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

supporter of küfr and made the symbol of küfr the tāc (hat) on his head. 1721 To sum up,
Selim describes Ismail and his movement as a great fire of fitne within the world of
Islam; and underlines that it was compulsory duty (farz-ı ‘ayn) on the Muslim rulers to
extinguish this fire. 1722 It is rather meaningful that Selim compares Ismail and his
followers with Ye’cüc while presents himself as Alexander. 1723 Selim argues, as Şükrī
rephrases, that the Muslims living in the territories under Ismail’s rule were suffering
from oppression and demanding to take them into his realm of justice. Thus, Selim
presents his campaign on the qizilbashes as a revenge of Muslims who suffered from
Ismail’s oppression (zulm). In doing so, his aim was obviously to present his battle
against Ismail as a religious duty for the sake of the whole Islamic world. 1724
became inevitable for me [for I am the sultan of Muslims.] But before using my sword I offer him the
religion of Islam once more. If he would repent of his malicious actions, convert to Sunni Islam, and
recognize all the land that my horse trampled until now as Ottoman land then he will see nothing but help
and kindness from my state.” See See Feridun Bey, pp. 358-9. (I have not translated whole the text mot à
mot but summarized it.) As clearly reflected in this official document, Ottoman state did not regard
Safavids within the borders of Islam. The same attitude is quite apparent in other fetih-nāmes of Çaldıran
as well.
1721 For a similar description of Shah Ismail and his followers see Hadîdî, Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman (1299-
1523), haz. Necdet Öztürk, Đstanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1991, pp. 385-6.
1722 Indeed, Ottoman historians unanimously depict the qizilbashes as oppressors tyrannizing the Muslim
population. See, for example, IDRS, p. 120. Interestingly, more or less the same depiction was made by
the qizilbashes of Anatolia about the Ottomans, who forced them to change their traditional way of life.
Idris-i Bitlisī states that the brilliant temporal success of Ismail exited his enthusiastic disciples to such an
extent that they began to deem Ismail as a divine being. See IDRS, p. 122.
1723 SKB’s account truly reflects the perception of the Ottoman intelligentsia of the matter. Meanwhile,
one feels legitimate in questioning whether or not this account could reflect true attitude and thought of
Selim for it might well be the fabrication of SKB to a certain extent. Although Şükri-i Bitlisī was in the
Ottoman Palace by the last years of Bayezid II (See Đsmail Hami Danişmed, Đzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi
Kronolojisi, c. 2, Đstanbul, 1971, p. 22.) and participated in many events he narrated in his Selim-nāme, his
contribution may not be disregarded. But still, considering the actions of Selim from his governorship of
Trebizond to the Mamluk campaign carefully, it would be recognized that Selim was the real architecture
who made the Islamic scholars to construct such a perception of Ottomans – and Safavids of course. For
Şükri’s life and works see Mustafa Argunşah, “Giriş: Şükri-i Bitlisī’nin Hayatı ve Şahsiyeti”, in Şükrī-i
Bitlisī, Selim-nāme, haz. Mustafa Argunşah, Kayseri, 1997, pp. 3-36.
1724 For a similar but concise account see ALI, p. 1073. Another contemporary author, Mahremî reports
the situation in a similar manner. See Hatice Aynur, “Tavalalı Mahremî’s Shehnâme and the Kızılbash”, in
Syncrétismes et hérésies dans l’Orient seldjoukide et ottoman (XIVe-XVIIIe) siècle. Actes du Colloque du
Collège de France, octobre 2001, ed., Gilles Veinstein, Paris, 2005, 237-48. Beldiceanu-Steinherr argues,
however, that the persecution of Selim I was not primarily because he declared himself the guardian of
sunnism but because he had to keep the integrity of the empire, which was under serious threat by
513