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

sentiments among the Ottoman elite or referred to a written fetvā is not clear in his
narration. Nevertheless when the whole chapter is taken into account, one feels that he
simply explains a general tendency rather than a signed fetvā text. He might even have
fabricated this information later, when writing his history.
Celalzāde states that upon Selim’s declaration of his intention to wage war
against Ismail, the attended statesmen and begs unanimously agreed upon this idea by
stating that they (the qizilbashes) were worse than unbelievers for the realm of Islam and
Ottomans. Then they decided to ask the religious dimension of the issue to the religious
scholars. For this purpose the ‘ālim who was the müfti’l-müslimin at the time was asked
the legitimacy of such a war from the point of religion. In his answer, the müfti’l-
müslimin sanctioned this war. 1770 Unfortunately, Celalzāde does not clearly indicates
who the müfti’l-müslimin was. 1771
Indeed, since the reign of Selim, a considerable literature of heresiography
disclaiming the faithlessness of the qizilbashes down to the nineteenth century appeared.
Almost all the fetvās and treatises dealing with the qizilbash issue, however, trace back
two fetvās/treatises issued in the first quarters of the sixteenth century: one is the famous
fatva of a certain Hamza and the other being the treatise (risāle) of Kemalpaşazāde. Both
texts are dedicated to prove the fallaciousness of the qizilbash path of religion, to justify
1770 “’... mādām ki ol tāyifenin bu sebīle sülūkleri olub, tārīk-ı dalāletden tevbe ve inābetleri olmıya, her
vechile küffār-ı hāksārdan eşedd ve eşerr, min cemī’i’l-vücūh füccār-ı nār-kārardan edall ve ebterlerdir’
deyü tafsīl-i kelām idicek sāmi’īne mecāl kalmayub cümlesi ol cānibe ‘azīmet ma’kul ve makbuldür
didiler. Ba’zı erbāb-ı savāb bu rāyı müstahsen görüb işaretleri ana müncer oldı ki, bu husus a’lemü’l-
‘ulemādan sual, müftī-i din-i mübīnden fetvā olına. Ana binaen bu suret-i ahvāl tesdīd olunub ol tarihte
müftī’l-müslimin olan ‘ālimden istiftā itdiler. Selātin-i şer’-āyinin teveccüh-i müveccehleri ol tāyife
üzerine olamak meşru’ idüğün cevāb virdiler. ...” CLZ, pp. 209-210.
1771 One further point to be noted here is that although CLZ’s arrangement of events, namely first taking
the political decision and then providing religious sanction, is congenial to the accounts of SKB and KPZ,
when writing his history half a century later than events, he was,most likely to make a mistake regarding
the timing and the location of the second event, i.e. providing the religious sanction. As already
delineated, Selim assembled religious scholars in Istanbul, when the campaign had already started. Yet
CLZ narrates as if both events had taken place in Edirne, before the beginning of the campaign.
530