Ufuk Erol

The Development of the Safaviyya and Its Relations with the Kızılbash
Communities of Anatolia: An Overview
Introduction

The Safaviyya, which was founded by Shaykh Safi in the early 14th century in Ardabil, Iran,

is one of the most prominent Sufi tarikats in the history of Islam. It spread into a vast area

covering Azerbaijan, Iran and Anatolia. The proliferation of the followers of the Safaviyya

attracted the ruling elites of Iran and Anatolia, and the early heads of the order established

both political and kinship relations with such dynasties as the Ilkhanids, Akkoyunlus and

Ottomans. Considering the importance of the Safaviyya, in this paper I will attempt to

demonstrate how this order flourished in the above mentioned areas and how it interacted

with the various Sufis and the Kızılbash communities of Anatolia.

1.Safvetü’s Safa

Safvetü’s Safa or with its full name el-Mevâhibü’s-seniyye fî menâkıbi’s-Safaviyya is a widely

known hagiography of Shaykh Safiyüddin Ardabili written in Persian by Derviş Tevekküli b.

İsmail b. Hacı Muhammad el-Ardabili or Ibn Bezzaz in 1358. It may be classified in the

menakıbname1genre, since it narrates the life of Shaykh Safi, who is the founder of the

Safaviyya order in the early 14th century in Ardabil, Iran. Ibn Bezzaz was one of the followers

(mürids) of Shaykh Sadruddin Ardabili, the son of Shaykh Safi. His father was a cloth

merchant from Ardabil. Katib Çelebi presents Ibn Bezzaz as the ‘author of the anecdotes of

Shaykh Safiyüddin Erdebili, his ancestors and descendants’ in Keşfu’z Zünun. He writes his

name as Mütevekkil b. İsmail el-Bezzaz.

1
It derives from the Arabic word nekabe, which means to inform and to mention. The singular form is and the
plural is menakıb. However, the word menkıbe has usually been used in Ottoman and Modern Turkish. Menakıb
means treat of character and anectodes and it was first used in the 9th century to describe the admired
characteristics of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, see for instance, Menakıbu Ömer b. el-Hattab and
Menakıbu Ali b. Ebu Talib, cited in Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Menakıbnameler (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi, 1996), 27.

1

Ufuk Erol

Safvetü’s Safa is Ibn Bezzaz’s only known work, although it is argued that he might

have written another work named as Menakıb-ı Şeyh Safi, before Safvetü’s Safa.2The former

is the name frequently given to the Ottoman Turkish translations of the 4th chapter of

Safvetü’s Safa existing in Anatolia. Furthermore, the word tezkire was also used for the

preambles written for these translations.3

As for the content of the work, Safvetü’s Safa consists of an introduction

(mukaddime), twelve chapters (bab) and one epilogue (hatime).4 The first chapter narrates the

genealogy, birth, childhood and discipleship of Shaykh Safi, his meeting with Shaykh Zahid

and it includes eleven sub-chapters (fasıl). The second chapter is regarding the miracles of

Shaykh Safi, who saved people from natural disasters and illnesses. The third chapter narrates

the miracles of Shaykh Safi which stem from his grace and anger. The fourth chapter includes

Shaykh’s interpretations of ayets, hadis-i şerifs, statements and verses of meşayıh(plural of

shaykh) including famous sufis, Attar and Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi. It also presents the

mystic statements of Shaykh Safi.5The fifth chapter is about the miracles of Shaykh Safi in

which he saves animals and other living creatures. The sixth chapter recounts the

sema(whirling dance) and vecd(being in a state of rapture and ecstasy) of Shaykh Safi. The

seventh chapter gives an account of the various miracles of Shaykh Safi. The eighth chapter is

regarding the mezhep(sect), mücahede(fighting), riyazet(ascetism and mortification of flesh)

and feraset(intuition and sagacity) of Shaykh Safi. The ninth chapter narrates the illness and

death of Shaykh Safi. The tenth chapter tells the miracles that appeared after the death of

Shaykh. The eleventh chapter recounts the fame, superiority and the halifes(representatives)

2
Nizamettin Parlak and Sönmez Kutlu, Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu (İstanbul: Horasan Yayınları, 2008), 34.
3
Ibid.
4
Serap Şah, “Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin Ardabili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri” (PhD diss.,
Marmara Üniversitesi, 2008). 3.
5
This chapter is the source of many buyruks and menakıbs of Shaykh Safi written in Ottoman Anatolia and
Safavid Iran in the 15, 16 and 17th centuries. A brief analysis of it will be given later in the paper. It is also the
part that was examined and published by Nizamettin Parlak and Sönmez Kutlu in the name of Makalat Şeyh Safi
Buyruğu

2

Ufuk Erol

of Shaykh Safi in the world. The final chapter is on the miracles of the mürids(followers) of

Shaykh Safi. At the end of Savfetü’s Safa, there is an epilogue mentioning the significance of

the book. In this regard, Menuçehr Murtazavi asserts that Savfetü’s Safa comes after

Menakıbu’l Arifin and Esrarü’t Tevhid in terms of its importance and it is a unique work.6

On which works Ibn Bezzaz drew when writing Savfetü’s Safa is vague. Kutlu and

Parlak argue that Ibn Bezzaz may have used the alleged works of Shaykh Safi both in Turkish

and Persian.7 Though some claim that Kara Mecmua and Genc Name might be the works of

Shaykh Safi, these books have not reached today.

With regard to the existing copies of Savfetü’s Safa, one of the most reliable works is

that of Gulam Rıza Tabatabai written in Persian8. He edited and copied the whole book by

comparing nine copies. He argues that the copy preserved in the Ayasofya Library with the

number of 2139 dating back to 914/1508-1509 contains several falsifications, contrary to the

common belief that falsifications begun in the reign of Shah Tahmasb by Mir Ebu’l Feth

Hüseyni,. He classifies these nine copies into two groups: the first six written before

900/1494-1495 and the remaining three that were used by Mir Ebu’l Feth Hüseyni. Drawing

on the comparison between these two groups, Tabatabai concludes that the introduction

(mukaddime) and epilogue (hatime) were added later by Ebu’l Feth Hüseyni. He attributes

these alterations to the Shi’i institutionalization of the Safavid state and the dynasty’s strong

claim to be seyyid, meaning the descendant of Prophet Muhammad.

As regards the Turkish translations of Savfetü’s Safa, Kutlu and Parlak argue that most

of these translations contain merely the fourth chapter of the work including the statements of

6
Şah, “Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin Ardabili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri”, 4.
7
Parlak and Kutlu, Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu, 40.
8
This copy of Tabatabai was translated from Persian to modern Turkish by Serap Şah in her PhD dissertation
and I use her translation in the paper.

3

Ufuk Erol

Shaykh Safi and other sufis.9 By investigating the various copies of this fourth chapter written

with the titles of Menakıb-ı Şeyh Safi, Makalat-ı Şeyh Safi, Kaşifü’l Kulub, they claim that

Savfetü’s Safa was translated to Ottoman, Azeri and Chagatai Turkish by more than one

translator in different places and times.10 Serap Şah maintains that none of the Turkish

translations in the libraries of Turkey contain the whole work.11The following is the list of

copies that are translations of Savfetü’s Safa and involve mostly the fourth chapter12:

1. Hacı Selim Ağa Ktp., Kemânkeş bl., nr. 412; Copyist: Osman b. Mustafâ, date of copy:

Receb 1048/1638, 140 varak, 17 satır

2. Hacı Selim Ağa Ktp., Kemânkeş bl., nr. 247;Copyist: indefinite, date of copy: 966/1559,

137 varak, 13 satır

3. İzmir Milli Ktp., nr. 1483/3, vr. 43b-133a; Copyist: indefinite, date of copy: indefinite, 90

varak, 21 satır

4. Manisa İl Halk Ktp., nr. 1383/1; Copyist: indefinite, date of copy: 868/1463, 135 varak, 15

satır

5. Sadberk Hanım Müzesi, Yazmalar bl., nr. 171; Copyist: indefinite, date of copy:1241/1825-

26,122 varak, 15 satır

6. Süleymaniye Ktp., Hacı Mahmud Ef. bl., nr. 2716, vr. 34b-68b; Copyist: indefinite, date of

copy: indefinite

7. Süleymaniye Ktp., Hacı Mahmud Ef. bl., nr. 2642, vr. 154; Copyist: indefinite, date of

copy: 1083/1673

8. Süleymaniye Ktp., Hacı Mahmud bl., nr. 6491, vr. 121; Copyist: Mustafa Efendi, date of

copy:1254/1839

9
Parlak and Kutlu, Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu, 40-54.
10
Ibid.
11
Serap Şah, “Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin Ardabili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri”, 13.
12
I combined the lists of both Serap Şah and Parlak&Kutlu.

4

Ufuk Erol

9. Süleymaniye Ktp., İzmir bl., nr. 465, vr. 108; Copyist: indefinite, date of copy: 968/1560

10. British Museum Turkish Manuscripts Or: 7576/1, date of copy: 861/1457& Or: 5772,

Copyist: indefinite, date of copy: indefinite

11. Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler 3344, Copyist: indefinite, date of copy: 861/1457

12. Saint Petersburg Saltıkov-Şedrin Xanıkov 91, Copyist: Nişati, Photocopy: AMEA13, M.

Fuzuli el yazmaları C-568

13.Kitabhane-i Asitan-i Kuds-i Rızavi 95, date of copy: 930-984/1524-1576

14. Kastamonu MEB Kitaplığı 1458, date of copy: 1041/1632

The eleventh work preserved in the library of Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler may be the

most reliable one as it was written in 1457 and might not have been exposed to the distortions

made by Ebu’l Feth Hüseyni in the reign of Shah Tahmasb.14 The title of the work was

written as Kitab-ı Menakıb-ı Şeyh Safiyüddin. However, it was also given as Kaşifü’l Kulub at

the end of the copy. Thus, both names have been used to define the book. It is the Ottoman

Turkish translation of the fourth chapter of Safvetü’s Safa.

The work of Kutlu and Parlak entitled Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu is mainly the

transcription of this Kaşifü’l Kulub made through the comparison of the above 13 copies and

it is their book that I draw on in the paper along with the Turkish translation of Savfetü’s Safa

by Serap Şah.

2.Shaykh Safi

Shaykh Safi is one of the most eminent sufis of Iran in the Ilkhanid period, who founded the

Safaviyya order. His full name was Shaykh Safiyüddin Erdebili İshak b. Cebrail and born in

Kelhoran nearby Ardabil, Iran. He was in close contact with the sufis of Ardabil, some of

whom were followers of the orders of Şehabüddin Sühreverdi and Cüneyd-i Bağdadi. In his

twenties, Safi traveled across western and central Iran in the pursuit of a sufi master. In Şiraz

13
Azarbeycan Milli İlimler Akademisi
14
Parlak and Kutlu, Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu, 42.

5

Ufuk Erol

he met with Emir Abdullah, Rükneddin Beyzavi and Sadi Şirazi. Emir Abdullah advised him

to see Shaykh Zahid. Therefore, Safi went to Gilan, where Shaykh Zahid invited him to his

lodge (khangah). He stayed in Zahid’s lodge for 22 years and married the daughter of Zahid,

Bibi Fatıma. Before his death, Zahid designated Safi as his successor and the new owner of

the hırka (mantle). When Safi expressed his insufficiency, Zahid said:

“Safi, God has shown you to the people and His command is that you obey. His call…I have broken
the polo-stick of all your adversaries and cast the ball before you. Strike it where you will; the field is
yours. I have been able to live the life of a recluse, but you cannot. Wherever you are bidden, you must
go, to make converts and give instruction. It is God who has given this task.”15
Another passage that presents Zahid’s advice to Safi to continue his order is given in

Habib al-siyar, written by Khwandamir:

“No matter how high the bird of my heart has flown, it has found no place better than Ardabil for you
to reside. Now, Safi, you must dwell in this land in order that your threshold be a nest for birds from
the world above. You must lead the people on the highway of the right religion and the path of the
rightly guarded nation because God has entrusted you to the people and the people to you.”16
One may infer a sense of proselytism from these statements and whether they were

uttered by Zahid himself is not clear as they might have been used with hindsight.17Further in

this regard, Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı states that Shaykh Safi, as the groom of İmamü’l Halvetiyye

İbrahim Zahid Gilani, established the Safaviyya or Erdebiliyye18 order by combining

Halvetiyye and Kalenderiyye.19With regard to this Halveti aspect of Zahid, Johh Curry

stresses Lami Çelebi’s translation of Nefahatü'l-üns min hadarati'l kuds, written by Abdü’l

rahman Cami.20 The work is a ninth/fifteenth century hagiographical compilation. Lami, by

adding a concluding remark to the end of the work, drives attention to the diverse and

complicated structure of the Halveti order. In this remark, he says:

15
Roger Savory, Iran Under the Safavids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 8.
16
Kishwar Rizvi, The Safavid Dynastic Shrine Architecture, Religion and Power in Early Modern Iran
(London&New York: I.B.Tauris, 2011), 60.
17
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 8.
18
Gölpınarlı may be the only source that uses Ardabiliyye, which is not used in most of the modern scholarly
works.
19
Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, Tarih Boyunca İslam Mezhepleri ve Şiilik (İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 1987), 172.
20
John J. Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire, The Rise of the
Halveti Order 1350-1650, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 29.

6

Ufuk Erol

“According to what I heard from the great ones who lived in Herat, these aforementioned

Halveti shaykhs[like Zahirüddin] are not the Halveti shaykhs which in our time are well

known in the area of Şirvan and Anatolia. The exalted silsile of these aforementioned shaykhs

derives from Shaykh Rükneddin Alaüddevle Simnani. As for the silsiles of those which are

famed among us, they go back to İbrahim Zahid Gilani.”21

Drawing on Lami’s statements, Curry argues that ‘the Halveti may have consisted of

both a western Ottoman branch and an eastern Timurid one that developed and operated in

separate spheres from one another.’22Another significant point is that Ibrahim Zahid is the

mürşid (spiritual teacher) of both Shaykh Safi and Muhammad el-Halveti. DeWeese suggests

that the specifically ‘western’ (Ottoman) Halveti silsile’s inclusion of Ibrahim Zahid Gilani

might be interpreted as the competition of the later Halveti silsile builders with the emerging

Safavid order devotees.23Related to these arguments, the propagation of the Safaviyya order

about being seyyid may be related to this competition. Though both Safevi and Halveti silsiles

go back to Imam Musa-yı Kazım, the successors of Shaykh Safi might have attempted to

consolidate their influence by distinguishing themselves from other orders including the

Halvetis in terms of their neseb. However, the interconnections among Sühreverdiyye,

Halvetiyye and Safaviyya have yet to be studied thoroughly in the modern scholarship.

With regard to the nesebname of the Safaviyya order, in Savfetü’s Safa and the various

copies of its fourth chapter named as Menakıb-ı Şeyh Safi and Şeyh Safi Buyruğu the pedigree

of Shaykh Safi and his successors spring from ehl-i beyt. Most of the copies tie Safi’s

genealogy to Imam Musa-yı Kazım. However, the translators of the two books that I use as

primary sources, Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu (hereafter, Kutlu-Parlak) and the Turkish

translation of Savfetü’s Safa by Serap Şah (hereafter, Serap Şah) underline the differences

between various copies that they draw on. In both Kutlu-Parlak and Serap Şah, the parts

21
Ibid.
22
Ibid., 30.
23
Ibid., 31.

7

Ufuk Erol

between Shaykh Safi and Ivaz/Avaz are similar and follow as: Shaykh Safiyyüddîn Ebu’l-

Feth İshak b. eş-Shaykh Eminüddin Cebrâîl b. es-Salih b. Kutbüddin Ebu Bekr b. Salahüddin

Reşid b. Muhammad el-Hafız li kelamullah b. Avaz.

While in Kutlu-Parlak Seyyid Firuz Shah comes after Avaz, Piruz el-Kürdi es-

Sencani/Piruz Shah Zerrin Külah follows Avaz in Serap Şah. Moreover, in Şeyh Safi

Tezkiresi, a short translation of Savfetü’s Safa to Azeri Turkish made by Nişati, the words

Kürdi and Sencani do not exist.24The last part of nesebname in Serap Şah is as follows:

Muhammad Şeref Şah b. Muhammad b. Hasan b. Muhammad b. İbrahim b. Ca‘fer b.

Muhammad İsmail b.Muhammad b. Ahmed A‘rabî b. Ebû Muhammad el-Kâsım b.Ebu’l-

Kasım Hazma b. el-İmam el-Hümam Musa el-Kazım b. İmam Ca‘fer es-Sadık b. İmam

Muhammad el-Bakır b. İmam Zeyne’l-Abidin Ali b. İmam Seyyidü’l-Süheda b. Abdullah el-

Hüseyin b. Emiru’l-mü’minin ve İmamü’l-muttakin Ali b. Ebu Talib (salavatullahi aleyhim ve

ecmain). However, the part between the Muhammad Şeref Şah and Ahmed Arabi is different

in Kutlu-Parlak and Şeyh Safi Tezkiresi.

Since in some copies of Savfetü’s Safa Firuz Shah appeared as el-Kürdi es-Sencani,

Zeki Velidi Togan argues that Shaykh Safi had Kurdish descendants and the nesebname of the

Safaviyya was Turkified in the reign of Shah İsmail.25He claims Firuz was Kurdish from the

Sencan region of Kurdistan. In line with Togan, Ahmed Kesrevi asserts that the ancestors of

Shaykh Safi came from Kurdistan and in one of the ‘reliable’ copies of Savfetü’s Safa, Firuz

Shah was written as el-Kürdi es-Sübhani Piruz Shah Zerrin Külah.26However, Kesrevi does

not state which copy of Savfetü’s Safa he uses and the number and library of the copy.

Contrary to these arguments, Mirza Abbaslı contends that the word es-Sencani may

have been added to the full name of Firuz Shah in order to establish a connection between

24
Kutlu-Parlak, 424.
25
Zeki Velidi Togan, “Sur L’origine des Safavides” in Mélanges Louis Massignon v.III, ed. Louis Massignon
(Damas : Institut Français de Damas, 1957), 356.
26
Ahmed Kesrevi, Şeyh Safi ve Tebareş (Tahran: 1976), 48 cited in Serap Şah, “Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin
Ardabili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri”, 29-30.

8

Ufuk Erol

Shaykh Safi and his shaykh İbrahim Zahid27 as the latter’s nesebname in the Savfetü’s Safa

contain this word: Shaykh Tacüddin İbrahim b. Ruşen Emir b. Babil b. Seyh Bendar el-Kürdî

es-Sencani. Furthermore, Abbaslı indicates that the famous Arab geographer Yakut b.

Abdullah El-Hamevi demonstrated three cities called Sencan in his Kitabu’l Buldan, one

nearby Merv, one nearby Nişapur and the other in Babu’l Ebvab in Azerbaijan.28 Thus, it is

unclear from which Sencan Firuz Shah was.

Another counter argument to Shaykh Safi’s being of Kurdish origin may be that he is

called Türk Piri/Pir-i Türk in various narratives in Safvetü’s Safa. For instance, he was called

as such in Şiraz:

“... Emir Abdullah (r.a.), uzun bir süre sessiz kaldı, başını eğdi. Sonra başını kaldırdı ve dedi:
Ey Türk piri! Bizim himmet kuşumuz bu yere (mertebeye) kadar uçmamıştır... Emir Abdullah
onun bu hâlini görünce: “Ey Türk Piri! Şark aleminden garb alemine kadar, senin bu rüyanı
ve halini anlayacak kişi Seyh Zahid-i Gilani(k.r.)’den başkası değildir...”29
“... Bir gün Şeyh (k.s.), oturmuştu ki mihrabın duvarı çatladı. Biri oradan çıkıp Şeyhi: ‘Ey Pir-
i Türk!’ diye çağırdı. Şeyh (k.s.)’e Pir-i Türk de denirdi. Bu yüzden onun yüzü gayet güzel ve
mükemmel bir şekilde görünüyordu... Şeyh adamı dinlemeye başladığı zaman Şeyh’e söyle
dedi: Pir-i Türk! Hazır ol ki üç günden sonra, asla namaz kılamayacaksın...”30
Sohrweide states that the word ‘Türk’ in these narratives refers to the adjective

‘beautiful’.31 In addition, Nikitine argues that although Savfetü’s Safa contains such

anecdotes, at the time of Shaykh Safi Ardabil was not a turcophone region.32 However,

Abbaslı contends that Shaykh Safi must have known Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Mongol and

Gilanca, which may be inferred from Savfetü’s Safa.33 Drawing on these arguments, one may

say that the origins of Shaykh Safi and his ancestors including Firuz Shah are not certain. The

27
Mirza Abbaslı, “Safevilerin Kökenine Dair”, Belleten, vol. 40, no. 158 (April 1976): 328.
28
Yakut b. Abdullah el-Hamevi, Kitabu’l Buldan cited in Abbaslı, “Safevilerin Kökenine Dair”, 328-329.
29
Serap Şah, “Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin Ardabili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri”, 32.
30
Ibid.
31
Cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in
Anatolia(1447-1514)( PhD diss., Bilkent University, 2008), 157.
32
Basil Nikitine, “Essai d’analyse du Safvat-us-Safa” in Journal Asiatique 245 (1957): 393.
33
Mirza Abbaslı, “Safevilerin Kökenine Dair”, 325. However, Abbaslı does not indicate which copy of Savfetü’s
Safa he used.

9

Ufuk Erol

significant point which most of the scholars overlook is that the late medieval identities are

different from today’s modern ethnicities. Thus, what people meant by Turkish in the late

medieval period might not same as today’s usage.

The mezhep of Shaykh Safi is another point of uncertainty and controversy. In the

modern scholarship he is depicted as Şafi or a pious Sunni. For example, Nikitine says ‘leur

orthodoxie est indiscutable’, by referring to both Safi and his disciples.34 Michel Mazzaoui

also argues that Safi was an orthodox sunni. He gives a passage from Savfetü’s Safa as an

example, “…he[Safi] believed in the madhab of the imams[the four schools of Abu Hanifa,

Safi’I, Malik and Ibn Hanbal] whom he loved, and that from among the [four] medahib he

chose those hadits that had the strongest chain of authority[asnad] and are the best[ağwad],

and applied them.”35Moreover, in the eighth chapter of Savfetü’s Safa, when the mezhep of

Safi is asked, he says: “Bizim mezhebimiz, sahabe mezhebidir. Her dördünü severiz ve her

dördüne de dua ederiz.”36Hamdullah Kazvini, a Persian geographer and historian, states in his

book, Nüzhetü’l Kulub, that the majority of the population of Ardabil was Şafi and most of

them were the followers of Shaykh Safi. In line with the orthodoxy paradigm, Rıza Yıldırım

contends that Shaykh Safi was a well educated man and the majority of his followers must

have been from the cultivated echelons. Thus, Safi and his mürşid Zahid represent High

Sufism adhering to şeri’at.37 Contrary to Yıldırım, Roemer claims that Shaykh Safi ‘was a

typical religious leader, a representative of Folk Islam far removed from the official

theology.’38 However, the dichotomy of high and low Sufism and the paradigm of orthodoxy

34
Basil Nikitine, “Essai d’analyse du Safvat-us-Safa”, 390.
35
Cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires: The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in
Anatolia(1447-1514), 152.
36
Serap Şah, “Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin Ardabili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri”, 38.
37
Cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in
Anatolia(1447-1514), 155.
38
H. R. Roemer, “The Safavid Period” in The Cambridge History of Iran, v.6, ed.Peter Jackson and Laurence
Lockhart, (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press, 1986), 191.

10

Ufuk Erol

is highly problematic, for to what extent they explain the structure of the socio-religious

organizations is open to question.

Abbaslı and Bashir offer more plausible accounts on the mezhep of Shaykh Safi.

Abbaslı argues that if Safi had been attached to merely one school of thought or tarikat, he

could not have united both Sunni and Shi’i groups around Darü’l-irşad, i.e., his order. He

further claims that although the majority of his followers were Şafi and Hanefi, those who

were İsmaili and İsna-Aşeri followed Safi.39 In this regard, Shahzad Bashir claims that the

coalescing of Sufi and Shi’i forms of authority was common in the post-Mongol and Timurid

periods.40 For instance, while the Ilkhanid ruler Olcaytu was Shi’i, his son Abu Said was

Sunni and both of them revered Shaykh Safi. Therefore, it may be said that the time of Safi

witnessed confessional ambiguities as the mezheps were not clear cut entities and cross-

sectarian interactions existed among various orders and people.

3. The Development and Transformation of the Safaviyya from the Safavid and Ottoman

Sources

In the modern scholarship the history of Safaviyya is generally divided into 3 periods. The

first starts with the foundation of the order and the Ardabil lodge by Shaykh Safi(d.1334) and

lasts until the time of Shaykh Cüneyd. The second is the period between Cüneyd(d.1460) and

Shah İsmail(d.1524). The final one covers the period between Shah Tahmasb and Shah Abbas

III(d.1740) At the time of Abbas, the Safavid state collapsed. The first and second periods

will be analyzed in this part of the paper.

In the first period, the Safaviyya may be defined as a contemplative Sufi order located

in Ardabil, Iran41. Since its foundation, the Safaviyya’s influence in Iran, Azerbaijan and

Anatolia grew gradually and the number of its mürids increased year by year. One might

39
Mirza Abbaslı , “Safevilerin Kökenine Dair”, 290.
40
Shahzad Bashir, Messianic Hopes and Mystical Visions: The Nurbakhshiya between medieval and modern
Islam (Columbia: University of Carolina Press, 2003).
41
For the geographical importance of Ardabil see Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1-2.

11

Ufuk Erol

argue that it became a qutb-centered interpretive community that disseminated a Sufi

understanding of Islam.42 In this context, Rizvi argues that Savfetü’s Safa as a hagiography of

Safi helped the legitimization of the authority of the mystic and the instruction of the novices

on rituals.43 Thus, the order had supportive relations with the ruling elites such as Ilkhanids.

For example, the Ilkhanid ruler Gazan Han, his son Olcaytu and their viziers Reşidüddin

venerated Shaykh Safi and Mongol Emir Çoban was a disciple of the order.44 Rizvi contends

that he was regarded as an intermediary between the rulers and their subjects for his integrity

and religious authority45, similar to the qutb characteristic of Shaykh Safi mediating between

the seen and unseen world. As a result of such relations with the rulers, Safi benefited from

tax exemptions and was granted vaqf revenues.46

After the death of Safi in 1334, Sadreddin became the head of the order. In Tarih-i

Alam-ara-yı Amini, Fazlullah Hunci writes about Sadreddin: “[his glory] spread everywhere,

the number of adepts increased and these brought him masses of valuables, and soon, as his

father’s successor, he added to the dignity of Aaron [Harun] the magnificence of Korah

[Qarun]. His cellars became full of supplies and the place of pilgrimage brimful with

merchandise”.47The time of Sadreddin is significant, for the shrine of Shaykh Safi was

established. He ordered the construction of darü’l hüffaz and çilehane(meditation hall) in the

shrine, which implies a certain rise in the revenues of the order as stated in the above quote.

The hüffaz are said to have gathered in çilehane and performed a loud zikr from night to

day.48

42
Though Krstic refers to Shah İsmail as qutb, we may also refer his predecessors as qutb as they had great
influence in Iran and Anatolia, see Tijana Krstić, “Muslims through narratives” in Contested Conversions to
Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2011), 41.
43
Kishwar Rizvi, The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, 25.
44
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 10.
45
Kishwar Rizvi, The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, 67.
46
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 9.
47
Fazlullah b. Ruzbihan Hunci, Tarih-i Alam-ara-yı Amini cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two
Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in Anatolia(1447-1514), 159-160.
48
Kishwar Rizvi, The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, 41.

12

Ufuk Erol

In 1391 Shaykh Sadreddin died and was buried in the Ardabil shrine. He designated

his son Hoca Ali as his successor before his death. Ali was the head of the order from 1391

until his death in 1427. Both Savory and Browne assert that the Shi’itization of the order

begun at the time of Hoca Ali. Browne presents the following quote from Nesebname-i Silsile

es-Safaviyya to support his view: “chastise, as they deserve, the Yazdi Kurds, the friends of

Mu’awiya, because of whom we wear the black garb of mourning for the Immaculate

Imams.”49Another significant point about Hoca Ali is his meetings with Timur. It is alleged in

some Safavid sources that Hoca Ali met with Timur three times. The last meeting is said to

have taken place in 1404 when Timur was on the way to Central Asia after his victory over

Yıldırım Bayezid in in the Battle of Ankara in1402.50According to Alam ara-yı Shah Ismail,

impressed by the miracles of Hoca Ali, Timur handed over prisoners of the Battle of Ankara

to the Ardabil lodge and they became the disciples of Hoca Ali. They were called Sufiyan-ı

Rum and sent back to Anatolia with halifes of Hoca Ali. It is also said that they became the

ancestors of the Turkomans who helped the establishment of the Safavid state.51However,

Roemer argues that this story is a myth as the group brought by Timur was Karatatars who

were settled in Transoxiana.

With regard to the relations between the Ardabil lodge and Anatolian sufis, it is said

that Somucu Baba/Shaykh Hamid-i Veli was a disciple of Hoca Ali. However, when Hoca Ali

became the head of the Safaviyya, Somuncu Baba was 60 years old. Therefore, Shaykh

Sadreddin might have been the teacher of Somuncu Baba. He received his first education

from his father Shaykh Şemseddin Musa and moved to Damascus52. In Mecdi’s translation of

Şakayık-ı Numaniye, written by Taşköprülüzade in 1556, Somuncu Baba is described as:

“Hamid b. Musa Hoca Ali Erdebilî hazretlerinden ahz-ı tarikat etmişdir. Lakin daha sonraları

49
Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, vol. IV Modern Times (1500-1924) (Maryland: Iranbooks,
1997), 46.
50
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 13.
51
H. R. Roemer, “The Safavid Period”, 205-206.
52
İslam Ansiklopedisi, Haşim Şahin (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2009), “Somuncu Baba”, 377.

13

Ufuk Erol

batında asıl tarikatını arif-i billâh Bayezid-i Bistami’nin tarikatında bulmuşdur. Hamid b.

Musa, Yıldırım Bayezid dönemi ulemasından olup, ayrıca Hacı Bayram-ı Veli’nin Şeyhi

olmuşdur.” However, in Lami Çelebi’s translation of Nefahatü’l-üns, he is said to have served

a şeyh in the lodge of the Bayezidiyye and learnt the spiritual principles of Bayezid Bistami.

Not being satisfied in this lodge, he moved to Tabriz and became attached to Hoca Ali.53He

participated in the meclis-i zikr in the lodge of the Safaviyya.

Having completed his seyr-i süluk in Ardabil, he settled in Bursa. According to

Semeratü’l Fuad, written by Sarı Abdullah Efendi, when Somuncu left Ardabil to settle in

Anatolia, Hoca Ali granted him a hilafet and said: “Diyar-ı Acem'de emanet olarak bulunan

esrar-ı ilahiyye onunla birlikte diyar-ı Rum'a intikal etti.”54In Bursa, it is said that Yıldırım

Bayezid and Molla Fenari revered him.55After Bursa, Somuncu Baba moved to Adana, where

Hacı Bayram Veli, the founder of the Bayramiyye, became his mürid and they traveled to

Mecca.56The former is said to have settled in Aksaray and the latter moved to Ankara. A

significant point regarding Hacı Bayram is that although his silsile goes back to the Safaviyya

through Somuncu Baba, his order Bayramiyye were tax-exempts in the reign of Murad II.57

This may show that at that time of Murad II, the Safaviyya and its related disciples in Ottoman

Anatolia were by respected by the Ottoman state to a certain extent. The reason behind this

might also be that the political claims of the Safaviyya against the Ottomans became more

apparent after Hoca Ali.

Hoca Ali died in 1429 when he was en route back to Ardabil from Mecca. He was

buried in Jerusalem by his son Shaykh İbrahim, who became the new head of the Safaviyya.

53
Haşim Şahin also points to the uncertainty about whether Sadreddin or Hoca Ali was the teacher of Somuncu
Baba, as stated in the above page.
54
Sarı Abdullah Efendi, Semeratü’l Fuad, (İstanbul: 1288/1871-72), 230 cited in İslam Ansiklopedisi,
“Somuncu Baba”, 377.
55
Lami Çelebi, Nefahat Tercümesi, 683; Sarı Abdullah Efendi, Semeratü’l Fuad, 232 both cited in İslam
Ansiklopedisi, “Somuncu Baba”, 377.
56
İsmail E. Erünsal, XV-XVI. Asır Bayrami Melamiliği'nin Kaynaklarından Abdurrahman el-Askeri'nin Mir atü
l-aşk'ı ( Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003), 203-204.
57
İslam Ansiklopedisi, 445.

14

Ufuk Erol

Ibrahim’s period is the one on which most of the contemporary sources are silent. Thus, lack

of information also exists in the modern scholarship. A few sources present some details

about him. For example, in Habib al-siyar, Khwandamir writes: “After the death of his father,

Shaykh Khwaja Ali, Shaykh Ibrahim traveled in great sorrow until he reached Ardabil, where

he took up the prayer carpet of his fathers and forefathers in guiding dervishes and devotees

of his house.”58İskender Beg Munshi emphasizes the spread of the followers of İbrahim in

Anatolia and the great increase in the number of them59. Minorsky contends that neither high

nor folk or ghulat level of Shi’ism was dominant in the order at the time of İbrahim60. Using

this high and folk/low dichotomy, Rıza Yıldırım argues that the nomadic Turkomans of

Anatolia did not have a special interest in the Safaviyya at the time of Ibrahim and the

followers of the order consisted mostly of educated and urban people.61

However, Savory states that: “What is clear is that Ibrahim maintained and

strengthened the network of adherents who were actively engaged in spreading the Safavid

propaganda in Anatolia and elsewhere. At the head of this organization was an officer called

the khalifat al-khulafa.”62In this regard, a remarkable document which may shed light on the

period of Shaykh Ibrahim and his propaganda in Anatolia was published by Ayfer Karakaya.

The document is a hilafetname, granting someone the title of halife. It demonstrates that the

contacts between the Safavids and the Anatolian Kızılbash were sustained through the halifes

directed by the halifetü’l-hülefa.63These halifes were depicted in the Ottoman mühimme

58
Cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in
Anatolia(1447-1514), 165.
59
Iskender Beg Munshi, History of Shah Abbas The Great/Tarikh-i Alamara-yı Abbasi, trans. R. Savory
(Colorado: Westviewpress, 1978), 29.
60
Tadhkirat al Muluk, trans. Vladimir Minorsky, E.J.W.Gibb Memorial Series, New Series (London: 1943), 189
cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in Anatolia(1447-
1514), 167.
61
Ibid.
62
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 16.
63
R. Savory, “The Office of Khalifat al-Khulafa under the Safawids” in Journal of American Oriental Society 85
(1965): 497-502.

15

Ufuk Erol

registers as people ‘collecting alms for the Safavids, conveying hilafetnames and other types

of letters and heretical books from Iran.’64

The hilafetname presented by Karakaya mentions the significant concepts of the Sufi

path including the four levels of experience, i.e., dört kapı: şeriat, tarikat, marifet and

hakikat. It also stresses the seyyid character of the Safavid family and the genealogy of Shah

Ismail from Imam Ali.65The document was granted to Seyyid Süleyman, who visited the

Ardabil shrine. It states that Süleyman is a descendant of Sultan Shah İbrahim: “es-Seyyid

Süleyman ki hazret-i sultanü’l evliya ve burhanu’l-asfiya, el-aşık es-Safi es-selim Sultan Shah

İbrahim nesebinde mensubdur.”66Thus, Süleyman was a halife and the member of the ocak of

Shah/Shaykh İbrahim, which is probably the only ocak in Anatolia that has kinship ties with

the Safavid family.67Although the date of the document is 1826, Karakaya argues that it may

have been copied from an earlier hilafetname as the language and some references carry signs

of the 16th century.68

Drawing on this document and information, one might assert that the Safaviyya began

diffusing to Anatolia through halife-halifetü’l hülefa system long before Shaykh Cüneyd, who

is known to be the precursor of the Safavid propaganda in Anatolia. The number of the

followers of the order presumably increased through these propaganda activities,

corroborating the argument of Savory. As a result of this increase, contrary to Rıza Yıldırım,

the order probably did not appeal only to urban circles since the ocaks were organized among

the various echelons of the communities in Anatolia. Thus, the ocaks were not grounded on a

rural and urban separation. For instance, Seyyid Süleyman, owner of the above hilafetname,

64
Saim Savaş, XVI Asırda Alevilik (Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 2002), 39-42.
65
Ayfer Karakaya Stump, Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah: The Formation and Transformation of
the Kızılbash/Alevi Communities in Anatolia (PhD diss, Harvard University, 2008), 189-190.
66
Family Document of the Sivas branch of the ocak of Şah İbrahim Veli cited in Ayfer Karakaya, Subjects of the
Sultan, Disciples of the Shah, 190, footnote 33.
67
Ayfer Karakaya Stump, Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah, 193.
68
For more details about the date of the document, see ibid., 192-193.

16

Ufuk Erol

was from the village of Doğanlı in Yıldızeli, Sivas69 and he was probably not from urban

circles. Another point is that although Savory contends that Shaykh Cüneyd was the first to

use the title Sultan70, it appears from the above hilafetname that İbrahim was also described as

Sultan.

When İbrahim died in 1447, Shaykh Cüneyd became the head of the Safaviyya. In the

modern scholarly studies, the period of Cüneyd is regarded as the turning point of the order. It

is argued that the Safaviyya became a religio-political movement and its religious framework

changed from orthodoxy to shi’ite militancy or ghulat Shi’ism. For instance, Minorsky writes:

“The early shaykhs were strictly pious and their religious authority could not be called in

question and opposed. The turning point came in the years of 1449-1456[period of

Cuneyd]…”71 Mazzaoui claims that Cüneyd transformed the Safavid Sufi order into the

Safavid movement. According to Alam-ara-yi Shah Isma’il, whose author is unknown,

Cüneyd altered the ‘secret teaching of the order’.72Nonetheless, Roemer offers a slight

different argument about this transformation. He contends that since it is difficult to

distinguish Sunnism and Shi’ism in the 15th century, the elements of Shi’ism at the folk level

had long been existent in the Safaviyya, which is controversial as the order had interactions

with the ocaks organized at the grassroots level. Thus, the Shi’itization had begun before

Cüneyd and may have intensified in his period.73

Similar to the line of Roemer, Savory accounts this transformation as ‘an important

phase in the two centuries of patient preparation for the establishment of the Safavid

69
Ayfer Karakaya Stump, Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık, Alevi Kaynaklarını, Tarihini ve TarihYazımını
Yeniden Düşünmek (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2015), 88.
70
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 16.
71
V. Minorsky, “Shaykh Bali Efendi on the Safavids” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
20(1957): 439.
72
Cited in Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in
Anatolia(1447-1514), 169.
73
H. R. Roemer, “The Safavid Period”, 193-96.

17

Ufuk Erol

dynasty and states that Cüneyd had apparent aims for temporal power and kingship.74 One

may say that Savory sees the change as a predetermined phenomenon and assumes that the

early shaykhs had somehow political aims. However, it is difficult to make such a claim as the

time of the early shaykhs including Cüneyd was very turbulent and the religious and political

structures were fluid. For instance, the doctrines of these early shaykhs contained the elements

of Sunnism, Shi’sim and Sufism as a result of confessional ambiguities.

Babayan and Rizvi diverge from the above interpretations in some respects and adhere

to a longue durée approach75. Firstly, the former argues that the concept of ghuluww has been

mistranslated and used as ‘extremism’; however, it is more appropriate to use the word

exaggeration since it means ‘to exceed the proper boundary’76She uses this term to draw a

framework for the beliefs challenging the dominant forms of Islam. She defines the period of

Cüneyd as the starting point of the revolutionary phase covering the time between 1447 and

1501. In this phase, various tribes in Anatolia and Syria were converted to Qızılbash Islam by

Cüneyd. She sees this revolutionary period as the making of the Safavid Islam, which ‘may

have been a mixture of many different currents and tendencies in Islamdom, but ghuluww,

Alid loyalty and Sufism are its predominant features.’77 She also traces the origins of

ghuluww to the pre-Islamic Persian religious traditions such as Zoroastrianism and

Manichaeism.78 In terms of showing the larger Mesopotamian and Iranian religious context

and the various interactions between several religiosities, Babayan’s work is noteworthy.

Similar to Babayan, Rizvi takes a longue durée approach when analyzing the

transformation of the Ardabil shrine. She attributes the beginning of the political history of the

74
Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 16.
75
Rizvi states that she uses the longue durée method to reveal what the past was perceived in the Safavid period,
see Kishwar Rizvi, The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, 5.
76
Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs, Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2002), xlvi.
77
Ibid., xxiv
78
For more details see Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs, chapters 2,3,4

18

Ufuk Erol

order to Shaykh Cüneyd, who fought against the Karakoyunlu rulers of Azebaijan79. She

argues that the order transformed into a political force through the supply of political

authority to the charismatic leadership of pir. She focuses more on the fluidity between

Sunnism, Shi’ism and Sufism reflecting itself in the Safavid ancestral shrine in Ardabil rather

than the pre-Islamic traditions.80

In addition to the limited Safavid sources on Cüneyd and the alleged transformation of

the order, some of the Ottoman chronicles and works present information about him. One of

these Ottoman sources is Aşıkpaşazade’s Tevarih-i Ali Osman. He writes about Cüneyd’s

move to Anatolia in the chapter titled “Anı Beyân İder kim Sultânü’l-mücâhidîn Sultân

Bâyezîd Han Zamânında Erdebîl Sûfîlerini Rumili’ne Neden Sürdüler”. Aşıkpaşazade says

that Cüneyd sent tesbih, mushaf and seccade as gifts to Sultan Murad II and requested him to

settle in a place called Kurtbeli. However, Murad II and Çandarlı Halil Pasha refused

Cüneyd’s request as they saw him as a threat81. Aşıkpaşazade is also said to have pointed to

the transformation led by Cüneyd and taken a pejorative attitude towards Cüneyd and his son

Haydar.82 Moreover, İdris-i Bitlisi, who produced works first at the court of the Akkoyunlus

and later moved to the Ottoman court, writes that Cüneyd and Haydar claimed being seyyid to

consolidate their legitimacy, even though the early shaykhs of the Safaviyya did not allege

such a claim.83However, in Savfetü’s Safa, several passages mentions Shaykh Safi’s being

seyyid. For example: İki alemin sultanu’l-meşayihi olan Şeyh Sadreddin (edamallahü

bereketehü), Şeyh (k.s.)’in şöyle buyurduğunu söyledi: “Bizim nesebimizde seyyidlik

79
Kishwar Rizvi, The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, 27.
80
Ibid., 4
81
Mehmet Nuri Çınarcı, “Söz Meydanında İki Hükümdar: Kanuni Sultan Süleyman ve Şah Tahmasb’ın
Müşaaresi” in Journal of History School XXIII (2015): 189-190
82
Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in Anatolia(1447-
1514), 171-72.
83
İdris-i Bitlisi, Selim Şahname, ed. Hicabi Kırlangıç (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2001), 121 cited in
Rıza Yıldırım, Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in Anatolia(1447-1514),
173.

19

Ufuk Erol

vardır...”84 Nonetheless, since the various copies of Savfetü’s Safa contain differences and this

story does not exist in all copies85, it is vague whether the early Safavi shayks were seyyid,

though the order had a prevalent oral tradition regarding their pedigree going back to Prophet

Muhammad.

Other examples from Ottoman sources that include a pejorative language about

Cüneyd and the transformation of the order are Celalzade and Shaykh Bali Efendi’s letter to

Rüstem Pasha. They produced their works in the 16th century; therefore, they narrated the

events from a more strict Sunni perspective. The former writes in Selim-name: “Serīr-i

saltanata culūs idicek, sürūr-ı seyātin-i İblis-i menhūsla me’nūs olmuş, ba’zı etrāk-i bī-idrāk

ile uns u ictimā’ idub tarīk-ı dalālete sulūk eyledi. Sanāyi-ı rafz u ilhād ki pīşe-i erbāb-ı dalāl

u fesāddur ol tarīka i’tikādla zulm u dalāl iklimlerini ma’mur u ābād eyledi. Cevāmi-i hidāyet-

savāmi’i āhūr-ı devvāb kılub ashāb-ı güzīn-i Rasūle sebb u la’n ile bir bātıl mezheb ihtirā’

idub Şi’a dimekle meşhur sebīl-i senī’a şüyū’ virdiler.”86In this passage, by ‘etrak-ı bi idrak’

Celalzade probably refers to the Turkoman tribes which supported Cüneyd and his successors.

Moreover, he emphasizes the Safaviyya’s transformation started by Cüneyd and denigrates the

Shi’itization by using ‘batıl mezhep ihtira idub Şi’a dimekle…’

In his letter to Rüstem Pasha containing several historical errors, Shaykh Bali Efendi

narrates the Cüneyd’s ghaza against the Georgians:

“Muhammad Shah fevt oldı. Oğlı Cuneyd yerine gecdi. Muhammad Sahın muhibbi olanlar Cuneyd’in
basına çökdüler. Cuneyd dahi gazā hevāsıyla birkac defa esdi yurtdı. Gazası rast gelmekle eyu ve yatlu
katına kesretle cem’ oldı. Bir defa dahi cem’ oldılar, Acemden geçup Gürciye gaza itmeğe destur
dilediler. Padisah destur verdi vüzerādan birisi razı olmadı. Padisahım bu tāyifenin cemiyyeti eyu adla
söylenmez. Ben kulun varub göreyin ne tayifedür. Padishah emrile vardı gördü ol tayife temam dalālet
üzere. Geldi padishaha haber virdi. Bu nice shaykhdur içlerinde ehl-i ilim yok ve sulehā yok cumlesi
ehl-i hevā’ ve ehl-i fesaddur. Bu cemiyyeti dağıtmak vacibdur. Ansızın hucum idecek olursa def idince

84
Serap Şah, Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin-i Erdebili’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri, 224.
85
Ibid, vol. 2, 572.
86
Celalzade, Selim-name, ed. Ahmet Uğur-Mustafa Çuhadar (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1997),
208-209.

20

Ufuk Erol

cok ziyan olur. didi. Eyle olsa Padishah emr eyledi icazet yokdur varsunlar yerlerine gitsunler didi.
İnad eylediler padishahın buyruğın dutmadılar. Nice olursa olsun biz bu gazadan rucu’ itmezüz didiler.
Padishah cānibinden bir bölük halk gönderildi. Azīm kıtal oldı. Shaykh Cuneydin başın kesdiler. Halk
87
kırıldı. Cemaatleri dağıldı.”
In the first sentence, he writes Muhammad Şeref Shah as Cüneyd’ father; however,

Cüneyd’s father was Shaykh İbrahim. Furthermore, the padishah that Bali Efendi mentions is

Murad II as Cüneyd requested Murad to settle in Anatolia. In line with Celalzade, Bali Efendi

disparages Cüneyd and the followers of the order as ‘ehl-i heva ve ehl-i fesad’. Thus, both

Celalzade and Shaykh Bali Efendi may reflect the derogatory picture of the Safaviyya after

Cüneyd in the 16th century Ottoman historiography. The reason behind this attitude might be

the transformation of the order into a religio-political power which eventually turned into a

messianic movement challenging the Ottomans and their Sunnism. This change in the nature

of the order was also emphasized by Shaykh Bali Efendi: “Shaykh Safī bu tāyifenin

dedesidur. meşāyih silsilesindendur. Ve biz gördüğumüz silsilelerde seyyiddür deyu kayd

olunmamıs. Bazı mürşidler seyyiddur deyu kayd itmisler. Bā-seyyid evliya olmıya, itibar-ı

din-i İslamdır. Beher- hal meshur budur ki Shaykh Safī mürşid-i kāmildür ve

ehlullahdandur.”88Drawing on this passage, it may be said that Bali respects Shaykh Safi

because at the time of Safi, the Safaviyya carried the elements of both Sunnism and Shi’ism

and it did not undertake political aims against the Ottomans. Therefore, while Bali Efendi

describes Safi as being from ehlullah, he denigrates Cüneyd as a member of ehl-i fesad and

ehl-i heva.

When Cüneyd died in 1460 in a ghaza against the Georgians, Haydar became the new

head of the Safaviyya. The transformation of the order underwent during the latter’s lifetime

as well. The most remarkable point in the period of Haydar is the emergence of the term

kızılbash or tac-ı haydari, which was eventually used to define the devotees of Shah Ismail

87
V. Minorsky, “Shaykh Bali Efendi on the Safavids”, 446-47.
88
Ibid., 444-45

21

Ufuk Erol

who consisted mainly of Turkoman tribes of Anatolia. Babayan traces the origins of this term

in the pre-Islamic Iranian traditions and sees the evolution of it as a longue durée religious

development89. She locates the term in a religious framework of Iran shaped by the ghulat

movements. Shahzad Bashir argues that the term has a social and extrinsic meaning rather

than a religious and intrinsic one.90 He investigates the usage of kızılbash in Persian historical

sources and claims that the term was used not only for religious connotation but for social and

political purposes as well.

The traditional account attributes the emergence of the term kızılbash to Haydar’s

dream, which was widely used in most of the historical sources. Alam-ara-yi Shah Ismail,

whose author is unknown, narrates this dream: “[Ali] said, ‘My child, soon a child from your

loins will be born who will go forth and overturn the entirety of unbelief from the world. But

you must make a twelve-gore crown for the Sufis who are your disciples.’ Then, he instructed

him how to make the crown. When he awakened, he called the Sufis and ordered that they all

make the crowns and out them on their heads. That crown was named the Taj-i Haydari and

they were given the sobriquet Qizilbash”91Focusing on the vicissitudes in the usage of

kızılbash in various sources such as Khunji, Munshi and the memoirs of Babur, Bashir

contends that at the time of Cüneyd and Haydar, the term was used to ‘consolidate a subset

within the Turkomans around the Safavid house’ when the political power gradually shifted to

the Safavids from the Akkoyunlus.92

One may say that the alleged transformation of the Safaviyya started by Cüneyd

culminated in the reign of Shah İsmail. He became the head of the order after the death of his

father Haydar in 1488. The Safaviyya turned into a state in 1501 by the proclamation of Ismail

in Tabriz. Ardabil was relegated to Tabriz, which served as the capital of the Safavid state

89
Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs, xxviii-xxxviii.
90
Shahzad Bashir, “The Origins and Rhetorical Evolution of the Term Qizilbash in Persianate Literature” in
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 57( 2014): 368
91
Ibid., 384.
92
Ibid., 385.

22

Ufuk Erol

until 1554. Babayan accounts the period of Ismail as the state building era of the Safavids.93In

addition, Rizvi argues that the religio-political ideology of the state consisted of three

elements: ancient Iranian symbols of kingship, charismatic authority of Sufism and

Shi’ism.94Ismail was seen as a messianic figure by most of the Kızılbash, who became his

devotees. Bashir claims that the period of Ismail is the 2nd phase when the term kızılbash

gained a greater political significance.95 For example, various Turkomans tribes of Anatolia

such Tekelü, Ustacalu and Şamlu96 expressed their loyalty to Ismail and triggered the

Kızılbash movement in Anatolia, leading to several uprisings against the Ottoman state such

as Shah Kulu in 1511. Hence, the tension between the Safavids and Ottomans peaked in the

first quarter of the 16th century, reflecting itself in the contemporary Ottoman historiography.

For instance, Aşıkpaşazade recounts about the Kızılbash of Anatolia and the rise of
Ismail:
“Sonra Haydar’un bir oğlı dahī zāhir oldı, İsmail adlu. Muridleri ana tābi oldılar.
Şol kadar oldılar kim cemi’ memleketde olan muridleri birine bulusıcak ‘selāmun alekkūm’ deyecek
yerde ‘Sāh’ derler idi. Hastalarını gormeğe varıcak dua yerine ‘Sāh’ derler idi. Ve bu vilāyet-i Rūm’da
olan muridlerine ehl-i sunnet eyidurler idi: ‘Bunca zahmet cakub Ardabil’e varacağına Mekketullah’a
varsanuz, Hazret-i Resūl sallallāhu ‘aleyhi ve sellemi ziyaret itsenuz yeğrekdur’derler idi. Bunlar
cevab virurler idi ki ‘Biz diriye varuruz oluye varmazuz’ derler. Ve dahī biri birinin ağzına lafzıyile
soğub yuruler idi. Latīfeleri isbu vechileydi. Namaz dahī kılmazlar idi. Ve oruc dahī dutmazlar idi. Ve
dahī rafza mute’allik kelimātı cok iderler idi. Velhāsıl rafzı āşıkāre eder oldılar. Memleket-i Rūm’da
olan sofuların hulefāsını ve Ardabil’e varan sofuları Sultan Bayezid tahkīr idub Rum Eli’ne surdu.
İsmail dahī asker cekub Tebriz’e yurudu. Tebriz’in beği kacdı. Tebriz’i yağma etdiler. Ehl-i sunnete
hayli hakaretler eyledi. Müslümanlarun rızkını, malını ellerinden alub, biri birinin avradına tasarruf
edub helāldur derler idi.”97

93
Kathryn Babayan, “The Safavid Synthesis: From Qizilbash Islam to Imamite Shi’ism” in Iranian Studies 27(
1994): 136.
94
Kishwar Rizvi The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, 4.
95
Shahzad Bashir, “The Origins and Rhetorical Evolution of the Term Qizilbash in Persianate Literature”, 385.
96
For details, see Faruk Sümer, Safevi Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1999), 43-56.
97
Asıkpaşa-zade, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman in Osmanlı Tarihleri, ed. Nihal Atsız (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949),
251.

23

Ufuk Erol

From this passage, one may infer that Aşıkpaşazade reflects the common derogatory attitudes

of the Sunni Ottomans towards the Safavids and the confessional difference which began to

appear in Anatolia in the late 14th century.

4.Şeyh Safi Buyruks and the Kızılbash Communities in Ottoman Anatolia

As stated in the previous part of the paper, the Turkoman tribes of Anatolia became organized

under the leadership of Ismail and acquired a religio-political identity called Kızılbash.

However, these tribes which were religiously organized as ocaks had rooted relations with the

Safaviyya long before Ismail. From the time of Hoca Ali and Ibrahim to Abbas I, a religious

network based on various spiritual beliefs presumably existed between the order and the

Anatolian people including various tribes and sufis such as Somuncu Baba98.

One of the most remarkable aspects of this network is buyruks. Karakaya defines these

books as ‘an authoritative account of the basic Alevi beliefs’99. The word buyruk means

command in English. The possible reason why the word buyruk was preferred for the title of

such books is that the Turkish verb buyurmak(to command) was oftentimes used within the

texts.100In general, buyruks consist of two kinds depending on whose teachings they are based

on: İmam Ca’fer or Shaykh Safi. These books have long been preserved by Kızılbash/Alevi

dede families. In this context, dedes are the spiritual leaders of the Kızılbash/Alevi

communities in Anatolia and they perform various religious rituals including cem. Buyruks

contain information about how these rituals should be practiced, how the relations between

dedes and their talibs should be organized and some basic moral principles.101Moreover, the

various dates of the copies of buyruks demonstrate that they were written by different copyists

at different times according to the needs of the Kızılbash communities. Another assumption

98
The relations within this network are briefly demonstrated in the previous pages of this paper, see p.13-16.
99
Ayfer Karakaya Stump, “Documents and Buyruk Manuscripts in the Private Archives of Alevi-Dede Families:
An Overview” in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 37:3 (2010): 278
100
Ibid. footnote 17
101
Ibid.

24

Ufuk Erol

might be that a clear separation between authors and copyists did not exist. Karakaya asserts

that the reason may be that buyruks were not exposed to a process of canonization.102

Another significant point regarding the two types of buyruks is that while Shaykh Safi

buyruks date back to the 16th and 17th centuries, the dates of the existing İmam Ca’fer buyruks

go back to the 19th century.103This might show that even after Shah Ismail, the religious

network between the Kızılbash communities of Anatolia and the Safavid state persisted. For

example, a buyruk manuscript from Erzincan in Anatolia involves specific elements that may

be the signs of this ongoing network. Karakaya argues that although its date of copy is 1825,

the manuscript mentions Shah Tahmasb and Abbas.104 Thus, it may have written in the late

16th or early 17th centuries. Within this buyruk, abbreviated as Buyruk-Erzincan, Shah

Tahmasb resolves a dispute in cem:

“Üstad-ı nefes i’man-ı tarikat erkan-ı meşayih Shah Dehman-ı Hüseyni [Tahmasb] buyurur ki kim
taliblere ve muhiblere ma’lum olsun kim Shah-ı Alem-penah eşüginde gaziler halka-i sohbet kurup
tevhid iderlerdi….Shah-ı Alem-penah hazretine ol müşkili agah itdiler. Hazret-i Shah buyurdu kim bir
sohbetde kırk kişi cem olsa ve ol sohbete kırk dane elma gelse vacib oldur ki cümlesine bir virüp
kısmet ideler…”
Drawing on the passage, the prolonged loyalty of Kızılbash communites to the Safaviyya in

the reign of Tahmasb may raise questions about the established view that Tahmasb and his

successors severely curbed the power of the Kızılbash. Another example is a letter from 1624.

In the letter, Seyyid Abdülbaki informs Seyyid Yusuf, who is a dede from Dede Kargın Ocağı

in Malatya, about the conquest of Baghdad by Shah Abbas. Karakaya argues that it was

probably written in a Bektashi lodge nearby Baghdad.105 The letter writes:

“…ve hala mah-ı rebi’ül-evvelin yigirmi ikinci güni yevmü’l-ahad Bagdad kal’asın feth idüp nam-ı
mübarekine sikke[darb] ve hutbe ohunup Shah-ı alem-penahın tasarrufuna geçmişdir ve inşa’allahu

102
Ayfer Karakaya Stump, Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık, 69.
103
Ibid.,70, footnotes 14,15,16; Ayfer Karakaya Stump, “Documents and Buyruk Manuscripts in the Private
Archives of Alevi-Dede Families: An Overview”, 280.
104
Ayfer Karakaya Stump, Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık, 72.
105
Ibid., 23.

25

Ufuk Erol

te’ala teveccühi Rum tarafına dogrıdır. Dergah-ı hakkdan rica ve temennamız budur ki ‘an-karib
hayrla müyesser ola bi-hürmet-i Seyyidü’l-mürselin.”106
The remarkable point in the passage is the writer’ wish about the continuation of the conquest

towards Anatolia. Thus, some of the Kızılbash communities of Anatolia might have still kept

their relations with the Safavids alive even in the 17th century. Moreover, the intermediacy of

Bektashi tekkes of Iraq107 between the Safavids and the Kızılbash communities of Anatolia

and the latter’s ever-growing appeal to these tekkes for icazetnames might lead us to question

to what extent the relations between the Safavids and the Kızılbash communities survived. It

is difficult to make certain judgments about these relations as the existing literature does not

provide comprehensive information.

Conclusion

The development of the Safaviyya and its transition into the Safavid state have long been of

great interest both in the Safavid and Ottoman historiographies as the order had a large impact

on Iran and Anatolia. Since its foundation in the early 14th century by Shaykh Safi, the

Safaviyya had established rooted connections with both the ruling elites and the Sufis of the

above geographies particularly until the post-Abbas I period. Although the conventional

historiography depicts the development of this order as a change from a peaceful tarikat to a

state having messianic claims, the relations of the order particularly with Anatolian sufis and

tribes at the time of the early shaykhs point to a more complicated picture regarding the

transformation of the Safaviyya. In this paper, drawing on the two main primary sources

namely, Safvetü’s Safa and Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu, I have attempted to show briefly this

transformation and the interactions of the order with the sufis and Kızılbash communities of

Anatolia as well as the foundation the order. These interactions need further research in order

to reach more concrete conclusions.

106
Ibid., 28.
107
For further detail, see Ibid., 35-64.

26

Ufuk Erol

Bibliography

Primary:

Parlak, Nizamettin and Sönmez Kutlu. Makalat Şeyh Safi Buyruğu. İstanbul:Horasan
Yayınları, 2008.

Tevekkül b.İsmail b.Bezzaz Ardabili. Safvetü’s Safa. ed. Gulam Rıza Tabatabai Mecid.
Tehran: İntişarat-ı Zeryab. Trans. Serap Şah. Safvetü’s Safa’da Safiyüddin-i Erdebili’nin
Hayatı, Tasavvufi Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri. PhD diss,, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2008.
Secondary:

-Abbaslı, Mirza. “Safevilerin Kökenine Dair.” In Belleten XL, n.158, 1976.

-Amoretti, B. S. “The Timurid and Safavid Periods.” In Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6. ed.

Peter Jackson and Laurence Lockhart.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

-Aşıkpaşazade. Tevarih-i Al-i Osman. In Osmanlı Tarihleri. ed. Nihal Atsız. İstanbul: Türkiye
Yayınevi, 1949.

-Babayan, Kathryn. “The Safavid Synthesis: From Qizilbash Islam to Imamite Shi'ism.” In
Iranian Studies 27/ 1, 4: Religion and Society in Islamic Iran during the Pre-Modern

Era. 1994, 135-161.

_____. Mystics, Monarch, and Messiahs, Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

-Bashir, Shahzad. “The Origins and Rhetorical Evolution of the Term Qizilbash in Persianate
Literature.” In Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 57, 2014.

_____. “Shah Isma’il and the Qizilbash: Cannibalism in the Religious History of Early
Safavid Iran.” In History of Religions 45/3,2006, 234-56.

-Dalkıran, Sayın. “İran Safevi Devletinin Kuruluşuna Şii İnançlarının Etkisi ve Osmanlı'nın

İran'a Bakışı.” In Atatürk Universitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 18, 2002, 55-102.

-Celalzade. Selim-name. ed. Ahmet Uğur-Mustafa Çuhadar, İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı
Yayınları, 1997.

-Curry, John J. The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire, The
Rise of the Halveti Order 1350-1650. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

27

Ufuk Erol

-Çınarcı, Mehmet Nuri. “Söz Meydanında İki Hükümdar: Kanuni Sultan Süleyman ve Şah
Tahmasb’ın Müşaaresi.” In Journal of History School XXIII, 2015, 189-190.
-Erünsal, İsmail E. XV-XVI. Asır Bayrami Melamiliği’nin Kaynaklarından Abdurrahman el-
Askeri’nin Miratü’l-ışk’ı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003.
-Gölpınarlı, Abdülbaki. Tarih Boyunca İslam Mezhepleri ve Şiilik, İstanbul: Der Yayınları,
1987.
-İslam Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 2009.
-Karakaya Stump, Ayfer. “The Vefa’iyye, The Bektashiyye and Genealogies of Heterodox
Islam in Anatolia: Rethinking The Köprülü Paradigm.” In Turcica 44, 2012-2013.

_____. “Documents and Buyruk Manuscripts in the Private Archives of Alevi Dede Families:
An Overview.” In British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 37:3, 2010.

_____.Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2015.

_____. Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah: The Formation and Transformation of the
Kızılbash/Alevi Communities in Anatolia. PhD diss., Harvard University, 2008.

-Krstic, Tijana. Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early
Modern Ottoman Empire. Stanford:Stanford University Press, 2011.

-Minorsky, Vladimir. “Shaykh Bali Efendi on the Safavids.” In Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1957.

-Nikitine, Basil. “Essai d’analyse du Safvat-us-Safa.” In Journal Asiatique 245, 1957.

-Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. Menakıbnameler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1996.

-Roemer, H.R. “The Safavid Period.” In Cambridge History of Iran. vol. 6. ed. Peter Jackson

and Laurence Lockhart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

-Safavid Persia. ed. Charles Melville. London&New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996.

Savaş, Saim. XVI. Asırda Anadolu’da Alevilik. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 2002.

-Savory, Roger. Iran Under the Safavids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

_____.“The Office of Khalifat al-Khulafa under the Safawids.” In Journal of American

Oriental Society 85, 1965.

28

Ufuk Erol

-Sümer, Faruk. Safevi Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü.

Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1999.

-Şah, Serap. “Kitap Tanıtım ve Değerlendirme-İbn-i Bezzaz, Safvetü’s-safa, mukaddime ve

tashih:Gulam-Rıza Tabatabai, Mecd, Danişgah-i Azad İslami 1994.” In İlmi ve Akademik
Araştırma Dergisi 8, 2007.

-Rizvi, Kishwar. The Safavid Dynastic Shrine, Architecture, Religion and Power in Early
Modern Iran. London&New York: I.B.Tauris, 2011.

-Togan, Zeki Velidi. “Sur L’origine des Safavides.” In Mélanges Massignon. vol.III, 1957.

-Yıldırım, Rıza. Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Kızılbash Identity in
Anatolia(1447-1514). PhD diss., Bilkent University, 2008.

29