Qaṣeeda-i Burdah written by Egyptian sufi poet Busīrī (d. 695/1296) as an eulogy for Beloved Messenger Moḥammed has received great attention in the Islamic world. This work has been recited both in cultural/social ceremonies such as weddings, holidays and funerals. On the other hand, it was also annotated, translated, and takhmīs, tesdīs, tesbī‘ and taşṭīr were written to it by the pen of scholars and litterateurs in literary circles. These activities, which have been carried out over and over again, has (...) been going on from the 15th century to the present day. Not only the reputed people, but also unknown ones or ones whose names were later forgotten have tried to translate it to their own language. The subject of the study is one of this type of poetic translations of the eulogy. Like its translator, date of this poetic translation is also unknown. This work was written in the remel baḥr type of ‘arūż in 162 verses using the spelling of the classical period. Although a significant portion of the rhyme words was adapted from the source text, it has a more understandable style than its counterpart. In terms of poetry, it is above the average. The translator decorated the meaning that he borrowed from the original text with his own poetic ability and tried to express it in a unique manner. For this aim, it is more literary, lyrical and successful than most other translations of Qaṣeeda-i Burdah. In the present study, text of the mentioned work was given with transcription along with mentioning of some of its features. Summary: Qaṣeeda-i Burdah written by Egyptian sufi poet Buṣīrī (d. 695/1296) has an important place in the Islamic world. Named by the poet himself as al-Kavākib-al-durriya fī madḥi khayr-al-bariyya, this work is also known as al-Qaṣeedat-al-mīmiyya since its rhyme letter is Arabic mim, as Qaṣeeda-i Bur’ah since it caused Buṣīrī to recover from a disease, as Qaṣeeda-i Burdah due to the rumor that this event took place while he was wearing a coat by the hands of Beloved Messenger Moḥammed. In order to prevent confusion with the eulogy of Ka‘b b. Zuhayr (d. 24/645) with the same name, it is known in cultural circles as Qaṣeeda-i Bur’ah. However, in literature, it is commonly referred as Qaṣeeda-i Burdah. The work was written in simple baḥr style of ‘arūż, and consists of 161 couplets. It has ten sections in terms of its content: longing for the beloved, complaining about the soul, eulogy for Beloved Messenger Moḥammed, his birth, miracles, dignity of the Holy Qur’ān, miracle of mi‘rāc, importance of jihad, sorrow, hope, prayer and request. The eulogy, which has an effective style, has gained great acclaim in the Islamic geography and has been read for various purposes for centuries. Some people recite it in wedding ceremonies, while some others use it in funerals. The sick people recite it with the hope of healing, while calligraphers wrote it for practice.Owing its fame more to its story rather than its value of art, the eulogy was translated into Eastern languages such as Persian, Malay, Pashto, Punjabi, Turkish and Urdu, as well as into Western languages such as German, French, Greek, English, Spanish, Italian and Latin. In addition, many annotations, footnotes, takhmīs, tesdīs, tesbī‘, taşṭīr and replies were written to it. For example, the poem annotated in Arabic by Ebū Shāme al-Maqdisī (d. 665/1266), Khalid b. ‘Abdullah al-Ezherī (d. 905/1499), Ibrahim b. Moḥammed al-Bacurī (d. 1277/1860), ‘Omer b. Aḥmed al-Ḥarpuṭī (d. 1299/1882) was translated into Persian by the men of letters such as Molla Ḥafıẓ Sharaf (d. after 810/1407), ‘Iṣāmuddin b. ‘Arabshah al-Isfarayinī (d. 945/1538), ‘Ali b. Ḥasan Zavareī (d. 968/1560). The work was annotated by Le‘alī Aḥmed b. Muṣṭafa (d. 971/1563), Sayyid Ḥasan b. ‘Abdurraḥman (d. 1071/1661), Naẓifī Ismail Aqḥiṣarī (d. after 1205/1790), Shaykh-al-Islam Makkī Meḥmed (d. 1212/1797), Moḥammed b. Fayżullah (d. 1231/1816), Moḥammed b. Aḥmed (d. 1318/1900), Anqara Governor ‘Abidin Pasha (d. 1324/1906) in Turkish language. Takhmīs was written to the work by poets such as Ṭashkoprizade Kemaleddin (d. 1030/1621) Khocazāde Asad (d. 1034/1625), Sayyid Moḥammed Sharifī (d. 1040/1631), Shaykh-al-Islam Yahya (d. 1053/1644), Suleyman Naḥifī (d. 1151/1738), ‘Abdullah Ṣalaḥī (d. 1197/1783), Shaykh-al-Islam Makkī Meḥmed, Mollacıqzāde Raif (d. 1238/1823), Muṣṭafa Maqṣud (d. 1258/1843), Yemliḥazāde Muṣṭafa (d. 1294/1878), Meḥmed Said Pasha (d. 1308/1892), Moḥammed Favzī (d. 1318/1900) while Ismail Mufid (d. 1217/1803) wrote tesdīs and Niyazī-i Mıṣrī (d. 1105/1694) wrote tesbī‘ to it.The work was translated into Turkish language by poets such as ‘Abdurraḥim Qaraḥiṣarī (d. after 888/1483), Kemal Pashazāde (d. 940/1534), Ahmed-i Rıḍvan (d. before 945/1538) Le‘alī Aḥmed b. Muṣṭafa, Shamsaddin Sivasī (d. 1006/1597), Kemalatī Meḥmed (d. before 1015/1606), Esasī (d. before 1041/1631), Sayyid Ḥusayin (d. after 1050/1641), Mehmed Ṭalib (d. 1089/1679), Sukutī Meḥmed (d. 1103/1691), ‘Abdulhay Jalvatī (d. 1117/1705), Sulayman Naḥifī, ‘Abdullah Ḥulvanī (d. 1159/1746), Aḥmed ‘Arifī (d. after 1195/1781), ‘Abdullah Ṣalaḥī, Ismail Mufid, Sivaslı Aḥmed Suzī (d. 1246/1830), Evranyali ‘Abdurraḥim (d. 1282/1865), Meḥmed Said Pasha, Qonyalı Fakhreddin (d. 1365/1950), Sazai Qaraqoç (d. 1933), Ilhan Armutchuoghlu (d. 1937), Maḥmut Qaya (d. 1945), but there are also translations whose translators are unknown. The present study deals with such a translation of the work. To our best knowledge, the translation that has not been paid much attention by scholars to date and was mentioned only by Ṣadıq Yazar. Even he articulated only a few sentences about the translation based on a deficient copy of the work. Both in the library records and in its copies, there was no information about the translator and the translation date of the work. The translation, which beginns directly without a section such as an introduction at the opening, was written in 162 verses with the spelling of the classical period. It has a remel baḥr style of ‘arūż structure with fā‘ilātun fā‘ilātun fā‘ilātun fā‘ilun rhythm. Although it has some ‘arūż mistakes, it can be said that it is successful in terms of rhythm. Using the source text rhyme of mīm letter, the translator directly adapted some rhyme words from the Arabic text, while converting some others to appropriate Turkish words. Although he used some of them only once, he used some others several times. This finding implies that the translator may have had difficulties in finding words for the rhyme. It is noteworthy that he used some of those words in different meanings, and he employed 99 different rhymes in 162 couplets. The translator used the original text for purposes other than the rhyme words. He used some words directly without translating them or only removed the ḥarf-i ta‘rif. He transformed some words to others with the same stem or to their counterparts in Persian. While converting some of the phrases to forms suitable for the structure of the Turkish language using various practices, he used the old Anatolian Turkish as well as living Turkish. Like Buṣīrī’s eulogy, the poem, which consists of 10 parts in terms of contents, is suitable for the contents of the source text, but it is not a literal translation. The translator, who cared about literary rhetoric, largely preserved or even contributed to the harmony elements of the text. He reinterpreted the meaning of Buṣīrī’s work using his poetry skills, and produced a successful translation in terms of poetry with minimal rhyme flaws. Considering other translations of Qaṣeeda-i Burdah, the translation has similarities with that by Uskudarlı ‘Abdulhay Jalvatī in terms of rhyme letter, with that by Sayyid Husayin Amasī in terms of rhyme, and with that by Ismail Mufid Afandi in terms of direct adaptation of some words in original text, while it has common characteristics with the translation by Naḥifī in terms of both rhyme letter and direct adaptation of most rhyme words from the original text. On the other hand, the translation has similarities with the translations by Kemal Pashazāde, Ahmed-i Rıḍvan, Esasī Afandi, ‘Abdullah Ṣalaḥī and Na‘imī in terms of rhyme letter, rhyme and adaptation of most rhyme words from the original text. However, it is simpler compared to the translation by Kemal Pashazāde, more loyal to the content of original text compared to the translation by Ahmed-i Rıḍvan and more robust in terms of rhyme compared to the translation by Na‘imī. (shrink)

Qaside-i Khamriyya (meaning Wine Eulogy) of sufi poet Ibn-i Fārıḍ, in which he explained divine love through the metaphor of wine, attracted great attention in Islamic world and was translated into Arabic, Persian and Turkish. Scholars such as Davud-i Qayseri (d. 751 AH/1350 AD), Kemal Pashazāde (d. 940 AH/1534 AD), Abdulghani an-Nablusi (d. 1143 AH/1731 AD), Ibn Acibe (d. 1224 AH/1809 AD) explained this eulogy in Arabic, while poets such as Ali b. Shihābiddin al-Hamadāni (d. 786 AH/1385 AD), Molla Cāmi (...) (d. 898 AH/1492 AD), Idris-i Bitlisi (d. 926 AH/1520 AD) wrote commentaries in Persian. On the other hand, authors such as Abdussalam b. Numan b. Khalil (d. 1000 AH/1592 AD [?]), Ismail Anqaravi (d. 1041 AH/1631 AD), Abdulmacid-i Sivasi (d. 1049 AH/1639 AD), Qara Musṭafa Khulūsi (d. 1344 AH/1926 AD), Meḥmed Naẓım (d. 1345 AH/1926 AD) and Ṭahir al-Mavlavi (d. 1371 AH/1951 AD) translated the eulogy into Turkish. One of the authors who translators of this eulogy was Mehmed Said Efendi, sheikh of Uskudar Salimiya Takka, who lived in the 19th century. His work named Ṭarab-angiz (meaning Pleasure-provoking) is a condensed commentary with ornate prose of Qaside-i Khamriyya. In previous studies, Ṭarab-angiz was partly examined, and there was no mention about the identity and personality of the author. In the present research, the life and personality of Meḥmed Said Efendi is explained and the text of his work is examined.Summary: In Turkish literature which developed under the influence of Islam, translations and commentaries have important a place along with original texts. Coming within the sphere of Islam in early 10th century, Turks embarked on translating the texts immediately in order to learn their new religion and to perform its practices and continued to do so since then. Because they lived in the same culture and civilization climate, Turks learned Islam from Persians and were influenced by Persian language. However, adherents of this new religion also made direct translations from Arabic texts. The translations initially were made from religious works, but in time social, cultural and literary works, such as Persian classics and major eulogies of Arabic Literature, were also translated into Turkish by Turkish scholars. Qaside-i Burde by Ka‘b b. Zuheyr’in (d. 24 AH/645 AD), Qaside-i Nūniyye by Ebu’l-Fetḥ Busti’nin (d. 400 AH/1010 AD), Qaside-i Ṭanṭarāniyye by Ṭanṭarāni’nin (d. 485 AH/1092 AD), Qaside-i Münferice by Ibnu’n-Naḥvi’nin (d. 513 AH/1119 AD), Qaside-i Emāli by Ali b. Othman al-Ushi’nin (d. 575 AH/1179 AD) and famous eulogy named Qaside-i Bur’e by Muḥammed b. Said al-Buṣiri’nin (d. 695 AH/1296 AD) were among such works.Qaside-i Khamriyya by sufi poet Ibn-i Fārıḍ (d. 632 AH/1235 AD), also called sultan of minstrels, in which he explained divine love through wine attracted great attention in Islamic world and was translated into many languages and many commentaries were written on it. One of the commentary writers about this eulogy is Meḥmed Said Efendi, a 19th century sufi. His work entitled Ṭarab-angiz is a condensed commentary with ornate prose of Qaside-i Khamriyya.Studies conducted so far has partly dealt with the Ṭarab-angiz and identity and personality of Meḥmed Said Efendi have never been mentioned. Ṣarac mentioned, “It is a printed work but its writer, printing date, and the place was not found on the printed work”, while Yıldırım used the expression of “a work whose writer and production date is not known.” In his Ph. D. thesis entitled Translation and Commentary Tradition in Classical Turkish Literature in Anatolia, Ṣadık Yazar noted that the work belongs to Meḥmed Said, which was later cited by Aqdag. The final statement on this issue was made by İnce in his work entitled Arabic, Persian and Turkish commentaries of Qaside-i Khamriyya by Ibnu’l Fārıḍ. He examined a total of 18 commentaries and stated that no information is available about the life of Meḥmed Said although he mentioned Ṭarab-angiz.The birth date and place of Meḥmed Said Efendi are unknown. He is grandchild of Ali Behjet Efendi (d. 1238 AH/1823 AD), one of sheiks in Salimiya Dervish Lodge in Uskudar and son of Meḥmed Hidāyetullah Efendi (d. 1288 AH/1871 AD). Following the death of his father, Meḥmed Said Efendi himself served as the head dervish of this dervish lodge for 25 years and became a famous figure. He died in 1313 AH/1896 AD and was buried in the cemetery of the Salimiya Dervish Lodge.Meḥmed Said Efendi was the sixth sheikh of Salimiya Dervish Lodge. In many sources, he was mentioned as a venerable, righteous, devoutly religious, virtuous, polite and scholarly man. Meḥmed Said Efendi is thought to be a member of Mavlavi lodge of Naqshbandi Ṭariqa. He had successors such as Naqshi sheikh Uskudari Balabani Ḥasan Ḥusnu Efendi (d. 1347 AH/1928 AD) and Ismail Efendi (d. after 1307 AH/1890 AD). The poet had a commentary named Ṭarab-angiz in prose form and had a quatrain within the praising eulogy of Sheikh Ḥāmil Efendi (d. 1322 AH/1904 AD), head sheikh of Beylerbeyi Bedevi Dervish Lodge.It is clear from the expression, “A work by Meḥmed Said, the Imam of Central Dervish Lodge of Sultan Salim III,” at the beginning of Edition no: 450 in Suleymaniye Library, Pertev Pasha Collection and from the record of “Work: Ṭarab-angiz, Author: Ibnu’l-Fārıḍ, Translator and postscript writer: Meḥmed Said” in Edition no: 7350 of Marmara University Faculty of Theology Library that this work belongs to Sheikh Meḥmed Said Efendi. However, exact production date of this printed work is not known. The work consisted of 28 pages and in some editions a two-page correct-false chart was added.As usual, the work starts with an introduction section with expressions of “By the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,” “Praise be to God,” and “Peace be upon Prophet Moḥammad.” This section also includes a praise for followers of Prophet Moḥammad, “Who made sphere of prophecy an eternal rose garden through the holy light of their enjoyed manners in addition to making the Shari’a candle shined and and converting them to great flowers of service with their strong inspiration torchs.” The commentator then embarked on praising Qaside-i Khamriyya, mentioning that the men of ability became helpless in explaination of beauty, charm and freshness of unique expression richness and refined allegory blossoms of the eulogy and that reaching the shore of rhetoric could be possible through diving into the guided wisdom of sea. In fact, according to commentator, the men of literature should be aware of the difficulty of translating this unique eulogy into Turkish language. However, everyone should dive into the sea of insight as a knowledge diver, collect its share in pearls of utterance and in emeralds of wits, arrange and put them in the string of prose”. Therefore, he wrote the commentary about the eulogy as a service to humanity and as a contribution to his own stock of comfort in the present and afterlife as much as he could, no matter how little it could be, and named it Ṭarab-angiz. Like most commentators of Qaside-i Khamriyya, Meḥmed Said Efendi commented on only about 33 couplets of the eulogy which contained a total of 41 couplets, and did not cover couplets from 23 to 30 in his work. The commentator used couplet-by- couplet translation method and started with praising for Ibn-i Fārıḍ and his couplets. Then, he gives the Arabic originals of the couplets and starts commentary with the expressions such as “couplets of great intuition, imagery couplets, product of couplet, enlightenment of couplet and concept of couplet.” In preface section of the work, the commentator, who usually quoted hadith texts in Arabic and poems, does not use them in his commentary. He only uses some lines of Arabic prayers and a quatrain of Molla Cāmi (d. 898 AH/1492 AD). This is a quatrain rubāi in Persian language meaning that “If you want no sorrow and no grief of the destiny, drink wine in a pub, because swirling of the goblet and worries of the world do not share the same place just as the tune and the sorrow do not coincide.” The lack of touching on the meaning of words, etymological structure and grammar rules in couplets makes it different from others, except the translation of Aḥmed Ṣāfi Bey. (shrink)

İslâm felsefesinde en önde gelen âlimlerden biri olan İbn Sînâ ruh üzerine çok sayıda eser te’lif etmiştir. Bu eserlerden biri de Arap edebiyatı açısından da önemli bir yere sahip olan el-Ḳaṣîdetu’l-‘Ayniyyetu’r-Rûḥiyye fî’l-Nefs adlı kasidesidir. İbn Sînâ kasidesine ruhu, yüksek bir konumdan insan bedenine inen bir güvercine benzeterek başlamaktadır. Kasidenin devamında ruhun insan bedeninde yaşadığı tecrübeleri anlattıktan sonra ruhun bedenden ayrılmasına değinmektedir. Kasidenin sonunda nefs-i nâṭıḳanın insan bedenine indirilmesindeki hikmetin ne olduğunu sorgulamaktadır. Eser üzerine çok sayıda şerh, tercüme ve tahmîs yapılması (...) eserin ilim dünyasındaki önemine işaret etmektedir. Çalışmada kasidenin Türkçeye ilk tercümesi de olan tasavvuf üzerine önemli eserler te’lif etmiş Ali Dede el-Bosnevî’nin tercümesi ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmada ilk olarak el-Ḳaṣîdetu’r-Rûḥiyye’nin içeriği ve üzerine yapılan çalışmalara değinilmiştir. Ardından Ali Dede el-Bosnevî’nin hayatı ile eserleri, Tercüme-i Ḳaṣîde-i Rûḥiyye’nin nüshalarının tavsifi ve metin tesisinde takip edilen metot hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. Daha sonra el-Bosnevî’ye ait tercümenin temin edilen dört nüshası karşılaştırılarak transkripsiyonlu metni tesis edilmiş ve Arapça beyitler ile beraber verilmiştir. Ayrıca el-Bosnevî’nin tercümesi altına kasidenin günümüz Türkçesine yapılan tercümesi de eklenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda el-Bosnevî’nin tercümesi değerlendirilmiştir. (shrink)

Eski Arap şiiri, Atlâl göç edilen yurt veya sevgiliden geride kalan kalıntılar olarak adlandırılan sanatsal bir olgu ile belirginleşmiş olup Arap edebiyatı alanlarındaki yazarlar ve eleştirmenlerin ilgisini çekecek kadar çarpıcı bir şekilde yayılmıştır. Bu olgu, Batı Afrika şairleri tarafından yazılan Arap şiirlerde de bariz olmuştur. Zira Afrikalı şair, geçmişte yaşadığı değerli hatıra ve anıları hatırlatarak ağlayıp sevgilisinin atlâlleri ve onun evlerinin kalıntılarının üzerinde durmuştur. Bu itibarla çalışmam, bu bölgenin şiirinde yer alan emsal kaside mukaddimeleri, örnekler sunarak bu şiirdeki özelliklerini, (...) tezahürlerini ve anlamlarını öğrenmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Aynı şekilde bölge şairlerinin ilkel tanıtımlarına yansıyan duygusal deneyimlerinde özetledikleri psikolojik ve sosyal nedenlerin açıklamaya hedeflemektedir. Bu araştırmanın önemi, Batı Afrika edebiyatçılarını tanımaya yardımcı olan çalışmalardan biri olması, Arap dili ve ilimlerine, özellikle şiir sanatına ne ölçüde ilgili olduklarını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, klasik Arapça şiir yazma becerilerini ve kabiliyetlerini de ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırmanın sınırlarına gelince, mekânsal olarak Batı Afrika bölgesiyle (Mali, Gine, Senegal, Nijerya, Gambiya) ve zamansal olarak ise on dokuzuncu yüzyılın şairleriyle sınırlıdır. Araştırmada Batı Afrika Arap şiirindeki atlâl konusuyla ilgili kasideleri toplamak, önemini ve özelliklerini açıklayıp tahlil etmek için betimsel analitik yöntemini kullanıldı. Yapılan bu araştırma sonucunda bir takım bilimsel sonuçlara ve bulgulara ulaşılmıştır. Bunların en önemlileri ve öne çıkanları şu şekilde sıralayabiliriz: Afrika Arap şiirinden seçmiş olduğumuz şiir örneklerinin değerlendirilmesi sonucunda, Batı Afrika Arap şiirleri, klasik edebiyatında bilinen “قفوا ”, “عوجوا”, “ لمن الظعن” ve “ لمن الطلول” gibi geleneksel atlâl şiir kalıplarını içerdiği de tespit edilmiştir. Batı Afrika şairlerinin klasik Arap kasidesinin girizgâhı ve usule bağlı kalmalarının yanı sıra, bazıları onun yerine konunun özüne girmeden önce besmele ile, Allah'ı övme ve peygamberimize salavat getirme gibi dini nitelikli kalıpları kullanmak suretiyle kasidelerinin girizgâhını oluşturduklarını saplanmıştır. Batı Afrika şairleri, sevgilinin terk ettiği diyardaki kalıntılar üzerinde durmak yerine; kültürlerine uygun türbe ve deniz gibi yerleri üzerinde durmayı tercih etmişlerdir. Ayrıca Câhiliye dönemindeki şiirinde geçen Suad, Hind, Mayya, Leyla vb. gibi isimleri de bırakarak yerlerine; Zeynep, Meryem ve Havva gibi kendi sosyal çevrelerinde öne çıkan bayan isimlerini kullanmayı uygun görmüşlerdir. Böylece şiirlerinde bu anlamda yenilikler yaşandığı söylemek mümkündür. el-Âmidî gibi Edebiyat eleştirmenlerin bahsettiği mukaddime talaliyye’nin farklı anlamları, sevgilinin terk ettiği diyardaki kalıntılar üzerinde durmak, hakkında soru sormak, sevgilinin adı, oturduğu diyarı ve onu çevreleyen yerler, şairin durduğu vakti, terkedilen yeri hayvanalar, yağmur ve rüzgâr tarafından tahrip edilmesi, şair terkedilen eve hitap edip onunla konuşmak ve ona soru sorup sorguya çekmek, ona selam vermek ve dua etmek ve benzer anlamlar Batı Afrika şairlerinin Atlâl şiirlerinde de bulunmaktadır. Bahsi geçen bu mukaddimeler beyit sayısı bakımından farklılık gösterebileceği, ancak bu beyitler genellikle az sayıda olduğu bu çalışmadan anlaşılmaktadır. Şairler, amaçlarına ulaşmak için bu mukaddimeler vazgeçilmez bir giriş olarak görmektedirler. Ayrıca, atlâl şiiri söyleyen bölge şairleri durumu yaşadıklarını ya da sevdikleri tarafından terk edilmeleri şart değil, ancak atlâl şiiri birçok şair arasında kabul görmüş bir sanat geleneğidir. Bu çalışma aracılığıyla Batı Afrika Arap şiirindeki mukaddime talaliye, şairlerin yaratıcılık ihtiyacına bir yanıt ve onların şiirsel yeteneklerini geliştirmek için bir gerekçe temsil ettiği da açıkça görülmektedir. Son olarak mukaddime talaliye şairlerin şiirsel malzemeleri için gerekli bir sanatsal üslubu olduğunu da söylenebilir. (shrink)

Commentaries were written for master texts of Turkish Classical Literature (including Turkish Ṣūfī poetry) with various forms and genres such as Mat̲hnawī and Qaṣīda-i Burda, Arabic and Persian poetry with styles of ghazal, qaṣīda, mathnawī and other poetic forms, lughzes, especially Dīwāns of Persian poets such as Ḥāfiẓ, Shevket-i Bukhārī, ‘Orfì-i Shirāzī. In addition, the problems and contested aspects of the genre of commentary especially in the 19th century and afterwards are scientifically examined. In this context, the literary work with (...) its author’s unique language and style examined in this article sheds light on the predominant actor, the commentator and his/her style by using al-Būṣīrī’s na‘at titled Qaṣīda-i Burda that was repeatedly commented and translated. (shrink)

Chelebi (Çelebi) Sulṭān is a Ṣūfī poet. Due to poor and limited sources, there is a hardness in finding accurate and sufficient information about him. Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı claimed that this anonymous poet could be Oğlan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī (d. 1539) from Bayramī-Melāmī by relying on the unanimous ghazal recorded in Ḥālet Efendi 800 in Suleymaniye Library. However, the fact that the aforementioned ghazal with simple copy variations published in Eşrefoğlu Rūmī Diwan weakens the credibility of his argument that Chelebi Sulṭān (...) could be Oğlan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī. Though the acknowledgment of this data, Gölpınarlı still insisted on the credibility of his claim that the ghazal belongs to Oğlan Sheikh. Moreover he argued that the claims suggesting that the ghazal belongs to Eşrefoğlu Rūmī (d. 1469) should be questioned. Other than this ghazal, there is one more qasida (ḳasīde) with having gizlidir word after the rhyme associate to Chelebi Sulṭān, and an annotation to this qasida by Āyīne-zāde Meḥmed Şemseddīn-i Sirozī (d. 1688/89). However, neither the qasida and ghazal attributed Chelebi Sulṭān nor the Āyīne-zāde’s annotation provide satisfying information to identify the identity of the poet. Therefore, it can be claimed that Chelebi Sulṭān’s identification is based on weak arguments. No more evidence can develop these estimations into evidence-based arguments. This article tries to provide a virtual framework for the identity of Chelebi Sulṭān. In this context, the article firstly discusses Chelebi Sulṭān’s disposition and popularity on Ṣūfī groups by considering the contents of the manuscripts mentioning him. Then, it analyzes whether Chelebi Sulṭān is associated with Ḥurūfīs or not by focusing on the ism-musemmā subject in the two first couplets of the qasida attributed to the Ṣūfī poet. Finally, the article speculates whether the poet called Chelebi Sulṭān in literature could be Misālī (d. 1577), or not, who is one of the Ḥurūfī poets. The subject of Chelebi Sulṭān's connection with Ḥurūfīsm is examined under two titles in the article. The possibility of Chelebi Sulṭān to be Misālī, one of the Ḥurūfī poets, was discussed based on the qasida with nedür rhyme. In this regard, there are two assumptions. The first one is that the pseudonym Misālī is mentioned in the qasida, and the second evidence is that there is a qasida with nedür word after rhyme belonging to Chelebi Sulṭān in the two copies of the Misālī Diwan. However, although the mentioned qasida exists in the recent copies, this qasida is not found in the oldest copies of the diwan. Therefore it is possible to conclude that this lack weakens the possibility that Chelebi Sulṭān could be Misālī, one of the Ḥurūfī poets. The second title is related to the issue of the ism-musemmā in the first two couplets of the qasida with nedür word after rhyme. Through this analysis, it was discussed whether Chelebi Sulṭān could be Ḥurūfī or not. At this point, it is revealed that there is a similarity between the two couplets of Chelebi Sulṭān in the qasida with nedür word after rhyme on the issue of ism-musemmā and some other couplets of Ḥurūfī poets (Nesīmī / Ḫalîlî, Misālī, et al.) on the same issue. Besides, the views of a few groups, apart from the Ḥurūfī Poets, that discussed ism-musemmā issue in their poetry, were evaluated. The article refers to the Ṣūfī poet's qasida with nedür word after rhyme while discussing the issue of which groups favored Chelebi Sulṭān more and it also tried to determine which groups read this qasida at that period. To discuss the general content of the manuscript, the manuscript registered in Suleymaniye Library Mihrisah Sultan number 185, the corpus cataloged in Suleymaniye Library, Galata Mevlevihanesi 233, and the manuscript cataloged in Millet Library Ali Emiri Collection (AEArb) 4341, were examined. Thus it can be claimed both Chelebi Sulṭān and his qasida were popular among heterodox groups, as it was observed that the qasida also exists in the works of Ḥurūfī, Alevi-Bektashi, and Bayramī-Melāmī groups. Despite all this, there is no clear conclusion regarding the identity of Chelebi Sulṭān. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that Chelebi Sulṭān was popular among heterodox Ṣūfī groups and that some Ḥurūfī views influenced him. (shrink)

Bu makalede, Abbâsî dönemi şairlerinden İbnu’r-Rûmî’nin Abbâsî hanedanlığının bir üyesi olan Abdülmelik b. Sâlih için nazmettiği methiyesinin tematik bir incelemesinin yapılması planlanmaktadır. Bu analiz, İbnu’r-Rûmî’nin methiyesinin karmaşık katmanlarına derinlemesine bir bakış sağlamaktadır. Methiye, bilhassa Abbâsî döneminin Arap edebî geleneğinde önemli bir yeri bulunan şiirsel bir ifade biçimidir. Yapılan çalışmanın konusu, methiyedeki tematik unsurların araştırılmasına ve İbnu’r-Rûmî’nin hem övgüsel hem de eleştirel anlayışa sahip bir anlatı oluşturmak için dili ve imgeleri nasıl kullandığının ortaya çıkartılmasına dayanmaktadır. Araştırmanın kapsamı, bahis mevzu methiyenin tarihî (...) ve kültürel arka planı bağlamında anlaşılmasının sağlanmasına kadar uzanmaktadır ve Abbâsî döneminin toplumsal normlarının, değerlerinin ve beklentilerinin anlaşılmasına da ehemmiyet vermektedir. Bu yaklaşım, metnin öneminin daha derinlemesine anlaşılmasını sağlamaktadır ve salt övgünün ötesine geçerek dönemin sosyopolitik dinamikleri hakkında bir yorum sunmaktadır. Öte yandan mevcut tarihî kayıtların İbnu’r-Rûmî ile Abdülmelik b. Ṣāliḥ arasındaki ilişki hakkında çok az ayrıntı sunduğunu ve mevcut belgelerde bu konuda kapsamlı bilgi bulunmadığını vurgulamak gerekir. Bu çalışmanın önemi, klasik Arap edebiyatı alanına yaptığı katkısından, özellikle de methiyelerin bu literatür geleneğindeki rolünün ve gelişiminin anlaşılması hususundaki önceliğinden kaynaklanmaktadır. İbnu’r-Rûmî’nin eserinin analizi vasıtasıyla bu araştırma, methiye nazmının karmaşık doğasına dikkat çekmesinin yanı sıra; şair, şiirde övülen kişi ve şaire verilen maddi ödül arasındaki ilişkinin ayrıntılı şekilde anlaşılmasını da sağlamaktadır. Araştırmada benimsenen yöntem, daha derinlemesine bir anlayış kazanmak maksadıyla, manzumenin temalarını parçalara ayırmaya odaklanan yakın bir metinsel analizi içermektedir. (shrink)

The Egyptian Sufi poet Mohammad ibn Sa‘îd al-Bûsîrî’s (d. 695/1296) work called Qasîdah al-Hamziyah, in which he tells the life of the Prophet, has attracted great attention in Muslim societies. The eulogy, which is met with interest by scholars dealing with the field of poetry and literature, is a text read in daily life in mawlid, ceremonies praising the Prophet, dhikr rings in sufi lodges, hadith lesson circles, and prayers. More than a hundred commentaries, annotations, tahmis, tastir and translations have (...) been written on the work. While many of these studies on Qasîdah al-Hamziyah have been conducted by renowned scholars, there are also scholars who have worked on the eulogy but are not mentioned in biographical sources. The subject of this study is one of the commentaries written about the eulogy and whose name is not found in the biographical sources. The name of the work written by Abdullah al-Shazelî al-Bahrî is Al-Cavâhir al-Seniyye fî Sharh al-Hamziyah. In this article, information was given about the name of the work, its belonging to the author, the date of copyright, its reason, the method of commentary, its style, its content, the sources used, and its features. Also, the critical edition of the three couplets’ commentary was written as a highly representative example. (shrink)