Üç Şârih Bir Şerh: Zâtî, Şâhî ve Fahrî’nin Gülşen-i Tevhîd Şerhi

This article examines the place of Gulshen-i Tawhīd, a work composed by Ibrahim Shāhidī Dede (d. 1550) using selected verses from Mawlānā’s (d. 1273) Mathnawī, within the commentary (sharh) tradition and focuses on the translations and commentaries written for this work. Gulshen-i Tawhīd, which holds a significant place in Ottoman Sufi literature, is a poetic commentary (sharh) created by selecting 100 verses from each volume of the Mathnawī. In terms of both content and methodology, the work represents one of the remarkable examples of the Ottoman sharh tradition. It attracted great interest, especially from Mawlavî circles and Sufi communities of the period. Mathnawī commentaries played a crucial role in the dissemination and deeper understanding of Sufi thought in Anatolia. Within this framework, Gulshen-i Tawhīd was translated and explained by various commentators (shārihs) over different periods. Highly regarded by Ottoman intellectuals, particularly among Sufis and Mawlavī, this work aimed to make Mawlānā’s teachings more comprehensible. This study discusses the translations and commentaries written on Gulshen-i Tawhīd, focusing specifically on the commentaries by Suleymān Dhātī (d. 1761), Huseyn Shāhī (d. 1778) and Fakhrī Ahmad Efendi (d. 1799).Suleymān Dhātī began writing a commentary on Gulshen-i Tawhīd, but he passed away before completing the work. His son, Huseyn Shāhī, took over the task and continued the commentary. However, he too passed away before completing the work. While transcribing his teacher’s manuscripts, Shāhī’s student, Fakhrī Ahmad, discovered that the manuscript containing the 60 verses Shāhī had commented on had been damaged and lost. To preserve the integrity of the work, he retranslated and commented on these 60 verses himself in an effort to complete the text. Thus, this commentary, shaped by the contributions of three different commentators, stands as a rare example in Ottoman Sufi literature.This article examines the biographies of these three commentators, their contributions to the work, the process of writing the commentary, existing manuscript copies, content characteristics, and the methodology employed in the commentary.