Klasik dönem Osmanlı kroniklerine göre "mülhid" ve "zındıklara" yönelik kullanılan dil
Language used for "mülhid" and "zındıqs" according to Ottoman chronicles of classical period
Yazar: BİLAL GEDİKOĞLU
Danışman: DR. ÖĞR. ÜYESİ GÜLAY YILMAZ DİKO
Akdeniz Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Tarih Ana Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2018
Konu: Tarih = History
Dizin: Kronikler = Chronicles ; Mülhid = Mülhid ; Osmanlı Devleti = Ottoman State ; Osmanlı tarihi = Ottoman history ; Tarihçilik = Historiography ; Zındıklar = Zindiks ; Zındıklık = Zindikness ; Ötekilik = Otherness

Özet:
İnsanoğlu tarih boyunca başından geçen önemli olayları, tecrübeleri gelecek kuşaklara aktarma çabası içerisinde olmuştur. Bu anlatılar yazının icadına kadar daha çok sözlü ve görsel imgelerle sağlanırken yazının icadıyla birlikte, insanlar kendileri açısından özel olan durumları kaydetmeye başlamışlardır. Böylece ilk tarihsel veriler ortaya konmaya başlanmıştır. 
Bir Ortaçağ devleti olarak ortaya çıkan Osmanlılar'da da kendi döneminin şartlarına uygun olarak, tarihyazıcılığı daha çok saray etrafında şekillenmiştir. Böylece Osmanlı tarihyazıcılığı, devletin etrafında toplanmış okuryazar üst düzey zümreye hitap eder bir tarzda gelişmiştir. Bu durum, ortaya çıkan tarihçilik anlayışının ve külliyatının olabildiğince merkezci olmasına neden olmuştur. Devletin siyasî ve fikri temellerine göre hareket eden Osmanlı tarihçileri birçok durumda konumlarını devlete göre belirlemişlerdir. Böylece devletin çizdiği sınırların dışında tarihî bilgilere ulaşmak çoğu zaman müellifi belli olmayan anonim eserlerle sağlanmıştır. Ancak tahmin edileceği üzere bunların sayısı oldukça azdır.
Devlet eksenli tarih yazma geleneği, doğal olarak "ötekileştirici" ve "kurgulayacı" bir dil inşa etmiştir. Bu inşa neticesinde, devletin resmî düşüncesi dışında kalan sınıflara sert ve tahripkâr bir dil kullanılmıştır. Osmanlı Devleti'nde "ötekileştirici" olarak "mülhid" ve "zındık" terimleri yoğun olarak kullanılanlar kavramlar arasındadır. Hayatın her alanına dinî saiklerle bakan toplumlarda kendisinden olmayana karşı dinî içerikli bir dilin inşa edilmesi son derece doğaldır. Zira dönem itibariyle bu üslup kolay "ötekileştirme" ve/veya meşruiyet kazandırma aracı olmuştur. Bu çalışma da Osmanlı kronikleri üzerinden inşa edilen "ötekileştirici" dile odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada yöntem olarak XIV-XVII. yüzyıllarda Osmanlı tarihçilerince yazılan kaynakların taranması metodu kullanılmıştır. Neticede "mülhid" ve "zındık" olarak seçilen kişi veya kişilere Osmanlı münevverlerinin sergilemiş olduğu yaklaşım ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular yorumlanarak metnin ana teması oluşturulmuştur.

Abstract:
Human kind has had for ages an effort of transferring the moral lessons to the next generations learned from significant events that has been experienced in the course of history. While these narrations had been produced mostly with oral and visual images till the invention of writing, special situations began to be recorded in the aftermath of the invention of writing. Thus, the earliest historical materials emerged.      
In the Ottoman State as a medieval state, historiography was shaped around the palace circles in accordance with the existing conditions. Accordingly, the Ottoman historiography matured in a way that appealed to the literate high-ranking class gathered around the state. This situation led to the newly-emerging understanding and corpus of historiography to be centralist as much as possible. The Ottoman historians determined their positions on many instances basing themselves on the custom and practices of the state. Therefore, historical information that was considered against the state's ideology and that was beyond the boundaries drawn by the state was usually supplied by anonymous works. However, as can be assumed, the number of these is few.
The traditional historiography in the axis of state naturally constructed an 'otherizing' and 'constructing' language. This construction brought harsh and destructive language to the classes which stayed out of the official ideology of the state. The terms 'mülhid' and 'zındık' were among the most common concepts that were used for 'otherizing' people and social groups at the Ottoman State.  It is natural in the societies that were build up upon religious motives to observe a religiously differentiating language against those who were seen as others. This linguistic style became one of the important means of easily 'otherizing' people and/or gaining legitimacy for the state under the existing conditions. This study focuses on the 'otherizing' language constructed in the Ottoman chronicles. Scanning the resources produced by the Ottoman historians during 14th-17th centuries has been utilized as the method of the study. The approach by Ottoman intellectuals towards a person or people labeled as 'mülhid' and 'zındık' has been revealed in the light of these contemporary works. The main theme of the study has been constituted with the assessment of the gathered data.
Human kind has had for ages an effort of transferring the moral lessons to the next generations learned from significant events that has been experienced in the course of history. While these narrations had been produced mostly with oral and visual images till the invention of writing, special situations began to be recorded in the aftermath of the invention of writing. Thus, the earliest historical materials emerged.      
In the Ottoman State as a medieval state, historiography was shaped around the palace circles in accordance with the existing conditions. Accordingly, the Ottoman historiography matured in a way that appealed to the literate high-ranking class gathered around the state. This situation led to the newly-emerging understanding and corpus of historiography to be centralist as much as possible. The Ottoman historians determined their positions on many instances basing themselves on the custom and practices of the state. Therefore, historical information that was considered against the state's ideology and that was beyond the boundaries drawn by the state was usually supplied by anonymous works. However, as can be assumed, the number of these is few.
The traditional historiography in the axis of state naturally constructed an 'otherizing' and 'constructing' language. This construction brought harsh and destructive language to the classes which stayed out of the official ideology of the state. The terms 'mülhid' and 'zındık' were among the most common concepts that were used for 'otherizing' people and social groups at the Ottoman State.  It is natural in the societies that were build up upon religious motives to observe a religiously differentiating language against those who were seen as others. This linguistic style became one of the important means of easily 'otherizing' people and/or gaining legitimacy for the state under the existing conditions. This study focuses on the 'otherizing' language constructed in the Ottoman chronicles. Scanning the resources produced by the Ottoman historians during 14th-17th centuries has been utilized as the method of the study. The approach by Ottoman intellectuals towards a person or people labeled as 'mülhid' and 'zındık' has been revealed in the light of these contemporary works. The main theme of the study has been constituted with the assessment of the gathered data.