Ottoman Ulema, Turkish Republic: Agents of

Change and Guardians of Tradition

Amit Bein
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011. 224 pages.

Much has been written about religion and secularism in Turkey over the past
decades, but detailed histories of the late Ottoman and modern Turkish ulema
have been few and far between. Therefore, this recent book by Amit Bein is
a welcome and a much needed contribution to the literature on the Turkish
ulema and to the literature on religion in modern Turkey in general. It charts
the vicissitudes of the ulema during a period of dramatic change from the late
nineteenth century until roughly 1960. Bein shows the multiple challenges
the ulema faced during successive rounds of political and social reform and
the various approaches that they took in response. The diversity of opinion
and political orientation within the ulema corps are on full display – from the
most ardent nationalist figures, who supported state reforms in all respects, to
the staunchest enemies of the republican regime. This book conveys a nuanced
understanding of who the Turkish ulema were and how they navigated the
empire-to-republic transition.

Over the course of this history, Bein charts out the key issues for the mar-
ginalization of the ulema with attention to both rhetoric and actual initiatives.
Chapter 2 demonstrates how French Revolutionary anticlerical attitudes in-
formed public perceptions of the ulema in late Ottoman times. Much of the
Ottoman intelligentsia came to see the ulema as the primary obstacle to mod-
ernization and progress, an attitude which continued into and intensified dur-
ing the Turkish Republic. After the 1908 Revolution, the ulema experienced
unprecedented public attacks in the media, which the author illustrates here
with diverse primary materials. It was not only secular nationalists but also
devout “Islamic intellectuals” – non-ulema intelligentsia – who criticized the
ulema and demanded a thoroughgoing reform of religious education. More-
over, Islamic intellectuals viewed the government as the primary mechanism
for modernizing and imposing reform upon the men of religion. In fact, both

Book Reviews 115



reform-minded ulema as well as more defensive members shared this state-
centric view, in which the ulema had a role within the state. Yet it was not
only from without but also from within that calls for reform originated. Some
members of the ulema themselves embraced the criticisms and pushed for
change. However, Bein separates rhetoric from action and makes it clear that,
despite the voluminous conversations in the post-1908 public sphere, no
“comprehensive reforms” occurred in any Islamic institutions prior to 1914.
This is a helpful distinction as some accounts place more emphasis on what
was written or said rather than on actual initiatives.

The book spells out the reform of ulema institutions with clarity. Bein pro-
vides not only the facts but also the meaning of these facts within the context
of late Ottoman and modern Turkish political life. The portion on the modern-
ization of the late Ottoman madrasahs is particularly interesting as it shows the
fissures between various ulema factions  particularly between the actual stu-
dents in the madrasahs, who largely favored the reformed system, and the con-
servative ulema, who wanted to reverse the reforms and oppose all challenges
to the ulema’s political and social position. Bein closely traces the tumultuous
career of the leader of the conservative ulema, Mustafa Sabri, who served twice
the Ottoman Shaykh al-Islam. Sabri represented the most extreme position of
ulema opposition to nationalism and the reform of Islamic institutions. He pub-
licly resigned from the Turkish nation and repeatedly argued that colonial rule
was preferable to independence that entailed religious reform. Sabri lived the
latter portion of his life in exile, an indefatigable critic of the Turkish Republic.
Bein shows us that most ulema charted a more centrist course and remained in
Turkey. Some very important ulema leaders worked with the Ankara govern-
ment of Mustafa Kemal  not because they favored secularizing, nationalist re-
forms, but rather, because they wanted to influence the reforms and ensure that
the Ottoman Islamic heritage was not completely lost. Bein calls their mode
of working with the new regime “qualified cooperation,” whereby they gave
legitimacy to the reforms and the new religious hierarchy – Diyanet – in ex-
change for a degree of control over those reforms. Scholars like Ahmet Akseki
and Muhammed Hamdi Elmalılı did their utmost to impede radical reform and
transmit traditional scholarship and Islamic sensibilities into the new nation-
state. Despite their weak political position, the ulema were successful in pre-
venting and moderating many aspects of the nationalist agenda.

Bein’s study is fine-grained and buttressed by ample archival research. It
opens up new vistas on Turkish history and enriches the study of the modern
ulema.

Brett Wilson
Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies

Macalester College, St. Paul, MN

116 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:2