In this paper, I look at how the two prominent Ottoman sheikhulislams (grand muftis), Zekeriyâzâde Yahyâ (d.1644) and Minkarizâde Yahyâ (d.1678), redefined and mediated the notions of space and alterity in their fetva (legal opinion) collections. Issued by the highest-ranking members of legal bureaucracy in the Ottoman empire, I argue, these collections can help understand how sheikhulislams turned into key interlocutors of state-sponsored ventures of social disciplining and otherization in the turbulent seventeenth century. More specifically, by contextualizing their fetvas tackling inter-religious disputes, spaces, and encounters vis-a-vis the dominant sociopolitical and moral discourses of the seventeenth century, I explore to what extent these bureaucrats-cum-intellectuals influenced and were influenced by imperial policies toward non-Muslims. I show that not only are there striking parallels between the subjects raised in their fetvas and the state-led coercive policies toward non-Muslims at the time, but there is also further evidence from other primary sources such as sicil (court record) and waqfiyye (endowment records) that can confirm how instrumental sheikhulislams became in the modus operandi of the empire by the early seventeenth century. I then turn to the content, sociolegal lexicon, and language of the fetvas that involve both Muslims and non-Muslims to unravel how new references, terminologies, and notions were introduced in the contexts of inter-religious cohabitations, rituals, and everyday practices. I specifically focus on the nomenclature of alterity that was constructed through the juxtaposition of the words “impurity, dirtiness, disturbance” with non-Muslim identities, spaces, and practices, a terminology that has not been seen in prior fetva corpora. I, therefore, claim that by redefining, changing, and adding to the pre-existing notions of space and subjecthood, these sheikhulislams (re)produced moral and sociopolitical discourses of otherization and, in a way, contributed to the coercive policies of the empire that targeted the Istanbulite non-Muslims. Finally, although it is known that fetvas were not legally binding instruments in Islamic legal systems, by considering the impact they made in this case, I question in particular why these sheikhulislams might have decided to set an unprecedented example and associated non-Muslims with notions of dirtiness, impurity, and disturbance. I believe uncovering such novel conceptualizations and discourses associated with spaces and subjects will be an important contribution to previous studies that pointed to the mercurial relationship the Ottoman court had with its non-Muslim subjects in the early modern period.