Author's note: This article represents the first fruits of a broader study on historical legitimation in the Hamidian era. I would like to thank the Fullbright Commission and the Department of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University, for their support in making this work possible.

¹ Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (New York, 1967), pp. 218–19.Google Scholar

² Necipoğlu, Gülru, “Süleyman the Magnificent and the Representation of Power in the Context of Ottoman-Hapsburg Rivalry,” Art Bulletin, 71 (1989), pp. 409–19.Google Scholar

³ Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

⁴ Elliot, John, “Power and Propaganda in the Spain of Philip IV,” in Rites of Rulers (Philadelphia, 1985), p. 151.Google Scholar

⁵ Habermas, Jurgen, Legitimation Crisis (Boston, 1973), p. 71.Google Scholar

⁶ On the debate concerning the Ottoman Caliphate, see Arnold, T. W., The Caliphate (London, 1965), pp. 129–58.Google Scholar For a more recent appraisal of this claim and its ramifications, see Fleischer, Cornell, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1986), pp. 283–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Duguid, Stephen, “The Politics of Unity: Hamidian Policy in Eastern Anatolia,” Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1973), pp. 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Manneh, Butrus Abu, “Sultan Abdulhamid II and Shaikh Abulhuda Al-Sayyadi,” Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979), pp. 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ İnalcik, Halil, “Osmanli PadiŞahi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 4 (1958), p. 70.Google Scholar Recent research, however, does point in the direction of a more self-conscious caliphate than İnalcik would seem to admit; see Fleischer, , Bureaucrat and Intellectual, p. 284Google Scholar. See also Sakaoǧlu, Necdet, “Padişahlik ve Sadrazamlik Kurumu,” in Tanzimat'dan Cumhuriyet'e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1985), p. 1279.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Necipoǧlu, Gülru, “The Ottoman Hagia Sophia,” paper delivered at the “Structure of Hagia Sophia” colloquium, 19 May 1990, Princeton University.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ortayli, İlber, Osmanli İmparatorluğunda Alman Nüfuzu (Istanbul, 1983), p. 54.Google Scholar The titles are Halife-i Muslimin, Ziʾllullah fiʾlarz, and Zat-i Kudsiyet Tacidari respectively.

¹² Ochsenwald, William, Religion, Society and the State in Arabia: The Hijaz under Ottoman Control, 1840–1908 (Columbus, Ohio, 1984), p. 4.Google Scholar

¹³ Başbakanlik Arşivi (Prime Ministry Archives, Istanbul; hereafter BBA); Yildiz Esas Evraki (Yildiz Palace Collection; hereafter YEE), 11/1419/120/5. The date is given as 1319 Cemaziyelevvel (August 1901).

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ BBA; YEE, 14/292/126/8, 8 Temmuz 1301 (18 July 1895).

¹⁸ Manneh, Butrus Abu, “Sultan Abdulhamid II and Shaikh Abulhuda al-Sayyadi,” Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979), p. 138.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 140: Abu Manneh states that between 1880 and 1909, some 212 pamphlets and books attributed to Abulhuda circulated in the empire.

²⁰ Salibi, Kamal, “Middle Eastern Parallels: Syria-Iraq-Arabia in Ottoman Times,” Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979), p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ YEE, 14/1623/126/10, 11 Safer 1312 (15 August 1894), Ali Galip Bey to Imperial Chamberlain Mehmet Arif Bey.

²² Ibid.

²³ BBA, Bab-i Ali Evrak Odasi (BEO), no. 81245, 5 Şevval 1315 (28 February 1898). The order was duly communicated to the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Sheikh ul-Islam. I owe thanks for this reference to Dr. Idris Bostan.

²⁴ YEE, 14/88–116/88/12.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ YEE, 14/1188/126/9, 9 Ramazan 1309 (8 April 1892). Süleyman Hüsnü Paşa was something of an illustrious exile. He had been instrumental in the deposition of Sultan Abdülaziz in 1876; wrote a wellknown tract proposing reform, the His-i Inkilab; and is representative of the soldier-intellectual cadres that ran the empire. He was exiled to Baghdad by a suspicious Sultan Abdülhamid, who made a point of eliminating all the statesmen involved in the deposition affair. On Süleyman Hüsnü Paşa, see Türk Meşhurlari Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1943), p. 360.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. The dictionary definition of “firak-i dalle” is given as “religious sects which have strayed from the true path”; see Develioǧlu, Ferit, Osmanlica-Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lügat (Ankara, 1982), p. 196.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. I have found no indication that the book was ever written.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ YEE, 14/257/126/8. Although the report itself is undated, it was prepared in accordance with imperial instructions sent on 26 August 1907.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid. In addition, Shiʿite pilgrims often had to pay a discriminatory higher rate for camel rental and “special fees as protection money” (Ochsenwald, , Religion, Society and the State, pp. 63–64).Google Scholar

³³ Lewis, Bernard, “The Ottoman Empire in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Middle Eastern Studies, 1 (April 1965), p. 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1973), pp. 317–19.Google Scholar

³⁴ For a critical appraisal of the Ottoman caliphate, see Arnold, , The Caliphate, pp. 139–55.Google Scholar This is a standard work which is now somewhat outdated. For more recent views on the subject, see Findley, Carter, “The Advent of Ideology in the Islamic Middle East,” Studia Islamica, 55 (1982), p. 155.Google Scholar

³⁵ İnalcik, , “Osmanli Padişahi,” p. 71Google Scholar; see also Ortayli, İlber, Imparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyili (Istanbul, 1983), p. 32Google Scholar; Keddie, Nikki, “The Pan-Islamic Appeal: Afghani and Abdulhamid II,” Middle Eastern Studies, 3 (October 1966), p. 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ For the most extreme view that pan-Islamism was a figment of the Western powers' imagination, see Koloǧlu, Orhan, Abdülhamit Gerçeği (Ankara, 1987).Google Scholar For the opposite extreme, which argues that he actively promulgated pan-Islamism in the Muslim world, see Kisakürek, Necip Fazil, Ulu Hakan Abdülhamid Han (Istanbul, 1981)Google Scholar; and Müftüoǧlu, Mustafa, Her Yönüyle Sultan İkinci Abdülhamid (Istanbul, 1985).Google Scholar

³⁷ Akarli, Engin, “The Problems of External Pressures, Power Struggles, and Budgetary Deficits in Ottoman Politics under Abdulhamid II, 1876–1909: Origins and Solutions,” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1976, pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

³⁸ Yasamee, Feroze, “The Ottoman Empire and the European Great Powers, 1884–1887,” Ph.D. diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, 1984, p. 29.Google Scholar

³⁹ YEE, C, 1/27–28/53/136, 12 Ramazan 1321 (3 December 1903).

⁴⁰ Ibid. It is unclear what Ali Ferruh meant by the “Islamic leaders of Australia” (“Avustralya ruisayi İslamiyesi”). He could have meant Oceania, and the reference may have been to the leaders of Islamic Indonesia.

⁴¹ YEE, 14 253/126/8, 21 Ramazan 1303 (24 June 1886), “Report on the Dutch East Indian Colonies” (Felemenk Devleti Müstemlekâtindan Cezayir-i Hindiye Hakkindadir).

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ Ibid. All such reports, however, have to be taken with a grain of salt as they were invariably written to please. Many Javanese did, however, stay in Mecca and Medina for extended periods (see Ochsenwald, , Religion, Society and the State, p. 41Google Scholar: “The Javanese…constituted a large part of the Meccan population”).

⁴⁵ BBA, Bab-i Ali Evrak Odasi (BEO), 87419 396/9/7, Maarif Giden, 18 Muharrem 1316 (11 June 1898).

⁴⁶ BBA, BEO 5 Mayis 1315 (18 May 1899), Consul M. Kâmil to the Foreign Ministry.

⁴⁷ Reid, Anthony, “Nineteenth-Century Pan Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia,” Journal of Asian Studies, 26 (1967), pp. 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ BBA, Irade Dahiliye 30, 24, Cemaziyelevvel 1313 (23 November 1895), Şurayi Devlet no. 2317.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ BBA, Yildiz Resmi Marazat 15/38, 17 Cemaziyelevvel 1299 (7 April 1882), Şurayi Devlet no. 72.

⁵¹ India Office Political and Secret Home Correspondence, L/P&S/3/239, vol. 52, p. 937, Acting Consul Moncrieff to Lord Granville.

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ Ibid.

⁵⁴ BBA, İrade Dahiliye 68044, 15 Rebiyulahir 1299 (3 March 1882).

⁵⁵ Ochsenwald, William, The Hicaz Railroad (Charlottesville, Va., 1980), pp. 60–74.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ YEE, 39/2128/129/118, 7 Sevval 1311 (14 April 1894). Assessment by Imperial ADC Mirliva Derviş of the person of Başala and the presentation of the latter's report.

⁵⁷ Ibid.; see also İnalcik, Halil, “Osmanlilarda Saltanat Veraset Usulü ve Türk Hakimiyet telakkisiyle ilgisi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 1 (1959), pp. 69–94.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ BBA, Yildiz Hususi Maruzat 214/63, 16 May 1888. Telegram from the Ottoman consul in Bombay to the Foreign Ministry. The Ottoman official, İbrahim Efendi, gave details of a recent article unfavorable to the Ottoman caliphate, which was published in the Punjab Times. He promptly wrote a rebuttal and published it in the Advocate of India.

⁵⁹ Habermas, , Legitimation Crisis, p. 72.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Smith, Anthony, The Ethnic Origin of Nations (Oxford, 1986), p. 156.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Lewis, , Emergence of Modern Turkey, p. 337.Google Scholar

⁶² Hobsbawm, E. J., “The Social Function of the Past,” Past and Present, 55 (May 1972), p. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ YEE, 31/1950 Mukerrer/45/83, 22 Zilkade 1299 (6 October 1882).

⁶⁴ Lambton, Ann K. S., State and Government in Medieval Islam: The Jurists, ch. 11, “The Imam/Sultan: Fadl Allah b. Ruzbihan Khunji” (Oxford, 1985).Google Scholar The quotation is from Allah's, FadlSuluk al-Muluk as quoted in Lambton, p. 182.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ In his major work, Dai al-Rashad, Abulhuda stated: In time the Caliphate was transmitted to the Ottomans and reached Abdulhamid II. Already known for his virtue and devotion the Sultan after his ascendancy showed religious zeal, upheld the shariʿa and worked for the protection of the umma. As demanded by their faith, Muslims ought to be obedient to him.

Manneh, Abu, “Sultan Abdulhamid II and Shaikh Abulhuda al-Sayyadi,” Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979), p. 141.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Hobsbawm, , “The Social Function of the Past,” p. 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Suleiman, Ezra, “Self-Image, Legitimacy, and the Stability of Elites: The Case of France,” British Journal of Political Science, 7 (1977), p. 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ Even the avowed enemies of Abdülhamid, the Young Turks, often capitulated and returned to the sultan's service. For a very striking example of the ambivalent attitude of the Young Turks towards Abdülhamid, , see Ubeydullah Efendiʾnin Amerika Hatiralari (Istanbul, 1989), pp. 56–60.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ochsenwald, , Religion, Society and the State, p. 6Google Scholar; on the sometimes uneasy relationship between the sharifs and the Porte, see Manneh, Butrus Abu, “Sultan Abdulhamid II and the Sharifs of Mecca (1880–1900),” African and Asian Studies, 9 (1973), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ochsenwald, , Religion, Society and the State, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Khoury, Philip S., Urban Notables and Arab Nationalism (Cambridge, 1983), p. 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² Rogan, Eugene, “The al-Karak Revolt of 1910: Ottoman Order at Odds with Local Order,” paper presented in the panel, “New Order and Local Order: Continuity and Crisis in Everyday Life” at the annual MESA meeting, Toronto, November 16, 1989 (cited with permission of the author).Google Scholar

⁷³ Khoury, Philip, Syria and the French Mandate: The Politics of Arab Nationalism (Princeton, N.J., 1987), p. 4.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Kayali, Hasan, “Arabs and Young Turks: Turkish-Arab Relations in the Second Constitutional Period 1908–1918,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1988, p. 139.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 199.

⁷⁶ Hourani, Albert, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939 (Cambridge, 1986), p. 269.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ortayli, İlber, “Osmanli Imparatorluǧunda Arap Milliyetçiliği,” Tanzimat'dan Cumhuriyet'e Turkiye Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1985), pp. 1032–36.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ On the issue of the “credibility gap,” see Elliot, “Power and Propaganda,” p. 171. The picture that Elliot paints of late 17th-century Spain, when the state attempted to shore up its domestic prestige with universal religious pretensions, is an apt comparison in this context.

⁷⁹ India Office L/P/3/229, vol. 42, p. 197; India Office Memorandum, 23 September 1880.

⁸⁰ Ataöv, Türkkaya, “Mevlana Azad ve Türkiye,” Tarih ve Toplum, 14 (1990), pp. 31–34.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Harper, William and Miller, Harry, Singapore Mutiny (Singapore, 1984), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

⁸² Wright, Mary C., The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism (Stanford, Calif., 1957), p. 204.Google Scholar