¹ The Ottoman state’s increasing intervention in evkāf (religious endowments) during the nineteenth century was part of a broader effort to centralise administrative and financial structures in response to both internal and external pressures. Historically, evkāf had functioned as autonomous financial institutions that funded religious, educational, and charitable activities, often operating outside direct state oversight. However, as the empire faced fiscal crises, territorial losses, and growing military and bureaucratic expenditures, the government sought to harness these substantial financial resources. The Tanzimat reforms (1839–1876) marked a turning point in this process, as state-led centralisation efforts aimed to integrate evkāf revenues into the official treasury. The establishment of the Ministry of Imperial Evkāf (Evkāf-ı Hümâyun Nezâreti) in 1826 was a crucial step in this endeavour, as it allowed the state to regulate the administration of endowments, ensure their revenues were directed toward state-approved projects, and curtail the financial independence of religious institutions. This move also had ideological dimensions, as it was tied to efforts to modernise the empire and reconfigure the relationship between religious authority and state power. By limiting the economic autonomy of Sufi lodges and religious scholars, the Ottoman government sought to consolidate its control over religious life, aligning it more closely with the needs of a modernising bureaucratic state. This restructuring inevitably led to tensions between the state and religious institutions, as seen in the resistance from various ulema and Sufi groups who had historically relied on evkāf for their financial sustainability. The literature examining these issues is extensive. To highlight a few key examples, particularly regarding the waqf reforms that centralised the administration of Sufi endowment funds, see N. Hofer, ‘Endowments for Sufis and their institutions’, in Sufi Institutions, (ed.) A. Papas (Leiden, 2020), p. 68. For the detailed historical dynamics that led to the establishment of the Assembly of Sheiks, see M. Varol, Islahat, Siyaset, Tarikat: Bektaşiliğin İlgası Sonrasında Osmanlı Devleti’nin Tarikat Politikaları (1826-1866) (İstanbul, 2022), pp. 261–273.

² For the integration of Sufi figures into the bureaucratic apparatus during the nineteenth-century reform period, see C. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922 (Princeton, 1980), p. 152.

³ İ. Kara, Din ile Modernleşme Arasında Çağdaş Türk Düşüncesinin Meseleleri (İstanbul, 2016), pp. 345–370; M. Hatina, ‘Where East meets West: Sufism, cultural rapprochement, and politics’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 39.3 (2007), pp. 389–390; M. Kara, Metinlerle Günümüz Tasavvuf Hareketleri, 1839-2000 (İstanbul, 2010), pp. 53–57, 74–75.

⁴ The unionists (İttihatçılar), later formalised as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti), emerged as a clandestine opposition group against the autocratic rule of Sultan Abdulhamid II in the late nineteenth century. Initially composed of military officers, intellectuals, and bureaucrats, they were part of a broader Young Turk movement advocating for constitutionalism and modernisation. The movement first gained traction among students and officers in Ottoman military academies, inspired by European political philosophies and disillusioned with Abdulhamid’s increasingly authoritarian rule. Their key objective was to reinstate the 1876 Constitution (Kanun-ı Esasi) and restore parliamentary governance, which had been suspended by the sultan in 1878. In 1908, their coordinated efforts led to the Young Turk Revolution, forcing Abdulhamid to reinstate the constitution and recall the Ottoman parliament. Though their movement was originally rooted in ideals of constitutionalism, modernisation, and national unity, their later years in power saw increasing tensions between their centralising vision and the empire’s ethnic and religious diversity, laying the groundwork for future ideological struggles within the Ottoman political landscape. Please see Ş. Hanioğlu, Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908 (Oxford, 2001), pp. 3–7; E. J. Zürcher, The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building: From the Ottoman Empire to Atatürk’s Turkey (London, 2010), pp. 213–219; M. Ș. Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton, 2008), pp. 150–157.

⁵ A. E. Yalçınkaya, ‘From concept to novel: Tāhirülmevlevi’s (1877-1951) Sufi engagement and critique of Teşebbüs-i Şahsî (individual initiative) in the late Ottoman era’, Kadim 8 (2024), pp. 23–50; F. Burak-Adli, ‘The portrait of an Alla Franca Shaykh: Sufism, modernity, and class in Turkey’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 56.2 (2024), pp. 207–226, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743824000631.

⁶ K. Barkey, ‘The Ottoman empire (1922-1923): the bureaucratisation of patrimonial authority’, in Empires and Bureaucracy in World History: From Late Antiquity to the Twentieth Century, (eds.) P. Crooks and T. Parson (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 107–125.

⁷ The key principle of ūlū’l-emre itaat (obedience to those in authority), which has direct roots in the Qur’an 4:59, ‘Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you’, was a highly intertwined principle with the Ottoman political tradition, which viewed the sultan’s dual religious and worldly authority as the cornerstone of public order—a concept encapsulated in the term niẓām-ı ʿālem (order of the world). Within this context, the religious obligation to uphold ūlū’l-emr was widely recognised. As bureaucrats whose intellectual development was deeply intertwined with state institutions, this principle appears to have been strongly upheld by the Sufi figures in question, persisting even into the republican era. Ö. Çaha and M. L. Karaman, ‘Civil society in the Ottoman empire’, Journal of Economic and Social Research 8.2 (2006), p. 58; Especially after the eighteenth century, this principle was increasingly emphasised by Ottoman statesmen, reflecting the growing need for discipline and obedience to authority both within the administrative ranks and throughout society; K. Şakul, ‘Nizâm-ı Cedîd Düşüncesinde Batılılaşma ve İslâmi Modernleşme’, Divan: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi 19 (2005), pp. 126–140.

⁸ Hofer, ‘Endowments for Sufīs’, p. 68.

⁹ For more details on the initial investigations into the diverse roles dervishes play in daily life, especially concerning early modern examples, see C. Kafadar, Kim Var İmiş Biz Burada Yoğ İken Dört Osmanlı: Yeniçeri, Tüccar, Derviş ve Hatun (İstanbul, 2019), pp. 39–72. For the significance of Sufi writing for Ottoman historiography, see D. Terzioğlu, ‘Tarihi İnsanlı Yazmak’, Cogito 29 (2001), pp. 284–296.

¹⁰ For the stages of Sufis’ integration into the bureaucratic structure, see Kara, Metinlerle Günümüz, pp. 30–32; M. C. Ömür, ‘The Sufi order in a modernizing empire: 1808-1876’, Tarih 1.1 (2009), pp. 78–79; B. Silverstein, ‘Sufism and modernity from the empire to the republic’, in Islam and Modernity in Turkey, (ed.) B. Silverstein (New York, 2011), pp. 65–66.

¹¹ Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA), Şurayı Devlet Defter (ŞD), 2849.17; İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Atatürk Kitaplığı (İBBAK), ‘Mehmed Veled Çelebi (İzbudak) ve eserleri hakkında biyografik fiş (t.y.)’, 055940.

¹² B. Tanrıkorur, ‘Mevleviyye’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi xxix (Ankara, 2004), pp. 468–475.

¹³ W. Feldman, From Rumi to the Whirling Dervishes: Music, Poetry, and Mysticism in the Ottoman Empire (Edinburgh, 2022), pp. 57–84.

¹⁴ In the Mevlevi Sufi order, the term çelebi denotes the descendants of Mevlānā Calāl al-Dīn Rūmī, following Ulu ʿĀrif Çelebi (d. 719/1320), a key successor. The title, symbolising the representation of Calāl al-Dīn Rūmī, became institutionalised as çelebilik, with leaders of the order addressed as Çelebi Efendi. Veled Çelebi İzbudak likely acquired this title through his ancestral connection to Mevlānā. C. Çelebi, ‘Çelebi Efendi’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi viii (Istanbul, 1993), pp. 261–262; A. Mete, ‘Mevlevîlikte Merkeziyetçilik: Çelebilik Makamı ve Tevcihâtı’, İlmî ve Akademik Araştırma Dergisi 48 (2021), pp. 17–42; Selçuk Üniversitesi Mevlana Araştırmaları Enstitüsü (SÜMAM), ‘Veled Çelebi’, Defter-i Fevâid, S.Ü. Uzluk Arşivi, Y86, p. 86.208; SÜMAM, ‘Veled Çelebi’, Çelebi Cönkü, S.Ü. Uzluk Arşivi, Y86, p. 97.

¹⁵ For more information on the impact of sultanic decrees in the organisation of medrese curriculum, see S. Ahmed and N. Filipovic, ‘The sultan’s syllabus: a curriculum for the Ottoman imperial medreses prescribed in a Ferman of Qanuni I Süleyman Dated 973 (1565)’, Studia Islamica 98.99 (2004), pp. 183–218.

¹⁶ M. Kara, ‘Veled Çelebi İzbudak’, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi xxiii (Istanbul, 2001), pp. 503–505; V. Ç. İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e: Sıradışı Bir Çelebi’nin Anıları, (eds.) Y. Şafak and Y. Öz (İstanbul, 2009), p. 16.

¹⁷ The main works about İzbudak are as follows: the most significant source on his life is his own memoir, Hatıralarım (Istanbul, 1946). Its second edition is published as V. Ç. İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e. Two monographs are valuable for compiling foundational sources: N. Korucuoğlu, Veled Çelebi İzbudak (Ankara, 1994); M. Akar, Veled Çelebi İzbudak (Ankara, 1994). Additionally, letters sent to Ferīdūn Nafiz Uzluk have been utilised as primary sources; A. Remzi and M. Tāhirülmevlevi, Feridun Nafiz Uzluk’a Gönderilen Mevlevi Mektupları, (eds.) Y. Şafak and Y. Öz (Konya, 2007). For further reference, see H. H. Top, ‘Son Dönem Çelebileri ve Evlatları’, in Konya’dan Dünya’ya Mevlānā ve Mevlevilik, (ed.) N. Şimşekler (Konya, 2002), pp. 151–154.

¹⁸ For discussions of unbelonging and an ambivalent relationship with state apparatus in the late Ottoman empire, see B. Weineck, ‘Ambivalent subjects: the Ottoman state and its non-Sunni Muslim population’, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 35.1 (2024), pp. 1–18.

¹⁹ A. C. Haksever, ‘20. Yüzyılda Üç Mevlevi Şeyhi: Veled Çelebi, Abdülbaki Baykara, Ahmet Remzi Akyürek’, Tasavvuf 6 (2005), pp. 383–415.

²⁰ B. Metin, ‘Veled Çelebi’nin Türk Milliyetçiliğinin Doğuş ve Gelişme Sürecindeki Yeri ve Türk Diline Dair Çalışmaları’, Karadeniz Araştırmaları 32 (2012), pp. 99–122; B. Koçakoğlu, ‘Veled Çelebi İzbudak ve Onun Türkçülüğü’, Mevlānā Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (2007), pp. 85–105.

²¹ S. Efendioğlu, ‘Veled Çelebi İzbudak’ın “Türk Diline Medhal” Adlı Eseri Üzerine Bir İnceleme’, Ankara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi 26 (2004), pp. 23–41.

²² Varol, Islahat, Siyaset, Tarikat, pp. 261–273.

²³ In 1826, the dissolution of the Janissary Corps significantly impacted the Bektashi order, as the state saw the close association between the Janissaries and the Bektashi lodges as a potential threat. Consequently, many Bektashi lodges were either shut down or repurposed under different Sufi orders such as the Nakşibendī; G. Yılmaz, ‘Bektaşilik ve İstanbul’daki Bektaşi Tekkeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme’, The Journal of Ottoman Studies 45 (2019), pp. 97–136.

²⁴ The Meclis-i Meşāyiḥ was established under the authority of the Ottoman Sheikh al-İslām’s office as part of the broader effort to institutionalise and regulate religious institutions within the empire: İ. Kara, ‘Meclis-i Meşâyih, Ulemâ-Tarikat Münasebetleri ve İstanbul’da Şeyhlik Yapmış Beş Zatın Kendi Kaleminden Terceme-i Hali’, Kutadgubilig Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları 1 (2002), pp. 185–214.

²⁵ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 16.

²⁶ The term rüşdiye comes from rüşd in Arabic, meaning maturity or intellectual development. Rüşdiye refers to a type of secondary school in the Ottoman education system, introduced as part of the Tanzimat reforms in the nineteenth century. These schools were designed to provide a more advanced level of education than the sıbyan mektebi (elementary schools) and to prepare students for higher institutions such as idadi (high schools) and mekteb-i sultani. The first rüşdiye was established in 1838 during the reign of Mahmud II, but their expansion became significant during the Tanzimat period (1839–1876). Please see B. C. Fortna, Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State, and Education in the Late Ottoman Empire (Oxford, 2002), p. 116.

²⁷ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 17–18.

²⁸ A. Bein, ‘Politics, military conscription, and religious education in the late Ottoman empire’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 38.2 (2006), pp. 283–301.

²⁹ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 19–20.

³⁰ Ibid, p. 20.

³¹ Ibid, p. 20.

³² A diverse anthological work by Bahāʾ al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1031/1622) that covers a wide range of subjects, including Qur’anic exegesis, Hadith studies, Arabic grammar, lexicography, and rhetoric. It also contains thought-provoking anecdotes, notable stories, selected poetry, and wise sayings attributed to figures such as ʿdit, Greek philosophers, rulers, and other prominent personalities. The book includes proverbs, ghazals, eulogies, self-praise poetry, elegies, wills, letters, and sermons, alongside discussions on Sufism, philosophy, ethics, theology, and metaphysics. Additionally, it addresses mathematics, riddles related to arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and astronomy, as well as obscene jokes and poetry, obituaries of scholars, the history of certain works, aspects of Christianity, and statistical details about the Qur’an’s words and letters. See H. Elmalı, ‘el-Keşkul’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi xxv (Ankara, 2022), pp. 324–325.

³³ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 21.

³⁴ H. Karpuz, ‘Mevlâna Külliyesi’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi xxix (Ankara, 2004), pp. 448–452.

³⁵ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 21.

³⁶ Y. Şafak, ‘Veled Çelebi’den Mevlevi Muhitiyle İlgili Bazı Hatıralar ve Önemli Notlar’, Yeni İpek Yolu: Konya Ticaret Odası Dergisi Özel Sayı (2003), pp. 145–152.

³⁷ For a rounded example of the educational landscape of the late Ottoman empire, and specifically how medreses operated, see R. L. Chambers, ‘The education of a nineteenth-century Ottoman Alim, Ahmed Cevdet Paşa’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 4.4 (1973), pp. 440–464.

³⁸ M. Bayrakdar, ‘Medrese-Tekke İlişkisi ve Toplum Hayatına Etkisi’, Vakıf Haftası Dergisi 4 (1986), pp. 191–197.

³⁹ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 27; BOA.ŞD.2849.17; İBBAK.055940.

⁴⁰ Meḥmed Nāẓım Bey (later Paşa), a Mevlevi like Veled Çelebi İzbudak, served under Sultan ʿAbdülḥamīd II and held multiple governorships. He maintained close ties with intellectuals such as Ẓiyā Paşa (d. 1880) and Nāmik Kemāl (d. 1888). Notably, he was the grandfather of the celebrated Turkish poet Nāẓım Hikmet (d. 1963). See İ. Sarıbal, ‘Ahd-i Şehriyârî’den Devr-i Hamid-i Sânî’ye Valiliğe Giden Yolda Bir II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Memurunun Serencamı’, Adam Academy Journal of Social Sciences 8.2 (2018), pp. 175–212. His connection with Nāẓİm Paşa may have introduced him to the Young Ottoman ideology, as Paşa was a close associate of Ẓiyā Paşa; İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 28–29.

⁴¹ Ibid, pp. 28–29; BOA.ŞD.2849.17; İBBAK.055940.

⁴² During the Tanzimat period, the standard civil official attire consisted of a fez, trousers, and the modified frock coat called the istanbulin—a knee-length coat with a closed front and standup collar, which was more comfortable for elderly officials. Under ʿAbdülḥamīd, the European frock coat (redingot), complete with a vest, starched shirt, and necktie, became standard. Civil officials also had military-style dress uniforms with high collars, gold embroidery, and, for higher ranks, dress swords. C. Findley, Ottoman Civil Officialdom: A Social History (Princeton, 1989), pp. 213–214.

⁴³ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 45.

⁴⁴ Ibid, pp. 40–43.

⁴⁵ Ibid, pp. 40–43.

⁴⁶ Ibid, pp. 44–46.

⁴⁷ ‘Abd al-Vaḥīd Çelebi served as a pūstnişīn at the Konya Mevlevi Lodge for 20 years, from 1887 to 1907. He was the father of ʿAbdülḥalīm Çelebi, whom Veled Çelebi İzbudak later succeeded in this position; Saylan, ‘Mevlânâ Ailesi ve Mevlevîlik’te Çelebilik Makāmı: Sefīne-i Nefīse-i Mevlevîyân Örneği’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Marmara University, 2013), pp. 134–135.

⁴⁸ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 45–46.

⁴⁹ Ibid, pp. 46, 49.

⁵⁰ In the Mevlevi tradition, a dede is a devotee who, after completing a 1,001-day ordeal period of spiritual service (çile), attains the rank of dervish and is granted a cell in the dervish lodge; S. Uludağ, ‘Dede’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi ix (İstanbul, 1994), p. 76.

⁵¹ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 49–57; Osman Nûreddin Şems Efendi is recognised as the founder of the Enveriyye branch of the Kâdiriyye order. In addition to his role as a religious leader, Şems Efendi was also a poet and maintained friendships with prominent figures of Young Ottomans. For further information, see N. Azamat, ‘Osman Şems Efendi’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi xxxiii (İstanbul, 2007), pp. 374–375. Though the exact dates remain uncertain, İzbudak’s records suggest that he spent a period as a guest at the Yenikapı Mevlevihāne. For further information, see Şafak, ‘Veled Çelebi’den Mevlevî Muhitiyle İlgili’, pp. 145–152.

⁵² İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 51–52. Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede was a renowned Mevlevi sheikh, poet, composer, and master ney player. He served as the sheikh of Bahāriye Mevlevihāne for 34 years, from 1877 to 1911. For more detailed information, see N. Özcan, ‘Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi xviii (İstanbul, 1998), pp. 521–523.

⁵³ T. Özcan, ‘Pirîzâde Mehmed Sâhib Efendi’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi xxxiv.34 (2007), pp. 346–348.

⁵⁴ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 51–54.

⁵⁵ The translations he made during this period will be examined in the later sections of the article.

⁵⁶ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 57–58.

⁵⁷ R. R. Okumuş, ‘Ahmed Münir Paşa’nın Bursa Valiliği Yılları (1891-1897)’, Bursa Günlüğü 11 (2020), pp. 72–77.

⁵⁸ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 57–58.

⁵⁹ For information on the movement of Sufis in Istanbul from the dervish lodge to state positions during this period, see A. Y. Yüksek, ‘Sufis and the Sufi lodges in Istanbul in the late nineteenth century: a socio-spatial analysis’, Journal of Urban History 49.4 (2023), pp. 767–796.

⁶⁰ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 58–59, 63; BOA.ŞD.2849.17; İBBAK. 055940.

⁶¹ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 93–94; BOA.ŞD.2849.17; İBBAK. 055940.

⁶² The appointment of Seyyid Bey, a member of the parliament, as the instructor of law at Mekteb-i Sulṭānī and Veled Çelebi İzbudak as the instructor of Persian. BOA, Mektubî Kalemi (MF.MKT.), 152.71. Upon Veled Çelebi İzbudak’s appointment as the Persian instructor at Mekteb-i Sulṭānī, replacing the resigned Hüseyin Daniş Efendi, the other Persian instructor position held by Veled Çelebi İzbudak was assigned to Ẓiyā Efendi, a graduate of Dārülfünūn. BOA.MF.MKT, 1152.79.

⁶³ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, 93; İBBAK.055940.

⁶⁴ Ottomanism, as a concept and ideological framework, represents the Ottoman empire’s nineteenth-century efforts to unify its diverse population under a singular notion of citizenship and identity, transcending ethnic, religious, and social divides. A. E. Topal, ‘Ottomanism in history and historiography: fortunes of a concept’, in Narrated Empires: Perceptions of Late Habsburg and Ottoman Multinationalism, (eds.) J. Chovanec and O. Heilo (London, 2021), pp. 77–98.

⁶⁵ In the late Ottoman era, intellectuals who championed language reform and simplification advocated together; these reformists argued for language as a tool for enlightenment, social justice, and national unity, contributing to the foundational discussions on language reform that would later influence the Turkish republic’s language policies.

⁶⁶ A. H. Tanpınar, 19. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi (İstanbul, 1988), pp. 420–421; M. Özkan, ‘Yenileşme Sürecinde Türk Dili’, Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 32 (2012), pp. 81–109.

⁶⁷ Article 18 of the 1876 Constitution mandates knowledge of Turkish—the state’s official language—for public employment, marking a pivotal move towards linguistic standardisation. For further scholarly analysis on this topic, see T. Bakır, ‘Değişim ve Süreklilik Açısından Tanzimat’tan 2. Meşrutiyet’e Dilde Reform Arayışları: Osmanlıca mı, Türkçe mi?’, Oğuz-Türkmen Araştırmaları Dergisi 5.1 (2021), pp. 91–137.

⁶⁸ K. H. Karpat, ‘Language and identity in the late Ottoman empire and Turkish republic’, in Studies on Turkish Politics and Society: Selected Articles and Essays (Leiden, 2004), pp. 291–305.

⁶⁹ Metin, ‘Veled Çelebi’nin Türk Milliyetçiliğinin’, pp. 25–144.

⁷⁰ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 75–77.

⁷¹ Ibid, p. 54.

⁷² During the late Ottoman empire, Turkish nationalism evolved through diverse approaches. Intellectuals such as Yūsuf Akçura and Ẓiya Gökalp envisioned distinct frameworks for Turkish nationalism: Akçura advocated for an ethnic and pan-Turkist vision connecting Turks across regions, while Gökalp emphasised a synthesis of Turkish identity rooted in shared cultural and historical values within the framework of a modern nation state. Meanwhile, conservative nationalist strands incorporated Islam as a defining element of Turkish identity, creating a blend of religious and nationalistic values. This approach contrasted with the secular nationalism of the Young Turks, which downplayed Islamic elements to focus on a civic and territorial conception of nationhood. These varying currents of nationalism—ethnic, conservative, and civic—shaped the intellectual and political landscape of the late Ottoman period and the transition into the republican era: U. Uzer, An Intellectual History of Turkish Nationalism: Between Turkish Ethnicity and Islamic Identity (Salt Lake City, 2016), pp. 16–54.

⁷³ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 83; Ahmed Mithat Efendi was a renowned Turkish writer, journalist, novelist, and publisher. In his literary and philosophical works, he explored the cultural encounter between East and West, and supported the adoption of Western ideas and literary forms while maintaining a protective stance towards the preservation of Ottoman identity and advocated for the simplification of the Turkish language. For more detailed information, see M. O. Okay, ‘Ahmed Midhat Efendi’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi ii (İstanbul, 1989), pp. 100–103.

⁷⁴ Metin, ‘Veled Çelebi’nin Türk Milliyetçiliğinin’, pp. 99–122.

⁷⁵ V. Ç. İzbudak (Bahāʾī), ‘Edebiyat Hakkında Birkaç Söz’, Iḳdām 1295 (30 Ramazan 1315/21 Şubat 1898), p. 3.

⁷⁶ V. Ç. İzbudak (ed.), Türk ve Dünya Meşhurları Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul, 1958), p. 48.

⁷⁷ F. Tevetoğlu, ‘İzbudak, Veled Çelebi’, Türk Ansiklopedisi xx (İstanbul, 1972), p. 423.

⁷⁸ For some of Veled Çelebi’s articles published under the name Veled Bahāʾī in Iḳdām newspaper, see ‘Edebiyat Hakkında Birkaç Söz’, p. 3; for his article published in five consecutive parts, see ‘Makale-i Mahsusa: “Erteng” Der Nevādir-i Ferheng’, Iḳdām 1296 (1 Şevval 1315/22 Şubat 1898), p. 3; ‘Makale-i Mahsusa: İmlâ -1: Mukaddime’, Iḳdām 1557 (24 Cemaziyelahir 1316/23 Şubat 1898), pp. 2–3; Iḳdām 1346 (22 Zilkâde 1315/5 Nisan 1898), pp. 3–4; ‘Makale-i Mahsusa: Edvār-i Lügaviyye’, Iḳdām 1354 (30 Zilkâde 1315/21 Nisan 1898), pp. 3–4; ‘Makale-i Mahsusa: İmlā Meselesi: Mābad’, Iḳdām 1730 (20 Zilhicce 1316/1 Mayıs 1899), p. 3; ‘Makale-i Mahsusa: “Ne- Ne” Edat-ı Nefyi’, Iḳdām 1432 (17 Sefer 1316/7 Temmuz 1898), pp. 2–3.

⁷⁹ A. S. Levend, Türk Dilinde Gelişme ve Sadeleşme Evreleri (Ankara, 1972), p. 247.

⁸⁰ E. Sarıay, ‘Necîb Asım (Yazıksız)’ın Tarihçiliği Üzerine Bazı Tespitler’, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi 65 (2019), pp. 381–414.

⁸¹ V. Ç. İzbudak, ‘Vâvlı Türk’, Veled Çelebi İzbudak Hatıralarından: Hatıraların Gizli Günlüğü, Dergâh 4 (1990), n.p.

⁸² İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 151–153.

⁸³ Levend, Türk Dilinde Gelişme, p. 210.

⁸⁴ The association’s influence extended until 1912, after which its members transitioned to the newly founded Türk Yurdu (Turkish Homeland) and later, the Türk Ocağı (Turkish Hearth); Y. Akçura, ‘Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset’, in Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset, (ed.) E. Kılınç (İstanbul, 2020), pp. 15–41.

⁸⁵ B. Paçacıoğlu, ‘Türk Derneği Tasfiyeci miydi?’, Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları 10 (2001), pp. 219–233.

⁸⁶ The radical-purist faction advocated for an aggressive approach to language purification, aiming to eliminate Arabic and Persian elements from Turkish completely; A. Demir, ‘Milli Kimlik İnşasında İleri Bir Hamle: Yeni Lisan’, Turkish Studies 7.4 (2012), pp. 1395–1403.

⁸⁷ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 154–155.

⁸⁸ Necīb Asım’s writings in Türk Derneği reflect a departure from strict tasfiyecilik, signalling that both he and the association, including İzbudak, did not advocate for an extreme purification of the language. Initially exploring tasfiyecilik by omitting Arabic and Persian words, Necip Asım later shifted to a more moderate stance, supporting a simplified Turkish that retained widely used foreign terms while eliminating complex foreign grammatical structures (en sade Osmanlıca); Paçacıoğlu, ‘Türk Derneği Tasfiyeci Miydi?’, pp. 219–233.

⁸⁹ Türk Derneği valued Arabic and Persian words familiar to Ottomans, advocating for simplifying Turkish while preserving its cultural and linguistic heritage; Z. Korkmaz, ‘Dilde İnkılâpçılık ve Tasfiyecilik Anlayışının Sınırı’, Türk Dili Üzerine Araştırmalar i (Ankara, 1995), pp. 750–751.

⁹⁰ İzbudak’s leadership of the Konya branch of the Committee of Ottoman History highlights his role in promoting a distinctly Turkish historical consciousness, emphasising the histories of regional powers such as the Seljuks and Karamanoğulları. His work reflected a commitment to Turkism, aligning with later republican reforms in language and identity; S. Taşer, ‘Tarih-i Osmānī Encümeni Konya Şubesi’nin Açılışı ve Vali Arifi Paşa’nın Nutku’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 27 (2012), pp. 297–304.

⁹¹ İ. Kunt and M. E. Şen, ‘Veled Çelebi’nin Hayru’l-Kelām Adlı Eseri’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2016), pp. 235–278.

⁹² Levend, Türk Dilinde Gelişme, pp. 203–204, 207.

⁹³ İ. M. K. İnal, Son Asır Türk Şairleri (İstanbul, 1988), vol. iv, p. 1977.

⁹⁴ Efendioğlu, ‘İzbudak’ın “Türk Diline Medhal” Adlı Eseri’, p. 24.

⁹⁵ V. Ç. İzbudak, Türk Diline Medhal (İstanbul, 1923).

⁹⁶ Ibid, pp. 1–4.

⁹⁷ J. Strauss, ‘Who read what in the Ottoman empire (19th-20th centuries)?’, Middle Eastern Literatures 6.1 (2003), pp. 39–76. For the diverse linguistic influences on Ottoman Turkish, see C. Woodhead, ‘Ottoman languages’, in The Ottoman World, (ed.) C. Woodhead (London, 2011), pp. 143–158.

⁹⁸ C. Özmen, ‘Translating science in the Ottoman empire: translator-educators as “agents of change” in the Ottoman scientific repertoires (1789-1839)’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları 48.48 (2016), pp. 143–170.

⁹⁹ Efendioğlu, ‘Veled Çelebi: Türk Diline Medhal’, p. 24.

¹⁰⁰ For the influence of French in the late Ottoman intellectual landscape, see J. Strauss, ‘What was (really) translated in the Ottoman empire? Sleuthing nineteenth-century Ottoman translated literature’, in Migrating Texts: Circulating Translations Around the Ottoman Mediterranean, (ed.) M. Booth (Edinburgh, 2019), pp. 57–94; A. Meral, ‘Western Ideas Percolating into Ottoman Minds: A Survey of Translation Activity and Famous Case of Télémaque’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Leiden University, 2010).

¹⁰¹ A. Aydıngün and İ. Aydıngün, ‘The role of language in the formation of Turkish national identity and Turkishness’, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 10 (2004), pp. 415–432.

¹⁰² Tanrıkorur, ‘Mevleviyye’, pp. 468–475; S. Küçük, ‘Mevleviyye’, in Türkiye’de Tarikatlar: Tarih ve Kültür, (ed.) S. Ceyhan (İstanbul, 2015), pp. 505–506; Abdülbâki Gölpınarlı, Mevlânâ’dan Sonra Mevlevilik (İstanbul, 2009), p. 248.

¹⁰³ Feldman, From Rumi to the Whirling Dervishes, pp. 57–84; N. Göyünç, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Mevleviler’, Belleten 55.213 (1991), pp. 351–358.

¹⁰⁴ J. J. Curry, ‘Sufism in the Ottoman empire’, in Routledge Handbook on Sufism, (ed.) L. Ridgeon (London, 2021), pp. 410–411; Ḥ. Vaṣṣāf, ‘Osman Selāhaddin Dede’, in Sefīne-i Evliyā, (eds.) M. Akkuş and A. Yılmaz (İstanbul, 2006), pp. 5, 240–242; B. A. Kaya, ‘Osman Selāhaddin Dede’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi Ek2 (Ankara, 2019), pp. 378–379.

¹⁰⁵ Gölpınarlı, Mevlânâ’dan Sonra Mevlevilik, p. 272; S. Küçük, ‘Sultan Reşad ve Mevlevilik’, Sultan V. Mehmed Reşad ve Dönemi iii (İstanbul, 2018), pp. 1066–1067; T. Paşa (Esbak Mabeyn Başkatibi), Abdülhamit ve Yıldız Hatıraları (İstanbul, 1931), p. 145.

¹⁰⁶ ʿAbdülḥamīd II’s surveillance of Mevlevi lodges such as Yenikapı, known for its progressive leanings, underscored the era’s political tension as he tried to balance loyalty and control over influential orders; M. Ẓiyā, Yenikapı Mevlevihānesi, (ed.) M. Karavelioğlu (İstanbul, 2005), p. 186; Yalçınkaya, ‘From concept to novel’, pp. 23–50; M. T. Olgun (Tāhirülmevlevi), Yenikapı Mevlevihānesi Pūstnişīn Şeyh Celāladdīn Efendi Merḥūm (İstanbul, 1909).

¹⁰⁷ Ş. Koçsoy, ‘Türk Millî Uyanışının Teşkilatlanma Safhası: Türk Derneği ve Mecmuası (1909-1913)’, Osmanlı: Düşünce 7 (1999), pp. 436–447.

¹⁰⁸ E. Işın, ‘Mevlevilik: Bir Ortaçağ Kurumunun Modernleşme Süreci’, Uluslararası Mevlânâ Sempozyıımu Bildirileri (İstanbul, 2010), pp. 507–520.

¹⁰⁹ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 153–154.

¹¹⁰ Küçük, ‘Sultan Reşad ve Mevlevilik’, pp. 1058–1093; S. Küçük, ‘Ortak Kader: Osmanlının Son Yılları ve Mevlevilik’, in Uluslararası Mevlânâ Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (eds.) M. E. Kılıç and C. Güngör (İstanbul, 2010), vol. ii, pp. 715–732.

¹¹¹ S. Arpaguş, ‘Galata Mevlevihānesi Örneğinde İstanbul Mevleviliğinin Kültürel Hayata Etkisi’, Tasavvuf: İlmi ve Akademik Araştırma Dergisi 15.33 (2014), pp. 17–37.

¹¹² While Çelebi’s memoir does not specify when he joined the CUP, other sources indicate his involvement before the Second Constitutional Era, participating in meetings and political activities. Although he avoids detailing this connection, his reference to ‘our branch’ for one of the branches of the CUP suggests ideological alignment, if not formal membership; İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 107–108.

¹¹³ Ibid, p. 107.

¹¹⁴ Ibid, p. 111.

¹¹⁵ Arpaguş, ‘Galata Mevlevihānesi Örneğinde’, pp. 17–37; B. Ayvazoğlu, ‘Sheikh Gālib ve III. Selīm’, in III. Selīm: İki Asrın Dönemecinde İstanbul, (ed.) C. Yılmaz (İstanbul, 2010), pp. 227–240.

¹¹⁶ W. G. Andrews, ‘The Galata Mevlevihāne’, World Literature Today 80.6 (2006), p. 80.

¹¹⁷ Despite ʿAbdülḥalīm Çelebi’s claim that a fabricated report had been sent to Istanbul to justify his removal, this document remains elusive in the archives, leaving an air of intrigue around the motives and methods employed in his dismissal; Konya’da bulunan Veled Çelebi’nin Dersaadeti ziyareti hakkında BOA, Bāb-i ʿĀlī Evrak Odası (BEO), 3770.282704.

¹¹⁸ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 115–20.

¹¹⁹ BOA.BEO.3771.282790.0; BOA, İrade İlmiye (İ..İLM), 9.6. Veled Çelebi received the official certificate appointing him as the pūstnişīn of the Konya Mevlevi Dervish Lodge on 13 July 1910: BOA, İrade Evkaf (İ..EV..), 51.13; BOA, BEO, 3778.283335.

¹²⁰ BOA, BEO, 3770.282704.

¹²¹ BOA, Şifre Kalemi (DH.ŞFR), 663.77.

¹²² BOA.BEO, 3770.282737. BOA, BEO, 3770.282738; BOA.DH.ŞFR. 663.90; BOA, Dahiliye Muhaberat-ı Umumiye İdaresi Evrakları (DH.MUİ.), 108.10.

¹²³ BOA, BEO, 3781.283515.

¹²⁴ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 115–121.

¹²⁵ Ibid, p. 108.

¹²⁶ Ibid, p. 53; Haksever, ‘20. Yüzyılda Üç Mevlevi Şeyhi’, pp. 383–415.

¹²⁷ Mesnevī-i Şerīf is one of the most significant works of Islamic culture, reflecting the Sufi thought of Mevlānā (d. 672/1273); S. Ceyhan, ‘Mesnevī’, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi xxix (Ankara, 2004), pp. 325–334.

¹²⁸ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 122; C. Arabacı, ‘1900-1924 Yılları Arası Konya Medreseleri’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Selçuk University, 1996), pp. 170–180.

¹²⁹ B. Eskiçorapçı, ‘Veled Çelebi İzbudak’ın Hayatı ve Menâkıb-ı Şerîfe-i Mevleviyye Adlı Eserinin Değerlendirilmesi’ (unpublished MA thesis, Selçuk University, 2017), pp. 13–14.

¹³⁰ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 121.

¹³¹ Şafak, ‘Veled Çelebi’den Mevlevi Muhitiyle İlgili’, pp. 145–152.

¹³² Veled Çelebi also dedicated many years to researching the genealogy of the Çelebi family; however, his work remained unfinished and unpublished. The drafts related to this work are held in the Uzluk Archive. Y. Şafak, ‘Mehmed Said Hemdem Çelebi’nin Hazırladığı Konya Mevlānā Dergāhı Pūstnişīnleri Listesi’, Nüsha: Şarkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 43 (2016), pp. 153–166.

¹³³ For the close links between the Mevleviyye and the Seljuq court, see J. Pfeiffer, ‘Mevlevi-Bektashi rivalries and the Islamisation of the public space in late Seljuq Anatolia’, in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, (ed.) A. C. S. Peacock (London, 2015), pp. 309–328.

¹³⁴ A. C. Haksever, ‘Mevlevism in Çorum: historical process and last representatives’, Journal of Sufi Academic and Scientific Research 8.19 (2007), pp. 143–164, refers to the document titled ‘Mevlevihānelere yazılacak mukarrerat-ı resmiyyede kullanılacak elkāb-ı resmiye’ (‘Official titles to be used in the official correspondence for Mevlevihānes’), dated 7 Kanūn-i Evvel 1327 (30 November 1911), preserved in the Konya Mevlānā Museum Archive, 47.16.

¹³⁵ Karpuz, ‘Mevlânâ Külliyesi’, pp. 448–452.

¹³⁶ The institutional inertia extended beyond his own family. Despite his persistent appeals, neither Sheikh al-Islām (chief religious authority), Musa Kāzım (d. 1920), nor Grand Vizier Talat Paşa (d. 1921) sanctioned his plans.

¹³⁷ İzbudak, Tekkeden Meclis’e, pp. 122–123.

¹³⁸ Ibid, pp. 113–122.

¹³⁹ Ibid, pp. 113–122.

¹⁴⁰ Şafak, ‘Veled Çelebi’den Mevlevî Muhitiyle İlgili’, pp. 145–152.

¹⁴¹ Bu seyahatle ilgili en önemli kaynağunız olan Konya Seyahati Hatıraları’nın sahibi İsmail (Tuncu) Bey daha detaylı bilgi için: M. Akkuş and N. Yazıcı, ‘Mevlevi Tarikatı Müntesibi Sultan V. Mehmed Reşad Döneminde Hey’et-i Mevleviyye’nin Konya Ziyareti Günlüğü (4-12 Haziran 1912)’, in Uluslararası Mevlānā Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (eds.) M. E. Kılıç and C. Güngör (İstanbul, 2010), vol. ii, pp. 123–174.

¹⁴² BOA.ŞD.1262.33; BOA, İrade Dosya Usulü (İ..DUİT.), 122.10.

¹⁴³ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 123–125.

¹⁴⁴ Y. Şafak, ‘Mücahidîn-i Mevleviyye Kumandanı Veled Çelebi’nin Birinci Dünya Savaşı Yıllarında Suriye-Filistin Cephesinde Tuttuğu Notlar’, in Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nda Mevlevi Alayı ve Gönüllü Topluluklar Uluslararası Sempozyumu, (ed.) M. Özmen (Kırıkkale, 2015), pp. 203–207.

¹⁴⁵ In the records of the Ministry of the Interior, İzbudak is mentioned with the titles of regimental commander and sheikh of the Mevlevi Lodge in a memorandum presented to the sultan, which included a telegram he sent congratulating the sultan on receiving the title of Gazi (veteran); BOA, Kalem-i Mahsus Müdüriyeti Belgeleri (DH.KMS), 32.12.

¹⁴⁶ Tevetoğlu, ‘İzbudak, Veled Çelebi’, p. 423.

¹⁴⁷ İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, pp. 158–160.

¹⁴⁸ E. K. Shaw and S. J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1808–1975 (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 272–278, 340.

¹⁴⁹ E.-J. Zürcher, ‘Ottoman sources of Kemalist thought’, in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, (ed.) E. Özdalga (New York, 2005), pp. 13–26.

¹⁵⁰ V. Çelebi, ‘Dinde Teceddüt’, Hakimiyet-i Milliye (1923).

¹⁵¹ The Regulation on the Closure of Dervish Lodges and Zāwiyas, Attire of the Religious Class, and the Dress Code for Civil Servants, issued on 2 September 1925. This regulation mandated the closure of all dervish lodges, zāwiyas, and tombs. Furthermore, the legal status of the titles and distinguishing attire associated with these institutions, such as sheikhdom, dervishhood, and discipleship, was effectively abolished. Complementing this regulation, Law No. 677, On the Closure of Dervish Lodges, Zâwiyas, and Tombs, and the Prohibition of Certain Titles and Posts, was enacted on 30 November 1925. For more information, see C. Apaydın, ‘Belgeler Işığında Tekke, Zaviye ve Türbelerin Kapatılması Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme’, Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları 16.32 (2017), pp. 149–171.

¹⁵² ‘When the people of truth were lost among us / And the ignorant ascended to the throne of guidance / Let us not wail in vain—it is well deserved / Our lodges, once empty, have now been sealed off’ (Ḥaḳ ehli olunca içimizden mefkūd / Cahiller edince ʿarş-ı irşada suʿūd / Beyhude figān etmeyelim lāyıḳtır / Dergāhlarımız boş idi oldu mesdūd); İzbudak, Tekke’den Meclis’e, p. 147.

¹⁵³ Ibid, pp. 45–46.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid, p. 47.

¹⁵⁵ V. Ç. İzbudak, Birbirimizi Kırmayalım (İstanbul, 1342).

¹⁵⁶ Ibid, p. 8.

¹⁵⁷ Ibid, p. 9.

¹⁵⁸ Ibid, p. 11.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid, p. 12.

¹⁶⁰ İzbudak, Birbirimizi Kırmayalım, p. 13.

¹⁶¹ H. Küçük, ‘Milli Mücadelenin Ardından Yapılan Reformlara Sufilerin Tepkileri: Bir Bülbül Nasıl Kargaya Dönüştü’, in Devlet ve Maduniyet: Türkiye ve İran’da Modernleşme, Toplum ve Devlet, (ed.) T. Atabaki (Istanbul, 2010), pp. 153–181.

¹⁶² Kara, Metinlerle Günümüz, pp. 99–119.

¹⁶³ Küçük, ‘Milli Mücadelenin Ardından Yapılan Reformlara Sufilerin Tepkileri’, pp. 153–181.

¹⁶⁴ Figures such as Kenan Rifai (d. 1950), Tahir Olgun (d. 1951), and Ahmed Avni Konuk (d. 1938) similarly operated at the intersection of traditional Sufi networks and modern state structures, demonstrating that certain strands within Sufism were not merely subjects of reform, but also, in crucial ways, its architects; see Yalçınkaya, ‘From concept to novel’, pp. 23–50.