ABDURRAHMAN ATÇIL
The Safavid Sufi order, which originated in Ardabil in the early fourteenth century, became the nucleus for Shah Ismail’s (d. 1524) political and military movement at the turn of the sixteenth century. Followers of the order from Azerbaijan, Anatolia, and northern Syria joined his movement in mass and zealously supported his religio-political aspiration. After capturing Tabriz, the capital of the Aqquyunlus in 1501, the Safavid army annexed Diyarbakır in 1507, Baghdad in 1508, and Shirvan and Khorasan in 1510. Meanwhile, several groups in Anatolia that were under Ottoman rule and directly or indirectly affiliated with the Safavids rose against the Ottoman authority.1
Although the Ottomans decisively defeated the Safavids at the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, the Safavid threat to the Ottoman authority in eastern Anatolia remained acute and had military, political, and religious dimensions. Claiming to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632) and relying on the messianic ideas of the Shiʿi tradition, Shah Ismail announced himself as the awaited God-chosen savior. These messianic assertions persisted, with minor adjustments, during Shah Tahmasb’s rule (1524–1576).2 The propaganda of these ideas was especially successful among Turkmen groups, many of which were under Ottoman rule in Anatolia.3 The Ottomans were rightly concerned that their legitimacy and rule in most of Anatolia might slip away.
FIGURE 2.2 The Great Ebussuud Teaching Law
A page from an illustrated manuscript of Mahmud Abdülbaki Divan (1526/27–1600) depicting the powerful shaikh al-Islam (chief jurist) of Istanbul, Ebussuud (1490–1574), engaged in a discussion with other religious thinkers. The laudatory poem that accompanies the image refers to Ebussuud as the “second Abu Hanifah,” the celebrated eighth-century jurist whose legal school (Hanafi) the Ottoman Empire followed.
Source: Folio from a Divan of Mahmud Abdülbaki
Author: Mahmud ʿAbd al-Baqi (1526–1600)
Place of origin: Attributed to Baghdad, Iraq
Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Gift of George D. Pratt, 1925. 25.83.9.
Here, I present a translation of eleven fatwas (religio-legal opinion) by one of the most influential scholars in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire, Ebussuud (d. 1574). In these fatwas, Ebussuud attempts to offer a refutation of the Safavids’ ideological claims and develops the religio-legal tools that the Ottoman government used in its war against the Safavids and their supporters, who were known as Qizilbash (Red Head) for they wore the red headgear designed by Shah Ismail’s father, Haydar (d. 1488).4
EBUSSUUD EFENDI (1490–1574) AND THE OFFICE OF CHIEF JURIST
Ebussuud was born and educated entirely in Istanbul. In 1516, he entered the Ottoman scholarly bureaucratic service.5 After holding a string of hierarchically organized professorial and judicial positions, he ascended to the position of chief judge (kadıasker) of Rumeli in 1537. In 1545, he became the chief jurist (şeyhülislam) and remained in that position until his death in 1574.6
Ebussuud’s tenure as chief jurist coincided with significant shifts in the empire’s administration in general and in the status and function of the chief jurist in particular. Between 1530 and 1600, in connection with the new momentum in state formation and bureaucratic consolidation, the development of a comprehensive legal system that protected the rights and defined the limits of bureaucratic officials and subjects increasingly became a concern.7 Laws and precedents (written and unwritten) emerged to regulate the appointments of bureaucrats. Dynastic laws were enacted arranging relations among government officials in the provinces as well as between officials and subjects.8 In this context of heightened sensitivity to law and legal order, it appears that shariʿa—the collection of religio-legal rules scholars had derived from Islamic scriptural sources through particular methods—increased in importance. Many among the elite and other groups considered shariʿa to be one of the criteria of legitimacy for legal and political acts in the empire, including dynastic law and the ruler’s own deeds.9 As a consequence, scholars played an increasingly prominent role in the formation of ideology and legal order in the empire as interpreters of scriptures and articulators of shariʿa principles.
Ebussuud, as chief judge, occupied the highest position in the scholarly hierarchy and, in most cases, acted as the representative of scholars in government service. He issued fatwas to articulate his religio-legal opinions not only about private acts of individuals but also about public legislation, such as criminal law, taxation, and land law, as well as rulings that affected imperial political ideology and foreign relations.10 As the empire’s top legal official, he had the capacity through his opinions to influence both legal practice and official ideology in the realm.
THE FATWAS ABOUT THE SAFAVID QIZILBASH
In the Hanafi legal tradition, the term fatwa signified the religio-legal opinions articulated by the scholars who lived after the generation of the school’s founders had passed away (Abu Hanifa, d. 767; Abu Yusuf, d. 798; Muhammad al-Shaybani, d. 805). Generally speaking, the opinions of the founders held higher status than those of later scholars. Some opinions of later scholars were collected in separate books, called Fatawa, Waqiʿat, or Nawazil.11 Later, as these opinions gained authority through recognition within the Hanafi scholarly community, they gradually began to take their place in works of jurisprudence (fiqh).12
It appears that from the second half of the fifteenth century, in the central lands of the Ottoman Empire, a distinct form and language developed to record fatwas, especially those issued by chief jurists. Generally speaking, Ottoman fatwa documents include two parts. The question component is usually longer and summarizes the issue at hand, posing a question to be answered by the jurist. The answer component is typically very short and includes the answer of the jurist as a simple yes or no. The language of fatwas is in most cases Ottoman Turkish and simple prose. Generic names such as Zeyd, Hind, and Bekr are used to represent the person in the legal issue under examination. Not many original fatwa documents have survived; nevertheless, copies of them are abundant in the fatwa collections, available in manuscript and published form.13
Ebussuud’s fatwas presented here have been preserved either in collections consisting solely of his fatwas, or in those comprising the fatwas of several chief jurists.14 They were written in Turkish prose, except for the Arabic prayer section after fatwa 3. Fatwas 8–11 use the generic names Zeyd, Amr, and Bekr; others refer to the Qizilbash (supporters of the Safavids) in general. As for the length and relative proportion of the question and answer parts, fatwas 1 and 4–11 are typical, containing short answers and long questions. It is noteworthy, however, that the answers to fatwas 2–3 are relatively extensive, occupying more space than the questions to which they respond.
It is possible to date only four of Ebussuud’s fatwas with any certainty. Ebussuud himself gave the date 955 (1548–49) for the composition of the first three fatwas; he seems to have written them before or during Suleyman’s (r. 1520–1566) campaign against Iran in support of Alqas Mirza’s (d. 1550) bid for the Safavid throne in 1548–49. As fatwa 4 refers to the Nahcivan campaign, which took place during 1553–54, it can be dated to roughly that time.15
Fatwas 5–7 refer to a state of war between the Qizilbash and Ottoman forces. One can therefore suggest that they belong to the period before the treaty of Amasya (1555), after which, during Ebussuud’s lifetime, fighting between the main armies of the Safavids and the Ottomans, as well as between their local forces, decreased and became marginal. Finally, neither the content nor external evidence provides any clue as to the date of composition for fatwas 8–11.
Fatwa 1
Question: Is it legally and religiously permissible to fight against the Qizilbash? Are those who kill the Qizilbash deemed as holy warriors (gazis), and those who are killed by them as martyrs?
Answer: Yes [war against them is permissible]. It is a holy war deserving the highest reward; theirs is a great martyrdom.
Another Question: Is the reason for the permissibility of war against them only that they rebelled and showed enmity against the sultan of Muslims and drew the sword against the army of Islam? Or are there any other reasons?
Answer: They are rebels (bagi) as well as unbelievers (kafir) for several reasons.
Fatwa 2
Question: It is said that their leader is a descendant of the messenger of God [Muhammad], peace and prayer be upon him. If this is true, can there be any doubt [about the judgments above]?
Answer: No, not at all. Their wicked acts demonstrate that they do not have any relationship with this pure genealogy. In addition, reliable people reported that when his father, Ismail, first went out [for his political bid], he pressured the descendants of the Prophet in the tomb of Imam Ali al-Rida b. Musa al-Kazim and other places to include his [Ismail’s] name in Bahr-i Ansab. He killed all those who would not dare to slander [the Prophet by including Ismail in the list of his descendants]. Then some descendants of the Prophet did what Ismail asked in order to evade execution. However, they took care to trace his lineage to a descendant of the Prophet who was known as infertile and childless by scholars of the esteemed genealogy, so that others could understand the truth.
Nevertheless, even if we assume that the authenticity of his lineage is proven, as long as he is without religion, he is no different from other infidels. The descendants of the Prophet, peace and prayer be upon him, are those who take care of the symbols of flawless shariʿa and protect [obey] the clear-cut rules. Noah, peace be upon him, prayed to the Lord of Dignity for the rescue of his biological son, Ken‘an. He [Noah] received the response, “He [Kenʿan] is not from your family.”16 He [Ken‘an] was punished and drowned together with other unbelievers. If being offspring of the great prophets, peace and prayer be upon them, was reason for salvation from worldly and otherworldly punishments, none of the unbelievers of various types would be punished in this world or hereafter by virtue of their being progeny of the prophet Adam, peace be upon him. God knows best, and he is most just.
Question: Although the said group claims to be Shiʿis and declares, “There is no God but Allah,” what acts of theirs require this [denigration as unbelievers]? Please explain clearly and in detail.
Answer: They are not Shiʿis and do not belong to any of “the seventy-three sects, all of which will go to Hell, except the Sunni sect (ehl-i sunnet)” as the Exalted Messenger, peace and prayer be upon him, said. They created a new sect of unbelief and deviance by taking an amount of wickedness and immorality from each sect and adding it to the unbelief and innovation of their own choice. They keep increasing [their unbelief and innovation] day by day.
The detailed judgment, according to noble shariʿa, on the crimes that they have been perpetrating is as follows: These outrageous people became unbelievers as they scorned the Holy Qurʾan, the noble shariʿa, and the religion of Islam, disdained and killed scholars on account of their knowledge, [and] considered their immoral cursed leader god and prostrated before him. [They] considered permissible many religiously forbidden acts whose prohibition has been established by definite scriptural sources, and cursed Abu Bakr and ʿUmar (the first two caliphs after Muhammad’s death), may God be satisfied with them. In addition, they became unbelievers because they denied the Holy Qurʾan by defaming Aʿisha the trustworthy (Prophet’s wife), may God be pleased with her, who was exonerated by the revelation of several verses [in the Qurʾan]. By doing so, they also cursed the Prophet (hazret-i risalet-penah) and blemished his saintly personality.
According to the consensus of a multitude of scholars from different times and places, killing them is permissible (mubah); those who doubt their unbelief become unbelievers.
In the opinions of Abu Hanifa, Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 778), and al-Awzaʿi (d. 774), may God have mercy upon them, if they truly repent and convert once more to Islam, they escape execution—as their unbelief is the same as that of other unbelievers. However, in the opinions of Malik b. Anas (d. 795), al-Shafiʿi (d. 820), Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 855), Layth b. Saʿd (d. 791), Ishaq b. Rahuya (d. 853), and a large number of other great scholars of religion, their repentance is never accepted; their conversion to Islam is not taken into consideration, and they are definitely to be killed as scripturally defined punishment (hadd). The imam, the refuge of religion, may God support and strengthen him, can legitimately act according to any of these opinions from the scholars of religion.
It has been established by the testimony of unquestionable authenticity that they [the Qizilbash] perpetrated the said crimes. There is no doubt or confusion about their situation. There is no hesitation whatsoever about their soldiers, who participated in the fights and their companions [that they should be killed]. However, people in the cities and the countryside who live peacefully and stay away from their [the Qizilbash’s] acts, and whose appearances confirm their trustworthiness, are not subjected to their rules and punishments unless it becomes apparent that they are lying.
Killing this group is more important than killing other unbelievers. Because of this [urgency], Abu Bakr, the Trustworthy, at the time of his caliphate, preferred and prioritized waging war against the apostate group led by Musaylima al-Kazzab,17 with the unanimous support of the noble Companions, may God be pleased with all of them, over moving against Syria and against the unbelievers around Medina. Similar was the fight against Khawarij during the caliphate of ʿAli, may God honor him. The corruption of this group [the Qizilbash] is serious. Exerting effort to wipe their corruption from the earth is the most important endeavor.
Allah is the Helper and the Support!
Our Lord! Forgive our sins and our excesses in our affairs. Establish our feet firmly. Help us against the group of unbelievers.
Our Master, our best, the pioneer of the century, Ebussuud, who is the jurist in the city of Islam and victory [Istanbul], wrote this in 955 [A.H.] (1548–49 CE).
Fatwa 4
Question: Can the Qizilbash who were captured during the Nahcivan campaign be enslaved?
Answer: No.
Fatwa 5
Question: When the Qizilbash group was attacked in accordance with the command of the sultan, some of the children and adult captives were Armenians. Should these Armenians be free?
Answer: Yes. Unless Armenians attacked the army of Islam together with the Qizilbash army, they cannot be legally enslaved.
Fatwa 6
Question: According to an opinion reported from Imam Aʿzam [that is, Abu Hanifa], an apostate woman can be captured before she arrives in the Abode of War (dar al-harb).18 As capturing a Qizilbash woman brings the army of Islam utmost strength and pride and causes the enemies of correct religion extreme weakness and derogation, is it permissible to act in accordance with this opinion?
Answer: Yes.
Fatwa 7
Question: In accordance with the abovementioned opinion, can captive women be forced to serve and to have sexual intercourse?
Answer: They can be forced to perform all services except for sexual intercourse. They are apostates. Unless they convert to Islam, sexual intercourse with them cannot be undertaken.
Question: If Bekr the son of Amr kills Zeyd, whose Qizilbash identity and act of cursing the four rightly guided caliphs were established, will there be any legal consequences [for Bekr]?
Answer: If it is established that the slaying took place immediately after cursing, he [Bekr] is not liable.
Fatwa 9
Question: What is the legal consequence for Zeyd, who says, “Damnation to Yazid,19 and damnation to those who do not damn him?”
Answer: It is not lawful to damn those who do not damn. Not damning does not equate to affirmation of his [Yazid’s] acts.
Fatwa 10
Question: What is legally necessary for Zeyd, who says, “Muʿawiya is not a good person?”
Answer: He receives discretionary punishment (taʿzir).
Fatwa 11
Question: What is legally necessary for Zeyd, who damned Muʿawiya, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad?
Answer: Administration of a severe discretionary punishment and imprisonment are necessary for him.20
NOTES
1. Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire (London: I. B. Tauris, 2006), 9–12.
2. Adel Allouche, The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict (906–962 / 1500–1555) (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1983), 153–66; Said Amir Arjomand, “The Rise of Shah Esmaʿil as a Mahdist Revolution,” Studies on Persianate Societies 3 (2005): 44–51.
3. Faruk Sümer, Safevî Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992), 1–56; Saim Savaş, XVI. Asırda Anadolu’da Alevilik (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2013), 11–15; Rıza Yıldırım, “Turcomans Between Two Empires: The Origins of the Qizilbash Identity in Anatolia, 1447–1514” (PhD diss., Bilkent University, 2008).
4. Before Ebussuud, at least two other scholars from the Ottoman learned establishment, Sarıgörez Nureddin Hamza (d. 1522) and Kemalpaşazade (d. 1534) asserted their opinions about the Safavids and their supporters. For the opinions of Sarıgörez Nureddin Hamza and Kemalpaşazade, see M. C. Şehabeddin Tekindağ, “Yeni Kaynak ve Vesikaların Işığı Altında Yavuz Sultan Selim’in İran Seferi,” Tarih Dergisi 22 (1968): 53–55, 77–78, docs. 1–2.
5. For further information on Ebussuud’s life and career, see Nikolay Antov’s essay in chapter 1 in this volume.
6. For Ebussuud’s biography, see Nevizade Atayi, Hadaʾiq al-Haqaʾiq, ed. Abdülkadir Özcan (Istanbul: Çağrı Yayınları, 1989), 183–88. See also Richard Repp, The Müfti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy (London: Ithaca, 1986), 272–96; Ahmet Akgündüz, “Ebüssuûd Efendi,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/dia/pdf/c10/c100355.pdf.
7. Cornell H. Fleischer, “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleymân,” in Soliman Le Magnifique et son Temps: Actes du Colloque de Paris Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais 7–10 mars 1990, ed. Gilles Veinstein (Paris: La Documentation Française, 1992), 159–77.
8. Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âlî, 1541–1600 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 191–200; Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri (Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1990–96), vols. 4–9.
9. Colin Imber, “Süleymân as Caliph of the Muslims: Ebû’s-Suʿûd’s Formulation of Ottoman Dynastic Ideology,” in Soliman le Magnifique et son Temps, 179–84; Halil İnalcık, “Islamization of Ottoman Laws on Land and Land Tax,” in Osmanistik-Turkologie-Diplomatik, ed. Christa Fragner and Klaus Schwarz (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1992), 101–18.
10. For Ebussuud’s fatwas and legal opinions, see Colin Imber, Ebu’s-suʿud: The Islamic Legal Tradition (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997); Abdullah Demir, Şeyhülislam Ebussuud Efendi, Devlet-i Aliyye’nin Büyük Hukukçusu (Istanbul: Ötüken, 2006).
11. Katip Çelebi, Kashf al-Zunun an Asami-l-Kutub wa-l-Funun (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014), 2:1280–83. See also Murteza Bedir, Buhara Hukuk Okulu (Istanbul: İSAM, 2014), 49–54, 76–80.
12. Wael B. Hallaq, “From Fatwas to Furuʿ: Growth and Change in Islamic Substantive,” Islamic Law and Society 1 (1994): 29–65.
13. Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of the Ottoman Fetva,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39 (1969): 37–46; Şükrü Özen, “Osmanlı Döneminde Fetva Literatürü,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 5 (2005): 249–378.
14. For a publication of Ebussuud’s fatwas with a transliteration, see Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Kanunî Devri Şeyhülislâmı Ebussuud Efendi Fetvaları (Istanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2012). For general information about the collections of Ebussuud’s fatwas, see Özen, “Osmanlı Döneminde Fetva Literatürü,” 263–64, 285–89.
15. Remzi Kılıç, Kanuni Devri Osmanlı-İran Münasebetleri (Istanbul: IQ Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 2006), 257–90, 312–32.
17. Maslama b. Thumama (d. 633) declared his prophethood and led the rebellion of the Banu Hanifa tribe against the Medina government during 632–633. For this, see Ahmet Önkal, “Müseylimetülkezzâb,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/dia/pdf/c32/c320069.pdf.
19. Yazid b. Muʿawiya (d. 683) was the second Umayyad caliph. As he was the caliph and allegedly gave the orders at the time when Husayn b. Ali (d. 680) was executed, Shiʿis had a special hatred for Yazid.
20. The difference in the opinions about giving damnation to Muʿawiya and Yazid probably results from the fact that the former was a companion of the Prophet and the latter was not. In Sunni understanding, all companions of the Prophet are above all criticism; insulting any of them must be punished.
FURTHER READING
Allouche, Adel. The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict (906–962 / 1500–1555). Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1983.
Atçıl, Abdurrahman. “The Safavid Threat and Juristic Authority in the Ottoman Empire during the 16th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 49 (2017): 295–314.
Babayan, Kathryn. Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, Ayşe. “The Formation of Kızılbaş Communities in Anatolia and Ottoman Responses, 1450s–1630s.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 20 (2014): 21–48.
Dressler, Marcus. “Inventing Orthodoxy: Competing Claims for Authority and Legitimacy in the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict.” In Legitimizing the Order: The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, ed. Hakan T. Karateke and Maurus Reinkowski, 151–73. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Eberhard, Elke. Osmanische polemik gegen die Safawiden im 16: Jahrhundert nach Arabischen Handschriften. Freiburg, Germany: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1970.
Fleischer, Cornell H. “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleymân.” In Soliman Le Magnifique et son Temps Actes du Colloque de Paris Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais 7–10 mars 1990, ed. Gilles Veinstein, 159–77. Paris: La Documentation Française, 1992.
Imber, Colin. Ebu’s-suʿud: the Islamic Legal Tradition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık: Alevi Kaynaklarını, Tarihini ve Tarihyazımını Yeniden Düşünmek. Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2015.
Kılıç, Remzi. Kanuni Devri Osmanlı-İran Munasebetleri. Istanbul: IQ Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 2006.
Terzioğlu, Derin. “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A Historiographical Discussion.” Turcica 44 (2013–2014): 301–38.
Winter, Stefan. “The Kızılbaş of Syria and Ottoman Shiʿism.” In The Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead, 171–83. London: Routledge, 2011.
Yıldırım, Rıza. “In the Name of Hosayn’s Blood: The Memory of Karbala as Ideological Stimulus to the Safavid Revolution.” Journal of Persianate Studies 8 (2015): 127–54.
