Freie Universität Berlin
WiSe 24/25
Interdisciplinary Studies of the Middle East
Instructor: Talha Murat
TSMA No: 2044/1
Place: 491/14
Date of Document: H-17-10-926
kadısı oldur ki zile kazasında emir nam köyünden derviş zayıfiye[?] arif/örf olundukda cevab virdiğe ali beg oğlu ve … beg sancağında sızır nam karyede şah veli babası şeyh celalin tekkesi var şeyh celal olacak [?] oğlu şah veli şeyh olmuş idi eyle olsa devletlu hüdavendigar hazretleri muharrede iken şah veli bir gün tekkeden çıkub şah ismaile varmış idi varub kendü şah ismail ile buluşacak anda nakir-i kıtmir müsa [?] hayatı [?] görecek gine tekkeye gelüb birkaç gün oturdu andan sonra bazen o katdan birkaç müridi ile erzincana ve karakeçiliye ve rume/dume[?] ve malatyaya ve gayrı yerlere varırdı velhasıl ne söylemek gerek şah ismaile ittifak edüb koca nam babayı şah ismaile gönderüb haberleşirdi bundan evvel altı ayı mikdarı var koca babayı şah ismaile göndermiş idi bir ayı var koca baba gelüb cevab verdige şah ismail size selam etti ettige[?] sen ki celal oğlu şah velisin imdi günün [?] seni sefer ayun on beşinde ondan[?] evvelen halifeleriyle müridleriyle pür yarak olub çıkasız o memleketi birbirine karışdurub bize dahi bundan asker çıkub ol tarafa ve anuz[?] şah veli bu haberi işidicek babayı gine şah ismaile gönderdi işde biz dahi çakduk[?] diyecek[?] dört tarafa zikr halifelere adam gönderdi onlar gelecek günde ve dahi tekkeden huruç eyledi ve evvel gün gök/kök[?] oğlu veliyi şah ismaile gönderdi ve şimdi celal oğlu şah veli bu fesadı karuşdu duyurur dört tarafa halifelere adam gönderüb adam cem etmekdedür malatyada selmanlı babaya[?] varanlara haber gönderdi ve …. o günde … babaya varanlara dahi haber gönderdi ve canike dahi haber gönderdi bazı kimesneler var anlar gelsün ve osmancıkda ……… bazı kimesnelere dahi haber gönderdi ve iskilibe doğru bir yer … yana olanlara haber gönderdi ki gelsinler didi bundan gayrı nesne didi.
The judge of Zile district, upon being informed about Derviş Zayıfi from the village of Emirnam, responded as follows: Ali Beg’s son and … Beg from the sancak of Sızır, where there is a tekke of Şeyh Celal, father of Şah Veli. Şah Veli had become a şeyh. When His Highness the Sovereign was in Muharrem, Şah Veli one day left the tekke and went to see Şah İsmail. Upon reaching him and preparing to meet Şah İsmail, nakir-i kıtmir intervened, and after some time, Şah Veli returned to the tekke and stayed there for a few days. After that, he would travel with some of his disciples to Erzincan, Karakeçili, Rume/Dume [?], Malatya, and other places. In summary, to put it briefly, he aligned himself with Şah İsmail and sent Koca Baba to Şah İsmail to establish communication. About six months ago, Koca Baba had been sent to Şah İsmail. One month ago, Koca Baba returned with a reply from Şah İsmail, who sent greetings and said: “You are Şah Veli, son of Celal. Now, prepare yourself by the 15th of the month of Safar. Before that date, you and your disciples, armed and ready, should rise up, stir unrest in that land, and we, too, shall send our forces there.” When Şah Veli heard this message, he sent Koca Baba back to Şah İsmail. Meanwhile, he also sent word to his disciples and deputies in all directions, calling them to gather. On the designated day, he left the tekke. First, he sent Veli, the son of Gök/Kök [?], to Şah İsmail. Now, Şah Veli, son of Celal, is spreading this sedition and sending messengers to his deputies in all directions to gather forces. He sent word to Selmanlı Baba in Malatya, as well as to those who went to … Baba. He also sent a message to Canik and some other individuals, summoning them. Furthermore, he sent messages to some people in Osmancık and to those in the vicinity of İskilip, calling them to come. Apart from this, he said nothing else.
This document sheds light on the delicate balance of power during the Ottoman–Safavid rivalry, particularly in regions such as Anatolia where the Safavid influence remained strong through spiritual networks and Sufi orders. The account reveals that Şah Veli’s tekke functioned not only as a religious space but also as a hub for mobilizing resistance, suggesting a deep entanglement of faith, politics, and rebellion. The tekke’s connections to prominent religious figures and its ability to coordinate with Şah İsmail’s network show how these institutions could be leveraged against state authority.
From a bureaucratic perspective, the document provides a striking example of the Ottoman state’s mechanisms for intelligence gathering and regional monitoring. The recording of movements, names, locations, and correspondence underscores how seriously the central authorities took the threat of localized uprisings. Furthermore, the fact that the document was addressed to a kadı highlights the legal and administrative layers through which the empire attempted to maintain control — not just through military might, but through an integrated system of reporting and judicial oversight.
In conclusion, this Ottoman archival document offers valuable insight into the intersection of sectarian politics, local resistance, and imperial surveillance during a crucial transitional period in Ottoman history. It exemplifies how historical documents can reveal not only the facts of an event but also the larger ideological and geopolitical tensions at play. The text’s formality, structure, and purpose all reflect the sophisticated administrative culture of the Ottoman Empire and its efforts to sustain hegemony in contested spaces.