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

qizilbash (onlardan) or captured on his way to join them must also be executed. It is not
the exaggeration to surmise from Hamza’s fetvā that whoever had any connection with
Shah Ismail or the Qizilbash movement, no matter how and to what extent, had no other
choice but die under the Ottoman sword. The harsh judgment of Hamza which leaves no
room for error but brings all ways to execution resembles Selim’s political determination
rather than the theological indictment of the orthodox ulemā for the sake of the religion.
In other words, it resembles a ‘custom-made’ work rather than a scholarly theological
treatise. 1799 Likewise, as the political threat of the qizilbashes calmed down, so did the
severity of the fetvās of the Ottoman ulemā. Contrary to Hamza and Kemalpaşazāde, for
example, Ebussuūd, who held the post of şeyhülislamlık between 1545 and 1574, 1800
forbade the enslavement of the qizilbash children. 1801
One feels legitimate to question the promulgation of such a critical religious
sanction by a middle-ranking ulemā rather than the Mufti of Istanbul (şeyhülislam) or
some other high-ranking ulemā. 1802 The point rightfully raises suspicion on the
mechanism that produced the first fetvā, as well as on the person behind it. According to
Tansel, Hamza might have been induced to give the fetvā by threats, money or his own
fanaticism. 1803 R. C. Repp, on the other hand, rejects this approach claiming that the
fetvā represented a view commonly held among the ulemā. According to him, a number
1799 Hamza’s judgments seem exaggerated according to the Islamic jurisprudence. For a discussion of the
fetvā from the view of Islamic jurisprudence and its references, see Üstün, pp. 42-8.
1800 See Repp, pp. 272-96.
1801 Cited in Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Şeyhu’l-Đslam Ebu’s Suud Efendinin Fetvālarına Göre Kanunî Devrinde
Osmanlı Hayatı, Đstanbul: Yitik Hazine Yayınları, 2006, p. 136. For similar fetvās of Ebussuūd, see TSA,
document E 7285.
1802 Indeed, in his fetvā after counting sins of the qizilbashes, Hamza says that he and other scholars
decided on their disbelief: “… bunlarun emsāli şer’e muhālif kavilleri ve fi’illeri bu fakir katında ve bāki
ulemā-i din-i Đslam katlarında mālum ve zāhir olduğı sebebden biz dahī şeri’atün hükmi ve kitaplarımuzun
nakli ile fetvā virdük ki ol zikr olınan tāyife kāfirler ve mülhidlerdür…” See TSA, document E 6401.
However, available sources do not suggest the existence of other prominent scholars issued concomitantly
with or before Hamza’s fetvā.
1803 TNSS, p. 34.
543