This article was downloaded by: [University of South Carolina ]On: 08 April 2013, At: 09:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of Middle EasternStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbjm20

Shī‘itisation of the Futuwwa Traditionin the Fifteenth CenturyRiza Yildirim

To cite this article: Riza Yildirim (2013): Shī‘itisation of the Futuwwa Tradition in the FifteenthCentury, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 40:1, 53-70

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2012.734958

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Shı‘itisation of the Futuwwa Traditionin the Fifteenth CenturyRIZA YILDIRIM*

ABSTRACT This study examines the Shı‘itisation of the futuwwa tradition fromthe eleventh century to the early sixteenth century, with a special referenceto fifteenth-century events. Available scholarship has a rather generalised viewon the sectarian orientation of the futuwwa, locating it within the Sunni fold,though having a slightly Shı‘ite tinge. This view has a tendency to underestimatechanges in the religious stand of the futuwwa through the ages. Likewise, itdevalues the evident Shı‘ite content of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuryfutuwwat-namas, regarding them as a temporary divergence due to Safavidpropaganda. This article challenges two premises of this established view,arguing that the religious history of futuwwa was by no means static and linearbut shows a rupture, i.e. Shı‘itisation, in the fifteenth century; and, in contrastto the consensus of the available scholarship, this Shı‘itisation was not a resultof Safavid propaganda, but of a greater ‘universal’ transition taking place infifteenth-century Islamdom.

Introduction

Ever since Hermann Thorning’s groundbreaking work,1 futuwwa (Turkishfutuvvet, Persian jawanmardı) studies have flourished considerably withsubstantial research on the social, political and economic history of futuwwa.The inner religious orientation of futuwwa, however, has received relatively littleattention, a surprising fact considering futuwwa’s essentially religious character.When dealt with at all, scholarship on the religious aspects remains for the mostpart trivial and devoid of thorough analysis. One may summarise the establishedview as follows: it is true that the initiatory lineage of futuwwa traces back to ‘Alıbin Abi Talib, who also dominates mythological stories circulating amongfutuwwa people. Yet this philo-‘Alid tone does not extend beyond the limits ofSunni perception. On the other hand, there are historical accounts implying theexistence of evidently Shı‘ite groups within futuwwa organisations. Hence,although one may talk about the Sunni or Shı‘ite affiliation of specific fityan, the

*Department of History, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Sogutozu cad., no. 43, 06560, Ankara,Turkey. E-mail: ryildirim@etu.edu.tr

1 Hermann Thorning, Beitrage zur Kenntnis des islamischen Vereinswesens auf Grund von Bast Madadet-Taufıq (Berlin: Mayer und Muller, 1913).

British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 2013

Vol. 40, No. 1, 53–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2012.734958

q 2013 British Society of Middle Eastern Studies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

doctrinal basis of futuwwa does not appeal to specific or exclusive sectariancreeds.2

Such an approach assumes a more or less uniform religious stand in the entirehistory of futuwwa, disregarding variations through the ages. Indeed, for Na

_sirian

and Akhı futuwwa, this view seems quite agreeable. Yet for futuwwat-namaswritten in the late fifteenth and the early sixteenth centuries, this assessment failsto explain the exclusively Shı‘ite character of these sources. Although prominentscholars such as Taeschner and Cahen recognise such a Shı‘itisation in thefifteenth century, their overall assessment remains the same, esteeming it anephemeral wave created by Safavid propaganda, thus a temporary ‘distortion’from the mainstream.

Taeschner, for example, rightfully emphasises the overwhelming Shı‘itecharacter of al-Razavı’s futuwwat-nama-i Kebir (‘The Great futuwwat-nama’),3

written in 1524. According to him, the Shı‘ite character of this text is related toSafavid propaganda in Anatolia. He underlines that this period also witnessedBalim Sultan’s organisation of the Bektashi Order, which Taeschner deemsShı‘ite.4 Taeschner’s overall assessment goes as follows. In the early sixteenthcentury, members of futuwwa tottered between Ottoman Sunnism and SafavidShı‘ism; following the definitive victory of the Ottomans, however, they re-anchored in Sunni waters.5 As indicated above, Golpınarlı’s position seems justthe opposite. According to him, futuwwa from the very beginning appeared as aShı‘ite or Shı‘ite-leaning tradition. At the same time, he recognises the overtShı‘ite character of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century futuwwat-namas, whencompared to the earlier ones. He too attributes this significant change to Safavidpropaganda.6 In his recent work on the Iranian sufi-futuwwa tradition, Ridgeonseemingly converges to the mainstream view voiced by Taeschner and Cahen. Hedeems Kashifı’s futuwwat-nama,7 written before 1503, a continuation of thefutuwwa tradition. By doing so, he even seemingly disregards the upsurge of theShı‘ite elements in the late fifteenth century.8

It should be noted that none of these above-summarised views is based onthorough study, but stated in passing. Focusing on the inner religious aspect of thefutuwwa, this study challenges two fundamental premises of the prevailingscholarship: first, it opposes any overall assessment of futuwwa’s inner religiousorientation for all times, arguing that the religious history of futuwwa was by no

2 Clauda Cahen, ‘Futuwwa’, EI (2nd edn), Vol. II, p. 962; idem, ‘Le Probleme du Shi’isme dans l’Asie Mineureturque preottomane’, in Le Shi’isme Imamite: Colloque de Strasbourg (6–9 mai 1968) (Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France, 1970), pp, 120–123; idem, The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum,Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, trans. and ed. P.M. Holt (London: Longman, 2001), p. 120; Franz Taeschner,‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva (Futuvvet Teskilatı)’, Iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuası, 15(1–4) (1953–1954), p. 23;idem, ‘Akhı’, EI (2nd edn), Vol. I, p. 323; Lloyd Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism in Persian Sufism: A History ofSufi-futuwwat in Iran (London & New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 61–91. It should be noted that AbdulbakiGolpınarlı’s view fundamentally differs from the above-summarised mainstream view in that he regards thefutuwwa in the entirety of its history as Shı‘ite or Shı‘ite-leaning (mutashayyı). However, as will be discussed, thisclaim lacks textual evidence, especially for the earlier periods. See Abdulbaki Golpınarlı, ‘Islam ve Turk IllerindeFutuvvet Teskilatı’, Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuası, 11 (1949–1950), pp. 62–63.

3 This work will be examined below.4 This idea, seemingly borrowed from John K. Birge, needs careful treatment since our knowledge about the

Bektashis of the early sixteenth century, especially about their link with the Qizilbash movement and their Shı‘iteaffiliation, is still meagre.

5 Taeschner, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, p. 23.6 Golpınarlı, ‘Islam ve Turk Illerinde’, pp. 57, 62.7 To be discussed below.8 Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, p. 98.

RIZA YILDIRIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

means static and unchanging through the ages. In this respect, the fifteenth centurymarks a significant rupture. During this century the futuwwa tradition experienceda process of Shı‘itisation, whose nature and dynamics are yet to be studied. Hencesectarian affiliation of futuwwa must be treated differently before and after thefifteenth century. Secondly, this article challenges the widely accepted propositionthat the Shı‘itisation of futuwwa in the sixteenth century was a result of Safavidpropaganda, arguing that the connection between the Safavid movement and theabove-mentioned transformation cannot be seen as a cause–effect relationshipbetween the two.

Na_sirian Futuwwa

Our knowledge on the pre-Na_sirian period of futuwwa history is scarce, based mainly

on sporadic bits and pieces of information extracted from chronicles. As far as thereligious-sectarian affiliation is concerned, the documentary situation is even moredifficult. As Cahen states, the moment in which futuwwa gained a real appearance inhistory is when caliph al-Na

_sir (1180–1225) initiated into it and turned it into a

centralising instrument to increase social cohesion throughout Islamdom.9 In themeantime, al-Na

_sir’s initiation into and ascendancy to the supreme leadership of

futuwwa marks a watershed in its history. Scholars purport that the caliphpromulgated a new initiatic lineage going back to ‘Alı bin Abi Talib.10 Whenrestructuring the futuwwa, al-Na

_sir located ‘Alı at the centre of spiritual-religious

teaching, as can be seen in his famous decree of 604/1207. As recorded in Ibn Sa’ı’sal-Jami‘ al-Mukhta

_sar, the decree starts with the announcement that ‘Alı bin Abi

Talib is the essence, origin and source of futuwwa. It also states that the rules offutuwwa come from him, and that the initiates of futuwwa (fityan) affiliatedthemselves with no one but him; the relationship between rafık and ikhwan was thusdeveloped on the model of his relationship with the Prophet. ‘Alı was the one whopractised futuwwa in its maturity. Thus, as heirs to ‘Ali, the fityan were dictated tofollow him as a perfect example. In short, futuwwa comes from ‘Ali, and hisoutstanding virtue, disposition and practices laid its foundations.11

However, some earlier sources allude that the injection of the ‘Alı cult in thefutuwwa tradition was by no means al-Na

_sir’s innovation. The earliest testimonies

celebrating ‘Ali bin Abi Talib as the ideal chevalier ( fata) seemingly go back tothe early twelfth century. Both Rashıd al-Dın Maybudı’s Kashf al-asrar wa ‘uddatal-abrar, completed in 520/1126,12 and Kalıla wa Dimna, composed in the mid-twelfth century by Qani’ı

_Tusı,13 celebrate ‘Alı as the patron saint of futuwwa.14

9 Cahen, The Formation of Turkey, p. 117.10 Erik S. Ohlander, Sufism in an Age of Transition: ‘Umar al-Suhrawardı and the Rise of the Islamic MysticalBrotherhoods (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2008), p. 272.

11 Paul Kahle, ‘Ein Futuwwa-Erlass des Kalifen Nasir aus dem Jahre 604 (1207)’, in Aus funf Jahrtausendenmorgenlandischer Kultur, Festschrift fur Max Freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage, gewidmet vonFreunden und Mitarbeitern (Berlin: Ernst F. Weidner, 1933), pp. 52–58; Franz Taeschner, Zunfte undBuruderschaften im Islam, Texte zur Geschichte der Futuwwa (Zurich & Munich: Artemis Verlag, 1979), pp. 74–75.

12 Cited and quoted in Mu_hammad Ja‘far Mahjub, ‘Chivalry and Early Persian Sufism’, in Leonard Lewisohn

(ed.), Classical Persian Sufism: From Its Origins to Rumi (London & New York: Khaniqahi NimatullahiPublications, 1993), p. 554.

13 Mahjub, ‘Chivalry and Early Persian Sufism’, p. 556.14 For ‘Alid elements in pre-Na

_sirian futuwwa, also see Lloyd Ridgeon, Jawanmardi: A Sufi Code of Honour

(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), p. 37.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

Some futuwwa leaders were even accused of Fatimid propaganda.15 On the otherhand, pre-Na

_sirian Sufi treatises on futuwwa have virtually no ‘Alid leanings.16

Moreover, we have records indicating that some futuwwa groups in Damascuspursued a hostile attitude against Rafi

_dı and Isma‘ılı Shı‘ites during the years

preceding al-Na_sir’s initiation.17

That al-Na_sir’s interest in futuwwa was a part of his greater imperial project of

reasserting caliphal authority with ecumenical claims over Islamdom has long beenargued.18 A part of this project was to bridge the gap between Shı‘ı and SunniIslam, which ever increased through fierce disputes, polemics and politicalrivalries throughout the past two centuries. Al-Na

_sir aimed to unite Abbasid and

‘Alid claims in his own personhood.19 For this reason he showed a clear inclinationtowards moderate Shı‘ism (of the Twelver branch).20 Whatever the motivationsmay have been, following the Na

_sirian reforms ‘Alı bin Abi Talib became regarded

as the undisputable spiritual patron, ideal example and head of the initiatory chainof futuwwa.21 It is true that this feature by no means makes futuwwa Shı‘ite.22 Yetits prevailing ‘Alid colouring seemingly provided an attractive and comparativelysafe habitat to Shı‘ite-tinged ideas within a Sunni abode.

Akhı-futuwwa

After the Mongol invasions, the courtly futuwwa created by al-Na_sir fell into rapid

decay. In what may be considered the third phase of its history, the futuwwa took a

15 Mahjub, ‘Chivalry and Early Persian Sufism’, pp. 578–579; Mohsen Zakeri, ‘The futuwwa-“Houses” at theTime of Caliph al-Na

_sir’, in Erlesenes: Sonderheft der Halleschen Beitrage zur Orientwissenschaft anlasslich des

19. Kongress der Union Europeenne d’Arabisants et Islamisants (Halle [Saale]: Walter Beltz und SebastianGunther, 1998), pp. 235–236.

16 al-Sulamı’s (d. 1021) famous futuwwat-nama, which is known as the earliest futuwwa treatise, for examplementions ‘Alı only once while reciting two traditions from Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan. See Ebu Abdi’r-RahmanMuhammed Ibn el-Huseyn es-Sulemi, Tasavvufta Futuvvet, ed. Suleyman Ates (Ankara: Ankara UniversitesiBasımevi, 1977). al-Qushayrı (d. 1072) follows his master, al-Sulamı. See Abdulkerim Kuseyrı, Kuseyrı Risalesi,ed. Suleyman Uludag (Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2003), pp. 305–311. On the other hand, al-Suhrawardı’s twotreatises on the futuwwa put special stress on the pre-eminence of ‘Alı in the futuwwa tradition. For an analysis ofal-Suhrawardı’s position regarding ‘Alı, see Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, pp. 66–69, 94–95; idem,Jawanmardi, pp. 37–38.

17 Zakeri, ‘The futuwwa-“Houses”’, pp. 231–232.18 Angelika Hartmann, ‘al-Na

_sir li-Dın Allah’, EI (2nd edn), Vol. VII, pp. 996–1003; idem, ‘La conception

governementale du calife an-Nasir li-Dın Allah’, Orientalia Suecana, 22 (1973), pp. 52–61; idem,‘al-Suhrawardı, Shihab al-Dın Abu Hafs ‘Umar’, EI (2nd edn), Vol. IX, pp. 778–782; Franz Taeschner,‘Nasir’, Islam Ansiklopedisi, 9 (1997), pp. 92–94.

19 According to Mahjub, during the Seljukid period, the practitioners of the futuwwa tradition were fiercelyoppressed by the political authority. Consequently, they went underground. More importantly, Seljukid pressuremade the futuwwa tradition rather receptive to Fatimid propaganda. It was for this reason, argues Mahjub, thatonce he seized the leadership of futuwwa, the Abbasid caliph al-Na

_sir dissolved all futuwwa branches except

those that pledged their allegiance to him as the supreme head of the new state-sponsored futuwwa organisation.Mahjub, ‘Chivalry and Early Persian Sufism’, pp. 579–580.

20 Taeschner, ‘Nasir’, p. 93. Golpınarlı goes further, arguing that he pursued Twelver Shı‘ite confession. SeeGolpınarlı, ‘Islam ve Turk Illerinde’, p. 58. Ahmet Y. Ocak shares this argument. See Ocak, ‘Futuvvet, Tarih’,Diyanet Islam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. XIII, p. 262.

21 This chain of authority is recorded in al-Hartburtı’s Tu_hfat al-va

_saya and Ibn al-Mi‘mar’s Kitab al-futuwwa,

though with some differences. See Taeschner, Zunfte und Buruderschaften, p. 100; Golpınarlı, ‘Islam ve TurkIllerinde’, p. 230.

22 Lack of Shı‘ite leaning in this period is well attested by two fatwas of Ibn Taymıyah (d. 1328) and his pupilSafı al-Dın Idrıs ibn Bıdqın. Despite his extreme orthodoxy, Ibn Taymıyah does not criticise the people offutuwwa because of Shı‘ite leaning. Rather he condemns some of their rituals and practices deemed as innovation(bid’a). Safı al-Dın’s critics are of the same kind. See Deodaat Anne Breebaart, ‘The Development and Structureof the Turkish Futuwah Guilds’ (PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1961), pp. 102–108.

RIZA YILDIRIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

peculiar form in Anatolia and neighbouring regions. Losing its hierarchicalorganisation and courtly audience, futuwwa now found its way into the circles ofprimarily—but not exclusively—artisans and craftsmen23 in the form of a semi-religious, dervish-like society, assuming the name akhı.24 These akhıs played asignificant role in the social, political and economic history of Anatolia during thethirteenth, fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. By the mid-fifteenth century,however, akhısm for unknown reasons disappeared, leaving some vestiges in theguilds of tanners.25

As for sources, the Persian futuwwat-nama of Na_sirı,26 written in 689/1290,

and the Turkish futuwwat-nama of Yahya bin Halıl al-Burgazı,27 writtenmost probably during the mid-fourteenth century, are generally accepted asthe two principal akhı futuwwat-namas.28 As an outside observer, Ibn Ba

_t_tu

_ta’s

well-known testimony stands as the most solid evidence for Anatolian akhısm.A relatively lesser used group of sources, especially regarding akhı’s creeds, isthe akhı diplomas of spiritual authority (ijazatnamas) and pedigrees (shajaras).

The available historical evidence provides no basis for the idea that akhıscan be considered by any means Shı‘ite. It is true that the intense cult of ‘Alıgives a Shı‘ite colouring to Akhısm, yet they no doubt considered themselvesSunni29 and should be counted within the fold of Sunni Islam. Ibn Ba

_t_tu

_ta, who

lodged in akhı hospices during his journey in western and central Anatolia,describes them as Hanafı Sunni Muslims. An incident he witnessed in Sinopindicates that there was even a kind of antipathy against the Rafi

_dı30 form of

Shı‘ism in fourteenth-century Anatolia.31 Ahmad Gulsehrı’s brief accounts ofakhıs in his Man

_tiq al-

_tayr, written in 717/1317, and Karamat-ı Ahı Evren also

show no sign of Shı‘ite affiliation.32 Likewise, Ahmad Aflakı’s numerous

23 Taeschner, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, p. 17.24 Taeschner, ‘Akhı’, p. 322. Ridgeon argues that under the Mongol rule, which suspended the Sunni oppression

of Shı‘ism, ‘Alı’s pre-eminence in the futuwwa tradition was further augmented (Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism,pp. 75–76).

25 Until the beginning of the reign of Murad II, akhıs are mentioned among influential actors. They thengradually disappear from our sources. Taeschner, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, p. 21; George G. Arnakis,‘Futuwwa Traditions in the Ottoman Empire: Akhis, Bektashi Traditions, and Craftsmen’, Journal of NearEastern Studies, 12(4) (1953), pp. 234–235.

26 The Persian text is published by Franz Taeschner while a Turkish translation is published by AbdulbakiGolpınarlı. See Franz Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nasirı (um 1300) und sein Futuvvetname (Leipzig:Komissionverlag F.A. Brockhaus, 1944); Golpınarlı, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, pp. 311–352.

27 Taeschner describes al-Burgazı’s futuwwat-nama as a ‘Regelbuch’ of Anatolian akhıs. He believes that it waswritten in the fourteenth century. Franz Taeschner, ‘Das Futuvvetname des Jahja b. Halıl’, OrientalisticheLiteraturzeitung, 31 (1928), p. 1065. Abdulbaki Golpınarlı published this futuwwat-nama with an introduction.See Abdulbaki Golpınarlı, ‘Burgazı ve “Futuvvet-Name’si”’, Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuası,15(1–4) (Ekim 1953–Temmuz 1954), pp. 76–151 (henceforth al-Burgazı).

28 Taeschner, ‘Akhı’, pp. 322–323; idem, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, p. 19. Some other futuwwat-namaswritten in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, such as that of Najmi Zarkub (mid-fourteenthcentury), al-Kashanı (early fourteenth century), al-Samnanı (early fourteenth century) and an anonymousfutuwwat-nama (written before 1290), are also consulted for this study. All these futuwwat-namas are publishedby Golpınarlı with Turkish translations. See Golpınarlı, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, pp. 115–352.

29 Taeschner, ‘Akhı’, p. 323.30 See Etan Kohlberg, ‘The Term “Rafida” in Imamı Shı‘ı Usage’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 99

(1979), pp. 677–679.31 Ibn Ba

_t_tu

_ta’s frequently cited account relates that during his visit to Sinop, people suspected him of being

Rafi_dı because of his different style of praying. Realising this, he ate rabbit meat, which is forbidden in

Rafi_dı-Shı‘ism, to prove his Sunnı affiliation. See Ibn Ba

_t_tu

_ta, Rihlet Ibn Battuta (Beyrut: Dar al-Nafa’is, 2004),

pp. 383–384.32 Franz Taeschner, Gulschehrıs Mesnevi auf Akhı Evran, den Heiligen von Kırschehir und Patron derturkischen Zunfte (Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner Gmbh, 1955), pp. 12–36, 52–58.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

accounts of akhıs do not have even a slight allusion to Shı‘ite leaning of thesepeople.33

The futuwwat-nama of Na_sirı and al-Burgazı well attest to Ibn Ba

_t_tu

_ta’s

description. Na_sirı’s futuwwat-nama bears virtually no trace of Shı‘ism, either in a

moderate or Rafi_dı form. Following previously established tradition, Na

_sirı

repeatedly mentions ‘Alı as the ideal fata and head of the futuwwa path.34 Theinsignia of the futuwwa came through the prophetic line passing down fromMu

_hammad to ‘Alı.35 Alı’s intimacy with the Prophet, with a special reference to

his marriage with Fatima, the beloved daughter of the Prophet, is alsounderlined.36 Meanwhile, Na

_sirı makes occasional references, as exemplary

models, to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman.37 As is clear enough, he followsearlier futuwwa traditions and his stand is not at odds with Sunni Islam.

Al-Burgazı’s futuwwat-nama38 follows a similar line. Here too ‘Alı, who wasinvested with the trousers (shalwar) of the futuwwa by the Prophet, is referred toas the ideal fata and the head of futuwwa.39 Some passages, which are seeminglyat odds with the earlier futuwwa tradition, even suggest an extra Sunni tinge. Itstates, for example, that ‘Alı received his shaykhdom from Abu Bakr when thelatter passed away.40 Elsewhere, while explaining the succession of the famousfutuwwa cloak (khirqa), which was allegedly bestowed upon the Prophet duringhis heavenly journey, al-Burgazı breaks the traditional account by injecting AbuBakr between Mu

_hammad and ‘Alı.41 Indeed, although this story is found in most

of the early futuwwat-namas, none of them mentions Abu Bakr in this context.42

When narrating the story of the scissors, another symbol of spiritual succession,he even includes the first three caliphs in the lineage between the Prophetand ‘Alı.43

It should be stated, however, that such stories possibly represent an innovationby al-Burgazı for they do not have a predecessor in earlier futuwwa literature.There is also the possibility that these innovations may be the work of a copyist.Indeed, this is of a higher probability since the oldest copy was produced in913/1507–1508, at a time when Shı‘ite Savavids were vigorously threatening theOttoman Sunni realm.

33 See Ahmed Eflakı, Ariflerin Menkıbeleri, trans. Tahsin Yazıcı (Istanbul: Kabalcı Yayınları, 2006), pp. 182,218, 252, 326–327, 463–465, 565–567, 609–610, 631–632, 635, 653, 657, 693–694.

34 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nasirı, pp. 312–313.35 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nasirı, p. 337.36 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nasirı, p. 329.37 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nasirı, pp. 327, 351.38 This futuwwat-nama deserves a special consideration as the first Turkish futuwwat-nama. The author explains

the reason he wrote this work as follows: ‘I saw that akhıs who sit at the gate of futuwwa do not have a book offutuwwa in their possession so that they learn its rule and pursue as far as they can effort. . . . I . . . wished to writea book which explicates futuwwa. . . . It is expected that every Friday night [in modern parlance Thursday night]akhıs will read futuwwa [from this book] under candle light and follow its rules . . . ’ (al-Burgazı, pp. 112–113).Given that the language of Anatolian akhıs was Turkish, one may easily recognise from the above-quoted passagethat al-Burgazı’s principal audience was the akhıs of Anatolia. Hence there is good reason, as Taeschner argues,to deem this text a genuine source for Anatolian akhısm.

39 al-Burgazı, pp. 114–119.40 al-Burgazı, p. 114.41 al-Burgazı, p. 144.42 For al-Hartburtı’s account, for example, see Golpınarlı, ‘Islam ve Turk Illerinde’, pp. 229–230.43 al-Burgazı, p. 147. Similarly al-Burgazı takes a story of ‘Aysha in his futuwwat-nama, which is also quite

unusual in this tradition. Needless to say, he mentions ‘Umar and ‘Uthman with reverence. See al-Burgazı,pp. 134, 144.

RIZA YILDIRIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

In the meantime, al-Burgazı’s futuwwat-nama calls attention with itsrecognisable interest to ‘Ali’s descendants. It makes frequent mention of Hasanand Husayn, the sons of ‘Alı. It also refers to Zayn al-‘Abidın, the son of Husaynand fourth Imam, as a prominent guide for futuwwa members.44 It should be notedthat al-Burgazı was not alone in showing a special interest in ‘Alı’s descendants.An anonymous futuwwat-nama written in the second half of the thirteenth centuryand the futuwwat-nama of Najm al-Din Zarkub (presumably written in thefourteenth century) both stress the love of the Family of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt)as an essential part of allegiance during initiation.45 These examples alone,however, do not provide sufficient proof of a Shı‘itisation during the fourteenthcentury, for the earlier futuwwat-nama by Ibn al-Mi‘mar likewise recites traditionsfrom Ja’far al-Sadiq and Zayn al-‘Abidın.46 Yet if we scrutinise the previouslyunderutilised sources such as ijazatnamas and shajaras, it becomes clearer that thecult of the Family of the Prophet and the Twelve Imams gained unprecedentedimportance in the akhı form of futuwwa.47

Akhı ijazatnamas and shajaras clearly reflect the eminence of the TwelveImams in the akhı faith. The shajara of Akhı Sharaf al-Dın of Ankara (d. 1351)48

provides a good example.49 A clear ‘Alid tinge, including the Twelve Imam cult, iseasily recognisable in the document. Although the first three caliphs are mentionedat the beginning of the text, ‘Alı’s privileged place is unmatched. After praising‘Alı there follows a eulogy of the Twelve Imams.50 On the other hand, thevery same document divulges the fact that members of Akhı Sharaf al-Dın’sfamily did not consider themselves Shı‘ite, since one of their ancestors, who livedin Iran, is singled out as being Shı‘ite.51 An interesting peculiarity of thisdocument is that for the first time in the futuwwa tradition (and most probably inthe whole Sufi tradition), the chain of spiritual authority (silsila) and the ancestrallineage (nasab) merges in the same genealogical line. Akhı Sharaf al-Dın inheritsthe spiritual capacity of akhı leadership from ‘Alı bin Abi Talib through anancestral chain linked to the eighth Imam ‘Alı bin Musa al-Ri

_da. This feature

makes the concept of ijazatnama and shajara virtually synonymous in thiscontext.52

44 al-Burgazı, p. 143.45 Golpınarlı, ‘Islam ve Turk Illerinde’, pp. 233–234, 249–250.46 Taeschner, Zunfte und Buruderschaften, pp. 106, 169.47 There is no sign of a special emphasis on the Twelve Imams (or the cult of Twelve Imams) in Na

_sirian

futuwwa. In the futuwwa lineage, neither Ibn al-Mi‘mar nor al-Hartburtı includes any of ‘Alı’s descendants.Suhrawardı too makes no reference to the Twelve Imams, though mentioning Hasan and Husayn with greatrespect. Indeed, the formulaic phrase ‘Twelve Imams’ does not exist in our sources for Na

_sirian futuwwa, let alone

their names or subsistence in doctrine. See, for example, Morteza Sarraf, Traites des compagnons-chevaliers,Rasa’il-e Javanmardan: Recueil de sept ‘Fotowwat-Nameh’ (Tehran: Departement d’Iranologie de l’InstitutFranco-Iranien de Recherche, 1973), pp. 100–101; Ridgeon, Jawanmardi, pp. 37–38.

48 Akhı Sharaf al-Dın was representative of a powerful akhı family of Ankara in the fourteenth century. SeeAhmed Tevhıd, ‘Ankara’da Ahıler Hukumeti’, Tarihi Osmanı Encumeni Mecmu’ası, 19 (1331), pp. 1200–1204;Halil Edhem, ‘Ankara Ahilerine Aid Iki Kitabe’, Tarihi Osmanı Encumeni Mecmu’ası, 41 (1332), pp. 312–315.

49 This shajara is first used by Ahmed Tevhıd, who published the genealogy Akhı Sharaf al-Dın as recorded inthe document. Later, Irene Melikoff studied this document more extensively. See Tevhıd, ‘Ankara’da AhılerHukumeti’, pp. 1202–1203; Melikoff, ‘Bir XIII. Yuzyıl Ahi Belgesi’, in Destandan Masala TurkolojiYolculuklarım, trans. Turan Alptekin (Istanbul: Demos Yayınları, 2008), pp. 169–184.

50 Melikoff, ‘Bir XIII. Yuzyıl Ahi Belgesi’, pp. 172–174.51 Melikoff, ‘Bir XIII. Yuzyıl Ahi Belgesi’, p. 177.52 It is interesting to note that this would become a standard practice in the Qizilbash/Alevı tradition by the

sixteenth century. See Rıza Yıldırım, ‘Bektasi Kime Derler?: ‘Bektasi’ Kavramının Kapsamı ve Sınırları UzerineTarihsel bir Analiz Denemesi’, Turk Kulturu ve Hacı Bektas Veli Arastırma Dergisi, 55 (2010), pp. 23–58.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

Another ijazatnama preserved in the Kırsehir Museum exhibits similar traits.53

This document is dated 876/1471. It includes both spiritual chain of authority(silsila) and ancestral lineage (nasab), though not for the same person. Theancestral lineage of a certain Sayyıd Mu

_s_tafa reaches back to ‘Alı bin Abi Talib

through the seventh Imam, Mu_sa al-Qazim. At the beginning of the document, the

names of the Prophet’s wives, daughters, 10 prominent companions, as well as ofthe Twelve Imams are listed respectively. ‘Alı is acknowledged as the head offutuwwa. Furthermore, recognition of his sainthood (walayah), with the Prophet’snubuwwa, is stated as a pillar of the faith. It is also highlighted that the shaykh’sgenealogy should go back to the Family of the Prophet as a descendant of ‘Alı.54

These two pieces of evidence convincingly demonstrate that among the akhıs ofAnatolia the love for the Family of the Prophet and the cult of Twelve Imamsfound a far warmer reception than Na

_sirian futuwwa.

Another trait that gained prominence in the akhı-futuwwa was the memory ofKarbala and the cult of Abu Muslim, both of which were interconnected. Al-Burgazı’s futuwwat-nama mentions Abu Muslim in an unprecedented manner,ranking him among ‘Alı, Hasan, Husayn and Hamza.55 In explaining the origin ofthe practice of cutting hairs from the forehead, al-Burgazı recounts two traditions,one originating from ‘Alı, the other from Abu Muslim, which reads: ‘And AbuMuslim too was like that [his forehead is shaven]. Sunnis (Sunnıler), for the loveof Abu Muslim, used to shave their foreheads so that they differentiatedthemselves from Mervanıler’.56

This brief passage is of great importance for it alludes to a corpus of religiousknowledge vivid in the collective memory of the fourteenth-century AnatolianMuslims. This knowledge is centred around the cult of Karbala, i.e. mythologicalmemory of Husayn bin ‘Alı’s martyrdom at the hands of Yazıd’s soldiers. There aregood reasons to assume that the cult of Karbala overtly shaped religious perceptionof the fourteenth-century Anatolian population (of course including those Muslimssettled in Thrace and the Balkans). As Koprulu points out, the collective memory ofthe thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Muslims of Rum is populated by storiesabout ‘Alı’s legendary expeditions and Husayn’s martyrdom in Karbala, as well asepics of Abu Muslim, Battal Gazi, Danishmend Gazi and Saru Saltuk.57 Indeed, oneof the few literary sources reminiscing from this period is Maqtal al-Husayn, aversed text narrating the story of Husayn’s martyrdom in epic style.58

A careful examination of this orally created popular literature59 reveals that thepopular perception of Islam in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Anatolia rested

53 This document is first used by Cevat Hakkı Tarım, who underlined its ‘Alid leaning. See Tarım, TarihteKırsehri-Gulsehri ve Babailer-Ahiler-Bektasiler (Istanbul: Yenicag Matbaası, 1948), p. 63. The whole text with afacsimile copy of the document is published by Seyfi Yıldırım. See Yıldırım, ‘Bazı Ahi Secere-namelerininMuhtevaları ve Tarihi Degerleri’ (unpublished MA thesis, Selcuk Universitesi, Konya, 1994), pp. 56–92.

54 Yıldırım, ‘Bazı Ahi Secere-namelerinin Muhtevaları’, pp. 56–92.55 Abu Muslim already existed in the Na

_sirian futuwwa lineage, as recorded in al-Khartburtı’s and Ibn al

Mi‘mar’s futuwwat-namas. Nonetheless, none of these works mentions Abu Muslim except in regard to lineage.Hence it may be regarded as a sign of newly added lore to the traditional body of futuwwa knowledge.

56 al-Burgazi, p. 147.57 Fuat Koprulu, ‘Turkler, Edebiyat’, Islam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. XII(2), p. 536.58 This work was written by a certain Shadı the Maddah in 1362 in Kastamonu. See Irene Melikoff, ‘Le drame de

Kerbela dans la litterature epique turque’, Revue des etudes islamiques, 34 (1966), pp. 133–148.59 A closer scrutiny of this literature reveals that these different epic traditions, with their shared elements,

cross-references and close links, draw upon a shared collective memory. Considering that the texts in ourpossession have been shaped by an accumulation of oral performances over time, and may have indeed beenwritten with performance in mind rather than passive reading, they may be seen as constituting various layers of a

RIZA YILDIRIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

upon a two-fold division of people: one part is composed of the lovers of theFamily of the Prophet, thus of ‘Alı, and the others are the enemies of the Family ofthe Prophet, hence of ‘Alı and his descendants. The Karbala tragedy has had anovert effect on shaping this conceptualisation since such a grouping of Muslimscrystallised in this course. The above-mentioned literature labels the first groupunder a variety of names such as ‘lovers of the House of Mu

_hammad’ (muhibb-i

ahl al-bayt), ‘Alevı, and Turabı (in reference to ‘Alı’s nickname). However,the most widespread naming used for this group, interestingly, is ‘Sunnı’. On theother hand, the other group’s generic name in this literature is Kharijı, thoughthey are occasionally called Yazıdı or Marwanı. Evidently, here the terms ‘Sunnı’and ‘Kharijı’ are stripped of their classical meanings and given a peculiardefinition.60

Irene Melikoff analysed the connection between Abu Muslim epics, maqtalliterature and akhıs. In her study on Abu Muslim epics (known as Abu Muslim-nama), Melikoff argues that akhıs considered Abu Muslim an ideal fata.61 She alsoargues that episodes of this epic were recited in akhı lodges, if not created in thismilieu.62 Indeed, the epic itself has strong indications confirming this argument. Itpresents Abu Muslim’s uprising almost like an akhı enterprise, depicting his closesupporters and allies as the akhıs of Marv.63 The issue that remains to be clarifiedis the relationship between the Abu Muslim-nama and other epics including theaforementioned Maqtal, Battal-nama, Danishmand-nama and Saltuk-nama.Melikoff suggests some connections between the former and Maqtal. As sheconvincingly postulates, a content analysis demonstrates that the Abu Muslim-nama might well be deemed complementary to the Maqtal. Furthermore, sheargues that the writer of the Maqtal and the compiler of the Turkish Abu Muslim-nama was one and the same person, named Shadı.64 Indeed, a study of religiousperception, images (which is very important since these are written to beperformed), vocabulary, characters, etc., truly puts the network between theseoral-based texts.65

If we turn our attention to al-Burghazı’s brief mention of Abu Muslim, we seethat its vocabulary and conceptualisation are strikingly similar to the popular

Footnote 59 continued

collective memory reflecting widespread religious perceptions. For a preliminary study of these popular epics as amirror of the collective memory, see Rıza Yıldırım, ‘Beylikler Dunyasında Kerbela Kulturu ve Ehl-i BeytSevgisi: 1362 Yılında Kastamonu’da Yazılan bir Maktel’in Dusundurdukleri’, Kuzey Anadolu’da BeyliklerDonemi Sempozyumu Bildirileri. Cobanogullari, Candarogullari, Pervaneogullari, 3 –8 Ekim 2011Katamonu-Sinop-Cankiri, ed. Halil Cetin (Cankiri: Cankiri Karatekin Universitesi Yayinlari, 2012), pp.344–372.

60 For a thorough analysis of Maqtal al-Husayn in this perspective, see Yıldırım, ‘Beylikler Dunyasında KerbelaKulturu’, pp. 358–372. Melikoff notices the same kind of grouping in Abu Muslim-nama. See Irene Melikoff,Abu Muslim: Le ‘Porte-Hache’ du Khorassan dans la tradition epique turco-iranienne (Paris: A. Maisonneuve,1962), pp. 62–63.

61 This idea is shared by Taeschner. See Taeschner, ‘Futuwwa: Post-Mongol Period’, Encyclopedia of Islam,Second edition, vol. II, p. 966.

62 Melikoff, Abu Muslim, pp. 68–69. Melikoff does not historically situate the link between futuwwa and AbuMuslim tradition, and thus neglects to differentiate between the Na

_sirian and akhı-futuwwa traditions. As

discussed above, however, this approach needs to be corrected since before al-Burghazi we have no mention ofAbu Muslim in this manner. Another point in need of critical assessment is her synonymous use of akhı and guild.

63 Melikoff, Abu Muslim, pp. 91–102.64 Melikoff, ‘Le drame’, pp. 134–135.65 The oral character of these Turkish epics has yet to be studied thoroughly. For some preliminary discussions,

see Yorgos Dedes, ‘Introduction’, in his Battalname: Giris, Ingilizce Tercume, Turkce Metin, Yorum veTıpkıbasım (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 1–25.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

literature indicated above. Here too two groups in the Muslim community areclearly distinguished. The followers of Abu Muslim, who were none other than thelovers of the House of the Prophet, are labelled as ‘Sunni’, while his enemies areidentified as ‘Marwanı’. Hence this passage, which is the only one to survive fromfutuwwa circles, provides convincing evidence of a link between akhı-futuwwaand the popular religious lore summarised above.

The popularity of the Karbala cult among akhıs is also attested by Ibn Ba_t_tu

_ta.

While lodging at the hospice of a certain Akhı Shams al-Dın in Bursa in 1332, IbnBa

_t_tu

_ta witnessed a night-time commemoration of Husayn’s martyrdom on the

tenth of Muharram, which included Qur’an recitation, sermon and ritual dancing(sama‘). According to the North African traveller, the intensity of emotionalatmosphere at the gathering was such that a dervish began to wail in ecstasy duringthe sermon (most likely about Husayn’s sufferings at Karbala),66 and fell dead onthe spot.67

To conclude, our analysis shows that the inner religious orientation of the akhı-futuwwa did not radically deviate from the traditional form. The emphasis,however, shifted from ‘Alı’s charismatic leadership of the futuwwa to the love ofthe Family of the Prophet (including the Twelve Imams) and to Husayn’s tragicsuffering in Karbala (and to the yearning for his revenge). One should note thatsuch a doctrinal modification likewise was accompanied by two other significanttransformations within the futuwwa tradition: popularisation and

_tarıqa-like

structuring. With the demise of the Na_sirian courtly futuwwa, which primarily

appealed to the ruling elite and aristocratic classes, the social basis of the futuwwashifted to the ordinary people of towns. Concomitant with this change in socialbase, the ‘Alid content of the futuwwa seems to have adapted itself to appeal moreto a popular audience. As a parallel process, the chivalric futuwwa transformedinto a

_tarıqa-like structure, organised around lodges under the leadership of

spiritual guides.68 As far as their function and structure are concerned, one canhardly distinguish akhı zawiyas from strictly sufi zawiyas established infourteenth-century Anatolia.69

Post-Akhı Futuwwa

There is a consensus that the akhı-futuwwa waned in the course of the fifteenthcentury, save the tanners’ guilds which appear to have preserved some akhı-futuwwa elements. Yet this in no way meant the demise of the futuwwa itself,which managed to survive for another century, if not longer. Concomitant to the

66 There is good reason to assume that this sermon was principally, if not exclusively, drawn from the maqtalliterature. As Melikoff notes, the Maqtal is organised according to 10 chapters, apparently to be read during thefirst 10 days of Muharram. In the beginning of some chapters (bab) the author or compiler addresses his audienceas ‘akhı’, which may very well indicate, as Melikoff claims, its being read in akhı lodges. See Melikoff, ‘Ledrame’, pp. 134–136. For a thorough analysis of the Maqtal’s oral characteristics, see Yıldırım, ‘BeyliklerDunyasında Kerbela Kulturu’.

67 Ibn Ba_t_tu

_ta, Rihlet Ibn Battuta, pp. 307–308.

68 Ohlander puts special stress on al-Suhrawardı’s role in this process. See Ohlander, Sufism in an Age ofTransition, pp. 271–291.

69 Early akhı ijazatnamas and waqfiyyas, documents which stipulate the basic rules by which a lodge was tooperate, show that akhı lodges were subjected to regulations similar to those of Sufi lodges, and thus they tooreflect the overwhelming

_tarıqa character of the akhı-futuwwa. See, for example, Mehmet Akkus, ‘Farklı bir

Ahılik Icazetnamesi’, Turk Kulturu ve Hacı Bektas Veli Arastırma Dergisi, 21 (2002), pp. 95–100; HalimeDogru, XVI. Yuzyılda Sultanonu Sancagında Ahiler ve Ahi Zaviyeleri (Ankara: Kultur Bakanlıgı Yayınları, 1991).

RIZA YILDIRIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

decline of akhısm, the futuwwa further converged with crafts organisations,70

which has led some scholars to refer to it as a guild-futuwwa.71 The notion of aguild-futuwwa, however, should also be treated carefully since Ottoman guildscompleted their development in the sixteenth century.72 Whatever the real natureof this mutual interaction was, the fifteenth century marks a structural transition infutuwwa history. It is important to note that it was in the same time period that thefutuwwa assumed distinctive Shı‘ite leaning. Three futuwwat-namas written inthis episode, on which our analysis rests, exhibit unprecedented Twelver Shı‘itetraits.73

For the purpose of this study, Ibn Gaybı’s futuwwat-nama74 is of greaterimportance, not only because it is the earliest futuwwat-nama showing clearShı‘ite leaning, but also because it served as a model for later Turkish futuwwat-namas. Although the scholarly literature celebrates al-Razavı’s work as futuwwat-nama par excellence, as will be partly indicated, al-Razavı himself reliesextensively on Ibn Gaybı’s work. Therefore, it is safe to argue that Ibn Gaybı’sfutuwwat-nama stands as a watershed in the entire history of futuwwa.

Ibn Gaybı’s’s futuwwat-nama presents a substantial continuation of earlierfutuwwa knowledge,75 yet contains significant and unprecedented additions to thetraditional lore, especially information regarding new organisational structures.It is the explicitly Shı‘ite elements that make this work unique. The Shı‘ite

70 There is no solid evidence showing that akhıs were organised along occupational lines. Hence they cannot beregarded as a guild organisation (Cahen, The Formation of Turkey, p. 120). Indeed, there are good reasons tobelieve that akhısm was not an exclusively craftsmen phenomenon. Although al-Burgazı’s futuwwat-nama statesthat those who do not have an occupation or craft should not be accepted on the akhı path (al-Burgazı, p. 125), themeaning of occupation and craft here should be taken broadly since Ibn Battuta mentions akhıs who were qa

_dıs,

and, as Taeschner already showed, Ottoman Sultan Murad I himself was an akhı. See Franz Taeschner, ‘WarMurad I. Grossmeister oder Mitglied des Akhı bundes?’, Oriens, 6(1) (1953), pp. 23–31.

71 Taeschner, ‘Futuwwa: Post-Mongol Period’, p. 967. Breebaart, ‘The Development’, pp. 145–224.72 For the second half of the fifteenth century, one may perhaps talk about nascent corporeal bodies composed of

artisans, craftsmen and traders, but not about guilds in its proper sense, that is ‘professional craftsmenorganisation’. See Gabriel Baer, ‘Guilds in Middle Eastern History’, in M.A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the EconomicHistory of the Middle East from the Rise of Islam to the Present Day (London, New York & Toronto: OxfordUniversity Press, 1970), pp. 27–28; Suraiya Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire: Crafts and Craftspeople under theOttomans (London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009), pp. 25–34.

73 The first of these three important futuwwat-namas was written in Turkish by Husayn Ibn Gaybı in the Ottomanrealm, some time between 1451 and 1481; the text is published by Abdulbaki Golpınarlı (‘Seyyid Gaybı ogluSeyyid Huseyin’in Futuvvetnamesi’, Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuası, 17[1–4] [1955–1956],pp. 27–126; henceforth Ibn Gaybı). The second one was written in Persian by

_Husayn Wa’ız al-Kashifı in Herat

shortly before 1504. The Persian text is published by Mu_hammad Ja‘far Ma

_hjub, and an English translation is

published by Jay R. Crook. See_Husayn Wa‘ız-i Kashifı, Futuwwat-namah-i Sultanı, ed. Mu

_hammad Ja‘far

Ma_hjub (Tehran: Bunyad-i Farhang-i ıran, 1350/1971);

_Husayn Wa‘ız-i Kashifı Sabzawarı, The Royal Book of

Spiritual Chivalry (Futuwat namah-yi sultanı), trans. Jay R. Crook (Chicago, IL: Great Books of Islamic World,2000) (henceforth Kashifı). And the last one was written in Turkish by Mu

_hammad bin Huayn al-Razavı in Bursa

in 1524. This futuwwat-nama has not yet been published. Rahsan Gurel’s dissertation includes a text of the work(‘Razavı’nin Futuvvet-namesi’ [PhD dissertation, Marmara Universitesi, 1992]). Also see Breebaart, ‘TheDevelopment’, pp. 145–224; idem, ‘The Futuvvet-name-i kebır: A Manual on Turkish Guilds’, Journal of theEconomic and Social History of the Orient, 15(1–2) (1972), pp. 203–215.

74 Little is known about the author who gives his name in the text as Shaykh Husayn ibn Shaykh Sayyid Gaybı.One may ascertain that he wrote this futuwwat-nama during the reign of Mehmed II (1451–1481) since heinvokes the names of Mehmed II in the introduction. Furthermore, he says his master Shaykh ‘Alı received thefutuwwa through the approval of Sultan Murad. Evidently this must be Sultan Murad II (1421–1444,1446–1451). See Ibn Gaybı, pp. 74, 87. Another work of the author, the Serh-i Hutbetu’l-Beyan, also reflects IbnGaybı’s Twelver Shı‘ite leanings. See Seyyid Huseyin Ibn Seyyid Gaybı, Serhu Hutbeti’l-beyan, ed. SaffetSarıkaya (Isparta: Fakulte Kitabevi, 2004).

75 Some fundamental subjects that were common to futuwwa literature survive in this work, such as the storiesregarding the Prophets who received futuwwa, the tree of futuwwa, code of conducts or etiquette of futuwwa,those people who cannot acquire futuwwa, and those 19 acts which annul one’s futuwwa.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

content, which is unmatched by any earlier futuwwat-nama, can be summarised intwo groups: (1) the walayah and wa

_saya of ‘Alı, and (2) the pre-eminence of the

Twelve Imams in theology. Perhaps the most noteworthy innovation of Ibn Gaybıis placing ‘the Ghadır Khum event’ at the very centre of the conceptualisation offutuwwa.76 Typical of futuwwa works, Ibn Gaybı starts by explaining the origins offutuwwa. Complying with the tradition, he relates how Adam became the first fata,and how futuwwa, symbolised with the sash (shadd),77 descended through chainsof prophets, making special reference to Noah, Abraham and Yusuf. Lastly, theProphet Mu

_hammad was invested in his heavenly journey, where Gabriel girded

his waist.78

The story up to that point is in consonance with traditional knowledge.However, a substantial difference emerges when narrating how Mu

_hammad

delivered futuwwa to ‘Alı. According to Ibn Gaybı, ‘Alı’s investment with the sashof the futuwwa occurred in Ghadır Khum, while returning from the FarewellPilgrimage. Ibn Gaybı relates the whole Ghadır Khum event as a ritual whichconstitutes the kernel of futuwwa knowledge, whose essence, be it doctrine orritual, is indeed drawn from this semi-mythological event. According to him, thefutuwwa rituals are basically the re-enactment of the Prophet’s appointment of ‘Alıas his successor.

Ibn Gaybı presents a version of this event that is quite consonant with the Shı‘iteview regarding ‘Alı’s appointment—by Mu

_hammad—as wa

_sı (vicegerent-

successor) and waris (heir) of the Prophet on the one hand, and as caliph/imam(both are used in the text) of Muslims on the other. As one may expect, thenarrative is saturated with prophetic traditions securing ‘Alı’s unmatchedprivileges among Muslims.79 In addition to ample traditions recorded by Shı‘itehadith collections, he relates some further stories obviously derived from the oraltradition. In summary, the Prophet underlines his intimacy with ‘Alı’, in a mannerimplying that they were indeed created from one and the same divine substance.Then he declares that those who recognise him as mawla must recognise ‘Alı asmawla. ‘Alı’s investment with the authority of wa

_saya and imama is symbolised

by girding with the sash. After girding ‘Alı’s waist, the Prophet declares that atthat moment the religion is completed; that the era of prophethood now ended withhim and the era of sainthood and imamat just started; and that just as the best ofprophets is himself, the best of saints is ‘Alı.80 Then the Prophet urges ‘Alı toappoint his successor deputies and to gird their waists. ‘Alı in his turn investedthree persons (‘Amr ibn ‘Umayya, Bilal of Habash and Salman of Persia) with thefutuwwa. Finally, Salman wrapped the sash of futuwwa around the waists of 17persons, whose names are listed. The ceremonial narrative concludes withdirections about the preparation and service of a sweetmeat (halwa jufna), which isanother innovation of Ibn Gaybı to be followed by later futuwwat-namas. This

76 One should remember that no earlier futuwwat-nama makes an allusion to Ghadır Khum, let alone mentions itas a referential event.

77 Although in the Na_sirian futuwwa the garment that symbolises one’s initiation into the futuwwa was the

trousers, by the fourteenth century the sash gained prominence as a symbol of investment. Concomitant to the riseof Sufi influence on futuwwa, the cloak (khirqa) became the most central symbol of spiritual investment while thesash gained a more professional connotation.

78 Ibn Gaybı, pp. 75–79.79 For a summary of Ghadır Khum according to Islamic sources, see L. Veccia Vaglieri, ‘Ghadır Khumm’, EI

(2nd edn), Vol. II, pp. 993–994.80 Compare Vaglieri, p. 993.

RIZA YILDIRIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

section ends with the presentation of a chain of succession of the sash (shadd) andallegiance (‘ahd) from ‘Alı down to the author himself.81

The second major Shı‘ite element in this futuwwat-nama relates to the belief inthe Twelver Imams. They are esteemed as a part of the very essence of religion.One cannot find salvation without linking to their love and following their guidinglight. Though the righteousness of the Prophet’s companions is conceded, ‘Alı andhis descendants’ special positions are strongly emphasised. They are portrayed asguiltless (ma’sum) leaders of the faith who alone had the authority to comment onthe principles of the religion since their knowledge is like that of the knowledge ofprophets. Therefore it was incumbent upon Muslims to revere them in the samemanner as the Prophet. Indeed, religion and faith cannot be complete withoutdirecting one’s devotion and love towards them. By the same token, it wasincumbent on Muslims to disassociate themselves from their enemies (tabarra).82

According to Ibn Gaybı, ‘the Path of Mu_hammad-Ali’ constitutes the essence of

Islam, as well as of the futuwwa.83 In his depiction, every aspect of the futuwwarests upon attachment to the love of the House of the Prophet. During the rites ofinitiation, two notions constitute the core of allegiance: (1) bearing witness to‘Alı’s sainthood and wasaya, and (2) declaring one’s love of the House and hatredfor the enemies of the House. Likewise, the ceremony ends with the sermon(khu

_tba) of the

_tarıqa, when the names of the Twelve Imams are invoked. One

should also note that throughout this work, the statement of witness includes thephrase ‘‘Alı is the saint of God’.84

Despite Ibn Gaybı’s promotion of Twelver Shı‘ism, the work is neverthelessdevoid of any notion of political leadership. In a similar vein, he maintains arespectful stance towards the Companions of the Prophet. Though not mentioningtheir names, he refers respectfully to the Four Caliphs with the famous phrase‘chehar yar-i guzın’.85 Throughout the text, there is no allusion to the central ideaof political Shı‘ism (Rafa

_da) that the first three caliphs usurped ‘Alı’s right of

caliphate. Rather, it puts stress on the primacy of ‘Alı and his descendants in faith.It is safe to conclude that the religious/sectarian position of Ibn Gaybı is evidentlycloser to the Shı‘ite end of the Sunni–Shı‘ite spectrum. Yet he painstakingly keepsdistance from exclusive Rafi

_dı ideas.

The futuwwat-nama of al-Razavı, Mafta_h al-daqayiq fı bayan al-futuwwa va’l-

_haqayiq, also known as the ‘Great futuwwat-nama’, is modelled after Ibn Gaybı’streatise in both structure and content. Yet al-Razavı considerably enriches thecontent with extra details. His additions may be categorised under three headings:(1) formulaic phrases and short stories indicating even further enhancement of the

_tarıqa notion in the futuwwa tradition;86 (2) lengthy passages that explain etiquetteand rituals of various craftsmen and artisans (exclusive to their profession);87 and

81 It is interesting to note that this chain of succession does not include Abu Muslim.82 Ibn Gaybı explains tawalla and tabarra according to three layers: for the people of word (qawl), it is

‘encouraging the religious truth and discouraging bad acts’; for the people of act (fi’l), it is ‘attaching oneself tothe skirt of Mu

_hammad-‘Ali through their love, and being the enemy of their enemies’; for the people of state

(_hal), it is ‘to desire only the consent of God, and to abstain from worldly doings’. See Ibn Gaybı, pp. 116–117.83 Ibn Gaybı, p. 99.84 Ibn Gaybı, pp. 95–103.85 Ibn Gaybı, p. 97. Elsewhere he mentions ‘Umar with reverence. See Ibn Gaybı, p. 115.86 See, for example, al-Razavı, Futuvvetname-i Kebır, manuscript, Suleymaniye Kutuphanesi, Izmir Kitaplıgı,

no. 337, fol. 16a (henceforth al-Razavı). This manuscript was copied in 1068/1658 by Mu_hammad Yusuf bin

el-Selanikı.87 al-Razavı, fols. 16b–17a, 25b–36a, 38b–39a, 40b.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

(3) more detailed descriptions of rituals.88 As far as sectarian issues are regarded,however, he follows Ibn Gaybı.89 It is interesting to note that despite the highreverence paid to ‘Alı, neither Ibn Gaybı nor al-Razavı records the Prophet’sfamous maxim: ‘There is no fata but ‘Alı, there is no sword but Zulfiqar’.

_Husayn Wa‘ız Kashifı’s Persian futuwwat-nama, on the other hand, deserves

special attention since, unlike al-Razavı’s, it hardly replicates Ibn Gaybı’s work.For several reasons, this futuwwat-nama should be regarded as an independentsource (from Ibn Gaybı). First of all, it was produced in a different political andcultural milieu, not to mention language. Secondly, this work’s innovativestructure, style and content diverge from that of classical futuwwa writings. In thisregard, it is as much a Sufi treatise as a futuwwa text. Passages dealing with Sufiissues exceed in volume those dealing with traditional futuwwa subjects. Thirdly, itslengthy sections devoted to etiquette and codes of behaviour of several occupationsfurther demonstrate the conflation of futuwwa and crafts organisations. And lastly,when compared to Ibn Gaybı’s (and partly al-Razavı’s) futuwwat-nama, itslanguage and style distinguish this work as a product of an educated man.90

Though having some common subject matters, one cannot say with certaintywhether Kashifı used Ibn Gaybı’s futuwwat-nama as a source. Even so, we canstate with certainty that the latter by no means constitutes the backbone ofFutuwwat-nama-i Sultanı, but might simply have been one of its sources amongmany others.91 It is in the account of Ghadır Khum that Kashifı converges with IbnGaybı more than anywhere else. Even here, a close examination shows that hisnarrative follows a different tradition. His relatively dim narration of GhadırKhum, which simply contextualises ‘Alı’s investment with futuwwa, is stripped ofIbn Gaybı’s rich mythological stories. Apart from his disregard of some popularlegendary traditions (that Ibn Gaybı relates in this context), the addition of ‘Alı’sexpedition to Yemen, his three sons (Hasan, Husayn and Mu

_hammad Hanafiyah)

being girded, and Abu Muslim’s reappearance in the initiatory lineage may becounted among its major differences. More importantly, the central and formativeplace of the Ghadır Khum event, which governs the whole text of Ibn Gaybı,completely disappears in this work. Yet he records the Prophet’s famous traditionin this context: ‘For whomever I was his master (mawla), ‘Alı is his master’.92

When it comes to Shı‘ite content, however, Kashifı is very close to Ibn Gaybıand al-Razavı.93 He too underlines ‘Alı’s pre-eminence as the walı of God and theinheritor of the spirit of Mu

_hammad.94 He says that the first rule of spiritual

guidance (in the way of futuwwa) is ‘to obey the Word of God, to observe the law

88 al-Razavı, fols. 42a–65a.89 However, al-Razavı makes references to some more written sources and includes additional Qur’anic verses

and prophetic traditions in his narrative of events.90 Sometimes, Kashifı attempts to conciliate traditional—and for the most part mythological—futuwwa stories

with established Islamic history. For example, his account of the Ghadır Khum event is close to that of Ibn Gaybı.However, he sticks strictly to the version found in well-known literary sources, clipping some details of IbnGaybı, which were seemingly derived from oral tradition. He contextualises the event by adding ‘Alı’s expeditionto Yemen just before the Farewell Pilgrimage, which is well known from early Islamic sources but totally absentin Ibn Gaybı’s treatise. See Kashifı, pp. 116–120.

91 For a brief discussion of Kashifı’s sources, see Abdulbaki Golpınarlı, ‘Futuvvet-Name-i Sultanı’ ve FutuvvetHakkında Bazı Notlar’, Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuası, 17(1–4) (1955–1956), pp. 129–130.

92 Kashifı, pp. 116–120.93 Ridgeon’s conclusion regarding the Shı‘ite orientation of Kashifı’s futuwwat-nama as demonstrating ‘the

continuity of the futuwwat tradition from the eleventh to the twelfth centuries down to Kashifı’s era’ (Ridgeon,Morals and Mysticism, p. 98) is not attested by the present study.

94 Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, pp. 36, 84, 126, 137.

RIZA YILDIRIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

of the Prophet, and to believe in the walayah of ‘Alı’.95 During the rites of

initiation, the disciple must declare: ‘I have repented and have turned away from

all that differs from the Word of God, the Prophet of God, and the walı of God

(‘Alı)’.96 At that point, one would curiously note that Kashifı does not describe

‘Alı as wa_sı and caliph. Complying with the general approach of the book, ‘Alı is

portrayed not only as the patron saint of the futuwwa but also as the supreme head

of the_tarıqa.97 It should also be noted that Kashifı is prudent not to go too far in

eulogising ‘Alı and his descendants. On one occasion he recites the famous

tradition of ‘Alı, which circulates mostly among Sunnis, that ‘two were destroyed

by me: the adoring fanatic and the fanatical hater’.98

The Twelve Imams too unequivocally have their share.99 The book opens with the

Twelve Imams’ word (except that of al-Mahdı) on futuwwa.100 The main body of the

text is saturated with quotations from the Imams, especially from Ja‘far al-Sadiq. All

the Twelve Imams are mentioned by name in the testimony prayer recited during the

girding initiation.101 According to Kashifı, the root of the futuwwa is the love

of the Family of the Prophet, without which one cannot ‘smell the fragrance of

paradise’.102 He says, the essence of futuwwa is knowing God and following the

Prophet and his family; the ‘brain of futuwwa’ is the word of ‘Alı and his

descendants, just as the faith of futuwwa is the word of God and the soul of futuwwa

is the word of the Prophet.103 Elsewhere, he states that the way of futuwwa is the way

of the Prophet, of ‘Alı, and of their illustrious descendants.104 The descendants of the

Prophet (sadat) are described as ‘the pearls of prophethood and sainthood and the

radiancies of the constellations of spiritual chivalry [ futuwwa ] and guidance’.105

As a completely new phenomenon in futuwwa literature, Kashifı coins the concept

of ‘the soul of the Prophet’ or ‘the light of the Prophet’ as a primordial being.106 He

further deems the family of the Prophet as part of this primordial being.107 Another

difference is that on two occasions he refers to Karbala, which is absent in the

treatises of Ibn Gaybı and al-Razavı.108 As the author of Rawzat al-Shuhada’,109

however, this is more than normal. As a last note, similar to Ibn Gaybı and al-Razavı,

Kashifı maintains respectful language for the first three caliphs.

95 Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, p. 66.96 Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, p. 83.97 Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, pp. 167–168.98 Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, p. 281.99 Kashifı dedicates this work to the servants of the shrine of Imam Riza in Mashad. See Kashifı, pp. 1–2.

100 Kashifı, pp. 7–10.101 Kashifı, p. 130.102 Kashifı, pp. 25–26.103 Kashifı, pp. 53–54.104 Kashifı, p. 59.105 Kashifı, p. 89.106 Kashifı, pp. 111–114, 147, 245. For ‘the Light of Mu

_hammad’ see Uri Rubin, ‘Pre-Existence and Light:

Aspects of the Concept of Nur Mu_hammad’, Israel Oriental Studies, 5 (1975), pp. 62–119.

107 Kashifı, p. 279.108 Kashifı, pp. 170, 290–291.109 This work, completed in 908/1502–1503, stands for one of the best examples of Maqtal literature. For ananalysis of its Shı‘ite content, see Adam Jacobs, ‘Sunnı and Shı’ı Perceptions, Boundaries, and Affiliations inLate Timurid and Early Safawid Persia: An Examination of Historical and Quasi-historical Narratives’ (PhDdissertation, The School of Oriental and African Studies, 1999), pp. 55–80.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

Why Shı‘itisation in the Fifteenth Century?

As our analyses show, Ibn Gaybı’s work is the earliest testimony of the Shı‘itedominance in the futuwwa tradition. One may ask, however, if Ibn Gaybı was anindividual deviation from the mainstream futuwwa. The testimony of Kashifı andlater Turkish futuwwat-namas (including al-Razavı’s) suggest otherwise.110

Kashifı’s work is of particular importance since it used a variety of sourcesincluding a number of Sufi treatises and earlier futuwwat-namas. Furthermore, itwas written in a completely different intellectual and cultural milieu. Hence thevoices of these two should be considered independent from each other. This factbrings us to the conclusion that Ibn Gaybı’s clear Shı‘ite leaning was by no meansmarginal within futuwwa groups but a good reflection of the mainstream view.Hence the time he wrote this treatise (somewhere between 1451 and 1481) shouldbe taken as terminus post quem for Shı‘itisation of the futuwwa tradition.

Now we may ask the main question: why did futuwwa bend towards Shı‘ism inthe fifteenth century? As already summarised above, the available scholarshipalmost unanimously has the same answer to this question: it was because of theSafavid propaganda.111 However, this argument is not supported by historicalevidence. First of all, none of these three futuwwat-namas has any hint to the linkbetween Safavids and futuwwa people. Even the word ‘Shah’, which achievedenormous popularity in Qizilbash parlance, is totally absent in the futuwwavocabulary. Neither do we have any other sources indicating Safavid influence onthe futuwwa before the sixteenth century.

Indeed, such an influence should not be expected. As is well known, theShı‘itisation of the Safavid Order itself is generally accepted to have occurred bythe mid-fifteenth century under Shaykh Junayd.112 It should be stressed, however,that the Shı‘ite character of the Safavid movement before Shah Isma’ıl is stillambiguous. Fa

_dlullah b. Ruzbihan Khunjı, one of the earliest testimonies referring

to the religious beliefs of the Qizilbash under Shaykh Junayd and Haydar, does notaccuse them of partisanship to Shı‘ism, but of extremist heterodoxy. Given thefervent Sunni adherence of the author, this is at odds with the established view.Khunjı’s primary aim in these passages is apparently to erode the legitimacy ofSafavid shaykhs by depicting them as heretics and wrongdoers. Hence, as anardent orthodox Sunni, one would expect him to base his accusations, at leastpartly, upon the presumed extremist Shı‘ite beliefs of the Qizilbash, an approachwhich is completely absent in his work.113

Even if we accept the Shı‘ite leaning of the order under Shaykh Junayd, it is alsowell known that before Shah Isma’ıl’s rise to power in 1501, Shaykh Junayd’smilitant-‘Shı‘ite’ Sufism did not penetrate into urban centres. Given the dominant

110 An anti-futuwwa treatise written in the early seventeenth century shows the continuance of the Shı‘itecharacter. Ni

_sabu’l-inti

_sab ve Adabu’l-ikti

_sab of Munır-i Belgradı (d. 1620?) staunchly criticises Shı‘ite elements

of futuwwa (especially on the example of al-Razavı’s futuwwat-nama) accusing them of being Rafi_dı agents. See

Istanbul Universitesi, Turkce Yazmalar, A6803, f. 33b–34a, 47b–49b.111 Taeschner, ‘Islam Ortacagında Futuvva’, p. 21; Golpınarlı, ‘Islam ve Turk Illerinde’, pp. 57–58; Breebaart,‘The Futuvvet-name-i kebır’, p. 205.112 Michel M. Mazzaoui, ‘The Ghazı Backgrounds of the Safavid State’, Iqbal Review, 12(3) (Karachi, 1971), p. 83.For a detailed evaluation of Shaykh Junayd’s legacy in the Order according to Safavid and Ottoman sources, seeRıza Yıldırım, ‘Turkomans between Two Empires: The Origins of the Qizilbash Identity in Anatolia (1447–1514)’(PhD dissertation, Bilkent University, 2008), pp. 167–217.113 See Viladimir Minorsky, Persia in A.D. 1478–1490: An Abridged Translation of Fa

_dlullah b. Ruzbihan

Khunjı’s Tarıkh-i ‘alam-ara-yi amını (London: Luzac and Co., Ltd., 1957), pp. 61–82.

RIZA YILDIRIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

urban character of futuwwa, which even further intermingled with artisans-craftsmen organisations at that time, it is hard to imagine members of futuwwa as afavourable audience to the Safavid cause. Indeed, the millenarian, messianic andmilitant character of Safavid Sufism recruited its members from among tribalTurkomans rather than the urban population.114 Therefore, there are no reasonablegrounds to assume that Ibn Gaybı, who finished his work when the Safavidmovement was still of an overwhelmingly tribal character, was influenced bySafavid propaganda.

Kashifı’s case further strengthens this argument. We do not know the exact dateof the composition of his futuwwat-nama. He spent the last decades of his life atthe Timurid capital Herat under Husayn Bayqara’s protection and died in908/1504–1505.115 Whether or not he wrote the futuwwat-nama after ShahIsma’ıl’s rise in 1501, he certainly never became a Safavid subject since ShahIsma’ıl captured Herat only in 1510.116 Hence, even if the futuwwat-nama waswritten after 1501, we cannot speak of a direct interaction between Kashifı andShah Isma’ıl. Nor is any Safavid inducement likely to have occurred since before1504 Herat was much higher than Tabriz, in all respects.117

In addition, Futuwwat-nama-i Sultanı itself stands as convincing proof of itsindependence from the Safavid movement. As already stated, nowhere in the workis there any allusion to the Safavid enterprise. Indeed, it is this silence itself whichmay be taken as proof. For example, in one section Kashifı gives valuabledescriptions of various headgears (taj) that were worn by Sufis and dervishes of theera. His descriptions include shapes, materials, colours, origins and symbolicmeanings of this headgear. Although he mentions the ‘twelve-pleated hat’ amongthe Sufi headgear, there is no clear indication to the famous Qizilbash ‘red-headgear’. Furthermore, when describing the colours of the headgear, he refers towhite, black and dark blue, but not red.118

If not Safavid propaganda, then what pushed futuwwa towards Shı‘ite tenets?A fully fledged answer to this question requires further research. At the presentstate of knowledge, one may only make preliminary observations and posequestions for future avenues of research.

It seems that the dynamics of this process must be sought in a broaderframework. As already suggested elsewhere, the rise of Shı‘ism in the fifteenthcentury was a universal phenomenon of the Islamic world.119 The Mongol

114 Faruk Sumer, Safevı Devletinin Kurulusu ve Gelismesinde Anadolu Turklerinin Rolu (Ankara: Turk TarihKurumu, 1999); Yıldırım, ‘Turkomans between Two Empires’, pp. 187–217.115 G. Hosein Yousofi, ‘Kashifı’, EI (2nd edn), Vol. IV, pp. 704–705.116 Ghulam Sarwar, History of Shah Isma’ıl Safawı (Aligarh: Muslim University, 1939), p. 64.117 Kashifı’s intellectual and confessional stance is somewhat ambiguous. Having grown up in Sabzawar, atraditional Shı‘ite stronghold, he was disparaged for his Shı‘ite leanings as well as accused by Shı‘ites of beingSunni-oriented. His affiliation to the Naqshbandı order makes his position more ambiguous. According to ArleyLoewen, his futuwwat-nama bears clear traits of a Naqshbandı influence, an idea criticised by Ridgeon (Moralsand Mysticism, pp. 96–98) and not shared by the present author. For Kashifı’s intellectual environment andreligious position with special reference to Sunni-Shı‘ite confrontation, see Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism,pp. 92–99; Arley Loewen, ‘Proper Conduct (Adab) is Everything: The Futuwwat-namah-i Sultanı of HusaynVa‘iz-i Kashifı’, Iranian Studies, 36(4) (2003), pp. 543–570; Jacobs, ‘Sunnı and Shı’ı Perceptions’, pp. 50–80.118 Kashifı, pp. 177–178. Similarly, in another section where he gives long explanations about the cloak (khirqa)of spiritual poverty, black and green are especially cherished as colours of the cloak, again with no mention ofred (pp. 161–162).119 Cahen, ‘Le Probleme du Shi’isme’, p. 127; B.S. Amoretti, ‘Religion in the Timurid and Safavid Period’,in Peter Jackson (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), Vol. VI,pp. 614–622; Marijan Mole, ‘Les Kubrawiya entre sunnisme et shiisme au huitieme et neuvieme siecles del’hegire’, Revue des Etudes Islamiques, 29 (1961), pp. 61–142.

SHı‘ITISATION OF FUTUWWA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13

invasion not only put an end to the classical caliphate but also dealt a blow toSunni hegemony over Islamdom. Hence, Shı‘ite Islam, which had long beensuppressed, was given new space to flourish. On the other hand, since the newlords (i.e. Mongols) pursued a tolerant religious policy, and, more importantly, didnot develop their polity over religious law,120 the fierce struggle between Shı‘iteand Sunni Islam considerably ebbed. As a result, the interaction between the twoworlds developed on more positive terms; strict border lines between Shı‘ite andSunni faiths blurred, widening the grey zone in between. In such an atmosphere,some Shı‘ite creeds penetrated into Sunni Islam, as a result of which a Shı‘ite-fermented Sunni Sufism arose.121

More importantly, in the absence of a powerful territorial state, which establishedits rule according to religious precepts with ecumenical claims, the sectarian contestwas stripped of a political tone. This helped to soften the tension between Shı‘ite andSunni Islam and created a more favourable ground for co-existence. Consequently,the religious climate of the period (until the fifteenth century) inclined towards theintermingling of faiths in an inclusive air. As far as the Sufi milieu is concerned, theSunni–Shı‘ite division might sometimes have even lost its sense.

In the course of the fifteenth century, the Turko-Mongolian type of politygradually receded while Irano-Islamic polity, whose distinctive feature was aprimary stress on religion and ideology as a tool of government, hence a principalinstrument to keep the integrity of the realm, gained prominence.122

Concomitantly, the climate for peaceful co-existence of different sects, especiallyof Sunni and Shı‘ite, waned. It was within such a global conjuncture that futuwwaassumed a greater Shı‘ite stance. A fully fledged evaluation of the reasons anddynamics of this rather greater development, however, needs further research andgoes far beyond the scope of this study. This article, thus, is content with theconclusion that futuwwa experienced a Shı‘itisation process in the second half ofthe fifteenth century and this development had nothing to do with the Safavidpropaganda.123 It rather argues that the Shı‘itisation of futuwwa and the SafavidOrder, alongside that of some other Sufi orders, should be regarded as parallel,probably interconnected developments in conjunction with a broader ‘universal’transition taking place in the Islamic realm.

120 Albert Bausani, ‘Religion under the Mongols’, in Peter Jackson, Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6,pp. 538–549.121 Mole, ‘Les Kubrawiya entre sunnisme et shiisme’, p. 65; Amoretti, ‘Religion in the Timurid and SafavidPeriod’, p. 634; Bausani, ‘Religion under the Mongols’, p. 546.122 It should be underlined that the fifteenth century saw only the earlier signals of this great change, which wouldculminate in the next century in the examples of the Ottoman and the Safavid Empires. For earlier attempts toincorporate Islamic law more into the statecraft in the Timurid realm, see Maria E. Subtelny and AnasB. Khalidov, ‘The Curriculum of Islamic Higher Learning in Timurid Iran in the Light of the Sunni Revival underShah-Rukh’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115(2) (1995), pp. 210–214; Maria E. Subtelny,‘Centralizing Reform and Its Opponents in the Late Timurid Period’, Iranian Studies, 21(1–2) (1988),pp. 126–130. For an analysis of the Mongolian political legacy in Iran and eastern Anatolia up to the late fifteenthcentury, see Sara Nur Yıldız, ‘Post-Mongol Pastoral Polities in Eastern Anatolia during the Late Middle Ages’, inDeniz Beyazıt (ed.), At the Crossroads of Empires: 14 th–15 th Century Eastern Anatolia: Proceedings of theInternational Symposium Held in Istanbul, 4 th–6 th May 2007 (Paris: Institut Francais d’etudes anatoliennesGeorges-Dumezil CNRS USR 3131, 2012), pp. 27–48.123 If we were to speak of an interaction between these two traditions, leaving aside the phenomenon ofShı‘itisation, it would rather be meaningful to assume a futuwwa influence on the Safavid/Qizilbash movement,which is immense, as discussed elsewhere. See Rıza Yıldırım, ‘Inventing a Sufi Tradition: The Use of theFutuwwa Ritual Gathering as a Model for the Qizilbash Djem’, in John Curry and Erik S. Ohlander (eds), Sufismand Society: Arrangements of the Mystical in the Muslim World, 1200–1800 (New York: Routledge, 2011),pp. 164–182.

RIZA YILDIRIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

9:10

08

Apr

il 20

13