Özet:

This article examines the relationship between the master-treatment-text that begins to transform after the closure of the medreses in connection with the modernizing social and political factors. Specifically, Ali Yakup is focused on the work of Jenkçiler and Feyzullah Hacıbayriç. Although there are differences between Turkey and Yugoslavia in terms of religious education and religious-state relations, the common points in the experiences of Ali Yakup Cenkçiler and Feyzullah Hacıbayriç are remarkable. Turkey and Yugoslavia are two countries where the Ottoman balance is alive in terms of Islamic tradition and corporate memory. In Yugoslavia, the treasures were closed to Turkey later than Nazareth. In the 19th century, Ali Yakup Jenkçiler and Feyzullah Hacıbayriç who were born in this geography were also those who received a traditional method of medrese education. Feyzullah Hacıbayriç Tito, a scientist who lived in Saraybosna, continued his activities in Yugoslavia and addressed a wide range of demands with his Mesnevî readings. He spent his educational and educational life mainly in Yugoslavia, but has visited countries such as Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Ali Yakup Jenkçiler's asset and tetris experience was not only within Yugoslavia. After being born in Kosovo, he went to Saraybosna to study, and from there he passed to Egypt and completed his high school at the Al-Ezher University. After completing his education, he preferred to return to Turkey instead of his own country. From 1957 he settled in Turkey until his death, he mainly continued his work in Istanbul and studied the Ihyâu ulûmi'd-din lessons. Despite the difficult conditions of the period, both names have tried to be in contact with important scientists in close geography. This makes it easy for them to speak and understand different languages. They know Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Bosnian and Albanian. One reason for their familiarity with writing works and classical texts is their domination of different languages. They have been given the opportunity to feed from many different sources. It is a remarkable fact that both names have been dealing with the library for a long time. Ali Yakup Jenkçiler in Cairo, Feyzullah Hacıbayriç in Saraybosna worked in the library of writing works. The works they choose to read are meaningful in this regard. Their interest in the texts they read was strengthened by the experience they gained outside rather than by the lessons in the Theological Faculty. Both names are considered as authority on Mesnevî and Ihiâ. The approaches to the transmission of Islamic information in the social and political order in which the secular paradigm of both names is shaped are similar. In the periods when Ali Yakup Jenkçiler taught lessons in Turkey only a limited number of students can go to the School of Theology and Imam Hatip. The content of the education is under the control of the government. In Yugoslavia, Muslims are in difficult conditions to get religious education. Though the Tito regime recognizes freedom to religious life from time to time, it has for many years allowed only one medresen to operate and has seriously interfered with the content of the given education. On the other hand, in both countries, the rate of read-writing and higher education has increased, and the resources that the crowds feed in this process have varied. The followers of the lessons of Ali Yakup Cenkçiler and Feyzullah Hacıbayriç were mainly young people who came to receive education in the big cities, readers and writers and traders. Through the texts they read, they made it possible for these sections to meet with the basic Islamic information sources. Both names are closely connected with the surroundings of Tasavvuf. It is possible to say that the need for Turkey and the texles in Yugoslavia are not officially active, but a living tasavvuf culture continues. Feyzullah Hacıbayriç's visits to Kosovo and Turkey resulted in the fact that the bizatihi himself was inserted to Kadirîli. In this way, they had the opportunity to expand their accessibility, and they alsoined their ties with traditional teaching. It is possible to say that both names have avoided to clearly criticize political powers and the ruling ideologies of the state. Instead, they showed critical approaches to certain practices. However, Feyzullah Hacıbayriç Tito was kept under surveillance by the administration, and even several times in the early years of the regime. Ali Yakup Jenkçis continued their lessons regularly in the mosques and in their requests. It is also known that Feyzullah Hacıbayriç continues his lessons in camii and tekkel. He also served as a teacher in the official institutions. But they did not take the highest level of responsibilities in the Teological Faculty of the time and the Dianet (Riyaset for Bosnia). It is possible to say that they do not get regularly teaching duties in the state institutions, and that they have provided a significant flexibility in determining the contents of the lessons they teach from different sections to requests. This study is the result of a study based on memories and verbal sources. There is no comprehensive research on the work of Ali Yakup Jenkçiler but a compilation of the stories of his requests has been prepared. Many of the requests to participate in their courses have been focused on academic studies over time and have served within the university. There are many other names that are not included in the memories, though they have participated in the lessons. Almost all of the sources about the Feyzullah Hajbayrich are untouched. Academic research on his life and scientific studies has been revealed, but unfortunately there has not been an examination of his demands. In this study, literary sources are also referred to. There is not yet sufficient detail about the two names of the participants in their lessons. In this regard, it is important to work deeply on the information that Ali Yakup Jenkçis and Feyzullah Hacıbayriç will continue to transmit their demands that are alive.

Özet:

This article investigates the changing relationship among teacher, student and the text after the closure of madrasa in relation to modernizing social and political variables. Specifically, it focuses on the activities of Ali Yakup Cenkçiler and Fejzullah Hadzibajric. There are certain differences between Turkey and Yugoslavia in the fields of religious education and state-religion relations, yet the experiences of Ali Yakup Cenkçiler and Fejzullah Hadzibajric bear striking resemblances.  Turkey and Yugoslavia are the two countries where the Ottoman tradition prevailed over Islamic culture and institutional memory. Ali Yakup Cenkçiler and Fejzullah Hadzibajric were born in the Balkans during the 1910s and madrasas were still open in the region at that time. Both of them received madrasa education during the 1920s. Fejzullah Hadzibajric lived in Sarajevo, ran several courses and produced his works during the time of Tito’s Yugoslavia. He ran Masnawī classes and reached a large audience from different social background. Though he spent most of his life in Yugoslavia he paid visits to Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Whereas, Ali Yakup Cenkçiler was born and raised in Kosovo, but went to Egypt for higher education and completed his degree at al-Azhar University. After finishing his works in Egypt he did not return to Yugoslavia and moved to Turkey in 1957. He focused on Ihyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn classes and spent nearly 20 years in teaching the same text. Despite difficult conditions of the time they sought to reach prominent scholars in the region. Both Cenkciler and Hadzibajric had a strong command in different languages, which helped them form connections with scholars, read classical texts and study manuscripts. They knew Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Bosnian and Albanian. It was also noteworthy that for a long period they worked in various libraries. Ali Yakup Cenkciler worked in a library in Cairo and Fejzullah Hadzibajric worked in Husrev Beg Library in Sarajevo. In that regard the texts they selected to study were obviously intentional choices. Their familiarity with the texts did not come from the training they received in the Theology Faculty but from the education they got outside the school. Both scholars were considered as the authority on Masnawī and Ihyā’. How they approached the transmission of Islamic knowledge in a secular context displays intriguing patterns. For instance, during the time Ali Yakup Cenckiler were running his courses there were only a limited number of students at Theology Faculties and Imam Hatip Schools. The content of education was under the control of the state. In Yugoslavia it was even harder for Muslims to receive religious education. The Tito regime did only allow one madrasa to operate and strictly controlled the content of education in this institution. In the meantime, the level of literacy and higher-education significantly increased in both countries. The followers of their courses were mainly university students in big cities, men of letters and middle class craftsmen. It is through the reading of texts of Cenkciler and Hadzibajric that made it possible for those groups to achieve the fundamentals of religious knowledge. It is also known that both scholars were in close contact with Sufi circles. Though both in Turkey and Yugoslavia Sufi lodges were officially not allowed to operate, the culture of Sufism was still very much alive. Fejzullah Hadzibajric was himself known to be attached to the Qādirī order. Through these channels they were able to extend their availability and strengthen connection with the traditional doctrine. Both Cenkciler and Hadzibajric avoided criticizing governments and official ideology openly. Instead they criticized certain practices. Despite this circumvention, Hadzibajric was arrested in the early years of the Tito regime. It is documented that Ali Yakup Cenkciler continued his courses at mosques and various houses and Fejzullah Hadzibajric was also known to have ran his courses in the mosques and the lodges. They periodically taught at official institutions but did not take higher posts at the Theology Faculties or the Diyanet/Riyaset institutions. The fact that they did not take permanent positions as instructor in state institutions made it possible for them to plan their own programs and reach the wider audience. This study relies on memoires, biographies and oral sources. There is still no comprehensive study on the works of Ali Yakup Cenkçiler, but we have an edited volume of memoires collected from his students. Many of his students have pursued scholarly career and joined the university. There are many other students who did not take part in the memoir book. Almost all of the sources on Fejzullah Hadzibajric are in the Bosnian language. We have scholarly research on his works and studies but there is no specific research on his students. In this regard an in-depth study of the oral sources on their lives and works will be a valuable contribution to the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler: