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

In the very early years of the sixteenth century, the sufis were killed for political
reasons, not on a religious ground. 1749 Differing from the term ‘qizilbash’, which
connoted political disobedience and religious heresy together, ‘sufi’ was used to refer to
anarchic adherents of Ismail. Here the reason for the punishment was the anarchy they
caused but not their religious stand. 1750 The formulaic phrase repeated in all decrees is
‘siyāseten salb itmek’, executing by raison d’Etat. The description of sufis in these
decrees and the judicial ground of punishment shed light on the stage of the qizilbash
problem in the Ottoman Empire in summer of 1501. It is obvious from this archival
evidence that the Ottoman approach to the problem was yet political. No religious
heresies of these groups are addressed, but they are described as groups causing disorder
and anarchy (zümre-i tugāt ve tāife-i eşkıyā). 1751 As Gilles Veinstein put forward,
On ne saurait donc sous-estimer la conscience que, dès les tout débuts de Sâh
Ismâ’îl, avant même l’intronisation de ce dernier, le sultan a au du péril qu’il
faisait courir à l’ordre régional, déjà bien compromis, et au territoire même de
l’Etat ottoman. Néanmoins, ce péril n’a pas encore acquis toute sa dimension
politico-idéologique mais relève encore plutôt de l’anarchie tribale. Les choses, il
est vrai, ne vont plus tarder à changer de sens. 1752
1749 As mentioned earlier, the Otoman law was divided into two main branches: the religious law (şer’ī
hukuk) and the sultanic law (örfī hukuk). The status of the Safavid disciples was yet in the sphere of the
sultanic law.
1750 For another assessment regard Veinstein, “Les premières mesures”, p. 231 and p. 233.
1751 Aşıkpaşazāde’s account which deviates from the general picture put forward by other sources should
be mentioned here. Aşıkpaşazāde is the only Ottoman historian who evaluated early Safavid affairs not
only in religious context but also in political one. As will be explored below, for the first time he mentions
religious ordinances issued by religious scholars on the sufis of Ardabil. Indeed, Aşıkpaşazāde argues that
the scholars of religion (ulemā) had already concluded that the adherents of this sufi order fell out of the
true religious sphere, namely they became infidels. (See APZ, p. 249.) Kemalpaşazāde, for example, does
not yet mention any religious heresy; he gives the reason of mass deportation as the banditry and
disobedience of these sufis. (Solakzāde, however, follows APZ’s line. To him the reason was their heretic
beliefs. “[Ismail’in] Yanına toplanmış bulunan mülhidlerin ekserisi Teke ve Hamid vilāyetinden olmakla,
o memleketlerde, mutlaka rāfizilik kokusuna bulaşmış olmaları ve mezhepsiz sayılmaları dolayısıyla
Rumeli yakasına sürüldüler.” SLZ1, p. 429.) Aşıkpaşazāde’s account on the infidelity of Ardabil sufis
during the early years of the sixteenth century is rather peculiar. No other Ottoman chronicles evaluate this
problem in terms of religious discourse until Selim launched war on Safavids in 1514. The first fetvā
disclaiming the qizilbashes as unbelievers is known to be issued by a certain Hamza shortly before the
Campaign of Çaldıran.
1752 Gilles Veinstein, “Les premières mesures”, p. 236.
521