Living Islam - Islamic Tradition

[HOME]

Today:

The Influence of Ibn al-Arabi in Ottoman Sufism

Rūya KILIÇ

Translation from Turkish

Osmanlı Sûfîliğinde İbnū’l-Arabî Etkisi

https://isamveri.org/pdfdrg/D01626/2007_40/2007_40_KILICR.pdf

Three Sufis from the 17th Century Assoc. Prof. Dr. Rūya KILIÇ*

(copyright pending)

Abstract

Boundaries or fierce opposition in the Islamic world could not prevent the spread of Ibn al-Arabi's fame and ideas.

His influence, particularly in the Ottoman Empire, is noteworthy for its breadth and depth. For this reason, examining Ibn al-Arabi's influence on Ottoman Sufism is of great importance for Ottoman social historiography.

Supporting Ibn al-Arabi or the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud, which was the subject of intense criticism, did not always mean execution or exile in the Ottoman Empire. What provoked the reaction of the administration and the ulema was rather the expressions leaning towards wahdat al-mawjud and its combination with political claims. However, in the 17th century…

In the 17th century, the polemic between Ibn al-Arabi's opponents and the Sufis flared up again. During this period, Niyazi-i Misri, Karabaş Veli, and Osman Fazlı were among those who had an interest in Ibn al-Arabi. Both their interest and their Sufi interpretations disturbed the ulema and the administration. This unease, as well as their relations with the ruling circles, would be influential in the exile of all three.

Keywords

Ibn al-Arabi, 17th century, Ottoman Empire, Sufism, Unity of Being

*Hacettepe University, Faculty of Letters, Department of History / ANKARA

[email protected]

Влияние Ибну-Л Араби В Суфизме Османской Империи:

Три Суфия 17. Века

Помощник Доцента Доктор Руя Кылыч*

Резюме

Ограничения в исламском мире или жесткая оппозиция не смогли препятствовать распространению идей и знаменистости Ибну-Л Араби. В особенности во влиянии в Османской Империи внимание привлекают своей широтой и глубиной. По этой причине анализ влияния Ибну-Л Араби в суфизме Османской Империи играет большое значение с точки зрения истории общества Османской Империи. Быть сторонником Ибну-л Араби или "вандет-и вуджуд" (единство бытия), где была сосредоточена его критика в Османской Империи не всегда означало смертную казнь или ссылку.

Негодование властьдержащих и общины больше

ВЫЗЫВалО

высказывания, склонные к "вахдет-и вуджуд" (единство бытия) и их влияние с политическими суждениями. Однако в 17 веке между противниками Ибну-Л Араби и суфиями полемика разгорелась с новой силой. В этот период интерес к Ибну-Л Араби стали испытывать такие личности как Ниязи, Мысри, Карабаш Вели и Осман Фазлы. Этим своим интересом и мистическими суждениями насторожили и властьдержащих и общину. В ссылке этих трех суфиев наряду с этой настороженностью играли свою роль и их связи с руководящими кругами.

Ключевые Слова: Ибну-Л Араби, 17 век, Османская Империя

Few individuals in the history of Islamic thought have been as influential in a wide area and continuously as Ibn al-Arabi (d. 1240). However, it is difficult to say that the number of serious studies on Ibn al-Arabi, one of the most controversial figures in the Islamic world, is commensurate with the interest he deserves. This is actually not very surprising. Because Ibn al-Arabi is a prolific and difficult-to-understand writer.

His works were not written for the general public. His readers are expected not only to experience Sufism firsthand but also to possess knowledge in many fields, primarily exegesis, hadith, jurisprudence, theology, and philosophy (Chittick 1994: 71-72). However, the imprint of Akbari gnosis was not limited to "intellectual" Sufism but could also be traced in a world of Sufi orders encompassing very different cultural levels of society (Chodkiewicz 2003: 19).

The aim of this study is merely an attempt to understand his influence in the Ottoman Empire. Considering how difficult it is to study the history of Ottoman Sufism without encountering the ideas of Ibn al-Arabi, the importance of this matter becomes self-evident.

100

Regardless of what is taken into consideration, the importance of the matter will become clear. In some texts, Ibn al-Arabi's name is explicitly mentioned. However, in others, even without mentioning his name, the traces of his views can be followed:

This silence can be explained by caution or by the author unknowingly being an Akbari because too many intermediaries have come between himself and the original source of his ideas (Chodkiewicz 2005: 91).

This means that we are faced with a multi-dimensional and comprehensive subject. Even if the perspective is narrowed considerably, limited to a certain period or a very characteristic order, when the necessity of analyzing the life stories, relationships, and thoughts of the selected individuals is remembered, we can imagine how vast and profound a landscape the influence of Ibn al-Arabi presents to researchers.

We can also limit this broad landscape to two groups: scholars and Sufi circles. These have presented understandings and interpretations that sometimes overlap and sometimes contradict each other.

Therefore, to understand the nature and role of Ibn al-Arabi's influence, it will be useful to first evaluate the perspectives and interpretations of the scholars and Sufi circles separately. In doing so, it is necessary to proceed not by assuming that these groups are disconnected from each other, but rather by considering their interrelationships.

Here, the scope of the subject is narrowed considerably to three names from the Sufi community: Atpazarî Osman Fazlı (d. 1691), Karabaş Veli (d. 1686), and Niyazî-i Mısrî (d. 1694). Of course, the selection of these names is not accidental.

The first reason is that they are presented among the Sufis most influenced by Ibn al-Arabi.

Secondly, they were subjected to criticism from different segments of society and even exiled by the state.

Was Ibn al-Arabi the one who was imprisoned during those exiles? Or was there a much more complex network of relationships at play, requiring consideration of various factors such as the Sufis' relationship with the administration, their political stances, and their individual preferences?

Another common point among the three sheikhs is that they lived in the 17th century.

This century was a period of significant upheavals and changes in the political, social, and economic spheres of the Ottoman Empire. The Kadızade movement, which initiated the debate that would leave its mark on the intellectual world, found its place within the specific conditions of the time.

As is known, Ibn al-Arabi was among the issues they harshly criticized. Therefore, we can say that being a supporter of Ibn al-Arabi in the 17th century was not easy at all. Let us state immediately that we do not claim to resolve this difficult, complex, and multifaceted issue in all its dimensions here. We will only try to draw attention to this important issue and approach it from a historical perspective.

Karabaş Veli - Niyazî-i - Mısrî - Atpazarî - Osman Fazlı

Karabaş Veli, the founder of the Karabaşiyye branch of the Halvetiyye order, continued his education, which he started in Arapkir and Çankırı, in Istanbul. During this period, due to his interest in Sufism, he left the madrasa and went to Kastamonu, where he became a disciple of İsmail Çorumî (d. 1647), the postnişin (head) of the Şeyh Şaban-ı Veli Dervish Lodge.

101

However, upon the death of his sheikh, he completed his Sufi training with his son, Mustafa Muslihiddin Efendi, who succeeded him.3 After traveling in Arab countries for a while, he settled in Uskūdar in 1670-1671 (1081) (Karabaş Veli:16). After his seclusion in the Rum Mehmed Paşa Mosque, he began to guide as the sheikh of the Vâlide-i Atik Mosque Zawiya (Hūseyin Vassaf, IV: 13; Harîrizâde, III: 57b).

He was an influential preacher and his fame soon reached the palace. It is said that Sultan Mehmed, who even started having the Friday greetings held at the Valide-i Atik Mosque, was so affected by the Sheikh Efendi's sermon that he was willing to abandon his throne and crown and flee to the mountains like Ibrahim Edhem (Hūseyin Vassaf, IV: 16). Indeed, Ibrahim Has believes that one of the reasons for his exile was this statement by the Sultan (Ibrahim Has: 11a-116).

The other Halveti Sheikh, Niyazi-i Misri, was born in Malatya in 1618. In 1638, he traveled to Diyarbakır, Mardin, and Egypt in pursuit of knowledge. After spending three years with a Qadiri sheikh in Egypt, he traveled around Anatolia and Arabia for a while. In 1646, he came to Istanbul, and later to Bursa. On his journey to find his sheikh, he became connected to Sheikh Mehmed and, through him, to Sheikh ūmmi Sinan. His return to Bursa, which would become an important place in his life, was in 1661 (1971: 39-40; İbrahim Rakım: 2-8, 11-15).4 His words in Edirne, where he went for the second time after the invitation of Köprūlūzâde Ahmed Pasha, marked the beginning of a series of exiles for him (Şeyhî 1989, II-III: 93).

Atpazarî Osman Fazlı, who was born in Şumnu in 1632, after completing his initial education, became a disciple of Saçlı İbrahim Efendi, the successor of Aziz Mahmud Hūdâyî, in Edirne, and later of Zâkirzâde Sheikh Abdullah, a Celveti sheikh, in Istanbul. He stayed there for about eight years and continued to attend classes on exoteric sciences. After leaving Aydos, where he was sent as a caliph, following the death of his sheikh, he went to Plovdiv (1657-1658).

He decided to settle in Istanbul, where he had been on various occasions, and apart from his activities in the tekke he established inside the Manisalı Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Atpazari, he preached in the Vefa and Sūleymaniye mosques on certain days of the week. His opposition to the 1683 Austrian campaign quickly strained his relations with the Ottoman ruling circles (Yıldız 1991, IV:83-84)5

Ibn al-Arabi and Being a Supporter of Unity of Being in the 17th Century

The 17th century was a period when the classical Ottoman state and social order was disintegrating and the Kadızâdelis and Sufis were clashing. What is interesting about the debate between the two groups is that Ibn al-Arabi is still at the center of the discussions as if he were alive (Mehmed Murad 1332, VII: 59; Naima 1280, VI: 220). This is important in terms of showing the reflection of the deep-rooted debate in the Islamic world in Ottoman lands, in addition to the influence of his name and views.

102

This is quite important, not only because of the influence of his name and views, but also because it shows the reflection of the deep-rooted debate in the Islamic world in the Ottoman lands.

In fact, before the Ottomans, supporters and opponents of Ibn al-Arabi had clashed many times in Islamic societies. The main actors and theses of both sides have been examined in various studies. We do not intend to give a complete list of these as it would exceed the scope of this study. However, we believe that a brief reminder is appropriate in order to understand the foundation upon which the conflict in the heart of the Ottoman world in the 17th century was based.

An examination of the works written against Ibn al-Arabi from the 13th century onwards will reveal that the usual accusation leveled against him and almost everyone whose influence is mentioned, besides heresy and permissiveness, has always been that of distorting the meaning of the Quran.

This accusation is found in Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328), the de facto founder of the anti-Ibn al-Arabi polemic and the one who outlined the main points of all subsequent attacks (Chodkiewicz 2003: 42). The polemics between his successors and the Sufis continued. The main basis of the accusations were, with a few minor changes, the same points previously raised by Ibn Taymiyyah, and largely relied on the same quotations taken out of context. Of course, the doctrine of unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud) was at the forefront of the criticisms.

Another theme that was long debated in the Ottoman Empire was related to the state of Pharaoh after his death. For the opponents, the Prophet Muhammad… His teachings on the life of the Prophet, especially the concepts of the Muhammadan reality, the perfect man, and the seal of the saints, were no less "deviant" than his metaphysical understanding (Chodkiewicz 2005: 94, 95).

The representative and continuation of the Ibn Taymiyyah school in the Ottoman Empire was the Birgivi school. Founded by Birgivi Mehmed Efendi (d. 1573) in the early second half of the 16th century, this school, which was different from the Razi school that had been influential in Ottoman lands for a long time and was more important than is thought in the history of Ottoman thought, was the first movement in Ottoman history to oppose the understanding of Islam represented by the state. It appears that Birgivi was influenced by what he considered deviations in politics and administration, and by the disintegration he observed in social life, and that he took refuge in the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah and his students (Ocak 1985: 34).

In the 17th century, the Kadızâdelis would assume the role of spokesperson for this school. Since the struggles between the Kadızâdelis and the Sufis have been the subject of various studies, here we will only draw attention to what it means for our subject. The Kadızâdelis, named after a preacher named Kadızâde Mehmed (d. 1635), were a religious purification movement that was influential in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century. This movement can also be interpreted as some religious circles benefiting from the power struggle behind the purification movement by taking advantage of the opportune environment (Ocak 1983; 208, 225).

103

After Kadızâde Mehmed, the leader of the second wave of the movement was ūstūvanî Mehmed Efendi. Taking advantage of the weakening of political authority, ūstūvanî Mehmed established a good network within the palace and, using the power he gained from this, increased his attacks on Sufi circles and incited the public (Ocak 1983: 222). When the Kadızâde followers mobilized to demolish the tekkes (Sufi lodges) in and around Istanbul, to invite sheikhs and dervishes to "renewal of faith," to kill those who refused, and to abolish all "heresy," Köprūlū Mehmed Pasha (d. 1661) held a meeting with leading scholars.

As a result of the meeting, a fatwa was issued against the Kadızâde followers, and ūstūvanî and his leading supporters were exiled to Cyprus (Naima 1280, VI: 225-226). Vani Mehmed Efendi's (d. 1685) closeness to both the Sultan and the Grand Vizier Fazil Ahmed Pasha (d. 1676) led to a new Kadızâdeli movement. Vani Efendi's influence was strongly felt in Istanbul, but he fell out of favor after 1683 (Zilfi 1999: 74-76). Vanî's fiercest opponent among the Sufis was Mısrî.1° Indeed, the following lines are a beautiful expression of his view of the group of preachers:

"Today I came to a gathering, a preacher was sitting and giving advice.

He divided the world into two, sending one to paradise.

The preacher is lowering the other from the pulpit into hell.

He shoots fires from his mouth, burning the accursed devil.

You would think that the torment of the seven hells is the preacher himself." (Erdoğan 1993: 218).

Again, in Risâle-i Es'ile ve Ecuibe (63b), he argues that he wrote this work because some of the sayings of the Sufis were misunderstood by the people and scholars, and were thought to be from false sects. During this period, when Ibn al-Arabi had strong opponents, Atpazari Osman Fazli, Karabas Veli, and Niyazi-i Misri did not hesitate to express their interest in Sheikh al-Akbar. For example, when Osman Fazli, while still in Sufi training, wrote down the feelings that arose within him and showed them to Zakirzade, his sheikh told him that there was a taste of "Sheikh al-Akbar" in his words (Muslu 1994: 70; Namlı 1994: 12).

Furthermore, it is highly noteworthy that two of his important works are commentaries and annotations on the works of Sadreddin Konevî (d. 1274), a leading follower of Ibn al-Arabi, and that his work, Tecelliyât-ı Berkıyye, is a commentary on a qasida by Ibn al-Arabi (Yıldız 1991, IV: 84).

On the other hand, Mısri's admiration for Ibn al-Arabi and Sheikh Bedreddin is best summarized by these lines:

"Muhyiddin and Bedreddin revived the religion;

The rivers of Fusus are the rivers of the ocean of Niyazi's works"

(Erdoğan 1993: 156).

The most significant evidence of Karabaş Veli's interest in Ibn al-Arabi is his writing of an Arabic commentary on his controversial work, Fusus al-Hikem, also known as Kashif al-Asrar. He also authored a work titled Jami' al-Asrar al-Fusus, which examines the branches of knowledge discussed in each chapter of Fusus, and a commentary on Ibn al-Arabi's Qasida-i Ashqiyya (Kara 2003: 127, 148).

104

It is frequently repeated that one of the main criticisms leveled against Ibn al-Arabi is the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence). Ibn al-Arabi is mostly known as the founder of the wahdat al-wujud doctrine, and within Islamic thought, this term is used to refer to his followers. However, the term wahdat al-wujud is not used as a term in his works. Although the Sheikh did not use it in his works, his writings are consistent with this expression (Chittick 2003: 29-30). If "existence" is excluded as a subjective experience, it can be argued that Ibn al-Arabi used the term "existence" in two basic senses.

Firstly, the term refers to Allah, who is the True Existence (al-wujud al-haqq), or to the Necessary Existence (Wajib al-Wujud) whose non-existence is inconceivable.

Secondly, it can also refer to the universe and the things within it. However, Ibn al-Arabi's use of the term "existence" when speaking of the existence of "that which is other than Allah" is metaphorical. For, similar to Ghazali and others, he claims that "existence" belongs only to Allah. If things other than Allah appear to exist, this is not Allah's existence to them, just as the sun lends light to things on earth. This is due to his lending (Chittick 1994: 75). For this reason, the Islamic tradition that followed him is justified in associating Ibn al-Arabi with the concept of unity of existence (Chittick 2003: 31).

Niyazi-i Misri is a name that can be placed within this Sufi tradition of unity of existence, which we have tried to describe in very general terms. Misri, who also wrote a treatise called Risale-i Wahdat al-Wujud, can be traced in his various works for his understanding of Sufism based on unity of existence. For example, he interprets the verse "He is the First, the Last, the Manifest, the Hidden" (57/3) in a way that is consistent with the understanding of unity of existence. "First", Allah before the creation of the whole universe before that it existed, "the Last".

"This indicates that God's existence will continue even after the whole universe ceases to exist, and "His Manifestation is the world and the human body" (Risale-i Vahdet-i Vūcûd: 4). Indeed, one day, while contemplating the saying, "When poverty is complete, that is God," he claims that the true meaning was revealed to him through inspiration from God. God clearly showed him that no being other than God has true existence (Mısrî 1971: 8). In these noteworthy verses, we can see Mısri's joy of the unity of existence:

"Oh, the ocean of unity whose water never ceases!

This world of multiplicity arises from it and inevitably comes into being.

...

He who receives pleasure from unity is freed from duality.

Wherever Niyazi looks, he immediately... the divine countenance appears

(Kara 2004: 197, 199).

Osman Fazli's experience in the town of Aydos (Edirne), where he was sent as a caliph, is an important clue about the interpretation of the unity of existence. According to this, while he was engaged in preaching, teaching, and reciting the dhikr of unity there, he experienced a manifestation which he described as "the removal of the veil of multiplicity from the face of unity and the appearance of the light of unity in the horizons" (Namlı 1994: 14).

105

Karabaş Veli, on the other hand, prefers the symbolism of shadow and mirror in his parables related to the body. Given that he was a commentator on Fusûs, his choice is not surprising. The mirror and the image in the mirror are frequently used examples both in discussions of identity and difference in "existence" and in the levels of existence. Indeed, mirror symbolism is used on various occasions in Fusûsu'l-Hikem and its commentaries (Tahralı 2002, II: 33-34). In fact, mirror symbolism, which was previously used by Ghazali (d. 1111) as an expression of the mystical unity experienced by the Sufi, is detailed in Ibn al-Arabi (Uluç 2006: 158, 159). 3 In the commentary that Karabaş Veli wrote on Ömer Nesefi's Akaid, mirror symbolism finds its expression as follows;

If there were no manifestations, the things that are manifest would not appear. When the things that appear become manifest, the manifestations also become perishable (destructive). For example, when you see a person in a mirror, you cannot say that you see the mirror. When you see an image in a mirror, you cannot be able to see the mirror. However, there is a One can see the mirror without seeing the image. The image in the mirror is an identity and is transcendent from that mirror. Because it is a means for the manifestation of the image of the person looking into the mirror. In terms of its essence, what is seen is the same as the one looking, but in terms of its subtlety and density, it is an identity and is transcendent from that mirror. (Kara 2003: 526-527).

The symbolism of the shadow (zill) is also used in situations and meanings very close to the mirror in the context of existence and levels of existence (Tahralı 2002, II: 35). 14 Again, according to the commentary on Aqeedah;

His existence is necessarily inherent. Our existence is necessary not with our own selves, but with Him. The shadow and its owner For example, one who sees a shadow imagines the owner of that shadow, its nature and kind; they have an idea of whether it is standing, sitting, lying down, moving, or motionless. In this case, the shadow becomes different from its owner. When the owner of the shadow appears, the shadow perishes in its owner. Because it perishes in it, it becomes the same as that person

(Kara 2003: 540).

A matter directly related to the unity of existence is the levels of existence. The levels of existence are numerous. However, these levels are generally classified as four, five, seven. In fact, what is more important than the number is that the being at each level originates and manifests from the first level, that is, from the essence of God, and that they are reflections and images of the existence of God (Tahralı). 1999, I:45; Uludağ 1995:119). Niyazî-i Mısrî uses a fourfold classification (Aşkar 2004: 237-238).

In Karabaş Veli's Mi'yâru't-Tarika, the same classification is used, stating that the universe is the manifestation and appearance of the existence of God:

1-The Realm of Lahut

2-The Realm of Jabarut

3-The Realm of Malakut

4-The Realm of Nasut.

The perfect human being encompasses all of these realms.'5 Here, we encounter the perfect human being, one of the important topics of Akbari thought.

106

The Perfect Man - The Truth of Muhammad - Hâtemu'l - Saints

The understanding of the perfect human being, which clarified with Ibnū'l-Arabî and reached perfection with Abdūlkerim Cilî's (d. 1417) work titled el-Insânu'l-Kâmil, can be summarized as follows:

Man, who is the caliph of Allah, is the being in which Allah is manifested in the most perfect way with his person, attributes and actions (Kara 2005: 205). Those who represent the "perfect man" at the individual level are the Guardian, the Prophet and the Messenger. These three are the caliphs of God, as they are the most perfect and complete manifestations on earth.

They are the concrete manifestations of the truth of Muhammad. Ibn al-Arabi makes a clear distinction between two types of caliphs: 1- Caliph of Allah (Khalītetullah), and 2- Caliph of the Messenger. Khalite (i.e. Khalifatullah), meaning perfect human being, is derived from the caliph who is the political head of the Islamic Ummah and bears the same name.

It is different (from Halîfetu'r-Resûl) (Izutsu 1999: 352). "Kutb" and "gavs", which are frequently used in Sufism, are also terms used in various periods for the perfect human being (Kara 2005: 211).

According to Akbari thought, the Truth of Muhammad is Hz. It progressed through generations until it reached its most complete and universal manifestation in the person of the Prophet. Hz. Since the "prophecy that brought the Sharia" was definitively sealed with the death of the Prophet, the Reality of Muhammad will continue through the guardianship that is still open to viewing over time (Addas 2003: 93, 94). Just like Hz. Just as the "khatam of the messengers" appeared in the person of Muhammad, the saints must also have a shrine. According to Ibnū'l-Arabi, this duty is shared between three individuals. The first one is the master of Muhammadan sainthood and is directly related to Hz. It seals the line of saints who are the heirs of Muhammad.

With the death of Muhammad Muhammad, Hz. Although the direct succession of Muhammad will be closed, the degree of public prophethood will remain open. The door to public prophethood will be closed only with the emergence of the "hatem of public guardianship". With the emergence of the third guardian, guardianship is absolutely sealed. As far as is known, there is no clear definition of this third hatem in the Ibn Arabi collection (Addas 2003: 94-95).

All that remains is to identify the faults of the Muhammadan and general saints.

Ibn al-Arabi speaks clearly about the importance of general guardianship: He is Hz.

It is Jesus. Ibn al-Arabi is the master of Muhammadan sainthood. However, Ibn al-Arabi will not be alone in his claim, and various Sufis will claim this rank after him (Addas 2003: 95). One of them is Niyazî-i Mısri.

He does not show any doubt about his fault. The highest authority, the source of all sainthood, is none other than himself. He explains this in his ecmua (Misrî:6a): "Khatmu'l-evliya is one at all times. At this time, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala gave Misrî to be the khatamu'l-awliya" and continues.

"What I want is God's will".

Characteristic features of Niyazî-i Mısri

His use of the term hâtemu'l-evliyâ means that he recognizes the Akbarî concept of guardianship.

107

It comes to this point. Because some terms such as "seal of the saints," "sacred grace," and "holy grace" are generally reliable indicators of Ibn al-Arabi's influence (Chodkiewicz 2003: 22-23).

An interesting relationship is also established between the title of "seal of the saints" and the claim of being foretold by Ibn al-Arabi. According to the روایت (narration), Karabaş Veli was indicated by Ibn al-Arabi, and the words he used express a number of numbers and dates related to the Sheikh (İbrahim Has: 12a-14a; Senayi: 106-11a; Bursalı Mehmed Tahir 1333, I: 149). The claims do not stop there, and the phrase is interpreted as a sign that Karabaş Veli is the seal of Muhammadan sainthood (İbrahim Has: 13b-14a; Senayi: 11a). Similarly, it is claimed that Egypt was also indicated by Ibn al-Arabi through spiritual insight (Safayi II: 283/352; Gölpınarlı 1972, VII: 213, 219-220).

In fact, what is noteworthy is not whether the alleged sign is real or not, but why it was needed? Presumably, this was to establish a spiritual connection with Ibn al-Arabi and to legitimize the claim of being the seal of the saints. Indeed, Mısrî, who received Ibn al-Arabi's interpretation of the name Karabaş Veli, felt the need to explain that he only found peace after seeing Sheikh-i Ekber in a dream and being informed that his writing had been misinterpreted (Mecmua: 97a).

Exiles

Karabaş Veli was exiled to the island of Lemnos in 1679. It is not possible to explain his exile with "jealousy and enmity." Indeed, Sheikhî states that "some inappropriate words were attributed to him" (1989: 581). Unfortunately, he does not give details. According to Râşid, however, the fact that Sheikh Efendi spoke about the secrets of Sufi terminology in his sermons caused gossip among the ظاهر scholars and some rumors circulated among the ignorant Sufi group. Following this, Karabaş Veli was exiled, and the zehir scholars were appeased (1282, I: 357). It would undoubtedly be interesting to know what kind of debates took place regarding Sufism. However, considering the Sheikh's closeness to Ibn al-Arabi, it is not so difficult to guess their content and why they provoked the reaction of the scholars. The very serious accusation given as the reason for the exile was the claim that he said in one of his treatises,

"Everyone has a god as small as a hazelnut."

Vassaf argues that this accusation must have been put forward by a "malicious person." Here, the statements about Karabaş Veli are quite harsh: "At that time, a heretic known as Karabaş Ali Efendi in ūskūdar said in a Turkish treatise, 'Everyone has a god as small as a hazelnut.' According to the author, there is no possibility of interpreting these words." Even if interpreted, it is false (Hūseyin Vassaf, IV: 15-16). Although the veracity of the claim cannot be verified, before rejecting it, it is useful to remember that those who led Karabaş Veli into exile had some sayings related to Sufism, and especially to consider that his interpretations regarding the unity of existence may have been expressed in such a sentence while spreading among the people.

108

Furthermore, it is quite significant for us that the other name accused of "leading thousands of people to the degree of atheism and perhaps even to the level of disbelief" is Niyazi-i Misri, who, according to the prophethood of Hasan and Hasan, appeared in Bursa in our time and believed in the prophethood of Hasan and Hasan. Indeed, the paths of the two sheikhs, who were referred to as heretics of the time, would cross in Limni.'

Misri's first place of exile was Rhodes in 1674 or 1672. He himself states this as "the beginning of the imprisonment was 1085 Cemaziyelâhir" (Mecmua: 79a; Terzioğlu 1999: 141). Ibrahim Rakim claims that he was exiled to Rhodes in 1674 (1085) because of his words that would disturb the administrators in Edirne, such as "Sultan Mehmed is gone, quickly bring up such and such a prince" (Ibrahim Rakim: 27-28).

However, according to Şeyhî, he was reported to the administration for making some statements about numerology during a sermon in Edirne in 1672 (1083), and the incident resulted in his exile (1989, II-III: 93). His second exile was in 1677 after he returned to Bursa. Şeyhî again attributes this to his mentioning words about numerology in his sermon (1989, II-III: 93). On the other hand, Abdurrahman Abdi, without much explanation, simply says "some words contrary to apparent meaning" (Abdurrahman Abdi: 210b).

According to Râşid, some of the truths he spoke caused gossip among the literalist scholars, and he was sent to Limni to appease the fanatics (1282, I: 339). After being pardoned, the Sheikh continued to stay in Limni, but returned to Bursa in 1692 on the orders of the administration (Ibrahim Rakım: 31). But this was not the end. Despite the warnings of the administration, his insistence on participating in the Austrian campaign in 1693 with his disciples led to his exile to Limni again (Râşid 1282, II: 217-218; Ibrahim Rakım: 31-32).

Vassaf puts forward five reasons for Mısri's exile:

1- The large number of people who went to greet Mısri upon his return to Bursa, which attracted the attention of the administration;

2- His willingness to speak the truth without hesitation, even in the presence of the Sultan or state officials;

3- His pronouncements on the unity of existence and certain levels of truth were incomprehensible to those who adhered to outward forms of religion, leading to accusations of being against the faith;

4- The presence of those who envied his fame;

5- The triumph of his majesty over his beauty (Hūseyin Vassaf V: 85-86).

For us, the issue of the unity of existence carries more weight here than the others. Undoubtedly, even if we disregard the element of jealousy used against almost all exiled sheikhs, the possibility that his followers might attract the attention of the authorities, given his personality—which, as in his last exile, was far from willing to compromise with the administration—and his extreme sensitivity to any movement outside their control, cannot be entirely ignored. On the other hand, in both the Rhodes and the first exile to Lemnos, although details are unknown, we can assume from existing accounts that his Sufi interpretations, which were not easily accepted by those around him, had an influence.

109

Another important area where reactions against Mısri intensified was his view on the prophethood of Hasan and Hūseyin. In Mevâidū'l-İrfân, Mısri states that denying this is a result of ignorance, stubbornness, and envy (1971: 143). In Ri-sâle-i Hasaneyn, however, he is relatively softer, saying, "Let those who accept it, accept it; those who don't, know for themselves!" While there were Sufis who tried to explain Mısri's words, he also had many opponents. Undoubtedly, the best known of these is another Halveti sheikh, Nazmi Efendi (d. 1701). Nazmi Efendi claims that Mısrî fully understood the secrets of the words of Sheikh-i Ekber, but went so far as to believe that he sometimes thought of himself as Jesus and sometimes as the Mahdi by reading books on numerology, and tried to prove his claim using numerology, Anka al-Mugrib, and Futuhat. He even asked him to testify that he was the Mahdi and Jesus (Nazmi Efendi: 143b). Again, the lines,

"The people of the world called 'Jesus' 'Mısrî' at one time,

And besides that, the Quran said to me 'what has been revealed'",

are not so easy to explain from the perspective of those who follow the literal interpretation (Mısrî, Mecmua: 84a). At times, Misri, who almost claimed prophethood (Karahan 1980, XIX: 94), did not hesitate to criticize the Ottoman dynasty, and his criticisms became even harsher after his years of exile. According to him, the throne must be given to the Tatars, to the Crimean dynasty (Mecmua: 26; Gölpınarlı 1972, VII: 217).

On the other hand, Osman Fazlı, even before being exiled by order of the administration, was in a difficult situation due to the reactions he received from his surroundings while still in Plovdiv and faced pressure to emigrate. Even after settling in Istanbul, he could not escape the criticisms of the ulema (Yıldız 1991, IV: 84; Namlı 1994: 15-16).

It is extremely important to note that when it was heard that Ibn al-Arabi had discussed Fusûsu'l-Hikem with some of his friends, he drew the ire of his opponents, whereupon he chose to go into hiding and instead wrote and taught works on exoteric sciences (Namlı 1994: 19). This implies that there was a considerable circle of opponents of Ibn al-Arabi in Istanbul at that time.

Believing that the 1683 Austrian campaign was not in the best interest of the Ottomans and that peace should be made, the Sheikh, after the defeat, was summoned to Edirne by Mehmed IV for a conversation. When he presented his thoughts on the matter to the Sultan, he was exiled to Şumnu as a result of the machinations of Grand Vizier Kara Kethūda Ibrahim Pasha. Three months later, Osman Fazlı returned to Edirne at the invitation of the new Grand Vizier, Bosnevî Sūleyman.

However, in 1690, while serving as the preacher of the Sultan Selim Mosque, he was exiled to Famagusta by Köprūlūzâde Fazıl Mustafa Pasha on the grounds that he had aided bandits (Muslu 1994: 72). After Sūleyman Pasha fled the battlefield in 1687 following a heavy defeat, Osman Efendi said, "If I had wealth, I would emigrate to India."

110

He would make harsh criticisms of the Ottoman Sultan, to the point of saying, "There is no benefit in wasting time with a Sultan who lacks effort" (Muslu 1994: 60).

Indeed, the fact that İsmail Hakkı Bursevî (d. 1725), who was affiliated with Atpazarî Osman Fazlı and sent to ūskūb as a caliph in 1675 (Namlı 2001, XXIII:102), mentions in his work Kitâbū'n-Netîce that he suffered many hardships until "knowledge of the self and of God was achieved" and that one of these was his expulsion from ūskūb, is an important data for evaluations to be made about his sheikh. Because when Bursevî tells his own story, he does not fail to add that his sheikh also experienced such events and was sent to Magosa due to the malice of some viziers (1997, II: 338-340)19.

Here, in order to emphasize the relationship between Ismail Hakkı and his sheikh, we also deemed it necessary to recall that he studied Fusûs under the supervision of his sheikh in Edirne, went to Damascus because of his love for Ibn al-Arabi, and that upon his return from Damascus in 1720, he settled in ūskūdar, where he spoke about the unity of existence in his sermons and was prosecuted for allegedly saying things contrary to Islamic doctrine (Namlı 2001, XXII: 103).

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that Ibn al-Arabi's influence in Ottoman Sufism is noteworthy for its breadth as well as its depth. Let us immediately state that being a supporter of Ibn al-Arabi or the unity of existence, about which criticisms were concentrated, did not always mean execution or exile in these lands.

The love they felt for Sheikh al-Akbar in the Ottoman Empire It is not difficult to find numerous respected scholars and Sufis who do not hide their admiration. The expressions that drew the ire of the administration and, in the words of the Sufis, the "people of outward appearances," were primarily those leaning towards the unity of existence (wahdat al-mawjud), creating turmoil in society and combining this with political claims.

However, in the increasingly sensitive environment of the 17th century, the polemic between Ibn al-Arabi's opponents and the Sufis was reigniting. In such an environment, Niyazi-i Misri, Karabaş Veli, and Osman Fazlı stood out due to their interest in Ibn al-Arabi. Both this interest and their Sufi interpretations unsettled the scholarly and administrative circles.

The exile of all three was influenced by this unease as much as by their relationship with the administration. For they were affected by the disintegration in the political, social, and economic spheres and felt responsible for finding a solution. Their solutions sometimes involved those who possessed spiritual insight. These specific Sufi expressions sometimes went beyond this and emerged as a direct criticism and stance against the existing rulers.

111

Explanations

1. Since giving the existing literature on the life, works, and ideas of Ibn al-Arabi would exceed the purpose and scope of this topic, we will only mention a few names; Corbin (1981), Izutsu (1999), Afifi (1999; 2002), Addas (2003);

Chittick ( 1989; 1994: 70-111; 2003), Chodkiewicz (1991, IX: 36-57; 2003), Nasr (2003: 103-148), Hirtenstein (1999), Keklik (1966, 1990), Uludağ (1995), Kilıç (1999, XX: 413-516).

2. In his article "Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi and His Influence on Tūrkiye" (1994: 26-35), Mustafa Tahralı lists 25 individuals influenced by Ibn Arabi. Tahralı notes that, with the exception of three, these names were identified from Bursalı Mehmed Tahir Bey's "Ottoman Authors," but adds that much more could be added to the same work, emphasizing that examining Ibn Arabi's influence in Turkey requires extensive and lengthy research. On the other hand, in his article "A General Outline of the Influence of Ibn 'Arabi on the Ottoman Era" (1999, XXVI: 43-54), which is essentially based on this article, the number of Sufis listed is 31.

Michel Chodkiewicz's new article, "The Reception of Ibn Arabi's Teachings in the Ottoman World" (2005: 89-111), which emphasizes that Ibn al-Arabi's influence in the Ottoman State can only be considered within a very general framework, provides an important contribution to research on this subject. Also, regarding Ibn al-Arabi and the Melamis, see Holbrook (1991, IX:18-35; 1992, XII:15-31) and for a list of a group of Sufis influenced by Ibn al-Arabi in the 16th century, see (Ongören 2000: 384-385).

3. For the life, works and views of Karabaş Veli, see Senâyi: 106-11a; Ibrahim Has; Hūseyin Vassaf, IV: 12-16; Harîrizâde, III: 57b-58b; Şeyhi 1989: 581; Kara 2003.

4. The first place to look regarding the life and activities of Mısrî summarized here is undoubtedly his own statements. In particular, his Mecmua (BEEK, Orhan Section, Nr. 690/National Library, MFA (A) 1693), which is a kind of memoir belonging to Mısrî, is an extremely important work. His Mevâidū'l- Irfan, written in Arabic, was translated by Sūleyman Ateş (1971) by comparing different manuscripts. For his Divan, see Erdoğan (1993). Another important work is Vâkıât-1 Mısrî by İbrahim Rakım (d. 1750). In addition, besides Gölpınar's article "Niyazî-i Misrî" (1972, VII: 183-226) on Mısrî, we also need to mention two studies by Kara (1994), Aşkar (2004) and Terzioğlu (1999).

5. The information about Osman Fazlı is mainly based on İsmail Hakkı Bursevî's Tamâmū'l-Feyz

(Sūleymaniye Library, Halet Efendi, Nr. 244), and the critical edition of the work was done by Ramazan Muslu and Ali Namlı (1994).

6. For the criticism and defense directed at Ibn al-Arabi and especially Fusûs, see Chodkiewicz (2005: 96-97); Kilıç (1996, XIII: 234-236).

7. Kara (2005:183) summarizes Ibn Taymiyyah's criticisms of Ibn Arabi under six main headings: Unity of Being, Seal of the Saints, Men of the Unseen, Pharaoh's faith, worship of idols, giving news from the unseen, and Hurufism.

112

8. For a comprehensive biographical study on Birgivi Efendi, who pioneered the Kadızadelis in the intellectual field, titled "A Puritanist Critique of the Change in the 16th Century Ottoman Order: Birgivî Mehmed Efendi and His Ideas," see Lekesiz 1997.

9. On this subject, see Naima (1280, VI: 218-226; V: 53-59), Katip Çelebi (1306: 125-132), Mehmed Murad (1332, VII: 56-62). In addition, examples of research on the subject can be given as follows; Ocak 1983: 208-225; Çavuşoğlu 1990; Zilfi (1999: 65-79); Dina Le Gall (1992: 167-174).

10. On Mısri's criticisms of Vani, see... Terzioğlu (1999: 314-346).

11. For a study examining the history of the term wahdat al-wujud, see Chittick 1994: 70-

111. Also, regarding Ibn al-Arabi and wahdat al-wujud, see Erdem (1990: 34-79).

12. For examples of mirror symbolism in Fusus and its commentary, see A. Auni Konuk

Fusus al-Hikem Translation and Commentary, (Prepared by M. Tahralı-S. Eraydın), 1999, I: 205-207, 240-242).

13. Uluç's article titled "Mystical Symbolism in Ibn Arabi" is a summary of his doctoral thesis of the same name, submitted to the Department of Islamic Philosophy, Institute of Social Sciences, Selçuk University in 2005.

14. For the symbolism of shadows in Fusûs, see A. Avni Konuk, Fusûsu'l-Hikem Translation and Commentary, (Prepared by M. Tahralı-S. Eraydın), 1999, II: 234, 239-240, 241-242. Also see Izutsu 1999:129-139.

15. This Arabic treatise of Karabaş Veli concerning the etiquette of the tariqa was translated into Turkish by Sheikh Nureddin Efendi, and for the classification in question, see 134a-134b.

16. Vassaf notes that he gave a copy of a text that he saw in a collection written in the handwriting of Bursalı Ismail Hakkı, and that Ismail Hakkı wrote this during his student years (Hūseyin Vassaf, IV: 15-16). Gölpınarlı (1972, VII: 219) also stated his opinion by saying that the person named Hakkı is unknown but is known to have been a contemporary of Karabaş and Mısri since he was alive in 1126/1714. Kara, on the other hand, believes that the person named Hakkı is not İsmail Hakkı Bursevî, but a zâhir scholar belonging to the Kadızâdelis (2003: 87).

17. After returning to Istanbul in 1683, Karabaş Veli left the capital again with the intention of performing Hajj. It is claimed that this separation was caused by Kara Mustafa Pasha's action, who was disturbed by the Sultan's renewed closeness to him (Hūseyin Vassaf IV: 14, 16).

18. It is registered in the National Library (Yz. A 3036/1: 1b-12a) under the name Risâle-i Hūseyniyye.

19. According to Bursevî, the reason is "outwardly the envy and malice of the deniers". Inwardly, however, "the cause of the trial is the liberation from everything other than God and the unveiling of the mirror of the heart" (1997, II: 340).

113

Bibliography

Abdurrahman Abdi, Vekâyînâme-i Abdi Pașa, TTK Library, Manuscripts, Nr. 44.

Addas, Claude (2003), Ibn Arabi in Pursuit of the Red Sulfur, (Trans. Atilla Ataman), Istanbul: Gelenek.

Affi, Ebu'l-Alâ (1999), The Sufi Philosophy of Muhyiddin Ibn al-Arabi, (Trans.

Mehmed Dağ), Istanbul: Kırkambar Publications. -- (2002), A Key to Reading Fusûsu'l-Hikem, (Turkish Translation by Ekrem Demirli), Istanbul: Iz.

Aşkar, Mustafa (2004), Niyazî-i Mısrî: Life, Works, Views, Istanbul: Insan.

Bursalı Mehmed Tahir (1333), Ottoman Authors, 1, Istanbul.

Chittick, C. William (1989), The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-'Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination, Albany: SUNY Press,

(1994), "Rumi and wahdat al-wujud", Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The

Heritage of Rumi, (Ed. A. Banani, R. Hovannisian and G. Sabagh), Cambridge.

(2003), Imaginary Worlds: Ibn Arabi and the Issue of the Diversity of Religions, (Turkish translation by Mehmet Demirkaya), Istanbul: Kaknūs.

Chodkiewicz, Michel (1991), "The Diffusion of Ibn 'Arabi's Doctrine", Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society, IX: 36-57.

(2005), 'The Diffusion of Ibn Arabi's Teachings in the Ottoman World "The Welcome", Sufism and Sufis in Ottoman Society, Prepared by A. Yaşar Ocak, Ankara:

TTK Publications. - (2003), A Shoreless Ocean - Truth, Sharia and Ibn Arabi -, (Translated by Atila Ataman), Istanbul: Gelenek.

Corbin, Henry (1981), Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi (Translated from the French by R. Manheim), Princeton.

Çavuşoğlu, Semiramis (1990), The Kadizâdeli Movement: An Attampt of Sharia- Minded Reform in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton University. Erdem, Hūsameddin (1990), Pantheism and Unity of Being as a God-World Relationship, Ankara: Ministry of Culture.

Erdoğan, Kenan (1993), Niyazî-i Mısri: His Life, Literary Personality, Works and Critical Text of His Divan, Doctoral Thesis, Atatūrk University, Institute of Social Sciences, Erzurum.

Le Gall, Dina (1992), The Ottoman Nagshbandiyya in the Pre-Mujaddidi Phase: A Study in Islamic Religious Culture and its Transmission, Princeton University.

Gölpınarlı, Abdūlbaki (1972), "Niyazî-i Mısrî", Şarkiyat Mecmuası, VII: 183-226.

Harîrizâde, (Kemaleddin), Tibyânu Vesâili'-Haka'ik, Sūleymaniye Library,

İbrahim Efendi, Fatih Nr. 432/National Library MFA C 441, III.

114

Hirtenstein, Stephen (1999), The Unlimited Mercifier The Spiritual Life and Thought of Ibn Arabi, Oxford.

Holbrook, Victoria Rowe (1991), 'Ibn 'Arabi and Ottoman Dervish Traditions: The Melâmî Supra Order', Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society, IX:18-35.

- (1992), 'Ibn 'Arabi and Ottoman Dervish Traditions: The Melâmî Supra Order', Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society, XII: 15-33.

Hūseyin Vassaf, Sefine-i Euliyâ, Sūleymaniye Library, Manuscript Donations IV-V.

Ibrahim Has, Menâkıb-1 Hazret-i Şeyh Hasan Unsî, Sūleymaniye Library, Hacı

Mahmud Efendi, Nr. 4607.

Ibrahim Rakım, Vâkıât-1 Mısri, Sūleymaniye Library, Izmir, Nr. 790.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevi (1997), Kitâbū'n-Netice, (Prepared by Ali Nam-Imdat Yavaş), Istanbul: Insan Publications.

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1999), Key Concepts in Ibn Arab's Fusûs, (Turkish translation by A. Yūksel Ozemre), Istanbul: Kaknūs Publications.

Kara, Kerim (2003), Karabaş Veli: Life, Ideas, Treatises, Istanbul: Insan Publications.

Kara, Mustafa (1994), Niyazi-i Misri, Ankara: TDV

(2005), The Life of the Dervish, The Word of the Sufi, Istanbul: Dergâh Publications. (2004), Sufism and Orders in the Ottoman Empire with Texts, Istanbul: Sır Publishing.

Karabaş Veli, Commentary on Fusûsu'l-Hikem, Sūleymaniye Library, Hacı Mahmud Efendi, Nr. 2225.

Karahan, Abdūlkadir (1980), "Some Mystical Views of Niyazî-i Misri According to His Own Handwritten Memoirs", Tūrkiyat Mecmuası, XIX: 93-98.

Katip Çelebi (1309), Mizânū'l-Hakk fi ihtiyâri'l-Ehakk, İstanbul.

Keklik, Nihat (1966), Muhyiddîn İbn'ūl-Arabî: His Life and Family, İstanbul.

(1990), el-Fûtûhât el-Mekkiyye as a Criterion for Ibn'ūl-Arabi's Works and Sources, Ankara: Ministry of Culture

Kilıç, M. Erol (1996), "Fusûsū'l-Hikem". ", TDVIA, XIII: 230-237.

- (1999), "Ibn al-Arabi, Muhyiddin", TDVIA, XX: 493-516.

Kurnaz, Cemal-Tatçı, Mustata (2001), Shathiyya in Turkish Literature, Ankara: Akçağ.

Lekesiz, Hulusi (1997), A Puritanist Critique of the Change in the 16th Century Ottoman Order: Birgivî Mehmed Efendi and His Ideas, Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences, Doctoral Thesis, Ankara.

Mehmed Murad (1332), Tarih-i Ebu'l-Faruk, Istanbul.

Muslu, Ramazan (1994), Ismail Hakkı Bursevî and His Work Temâmū'l-Feyz (Part One), Master's Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Social Sciences.

Naima (1280), Tarih-i Naima, V-VI, Istanbul

115

Namlı, Ali (1994) İsmail Hakkı Bursevî and His Work Titled Temâmū'l-Feyz (Part Two),

Master's Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Social Sciences.

- (2001), "Ismail Hakkı Bursevî", TDVIA, XXIII: 102-106.

Nasr, Seyyid Hūseyin (2003), Three Muslim Sages, (Trans. Ali ūnal), Istanbul: Insan.

Nazmi Efendi, Hediyyetū'l-Ihuan, Sūleymaniye Library, Reşid Efendi, Nr. 495 (National Library MFA 1525).

Niyazî-i Mısrî, Risâle-i Vahdet-i Vūcûd, National Library, Manuscript A 4409.. , Risâle-i Es'ile ve Ecvibe-i Mutasavvifâne, National Library, Manuscript A 2482/4. , Мес, Bursa Old Manuscripts Library, Orhan Section, Nr. 690 (National Library, MFA -A- 1693).

-- (1971), Mevâidū'l-Irfan, (Translated with Notes by Sūleyman Ateş), Ankara: Emel Printing House.

--, Risâle-i Hūseyniye, National Library, No. A 3036/1.

Nureddin Efendi, Mi'yâru't-Tarika Translation, National Library, No. A 5535/3.

Ocak, A. Yaşar (1985), "Scientific and Intellectual Life in Turkey in the 15th and 16th Centuries in which Ibn Kemal Lived", Sheikhūlislam Ibn Kemal Symposium, June 26-29, 1985 Tokat.

--(1983), "XVII. "A Look at the Attempts at Religious Purification (Puritanism) in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th Century: The Kadızâdeliler Movement", Turkish Culture Studies (Gift in Memory of Prof. Dr. Kadri Timurtaş), XVII-XXI/1-2, 1979-1983: 208-225.

Ongören, Reșat (2000), Sufism in the Ottomans, Sufis, Deulet and Ulema in Anatolia (16th Century), Istanbul: İz.

Raşid (1282), Tarih-i Rașid, 1, Istanbul.

Safayi, Tezkire-i Safayi, Sūleymaniye Library, Esad Efendi, 2549 (Microfilm Archive 769), II.

Senayi, Menâkıb-ı Hazret-i Şeyh Nasuhî, Sūleymaniye Library, Hacı Mahmud

Efendi, nr. 4573/1, National Library MFA 1224.

Sheikh Mehmed Efendi (1989), Vekayiū'l- Fudalâ, (Prepared for Publication by Abdūlkadir Özcan), Istanbul: Çağrı Publications

Tahralı, Mustafa (1994), "Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi and His Influence on Tūrkiye" Kubbealtı

Academy Journal, number 1, January, 26-35. -- (1999), "A General Outline of the Influence of Ibn 'Arabi on the Ottoman', Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society, XXVI, 43-54.

-- (2002), Ahmed Auni Konuk Fusûsu'l-Hikem Translation and Commentary, (Prepared by Mustafa Tahralı-Selçuk Eraydın), II, Istanbul. Terzioğlu, Derin (1999), Sufi and Dissedent in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri (1618-1694), Harvard University (Doctoral Thesis)

116

Uludağ, Sūleyman (1995), Ibn Arabî, Ankara:Tūrkiye Diyanet Vakfı.

Uluç, Tahir (2006), 'İbn Arabî'de Mistik Sembolizm", Tasavvuf, Ocak-Haziran, sy. 16, 151-190.

Yıldız, Sâkıb (1991), "Atpazari Osman Fazlı", TDVİA, IV, 83-85.

Zilfi, Madeline C. (1999), "Kadızâdeliler: Onyedinci Yūzyıl Istanbulu'nda Dinde Ihya Hareketleri". (Çev. M. Hulusi Lekesiz), Tūrkiye Gūnlūğū, 58/Kasım-Aralık: 65-79.

.-.

page from 2026-07-08 1448 AH