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

meantime, Şükrī says, some ulemā had already issued religious sanction for the
execution of the qizilbashes before Selim summoned the first assembly in Edirne. 1768
During the declaration of his decision to his viziers and pashas in Edirne, Selim referred,
as Şükrī narrates, to certain fetvā(s) which were authorizing the persecution (katl) Ismail
and his followers. Şükrī’s account runs, “Katline fetvā veribdür ehl-i din.” 1769 Regarding
his long descriptions even in a detail of events throughout his history, Şükrī’s reference
to the religious sanction only with one short sentence suggests that he was not inclined
to stress the religious facet of the issue, at least in Edirne assembly. Moreover, he does
not clarify when and by whom this fetvā was issued. Whether he expressed the shared
1768 Although not specifying a date, HSE seems to have pursued similar view. He mentions the religious
sanction issued by the doctors of the religious law just before narrating Selim’s first assembly in Edirne.
Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that HSE wrote his history more than half a century later than
the events, it is not of little probability that he might have mistakes in chronological order of the events.
Furthermore, as already pointed out, Selim-nāme authors had been proved to show zealous enthusiasm to
create a legitimate ground for Selim’s unruly and daring practices. One of the best examples of such
efforts is recorded in Tacut’-tevārih. HSE says that ”once at the presence of Sultan Süleyman, Đbrahim
Paşa, one of Sultan Suleyman’s grand viziers, asked me, ‘Our sultan has objections to some practices of
his father; could you explain the reasons of his controversial practices?’ Then the sultan himself said, ‘We
are not in a position to oppose the decisions of the majesty (Sultan Selim); but you should express your
doubt!’” After mentioning three controversial practices of Sultan Selim in order to answer the question
asked by Đbrahim Paşa - killing and imprisoning the qizilbash envoys, marrying Ismail’s wife to another
man, and appropriating goods of merchants - HSE brings explanations for each practice clearly attempting
to advocate Selim. (See HSE4, pp. 212-25.) From this point of view, one might regard his reference to the
fetvā just before the assembly of Edirne as a part of legitimizing efforts. By doing so, HSE as well as some
other Ottoman historians aimed without a doubt to stress that the campaign of Çaldıran and the large-scale
persecution of Muslim subjects during this campaign were not because of Selim’s political ambition but
chiefly because of the religious incumbency put on his soldiers by the ulemā. Likewise, HSE does not
mention the fetvā in other parts of his history. See HSE4, p. 169.
1769 SKB, p. 138. Also regard YSF, p. 43. It reads, “...Ulemā-i din ve fukahā-i müsliminden anın hāli
istihyār ve ef’āli istifsār olundukda nakilleri muvāfık, sözleri mutābık ol tāği-i bāğinin zulm ü inād ve
küfre irtidādın hükm idüb, demi helāl ve kıtāli efdāl-i ā’mal olduğuna fetvā verdiler. ...” Here a pecularity
of Selim-nāme literature that I insistently underscore appears evidently. YSF’s history was the re-edited
version of SKB’s text in prose. In the text of SKB’s Selim-nāme only the sentence “Katline fetvā veribdür
ehl-i din” is recorded pertaining to the religious sanction. SKB’s expression is quite vague and not
sharpened. However, as clearly seen, YSF expands this one sentence and adds supplamentary expressions,
which creates an impression that Selim consulted the prominent religious scholars of the time and received
full authority to kill the qizilbashes. This provides a good example to the argument, which I follow, that as
time went on, the minds of Ottoman scholars got clearer and parallel to the advent of events and their
judgments gained sharpness (regarding the qizilbash affairs). What we read for the most part are,
unfortunately, the products of the clarified and sharpened minds, which were written down after the battle
of Çaldıran. Consequently, it is very difficult to penetrate into the true attitudes of the Ottoman religious
scholars during the eve of the great clash.
529