The Ottoman Empire: a Historical Encyclopedia [2 Volumes]

by Kia, Mehrdad;

  Further Reading

  Davey, Richard. The Sultan and His Subjects. 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall, 1897.

  Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300–1600. Translated by Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

  Le Gall, Dina. A Culture of Sufism: Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World, 1450–1700. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.

  Masters, Bruce. “Naqshbandiyya Order.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, edited by Gábor Ágoston and Bruce Masters, 419–420. New York: Facts On File, 2009.

  Nasreddin Hoca (Nasreddin Hodja)

  Nasreddin Hoca (Nasreddin Hodja) is a witty, clever, entertaining, subversive, unconventional, and comical character in Turkish, Persian, and Arabic literature. He was and remains to this day the symbol of wit, humor, and skepticism in the popular culture of the Middle East and Central Asia. In Turkish he appears as Nasreddin Hoca (Hodja), while in Iran, Afghanistan, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, he is known as Molla Nasreddin. The Tajiks of Central Asia call him Moshfeqi, while the Uzbeks and Kazakhs refer to him as Koja Nasreddin, and the Uighurs as Nasarat. In Arabic literature, he appears as Joha or Johi.

  Nasreddin Hoca or Molla Nasreddin is a figure of numerous traits: at times he is remarkably wise, while on other occasions he appears as a bumbling fool. He can be rational yet wacky, eccentric yet ordinary, and unassuming yet incredibly astute. Each Nasreddin Hoca fable serves as a commentary and/or lesson on some aspect of life. The beauty, charm, and attraction of Nasreddin stories are that they are witty, hilarious, and amusing, but also enlightening, edifying, and thought provoking. During the Ottoman period Nasreddin Hoca stories were told in coffeehouses across the empire. Indeed, he was a central figure in the daily life of ordinary folks in the Ottoman Empire, who quoted his stories to get a point across. Because there was a wide variety of Nasreddin fables, one could always find at least one that could fit a given situation.

  The actual origins of Nasreddin are uncertain. According to some scholars, the stories of Nasreddin hail from a wide variety of local folktales and are not attributable to any one source. In Turkey there has been a systematic effort to portray Nasreddin as a wise, learned, and witty Turk who lived in 13th-century Anatolia from 1208 to 1284. According to this construct, Nasreddin was a highly educated scholar who became a judge (kādi), working for much of his life in Akșehir (Akshehir) in central Anatolia. Some scholars have maintained that there are striking similarities between Nasreddin and the brilliant Iranian Shia scholar and polymath of the Il Khanid period Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201–1274). Others have argued that the origins of Nasreddin should be traced to Joha, mentioned as a symbol of humor and foolishness by Muslim authors of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. The Persian writer, poet, and satirist Obeyd-i Zakani (1300–1371) mentions witty and hilarious stories, which at times he relates to Joha. Some of Zakani’s own stories have found their way into collections of yarns and jokes attributed to Molla Nasreddin in Persian. The stories of Nasreddin survived in the oral tradition for centuries. A collection of Joha’s stories was published in Turkish in Istanbul in 1837. Two other collections were published in Arabic in Egypt, the first in 1859 and the second in 1881.

  Statue of Nasreddin Hoca, known in Uzbek as Nasrredin Afandi, in Bukhara, Uzbekistan. (Olga Labusova/Dreamstime.com)

  The numerous anecdotes, jokes, and stories attributed to Nasreddin Hoca (Wise or Learned Nasreddin), and told daily by storytellers reflect the witty and subversive nature of a culture that viewed the claims and actions of those in power with humor and skepticism. In fable after fable, Nasreddin appears as a man of humble origin, living with his wife, or as a traveling sage, without a regular job, wandering from one town to the next. At times he ridicules corrupt and oppressive rulers, pillories ignorant and opportunistic clergymen, and mocks uneducated and simple-minded people. Some of the tales of Nasreddin denounce the injustices of despotism and attack the cultural and spiritual poverty of a society dominated by superstitious religious beliefs and customs. Nasreddin has a biting tongue and a fearless character and cannot be easily impressed or intimidated by men of power, wealth, and influence.

  THE FABLES OF NASREDDIN HOCA (HODJA)

  The following short pieces are samples of the many fables and quotations associated with Nasreddin Hoca (Hodja).

  Once after he had delivered a lecture, folks in the audience asked Nasreddin Hoca how they could measure the level of a person’s wisdom. Nasreddin Hoca responded that we can know how wise a person is from what he says and the words he utters. “What if the person refuses to say anything or utter any words?” they asked. Nasreddin thought a bit and then responded: “No one is wise enough to keep his mouth shut all the time!”

  One day Nasreddin Hoca arrived in a town without a penny in his pocket. Desperate to make a quick buck so he could continue his journey, he used his turban and robe to impress the people with his worldly knowledge. Impressed by his appearance and affected utterances, the town’s dignitaries asked Nasreddin to deliver a lecture to the townspeople. Nasreddin Hoca agreed to deliver a lecture in return for a handsome honorarium, although he had no idea what he would be talking about. When he appeared in front of the large crowd that was waiting enthusiastically for his presentation, he asked the audience if they knew what he was going to talk about. The answer from the crowd was a resounding “NO,” to which Nasreddin responded, “Since you are so ignorant that you do not know anything about what I will talk about, I refuse to speak to you,” and he walked out. He could not, however, receive his handsome honorarium unless he returned and delivered a lecture. Thus, he appeared for a second time, and since he still did not have anything to say, he merely repeated the same question he had asked the audience the day before: “Do you know what I will be talking to you about today?” To ensure that he did not use their negative response as an excuse to walk out again, the audience answered with a resounding, “YES, We DO,” to which Nasreddin responded, “Since you all know what I will be talking about, there will be no need for me to waste your time,” and he walked out again. Frustrated and suspicious, the townspeople decided to preempt Nasreddin’s shenanigans by employing a strategy that would prevent him from leaving without delivering a lecture. They decided that if Nasreddin asked the same question, “Do you know what I will be talking to you about today?,” half of the people present would say “YES” and the other half would say “NO.” Thus, when Nasreddin appeared for the third time and asked the same question, the crowd was ready. One group shouted “YES” and the second cried out “NO,” to which the Hoca responded, “There is no need for me to waste your time with a lecture since those of you who know what I will talk about can tell those of you who don’t.”

  One cold and snowy night, Nasreddin was awakened by loud commotion and argument outside his house. He tried to ignore the fight outside his window and go back to sleep, but his wife, who also had been awakened by the noise, insisted that he get up and investigate the cause of the fight. Despite his best efforts to convince his wife that he should not become involved in the commotion, Nasreddin was finally forced to wrap himself in his quilt and go outside. Shivering from the freezing cold, he stepped out and asked the two groups arguing and fighting in front of his house what was causing the big commotion. His question quickly ended the argument among the men who had been fighting until then. They looked at Nasreddin for a moment, then suddenly jumped on him and tore away the quilt he was using to cover his body. After ripping the quilt in half, they ran away and disappeared into the darkness of the night. Having lost his quilt, Nasreddin returned to his bedroom. His wife looked at the baffled, perplexed, and shivering Hoca and asked him the reason for the loud argument on the street. Nasreddin responded: “The fight, my dear, was over my quilt.”

  See also: Popular Culture: Sufi Orders.

  Further Reading

  Muallimoglu, Nejat. The Wit and Wisdom of Nasraddin Hodja. n.p.: Cynthia Parzych Publishing, 1986.


  Nasreddin Hoca. The Turkish Jester or, The Pleasantries of Cogia Nasr Eddin Effendi. Translated by George Henry Borrow. Amazon Digital Services LLC: A Public Domain Book, 2012.

  Ramazani, Muhammad. 600 Mulla Nasreddin Tales. Tehran: Silsilah-i Tajdid-e Mutun Mashhur-e Farsi, 1997.

  Sufi Orders

  Although official Islam enjoyed enormous power and influence within the Ottoman Empire, Ottoman culture and civilization were not linear projections of Quranic scripture. Throughout the Ottoman dynasty’s long rule, religious orthodoxy waged a constant battle for primacy against the less orthodox interpretations of faith that were expressed and preached by numerous Sufi mystical orders and brotherhoods. Enormously popular among both the ruling elite and the masses, each Sufi brotherhood was dedicated to its own unique mystical path, called tarikat, and each engaged in its own form of ecstatic worship, known as zikr (Lewis: 152–153). The less orthodox beliefs and practices of the Sufis greatly influenced popular culture and left a lasting impression on people’s everyday practices. Sufi brotherhoods and lodges played a central role in Ottoman social life and provided important opportunities for socializing outside the home (Quataert: 162). Sufi orders maintained a space that was exclusively Muslim and contained separate sections for men and women, active members, and curious visitors (Quataert: 162).

  Although those at the top of the Sunni religious hierarchy, namely the ulema, enjoyed a privileged position in society, as well as a close alliance with the Ottoman ruling family, the rigidity of the Islam they practiced, as well as the cold legalism that characterized their doctrine, failed to satisfy the spiritual needs of many Muslims, who turned to mysticism and Sufi brotherhoods for sustenance and guidance (Lewis: 152). The diverse beliefs and less rigid practices of various Sufi orders provided Ottoman men and women with unique spiritual experiences, which transcended the rigid and impersonal rules and practices that Muslim men and women were obligated to follow at home and at a mosque.

  Sufism, or Islamic mysticism, emerged in the first century of Muslim rule as a protest against the rigid, intolerant, and at times politicized interpretations of Islam. It was greatly influenced by earlier religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Buddhism, and Gnosticism, as well as by Neoplatonist ideas. The ulema, who acted as the representatives of official Islam, defended Islamic law as the essence of Islamic thought and emphasized tawhid (i.e., monotheism), or what they referred to as the “indisputable oneness of God.” The Sufis, on the other hand, preached an ascetic lifestyle that rejected the distinction between the Creator (God) and the created. Sufism taught that the creation was a manifestation of the Creator and that removing the distinction between the Creator and the created allowed man to attain unity with God (Ocak: 1:267). By “God,” the Sufis did not mean an anthropomorphic entity that possessed human qualities. For Sufis, God was the absolute being, and everything in the universe manifested that being. Given that everything was a manifestation of God, to love God was to love God’s creatures and all of creation.

  Along their journey to reach union with God, Sufis sought to understand and interpret the inner and esoteric (batini) aspects of Islam. This contrasted sharply with the ulema and the medreses, or religious schools, which emphasized the outer and exoteric (zahiri) knowledge of Islam. The Sufis did not, however, view mysticism as a strictly intellectual activity that confined itself to exploring esoteric concepts, such as detachment from the world. For them, such concepts could be understood only after one had embarked on a spiritual journey toward union with God. Seen from this perspective, Sufism remained an essentially human undertaking, one that offered an alternative and respite from the dry and at times harsh aspects of official Islam. Sufism allowed the seeker to undertake his own unique journey to spiritual peace and salvation.

  In contrast to the Islam of the ulema, which asserted the absolute and unassailable superiority of Islam over other religions and religious traditions, many Sufi orders viewed all religions and religious leaders as fellow travelers on the same mystic path, seeking Gnostic wisdom (maarifet) by submitting themselves to the way of Truth (tarik-i hak). In fact, in the poetry of numerous Sufi masters, Moses and Jesus were praised as great men of knowledge, humanity, spirituality, and integrity, whose lives served as examples for all Muslims and all of humanity. The teachings and practices of some Sufi orders therefore contained a strong element of respect, appreciation, and tolerance toward non-Muslims. This stood in sharp contrast to the rigid interpretations of Islam expressed by the ulema, who viewed Christians and Jews as dirty, inferior, and unequal to Muslims.

  The ulema and Sufi masters also differed in their dress and public presentation. The ulema appeared in public with pomp and ceremony, invariably dressed in beautiful and expensive clothing. Admiring followers, along with servants and attendants, ranging from menial domestics and bodyguards to companions and agents, surrounded them. Sufi leaders, in contrast, adhered to the principles of simplicity and humility. In most cases they wore a simple white tunic made of wool or linen and refused to adorn themselves with precious stones. Some wandering dervishes flouted Muslim tradition by shaving their beards, hair, and eyebrows and by throwing off the restrictions imposed by harsher interpretations of Islam (Lewis: 154–155). Turning their backs on the vanities of the world, they renounced such human obsessions and small satisfactions as riches and empty honors. Instead, Sufis chose solitary lives of contemplation, meditation, humility, and silence. In choosing solitude and silence, they emphasized the limitations of language to express inner experience. They attributed only nominal significance to religious piety and in fact ridiculed the pretentious religiosity of the ulema, along with their pompous public posturing and sermonizing, which for the Sufis were another sad manifestation of mankind’s ego. Sufi masters considered the ulema’s religious dogmatism, narrow-mindedness, and intolerance to be at the root of most calamities, including fanaticism and oppression. Throughout the long history of the Ottoman Empire, the philosophical and doctrinal conflicts between the ulema and the various Sufi orders resulted in intense rivalries and jealousies between prominent religious leaders and influential Sufi masters. This antagonism was reflected in unrelenting battles between the two camps over consumption of coffee and tobacco, which the religious establishment condemned and the Sufi orders defended.

  The teachings of the Persian Sufi masters Bayazid-i Bastami (804–874), Mansur Hallaj (858–922), Abul Hassan Khareqani (963–1033), and Abu Said Abul Khayr (967–1049) had an enduring impact on Sufi orders in various regions of the Islamic world, especially in southern Iraq, northeastern Iran, and Central Asia. In particular, Bayazid-i Bastami preached “annihilation of the self in God,” and Mansur Hallaj was executed for heresy after he declared: “I am the Truth.”

  The teachings and sayings of these Sufi masters proved inspirational to many, who then sought the meaning of the Unity of Being (vahdat-i vujud). Throughout the ninth century in Khorasan, a region corresponding with modern-day northeastern Iran and northwestern Afghanistan, a new interpretation of Islamic mysticism called Melametiyye appeared. This interpretation stressed the motive of divine love and ecstasy and rejected the pious asceticism of prior Sufi schools. Turkic nomadic tribesmen who entered Central Asia and Iran encountered Sufi teachers and travelers who had established convents and lodges specifically intended for gatherings of a Sufi brotherhood. To these Turkic tribesmen, some Sufi practices, such as ecstatic dancing and singing, may have resembled the shamanistic rituals of their Turkic ancestors. After the Seljuk defeat of the Byzantine Empire in 1071, the Anatolian frontier provided Sufi teachers and masters with a new base of operations from which they could establish convents and hospices and recruit new followers. The term bābā or father referred to the Sufi leaders who from the 11th century onward inspired Turkic frontiersmen and tribesmen who entered, conquered, and colonized Anatolia.

  In keeping with the flexible and elastic attitudes exhibited by Sufi brotherhoods in Central Asia and Iran, the Sufi orders of Anatolia absorb
ed Islamic heresies into their teachings and incorporated various Shia and Christian beliefs and practices (Lewis: 153). Perhaps understandably, the Sunni ulema viewed Sufi teachers and their activities with apprehension and trepidation, frequently denouncing them as hypocrites, innovators, and heretics. The Sunni religious establishment particularly detested the pantheistic beliefs and doctrines of various Sufi orders, which they viewed as a challenge to or rejection of monotheism. The Sufis recognized saints and holy places and engaged in practices such as dancing and music to induce ecstasy, all of which led the Sunni establishment to accuse them of serious laxness in observing the divine law (Lewis: 153–154).

  Individual Sufi brotherhoods were founded on loyalty, devotion, and belief in the teachings of a particular Sufi master (şeyh/sheikh), who was sometimes revered by the order as a saint. During his life on earth, each şeyh had, through his practices, established a distinct pathway to attainment of spiritual truth and union with God. This pathway was revealed in his teachings. Sufis who had adopted the şeyh as their guide murşid (murshid) gathered in a Sufi lodge (tekke) for communal prayer and ecstatic worship (zikr), along with other specific practices prescribed by their spiritual leader. These lodges also served as spiritual retreats and hospices for travelers. Financed by contributions from their membership, lodges usually included a mausoleum (türbe), where the veneration of the saints and founders of the order took place; another room set aside for prayers and rituals (tevhidhane, semahane, or meydan); and a kitchen (matbah, aş [ash] evi, mutfak) (Clayer: 221). Because serving food to travelers and the poor constituted one of the principal functions of a Sufi order, the kitchen occupied a particularly important place in dervish lodges. Some orders, such as the Mevlevis and Bektaşis, even used the kitchen as a space for training and initiating potential new members (Clayer: 222).