414 chapter 9
2.1 For or against Reform? “Sekbanbaşı” and Kuşmanî’s Libels
Once the Nizam-i Cedid corps was created, the reactions against it were, of
course, as expected. The janissaries’ opposition was self-evident and led to the
eventual failure of the reforms, as is well known. However, one should not un-
derestimate popular support for this opposition, due to both a strong anti-elite
feeling that was arguably evident in Istanbul society and the close relations
of the janissary corps with the lower urban strata.64 Moreover, it seems that
various dervish affiliations (Nakşbendi for the ruling elite, Bektaşi for the op-
position) strengthened group identities and the subsequent conflict, although
their mutual hatred had more social than religious reasons.65 The most impor-
tant pieces of political writing advocating Selim’s reforms are in fact polemical
tracts, more propaganda than actual political theory, conceived specifically as
answers to the opposition.
These works include two detailed descriptions of the new corps and regu-
lations, written by Mahmud Raif Efendi and Seyyid Mustafa, translated into
French and printed in Istanbul in 1798 and 1803 respectively, obviously with the
aim of advertizing the reforms to a European audience.66 The second treatise
contains a very interesting introduction, where the author, himself a product
of the Nizam-i Cedid schools, tries to prove (citing Pascal as an example) that
science can be taught regardless of an individual’s inclinations; furthermore,
Seyyid Mustafa stresses that countries, men, and institutions are subject to
continuous change (bi’l-cümle milletler tagyir ü tebdil ve devletler usulü dahi
tahvil olunur), repeating the (by then old and established) argument that
Europeans took the basics of military tactics from the early Ottomans, while
the latter’s successors forgot the axiom of “reciprocity” (mukabele bi’l-misl) and
believed instead that courage and zeal could substitute discipline and science.
In a much more polemic mood, one has to note the so-called Koca
Sekbanbaşı risalesi (Koca Sekbanbaşı’s treatise) or, more accurately, Hülâsatü’l-
kelâm fi reddi’l-’avâmm (“The summary of the discourse to refute the rabble”),
64 Cf. Sunar 2010; Yaycıoğlu 2010, 678–683; Başaran 2014, 133–167; Başaran – Kırlı 2015, 272.
65 Yıldız 2008, 641–653 and esp. 712–726; Yıldız 2012; cf. Abu-Manneh 1982, Abu-Manneh
1994, and Artan 2012, 378–380 on the association of reform with Nakşbendi conservatism.
In the seventeenth century, Nakşbendi spirituality was associated with the Kadızadeli
movement, as shown recently by Sheikh 2016 (cf. Le Gall 2004). Dihkanizade Kuşmani,
an ardent pro-Selim dervish whom we will study in detail below, appears to have been a
Nakşbendi as well (Kuşmanî – Yıldız 2007, 16).
66 Mahmud Raif Efendi – Beydilli – Şahin 2001, and Seyyid Mustafa – Beydilli 1987 (the
Ottoman Turkish MS is transcribed on pp. 430–442, and the French edition is reproduced
on pp. 447–479); see also Berkes 1964, 78–81; Özkul 1996, 255–260; Beydilli 1999b, 34–35;
Şakul 2005, 125–131; Yıldız 2008, 164ff. (on the propaganda tracts of the Nizam-i Cedid in
general).