What's new

Is Turkey a secular state or an Islamic state?

.
forumurrat, Turkey holds a very important place in the world. It straddles Europe and the Middle East, and has been a cultural melting pot throughout its history.

Because of this unique history and experience, it is a vibrant democracy.

Trying to narrow this down into the confines of a theocratic state, will be a big mistake.
 
.
Yes Turkey a dark secularist state ofcourse.. But the majority of the people is muslim and do not like the press of secular regime. Presedent Tayyip Erdoğan try to free the people but societies of secular regime resist against to democracy and freedom. They are very bigot. The government try for the law of freedom of Hijab (Scarfy) in Universites in these days. It will be by 1 week but secular and bigot societies resisting against human rights... Some newspapers, tvs, ignorant and fanatic secularist rectors and attorney generals... But the majority of people do not like them... It is interesting that this extreme secularists do not want to enter Europe Union cause of freedoms. But religion people want to enter. You can think this as contrast but not. Extreme secularists represent the ignorance and prohibits in Turkey. They want continiu to exploit the state. May Allah help and show the right paths to us.. Inshallah will be beautiful everyting by the future for us and all humanity...
 
.
forumurrat, Turkey holds a very important place in the world. It straddles Europe and the Middle East, and has been a cultural melting pot throughout its history.

Because of this unique history and experience, it is a vibrant democracy.

Trying to narrow this down into the confines of a theocratic state, will be a big mistake.

Again why? Why can't a theocratic state along the lines of former Ottoman Empire not be able to bridge the gap between the West and the East?

If the understanding is that a theocratic Muslim state will always be like KSA or Iran then this is a flawed understanding. If the military in Turkey can allow for a Guided democracy then why can't a democracy be guided on the basis of theocracy?

Just wondering..

Also wanted to add that the suffocation of religion by the secularists in Turkey is something which does not find examples anywhere else. You being in India and having a secular, democratic background or someone else with an idea of a western democracy would not be able to relate to the Turkish secularism and democracy entirely. Its a hyper form of it with unrealistic prohibitions on people when it comes to religious freedom.
 
.
Yes Turkey a dark secularist state ofcourse.. But the majority of the people is muslim and do not like the press of secular regime. Presedent Tayyip Erdoğan try to free the people but societies of secular regime resist against to democracy and freedom. They are very bigot. The government try for the law of freedom of Hijab (Scarfy) in Universites in these days. It will be by 1 week but secular and bigot societies resisting against human rights... Some newspapers, tvs, ignorant and fanatic secularist rectors and attorney generals... But the majority of people do not like them... It is interesting that this extreme secularists do not want to enter Europe Union cause of freedoms. But religion people want to enter. You can think this as contrast but not. Extreme secularists represent the ignorance and prohibits in Turkey. They want continiu to exploit the state. May Allah help and show the right paths to us.. Inshallah will be beautiful everyting by the future for us and all humanity...

I have to differ!... Politely!

As per my understanding and Visits to Turkiya. I would say that it is So secular that the meaning and Understanding of Islam is wearing off from the majority of Turks. Agreed that it is a Islamic State but the secularism created in the days of Kamal Ata Turk has worsen the attitude of Turks towards Islam and the new generation is no way close to Islam with the secular buildup in the surroundings.
 
.
I have to differ!... Politely!

As per my understanding and Visits to Turkiya. I would say that it is So secular that the meaning and Understanding of Islam is wearing off from the majority of Turks. Agreed that it is a Islamic State but the secularism created in the days of Kamal Ata Turk has worsen the attitude of Turks towards Islam and the new generation is no way close to Islam with the secular buildup in the surroundings.

I do not know much about Turkia people. I have question. Very Politely!!!

Are they peace loving people and do not follow relegion fanatically????
 
.
Is Turky a secular state or an Islamic state?

If we are judging a state by number of people who follow same religion…then Yes…Turkey is a Muslim state…

But I just wonder that do British or Americans call them Christian states just because Christians are in majority or do we call China a Buddhist state because majority follow this. No, we don’t recognise these and many other states by their religion then why do we bother so much that a Muslim majority country should be called Islamic Republic of ………..what so ever.

Take our example or even Turkey, do these states have Khilafat or led by Khalifas or do we have democracies like any other western or eastern non-muslim country? Why do we bother ourselves so much by thinking that are we a muslim state or secular state or a democratic state or a Islamic state? Try taking out Islamic from Islamic Republic of Pakistan and our own people will burn half of this country. :tsk: If a government is not run by Islamic laws but with democracy or marshal law or by any other way, then do we even need to call ourselves an Islamic republic ?

In today’s world, with mass movement of people from all religions to all countries, probably every country has become secular or it will be appropriate if we call them Multi Cultural Diversed states. There is no religion more secular than Islam and it believes in equality, justice and respects every religion.

To me, just calling a muslim majority state an Islamic state, seems discriminating and very biased. :undecided:
 
.
I do not know much about Turkia people. I have question. Very Politely!!!

Are they peace loving people and do not follow relegion fanatically????

Very Politely!

Is a person who is following his religion as per the teachings of the Religion is a FANATIC?.

Are You a Fanatic Hindu?. If it is your religion and you are following your religion.

Are the Religions people not peace loving?

Only secular people are peace loving?.........;)
 
.
Very Politely!

Is a person who is following his religion as per the teachings of the Religion is a FANATIC?.

Are You a Fanatic Hindu?. If it is your religion and you are following your religion.

Are the Religions people not peace loving?

Only secular people are peace loving?.........;)

This may be your thoughts not mine. Below is what you wrote which means a highly secular country lost the meaning of Islam, that is just weird statement, your statements simply says secularism takes people away from meaning of Islam and I do not agree with you, thats why I asked simple question -

Originally Posted by Proud to be Pakistani
I have to differ!... Politely!

As per my understanding and Visits to Turkiya. I would say that it is So secular that the meaning and Understanding of Islam is wearing off from the majority of Turks. Agreed that it is a Islamic State but the secularism created in the days of Kamal Ata Turk has worsen the attitude of Turks towards Islam and the new generation is no way close to Islam with the secular buildup in the surroundings.
 
.
Assalamulaykum,

Actually, I would have to differ but harshly! Just Kidding.
Yes its true that Ataturk did many reforms, however that was the era of Nationalism. In my opinion, now, today's era is about unity. I have been investing quite a bit of my time in Turkish politics and I am impressed. So many Secularists had opposed Abdullah Gul becoming the President, and look what happened. Mashallah, he won. Not because he couldn't, but because he was honest and satisfied everyone. Although there is still much work to be done, people are starting to wake up. I've even heard that some of the Turks feel nostalgia for the old "Caliphate" that spanned three continents. Whoever says Turkey has long tradition for secular wrought, they are wrong. 75 Years of being secular verses nearly 600 years under a Caliph. Tell me, which one is more of "tradition."

Again, so many reforms by Ataturk are being challenged by some of the people. For 75 years nobody was allowed to wear a Hijab (headscarf) in universities. Today Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul are challenging that issue. Not only that, the best part is that they are using logic too! They told the people how can Turkey truely be Secular if they pick on the Hijab. Secular means no discrimnation on any religion whatsoever. See, even the so called defenders of secularism (the Turkish millitary) can't do anything, because according to an Ankara poll, 65% of the Turkish public wants to see the ban lifted. Then there is another statistic stating that 2/3 of Turkish women wear Hijab in public. Hence, since democracy is the style of government over there, what can the millitary do? It just has to show there is a great awakening in Turkey. Mashallah. I think the ban might get lifted soon enough.

There is no doubt Ataturk made Turkey more Prosperous, however some of the acts he had done are unforgivable.
I do hope Turkey becomes more "Muslim" in the future Inshallah. The achievements made so far by the AK party are fabulous, but still the "Journey of a thousand steps begins with a single step." Or in other words, there is still work to be done.

Allah Hafiz
 
.
Suzan Fraser, Associated Press
Ankara, February 07, 2008
First Published: 23:05 IST(7/2/2008)
Last Updated: 23:06 IST(7/2/2008)
Turkey brings backs headscarves


While in most of the Muslim world, headscarf wearing is mandatory for women when they appear in public, predominantly Muslim Turkey had banned the practice decades ago. Turkish lawmakers have, however, now voted to approve a constitutional amendment to allow female students to enter universities wearing these scarves.

The issue symbolises the divide between the Islamic-oriented government and the military-backed secular establishment. The lawmakers voted 401-110 in a preliminary vote in favour of the government's proposed amendment to the secular constitution, which would remove the ban.

The government has the backing of a nationalist opposition party, and together they have more than the two-thirds majority in the 550-seat assembly required to make the change.

The proposal includes the insertion of a paragraph in the constitution stating that "no one can be deprived of (his or her) right to higher education."

A second and final round of voting is slated for Saturday and lawmakers again need to approve the move before it can become law. The head scarf issue is a source of tension in Turkey and has divided the population among those who consider the ban an affront to the religious freedoms of pious Muslims and those who fear removing the ban would erode Turkey's secular education system.

The vast majority of Turkey's 70 million people are Muslim, but they are divided over the role of Islam in politics and daily life. Secularists regard the head covering as a political statement and argue it has no place in schools. They also fear that lifting the ban at universities would pressure all female students to cover themselves up.

On Wednesday, around 200 leftists gathered near the parliament building to protest the government's proposal as the Parliament convened. Hundreds of riot police, reinforced by armored vehicles, set up barricades to prevent them from marching to parliament. "We won't allow the head scarf!" and "Down with the AKP!" the group chanted in reference to the acronym of the ruling party. More than 125,000 people — mostly women —marched in Ankara over the weekend to denounce plans to lift the ban.
HindustanTimes-Print
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
 
.
^^Wow...okay...I had no idea that they had banned headscarves in Turkey.
 
.
Even if they have a Referendum on whether Head scarfs should be allowed or not.People would say YES.

Even if Turkey does not become an islamic state and does not ban interest and enforce shariah. Then atleast stop Liberal Fascism.

It is against freedom of people to stop them from wearing Hijab.



But I think this man ABDULLAH GUL has taken Turkey into a new era .look at the economic propsperity of turkish .He will get the turkey rid of liberal fascits.
 
.
I do not know much about Turkia people. I have question. Very Politely!!!

Are they peace loving people and do not follow relegion fanatically????

Is this a simple Question!

What you mean by Following Religion Fanatically!

Your question implies that peace loving are only Secular, which is Ironical to think.

Being secular and also a Muslim State is a paradoX.Since no religious laws are followed. Infact discouraged!
 
.
One has to understand the Reforms by Ataturk.

They were:

Ataturk’s reforms

Atatürk was a military genius, a charismatic leader, also a comprehensive reformer in his life. It was important at the time for the Republic of Turkey to be modernized in order to progress towards the level of contemporary civilizations and to be an active member of the culturally developed communities. Mustafa Kemal modernized the life of his country.

Atatürk introduced reforms which he considered of vital importance for the salvation and survival of his people between 1924-1938. These reforms were enthusiastically welcomed by the Turkish people.

Chronology of Reforms

1922 Sultanate abolished (November 1).

1923 Treaty of Lausanne secured (July 24). Republic of Turkey with capital at Ankara proclaimed (October 29).

1924 Caliphate abolished (March 3). Traditional religious schools closed, Sheriat (Islamic Law) abolished. Constitution adopted (April 20).

1925 Dervish brotherhoods abolished. Fez outlawed by the Hat Law (November 25). Veiling of women discouraged; Western clothing for men and women encouraged. Western (Gregorian) calendar adopted.

1926 New civil, commercial, and penal codes based on European models adopted. New civil code ended Islamic polygamy and divorce by renunciation and introduced civil marriage. Millet system ended.

1927 First systematic census.

1928 New Turkish alphabet (modified Latin form) adopted. State declared secular (April 10); constitutional provision establishing Islam as official religion deleted.

1933 Islamic call to worship and public readings of the Kuran (Quran) required to be in Turkish rather than Arabic.

1934 Women given the vote and the right to hold office. Law of Surnames adopted - Mustafa Kemal given the name Kemal Atatürk (Father of the Turks) by the Grand National Assembly; Ismet Pasha took surname of Inönü.

1935 Sunday adopted as legal weekly holiday. State role in managing economy written into the constitution.

On assuming office, Atatürk initiated a series of radical reforms in the country's political, social, and economic life that aimed at rapidly transforming Turkey into a modern state. For him, modernization meant Westernization. On one level, a secular legal code, modeled along European lines, was introduced that completely altered laws affecting women, marriage, and family relations. On another level, Atatürk urged his countrymen to look and act like Europeans. Turks were encouraged to wear European-style clothing. Atatürk personally promoted ballroom dancing at official functions. Surnames were adopted: Mustafa Kemal, for example, became Kemal Atatürk, and Ismet Pasha took Inönü as his surname to commemorate his victories there during the War of Independence. Likewise, Atatürk insisted on cutting links with the past that he considered anachronistic. Titles of honor were abolished. The wearing of the fez, which had been introduced a century earlier as a modernizing reform to replace the turban, was outlawed because it had become for the nationalists a symbol of the reactionary Ottoman regime.

The ideological foundation for Atatürk's reform program became known as Kemalism. Its main points were enumerated in the Six Arrows of Kemalism as republicanism, nationalism, populism, reformism, statism, and secularism (see the Principles of Atatürk). These were regarded as "fundamental and unchanging principles" guiding the republic, and, as such, they were written into its constitution. The principle of republicanism was contained in the constitutional declaration that "sovereignty is vested in the nation" and not in a single ruler. The nation-state supplanted the Ottoman dynasty as the focus of loyalty, and the particulars of Turkish nationalism replaced Ottoman universalism.

Displaying considerable ingenuity, Atatürk set about reinventing the Turkish language and recasting Turkish history in a nationalist mold. The President himself went out into the park in Ankara on Sunday, the newly established day of rest, to teach the Latin alphabet adapted to Turkish as part of the language reform. Populism encompassed not only the notion that all Turkish citizens were equal but also that all of them were Turks. What remained of the millet system that had guaranteed communal autonomy to other ethnic groups was abolished. Reformism legitimized the radical means by which changes in Turkish political and social life were implemented.

Etatism, or statism, emphasized the central role reserved for the state in directing the nation's economic activities. This concept was cited particularly to justify state planning of Turkey's mixed economy and large- scale investment in state-owned enterprises. An important aim of Atatürk's economic policies was to prevent foreign interests from exercising influence on the Turkish economy.

Although all of the Kemalist reforms were unsettling to traditionalists, it was the exclusion of Islam from an official role in the life of the nation that shocked Atatürk's contemporaries most profoundly, and discontent continued to focus on the regime's secularist policies long after the other reforms had been generally accepted. The abolition of the caliphate ended any connection between the state and religion. The religious orders were suppressed, religious schools closed and public education secularized, and the Sheriat (Islamic rule) revoked, requiring readjustment of the entire social framework of the Turkish people. Despite the protest that these measures provoked, however, Atatürk conceded nothing to the traditionalists.

In 1924 the Grand National Assembly adopted a new constitution to replace the 1876 constitution that had continued to serve as the legal framework for the republican government. The 1924 constitution vested sovereign power in the Grand National Assembly as representative of the people, to whom it also guaranteed basic civil rights. A unicameral body elected for a four-year term by universal suffrage, the assembly exercised legislative authority, including responsibility for approving the budget, ratifying treaties, and declaring war. The new constitution did not provide for an impartial judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the assembly, but rather empowered the elected legislature to alter or defer judicial decisions.

The President of the republic was elected for a four-year term by the assembly, and he in turn appointed the prime minister, who was expected to enjoy the confidence of the assembly. Throughout his presidency, repeatedly extended by the assembly, Atatürk governed Turkey essentially by personal rule in a one-party state. The Republican People's Party (RPP) was founded in 1923 by Atatürk to represent the nationalist movement in elections and to serve as a vanguard party in supporting the Kemalist reform program. Atatürk's Six Arrows were an integral part of the RPP's political platform. By controlling the RPP, Atatürk also controlled the Assembly and assured support there for the government he had appointed. Atatürk regarded a stage of personal authoritarian rule as necessary for securing his reforms before entrusting the government of the country to the democratic process.

Nevertheless, opposition existed. Specific misgivings about Atatürk's personal dominance took early form in a grouping of his old associates called the Progressive Republican Party. Some also felt that Atatürk was carrying the reform program too far, too fast. Atatürk was willing to experiment with a multiparty system, and in November 1924 he replaced Inönü as prime minister with Fethi Okyar, who represented the new party.

Scarcely had this experiment begun, however, when an uprising broke out that quickly spread throughout the Kurdish region in southeastern Turkey. Although sometimes characterized as an expression of Kurdish nationalism, the revolt was led by a hereditary chief of the Naksibendi dervishes, who had been disbanded as part of Atatürk's secularist reforms. He and other dervish leaders urged their Kurdish followers to overthrow the "godless" government in Ankara and restore the caliph. Atatürk recalled Inönü to the prime minister's office in March 1925 and rushed legislation through the Grand National Assembly that provided emergency powers to the government for the next four years. Special courts with summary powers were established, and the Progressive Republican Party was outlawed. Meanwhile, the Turkish army swiftly extinguished the revolt.

A plot to assassinate Atatürk was uncovered in 1926 and found to have originated with a former deputy who had opposed abolition of the caliphate and had a personal grudge against the President. A sweeping investigation brought before the tribunal a large number of Atatürk's political opponents, fifteen of whom were hanged. As a result of the inquiry, some of his former close associates were sent into exile. This action was the only broad political purge during Atatürk's presidency. Whether there were specific connections between the Progressive Republican Party, the Kurdish revolt, and the assassination plot remained a subject of conjecture among historians. The pattern of organized opposition, however, was broken, and Atatürk's rule and the single- party state were never again seriously challenged. Another experiment with multiparty politics was made in 1930 in the form of an authorized loyal opposition party, but this effort degenerated into factionalism and was quickly ended.

The Clothing Reform

With the clothing reform, women stopped wearing veils; they started to wear modern women's clothing. Men started to wear hats rather than the fez.

Civil Rights for Women

With the reforms of Atatürk, Turkish women, who for centuries had been neglected, were given new rights. Thus with the civil code passed, Turkish women would now have the same rights as men, could be appointed to official posts, would have the right to vote and to be elected to Parliament. The monogamy principle and equal rights for women changed the spirit of Turkish society.

Atatürk's Works on Turkish History

Following the reform of the script, which was meant to be a kind of nationalism in the cultural field, Atatürk concentrated his attention on history. He established the Turkish Historical Society in 1931. Here, Turkey's history was thoroughly examined and evaluated.

The New Calendar, Weights and Measures, Holidays and Surname Laws and many other reforms were achieved as well. An example of this is the Weekend Act of 1924, the International Time and Calendar System of 1925, the Obligation Law and Commercial Law of 1926, the System of Measures 1933 and the Surname Act, 1934. According to the law passed by the Grand National Assembly in 1932 Turks took surnames and the Nation's leader was given the surname of Atatürk, "Father of the Turks".

Language Reform: From Ottoman to Turkish

History records few instances of a government's altering the language of its people as drastically and imposing that language as forcefully (and, on balance, as successfully) as in the Turkish case. Atatürk considered language reform to be an essential ingredient in the creation of a new Turkey and of new, modernized Turks, and he viewed the revised Turkish language as one of the ways to create a new national identity.

Within the Ottoman Empire, the Turks were merely one of many linguistic and ethnic groups, and the word Turk in fact connoted crudeness and boorishness. Members of the civil, military, and religious elite conversed and conducted their business in Ottoman Turkish, which was a mixture of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. Arabic remained the primary language of religion and religious law. Persian was the language of art, refined literature, and diplomacy. What little Turkish there was usually had to do with the administration of the Ottoman Empire Turkish not only borrowed vocabulary items from Arabic and Persian but also lifted entire expressions and syntactic structures out of these languages and incorporated them into the Ottoman idiom. Thus, pure Turkish survived primarily as the language of the illiterate and generally was not used in writing. Ottoman Turkish, on the other hand, was the language of writing, as well as the language spoken by the educated elite.

Its multiple origins caused difficulties in spelling and writing Ottoman Turkish. The constituent parts - Turkish, Persian, and Arabic - belong to three different language families - Ural-Altaic, Indo-European, and Semitic, respectively - and the writing system fits only the last of these. Phonological, grammatical, and etymological principles are quite different among them.

During the nineteenth century, modernist intellectuals began to call for a reform of the language. They wanted to fashion a language that would be easier to use and more purely Turkish. Thus, the principle of Turkish language reform was intimately tied to the reforms of the 1839-78 period. Later in the nineteenth century, the demand for language reform became political. Turkish nationalists sought a language that would unite rather than divide the people. In the writings of Ziya Gökalp (1924), Turkish nationalism was presented as the force uniting all those who were by language and ethnic background Turks.

With the establishment of the republic, Atatürk made language reform an important part of the nationalist program. The goal was to produce a language more Turkish, modern, practical, and precise, and less difficult to learn than the old language. The republican language reform consisted of two basic elements - adoption of a new alphabet and purification of the vocabulary.

The language revolution (Dil Devrimi in Turkish) officially began in 1928. In May 1928, numbers written in Arabic were replaced with their Western equivalents. In November the Grand National Assembly approved the new Latin alphabet that had been devised by a committee of scholars. Many members of the assembly favored gradually introducing the new letters over a period up to five years. Atatürk, however, insisted that the transition last only a few months, and his opinion prevailed. With chalk and a portable blackboard, he traveled throughout the country, giving writing lessons in schools, village squares, and other public places to a people whose illiteracy was suddenly 100 percent. On January 1, 1929, it became unlawful to use the Arabic alphabet.

The new alphabet represents the Turkish vowels and consonants more clearly than does the old alphabet. Composed of Latin letters and a few additional variants, it contains one symbol for each sound of standard Turkish, which was identified as the educated speech of Istanbul. By adopting the Latin alphabet, Turkey turned consciously toward the West, severed a major link with the Islamic world, and rejected a part of its Islamic heritage. By providing the new generation no need and scant opportunity to learn the Arabic letters, the alphabet reform cut them off from the Ottoman past and its culture and value system. Specifically, this new generation could no longer be educated by the traditional establishment of religious scholars.

Non-Turkish words were seen as symbols of the past, and there was great nationalist enthusiasm, supported by government policies, to get rid of them. Purification of the language became a national cause. Dictionaries began to drop Arabic and Persian words and sought to resurrect archaic terms or words from Turkish dialects or to coin new words from old stems and roots to be used in their place. The Turkish Language Society (Türk Dil Kurumu), founded in 1932, supervised the collection and dissemination of Turkish folk vocabulary and folk phrases to be used in place of foreign words. The citizens at large were invited to suggest alternatives to words and expressions of non-Turkish origin, and many responded. In 1934 lists of new Turkish words began to be published, and in 1935 they began to appear in newspapers.

The mid-1930s saw the height of the enthusiasm for language reform, and some of the suggested reforms were so extreme as to endanger the understandability of the language. Although purist and zealot opinion favored the banishment of all words of non-Turkish origin, it became obvious to many that some of the suggested reforms verged on the ridiculous. Atatürk resolved the problem with an ingenious political invention that, though embarrassing to language experts, appealed to the nationalists. He suggested the historically preposterous but politically efficacious Sun- Language Theory, which asserted that Turkish was the "mother of all languages," and therefore all foreign words were originally Turkish. Thus, if a suitable Turkish equivalent for a foreign word could not be found, the loanword could be retained without violating the purity of the Turkish language.

By the late 1940s, considerable opposition to the purification movement had begun to surface. Teachers, writers, poets, journalists, editors, and others began to complain in public about the instability and arbitrariness of the officially sanctioned vocabulary. In 1950 the Turkish Language Society lost its semiofficial status, and eventually some Arabic loanwords began to reappear in government publications.

The long-term effects of the language reform have been positive, but at a price. Reading, spelling, and printing are now infinitely simpler than before, and literacy has spread because of this. Modern Turkish is more concise and direct than Ottoman Turkish, and hence better meets the demands of modern life, including science and technology. The language reform has to some degree closed the language gap that used to exist between the classes of Turkish society, and a certain democratization of language and literature has occurred. The cost, however, has been the drastic and permanent estrangement from the literary and linguistic heritage of the Ottomans. Although some pre-republican writing has been transcribed in the new alphabet, its vocabulary and syntax are now barely understandable to a modern speaker of Turkish. The loss of old words and their rich connotations has resulted in some aesthetic impoverishment of the language.

Language and language reform continued to be political issues in Turkey in the late 1980s. Each decade since Atatürk's death has been characterized by its own particular stance or stances vis-à-vis language reform or support for either a more traditional lexicon or a modern, "Turkified" one abounding in Western loans or indigenous coinages. Not surprisingly, language reform and modern usage were pushed forward during periods of liberal governments and de-emphasized under conservative governments (such as those of the 1980s). As for religious publications, they were not touched much by these reforms and continued to use an idiom that was heavily Arabic or Persian in vocabulary and Persian in syntax. In spite of the fact that coinages lack some of the rich connotations of the older lexicon, modern Turkish prose and poetry came into their own in Kemalist (1923-38) and, especially, post-Kemalist (since 1938) Turkey, as writers and poets created powerful works in this new idiom.

Secularist Reforms

In 1922 the new nationalist regime abolished the Ottoman sultanate, and in 1924 it abolished the caliphate, which the Ottoman sultanate had held for centuries. Thus, for the first time in Islamic history, no ruler claimed the spiritual leadership of Islam; this was still the case in the late 1980s. The withdrawal of Turkey, heir to the Ottoman Empire, as the presumptive leader of the world Muslim community was symbolic of the change in Turkey's relation to Islam.

Secularism or laicism (Laiklik in Turkish) was one of the "Six Arrows" of Atatürk's blueprint for modern Turkey; these founding principles of the republic, usually referred to as Atatürkism or Kemalism, were the basis for many of the early republican reforms. As Islam had formed the identity of the Ottoman Empire and its subjects, so secularism molded the new Turkish nation and its citizens.

Establishment of secularism in Turkey was a process of distinguishing church from state or the religious from the nonreligious spheres of life. In the Ottoman Empire, all spheres of life were theoretically ruled by religious law, and religious organizations did not exist apart from the state.

The reforms bearing directly on religion were numerous. They included the abolition of the caliphate; abolition of the office of seyhülislam (Islamic ruler); abolition of the religious hierarchy; closing and confiscation of the dervish lodges, meeting places, and monasteries and outlawing of their rituals and meetings; establishment of government control over the Evkaf, which had been inalienable under Sheriat (Islamic rules); replacement of Sheriat with adapted European legal codes; closing of the religious schools (Medresses); changing from the Islamic to the Western calendar; outlawing the fez for men and frowning on the veil for women, both garments associated with religious tradition; and outlawing the traditional garb of local religious leaders.

The nationalist regime made attempts to give religion a more modern and more national form. The state also supported use of Turkish rather than Arabic at devotions and the substitution of the Turkish word Tanri for the Arabic word Allah. The opposition, however, was strong enough to ensure that Arabic remained the language of prayer. In 1932, for example, the government's determination that Turkish be used in the call to prayer from the minarets was not well accepted and in 1934 it returned to the Arabic version of the call to prayer. Most notably, the Hagia Sophia (church of the Holy Wisdom, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian's sixth century basilica, which was converted into a mosque by Mehmed II) was made into a museum.
Ataturk’s reforms - All About Turkey
 
.
Back
Top Bottom