New England Medieval Conference 2008

Crusade, Jihad and Identity in the Medieval World

“The Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Historiography and Jihad”

Murat Cem Menguc, Ph.D.

For my Ph.D., I surveyed the fifteenth century Ottoman history books in terms of

their form and content. The following paragraphs were written because it became

impossible to ignore a debate among the modern Ottoman historians regarding the term

gaza, which literally means jihad in Turkish. I surveyed solely the fifteenth century

Ottoman history books because the period was understood as the era in which Ottomans

begin to write their first history books. Previous research suggested that the Ottoman

historiography was initiated and conducted by the Ottoman palace. It was widely

accepted that towards the end of the fifteenth century, Ottoman historians composed a

group of new history books in order to express a new ideology. For example, Halil

İnalcık believed that this new ideology was Bayezid II’s (1481-1512) construction, who,

at the aftermath of Kilia and Akkerman victories (1488), which were his first significant

military achievements, wanted to initiate a new self definition. In fact, İnalcık put all

Ottoman history books written during Bayezid II’s reign into the category of history

books catering to Bayezid II’s ideological wishes.

Then on, İnalcık’s interpretation was repeated in the works of several other

scholars, such as Cemal Kafadar, Mehmed İpşirli and Heat Lowry. Moreover, among

them Heath Lowry also suggested that during the reign of Bayezid II, the meaning of the

1
term gaza was transformed from Islamic concept of jihad into a specifically Ottoman

imperialist notion. Criticizing that gaza is often understood as a simple synonym to jihad,

Lowry writes, “referred to in the Ottoman sources as “Veli” (Friend of God), it is Bayezid

II we would normally expect to have paid the closest attention to the religious aspects of

gaza and jihad.”1 And, later he adds that it “seems possible that these two terms [gaza

and jihad] may have been used with distinct meanings by the Ottomans in this period [the

reign of Bayezid II].”2 Hence, Lowry suggests, “we are faced with the possibility that any

reference to gaza and gazis in contemporary sources may indeed reflect the literary

meaning of these terms rather than the social-cultural reality which actually existed in the

formative years of the Ottoman state.”3

Also interesting (or frightening) was how modern historians tried to explain gaza

as a term that encapsulated the original Ottoman identity and ideology. Although they

agreed that linguistically gaza was a direct synonym to the Arabic term jihad, they

continued to re-construct an Ottoman identity around this term to explain the nature of

the early Ottoman state. Starting in 1916 with Herbert Gibbons’ The Foundation of the

Ottoman Empire, the debate regarding the content and nature of the early Ottoman

identity was always a debate attached to a more nuclear debate regarding the content of

the term gaza. Fuat Köprülü’s criticism of Gibbons’ work, Paul Wittek’s introduction of

the “Gazi Thesis”, and İnalcık’s long lasting support for Wittek’s views, all expressed

deep concern about how the term gaza and gazi should be understood in Ottoman

context. By 2003, Heath Lowry cited no less than 11 Ottomanists, who were engaged in

1
Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, p. 50.
2
Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, p. 51.
3
Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, p. 9.

2
these discussions, excluding himself, and expressed the fact that this discussion remained

alive and popular for a century.

I wanted to put the tedium of this discussion aside, and find out what did the

Ottoman historians of the fifteenth century meant by gaza. My readings had already

suggested that there was not enough legitimate proof that Bayezid II, or in fact any other

fifteenth century Ottoman sultan orchestrated an upsurge in history writing. In fact, most

history books were written independently. A large number of the circulating ones were

composed by anonymous authors who showed no links to the palace and criticized the

sultans openly. Remaining texts were mainly produced by a newly emerging Turkish

speaking elite who came from large cities, like Edirne and Constantinople. They may

have been interested in gaining the favor of the palace, but they started writing their

history books personally. Moreover, they openly used the form and the content of the

anonymous texts.

It was also the case that among those who wrote after 1488, or revised their texts

during this period, only a few acknowledged the Kilia and Akkerman as significant

developments. Most of the fifteenth century Ottoman historians did not praise the event.

Finally, towards the end of the fifteenth century, a rift among the educated elite based on

language preference was observable. Large numbers of Turkish history books were

produced while the Persian and Arabic history books remained marginal. This rift, in my

opinion, explained most of the dynamics according to which historians composed their

works. In other words, I came to think that the content and ideologies expressed in these

history books were better explained through source criticism rather than trying to decode

an alliance between writers and the palace. Because, there never was a uniform educated

3
elite who wholesale responded to the sultan’s wishes. Instead, there were historians who

composed relying on a specific group of sources coming from a specific language.

Hence, I wanted to know, if there were any rifts among these writers when they

used and explained the term gaza? For example, did the anonymous historians who

criticized the palace and the palace hired historians who wrote eulogist texts clashed in

terms of the meaning of gaza? Was there any evidence to suggest that the term was

explained in ways supporting or contradicting the opinions of the modern historians?

I can safely state that there were no clashes. Throughout the fifteenth century,

Ottoman history books used the Turkish term gaza exclusively as a direct synonym to the

word jihad. As far as the historians were concerned, the term associated the Ottoman

religious imperialism with the Islamic imperialism of the classical era. The only thing

that was modified was that during Bayezid II’s reign, those history books which were

written to be presented to the palace, and which mainly fall into the category of fethname

genre, became more explicit in declaring gaza and jihad as synonyms, that is, they

offered theological arguments to support this view – while we may think that this

development somewhat points at the possibility of Lowry’s view that such texts may

have been more concerned with an Islamist construction, it also cancels Lowry’s

suggestion that the term had acquired a new meaning during this period. If anything,

introduction of such legal arguments bound the term gaza and jihad more explicitly.

The evolution of the term gaza and its context in history books

4
The earliest Ottoman historian Ahmedi used the terms gaza and jihad in his work

İskendername a number of times.4 İskendername was composed around 1410, but it

appears to have become a popular text during the reign of Mehmed II (1451-81), when a

number of new copies surfaced. Also during this time, Ottoman history sections of

Ahmedi’s work was incorporated into the corpus of the anonymous Tevarihi Ali Osman

books via direct quotation. Ahmedi gave us the oldest example of what will become a

common explanation of the term gaza among the Ottomans. In a reference to Seljuk ruler

Alaeddin Keyhüsrev (662-82/1264-83), he wrote,

One day the auspicious sultan Alaeddin

Asked what is the situation of the gazis and martyrs?

He knew that gaza was the best way

For a gazi it was easy to rally people around him

The gazi is the instrument of the true religion

Doubtless his position will be pleasant

He who is a gazi is also a servant of God.

The gazi is surely the sword of God

A gazi is a shelter for the religious to hide behind

And if he becomes a martyr on God’s path

Do not think he is dead, he still lives

4
I will avoid the discussion of whether Ahmedi’s work was a history book or not, since it is a subject

beyond the scope of this essay. This being said, his work remains to be the earliest concrete example of

Ottoman historiography we have. It reflects the sentiments of the early 1400’s and the interregnum which

followed the Timurid invasions.

5
In God’s presence they are in the mists of plenty

In fact he can be considered still alive.5

According to Ahmedi, after hearing these words, Alaeddin was resolved to

perform his share of religious duties, and “[He] decided to wage jihad so he might

become known as a gazi.”6

In this context, it is clear that gaza and jihad were same: Aladdin finds out that

gaza is holy war, so he is resolved to wage jihad.7 But, Ahmedi also offers another

informative example regarding the meaning of the term gaza when he later states that, “In

the age of religion they flew towards the infidels / They made akın (raid) in the name of

gaza.” Here, gaza describes a larger religious phenomenon in the name of which akın or

smaller raids are launched.8 This cancels any suggestion of gaza and akın may have been
5
Bir gün ol Sulţān ‘Alā’üd-dīn sa‘id / Sordı nolur hāl-i ġāzi vü şehid / Bildi anı kim ġazā key iş olur / Ġazī

olanuñ haşrı bīteşvīş olur / Ġazī olan haķ dīnüñdür āleti / Lācirem hoş olasıdur hāleti / Ġazī olan Tangrınuñ

ferrāşıdır / Şirk çirkinden bu yiri arıdur / Ġazī olan Hak ķılıcıdur yaķīn / Ġazī olur püşt ü penāh-ı ehl-i dīn /

Anı ki ’ ola Tangrı yolında şehīd / Öldi sanma kim diridür ol sa‘īd / Haķ ķatında rızķ içindedür olar /

Ölmediler belki zindedür olar. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. by İsmail Ünver, İskender-nāme, Ankara: Türk

Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1983, f.65.b. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. by Kemal Sılay, “Ahmedī’s History of

the Ottoman Dynasty”, JTS, 16, 1992, p. 146. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. by Nihal Atsız, Osmanlı

Tarihleri, İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1947, p. 8. The last verse is a direct reference to Qur’an, Surah 2,

ayat 152.
6
Pes heves itdi ki ’ ide ol bir cihād / Ola kim ġāzī uralar aña ad. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Ünver, f.65.b.

Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Sılay, p. 146. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Atsız, p. 8.

7
Colin Imber also interprets Ahmedi’s use of the term gaza in a similar manner, i.e. an act of sincere

worship. Colin Imber, “The Ottoman Dynastic Myth”, Turcica, 19, 1987, p. 11.

8
Kāfer üzre aķdılar a‘vān-ı dīn / Andan itdiler ġazā adın aķın. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Ünver, f.66.b.

6
synonyms and seals the meaning of gaza as jihad. The use of the term akın will become

important particularly in Kemal’s case, who wrote in order to gain Bayezid II’s favor but

was denied any recognition.

Finally, there is a curious section in which Ahmedi’s writes that during the reign

of Orhan, “The learned men came from everywhere / they constituted the law of God /

wherever there were remains of polytheism / monotheism cleaned them up, no rust was

left / since then gaza became a sacred obligation / in short no one was as successful in

war as them.”9 This section not only informs us about the fact that gaza was an religious

obligation, but also suggests that during the reign of Orhan, some religious scholars may

have declared gaza as a religious concept and as a synonym to jihad.

In the work of later Ottoman historians, gaza and jihad remain direct synonyms.

Around mid 1460’s, Enveri’s Düsturname expresses both the sentiments of Mehmed II’s

reign and the preferences of Anatolian lords. Enveri was a poet incorporated into the

Ottoman literary scene from the Aydınoğlu court. He was commissioned to write an

Ottoman history which widely conflicted with the later Ottoman histories. But, his use of

the terms gaza and jihad was remarkably close to Ahmedi, in that, he too reversed the

two terms to emphasize their synonymity. He described the military activities of Prophet

Mohammad as gaza, while naming the military activities of Murad I as jihad.10 This

Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Sılay, p. 147. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Atsız, p. 9.

9
Her yañadın ‘ilm ehli yitdiler / Dīn ne durur şer‘ taķrīr itdiler / Nirede kim varıdı āşār-ı şirk / Yudı tevhīd

anı vü ķalmadı çirk / Ol zamāndan kim farīża ’ oldı ġazā / Bāri anlar bigi kim ķıldı ġazā. Ahmedi,

İskendername, ed. Ünver, f.66.b. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Sılay, p. 147. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed.

Atsız, p. 9.
10
Enveri, Düsturname, ed. by Mükrimin Halil Yinanç, Düsturname-i Enveri, İstanbul: Türk Tarih

Encümeni Külliyatı, 1928, pp. 73 and 84. Enveri, Düsturname, ed. by Necdet Öztürk, Fatih Devri

7
reverse use of the terms assures us that he used these concepts as inter-changeable.

It is also the case that towards the end of the fifteenth century, in Neşri’s

Cihannüma, we encounter the same reverse use. Neşri composed during the mid 1490’s

and represents the sentiments of late Mehmed II and early Bayezid II era. In a unique

story not found in any of the previous history books, he writes that during the

preparations for the Kosovo battle in 1389, Murad I and his son Bayezid I stood up on a

hill, and, pointing at the Laz (Lazar) army below them, Murad explained to Bayezid the

greatness of their power.11 Afterwards, the father and son were in a general assembly of

Ottoman commanders where military strategies had to be discussed. Murad took the

opportunity to ask each of his commanders for their views, discovering that they were all

resolved to wage battle.12 Among them, Ali Paşa is stated to have said that according to

Prophet Mohammed, “Those who inhaled the dust of gaza would not see the fire and

smoke of the hell.”13 A few pages later, Neşri also writes that during the same war, the

Kaynaklarından Düstûrnâme-i Enverî, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2003, f.112.a and f. 122.a.

11
Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and Köymen, vol. 1, f.86.b. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 76-

77. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 121.

12
Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and Köymen, vol. 1, f.86.b. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 76-

77. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 121.

13
Zira gazaya hicâb sığmaz ve hem resûl hazreti ‘aleyhi efzal us-salavât buyurmuşdur ki, her kimiñ burnına

gaza tozı gire, ol kişi cehennemüñ râyihasın ve buhârın görmeye... Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and

Köymen, vol. 1, f.86.b. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 76-77. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed.

Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 121. A similar hadith is found in Al-Bukhari’s work, and the late 13 th century

theologian Ibn Taymiyya’s work “al-Siyāsa al-shar’iyya fī iṣlāḥ al rā’ī wa-al-rāiyya” epitomized much of

the later legal theories on jihad quotes it as follows: “Him whose feet have become dusty in the way of God

will God save him from hellfire.” Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Princeton: Marcus

Weiner Publishers, 1996, p. 47.

8
Ottoman army found itself disadvantaged by weather conditions, and Murad prayed

desperately throughout the night, asking for God’s help.14 In the morning, God had

granted him his wish and the weather changed to the benefit of the Ottoman army. Murad

gathered his commanders once again, and asked his fortune to be read from the Qur’an.

The previously mentioned Ali Paşa, after absolving himself and praying, took up the holy

book and randomly opened a page, form where he read the fortune of the Ottoman army,

which was embodied in the verse, “O Prophet, do wage jihad on non-believers and

infidels.”15 The verse was interpreted as a sign to continue with the battle. Thus,

according to Neşri, in the council of Murad I, Ali Paşa was able to pronounce gaza and

jihad to be one and the same concept, i.e. a war waged in service of Islam. Here we must

note that the second story establishes jihad as the religious destiny of the Ottoman

people. He also argues that the Prophet himself was engaged in gaza, completely

replacing by its Turkish translation.

As it was mentioned in the earlier pages, one common feature shared by some of

the late fifteenth century historians was offering a legal argument within which they

established gaza as a synonym for jihad. There were three history books, all falling into

the genre of fethname, and specifically designed to be presented to Bayezid II, in which

the authors Safai, Kıvami and Cafer Çelebi argued that gaza was in fact a pillar of

Islamic monotheism and offered exemplary hadith in support of this view. First among

them was Safai, who wrote Fethnamei İnebahtı ve Modon sometime after 1499. In its

14
Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and Köymen, vol. 1, f.89.b. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 79-

80. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 125.

15
Yâ eyyühe’n-nebiyyü câhidi’l-küffâre ve’l-münâfıkîn. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and Köymen, vol. 1,

f.89.b. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 80. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 125.

9
opening pages, Safai states that when the prophet Mohammad was asked for religious

advice on how to enter heaven, he explained, “Now you have asked a very important

question / Such happiness is possible / As long as a person is under God’s influence.” 16

Then the prophet explains, “Pilgrimage, praying, paying taxes, fasting and gaza / Know

that these are the pillars given by God... / These five are certain, more is exaggeration /

And among them gaza is greater than all others.” 17 Here, Safai was not only translating

gaza as jihad, but also declaring it as the most important pillar of the religion. 18 Along

with the quoted hadith, he is reinstating gaza as the first pillar of Islam, replacing the

admission to the oneness of God and Mohammad’s prophecy with war waged in the

name of Islamic faith. Safai also sates that the five pillars of Islam are five doors that lead

to heaven, gaza being the most privileged one of them.19 There is no question that here

what is meant by gaza is jihad itself.

A similar argument is also found in Kıvami’s work, which was composed in 1488

and dedicated to Bayezid II. In his Fethnamei İstanbul, Kıvami composes a long section

on the religious zeal of Mehmed II and his army.20 This section explains the ideology of

Mehmed II at the aftermath of taking Constantinople. He writes, “I will now tell you of

16
Didi hakka aceb feal itdün / bir ulu nesneden sual itdün / bu saadet nasib olur hergah / kişiye kim müesser

ide Allah. Safai, Fethnamei İnebahtı ve Moton, f.11.b.

17
Hac, namaz, zakat ve savmu ve gaza / bilki farz eyledi bunca hüda... farzı beşdir kamu mübalağdır /

cümlesinden gaza pes alâdır. Safai, Fethnamei İnebahtı ve Moton, f.12.a.

18
Earlier versions of this formulation found in Ibn Taymiyya’s work as well. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in

Classical and Modern Islam, Princeton: Marcus Weiner Publishers, 1996, p. 47.

19
Safai, Fethnamei İnebahtı ve Moton, f.12.a.
20
Kıvami, Fethnamei İstanbul, ed. Babinger, pp. 20, 37 and 61, respectively.

10
Sultan Mehmed / What he performed in gaza as the leader of the army / What he

achieved in the tradition of religion / and later where he went to wage jihad.”21 This is the

story of the people of Mohammed, their activities and their words, he continues to add.

“It is required of them as a community / To believe in the oneness of God with all their

heart / To repeat the tevhid in every instant / To pronounce God’s name day and night /

To commit to the rule of religion / To clean [their] tongue from blasphemy / To be clean

inside and out / To wear the sword of tevhid.”22 Soon it becomes clear that the “sword of

tevhid” refers to a hadith which Kıvami is about to quote. The hadith reads “The only

thing that is better than jihad is greater jihad.”23 He then adds that having realized this,

Mehmed was resolved to continue with further gaza. “Hear what the words of God’s

messenger meant / If you wish to be a follower there is a path / Returning from a smaller

gaza to a bigger one / Is a necessity of the path of religion.” 24 Thus, writes Kıvami, after

having accomplished a small gaza (the taking of Constantinople), Mehmed II became

interested in achieving larger ones and reigned as a soldier of Islam, attacking larger

Christian domains. In the same section, Kıvami writes that Mehmed II asked his advisors

about what he should do after taking Constantinople, and he was told to “continue with

21
Diyem Sultan Muhammed padişahun / gazada nitdükin mirü sipahın / varup ağdati yine ne itdigini / cihad

içün ne yire gitdigini. Kıvami, Fethnamei İstanbul, ed. Babinger, p. 76.

22
Girekdir ümmet olan ona ey yar / idecek birlikine candan ikrar / dilinden koma tevhidei Hakkı / geceyi

gündüz ide temcid Hakkı / belini bağlaya rahtı dinde mühkem / dilini fuhsayatdan ide epsem / dahi pak

eyleye dışın ve için / eline ala tevhid kılıcın. Kıvami, Fethnamei İstanbul, ed. Babinger, p. 76.
23
Kıvami, Fethnamei İstanbul, ed. Babinger, p. 77.
24
Ne der dinle resulallah ey yar / eğer ümmet isen ona ura yol var / dönüp küçücek gazadan büyükine /

gerektir istigamet ola dine. Kıvami, Fethnamei İstanbul, ed. Babinger, p. 77.

11
jihad.”25 This section leaves no doubt that Kıvami’s intention was to present gaza as a

path to Heaven, as a pillar of Islam and as a direct synonym to jihad.

A third writer, Cafer Çelebi who wrote in the 16th century, shares the same view

with Safai and Kıvami. In his Mahrusei İstanbul Fethnamesi, which was dedicated to

Bayezid II, Cafer Çelebi represents gaza as one of the obligations of true faith. He

explains that life is not an everlasting state of existence and that people are obliged to

educate themselves “and wage jihad.”26 To this he adds, “They relate it, by God’s grace,

from Abu Said Hıdri, that one day a man came to the Prophet Mohammad, s.a.v., and

asked who was considered a devout member of God’s religion. And the Prophet

Mohammad, s.a.v., answered that the definition of a devout [Muslim] was he who waged

gaza, in the name of God, by way of his life and his property.” 27 This was the way

Mehmed II lived his life, writes Cafer Çelebi, and this was why he searched for “gaza vü

cihad” all his life.28

Here, it is important to note that the phrase “gaza vü cihad” (gaza and jihad) has a

special connotation. At first it first appears to be expressing the two terms as separate

concepts. But, this joint use of the two terms is in fact a popular phrase used most

probably for emphasis rather than disparity. For example, another historian Nişancı as

25
Kıvami, Fethnamei İstanbul, ed. Babinger, pp. 78-9.
26
Cafer Çelebi, Mahrusei İstanbul Fethnamesi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadide Eserler Kütüphanesi,

TY 2634, f.4.a.
27
Abu Sayid Hıdri’den razı Allah anı rivayet eydir dimişlerki Hazreti risaletü niyamı s.a.v.’e bir kimesne

geldi, Resulu Allah’dan sual eyledi. Nasiki efzali kimdir dedi. Serveri kainat s.a.v. didiler kim nasiki emsali

şol mümindir ki nefsi ve malı ile Allahü teala yolunda gaza eyleye. Cafer Çelebi, Mahrusei İstanbul

Fethnamesi, f.4.a.
28
Cafer Çelebi, Mahrusei İstanbul Fethnamesi, f.4.a-b.

12
well as previously mentioned Neşri, both use the same phrase by which they mean

religious warfare in general. Nişancı states that when Osman’s father Ertuğrul joined

Alaeddin, his desire was to accompany the Seljuk ruler in gaza vü cihad.29 Later on he

also adds that when incorporated into Alaeddin’s religious expansion in Anatolia,

Ertuğrul’s son Osman “raised the flags of gaza vŭ jihad.”30 In no point does he suggest

that these were terms that differed in their meaning. Neşri, on the other hand, as we know

used the two terms as direct synonyms and adopts the phrase gaza vü jihad in a similar

fashion.31 He writes, “Osman’s children became known as gazi,” because they were

engaged in gaza vü cihad.32 This is also the manner in which the phrase gaza vü cihad is

used by Cafer Çelebi.33 Since to my knowledge, no fifteenth century Ottoman history

book is concerned about suggesting a separation of gaza and jihad as two distinct

concepts, I consider this phrase to be used in order to generate emphasis rather than

disparity.

Finally, even those writers who most often refrain from using the term jihad, such

as Anonymous writers, Aşıkpaşazade and Kemal, imply that gaza was an Islamic concept

and envelope the term within a theological discourse each time they use it. For example,

Kemal uses the terms gaza and jihad rather sparingly and most often relies on the term

akın. But, he also makes it clear that gaza is a warfare in the service of the Islamic faith.
29
Nişancı, Risale, ed. Atsız, p. 344.
30
Ibid.
31
Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and Köymen, vol. 1, f.17.a. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 18.

Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 21.

32
Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Unat and Köymen, vol. 1, f.17.a. Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 18.

Neşri, Cihannüma, ed. Taeschner, vol. 2, p. 21.

33
Cafer Çelebi, Mahrusei İstanbul Fethnamesi, f.4.a.

13
After all, it is in his work where we read that on his death bed, Osman advised his son

Orhan, “In this world spend your life in gaza / desire to punish the heart of infidels.” 34 He

then associates being on gaza with following the example of the Prophet.35 Meanwhile

Aşıkpaşazade uses the term gaza more abundantly than jihad, but he too explains that

gaza is an act of converting Christian lands to Islam.36

Some Conclusions

In a colloquial level, gaza may have meant more than a few things to the

Ottomans. For example, in the earlier sections of the anonymous Tevarihi Ali Osman

books we find jihad being used for the wars waged against the Ottomans by the

Christians (not in the context of crusades, I should add). This means that jihad was also

used to mean simply war. In the case of gaza, as well, there are occasions in which the

term is used to mean just a war.

But, besides such general application of the term, throughout the fifteenth century,

historians explain or use it widely as a religious phenomenon and as a synonym to jihad.

34
Kemal, Selatinname, f.21.b. Kemal, Selatinname, ed. Öztürk, p. 46. (Cihanda ömrünü sarfet gazaya,

heves kıl kafirn canın cezaya, Zırıh püş eyleyib kalbi sefayı, demirden eyele saffı Mustafayı).
35
Ibid.
36
A formulaic structure is detectable in the stories Aşıkpaşazade relates of early gaza activities. Soldiers

who engage in gaza often achieve three types of fulfillment. First, they find personal wealth, second they

find love in the form of a widow, family and/or a home. Finally, they find religious fulfillment by

converting a particular constituency into Islam. This is particularly so for chapters 32, 33 and 34 of his

work. Aşıkpaşazade, Tevarihi Ali Osman, ed. Giese, p. 38-41. Aşıkpaşazade, Tevarihi Ali Osman, ed.

Yavuz and Saraç, pp. 366-70. Aşıkpaşazade, Tevarihi Ali Osman, ed. Atsız, pp. 118-120.

14
During the later reign of Mehmed II and early reign of Bayezid II, some legal arguments

are introduced, which do not differentiate between gaza and jihad in any way. Possibily

modeling themselves on the earlier theoretical work of Ibn Taymiyya’s “Al-siyassā”,

these legal arguments present a deeper desire to explain gaza as a religious and legal

obligation.

As it is well known, Ottoman historians were famous in terms of their religious

zeal and dedication to portray Ottomans as true Muslims at all costs. Some historians also

composed very critical passages when it became clear that a given ruler no longer

represented a true Islamic image. This is another reason why I find it hard to accept that if

the meaning of the term gaza was at any point altered, or debated, such occurrence would

have remained un-observed by the historians. In early Ottoman historiography, gaza does

not come across as a particularly Ottoman concept.

15