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

than asks whether one can assume that Ibrahim represented the quietist faction while
Ismail the militant. To him, explaining this separation by personal qualities of both
brothers rather than on ideological ground is more plausible. 568 On the other hand, Jean
Aubin also brings under scrutiny the divergence between sons of Shaykh Haydar in his
succinct and authoritative article on the advent of Shah Ismail. According to Aubin,
however, the contest, which started with the death of Sultan Ali, was far beyond mere
personal rivalry. Rather under both Ibrahim and his other step-brothers a resistance
against the militant and extremist-shi’ite movement of Ismail appeared. 569
At this point, one should not disregard the role of shaykh’s young age in the
transformation process of the order. The age of Junayd when he succeded his father is
not clarified in sources. But as Hinz has already emphasized, he must have been pretty
young. His son and successor Haydar was yet to be born when Junayd died, and was
killed when he was twenty-eight. For Haydar’s successors, first Sultan Ali and then
Ismail, the case was not different. Ismail was a one-year baby at his father’s death. Thus
by the time of Junayd, Safavid shaykhs were not educated and trained within the
traditional ideological and mental habitat of the order according to the traditional way.
One might even argue, the traditional atmosphere in Ardabil came into a rapid process of
disintegration with Junayd’s departure from Ardabil, or shortly before. This interruption
in the chain of traditional teaching opened the doors of innovations and changes both in
the esoteric doctrine of the Order and in the ideological orientation and interests of the
young shaykhs, whose shaykhdom stemmed merely from familial claims but not from
568 This sort of interpretation is, however, not shared by the present author, who is rather inclined to
attribute more affective role to the doctrinal differentiation.
569 See Aubin, “L’avènement des Safavides reconsideré (Etudes Sfavides III)”, Moyen Orient &Océan
Indien, 5, 1988, pp. 103-111.
201