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

fanatic anti-qizilbash stand was like a shining star for him during Selim’s campaign on
Iran, when he managed to include himself into the close circles of the sultan.
The fetvā of Hamza 1792 is already discussed by several scholars and its text is
published twice. 1793 Even a glance reveals that the ultimate aim of the text is to sanction
the war against Shah Ismail and the persecution of the qizilbashes, either at war or
peace. According to Hamza, executing the qizilbashes and dispelling their community
wherever they were seen is not only approved but ordered by the religious law, for
simply they fell apart the sphere of the faith or became disbelievers (kāfir ve mülhid).
Hamza lists the following acts and practices of Ismail and his followers as reason
for denouncing them disbeliever: despising the Qur’an, Shari’a, and Islam, approving
the acts prohibited by God, killing (sunni) ulemā, prostrating before their chief as if he is
God, cursing Abu Bakr and Omar and denying their caliphate, defaming and cursing
Āysha, and (consequently) endeavoring to nullify the Shari’a of Muhammad. 1794
1792 As Repp suggests, neither Hamza’s nor Kemalpashazāde’s statement should be taken as a fetvā since
they are not cast in the traditional impersonal form but directly aimed Shah Ismail and his followers. See
Repp, p. 220. Rather, they might be regarded as a manifesto of ulemā securing the religious ground of
Selim’s campaign. Another function of these treatises was, without doubt, as Parmaksızoğlu suggests, to
prepare public opinion against Safavids and for the upcoming severe persecutions. See Parmaksızoğlu,
“Kemal Paşa-zâde”, IA, VI, p. 563. Nevertheless, since Hamza’s statement is widely known as fetvā of
Hamza, I will refer to it as ‘fetvā’.
1793 The complete text of the fetvā with facsimile copies of the original documents in TSA (E 6401, E
5960, E 12077) is published in Tekindağ, “Yavuz Sultan Selim’in Đran Seferi”, pp. 54-5; TNSS, pp. 35-36,
footnote, 61. In the appendixes of their works, Tekindağ provides a fascimile copy of E 6401, while
Tansel puts all three documents. For discussions of the fetvā, see, in additon to these three works, Repp,
pp. 218-20; Allouche, pp. 122-4; Đsmail Safa Üstün, Heresy and Legitimacy in the Ottoman Empire in the
Sixteenth Century, Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Manchester, 1991, pp. 35-49.
1794 “… Müslimanlar bilün ve agah olun şol taife-i kızılbaş ki reisleri Erdebiloğlu Đsmaildür,
peygamberimüzün aleyhi’s-salât ve’s-selâm şeriatini ve sünnetini ve din-i Đslam ve ilm-i dini ve Kur’an-ı
Mübin’i istihfaf etdikleri ve dahi Allah-u Teala haram kıldığı günahlara helaldür dedükleri ve istihfafları
ve Kur’an-ı Azim’i ve Mushafları ve kütüb-ü şeriati tahkir edüb oda yakdukları ve dahi ulemaya ve
sülahaya ihanet edüb kırub mescidleri yıkdukları ve dahi reisleri laini mabud yerine koyub secde itdükleri
ve dahi Hazret-i Ebi Bekr’e radıyallahu anhu ve Hazreti Ömere radıyallahu anhu söğüb hilafetlerine
inkar itdükleri ve dahi peygamberimizin hatunu Ayişe anamuza (radıyallahu anha iftira etdüb – added in
the later copy, E 5960) söğdükleri ve dahi peygamberimüzün aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-selam şer’ini ve din-i
Đslam’ı götürmek kasdın itdükleri ve bu zikr olunan ve dahi bunların emsal-i şer’e muhalif kavilleri ve
fiilleri bu fakir katında ve baki ulema-i din-i Đslam katlarında (tevatürle) malum ve zahir oldığı sebebden
540