Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:26:49.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REREADING ZIYA GÖKALP: SECULARISM AND REFORM OF THE ISLAMIC STATE IN THE LATE YOUNG TURK PERIOD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

Markus Dressler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes the ideas of the Turkish sociologist and political activist Ziya Gökalp (1876–1924) in order to reevaluate the secularization politics of the Young Turks. A close reading of Gökalp's publications on Islamic institutional reform challenges homogenizing modernist interpretations of late Ottoman reform in general. Gökalp's legacy has often been judged through a secularist-Islamist binary. This article suggests that Gökalp's approach to the problem of Islam and of religion more broadly within the modern state was more complex than generally argued. His understanding of concepts such as shariʿa, dīn, and the Islamic state was not yet subordinated to a secularist episteme that juxtaposes the religious and the secular. Rather, Gökalp strove for a social and political order in which religious norms and modern institutions complemented each other harmoniously.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , August 2015 , pp. 511 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Author's note: I am extremely indebted to the anonymous reviewers of this article, whose insights helped me to sharpen my argument and make important contextual clarifications. Many thanks to Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Jeremy Walton, and Abdulkader Tayob for their critical feedback. I presented an early version of this article at the conference “Beyond Critique: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on the Study of Religion and the Secular,” ReligioWest, European University Institute, Florence, 30 May–1 June 2013, and a later version at the conference “The Religious/Secular Divide in the Muslim World,” NISIS Autumn School, Radboud University Nijmegen, 21–24 October 2014. Finally, I am grateful to IJMES editors Jeffrey Culang and Akram Khater for their thorough editing.

1 Cf. Kazancıgil, Aykut and Alpar, Cem, “İkinci Baskıyı Yayınlarken,” in Erişirgil, Mehmet Emin, Ziya Gökalp. Bir Fikir Adamının Romanı (Istanbul: Remzi, 1984), 5Google Scholar.

2 Erişirgil, Ziya Gökalp, 33.

3 The most comprehensive and critical discussion of Gökalp's life and ideas is still Parla's, TahaThe Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp (Leiden: Brill, 1985)Google Scholar. See also Akural, S. Mehmed, Ziya Gokalp: The Influence of His Thought on Kemalist Reforms (PhD diss., Indiana University, 1979)Google Scholar; Berkes, Niyazi, translator's introduction to Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp, ed. Berkes, Niyazi (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 13–31Google Scholar; and Karpat, Kemal. H., The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 375–88Google Scholar.

4 Heyd, Uriel, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya Gökalp (London: Luzac, 1950), 82–83Google Scholar.

5 Davison, Andrew, “Secularization and Modernization in Turkey: The Ideas of Ziya Gökalp,” Economy and Society 24 (1995): 190CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008), 72–76Google Scholar.

7 For a genealogical account of the evolution of Islamic law, see Hallaq, Wael B., The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar. On the formation of the institution of qaḍā in the classical Islamic context in particular, see pp. 34–40. On the complex relationship between the qadis and the institution of the mufti that began to emerge with the formation of a class of specialists of the Islamic legal tradition, see pp. 62–63 and 88–89.

8 Yurdakul, İlhami, Osmanlı İlmiye Merkez Teşkilâtı'nda Reform (1826–1876) (Istanbul: İletişim, 2008), 31–34Google Scholar.

9 Rubin, Avi, Ottoman Nizamiye Courts: Law and Modernity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Ibid., 153–54.

11 Ibid., 15.

12 Ibid., 55.

13 Ibid., 29.

14 Ibid., 79–80.

15 Ibid., 56–59.

16 Mardin, Şerif, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962);Google ScholarBerkes, Niyazi, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (London: Hurst & Company, 1964), 208–22Google Scholar.

17 Bein, Amit, Ottoman Ulema, Turkish Republic: Agents of Change and Guardians of Tradition (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2011), 19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 The transformation of traditions of Islamic normativity into positive law was arguably a major moment in the 19th-century reification of “Islamic law,” which was carried out not only by Muslim scholars, but also by Orientalists and colonial bureaucrats. See Buskens, Léon and Dupret, Baudouin, “L'invention du droit musulman: Genèse et diffusion du positivisme juridique dans le context normatif islamique,” in Après l'orientalisme: L'Orient créé par l'Orient, ed. Pouillon, François and Vatin, Jean-Claude (Paris: IISMM, 2011), 71–92Google Scholar.

19 Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 35–40.

20 Ibid., 20.

21 Somel, Akshin, “Sırat-ı Müstakim: Islamic Modernist Thought in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1912,” Journal of the Middle East Studies Society at Columbia University 1 (1987): 71Google Scholar. Hikmet Bayur points to Gökalp as the major force behind the CUP's turn toward Islamist policies. Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet, Türk İnkilâbı Tarihi, vol. 2.4 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991), 314–15Google Scholar.

22 Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 44–45.

23 Köroğlu, Erol, Ottoman Propaganda and Turkish Identity: Literature in Turkey during World War I (London: I. B. Tauris, 2007), 28–29Google Scholar.

24 Somel, Sırat-ı Müstakim, 60.

25 Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 45–46; Debus, Esther, Sebilürreşâd. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur islamischen Opposition der vor- und nachkemalistischen Ära (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991), 121Google Scholar.

26 Gökalp, Ziya, “Fıkıh ve İçtimaiyat,” in Ziya Gökalp. Makaleler VIII, ed. Tuncor, Ferit Ragip (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1981 [1914]), 16Google Scholar.

27 See Buskens and Dupret, L'invention du droit musulman.

28 Peters, Rudolph, “Erneuerungsbewegungen im Islam vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert und die Rolle des Islams in der neueren Geschichte: Antikolonialismus und Nationalismus,” in Der Islam in der Gegenwart, ed. Ende, Werner, and Steinbach, Udo (Munich: Beck, 2005), 122–23Google Scholar. See also Moaddel, Mansoor, Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 90–91Google Scholar.

29 Gökalp, Fıkıh ve İçtimaiyat, 17.

30 Ibid., 18.

31 Ibid., 18–20.

32 Ziya Gökalp, “İçtimai Usul-i Fıkıh,” 21–24.

33 Ibid., 23–24.

34 See Özervarli, M. Sait, “Transferring Traditional Islamic Disciplines into Modern Social Sciences in Late Ottoman Thought: The Attempts of Ziya Gokalp and Mehmed Serafeddin,” The Muslim World 97 (2007): 322–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Somel, Sırat-ı Müstakim, 61–65; see also Peters, Erneuerungsbewegungen im Islam, 108–9.

36 Kara, İsmail, Türkiye'de İslâmcılık Düşüncesi. Metinler/Kişiler, vol. 2 (Istanbul: Dergah, 2011), 677Google Scholar.

37 Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 46. Close to this interpretation, Sait Özervarlı has argued that Gökalp's “priority appears to be an importation of a specific theory or methodology rather than reviving Islamic thought.” Özervarli, Transferring Traditional Islamic Disciplines, 327. His aim would thus have been “to transfer the traditional Islamic sciences of fiqh . . . into modern social sciences.” Özervarli, Transferring Traditional Islamic Disciplines, 321. See also Debus, Sebilürreşâd, 118–19 and 125.

38 Özervarlı, M. Sait, “Alternative Approaches to Modernization in the Late Ottoman Period: İzmirli İsmail Hakkı's Religious Thought against Materialist Scienticism,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39 (2007): 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 46–47.

40 Ibid., 47.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., 20.

43 “1332 Senesi Kongre Raporu. İttihat ve Terakki Fırkası,” Tarih ve Toplum 33 (1986): 6–10.

44 On the Young Turks' project of demographic engineering, see Şeker, Nesim, “Demographic Engineering in the Late Ottoman Empire and the Armenians,” Middle Eastern Studies 4 (2007): 461–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dressler, Markus, Writing Religion: The Making of Turkish Alevi Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 106–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 The rebellion broke out in June 1916. Ideologically, it was based on Arab nationalism, and was, at least partially, a reaction to the increasing Turkist orientation of the Young Turks who came with a more secularist approach to politics—at the expense of religious sensitivities. See Köroğlu, Ottoman Propaganda, 29. Zeine, too, points to the Young Turks' Turkism, as well as to their centralization efforts and despotic rule, as the reasons behind the rebellion. See Zeine, Zeine N., Arab-Turkish Relations and the Emergence of Arab Nationalism (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981), 124Google Scholar. Since the early years of CUP rule, Arabs harbored doubt about the party's commitment to the ideals of Ottomanism, and to the Islamic character of the empire—doubts that grew with the spread of Turkism in the CUP's environment. Zeine, Arab-Turkish Relations, 77–80. On the Arab revolt, see also Kayalı, Hasan, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1918 (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1997), 196–202Google Scholar.

46 [Talat Bey], 1332 Senesi Kongre Raporu, 10.

47 See Erişirgil, Ziya Gökalp, 168.

48 Berkes, Development of Secularism, 415–17; Zürcher, Erik J., Turkey. A Modern History, rev. ed. (London: I. B. Tauris, 2004), 121–22Google Scholar.

49 Erişirgil, Ziya Gökalp, 157–58.

50 After the end of World War I and the dissolution of the CUP government, those ulema who had supported the CUP reforms were marginalized. For the ulema critical of the reforms, the notion of reform itself had become stained. See Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 48–50.

51 The complete Tanin series is rendered into modern Turkish in Yağcıoğlu, Eşref, İttihat ve Terakki'nin Son Yılları: 1916 Kongresi Zabıtları (Istanbul: Nehir, 1992), 40–81Google Scholar. A Latinized version of the original Ottoman text appeared in three consecutive issues of Tarih ve Toplum: 34 (1986): 13–16; 35 (1986): 10–13; and 36 (1986): 15–18.

52 Islam Mecmuası, 4.38 (1916), 5.39 (1916), 5.40 (1917).

53 In Latin script, the first two sequences of The Congress appeared initially in Ziya Gökalp, “İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi,” in Ziya Gökalp. Makaleler VIII, 60–71. Berkes has translated the text into English based on the Islam Mecmuası publication. See Berkes, Niyazi, trans. and ed., Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 202–14Google Scholar. However, comparison of Berkes' translation with the original text reveals that at times he translated very freely, adding to and subtracting (sometimes considerable sections without indicating) from the original text to make it more easily comprehensible, as he himself explained. See Berkes, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 9.

54 Ibid., 319n6.

55 Debus refers to it as “Ziya Gökalp[']s Memorandum.” Debus, Sebilürreşâd, 221.

56 Without reference to the source manuscript and the title of the text, the document was first published in Ergin, Osman Nuri, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye. Tarih-i Teșkilat-ı Belediye, vol. 1 (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Osmaniye, 1922), 275–84Google Scholar. The exact same text has been rendered into modern Turkish in Duru, Kazım Nami, Ziya Gökalp (Istanbul: Milli Eğitim, 1965 [1949]), 53–62Google Scholar. Duru (1876–1967) was himself a member of the CUP. He reports that he had previously been unaware of the document, although it had been sent to the provincial headquarters of the CUP. Duru, Ziya Gökalp, 62. He would have received it from Mithat Șükrü [Bleda]. Duru, Ziya Gökalp, 53. Mithat Șükrü was the general secretary of the CUP, and, beginning in 1915, the Ottoman minister of education.

57 As for the history of The Manifesto, Erişirgil reports that Gökalp had pushed the central committee of the CUP toward extensive reform of religious institutions, leading to controversial discussions within the committee. CUP strongman Talat Paşa, sympathetic to Gökalp's initiative, requested from the latter a memorandum dedicated to the question of reform of the Office of the Sheikh ül-Islam. This would then have been presented to the CUP congress of 1916, where it again would have led to heated and controversial debate. See Erişirgil, Ziya Gökalp, 161–64.

58 Berkes, Development of Secularism, 416.

59 Ibid., 415. On Berkes' understanding of secularization and secularism, see Wedel, Heidi, Der türkische Weg zwischen Laizismus und Islam (Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 1991), 54–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr, 273.

61 Yağcıoğlu, İttihat ve Terakki'nin, 35; [Ziya Gökalp], “Siyaset: İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi, 8,” Tanin, 14 October 1916, 1.

62 Gökalp, Ziya, “İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi [1],” İslam Mecmuası 4 (1916): 976Google Scholar.

63 The Manifesto had already underlined that the goal of the Unionists was the restoration of the Islamic state, which had been dismantled by the Tanzimat. The Tanzimat reforms are further accused of having given too many judicial and administrative concessions to the recognized non-Muslim communities, and of having distorted the nature of the Office of the Sheikh ül-Islam by overburdening it with judicial oversight of the shariʿa courts. See Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr, 280.

64 Gökalp, İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi [1], 977.

65 Gökalp, Ziya, “İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi [2],” İslam Mecmuası 5 (1916): 988Google Scholar.

66 Gökalp, İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi [1], 978.

67 Gökalp, Ziya, “Diyanet ve Kaza [1915],” in Ziya Gökalp. Makaleler VIII (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1981), 48Google Scholar.

68 Gökalp, İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi [2], 987–88.

69 Ibid., 988.

70 Ibid., 989–92.

71 Ibid., 992.

72 Ibid., 992–94.

73 Gökalp, Ziya, “İttihad ve Terakki Kongresi Münasebetiyle [3],” İslam Mecmuası 5 (1917): 1003Google Scholar.

74 Ibid., 1003–6.

75 Bein, Ottoman Ulema, 48.

76 Tayob, Abdulkader, Religion in Modern Islamic Discourse (London: Hurst & Company, 2009), 111Google Scholar.

77 Azak, Umut, Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Kemalism, Religion, and the Nation State (London: I. B. Tauris), 6–8Google Scholar.

78 As quoted in Gözaydın, İştar B., “Diyanet and Politics,” Muslim World 98 (2008): 218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Akural, Ziya Gokalp, 335.

80 Ibid., 98.

81 See Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, The Young Turks in Opposition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

82 Azak, Islam and Secularism in Turkey, 9–14.

83 Heyd, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism, 101; Azak, Islam and Secularism in Turkey, 7.

84 Cf. Akural, Ziya Gokalp, 341.

85 Muhiddin, Ahmed, Die Kulturbewegung im modernen Türkentum (Leipzig: J. M. Gebhardt's Verlag, 1921), 61Google Scholar.

86 Yavuz, M. Hakan, Secularism and Muslim Democracy in Turkey (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 See Arai, Masami, Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 83–97Google Scholar.

88 Gökalp, Ziya, The Principles of Turkism, ed. Devereux, Robert (Leiden: Brill, 1968)Google Scholar.

89 Uriel Heyd claimed categorically that “in Gökalp's synthesis of Turkish culture and Western civilization there is no proper place for Islam as a third element.” See Heyd, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism, 150. In the eyes of Berkes, “the religious modernism of Gökalp paved the way for the more radical secularism of the Kemalist era.” See Berkes, Niyazi, “Iṣlāḥ. III. Turkey,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, vol. 4, ed. Bearman, P., Bianquis, Th., Bosworth, C. E., van Donzel, E., and Heinrichs, W. P. (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 169Google Scholar. Gökalp, Elsewhere has been introduced as “the philosopher of the Ataturk revolution.” See Devereux, Robert, preface to Ziya Gökalp: The Principles of Turkism, ed. Devereux, Robert (Leiden: Brill, 1968), xGoogle Scholar.

90 Debus, Sebilürreşâd, 217–19.

91 Wedel, Der türkische Weg, 44–46; Akural, Ziya Gokalp, 60–62.

92 Kadıoğlu, Ayşe, “The Pathologies of Turkish Republican Laicism,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 36 (2010): 495CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Davison, Secularization and Modernization, 191.

94 Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 384.

95 The literature challenging the traditional secularization paradigm is enormous. Particularly influential are Casanova, José, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; and Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007)Google Scholar. See also Dressler, Markus and Mandair, Arvind-Pal S., “Introduction: Modernity, Religion-Making, and the Postsecular,” in Secularism and Religion-Making, ed. Dressler, Markus and Mandair, Arvind-Pal S. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 3–36Google Scholar.

96 Pioneering in that regard were Mardin, Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought; Göle, Nilüfer, The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bozdoğan, Sibel and Kasaba, Reşat, ed., Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey (Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

97 Dressler, Markus, “The Religio-Secular Continuum: Reflections on the Religious Dimensions of Turkish Secularism,” in After Secular Law, ed. Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, Yelle, Robert A., and Taussig-Rubbo, Mateo (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2011), 221–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Adıvar, A. Adnan, “Interaction of Islamic and Western Thought in Turkey,” in Near Eastern Culture and Society: A Symposium on the Meeting of East and West, ed. Young, T. Cuyler (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951), 125–26Google Scholar.

99 Dorroll, Philipp, “‘The Turkish Understanding of Religion’: Rethinking Tradition and Modernity in Contemporary Turkish Islamic Thought,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 82 (2014): 1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Silverstein, Brian, “Disciplines of Presence in Modern Turkey: Discourse, Companionship, and the Mass Mediation of Islamic Practice,” Cultural Anthropology 23 (2008): 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 See Dressler, Writing Religion, chap. 2.

102 Karpat, Politicization of Islam, 372–75.

103 Erişirgil, Ziya Gökalp, 37–39.

104 Agrama, Hussein Ali, Questioning Secularism: Islam, Sovereignty, and the Rule of Law in Modern Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 See ibid., 187.