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

arasında kalem-i fetvā ile ve ‘ālem-i takvā ile müsellem ve mukaddem olan
mevālī divana da’vet olundı. Kızılbaş-ı evbāş ta’ifesinün muhārebesi husūsı
söyleşilüb, muktazā-yı şeri’at nidüği istiftā kılınub, bu maslahat müşāvere olındı.
Anlar dahī rāy-ı sevāb icmā’ idüb bu cevābı müstetābı tahrīr itdiler ki: “Her kim,
ol dāll ü mudille intisāb ide, ve ruhsat virdüği ef’āle irtikāb ide, mübāhı
mübahu’d-demdür. Cem’in tefrīk ve eşyā’ını temiz itmek gerek, sā’ir harbī
kāfirlerden anlarunla muhārebe ehemm ü akdemdür. A’vān u ensārı sā’ī-yi
fesāddur. Her ne diyārda ve bilādda var ise emān virmeyüb helāk itmek gerek.
Ayet ü hadīs hükmiyle āmil olub vech-i arzı ol habīslerün levs ü revs-i
ilhādından pāk itmek gerek.” ... Sultān-ı Đslām ol mālik-i ezimme-i ahkām olan
ulemā-yı a’lāmun fetvāları muktezāsınca ‘amel idüb, ol ‘azīm-i kadīmle ‘azm-i
rezmi tesmīm eyledi. ... 1763
If we rely on Kemalpaşazāde, and other contemporary Selim-nāme authors,
Selim did not meet any opposition in the second assembly from the ulemā. On the
contrary, they (the ulemā) not only issued the religious sanction legitimizing war against
Ismail and his adherents but also encouraged him to extirpate these malicious people
from the face of the earth. 1764 Idrīs deems, for example, the proliferation of the
qizilbashes as the greatest discord (fitne) in the world. 1765 If we rely on Idrīs, the ulemā
of the time unanimously claimed that for the ruler of Muslims, scattering the qizilbashes
was more urgent than fighting with unbelievers. 1766 To sum up, according to the
Ottoman chroniclers, all religious scholars agreed on the necessity of waging a war on
1763 KPZ9, pp. 96-97.
1764 For example, SKB follows the same line of arguement with KPZ and writes,
“Yek-ser ehl-i ilm virdiler cevab K’iy emirü’l-mü’min devlet-me’āb
Bunda yokdur zann u yā reyb ü güman Müttefikdür cümle ilm ehli ‘ayān
Ger cihād-ı a’zam ister tācüdār Uş ganimet uş gazā olsun süvār
Çün cevab aldı mevāliden Selim Ber-murād oldı ahāliden Selim
Geldi dirildi tamam ālāt-ı ceng Cübbe cevşen gürz-ile top u tüfeng.” See SKB, p. 144.
1765 See IDRS, p. 116.
1766 IDRS, p. 123. IDRS gives an example from Ebu Bekir, a companion of the Prophet, while reasoning
this argument. He says that it was already decided to conquer Damascus and to wage cihad against
unbelievers shortly before the death of the Prophet. However, upon the revolt of Museyleme el-Kezzāb
with prophetic claims, Ebu Bekir, in consultation with Umar and Ali, changed the priority marching on
Museyleme. Thus, handling the fitne within the realm of Islam is always prior to performing cihād against
external enemies. For similar arguments see CLZ, p. 209. In one of his fetvās, Ebussuud Efendi also refers
to the same decision of Ebu Bekir in explaining the priority of handling the qizilbash problem. See
Maunuscript, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Esad Efendi, no. 3542, fols. 46a-47a. Also see Eberhard, pp. 166-
7; Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Şeyhülislâm Ebussuud Efendi’nin Fetvalarına Göre Kanunî Devrinde Osmanlı
Hayatı, Đstanbul: Yitik Hazine Yayınları, 2006, pp. 134-6, fetvā 481.
527