Kemal Karpat: Historian believes secularism in Turkey could have been achieved without abolishing caliphate
Turkey seems to be stuck on the issues of headscarf and secularity, while the world is discussing nano-technology, gene science, and the revolution in modes of communication. But exactly where do these discussions stem from? A leading historian in Turkey, Kemal Karpat believes Turkey cannot be run by Islamic canon law and that if the pressure on it is released, the headscarf will be void of political messages.
“There was no point in time that there was not a concern about secularism because the main event that triggered the discussion on secularism was the abolishment of the caliphate and sovereignty,” said Karpat. He explains that when the republic was founded in the place of these, it gave an impression that it was against the religion that these institutions represented. “It was seen as if the republic was anti-religious,” he said, adding that not only religious circles, but also modernists that participated in the National Struggle, such as Kaz?m Karabekir and Rauf Orbay, did not agree with this tough approach and the fact that the caliphate was abolished suddenly.
He believes the reason behind this is the habits of the people. “Even if you abolish sovereignty and the caliphate, the public you face is one that has lived under these for hundreds of years. Even though they are not against the republic, people will sustain the old customs because the culture cannot be canceled suddenly,” said Karpat. He added that culture has a certain power and sustainability of its own and that this is the case even with the French and the Russians, both of which have lived through major revolutions. He believes that if the caliphate had not been abolished, the discussions on secularity would not be taking place as they are today. “Because the caliphate would have been viewed as a sort of guarantee for Islam that is rooted in the public's culture and its past,” he said.
Karpat said the Turkish Republic could have been a secular country even without abolishing the caliphate. He explains that in the Ottoman Empire, the army was under the control of the sultan, who did not put forth his caliphate title but his worldly title of the “sultan.” “The caliphate came to the foreground with [sultan] Abdülhamit and the big divide between the army and the sultan started. Because the army went through a major renovation during his time,” said Karpat. He explains that, the supervisor of military schools, the German general Von der Goltz, wrote the books studied in these schools and addressed the questions: “Who is the nation? Who will make up the nation?” Goltz had an “armed nation” theory, which foresaw that the nation needed to be armed and battling in its entirety. “He believed there were two important groups in Turkey. The first was the people, or in other words, the peasants. The second was the new members of the army, in other words the officers that were brought up with the modern educational system. He saw these two as the “nation.” He saw the salvation of Turkey in the faithful public and modern officers,” Karpat said. He added that Goltz did not support the policies of Abdülhamit, who, in turn, was irritated by this modernist thought and the young officers. “At the end, the Union and Progress Movement (?ttihat ve Terakki) founded by civilians in 1908 in Thessaloniki was fortified when the young officers joined it. And it was these modern officers that ended up realizing the revolution,” he said....
Read entire article at http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
“There was no point in time that there was not a concern about secularism because the main event that triggered the discussion on secularism was the abolishment of the caliphate and sovereignty,” said Karpat. He explains that when the republic was founded in the place of these, it gave an impression that it was against the religion that these institutions represented. “It was seen as if the republic was anti-religious,” he said, adding that not only religious circles, but also modernists that participated in the National Struggle, such as Kaz?m Karabekir and Rauf Orbay, did not agree with this tough approach and the fact that the caliphate was abolished suddenly.
He believes the reason behind this is the habits of the people. “Even if you abolish sovereignty and the caliphate, the public you face is one that has lived under these for hundreds of years. Even though they are not against the republic, people will sustain the old customs because the culture cannot be canceled suddenly,” said Karpat. He added that culture has a certain power and sustainability of its own and that this is the case even with the French and the Russians, both of which have lived through major revolutions. He believes that if the caliphate had not been abolished, the discussions on secularity would not be taking place as they are today. “Because the caliphate would have been viewed as a sort of guarantee for Islam that is rooted in the public's culture and its past,” he said.
Karpat said the Turkish Republic could have been a secular country even without abolishing the caliphate. He explains that in the Ottoman Empire, the army was under the control of the sultan, who did not put forth his caliphate title but his worldly title of the “sultan.” “The caliphate came to the foreground with [sultan] Abdülhamit and the big divide between the army and the sultan started. Because the army went through a major renovation during his time,” said Karpat. He explains that, the supervisor of military schools, the German general Von der Goltz, wrote the books studied in these schools and addressed the questions: “Who is the nation? Who will make up the nation?” Goltz had an “armed nation” theory, which foresaw that the nation needed to be armed and battling in its entirety. “He believed there were two important groups in Turkey. The first was the people, or in other words, the peasants. The second was the new members of the army, in other words the officers that were brought up with the modern educational system. He saw these two as the “nation.” He saw the salvation of Turkey in the faithful public and modern officers,” Karpat said. He added that Goltz did not support the policies of Abdülhamit, who, in turn, was irritated by this modernist thought and the young officers. “At the end, the Union and Progress Movement (?ttihat ve Terakki) founded by civilians in 1908 in Thessaloniki was fortified when the young officers joined it. And it was these modern officers that ended up realizing the revolution,” he said....