TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES: THE ... - Bilkent University

or ‘Mevlāna Arab’. 1786 His family was from Māveraü’n-nehir from among the disciples
of famous Taftazānī but settled (tavattun itdi) in Antakya. After delivering sermons
(va’az) in some cities of the Middle East, including Tabriz, Amid, and Hasankeyf, he
went to Cairo, where he received the compliment of the Mamluk ruler of Egypt,
Kayıtbay until the death of the latter in 903 (1497-8). Leaving Cairo, he first went to
Bursa and then to Istanbul. After returning from the conquest of Moton, he delivered
sermons in Istanbul during which he condemned the fallacious (zenādeka ve mülhidīn)
and sufis who did not avoid dancing. 1787
Taşköprizāde says that after some time he moved to Aleppo where he engaged in
the patronage of Hayırbey, the Mamluk governor of the city, and continued his sermons
for three years. Then he returned to Rum. Taşköprizāde does not specify why he went to
Aleppo leaving the Ottoman capital city. One might speculate that he might have left
Istanbul because of his strife with some prominent figures of religious circles. Taking
into account his leaving not only Istanbul but also the Ottoman realm, a more possible
line of thought is that he must have gone to Mamluk territory in order to refrain from
any possible harmful outcomes of the civil war among the Ottoman princes. Although he
1786 One should not confuse Muhammed b. Omer b. Hamza with Molla Alāaddin Alī el-Arabī, known as
Molla Arab, who died in 1496 as the Mufti of Istanbul. For Molla Alāaddin Alī el-Arabī, see Repp, pp.
174-87.
1787 “... Meclis-i vaazda zenādeka ve mülhidīn ve raks iden sūfiyye-i menā’lehin hakkında kādh-amiz ve
dahl-engiz kelimāt ider idi. ...” Mecdī, p. 413. Menākīb-ı Đbrāhīm-i Gülşenī recites an interesting occasion
regarding to the opposition of Vā’iz-i Arab. On one occasion when he was delivering a sermon in
Ayasofya Mosque, Vā’iz-i Arab, who was an unbeliever in the sainthood (meşāyih-i ‘izāma ve evliyā-yı
kirāma hemīşe inkar üzere oldığı mukarrer olmağın), began to denounce sema’ as atheism. Then a certain
Dīvāne Şüca’, who was among mecāzib-i meşāyih, stood up and started dancing. During his dance in
ecstasy the shaykh proved certain supernatural deeds which made the present audience to disbelieve in the
words of Vā’iz-i Arab. When the negative attitude of the author of the menākıb regarding Vā’iz-i Arab is
considered, one immediately realizes that he did not have a good fame among sufis. See Muhyî-i Gülşenî,
Manâkib-i Đbrâhîm-i Gülşenî, yay., Tahsin Yazıcı, Ankara: TTK, 1982, pp. 224-5. ‘Raks’ was one of the
most controversial issues between ulemā and sufis in the early sixteenth-century. Many prominent
religious scholars, including KPZ, were opposing ‘raks’ during the religious rituals of sufis. For KPZ’s
attitude towards Sufism and ‘raks’ see, for example, Hayrani Altıntaş, “Đbn Kemal ve Tasavvuf”, in
Şeyhülislām Đbn Kemāl, hazırlayanlar S. Hayri Bolay, Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, Mustafa Sait Yazıcıoğlu,
Ankara: Türkiye Diyānet Vakfı Yayınları, 1989, 194-203.
536