II.

Ottoman Religious Rulings

Concerning the Safavids
ebussuud efendi’s fatwas
a bdurra h man at ç ı l

The Safavid Sufi order, which originated in Ardabil in the early fourteenth cen-
tury, became the nucleus for Shah Ismail’s (d. 1524) political and military move-
ment at the turn of the sixteenth century. Followers of the order from Azerbai-
jan, Anatolia, and northern Syria joined his movement in mass and zealously sup-
ported 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 Anato-
lia remained acute and had military, political, and religious dimensions. Claiming
to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632) and relying on the mes-
sianic 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 espe-
cially 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.
f ig ur e 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.
 o t t o m a n r e l i g i o u s ruli ngs conce rni ng th e sa favi ds 99

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 govern-
ment 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

EBUS S UUD E F E ND I ( 1490–1574) AND THE

O F F ICE O F C HI EF J URI ST

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 compre-
hensive legal system that protected the rights and defined the limits of bureau-
cratic 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 height-
ened 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 polit-
ical 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 articula-
tors of shariʿa principles.
Ebussuud, as chief judge, occupied the highest position in the scholarly hier-
archy 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 ideol-
ogy and foreign relations.10 As the empire’s top legal official, he had the capac-
ity through his opinions to influence both legal practice and official ideology in
the realm.
100 t he r e l i g i o u s l a n d sc a p e

T H E FAT WA S A BO UT THE SAFAVI D QI ZI LBASH

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 found-
ers had passed away (Abu Hanifa, d. 767; Abu Yusuf, d. 798; Muhammad al-Shay-
bani, 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 sep-
arate books, called Fatawa, Waqiʿat, or Nawazil.11 Later, as these opinions gained
authority through recognition within the Hanafi scholarly community, they gradu-
ally 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 docu-
ments include two parts. The question component is usually longer and summa-
rizes 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 sim-
ple 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 per-
son in the legal issue under examination. Not many original fatwa documents have
survived; nevertheless, copies of them are abundant in the fatwa collections, avail-
able in manuscript and published form.13
Ebussuud’s fatwas presented here have been preserved either in collections con-
sisting 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, contain-
ing 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) cam-
paign 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.
 o t t o m a n r e l i g i o u s ruli ngs conce rni ng th e sa favi ds 101

T RA NSLATI ON

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 high-
est 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 descen-
dants 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 exe-
cution. 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 descen-
dants 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 fam-
ily.”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 unbeliev-
ers 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.
102 t he re l i g i o u s l a n d sc a p e

Fatwa 3
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 unbe-
lief 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, dis-
dained and killed scholars on account of their knowledge, [and] considered their
immoral cursed leader god and prostrated before him. [They] considered permissi-
ble many religiously forbidden acts whose prohibition has been established by defi-
nite 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 trust-
worthy (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 unbe-
lievers. 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 reli-
gion, 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 partic-
ipated 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.
 o t t o m a n r e l i g i o u s ruli ngs conce rni ng th e sa favi ds 103

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 com-
mand 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 deroga-
tion, 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 can-
not be undertaken.
104 t he r e l i g i o u s l a n d sc a p e

Fatwa 8
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 con-
sequences [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 opin-
ions about the Safavids and their supporters. For the opinions of Sarıgörez Nureddin
 o t t o m a n r e l i g i o u s ruli ngs conce rni ng th e sa favi ds 105

Hamza and Kemalpaşazade, see M. C. Şehabeddin Tekindağ, “Yeni Kaynak ve Vesi-

kaların 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 Liter-
atürü,” 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.
16. Qurʾan, 11:46.
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
106 t he r e l i g i o u s l a n d sc a p e

Önkal, “Müseylimetülkezzâb,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, http://www

.islamansiklopedisi.info/dia/pdf/c32/c320069.pdf.
18. The lands under the rule of non-Muslims. For more information about dar al-harb,
see Ahmet Özel, “Dârülharb,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, http://www
.islamansiklopedisi.info/dia/pdf/c08/c080389.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.

F U RT H E R R E A D I N G

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 Ara-
bischen 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.