Bibliography of Alevi-Bektashi Culture

  Preface (for  the publication  "Bibliography of Alevi-Bektashi Culture"

from ALi YAMAN )  

Until today, Orientalists, missionaries, travelers, and native researchers have produced numerous theses on the formation of Anatolian Alevism.  Some argued that Alevism in Anatolia is the remnant of Christian elements, whereas others interpreted it either as a destructive movement created by the Persians against Islam,(1) or as the genuine Islam.  Other times, Alevism was mistreated as a result of ideological factionalism.  The issue was interpreted from the perspective of left-right, Turkish-Kurdish and Alevi-Sunni cleavages.  As a result, everyone approached the topic subjectively.  Especially, in the late eighties, there was a boom in the number of publications on Alevism.  Nevertheless, this boom was a fake one, since researches who had no idea about scientific methods, blurred the topic without even feeling the need to search the literature thoroughly.  This lead to the flourishing of numerous definitions of Alevism as mezhep (creed), me x rep (disposition), din (religion), tarikat (tariqa), yol (path), ya x am biçimi (life style), etc.  As a natural result of the universities’ and state institutions’ lack of interest and erroneous approaches, the topic was open for exploitation.  Such an exploitation is still made even by institutions which claim to be serving the Alevis.  There is an increasing demand for scientific studies and sincere people, Alevi or Sunni or foreigner, to stop this.

I would like to mention my complaint of some theologian writers for their unconcerned and erroneous viewpoints.  Up to this day, they have made numerous publications (2) which approached the topic from the view of hak (truth) vs. bat i l (superstition), taking their own beliefs as true and orthodox, while considering the belief of the Alevi community as “superstitious and false.”  These works ended in only deepening the cleavages between the Alevi and Sunni communities.  Approaching the issue solely from the religious perspective unavoidably led to this result; however, a sociological and socio-historical approach could have prevented these errors, eliminating the subjective evaluations such as hak vs. bat i l, or right vs. wrong.  Unfortunately, especially the theology oriented scholars were prone to such mistakes.  Nevertheless, the Sunni community’s effort to understand Alevism is a major improvement today.  Since the Alevis could not and can not be made Sunnis, and the vice versa, reciprocal prejudices ought to be ended by accepting believers as they are.  We must approach the social phenomena free from the bias of our beliefs and ethnicity.  If we manipulate the data with our bias, to support our theses and prejudices, our study would leave a negative record in academia, as well as misguiding the Alevi and Sunni communities who has been living together, and who must continue to live together.

Similarly, the so-called Islamist press has the aforementioned approach.  The works produced for their own audience end up provoking the Alevi-Sunni issue.  I brought this to attention in my articles published in the  journal Cem, during 1994 and 1995.

In this work, I would like to emphasize two main points.  1) While handling an issue like Alevism, which is very complex and within the scope of many different scientific fields, summaries and generalizations may lead to misunderstandings.  However, we can not help but accept this major difference between the social sciences and the natural sciences.  We are more likely to find inclinations and affinities rather than truths and laws.  2) We can observe that Alevism is a neglected and virgin field as opposed to the Sunni branch of Islam.  The universities and the state institutions have failed their duties as a result of their negligence.  Also, the associations and waqfs founded by the Alevis were not able to fulfill the tasks on their part.  Therefore, politicized works dominated the field obscuring it more.  In this turmoil, the layman is faced with the biased views of pro and con factions rather than real Alevism.  This is the main reason for the confusions and futile controversies on “whether Alevism is in or out of Islam?”  The intentional arguments that Alevism is outside Islam  were magnified as a result of the so-called “research books” rush.  I must note right away that such a claim is erroneous both sociologically and historically.  There are two mentalities which take Alevism to be outside Islam: radical Islamists and radical leftists/atheists.  According to radical Islamists, Alevism is a “heretical belief” and Alevis practice mumsöndü (candle-went-out which implies incestuous group sex).  According to the radical leftists/atheists who may or may not be Alevis, Alevism cannot be within Islam.  They understand Islam to be Sunni Islam only, have an antipathy against Islam.  Neither of these views is correct; instead they are sentimental.  A great majority of the Alevis accept themselves within Islam; however, here what they have in mind is not Sunni Islam.  Following Prof. Irène Mélikoff and Prof. Ahmet Ya x ar Ocak, I believe that Anatolian Alevism can only be understood within the framework of heterodoxy.  The contribution of the important scholars in this field, such as Fuat Köprülü, Claude Cahen, Ö. Lütfü Barkan, F. W. Hasluck, also lead us to the same conclusions.  If we approach the phenomena free from ideological and religious biases, we would unavoidably reach these conclusions.

Today, the primary task is to research thoroughly the different ethnic, religious groups and subgroups of Anatolia free from prejudices.  This should not disturb anyone.  No group has the monopoly of this land.  What makes this country really beautiful is this mosaic-like social structure made up of differences.  It is a pity that every single minute, this vast and precious treasure of Anatolia is being lost.  Soon the sociologist/ethnologist/anthropologist scholars will come face to face with the fact that the disappearance of the authentic structure will also destroy precious details which need to be researched.  Despite this process, no one except for a handful of concerned researchers, is interested in this issue.  The universities, government, associations, foundations and organizations are all disinterested.

I think that the Anatolian history should be thoroughly studied and written again.  The historical studies in Turkey , with a few pleasing exceptions, have always been in the hands of biased people and organizations.  For example, when the Ottoman - Safavvid conflict and the Kizilbax issue are at stake, our so-called historians ignore the Safavvids.  In fact, the Safavvid state was as Turkish as the Ottoman state; Turkish was spoken in the palace and its ruler Shah Ismail skillfully composed lively deyi x (poems) in Turkish.  This state was founded by the Anatolian K i z i lba x tribes.  Due to prejudice, our so-called scholars are blind to these points.  These pitiful historians will be judged by history.  During a conversation with Prof. Oktay Efendiyev, he complained that these topics were ignored intentionally while respectfully mentioning the services of Prof. Faruk Sümer.  He added that these topics were also ignored in Azerbaijan , and that a symposium was held only with his own efforts.(3)

Unfortunately, there is ignorance about Alevism in every level of the state.  The topic is also overlooked in the majority of foreign researches and encyclopedic entries.  However, it is pleasing to see an increasing number of researchers, foreign or native, in universities around the world.  It is clear that such an increase will bring positive results.  Certain organizations and people in Turkey have a worry that “the foreigners have an evil intention in this topic and they have other agendas,” which I do not share the least bit.  The ones who do not research Alevism and keep the scientific organizations distanced to it, then go around complaining this way.  Unless they found such organizations, they have no say about others who do so.  Unfortunately, Alevi-Sunni, and Turkish-Kurdish issues are extremely politicized in Turkey , which is the greatest obstacle preventing proper research.

There are certain interest groups which want to exploit our people, Sunni or Alevi, for their own ideologies and profit.  The best way to prevent these groups is by informing our people well.  Like I have done before, I will continue to try to fulfill my share of the responsibility.

It is sad to see that, Alevism has not seen adequate interest from scientific circles (universities), and the topic was invaded by speculative and biased researchers.  These pseudo-researchers who have no idea about the social science methodology, have communicated their politicized views via their Alevi-Bekta x i books.  As a result, the public was misinformed on such a sensitive issue.  Instead of eliminating the prejudices between the Alevi and Sunni groups, these researchers (!) contributed to the continuation of these prejudices.

There is a point proven by scientific research which shall be considered while inquiring Alevism since it shows how to approach the field.  Without comprehending this point, Anatolian Alevism can not be understood, and any explanation based on this erroneous foundation will naturally be unscientific and faulty.  Alevism in Anatolia can only be comprehended by focusing on the religious and cultural influences the Turkish masses faced as they migrated from their homelands to Asia Minor .  So there is no historical or sociological validity in searching the roots of Anatolian Alevism in the events which led to the Sunni-Shi’ite division.  This is the conclusion of the foreign and Turkish scientific researches.(4) The only key to understanding Alevism is this syncretism(5) formed as a result of the Turkish masses’ centuries long interaction with different beliefs, cultures in different geographies and time periods.

In short, Anatolian Alevism is heterodox (6) Islam formed as a result of this syncretism.  This heterodox Islamic understanding resulting from historical and social factors, is a ‘volk Islam’ based on an oral tradition as opposed to a written one, in which former beliefs and myths continued living in Islamic forms.

As we are approaching the third millennium, there are sociological and historical reasons why Alevism is not researched as it should be.  First, let’s take a look at that.

All ruling powers, since Ottomans (especially since the 16th century), mainly due to political reasons, let alone taking their needs into consideration, have perceived their existence as a potential threat in itself, and treated them differently from the Sunnis.  Due to certain prejudices, Anatolia ’s dynamic ethnic and religious structure have not been properly studied.  My observation is valid, partly for the Sunni, but mainly for the non-Sunni, heterodox Islamic and non-Islamic beliefs.  This can also be seen in the foreign works on Turkey .  In many Turkish and foreign works, there are such evaluations and erroneous historical analysis as if there is only the Sunni people in Anatolia .

Unfortunately this erroneous historical approach, was never criticized by the Islamist and pan-Turkist writers who try to appear as democrats and pro-civil society nowadays.  Instead they used to benefit from these erroneous approaches.  It is such a pity that today in Turkey , where millions of Alevis live, one can not even find a single phrase on Alevism in the textbooks.  It is really hard to believe:  Imagine a country, in which there are millions of Alevis, but no mention of Alevism in the history textbooks, and religion and ethics textbooks.

In fact, the main reason behind the contemporary Alevi-Sunni problem is ignorance and the imposition of Sunni beliefs to the people by all ruling powers since the Seljuks.  These same powers have also used psychological weapons and slandered the Alevis in a disgusting and inhuman way.  They made sure that these slanders and massacres were practiced in the name of religion.  In reality, the Sheikh-ul-Islam and the qadis  were more interested in the political ambitions of the sultan’s reign than the religion.  This shows that the main reason behind the Alevi-Sunni problem is political and not religious.

Today the sole determining condition for the Alevi-Sunni brotherhood, is whether the Sunnis are sincere or not.  It is a historical fact that for centuries the ruling powers have imposed prejudice against the Alevis only for political reasons, by using publications and books, ignorant qadis and hodjas (8), hiding behind religious excuses.  They have imposed ‘intolerance against Alevis’ into the subconscience of the Sunni people.  This isolated the Alevi masses which live in rural areas according to strict discipline and turned them into a closed community.  All these external factors, which I have been trying to summarize have prevented the proper study of Alevism.

There are also internal reasons stemming from these communities.  These nomadic and semi-nomadic groups represent the periphery, and a heterodox religious understanding against the official religious view.  Due to their social structure, they lacked educational and cultural institutions as opposed to the Sunni communities.  It is necessary to differentiate between the Bektaxä dergahs and these communities since the dergahs had a certain organization.  The Bektaxä dervishes and the masses under their influence, were institutionalized to a much higher level as opposed to the ocakzade dedes.  We can observe this clearly from the archival documents.(9)  The people who lived within the area of reach of the ocakzade dedes had a different organization than the Bektaxä dergahs.  Among these people, knowledge was transmitted orally from one generation to the other.  The oppression by the central authority and the occasional exiles were reflected in these communities’ lives; resulting for example in secret cem ceremonies.

Moreover, due to their social lives, these people had very limited written sources.  In our researches in the Alevi villages, and usually in dedes’ houses we ran into following works: Cönkler (which had nefes and deyi x ),  Menak i b- i Ä mam Cafer-i Sad i k, Hutbe-i Düvaz-deh Ä mam/Menak i b-i Seyyid Safi, a booklet called “Dergah- i Ali’de Seyyid Abdülbaki Efendi’nin Erenlere Muhib olan Temiz Ä nançl i Müminlere Gönderdi q i Mektup” also known as “Küçük Buyruk”, a manuscript in Ottoman called Makalat -i Haci Bektaxä -i Veli and Vilayet-name.  The Sunnis, during a centuries long period, within the framework of sheikh and mürid relationship established many educational institutions; and by this way hundreds of works were written.

The Alevi- Bektaxä researches (10) started in the beginning of 1920s with Franz Babinger and Fuat Köprülü’s articles (11) titled “Anadolu’da Ä slamiyet” in Darülfünun Edebiyat Fakültesi Mecmuas i .  Later on, we see the articles of Baha Said, Hamid Said, Süleyman Fikri (Erten) in  Türk Yurdu Dergisi.  These researches continued with the articles of Yusuf Ziya (Yörükan) in Ä stanbul Darülfünun Ä lahiyat Fakültesi Mecmuas i .  If we realize how this topic was ignored in the following decades, then we would understand the value of these researches much better.(12)

In 1928, Fuad Köprülü wrote the preface to Hasluck’s collection of articles “ Bektaxä lik Tetkikleri,” mentioning that a special research center was established in Türkiyat Enstitüsü, following the scientific and national need to examine historically the religious movements in Anatolia and other areas, and to collect data on these Turkish groups’ religious ethnography, in the period following the Turkish settlement of Anatolia.  This collection of articles by F. W. Hasluck, was the first publication of the research center “Anadolu’nun Dini Tarih ve Etnografisine Dair Tedkikat Merkezi”  Köprülü delineated four main areas of publication for this center: (13)

Documents which would enlighten the religious history of Turks and evliya (saint) legends,
Ethnographic data on this topic,
Original historical and ethnographic researches based on these data,
The translation of the works written by prominent western researchers.

As seen, towards the end of 1920s abundant research was already done, and Köprülü determined what was to be done.  It is sad to see that we still have not reached those goals which were set during those years.

Until 1980s, publications were mainly focused on deyi x , nefes, divan, buyruk, hüsniye, vilayetname and historical novels which were popular among the public.  S. Nüzhet Ergün’s “ Bektaxä x airleri ve Nefesleri,” A. Gölp i narl i ’s “Pir Sultan Abdal,” R. Çavdarl i ’s “Yeti x Ya Hac i Bekta x Veli,” Münir Yurdatapan’s “Hz. Ali Muaviye Mücadelesi,” and S. Aytekin’s “Hüsniye, Vilayetname, Buyruk” are some examples of the works published.  In addition to these some works based on researches were also done.  Ä smail Hakk i ’s “Çepniler Bal i kesir’de,” C. Bardakç i ’s “ Kizilbax l i k,” K. Türkmani’s “Alevilik, Do quxu , Yay i l ixi ve Hususiyetleri,” H. B. Erk’s “Tarih Boyunca Alevilik,” K. Samanc i gil’s “ Bektaxä lik Tarihi,” O. Bayatl i ’s “Bergama’da Alevi Gelini ve Ä nançlar i ,” Ä . K. Karaman’s - A. Dehmen’in “Alevilikte Haci Bektax Velä Älkelerä,” M. Sertoqlu’s “Bektaxäläk,” H. Gülcan’s “Pär Haci Bektax Velä ve Alevä-Bektaxäläqänän Esaslari,” M. Eröz’ün “Türkäye’de Aleväläk Bektaxäläk,” and  M. Yaman’s “Karaca Ahmet Sultan Hazretlerä” are some examples to such works.(14)

From the Çelebiler branch, lawyer Celalettin Ulusoy published “ Hac Bektax Velä ve Alevä Bektaxä Yolu ” in 1980.  Bedri Noyan dedebaba, who is an associate professor in medicine, published “ Bektaxä lik Alevilik Nedir?” in 1985.
I should also mention the periodicals here.

Beginning with the second half of the 1960s, the Alevis started publishing periodicals: Cem,(15), Ehlibeyt (16) and   Gerçekler(17).  These pioneering periodicals were not able to last long due to economic and other problems.  Alevi- Bektaxä periodicals had a boom following 1990.  However, the universities and other institutions continued to remain indifferent to the topic.

My general analysis concerning the post-1990 developments is as follows:

There is little academic interest to the topic.  As a result, the number of academic works is also very small.  I realized this when I searched through the theses in Istanbul Üniversitesi Merkez Kütüphanesi while preparing my MA thesis.  I ran into only 10 to 15 theses.  It is obvious that this is also the case in other universities and libraries.  We see that the foreign universities and researchers have a greater interest in the topic.  It is pleasing to see that young scholars like Karin Vorhoff (Orient Institute DMG), Markus Dreßler (Max Weber Institute), Hakan Yavuz (Utah University), Aykan Erdemir (Harvard University), Ayfer Karakaya-Stump (Harvard University), X ehriban X ahin (Texas University), Ä smail Engin (Deutsches Orient-Institute) and Ay x e Ceren De Barros (Kent University) have been interested in the topic.

Due to the disinterest of the scientific research institutions, the topic of Alevism is dominated by speculative and politicized works and such studies are legitimized.  They have been misleading Alevism from its main path.  These works approach Alevism from the point of researchers’ world views.  This had very negative effects on the masses.

Alevism was seen by many publishers, publications and authors as a marketable commodity.  Financial concerns became prior to scientific ones and we can see the negative results.  These so-called researches are all very similar to each other, and repeat common knowledge.  Commercial concerns determine the content of the works.
In the last few years, to fill the vacuum in the field, some small efforts have started.  Alevi-
Bektaxä Cultural Institute (ABKE) and European Alevi Academy (AAA) have been established in Germany .  In Turkey , Alevi- Bektaxä organizations have been insensitive to the issue.  In X ahkulu Dergah i , a research library was established as part of the infrastructure of a future research center.  Also, in Gazi University , “Türk Kültürü ve Hac i Bekta x Veli Ara x t i rma Merkezi” was established.  Many more foundations and associations have been planning similar projects.

I would like to mention some of the current periodicals: Alevilerin Sesi (Avrupa Alevi Birlikleri Federasyonu), Gönüllerin Sesi Karacaahmet Dergisi (Karaca Ahmet Sultan Derne q i), Cem Dergisi (Cem Vakf i ), Pir Sultan Abdal Dergisi (Pir Sultan Abdal Derne q i), Hac i Bekta x Veli Dergisi (Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Kültürü ve Hac i Bekta x Veli Araxtirma Merkezi), Dost Dost Dergisi (A xi k Veysel Kültür Derne q i), Kervan Dergisi(Kervan Grubu).  >From time to time, several journals are published in Turkey and abroad; however, they usually do not last long.

Today, a major part of Anatolia ’s social and religious history have been uncovered.  We have the great majority of the texts Alevis have been reading, such as: buyruklar, menak i pnameler, vilayetnameler, nefesler and deyi x ler.  Experts should research all these sources and discover Alevism’s unique place in Anatolia ’s social and religious history.  Associations and foundations which claim to serve Alevism have to fulfill these tasks ignored by the state.  Otherwise, one can not prevent the exploitation of the issue.

The main reason behind the prolongation of the Turkish-Kurdish and Alevi-Sunni conflicts is the fact that the Anatolian history has not been thoroughly researched scientifically which naturally resulted in biased evaluations from respective sides according to their world views.  Therefore, ethnic and religious biases, and subjective and unscientific approaches are causing many of the socio-cultural and political problems.

Unfortunately, this important topic has been neglected up to this day.  One should start thinking what can be done from this point on, and we should act immediately.  Since the previous governments, contrary to their responsibilities and duties, have abandoned Alevis, which form a big group of their citizens, ignored their problems, discriminated among the Anatolian beliefs; then we should take care of ourselves.  We should work to establish and support the institutions that can research the role and development of Alevism within the history of Anatolia which is the cradle of civilizations.

Such institutions which research what Alevism is and is not, and announces it to the world, can prevent misinformation.  We can neither say that Alevism is outside Islam, nor deny the existence of the pre-Islamic and non-Islamic elements adopted by the Alevis living in different geographical and social environments.  The same is also true for the Sunnis and others.  Therefore, it is worthwhile to establish institutions working with scientific methods to research thoroughly the issues I have mentioned in general.  Research itself is a very costly endeavor.  We should start training and supporting researchers in this field as well as financing field studies.  For the fulfillment of these significant tasks, we need the support of associations and foundations urgently.  Artificial divisions and conflicts shall be forgotten and these services shall be given.

This bibliographic work is a small contribution of mine to the often neglected field of Alevi- Bektaxä studies.  This tiring work’s help to the young scholars in the field is enough to please me.  All of the works on Alevilik- Bektaxä lik are not presented in this bibliography, but which are rather planned for a follow up study.  We must keep in mind the difficulties of discovering all the sources in a given field.  As a result, this work is a selected bibliography.  Moreover, in this bibliography I have not followed some of the international standards (i.e. giving the page number) used in similar works.  I have also included some books and articles which are not thoroughly on Alevism but has certain relevant parts.  Since this bibliography is a first in its field, it has several deficiencies.  I hope to come up with a more extensive bibliography in accordance with the bibliographic rules.  Certainly all the errors are mine.  I would be very pleased if dear friends forward their criticisms and advice.
 
Ali YAMAN
Ä stanbul 1998

Footnotes
(1) Tahir Harimi Balc
i o q lu’s work, Türk Tarihinde Mezhep Cereyanlar i (1940), is an interesting example of this.  Prof. Hilmi Ziya  Ülken’s preface to this work is a short but excellent reply to this erroneous thesis.
(2) One can find abundant material on this issue, in Sebilürre
x ad Mecmuas i .
(3) “
X ah Ä smail ve Devri” (Shah Ismail and his era), Baku , 24-26 September 1997.
(4) These researches are referring to the studies done by Fuad Köprülü, F.W.Hasluck, Irene Melikoff, Süreya Faruki and Ahmet Ya
x ar Ocak.  For example, the following work published within the last couple of years, presents valuable information: Alexandre Popovic et Gilles Veinstein, BEKTACHIYYA Etudes sur l’ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektash , Ä stanbul, 1995.
(5) See Ahmet Ya
x ar Ocak, Babailer Ä syan i , Alevîli q in Tarihsel Altyap i s i Yahut Anadolu’da Ä slam-Türk Heterodoksisinin Te x ekkülü, 2nd ed., Ä stanbul, Dergâh Yay i nlar i , 1996, pp.80-81.
(6) Based on Ahmet Ya
x ar Ocak, we can say that the term heterodoxy has three parts: social, political and religious.  Heterodoxy represents an opposition to the established orthodoxy.  Heterodoxy lacks the support of the political authority and represents the periphery. Ocak, ibid. p. 77.
(7) This negative tradition which used fetva and ferman during the Ottoman times, is still present from time to time.  For example, the case of a religious official who argued that the funeral prayer of Alevis can not be made was brought to the attention of the Turkish Parliament.  See, TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Dönem:19, Y
i l:2, Cilt:27, 54.Birle x im, ss.168-173.
(8) Suraiya Faroqhi, presents valuable information about the organization of
Bektaxä tekkes based on the archival material: Suraiya Faroqhi, “The Tekke of Hac i Bekta x : Social position and Economic Activities”, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE MIDDLE EAST STUDIES, VIII, 1976, pp.183-208.  See also, Peasants, Dervishes, and Traders in the Ottoman Empire , London , 1986; and Der Bektaschi-Orden in Anatolien, Wien, 1981.  Faroqhi gives quantitative data based on the archives.  Bektaxä dergahs were much more institutionalized than the Alevis under the influence of ocakzade dedes.  A good example of this is the list of 141 manuscripts which were in Abdal Musa Dergah i .  For this list, see Süheyla Kurtulmu x Bilge, Osmanl Ä mparatorlu q u’nda Bektaxä Tekkeleri, Ä .Ü.Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Bölümü Mezuniyet Tezi, Ä stanbul, 1975, pp.10-11.
(9) I should here mention the works written in the Ottoman script: R
i fk i , “ Bektaxä S i rr i (1909-1912)”; “ Bektaxä S i rr i Müdafaas i na Mukabele (1912)”; Ahmet Cemaleddin, “ Bektaxä S i rr i Nam Risaleye Müdafaa (1912)”; M.Süreyya X eyh Baba, “ Bektaxä lik ve Bektaxä ler (1914)”; Ruhullah, “ Bektaxä Nefesleri (1924)”; M.Seyfeddin bin Zülfikâr, “ Bektaxä Ä lmihali (1925)”, Ali Ulvi Baba, “ Bektaxä Makalat i (1925); Besim Atalay, “ Bektaxä lik ve Edebiyat i (1924)”.  One should also read Prof. Ahmet Ya x ar Ocak’s valuable commentary on Alevi- Bektaxä publications and works: Ahmet Ya x ar Ocak, “Alevîlik ve Bektaxä lik Hakk i ndaki Son Yay i nlar Üzerine (1990) Genel Bir Bak ix Ve Baz i Gerçekler-I”, TAR Ä H VE TOPLUM, July 1991, 91: 21.
(10) These articles are not directly on Alevilik-
Bektaxä lik, however, since they approach the Anatolian Islam within the framework of the religious and cultural movements influencing the nomadic Turcomans beginning in Central Asia , they give us important evidence.
(11) For the articles of these researchers see the bibliography section.
(12) F. W. Hasluck,
Bektaxä lik Tetkikleri, Ä stanbul, Anadolu’nun Dini Tarih ve Etnografisine Dair Tedkikat Merkezi Ne x riyat i , 1928, pp. VI-VII.  In that period, pan-Turkism was a very influential movement.
(13)For the books of these researchers check the bibliography.
(14) Published by Abidin Özgünay.
(15) Published by Do
q an K i l i ç X eyhasanl i .
(16) Published by Mehmet Yaman.