A Contribution to the History of Rifâiyya Order in Anatolia: Is “Ahmed-i Kebîr er-Rifâî” “Ahmed-i Kûçek”?

Abstract

It has been discussed by the scholars that whether the names pointing out two Rifâî sheikhs, who are known since the fourteenth century, refer to two different figures or to the same person. One of these names refers to Ahmed-i Kûçek, the foremost representative of Rifâiyya Order in Anatolia; and the other refers to Sâhibu’l-Hâl Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebîr, whose tomb is in Lâdik and even today open to visit. The narratives reported about them, who have been mentioned with the same name but with different epithets, indicates that they lived in the same time period and environment. But it is still ambiguous whether they are same or different persons. To arrive at a conclusion, we need more information about their personal records showing their lineage. In this article, by depending on sources which have not been worked on yet, we fixed their names and showed that these to names refer to one person. Thus it has been proved that Ahmed-i Kebîr, whose tomb is in Lâdik, is Ahmed-i Kûçek. In the article, we preferred to use his most common name Ahmed-i Kûçek, and tried to rewrite his biography based on our new findings. While doing so, we also offered some new information about the course of Rifâî Order in Anatolia.

Summary

One of the Sufi orders in the fourteenth century Anatolia was the Rifâîs. However, the information offered by researches about the representatives of this Basra based order is very limited and dispersed. This situation brings forth the confusion about the historical identity of some Rifâîs. One of these figures is Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebîr er-Rifâî, whose tomb is in Lâdik and even today open to visit; and the other is Ahmed-i Kûçek, the foremost representative of Rifâî order in the fourteenth century Anatolia. 

The historical identity of these two figures, who have the same name but have different epithets namely "Kebîr: Big" and "Kûçek: Small", has been subject of debate among scholars. Some argues that there are two different figures, the others discuss that there is only one person who has been referred with two epithets. 

Recently found two works help us to identify the historical identity of Ahmed-i Kebir and Ahmed-i Kûçek. These works are İbnü’s-Serrâc’s (d. 747/1347), Teşvîku’l-ervâh ve’l-kulûb ilâ ẑikri allâmi’l-guyûb and Tuffâhu’l-ervâh ve miftâhü’l-irbâh. They are the oldest sources having information about Ahmed-i Kûçek. Another work is Hüseyin Hüsâmeddin’s (d. 1939) Amasya Tarihi which consists of twelve volumes. 

In this article, we will compare the information between the existing sources and İbnü’s-Serrâc's and Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s works and try to answer the question if Ahmed-i Kebîr and Ahmed-i Kûçek names refer to the same person or two different figures. In existing sources, we come across the name of Ahmed-i Kebîr in records regarding places of pilgrimages in Lâdik. It seems that while Seyyid Ahmed was alive, he was known in Amasya and in its neighborhood as "Sâhibu'l-Hâl" to be distinguished from the master of the Rifâî order Seyyid Ahmed el-Kebîr. The reason of this attribute of "Kebîr" might be an expression of respect in the region he lived or a distinctive statement to distinguish him from another member of the family who also probably had the name Ahmed. Because of his relation to an older family member with the same name, İbn Battûta, İbn Serrâc and Eflâkî mentioned his name as “Ahmed-i Sagīr/Ahmed-i Kûçek”. The person because of whom he called as "Sagīr/Kûçek" was probably his grand grandfather Seyyid Ahmed er-Rifâî or his grandfather Ahmed el-Müsta‘cil.

As a result, some points are established that enabled us to make connection with the names Ahmed-i Kebîr and Ahmed-i Kûçek. One of these points is the unity of time period. The narrations about the two names point out the first half of the fourteenth century. The other point is the unity of place, which is Amasya. It is well known that Ahmed-i Kebîr lived in Amasya and his tomb is still in this city. However, in order to arrive at accurate conclusion about the historical identity of Ahmed-i Kebîr and Ahmed-i Kûçek, we need documents showing their lineage. According to the writings of İbn Battûta and İbnü's-Serrâc we reach at such a lineage: Seyyid Ahmed-i Kûçek b. Seyyid Tâcuddin Muhammed b. Seyyid Şemsüddîn Ahmed el-Müsta‘cil b. Muhammed er-Rifâî. The same lineage is mentioned by Es‘ad el-Medenî about Sâhibu’l-Hâl Ahmed-i Kebir. Thus we come to a conclusion that one person was mentioned with different epithets or attributes.  

The established lineage and the information derived from the sources show that it is possible to rewrite the life of Ahmed-i Kûçek in accordance with the historical settings. Accordingly, Ahmed-i Kûçek's father Seyyid Tâceddin (d. 744/1343-44) was living in Basra. However he was a renowned sheikh who often travelled to Syria and Anatolia. His Konya visit was mentioned by Eflâkî in Menâkıbü’l-‘ârifîn. During one of his travels in Anatolia, Seyyid Tâceddin got married to the daughter of Seyyid Bilal Kâzimî, who was a descended from Imam Musa Kâzım, in the city of Sinop. And this lady gave birth to Ahmed-i Kûçek. 

Ahmed-i Kûçek studied in Baghdad and there became a successor of Sheikh Ebu’l-Hasan el-Vâsıtî. After completing his studies, he went to Anatolia in 706 (1306-1307). For a while he stayed with his grandfather Seyyid Bilal Kâzimî. By the death of his grandfather, he set forth on a journey, turned back to Amasya in 713 (1313-1314) and settled in Hankāh-ı Mesûdî. At that time, the sheikh of Hankāh was Alaeddin Ali Âşık Baba, the grandson of Baba İlyas. Ahmed-i Kûçek got married to Âşık Baba's daughter. After years, he settled in his lodge in Lâdik. He passed away in 759 (1358) and his tomb namely “Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebîr er-Rufâî Türbesi” is open to visit in Lâdik. 

Keywords

• Tasawwuf,Anatolia,Rifâî,Ahmed-i Kûçek,Ahmed-i Kebîr

Rifâîliğin Anadolu’daki Tarihine Bir Katkı: “Ahmed-i Kebîr er-Rifâî” “Ahmed-i Kûçek” mi?

Abstract

İsimleri XIV. asırdan günümüze ulaşan iki Rifâî şeyhinin, aynı ya da ayrı şahsiyetler olup olmadıkları araştırmacılar arasında tartışma konusu olmuştur. Bu isimlerden biri Rifâîliğin Anadolu’daki en önemli temsilcisi kabul edilen Ahmed-i Kûçek; diğeri ise Lâdik’teki türbesi bugün de ziyarete açık olan Sâhibu’l-Hâl Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebîr’dir. Haklarında nakledilen rivayetler, aynı ismi taşıyıp farklı lakaplarla anılan bu zatlar için zaman ve mekan birliğinin söz konusu olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak aynı ya da ayrı şahsiyetler olup olmadıkları hakkında kesin bir hükme varabilmek için soy bağlarını ortaya koyan künye bilgilerine ihtiyaç vardır. Bu çalışmada, daha önce üzerlerinde çalışılmamış kaynaklardan istifadeyle, söz konusu iki isme ait künyeler tespit edilerek, farklı lakaplarla tek bir isme işaret edildiği ortaya konulmuştur. Buna göre, Lâdik’te medfun Ahmed-i Kebîr, nâm-ı diğer Ahmed-i Kûçek’tir. Makalede, daha yaygın bir şöhrete sahip Ahmed-i Kûçek ismi tercih edilerek, biyografisi yeniden teşekkül ettirilmiş, böylelikle Ahmed-i Kûçek’in şahsiyetinde Rifâîliğin bu topraklardaki seyri hakkında yeni malumatlar sunulmuştur. 

Keywords

• Tasavvuf,Anadolu,Rifâî,Ahmed-i Kûçek,Ahmed-i Kebîr

References

1. Eflâkî, Ahmed. Menâkıbü’l-‘ârifîn. 2 Cilt. yay. haz. Tahsin Yazıcı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1961.
2. Eflâkî, Ahmed. Ariflerin Menkıbeleri. çev. Tahsin Yazıcı. İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi, 2006.
3. Bayram, Sadi. Merzifon-Amasya Kültür Tarihinde ‘Îdî-zâdeler-Hacıbayramoğulları. Ankara: y.y., 2018.
4. Bayram, Sadi. “Lâdik ve Seyyid Ahmed-i Kebîr er-Rufâî Hazretleri”. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi 74 (1991), 139-156.
5. Elvân Çelebi. Menâkıbu’l-kudsiyye fi menâsıbi’l-ünsiyye: Baba İlyas-ı Horasanî ve sülalesinin menkabavî tarihi. haz. Ahmed Yaşar Ocak - İsmail E. Erünsal. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014.
6. Evliya Çelebi. Seyâhatnâme: (I-II. Cilt) indeksli tıpkıbasım. 5 Cilt. haz. Seyit Ali Kahraman. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2013.
7. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli. Künhü’l-ahbâr. 5 Cilt. İstanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1277-1285.
8. Gölpınarlı, Abdülbakî. Manâkıb-ı Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli: Vilâyet-nâme.İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi, 1958.

9. Hüseyin Hüsâmeddîn. Amasya Tarihi. Dersaadet: Hikmet Matbaası, 1327-1330.
10. Hüseyin Hüsâmeddîn. Amasya Tarihi. 3. Cilt. İstanbul: Necm-i İstikbal Matbaası, 1329-1358.
11. Hüseyin Hüsâmeddîn. Amasya Tarihi. 7. Cilt. (Yayın Aşamasında). Amasya Belediyesi.
12. İbn Battûta, Ebû Abdullah Muhammed et-Tancî. Mühezzebü rihleti İbn Battûta. haz. Ahmed el-Avâmirî - Muhammed Câdelmevlâ. 2 Cilt. Kahire: Matbaa-i Emîriyye Bulak, 1934-1937.
13. İbnü’s-Serrâc, Muhammed b. Ali. Teşvîku’l-ervâh ve’l-kulûb ilâ zikri ‘allâmi’l-guyûb. Amcazâde Hüseyin Paşa, nr. 272. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi.
14. İbnü’s-Serrâc, Muhammed b. Ali. Tüffâhu’l-ervâh ve miftâhü’l-irbâh. Wetzstein II, 396. Berlin Staatsbibliothek.
15. İbnü’s-Serrâc, Muhammed b. Ali. Tüffâhu’l-ervâh ve miftâhu’l-irbâh: Ruhların Meyvesi ve Kazancın Anahtarı. çev. Nejdet Gürkan vd.. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2015.
16. Kılıç, Rüya. Osmanlıda Seyyidler ve Şerifler. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005.
17. Kılıç, Mahmut Erol. Anadolu Tasavvuf Tarihine Notlar 1 - Osmanlı Dönemi-Cumhuriyet Dönemi. İstanbul: Sufi Kitap, 2014.
18. Mahzûmi, Abdullah Muhammed Sirâceddîn b. Abdullah er-Rifâî. Sıhahu’l-ahbâr fî nesebi’s-sâdeti’l-Fâtımiyyeti’l-ahyâr. Mısır: y.y., 1304.
19. Medenî, Es‘ad. “Risâletü’l-Müselsel”. Mecmu‘. 1-45. Kahire: el-Matbaatü’l-Âmireti’ş-Şerefiyye, 1309.
20. Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. Babaîler İsyanı: Alevîliğin Tarihsel Altyapısı Yahut Anadolu’da İslâm-Türk Hetedoroksisinin Teşekkülü. İstanbul: Dergâh, 2016.
21. Öztürk, Eyüp. Velilik ile Delilik Arasında: İbnü’s-Serrâc’ın Gözünden Muvelleh Dervişler. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2013.
22. Sayyâdî, Ebu’l-Hüdâ. Tenvîru’l-ebsâr fî tabakāti’s-sâdeti’r-Rifâ‘iyyeti’l-ahyâr. Matbaa-i Muhammed Efendi Mustafa, Mısır: y.y., 1306.
23. Yazıcı, Tahsin. “Ârif Çelebi”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. 3/ 363-363. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 1991.