Safavid State, as well as the armed Qizilbash
Turkmen rebellion, the Sakarya Shaykh, and the
Urmiye Shaykh in the time of Murad IV (seven-
teenth century), and finally the Sayyid ≠Abd Allàh
(1668) revolts were all in the Mahdist tradition.
As for the republican period, the Menemen inci-
dent in 1930 might be regarded as another exam-
ple, but as this incident was somewhat different in
character and was closely associated with the
domestic political opposition of the day, it is rather
doubtful whether it can be classed as a truly
Mahdist revolt.
Apart from the Shaykh Badr al-Dìn revolt, al-
most all the Mahdist uprisings during the Ottoman
period were in the nature of rebellions waged by the
nomadic Turkmen tribes against the central gov-
ernment’s policy of the enforced adoption of a set-
tled lifestyle and subjection to taxation. In Turkish
history, Messianism has always acted as the ideo-
logical motivation for revolts against the central
political government based on the social and eco-
nomic discontent felt by the periphery. The local
administrators sent by the central government had
a significant share in the causes of these rebellions.
Indeed, they could be said to have provoked the
revolts by their refusal to recognize the people’s
beliefs, customs, and traditions and by the dislike
or even contempt they displayed for their ways of
life. An individual would emerge – usually from
among the Turkmen babas who were their religious
leaders – proclaim himself as the Mahdìand sum-
mon the people to revolt, whereupon the Turkmen,
with their great devotion toward these religious
leaders, who were sometimes also heads of the
tribes, would have no hesitation in joining in the
rebellion. As a result of the hard way of life to
which they were exposed in the steppes of Asia
Minor, the Turkmens who took part in these move-
ments represented a group in which women played
as important a part as men in everyday life. Thus it
was that these Mahdist uprisings, composed mainly
of nomadic Turkmens, were afforded very great
support by the participation of women at every
level. Anatolian epics such as Kitàb-i Dede Korkut
and Dànishmend-nàma contain episodes illustrat-
ing the heroic deeds of the nomadic Turkmen
women. These episodes show that some of these
women enjoyed a high social status in the tribes to
which they belonged.
It is well known that in Central Asia in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, the followers of
A™mad-i Yasawìincluded a large number of women
and that, although it is not regarded as generally
acceptable in Islam, these women performed reli-
gious rites together with men. Moreover, Baba
turkey 623Ilyàs-i Khorasànì(d. 1240), a Wafà±iyya shaykh in
Anatolia in the thirtheenth century who took a
leading part in the Bàbà±ìrevolt, is known to have
performed rites with a congregation composed of
both men and women. Ottoman archival documents
reveal that in mystical circles Turkmen women
could even act as tekke shaykhs. Turkmen women
belonging to these circles, some of whom may well
have taken part in the Mahdist uprisings, are
known to have formed a recognized group referred
to in one of the early Ottoman chronicles (Âshik-
pashazâda tarîkhi) as Bajiyàn-i Rùm (Anatolian
sisters). Although we have very little detailed infor-
mation regarding the nature of these groups,
Ottoman archival records prove that there is no
doubt of their existence. In these records we find
mention of women sheikhs with the title bàjìor
khàtun, such as Fà†ima Khàtun, Bülbül Khàtun,
HajjìFà†ima, BàjìAna, Fà†ima Ana, and AkhìFàtima.
Hagiographic sources also attest to the existence in
mystical circles in Anatolia of a group of women of
this kind. A very good example of this is Fà†ima Bàjì,
who was close to Bektàsh-i Walì, the eponymous
founder of the Bektàshìreligious order. Fà†ima was
given the title bàjìbecause of her position as a
female awliyya, greatly honored in Bektàshìtradi-
tion. The view proposed by some scholars that
these bàjìs were the wives of members of two very
important mystical groups referred to in Ottoman
records as Akhìyàn-i Rùm and Abdàlàn-i Rùm may
well contain a great deal of truth.Bibliography
Ö. L. Barkan, Kolonizatör Türk derviçleri, in Vakıflar
Dergisi 2 (1942), 279–304.
U. Firdevsî, Velâyetnâme-i hacı Bektaç-ı velî, Istanbul
1953.
Kitàb-ı Dede Korkut, ed. M. Ergin, Ankara 1964.
F. Köprülü, Türk edebiyatinda ilk mutasavvıflar, ed.
O. Köprülü, Ankara 2003^9.
I. Melikoff, La geste de Melik Daniçmend. Etude critique
du Daniçmendname, 2 vols., Paris 1960.
÷. Mevlânâ, Jàmi≠al-meknùnàt, Istanbul University Lib-
rary, ÷bnü’l-Emin, MS no. 3263, vv. 49b–50b.
Müneccimbaçı, Sahà±if al-akhbàr, iii, Istanbul 1285,
436–8.
J. Mu߆afà(Qoja Nishanji), Tabaqàt al-Mamàlik wa
darajàt al-masàlik, ed. P. Kappert, Wiesbaden 1981,
384b.
A. Y. Ocak, XVI yüzyıl Osmanlı Anadolu±sunda mesi-
yanik hareketlerin bir tahlil denemesi, in V. Millet-
lerarasi Turkiye Sosyal ve Iktisat Tarihi Kongresi
Bildirileri, Ankara 1989, 817–26.
Â. Paçazâde, Osmano©uları±nın tarihi, ed. K. Yavuz and
M. A. Y. Saraç, Istanbul 2003, 298.
÷. Peçevî, Tàrìkh-i peçevì, i, Istanbul 1283, 120–2.
A. Refik, Osmanlı devrinde Râfızîlik ve Bektaçîlik, in
Istanbul Universitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi Mecmuasi 9
(1932), 21–59.
Khwàja Sa≠d al-Dìn, Tàj al-tawàrìkh, iii, Istanbul 1280,
162–81.