OSMANLI'DA iLiMLER DiZiSi 13

uf

Editörler ERCAN ALKAN OSMAN SACiDARI i SAR Y A·Y I NLARI iSAR Yayınları 115

Osmanlı'da ilimler Dizisi ı 3

Osmanlı'da ilm-i Tasawuf

Editörler Ercan Alkan Osman Sacid Arı

1. Baskı, Aralık 2018,

ISBN 978-605-9276·12-2

Yayına Hazır lı k M. Fatih Mintas ömer Said Güler

Kitap Tasarım: Salih Pu lcu Tasarım Uygulama: Recep Önder

Baskı·Cilt

Elma Bas ı m Halkalı Cad. No: 162/7 SefakOy Kücükcekmece J Istanbul Tel: +90 (212) 697 30 30 Matbaa Sertifıka No: 12058

© ISAR Yay ı nları

T.C. KOltür ve Turizm Bakar:ılı~ı Sertlfıka No:·32581 Botan yayın hakları saklıdır. Bilimsel araştırma ve tanıtım icin yapılacak kısa alıı:ıtılar dışında·; yayıncının yazılı Izni olmadan hicbir yolla çcıga'ttııamaz:

iSAR Yay ınl a rı Selamı Ali Mah. Fıstıka~ac ı Sok. No: 22 Osküdar 1 istanbul Tel: +90 (216) 310 99 23 ı Belgegecer: +90 (216) 391 26 33 www.isaryaylnlari.com [email protected]

Katalog Bilgileri

Osmanl ı 'da ilm-i Tasawuf 1ed. Ercan Alkan· Osman Sacid Arı ı istanbul 2018 (1.bs.) i iSAR Yay ın ları- 15/ Osmanlı'da Ilimler Dizisi · 3 I ISBN: 978-605-9276-12·2116.5 x 24 cm. - 863 s. 11. Tasawufve Tarlkatler_ Osmanlı Devleti 2 . Sosyal Yasam ve Gelenekler 3. ilimlerTarıhi Confluence of the Spiritual and the Worldly: Interactions of the Khalwati-Gulshanis and Egyptian Sufis with Political Authority in Sixteenth Century

Side Eınre Doç. Dr., Texas A & M University.

Carefully crafred descriptions of the public behavior of Sufis and depictions of how holy men ought to behave in the presence of rulers can be fo und in an eclectic body of early modem Ottoman Turkish and Arabic narratives. These sources often reflect complex and biased collective recollections that reveal intersections of sp iritual and world Iy spheres that Sufi figures operate in, and whose roles and functions have found wide and complex coverage in the co n text of early modem Egypt In this study I will focus on how holy men, who chose Egypt as their residence, such as members of the Anatolian/Irani­ an Khalwafi-Gulshani order, and others, known as "Egyptian" Sufis, interact with political authority- Mamluk and Ottoman. In particular, I will examine perceptions about Sufis native to Egypt and foreign implants, like the Khal­ wati-Gulsha.nls, that become "Egyptian Sufis", to see why and when they were depicted as "exemplary figures in society" by their commentators. As sources depict, obedience and compliance with the demands of political authority was one of the most significant social expectations from the Gulshaıüs. Their re­ lationships with figures of authority, Mamluk or Ottoman, soared when they failed fulfilling this function. Contrarily, Sufis native to Egypt did not neces­ sarily have to respond to expectations of obedience vis-a-vis the ruling elites like their Gulshaıü counterparts. "Egyptian Sufis" were depicted as "exempla-

Osmanlı'da lım - i Tasavvuf , 687 ry" when they fulfılled other functions-examples of which abo und in prima­ ry sources. In this study, I will demonstrate that there ex.isred a variant and inconsistent set of standards that determined who was a pious and exemplary Sun as po­ litical authority transitioned from the Mamluks to the Ottomans c. 1517-1530. Different sets of social approval criteria applied to the Khalwafis who hailed from Iran and Anatolia, and to the Sufis who were regarded as Egyptian. The formatio~ of this dual image not only hinged on how Sufis negotiated with local representatives of authority, but it also depended on how different Sufis and their interacted with one another in the complex urban setring of . Widening the lens to explore these themes outside ofthe Khalwati com­ munity will show that the Gulsharüs stood apart from their peers-both Mişri and Rüml- and that they were al so judged by a different set of expectations by their commentators- Egyptian/Mamluk and Ottoman-who observed their interactions with ruling and religious elites. This analysis also allows us to re­ think how Sufi communities interacted. with one another, and with represen­ tatives of political authority, during the early sixteenth century in Egypt Before examining primary sources to demonstrate these points, a brief hack­ graund on the Khalwati:-Gulshaıüs is in order. This background will provide a histarical context and help navigate the complex mavement trajectory for the Gulshanis as they moved between four early modern polities which were engaged in fierce competition in the Iate fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: Aqquyunlus, Safavids, Mamluks, and the Ottomans. Gulsha_niyya was a pop­ ular Sufi tarlqa (in terminology refers to the way or path that guides a novice toward the reality of God) and a westward offshoot of the Iate medieval Iran and Azerbaijan based .1 The Gulsharü order of was founded by Ibralıim- i Gulshaıü (d.1534) and became known first in Mamluk ruled Egypt and expanded its network of dervishes and lodges in the early modern Ottoman socio-political and cultural zone. Ihrahim-i Gul­ sharü's following was initially known as Şeyh İbrahimffer and later on in Egypt, they gained fame as the Gülşenfler. The founder Gulsharü was a charismatic Sun ofAnatolian and Aqquyunlu Turcaman origins bom in Anatolia in c.J4.40 and traveled to Iran, the n u nder Aqquyunlu rule. Well into his long and event­ ful career, Gulshani emered a decade-long exile in Anatolia (c. 1500) to escape

For the Khalwati ord er see Curry, The Transformatian ofMuslim Mystica/ Thought in the Otto­ man Empire. For the Gulshani order see Emre, lbrahim -i Culshani and the Khalwati-Culshani Ord er.

688 ~ Osmanlı 'da Ilm-i Tasavvuf Safavid violence in Tabriz, after which he reached Mamluk Cairo in c. 1507/ıo with his followers. In Cairo, he established the main GuJshaniyya lodge-com­ plex and settled down for life. After the region's conquest by the Ottomans in 1517, the Cairo lodge remained the order's main headquarters and attract­ ed a wide clientele, including members of the Ottoman military and ruling establishment In Ottoman Egypt, the Gulshaıüs became an established Sufi institution whose members exerted social and palirical influence thro.ughout the seventeenth century. The scope and audiences for that influence deserve scholarly attention because, as far as the available primary sources depict, we do not have other "foreign" tariqas that have accumulated the network of in­ fluence and social impact as that of the Gulshan'is. 2

How d id GuJshan'i and the members of his order ·interact with political au­ thority? Were they depicted "exemplary figures in society" by their commen­ tators? Did their relationships with figures of authority soar when they-failed fulfilling this function? Sixteenth century sources provide interesring answers. For instance, as Gulshani's relations with the Maroluk Sultan al-Ghawri show, there were limits to the scope and content of counsel that a holy man could give a sultan in crisis.3 In 1516-17ı Egypt's inhabitants were in an uproar over an impending invasion of the region, and Gbawrl had come to be seen as an unjust and incompet~nt leader who had lost touch with his subjects. The Mamluks were closely monitoring the results of the Ottoman Sultan Selim's dashes with Safavid Shah Isma'il, since the victor was expected to turn their attention to Egypt thereafter. As Cairene Gulshaniyya hagiographers would have us believe, Gulshani provided critica! counsel to Ghawrl at this time. However, recommending a pacifist policy to the ruler, in response to the erisis facing Egypt and further urging Ghawrl to surrender to the Ottoman Sultan to prevent unnecessary bloodshed, proved to be unsound for Gulshani. His detractors accused him of instigating a conspiracy and Gulshaıü was forced to leave Cairo. Gulshani's relations with the last Mamluk Sultan Turnanbay were even more strained as he suffered persecution at his hands in 1517. Gul­ shaıü was again accused of conspiracy. In the hagiographical imagination of Gulshan'i and Mevlevl dervishes, Ghawri was the ?ahiri sultan (the temporal palirical ruler) with Gulshan'i at his side as the bcitıni sultan (the hidden spir-

2 For their literature and culture see Emre, "Crafting Piety for Success: Gülşeniye Literature and Culture in the Sixteenth Century." 3 Emre, "A Subversive Story of Banishment, Persecution, and lncarceration on the Eve of the Ottoman Conquest of Egypt."

Osmanlı'da Ilm-i Tasavvuf ~ 689 i tual ruler). This picture, however, bore no resemblance to the reality of that time. As Gulshani's banishment, and later persecution, under the Mamluks indicated, the temporal ruler d id not view the spiritual one as his equal at all. This controversial perception of Gulshani can be followed after the transition of political power from the Mamluks to the Ottomans. As popular representatives of the Khalwatiyya in Ottoman Egypt, the Gul­ shanis found coverage in a number of Arabic biographical dictionaries after the regio~'s Ottoman conquest. Some authors were against them and others held favorable opinions. Gulshani's reception depended on the agendas and backgrounds of his commentators-Egyptian or Ottoman.4 The fan1ed Egyp­ tian Sufi and a prolific contemporary author ~bd al-Wahhab b. Ahmad al­ Sha'rani (1492-1565), for one, was affiliated with a number ofSufi orders of his day and wrote extensively about his interactions with their members, includ­ ing the Khalwafis, and the Khalwati-Gulshan1s.5 However, Sha'rani's position vis-a-vis the Khalwat'is remained inconsistent in his writings.6 While he voiced favorable opinions on some of themin his al-Tabaqiit al-kubrii, in the Lat"a'if al-minan, after openly condemning the Khalwafis, he also praised them.7 De­ spite the uneven record Sha'rani has left us, it is safe to conclude that his dis­ approval of the Khalwat'is, which I thin k is mainly based on his evaluation of the Gulshanis, outweighed favorable opinions: the ahl al-khalwa (people ofkhalwa, i.e. those who practice solitude) were \Alrongdoers.8 And if that had been his opinion, with w hat criteria did Sha'rani evaluate Gulshani? And to w hat end? How d id ideas about exemplary Sufis and their origins factor in his thinking?

In his al-Tabaqiit al-kubrii, Sha'rani considers Gulshani an eccentric repı;esen­ tative of the Khalwatis.9 He refers to him as a member of the Cairene Khal­ wat'i community alongside Shaykh Muhammad Demirdash al-Muhammadi (d. 1524). However, unlike his positive commentary on Demirdash, Sha'rani's thoughts on Gulshan'i are cautious, distanced, and sornewhat critica!. Accord-

4 Emre, lbrahim-i Gulshanl and the Khalwati-Gulshanl Order, pp. 262-272. 5 Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt, pp. 69-96. 6 Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt, pp. 69-96, 83-84. 7 Sha'ranT, Latô'ifal -minan, p. 64. 8 Al-Sha'rani, Latö'if al-minan, 64. Khalwa (Arabic: khalô, to be alone, also means seclusion and retreat.) In the context of lslamic mysticism, the term is related to asceticism (zuhd) and refers to being in seclusion, isolation, or retreat ina solitary location or cell. As practiced by the Khalwatis, khalwa involves ascetic self-discipline, vigils, fasting, and the practice of . 9 Al-Sha'rani, ai-Tabaqôt al-kubrô, (1968-69 edi tion), 2:133; 2:262

690 ~ Osmanlı'da ilm-i Tasavvuf ing to Sha'ranl, who met with Gulshanl on multiple occasions, the shaykh was a man of unlimited mujtihadiit (i.e. there was no li mit to Gulshanl's struggle against his own human and lower selflsoul, his pious self-exertion} and an 'ummi (i.e. he lacked adequate knowledge of Arabic and thus was unable to communicate properly).10 Sha'raru also adds that Gulshani accepted the Ot­ tomans whole-heartedly and was able to recruit large numbers of the Otto­ man military into his order. ln assessing Gulshani's relations with the house of Osman, Sha'ranl mistakenly states that there was an arnicab le relationship between him and Sultan Selim (d. 1520}, whom he says, sought Gulshanl out, met with him, and even helped build the shaykh's lodge and tomb outside of Bab Zuwayla. An overall reading of Sha'rani's entry on Gulshan'i-especially when compared to his favorable previous entry on Shaykh Demirdash-re­ veals that the nature of their relationship was not awkward solely because of Gulshani's failure to speak Arabic. Sha'raru disapproved of Gulshanl's extreme mujiil1adiit. The concept of mııjiihadiit that Sha'rani refers to was Gulshani's self-imposed isolation in a cell to discipline the soul, in addition to fasting, vigil, and dhikr practices-Khalwati practices some of w hi ch were regarded as extreme and thus were seen as falling outside the accepted Sunna of the Prophet Mu}:ıammad. As we will examine shortly Sha'raru applies a double standard with_ reference to ınujiihadiit, si nce his views on the famed Egyptian Sufi Shaykh Abü al-Su'üd (d. 1524) who also practiced mujiihadiit are strikingly different

In the Tabaqiit, Sha'ranl has a eıılogistic eııtry oıı Abü al-Su'üd whom he por­ trays asa prominent mystic and an epitome of the perfect Sufi saint He details the shaykh's miracles, emphasizing that everyone, including the com m on peo­ ple, eli tes, viziers, and sultans, not only showed him utmost respect but also accepted his greatness without question. Sha'rani does not raise red flag Abü al-Su'üd's political connections or networks or his counsel to rulers. Relating the extremes of Abü al-Su'üd's limitless mujahtidtit and ascetic practices, and giving detailed examples of the ways in which Abü al-Su'üd put his disciples through tough ttials as part of their spiritual education, Sha'ranl does not express criticism or disapproval about these practices- some of which were extreme.ıı From Sha'rani we leam that on numerous occasions Abü al-Su'üd had his disciples beaten with sticks and had them incarcerated. Not criticizing this type ofbehavior. Sha'ranl says that inflicting bodily and mental pain, the

10 Al-Sha'rani, oi-Toboqötol-kubrö {2013 edition), 486-487. 11 See al-Sha'rani, oi-Toboqöt ol-kubrö (2013 edi tion), 462-463.

Osmanlı'da Ilm-i Tasavvuf , 691 shaykh tested his disciples continuously. When Abü al-Su'üd accused his dis­ ciples of actions/behaviors that required the involvement of qadis, they were tried in courts, and punished. Despite being innocent of the charges their mas­ ter accused them of, the disciples d id not protest or refute the claims knowing that the punishments were tests that they had to endure. At the end of his life, Abü al-Su'üd denied having any deputies (balifes). Repeatedly saying he chose to stand alone on the mystic's journey to reach vabdet, Abü al-Su'üd staunchly denied his murids the permission to take to the path, i.e. to continue their seyr-i sulük. Pei:sonally advising Sha'rfuü to s tay away from people and not to pen any works, Abü al-Su'üd also told him not to have any murids, and, especially, not to have a tekke or a zaviye of his own. Sha'ranl's positive views on Abü al-Su'üd are striking especially ifwe consider his criticism of Gulshanl's mujahadat and ascetic practices- the very qualities that he praises in Abü al-Su'üd who is portrayed as an exemplary shaykh. Comparing the two entries, we can argue that perhaps in Sha'rani's eyes, Gulshanl did not qualify as an ideal Sufi not because of what is argued, i.e. the shaykh's mujahadat, but because of the or­ der's close connections with the local Ottoman ruling elites and the compe­ tition between Egyptian and "foreign" Sufi orders in Egypt for receiving elite patronage. Clearly we can not take the author's viewpoint on mujahadat as the sole objective criteria to determine who qualifies as an exemplary Sufi.

Another account on Abü al-Su'üd has a different focus than that of Sha'rani Ibn I yas, the famed .awlad al-nas histarian who witnessed the Ottoman con­ quest, does not give information on Abü al-Su'üd's mujahadiit. Instead in his favorable account of the shaykh, Ibn Iyas details how Turnan Bay, the last Mamluk Sultan, became the sultan with the intervention of Abü al-Su'üd. This episode supports the role of the holy man as an active partidpant in a decision-making process at a critical time and clearly depicts a favorable im­ age of the holy man entangled with politics. Following_al -Ghawri's death, a group of Mamluk commanders sought out Abü al-Su'üd to enlist his aid in their attempt to convince Turnan Bay, who had refused the sultanate despite their acclamations, to accept the post. During an assembly, the commanders informed the shaykh about the problem that faced the Mamluk sultanare and Turnan Bay's refusal to accept the leadership. Abü al-Su'üd brought the Qur' an and, in the presence ofTuman Bay, administered an oath to the commanders. They all swore that if Turnan Bay was designated as sultan, they would not betray him, mislead him, or plot against him. They would support his words and actions. With Abü al-Su'üd's urging request, they all took the oath and swore not to repeat al-Ghawri's unjust conduct toward the population; they

692 ~ Osmanlı•da ilm-i Tasavvuf would not continue his arbitrary acts; they would caneel the exorbitant taxes he instituted; abolish the weekly and monthly taxes on shops; regulate busi­ ness according to the rules in use during the reign of Sultan Qayt Bay; and keep a closer watch on Yashbaq Jamall (the market inspector). After everyone swore to uphold this long list, Abü al-Su'üd said, "If God inflicts upon you a defeat, if He humiliares you, if He hands you over to the power of the Ottoman prince, this is because of the curses against you from those on earth and in the seas," and the commanders responded by saying, "We repent before God for our wickedness, which stops taday." After the assembly dispersed, Abü al­ Su'üd wrote.and registered the oaths taken by the cornmanders.'2 Clearly for Ibn I yas, Abü al-Su'üd's intervention in a highly political event was necessary and yielded good results for the people of Egypt during a time of crisis. The shaykh's mujiihadiit is not referenced and does not appear as a factor that de­ served commentary. Relying again on Sha'rani's information, we can say that Gulshanl was alsa critica! of Sha'rani in a polite manner. While showing Sha'ranl respect and receiving him well, Gulshani reportedly said that Sha'rfuü and his ilk were Sufis of good deeds, who sought approval and favorable reception with their audiences, probably hinting at their lack of ecstatic, strenuous practices of piety and antinamian tendendes then comman among the Mişri- Gulshanis. Since we do not see collaborating evidence in the Cairene Gulshani literature about Sha'ranl, we have to take the latter at his word. Elsewhere in his Tab­ aqiit, Sha'rani's portrayals of his favorite Egyptian Sufis-K.halwatl or not­ make it abundantly clear that his distinctly reserved and distant approach to Gulshanl was, perhaps, a result ofcompetition for limited patranage between Sufis native to Egypt and foreign implants, such as the Gulshanis, who were well-connected with the local Ottoman military establishment and who were popular with the new rulers/administrators of Egypt Or perhaps Sha'raru was aware of the clash of cultures between the newcomer "Turks" and local "Egyptians" and wary of i ts consequences in the society.13 As a devoted Sufi,

12 The secondary literature on lbn lyas is extensive. For a detailed overview of his life and works see: https://ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/sites/ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/files/ ibniyas_en.pdf; lbn lyas, lll, 5:82-83. For a historical contextualizatıon of this episode, see Petry, Twilight ofMajesty, pp. 230-231. 13 For an analysis of these themes see Ohlander, "He was Crude of Speech: Turks and Arabs in the Hagiographicallmagination of Early Ottoman Egypt", 111-135. Michael Winter argues that Sha'raniwas envious of the political connections of the Khatwati mystics and wanted to benefit from their networks; see Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt, (1982 edition), p. 109.

Osmanlı'da lım - i Tasavvuf ~ 693 Sha'ran! himself held a magnifying glass to numerous Sufi communities in Cairo in the sixteenth century. For one, he was a follower of Shaykh Ihrahim al-Maçlübi (d. 1472) who was also the mentor to 'Ali al -Khawwaş al-Burullusi, an illiterare mystic, who became Sha'rani's main instructor. From the available literature on Sha'ran!, we learn that he had a . He also relied on chari­ table endowments, which were given to him and his family by a qadi. Sha'ran! became known as a socialluminary and an influential Cairene Sufi who was also known for his rivalry with a certain Khalwati Karünaddin. As far as I am aware, Karimaddin is not referenced in the Cairene Gulshan!literature and he must belong to anather off shoot of the Khalwatiyya. Now let us review the positive viewpoints on Gulshan'i to see what other crite­ ria was weighed in to evaluate the Gulshanis and their status as exemplary, or not The following evidence supports the idea that there were an inconsistent set of standards that determined who was a "pious and exemplary Sufi" in Mamluk and Ottoman Egypt and that the perceptions on Sufis, their func­ tions and utility, were negotiated inaccordance to their relations with authori­ ty. However, perceptions on Sufis also hinged on how those with diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds interacted with one another. When compared to Sha'rani, two other Egyptian seventeenth century commentators of Gulshani held positive views about him and the order. One did so mainly because of his intimate social connections with the Khalwati community in Cairo. In his bi­ ographical dictionary al-Kawtikib al-durriyya fi tartijim al-siidtit al-şüfiyya (also known as the Tabaqtit ai-Muniiwi al-kubrıi) the sc h olar and mystic Zayn al-Din al-Haddadi-al-Munawi al-Qahin al-Shafi'i (d. 1621) proviôes biographies of Sufis beginning with Prophet Mul:ıammad and up to his own fune. '4-A well­ known disciple of Sha'rani, Munawi portrays Gulshani in a favorable light. Unlike his master, who held critica! opinions on Gulshani, Munawi comments on Gulshani's knowledge of theology, Qur'anic tafsir, and rational sciences, and notes that he was a "popular" Sufi in Cairo.15 S ince Munawi was given the cloak ofinvestiture from the Khalwatiyya, in addition to other local orders, his views on the Khalwafi offshoots in Cairo, including the Gulshanis, are favor­ ably biased!6

Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi's (d. 1651) al-Kawiikib al-sa' ira bi-a'yan al-mi' a al-'as hira likewise portrays Gulshani in the Sufi culture of Cairo but without the po lite

14 Al-Munawi, ai-Kawökib ol-durriyyajitaröjim al-södötal-şüfiyya.

15 Al-Munawi, ai-Kawökib ol-durriyya ji taröjim al-södöt al -şüfiyya, 4: 10-11. 16 Ha mda n, "La vie et l'oeuvre du grand soufi egyptien 'Abd al-Ra'üf al-Munawi", pp. 203-214.

694 ~ Osmanlı'da Ilm-i Tasavvuf criticism ofSha'ranl or the positive undertones ofMunaw1.'7 When compared with the previous two accounts, Ghazii's evaluation ofGulshanl is straightfor­ ward. Ghazzl emphasizes that Gulshanl was favorably received in Cairo and had a multitude of followers from among the .lıtcemf and the Erviinı (people of Rumi origins). Unlike Sha'ranl or Munawi, Ghazzi underlines how staunchly loyal Gulshanl's followers were in their obedience to their shaykh-the end result of which was Gulshan'i's summons to the Ottoman court of Sultan Su­ leyman (d. 1566). Not commenting on the sociopolitical and administrative tur­ moils that surfaced in Cairo with the transition from the nıle of Marnluks to . that of the Ottomans, or participation of the Khalwat'is in that process, Ghazzl gives us an interesting detail. He says that after his returo to Egypt, and fal­ lawing the orders of Sultan Suleyman, Gulsharü dismissed his fallawers from among the disciples, as well as the Turks, m eaning the members of the local Ottoman military. The remainder of Ghazzi's entry replicates Sha'raru's and Munawi's accounts.'8 Since we do not have this interesting detail about the loyalty of the military or Gulshanl's dismissal of them in either Sha'raru or Munawi, I suggest that Ghazzi might have been familiar with the contents of earlier Ottoman Turkish sources- such as the prolific sixteenth century Gulshani hagiographer MuJ;ıyi, who for one, talks extensively about the scope of Gulsharü's f.ollowing, their die-lıard loyalty, and Gulshanl's decision to dis­ mantle them after his Istanbul trip.'9 Or perhaps Ghazzi had access to people who experienced first-hand the sphere ofinfluence the Gulshanis wielded in Ottoman ruled Egypt.

In all the available Arabic references the overall favorable light in which Gul­ sharü was depicted, including Sha'ranl's commentary, is striking. Could the critical and judgmental viewpoints of him we see in hagiographies be part of the Ottoman and Caiı:ine literary trope that sought to present the endurance of a Sufi saint in the face of adversity and animosity? Were the negative or controversial depictions of Gulshani mere ploys to prove to his fallawers and audiences that he was worthy and powerful? The answers are not straightfor­ ward because unlike his Cairene Khalwat'i peers, including Shaykh Shahin al-Charkasi (or Shah.In-i Khalwatl) and Shaykh Demirdash (both of whom were unanirnously praised in Ottoman and Egyptian sources), we do not have a uniform depiction and reception of Gulshani neither by his contemporaries,

17 Al·Ghazzi, ai·Kawökib al-sö'ira bi-a'yön al-mi'a al-'öshira, 2:84.

18 Al-Ghaızi, al-Kawakib al-sa'ira bi-a'yan al-mi'a al-'ashira, 2: 84. 19 Muf:ıyi-i Gülşeni, Menö/s.ib-i ibröhim-i Gülşeni.

Osmanlı'da ilm-i Tasavvuf ~ 695 nar in the sources written posthumously. The consistent "inconsistencies" we encounter in the sources support the idea that the Gulshanis were indeed a band apart from their Khalwati peers in Cairo. Their popularity and reach threatened some observers from the religious hierarchies and others from among the Sufi communities lo cal to Cairo. And that the main reasons of an­ tagonism were mostly pragmatic: such as pattonage and real estate ownership issues.

Leaving ~side the depictions ofK.halwatıs, let us now briefly turn to how Sufis native to Egypt were pictured in sources, especially how their interactions with palirical authority factored in the formations of their identities as exemplary holy figures or ideal Sufis. In the cases we will see shortly, the intersection of sp iritual and worldly spheres proved to be benefidal to so me of the Egyptian Sufis being examined. The opinions of their commentators, especially about interactions with ruling eHtes, were primarily formed through personal inter­ actions and social approval criteria which relies on positive and productive relations \vith political authorities.

Shaykh ~bd al-Qadir al-Dashpjç1 (or al-Tashtuti) (d. ca. 1517-r8?0 for example, appears as a highly respected local Cairene antinemian mystic and saint in two important texts. Sha'rani says that he conversed with al-Dashpj!i for twen­ ty years and relates anecdotes indicating that the shaykh was a role model to him. In his long entry, Sha'ranı identifies al-Dashpjçi as one of the greatest "friends of God," a flawless holy man, and d etalls su pernatural events that in­ volved the shaykh, while also noting the miraculous deeds P.erformed by him. Adding that sometimes al-Dashpjçi looked like a meczüb (a Sufi pı:one to spells of ecstatic rapture and eccentric behavior), Sha'ran1 says that the shaykh was received enthusiastically among the people and the elites alike: Sultan Qait Bay (d.1496) regularly visited al - Dashpj~i to pay his respects. Sha'rfuü ends his entry on al-Dashpjçi saying that Ha'ir Bey, as Egypt's fust Ottoman appointed governor, elites, holy men, and notable emirs attended his funeral and bon­ ored his memory.l1 In an earlier source, authored ina different genre, we find a sirnilar perspective. Ibn Iyas's portrayal of al-Dashpjçi also depicts an exemplary mystic. He says that al-Dashçüçi was well known for his piety and Ha'ir Bey took his counsel

20 According to al-Sha'rani, al-Dashtüti diedin 930/1524, which may be an erroneous date si nce the author also says that tıa'ir Bey attended his funeral. tta'ir Bey was buried on ıs Zilhicce 928- 4/5 November 1522 (Al-Sha'rani, ai-Tabaqiit al-kubrii (2013 edition), pp. 474-475. 21 Al-Sha'rlini, ai-Tabaqiita/-kubrii (2013 edition), pp. 473-475.

696 r Osmanlı'da Ilm-i Tasavvuf to heart at times of distress. However, unlike Sha'rani, in lbn Iyasa clear mes­ sage emerges: al-Dashtüti urged Ha'ir Bey to behave justly to the people he governed; giving us the faremost expectation of an "ideal" Sufi: to be the moral compass of social justice. What is striking in both depictions of al-Dashçüçi is the emphasis that he was not always expected to bow to authority or respond to a erisis supporting the ruling political body's decisions. And at the end of such an interaction, he d id not get in trouble with authorities. On the other side of the scale, Cairene Gulshani sources reveal that Gulshani's relations with Ha' ir Bey were not "rosy" since the latter tried, on more than one occasion, to control and limit the activities of the Gulshanis, including those ofGulshani, who tried to serve asa moral compass ofjustice during Ha'ir Bey's tenure. Ottoman chroniclers writing in Egypt, like the sixteenth century judge Diyar­ bekri (d. 1542), identified a similar set of attributes and characteristics for an ideal Sufi like the ones we read in Sha'rani (d. 1565) and Ib n I yas (d. 1522). Diyar­ bekri was personally interested and invested in being in the company ofholy men native to Egypt; thus his observations provide not only his checklist for an ideal Sufi but also explain why, according to him, he chose the company of a certain kind ofholy man and why, in his perception, the Khalwati Gulshani, despite their common origin point ofAnatolia, d id not fit the bill. Between the observations of Ibn !yas and Diyarbekri, al-Dashtuti is the common themat­ ic thread to understand the complexities of the in terseetion of spiritual and worldly spheres and the different rol es and functions attributed to Sufis in the context of early modern Egypt.Diyarbekri's portrayal of al-Dashtfıp focuses on the shaykh's ascetic and antinamian nature and his selfless desire for do­ ing good. However, for Diyarbekri the most im portant factor in his acceptance of al-Dashtfıp as a holy man sternmed from his ability to perform miracles. But perhaps a significant proof of al-Dashçüçi's genuine saintly character and deeds was Sultan Selim's opinion of the shaykh. Diyarbekri says that Selim was impressed with al -Dashtfıp because during a visit, the shaykh did not pay attention to him or o ffer any praise. Thus we are reminded in Diyarbekri that for the Ottoman sultan, the sol e proof of the greatness of a holy man was ade­ tached nature and a lack of agenda to attend, praise, and please a ruler. Thus for Diyarbekri, unlike Sha'raru, Ibn Iyas, or Mul:ıyi, conscious refusal to mix with the rest of the world, or keeping the sp iritual separate from the mundane was, for a holy man, the ultimate proof of integrity. All ofthese equally valid viewpoints withstanding, perhaps one of the reasons why Diyarbekri, unlike his Arabic-speaking counterparts, held such a "purist" view of holy men lies in his deeply ingrained ideas of the sanctity of the rela-

Osmanlı'da ilm-i Tasavvuf , 697 tionship between the ruler and the holy man. Diyarbekri's presentation ofSul ­ tan Selim asa ghazi (warrior sultan) who sought moral and spiritual assistance from the wise ascetic Sufi saint al-Dashçüçl resonates with the traditional fron­ tier heritage of the Ottoman sultans as ghazis, who maintained connections to Turcoman babas- holy men who acted as counselors and spiritual guides to the sultans.22 Perhaps for Diyarbekri, the concept of the frontier was stili very much alive after the conquest of Egypt, and he was of the opinion that Selim, like his predecessors, needed a wise Sufi not only to benefit from his sound a'dvice but also to receive blessings on his future conquests. The belief in the baraka (Turkish: bereket, blessing) of a genuine shaykh was im portant in popular piety, because it could influence public opinion; as such, it was a powerful social and political tool to foster the loyalty of subjects to their Ot­ toman sultans. However in Diyarbekri's perception, the realms that the ruler and the holy man belonged to remained exclusive. And here we find the most teliing reason why Gulshanl and his followers received a negative portray­ al in Diyii.rbekri. Gulshani excelled in all the negative attributes of an ideal shaykh and set himself apart from his peers- both Mişrl and Rümi-because he was the perfect example of the range of world Iy success and engagement with world Iy affairs that a holy man could m us ter. Whlle the reception of the Gulshaniyya by the imperial center, or within the province of Egypt, was nu­ anced and multi-dimensional, defying a straightforward positive or negative identification and label, perceptions and ideas on the Gulsharus, like other Sufi communities in Egypt, depended on the activities of their fo unders and its member~. These perceptions were influenced by the Gulsharus' public presence and by their interactions and relations with palirical authority. with different factions of the roling and military eli tes, as well as with the people of Egypt (ehl-i Mişr), and with others in their wider network. Interpretations of their activities and reputations depended on the observer's perspective and background and were by no means unifonn.

The Rümi perspective of Diyarbekri on the Gulsharus complements the Mişrl viewpoint of Ibn I yas and Munii.w1- which was not critica! of the Mişrf- Gul ­ sharus when compared with Diyarbekri and Sha'rii.ni. A textual comparison of histarical sources such as Diyarbekri and Ibn Iyas, as well as the hagiog­ raphies, and other narrative and biographical sources presents us with an incredibly dynamic and complex landscape of Sufi beliefs and practices in Egypt, including those of Khalwatl offshoots such as the Gulshanls, which

ll Halil inalcık, "State, Sovereignty and law," pp. 71-72.

6g8 ~ Osmanlı 'da lım - i Tasavvuf connect the empire with the provinces in a web of intriguing stories. These stories reveal previously overlooked details about Gulshani's audiences-Ot­ toman, Egyptian, and Mamluk-and draw our attention to issues of conflict and negotiation on imperial and local Ieve ls, switching o ur focus between "Ot­ toman regionalism" and "Islamic universalism." And most certainly, the per­ ceptions of"ideal" or "controversial" Sufis, including the Khalwafis and Egyp­ tian Sufis, were very mu ch a complex product of their time and place, since as we have seen, one commentator's exemplary holy man could be another one's black sheep of the flock.

Bibliography Secondary Sources Curry, John J., The Transfomıation of Muslim Mystica/ Tlıouglıt in the Ottomaıı Eıııpire, Ed­ inburgh, 2010. Em re, Si de, lbralıim-i Gulslıaııi and the Klıalıvati-Gulshani Order: Power Brokers in Ottoman Egypt, Leiden, Boston, 2017. _, "A Subversive Story of Banish.ment, Persecution, and Incarceration on the Eve of the Onoman Conquest of Egypt: İbrahim-i Gülşeni's Marnluk Years 1507/I0-1517 in Sufism and Society:Arrangemeııts ofthe Mystical iıı tlıe , 120o-ı8oo C. E., ed. John J. Curry and Erik S. Ohlander, London and New York, 2011.

_, "Crafting Piety for Success: Gülşeniye Literature and Culture in the Sixteenth Cen­ tury", journal cıf Sufi S~dies ı.ı, 2012, 31-75. Hamdan, Abdelharneed Saleh, "La vie et l'oeuvre du grand soufi egyptien 'Abd al-Ra'üf al-Munii.wi", Oriente Modemo 64, nr. 7:12 (1984): 203-214. İnalcık, Halil, "S tate, Sovereignty and Law," in Süleyman the Second and His Time, ed. İnal­ cık and Kafadar, Istanbul, 1993. Ohlander, Erik S. "He was Crude of Speech: Turks and Arabs in the Hagiographical Imagination of Early Onoman Egypt" in The Arab Laııds in tlıe Ottoman Era: Essays in Hoııor of Professor Caesar Fa ra h, Minneapolis: for Early Modem History, University of Minnesota, 2009. Petry, Cari F., Tiuilight of Majesty: The Reigns of Mamluk Sultans al-Aslıraf Qöytbiiy and Qiiıısüh al-Glı iiıvri in Egypt, Seattle and London, 1993. Wınter, Michael, Society and Religion in Early Ottomaıı Egypt: Studies in the Writings of :-\bd AI-Wahlıöb A/-Sha'röni, New Brunswick, NJ, 2007. _, Egyptiaıı Society Under Ottoman Rule, 1517-1798, London, 1992. _, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of :-\bd al-Wahhöb al-Siıa'röni, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982. Primary Sources AI-Munii.wi, 'Abd al-Rauf, al-Kaıvökib al-durriyya fi taröjinı al-södiit al-şüfiyya , Cairo, 1994- AI-Ghaızi, Najm al-Dın, al-Kaıvökib al-sii'ira bi-a'yön al-mia al-'öshira, vol. 2, Beirut, 1945. AI-Sha'rii.rü, i\bd al-Wahhii.b b. Al:ımad, Latti'if al-minan ıva-1-akhlöq fi bayan ıvujüb al-tabadduth bi-ni'nıati Allii/ı 'ala 1-it/aq, 2 vols. in ı, Cairo: i\bd al-l:lamid Al:ımad al- l:lanafi 1357fı938. ·

Osmanlı'da lim-i Tasavvuf , 699 __, Al-Tabaqiit al-kubrii, edited and translated by Abdülkadir Çiçek. 3 vols., Istanbul, 1968-1969, 2:133; 2:262 (Sha'rani, al-Tabaqiit al-kubrii, (19~8 - 69 edition]). _,Al-Tabaqiital-kubrii, 3rd edition, Beirut, 2013. Ibn Iyas, Badii'i' a/-zuhürfi waqii'i' a/-duhür. ed. Mubammad Muştafa, Leipzig and Istan­ bul, 1932; reprint Cairo and Wıesbaden, 1960-75, (Ibn Iyas, Badii'i' I) _, Badii'i' al-zulıür fi waqii'i' al-dulı ür, ed. Mubammad Muştafli, Cairo, 2008, (Ibn Iyas, Badii'i' Il) __, Badii'i' al-zulıür fi waqii'i' al- dulıür, trans. by Caston Wiet, jounıal d'un bourgeois du Caire, Paris: Libraire Armand Colin, 1955- 60, series: Bibliotheque generale de l'Ecole pratiqye des ha u tes etudes, Vle section, (Ibn Iyas, Badii'i' III). Ibn Iyas, https://ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/sites/ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/ files/ibniyas_en.pdf (accessed 21 February 2016). MuJ:ıyi-i Gülşeni, Menii~ib-i İbriilıfm-i Giilşenf ve Şern/e/i-Ziide Ab med Efendi Şive-i Tari~at-ı Giilşeniye, ed. Tahsin Yazıcı, Ankara, 1982.

700 ~ Osmanlı'da ilm-i Tasavvuf