Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ORIGINAL
ARTICLES
Blackwell
Oxford,
The
MUWO
1478-1913
0027-4909
XXX
2008
Muslim
Hartford
UK
Publishing
World
Seminary
Ltd
The
R
eligious
Muslim
Services
World in
VTolume
urkey98
: From
April
the 2008
Office ofS
Religious Services in
Turkey: From the Office of
eyhlislam to the Diyanet
to the D
Gazi Erdem
Attach for Religious Affairs
Turkish Consulate General
New York, New York
199
Volume 98
April/July 2008
200
201
Volume 98
April/July 2008
202
203
Volume 98
April/July 2008
accept the nomination.27 It was fitting for the grand vizier to place the
eyhlislam above himself, out of respect.28
Another important duty of the eyhlislam in the Ottoman Empire was that
they were the sultans counselors. Before making important decisions, the
sultan would summon the grand vizier or the eyhlislam to the palace for
advice.29 According to the Ottoman rule of imperial council, (Divan-
Hmayun) the eyhlislam was not one of the original members of this
council, though he took part in extraordinary meetings. From the 18th century
onward, consulting the eyhlislam on governmental matters became a
tradition and the eyhlislam became one of the members of the imperial
council.30 From this angle, it could be said that the eyhlislam had no political
authority in the Empire.31 This is certainly true as far as the classical age of the
Ottoman Empire was concerned.
Looking from another angle, however, we can see the greatest power of
the eyhlislam. It is known that during Ottoman rule, some bodies of the
Ottoman army such as Janissaries and Sipahis, made some protests against
their rulers. Sometimes these uprisings threatened the sultans throne. For
example, in 1588, the Sipahis were paid in debased coin whose value had
fallen by half. The Sipahis then obtained a fetva from the eyhlislam, proving
this to be an injustice, and thus went on to the palace to demand the death of
Mehmed Pasha, the author of the reform. At its the end, the sultan ordered the
execution of Pasha.32 It seems safe to say the power of fetwa at that time could
not be underestimated. Holding this power in hand made the eyhlislams
powerful and important men not only among the public but also among
governmental bodies.
Usually, during times of financial and economic distress and other such
disturbances, the populace of Istanbul was ready to riot. Public opinion would
support these uprisings and a fetwa of the eyhlislam would give legal
expression to this popular sanction. Typical of this were the uprisings which
led to the deposition of Sultan Ibrahim in 1648, Mehmet IV in 1687, Mustafa II
in 1703, Ahmed III in 1730 and Selim III in 1807.33
It seems that the office of eyhlislam was, in a sense, superior to that of
the sultan himself since the eyhlislam could issue a fetwa declaring a sultans
deposition to be required by the exigencies of the shariah. No war might be
declared, or policies such as the slaughter of the sultans male relatives,
declared without the eyhlislams official sanction. But the sultans supremacy
was in practice usually assured by his ability to dismiss a eyhlislam who
opposed his wishes and appoint a more amenable successor. It was only in
the 17th and 18th centuries, when the sultans had lost their absolute control
of governmental affairs, that the eyhlislams were sometimes able to
command sufficient support in the ruling institution or among the inhabitants
204
of the capital to oppose sultans with success, and even then they very often
suffered for doing so.34
Ottoman society experienced total transformation and many reforms in the
th
19 century. During this time, the effects and functions of religion were
retrograded and weakened in the social, political and administrative structures
of the state. At this time, civil and military bureaucrats took over the
administrative bodies.35 Consequently, the office of eyhlislam was pushed
backward in terms of quality and quantity and gradually digressed from the
duty of controlling the administration with the scope of religion.36
There were several arrangements that affected the authority of the office
of eyhlislam in the administration of justice, religious counseling and
educational services. The abolishment of the Yenieri corps, the establishment
of new assemblies, the foundation of ministries, the importation of some
un-Islamic laws from Western countries, the establishment of the Nizamiye
courts in addition to the Shariah courts, the establishment of new schools to
educate civil and military bureaucrats independent of madrasahs, and the
establishment of the Ministry of Foundations can be shown as examples of
this.37 Through these restrictions the power of the eyhlislam was lessened
on the one hand, and on the other hand the process of secularism was initiated
by taking away the effect of religion on affairs of the state.38
Until the abolishment of the Yeniceri corps in 1826, the eyhlislams used
their residences as their offices. The headquarters of the Yenieris, which was
called Agakaps, was then assigned for the eyhlislam to be used as his
office. The office was transformed to a public office. Again, during these same
years, the eyhlislam was accepted as one of the members of the
governmental cabinet as the Minister of Shariah (eriye Nazr). His term for
the office became dependent on the term of his own government.39
By transfering some duties of the eyhlislamm to some newly established
councils after the Noble Edict of the Rose Garden (Glhane Hatt-
Hmayunu Tanzimat Ferman) such as the Supreme Council for Judicial
Regulations (Meclis-i Vala-i Ahkam- Adliye),, and after the Reform Edict of
1856 (Islahat Ferman), the Supreme Council of the Reforms (Meclis-i Ali-i
Tanzimat), and Supreme Council for Judicial Regulations, the effect of
eyhlislam on state affairs was gradually lessened.40 The new government of
the Ottoman Empire in 1916 made the Ministry of Justice responsible for all of
the courts, and the Ministry of Education for all of the madrasahs, schools and
other educational institutions.41 The most important functions of the eyhlislam
were occupied by other institutions during this course of time. The only
function of the eyhlislam which was left to his personal attention was that
of religious affairs. In other words, the office of eyhlislam was made into an
office whose only duty was to maintain the religious services of the state.
2008 The Author. Journal Compilation 2008 Hartford Seminary.
205
Volume 98
April/July 2008
The office of eyhlislam served Ottoman society for 498 years without
any interruption from its beginning until its abolishment. During this period,
130 eyhlislams had come to power. In the early years of the Ottoman Empire
the eyhlislams were appointed to the post for life, but in the later centuries
the dismissal of the eyhlislams became an ordinary regulation. When the
sultan saw that the eyhlislam was causing hardship and difficulty in state
affairs, he immediately dismissed him. The history of the institution shows that
80 out of 130 eyhlislams were dismissed by sultans and some others were
forced to resign from duty. It gives us a clue to understand why the last 12
eyhlislams left the post through resignation.42
206
207
Volume 98
April/July 2008
208
unit was founded and all preachers were transferred to salaried status.
The PRA was reorganized by the 1961 Constitution, with Law 633 dated
June 22nd, 1965, and named as the Law about the Presidency of Religious
Affairs, its Establishment and Obligations. This law also started a new phase
for the PRA in its historical development and made its central organization
adopt todays organic structure.52
The organization of the Diyanet with its present functional structure is
composed of the central, provincial and abroad organizations.53 The central
organization has three main units:
1.
2.
209
3.
Volume 98
April/July 2008
210
The Diyanet tries to understand and evaluate the traditions, expectations and
sensitivities of society. It provides religious services decorated and illuminated
by knowledge and good conduct, benefiting from todays technological
developments and communicational facilities and historical experiences. The
Diyanet strives to have religious officers with high levels of education and
culture who will lead society, who will understand the people they address
and find religious solutions to their problems, and who will live an exemplary
life and implement good through their deeds and words.54
Some scholars see the Diyanet as a contradiction to the secular state.
However, most do not because Turkey upholds these following principles:
1)
2)
3)
4)
According to the current PRA, Prof. Dr. Ali Bardakoglu, since it is part
of the state machinery and bureaucratic system, the Diyanet is a public
institution. Its public character pertains to the fact that it provides an
organizational structure and policy, while rendering religious services. Its
public character also pertains to establish a balance between demands and
freedoms. The Diyanet is also an independent (public) institution because it
enjoys freedom in scholarly activities, intellectual discussions of Islamic issues,
in the production of religious knowledge and its dissemination to the public.
There is no intervention in the interpretation of religion by any organization.
The Diyanet is also a civil institution because it was founded in response to
the peoples religious needs. The Muslim population of the country needs to
learn about their religion freely in light of authentic scholarship. The Diyanet
was established to meet such needs in society; it therefore has a democratic
and civil basis.56 It could be proposed that the Turkish understanding of
secularism can be seen clearly in these explanations.
Conclusion
The modern Turkish states perception of religion can be traced back to
the Ottoman Empire. Modern Turkey was established on the ruins of the
Ottoman Empire and inherited the Ottoman state legacy. The founders of
modern Turkey shaped the new state as a national and secular republic. By
assuming the Ottoman policy on religion, they accepted religious services as
one of the responsibilities of the state. They did not leave religious services to
the congregations despite the fact that they knew this way has been observed
in the West for centuries.
2008 The Author. Journal Compilation 2008 Hartford Seminary.
211
Volume 98
April/July 2008
When the Republic of Turkey was founded, the caliphate was abolished
as the first step toward secularization. The same day, the state also abolished
the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Foundations, which was created to take
over the duties of the office of eyhlislam. The PRA was established and
made responsible for the administration of religious affairs in the areas of
Islamic faith, practices and moral principles as an important public department.
The Diyanet is not exactly a continuation of the Ottoman office of eyhlislam
in terms of all of its functions and duties but is a continuation in the point
of religious services and a continuation of the office of eyhlislam in the
post-Tanzimat shape and functions. Hence, the PRA is not an innovation
of the founders of the Republic of Turkey.
Today 99% of Turkish people are Muslim. Islam is one of the major identity
references and an effective social reality in Turkey. Islamic values remained
deeply rooted in Turkish society. Depending on the rituals, between 25 80%
of Turkish people practice the prescribed rituals such as daily prayers, Friday
prayers and fasting during Ramadan.57 Turkish families by and large embrace
Islamic moral values. Even those who are not attentive in their religious
practices demand that their children should be trained in accordance with
Islamic moral values. An overwhelming majority of Turkish families send their
children to summer religious courses organized by the Diyanet in the mosques.
Most Turkish people advocate that religious services and religious education
should be performed by a state organization, namely by the Diyanet.
The institution produces sufficient services and makes progress in its
duties with more than 85,000 employees in 77,800 mosques in Turkey and
abroad. In exchange, the nation accepts the services of the Diyanet with
pleasure.
The modern structure of the Diyanet and the method of appointment of
its high level administrators starting from the PRA, implies that the institution
has been governed by political authority. Insiders and most Turkish people
know that politicians try not to intervene in the religious affairs of the country.
This is not only because of their esteem of religion and religious administrators
but also due to their fear of public pressure and losing votes. Many
experiences have shown that the public does not forgive those politicians who
interfere in religious matters. During the last five years especially, State Minister
Mehmet Aydin, who is responsible for the Diyanet and is a very well known
professor of Islamic studies, declared that the Diyanet is governed from the
PRA by its functionaries. As far as it is known, he did not let any outsiders
intervene with respect to the jobs and appointments the Diyanet makes.
The Diyanet should be an autonomous institution in its structure and should
only, though the results of special elections, approve of the president and
other high level functionaries that come into office.
212
Endnotes
1.
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Jan/25566311.html
2.
Kucukcan, Talip, State, Islam, and Religious Liberty in Modern Turkey:
Reconfiguration of Religion in the Public Sphere, Brigham Young University Law Review,
2003, at: http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2003/2/KUC.pdf.
3.
Algl, Hseyin, 3slam Tarihi, (3stanbul, 1986), Vol. 4, 446447.
4.
Ortayl, 3lber, Osmanl 3mparatorlugunda Millet, in: Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete
Trkiye Ansiklopedisi, (3stanbul, 1986), Vol. 4, 997; Davison, R. H., Essays in Ottoman and
Turkish History, 17741923: The Impact of the West, (University of Texas Press, Texas, 1990), 11.
5.
For more discussion about the term millet see: Braude, B., Foundation Myths of
the Millet System, in Braude, B. and Lewis, B. eds: Christians and Jews in the Ottoman
Empire: the Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol. 1, (Holmes and Meier, New York and
London, 1982), 6974.
6.
Karpat, K. H., Ottoman Views and Policies Towards the Orthodox Christian
Church, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 31, No: 12, 139.
7.
Ware, T., Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule,
(Clarendon Press, Texas, 1964), 2.
8.
Shaw, S. J., The Aims and Achievements of Ottoman Rule in the Balkans, Slavic
Review, Vol. 21, No: 4, 1962, 617. See also: Karpat, Kemal H., Millets and Nationality:
The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Era, Christians and
Jews in the Ottoman Empire: the Functioning of a Plural Society, (Ed. Braude, B., - Lewis,
B.), Vol. 1, 148149; Kk, Cevdet, Osmanllarda Millet Sistemi ve Tanzimat, in:
Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Trkiye Ansiklopedisi, (3stanbul, 1986) Vol. 4, 1009.
9.
Eryilmaz, B., Osmanli Devletinde Gayrimuslim Tebanin Yonetimi,
(Risale Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1990), 17. See also: Cahnman, W. J., Religion and Nationality,
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49, 1944, 525.
10. Braude, B., Community and Conflict in the Economy of the Ottoman Balkans,
1500 1650, (PhD. Thesis, Harward University, Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 93.
11. Frazee, C. A., The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece 18211852,
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969), 1.
12. Inalcik, H: Hicri 835 Tarihli Suret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arnavid, (Turk Tarih
Kurumu Yayinevi, Ankara, 1954) Nos: 100, 122, 148, 162, 186, 200, 270, 299.
13. Bardakoglu, Ali, Religion and Society New Perspectives from Turkey, (Publication
of the Presidency of Religious Affairs, Ankara, 2006), 22.
14. Glasse, Cyril, Shaykh al-Islam, The New Encyclopeadia of Islam, (Rownan &
Littlefield Publishers, New York, 2002), 421.
15. Ta, Kemaleddin, Trk Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, (3z Yaynclk, 3stanbul, 2002), 67.
2008 The Author. Journal Compilation 2008 Hartford Seminary.
213
Volume 98
April/July 2008
16. Uzunarl, Ismail Hakk, Osmanl Tarihi, (Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynevi, Ankara,
1982) V. 3, 449.
17. Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, Harold, Islamic Society and the West, (Oxford
University Ppress, London, 1957) V. 1, Part II, 84.
18. Ta, Trk Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, 77.
19. Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, Harold, Islamic Society and the West, 86.
20. Boyacoglu, Ramazan, Hilafetten Diyanet 3leri Bakanlgna Gei, (Unpublished
Ph.D Thesis, Ankara 1992), 47.
21. Kaya, Kamil, Trkiyede Din-Devlet 3likileri ve Diyanet 3leri Bakanlg,
(Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Istanbul, 1994), 81; Ta, Trk Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, 7273.
22. Ware, T., Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule, 2.
23. Okumu, Ejder, Trkiyenin Laikleme Serveninde Tanzimat, (3nsan Yaynlar,
3stanbul, 1999), 164.
24. Aksoy, Mehmet, eyhlislamlktan Bugne: eyhlislamlktan Diyanet 3leri
Bakanlgna Gei, (nel Yaynevi Kln, 1998), 12; Kaya, Trkiyede Din-Devlet 3likileri ve
Diyanet 3leri Bakanlg, 82.
25. Ta, Trk Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, 77.
26. Inalcik, Halil, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300 1600, (Orpheus
Publishing Inc. New Rochelle, NY, 1993), 9697; Newby, Gordon D., Shaykh al-Islam,
A Concise Encyclopeadia of Islam, (Oneworld, Oxford, 2004), 194.
27. Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300 1600, 96.
28. Repp, R. C., Shaykh al-Islam, Encyclopeadia of Islam, (New Edition,
Brill, Leiden, 1995) V. 9, 401.
29. For some relevant examples see Inalcik The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age
1300 1600, 93.
30. Ortayl, 3lber, Trkiye 3dare Tarihi, (TODAIE Yaynlar, Ankara, 1979), 149;
Ta Trk Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, 7071.
31. Repp, R. C., Shaykh al-Islam, 400; Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical
Age 1300 1600, 94.
32. Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300 1600, 92.
33. Ibid., 98.
34. Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, Harold, Islamic Society and the West, 8586.
35. Dursun, Davut, Osmani Devletinde Siyaset ve Din, (Iaret yaynlar, 3stanbul,
1992), 315316.
36. Mardin, Serif, Yeni Osmanl Dncesinin Doguu, (3letiim Yaynlar, 3stanbul,
1996), 158161.
37. Dursun, Davut, Din Brorasisi, (3aret Yaynlar, 3stanbul, 1992), 174.
38. Okumu, Ejder, Trkiyenin Laikleme Serveninde Tanzimat, (3nsan Yaynlar,
3stanbul, 1999), 293.
39. Boyacoglu, Ramazan, Hilafetten Diyanet 3leri Bakanlgna Gei, 51; Tas, Trk
Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, 80.
40. Erdem, Gazi, Osmanli Impatorlugunda Hiristiyanlarin Soayal ve Dini Hayatlari
(18561876), (Unpunblished PhD. Thesis, Ankara, 2005), 8586.
41. Kaya, Trkiyede Din-Devlet 3likileri ve Diyanet 3leri Bakanlg, 87; Tas, Trk
Halknn Gzyle Diyanet, 82.
42. Yavuzer, Hasan, Dini Otorite ve Tekilatlarn Sosyolojik Analizi (Diyanet 3leri
Bakanlg rnegi), (Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Kayseri, 2005), 4960.
43. Kahraman, Hakan, Sosyolojik Adan Diyanet 3leri Bakanlg zerine Bir
3nceleme, (Unpublished MA Thesis, Istanbul, 1993) 28; Bulut, Mehmet, eriye Vekaletinin
Dini Yayn Hizmetleri, Diyanet Ilmi Dergi, Vol. 30, No:1, 34.
214
44. Ii, Ismail, Kuruluundan Gnmze Diyanet Ileri Bakanlg, (Diyanet Ileri
Bakanlg Yayinlari, Ankara, 1999), 1213.
45. Bulut, Mehmet, Birinci Meclis Dnemi Din Hizmetleri, Diyanet Aylk Dergi,
Nisan, 1993, No: 28, 30.
46. Ibid., 30.
47. Sarikoyuncu, Ali, Milli Mucadelede Din Adamlari II, p. 5/14, at:
http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/turkish/default.asp
48. Bardakoglu, Ali, Religion and Society: New Perspectives from Turkey, 23.
49. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/english/constitution.htm
50. Ibid.
51. Mevzuat/Kanunlar/633 Sayl Diyanet 3leri Bakanlg Kurulu Ve Grevleri
Hakknda Kanun, at: http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/turkish/default.asp
52. http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/default.asp
53. See for the organizational structure: http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/default.asp
54. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/english/constitution.htm
55. Bardakoglu, Ali, Religion and Society New Perspectives from Turkey, 2425.
56. Ibid., 2427.
57. http://www.stargazete.com/index.asp?haberID=79197
215