STARAÚBAÚDÈ, FAZ˜LALLAÚH ˆEHAÚB﷓AL﷓DÈN B

ASTARAÚBAÚDÈ, FAZ˜LALLAÚH ˆEHAÚB-AL-DÈN B. BAHAÚ÷-AL-DÈN (or B. ABUÚ MOH®AMMAD) (d. 796/1394), founder of the H®oru@f^ religion that achieved some prominence in Timurid Iran before coming to exert a decisive influence on the Bekta@Þ^ order of dervishes in Turkey. He is sometimes designated as Fazµlalla@h H®oru@f^ or Fazµlalla@h Tabr^z^, the latter designation deriving presumably from his several periods of residence in Tabr^z. Among his followers he was known first as sáa@háeb-e ta÷w^l (the master of interpretation, both of dreams and of the inner meaning of Islamic ritual) and then, after advancing claims to divinity, as rabb al-¿a@lam^n (the Lord of the Worlds). In his poetry he used the takòallosá Na¿^m^.

According to all H®oru@f^ sources, Fazμlalla@h was born in Astara@ba@d in 740/1339-40, where his father was chief qa@zμ^. His family claimed ¿Alid descent, by way of Imam Mu@sa@ al-Ka@záem. From earliest childhood he showed an inclination to devoutness and asceticism, being particularly fastidious that all he ate should be háala@l. When his father died, he assumed the duties of qa@zμ^, despite his extreme youth, and it was while he was returning home one day from his judicial duties that he heard someone in the bazaar reciting this verse of Ru@m^: “Why fret over death, when you have the essence of eternity? / How can the grave contain you, when you have the light of God?” Inquiring about the meaning of this verse, he was advised that it could be understood only experientially, through following the well-known practices of Sufism. He therefore redoubled his pious zeal, engaging in dòekr with particular vigor. The effectiveness of this practice enabled him to transpose all aspiration to the spiritual world, made visible to him in a series of intense and luminous dreams, and gradually to cast off all worldly attachment.

When he was about eighteen, Fazμlalla@h donned the felt garments of a shepherd and set out on the háaèè. Returning from Mecca, he went to K¨úa@razm and stayed there for a period of unknown duration before leaving again on the háaèè. While traveling through Fa@rs, he was confronted with an apparition of the Imam ¿Al^ al-Rezμa@, who commanded him to change direction and travel to MaÞhad. This he did, and he remained for some time at the shrine of the imam in communion with his spirit before resuming the journey to Mecca. (The statement in M^rza@ Makòdu@m's al-Nawa@qezμ le baya@n al-rawa@fezμ quoted in ¿Abba@s ¿Azza@w^, Ta@r^kò al-¿Era@q bayn ehátela@layn, Baghdad, 1373/1953, I, p. 249, that Fazμlalla@h spent twenty years at the shrine of ¿Al^ in Naèaf is to be discounted).

After completing his second háaèè, Fazμlalla@h again returned to K¨úa@razm and had there a number of dreams that seemed to foretell greatness and a mission that would bring to an end his life of private devotion. In one of these dreams, he saw himself in the garden of his former house at Astara@ba@d that he now perceived to be the “seat of sincerity” (maq¿ad sáedq) mentioned in Koran 55:55. Also in the garden was the prophet Solomon, calling for his celebrated hoopoe. The hoopoe appeared, bearing with it a raven. On the orders of Solomon, the feathers of the raven were plucked and thrown over the wall of the garden; the featherless bird was then entrusted to Fazμlalla@h. According to Fazμlalla@h's interpretation, Solomon represented God, the hoopoe, the spirit (ru@há), and the raven, the soul (nafs). In another dream, still more fraught with indications of greatness, Fazμlalla@h saw a bright star rising in the east, a ray from which pierced his right eye until gradually the whole orb was absorbed in his eye. A voice informed him, “this is a star that rises once every few centuries” (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” pp. 10-12; Gölpénarlé, Katalog, pp. 5-6.).

An interest in dreams and their interpretation, an element constant throughout his life, dominated the first and orthodox stage of his religious activity. It was through the ability to interpret dreams, both his own and those of others, that he now began to acquire a following, first in K¨úa@razm, where Darv^Þ ¿Al^, Darv^Þ Ba@yaz^d, and Moháammad Na@nva@ gave him their allegiance, and then, on a wider scale, in T®oq±^, a northern suburb of Isfahan. Together with his followers, who now included a Sufi called Mo¿^n-al-d^n ˆahresta@n^, he took up residence in the mosque of T®oq±^ and established an ascetic and pious community whose members came to be known as darv^Þa@n-e háala@lkòúor o ra@stgu@y (háala@l-eating and truth-speaking dervishes). They never accepted charity, making their livelihood with the manufacture and sale of caps, they held their property in common and were generous to the poor. Their pious way of life, as well as Fazμlalla@h's skill in the interpretation of dreams, drew the notables of Isfahan to seek out Fazμlalla@h in T®oq±^, and the fame of his small community spread throughout Khorasan, ¿Era@q, Azerbaijan and ˆ^rva@n (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” pp. 12-14; Gölpénarlé, Katalog, pp. 6-8).

Fazμlalla@h's career took a decisive turn when he left T®oq±^ for Tabr^z, probably early in 775/1373. There he gained access to the Jalayerid court, and enrolled among his following the minister Zakar^ya@, Shaikh K¨úa@èa Sáa@háeb Sáadr, and Sultan Oways b. H®asan himself. To the last of these he gave a dervish felt hat imbued with his baraka (blessing). The devotion of the Jalayerid nobility to Fazμlalla@h seems to have been based purely on his skill in the interpretation of dreams, but it was also in Tabr^z at this time that he began his progressive dissociation from Islamic orthodoxy. It is said that in late ˆa¿ba@n or early Ramazμa@n, 775/February, 1374, he received a comprehensive revelation of esoteric knowledge that embraced the truths (háaqa@÷eq) and stations (maqa@ma@t) of the prophets, the inner meaning of the Islamic rites of worship, and the symbolic sense of the letters of the Perso-Arabic alphabet, numerologically determined. This experience left him in a state of bewilderment for three days and nights, until he heard a voice intoning the cryptic verse, “at the moment wherein time became separated the world was fully delivered from torment,” and proclaiming Fazμlalla@h “the Lord of the Age and the Sultan of the Prophets” (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 20). The event is alluded to by ¿Al^ al-A¿la@ as a manifestation of the divine essence in the person of Fazμlalla@h (see lines from Kors^-na@ma quoted in K^a@, Wa@`a-na@ma, pp. 289-90).

It appears that Fazμlalla@h left Tabr^z for T®oq±^ again without making a public proclamation of his new-found eminence. He retired to a cave, and did not emerge until he was informed that an aged follower, Darv^Þ Mosa@fer, was on the point of death. Darv^Þ Mosa@fer told him that the time had come for him openly to declare his teaching and for “the manifestation of divine glory” (záohu@r-e kebr^a@÷), adducing as proof a dream that Fazμlalla@h had seen while in Tabr^z. Fazμlalla@h agreed, and gathered around him his first eight mor^ds: Fakòr-al-d^n, Ôala@l Boru@èerd^, Fazμlalla@h K¨ora@sa@n^, H®osayn, M^r Abda@l Esáfaha@n^, ¿Al^ al-A¿la@, and two unnamed persons, one from Na@÷^n and the other from the DaÞt-e Qep±a@q (Gölpénarlé, Katalog, p. 7; a slightly different list is given by Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 38, although like Golpénarlé he quotes the Kors^-na@ma of ¿Al^ al-A¿la@). Precisely what is meant by the term záohu@r-e kebr^a@÷ is uncertain: it may have been a claim to mahdihood (see ˆ^b^, al-Fekr al-Þ^¿^, p. 181), a claim to divinity, or both simultaneously, notwithstanding the logical contradiction between the two. The exact sequence and dating of events in also unclear, since, again according to the Kors^-na@ma (quoted in Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 22), the “descent of the essence of beings into the luminous consciousness of Fazμlalla@h, the Lord of the Worlds” took place in Tabr^z in 788/1386. It was in the same year that Fazμlalla@h began writing the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma, a work regarded by H®oru@f^s as sacred, but no clear correlation is made between the záohu@r-e kebr^a@÷ and the beginning of the composition of the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma.

Fazμlalla@h was back in T®oq±^ in 790/ 1388, and at some point visited G^la@n and Da@mg@a@n, but he seems to have spent most of the last part of his life in Baku (Ba@ku@ya). There are several references to Baku in the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma, and it is certain that he was there six months before his arrest and execution in D¨u÷l-qa¿da, 796/September, 1394. He is said to have had foreknowledge of the exact time, place, and manner of his execution, and even of the physical particulars of his executioner (BaÞa@rat-na@ma of Raf^¿^ quoted by Gölpénarlé, Katalog, p. 11), so that what befell him was fully expected. Returning to Baku from a visit to a certain Qa@zμ^ Ba@yaz^d in ˆama@kò^, he was arrested by a party of soldiers coming from Astara@ba@d and imprisoned in the castle at Alenèa(q) (or Alanèaq?) near Nakòèava@n on the command of M^ra@nÞa@h, son of T^mu@r, on 1 D¨u÷l-qa¿da 796/28 August 1394. He was executed six days later (Gölpénarlé, Katalog, p. 8).

The precise reasons for his arrest and execution are not known. According to the account of Ebn H®aèar (Sakòa@w^, al-Z˜aw÷ al-la@me¿ VI, p. 173), Fazμlalla@h had written to T^mu@r, summoning him to belief in Horufism. Far from agreeing to do so, he gave orders to M^ra@nÞa@h for the arrest and execution of Fazμlalla@h. There is no indication in H®oru@f^ sources that Fazμlalla@h ever communicated with T^mu@r, although he may have wished in general to promote his religion through contact with rulers. We have already seen how he gained the allegiance of Sultan Oways in Tabr^z before the záohu@r-e kebr^a@÷; and he is recorded to have dreamed that he was once praying in the presence of T^mu@r (Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma, quoted by Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 23). Another dream attests that he hoped to win influence among the Golden Horde by marrying the daughter of its ruler, T®oqtameÞ Khan (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 24). According to Maqr^z^ (Sakòa@w^, al-Z˜aw÷ al-la@me¿ VI, p. 174), Fazμlalla@h's execution was preceded by meetings of the ¿olama@÷ held in G^la@n and Samarkand to discuss his heretical doctrines; these meetings ended invariably in a demand for his death. The occurrence of such assemblies is not confirmed by the H®oru@f^ sources; mention is made only of a certain Shaikh Ebra@h^m who gave a fatwa@ authorizing his execution (K¨úa@b-na@ma, quoted by Gölpénarlé, Katalog, p. 8). It has been suggested that one of Fazμlalla@h's writings, the ¿ArÞ-na@ma, in which he identifies the divine throne with the human frame, was the immediate cause for his execution (KaÞf al-záonu@n II, col. 1132). This is plausible, but not attested by any contemporary or near-contemporary sources. It is in any event unnecessary to look for specific religious causes for the death of Fazμlalla@h; his claim to be a divine incarnation and to have abrogated the major part of Islamic law was enough to place him beyond the bounds of Islam. It seems that he was also contemplating the use of violent means for the propagation of his religion. Fazμlalla@h is quoted by ¿Al^ al-A¿la@ as saying: “The decisive proof, other than these words of mine, is none other than the trenchant sword” (quoted by ˆ^b^, al-Fekr al-Þ^¿^, p. 182 n. 18). He also dreamed once that he had one hundred and forty sons, each armed with two replicas of D¨u÷l-feqa@r, the celebrated sword of ¿Al^ (Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma, quoted by Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 24). In ordering the execution of Fazμlalla@h, T^mu@r may, then, have been motivated either by religious considerations, or by the simple desire to rid Azerbaijan of potentially rebellious elements on the eve of his campaign against the Ottoman Sultan Ba@yaz^d.

According to Ebn H®aèar, M^ra@nÞa@h beheaded Fazμlalla@h with his own hand. The headless corpse was dragged around the bazaar before being turned over to Fazμlalla@h's followers for burial. Six years after his death, a structure was erected over the grave by one Sayyed Mu@sa@; it also came to shelter the body of ¿Al^ al-A¿la@. The site of execution (maqtalga@h) became a pseudo-Ka¿ba for the H®oru@f^s; they came to it on pilgrimage in the month of D¨u÷l-qa¿da, and circumambulated it twenty-eight times. Another custom established in imitation of the háaèè rites was the casting of twenty-one stones, on three successive days, at a tower in the castle of Alenèaq associated with the memory of M^ra@nÞa@h. The executioner of Fazμlalla@h was designated by the H®oru@f^s as Daèèa@l (Antichrist) and, mockingly, as “ma@ra@nÞa@h” (king of the snakes), and his death in battle at the hands of Qara@ Yu@sof, the Qara@ Qoyunlu@ ruler, in 809/1406 was a cause of great rejoicing among them. Belief in the “second coming” (reè¿a) of Fazμlalla@h was strong, and it was even suggested that he had in some way become reincarnated in Qara@ Yu@sof. (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” pp. 25-28).

Works. The most important book left by Fazμlalla@h was the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma, a prose work written in the dialect of Astara@ba@d that sets forth the distinctive doctrines of Horufism: the numerologically determined significance of the letters of the Perso-Arabic alphabet, and the substantial manifestation of the divine essence in the human physiognomy. Two recensions were made of the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma: one designated as kab^r in the dialect of Astara@ba@d, and the other as sáag@^r in standard Persian. More a supplement to the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma than an independent work is the Nawm-na@ma, an account of the dreams Fazμlalla@h had at various times in his life, as well as those submitted to him by others for interpretation. The Nawm-na@ma is also in Astara@ba@d^ dialect, as is the Maháabbat-na@ma, a prose work that was imitated by Turkish H®oru@f^s. Finally, among the works of Fazμlalla@h, mention may be made of the ¿ArÞ-na@ma, a mat¯naw^ written in standard Persian.

Fazμlalla@h also has a small collection of poetry in standard Persian, using the pen-name Na¿^m^, and is said to have written a treatise on feqh for ¿Ezz-al-d^n ˆa@h ˆoèa@¿ while in Tabr^z.

Manuscripts of his writings are listed in: E. Blochet, Cat. Bib. Nat. I, p. 127. E. G. Browne, A Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1896, pp. 69-86. W. Eilers and W. Heinz, Persische Handschriften, Vezeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 14, I, Wiesbaden, 1968, p. 228. Gölpénarlé, Hurufilik Metinleri Katalog¡u, passim.

Descendants and followers. The sons, daughters, and grandchildren of Fazμlalla@h are listed in the Resa@la-ye ma¿a@d^ya of Sayyed ˆar^f. He had three sons—Am^r Nu@ralla@h (put to death in Betl^s some time after the execution of Fazμlalla@h). Kal^malla@h and Sala@malla@h (both of whom died of the plague), and four daughters—Fa@táema K¨a@tu@n, B^b^ K¨a@tu@n, Omm-al-keta@b, and Fa@teháat-al-keta@b (the last two also fell victim to the plague; see A. Gölpénarlé, “Fadál Allah Astara@ba@d^,” EI² II, p. 735). A nephew of Fazμlalla@h, K¨úa@èa ¿Azμod-al-d^n, was arrested in Herat in 830/1427 after the attempt on the life of ˆa@hrokò (see H®ab^b al-s^ar [Tehran] III, p. 617). According to the Maháram-na@ma of Sayyed Esháa@q Astara@ba@d^, Fazμlalla@h appointed his wife, known as Kalematalla@h H^a ÷l-¿olya@ to be his successor (qa@÷em-maqa@m) and executor (waÞ^), but this is doubtful, and unconfirmed by other H®oru@f^ texts, which anyhow identify Kalematalla@h as one of Fazμlalla@h's daughters (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” p. 32). According to H®a@fezá H®osayn Karbala@÷^ Tabr^z^ (Rawzμa@t al-èana@n wa èanna@t al-èena@n, ed. Ô. Soltáa@n-al-qorra@÷^, Tehran, 1344 ˆ./1965, I, pp. 478-81 ), an unnamed daughter of Fazμlalla@h, aided by a certain Mawla@na@ Yu@sof, established a H®oru@f^ community in the village of K¨a@naqa@h near Tabr^z and gained influence over Ôaha@nÞa@h, the Qara@ Qoyunlu@ ruler (r. 841-72/1438-67). Pressed by the ¿olama@÷, he consented to her execution, and about five hundred of her followers were also slaughtered. Maháammad-¿Al^ Tarb^at (Da@neÞmanda@n-e AÚdòarba@yèa@n, Tehran, 1314 ˆ./1935, pp. 386-88) identifies this ill-fated daughter as Kalematalla@h.

We have already listed the eight followers that joined Fazμlalla@h in T®oq±^. A further list of fifteen followers is contained in the Baya@n al-wa@qe¿ of M^r ˆar^f, himself a disciple. Among the names included there we may mention Sayyed Kama@l Ha@Þem^, the scribe of the Ôa@v^da@n-na@ma; Am^r Sayyed Nas^m^, the celebrated Turkish poet flayed alive in Aleppo in about 810/1407; Sayyed Esháa@q Astara@ba@d^, known as the “morÞed of Khorasan,” the author of several important works, Tora@b-na@ma, Taháq^q-na@ma, and—according to Gölpénarlé—Kúa@b-na@ma; and Am^r Sayyed ¿Al^, commonly known as ¿Al^ al-A¿la@ (q.v.), who was the chief successor of Fazμlalla@h and carried Horufism to Anatolia. M^r ˆar^f adds that Fazμlalla@h had four hundred sayyeds among his followers who accompanied him at all times (Ritter, “Die Anfänge,” pp. 34-39; Gölpénarlé, Katalog, p. 14). Another list, that given by FereÞtaza@da ¿Abd-al-Maè^d (quoted in Tarb^at, Da@neÞmanda@n-e AÚdòarba@yèa@n, p. 387), contains nine names; four among them were the close confidants (maháram-e asra@r) of Fazμlalla@h—Maèd-al-d^n, Mahámu@d, Kama@l Ha@Þem^ and Mawla@na@ Abu÷l-H®asan. Ahámad Lor, who attempted to assassinate ˆa@hrokò, is said to have been a mor^d of Fazμlalla@h (H®ab^b al-s^ar III, p. 615), but this may mean simply that he was a follower of Horufism, not necessarily that he was acquainted with Fazμlalla@h.