SUBVERSIVE EULOGIES a Medìiye About the Prophet and the Twelve Imams by {Imad Ed-Din Nesimi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9700-06_Turcica38_02_Hess 5/7/07 09:01 Page 3 Michael Reinhard HESS 3 SUBVERSIVE EULOGIES A MedÌiye about the Prophet and the Twelve Imams by {Imad ed-Din Nesimi 1. INTRODUCTION T he following article is an interpretation of a single ghazal by ‘Imad ed-Din Nesimi.1 Nesimi lived around A. D. 1400. Most of the poems attri- buted to him are written either in Persian or in a Turkic dialect2 closely related to modern Turkish and Azerbaijanian. In each of these two lan- guages, Turkic and Persian, Nesimi left a complete divan. Additionally, he wrote some poems in Arabic, but they are too few to form a divan. Although the aim of the present contribution is not the presentation and discussion of the historical data known about Nesimi’s life,3 some basic facts will be briefly recalled in order to contextualize the below poem and to facilitate its interpretation.4 All sources agree that he was executed some time after 1400 in the city of Aleppo. PD Dr. Michael Reinhard HESS Zentrum für Literatur und Kulturforschung, Jägerstr. 10/11, 10117 Berlin e-mail∞: [email protected]∞ 1 On the characteristics of the ghazal, including discussions on its origins, history, themes, contents, motifs, formal attributes, as well as its impact see Blachère 1964, Köprülü 1964, Braginskij 1973, Andrews 1976, Andrews 1985, Bausani 1990, Andrews 1992, Johanson/ Utas 1994, Andrews/ Black/ Kalpaklı 1997, Meisami 2003, Neuwirth/ Bauer 2005 and Neuwirth et al. 2006. 2 Since the Turkic dialect used by Nesimi is not to a hundred percent identically nei- ther with Ottoman, modern Turkish nor Azerbaijani, I will use the term “∞Turkic∞” as a neutral term of reference to it. The precise classification of Nesimi’s Turkic dialect is not of any interest to the present investigation. However, it will be treated in my forthcoming monograph about Nesimi’s Turkic divan. 3 See the aims section (2.) below. 4 For more detailed historiographic information about the life of Nesimi see, for Turcica, 38, 2006, p. 3-45 9700-06_Turcica38_02_Hess 5/7/07 09:01 Page 4 4 MICHAEL REINHARD HESS Before this, he must have spent some time traveling through the east- ern part of modern Turkey and nearby regions. This is in part evidenced by his poetry, which mentions the city of Mar‘as (today’s Kahraman- mara≥) in Eastern Anatolia.5 The goal of these journeys was to propagate a new religion, which had been founded by Fa∂lallah Astarabadi (~1340-1393).6 Fa∂lallah came from the region of Mazanderan in northwest Persia, adjacent to the Caspian Sea.7 He developed a theory according to which true knowledge about Islam and the Qur’an can only be obtained through understanding the secret meaning of the letters of the Arabic and Persian alphabet.8 As the Arabic word for “∞letters∞” is Ìuruf (plural of Ìarf), the movement initiated by Fa∂lallah came to be called Îurufiya. Before him, there was already a long tradition of mysticism with let- ters (Arabic gafr) in Islam, the origin of which is seen in the “∞Book of gafr∞” (Kitab al-gafr) written by the sixth Shiite imam Ga‘far aÒ-∑adiÈ (699 or 703-765).9 The term ‘ilm al-Ìuruf “∞The science of the letters∞” was established at least since Ibn ‘Arabi (1165-1240), who wrote a book by the same title.10 During the lifetime of Fa∂lallah, gafr and ‘ilm al- Ìuruf were explicitly equated by the influential historian and philoso- pher Ibn Îaldun (1332-1406).11 However, Fa∂lallah’s reference to this tradition was innovative, unique and unheard of. Fa∂lallah fixed his theory in several books written in Persian, the most important of which is the Gavidan-nama (“∞Book of the Eternal∞”).12 instance, Begdeli 1970∞: 193-198, Burril 1972, Guluzade 1973∞: 5-30, Divshali/ Luft 1980∞: VII-XI and 18-30, Kürkçüoglu 1985∞: I-XXVI, Roemer 1989∞: 80-90, Ayan 1990∞: 11-16, Çiftçi 1997∞: 21-27, Mélikoff 1998∞: 52, 119-127, 236f. and, most recently, ≤ıxıyeva 1999. Numerous references to the historical sources as well as the modern sec- ondary literature can be found in these works. 5 See, for instance, Ayan 1990∞: 415 (tuyug no. 187). 6 The most detailed account of the life and religious inspiration of Fa∂lallah Astarabadi to date is Bashir 2005. Cmp. also Algar 1987 and Mélikoff 1998∞: 115-126, 217f., 237-239. 7 Some basic facts about Mazanderan are summarized in Vasmer/ Bosworth 1991. 8 Explained in Ritter 1954∞: 5, Kürkçüoglu 1985∞: I-XXVI and Bashir 2005. Accord- ing to Bashir, this theory was developed into several versions by his successors. 9 On the Kitab al-gafr see Sezgin 1967∞: 530 (cmp. also p. 560 for the further devel- opment in Arabic literary history). On Ga‘far aÒ-∑adiÈ, see Sezgin 1967∞: 530, Halm 1988∞: 37ff. On the origins of gafr see Macdonald 1913 and Macdonald 1945. Cf. also the reference made to Ga‘far aÒ-∑adiÈ in verse 21 of the poem discussed here, which alludes to his mystical knowledge about the names of Allah. 10 Ibn Arabi 2000∞: 11. 11 Macdonald 1913∞: 1038. – For basic information about Ibn Îaldun see Talbi 1986. 12 On the works of Fa∂lallah see Huart/ Tevfíq 1909, Browne 1920, Ritter 1954, Algar 9700-06_Turcica38_02_Hess 5/7/07 09:01 Page 5 SUBVERSIVE EULOGIES 5 Two recensions exist of this fundamental work, one of them called the Gavidan-nama-ye kabir (“∞The great Gavidan-nama∞”), written in Fa∂lallah’s home dialect Astarabadi, the other, named Gavidan-nama-ye Òagir or “∞The small Gavidan-nama∞”), in literary Persian.13 The Îurufic interpretation of Islam as initiated by Fa∂lallah includes a number of concepts that are at variance with orthodox14 Sunni Islam. According to some interpretations, Fa∂lallah had a claim to “∞mahdi- hood∞”.15 On the other hand, central terms in his writings, such as Âohur- e kibriya’ “∞the manifestation of divine glory∞” have also been read as claims to “∞mahdihood∞”, “∞divinity∞”,16 or to both at the same time.17 The interpretation that Fa∂lallah did indeed claim to be Allah is the one fol- lowed in the present contribution. Numerous passages and expressions both in his work and in the poems of Nesimi point in this direction. For instance, in Fa∂lallah’s writings the term maÂhar “∞place of appearance∞” and muÂhir “∞the One who causes to appear∞” are explicitly equated.18 That Fa∂lallah identified himself with God has been established, with extensive textual support from his writings, by Hellmut Ritter.19 Accord- ing to Ritter, this identification was accepted by Fa∂lallah’s followers, 1987, and Bashir 2005. Huart/ Tevfíq 1909 is still one of the most easily accessible col- lections of early Îurufi texts with their translation. 13 Algar 1987∞: 842. 14 Following Markus Dressler, I am using the term “∞orthodox∞” and its opposite “∞het- erodox∞” in a historically relativized sense, i. e. without the essentialistic assumption that “∞orthodoxy∞” has a claim to truth. For the details of this terminology, see Dressler 2002∞: 23-25. 15 See the discussion in Algar 1987∞: 842. 16 Algar 1987∞: 842. Here Algar leaves open whether mahdihood or divinity is claimed by Fa∂lallah. However, on p. 841 he openly states that the latter did advance claims of “∞divinity, as rabb al-‘alamin (Lord of the Worlds)∞”, where the terminology rabb al- ‘alamin is an unambiguous reference to God/ Allah. Thus, Algar seems to be inclined towards the interpretation of Fa∂lallah as a claimer of divinity. Incidentally, the expres- sion rabb al-‘alamin also occurs (in its Turkic form) in the poem discussed below, together with the theological terminus technicus maÂhar∞: rebbi’l-‘aleminüj ber-güzide∞: maÂharï∞: (l. 3a, see the transcription and translation below). Of course, in the medÌiye poem, reference is not to Fa∂lallah, but to the Prophet MuÌammad. 17 Algar 1987∞: 842, with literature. 18 Ritter 1954∞: 3. 19 For instance, Ritter 1954∞: 1∞: “∞Er wurde von seinen anhängern schlechthin als Gott, und seine schriften, insbesondere das Cavidanname, das MaÌabbatname und das ‘Ars- name, als „göttlich“∞ betrachtet∞”∞; on p. 2, Fa∂lallah is quoted referring to “∞das wort Gottes, das mit ihm wesensgleich ist…∞” and stating that “∞kalima-i Îazrat [sic] ki ‘ain-i Âat ast…∞”. And on p. 5, Ritter writes∞: “∞Der mensch ist daher schliesslich nicht nur Gottes thron, sondern selbst Gott. Kein wunder, dass die anhänger Fa∂ls vor allem ihn selbst als Gott betrachteten.∞” [emphasis by M.H.]. 9700-06_Turcica38_02_Hess 5/7/07 09:01 Page 6 6 MICHAEL REINHARD HESS among them Nesimi.20 In particular, Ritter states that the addressee in the latter’s poems is “∞God himself∞” (Gott selbst).21 He is followed in this by the editor of Nesimi’s Turkic divan, Kemâl Edib Kürkçüoglu.22 Also, numerous bayts in Nesimi’s poetry leave no doubt that he believed Fa∂lallah was Allah/ God. For instance, in his famous ma†nawi Derya-yï muÌi† gusa geldi Nesimi refers to Fa∂lallah as min Fazli ilahina te‘ala23 “∞from Fa∂l, our God – He is Supreme∞”, where the eulogy te‘ala is a technical term exclusively referring to God in any brand of Islam. The divine status attributed to Fa∂lallah by his followers can also be deduced from circumstancial evidence such as their identifying the place of his execution (maÈtal-gah) at Alıncak with the Ka‘ba of Mecca24 and his Gavidan-nama as “∞un nouveau Coran∞”.25 Theoretically, according to the pantheistic element in the Îurufi belief, the two interpretations must not necessarily contradict each other.