Later Egypt Years (930–31/1524–25) 287

Chapter 8 Later Egypt Years (930–31/1524–25) and the Conflict between Gülşenī and Aḥmed Pasha

In the last two chapters of this book I analyze Gülşenī’s interactions and con- frontations with two powerful Ottoman statesmen: Aḥmed Pasha and Ibrāhīm Pasha. As I demonstrate, the Gülşeniye order survived the social upheaval following Aḥmed Pasha’s rebellion and the re-establishment of order in Egypt. In this chapter, I refer to the rebellion and sultanate of Aḥmed Pasha in Egypt as it relates to the reactions/interactions of Gülşenī and his dervishes to the self- acclaimed sultan. An in-depth analysis and discussion of the revolt is given elsewhere.1 Aḥmed Pasha’s rebellion was a serious threat to the Ottoman imperial enterprise in Egypt. Aḥmed Pasha presented a powerful voice of dissent and a critique of Ottoman claims of sovereignty and the implementation of the “Ottoman way” in Egypt. If not for the pasha’s escalating mental instability and loss of favorable public opinion, his ‘alternative’ sultanate might have had enough support to sustain itself, and thus pose an even greater challenge to the house of ʿOsman and its claims of legitimate sovereignty over former Mamluk and Muslim Arab/Egyptian populations. Following the end of the rebellion, Ibrāhīm Pasha’s arrival in the conflict-torn region demonstrates Ottoman efforts to retain and preserve Egypt. Ibrāhīm Pasha’s mission had a substantial impact on the region and resulted in the proclamation of the 931/1525 Law Code of Egypt. Gülşenī and his dervishes took active parts in the rebellion, sultanate, and the period of relative stability after the rebellion, and during Ibrāhīm Pasha’s time in Egypt. Examining how the order and its leader responded to—and at times participated in—the shifting balance of power from Aḥmed Pasha’s tenure to Ibrāhīm Pasha’s rule sheds light on a history that has remained largely in the scholarly margins. In addition to the interactions of the Gülşenīs with Aḥmed Pasha, this chapter continues our examination of the problem- atic concept of the “Ottomanization of Egypt” under Ibrāhīm Pasha and the response of the people of Egypt to Ottoman innovations in administration.

1 See Emre, “Anatomy.”

The Confrontation of a ḳuṭb/shāh Versus a Self-Professed Circassian Sultan for Leadership of the Sacred Land

The tenure, rebellion, and sultanate of the Ottoman governor of Egypt, Aḥmed Pasha (d. 930/1524) during the first decade following the region’s 923/1517 Ottoman conquest, represents one of the most serious, public, and intense cri- tiques of, and challenges against, the Ottoman imperial enterprise in the Arab lands.2 As I argued elsewhere, a number of Aḥmed Pasha’s policies that changed the administration of the “Ottoman way” were well-received by some audiences in Egypt, as was his critique of Ottoman governance in the post- 923/1517 period.3 While Aḥmed Pasha’s intentions remain a point of debate (e.g., his single-minded desire to establish an alternative rulership to the Ottomans), historical evidence demonstrates that he was able to recruit a large body of supporters to his cause. The majority of the evidence on the revolt was penned by pro-Ottoman authors who either dismissed the episode or con- demned it. The extant literature is thus biased against what Aḥmed Pasha tried to accomplish, his critique of the Ottomans was silenced, and the scope of his short-lived successes in Egypt were ignored.4 What is important for our pur- poses is that Gülşenī took an active part in Aḥmed Pasha’s revolt and this impacted the revolt’s outcome. Despite that, until now, Gülşenī’s role has not been recognized in the historiography.

2 Scholarship examining dissent and rebellions against the early modern Ottoman state—such as the Celālī uprisings—is extensive and focuses on a variety of contentious factors such as demographic shifts/growth/crisis, socioeconomic causes, and political developments that devastated Anatolia in the tenth and eleventh/sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For an overview and analysis, see Oktay Özel, “Population Changes in Ottoman Anatolia during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: The ‘Demographic Crisis’ Reconsidered,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no. 2 (2004): 183–205. For a short account of the revolt see Seyyid Mahmud, Mısır Eyaleti, 77–81; Also see Jane Hathaway (ed.), Mutiny and Rebellion in the Ottoman Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002). 3 See Emre, “Anatomy,” 353–354 for the reinstatement of the four judges by Aḥmed Pasha in 929/1523. This unexpected shift in Ottoman judicial policy following the region’s 923/1517 Ottoman Conquest was seen as a strong statement for a new Egypt under the leadership of Aḥmed Pasha. This action led to positive public support for the pasha in the beginning of his tenure because it was regarded as a reversal of the much-criticized “Ottoman way” of manag- ing local administration and bureaucracy. 4 An excellent example is Kitāb-ı Tevārīḫ-i Misr-i Ḳāhire (commonly referred to as, Tārīḫ-i Mıṣr). Its author, ʿAbd al-Karīm b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, was the secretary to Egypt’s governor, Meḥmed Pasha, between 1111/1700 and 1115/1704. His chronicle covers the events of 923–1093/1517–1682. See fols. 7a–9a for a long diatribe against Aḥmed Pasha. The author says that Ibrāhīm Pasha sent a number of letters to Aḥmed Pasha. Reports on the latter’s actions made it apparent to the sultan that he was on the brink of revolt.