There are a lot of studies on Ahmed Cevdet Paşa who has been considered as statesman, politician, jurist, historian, sociologist and educationalist. At the same time Ahmet Cevdet Paşa’s studies on logic are critically important when we deal with the last period of the Ottoman Empire. His book which is called Miyar-ı Sedad had both influenced the development of instruction of logic education in madrasahs and created a turning point in the studies on modern logic. For this reason (...) we have discussed his opinions about logic and science in this study and we have also tried to show that how his opinions on these issues affecected the instruction and the other fields. (shrink)

Aḥmed Cevdet Pasha (d. 1312/1895) is one of the influential and prominent Ottoman scholars in history and law. Besides history and law, he also produced works on literature, sīra (the life of the Prophet) and tafsīr (the Qur’anic exegesis). In the last years of his life, Cevdet Pasha aimed to translate the Qurʾān including short comments on the verses, but this work was remained limited to the sūrah al-Baqara. Correspondingly to this translation named Terjeme-i Sharīfa, he prepared a (...) glossary to the Qurʾān called Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa for expressions and terms that require detailed explanation. Hereby, this work could only include the sūrah al-Baqara. After Cevdet Pasha’s death, his books passed to his daughter Ms Fāṭima ʿAliyye (d. 1936). The director of the Library of Maʿārif, Nācī Qāsim (d. 1963) gave a deed stipulating that he would take the first part of the Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa and Terjeme-i Sharīfa from her and return them as they are. Later on, he published only the Muqaddima (introduction) and Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa in the work named Tercemeli Ḳurʾân-ı Kerîm (İstanbul: 1927). Placing the Muqaddima at the beginning of the book and Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa at the end misled some people by making them to think that the translation belongs entirely to Cevdet Pasha. Sulayman Tevfīq reprinted these two works together within his translation named el-Beyān fī ʾāyāti’l-Qurʾān in 1928. Terjeme-i Sharīfa has not been published anywhere else. Emine Armağan recently found and published a notepad in which Cevdet Pasha wrote Terjeme-i Sharīfa, mentioned Muqaddima and Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa. In her book Emine Armağan printed the pages belonging to Cevdet Pasha as thumbnails, but she did not publish them in Latin. In this article, Muḳaddime and Lâḥika-i Şerîfe are Latinized and compared to the Terceme-i Şerîfe. The relevant parts of the translation are given in the footnotes. This study is an attempt to determine to what extent the translation in the manuscript form corresponds to the glossary and the soundness of relating the text to the author. In addition, many errors in the Ottoman edition of the glossary were also corrected. In the Muqaddima, Cevdet Pasha draws attention to the necessity of God’s existence, the illiteracy and the trustworthiness of his Messenger, and that the revelation is the primary source of knowledge for people. He summarizes the process of the Qurʾān’s revelation, notification and compilation. He briefly touches on the issues related to ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān. Cevdet Pasha, who passed from here to the miracle of the Qurʾān, talks about the qadim (pre-existing) nature of the divine word and teḥaddī. Cevdet Pasha emphasizes that understanding the Qurʾān is possible only by knowing the Arabic language very well and whithout this knowldege the Qurʾān cannot adequately be translated into another language. On the other hand, he also believes that the first meanings can be externally translated in order to explain the first meanings of the verses to those who do not know Arabic. Cevdet Pasha’s preface is considerably concise in structure. He shortly pointed to the crucial issues in one sentence and passed to the other subjects. While writing Terjeme-i Sharīfa, Cevdet Pasha left the extensive explanations of the polysemous words and terms that cannot be translated literally to the tafsīr and Lāḥiqa. Cevdet Pasha’s Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa is entirely original and not merely a translation of any Qurʾānic dictionary. He compiled the meanings of a word existing in different verses, and he was very meticulous in choosing the meanings the words. He summarized very detailed informations in the sources in a simple, concise and fluent style. The arrangement of the words was based on the abbreviated versions used in the Qurʾān. In addition to the lexical meaning of the word, he sometimes mentioned the words’ roots, form, singular and plural forms, ism al-fāʿil, ism al-mefʿūl, ism al-mekān, synonym/antonym, lexical aspects, the meaning and terminology it expresses in different recitations of the Qur’an (al-qırāat). He in particular highlighted if the word is one of the al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā. He explained the changes in the meaning of a word when it is used for Allah or for humans. He shortly touched on the legal rulings. Cevdet Pasha clearly expressed in his work the most vital issues that the community should know without tiring the general reader of scientific disputes, philosophical discussions and literary analysises. Cevdet Pasha did not refer to any sources in his work and did not mention the transmission chain of the narrations. As a result of our research, we determined that he benefited from the commentaries of al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144), al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), al-Qurṭūbī (d. 671/1273) and Beyḍāvī (d. 685/1286). We have seen that there are some similarities between the explanations of the words in the Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa and the famous Qurʾānic dictionaries such as al-Mufredāt, Umdet al-ḥuffāẓ and Beṣāir. (shrink)

This article contributes to the study of the globalization of science through an analysis of Ahmed Cevdet's nineteenth-century translation of the sixth chapter of Ibn Khaldun's (d. 1406) Muqaddimah, which deals with the nature and history of science. Cevdet's translation and Ottomanization of that text demonstrate that science did not simply originate in Europe to be subsequently distributed to the rest of the world. Instead, knowledge transmitted from Europe was actively engaged with and appropriated by scholars, who sought (...) to put that material within their own cultural context in a manner that could serve their own intellectual and practical needs. Cevdet's case is particularly interesting because it demonstrates that (1) Islamic conceptions of human nature, the soul and the nature of knowledge provided particularly fertile soil in which empiricist and positivist traditions could take root, and (2) aspects of modern science – specifically its ostensive separation from metaphysical debates – made it more attractive to Islamic theologians than was, for example, the work of Aristotelian philosophers. Through an exploration of Cevdet's career and a close analysis of his historiographical treatment of Ibn Khaldun's account of sciences, this article foregrounds the agency of non-Europeans in the late nineteenth-century circulation of scientific knowledge. (shrink)

Mezheplerin teşekkül etmeye başladığı ilk dönemlerden itibaren istihsanın bir istidlal yöntemi olup olmadığı tartışılagelmiştir. Bu tartışmaların temelinde kavramsallaşma sürecini henüz tamamlamamış olan istihsan teriminin çağrıştırdığı keyfiliğin/sübjektivitenin etkisi çok fazladır. Bu yüzden istihsanı bir yöntem olarak benimseyenler, ağır ithamlara maruz kalmışlardır. İstihsanı benimseyenlerin başında Hanefî hukukçular gelmektedir. Öyle ki istihsan yöntemi Hanefî mezhebiyle anılır hale gelmiştir. Bununla birlikte mezhebin önde gelen temsilcilerinden biri olan ve kıyas metodunu kullanmasıyla ön plana çıkan Züfer b. Hüzeyl’in istihsana yaklaşımıyla ilgili iki farklı yaklaşım tespitedilmiştir. Yaptığımız (...) araştırma ve inceleme neticesinde her iki tespitinde isabetli olmadığını; Züfer b. Hüzeyl’inkıyas yapmadaki becerisinin yanı sıra istihsana müracaatta sonuna kadar kıyas taraftarı olduğunu; ancak kıyasın meselelere çözüm üretmede yetersiz kaldığı ya da doğru sonuç vermediği durumlarda ise ızdırârın da bir gereği olarak meseleyi hükümsüz bırakmama adına istihsana müracaat ettiği görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak Züfer b. Hüzeyl’in genel hatlarıyla Hanefî usulüne bağlı kalmakla birlikte istihsanı bir istidlâl yöntemi olarak kullanma hususunda çerçeveyi oldukça daralttığını; kıyasa başvurma konusunda ise sınırları mümkün olduğunca geniş tuttuğunu söylemek mümkündür. İctihad hürriyeti ve hukûkî zenginlik açısından oldukça önemli olan Hanefi mezhebindeki mezhep içi ihtilaflar, hukûkî istikrar ve emniyeti tehdit etme potansiyeli taşımakta ve ayrıca ihtilaflı meselelerde hüküm veya fetva verecek fakihlerin işini zorlaştırmaktadır. Bu nedenle mezhep içerisindeki ihtilaflı meselelerde râcih görüşü tespit etmek, diğer bir ifadeyle mezhep içi tercih, zorunlu bir ihtiyaçtır. Mezhep içi tercih, “muayyen bir mesele ile ilgili mezhepteki muhtelif kavil veya rivayetlerden daha ağır basanı, üstün olanı belirlemek” şeklinde tarif edilebilir. Tarihi süreçte bu ihtiyacı karşılamak için muhtasar ve fetva kitapları gibi farklı telif türleri; esahh-ı akvâl ve maʻrûzât gibi farklı uygulamalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu ihtiyacı gidermeyi hedefleyen uygulamalardan biri de Osmanlı Devleti’nin son dönemindeki kanunlaştırmalardır. Fıkha dayalı kanunlaştırmanın ilk örneği olan Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye ile mezhep içi tercih arasındaki ilişki ve bu bağlamda Mecelle hazırlanırken, mezhep içi tercihte nasıl bir usûl izlendiği; râcih görüşe ne oranda uyulduğu; Mecelleʼde yer alan râcih görüşe aykırı kanun maddeleri ve bunların gerekçeleri; ihtilaflı bütün konularda düzenleneme yapılıp yapılmadığı ve râcih görüşleri belirleme ihtiyacının ne kadar giderildiği, incelenmesi gereken konulardır. Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye gibi bir kanun metnine ihtiyaç duyulmasının temel nedenlerinden birisi, Hanefî mezhebinde mezhep içi ihtilafların çokluğudur. Buna bağlı olarak Mecelleʼnin hedefi râcih görüşler içeren oluşan bir kanun hazırlamaktır. Mecelle’nin esbâb-ı mûcibeleri mezhep içi tercih açısından incelendiğinde, esbâb-ı mûcibelerin iki temel işlevi olduğu görülür. Bunlardan ilki, kanunun büyük oranda mezhepteki râcih görüşlere uygun olarak hazırlandığını vurgulamaktır. Öyle ki, Mecelle’nin ilk on kitabının esbâb-ı mûcibelerinde bu husus mutlaka ifade edilmektedir. Esbâb-ı mûcibelerin diğer işlevi ise niçin bazı maddelerde râcih görüşe riayet edilmediğini gerekçelendirmektir. Esbâb-ı mûcibelerde on iki maddenin râcih olmayan görüş doğrultusunda hazırlandığı belirtilmektedir. Mecelleʼnin 1851 maddeden oluştuğu göz önünde tutulduğunda Mecelleʼnin muhtevasında râcih görüşlerin ne kadar etkili olduğu daha iyi anlaşılacaktır. Esasen devrin özelliği de bunu zorunlu kılmaktadır. Zira Kitâbüʼl-Havâlenin 692. maddesinde Züferʼin râcih olmayan görüşünün tercih edilmesi, başta Şeyhülislam Hasan Fehmi Efendi olmak üzere bazı çevrelerin tepkisine neden olmuş ve bu sebeple Ahmet Cevdet Paşa Divân-ı Ahkâm-ı Adliyye nâzırlığından ve Mecelle Komisyonu başkanlığından azledilmiştir. Râcih görüşe aykırı maddelerin esbâb-ı mûcibeleri incelendiğinde, bu yöndeki tercihlerde maslahat ve örfün belirleyici olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca bazı fakihlerin tercihlerinin de bir tercih sebebi olarak zikredildiği görülmektedir. Hanefi kaynaklarda en sık karşılaşılan tercih sebebi naslara uygunluktur. Buna karşın Mecelleʼde sefîhin hacri konusu dışında, naslara uygunluğun bir tercih sebebi olarak işletilmemesi dikkat çekicidir. Mecelle Komisyonunun bazı tercihlerine diğer kurumlarca müdahale edilmiştir. Komisyonca hazırlanan kitaplar hem Meclis-i Vükelâ hem de Meşîhat tarafından incelenmiş ve bu esnada bazı tashihlere konu olmuştur. İşte râcih olmayan görüş esas alınarak hazırlanan iki maddeye Meclis-i Vükelâ tarafından müdahale edilmiştir. Bunların birincisi hakk-ı mürur ve hakk-ı şirbin müstakil olarak satımının cevazını savunan Belh Meşâyihinin görüşü doğrultusunda yazılan 216. madde, ikincisi ise ecîr-i müşterekin tazmin sorumluluğunu düzenleyen 611. maddedir. Mecelle’nin ilk ve en hacimli kitabı olan Kitâbüʼl-Büyûʻun muhtevası mezhep içi tercih açısından incelendiğinde, ihtilaflı konularda genelde mezhepteki râcih görüşün esas alındığı görülmektedir. Kitâbüʼl-Büyûʻun esbâb-ı mûcibesinde, dört meselenin râcih olmayan görüş esas alınarak hazırlandığı ifade edilmekte ve bu tercihler örf ve maslahatla gerekçelendirilmektedir. Ancak Kitâbüʼl-Büyûʻdaki râcih görüşe aykırı maddeler bunlarla sınırlı değildir. Bizim araştırmamıza göre bunlara ilaveten üç madde daha râcih olmayan görüş tercih edilerek hazırlanmıştır. Bunlar beyʻ biʼl-vefânın menkullerde cevazına dair 118. madde, gabn-i fâhişin tanımı hakkındaki 165. madde ve şart muhayyerliğinin hükmü ile ilgili 309. maddedir. Bu üç madde, Mecelleʼdeki râcih görüşe aykırı düzenlemelerin sadece esbâb-ı mûcibelerde açıklananlardan ibaret olmadığını göstermektedir ve bu durum Mecelle hazırlanırken izlenen usûle aykırıdır. Hanefi mezhebindeki bazı ihtilaflı meselelerde hangi görüşün râcih olduğu konusunda tercih ehli fakihler ihtilaf etmişlerdir. Bu meselelerde Mecelleʼde düzenleme yapılırken nasıl bir yol izlendiği açıklanmamıştır. Bu meseleler incelendiğinde çoğunluk tarafından tercih edilme, kolaylığı temin etme ve bazı fakihler tarafından tercih edilme gibi hususların etkili olduğu söylenebilir. Mecelleʼdeki tercihler sadece şerʻî hükümler arasında gerçekleşmemiştir. Buna ilaveten tanımlar ve tanımlarda yer alan kayıtlar da tercihe konu olmuştur. Bu kapsamda Kitâbüʼl-Büyûʻdaki beyʻ akdi, mevkûf akid ve gabn-i fâhişin tanımına ilişkin tercihler örnek olarak zikredilebilir. Hanefi mezhebin içerisindeki ihtilaflı bazı meseleler Mecelleʼde düzenlenmemiştir. İhtilaflı meselelerin çokluğu ve dolayısıyla bütün bunları kapsayan bir kanun hazırlamanın zorluğu dikkate alındığında bu durum doğaldır. Ayrıca bu meselelerden bazıları sık gerçekleşmediği ve lüzumlu görülmediği için Mecelleʼde düzenlenmemiş olabilir. Ancak düzenleme yapılmayan ihtilaflı meselelerin tamamını bu sebeplerle izah etmek mümkün değildir. Zira yasal düzenleme yapılmayan ihtilaflı meselelerin bazıları temel, görece önemli meselelerdir ve muhtasarlarda yer almaktadır. Bu durum Mecelle hazırlanırken, ihtilaflı bazı meselelerde tercih yapmak yerine bu meselelere ilişkin düzenleme yapmama metodunun benimsendiğini göstermektedir. İhtilaftan ârî bir kanun metni oluşturmanın bir yolu olarak da bu usûlün benimsendiği söylenebilir. Böylece bu meselelerde râcih görüşü tespit etme işi hâkimlere bırakılmıştır. Bu durum Mecelleʼnin hedefi olan râcih görüşleri tespit etme ihtiyacını gidermeye uygunluk arz etmemektedir. Ancak bu durum bütün meseleleri kuşatan bir kanun yapmanın güçlüğünün bir sonucudur. (shrink)

The intra-school controversies in Hanafī school are remarkable. These controversies pose a risk for legal safety and stability and creates difficulties for muqallīd Hanafī judges and muftīs. In the historical process, different types of literature such as mukhtaṣar and fatwa (legal opinion) books, and applications such as aṣṣaḥ-ı aqvāl and maʻrūdhāt, emerged to solve this problem. One of the last example of these applications is the codification movement. The subject of this study is the relationship between the Majalla al-Aḥkām al-ʿAdliyyah, (...) which is the first product of codification based on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and the intra-school preference. In order to describe this relationship, it is briefly emphasized that one of the aims of codification of Majalla is to satisfy the need for intra-school preference. The function and content of Majallaʼs necessary reasons, (asbāb al-mūjiba) was analyzed in terms of intra-school preference. The interventions on the preferences of the Majalla Commission are also emphasized. The Majalla is a text of the intra-school preference. The analysis of its content in relation to intra-school preference is very important. Therefore, in order to reveal what kind of method is used in intra-school preferences and to determine different aspects of intra-school preference in the Majalla, the chapter about ‘sale’ (Kitāb al-Buyūʿ) of the Majalla are examined.Summary: The intra-school controversies in Hanafī School, which is quite important in terms of freedom of ijtihād (independent legal judgment) and legal wealth, possible to threaten legal safety and stability. These controversies also make difficult for judges to reach a judgment or fatwa in controversial affairs. For this reason, determination of the rājiḥ (preferred opinion) in controversial issues in the school, is a need that must be eliminated.The intra-school preference can be described as "to determine the superior, preponderant of different opinion or narrations about a specific issue in the school". In the historical process different types of literature such as mukhtaṣar and fatwa books, and different applications such as asaḥḥ-ı aqvāl and maʻrūzāt, emerged to meet this need. One of the applications aimed to meet this need is the codifications in the last period of the Ottoman State.The relationship between the Majalla al-Ahkam al-Adliyyah, which is the first example of codification based on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and the intra-school preference; and in this context, while preparing the Majalla how a method was followed in the intra-school preference; at what rate be obeyed the rājiḥ (preferred) opinion; articles contrary to the rājiḥ (preferred) opinion in Majalla and their reasons; whether legal arrangements have been made in all controversial issues; at what rate be met the need of determination of rājiḥ (preferred) opinion are the issues that need to be examined.One of the main reasons for the need for a law text such as Majalla al-Ahkam al-Adliyyah is the multitude of the intra-school controversies in Hanafī School. Therefore, the goal of Majalla is to prepare a code that contains rājiḥ opinion.When Majallaʼs necessary reasons, i.e. asbāb al-mūjiba, are examined in terms of the intra-school preference, it is seen that there are two basic functions of necessary reasons. The first of them is, emphasizing that the code is prepared substantially in accordance with the râjih opinion in the school. In fact, that this issue in the asbāb al-mūjiba of the first ten books of Majalla is expressly stated. The other function of the asbāb al-mūjiba is to justify that why rājiḥ opinion are not be confirmed in some article. In the necessary reasons it is stated that twelve articles are prepared in the direction of unrâcih (unpreferable) opinion. Considering that Majalla is formed of 1851 article, it will be better understood that how the rājiḥ opinions are effective in Majalla's content. Essentially, the conditions of the period also make it necessary. The preference of the non-preferred opinion of Züfer (d. 158/775) in 692nd article of Kitāb al-Ḥavala, caused the reaction of some circles mainly Şeyhülislam Hasan Fehmi Efendi (d.1298/1881) and for this reason Ahmet Cevdet Pasa (d.1895) was dismissed from the ministry of Divan al-Ahkâm al-Adliyyah and the chairman of the Majalla Commission.When the asbāb al-mūjibas of contrary articles to rājiḥ opinions are examined, it is seen that maṣlaḥa and customs are determinative in these preferences. It is also seen that the preferences of some jurists are also mentioned as a reason of preference. The most widespread preference’s reason in Hanafī sources is in congruity with the texts. On the contrary, it is noteworthy that, besides the interdiction of extravagant (safih), it is not operated as a preference’s reason in Majalla.Some preferences of the Majalla Commission were intervened by other institutions. The chapters prepared by the commission were examined both by Majlis-i Wukalā and Mashihat, and these chapters were subject to some revisions at this time. Here, two articles prepared on the basis of the non-preferred opinion were intervened by Majlis-i Wukalā. The first of these is 216th article that written in the direction of opinion of Mashāyikh Balkh, which argues that it is permissible to sell separately ḥaqq al-murūr (the right of passage) and ḥaqq al-shirb (water right), the second is the 611th article which regulates the liability to damage of ajīr al-mushtarak (joint salaried employee).When the content of Kitāb al-Buyū, the first and the most voluminous book of Majalla, is examined in terms of the intra-school preference, it is seen that the rājiḥ opinions in the school are generally taken as basis. It is stated that in the asbāb al-mūjiba of the Kitāb al-Buyūʿ the four issues are prepared basing on the non-preferred opinion and these preferences are justified with custom and maṣlaḥa. However, the contrary articles to the rājiḥ opinion in the Kitāb al-Buyūʿ are not limited to these. According to our research, in addition to these, three articles were prepared with the preference of non-preferred opinion. These are the 118th article regarding that the bayʻ bi-l-wafā is permissible in chattels, 165th article on the definition of al-ghabn al-faḥiş (lesion), and the 309th article concerning the provision of the khiyār al-sharṭ (right of cancellation). These three articles show that the regulations contrary to the rājiḥ opinion in Majalla are not just those explained in the asbāb al-mūjiba and this situation is contrary to the method that is followed when preparing the Majalla.In some controversial issues in the Hanafi School, authorized jurists to preference (asḥāb al-tarjīh) disagreed over which opinion is rājiḥ. It wasn’t explained that how a method would be followed in Majalla when the legal arrangements were made in these matters. When these issues are examined, it can be said that the preferences of the majority, the providing of convenience and the preference by some jurists are effective.Preferences in Majalla have not been occurred only among the sharʻī (related to Islamic Law) provisions. In addition, the definitions and the inscription in the definitions are also the subject of preference. In this context, the preferences related to the definition of the sales contract, the suspended contract (al-ʻaqd al-maqqūf) and the al-ghabn al-faḥiş in Kitāb al-Buyūʿ can be mentioned as an example.Some controversial issues in the Hanafi School are not regulated in Majalla. When considering the multiplicity of controversial issues and therefore the difficulty of making legal arrangements to cover all of them, this situation is natural. Moreover, some of these issues may not have been regulated in Majalla because they are not frequent and necessary. However, it is not possible to explain all the controversial issues that have not been regulated for these reasons. Because some of the controversial issues that have not been legislated are basic, relatively important issues and they are included in the mukhtaṣars. This indicates that when preparing the Majalla, instead of making preference on some controversial issues, the method of non-regulation of these matters is adopted. It can be said that this method is applied as a way of creating law text which is clear of controversy. Thus, the determining of the rājiḥ opinion in these matters has been left to the judges. This situation is not suitable to meet the need of determining the rājiḥ opinion, which is the goal of Majalla. But it is the result of the difficulty of making a law that encompasses all legal issues. (shrink)

The dervish lodge cuisine in the Ottoman lodge structuring has a central importance. The lodge cuisine helped Anatolia turn into a homeland. Travelers took shelter in the lodges in Anatolia. So, these buildings were a safe haven for those who travel. Lodge’s kitchens were always open. These kitchens offered a delightful “Sheikh Baba’s Soup” anytime and these kitchens gave peace and serenity to Anatolia. This article analyzes the Ottoman lodge food culture in the context of a manuscript which belongs to (...) an imaret. This manuscript called Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid was written in between 1240-1250 (1825-1835) in Istanbul. This work belongs to the period of Sultan Mahmud II and the Hudāyī Lodge Foundation. Institution Employees and accounting records were disclosed in this manuscript in which the names of kitchenware are mentioned and recipes are found. This work gives detailed information about foods that are cooked in the Hudāyī Lodge Foundation’s imaret kitchen. -/- SUMMARY Eating is thought always to be important and it is considered worthwhile to eat with guests and travelers in Turkish culture. In the process of Islamization, the dining table was accepted “Halil İbrahim’s Table” and this approach has strengthened further the hospitality. Eating with people, preparing the table for the guests, travelers and the needy were regarded as a factor increasing the fertility of the table. In addition, these movements were considered an act of social cooperation and deepen the collective consciousness. Especially the sufis played a dominant role in the process of Islamization in Anatolia and depending on this, they undertook various social and cultural functions that including catering. In this regard, the lodge was seen as a complex and this structure encompasses different units such as imaret or soup kitchen, mosque, tomb, library, dervish cells, public fountains, bakery and bathhouse. Travelers stay in the imaret and supply their needs, they also nurture themselves spiritually as well. Lodges were a safe haven for these travelers and lodge’s kitchens were open every hour of the day with serving the delicious “Father’s Soup.” Therefore, lodges became a representative of peace. These kitchens take reference the advices of the prophet about eating and serving meals. In addition, the effects of the old Turkish culture and of the Yesevī tradition on these kitchens are witnessed. While many documents related to the food culture in Anatolia could remain to us, regarding the life of lodges especially, information about the kitchens is still limited. Ali Eşref Dede’s cookbook, Yemek Risalesi, is one of the works written about the dishes of Ottoman period. This work is very important in relation to the Mevleviyye as well. This manuscript was written in the 19th century by Sheikh Ali Eşref Dede at Edirne. Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid, one of the other important sources that should be included in the Ottoman lodge food literature. This manuscript is registered in the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Atatürk Library Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları (number, 224). Two works were written in the same century. In Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid there are some financial and agricultural information concerning to “Hüdâyî Lodge’s Foundation”. This manuscript includes valuable information about accounting records and officers employed in imaret and other institutions. On the other hand, there are various recipes in this manuscript about the imaret meals, also lists of kitchenware and food materials. This record is thirty pages and was written during Mahmud II. period. Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid is related to Aziz Mahmud Hudāyī Lodge that is placed in a high and strategic location in Uskudar that connects Istanbul to Anatolia. This was a complex structure and established in a place of ten thousand square meters. It consisted of imaret, sheikh’s house (haremlik), mosque, tomb, library, dervish cells, bakery and bath. As mentioned above, Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid contains important information about Aziz Mahmud Hudāyī Lodge’s kitchen and recipes. In fact, the manuscript also provides several alternatives to some of the recipes. This record exhibits the structure of the order and the nutritional forms of the Sufis. Thus, to some extent, it is possible to analyze the theoretical and philosophical direction of the order. Because eating in the lodges is not an action just to satisfy a person's stomach. Rather there is a dining ritual in the lodge. In this frame, the importance of the dining table was emphasized in the lodge tradition in the dimension of human education and socialization. In the sense of Sufism, the information about food reveals symbolic and allegorical meanings, sometimes directly or indirectly. Rituals related to food are closely related to the educational process of the dervishes. In this respect, on the sacred journey of dervish it is necessary to eat food permissible in the religion. In this regard, the books about the customs of the order contain considerable information. Giving valuable information about meals Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid contains main course and dessert recipes. It revealed the food habits of the dervishes and the people who were living at that time. The recipes also contain some interesting features applicable in the Turkish kitchen today. In addition, the names of meals and desserts contribute to the richness of the Turkic language. There are soups and salads, meat grills and stew varieties, fish dishes, pastry varieties, dessert varieties, cookies and halvahs. Meals are cooked with butter mainly. Lamb and sheep are preferred in the meals. The use of spices is high. For example, cinnamon is used even when cooking meat and fish. The manuscript seems to have thirty recipes but there are also different cooking methods in the manuscript. Different cooking methods were used together in some meals as frying, boiling and baking. For this reason, the number of recipes in the manuscript increases even more. This article entitled “The Ottoman Dervish Lodge Cuisine and Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid” has been latinized by simplifying the manuscript based on with a single copy. In this article the place and importance of the lodge cuisine in a mystical life has been analyzed in addition to presenting valuable information about the literature that is related to the Anatolian Lodge Cuisine, the Ottoman Cuisine, and recepies cooked in the Ottoman. Furthermore, the work briefly presents some about the lodge because it is related to Aziz Mahmud Hudāyī lodge. Moreover, a dictionary section has been added for understanding the relatively abandoned words in the manuscript. Similarly, measurements and weigh units are briefly given in Majmūʿa al-fawāʾid. (shrink)

The West, whichdefinesthemselves as “we” andthe rest as "theother" outsidethemselves, theotherreligionandethnicgroups, especiallytheMuslims, and has alwaysbeenagainstIslam, whichoffers as an alternative life andculturetothevaluesthatshapeitsown life. AftertheJesus, TheMuhammadwas sent as a prophethoweverthe West considersthatwasdisturbedthemembers of otherreligions. Forthisreason, Christiansand members of other religions, especiallyChristians, havebeenconstantlycriticizingIslamthroughoutitshistory, startingshortlyaftertheemergence of prophet Muhammed andholybookQuran. AmongthoseoneparticularwastheDutchDozywhomadesomeresearches on easternlanguages, likemanyprevious western writers, thenDozy has written a bookabouttheProphet, thatdoes not reflecthistoricalfacts, and has been translated intoTurkishentitled the name "History of Islam" by Abdullah Cevdet, whoenjoystheliberation of theConstitutionalperiod. Thebook has causedbig dilemma andmade (...) a greatconfusion in theOttomanpublicopinion, further it has beenrejected in manyways. Amongthemanyrejections, Oneveryparticular of theserejectionswastheworkwhichwasentitled "History of Islam" byAhmed Hilmi fromPlovdivalsoknown as Filibeli Ahmed Hilmi. Inthework of Ahmed Hilmi, theauthorsoughttogivetheanswertotheclaim of Dozy’sworksbystatingthatDozywasprejudice, thefactsare not correctandunfounded, furthernon-conformingviews on Islam as well as theQur'an. Inthisstudy, weexaminetheview of Ahmed Hilmi aboutthedistortions of the Torahand the Bibleand th eevaluations of the Qur'an. Inaddition, some Western writerssuch as "Dozy and precedent" objectedtothepropensity of the inspiration in the irworks, Wewillalsofocus on theoppo singviews of Dozy about the Prophet he put forward in theface of allegations of epilepsyand hysteria. (shrink)

Bu makalede Giritli Sırrı Paşa’nın (1844-1895) Şerhu’l-Akāid Tercümesi analiz edilmektedir. Makalede öncelikle Sırrı Paşa’nın entelektüel arka planı ve diğer eserlerine değinilerek tercüme tarihsel bağlamına yerleştirmeye çalışıldı. Özellikle mütercimin kelâm tasavvurunu yansıtan mukaddime kısmına dikkat çekildi. Mâtürîdî kelâmına dair klasik bir metnin on dokuzuncu yüzyıl Osmanlı okuyucusu için Şerhu’l-Akāid’in diğer şerh ve haşiyelerindeki farklı yorumları içerecek şekilde tercümenin nasıl genişlediği gösterildi. Tercümede farklı görüşlerin bir araya toplanması, aynı mesele karşısında farklı yaklaşımların birbirleriyle karşılaştırılabilmesini sağlamaktadır. Sırrı Paşa sadece metni tercüme edip diğer (...) yorumları nakletmekle kalmamış, kendi yorumlarını da ortaya koymuştur. Bu nedenle bu tercümeyi “yorumlu tercüme” olarak adlandırmaktayız. Örnek olarak bu çalışma Mâtürîdî ve Eşʿarî ekolleri arasındaki temel ihtilaflardan biri olarak görülen irâde-i cüzʾiyye kavramı üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Sırrı Paşa ve faydalandığı kaynaklardan Cevdet Paşa bu meselede Mâtürîdî görüşü benimsemişlerdir. (shrink)