TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES: THE ... - Bilkent University

Haydar, and Shah Ismā’īl merely carried this to its natural conclusion.” 562 Mazzaoui
truly pays much attention to the arising gazā motif with interest to zeal as a ‘state’
policy, instead of the introspective and contemplative Sufism of earlier shaykhs, and
sees a close connection between the new doctrinal orientation, that is ghulat shi’ism, and
the rise of gazā. As he rightly points out, “For all of a sudden now, the murīds of the
Order became the guzāt-i sūfīya” 563 .
Nevertheless, as for the dynamics behind these inextricable changes on doctrinal
and political grounds, Mazzauoi inclines to omit or underestimate the role of the
decisive change in socio-cultural roots of the disciples; rather his focus in explaining this
tremendous change in the Order seems to be on the persons of the shaykhs and on their
personal intentions and decisions. The following paragraphs will attempt to show this
was not the case, but in fact the opposite.
There must have been enough of a number of disciples aggregated by the death
of Shaykh Ibrahim that had recognizably departed from the customary way of the order
and were not in calm relations with the highly educated dervishes of the hospice. Junayd
was the representative of this group while Cafer was somehow pushed to the leadership
of the traditionally educated dervishes of the hospice. The trajectory of Junayd’s journey
in Anatolia actually indicates the social roots of the former group.
Sohrweide has truly stated that a significant differentiation between the
traditional, or early, disciples of the order and the new ‘type’ of disciples especially was
wide-spread among the nomadic tribes of Anatolia and Syria.
Das spricht sehr dafür, daß im Ordenszentrum nicht alle Sūfīs den Wandeln im
Orden gut geheißen hatten und deswegen den Nachkommen Ğunaids feindlich
562 Mazzaoui, p. 73.
563 Mazzaoui, p. 74.
198