From fatwa to massacre: The dark language of history against the Kizilbash

When it comes to the Kizilbash, or Alevis, one of the names that undoubtedly comes to mind in history is Ebussuud, one of the most important Sheikh ul-Islams of the era. This is because the Kizilbash are among the subjects of his fatwas. Moreover, the words that poured from the Sheikh ul-Islam's tongue were not exactly auspicious. In those fatwas, we see a hostility toward the Kizilbash that would last for hundreds of years in terms of blood, slaughter, and impact. I will share them shortly, but before I do, I would like to share a few notes about the life of the Sheikh ul-Islam.

He was born in Istanbul in 1490; the name Ebussuud means "father of fortunes" or "the most blessed person" in Arabic. It is stated that his real name was Mehmet (Muhammad). His father was Sheikh Yavsi, a sheikh of the Bayrami-Shemsi order. A friendship developed between Sheikh Yavsi and Sultan Bayezid II while the latter was in Amasya, and the Sultan took lessons from him. When he became Sultan, he summoned him to Istanbul and had a dervish lodge built for him. Naturally, Ebussuud received his first lessons from his father and cultivated himself in this field. Years passed, and he was eventually appointed to the Çankırı Madrasa, but when he hesitated, he was appointed to the İnegöl İshak Pasha Madrasa instead. The year was 1520, and he was only 30 years old. Then, he began to rise rapidly through the career ranks. After serving as the Kadi of Istanbul and the Kazasker of Rumelia, he became the Sheikh ul-Islam in 1545. He was 55 years old by then.

The Sheikh ul-Islam remained in this position for nearly 30 years. We know that he had 6 children. He lived to be 84, and his tomb is in Eyüp, Istanbul.

Before moving on to Ebussuud's fatwas regarding the Kizilbash, I would like to share a few more historical notes. During the Battle of Chaldiran, which took place between Yavuz Sultan Selim and Shah Ismail, the leader of the Safavid State, and which also concerned the Kizilbash in terms of its effects, Ebussuud was still a 24-year-old madrasa student. Negative fatwas regarding the Kizilbash were issued during that period as well. The political conflicts between the two states continued for many years. Ebussuud's fatwas regarding the Kizilbash were issued in the years following his appointment as Sheikh ul-Islam.

Let's see what Ebussuud said in those fatwas.

Question: Is it lawful according to Sharia to kill those who belong to the Kizilbash community? Is a person who kills them considered a ghazi (warrior for the faith), and do those killed by the Kizilbash become martyrs?

Answer: Yes, they do. This is a great ghaza (holy war), and a person killed in this way attains the rank of a great martyr.

The continuation of the fatwa is equally important and striking: Because when Ebussuud's fatwas are discussed, the Ottoman-Iranian conflicts of that period are recalled, and it is stated that the Sheikh ul-Islam issued these fatwas against rebels.

Let's see, is the only issue the rebels, is the only problem "political"?

Question: If it is accepted that killing them is religiously lawful, is the reason for this only that they are in rebellion and hostility against the Islamic ruler and are fighting against the Islamic army? Or are there other reasons for this?

Answer: They are considered both baghi (rebels) and are considered infidels in various respects.

As can be seen, for the Sheikh ul-Islam, the only issue is not that they are rebelling, and the only justification is not rebellion. He clearly says here that "they are considered infidels in other respects as well." History already tells us the consequences of being considered an infidel.

Question: According to an opinion narrated from Imam-i Azam, a person who has apostatized can be captured and taken prisoner before they take refuge in the dar al-harb (war zone). Based on this, if taking Kizilbash women prisoner would bring great strength and superiority to the Islamic army and cause great weakness and humiliation to the enemies of the religion, would it be religiously permissible to act in accordance with this opinion?

Answer: It is permissible.

Here, while the Kizilbash are treated as apostates (those who have turned away from the religion), the taking of women as prisoners is also mentioned.

On the other hand, the answers Ebussuud gave to certain questions are also striking in terms of understanding the theological-political structure of the period.

Let's read them together:

Question: If Zayd says, while the muezzin Amr is reciting the adhan, "Even if you call a thousand times, nothing reaches us from you," what is required regarding Zayd?

Answer: This statement means mocking the adhan. Therefore, he becomes an infidel; his wife also becomes [forbidden to him].

Question: If Zayd says, "Damn Yazid; and damn those who do not damn him," what is required regarding Zayd?

Answer: It is not religiously legitimate to damn those who do not damn [him]. A person not damning Yazid does not mean that they accept or approve of what he did.

Question: If Zayd says, "Muawiyah is not a good/virtuous person," what punishment is given to Zayd according to religious law?

Answer: A ta'zir (discretionary) punishment is given.

Question: If Zayd damns Muawiyah, who is one of the prominent companions, what punishment is given to Zayd according to religious law?

Answer: A severe ta'zir punishment is given, and he is imprisoned.

When Ebussuud issued fatwas regarding the Kizilbash, he did not make a distinction between those who participated in the rebellion and those who did not. There is no such expression in the fatwas. Similarly, he rules that they are infidels, calls them apostates, and approves of women being taken prisoner. This, of course, has had social consequences from yesterday to today.

There was Maraş,

There was Çorum,

There was Sivas..

For hundreds of years, people in these lands were hesitant to say "I am Alevi." Because there was a history behind it that we also encounter in Ebussuud's fatwas. To see the anti-Alevi sentiment that occasionally resurfaces from different angles today, one needs to go back to the time behind that subconscious. Because the lines of hatred written into history do not stay where they are: Sometimes they appear as a fit of rage, sometimes as the language of takfir (declaring others infidels) coming from the mouth of a politician, and sometimes as rhetoric calling for genocide on television. These are the situations we have witnessed from the past to the present. When we dig a little deeper, we see who is being fed from where and under the influence of which rhetoric.

Source: Ebussuud Efendi Fatwas, I.A.A. Publications.