study presents the transformed relationship between the state and the

Sufi orders in the Ottoman Empire as the outcome of its affiliation with the

modernization process in the nineteenth century. The study focuses on the

institutionalization of the Ottoman Sufis and the state regulations regarding

them, and it aims to provide a survey of how the state attempted to amend the

Sufi orders. The reforms introduced by Sultan Mahmud II are discussed, and

this investigation is complemented by analysis of the regulations of the

Tanzimat. The study concludes that the income level of the tekkes was

drastically reduced and the privileged status of the Sufi orders eroded through

two particular decrees.

Key Words The Sufi Orders, The Ottoman Empire, transformation,

modernization, the Tanzimat, Sultan Mahmud, Meclis- i Me ayih, sheikh,

dervish, tekkes, sultan, Bektashi, lodge.

*****

1. The Role and the Situation of the Sufi Orders up to the Period of

the Tanzimat

The Ottoman Empire inaugurated and intensified efforts to

incorporate administrative reforms that the Russians and Austro-Hungarians

had recently brought into their governmental arsenal. The intention of these

reforms was the revitalization of the Ottoman Empire. In this context, Islam

was treated by the reformers as a significant influence on Ottoman society,

which they desired to maintain and amplify.

In this sense, the

governmentality of the Ottoman Empire was incorporated into a state

mechanism, which was concerned with the complex composition of men and

things related to men, rather than territorial governance. People’s

associations, relations, and the personal sphere became a concern of the state.

The Sufi orders, which contributed to the qualifications of human beings and

thus the society, are one example of this. The aim of this paper is to discuss

the attempts to reform the Sufi Orders in the Ottoman Empire in the

nineteenth century, with special emphasis on the years between 1808 and

1876, under the new regulation of Ottoman governmentality. The reforms

introduced during this period were long-term and relatively successful for the

empire in the processes of bureaucratization and modernization. Particularly E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

the military and civil reforms of this period have been of crucial importance

in the history of Islam and the Sufi Orders. Beginning with the Nizam-ı Cedid

under Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1807), and continuing with the Tanzimat

following the new regulations under Sultan Mahmud (r. 1808-1839), these

reforms, which played a considerable role in the modernization process, in

both the provinces and the center of the Empire.

Since the time span of this study excludes the reign of Selim III, I

will concentrate on the reforms of Sultan Mahmud, which can be considered

in two major fields: the modernization of the military which ended with the

suppression of the janissaries in 1826; and the re-organization of the financial

resources of the state, particularly the administration of the waqfs. In both

fields, the Sufi orders were affected, and this paper focuses on the level of

influence and the material effects of these reforms in the Sufi Orders. These

mystical institutions were not only affected by the abolishment of the

janissaries, but also by the re-organization of the waqfs. The reforms resulted

in negative consequences for the orders, and a decline in their fortunes

compared to their previous conditions. The reforms of the nineteenth century

undermined the traditional role of the dervish institution in the Ottoman

Empire, especially for the tekkes and the tariqas. The beginning of the

changes in the Sufi Orders was the suppression and the termination of the

Bektashi Order in 1826, after the abolishment of the janissaries. Nevertheless,

Sultan Mahmud had given the first signs of change when he declared his

reform decrees, which focused on the administration of the Sufi Orders in

1812 and 1818. In this respect, it is safe to claim that Sultan Mahmud’s

reforms made important impressions on the practices and general structures

of the Sufi orders.

2. The Re-Organization of the Sufi Orders under Mahmud II

The key events of the nineteenth century, such as the Reform Edicts

of the Tanzimat in 1834, the Islahat in 1856 and the Constitution in 1876

resulted in economic, religious, social and cultural transformations. The

Vilayet laws in 1864 and 1868 were designed to implement reforms at the

administrative and provincial levels. These have been seen as part of a

concentrated period and process of reforming legislation called the Tanzimat,

which took place during the reigns of Sultan Mahmud’s sons Abdülmecid (r.

1839-1861) and Abdülaziz (r. 1861-1876), and achieved its final culmination

during the long reign of Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909), who, in many ways,

was one of the great Ottoman modernizers.

The reforms’ imperative was to

bind the government to a policy of change, greater justice, the rule of law as

well as economic improvements. The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

In comparison to the tangential reforms enacted by his predecessors,

the reign of Mahmud II and its reforms caused fundamental and profound

changes in the administration of the state. The influence of the European

powers and the internal disputes required both administrative and military

reforms. Naturally, the European institutions were used as models, but were

ultimately implemented as a synthesis indigenous to the Ottomans, rather

than being adopted in their original forms.

Mahmud II, the successor of Selim III (r. 1789-1807), was well

aware of the fact that direct and immediate implementation of the reforms

was the way to eliminate the weaknesses of the Ottoman sultanate and pave

the way for a better rule. In this respect, based on the lessons taken from the

reign of Selim III, Mahmud II spent the first decade of his reign by

consolidating his power and dominion over the branches of the state and the

perception of its officials. Therefore, Mahmud’s reforms were evaluated in

the sense that his statesmanship succeeded in a substantial reform of the

empire and set the stage for absolutism during the later years of his reign.

Sultan Mahmud began his reforms in the military, into which the

French army system was introduced. He also wanted to reform the system of

taxation. The tımar system had already been replaced by the iltizam (tax

farm) system in the 16

century due to corruption, and requests for improved

security in the provinces and administration of agricultural lands. The taxfarming system was later transformed into a more abusive form of tenancy

known as malikane (life farm) in 1695.

This seemed more advantageous

than the iltizam, although its positive initial results gave way to an increased

tax burden on the shoulders of the financial system, since the life farms were

devolved to the second, even to the third, hand mültezimler (life farmers).

Mahmud continued his modifications to the taxation system which he

inherited from Selim III, and expended great effort to terminate the

autonomous and powerful role of the provincial elites over the state and

signed the Sened-i Ittifak

with the ayans (provincial notables) in 1808. His

attempts were successful in the long run, when he later started to establish his

absolute regime after the Treaty of Bucharest in 1812. Afterwards, the

janissaries and the recruits provided by local fief holders were eliminated in

1826,

and this provided the starting point for the successful execution of

military and administrative reforms. As Mehmet Seyittanlıoğlu points out,

1826 marks the beginning of the Tanzimat era.

During Mahmud’s reign, civil service tuition was improved and

better salaries provided a more efficient administration, reducing the need for

graft. At the end of the seventeenth century, the empire was suffering from a

stagnation of territorial extension and a financial shortage (inflation), and

economic and taxation reforms were crucial to reverse the financial E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

deterioration. Further enhancements were made with the improvement of

taxation, which eliminated ineffective collection methods and improved

revenues for the state. However, malikane remained the major method of tax

collection until it was abolished during the Tanzimat.

Throughout these

reforms, the sultan undertook vigorous endeavors to establish an efficient

central control over the entire empire, establishing his rule as “enlightened

despot.” For instance, he promulgated a decree about men’s headgear, which

was the replacement of the traditional turban with the red fez with black

tassel. The traditional turban was a common component of everyday life,

ceremonial dress and an essential piece of dervish clothing, which was even

represented on their gravestones. Therefore, Mahmud’s affiliation to the

project of modernization, with its hope of silencing social distinctions, was

repressive since the dervish culture had previously been exempted from this

kind of restriction on life within the tekkes and the activities of the sheikhs. In

fact, Mahmud II was not the only ruler to attempt to administer the Sufi

Orders. Muhammed Ali, the Ottoman viceroy in Egypt, decreed that authority

over the Egyptian Sufi orders, lodges and shrines was to be held by the sheikh

al-sajjada (the newly created position granted authority over all other

sheikhs).

Mahmud II made enthusiastic efforts in order to curtail religious

powers in the empire with the help of modernization processes, which began

at the end of the seventeenth century. As well as the areas of law, economy,

education, the army, administration and security, which were considered

priority fields in which to implement reforms, the tekkes were also considered

one of the institutions requiring innovation. In this respect, Mahmud II

intervened in the affairs of the Sufi orders for political reasons. In order to

construct his “enlightened despotism” and to infringe upon the independent

profession of the Sufi class, the sultan declared two important imperial edicts

dealing with the dervish lodges, in two direct cases of intervention. The first

edict in 1812 was composed of four matters:

1. The central lodge (tekke) of a given order should be the one where

the eponym of the order is buried, and the administration of the

order’s affairs should be organized from there.

2. Those sheikhs’ positions vacated upon the death or departure of the

previous sheikh should be filled by appointment of the central tekke,

and the views of the Sheikh-ül-Islam should be sought.

3. In the appointment of sheikhs, attention must be paid to the

authority and capacities of the individuals. The appointment of The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

unqualified sheikhs through bribery, gifts, and so forth must be

prevented.

4. The foundation of the tekkes must be under the administration of the

Evkaf Nezareti.

It is understood from this edict that the dervishes lived in the tekkes,

and they advised and pronounced the profession of God’s unity. This

imperial edict did not touch upon the responsibilities and duties of the

dervishes within the lodge. However, their hitherto administrative and

financial autonomy was being eroded as they were being incorporated into

the sphere of state governance.

The ultimate aim was to take provincial

tekkes under the control of the centers, so that the control mechanism would

work without state intervention. In other words, the declaration of such an

edict meant that the regulations of tariqas and tekkes were worse than

initially supposed, and that the state tried to emphasize indirect control in the

provinces through the central tekkes. Certainly, the Sheikh-ül-Islam had been

demonstrated as the primary authority over the whole tariqas in the empire,

since they were pointed out as the supreme authority for the appointment of

the sheikhs. This was a great bureaucratic attempt to cut the direct ties of the

tariqa with the sultan, and to bind the Sufi orders to the scrutiny of the office

of the Me ihat (the ilmiyye hierarchy of the ulema). From now on, the Sufi

orders were reduced to being an institution of the state similar to other

institutions operating under the administration of state rules and regulations.

The edict also aimed to prevent fake dervishes from misleading society.

Furthermore, these regulations re-structured the authority of the sheikhs in

the tekkes on a new, legal basis.

Undeniably, the standards of the orders deteriorated as their income

levels decreased. Due to the income and prestige the lodges provided, those

who wanted to acquire power in society could build up dervish lodges. Many

provincial rulers would receive petitions and complaints about fake

dervishes, who were exploiting Ottoman subjects. In fact, the ultimate

objective behind these and subsequent reforms could be viewed as an attempt

to initiate and comprehend the process of bureaucratizing the religious

establishment, and to create a distinction between affairs of state and religion.

In fact, there were no specifically appointed administrative bodies to deal

with the issues of the Sufi orders until the Tanzimat reforms. The central Sufi

order (called Asitane) was responsible for solving disputes and sustaining

functions related to the tekkes. The order’s close contact with the palace and

with the Sheikh-ül-Islam was also efficient for their administration. The E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

Tanzimat reforms brought administrative interference in tekke regulations as

well as abolishing certain privileges introduced to tekke employees.

In order to continue with the reforms of Mahmud II and to avoid

certain malpractices which had occurred within the administration of the

tariqas and among the members of the order, some further measures had to

be taken, such as requiring a diploma for appointment to the office of sheikh,

the banishing of disobedient Sufis, and the closure of the lodges.

Subsequently, Mahmud II declared another imperial edict in 1836, which was

composed of seven matters dealing with the internal regulation of the lodges

and dervishes;

1. Each member of an order should wear a garment particular to that

order

2. Each dervish has to carry identity cards, with the signature and seal

of his sheikh.

3. Certificates of authoritative knowledge of the order’s traditions

(icazetname) must not be conferred to unqualified dervishes, and,

when they are to be conferred, the opinions of not one but several

sheikhs must be sought.

4. In the appointment of sheikhs, attention must be paid as to whether

the candidate is indeed a member of the order associated with the

foundation deeds.

5. One person may not hold more than one position as sheikh.

6. Items belonging to the tekke such as banners, flags, and musical

instruments must not be removed from the premises, not even on the

pretext of “sending off Hajj pilgrims” or “receiving returning ones.”

7. Those who do not participate in the canonical worship (namaz), in

recitation of tawhid (devotional) dhikrs, but merely wish to attend

the “song and dance dhikrs,” must be excluded.

This was a great step towards changing the function of the tekkes in

the nineteenth century. It is understood from this imperial edict that there

were people who came to the lodge for the practice of deveran and raks

zinciri, or those who were accommodated within the institution. However, the

edict also mentions the social life of the tekkes, and makes many efforts to

bring this under closer inspection and control. This was part of a broader The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

project to render more visible and calculable an ever-increasing number of

micro-level, daily social practices and institutions, mainly by requiring that

they be registered by a legal order. Hence, this edict transformed the

authority of sheikhs, hitherto legitimated by tradition, into authority of a

rational-legal type. The authority of the sheikh should be recognized, in legal

terms, as the reflection of the rational application of the state power. In fact,

these articles resulted in the placement of the Sheikhs in positions marginal to

the administration of the tariqa. Also, the legality of a sheikh having tenure

as the head of a tariqa came to be obtained through the legal agencies.

The decrease in the income level of the tekkes might have had an

influence on these changes. Those Bektashi members who survived the

prohibition secretly continued their activities, and the palace was not able to

surveil them easily. The edict was passed in order to fulfill the monitoring

activities of the state. In addition, the compulsory implementation of special

clothes and identity cards were signs of an attempt towards the execution of a

clear-cut standardization of the structure of the tariqas. This enforcement

aimed to not only unveil state control over religious orders, but also to

diminish the dominance of them over society. In fact, The Encyclopedia of

Islam states that the tekkes may have functioned as an intellectual center, a

sanctuary-offering asylum, as well as a political focus. In this respect, the

edict indicates the awareness of the center that the popularity of the religious

orders in society may have resulted in special and significant political

consequences. It is worth keeping in mind the revolt of Sheikh Said against

the central authority in 1925. Martin Van Bruinessan claims that Sheikh Said

could not have managed to mobilize such a variety of people or warriors had

it not been for the Naqshibandiyya network, and the belief of people in his

holiness.

Hence, it is safe to claim that the crucial consequence of the edicts

was to diminish the visibility of the religious orders on social and political

issues as a determining factor.

As far as economics is concerned, Mahmud II inaugurated several

reforms in order to marshal the resources of the state for a better

administration. He began to implement his reforms in 1813 through

fundamental changes in the administration of pious foundations. Firstly, he

united the administration of the Hamidiye and Mahmudiye Evkafı with the

Zarbhane-i Amire Nezareti (the Imperial Mint) in 1813.

He expanded the

imperial evkaf with the abolishment of the janissaries, and therefore had to

create a larger office in order to administer these vast, new state holdings. He

established the Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nezareti in 1826 and the former Zarhane

Naziri (the deputy of the Imperial Mint), Elhac Yusuf Efendi, became the

first Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nazırı (the deputy of the Imperial Estates).

With this

act, he aimed to incorporate all nezarets into one expanded nezaret, namely E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

the Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nezareti. The Sufi orders were also affected by this

financial regulation, and in this way, their revenues were henceforth to be

collected by the state and redistributed to the tekkes as an income. The

rationale behind this was to benefit efficiently from the waqfs, and to

decrease the power of the religious interests which dominated these

foundations. Sultan Mahmud also reduced the amount of gifts and financial

aid provided to the dervish lodges in order to accommodate travelers, the

dervishes themselves and their sympathizers. He was deliberately forming a

state whereby religious foundations would ultimately be subordinate to and

form a part of the Finance Ministry.

The object of this accumulation of

estates under one ministry was to put an end to the misappropriation of the

funds and other abuses, which had been rife under the separate ministries.

Robert Barnes argues that the main motivation of the Sultan in creating the

Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nezareti was that “it was imperative for the Sultan to

rectify the state of affairs by creating a central administration for all evkaf

throughout the empire in order to obtain the revenue of miri lands which had

been diverted to other ends.”

Therefore, the land, which had belonged to the

state, was given back and remained in the hands of the state. Moreover, the

growth of the Ministry of Imperial Estates increased in proportion with the

development of Mahmud II’s power and absolutism; it was established as a

fully independent ministry only after the destruction of the janissaries.

The reason for these economical and political changes was to guide

the large waqf incomes to the State Treasury. The greater control over the

waqf also provided a crucial basis for financial centralization. The waqf

institutions, in general, had become a branch of the bureaucratized state. The

result of these measures, however, deprived many dervishes of their

livelihood: “while the dervish orders continued to survive into the early

twentieth century, dispossessed of their revenue they were little more than a

feeble reflection of the impressive institution they once were.”

The relations between the Sufi orders and the bureaucracy began to

change with the abolition of the janissaries in 1826 and with the formation of

Evkaf Nezareti. In fact, the obliteration of the janissaries was crucial in order

to enable the success of the modernization and bureaucratization efforts led

by Mahmud II. Using the cases of Patrona Halil and Kabakçı Mustafa

rebellions as examples, Mahmud II wanted to eliminate any kind of

resistance to his reforms. Selim III had tried to apply the reforms immediately

and directly on traditional lines in the military, administration, economy and

society. His attempts were regarded by the existing state elites as a threat to

their political and financial power, and they resisted them and even rebelled

against the Sultan, resulting in his deposition in 1807 and assassination the

following year.

On the other hand, Mahmud II approached the state elites The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

cautiously, earning the support of ruling elites and preparing a climate for his

critical reforms. He waited for eighteen years to pass before undertaking his

radical and crucial changes in state rule, notably the elimination of

janissaries. He then made his lunge, which would result in the elimination of

the provincial notables from intervening into the state administration.

Sened-i Ittifak was another step in his attempt to bind the provincial notables

to the central authority by agreement, in order to end their powerful and even

exploitative acts on the state in the provinces. Furthermore, it was not enough

to issue the reforms; their success depended on their continued application,

which was only possible with state offices and bureaucrats with a highquality level of education. Additionally, intellectuals who supported the

reforms and who were eligible to be educated and to educate should be won

to the state branches. Aware of this fact, Mahmud II attempted to establish a

European style of education, though without the elimination of medreses. He

also made primary education compulsory and free, and set up Rü diyes (to

educate students in Harbiye and Tıbbiye) and Mekteb-i Maarif-i Adli (to train

the state officers).

Reviewing these reforms, one can claim that traditional societies

like the Ottoman Empire determine their particular patterns of change. Max

Weber points out that ruler and religion are the main sources of change in

empires,

and claims the attempts of Mahmud II as a great example of this;

both in the framework of his personal achievements in the reforms and of

incorporating religion (in the form of the Sufi orders) into this process.

The

patterns of social change in the empire were determined by the sultan and his

perception of reform. The transformation of the Sufi orders was not only the

result of the sultanic will, but was also affected by the intellectual outline of

the mürids. All the attempts at reformation, from the reign of Selim III

onwards, bore fruit in 1839 with the Tanzimat Edict.

3. The Sufi Orders in the Tanzimat Era

The reforms issued before the Tanzimat were mostly carried out by

internal dynamics under the direction of the Ottoman sultan. However,

compared to the reforms limited by the life span of the sultans or the

reformists of the pre-Tanzimat era, the Tanzimat reforms were structural,

fundamental and profound. They were like the struggle between the Bab-ı Ali

and Divan-ı Hümayun, and the reforms concluded with the consolidation of

the dominance of bureaucracy over the ruling class around the Sultan. These

reforms can also be defined as bringing the Ottoman state back, in the respect

that the administration reorganized in both the center and the provinces. They

were the regulation of the “fine-tuning” of the administration of the Ottoman E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

Empire.

The differentiating feature of the edict was the interference of

external dynamics on the internal perception of the necessity of modern, even

secular rules and regulations for state mechanisms and social order. Mustafa

Re it Pasha was aware of the significance of “civilization” for the

improvement of the Ottoman state and society and of the fact that political,

economical and administrative reforms were crucial steps to cope with the

Western powers and to catch up with the level of contemporary civilization.

It is important to note that modernization and westernization are often used

synonymously. However, compared to westernization, modernization is

culturally neutral.

Here, the term “modernization” will be preferred, since

the Ottoman reform movement understood its project as modernization rather

than westernization in its general framework. The will to reform was not only

absorbed by a small sector of Ottoman society; nor was the process of

reformation one of “westernization,” thereby alienating “traditional lines.”

On the other hand, somewhat ironically, the Tanzimat Edict also represents

the Islamic derivations of the empire. In other words, in the roots of the

Tanzimat Rescript, there are impacts of orthodox Islam expounded by one of

the leading Sufi orders within the Ottoman borders, namely the

Naqshibandiyya.

Although the Tanzimat tried to bring a relatively secular

organization to issues of social life, the Islamic roots of the edict appeared in

clear, experienced and voiced elements. First, Islam had been employed as

the legitimizing symbol for the popular recognition of the edict. Over time,

this Islamic foundation became noticeable, especially at the end of the

nineteenth century during the reign of Abdülhamid II. For the 19th century,

Butrus Abu Manneh claims that when Sultan Abdülmecid rose to the

Sultanate, both Palace and Porte were under the influence of orthodox Islam

propounded by the Naqshibandiyya order. Indeed, there were crucial political

players in the Palace and Porte who were both under the influence of the

Naqshibandiyya order and had close relations to the Sultan; Adile Sultan who

was the sister of Abdülmecid, Eyyubi Abdullah Efendi, who was reciter of

the Qur’an in Palace, Mustafa Izzet who was the muezzin (the one calling

Muslims to prayer) of the Palace and even Valide Sultan was affected by the

teachings of the order, since it expected its members to abide by Sharia

precepts. Therefore, one can argue that the Naqshibandiyya order sought

influence and prosperity with its sheihks and murids in order to ensure the

supremacy of the Sharia in the state and thus to bring justice and

righteousness into the acts of state bureaucrats. In this respect, during the

preparation and declaration, in stating the protection of life, honor and

property, the edict was also employing the commands of Sufi Islam. The idea

that justice brings security, that security proposes prosperity for subjects and

land, and that prosperity is a precondition for loyalty and devotion for the The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

ruler and the community is a major argument in the Gülhane Rescript.

Therefore, loaded with Sufi Muslim thought and modern political concepts,

the Tanzimat Rescript targeted the Ottoman public in order to secure the

continuation of the empire. With the union of Palace and Porte, the Tanzimat

did not deviate from Islamic principles. However, the regulations which

followed the edict caused difficulties in social and economic aspects of

Ottoman daily and the political life of the Sufi orders, after 1850 in particular.

The Tanzimat did not initially target the tekkes and the Sufi orders,

because Sultan Mahmud had taken necessary steps in order to structure and

determine the place of the orders in Ottoman society. The Tanzimat era had

an unpleasant impact on the majority of the dervish lodges in terms of

financial sources in order to provide more state control over the orders and

the endowments. Since the beginning of the Tanzimat in 1839, the revenues

of the dervishes, whose sole means of support was tithe revenue, had been

taken over by the state treasury. Moreover, the government abolished all the

incomes of the dervishes and lodges until the latter were registered in state

offices or if their dervishes were not recognized as genuine. Those tariqas,

which were not recognized and certified, were closed down and those who

were members of them were prohibited from opening their own tekkes. State

and bureaucracy collected all the control and power in their hands in order to

prevent tekkes and tariqas from acting independently, which would shake the

authority and balance of power among the branches of the state. In addition,

the Tanzimat and pre-Tanzimat reforms did not permit the Sufi orders to

establish an organization among themselves, but bound them to the authority

of a higher ranking officer in order to maintain the balance of power among

them.

In some cases, dervish families remained without income. If they

petitioned the state about their condition of shortage, they were provided with

a monthly salary enough for their survival. These petitions were examples of

unequal center-periphery power relations, and signs of a powerful state. The

state provides those in need with food and shelter only if they recognize the

supremacy of the state. In this respect, petitions are the textualized voices of

peripheries or subjects showing the authoritative tune of the Tanzimat state.

A petition of 1855 treats the death of Hüseyin Efendi, a sheikh of

Naqshibandiyya order, after which his wives were reduced to a state of

destitution and subjected to severe financial hardship. The reason for their

poverty was that the sheikh had left no inheritance. After the death of the

sheikh, his income was taken over by the treasury based on the application of

the Tanzimat edict. The family of the sheikh had to petition to the

government for support and accordingly they gained a monthly salary of 100 E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

kurush as compensation.

This is a great example of a “responsible” and

“protective” regulation for a state in the progress of modernization.

Government policy toward the tekkes and dervishes was a direct

takeover and control of their revenue. Dervishes became salaried state

officials, and tekkes were dealt with by the Meclis-i Vala during the Tanzimat

period. The Meclis-i Vala became the crucial agent in deciding basic needs,

food supply and financial aid for the Sufi orders. Đlber Ortaylı defines their

relationship as follows; “[the] state provided patronage and advice, while

tekkes leant on the state.”

Ortaylı claims a reciprocally pragmatic

relationship between the state and the tekkes. While the state provided

protection for them, and also utilized them as agents for its reputation. Tekkes

reserved their prestigious condition in society to some extent, but the

bureaucrats of the 19

century did not put as much pressure on the Bektashis

as on others. The reason for the great anxiety about them was the fact that the

Bektashis had “provided the janissaries with spiritual sustenance and popular

support since early times.”

In fact, the janissaries had had the responsibility

for public security, police duties, fire fighting, and the regulation of

agricultural production and trade within the markets of the capital. As they

were a crucial part of Ottoman financial and social life, Sultan Mahmud had

to weaken the corps of the janissaries, which was a central focus of his

modernization efforts in the military sphere. Therefore, after the elimination

of the janissaries, the order was abolished just a month later, and its buildings

were destroyed or distributed to the branches of the Naqshibandiyya order. It

is worth noting that the order did not come directly from the sultan, but from

the Sheikh-ül-Islam for political reasons. Since the suppression of a Sufi

order might have resulted in disturbance among the conservative sectors of

Ottoman society, the charge was carried out cautiously by the religious

authorities. In fact, the assembly was composed of the leading dignitaries; the

grand vizier, the two Kazaskers of Rumelia and Anatolia, the members of the

ulema religious class, and the sheikhs of the Naqshibandiyya, the Kadiriyya,

the Halvetiyya, the Mevleviyya and the Shadiyya orders.

They were

supposed to rally around orthodox Islam and to gather the true doctrines of

Islamic mysticism, since the Bektashis were believed to have departed from

the way of Hacı Bektashi Veli who was the founder of the Bektashi order.

The final decision was to penalize the acts of Bektashi tekkes, which were

regarded as being against the Qur’an and Sunna. An imperial edict was

declared on the 4

of Zilhicce 1241/1826 stating the punishment of these

kinds of Sufi organizations through the political authorities. The Rescript

ordered the closing of the Bektashi tekkes in Istanbul and in the provinces.

The rest of the buildings were converted into mosques, schools and The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

medreses.

The dervishes themselves were exiled to Anatolia under the

patronage of other tariqas in particular.

By the time the Bektashi order was dissolved, the implemented state

policy towards the Sufi orders was to put direct control on their incomes. By

a decree in 1840, the revenues of the dervish lodges were no longer to be

administered independently, but regulated and collected by state officials,

who were appointed by the government.

Another move of the Ottoman state

towards all tekkes and zaviyes was to set forth legislation regarding the local

administration, according to Tanzimat principles, of lands, arable fields and

villages assigned for the provisioning of all tekkes and zaviyes:

All lands, arable fields, and villages recorded in the defter-i

hakani and tied to dersiye fees for education, and which

were assigned in the times of the former sultans for the

support of the poor and dervishes of all tekkes and zaviyes

in the regions within the province of Tanzimat

administration will hereafter not be administered

independently, but, like all other evkaf attachments, zeamet

fiefs and mukataat shares which are held in common and

that are mixed with state lands, will be administered by

local officials.

So, even the autonomous control of Sufi dervishes of their own

waqfs and incomes were taken away by taking them into the possession of

the state. As mentioned before, the Tanzimat reforms ended the

supernumerary donatives given by the provincial governors for the support of

the dervishes. For instance, the income of the Halvetiyya Sheikh Hüseyin

Efendi came from the Halvetiyya Order in Yozgat kaza in the province, and

was cut off by the Tanzimat regulations, because the profits of the provincial

governors were revoked. However, the same decree donated an additional 30

kurush to the monthly salary of the dervish, paid by the state.

The

significant point is that the salaries were paid by the treasury, not by the

provincial governor or by the revenue of the vali.

Another decree shows the takeover of the Tanzimat of the given

tayinat during the Ramadan month to the tekkes and Sufi lodges. This is

exemplified by a decree on the Siroz Mevlevihanesi in 1842. According to

this decree, eight okka of coffee, forty okka of oil and honey, and six bushels

of rice, previously allocated to the Mevlevi tekke in the sacred month of

Ramadan, were cut off after the declaration of the Tanzimat, and it was

declared that additional money was to be given to the dervishes instead.

E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Tarih Vol. 1(1): 70-93. © Boğaziçi University Department of History 2009

All these regulations demonstrate the fact that the state tried to put

complete control of the administration and financial supervision of the Sufi

orders in the hands of responsible officers. Also, in terms of fees,

appointments to offices within the tariqa and its administration would only

be approved and effected by the state.

The Meclis-i Vala, as the supreme legal authority in the empire, set

strict control over the tekkes and tariqas; it appointed certain sheikhs to

certain tekkes, or played an advisory role in the appointment of dervishes.

The financial support, as well as the supervision of the appointments, proved

that the state wanted to weaken the power of the tekkes and to restrain their

independent status within society. An edict of 1860 by the Meclis-i Vala

commanded that all guests sheltered under the roof of the tekke should be

recorded, in order to prevent vagrants in dervish or student clothes from

taking advantage of the tekke facilities.

Ortaylı argues that most of the

tekkes and dervishes were taken under a hierarchical supervision through

financial aid, so that the state could be witness to all the acts of the lodge

members, to the extent that they could only fulfill their traditional, political

roles, including their social leadership, in accordance with the state’s

permission.

It can be argued that a functional relationship developed between the

state and the Sufi orders, and that state agencies had organizational

continuity, including the continuity of the central authority’s position, as a

result of the involvement of the state in the well-being of the tariqas.

The second consequence of the Tanzimat was the decline of the Sufi

orders because of the process of secularization, which occurred in the

Ottoman Empire in the mid-nineteenth century. The changes in outlook

implied a decline of interest in mystical life and left an impression on many

of the Sufi orders, which gradually ceased to be active, and finally

completely disappeared.

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

experienced an active attack on the Sufi orders based on misgivings about the

orders, such as the idea that they were likely to form a site of resistance to

progress. However, in the Ottoman Empire, the actions of state and

government had already suppressed the powerful position of the orders in

society, because they adopted the principles of religion and mysticism in the

sphere of learning and worship. However, the movement of change in the

nineteenth century was a process by which a social and cultural system

dominated by religion changed into an organization in which each sphere of

life, such as science and art political and economic activities, society and

culture and morality and religion became autonomous.

The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

4. The Meclis-i Meşayih: The Sheikhs as Bureaucrats

The last development in the nineteenth century, and the concluding

development of the reforms of Sultan Mahmud and the Tanzimat, was the

institution of the Council of Sheikhs (Meclis-i Me ayih) in 1866, in order to

centralize the oversight of the orders’ affairs. The assembly was established

in Istanbul as a body reporting to the offices of the empire’s chief mufti (the

Sheikh-ül-Islam).

The establishment of the assembly coincided with the

tenure of a Sheikh-ül-Islam who was known to have had close relations with

Sufism and the Sufi Orders: Refik Efendi.

The assembly was the direct outcome of the efforts to amend the

activities of the sheikhs. The main aim of the council was to undertake the

administration and the supervision of all tariqas in the Ottoman Empire. The

assembly was tied to the office of Me ayih and took on responsibility for the

administration and the inspection of all Sufi orders in the Ottoman capital,

Istanbul. For the provinces, they launched the Encümen-i Me ayih (the

Council of Sheikhs) to carry out these functions. It was composed of the

mufti and two sheikhs of the regions.

The Meclish-i Me ayih also took crucial measures of spiritual and

organizational improvement regarding the Sufi orders. The Council not only

changed the method of appointments in the orders and of education within

the tekkes, but also paved the way for their politicization. It should be noted

that the most significant impact of the Council, which became a

governmental body in the hands of the Sheikh-ül-Islams and muftis, was the

fact that all tekkes lost their privileges and exemptions. The founding of the

assembly saw the routinization of bureaucratic procedures in the appointment

of the sheikhs. Whereas the evladiyet (when a sheikhs’ post passed to one of

his sons) or the hilafet (when a sheikhs’ post passed to another authorized

figure) were employed as the primary methods on the death of a sheikh, the

assembly introduced the methods of imtihan (examination of the information

of Islam, and of the tradition and practices of particular order) and

icazetname (diploma) as the essential documents for the nomination of a

sheikh. However, the sheikhs were still allowed to practice other functions

such as imamlık, and muezzinlik, as previously. The assembly of Sheikhs

lasted until 1917 with some special changes.

The most important difference of the assembly from the edicts of

Mahmud II in 1818 was the fact that while the decree of 1812 had begun to

reorganize the tekkes, based on hierarchical orders such as the central and the

provincial, the assembly attached the tekkes to the central ones not according

to their affiliation but based on their geographic location.

E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

5. Conclusion

The Ottoman Empire did not introduce any new ideological

contribution to Sufism, but bestowed a theoretical flourishing to the people

through the tekkes and their relationships with the tariqas. The Sufi orders

gained institutional settlement and social vitality in their relatively

independent practices and beliefs in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth

century. Urban populations, including foreign nationals, increased with the

predomination of Muslims in the 1850s.

Between 1820 and 1921, the

number of tekkes in the city also increased.

The nineteenth century

witnessed crucial changes in the structure of the Sufi orders and in their

relations with the state. The Ottoman Reforms of the orders were intended

not to “repair the religion” or as part of a “westernization process,” but to

strengthen the empire and the functioning of its institutions. In this

empowerment, the Sufi orders were transformed into fully-fledged

bureaucratic institutions in which political approval, protection and support

were endowed by the hand of the state. This was a direct outcome of a

modernizing trend in Islam towards more systematized and controlled

administration to prevent abuses of the system, and to repel the doubts about

the mystics of Sufism, as well as being part of a new Ottoman

governmentality. Finally, all procedures regarding the bureaucratization and

modernization of the Sufi orders were settled and bounded to strict

regulations. Sufi practices were increasingly subjected to the normativities of

the state mechanism.

Notes

Butrus Abu-Manneh, “The Islamic Roots of the Gulhane Rescript”, Die

Welt des Islams, n.s., 34, (1994), 173-103; and Benjamin Fortna, “Islamic

Morality in Late Ottoman ‘Secular’ Schools,” International Journal of

Middle East Studies, 32 (2000), 369-93.

Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War of National

Liberation 1918-1923 A Documentary Study, Vol I, (Ankara: Turkish

Historical Society, 2000), 18.

Đlber Ortaylı, “Tanzimat Devrinde Đdari Yapı”, Osmanlı Devleti ve

Medeniyet Tarihi, E. Đhsanoğlu ed., (Đstanbul: Đslam Tarih, Sanat ve Kültür

Ara tırma Merkezi, 1994), 286-7. The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

John Robert Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the

Ottoman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 72.

Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Timar”, Đslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol 12/1, (Istanbul:

Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1970), 286-7.

Mehmet Genç, “Osmanlı Maliyesinde Malikane Sistemi”, Türkiye Đktisat

Tarihi Semineri, ed. O. Okyar, Ü. Nalbantoğlu (Ankara: Hacettepe

Üniversitesi, Sosyal ve Đdarî Bilimler Fakültesi, 1977), 231-3.

For the pact with the ayan see Halil Đnalcık, “Sened-i Đttifak ve Gülhane

Hattı Hümayunu”, Belleten, Vol XXVIII (October, 1964), 603- 90.

For further information see, Đ. Hakkı Dani mend, Izahlı Osmanlı Tarihi

Kronolojisi, Vol IV, (Đstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972), 109-111; Enver

Ziya Karal, Osmanlı Tarihi, C.V., 144-150; S. Shaw, Osmanlı

Đmparatorluğu ve Modern Türkiye, Vol II, 20-1; Bernard Lewis, Modern

Türkiye’nin Doğu u, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1970), 79-81;

Taner Timur, Osmanlı Çalı maları, (Ankara: Verso A. ., 1989), 117-150;

Tuncer Baykara, “Yeniçeri Ocağının Kaldırılmasının Sosyal Sonuçları”,

Sultan II. Mahmud ve Reformları Semineri, 28-30 Haziran 1989, (Istanbul,

1990), 147-156; Godfrey Goodwin, The Janissaries, (London: Saqi, 1997).

Mehmet Seyittanlıoğlu, “Yenile me Dönemi Osmanlı Devlet Te kilatı,”

Türkler, Vol 13, (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2002), 561-76.

Mehmet Genç, “Đltizam”, Türk Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi, VOL.

XII, (Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1988), 57.

For further information, see, Frederick De Jong, Turuq and Turuq-Linked

Institutions in Nineteenth Century Egypt: A Historical Study in Organization

Dimensions of Islamic Mysticism, (Leiden: Brill, 1978).

Mustafa Kara, “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar,”

Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol. IV, (Istanbul: Đleti im,

1985), 982.

See John F. Barnes, “The Dervish Orders in the Ottoman Empire”, in The

Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, ed.

Raymond Lifchez (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 42; and E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire

(Leiden: Brill, 1986), 92-101.

Mustafa Kara, “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar,” 983.

Martin van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political

Structures of Kurdistan (London: Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed Books,

1992), 211.

“Evkaf-ı Hümayun,” Đstanbul Prime Minister's Archives Documents, 25.

“Evkaf-ı Hümayun,” 26.

John Robert Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the

Ottoman Empire, (Leiden: Brill 1986), 83.

Ibid.

Ibid., 92-101.

Ahmet Cevat Eren, “Selim III”, Đslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. X, 441-7.

In fact, this is the crucial difference of centralizations issued by Mahmud

II and by Abdülhamid II. Sultan Mahmud II solidified his rule by setting

aside provincial notables from state rule and regulation, while Abdülhamid II

tried to incorporate these notable into state mechanism under his control to

consolidate his power.

Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanlı Tarihi, 109.

Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology,

Vol I, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 73-5.

Sabri Ülgener, on the other hand, claims that the religious nature of the

Ottoman Empire, namely Islamic dynamics, resulted in immutable situation

for the Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because of the

heterodox Islam and the mystical tradition embedded in it. F. Sabri Ülgener,

Dünü ve Bugünü ile Zihniyet ve Din Đslam Tasaavuf ve Çözülme Devri

Đktisat, (Đstanbul: Der Yayınları, 1981). Ülgener, however, neglects and The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

undermines the transformation of both state mechanism and religious

institutions, especially the Sufi orders in the nineteenth century.

Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains; Ideology and the

Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876- 1909 (London: I.B.

Tauris, 1998), 10.

Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman

Modernization and Social Change, (New York: Oxford University Press,

1996), 7.

See, “Introduction: Towards a New Urban Paradigm” in The Empire in the

City: Arab Provincial Capitals in the Late Ottoman Empire, ed. Jen

Hanssen, Thomas Philip and Stefan Weber (Würzburg: Ergon in

Kommission, 2002), 4.

Butrus Abu-Manneh, “The Islamic Roots of Gulhane Rescript,” Die Welt

Des Islam 34, no. 2 (Nov., 1994).

Ibid., 196.

BOA/ A.}MKT.UM../ 232/ 7/ 02/ /1272 (1855).

Đlber Ortaylı, “Tarikatler ve Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Yönetimi,”

OTAM, (1995, no: 6), 285.

Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford

University Press, 1962), 33-4, 76

Mehmed Esad Efendi, Üss-i Zafer (Istanbul: 1293/1876), 208.

Ibid., 209.

Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire,

92.

BOA, Cevdet-i Evkaf, No: 538, Gömlek No: 27168/ 29/C /1256 (1849).

“Bütün tekke ve zaviyelerin taamiyelerin me rut kura, mezari ve arazinin

tanzimat usulünce mahalli idaresi tarafından ta rii.”

BOA, Cevdet-i Evkaf, No: 16327, 20 N 1257 (1841). E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

BOA, Cevdet-i Evkaf, No: 17095, 5 CA 1258 (1842).

BOA, Meclis- i Vala Evrakı, Dosya No: 114, C 1276/ 1860.

Ortaylı, “Tarikatler ve Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Yönetimi,” 286.

Spencer Trimingham, “Chapter IX,” The Sufi Orders in Islam, (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1971).

Ibid., 249.

Đrfan Gündüz, Osmanlılarda Devlet-Tekke Münasebetleri (Ankara: Seha

Ne riyat, 1989), 205; Mustafa Kara, Din, Hayat ve Sanat Açısından Tekkeler

ve Zaviyeler (Đstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1980), 301-18; Thierry Zarcone,

Mystiques, philosophes et francs-maçons en Islam, Rıza Tevfik, penseur

ottoman (1868-1949) from Sufism to brotherhood, (Paris: Institut français

d'études anatoliennes d'Istanbul; Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient Adrien

Maisonneuve, Jean Maisonneuve Successeur, 1993), 139-43.

Refik Efendi was affiliated with the Naqshibandiyya order by a deputy of

Mevlana Khalid, the Sheikh Abdulfettah Akri, when he had been sent to

Syria for an official duty. For further information, see, Kara, Tekkeler ve

Zaviyeler, 303.

Bilgin Aydın, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Tekkeler Reformu ve Meclis-i

Me ayih’in eyhülislamlığa Baglı Olarak Kurulu u, Faaliyetleri ve Ar ivi,”

Osmanlı Ara tırmaları 7 (1998), 98.

For the text of the 1917 reorganization, the Meclis-i Me ayih Nizamnamesi,

published in Takvim-i Vekayi, see, Kara, Tekkeler ve Zaviyeler, 389-43.

Aydın, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Tekkeler Reformu ve Meclis-i Me ayih’in

eyhülislamlığa Baglı Olarak Kurulu u, Faaliyetleri ve Ar ivi,” 96.

Stanford Shaw, “The Population of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century,”

International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 10, (1979), 266.

Klaus Kreiser, “Medresen und Derwischkonvente in Istanbul: Quantitative

Aspekte”, Economies et societes dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe- The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

debut du XXe siècle), ed. J.L. Bacque-Grammont and P. Dumont, (Paris,

1983), 109-27.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Istanbul Prime Minister’s Archives

Cevdet-i Evkaf

Meclis-i Vala Evrakı

Evkaf-ı Hümayun

Secondary Literature

Abu-Manneh, Butrus. “The Islamic Roots of the Gulhane Rescript.” Die Welt

des Islams, n.s., 34, (1994): 173-103.

Aydın, Bilgin. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Tekkeler Reformu ve Meclis-i

Me ayih’in eyhülislamlığa Baglı Olarak Kurulu u, Faaliyetleri ve

Ar ivi.” Osmanlı Ara tırmaları 7 (1998).

Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Timar.” Đslam Ansiklopedisi. Vol 12/1.Istanbul:

Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1970: 286-7.

Barnes, John Robert. An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the

Ottoman Empire. Leiden: Brill, 1987.

----------. “The Dervish Orders in the Ottoman Empire.” in The Dervish

Lodge: Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. ed.

Raymond Lifchez. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

Baykara, Tuncer. “Yeniçeri Ocağının Kaldırılmasının Sosyal Sonuçları.”

Sultan II. Mahmud ve Reformları Semineri, 28-30 Haziran 1989.

Istanbul: Istanbul Üni. Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1990: 147-156.

Dani mend, Đ. Hakkı. Izahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi., Vol IV. Istanbul:

Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972. E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

De Jong, Frederick. Turuq and Turuq-Linked Institutions in Nineteenth

Century Egypt: A Historical Study in Organization Dimensions of

Islamic Mysticism. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Deringil, Selim. The Well-Protected Domains; Ideology and the Legitimation

of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876- 1909. London: I.B. Tauris,

1998.

Eren, Ahmet Cevat. “Selim III.” Đslam Ansiklopedisi X. Đstanbul: Türkiye

Diyanet Vakfı, 1970: 441-7.

Fortna, Benjamin. “Islamic Morality in Late Ottoman ‘Secular’ Schools.”

International Journal of Middle East Studies, 32 (2000): 369-93.

Genç, Mehmet. “Osmanlı Maliyesinde Malikanesi Sistemi.” Türkiye Đktisat

Tarihi Semineri. ed. O. Okyar, Ü. Nalbantoğlu. Ankara: Hacettepe

Üniversitesi, Sosyal ve Đdarî Bilimler Fakültesi, 1977: 231-3.

Genç, Mehmet. “Đltizam.” Türk Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi. VOL. XII.

Đstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1988.

Goodwin, Godfrey. The Janissaries. London: Saqi, 1997.

Göçek, Fatma Müge. Rise of Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman

Modernization and Social Change. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1996.

Gündüz, Đrfan. Osmanlılarda Devlet-Tekke Münasebetleri. Ankara: Seha

Ne riyat, 1989.

Hanssen, J., Philiph, T. and Weber, S. eds, “Introduction: Towards a New

Urban Paradigm.” The Empire in the City: Arab Provincial Capitals

in the Late Ottoman Empire. Würzburg: Ergon in Kommission,

2002.

Đnalcık, Halil. “Sened-i Đttifak ve Gülhane Hattı Hümayunu.” Belleten, Vol

XXVIII (October, 1964): 603- 90. The Sufi Orders in a Modernizing Empire

______________________________________________________________

Tarih ○ Vol. 1, No. 1 ○ 2009

Kara, Mustafa. “Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Tasavvuf ve Tarikatlar.”

Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi. Vol. IV. Istanbul:

Đleti im, 1985.

----------. Din, Hayat ve Sanat Açısından Tekkeler ve Zaviyeler. Istanbul:

Dergah Yayınları, 1980.

Karal, Enver Z. Osmanlı Tarihi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947.

Kreiser, Klaus. “Medresen und Derwischkonvente in Istanbul: Quantitative

Aspekte.” Economies et societes dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du

XVIIIe- debut du XXe siècle), ed. J.L. Bacque-Grammont and P.

Dumont, (Paris, 1983): 109-27.

Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: Oxford

University Press, 1962.

Mehmed Esad Efendi. Üss-i Zafer. Đstanbul: 1293/1876.

Ortaylı, Đlber. “Tarikatler ve Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Yönetimi.” OTAM,

(1995, no: 6).

----------. “Tanzimat Devrinde Đdari Yapı.” Osmanlı Devleti ve Medeniyet

Tarihi. E. Đhsanoğlu ed., (Đstanbul: Đslam Tarih, Sanat ve Kültür

Ara tırma Merkezi (IRCICA), 1994).

Shaw, Stanford J. From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War of National

Liberation 1918-1923 A Documentary Study. Vol I. Ankara: Turkish

Historical Society, 2000.

----------. “The Population of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century.”

International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 10, (1979).

----------. Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu ve Modern Türkiye. Vol II. Đstanbul: EYayınları, 2004.

Seyittanlıoğlu, Mehmet. “Yenile me Dönemi Osmanlı Devlet Te kilatı.”

Türkler. Vol 13. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2002. E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür

______________________________________________________________

Timur, Taner. Osmanlı Çalı maları. Ankara: Verso A. ., 1989.

Trimingham, Spencer. The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1971.

Ülgener, F. Sabri. Dünü ve Bugünü ile Zihniyet ve Din Đslam Tasaavuf ve

Çözülme Devri Đktisat. (Đstanbul: Der Yayınları, 1981).

van Bruinessen, Martin. Agha, Shaikh and State; The Social and Political

Structures of Kurdistan. London: Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed

Books, 1992.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology.

Vol I. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

Zarcone, Thierry. Mystiques, philosophes et francs-maçons en Islam, Rıza

Tevfik, penseur ottoman (1868-1949) from Sufism to brotherhood.

Paris: Institut français d'études anatoliennes d'Istanbul; Librairie

d'Amérique et d'Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, Jean Maisonneuve

Successeur, 1993.

*****

E. Melek Cevahiroğlu Ömür is a PhD student in the Department of History

at Boğaziçi University.

http://graduatehistoryjournal.boun.edu.tr/papers/4.E.MelekCevahirogluOmur.Paper.SUFI.ORDERS.pdf