Salih Niyazi
Dedebaba and
his dervishes
at the Pir Evi
shortly before
the abolition of
the Sufi orders.
The Alevi-Bektashi tradition in Turkey has been an important subject of research in recent
years. All the researches have the same root that is the tradition of Hajji Bektash. Therefore,
they should examine the order of Hajji Bektash Veli. In this we also tried to base on this tradition.

The concept of an “Alevi-Bektashi” tradition appeared in Turkey during the republican period.
Moreover, at this time we can see that the Alevi-Bektashi tradition took on the appearance of a
religious community. However, during the Ottoman period this had a different meaning. Firstly,
in the 19th century the term “Alevi” incorporated all people who were descendants of the Imam
Ali (that is named “seyyid” and “şerif”). It also meant that those Sufi orders which were based on
mystical lineages (silsilahs) from the Prophet Mohammed and Imam Ali. In this way, the Sufi
orders of Jalwati, Jarrahi, Khalwati, Rifa’a and Qadiri were considered “Alevi”. During the
Republic, the Bektashi tradition expressed itself in a different way from other Sufi orders. There
were two reasons of this: the first one was that certain ethno-religious groups like the Tahtacılar,
Ocakzâdeler (Dede Garkın Ocağı, Abdal Musa Ocağı, Pir Sultan Ocağı, Sarı Saltık Ocağı etc.)
defined themselves as Hacı Bektash’s followers. This expression formed a common base.

I have examined the Bektashi Order in one century, which is 19th century. During the early part
of this century Sultan Mahmud II outlawed the order. However, my study was subsequently
expanded from the last quarter of 18th century up to the first quarter of 20th century with the
main focus in our being the years before and after 1826.

In this study, I have employed modern methods of the sociology of religion. I have developed
two main hypotheses: the first one being that Bektashi beliefs affected certain social interaction
and that this social interaction affected by Bektashi beliefs; and the second one that the Bektashi
Order continued to thrive clandestinely.  

In our study I have attempted show photographs of Bektashis from different periods and tried to
interpret these photographs. I consulted the ruined Bektashi tekkes, graveyards, Ottoman
archival manuscripts found in libraries. For this I have examined several hatt-ı hümayuns
(imperial decrees) and evkaf defters (endowment registers) and examining of manuscripts in
libraries were the second step of our study. Because of no classification of manuscript libraries
according to the subjects, I found these books by sheer chance. I based my investigation on the
Bektashi texts which were written in prose and verse. During my research, I found a book of
Giritli Ali Baba entitled Uyun-ı Hidaye (Eyes of Guidance) which facilitated a clear understand of
Bektashi philosophy.

I exercised caution when consulting classical Bektashi texts as well as Hurufi texts. Since its
beginning the Hurufis were persecuted by the state, and as a result they tried to disguise genuine
meanings of their texts and by using secret language and symbols. Moreover, they had formed
registers of symbols and had hidden these lists in different places. Dervish Murtaza Bektashi was
the first to translate Fadlullah Astarabadi’s Cavidanname-i Sagir into Turkish. The text (which
is called Durr-i Yetim) was transcribed by Hasib Baba of the Karaağaç Bektashi Tekke. There
exists one copy of the text in Suleymaniye Library. This text was transcribed in 1274/1857 and I
used it for consultation on Hurufi belief.

I have found that very important texts written in the 19th century in various libraries. These
texts have included Bektashi Erkans, Gulbenks, Tercumans and other prayers. One of these
texts is titled the Risale-i Lahutiyye.  This book contains 38 warak (a warak is two pages) and
its date of writing is 25 Shawwal 1284 h/ 15 February 1867. The manuscript was transcribed by
Seyyid Şeyh Bedrettin el-Halveti el-Misri from the city of Bursa. He wrote the book based on the
manuscripts of Şeyh Sırri Rifa’i al-Alawi, who was one of the descendants of the Imam Ali. On the
last page of the book Şeyh Bedrettin writes that Şeyh Sırri “knew all of the Sufi orders.” The
manuscript had been transcribed by Şeyh Bedrettin in 19th century when the Bektashi order
banned. Şeyh Sırri had probably died when the manuscript transcribed.  Şeyh Sırri explained all
the rituals, symbols, and beliefs of Bektashi order in the manuscript. Perhaps he might well have
been a shaykh of Bektashis as well as a shaykh of Rifa’is.  It widely had been known that many
shaykhs had licenses for two or more orders in classical Ottoman period.

I have concluded that the Risale-i Lahutiyye belongs to Şeyh Sırri. He is the author and Şeyh
Bedrettin is only a transcriber. We can see that Şeyh Bedrettin recorded many details regarding
Bektashi rituals from Şeyh Sırri’s writings in the main text. The manuscript begins with
“Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim ve bihi’l-avn” (In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most
Merciful, and with his divine aid). The term destur (meaning “with your permission”, “by your
leave”) is also utilized in the introduction. I understand that Şeyh Sırri personally observed
Bektashi rites in 1214/1779. According to the manuscript, Kızıl Deli Sultan (Seyyid Ali) was the
conqueror of Rumeli and he founded a branch of the Bektashi movement. A contemporary of his
was Seyyid Halil Dede  in Hacıbektashköy. At the same time, “sahibu’s-seccade” was Shaykh
Abdullatif Efendi . This branch of Bektashis was probably belonging to the Babagan branch.
When they accepted his branch’s shaykh Halil Dede as postnişin, they respected other branch’s
shaykh Abd al-Latif Efendi as “sâhibü’s-seccade”. In addition, Şeyh Fazlullah Efendi, who was
one of the descendants of Kızıl Deli, was also present in ritual (ayn-ı cem).

A second Bektashi manuscript was written in 1255/ 1839. I derived this date from an unnamed
writer’s note which mentions the detailed funeral ceremony of Hacı Mehmed Ali Dede. This text
was written by the dervishes of the Seyyid Ismail Dede, who was a postnişin of the Shahkulu
Tekke. Although this text does not include the initiation ceremony, it includes Gulbenks and
prayers in detail. This text can be accessed in the Atatürk Library of the Istanbul Municipality.

Another manuscript that includes the rituals and beliefs of Bektashis was written in 1261/1845. I
derived this date from a letter in the text. This text can also be found in the Atatürk Library.
The text shows the rituals, beliefs and philosophy of the Bektashis. It includes the initiation
ceremony of the order, praise, information about Hacı Bektashi Veli and his descendants, as well
as Fadlullah Astarabadi.

I have discovered yet another manuscript that originates in the Tire Bektashi Tekke. At the
beginning of the manuscript it is written that this copy of “the Erkanname belongs to Hacı
Kırzade Hüseyin Hüsnü Baba who is the shaykh of Hüseyin Ibrahim Baba Tekke of Tire.” It was
written in 1312/1894. I derived this date from the list at the end of the manuscript which
includes the names and the dates that various individuals joined the order. In this manuscript
the initiation ceremony was written from the beginning to end in detail. This manuscript is also
found in the Atatürk Library.

The last manuscript that was written in the 20th century is undated. I deduced this date from
the explanations which also support the banning of the tekkes by the Republican administration.
It was written using Arabic letters. It was written between the years of 1925 and 1928, because
the tekkes in Turkey were proscribed in 1928, which was also to the year of the alphabet reform.
This manuscript was written to teach the new generation who forgot the Erkan (principles) of
Bektashi Order. This manuscript is in the Atatürk Library. It includes comments about Bektashi
order that are of importance. The writer is unknown, but he commented on the Republican
reforms in a positive way.

I mentioned above the difficulties of finding these manuscripts. When I found the manuscript
which includes religious education of Saka Yeniçeriyan (Janissary Troopers), I was astounded. I
was looking for a manuscript from the librarian with name of Usul-ı Tarikat-ı Bektasiyye
Risalesi. However, when I took the manuscript, I noticed that the subtitle of book was Saka
Yeniçeriyan. In this manuscript, the religious education of Saka Yeniçeriyan was written in
detail. The date of manuscript is 1206/ 1792.

The third source that I used in my study is the Bektashis were the gravestones in Bektashi
tekkes of the 19th century. I also found many Bektashi gravestones in public graveyards. I
photographed all of these gravestones, but I did not use all of them because of the limits of this
study.            

The Relationship between the Bektashis & the Ottoman State in the 18th & 19th
centuries
Bektashi tekkes had cordial relations with Ottoman Empire until the state outlawed the Bektashi
tekkes. Before that time the state assisted the Bektashis but morally and financially. Generally,
this aid included the restoration of tekkes so that tekkes accepted the sovereignty of the state.
All shaykhs of tekkes were appointed on the nomination of the Çelebi (who was descendant of
Hajji Bektashi) as well as by the approval of the state. The Ottoman Empire accepted the Çelebi
as the only authority of Bektashis.

Bektashi philosophy was advanced in the tekkes. There are different parts in most Bektashi
tekkes such as the at evi, aş evi, and mihman evi. Because of the impact of the tekkes on
Bektashi philosophy, they became socio-cultural centers.  There were food, furniture and tools in
tekkes which were used by dervishes and guests. Needs were supplied from the income sources
of tekkes. The evkafs were the main income sources.

In these evkafs, stock-breeding and agriculture were important sources of revenue. The
government controlled the appointment of shaykhs since they were the administrators of these
evkafs. The state paid little attention to the spirituality of shaykhs looking more at their
economical abilities.


The Banning of the Bektashi Tekkes
All Bektashi tekkes were banded by Sultan Mahmud II. The shaykh ul-Islam and many leaders
of other Sufi orders approved of this move. The Bektashis were charged with heresy, sinfulness
and rebellion. Nevertheless the main reason for their proscription was their ties to the
Janissaries.

The Janissaries did not necessarily have a Bektashi outlook and most were not Bektashi
dervishes. However, they accepted Hajji Bektashi as their founder and spiritual guard. Sultan
Mahmud II banded the Janissaries and ordered the deaths of many, while at the same time he
closed all Bektashi tekkes. Three of Bektashi shaykhs were executed in Istanbul. It is true that
this move was clearly political. The state could not prove the claims that the Bektashi tekkes
produced liquor or that they spied for Persia.
There were non-Bektashi Sufis who supported the closure of the Bektashi tekkes as well as those
who not. Kuşadalı Ibrahim Halveti supported the decision, but the Seyyid Nizam branch gave
permission to accommodate Bektashis in their own tekkes who were under prosecution.

After the outlawing, the state appointed a Nakşibendi shaykh to oversee the Pir Evi (the main
Bektashi tekke). Some of Bektashi tekkes were demolished and others were changed into Sunni
medreses. Hamdullah Çelebi (who was the Bektashi shaykh in the Pir Evi) was exiled to Amasya.
The dervishes who did not accepted to perform Nakşibendi rituals were thrown out by the
Nakşibendi shaykh. This situation continued until the death of Sultan Mahmud II.

After the death of Sultan Mahmud II the authority of the Nakşibendis over the Pir Evi became
weak and mücerred (celibate) branch of the Bektashis became dominant once again. This branch
is more commonly known as the Babagan branch. They struggled with Çelebis and Nakşibendi to
dominate the tekkes. There were three types of shaykhs in the Pir Evi during this period. The
Nakşibendi shaykh sat officially on the post, but Corumlu Hüsnü Baba (who was a mücerred) was
seen as the real shaykh. At this time, Feyzullah Çelebi claimed that he should be the real
shaykh.       

After the Nakşibendi shaykhs lost their dominant role in the tekkes, they were atill nevertheless
the “official” shaykhs so the state continued to salary them and they lived in their places. Then,
the state tried to solve this problem by appointing Yahya Efendi, who had both Nakşibendi and
Bektashi ijazets, to oversee the Pir Evi. But this appointment caused conflicts between the
Bektashis. He tussled with Mehmet Ali Baba and threw out Perişan Baba who was a baba living
in the Pir Evi.

Also during this time, various factions of the Babagan wrangled between themselves. Perişan
Baba and Mehmet Ali Baba were temporarily at odds and formed branches called Müteserri and
Harabati. They were divided over the understanding as to what was befitting the Shari’ah and
what was not. Perişan Baba was afraid of being murdered. He put out a rumor that he had died
and a fake grave was prepared in the court of Eryek Baba Tekke in Kazliçeşme.

At this time, the state appointed a new shaykh to the Pir Evi who had both Bektashi and Qadiri
ijazets. The new shaykh was Yalvaclı Tevfik Baba, nicknamed Tevfik the Fox. The Bektashis did
not like him. He was a partisan of the Ittihat ve Terakki Party.            

Albanian Bektashis and the Pir Evi
The Çelebis and their followers resided in Anatolia. They consisted of Turkmen tribes and
peasants. However the Babagan branch was comprised primarily of Turks, Turkified Greeks and
Albanians as well as native Albanians.

In 1912, conflicts between the Çelebis and Babagan continued in a different way. The Çelebis
claimed that they should control the Pir Evi. They accused the branch of Babagan of supporting
the Albanian rebellion.

The state made investigations into the Pir Evi due to the number of increasing complaints. Many
people were interrogated by the police. There were many accusations that Albanian Bektashis
were partisans of the Ittihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti, that they walked around as though drunk,
that they allowed nobody to be in tekke and that they aided Albanian rebels.

While it is true that some of Albanian Bektashis in the Balkans took the part in the rebellions the
Albanian Bektashis living in the Pir Evi had no know relations with the rebels. At the end of
interrogations, none of allegations were proven.


The Bektashi Order in
the 19th Century
An Outline of Preliminary Research



By Dr. A. Yilmaz Soyyer