54 chapter 1
from the Anatolian emirates or from even further away, regardless of their ac-
tual status.
Primarily, however, justice means the protection of the subjects, and espe-
cially the peasants, from oppression. In Şeyhoğlu’s vision, the king must pro-
tect the weak and show the powerful their proper place (hadd). The subjects
are to the sultan like relatives (karabet yirinde), and he must care for them as
if they were his own household (ehl-ü-iyal). “Every good measure that was im-
posed in the process (her sonradan konmış eylük) to appease the burden of the
subjects” will be counted in favor of the sultan, so he must follow the laws (ol
kanunca gide) and avoid innovations, with the exception of good ones (bid’at-i
hasene). If, on the contrary, he puts forth hard laws ( yavuz kanun) and oppress-
es his subjects and the army, this will be counted against him in the Hereafter,
even if he merely continues previous practices (Y71–73). The sultan must not
forget that he is the shepherd of his subjects and that he must, therefore,
protect them against the wolves, i.e. “tyrants and infidels”; as such, he must
conduct the Holy War and be merciless against oppressive and dishonest
officials and robbers (including ahiler ve rindler,55 Y75). Justice is connect-
ed with abiding by the rules and laws by Ahmedi, too. He notes that kings
before the Ottomans were infidels or showed cruelty; Mongol rulers, on the
other hand, oppressed people with the law (zulm itdiler veli kanunıla), without
painting their hands with blood, and “lawful oppression and confiscation are
amenable to the people as a form of justice” (v. 7–8: zulm kim kanun u zabtıla
ola / adl gibi halka ol asan gele). As with everything good, the Ottomans came
in the end, just as God bestowed man with power, life, and intelligence (kudret
ü ‘akl u hayat), with the latter coming last as the most important of the three
(v. 17–18). In another interesting passage, we read that, contrary to Bayezid I’s
piety and justice, Timur necessarily exhibited cruelty and tyranny since he
lacked any justice at all (v. 295: hiç adlı yoğıdı, lâcirem kim zulm ü cevri çoğıdı).
Thus, in both Ahmedi’s and Şeyhoğlu’s mind justice is more than the sultan
protecting the peasants like a benevolent father: there are rules that should
ensure this protection, and these rules should be constituted as laws. In turn,
these laws must be followed strictly, without alteration, and change (or, as the
wording goes, innovation) is to be avoided, as it necessarily implies a weak
power that suspends part of its protecting privileges in favor of the oppressing
usurpers. A more nuanced view can be found in the writings of Sinan Pasha,
who had been a vizier himself. He remarks that each place has its customary
laws, and these should be respected (T684: her memlekette bir ‘örf olur ki onun
55 On the ahis, a kind of urban artisanal fraternity attested in Anatolian cities in the thir-
teenth century, see e.g. Vryonis 1971, 396–402; Yıldırım 2013.