XVI. yüzyılda İstanbul`daki Halveti tekkeleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmada XVI. yüzyıl İstanbul'unda oluşan ve hızla büyüyen Halveti tekke ağı, siyasi, kültürel, dini, mimari ve kentsel dinamikler açısından incelenmiştir. Söz konusu ağın nasıl oluştuğu, ne şekilde geliştiği ve yapısı ele alınmaya çalışılmıştır. Öncelikle Halveti tekke banileri üzerinde durularak, tekke banilerinin siyasi, toplumsal ve kültürel aidiyyetleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Baniler arasında saray ve çevresine mensup kimselerin ezici bir üstünlüğe sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Devlet ricalinin çoğunlukla Halvetiliğin Cemali/Sünbüli koluna bağlı tekkelerin inşasını teşvik ettiği tespit edilmiş, bu durumun sebepleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Saray ve çevresine mensup kimselerin Halvetiliğin çeşitli kolları arasından sünni akideye daha yakın olanları desteklemeyi tercih ettikleri sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu destek sayesinde Cemali-Sünbüli kolunun daha etkili hale geldiği ve büyük külliyeler içinde tekkelere sahip olduğunun altı çizilmiştir. Tekkelerin sosyal yaşamında en büyük rol sahibi olanlar şeyh ve dervişlerdi. Bir tekkenin kuruluşunun ardından, bani tekke personelini, onların görevlerini ve maaşlarını belirlemekte ve vakfiye belgelerinde kayıt altına aldırmaktaydı. Hatta bazı vakfiyelerde tekke şeyhinin adı dahi geçmekteydi. Ancak banilerin görevi bu şartların belirlenmesinden sonra nihayete ermekteydi. Bundan sonraki süreçte başrolü şeyh ve müritleri oynamaktaydı. Tekke görevlileri kadar tekke fonksiyonları da tekke hayatını resm etmekteydi. Tekkelerin en önde gelen fonksiyonları günlük olarak tekke personeli için ve mübarek gün ve gecelerde ise hem tekke personeli, hem de ziyaretçi ve ihtiyaç sahibi insanlar için yemek dağıtımıydı. Bu günlerde bazen tekke mutfağından, tekke ile aynı külliyede bulunan medrese, mektep, darülhadis personeline dahi yemek verilmekteydi. Bilindiği üzere birkaç tekke ise misafirhane olarak hizmet vermekteydi. Öbür taraftan dini ritüeller ve dervişlerin eğitimi de günlük yaşamın esas unsurları arasındaydı. Tekke görevlilerinin günlük yaşamlarını geçirdikleri tekke yapılarının nasıl adlandırıldığı, hangi birimlerden oluştuğu hususu da bu çalışma için önemli bir problemdir. Öncelikle vakıf belgelerinde bazı yapıların `hangah`, bazılarının ise `zaviye` ya da `tekke` şeklinde anılması, isim değişikliği herhangi yapısal bir farklılığa tekabül ediyor muydu sorusunu akla getirmektedir. Tekkeleri oluşturan birimler ve bu birimlerin birbirleriyle ilişkileri de incelenmeye değerdir. Bu meseleye ek olarak tekkelerin farklı birimlerinde hangi tekke fonsiyonlarının icra edildiği de anlatılmaya çalışılmıştır. XVI. yüzyıl İstanbul'undaki Halveti tekkeleri genellikle bir cami/mescit-tevhidhane ya da müstakil tevhidhane, derviş hücreleri, selamlık, bir şeyh evi ya da hücresi, türbe, hazire, matbah, yemekhane, kiler, fırın ve hamam gibi birimlerden oluşmaktaydı. Bu birimler arasında bağlantılar olduğu gibi tekkenin içinde bulunduğu külliyedeki tarikat yapısı olmayan medrese, darülhadis, mekteb gibi birimlerle de birtakım bağlantılar mevcuttu.Ele alınan diğer bir husus ise, bahsedilen bu tekke yapılarının şehir içindeki dağılımı ve bu dağılımın bir anlamının olup olmadığıdır. Tekkelerin dağılımı incelendiğinde, Sünbüli Tekkeleri'nin genellikle Sünbüli asitanesi olan Koca Mustafa Paşa Tekkesi etrafında yoğunlaştığı görülmüştür. Bu Sünbüli tekkeleri arasındaki hiyerarşik ilişkinin göstergesidir. Ayrıca Halvetiliğin Cemali koluna mensup tekkelerin özellikle Topkapı Sarayı ve Galata çevresinde yoğunluk kazandığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu durum da Cemali şeyhi Kasım Çelebi ile halifeleri arasındaki ilişkiye gönderme yapmaktadır.Neticede, bu çalışma Halveti tekkelerinin sadece mimarlık tarihi bağlamında değerlendirilmesi değil, tekke mimarisinin siyasi, ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel, dini gerçekler ışığında incelenmesine yönelik bir çabadır.

In this study it is aimed to examine network of Khalwati convents in the sixteenth century Ottoman Istanbul through political, cultural, religious, architectural and urban aspects. How this network was created and enlarged? How did it influence number of Khalwati convents in the sixteenth century Ottoman İstanbul? Firstly arrival of Khalwatiyya order from Amasya to Istanbul, first known Khalwati sheikh Çelebi Khalife in Istanbul and his closeness to Bayezid II were focused. It was emphasized that mainly Çelebi Khalife's dervishes constucted Khalwati convents on themselves or ruling elite prefered constructing these convents in the honour of them. Secondly, some analysises were made about the patrons of these convents. Who were the patrons of these convents? Were they prominent statesmen or modest sufis? How was their closeness to the sultan and imperial house? It this part, the patrons of the convents were focused and it was revealed that 3/2 of the convent patrons were from the ruling elite and the left were composed of non-ruling elite- sheikhs, a few tradesmen and ulema. Among the ruling elite ; mothers of the sultans, daughters of the sultans and their husbands (who were viziers at the same time), grand viziers, other viziers, aghas, kethüdas of the grandviziers, other palace servants and their wives were the patrons of Khalwati convents. The sultans rarely undertook construction of these convents (just two small ones by Murad III). On the other hand Ottoman sultans supported construction of these buildings by imperial family and prominent ruling elite through endowing some mülks or other properties. It is clear that in any sultan complex there was no convent devoted to Khalwatiyya or any other dervish order. Sultans in the sixteenth century Ottoman Istanbul preferred supporting the construction of convents by his kuls, rather than undertaking construction of these buildings on their own. As a result of the support of imperial house and statesmen in construction of Khalwati tekkes, Khalwati dervishes became very popular in sixteenth century Istanbul. During the reign of Süleyman II and Murad III, the number of Khalwati convents in Istanbul reached highest number. It was emphasized that the statesmen encouraged Khalwati convents which were connected to especially Cemali/Sunbuli branches of this order. Some of the branches of this order –like Sinaniyye– was mostly supported by the sheikhs. Ümmi Sinan was the patron of Ümmi Sinan Convent in Şehremini, Nasuh Dede was the patron of Ümmi Sinan Convent (Nasuh Dede Convent) in Eyüp and Seyyid Seyfullah was the patron of Emirler Tekkesi. For the ruling elite, the criteria was possibly determined according to closeness of this Khalwati branch to Sunni Islam. Consequently, these branches of Khalwatiyya such as Cemali/Sunbuli became more popular as their sheikhs. And their convents were built in large complex of buildings. Koca Mustafa Paşa, Küçük Ayasofya, Sokullu Mehmet Paşa, Atik Ali Paşa are a few of them. On the other hand, some other branches of Khalwatiyya couldn't meet with ruling elite's encouragement, lack of which led to modest convents. In the daily life of the convents, sheikh and his dervishes had the most important roles. After a convent was constructed, the patron was determining convent staff and some other details such as their responsibilities, salaries etc. in a vakfiyya document. Even in some of these documents, name of the sheikh was registered. It was known that patrons' duty was ended with these stipulations. However, sheikh and his dervishes were actors of convent in daily life and kept the names of the convent patrons alive as long as they wanted. Education of dervishes, gathering together of sufis during the time of tevhid and zikr were in the charge of sheikhs. Also sheikhs were Friday preachers of their convent mosques and of other mosques such as Hagia Sophia, Süleymaniye. They were giving advice as preacher to religious community in large number. By this way they had connection with many people directly. In addition to these, one can come across sheikhs who were muhaddis of darülhadises and trustee of convent vakfs in a few examples. In some of the convents such as Şemsi Paşa, Mehmet Ağa, Atik Valide convents, the sheikh of the convent, at the same time, was muhaddis (teacher of darülhadis) in darülhadis. It was emphasized in contemporary sources and in vakf documents. If one look at vakf documents, it is possible to see that sheikhs were generally described as skillful in commenting on the Quran and study of hadiths. These peculiarities were also needed for preachers.Dervishes were following sheikh's directions and they were joining some sufi rituals such as zikr, halvet, sohbet. After they completed their education (seyr-i süluk) under the leadership of sheikh, they become head of the convent after their sheikh or appointed to another convent. Sometimes one can notice that a dervish could be assigned as evradhan, zakirbaşı, duagü. In a few cases, one can also come across that a dervish was in charge of cooking as a tabbah or collecting the vakf incomes as a cabi. Convent staff was not only composed of sheikh and his dervishes but also ferraş, siraci were charged with various works. At Islamic holy nights and days some other servants such as hanende, mevlüthan, were added to this general convent staff. As convent staff, the functions carried out in the convents were essential in order to picture daily life of convents. The foremost functions of the convent was distribution of food for the staff in a day and visitors, needy people at Islamic holy nights or days ( sometimes for staff of other buildings-medrese, mosque, mekteb etc.). In most of the convents there was a matbah. The convents near a mosque such as Alaeddin Efendi, Balat, Küçük Ayasofya, Merkez Efendi, Mimar Acem Ali, Ramazan Efendi, Eyüpteki Şah Sultan, Yahya Kethüda, Soğukkuyu, Mehmet Ağa or near a masjid such as Süleyman Ekmeleddin, Koruk, Hacı Kadın ve Koğacıdede and detached convents without a mosque or masjid such as Sokullu Mehmet Paşa, Doğancı Ahmed Paşa ve Sinan Erdebili had a matbah. Some of these matbahs not only feeding only convent staff, needy people and visitors but also some staff of other buildings in the complex or out of the complex. Only a few of them such as Atik Valide Convent, Atik Ali Paşa Convent, Koca Mustafa Paşa Convent didn't have matbahs but the imarets of these complexes served the need for the convent staff as others. It was also known that a few convents functioned as guest-houses. Atik Valide Convent, Kefevi Alaeddin Efendi Convent and Sinan Erdebili Convent also served as guest houses. Especially Sinan Erdebili Convent was a convent without a mosque or a masjid near it. Therefore it was more suitable for putting someone as a guest. On the other hand, religious rituals and education of dervishes were essentials of daily routine. Consequently, convents were in the service of not just convent staff but also community around it, in social and religious life.The other point that was essential for this study, what were the spacial characteristics of these buildings? Firstly, how the convents were called in the vakf documents and whether these terms such as 'hangah', 'zaviye', 'tekye' refer to any differences or not, was examined. Secondly the units that make convents were focused. What these units were and how these were linked to each other? Which functions were carried out in different units of the convent? The convents that were called with different terms, such as hangah, tekke, zaviye, darülhadis- in vakf documents, met the similar needs and were composed of resembling parts. Only the buildings called as darülhadis probably functioned as a convent and darülhadis at the same time. Although, the hangah and zaviya terms were used to describe convents in the same number, the term tekke was noticed only in one document. In the vakf document the tekke building was described as a very small construction different from any hangah or zaviya. In general it was known that hangahs were bigger than zaviyas in physical terms and also they had comprehensive functions as asitanes. In this study one can be witness that the asitanes such as Koca Mustafa Paşa or Ramazan Efendi, were defined as hangah. On the other hand some small convents, such as Doğancı Ahmet Paşa, Koruk, Hace Kadın,Yahya Kethüda convents were called as hangah too, not as zaviya. Therefore it does not seem easy to make strict definitions of neither hangah nor zaviya. It was mentioned that the Khalwati convents of XVI. century Istanbul were composed of masjid/mosque–'tevhidhane' or a a detached 'tevhidhane', sufi rooms (dervish cells), 'selamlık', sheikh house or sheikh room, tomb, 'hazire', a kitchen, a dining hall, a pantry, a bakery and bath etc. They were also in relation to other buildings of complex, such as madrasa, darulhadis, mekteb etc. Tevhidhanes were center of convents. One of the nearest convent units was sufi rooms. They were arranged around a masjid/ mosque–'tevhidhane' or a a detached 'tevhidhane'. Some of the convents had sufi rooms in high number (Sokullu Mehmet Paşa, Atik Valide, Koca Mustafa Paşa, Soğukkuyu, Küçük Ayasofya Convents..), others had just a few rooms (Doğancı Ahmet Paşa, İmrahor İlyas Bey, Koruk Convents..) Tomb and selamlık were usually near the tevhidhane and sufi rooms. However, the sheikh house a bit far to others. In many convents the sheikh house was surrounded by walls. So it was secluded from other units. It was known that the kitchen could be a unit that includes other units of a multi-functional building or it could be an independent unit near the sufi rooms. Especially gathering some units (such as pantry, dining hall, bakery etc.) related to kitchen together could have a functional reason. Besides it was a fact that some patrons preferred to make their convents build near their palaces. Especially Keşfi Cafer Efendi, Doğancı Ahmet Paşa, Şah Sultan (in Eyüp) convents were constructed in the garden of palaces. In addition to them, Ferruh Kethüda had a magnificient palace, that was described in his vakf document in detail, opposite of his convent. Maybe the patrons of these convents wanted to continue their close relations with Khalwati dervishes in their private life. It was also emphasized that how these convents were located in the city? and whether their location has any meaning or not. These convents in general were located inside the city walls, just a few of them were in Galata, Eyüp and Üsküdar. After the evaluation of convents' location, it was realized that the Sunbuli convents were mostly gathered around the Convent of Koca Mustafa Pasha. This was representing the hierarchical relations of the center of Khalwati/Sunbuli order ('asitane') to small Sunbuli convents. This study is not just an evaluation of Khalwati convents only in terms of architecture history, it is study of these convents' architecture in terms of political, economical, social, cultural, religious facts. This study shows that Khalwati convents in the sixteenth century Istanbul were not secluded instutions, but they were related to Ottoman society, imperial family, statesmen, religious life in a high extent.