Shī‘itisation of theFutuwwaTradition in the Fifteenth Century

Abstract This study examines the Shī'itisation of the futuwwa tradition from the eleventh century to the early sixteenth century, with a special reference to fifteenth-century events. Available scholarship has a rather generalised view on the sectarian orientation of the futuwwa, locating it within the Sunni fold, though having a slightly Shī'ite tinge. This view has a tendency to underestimate changes in the religious stand of the futuwwa through the ages. Likewise, it devalues the evident Shī'ite content of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century futuwwat-nāmas, regarding them as a temporary divergence due to Safavid propaganda. This article challenges two premises of this established view, arguing that the religious history of futuwwa was by no means static and linear but shows a rupture, i.e. Shī'itisation, in the fifteenth century; and, in contrast to the consensus of the available scholarship, this Shī'itisation was not a result of Safavid propaganda, but of a greater 'universal' transition taking place in fifteenth-century Islamdom. Notes 1 Hermann Thorning, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des islamischen Vereinswesens auf Grund von Bast Madad et-Taufīq (Berlin: Mayer und Müller, 1913). 2 Clauda Cahen, 'Futuwwa', EI (2nd edn), Vol. II, p. 962; idem, 'Le Problème du Shi'isme dans l'Asie Mineure turque préottomane', in Le Shi'isme Imâmite: Colloque de Strasbourg (6–9 mai 1968) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970), pp, 120–123; idem, The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm, Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, trans. and ed. P.M. Holt (London: Longman, 2001), p. 120; Franz Taeschner, 'İslam Ortaçağında Futuvva (Fütüvvet Teşkilatı)', İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 15(1–4) (1953–1954), p. 23; idem, 'Akhī', EI (2nd edn), Vol. I, p. 323; Lloyd Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism in Persian Sufism: A History of Sufi-futuwwat in Iran (London Franz Taeschner, Zünfte und Buruderschaften im Islam, Texte zur Geschichte der Futuwwa (Zurich Mohsen Zakeri, 'The futuwwa-"Houses" at the Time of Caliph al-Nāir', in Erlesenes: Sonderheft der Halleschen Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft anlässlich des 19. Kongress der Union Européenne d'Arabisants et Islamisants (Halle Saale: Walter Beltz und Sebastian Günther, 1998), pp. 235–236. 16 al-Sulamī's (d. 1021) famous futuwwat-nāma, which is known as the earliest futuwwa treatise, for example mentions 'Alī only once while reciting two traditions from Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyān. See Ebu Abdi'r-Rahman Muhammed İbn el-Hüseyn es-Sülemi, Tasavvufta Fütüvvet, ed. Süleyman Ateş (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1977). al-Qushayrī (d. 1072) follows his master, al-Sulamī. See Abdülkerim Kuşeyrî, Kuşeyrî Risâlesi, ed. Süleyman Uludağ (İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2003), pp. 305–311. On the other hand, al-Suhrawardī's two treatises on the futuwwa put special stress on the pre-eminence of 'Alī in the futuwwa tradition. For an analysis of al-Suhrawardī's position regarding 'Alī, 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-Nāir li-Dīn Allāh', EI (2nd edn), Vol. VII, pp. 996–1003; idem, 'La conception governementale du calife an-Nāsir li-Dīn Allāh', Orientalia Suecana, 22 (1973), pp. 52–61; idem, 'al-Suhrawardī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Hafs 'Umar', EI (2nd edn), Vol. IX, pp. 778–782; Franz Taeschner, 'Nâsir', İslam Ansiklopedisi, 9 (1997), pp. 92–94. 19 According to Mahjub, during the Seljukid period, the practitioners of the futuwwa tradition were fiercely oppressed by the political authority. Consequently, they went underground. More importantly, Seljukid pressure made the futuwwa tradition rather receptive to Fatimid propaganda. It was for this reason, argues Mahjub, that once he seized the leadership of futuwwa, the Abbasid caliph al-Nāir 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, 'Nâsir', p. 93. Gölpınarlı goes further, arguing that he pursued Twelver Shī'ite confession. See Gölpınarlı, 'İslam ve Türk İllerinde', p. 58. Ahmet Y. Ocak shares this argument. See Ocak, 'Fütüvvet, Tarih', Diyânet İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Vol. XIII, p. 262. 21 This chain of authority is recorded in al-Hartburtī's Tu fat al-va āyā and Ibn al-Mi'mār's Kitāb al-futuwwa, though with some differences. See Taeschner, Zünfte und Buruderschaften, p. 100; Gölpınarlı, 'İslam ve Türk İllerinde', p. 230. 22 Lack of Shī'ite leaning in this period is well attested by two fatwas of Ibn Taymīyah (d. 1328) and his pupil Safī al-Dīn Idrīs ibn Bīdqīn. Despite his extreme orthodoxy, Ibn Taymīyah does not criticise the people of futuwwa because of Shī'ite leaning. Rather he condemns some of their rituals and practices deemed as innovation (bid'a). Safī al-Dīn's critics are of the same kind. See Deodaat Anne Breebaart, 'The Development and Structure of the Turkish Futūwah Guilds' (PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1961), pp. 102–108. 23 Taeschner, 'İslam Ortaçağında Futuvva', p. 17. 24 Taeschner, 'Akhī', p. 322. Ridgeon argues that under the Mongol rule, which suspended the Sunni oppression of Shī'ism, 'Alī'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, akhīs are mentioned among influential actors. They then gradually disappear from our sources. Taeschner, 'İslam Ortaçağında Futuvva', p. 21; George G. Arnakis, 'Futuwwa Traditions in the Ottoman Empire: Akhis, Bektashi Traditions, and Craftsmen', Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 12(4) (1953), pp. 234–235. 26 The Persian text is published by Franz Taeschner while a Turkish translation is published by Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı. See Franz Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nāsirī (um 1300) und sein Futuvvetnāme (Leipzig: Komissionverlag F.A. Brockhaus, 1944); Gölpınarlı, 'İslam Ortaçağında Futuvva', pp. 311–352. 27 Taeschner describes al-Burgāzī's futuwwat-nāma as a 'Regelbuch' of Anatolian akhīs. He believes that it was written in the fourteenth century. Franz Taeschner, 'Das Futuvvetnāme des Jahjā b. Halīl', Orientalistiche Literaturzeitung, 31 (1928), p. 1065. Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı published this futuwwat-nāma with an introduction. See Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, 'Burgâzî ve "Fütüvvet-Nâme'si"', İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 15(1–4) (Ekim 1953–Temmuz 1954), pp. 76–151 (henceforth al-Burgāzī). 28 Taeschner, 'Akhī', pp. 322–323; idem, 'İslam Ortaçağında Futuvva', p. 19. Some other futuwwat-nāmas written in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, such as that of Najmi Zarkūb (mid-fourteenth century), al-Kashānī (early fourteenth century), al-Samnānī (early fourteenth century) and an anonymous futuwwat-nāma (written before 1290), are also consulted for this study. All these futuwwat-nāmas are published by Gölpınarlı with Turkish translations. See Gölpınarlı, 'İslam Ortaçağında Futuvva', pp. 115–352. 29 Taeschner, 'Akhī', p. 323. 30 See Etan Kohlberg, 'The Term "Rāfida" in Imāmī Shī'ī Usage', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 99 (1979), pp. 677–679. 31 Ibn Ba ūa's frequently cited account relates that during his visit to Sinop, people suspected him of being Rāfiī because of his different style of praying. Realising this, he ate rabbit meat, which is forbidden in Rāfiī-Shī'ism, to prove his Sunnī affiliation. See Ibn Ba ūa, Rihlet Ibn Battūta (Beyrut: Dār al-Nafā'is, 2004), pp. 383–384. 32 Franz Taeschner, Gülschehrīs Mesnevi auf Akhī Evran, den Heiligen von Kırschehir und Patron der türkischen Zünfte (Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner Gmbh, 1955), pp. 12–36, 52–58. 33 See Ahmed Eflâkî, 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 Nāsirī, pp. 312–313. 35 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nāsirī, p. 337. 36 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nāsirī, p. 329. 37 Taeschner, Der anatolische Dichter Nāsirī, pp. 327, 351. 38 This futuwwat-nāma deserves a special consideration as the first Turkish futuwwat-nāma. The author explains the reason he wrote this work as follows: 'I saw that akhīs who sit at the gate of futuwwa do not have a book of futuwwa in their possession so that they learn its rule and pursue as far as they can effort. … I … wished to write a book which explicates futuwwa. … It is expected that every Friday night in modern parlance Thursday night akhīs will read futuwwa from this book under candle light and follow its rules…' (al-Burgāzī, pp. 112–113). Given that the language of Anatolian akhīs was Turkish, one may easily recognise from the above-quoted passage that al-Burgāzī's principal audience was the akhīs of Anatolia. Hence there is good reason, as Taeschner argues, to deem this text a genuine source for Anatolian akhīsm. 39 al-Burgāzī, pp. 114–119. 40 al-Burgāzī, p. 114. 41 al-Burgāzī, p. 144. 42 For al-Hartburtī's account, for example, see Gölpınarlı, 'İslam ve Türk İllerinde', pp. 229–230. 43 al-Burgāzī, p. 147. Similarly al-Burgāzī takes a story of 'Āysha in his futuwwat-nāma, which is also quite unusual in this tradition. Needless to say, he mentions 'Umar and 'Uthmān with reverence. See al-Burgāzī, pp. 134, 144. 44 al-Burgāzī, p. 143. 45 Gölpınarlı, 'İslâm ve Türk İllerinde', pp. 233–234, 249–250. 46 Taeschner, Zünfte 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 Nāirian futuwwa. In the futuwwa lineage, neither Ibn al-Mi'mār nor al-Hartburtī includes any of 'Alī's descendants. Suhrawardī too makes no reference to the Twelve Imams, though mentioning Hasan and Husayn with great respect. Indeed, the formulaic phrase 'Twelve Imams' does not exist in our sources for Nāirian futuwwa, let alone their names or subsistence in doctrine. See, for example, Morteza Sarraf, Traités des compagnons-chevaliers, Rasa'il-e Javanmardan: Recueil de sept 'Fotowwat-Nâmeh' (Tehran: Département d'Iranologie de l'Institut Franco-Iranien de Recherche, 1973), pp. 100–101; Ridgeon, Jawanmardi, pp. 37–38. 48 Akhī Sharaf al-Dīn was representative of a powerful akhī family of Ankara in the fourteenth century. See Ahmed Tevhīd, 'Ankara'da Ahîler Hükümeti', Tarihi Osmânî Encümeni Mecmu'ası, 19 (1331), pp. 1200–1204; Halil Edhem, 'Ankara Ahilerine Aid İki Kitābe', Tarihi Osmânî Encümeni Mecmu'ası, 41 (1332), pp. 312–315. 49 This shajara is first used by Ahmed Tevhīd, who published the genealogy Akhī Sharaf al-Dīn as recorded in the document. Later, Irène Mélikoff studied this document more extensively. See Tevhīd, 'Ankara'da Ahîler Hükümeti', pp. 1202–1203; Mélikoff, 'Bir XIII. Yüzyıl Ahi Belgesi', in Destandan Masala Türkoloji Yolculuklarım, trans. Turan Alptekin (İstanbul: Demos Yayınları, 2008), pp. 169–184. 50 Mélikoff, 'Bir XIII. Yüzyıl Ahi Belgesi', pp. 172–174. 51 Mélikoff, 'Bir XIII. Yüzyıl Ahi Belgesi', p. 177. 52 It is interesting to note that this would become a standard practice in the Qizilbash/Alevī tradition by the sixteenth century. See Rıza Yıldırım, 'Bektaşi Kime Derler?: 'Bektaşi' Kavramının Kapsamı ve Sınırları Üzerine Tarihsel bir Analiz Denemesi', Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi, 55 (2010), pp. 23–58. 53 This document is first used by Cevat Hakkı Tarım, who underlined its 'Alid leaning. See Tarım, Tarihte Kırşehri-Gülşehri ve Babailer-Ahiler-Bektaşiler (İstanbul: Yeniçağ Matbaası, 1948), p. 63. The whole text with a facsimile copy of the document is published by Seyfi Yıldırım. See Yıldırım, 'Bazı Ahi Şecere-nāmelerinin Muhtevaları ve Tarihi Değerleri' (unpublished MA thesis, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya, 1994), pp. 56–92. 54 Yıldırım, 'Bazı Ahi Şecere-nāmelerinin Muhtevaları', pp. 56–92. 55 Abū Muslim already existed in the Nāirian futuwwa lineage, as recorded in al-Khartburtī's and Ibn al Mi'mār's futuwwat-nāmas. Nonetheless, none of these works mentions Abū 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-Burgāzi, p. 147. 57 Fuat Köprülü, 'Türkler, Edebiyat', İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. XII(2), p. 536. 58 This work was written by a certain Shādī the Maddāh in 1362 in Kastamonu. See Irène Mélikoff, 'Le drame de Kerbela dans la littérature épique turque', Revue des études 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 our possession have been shaped by an accumulation of oral performances over time, and may have indeed been written with performance in mind rather than passive reading, they may be seen as constituting various layers of a collective memory reflecting widespread religious perceptions. For a preliminary study of these popular epics as a mirror of the collective memory, see Rıza Yıldırım, 'Beylikler Dünyasında Kerbela Kültürü ve Ehl-i Beyt Sevgisi: 1362 Yılında Kastamonu'da Yazılan bir Maktel'in Düşündürdükleri', Kuzey Anadolu'da Beylikler Dönemi Sempozyumu Bildirileri. Cobanogˇullari, Candarogˇullari, Pervaneogˇullari, 3–8 Ekim 2011 Katamonu-Sinop-C¸ankiri, ed. Halil C¸etin (C¸ankiri: C¸ankiri Karatekin U¨niversitesi Yayinlari, 2012), pp. 344–372. 60 For a thorough analysis of Maqtāl al-Husayn in this perspective, see Yıldırım, 'Beylikler Dünyasında Kerbela Kültürü', pp. 358–372. Mélikoff notices the same kind of grouping in Abū Muslim-nāma. See Irène Mélikoff, Abū Muslim: Le 'Porte-Hache' du Khorassan dans la tradition épique 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 Mélikoff, Abū pp. Mélikoff does not the link futuwwa and Abū Muslim and to the Nāirian and discussed this needs to be since before have no of Abū Muslim in this in of is of akhī and Mélikoff, Abū pp. Mélikoff, 'Le pp. The oral of these Turkish epics has to be studied For some preliminary see in his ve University Press, pp. There is good reason to that this was not from the Mélikoff the Maqtāl is to 10 to be read during the first 10 of In the beginning of some the author or his audience as which may well as Mélikoff its being read in akhī See Mélikoff, 'Le pp. For a thorough analysis of the oral see Yıldırım, 'Beylikler Dünyasında Kerbela Ibn Ba ūa, Rihlet Ibn pp. special stress on al-Suhrawardī's in this See Ohlander, Sufism in an Age of pp. Early akhī and which the by which a was to that akhī were to to those of Sufi and they too the of the See, for example, bir Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi, 21 pp. ve Ahi (Ankara: Yayınları, There is no that akhīs were Hence they be regarded as a The Formation of Turkey, p. Indeed, there are good to that was not an futuwwat-nāma that those who do not have an or should not be on the akhī p. the of and should be since Ibn mentions akhīs who were and, as Taeschner already Ottoman Murad I was an See Franz Taeschner, Murad des Akhī (1953), pp. Taeschner, 'Futuwwa: Post-Mongol Period', p. Breebaart, 'The pp. For the of the fifteenth century, one may about of and but not about in its that is See in Eastern in (ed.), in the History of the from the Rise of to the New Gölpınarlı, 'İslam ve Türk İllerinde', pp. Breebaart, 'The p. 'The of the Safavid p. For a of in the to Safavid and Ottoman see Rıza Yıldırım, The Origins of the Qizilbash in (PhD dissertation, University, 2008), pp. See in of b. (London: and pp. ve (Ankara: Türk Yıldırım, pp. G. EI (2nd edn), Vol. pp. History of Muslim University, p. and is in a traditional Shī'ite he was for his Shī'ite as well as by of being to the makes his position more According to his futuwwat-nāma of a an idea by Ridgeon and Mysticism, pp. and not shared by the For and religious position with special reference to see Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism, pp. is The of Husayn Studies, pp. and pp. pp. in he about the of and are especially as of the with no of Cahen, 'Le Problème du p. in the and Safavid Period', in (ed.), History of Iran University Press, 1993), Vol. pp. et et de Revue des 29 pp. under the in History of Vol. pp. et p. in the and Safavid Period', p. under the p. It should be underlined that the fifteenth century saw only the earlier of this great which would in the century in the of the Ottoman and the Safavid For earlier to Islamic more the in the see and 'The of Islamic in Iran in the of the Sunni under Journal of the American Oriental Society, pp. and Its in the Period', Studies, pp. For an analysis of the political in Iran and to the late fifteenth century, see in Eastern during the in (ed.), the of 14 Eastern of the in 4 (Paris: 2012), pp. were to of an these two traditions, the of Shī'itisation, it would rather be to a futuwwa on the which is as discussed See Rıza Yıldırım, a Sufi The of the Futuwwa as a for the Qizilbash in John and Erik S. Sufism and of the Mystical in the Muslim York: Routledge, 2011), pp.