Bediuzzaman was saved from his place of custody in Istanbul and taken
secretly to Salonica.1 There he stayed as a guest in the house of Manyasizade Refik Bey,
who was to be Minister of Justice in the first Cabinet following the proclamation of the
Constitution, and was at that time Chairman of the Central Committee of the Committee of
Union and Progress in Salonica. Through him Bediuzzaman made the acquaintance of the
leading figures of the CUP.2
As was mentioned above, the CUP was one group within the Young Turk
movement, which formed the main focus of opposition to Sultan Abdulhamid, and had members
both within Turkey and in Europe. In Turkey, the movement was well suppressed, but
conditions favoured its growth, partiCularly among army officers, the composition of whom
was changing as a result of the reforms. It was in Salonica, a place open to diverse
influences, that a group of officers together with a number of others, founded a
revolutionary secret society in 1906. And subsequently establishing relations with one of
the groups of Young Turks in Paris, adopted their name of the Committee of Union and
Progress.3
It is important at this point to clarify Bediuzzaman’s attitude towards
politics generally, and towards the Young Turks: We can make two main points. Firstly,
Bediuzzaman’s involvement with politics was always with the aim of making politics serve
religion, to point out Islamic principles and give direction to those in power. He was
never involved in politics for their own sake, or for power, prestije or position. The
Committee of Union and Progress in Salonica were a "mixed bunch’, what unified them
was their patriotism and desire to save the crumbling Empire. The majority of them being
army officers, they had little experience of politics and political administratiori, and
even when they forced the proclamation of the Constitution, they had no political plan or
programme4 For the most part, their attitude towards Islam was positive; and not only as
the main politically unifying factor of the Empire. Even the secular theorists from among
the Young Turks such as Ahmed Rıza and Abdullah Cevdet accepted the positive function of
Islam in society.5 Bediuzzaman himself later wrote: "At the beginning of the
Constitutional Period I saw that there were atheists who had infiitrated the CUP who
accepted that Islam and the Şeriat of Muhammed contained exalted prineiples extremely
beneficial and valuable for the life of society and particularly Ottoman policies and who
supported the Şeriat with all their strength…"6 But while a majority of them were
in any event not hostile to Islam, due to their secular backgrounds and education, they
had been influenced in varying degrees by European ideas; many were uninformed about their
religion and were lax in the practice of it. An important reason, therefore, in
Bediuzzaman associating with the Young Turks before the Constitution was proclaimed was to
persuade them that for the Empire’s future progress and well-being, Freedom must be
established on the Şeriat and Islam adhered to, as well as for himself to be able to
serve this end. But again it must be stressed that while he continued to support those
Young Turks who shared this end, he became a strenuous opponent of those of them who
deviated from it. For their part, the leading members of the CUP in Salonica were
Impressed by the calibre of this famous young scholar, and, as a man of religion and an
unswerving supporter of Freedom, were keen to employ him in the propagation of his ideas
on Freedom.
The second point to make about Bediuzzaman and politics will perhaps
illuminate this further. Bediuzzaman was a realist; he accepted the current situation, and
looking to the future, sought ways of directing the trend of events into Islamic
channeles. For example, subsequent to the French Revolution, the ideas of liberty,
equality, justice, and the rule of law had been universally accepted as preferable to
despotism and arbitrary rule; the trend towards representative government was inevitable
and unavoidable, in the Ottoman Empire as well as in Europe.
Bediuzzaman accepted the trend, and through pointing out that these
luminous concepts are not the exclusive property of the West as the Europeans would have
it, but are fundamental to Islam, showed the way towards developing a truly Islamic form
of government. This demonstrating that consultation, equality before the law, justice,
freedom, and brotherhood are enjoined by Islam and were practised by the Prophet Muhammed
and his immediate suecessors, and that despotism is contrary to Islam, is not apologetics
nor some belated and dubious claim to them as is often portrayed, but is a genuine
statement of faet, and is, furthermore, a recognition of the dynamic nature of the
Şeriat.
Bediuzzaman’s success in spreading these ideas in Salonica caused him to be
looked on very favourably by the Committe of Union and Progress, and in regard to this,
the Commander of the Third Army, then stationed in Salonica, Field Marshall İbrahim
Paşa, summoned him in order to meet him. Undaunted by the Paşâ’s rank and the
sensitivity of the issues, Bediuzzaman put forwards his ideas with his usual fearlessness
in the interview. The Paşa must have been persuaded of them to a degree anyway for he
afterwards asked Kazım Nami, his political advisor: "Did you know this Bediuzzaman
before? He is extremely knowledgeable in every subject… his ideas are different just
like his dress…"7 The meeting caused quite a sensation and reports of it appeared in
the Young Turk newspapers puhlished in Paris. They praised Bediuzzaman as a hope for
Freedom and Justice in the area of religion and learning.8
Another figure of some fame, or, notoriety, got to hear of Bediuzzaman and
his aetivities, and that was Emanuel Karaso, later the jewish deputy for Salonica, and
Grand Master of the Macedonia Risorta Masons’ Lodge. No doubt wanting to find a way of
influencing such a talent ad using it for his own purposes, he sought a meeting with
Bediuzzaman. Bediuzzaman agreed, but the Grand Master left abruptly half way through the
conversation, and confessed to those waiting for him outside: "If I had stayed any
longer, he would have made a Muslim of me!"
In July, 1908, the events in Macedonia leading to the proclamation of the
Consttution followed on one after the other. During a meeting of the Central Committee of
the CUP, it was decided that the first speech should be given by Bediuzzaman. This
decision is recorded in the memoirs of Atıf Bey, also present.
"Despite it [Freedom] being first proclaimed in Manastır, the
original decision was for it to be in Salonica, which we called the Cradle of Freedom. We
had met in Manyasizade Refik Bey’s house. There were eleven of us, of whom eight were in
the Amy. Refik Bey was in the chair, and there was Bediuzzaman Said Kurdi representing
religion, and Hafız İbrahim Efendi, who had supported the CUP in every respect from the
start and was later Deputy for İpekli. It was decided that the first speech should be
given by Bediuzzaman, who attracted attention with everything he did. When Fethi Bey
(later CUP General Secretary, and, as Fethi Okyar, was Prime minister under the Republic)
suggested we fix its subject, Refik Bey replied pointing to Bediuzzaman: ‘I am of the
opinion that whatever the Hazret says, it will be applauded.’ In truth, I still recall the
speech. I was astonished, he spoke not about different forms of government and the like,
but said that the real need of the country was for roads, bridges, aeroplanes, railways,
trade, faetories, and institutions of science and learning."10
Indeed, in the speech he gave, firstly impromptu in Beyazit in Istanbul
immediately following the proelamation of the Constitution, and subsequently in Freedom
Square in Salonica, Bediuzzaman explained to the people the meaning of constitutionalism,
and how they should regard it, and that if the Şeriat was made the source of it,
"This oppressed nation will progress a thousand times further than in former
times."
‘Adress to Freedom’
The text of the speech, entitled ‘Address to Freedom’, is too long to
include here in its entirety, so we shall rather briefly point out the rnain ideas it
describes, and include parts of it by way of illustration. But first, it is worth noting
the importance Bedizzaman attached to illuminating and mobilizing the ordinary people and
commıınity of believers in the struggle for progress, as is illustrated by the few
introductory sentences to th Address to Freedom: For while the proclamation of the
Constitution was greeted with jubilation it was not permissihie to obey it, a belief that
was clearly open to exploitation by its opponents.11
In addition, in regard to politics, the fundamental ideas that Bediuzzaman
adhered to was that all the community should participate in the political process, and
that the government should reflect the nation’s will, and that, furthermore, government
based on these principles was enjoined by Islam. Following the proclamation ofthe
Constitution, therefore, Bediuzzaman expended much effort addresssing the ordinary people,
and especially his fellows Kurds, who had been subject to negative propaganda about the
Constitution and were deeply suspicious of it, in order to explain to them its meaning, ad
their own rights and responsibilities towards it. And so, in an introductory passage to
the Address to Freedom, Bediuzzaman addresses his audience directly and asks them to
participate mentally in what he is going to discuss. Let their hearts be open… "For
there is work to do for your zeal, religious feeling, and endeavour; they are going to
discuss certain matters; they are going to kindle a light from the dark conners of the
heart."12
Rather than being merely an ode in praise of Freedom, the Address to
Freedom13 is primarily an exhortation to adhere to Islam and its morality in the new era.
With the advent of Freedom, the Ottoman nation has been given the opportunity to progress
and establish true civilization as in former time, but this will only be achieved if they
make the Şeriat the foundation of Freedom.14 It points out the detrimental effects of
despotism on the one hand, and the possibilities for progress that Freedom provides on the
other. Together with this, it constitutes a programme of what must be achieved and what
must be avoided in order to preserve Freedom and secure progress. In doing this it
describes some of the causes of the Ottoman decline.
"O Freedom!… I convey these glad tidings to you, that if you make
the Şeriat, which is life, the source of life, and if you grow in that paradise, this
oppressed nation will progress a thousand times further than in former times. If, that is,
it takes you as its gurde in all matters and does not besmirch you through harbouring
personal enmity and thoughts of revenge… Freedorn has exhumed us from the grave of
desolation and despotism, and summoned us to the paradise of unity and love of
nation…"
"…The doors of a suffering-free paradise of progress and
civilization have been opened to us… The Constitution, which is in aceordance with the
Şeriat, is the introduction to the sovereignty of the nation and invites us to enter like
the treasury-guard of Paradise. O my oppressed compatriots! Let us go and enter!"
So, having pointed out that sovereignty will now lie with the
nation, Bediuzzaman goes onto deseribe "five doors" that have to be entered, or
five principles to which the State should be bound so that this paradise might
be attained. The first is "the union of hearts". This has been described as
preserving the consciousness of the Ottoman State’s unity and wholeness,
especialy in the face of the nationalist and separatist movements of the
minorities. The second door is "love of the nation". That is, the individuals
who make up the nation being aware of their nationhood and nurturing love for
one another. Remembering that "The foundation and spirit of our true nationhood
is Islam."15 The third is "education", which
refers to the cultural and educational level of tlıe nation being raised to a
satisfactory point. The fourth is "human endeavour"; that is, everyone being
guaranteed work, and receiving fair recompense for their labour. And the fifth door is
"the giving up of dissipation", which is understood as the giving up of
ostentation and extravagance, both on an individual level and as a society, which cause
diseord, and were a malaise afflicting state officials in particular at that time.16
Bediuzzaman points out the harmful effects of the vice and immorality that
result from despotism, material as well as moral, while "The voice of Freedom and
justice… raises to life our emotions, hopes, exalted national aspirations, and fine
Islamic character and morality, all of which were dead."
After immediately warning against killing these again "through
dissipation and carelesness in religion", Bediuzzaman predicts that unity, adherence
to Islamic morality together with the successful functioning of the constitutional
government and genuine practice of the Islamic principle of consultation will result in
the Ottoman nation soon "competing neck and neck with the civilized nations."
The metaphors for progress Bediuzzaman uses in the passage demonstrate his own belief in
seience and technology.
Bediuzzaman next warns against acquiring "the sins and evils of
eivilization" and abandoning its virtues. The Ottomans should imitate the Japanese in
taking from Western civilization what will assist them in progress; while preserving their
own national customs:
"We shall take with pleasure the points of Europe like technology and
industriy that will assist us in progress and civilization. However… we shall forbid the
sins and evils of civilization from entering the bounds of Freedom and our civilization
with the sword of the Şeriat, so that the young people in our civilization will be
protected by the pure, cold spring of life of the Şeriat. We must imitate the Japanese in
acquiring civilization, for in taking only the virtues of civilization from Europe they
preserved their national customs, which are the leaven nf every nation’s continuance.
Since our national eustoms grew up within Islam, they should be clung on to in two
respects."
By contrasting conditions under the old and new regimes, Bediuzzaman goes
on to describe five indestructible truths on which Freedom will be established. They are
as follows: the Firs Truth is unity, the Second, science, learning, and civilization. The
Third is a new generation of able and enlightened men to lead and administer the nation,
Bediuzzaman describes how with "the rain of Freedom’, the abilities and
potentialities of every one, even common villagers, will develop and be expanded so that
"the vigorous field of Asia and Rumelia well produce the crops’ of the brilliant and
superior men so badly needed. "And the East will be to the West what dawn is to
sunset. If, that is, they do not wither up through the languor of idleness and poison of
malice:’
The Fourth Truth is the Şeriat. Bediuzzaman explains: "Since the
Illustrious Şeriat has come from the PreEternal Word of God, it will go to
Post-Eternity." For it is dynamic. The Şeriat adapts and expands in relation to
man’s development. It comprises equality, justice, and true freedom with all its relations
and requirement. The initial period of Islam is proof of this. Therefore, Bediuzzaman
says, their present unfortunate condition results from four causes: failure to observe the
Şeriat, arbitrary and erroneous interpretations of it, bigotry on the part of certain
"abandoning through ill-fortune and bad choice, the virtues of Europe, which are
difficult to acquire, and imitating like parrots or children the sins and evils of
cevilization, which are agreeable to man’s base appetites."
The Fifth Truth is the Parliament, and the Islamic principle of mutual
eonsultation. In this complex modern age, it is only through a constituent assembly,
consultation, and freedom of thought that the state can be upheld, administered, and
guided.
Bediuzzaman completes the Address with three "warnins". Firstly
state officials who are prepared to adapt to the new regime must be treaded with respect
and their experience must be benefited from. Secondly, he points out that the sickness
afflictin the Empire has spread from the centre of the Caliphate, from Istanbul, and goes
on to urge reconciliation between "the three main branches of the "public
guide", the scholars of the scholars of the tekkes. This point was discussed above,
as was the following, third warning, which conserns the preachers. Again, Bediuzzaman is
urging them to renew their ideas and methods, and speak conformably with the needs of the
times.
Bediuzaman’s Ideas on Freedom and Constitutionelism
What, then was the relationship between constitutionalism and Islam? For
in this speech, and in all his speeches and writings of the time, Bediuzzaman was at pains
to make clear to the people that the Consitution, which was the 1876 Constitution, was in
no way contrary to the Şeriat. He describes it as the "Kanun-u Şer’i",17 or
Islamic Constitution, and "the Constitution which is founded on the Şeriat."18
"Costitutionalism and the Constitution about which you have heard," explained
Bediuzzaman, "consists of true justice and consultation enjoined by the
Şeriat."19
Bediuzzaman very often gives clear definitions of costitutionalism by
contrasting it with despotism:
"Despotism is oppression. It is dealing with other in an arbitrary
fashion. is compulsion relying on force. It is ıe opinion of one person. It provides
etremely favourable ground for exploitation. It is the basis of tyranny. It annihilates
humanity. It is despotism which reduces man to the most abjeet alleys of abasement, has
caused the Islamic world to sink into abjection and degradation, which arouses animosity
and malice, has poisoned Islam and in fact sows its poison everywhere by contagion, and
has caused endless conflict within Islam by giving rise to its deviants sects like the
Mu’tazile, Cebriyya, and Mürci’a…"20
Constitutionalism, on the other hand, is "the manifestation of the
Qur’anic verses ‘And consult them in affairs [of public concern],21 and ‘Whorule in
consuhltation among themselves’.22 It is the consultation enjoined by the Şeriat. This
luminous body’s life is truth, in place of force. Its heart is knowledge, its tongue,
love. Its mind is the law not an individual. Indeed, constitutionalism is the sovereignty
of the nation…’23 And again, "…the real meaning of constitutionalism is that
power lies in the law…"24
On another occasion Bediuzzaman stated: "I expounded and commented in
detail on the authentic connection between the Şeriat and constitutionalism in numerous
speeches. And I explained that tyrannous despotism has no connection with the Şeriat. For
according to the meaning of the Hadith, ‘A nation’s ruler is its servant’ the Şeriat came
to the world in order to extirpate oppression and despotic tyranny… And I said that
essentially, the true way of the Şeriat es the reality of constitutionalism in aceordance
with the Şeriat. That is to say, I accepted constitutionalism on proofs from the
Şeriat…"25 "…I claimed that it is possible to deduce the truths of
constitutionalism explicitly, implicitly, permissibly, from the Four Schoolls of Islamic
Law ."26
A further argument was: "The consensus of the community constitutes a
certain proof in the Şeriat. The opinion of the mass of the people forms a fundamental
principle in the Şeriat. The public wish is esteemed and respected in the Şeriat."27
On the question, "Some people say [constitutioalism] is contrary to
the Şeriat?" being put to him, Bediuzzaman replied: "The spirit of
constitutionalism is from the Şeriat. And its life is from it. But under force of
circumstance it may be that some details fall temporarily contrary to it. Also, it is not
necessary for all situations that arise during the constitutional period to have arisen
from eonstitutionalism. and what is there that confırms to the Şeriat in every
respect…?"28
Thus, Bediuzzaman’s approach can be seen to be realistic. While in essence
constitutionalism did not differ from Islamic principles, the extremely difficult
circumstances of the time demanded a measured and balanced approach. It was a question of
"making constitutionalism conform to the Şeriat meticulously and in a balanced
manner taking into account what is required."29
As for consultation, which, as is shown above, is enjoined by Islam,
Bediuzzaman frequently stressed it as constituent of eonstitutionalism. He described it as
"the key to the good fortune, felicity, and sovereignty of Islam."30 Because, due
to the nature of constitutionalism, consultation is practised in all areas of the state
and society. "Yes, this is the time of constitutionalism; consultation rules in
everything."31 That is to say, when constitutionalism is adopted by a government, it
spreads throughout the state and manifests itself as consultation, the supremacy of public
opinion and consensus. These and their accompanying unity, co-operation, and brotherhood
are fundamental to progress:
"When constitutionalism falls to the lot of a government, the idea of
freedom awakens constitutionalisn in every respect. It gives birth to a sort of
constitutionalism in every area and walk of life, according to the calling of each. It
results in a sort of constitutionalism among the ulemâ, in the medreses, and among the
students. Indeed, it inspires a particular constitutionalism and renewal in all walks of
life. It is flashes of consultation, then hinting of the sun of happiness, and inspring
desire, mutual attraction, and harmony, that have caused me to love the Constitutional
Government so much…"32
Bediuzzaman also describes scientific progress in terms of ‘historical
consultation’, and stresses its importance:
"Just as the consultation of the ages and centuries that mankind has
practised by means of histroy, a ‘conjunction of ideas’ or ‘meeting of minds’, formed the
basis of the progress and sciences of all mankind, so too one reason for the backwardness
of Asia, the largest continent, was the failure to practise that true consultation. The
key and discloser of the continent of Asia and its future is mutual eonsultation. That is
to say, just as individuals should consult with one another, so must nations and
continents also practise consultation.."33
As regards Freedom, as is clear from the Address to Freedom, it could only
be the source of progress if the Şeriat was taken as the basis of it. It did not consist
of absolute freedom or Iicence. While technology and industry could be imported from
Europe, which in any case were not the property of the West, the Ottomans stood in no need
of their culture, morals, and "the evils of civilization".
"I declare with all my strength," said Bediuzzaman, "that
our progress will only occur through the progress of Islam, which is our nationality, and
through the manifestation of the truths of the Şeriat. Otherwise we shall confirm the
saying, ‘he abandoned his own way of walking, and did not learn anyone else’s."34
Bediuzzaman defined Freedom as follows:
"Delicate Freedom is instructed and adorned by the good manners of
the Şeriat. Freedom to be dissolute and behave scandalously is not Freedom. Rather, it is
animality. It is the tyranny of the Devil. It is to be the slave of the evil-commanding
soul. General Freedom is the product of the portions of individual Freedom. The
characteristic of Freedom is that one harms neither oneself, nor others."35
"Freedom is this: apart from the law of justice and punishment, no
one can dominate over anyone else. Everybody’s rights are protected. In their legitimate
actions, everyone is royally free. The prohibition: ‘Take not one from among yourselves as
Lord over you apart from God’ is manifest.36
That is to say, "Freedom springs from
belief in God." for, "belief requires not degrading others through tyranny and
oppression, and abasing them, and not abasing oneself before oppressors. Someone who is a
true slave of God cannot be a slave to others."37 "That is to say, however prefected belief is, Freedom will shine to
that degree."38
Bediuzzaman say that Freedom is not to be absolved from all the ties of
social life and civilization, "Rather, what shines Iike the sun, is the beloved of
every soul, and is the equal of the essence of humanity is that Freedom which is seated in
the felicitous palace of civilization and is adorned with knowledge, virtue, and the good
manners and raimend of Islam."39
The positive results of Freedom with regard to progress were in part noted
above in the Address to Freedom: unity, love of the nation, the end to "personel
enmity and thoughts of revenge", and also to extravagance and vice; the elimination
of the chains on human thought; the rearing of a new, generation of able men to run the
country. In another work he says it is Islamic Freedom "which teaches mankind exalted
aims in the form of competition for exalted things, and causes them to strive on that way;
which shatters despotism; and excites exalted emotions and destroys jealousy, envy,
malice, and rivalry, and is furnished with true awakening, the eagerness of competition,
the tendency towards renewal, and the predisposition for civilization… It has been
fitted out with the inclination and desire for the highest perfections worthy of
humanity."40
Indeed, Freedom was the means of "the progress of Islam’. Bediuzzaman
eclared that "Freedom is the only way of delivering three hundred and seventy million
strong Islam from captivity."41 And that: "The Ottomans’ Freedom is the discloser
of mighty Asia’s good fortune. It is the key to the prosperity of Islam. It is the
foundation of the ramparts of Islamic unity."42
Bediuzzaman explains this in terms of a reawakening of the consciousness
of "Islamic nationhood" among individual Muslims. That is to say, as a result of
Freedom, sovereignty now lies with the nation, or Islamic community, and "each
individual Muslim possesses an actual part of the sovereignty."43 Bediuzzaman’s use of
scientific language and metaphors in the first of the following passages shows that he
wanted to demonstrate that this was the first step on the road to scientific advance and
civilization:
"Freedom has made manifest nationhood. The luminous jewel of Islam
within the shell of nationhood has begun to appear. It has given news of Islam’s stirring
and motion [showing] that each Muslim is not independent like an atom, but is part of a
compound, interconnected and ascending.., Each is united with all the other parts through
the general attraction of Islam."44 And:
"Islamic Freedom and the consultation enjoined by the Şeriat have
made marıifest the sovereignty of our true nationhood. The foundation and spirit of our
true nationhood is Islam… Thus through the bond of this sacred nationhood, all the
people of Islam become like a single tribe… They assist one another morally and if
necessary, materially…"45
A further point Bediuzzaman frequently stressed was that in this modern
age material progress was the most effective way of ‘upholding the Word of God’, with
which every believer is charged. In other words, it was a fundamental duty of all Ottomans
and Muslims to work for progress.
"Each believer is charged with ‘upholding the Word of God’. In this
age, the greatest cause of this is to progress materially, for the Europeans are morally
crushing us under their tyranny with thew eapons of science and industry. We, therefore,
shall wage holy war with the weapons of science and industry on the greatest enemies of
‘upholding the Word of God’, which are ignorance, poverty, and conflicting ideas. And we
shall refer external holy war to the diamond sword of the certain proofs of the
Illustrious Şeriat.
For the civilized are to be conquered through persuasion and being
convinced, not through compulsion as though they were savages who understand
nothing."46
For Bediuzzaman, then, "Constitutionalism within the sphere of the
Şeriat" was "teh means of upholding the might of Islam and exalting the Word of
God."47
Beduuaman Combats Disunity and Secularism
There followed after the proclamation of the Constitution a period of open
and vigorous debate made possible by the new freedom of thought and expression.
Bediuzzaman took every advantage of this, endeavouring to further the cause of Islam and
unity through every means possible. He gave speeches, addressed gatherings, and published
articles in many of the newspapers and journals that appeared with the advent of Freedom,
together with publishing a number of independent works.
Although the debate centred on the old questions of how progress could be
secured and the Empire saved, the tension created by external and internal pressures
caused a polarization and hardening of ideas. There were broadly seen to be three main
answers: westernization, Islam, and increasingly, in reaction to the sparatist activities
of the minorities, Turkish nationalism. These did not necessarily run parallel to the
political parties which developed, and adherents to all three currents were to be found
within the Committee of Union and Progress, though the image it acquired was predominantly
secular and Western. Following the Revolution the CUP remained in the background with its
headquarters in Salonica, largely making its presence felt through established figures.
The proclamation of the Constitution had been met with widespread
rejoicing and optimism; it was seen to be the cure for all the many and serious ills
afflicting the Empire. But those high and fervent hopes were soon to he dashed. Almost
immediately there were substantial losses of territor, and rather than serving unity, the
first parliament opened five months later, intensified division. In pursuing its aim of
holding the empire together through its strong centralist policies, the CUP increasingly
resorted to force. The 31st of March Incident provided it with the opportunity to disband
the opposition parties and restrict political freedom. Though the opposition reformed,
within five years the CUP had set up the military dictatorship that was to lead the Empire
to its final collapse in 1918.
In the first months of Freedom, opposition to the CUP was centred in the
Liberals, or Ahrar, who, with hasty preparations, were the only party to challenge the new
regime in the first elections at the end of 1908. Their leader was Prince Sabahaddin Bey,
a nephew of Sultan Abdulhamid aild rival in their days of exile in Paris to Ahmed Rıza,
who became one of the main ideologues of the CUP. While the CUP were committed to a policy
of strong central government, following a different school of French philosophers,
Sabahaddin Bey had developed what he believed would be the solution for the Empire based
on the totally opposite principles of ‘Personal Initiative and Decentralization’. These
ideas, which involved a devolvement of power from the Government to the various millets
and religious and ethnic minorities, aroused extreme opposition.
Included in Bediuzzaman’s first work, Nutuk, (Speech) published in 1910,
is an open letter to Sabahaddin bey entitled, Reply to Prince Sabahaddin Bey’s Good but
Misunderstood Idea.48
In it Bediuzzaman points out that a federal system for the Ottoman Empire
ivas theoretically aceeptable but because the level of development of the different
millets and groups varied greatly, it was not practicable at that time. "Life lies in
unity", he wrote. It is interesting to note that at that time of mudslinging,
intimidation, and political violence, Sabahaddin Bey himself commented on Bediuzzaman’s
"intellectual excellence", describin his manner of address of as "the very
model of polite discourse."49
Bediuzzaman likened "love of the nation" to the attraction
between particles; just as the latter-caused the formation of a mass, so did "love of
the nation’ result in the formation of a eohesive whole. It was through strengthening
these bonds of unity and awareness and love of the nation that a harmony of progress could
be achieved. Bediuzzaman did not believe that national differences should be erased, on
the contrary as we have seen, it was his v iew that the Government should be working to
raise all the elements of the Empire to the same level through programmes geared to
"the intellectual capacity and national customs of each." This would result in
healthy competition.
Quite correctly as it turned out, Bediuzzaman warned Sabahaddin
Bey that the idea of decentralization and "its nephews’ the political clubs and
organizations of the various minorities, would lead to autonomy, and "rending
the veil of Ottomanism and constitutionalism", to independence and an army of
small states. Bediuzzaman could not equate the breaking-up of the Empire,
stirring up of discord, and destruction of the future with the patriotism and
nobility of such a gifted and highly-educated person. As believers in God’s
Unity, they were charged with establishing unity and cultivating love of the
nation. Islam was sufficient. Solutions should be sough within the framework of
Islam.50
Reflecting the attitude of many, of the CUP and their followers in this
period, there was a general air of laxty, exsess, and carelessness in matters of religion.
In the face of the circulation so many new, ideas from Europe, this was coupled with
uncertainty and confusion as to religion and its role. It is in this light that
Bediuzaman’s enormous concern to address the intellectuals and to educate as many people
as he could reach from all levels of society about the true meaning of Freedom,
constitutionalism, and the vital role of Islam in progress shold be seen.
Another open letter Bediuzzaman wrote was in December 1908 to Hüseyin
Cahid, the editor of the Tanin, the chief press organ of the CUP. He was at the same time
one of their leading ideologues. An influential, proponent of cultural as well as material
Westernization, Hüseyin Cahid campaigned for the cause of secularization, that is, the
separation of religion from all state affairs. It was in answer to his broaching this
vexed question in a leading article in the Tanin on medrese reform that Bediuzzaman wrote
his open letter.
The gist of the letter was that, having failed to grasp the true nature of
Islam, Hüseyin Cahid had made the mistake of attempting to compare it with Christianity.
Bediuzzaman quoted the maxim ‘There is no clergy in Islam and explained that is was a
basic tenet and not open to dispute. It was not possible to compare Christian sects and
orders with Sufism, because Islam is a total order and system of living. The duties of
worship which Islam imposes cannot be separated from the Şeriat, because the Şeriat doas
not leave them as theoretical, but makes them the very order of life. Islam is the only
religion the ordinances of whivh provide "eternal eriteria" for its members in
both the life of this world and the Hereafter. Bediuzzaman understands too that change is
necessary and points out that the reinterpretation of the Şeriat is a duty that should
not be restricted to non-particular matters, but also applied to particular ordinances
based on custom and usage. He urges Hüseyin Cahid to realize and appreciate the dynamic
nature of the Şeriat, "which accepts the principle of change in judgements in the
face of changing times."
Bediuzzaman concluded his open letter by advising Hüseyin Cahid to save
himself the pointless trouble of examining imported goods such as secularism when there is
"the magnificent entity and power" of the Şeriat "which provides for every
aspect of the communtity’s life, and came into existence only through the Qur’an, the
perpetual miracle of the religion of Islam."51
"Europe is pregnant with Islam"
In the autumn of 1908, one of the leading members of the famous el-Ezher
University in Cairo, and at one time Grand Mufti of Egypt, Şeyh Muhammed Bahid52 visited
Istanbul. The Istanbul ulema, who themselves had been unable to better Bediuzzaman in
argument and debate, asked Şeyh Bahid if he would be prepared to meet him.
The Şeyh accepted, and an opportunity was found one day after the prayers
in Aya Sophia. Bediuzzaman ivas seated in a tea-house. Other ulema also being present,
Şeyh Bahid approached Bediuzzaman, and put the following question to him:
"What is your opinion concerning Freedom and the Ottoman State, and
European civilization?"
Bediuzzaman’s unhesitating reply revealed his realism and insight.
"The Ottoman State is pregnant with Europe, and it will give birth to
an European state one day. And Europe is pregnant with Islam; one day it will give birth
to an Islamic state."
Şeyh Bahid applauded this answer.
"One cannot argue with th is young man’, he said. "I am of the
same opinion myself. But only Bediuzzaman could express it so suecinctly and
eloquently."53
Bediuzzaman Maintains Public Order
As the great effusion of optimism at the coming of Freedom was trensformed
into disillusion and views and parties became more polarized, the situation generally
became increasingly volatile and unstable. Thus, in order that constitutionalism could
become established and its benefits be obtained, Bediuzzaman did whatever he could to
maintain public order and harmony. There are many examples, such as the following.
The first major blows to the Empire under the new regime occurred soon
after the Constitution was proclaimed. On 5 October,1908, Austria annexed
Bosnia-Herzogovina, and Bulgaria proclaimed independence, while on the 6th Greece annexed
Crete. In responsse to this, on the lOth October, the people of Istanbul declared a
boycott on all Austrian goods and the places where they were sold. The twenty thousand or
so Kurdish porters on whom the commercial life of Istanbul depended defied their foremen
and were preparing to go on strike. The whole business started to get out of hand. To
avert this threat to Istanbul’s trade and business life, Bediuzzaman went immediately to
the tea-houses and places the porters frequented and persuaded them to avoid any extreme
action.
In one place, the Aşiret Han, immediately gaining command of the
situation with his fine voice, Bediuzzaman said the following to the porters:
"You are all from the East like me and you have all crossed the
Tigris and the Euphrates on rafts. You know too that on one occasion a group crossing the
Tigris on a raft tried to get rid of some of the ropes and crossbeams of which the raft
was composed in order to lighten the load and move more swiftly. Of course, on doing this
the main planks of the raft came apart and both themselves and their belogings ended up in
the water.
"In the same way, your foremen are like the ropers and cross-beams;
they do not appear to serve any purpose but in fact they are vital. If they were to go,
your harmony would be spoilt and your work confused. Just like the raft that sank, you
would be compelled to split up and disperse."
With this the insurrection came to nothing. The porters understood their
mistake, and obeying their foremen, returned to w ork immediately. The Istanbul Chief of
Police later came in person to offer his thanks to Bediuzzaman for preventing a harmful
situation developing.54
Another occasion Bediuzzaman played a similar role was at a lecture given
by the well-konw n figure and owner of the Mizan newspaper, Mizancı Murad Bey, in the
Ferah Theatre in Şehzadebaşı in Istanbul. The subject of the lecture was the rise and
fall of the Roman Empire, and as the lecture progressed it became clear that Murad Bey,
who had previously represented the ‘Islamist’ group of the Young Turks, was comparing the
Committee of Union and Progress and the Government to the Roman state. His comparisons
became more explicit, and the CUP supporters among the audience started muttering and
grumbling. Murad Bey continued with this criticisms unperturbed, not waverig even when
threatened by a man with a revolver. But when the muttering developed into shouting and
stamping, his opponents had their way and he was unable to continue. He withdrew into the
wings, and the curtain was lowered. But the hubbub did not abate. On the contrary, the
audience, now divided into two camps, started pushing and shoving and flinging insults and
abuse at each other. No one attempted to leave, and no one attempted to intervene.
Suddenly, someone sprang nimbly onto his seat and shouted above the din:
"O you Muslims one and all!" It was Bediuzzaman. Having commanded the attention
of the whole audience, he pointed out that freedom of speech had to be respected, it was
shameful for members of a nation that had just proclaimed Freedom and constitutionalism to
exceed the bounds of good behaviour and prevent a speaker from lecturing in this way. The
religion of Islam olso commanded that ideas be respected. He supported what he said with
verses from the Qur’an and Hadiths, gave examples from Islamic history, and told them of
how the Prophet Muhammed used to consult the ideas of other and related his teachingis and
words, then advised them all to disperse quietly and go on their way.
Bediuzzaman spoke so well and eonv incingly that no one
objected. Even the roughs and rowdies who a few minutes earlier had been hurling
invective and abuse said nothing. Everyone left the theatre thornughly subdued
and contrite.55
The writer of the work from which the deseription of the above event is
taken, Münir Süleyman Çapanoğlu, had further memories from that time, which he told
Necmeddin Şahiner in an interview in 1972. He said:
"…Certainly, he [Bediuzzaman] was someone who knew his theories
well and could defend them well. He began way back at that time, he began in the
Costitutional Period. He went at the same tempo, at the same speed, in the same direction,
and defended the same ideas… They were frightened of him at that time the sanıe as in
this period, because whenever he came out onto the street, he was immediately surounded by
a crowd."
On being asked if these were his on student who flocked round him, Münir
Çapanoğlu contiued:
"Both his students and the ordinary people. But mostly the people;
they wanted to see him, they walıted to hear him speak. I myself witnessed this many
times. He spoke beautifully. He spoke persuasively…"56
We learn from one of his works that on the Constitution being proclaimed,
Bediuzzaman sent fifty to sixty telegranıs to the Eastern Provinces through the Grand
Vizier’s Office urging all the tribes to accept it, saying: "Constitutionalism and
the Constitution about which you have heard consists of true justice and the consultation
enjoined by the Şeriat. Consider it favourably and work to preserve it, for our worldly
happiness lies in constitutionalism. And we have suffered more than anyone from
despotism."57
The Constitution was not without opponents, particularly in the East where
those whose interests were threatened were seeking to turn all the tribes against it with
negative propaganda. While Bediuzzaman spent several months in the summer of 1910
travelling among them explaining its vital importance both for the Kurds and the Empire
and Islamic world, as we shall see, at this point his efforts were confined to the written
word.
In Istanbul, too, profiting from their ignorance and naivity, opponents of
constitutionalism were trying to provoke the Kurdish porters against the Constitution. In
response, Bediuzzaman took every opportunity to combat this negative propaganda and
illuminate them concerning it. The text of one of his addresses to them is included in
Nutuk In this speech it is unity that Bediuzzaman is most insistent on. He told them that
they had three enemies that were destroying them "poverty, ignorance, and internal
conflict", but that they now had to secure "three diamond swords", with
which to rout the three enemies and preserve themselves. These were "national unity,
human endeavour, and love of the nation".
That is to say, first the Kurds had to achieve unity among themselves,
then making over the resulting "mighty force" to the Government and expending it
outwardly, they would make themselves worthy of justice, and in return for it would demand
justice and their rights from the Government. "…The Turks are our intelligence, and
we are their strength, together we make a whole person. We shall not resist them, nor
rebel against them. With this resolution of ours; we shall be a good example to the other
minority peoples [elements] of the Empire… If we obeyed [the Government] ‘to batman’s
worth’ of obedience and unity are neccassary. For we shall see only benefits, because the
Constitutional Government is in truth government based on the Şeriat… In unity lies
strength; in union, life; in brotherhood, happiness; in obedience to the Government,
well-being. It is vital to hold fast to the strong rope of unity and bond of unity and
bond of love."58
A further occasion Bediuzzaman calmed a tense situation was at a mass
protest organized by the medrese student in Beyazid in Istanbul in February 1909.
Traditionally, students of the religious schools were exempt from military service of any
kind, but following the proclamtion of the Constitution, the Government had decided to
introduce an examination on the pretext that the privilege was being abused. Students who
passed the examination were to be exempt from militar service, while for those who failed
it military service would be compulsory. The students had organized the meeting ostensibly
to protest at the very short time they had been given to prepare for the examination.
The meeting was becoming fairly turbulent by the time Bediuzzaman reached
it. Well-known to the students, he addressed them explaining the authentic relationship
between the Şeriat and consitutionalism and pointing out that despotism could in no way
be associated with the Şeriat. In a short time he calmed the situation and prevented any
serious disturbance occurring.
Dipnotlar
1. Kutay, Cemal, Bediüzzaman,186
2. İbid.,310;Şahiner, N. Said Nursi,98.
3. Shaw and Shaw, History, ii,264-5
4. İbid., 274.
5. Mardin, Şerif, Continuity and change in the Idas of the young Turks,
Istanbul,1969,23
6. Barla Lahikası, 191.
7. Kutay, Cemal, Bediüzzaman, 255.
8. Kutay, Cemal, Tarih Sohbetleri, i, 203-4; Tarihçe,57; Şahiner, N. Said
Nursi, 99
9. İbid., 99-100
10. Kutay, Cemal, Bediüzzaman,260-1, fn.18, quoted from, Memoirs of Atıf
Bey, Millet Mecmuası.
11. Vakkasoğlu, A.Vehbi, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi’den Siyasi
Tesbitler, Istanbul, 1977, 17.
12. Asar-ı Bediyye,347.
13. Ibid, 347-356; Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,56-70.
14. The term of Şeriat should be understood as signifying not only the
injunctions and prohibitions of the Law in a narrow sense, but the entire body of Islamic
teaching.Bediüzzaman’s arguments demonstrating the conformity of constitutionalism with
the Şeriat are given following the speech.
16. Hutbe-i Şamiye,47.
17. Hürriyet’e Hitab, in Asar-ı Bediyye , 348, and, Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,57.
18. Op,cit.349 and, 59.
19. Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,12.
20. Münâzarât(Ott.edn.),in Asar-ı Bediyye,406.
21. Qur’an,3:159.
22. Qur’an,42:38.
23. Münâzarât(Ott.edn.),in Asar-ı Bediyye,407.
24. Ibid.,415
25. Divan-ı Harb-i Örfî,13.
26. Ibid.,16
27. Münâzarât(Ott.edn.),in Asar-ı Bediyye,417.
28. Ibid.,416
29. Ibid.,417
30. Divan-ı Harbi Örfî, 41.
31. Muhâkemat,20
32. Münâzarât(Ott.edn.),in Asar-ı Bediyye,411.
33. Hutbe-i Şamiye,52-3.
34. Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,34
35. Münâzarât,15-16.
36. İbid.,17.
37. Hutbe-i Şamiye,53.
38. Münâzarât,19.
39. İbid.,18.
40. Hutbe-i Şamiye,29-30.
41. Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,41.
42. Münâzarât,21
43. Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,41.
44. Münâzarât,23.
45. Hutbe-i Şamiye,47.
46. Hakikat, Volkan No.70,26 Şubat 1325/5 March1909,in Asar-ı Bediyye,368.
47. Lemean-ı Hakikat ve Izale-i Şübehat, Volkan No. 101, 29 Mart 1325/11 April 1909,
in Asar-ı Bediyye,393.
48. Asar-ı Bediyye,356.
49. Kutay, Cemal, Hakikat Pırlantaları, Köprü Magazine No.36, March 1980, 33.
50. See also, Şahiner, N. Said Nursi,114-115; Kutay, Cemal, Bediüzzaman,199-211;Kutay,
Tarih Sohbetleri, IV,363-4.
51. Kutay, Tarih Sohbetleri, V,198-202;Kutay, Bediüzzaman,226-232;Şahinler,N. Said
Nursi,108-110.
52. For further biographical details of Şeyh Bahid,d.1935, see Şahiner, Son Şahitler,
IV,363-4.
53. Tarihçe,49-50; Emirdağ Lahikası, I,108; Şahiner, N. Said Nursi,111-112,as
related by Historian Cemal Kutay.
55. Çapanoğlu, Münir Süleyman, Türkiye’de Sosyalizm Hareketleri ve Sosyalist Hilmi,
as in Şahiner, N. Said Nursi,110,111.
56. Şahiner, N. Nurs Yolu,131.
57. Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,12-13.
58. Asar-ı Bediyye, 358-9; Şahiner, N. Said Nursi,112,113.
59. Ibid.,115-116; Divan-ı Harbi Örfî,17