Çalışmada tezkirenin tanımı yapılarak, hangi anlamlara geldiği üzerinde durulmuştur. Daha sonra kısaca evliya tezkirelerinin genel olarak Feridüddin Attar'ın eserinden tercüme edildiği ancak bu eserlerin sadece bir tercüme olmadığı, müellifin tercüme ettiği eserlere farklı malumatlar katarak yeni bir eser oluşturduğu üzerinde durulmuştur. Tasavvufla alakalı olan bu eserlerin bütün devirlerde okuyucu kitlesi olduğundan söz edildi. Burada kısaca tasavvuf edebiyatının ne olduğu üzerinde de duruldu. Aslında bu türün (tezkire) Doğu Türkçesinden edebiyatımıza geçmesine rağmen Doğu Türkçesiyle sınırlı sayıda eser vermesinin sebeplerinin farklı olduğu mevzusu dile getirildi. Yine Feridüddin Attar'ın Tezkiretü'l-Evliyasının bilinen Doğu Türkçesine yapılan tercümesinden bahsedildi. İkinci bölümde, Ali Şir Nevayi'nin Nesaimü'l-Mahabbe Min Şemayimi'l-Fütüvve ve Muhammed Sıddık Rüşdi'nin Tezkiretü'l-Evliya eserinde geçen on evliya genel olarak karşılaştırıldı. Bu evliyalar Cafer-i Sadık, Üveys Karani, Utbe İbni'l-Gulam, Ebu Ali Şakik-i Belhi, Ebu Cazim Mekki, Muhammed Vası, Ahmet Hanbel, İbrahim Ethem ve İmam-ı Şafiidir. Yaptığımız bu mukayesede, iki önemli tezkirecinin aynı ve farklı yönleri üzerinde duruldu. Bu değerlendirmeler genel olarak ele alındı. Türk tezkireciliğine ne gibi katkıları olduğu anlatıldı. Tezkireler okunurken nelere dikkat edilmesi gerektiği ve konuyla ilgili görüşlere yer verildi. Sonuç kısmında ise bu türle (Doğu Türkçesinde tezkire) alakalı kaynakların kısıtlı olduğundan ve bunun birkaç önemli sebebinden bahsedildi. Mevcut kaynakların daha çok karşılaştırma yapılarak çalışılırsa verimli olacağı üzerinde durularak çalışma tamamlandı

The paper defines tadhkirat, and elaborates in which meanings it has been used. It is stated that unlike most tadhkirats that simply are translated from the Tadhkirat al-Awliya of Fariduddin Attar, in this paper the author created unique work by including additional information to the translation. It is also mentioned that as the papers are on Sufism they have attracted interest from readers throughout the years. The paper also elaborates on what the Sufi literature is. It is stated that despite that the tadhkirat is passed to our (Ottoman) literature from Eastern Turkish literature, due to different reasons only handful of works found in original Eastern Turkish language. Known translation of the Tazkirat al-Awliya of Fariduddin Attar to Eastern Turkish language were also mentioned. In the second part, ten awliyas from the Tadhkirat al-Awliya of Ali Shir Nevai and Muhammed Siddik Rushdi were compared. These awliyas are Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, Uveys Karani, Utbet-ul Gulam, Ebu Ali Shakik-i Belhi, Ebu Cazim Mekki, Muhammad Vasi, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibrahim bin Edhem and Imam Shafi. In this comparison, similar and distinctive characteristics of two tadhkirat author were elaborated. These works were analysed in general and their contribution to the tadhkirat in Turkish literature explained. Paper explains crucial points to pay attention when reading a tadhkirat. In conclusion part, the scarcity of tadhkirat sources in Eastern Turkish language and some main reasons for this were mentioned. It is stated that further works with comparison of the existing sources will be productive In general, tezkire writers either inspired by the Tazkirat al-Awliya of Fariduddin Attar or just translated it. Nevertheless most of this works were not just translations, writers usually added their commentary as well as new informations. As a result unique tezkires specific to each region, country, nation and in different languages were formed. In our literature there exist translated tezkires other than that of Attar’s. Generally based on Sufism ideology, these works were favorite books throughout time. As it is known, “Sufism is a collection of products developed in order to reach Allah by means of spiritual journey where humankind tells what he saw, heard, read as well as shares feelings and satisfactions”. Ali-Shir Navai, is one of the first writers that used Eastern Turkic language in his tezkire, Nesaimu’l Mahabbe Min Shemayimi’l-Futuvve. Muhammed Siddik Rushdi, is one of the few, other than Navai, who wrote tadzkire in Eastern Turkic language. Rushdi clearly stated that, he wrote is tadhkirat for people who does not speak Arabic or Persian. In a time period when most Turkish poets writing their poems in Persian, Rushdi, chose Eastern Turkic language for this purpose. As a result, Rushdi contributed immensely to Turkish language. He is suspected to be born in 1707. He also has books other than the Tadhkirattul-Evliya. This paper focuses on ten Evliyas mentioned in Ali-Shir Navai’s Nesaimu’l Mahabbe Min Shemayimi’l-Futuvve and Muhammed Siddik Rushdi’s Tadhkirattu’l Evliya. Nevai wrote his tadhkirat in 15. century. It is not known for sure when Rushdi wrote his tadhkirat, but it is thought to be finalized in 1780. In this paper, information given in abovementioned two books on Evliyas are analyzed. These Evliyas are, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, Uveys Karani, Utbet-ul Gulam, Ebu Ali Shakik-i Belhi, Ebu Cazim Mekki, Muhammed Vasi, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibrahim bin Edhem, Hatem Asim and Imam Shafi. Topics of the tadhkiras on Evliyas are not only related to Sufism, but also cover many aspects of cultural and social aspects. For these reason, tadhkirats on Evliyas are protected throughout the history, and made contribution to society. It can be said that Tadhkiratu’l Evliya of Muhammed Siddik Rushdi is the second largest tadhkirat by volume after Ali-Shir Navai’s Nesaimu’l Mahabbe Min Shemayimi’l-Futevve, as Navai’s tadhkirat includes more Evliyas. Informations supplied by Navai are brief and substantial. Rushdi on the other hand gave more stories and details on Evliyas’ lifes. This can be pointed out as main difference between two works. Rushdi also included poems from Ali-Shir Navai. When reading tadhkirats on Evliyas, one shall be quite careful. In case of any uncertainty or dispute, that topic shall be discussed with competent people and in relation to other credible sources. Otherwise, misunderstandings can take place. Suleyman Uludag on this topic mentioned that, it is infinitely beneficial to consider that in each society there may exist such people. In explaining events from tadhkirats on Evliya, in order to understand true message, statements in conflict with time and environment shall be avoided. People who fails to reach conclusions and interlink the events shall restrain themselves from speaking on such matters. Both of the works give variety of information on top of religious matters. For example, in Rushdi’s tadhkirat (p.150, 19-22) six hazards of eating too much is elaborated. Even some issues that we still fail to solve, such as spitting in the streets, is explained in very understandable manner even for that time period. In general, both works are written in understandable and simple language. Rushdi’s tadhkirat has incredible depictions, such as “bir deste”/a pack, “sicak”/warm, “pakize”/pure and etc. It is important to notice that both works have been written in Eastern Turkic language, during time period when Persian language widespread, and even most Turkish poets were writing in Persian. Even though Muhammad Siddik Rushdi’s work has been written much later than that of Ali-Shir Navai, and each of them use different sources the fact several events can be found in both books in the same manner shows how credible these works are as a source. Both books in general is based on religious promoting tendency, such that mentioned events in these works usually emphasize rewards rather than punishment. In his work, Nevai gives more clear information on Evliyas that originated from Belh which may be associated with the fact that himself being from Herat. Having a ruler who treasured science and literature was very crucial for both authors. Huseyin Baykara’s and Hoca Kefek Beg’s materially and morally supported the Ali-Shir Navai and Muhammed Siddik Rushdi respectively. Only handful of tadhkirats written in Eastern Turkic language, thus sources for this kind is very limited. Some of the reasons for this, is failure to protect the literature and even failure to recognize them. Muhammed Siddik Rushdi’s tadhkirat, a monumental work, was left in the shelves for years as it was thought to be someone else’s. Ozbek poet Ikrameddin Astankulov, while doing a research in Nizami Pedagogical Institute in Tashkent coincidentally realized that the work he thought to be “Kisasu’l-Enbiya” is in fact “Tadhkiratt’ul Evliya-Turki” by Muhammed Siddik Rushdi. This incident, as many others clearly indicates how such important sources were unused for ages, which resulted in deprivation of monumental pieces of works in Eastern Turkic language. For that reason, researches in this are needed to be intensified. Another reason for perplexity is the differentiation of signature (naming) in such works. In order to eliminate such confusion, setting of standards by competent people is of a crucial importance. In-depth analysis of such limited sources with comparison will have tremendous contributions to Eastern Turkic literature and language