View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Istanbul Bilgi University Library Open Access “THE FURIOUS DOGS OF HELL”: REBELLION, JANISSARIES AND RELIGION IN SULTANIC LEGITIMISATION IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE UMUT DENİZ KIRCA 107671006 İSTANBUL BİLGİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ TARİH YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI PROF. DR. SURAIYA FAROQHI 2010 “The Furious Dogs of Hell”: Rebellion, Janissaries and Religion in Sultanic Legitimisation in the Ottoman Empire Umut Deniz Kırca 107671006 Prof. Dr. Suraiya Faroqhi Yard. Doç Dr. M. Erdem Kabadayı Yard. Doç Dr. Meltem Toksöz Tezin Onaylandığı Tarih : 20.09.2010 Toplam Sayfa Sayısı: 139 Anahtar Kelimeler (Türkçe) Anahtar Kelimeler (İngilizce) 1) İsyan 1) Rebellion 2) Meşruiyet 2) Legitimisation 3) Yeniçeriler 3) The Janissaries 4) Din 4) Religion 5) Güç Mücadelesi 5) Power Struggle Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü’nde Tarih Yüksek Lisans derecesi için Umut Deniz Kırca tarafından Mayıs 2010’da teslim edilen tezin özeti. Başlık: “Cehennemin Azgın Köpekleri”: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İsyan, Yeniçeriler, Din ve Meşruiyet Bu çalışma, on sekizinci yüzyıldan ocağın kaldırılmasına kadar uzanan sürede patlak veren yeniçeri isyanlarının teknik aşamalarını irdelemektedir. Ayrıca, isyancılarla saray arasındaki meşruiyet mücadelesi, çalışmamızın bir diğer konu başlığıdır. Başkentte patlak veren dört büyük isyan bir arada değerlendirilerek, Osmanlı isyanlarının karakteristik özelliklerine ve isyanlarda izlenilen meşruiyet pratiklerine ışık tutulması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmamızda kullandığımız metot dâhilinde, 1703, 1730, 1807 ve 1826 isyanlarını konu alan yazma eserler karşılaştırılmış, müelliflerin, eserlerini oluşturdukları süreçteki niyetleri ve getirmiş oldukları yorumlara odaklanılmıştır. Argümanların devamlılığını gözlemlemek için, 1703 ve 1730 isyanları ile 1807 ve 1826 isyanları iki ayrı grupta incelenmiştir. 1703 ve 1730 isyanlarının ortak noktası, isyancıların kendi çıkarları doğrultusunda padişaha yakın olan ve rakiplerini bu sayede eleyen politik kişilikleri hedef almalarıdır. Bunun sonucunda, tecrit edilen gruplar, eski mevki ya da ayrıcalıklarını yeniden kazanmak için isyancılara destek vermiştir. 1807 ve 1826 isyanlarında ise, isyancılar, politik kişilikleri değil, belli bir kurumu hedeflemişlerdir. Bu isyanlarda, saray ve isyancılar arasında daha katmerli bir meşruiyet mücadelesi yaşanmıştır. Çalışmamızda bu dört isyanın seçilmesinin nedeni, olayların karakteristik özelliklerinin benzeşmesidir. İsyanlarda izlenilen ortak adımlar ve meşruiyet süreçleri bu doğrultuda incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, isyanlar karşılaştırılarak, farklı vakalarda izlenilen meşruiyet süreçlerindeki –eğer var ise- değişimler ve bu değişimlerin müelliflerin eserlerinde öne sürdükleri argümanlar üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Abstract of the thesis by Umut Deniz Kırca, for the degree of Master of Arts in History to be taken in June 2010 from the Institute of Social Sciences. Title: “The Furious Dogs of Hell”: Rebellion, Janissaries and Religion in Sultanic Legitimisation in the Ottoman Empire This study aims to discuss the technical procedures of the janissary-led or involved rebellions, legitimisation patterns and the role of religious discourse as a tool of legitimization from the eighteenth century to the abolishment of the janissaries. The starting point of our study is the legitimisation issue in the abolishment of the janissaries. However, in the light of four mainstream rebellions we aimed to discuss the particularities of the rebellions against the Ottoman administration. The method of our analysis is to focus on the inter-textual dialogues of the contemporary authors, their authorial intentions and interpretations in composing the narratives of the 1703, 1730, 1807 and 1826 rebellions and the factors, forming the reasoning of the contemporary authors. As for the continuity of the arguments, it would be safe to categorize the rebellion of 1703 and 1730 as one group and 1807 and 1826 as another group. The common point of the rebellions in the first group is that the rebels had targeted certain political figures that dominantly excluded their political rivals out of the competition. Hence, these groups realigned under the cause of the rebels to reclaim their standing or privileges. Concerning the rebellions in the second group, their opposition was against an institution. The power struggle among the different parties concentrated on the manner of establishment of this new and western institution. Thus, the legitimisation battle within the rebellions of 1807 and 1826 have more complex and sophisticated structure as both sides asserted legitimacy which depended on different reasoning. A common motive for selecting these rebellions is that similar characteristics of the events and practices allow us to gain a deeper insight into the legitimisation process of the events. By following such a comparative method, we also aim to observe if there was a change in the legitimisation practices of different events which depended on different factors. And if there are some changes, which of these factors had influenced the contemporary authors to develop their arguments. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….. …......1 CHAPTER 1: “THE EDİRNE INCIDENT”: REBELLION OF 1703 Rebellion against the “traitors”…………………………………………………………….9 The Incident.………………………………………………………………………………13 The Chronicles…………………………………………………………………………….17 The Rebels in the Contemporary Sources…………………………...…………………….19 The Rebel Alliance and the Ulema………………………………………………………...24 Feyzullah Efendi: the Şeyülislam, the Diplomat, the Commander, the Vizier and the Scapegoat…………………………………………………………………………………..30 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………........35 CHAPTER 2: “THE REBELLION OF 1730” The Tulip Age and the Rebellion of 1730.………….……………………………………..38 The “Great Strife”..……………………………….……………………………………….43 The Chronicles…………………………………………………………………………….46 The Cause of Justice: the Rebels and the Ulema…………………………………………..50 Damat Ibrahim Paşa as Scapegoat of 1730 Rebellion…………………………………….57 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………........64 CHAPTER 3: “FROM 1807 TO 1826: CONSOLIDATION OF STATE AUTHORITY AND ABOLISHMENT OF THE JANISSARIES Rebellion against “the New Order”.....................................................................................67 The Edirne Incident of 1806.................................................................................................72 The Legitimization Issue of the New Order: Mukabele-i B’il-mis’l versus Bid’at…..........78 Treatise of Koca Sekbanbaşı……………………………………………………………….81 Tretise of Ubeydullah Kuşmani………………………………………………………........87 Fezleke-i Nasihat-ı Kuşmânî: Creation of Enemy of State and Religion….…………........93 CHAPTER 4: “THE FINAL STRUGGLE: ABOLISHMENT OF THE JANISSARIES 1826 The Early Reign of Mahmud II: 1806- 1826..……………………………………………..99 The Chroniclers……………………………………………………………………..…….103 The Final Struggle: The Rebellion of 1826………………………………………………105 Discussions of the Rebellion of 1826 and the Pattern of Legitimization………………....110 “The Furious Dogs of Hell”: The Janissaries and the Loyalists in the Rebellion of 1826…...……………………………………………………………..116 The Closure of the Bektashi Order: Final Step of Restoration of the Order……………...126 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………...132 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………...140 INTRODUCTION The idea of studying the religion‟s role as a tool of legitimisation is actually the outcome of my research on Gülzar-ı Fütuhat by Şirvanlı Fatih Efendi which was written in the aftermath of abolishment of the Janissaries. In the treatise, the author vigorously advocates the policy of Sultan Mahmud II regarding the abolishment of the Janissaries on religious context. Striking and horrific descriptions towards the Janissaries, such as naming them “the furious dogs of hell” drew my attention to the legitimacy arguments that were asserted by the author. These arguments can be considered as one of the key features of understanding the patterns of legitimisation which was constituted by the contemporary authors and the factors which affected the author‟s reasoning of the events. The abolishment of the Janissaries was not merely a military change. Rather it triggered further changes in the economic, political, social and administrative structures of the Empire.1 Indeed, the eradication of such a social phenomenon which had organic connections to politics, economy and military needed to be justified. Consequently, an illustration of the Janissaries as an “enemy of the state and religion” was a necessity for the Porte. However, during the following process, the negative depiction of the Janissaries has become more than illustration of “the enemy of the state and religion”. Even after the abolishment of the Janissaries, the Porte continued to use the same depiction of the Janissaries that was installed after the “auspicious event”. According to an article which was published in Takvim-i Vekayi in 1833, the Janissaries had risen from their graves in Tırnova, Bulgaria.2 Moreover, it was even claimed that Sultan Mahmud II had ordered the destruction the Janissary grave stones.3 These examples demonstrate that from the scope of the Porte, apart from being labelled as the enemy of the state and religion, the Janissaries were also represented as misanthropes. What kind of assertion could label the traditional corps of the Empire as misanthropes in such short time? 1 Fatma Sel Turhan, “Abolishment of Janissary Army and its Reflections”,