II. ABDULLAH HAN ÖZELİNDE ŞEYBANÎ HANLIĞINDA ŞEHZADELİK KURUMU

Toplumların devlet olma sürecinde güçlü, savaşçı, ileri görüşlü, bilgin kısacası her bakımdan maharetli bir liderin varlığı önemlidir. En eski tarihlerden itibaren Türk devlet anlayışında lider olacak kişiye Tanrı'nın bazı nitelikler bahşettiği ve bu niteliklerin bebeklik çağından itibaren fark edilebildiği inancı hakimdir. Bu nitelikler bireyin yetiştirilme güçlendirilmektedir. Aynı anlayışın 1500 yılında Maveraünnehir bölgesinde kurulan "Şeybanî Hanlığı" devletinde de hakim olduğunu görmekteyiz. Buradan hareketle mevcut çalışmada devletin Muhammed Şeybanî Han'dan sonra en güçlü lideri olarak kabul edilen II. Abdullah Han'ın nezdinde Şeybanî hanedan üyelerinin çocukluk yılları, eğitim süreci ve yönetici kisvesiyle geleceğe nasıl hazırlandıkları incelenecek ve bu vesileyle 16. yüzyıl Türkistan idarecilerinin liderlik özellikleri tartışılacaktır. Yapılan incelemeler neticesinde şehzadelere tahsis edilen bu yetkiler dolayısıyla hanedan mensuplarının, aileye yeni katılan erkek üyeleri en iyi şekilde yetiştirmeği ve yönetim becerisi kazandırmayı hedeflediklerini görmekteyiz

THE INSTITUTION OF PRINCIPALITY IN THE SHIBANID KHANATE ON THE INSTANCE OF ABDULLAH KHAN II

It is important that communities have a powerful, warrior and forward-looking leader in the process of becoming state. From the earliest times, in the Turkish statehood understanding there has been a dominating belief that the God grants some qualifications to the future leaders of the society which can be realized since the childhood. We are witnessing that this understanding also dominates in the Shibanid Khanate founded in the Transoxiana, in the year 1500. In this study from this perspective the childhood years and the educations of the members of the Shibanid dynasty, their upbringing will be explained. Upon this qualifications of leaders who administered Turkestan in 16th century will be discussed. All this matters will be stated on the instance of Abdullah Khan II who was claimed as the most powerful leader of khanate after the reign of Muhammad Shibani Khan. In result of researchs it could not be found to any working examined directly this subject. In this study while it is described the principality institution of Shibanid Dynasty was utilized from native chronics of Shibanids and Ashtarkhanids periods. Additionally it used some works that was examined on the dynastic conception and administration systems of Ottoman, Babur and Safavid States that they were fed from the same sources with Shibanid Dynasty. In 1500s of years Shibanid State shaped with the traditions of turk-moghul and the laws of Islam. This information takes part very clearly in Divan of Shibani Khan founding the Shibanid State. Shibani Khan says in his Divan “I am the servant of God. By birth I am from the house of Chingiz”. With these words he has claimed to Islam and Chingis’ heritage. It is seemed that Shibanid state was the collective property of the dynastic family. “Sovereign Partnership” understanding is emerged as sharing of the economic sources or the land in the periods of the most powerful of the state. Political and economic structure of the state was divided among the power focuses in the weak times of central authority. The princes are important elements of the Shibanid dynastic family and the government staff. The Princes with the title of “Sultan” have second lines in administration. They are obedient to central authority and have managed as federative their domination regions when the state was strong. It should not be forgotten that The Princes are both the local administrators and the successors of the Khans. II. Abdullah Han Özelinde Şeybanî Hanlığında Şehzadelik Kurumu 185 Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/5 Spring 2015 In such a case, it is necessary that the princes who have contributed to the Khanate administrative system since they were born, are intelligent and brave. Morever it is obligatory that they have a good quality education and know administrative system closely. Therefore the princes had to learn two knowledges. These are the science (ilm) and the virtue (fazl). According to their education system the best science is the craft. In begining of the the princes’ education life were made a ceremony like was performed in their birth. In these ceremonies were prayed and were presented the gifts to the princes. Then the education continued with calligraphy and training of Kuran. Finally the exercises connected with the art of war were practiced. As a result, a Shibanid Prince was grown up as both a good poet, a skillful writer and a fearless warrior. The circumcision ceremonies started after the education periods of the princes was completed. The Sultans who were circumcised in 14 or 15 years old were accepted that they fulfilled their childhood era. Besides the Princes married at the age of 14 or 15 with permission given by the Sharia (Islamic laws). So the prince who owned a family serviced to his state firstly in the court later in the sanjak (the training ground, the province). Author of Sharafname-yi Shahi, Tanish praised Shibanid ruler Abdullah Khan II and his performance at the ruling. In this wise Tanish actually described the qualities which every king of Shibanid Khanate had to have. According to Tanish, Abdullah Khan II had the extraordinary qualities since his birth. He was preserved from all evil. Morever he gained the necessary knowledge and experience with excellent intelligence which was granted to him by God, in a short time. Abdullah Khan II took the courses from the best scholars of Ubeydullah Khan period at his childhood years. Tanish said that Abdullah Khan II obtained the qualities like “greatness”, “independence” “happiness” “patience” and “power” by means of these course. Consequently it can be said that the prince Abdullah had the multi-directional character thanks to his good upbringing from the aspects of science, religious and military. Shibanid Khanete kept up with efforts of Abdullah Khan when the Khanate faced on some problems inside and outside. For example Abdullah Khan II and Tashkent’s ruler Barak Khan repeatedly struggled because they wanted to seize the city of Bukhara. In foreign affairs belonging of Khorasan property caused to long-term conflicts between Safavid and Uzbek States. Finally the winner became Abdullah Khan as long as the current political conjuncture permitted.

___

  • ALGAR, H. (2006). “Nakşibendiyye”, DİA, C. 32, İstanbul: Diyanet Vakfı yay, 335-342.
  • ALİKILIÇ, D. (2002). XVII. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Saray Teşrifâtı ve Törenleri, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • AHMETYANOV, R. (2001).Tatar Tilinin Kıskaca Tarihi-Etimolojik Suzligi, Kazan: Tatarstan Kitap Neşriyat.
  • AKA, İ., (2000). Timur ve Devleti, Ankara: TTK.
  • ANNANEPESOV, M. (2003). “Relations Between The Khanates and With Other Powers”, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 5 (Development in contrast: from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century), Paris: Unesco press, 83-89.
  • BABAJANOV, B. (1999) “Biographies of Makhdum-ı Aʻzam al-Kâsânî al-Dahbîdî, Shaykh of the Sixteenth-Century Naqshbandiya”, Manuscripta Orientalia, 5/2 June St Petersburg: Tsesa press, 3-8
  • BALABANLILAR, L. (2012). Memory And Dynastic Politics in Early Modern South and Central Asia Imperial Identity in the Mughal Empire, London.
  • BARTHOLD, W. (1986). “Abd Allah B. Iskandar”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, V.1, Leiden: Brill press, 46-47.
  • BURTON, A. (1997). The Bukharans A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History 1550-1702, England: Curzon press.
  • BURTON, J.A. (1990-1991) “Relations Between The Khanate of Bukhara and Ottoman Turkey, 1558- 1702”, International Journal of Turkish Studies, C.V/1-2, 83-103.
  • BURTON-PAGE, J. (1993). “Mirza”, The Encylopaedia of Islam, V.VII, Leiden: Brill press, 129.
  • ÇELİK, M. B. (2012). “Şibanîler ve Astrahanîler Devri Yerli Vakayinameleri”, History Studies: International Journal of History, IV/2.
  • ÇINAR, G. K. (2011). Safevî ve Özbek Siyasî İlişkileri ve Osmanlı’nın Tesiri (1524-1630), Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, , Afyonkarahisar: Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • DİCKSON, M. B. (1958). Shah Tahmasb and The Uzbeks (The Duel for Khurasan with Ubayd Khan: 930-940/1524-1540. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, USA: University of Princeton Department for Oriental Studies.
  • Ebulgazi Bahadır Han. (1925). Türk Şeceresi (Şecere-i Türk), çev. Doktor Rıza Nur, İstanbul: Matba-i Amire.
  • EROĞLU, H. (2004). Osmanlı Devletinde Şehzadelik Kurumu, Ankara: Akçağ yay.
  • FARUQUİ M. D. (2012). The Princes of the Mughal Empire 1504-1719, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
  • GARDNER, V. R. (2006). The Written Pepresentations of a Central Asian Sufi Shaykh: Ahmad ibn Mawlana Calalal-din Khwajagi Kâsânî “Makhdum-i Aʻzam” (D. 1542), V.I, The University of Michigan, Near Eastern Studies.
  • GÜNDOĞDU, A. (1995). Hive Hanlığı Tarihi (Yadigar Şibanileri Devri: 1512-1740), Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi.
  • Hafız Taniş İbn Mir Muhammed Buharî, Şerefnâme-i Şâhî, C. I, Sazman-ı Esnad ve Kitâbhâne-i Millî Cumhur-ı İslam-ı İran, Bahş-i İranşenasi.
  • HAİDAR, M. (2002). Central Asia in the Sixteenth Century, New Delhi: Manohar press.
  • HOWORTH, H. H. (1880). History of the Mongols From The 9th to Th 19th Century, V2/D2, London.
  • KANAR, M. (1998). Büyük Sözlük Farsça-Türkçe, İstanbul: Birim yay
  • KILIÇ, N. (1999). Siyasal Kültürde Değişim: Şeybanî Han ve Özbek Siyasal Oluşumu (1500-1510), Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
  • KILIÇ, N. (1997). “Change in Political Culture: The Rise of Sheybani Khan”, Cahiers d’Asie centrale, III/4, 57-68, http://asiecentrale.revues.org/473, (ET: 12.01.2015).
  • KURTARAN, U. (2014). “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Şehzadelik Kurumuna Yeni Bir Bakış: Şehzadelerin Doğumu, Yetiştirilmesi ve Tahta Çıkış Süreçleri Hakkında Bir Değerlendirme”, Turkish Studies, Volume 9/4 Spring, 759-778.
  • MCCHESNEY, R.D. (2011). “Islamic culture and the Chinggisid restoration: Central Asia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”, The New Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 3 The Eastern Islamic World Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries, Edt. David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
  • MCCHESNEY, R. D. (1990), Central Asia in the 16th-18th Centuries”, Encyclopedia Iranica, V/2, 176-193, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/central-asia-vi: ET:12.01.2015.
  • MEDLİN, W. K., Cave, W. M., Carpenter, F. (1971). Education and Development in Central Asia A Case Study on Social Change in Uzbekistan, Leiden: Brill press.
  • Mir Seyid Şerif Rakım Semerkandîm, (1380). Târîh-i Râkım, hzl. Menuçehr Sutude, İntişârât-ı Movkufat, Tahran.
  • Muhammed Yar bin Arap Kutgan, (1385). Musahharü’l-Bilâd, (Târîh-i Şeybâniyân), hzl. Nadire Celalî, Tahran: Miras-ı Mektup.
  • Muhammed Yusuf Münşî. (1380). Tezkire-i Mukîm Hânî Seyr-i Târîhî, Ferhengî ve İctimâî-yi Maveraünnehir der ahd-ı Şeybâniyân ve Astırahâniyân H/K. 906-1116), hzl. Fereşte Sarrafan, Tahran: Miras-ı Mektub.
  • MUKMİNOVA, R.G. (2003). “The Khanate (Emirate) of Bukhara”, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 5 (Development in contrast: from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century), Editor Chahryar Adle and Irfan Habib, Paris: Unesco press, 35-46.
  • MUKMİNOVA, R. G. (2007). “The Role of Islam in Education in Central Asia in the 15th -17th Centuries”, Oriente Moderno, Nuova serie, Anno 87, Nr. 1, , http://www.jstor.org/stable/25818118 (ET: 12.02.2015).
  • MUKMİNOVA, R. G. (1972). Navayi Asarlari Lugati, Taşkent: Gafur Gulam Namındagi Edebiyat ve Sanat Neşriyatı.
  • Şemseddin Sami. (1317). Kâmûs-ı Türkî, Yay. Haz. Ahmed Cevdet, İstanbul.
  • TOSUN, N. (2001). “Kâsâniyye”, DİA, C. 24, İstanbul: Diyanet Vakfı yay.
  • VÁMBÉRY, A. (1873). History of Bokhara from the Earliest Period Down to the Present, London: Henry S. King& Co press.