Between Orality and Textuality: The Epistemic Foundations of Alevi Theology

Alevi theology is still a young field as a university discipline. We therefore regularly receive questions—from students, colleagues in other fields of theology and, of course, Alevis themselves—about the answers Alevism offers to central religious questions. What understandings of truth exist in Alevism? How are justice, trust or the relationship between human beings and God understood in Alevism? More fundamentally: What answers does Alevism offer to basic questions of religious meaning-making?

To answer such questions, we must first clarify another question: On what basis can we answer them at all? When we ask about Alevi understandings of truth, justice or other religious matters, we need bodies of knowledge on which to base our statements. After all, we cannot answer such questions intuitively; we must ground our statements in a sound scholarly basis.

However, we should not expect to find unequivocally established answers to all these questions. As in most religious traditions, in Alevism we very often find different interpretations, emphases and ambiguous traditions.

Nevertheless, the question remains as to which bodies of knowledge we can draw upon to reconstruct Alevi interpretations and forms of meaning-making in a way that can be understood and substantiated. Or, to put it differently: How was religious knowledge preserved and transmitted in Alevism, enabling us to draw on it today?

I would like to explore this question in three steps. First, I will examine the relationship between orality and textuality in the transmission of knowledge. I will then introduce production and reception as two perspectives that offer criteria for identifying Alevi sources. Finally, I would like to show how different forms of Alevi sources of knowledge can be distinguished on this basis.

1. Between Orality and Textuality

There is broad agreement in scholarship that religious knowledge in Alevism was historically transmitted primarily orally. Transmission took place within the family, on the one hand, and through relationships between religious authorities—such as dedes, anas, pirs, rehbers or mürebbis—and their talibs, or religious laypeople, on the other. Religious knowledge was thus initially closely tied to individuals, social relationships and direct interactions. Accordingly, oral history and living religious traditions are also indispensable sources of knowledge for the study of Alevism.

We can therefore certainly speak of the primacy of oral knowledge transmission. In earlier scholarship, however, this primacy was often interpreted rather one-sidedly. For a long time, an approach that treated orality and textuality as opposing categories predominated. Put simply, the assumption was that if a tradition was transmitted primarily orally, it possessed hardly any textual sources. Orality and textuality appeared as mutually exclusive alternatives.

Such an opposition is inadequate, however. It reduces the complexity of historical processes of transmission to a binary framework and thus fails to do justice to the actual circumstances in Alevism. A preference for oral knowledge transmission does not mean the absence of texts.

Rather, the Alevi context shows that the boundaries between orality and textuality are often fluid. A particularly illustrative example is the Alevi poetic tradition. To this day, it remains one of the central vehicles of Alevi traditions. Over long periods, however, this poetry was not primarily written down and read, but instead recited, sung and embedded in ritual contexts.

Music and ritual supported the remembrance and transmission of religious knowledge. They enabled extensive bodies of knowledge to be passed down through generations without depending on their being fixed in writing. Through being regularly sung and performed in ritual, the poems could be transmitted reliably over long periods.

Although the poems themselves are texts, their transmission was predominantly oral. We could therefore speak of orally transmitted texts in which textuality and orality do not constitute opposites.

Similar observations can be made about other textual genres within the Alevi tradition. Although numerous texts were written down, their contents circulated primarily orally. Conversely, many texts are written versions and compilations of oral traditions.

There was thus no sharp division between text and oral transmission. Rather, oral and textual forms of knowledge transmission overlap and permeate one another in many ways.

2. Between Production and Reception

But by what criteria do we decide whether a source can be regarded as an Alevi source? Which specific texts can we draw upon when asking, for example, about Alevi understandings of truth, justice or trust? Selecting sources requires criteria through which we can determine their relevance to Alevism.

Two perspectives can fundamentally be distinguished here. The first might be described as production-oriented. Here, the focus is on how a text came into being. Who wrote the text and, above all, in what religious or cultural context did it emerge? In other words, which religious and cultural concepts, symbols and interpretative patterns prefigured the text?

From this perspective, a text appears as an Alevi source because it was produced within an Alevi context—for example, by religious leaders, poets or members of Alevi communities. This approach undoubtedly has its justification, but it also has its limits. The fact that a text originated in an Alevi context initially tells us little about the significance it actually acquired within the tradition: whether it was also read, heard, passed on and perceived as religiously relevant, and consequently had an impact within the community.

This brings us to the second perspective, namely reception. Here, the decisive question is whether and how a text was received, used and passed on by Alevis.

From a reception-oriented perspective, a text gains its relevance through being received, interpreted, read or heard. Only through such processes of appropriation can a text acquire significance for a community beyond its original authors.

The question of reception is therefore always also a question of how representative a text is: whether and how it acquired significance for the community beyond the particular context of its author.

Reception is not static. The significance of a text can change over time. Some texts that may have been used in earlier centuries might now play hardly any role. Conversely, some texts that historically had only limited circulation now occupy a central position. Reception therefore always has a historical dimension: it can remain relatively constant over long periods, but it can also shift, intensify or weaken.

In identifying Alevi sources, it seems useful to consider production and reception together as two analytical axes. While production provides information about the context in which a text emerged, reception points to the actual history of its influence within Alevi communities.

3. Identifying Sources

Combining the perspectives of production and reception opens up a differentiated typology of Alevi sources of knowledge. Depending on the combination, they occupy different positions and fulfil different functions within the Alevi tradition.

3.1 Core Sources: Produced and Received

We can speak of Alevi core sources where both criteria are fulfilled to a particularly high degree. These are texts that were produced within Alevi contexts and, at the same time, were transmitted over an extended period by large sections of Alevi communities and perceived as religiously significant. Production and reception converge here, as it were, allowing us to speak of core texts of Alevi religiosity.

These include, first of all, the texts of the Buyruk tradition. They date back to the mid-sixteenth century and a Safavid Kızılbaş context, and have a long and comparatively well-documented history of reception within Alevi communities in Anatolia.

The same applies, perhaps even more strongly, to the poetic traditions already mentioned. Religious poetry in Alevism—known as deyiş or nefes—is undoubtedly at the heart of the transmission of Alevi tradition. No other medium has been used more frequently in the history of Alevism to transmit religious knowledge and express religious experiences and feelings.

Here, too, however, the question arises as to which authors should be included in a core corpus. Hundreds of poets are associated with the Alevi tradition, and their works have been transmitted and received to very different degrees.

A canon of the so-called Seven Great Poets (Yedi Ulu Ozan) has emerged. Although we do not know precisely when and how this selection came about, it is recognised today by a large proportion of Alevis.

If we once again apply the criteria of production and long-term reception, a narrower core can be identified within this canon. It includes the poems of Shah Ismail transmitted under the pen name Şah İsmail Hatayi—and, above all, the poems written in his name. Alongside these are the works of Pir Sultan Abdal and Kul Himmet.

These three poetic names occupy a truly outstanding position within Alevi tradition. Their poems remain an integral part of religious practice and have frequently been set to music by musicians of different generations. Their special position can thus be observed both at the level of production and through a history of reception that can be traced across centuries.

The poetic tradition also illustrates once again the entanglement of orality and textuality discussed earlier. Although these are texts, their transmission was predominantly oral. The poems were sung and recited long before they were systematically collected and written down. The earliest evidence of Pir Sultan Abdal’s poems, for example, dates back to the sixteenth century, while the first systematic collection appeared only in the twentieth century. What may be the most important texts of Alevi religiosity were thus transmitted primarily orally for centuries.

3.2 Extended Sources: Received but Not Produced

Beyond this body of core sources lies a further range of texts that are also of great importance for understanding Alevi religiosity, but whose classification within the Alevi tradition is less clear-cut. These are sources in which production and reception do not coincide in the same way as they do in the core texts discussed above.

Texts from the Bektashi tradition offer a particularly illuminating example. Bektashism and Kızılbaş Alevism are historically closely intertwined and have shared numerous ideas, beliefs and practices over the centuries. At the same time, however, they are distinct religious cultures with their own institutional structures and forms of religious self-organisation.

The central texts of the Bektashi tradition include, in particular, the Vilâyetnâme, the hagiography of Hacı Bektaş Veli, and the Makâlât, a work attributed to Hacı Bektaş. From a production-oriented perspective, these are not originally Alevi texts, since they emerged within a Bektashi context.

At the same time, there is no doubt that many Alevis today regard these texts as important sources of their religious tradition. They are studied in Alevi religious education, drawn upon in religious self-representations and widely understood as part of a shared religious heritage. The question of the historical depth of this reception—whether and how they were received in the past—is more difficult to answer. Further research is needed here.

Nevertheless, these examples make clear that Alevi sources cannot be defined exclusively through their origins. Equally important is the question of how texts and authors have been received, appropriated and integrated into existing frameworks of religious meaning over the course of history. Reception can make texts part of Alevi religiosity even if, in the narrower sense, they originated outside Alevism.

3.3 Extended Sources: Produced but Not Received

Finally, a further category consists of texts that originated within Alevi contexts but whose reception is difficult to trace. These include, in particular, manuscripts, notebooks, collections and records that remained, in some cases for generations, in the private possession of Alevi religious leaders and were often passed down within families.

This particular type of text is now attracting increasing scholarly attention. Projects such as the Alevi-Bektashi Digital Archive and the Alevi Archive are making a growing number of previously largely unknown sources accessible.

These texts originated in Alevi contexts and therefore constitute important testimonies to Alevi religiosity from the perspective of production aesthetics.

At the same time, however, these sources raise the question of how representative they are. In many cases, the texts and their contents are unlikely to have been received beyond the immediate context in which they emerged.

This in no way diminishes their scholarly value. They often offer unique insights into lived religiosity, everyday forms of religious practice, local characteristics and individual forms of religious reflection. Whereas the core sources tend to provide information about more widely shared traditions, these texts allow us to examine the diversity and heterogeneity of Alevi lifeworlds.

Comparative studies seem particularly fruitful in this context. It would, for example, be highly illuminating to compare the private records of religious leaders from different regions of Anatolia. Which religious themes overlap? Where do regional differences emerge? Which ideas are shared, and which remain locally confined? Such comparisons could provide important insights into points of intersection and the internal plurality of Alevism.

These are therefore extremely valuable sources. Their value lies less in enabling statements about Alevism as a whole than in making regional, local or individual expressions of Alevi religiosity visible.

Conclusion

Let us return, then, to the initial question of which sources of knowledge we can draw upon to explore Alevi answers to central religious questions. What emerges is a multilayered network of oral and textual knowledge transmission whose significance has developed historically and continues to be renegotiated to this day.

The perspectives of production and reception offer a heuristic approach for classifying sources in a differentiated way and determining their place within the Alevi tradition. At the same time, they sharpen our awareness of the limits of what can be understood as an Alevi source and of why compilations of sources require careful reflection.

The question of Alevi sources of knowledge is therefore ultimately not only a question about texts, but about the processes through which religious knowledge is produced, preserved, transmitted and recognised as religiously significant.