¹ For a groundbreaking study of the caravan trade and Central Asian commerce in the eighteenth century, see Levi, Scott, ‘India, Russia and the Eighteenth-Century Transformation of the Central Asian Caravan Trade’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 42 (4), 1999, pp. 519–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Tekkes are also referred to as dergâh, hangâh/khanqah, zawiya/zaviye, and kalanderhane. In this paper, I switch between referring to the Sultantepe lodge as a tekke and a dergâh. Generally speaking, tekkes are lodges affiliated with Sufi orders, where spiritual adepts of a particular shaykh receive their mystical training. Disciples of the shaykh as well as those with an interest in Sufism frequent these structures on given nights when the zikir (dhikr) (religious ceremonies commemorating the unity of God) are practised collectively. The tekkes discussed in this paper were generally affiliated with the Naqshbandi order. They were mainly established to host travelling Central Asians, and could be found in a number of Ottoman cities, including Istanbul, Bursa, Konya, Adana/Tarsus, Damascus, Jerusalem, Cairo, Mecca, and Medina. A groundbreaking study on the Uzbek tekkes was first published in 1980 by Grace Martin Smith, who spent several years visiting these tekkes, interviewing family members and patrons as well as documenting the unusual sources available in the Sultantepe Tekkesi. See Grace Martin Smith, ‘The Özbek Tekkes of Istanbul’, Der Islam, Band 57, Heft 1, 1980, pp. 130–39. Recently, Thierry Zarcone has published a fascinating study of a similar lodge in Jerusalem. See Zarcone, Thierry, Sufi Pilgrims from Central Asia and India in Jerusalem (Tokyo: Center for Islamic Area Studies at Kyoto University, 2009)Google Scholar. For studies of the Ottoman Naqshbandiyya, see Algar, Hamid, ‘A Brief History of the Naqshbandi Order’, in Gaborieau, M., Popovic, A. and Zarcone, T. (eds), Naqshbandis: Historical Developments and Present Situation of a Muslim Mystical Order (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1990)Google Scholar; LeGall, Dina, A Culture of Sufism: Naqshbandīs and the Ottoman World, 1450–1700 (New York: State University of New York Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Abu-Manneh, Butrus, Studies on Islam and the Ottoman Empire in the Nineteenth Century: 1826–1876 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Karpat, Kemal H., The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar. For studies that focus on the religious character and functions of these tekkes, see Thierry Zarcone, ‘Histoire et croyances des derviches Turkestanais et Indiens à Istanbul’, in Gaborieau, Popovic and Zarcone (eds) Naqshbandis. For the role of the tekkes in the politics of pan-Islamism, see the work of Azmi Özcan, in particular ‘Özbekler Tekkesi Postnişini Buharalı Şeyh Süleyman Efendi Bir “Double Agent” mı idi?’, Tarih ve Toplum, Nisan 1992, sayı 100, pp. 204–08. Also, Eraslan, Cezmi, II Abdülhamid ve Islâm Birliği (Istanbul: Ötüken, 1992)Google Scholar.

³ In particular, I am interested in Bruno Latour's attempt to return to the original meaning of ‘the social’, by taking it apart and examining how it is constituted—by which actors and in which sites. This paper attempts to ‘follow the actors themselves’ in order to recapture the assemblages and connections forged with Ottoman state and society. This attempt to explore Ottoman-Central Asian networks is still nascent, but one which will allow us to see more clearly what a ‘social’ network looked like and how such interactions shaped both trans-imperial connections and Central Asians’ views of Ottoman power. See Latour, Bruno, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

⁴ For a discussion of the fears of tsarist administrators and how they influenced Russian imperial policies, see Brower, Daniel, Turkestan and the Fate of the Russian Empire (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003)Google Scholar. See also Khalid, Adeeb, ‘Pan-Islamism in Practice: The Rhetoric of Muslim Unity and its Uses’, in Özdalga, Elisabeth (ed.), Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005)Google Scholar for a discussion of the spectre of pan-Islamism in the imperial imagination.

⁵ For example, see sources quoted in Brower, Turkestan; Eileen Kane, ‘Pilgrims, Holy Places, and the Multi-confessional Empire: Russian Policy Toward the Ottoman Empire Under Tsar Nicholas I, 1825–1855’, PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2005; and the British series, Rush, A. de L. (ed.) Records of the Hajj: A Documentary History of the Pilgrimage to Mecca (London: Archive Editions, 1993)Google Scholar.

⁶ Quatert, Donald, The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 92Google Scholar. These visiting pilgrims eventually established several Central Asian lodges in the neighbourhood of the mosque and shrine complex. For more information on these sites, see İsa Gürler, ‘Eyüp’te bir Kalenderhane’ (‘The Eyüp Müfti’), Diyanet Aylık Dergi, May 2007, pp. 56–57; Thierry Zarcone, ‘Kaşgari Tekkesi’, in Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, pp. 458–86; and Grace Smith, Martin, ‘The Kaşgari Dergâh in Istanbul,’ Archivum Ottomanicum 14 (1995–1996), p. 215Google Scholar.

⁷ İsmail Ayvansarayî, Hadikâtü’l-Cevâmi (Istanbul: Amire Matba'ası, 1281/1864–5), Vol. II, p. 240.

⁸ For an overview of each of these structures, see the articles listed in footnote 13 (on the Kashgari tekkes in Eyüp); see also M. Baha Tanman, ‘Buhara Tekkesi’, in Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, p. 325; and ‘Özbekler Tekkesi’, Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, pp. 199–200.

⁹ M. Baha Tanman, ‘Özbekler Tekkesi’.

¹⁰ These documents have survived to this day in the private archive of the Özbekkangay family, which is called the Sultantepe Özbekler Tekkesi (SÖT) Archive in this paper. This document is dated 24 Haziran 1331 (7 July 1915). Because the SÖT documents and registers are not classified, hereafter they will be referred to by the date of the document or the date of the register and the entry number.

¹¹ SÖT Archive, document dated 24 Haziran 1331 (7 July 1915). The original text reads: ‘Buhara ve Hive hanlıkları ahalisiyle Türkistan-ı Rus ve Çinî Müslümanlarından hacc-ı şerife azimet ve berayı ziyaret-i Darü’l-hilâfet-i Aliye ve merkez-i Saltanat-ı Seniyyeye gelen gurebâ ve fukarânın iskân ve iâşesine mahsus ve küll-i yevm küşade bir müessesse-i hayriyedir.’

¹² For example, the Turkestani tekke in Tarsus stipulated in its vakfiye (endowment deed) that guests could only stay for a maximum of three days. See Halim Baki Kunter, ‘Tarsustaki Türkistan Zaviyelerinin Vakfiyeleri’ (‘The Waqf Endowments of the Turkestani Dervish Lodges in Tarsus’), Vakıflar Dergisi, Sayı VI, Baha Matbaası, İstanbul, 1965, s. 31–50. This seems to have been the norm. In her study of Ottoman hospitality and charity, Miri Shefer explains that while patients were allowed to stay in Ottoman hospitals for unlimited periods, ‘this hospital policy was in marked contrast to that in tabhanes, hans, and caravansarays’ which, she states, ‘enforced the maximum three-day-stay rule, after which visitors could no longer enjoy free food, lodging, and other services offered there’. See Shefer, Miri, ‘Charity and Hospitality: Hospitals in the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern Period’, in Bonner, M., Ener, M. and Singer, A. (eds), Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003)Google Scholar. Although the criteria were not explicitly listed in the document cited in footnotes 10 and 11, the tekke registers discussed in this paper indicate that lodgers from all over the Caucasus, Iran, and Central Asia were welcomed, as long as they were truly in need. Wealthy individuals were turned away, as were individuals who had fake passports and travel documents. As discussed in detail below, the tekke did not welcome lodgers who incited violence, drank alcohol, or used hashish.

¹³ See for example, Smith, ‘The Özbek Tekkes’; and Karpat, The Politicization of Islam.

¹⁴ For background on the shaykh, see the work of Özcan, in particular ‘Özbekler Tekkesi Postnişini Buharalı Şeyh Süleyman Efendi’. Also, see Eraslan, II Abdülhamid. In an unpublished Master's thesis, Gökhan Çetinsaya describes Süleyman Efendi's central role in writing and distributing (in India and Afghanistan) pamphlets (risale) calling on all Muslims to support the Ottomans in the 1877–78 war through jihad and financial contributions. See Gökhan Çetinsaya, ‘II. Abdülhamid Döneminin Ilk Yıllarında ‘Islam Birliği’ Hareketi (1876–1878)’, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Mayıs 1988.

¹⁵ Atâ Efendi is widely known for the role that he played in the Turkish national resistance movement. Due to his role in transferring weapons through the tekke, as well as the tekke's association with figures such as İsmet İnönü (1884–1973), commander of the Turkish Western Army in the War for Independence and the second president of the Turkish Republic, and the novelist Halide Edip [Adıvar] (1884–1964), Sultantepe is said to be the only Sufi lodge that was not shut down by Atatürk in 1925, and that continued to function into the mid-twentieth century. This helps to explain why the sources used in this paper have remained in the tekke. For works in Turkey on the role of Sultantepe in the Turkish War of Independence see Gürler, ‘Eyüp'te bir Kalenderhane’; Mehmet Altun, ‘Kuvayı Milliyecilerin Gizli Sığınağı ve Ardındaki Bilinmeyenler: Özbekler Tekkesi’, Toplumsal Tarih (Nisan, 2003), pp. 18–23; Recep Çelik, Milli Mücadelede Din Adamları (Istanbul, 2004); and Ercan Karakoç, ‘Milli Mücadelede Üsküdar’, Üsküdar Sempozyumu, pp. 151–59.

¹⁶ SÖT Archive, document dated 15 Şaban 1323 (15 October 1905). The petition is addressed to another unspecified shaykh who clearly had some power in expediting the passage to Mecca on the imperial caravan boats. The letter is stamped, but the name of the shaykh cannot be made out. It was probably written by Mehmed Salih Efendi (died 1915), who was the postnişin from 1904 to 1915. He succeeded İbrahim Ethem Efendi (1829–1904), who was the postnişin from 1855 to 1904.

¹⁷ After 1516 the Ottoman sultan became the protector of the Holy Cities and sent an annual ‘purse’ or sürre, which covered all of the expenses of the pilgrimage caravan, payments to the Bedouin tribes for its safe conduct, payments to the Sharif of Mecca, as well as payments to the people connected with the services in religious institutions in Mecca and Medina. Until 1864, the sürre travelled overland to Damascus. However, from 1864–1908 it departed Istanbul by sea, via steamships. After 1908, trains of the Hijaz Railway replaced steamships. The practice ended with the First World War and Ottoman loss of control over the Hijaz. For a study of the sürre in Turkish, see Atalar, Münir, Osmanlı Devletinde Sürre-i Hümayûn ve Sürre Alayları (Ankara: Diyanet Işleri Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1991)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ SÖT Archive. The register is labelled ‘Üsküdar Sultantepe'sinde Kain Özbekler Dergâhının Nüfus ve Kayd Defteri, fî 1 Zilkade 1316/fî 1 Mart 1315’ [‘The Identity and Registration Register of the Uzbek Dergâh located in Üsküdar, Sultantepe. From 13 March 1899’]. Actual dates 13 March 1899 to 9 January 1906. See entries 372 to 397. Referred to hereafter as SÖT Register 1.

¹⁹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 397. Ahmed Tohta is listed as a 15-year-old from China (Çin).

²⁰ This was an endowed hospital specifically for the Muslim poor. It was built by Bezmiâlem Valide Sultan, the mother of Sultan Abdülmecid. The hospital is discussed in further detail below and in footnote 56. For a study of Ottoman hospitals, see Shefer, ‘Charity and Hospitality’.

²¹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 417.

²² SÖT Register 1, entry no. 190.

²³ Brower, Daniel, ‘Russian Roads to Mecca: Religious Tolerance and Muslim Pilgrimage in the Russian Empire’, Slavic Review, 55 (3), Autumn 1996, p. 568CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ In her 1980 article, Grace Martin Smith also lists an earlier register, the resmi misafirin defteri, which covers the years 1224–1241/1809–1826, and which includes 254 entries. However, I was not able to locate this source.

²⁵ See the catalogue of the Istanbul Muftiate Archive, Şeyhülislamlık (Bab-ı Meşihat) Arşivi Defter Kataloğu, Bilgin Aydın; Ilhami Yurdakul; İsmail Kurt (Üsküdar, Istanbul: ISAM Yayınları, 2006).

²⁶ Silverstein, Brian, ‘Sufism and Governmentality in the Late Ottoman Empire’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 29 (2), 2009, p. 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ It should be noted here that after the conquest of Central Asia, tsarist Russia tried to extend its protection to Chinese Muslims as well: in several communications with the Foreign Ministry in 1912 the Russian Consulate in Istanbul claimed that Chinese subjects were also under its protection. Fearing that this would open up the possibility of Chinese Muslims claiming rights to concessions (imtiyaz) earlier granted to Russian subjects in post-war treaties and disadvantageous capitulation agreements, the Ottomans denied this claim and reiterated that Muslim subjects of imperial powers with whom the Ottoman state did not have diplomatic relations were under the protection (himaye) of the caliphate. Thus, while the number of petitions from Bukharans and Muslims from Russian Turkestan declined significantly in the early twentieth century, the number of petitions from Chinese Muslims continued to increase. See the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi – BOA), Hariciye Siyasi 1304, gömlek 2, 1895–1917.

²⁸ SÖT Register 1.

²⁹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 142.

³⁰ With regard to mystical orders, the term ‘seyyah vermek’ usually means to decree a period of travel for a member of the order. In the context of these registers, we find that guests are usually given a seyyah only after engaging in some sort of unacceptable behaviour such as imbibing alcohol, playing cards in the coffeehouse, engaging in violence or inappropriate sexual relations. Hence, I generally translate the term as being expelled. However, expulsion may not be the correct term in this case.

³¹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 50. It is not clear whether Hacı Sabir Şah's age was registered correctly upon arrival, since it seems odd that the shaykh would expel a 101-year-old man.

³² SÖT Register 1, entry no. 42.

³³ SÖT Archive. The register is labelled ‘Üsküdar Sultantepe'sinde Özbekler Dergâhında Mukim Dervişânın Künye Defteridir’ [‘The Register of Names of Dervishes Residing in the Uzbek Dergâh at Üsküdar, Sultantepe’]. It is signed by Mehmed Necmeddin Efendi, and the dates of the entries are from 27 Kanunievvel 1322 to 18 Teşrinievvel 1339 (9 January 1907 to 18 October 1923) (hereafter referred to as SÖT Register 2). Because the register covers a broad period, which includes the First World War, the figures discussed here should be regarded as very preliminary and pending further research that takes into account the effects of Ottoman and Russian involvement in the war on the pilgrimage from Central Asia.

³⁴ SÖT Register 1, entries 173–178 and 180.

³⁵ Based on data in SÖT Register 1.

³⁶ Based on data in SÖT Register 2. From 1899 to 1906, there were 242 people registered from ‘China’, while in the period 1907 to 1923 there were only 110. The numbers from the Ferghana Valley reveal less change, and were 169 and 166 respectively.

³⁷ SÖT Archive, letter from Eyüp Dergâh to Sultantepe postnişin, dated 10 Eylül 1315 (22 September 1899).

³⁸ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 192.

³⁹ Unfortunately, information in the guest registers about guests’ occupations is sporadic until 1914, when professions begin to be listed regularly.

⁴⁰ SÖT Register 1, entries 150 and 151.

⁴¹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 156.

⁴² Personal communication in August 2009 with Belkıs Özbek, who is the daughter of Şeyh Atâ Efendi and grew up in the Sultantepe Tekkesi.

⁴³ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 190.

⁴⁴ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 21.

⁴⁵ SÖT Register 1, entry 196.

⁴⁶ SÖT Register 2, entry no. 173.

⁴⁷ Brower, ‘Russian Roads,’ p. 580.

⁴⁸ See Kunter, ‘Tarsustaki Türkistan Zaviyelerinin Vakfiyeleri’.

⁴⁹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 19.

⁵⁰ SÖT Register 2, entry no. 130.

⁵¹ See, for example, Nadir Özbek, ‘Philanthropic Activity, Ottoman Patriotism, and the Hamidian Regime, 1876–1909’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 37, 2002; and Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Sosyal Devlet: Siyaset, İktidar ve Meşruiyet 1876–1914 (İletişim Yayınlari, 2002). In the context of his work on the late Ottoman public sphere, Özbek argues that the Hamidian regime provided Ottoman subjects with social welfare services, and over time endowed the regime with some of the functions of a welfare state. However, he calls this a ‘surrogate’, in the sense that it fulfilled these welfare functions with almost no supportive institutional infrastructure. In keeping with Selim Deringil's views of the Hamidian era, Özbek characterizes sultanic fundraising campaigns such as poor and disaster relief as ‘orchestrated performances of sultanic generosity’ or ‘philanthropic performances’, which sought to propagate the image of the sultan as a benevolent monarch and familiar paternal figure. These practices, he argues, continued into the regime of the Committee for Union and Progress, but were more highly bureaucratized and depersonalized.

⁵² BOA, Dahiliye Nezareti Evrakı, Emniyet-i Umumiye-Beşinci Şube 64/16 – 29 Nisan 1336 (29 April 1920).

⁵³ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 39.

⁵⁴ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 49.

⁵⁵ BOA, Dahiliye Nezareti Evrakı, Muhaberât-ı Umumiye Idaresi 11/93 – 1328.Ca.06 (16 May 1910). Petition dated 23 Nisan 1326 (6 May 1910) within file.

⁵⁶ Established by Bezmialem Valide Sultan, the mother of Sultan Abdülmecid (reigned 1839–1861), the Gureba-yı Müslimîn Hastanesi (Hospital for the Muslim Poor) opened on 2 April 1845 with 201 beds. It had 12 wards, a pharmacy, a head doctor, and a doctor's assistant alongside rooms designated for a pharmacist, surgeon, and the director. Additionally, it had a kitchen, hamam, and laundry facilities. It was the first endowment hospital the city had seen and its vakfiye stipulated that it was for the free treatment of poor and kimsesiz (destitute, literally ‘without anyone’) Muslims. According to its 1847 nizamname (regulations), there was a ward set aside for infectious diseases. Additionally, incurable patients were not to be accepted, and those who were cured were to be given a yolluk or travel provisions, upon their discharge. The vakfiye went on to stipulate that patients be fed nutritious meals with meat when possible, and that onions—even if the market rate was a gold piece per bulb—should always be purchased for the kitchens. In 1864, the hospital was repaired for the first time. Eye and surgery wards were added in 1892–93, and an ear, nose, and throat specialization was added in 1905. The following were added in the next few years: in 1909 a laboratory, in 1912 a library, in 1914 x-ray facilities, in 1915 orthopaedics and pathological anatomy, and in 1918 urology departments. See Bayram, Sadi, ‘Sağlık Hizmetlerimiz ve Vakıf Gureba Hastahanesi'ne Ait Bir Defter,’ Bezmialem Valide Sultan Vakıf Gureba Dergisi, XII, Istanbul, 1985, p. 37Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ BOA, Zabtiye Nezareti, 11 April 1909.

⁵⁸ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 283.

⁵⁹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 381.

⁶⁰ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 90. (Note: there are two entries both listed as 90; this is the second one in the register.)

⁶¹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 95

⁶² Silverstein, ‘Sufism and Governmentality’, p. 183.

⁶³ Gündüz, İrfan, Osmanlılarda Devlet-Tekke Münasebetleri (Ankara: Seha Neşriyat, 1984), p. 155Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, p. 79.

⁶⁵ Smith, ‘The Özbek Tekkes’, p. 139. Also, Zarcone writes that the Buhara Dergâhı was ‘just like a consulate’ for important personages who passed through Istanbul. See ‘Buhara Tekkesi’ in Dünden Bügune İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, p. 325.

⁶⁶ SOT Register 1, entry no. 16.

⁶⁷ SOT Register 1, entries 31 and 32.

⁶⁸ SÖT Archive. The first document, which is undated, reads, ‘Acizleri Hokand ahalisinden olub bu kere Devlet-i Aliyye tâbiyetine dâhil olmak üzere misafir bulunduğum Üsküdar'da Özbekler dergâhı şeyhi Sadık Efendi'den olbâbda lazım gelen ilmuhaberi ahz eylemiş olduğumdan fimaba'd katiyyen tâbiyet-i ecnebiyye iddiasında bulunmayacağımı mübeyyin işbu senedim mumaileyh şeyh efendiye i'ta kılındı.’ The second letter, which is dated 25 Şubat [1]319 (9 March 1904) states, ‘Bad-i sened oldur ki, Acizleri Merginan ahalisinden olub Devlet-i Aliyye tåbiyetine dâhil olmak üzere şeyh efendiden lazımgelen ilmuhaberi ahz eylemiş olduğumdan fimaba'd tâbiyet-i ecnebiyye iddiasında bulunmayacağıma mübeyyin işbu senedim mumaileyh şeyh efendiye i'ta kılındı.’ The formal renunciation of Russian citizenship was contingent upon the proper bureaucratic procedures. On this point, see Meyer, James H., ‘Immigration, Return, and the Politics of Citizenship: Russian Muslims in the Ottoman Empire, 1860–1914’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 39, 2007, p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the chapter on navigating subjecthood/citizenship in my forthcoming dissertation study, ‘Trans-Imperial Trajectories: Sufis, Revolutionaries and the Construction of Ottoman-Central Asian Relations, 1865–1914’.

⁶⁹ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 45.

⁷⁰ SÖT Register 2, entry no. 62.

⁷¹ SÖT Register 2, entry no. 293.

⁷² SÖT Register 2, entries 199 and 201.

⁷³ SÖT Register 2, entry no. 229.

⁷⁴ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 361.

⁷⁵ SÖT Register 1, entry no. 114.

⁷⁶ SÖT Register 2, entry no. 130.

⁷⁷ Istanbul Müftülüğü Arşivi, Meclis-i Meşayih Defterleri, Tekke ve Zaviye Defterleri, Genel no. 1777, Tesvid tarihi 17 Cemaziyülahir 1327, Tebyiz Tarihi 22 Cemaziyülahir 1327.

⁷⁸ Istanbul Müftülüğü Arşivi, Meclis-i Meşayih Defterleri.

⁷⁹ The school was a primary school called the Ravza-i Terakki Mektebi, which meant the ‘garden of progress’ school. It was established in 1892. From 1910 to 1926, it was called the İttihat ve Terakki Okulu, or School of Union and Progress. For more information on the school, visit http://www.uskudar-meb.gov.tr/ilce/ayrinti1.asp?id=71, [accessed 20 November 2011].

⁸⁰ SÖT Register 1, entry no.15.

⁸¹ The Andijan Uprising of 1898 was an anti-tsarist rebellion that took place in the Ferghana Valley, led by a Sufi Naqshbandi shaykh named Muhammad Ali Sabir, more commonly referred to as Madali or Dukchi Ishan. The shaykh was apparently led to believe by his advisers that his jihad against Russia was supported by the Ottoman sultan, Abdülhamid II (reigned 1876–1909). The approximately 2,000 men who took part in the event attacked a local Russian garrison, but were unsuccessful. Although it ultimately failed, the uprising led to a major re-evaluation of the administration of the governor-generalship of Russian Turkestan and only heightened colonial administrators’ fears of pan-Islamism. For studies of the 1898 Andijan Uprising, see Komatsu, Hisao, ‘The Andijan Uprising Reconsidered’, in Sato, Tsugitaka (ed.), Symbiosis and Conflict in Muslim Societies: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004)Google Scholar; Babadžanov, Baxtiyar M., ‘Dūkčī Īšān und der Aufstand von Andižan 1898’, in von Kuegelgen, Anke, Kemper, Michael and Frank, Allen (eds) Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, Vol. II: Inter-regional and Inter-ethnic Relations (Berlin: Schwarz, 1998), pp. 167–91Google Scholar; A.S. Erkinov, ‘The Andijan Uprising of 1898 and its Leader Dukchi-ishan described by Contemporary Poets’, TIAS Central Eurasian Research Series No. 3, Tokyo, 2009; and Atabekoghli, Fozilbek, Dukchi Eshon Vaqeasi (Toshkent: O'zbekiston Davlat Nashriyoti, 1927)Google Scholar.

⁸² On coffeehouses, see Cengiz Kırlı’s, ‘The Struggle over Space: Coffeehouses of Ottoman Istanbul, 1780–1845’, PhD thesis, SUNY Binghamton, 2000.