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

of ulemā must have written fetvās independently as the result of separate initiatives but
only one of them, perhaps the best, survived. 1804 One should note that Repp believes that
the author of the fetvā was Molla Nūreddin b. Yūsuf al-Karasīwī known as ‘Sarı Görez’,
a high-ranking scholar. Thus, he seems to be consistent in his argumentation.
Nevertheless, a close examination of sources, as delineated, shows that the author of this
fetvā could not be Molla Nūreddin. Furthermore, as Repp also admits, Ali Cemâlî, who
was the şeyhülislam, the head of ulemā class at the time, seems to have been silent, 1805
and thus one might surmise hesitant, on the issue. 1806 As it is well-known, the
şeyhülislam was the head of the fetvā institution in the Ottoman Empire. We have
numerous fetvās of şeyhülislams pertaining to even seemingly unimportant, individual
affairs. It is reasonable, therefore, to interpret the silence of şeyhülislam on such a vital
issue of utmost importance for the state as a sign of hesitation among high-ranking
ulemā. Following the enterprise of Hamza, however, Selim sooner gained further
1804
See Repp, p. 219.
1805
Ali Cemâlî Efendi held the post during from 1503 to 1525-6, and was succeeded by Kemalpashazāde.
See Repp, pp. 197-224.
1806
There are some vague indications in Şahnāme-i Āl-i Osman, a history of the virtues of the Ottoman
sultans written in the late sixteenth century, to the attitude of Ali Cemâlî Efendi. In one occasion, Şahnāme
narrates one of Sultan Selim I’s virtues as follows: Sultan Selim I decided to wage a campaign and asked
the opinions of notables. At the end they decided to ask şeyhülislam (müftī’l-enām) Ali Cemâlî Efendi. Ali
Cemâlî Efendi, however, did not approve Selim’s decision but offered to consult religious meditation. (In
the text it is written as ‘istihāre’, which is a practice of consulting dreams with certain set of prayers and
rites.) Being unpleased with şeyhülislam’s answer, Selim declined his offer, saying “it is not appropriate to
consult dreams in such vital issues!” Then Molla Sarıgürz, the kadıasker of Anatolia, celebrates Selim’s
decision arguing that it is suited to the religious law. Nevertheless, there are confusions in Şahnāme’s
account. First of all, this event is recorded as if happened on the eve of Semend Campaign, which is
unknown for the students of the Ottoman history. We know two campaign of Selim I, one over Safavids
and the other over Mamluks. Therefore, one may surmise that the above-mentioned campaign must be one
of these two. Ta’lîkîzâde, the author of Şahnāme, makes another mistake. In the following page, he reports
the discussion between Selim I and Molla Sarıgürz. According to him, Selim first intended to wage
campaign on Mamluks, but Molla Sarıgürz convinced him to march on Shah Ismail first. As already
delineated above, this argument obviously contradicts the historical facts. Leaving aside his confusions,
however, Ta’lîkîzâde’s account, which was written approximately one century later, affirms that
şeyhülislam Ali Cemâlî Efendi was reluctant to sanction Selim’s war, most probably on Safavids. On the
other hand, Şahnāme’s depiction of the position of Molla Sarıgürz should be read carefully. Molla
Sarıgürz might well have been among those ulemā who inclined to support Selim’s harsh policy against
qizilbashes. However, this still does not prove his authorship of the first fetvā. It should be also noted that
Ta’lîkîzâde does not mention any fetvā. See Şahnāme-i Āl-i Osman, fols. 22b-23b.
544