Ṣūfī people, as well as the ulema (ʿulemā), discussed the issue of how God (Ḥaḳḳ) surrounds the universe (ʿālem) and where the ʿarş (arsh / the ninth heaven) in which God ensconces himself exists. The Ṣūfī people supporting the unity of existence (Wahdat al-wujud) concept claim that God surrounds the universe by his own being and so that the ʿarş (arsh) is all the creation / created beings by God moreover they argued that people who rejected this idea could attribute (...) weakness or impotence to the power of God. On the other hand, commentators and scholastic theologians acknowledge the idea that God surrounds the universe not by his own being as Ṣūfīs claimed but God surrounds the universe by his knowledge (ʿilm) and power (ḳudret). They claimed that there was no physical connection of God with the universe. There-fore, this article discusses a couplet (beyit) written by Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī from Bayramī-Melāmī group in light of four different tracts (risāle). One of the four tracts was written by the author of the couplet Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī himself. The title of his tract is Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme). The other tract was written by Munīrī-yi Belgradī and the title of it is Şarḥ-i Qaṣīda-i Suleymān. The other two tracts analyzed in this article were written by Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī. These two tracts try to explain how God surrounds the universe from the unity of existence (Wahdat al-wujud) perspective. Therefore, they may help in understanding the men-tioned couplet written by Lāmekānī. The outline of the article is as follows: the introduction has the text of the ghazal including the mentioned couplet and discusses how the characteris-tics of Bayramī-Melāmī people were reflected in their poems. This part also tries to determine who wrote the mentioned ghazal as there were two different pen manes / pseudonyms (mah-las) for the same ghazal in various resources. To determine the original writer of the ghazal is crucial for proper interpretation of the texts. The next part of the article discusses the accusa-tion that Lāmekānī was an heretic in the Şarḥ-i Qaṣīda-i Suleymān tract by Munīrī-yi Belgradī. This part also tries to outline Munīrī-yi Belgradī’s mode of thought to discuss the background of his criticism about the couplets. According to his way of thinking, though Munīrī had some tolerance to Ṣūfī people believing fenā fillāh, he ironically harshly criticized the Ṣūfī group supporting Wahdat al-wujud entitled as Fuṣūṣī. In the second section, based on his work named Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme), it is aimed to create a general portrait of Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī. In this context, it discusses how Wahdat al-wujud and Hurufism, which are generally big issues for Bayramī-Melāmī, influenced Lāmekānī. Therefore, the comparison between Oglan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī who was clearly influenced by Wahdat al-mavjud (vaḥdet-i mevcūd) and Hurufism, and Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī is realized in this part. It was figured out that adoration of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem (Fuṣūṣīlik) was more influential in Bayramī-Melāmī Sheikh’s mode of thinking through the analysis of the effect of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem in Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme). It was suggested that the reason behind the allocation of Munīrī-yi Belgradī for Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī was the effect of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem which was salient for Melāmī Sheikh Lāmekānī. The final part of the article is about two tracts Miftāḥ al-vucūd and Zayl al-kitāb written by Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī. The criticized couplet was read under the light of these tracts. These two tracts are significant as they explain how God surrounds the universe and where the ʿarş (arsh) is located by referring to the verses of Quran al-Fussilet 41/54, al-Nisā 4/126 and el-Tāhā 20/5 mentio-ned in the couplet by Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī. Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī proposed a new argument about how God surrounds the universe in Zayl al-kitāb. According to this argument, in Miftāḥ al-vucūd Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī tries to explain God’s surrounding potent through the or-ders/grades of the existence. In Zayl al-kitāb, he claims that there must be a center for God’s surroundings of the universe and this center must be Ḥaḳīḳat al-Muḥammediyye. Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī stated that he did not acknowledge this information by himself but he acquired it from Ibn Arabī when he had a dream. Lastly, this part of the article discusses what Rahman settles in ʿarş (arsh) means in terms of circle (devir) theory. It was suggested that according to Ṣūfī people believing Wahdat (vaḥdetçi) God’s ʿarş (arsh) is the human being himself by drawing on the Kasf al-Gıtā (Keşfu’l-Gıtā) qasida written by Sunʿullāh-ı Gaybī who was a successor of Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī from the second generation. (shrink)

Chelebi (Çelebi) Sulṭān is a Ṣūfī poet. Due to poor and limited sources, there is a hardness in finding accurate and sufficient information about him. Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı claimed that this anonymous poet could be Oğlan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī (d. 1539) from Bayramī-Melāmī by relying on the unanimous ghazal recorded in Ḥālet Efendi 800 in Suleymaniye Library. However, the fact that the aforementioned ghazal with simple copy variations published in Eşrefoğlu Rūmī Diwan weakens the credibility of his argument that Chelebi Sulṭān (...) could be Oğlan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī. Though the acknowledgment of this data, Gölpınarlı still insisted on the credibility of his claim that the ghazal belongs to Oğlan Sheikh. Moreover he argued that the claims suggesting that the ghazal belongs to Eşrefoğlu Rūmī (d. 1469) should be questioned. Other than this ghazal, there is one more qasida (ḳasīde) with having gizlidir word after the rhyme associate to Chelebi Sulṭān, and an annotation to this qasida by Āyīne-zāde Meḥmed Şemseddīn-i Sirozī (d. 1688/89). However, neither the qasida and ghazal attributed Chelebi Sulṭān nor the Āyīne-zāde’s annotation provide satisfying information to identify the identity of the poet. Therefore, it can be claimed that Chelebi Sulṭān’s identification is based on weak arguments. No more evidence can develop these estimations into evidence-based arguments. This article tries to provide a virtual framework for the identity of Chelebi Sulṭān. In this context, the article firstly discusses Chelebi Sulṭān’s disposition and popularity on Ṣūfī groups by considering the contents of the manuscripts mentioning him. Then, it analyzes whether Chelebi Sulṭān is associated with Ḥurūfīs or not by focusing on the ism-musemmā subject in the two first couplets of the qasida attributed to the Ṣūfī poet. Finally, the article speculates whether the poet called Chelebi Sulṭān in literature could be Misālī (d. 1577), or not, who is one of the Ḥurūfī poets. The subject of Chelebi Sulṭān's connection with Ḥurūfīsm is examined under two titles in the article. The possibility of Chelebi Sulṭān to be Misālī, one of the Ḥurūfī poets, was discussed based on the qasida with nedür rhyme. In this regard, there are two assumptions. The first one is that the pseudonym Misālī is mentioned in the qasida, and the second evidence is that there is a qasida with nedür word after rhyme belonging to Chelebi Sulṭān in the two copies of the Misālī Diwan. However, although the mentioned qasida exists in the recent copies, this qasida is not found in the oldest copies of the diwan. Therefore it is possible to conclude that this lack weakens the possibility that Chelebi Sulṭān could be Misālī, one of the Ḥurūfī poets. The second title is related to the issue of the ism-musemmā in the first two couplets of the qasida with nedür word after rhyme. Through this analysis, it was discussed whether Chelebi Sulṭān could be Ḥurūfī or not. At this point, it is revealed that there is a similarity between the two couplets of Chelebi Sulṭān in the qasida with nedür word after rhyme on the issue of ism-musemmā and some other couplets of Ḥurūfī poets (Nesīmī / Ḫalîlî, Misālī, et al.) on the same issue. Besides, the views of a few groups, apart from the Ḥurūfī Poets, that discussed ism-musemmā issue in their poetry, were evaluated. The article refers to the Ṣūfī poet's qasida with nedür word after rhyme while discussing the issue of which groups favored Chelebi Sulṭān more and it also tried to determine which groups read this qasida at that period. To discuss the general content of the manuscript, the manuscript registered in Suleymaniye Library Mihrisah Sultan number 185, the corpus cataloged in Suleymaniye Library, Galata Mevlevihanesi 233, and the manuscript cataloged in Millet Library Ali Emiri Collection (AEArb) 4341, were examined. Thus it can be claimed both Chelebi Sulṭān and his qasida were popular among heterodox groups, as it was observed that the qasida also exists in the works of Ḥurūfī, Alevi-Bektashi, and Bayramī-Melāmī groups. Despite all this, there is no clear conclusion regarding the identity of Chelebi Sulṭān. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that Chelebi Sulṭān was popular among heterodox Ṣūfī groups and that some Ḥurūfī views influenced him. (shrink)