Was the Menemen Incident (1930) a State-Engineered Conspiracy in Early Republican Turkey?

The Menemen Incident created a deep trauma within religious circles. In particular, the manner in which Reserve Officer Kubilay was killed and the subsequent association of the event with Shaykh Esad Efendi of Erbil—thereby branding one of the most prominent Sufi orders of the time as criminal—caused profound shock.

For this reason, religious and even right-wing circles never regarded Esad Efendi as responsible for the incident. Instead, publications emerged arguing that the event was a “conspiracy.”

This article examines claims that the incident was a planned provocation and a deliberate setup. In the next article, drawing on the records of the Military Tribunal (Harp Divanı), the unresolved questions surrounding the incident—and especially how a connection was established with Esad Efendi—will be addressed.

The Religious Victims of the Late Ottoman / Early Republican Era

Among conservative circles, the most influential work on this subject is undoubtedly Son Devrin Din Mazlumları (The Religious Victims of the Late Era), written by Necip Fazıl Kısakürek and published in 1969. In this book, Kısakürek appears to aim at becoming the voice of all religious groups—and indeed all “victims” allegedly oppressed since the March 31 Incident (1909).

Thanks in part to Kısakürek’s literary talent, the book became a bedside classic for religious and nationalist audiences.

In the work, Kısakürek gives space to figures he considers “victims,” such as İskilipli Atıf Hoca, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, and Süleyman Hilmi Tunahan. However, he was an “action-oriented intellectual” and—just as he states in his book Ulu Hakan Abdülhamid Han—he did not consider it necessary to support his claims with bibliographies or footnotes.

Kısakürek’s judgment regarding the Menemen Incident is unequivocal:

“The incident that took place in Menemen toward the end of December 1930 was nothing more than a plot carried out by a few vagabonds, whose sole purpose was to eliminate religious figures believed to be strong and influential. (…) Yes, the Menemen incident constitutes the most conscienceless of all plots organized by the government in order to annihilate all dignified Muslims, especially the leading figures of the Naqshbandi order.”

According to Kısakürek, the “plot” had two main motives.
First, the opposition party founded on August 12, 1930—the Free Republican Party (Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası, SCF)—had gained significant support in Menemen (and even won the mayoral election there).

Second, the single-party regime allegedly orchestrated a “set-up” (kumpas)—a term frequently used today as well. Leading CHP figures such as Şükrü Kaya, Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, and Vasıf Çınar allegedly witnessed a large crowd in Bursa and learned that these people were intending to visit Shaykh Esad Efendi, who was staying at a hotel at the time.

According to Kısakürek, a decision was made there: a “uprising” would be staged in Menemen and the “religious ringleaders would be crushed one by one.” As witnesses to this planning, Kısakürek cites Hasan Basri Çantay (1887–1964) and Salih Yeşil (properly, Mehmet Salih Yeşiloğlu, 1872–1954), both of whom were already deceased when the book was written.

A secret agent was then assigned, who identified the mosque as the most suitable location in Menemen. He allegedly recruited Derviş Mehmet and his companions—described as “ignorant, drug-addicted, destitute types”—from villages around Manisa and Menemen, offering them money in exchange for carrying out the plan and instructing them to flee immediately after blood was shed.

According to Kısakürek, this agent orchestrated the massacre in Menemen, organized the escape of the perpetrators after Kubilay’s killing, and even ensured that reinforcements requested from the garrison arrived late. One of the accused, Zeki Mehmet, is said to have complained while being handcuffed, “Weren’t they going to give us money?”

Kısakürek later reproduces the prosecutor’s assessment of the incident and states that he also gathered information from elderly individuals who had witnessed the events when he traveled to Manisa for a lecture.

He further refers to an article published in Vakit newspaper on August 18, 1930, titled “Who Is This Shaykh with Hundreds of Disciples?” This article is indeed believed to have influenced the targeting of Esad Efendi, as the court asked the Istanbul Police Directorate what actions had been taken regarding it.

In its response, the Police Directorate stated that the individual mentioned in the article was Esad Efendi of Erbil, who had been under surveillance even before the closure of the lodges, that wealthy individuals from Konya and elsewhere visited him and provided financial assistance, and that this information had been obtained from “a woman placed near the shaykh as a servant.” Kısakürek includes this report in his book.

Kısakürek further claims that Esad Efendi was killed in the hospital “by intravenous injection,” preventing him from uttering a single word before the Military Tribunal—that is, from mounting a defense. However, examination of the records shows that Esad Efendi did indeed present a defense and was sentenced to death. Kısakürek himself includes Esad Efendi’s name among those condemned to death.

One of those executed in Menemen was also Hayim’s son, Jozef, a Jew. Kısakürek claims that Jozef was executed merely for “selling rope to the aforementioned vagabonds.” In reality, the charge against Jozef was that he allegedly applauded Derviş Mehmet and his companions, for which he was sentenced to death. It is likely that the Republican administration sought to intimidate minorities by executing “a Jewish member of the SCF.”

Through his inclusion of the Vakit article and the police report, Kısakürek appears to have shaped later research on the subject. His favorable reputation among religious circles and his status as a disciple of Abdülhakim Arvasi—himself a Naqshbandi shaykh like Esad Efendi—likely facilitated his access to information.

The “Inside Story” of the Menemen Tragedy

In fact, a year before Kısakürek, Cevad Rıfat Atilhan had published The Inside Story of the Menemen Incident. In this book, Atilhan opens with a section titled “Necessary Details Before Entering the Topic,” in which he informs readers about “World Jewry and Freemasonry.”

In the 95-page book, the portion directly addressing the Menemen Incident begins only on page 49, spans six pages, and appears under the heading “Inönüism.”

Atilhan claims that resentment over the Free Republican Party’s effectiveness in the Aegean region motivated the plot, that “three Zionists” were involved, and that the event was staged as a revolutionary scenario aimed at crushing “religious Turks.”

According to Atilhan, the scenario was implemented with the approval of Prime Minister İnönü by “Zionist-anarchist Jozef and hundreds of converts, together with naïve, ignorant, paid agents.” After the incident, thirty thousand people were allegedly arrested within a short time. The plotters, he claims, did not even spare their own man, the Jewish Jozef, from execution.

Atilhan further argues that one of the main objectives was to remove—or at least weaken—the Chief of the General Staff, Field Marshal Fevzi Çakmak, who was a Naqshbandi. As expected, Atilhan provides no sources or documentation for these claims.

Another work on the Menemen Incident, more recent than the above, is Reactions to the Reforms and the Menemen Provocation by Mustafa İslamoğlu. As the title suggests, İslamoğlu also believes that a conspiracy was staged in Menemen with the aim of eliminating Shaykh Esad and his followers.

Like Kısakürek, İslamoğlu cites the Vakit article (incorrectly dating it as December 18, 1930 rather than July 18, 1930) and includes the Police Directorate’s report. Again like Kısakürek, he claims that Esad Efendi was taken from his home, held in a special cell, never brought before the court, and poisoned via injection—despite the fact that Esad Efendi did in fact defend himself before the Military Tribunal.

İslamoğlu rightly emphasizes that Derviş Mehmet and his associates were drug users. He also notes that Derviş Mehmet had joined Çerkes Ethem’s forces during the War of Independence and was affiliated with the Green Army.

İslamoğlu repeats—without citing any source—the claim that Mehmet Emin protested, “Weren’t they going to give us money?” His more solid observation concerns Gendarmerie Commander Captain Fahri Bey, who allegedly witnessed the incident but returned to his unit. İslamoğlu cites a Milliyet article dated December 30, 1930, titled “Suspicions That Have Yet to Be Cleared.”

According to that article, the commander locked the gendarmes in his office and watched the events unfold. It further states that no action was taken against Fahri Bey other than removing him from Menemen. While Fahri Bey’s behavior certainly raises serious questions, the claim that he was never interrogated is incorrect. He was arrested and tried by the 1st Corps Military Court.

İslamoğlu also claims that detailed information appeared in the Yeni Asır newspaper the very next day, December 24, 1930, and presents this as evidence of a conspiracy—believing Yeni Asır to be an Istanbul newspaper. In fact, Yeni Asır was published in İzmir, making its detailed coverage entirely consistent with normal circumstances.

Hasan Kâmil Yılmaz, in his Encyclopaedia of Islam (DİA) entry on Esad Erbilî, states that because the court records have not been made public, it remains unclear what evidence the death sentences against Esad Efendi and his son were based on, or whether they were actually involved in the incident.

As summarized here, religious and right-wing assessments of the Menemen Incident emphasize a conspiracy narrative, yet fail to provide written documentation. Most crucially, they do not clearly demonstrate how a connection was established between Derviş Mehmet and his associates and Esad Efendi and his son Mehmed Ali, leading to their execution.

However, the manner in which the incident unfolded and the details of the trials can be examined through the Military Tribunal records. In subsequent articles, drawing on these records, we will attempt to clarify whether the incident was indeed a “conspiracy” and how a link was established between the rebels and Esad Efendi.

Sources

• Grand National Assembly Records (1931), Term III, Session 4, Vol. 25
• Göktaş, V. (2013). Muhammed Esad-ı Erbilî. Ankara: İlahiyat
• Yılmaz, H. K. (1995). “Esad Erbilî.” DİA, Vol. 11, pp. 348–349
• Kısakürek, N. F. (2012). Son Devrin Din Mazlumları. Istanbul: Büyük Doğu
• Atilhan, C. R. (1968). Menemen Hadisesinin İçyüzü. Istanbul: Aykurt
• İslamoğlu, M. (1998). Devrimlere Tepkiler ve Menemen Olayı. Istanbul: Denge
• Çetinoğlu, S. (2025). “An Incident of Reactionism and Its Jewish Victim: The Executed Hayimoğlu Jozef.” Avlaremoz (accessed January 10, 2025)

Take a second to support Politurco.com on Patreon!