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

ulemā at the court of Ahmed felt uncomfortable with this situation. Upon realizing that
their warnings would have no result in Ahmed’s palace, most of them joined the suit of
Selim, who had already declared himself as the champion of anti-qizilbash fight. 1606
His son’s, Murad’s 1607 position was, however, completely different. Archival
evidence and contemporary sources leave no doubt on his adherence to the qizilbash
movement. Two contemporaries of the events present some explanation of both
Ahmed’s and Murad’s connection with the qizilbash movement.
To begin with, Kemalpaşazāde explains this relationship in a quite conspiratorial
way. To him, Murad’s joining the qizilbash community was a political tactic designated
at the court of Ahmed. Disturbed by his brother’s accession, Ahmed sought to attain the
support of Anatolian forces, both within and without the Ottoman military. His plan was
first to establish a government in Anatolia and then march on Selim. On the other hand,
the Şahkulu revolt, alongside with some other developments, had clearly shown that
1606 See Hüseyin Hüsameddin, Amasya Tarihi, vol. 3, Istanbul, 1927, pp. 247-8, 254, 257-8. According to
Hüseyin Hüsameddin, Ahmed’s interest in the Qizilbash Movement was far beyond pragmatic causes. He
argues that Ahmed obviously supported Persian (Acem) scholars and literati against their Turkish
colleagues; thus he favored Persian culture at the cost of Turkish culture. To Hüseyin Hüsameddin, these
Persian-cultured men propagated the ‘love of the house of Muhammed’ (Hubb-i Āl-i Aba), which was a
sign of Shi’ism and supporting Shah Ismail in Amasya and the region around. Therefore, Ahmed directly
supported the spread of Shi’ism in the Province of Rum. See Hüseyin Hüsameddin, pp. 242-9.
Nonetheless, Hüseyin Hüsameddin’s arguments include serious errors. In many aspects, he simply reflects
the mentality of Selim-nāme authors, adding new mistakes to the Selim-nāme literature in some other
aspects. First of all, his nationalist approach clearly distorts the historical framework. He attempts to
depict the struggle between Selim and Ahmed as a struggle of the Turkish culture and tradition against
Persian culture and tradition. In this picture, Selim was the champion of Turkish tradition against Ahmed’s
patronage of Persian culture. This sort of classification obviously contradicts the historical realities.
Furthermore, Hüseyin Hüsameddin identifies sunnism with Turkish culture - and with Selim’s party – and
shi’ism with Persian culture, which was, to him, supported by Ahmed. This is a clear mistake stemming
from the retrospective approach of Hüseyin Hüsameddin. It has been already shown in Chapter V of the
present study that the Shi’i domination in Persia was an enterprise of Shah Ismail and his qizilbash
disciple-comrades. Thus the Persian literati in Ahmed’s palace in Amasya, if existed as Hüseyin
Hüsameddin argues, could barely have been shi’ite.
1607 Prince Murad was the oldest son of Prince Ahmed. He was the governor of Çorum while Ahmed was
governing the province of Amasya. When Ahmed deported from Amasya, he governed Amasya as well.
See ULCY, p. 127.
471