Hacı Bektaş Veli ve ilk Osmanlılar: Aşıkpaşazade'ye eleştirel bir bakış

Abstract

Modern historiography on Haci Bektas bears clear stamp of Ashikpashazade's description in his famous chronology of the Ottoman Dynasty. Ashikashazade's presentation may be summarized in one sentence: Haci Bektas was a lunatic saint-dervish who had nothing to do with (spiritual) master-disciple relationship. In the mean time, other sources, some of which precede Ashikpashazade, picture Haci Bektash in a different way: as an important sufi leader enjoying significant spiritual authority on his contemporaries. Although he clearly contradicts to the accounts of other sources, however, Ashikpashazade's view still constitutes the center of gravity of modern studies on Haci Bektas and Bektashis. To the moment, modern scholars resorting to Ashikpashazade's account on Haci Bektas did not question his own position against the latter and his followers. When endeavored such a query, one would immediately notice that Ashikpashazade was a spokesman of a party situated itself against Bektashis. One of the chief ideas governing Ashikpashazade's history is to prove the prominent role of his ancestors in the early Ottoman initiative. At the same time, during the late Fifteenth century, Bektashis were also raising their counter argument, claiming the eminent Bektashi contribution to the Ottoman enterprise. The limited sources available in our possession provide enough clues to make us to assume a polemic between orthodox sufi circles, to which Ashikpashazade belonged, and Bektashis on the foundation of the Ottoman Principality. It is well-known that the socio-cultural backbone of the early Ottoman principality was rested on Turkomans. At the same time, the spiritual figures governing the religion of this Turkoman mass were successors of the Babai movement, among whom was Haci Bektas. So in the most general term, there was a significant Babai contribution in the early Ottoman success. Ashikpashazade himself was a descendent of Baba Ilyas, thus claiming this contribution for his family. Nonetheless, none of his forefathers until him lived in the Ottoman territories. On the other hand, Haci Bektas and his followers were cultural and religious heirs of Baba Ilyas. And they truly deserved the tribute for Babai contribution to the Ottoman principality. When read Ashikpashazade's chronicle and the Hagiography of Haci Bektas, both were written during the late Fifteenth century, in this perspective, one would immediately realize this polemic between the two parties. Ashikpashazade was, thus, not objective regarding Haci Bektas. On the contrary he was an enemy of Bektasis, hence Haci Bektas. Because of that he successfully silenced Haci Bektas and Bektashis in the early periods of the Ottoman history. The passage relating Haci Bektas in his history was an answer to questions of his audience. There is every reason to suspect that he added this passage unwillingly. Indeed, the entire passage is written in polemical style aiming to nullify some positive arguments about Haci Bektas. The aim of this article is to decipher Ashikpashazade's biased position against Bektashis and hence to suggest a reappraisal of his account on Haci Bektas.