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

5.1.4. The vision of Dede Muhammad: The Ideological Background of the Qizilbash
Movement
Although it is fiction, an account in Ross Anonymous 827 is of highest importance for it
perfectly reflects the qizilbash mentality: how they perceived the Shi’a and how they
believed in Ismail. 828 Just before leaving Lāhijan, Ismail went hunting with some of his
disciples. At a place not far away they arrived at the edge of a dense forest, where there
was a river. Ismail crossed the river and said to his companions: “Not one of you is to
follow me across this river, but you are to await my return on the other side.” 829 Ismail
then entered the forest alone. No one knew what happened in the forest. But after a
while Ismail returned as girt with a belt, bearing a sword suspended from a sword-belt,
and with the other ‘signs’ which Sūfis witnessed. 830
827
The same account with minor differences occurs in some other Safavid chronicles as well. See
Youssef-Jamālī, p. 103.
828
The religious position of Shah Ismail in the eyes of the contemporary qizilbashes is one of the
controversial issues of the Safavid History. The question of whether he was regarded as a God, as a
Prophet, or as a Mahdi by the contemporary qizilbashes’ is not clear enough in available sources. The
most informative sources on the subject are reports of Venetian travelers or ambassadors, poems of Shah
Ismail himself, and accounts of sunni enemies. Contemporary westerner observers used to depict him as
adored by his followers as if a God. (See for example, “The Travels of a Merchant in Persia”, p. 206,
where written that “This Sophy is loved and revered by his people as a god, especially by his soldiers…”
Furher examples will be presented in Chapter V.) On the other hand, his poetry led modern scholars to a
similar conclusion. Minorsky concludes, after an analysis of his poetry, for example that Ismail regarded
himself somehow having the nature of a deity. (See Minorsky, “The Poetry of Shah Ismail I”, Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, 1942, 1006a-1053a.) Abdülbāki Gölpınarlı, a
twentieth century Turkish writer, takes the account of Khunjī by words and argues that his followers
believed in Junayd as God, in his son as the ‘son of God’. (See his article “Kızılbaş” in IA, 789-91.)
Savory argues, according to Safavid propaganda Ismail was not only the representative of the Hidden
Imam but the Hidden Imam himself; he was even apotheosized as a divine incarnation. See Savory, Iran
under the Safavids, p. 23. For a similar approach also see Aubin, “L’avènement des Safavides”, pp. 36-40.
Roemer stresses Ismail’s exaggerated assumptions regarding Ali. Roemer states, “he must have had a
well-defined religious sensibility, as can be seen from his divan. Here he calls ‘Alī a manifestation of God
and proudly asserts that he himself is a descendant of ‘Alī and Fātima who came into the world at ‘Alī’s
behest. Of course such notions can not be reconciled with the Shī’a or the Shī’ī theology; but they
originate in the world of the Shī’a rather than in that of Folk Islam.” See Hans R. Roemer, “The Safavid
Period”, The Cambridge History of Iran, 6, ed. Peter Jackson, 1993, p. 209.
829
Ross Anonymous, p. 327.
830 Ross Anonymous, p. 327.
261