Adnan Yılmaz writes: The 'Caliphate' and 'Neo-Ottomanism' debates

It is a fourteen-hundred-year-old story that begins after the death of Prophet Muhammad, when the Umayyads transformed their sultanate into a caliphate to define their political authority... 

One of the most obvious examples of the politicization of religion in Islamic history was during the Battle of Siffin between Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muawiyah, when Muawiyah had pages of the Quran attached to the tips of spears as a trick to deceive Ali's soldiers in the name of God.   

Essentially, in the "power-religion" dilemma, because it was a development based on the "politicization of religion" outside of both mysticism and theology, the Caliphate—which is a "subject of politics"—must also be sought within the understanding of tribalism that determined social life among the Arabs.

The transition of this matter to the Ottomans and its politicization by Ottoman sultans is also the name of the adventure of the caliphate among us, as it became an apparatus for political power and sovereignty struggles... For this purpose, you see it playing the role of assuming the guardianship of Muslims to struggle against powers consisting of different religions and sects. Indeed, for a long period, the caliphate was seen as an "antidote" against the Russian threat. 

You see that the results of the politicization of religion were often carried out not only through anti-Islamism, but also through the sectarian differences of the same religion, as can be seen in the fight between two Turkish rulers like Shah Ismail and Yavuz Sultan Selim. 

Sultans who wanted to consolidate their positions and power in history, and who wanted everything they did to remain unquestioned and not passed through the filter of logic, have always created the implication and perception that "The Sultan is God's shadow on earth." In fact, even the vast majority of Islamic scholars were alarmed by these terms, thinking that they "provided the sultan with unlimited arbitrariness," and opposed them.

It is also a historical fact that Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs aimed to strengthen their positions and increase their prestige with these terms, and were inclined to have fatwas issued in the form of being "God's representative on earth."

The dimension of this matter is not limited only to "Islamic History." It is also a term remaining from the papacy of the "inquisition days" in Medieval Europe, where one saw oneself as "God's shadow on earth." From there, it passed into Arabic, and from there to the Ottoman Empire, and was encouraged by "caliphs and rulers" in the sense of "God's shadow on earth" and "God's shadow in the universe," and it was said "Padişah-ı ruy-ı zemin zillullah-ı fi’l-arz" (The Sultan of the face of the earth is God's shadow on earth).

If remembered, it can also be seen that the sultan's decree issued for the Kuvayı Milliye (National Forces) members to be labeled "enemies of religion" and killed was called "irade-i zillullahi," meaning "the will of God's shadow," recklessly making religion a tool for political power struggles.

In Turkey, that great and unique person Mustafa Kemal Atatürk actually embraced God and humanity with secularism and the Republic's revolutions, and removed the intermediaries. He brought God and people together freely in their consciences.

Former President of Religious Affairs Ali Bardakoğlu says exactly this at this point;

"Underlining that 'Sunni or Shia religious state attempts have not yielded good results anywhere,' he says, 'All Muslims, Sunni or Shia, must now see that historical forms of state are not a matter of faith; in the 21st century, good governance is only possible with liberal democracy and the rule of law.'"

THE 'NEO-OTTOMANISM' PERCEPTION 

Our historian Halil İnalcık

"We are not Ottoman. The Ottomans were above the minorities. It is impossible for us to do the same. We are a national state. The Ottoman Empire was an empire. Whoever recognized the sultan's sovereignty became his subject. This crisis (neo-Ottomanism) can have very bad consequences," he warns the "Neo-Ottomans."

Halil İnalcık points to the "sultan's possession of irresponsible authority that accounts to no one" as the primary reason among the causes of the Ottoman collapse and counts this situation at the top of the reasons for the Ottoman decline.

Moreover, "Neo-Ottomanism," which is dressed in an ideological cloak of "caliphate and sultanate" as a dry dream of being effective in the Middle East and the region, encouraged by an uncontrollable monolithic political regime today, will not only fail to go beyond bringing "destruction and frustration" to our own country for those trying to prove it will be successful in the Middle East, but will also completely pave the way for an unmanageable chaos and the export of "jihadist mercenary elements" driven from place to place by becoming "paid soldiers" of imperialist powers to our country through fait accomplis.

ATATÜRK'S RESPONSES TO THOSE WHO WANTED TO MAKE HIM CALIPH

...And would you look at Atatürk's answers to those who wanted to make him Caliph:?

"You know that Caliph means head of state. How can I accept the wishes and proposals you have conveyed to me from peoples who have kings and emperors at their head? If I said I accepted, would those at the head of those peoples agree to this? The orders and prohibitions of the Caliph are carried out. Will those who want to make me Caliph be able to carry out my orders? When the situation is like this, wouldn't it be ridiculous to take on a baseless title that has no meaning or function?"

"Gentlemen, I must say clearly and definitively that those who still strive to occupy and deceive Muslims with a caliph scarecrow are only and solely the enemies of Muslims and especially of Turkey. Falling for such a game and dreaming is only and solely a work of ignorance and negligence."

"The Republic of Turkey cannot jeopardize its existence and independence with fallacies. To us, the office of the Caliphate can carry no importance beyond being a historical memory. Even the request of Turkish Republic statesmen or official delegations to meet with him is an open violation of the Republic's independence."

In Atatürk's own words, regarding the developments where some deputies followed a pro-caliphate and pro-sultanate stance during the "final phase of the ceremony of the collapse and disappearance of Ottoman sovereignty" in the parliament, as he describes in his Nutuk (Speech):

"By bringing up Islamic and Turkish history, I explained based on historical events that the caliphate and the sultanate could be separated, and that the seat of national sovereignty could be the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. I explained that Hulagu hanged Caliph Al-Musta'sim and effectively ended the caliphate on earth, and that if Yavuz, who captured Egypt in 1517, had not attached importance to a refugee carrying the title of caliph there, the title of caliphate would not have continued to our time."

Adnan YILMAZ 

News Source: Adnan Yılmaz