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

the qizilbashes and dispersing them in order to save Muslims from a great
oppression. 1767
Considering the report of Ali bin Abdülkerim Halife, it is clear that some
members within the ulemā class who were vigorously advocating the suppression of this
‘heretic’ movement by all means possible had already emerged. But still one feels
legitimate in feeling doubtful about the picture of the attitudes of the contemporary
ulemā by Selim-nāme authors. As indicated earlier, their writing retrospectively should
be discerned in this picturing as well as their writing under the patronage of Selim, who
had then already accomplished the victor, or of his son Süleyman. Of course, within
available sources, it is not possible to determine whether or not any opposition to the
sanction came out from among the ulemā class, and if so to what extent. What we can be
sure of is, however, that they felt the heavy pressure of Selim’s despotic, ruthless, and
determined personality on all the decisions both ulemā and statesmen took. When
writing the events years later, the influence of this pressure which was rather augmented
was profoundly reinforced by the psychology of adherence to one party in a fierce and
sharp religio-political confrontation. Consequently, one should be careful in assessing
the attitude of the Ottoman religious circles toward the qizilbash problem and read these
accounts by tuning down the religious sharpness or intolerance to a certain extent,
realizing the political stimulus behind this seemingly religious approach.
According to Kemalpaşazāde, Selim first demanded religious sanction from
ulemā in Istanbul assembly, 13 days later than the start of the campaign. In the
1767 Tekindağ, differently from the author of the present study, refutes KPZ’s record which states that
Selim obtained the religious approval from the ulemā in Istanbul, and argues that the religious sanctions
were issued before the assembly of Istanbul. See Tekindağ, “Yavuz Sultan Selim’in Đran Seferi”, p. 57,
footnote 33.
528