Golpanaarelli has mentioned the weak points of this story, but he has tried to resolve the contradictions and has refrained from directly assessing them as baseless. In particular, he says that Badr-al-din died in 1261 (660 a.h. lunar calendar), fifteen years after the disappearance of Shams, so it is possible that Gohartaash had been buried next to Mevlana and not the other way around.
The story by Eflaki, that Shems's grave was next to that of the Great Mevlana, has led some Turkish historian to the wrong conclusion that the gravestone of Shamseddin Yehya-ibn-Muhammad-Shah, one who married into Mevlevi's family, belongs to Shams. Golpanaarelli has corrected this mistake.
In the summer of 1966, when the late Golpanaarelli was researching the manuscripts of the library of Mevlana's mausoleum and preparing a catalogue of the library's books, I spent some happy days with that eminent and good-natured scholar. One day I asked him to take me to Shems's grave and that newly-found well. Seeing his disinclination, I expressed my doubts about the fabrications quoted by Eflaki, and my belief that the opinions as to the location of Shems's tomb were baseless. I told him that from his writings it was clear that he, himself, was not sure that Shams was buried in Quniye. With a sweet and meaningful mystic smile, he said: "What concern is that of yours? The young workers here had made some speculations, and I did not want to disappoint them. These speculations do not reduce the greatness of Mevlana, instead they add to the glory of his mausoleum!"
Even in Iran, in the last half a century, the mistake of the late Muhammad Ali Terbiyet and his reliance on an unknown source and an imaginary person by the name of Shams-al-Mulch has led to unjust doubts about the location of Shems's tomb in Khoy, which has been a well accepted fact for many years, and has obscured the facts. In page 131 of his book "The Scholars of Azerbaijan", Tarbiyat, without mentioning a source, has stipulated that the Shams-e Tabriz minaret is the tomb of Shams-al-Mulk-e Denbeli, and has quoted an ode from Khaqani in extolment of the illusory Shams-al-Mulk, whereas the quoted ode had actually been an extolment of Rukn-al-Din-e Khoyi. This incorrect assertion has been repeated by others. I have found the source of Terbiyet's assertion, it is a fabricated history of the Denbelis, which I have published in the journal Yeghma. [18]
Since the story of the imaginary Shams-al-Mulk has put a new twist to the question of Shams-e Tebriz's tomb, I will discuss briefly the fabricated histories of the Denbelis. Since the middle of the 14th century (seventh century a.h.), during the invasion of Azerbaijan by the Eyyubid Kurds, some Yezidite tribes called Denbeli, whose beliefs were a mixture of Manichean and Zoroastrian tenets, came to the regions surrounding Khoy and stayed there. In the Safavid period, their chiefs ruled Khoy, and after Nadir Shah, up to the reign of Feth-Ali Shah, for nearly one century, they were semi-independent, and many histories have later been written about the lives of their chiefs. During the reign of Nassir-al-Din Shah, Manook Dji-Hateria, an Indian Zoroastrian and one of the followers of Azer-Keyvan (mystically-minded Zoroastrians), came to Iran and started collecting manuscripts and documents about Iran and especially about the Zoroastrian faith. He paid considerable remuneration to those who gave him books or wrote books in this regard.
In those same days, apparently with his encouragement, one of the descendants of Abd-ul-Rezzaq Beyg-e Denbeli, wrote a book on the history of the Denbelis which consisted solely of

fabrications. In this book, the pedigree of the Denbelis has been traced all the way to the Barmakids and to Anushirvan; the Denbeli chiefs have been portrayed as worshipers of Yezdan (Ehura Mazda or the Zoroastrian God) and at the same time as mystics (claiming the Ne'metullahie sect as their descendants), and, significant roles have been ascribed to them in historical events. Many copies of that book and other books written on its basis, exist [19]. These fabrications are the source of the late Terbiyet's assertion that Shems's tomb is the tomb of the imaginary Shams-al-Mulk whose his surmised death is at 1159 (555 a.h. lunar calendar).
With these explanations, there has remained no doubt about the location of Shems's tomb, it is clear now that great mystic is now lying in the three-thousand-year old city of Khoy, at the gate to the Northwest of our country, and within the cultural borders of Iran. Negligence towards the revival and the reconstruction of his mausoleum will be an unforgivable sin, and honouring his grave is a must for the lovers of Iranian culture. After sufficient preparations, the organisations responsible for the revival and preservation of the cultural monuments of Iran should erect a deserving building and a cultural centre on and around his tomb, in the same way that Toos flourishes because of the Firdosi's mausoleum, Shiraz is proud because of the mausolea of Hafiz and Se'di, and Nishabur is serene because of Kheyyam and Ettar graves on which each spring the northern wind scatters flowers, the ancient city of Khoy can be rejuvenated because of Shams-e Tebriz's tomb.
It shall be a pity, if a city with such a glorious past and with such natural endowments and such an agreeable climate for tourists and pilgrims, is deprived of this opportunity for having a great national heritage complex. To honour Shams is to honour Mevlevi and the literature, the culture, and the mysticism of Iran, and will be a cause of rejoice and happiness for the people of Azerbaijan.
I have read in the newspapers that a catalogue of 40,000 sites of pilgrimage is being prepared by the officials responsible for pilgrimage and touristic affairs, so that if the pedigree and the importance of each site is established, appropriate projects can be prepared for their reconstruction. It seems to me that erecting a mausoleum and a cultural complex for Shams-e Tabriz should be of the highest priority.
[13] "The Venetians' Travelogue", translated by Dr. Menuchehr Amiri, 1970, pages 317 and 379-380.
[14] "Mevlana Jelal-al-Din, ...", op.cit., Pages 140-175.
[15] "Menagheb al-Arefin", op.cit., vol. 2, page 684.
[16] Ibid., page 700.
[17] I also doubted the correctness of Fesihi's assertion in the footnote to page 70 of "The History of Khoy" (first printing), and one remark by my dear friend, Dr. Muhammad Ali Muvahhid, the great scholar on the life and the writings of Shams, removed my doubts and this article is a result of that remark.
[18] "Shems's Minaret and Rukn-al-Din-e Khoyi extolled by Khaqani", Yeghma, 11th year, 1958, No. 1, pages 5-11.
[19] Including the libraries of the late Haj Hussein Nekhdjivani, and Haj Muhammad Rex Parsa-yi Khoyi, delegates to previous parliaments; the first copy is now preserved in the National Library of Tabriz, and another copy is in the Kamei