We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 August 2015
This article focuses on how late Ottoman intellectuals selectively read the sociologist Emile Durkheim and used his thoughts to rediscover and reform their own classical, normative Islamic and social theories. Emile Durkheim, a late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century French thinker who combined philosophy with social and political issues, powerfully inspired one of the late Ottoman intellectual circles that aimed to provide theoretical underpinnings for a significant transformation of Turkish society. The article takes a closer look at the school of Ziya Gökalp, the acknowledged pioneer of social thought in Turkey, highlighting also lesser-known works of some of his followers, and how they perceived—in distinct ways—Durkheim's views in a Gökalpian manner, seeking a new synthesis with Islamic legal and religious interpretations to modernize their society in connection with the past. It thus explores some creative Ottoman appropriations of Durkheimian methodology for a different cultural environment.
I thank Cengiz Kırlı, Susan Gunasti, Farid Alatas, Allison Kanner, and Helen Pfeifer for reading various drafts of this article and offering valuable comments and suggestions. I am also thankful to the three anonymous readers of Modern Intellectual History and coeditor Sophia Rosenfeld for their contributon to its final revision process.
1 Influenced by Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825) and Auguste Comte (1798–1857), Durkheim emphasized the mechanistic and deterministic character of communal representations based on the collective consciousness of social groups. He combined philosophy with social and political issues and with the theory of the division of labor, corporatism, and social idealism. He criticized metaphysical rationalism, historical materialism, and utilitarian individualism. See Alexander, Jeffrey C., “The Inner Development of Durkheim's Sociological Theory: From Early Writings to Maturity,” in Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Smith, Philip, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim (Cambridge, 2005), 136–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Berkes, Niyazi, The Development of Secularism in Turkey, 2nd edn (London, 1998)Google Scholar; Heyd, Uriel, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya Gökalp (London, 1950)Google Scholar; Parla, Taha, The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp 1876–1924 (Leiden, 1985)Google Scholar; Davison, Andrew, Secularism and Revivalism in Turkey: A Hermeneutic Reconsideration (New Haven, 1998), 90–133 Google Scholar.
3 The contribution of these supporters to Gökalpian ideas is highlighted by a prominent sociologist in the republican period. See Fındıkoğlu, Ziyaeddin Fahri, Gökalp İçin Yazdıklarım ve Söylediklerim (Istanbul, 1955), 60–61 Google Scholar.
4 For unpublished dissertations on the followers of Gökalp see Sami Erdem, “Tanzimat Sonrası Osmanlı Hukuk Düşüncesinde Fıkıh Usulü Kavramları ve Modern Yaklaşımlar” (Ph.D. dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2003); and Mustafa Gökçek, “A Kazan Tatar Contribution to the Late Ottoman Debates on Nationalism and Islam: The Life and Works of Halim Sabit Şibay (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2008); Nevzat Güle, “Ortadoğu ve İslâm Ülkeleri Entellektüel Yaşamında Din Adamlarının Sekülerleşme Projeleri ve M. Şerafeddin Yaltkaya Örneği (MA dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2002).
5 Gibb, H. A. R., Modern Trends in Islam (Chicago, 1945), 92 Google Scholar.
6 Heyd, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism, 97 n. 2.
7 Dönmez, İbrahim Kafi, “Örf,” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 34 (2007), 91–2Google Scholar.
8 For the translation movement of the period and a list of translated books see Akbayar, Nuri, “Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Çeviri,” in Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol. 2 (Istanbul, 1985), 447–51Google Scholar.
9 Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, The Young Turks in Opposition (New York, 1995), 12–13 Google Scholar.
10 Büchner, Ludwig, Madde ve Kuvvet, trans. from the French edn Force et matière by Tevfik, Baha and Nebil, Ahmed (Istanbul, 1911)Google Scholar; and Haeckel, Ernst, Vahdet-i Mevcud: Bir Tabiat Aliminin Dini, trans. from the French edn Monisme by Tevfik, Baha (Istanbul, 1911)Google Scholar. For Büchner, Haeckel, and other materialist thinkers of the period see Gregory, Frederick, Scientific Materialism in Nineteenth Century Germany (Dordrecht and Boston, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, Preparation for Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902–1908 (Oxford, 2001), 305 Google Scholar. Also see Burçak, Berrak, “Science, a Remedy for All Ills: Healing “The Sick Man of Europe”: A Case for Ottoman Scientism” (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 2005)Google Scholar.
12 A.R., “Le Docteur Robinet,” Mechveret, 86 (15 Nov. 1899). Robinet's La philosophie positive: Auguste Comte et M. Pierre Laffitte (Paris, 1881) had a great influence on Rıza.
13 For example, Zeki, Salih and Salih, Halide, “Auguste Comte, Felsefe-i Müsbet,” Ulum-i İktisadiyye ve İctimaiyye Mecmuası, 1/2 (1906), 163–97Google Scholar.
14 Descartes, René, Usul Hakkında Nutuk, trans. Edhem, İbrahim (Istanbul, 1894)Google Scholar; Barbe, Abbé E., Tarih-i Felsefe, trans. İsrail, Bohor (Istanbul, 1914)Google Scholar; Bertrand, Alexis, Mebadi-i Felsefe-i İlmiyye ve Felsefe-i Ahlakiyye, Kitab-i evvel: Felsefe-i İlmiyye, trans. Zeki, Salih (Istanbul, 1915)Google Scholar; Poincaré, Henri, Ilim ve Faraziye: Felsefe-i İlmiye, trans. Zeki, Salih, 2nd edn (Istanbul, 1927)Google Scholar.
15 See, for example, Bourdel, Charles, İlim ve Felsefe (Le science et la philosophie), trans. Ayni, Mehmed Ali (Istanbul, 1913)Google Scholar; Fonsegrive, Georges, Mebadi-yi Felsefeden İlmu’n-nefs (Eléments de philosophie: Psychologie), trans. Naim, Babanzade Ahmed (Istanbul, 1913)Google Scholar; Seailles, Paul Janet-Gabriel, Tahlili Tarih-i Felsefe: Metalib ve mezahib (Histoire de la philosophie: les problems et les ecoles), trans. Hamdi, Elmalılı (Istanbul, 1923)Google Scholar.
16 See İrem, Nazım, “Undercurrents of European Modernity and the Foundations of Modern Turkish Conservatism: Bergsonism in Retrospect,” Middle Eastern Studies, 40/4 (2004), 79–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 See Erişçi, Lütfi, “Türkiye’de Sosyolojinin Tarihçesi ve Bibliyografyası,” Sosyoloji Dergisi, 1 (1942), 158–69Google Scholar.
18 Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, “Durkheim et l’enseignement des sciences sociales en Turquie,” Sosyoloji Dergisi, 15 (1960), 7–27, at 13–14 Google Scholar.
19 The journal issues (1–6) have recently been transliterated into modern Turkish by Mehmet Kanar (Istanbul, 1997). The earliest sociological journals are considered to be the American Journal of Sociology (1895) and L’année sociologique (1896).
20 Randall Collins, “The Durkheimian Movement in France and World Sociology,” in Alexander and Smith, The Cambridge Companian to Durkheim, 101–35, at 119. See also Parla, Taha and Davison, Andrew, Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey (Syracuse, 2004), 26–7Google Scholar.
21 Gökalp, Ziya, Türkleşmek, İslamlaşmak, Muasırlaşmak (Istanbul, 1918)Google Scholar.
22 For his life see Fındıkoğlu, Ziyaeddin Fahri, Les sociologues Turcs I: Ziya Gökalp étude biographique, publiée a l’occasion de l’anniversaire de la mort de Ziya Gökalp (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar; Heyd, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism, 17–40; and Parla, The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 10–17.
23 Gökalp, Ziya, Makaleler V, ed. Kardaş, Rıza (Ankara, 1981), 91 Google Scholar.
24 Ibid., 106.
25 Fındıkoğlu, Les sociologues Turcs I: Ziya Gökalp, 20, 25.
26 See Gökalp, Ziya, “Ahlaka ve Terbiyeye Tatbik Edilmiş Muhtasar İctimaiyat,” in Göksel, A. Nüzhet, ed., Ziya Gökalp’in Neşredilmemiş Yedi Eseri ve Aile Mektupları (Istanbul, 1956), 62–5, at 64Google Scholar.
27 Gökalp, Ziya, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp, trans. Berkes, Niyazi (London, 1959), 36 Google Scholar, quoted from “Babamın Vasiyeti,” Küçük Mecmua, 17 (1923).
28 Gökalp, Ziya, Makaleler IV, ed. Tuncer, Ferit Ragıp (Ankara, 1977), 43–4Google Scholar. Also see Çelik, Celaleddin, “Gökalp’in Bir Değişim Dinamiği Olarak Kültür-Medeniyet Teorisi,” Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21 (2006), 43–63 Google Scholar.
29 Nefes, Türkay Salim, “Ziya Gökalp's Adaptation of Emile Durkheim's Sociology in His Formulation of the Modern Turkish Nation,” International Sociology, 28/3 (2013), 335–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 See Seyfi Kenan, “Education under the Impact of Mechanistic and Positivistic Worldviews: The Case of Turkish Socio-educational Transformations (1923–1940)” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 2003).
31 Moaddel, Mansoor, Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse (Chicago, 2005), 157 Google Scholar.
32 Özavcı, Hilmi Özkan, “Differing Interpretations of La Conscience Collective and ‘the İndividual’ in Turkey: Émile Durkheim and the Intellectual Origins of the Republic,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 75/1 (2014), 113–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 He further argues that just as breathing with gills is normal for fish but not for mammals, the vendetta is normal in a tribal society but not in a developed society. Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 151, quoted from Gökalp, “Ahlak İctimai midir?,” İctimaiyat Mecmuası, 1/3 (1917), 112–15.
34 Gökalp, Ziya, “Örf Nedir?”, İslam Mecmuası (hereafter İM), 10 (1914), 290–95Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 155.
35 Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 162, quoting from Gökalp, “Ictimaiyat ve Fikriyat: Cemiyette Büyük Adamların Tesiri,” İctimaiyat Mecmuası, 2 (1914), 4–8.
36 Gökalp, “Örf Nedir?,” İM, 10 (1914), 290–95; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 154. For similar statements by Durkheim see Pickering, W. S. F., Durkheim's Sociology of Religion (London, 1984), 488 Google Scholar.
37 For Durkheim, “society requires us to make ourselves its servants, forgetful of our own interests.” See Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. Fields, Karen E. (New York, 1995), 209 Google Scholar.
38 Kushner, David, The Rise of Turkish Nationalism 1876–1908 (London, 1977), 3–19 Google Scholar.
39 Göçek, Fatma Müge, “The Decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Emergence of Greek, Armenian, Turkish Nationalisms,” in Göçek, , ed., Social Constructions of Nationalisms in the Middle East (Albany, NY, 2002), 22 Google Scholar.
40 Rae, Heather, State Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples (Cambridge, 2002), 124–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Üngör, Uğur Ümit, The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950 (Oxford, 2011), 55–122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Ali Arslan, “Prince Sabahaddin and His Sociology” (MA dissertation, Boğaziçi University, 1987); Akkaya, Rukiye, Prens Sabahaddin (Istanbul, 2005)Google Scholar.
42 Durkheim, Emile, The Rules of Sociological Methods, trans. Halls, W. D. (London, 1982), 31–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 421, 427, 432–33.
44 Durkheim's Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse on native Australian tribes aimed to prove this theory, which suggested that there is no major difference between the symbolic statue of Churinga and nationalist flags. Australian natives regard Churinga as representing the sacred totem, and flags are normally ordinary colored cloths that represent the sovereignty of modern nations. See Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 228–31.
45 Ibid., 208.
46 Dodd, Clement H., Democracy and Development in Turkey (North Hemberside, 1979), 83 Google Scholar.
47 Duru, Kazım Nami, Ziya Gökalp (Istanbul, 1975), 83 and 87Google Scholar; Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, Türkiye’de Çağdaş Düşünce Tarihi (Istanbul, 1992), 331 Google Scholar.
48 On İslam Mecmuası and its place in and influence on late Ottoman thought see Arai, Masami, Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era (Leiden, 1992), 83–95 Google Scholar; Tuba Çavdar, “İslam Mecmuasının Türk Dönemsel Yayını İçindeki Yeri ve Önemi” (unpublished MA dissertation, Istanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 1988); Akpolat-Davud, Yıldız, “II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Sosyolojisinin Kaynakları-II: İslam Mecmuasi,” Türkiye Günlüğü, 45 (1997), 204–18Google Scholar. Gökalp's, Ziya articles in the first and second volumes of this journal are also published in Ziya Gökalp, Makaleler-VIII, ed. Tuncer, Ferit Ragıp (Ankara, 1981), 16–35 Google Scholar; and are included in appendices (with articles by some other authors) in Şentürk, Recep, Modernleşme ve Toplumbilim (Istanbul, 1996), 297–338 Google Scholar.
49 Gökalp, Ziya, “Dinin İctimai Hizmetleri-II,” İM, 36 (1915), 772–6Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 186.
50 Gökalp, Ziya, “Fıkıh ve İctimaiyat,” İM, 2 (1914), 41–3Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 194.
51 Gökalp, , “Dinin İctimai Hizmetleri-II,” İM, 36 (1915), 772–6Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 186. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 34–9.
52 Gökalp, Ziya, “Dinin İctimai Hizmetleri-III,” İM, 37 (1915), 291–6Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 192.
53 Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 419–20. Cf. also Lukes, Steven, Emile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study (London, 1988), 470–77Google Scholar.
54 Yılmaz, İhsan, Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in Modern Nation States: Dynamic Legal Pluralisms in England, Turkey and Pakistan (London, 2005), 101 Google Scholar.
55 The place of religion in Gökalpian modernism raised questions among researchers. As Parla, The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 38–40, emphasized in 1989, Gökalp was interested in religion's social function of binding individuals together in a solidaristic nation. The ethical and spiritual aspects of Islam were needed, but its legal and metaphysical basis should be left open to society's acceptance, which is a move toward secularism. Davison, Secularism and Revivalism in Turkey, 129–33, however, suggests that Gökalp's secularism left a place for religion and therefore did not totally exclude it, pointing out the important role of Islam in Gökalp's thought and the lack of clear justification for state control of religion in his writings.
56 Günay, Ünver, “Ziya Gökalp ve Din Sosyolojisi,” Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3 (1989), 223–35, specifically 229Google Scholar.
57 Günay, Ünver, “Gökalp Milli Kimlik ve Din,” in Günay, Ünver and Çelik, Celaleddin, eds., Türk Kimliğinin Yeniden İnşası Bağlamında Ziya Gökalp (Istanbul, 2010), 9–58 Google Scholar.
58 Gökalp, Ziya, The Principles of Turkism, trans. and annotated by Devereux, Robert (Leiden, 1967)Google Scholar.
59 See Gökalp, Ziya, “İslamiyet ve Asri Medeniyet,” İM, 51–2 (1917), 1016–22, 1033–40Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 214–23. Gökalp, 's article is reproduced in Kurzman, Charles, ed., Modernist Islam, 1840–1940: A Source Book (Oxford, 2002), 192–7Google Scholar. There are remarks in the secondary literature about the development of Western medicine after the Crusades with new information and techniques taken from Muslims. Boorstin, Daniel J., The Discoverers (New York, 1983), 344–7Google Scholar; Browne, Edward G., Arabian Medicine, new edn (Lahore, 1999, 26)Google Scholar. Some historians regard the new phase in European philosophy, science, and other fields that led to the Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution as having been caused by the Crusades or the immigration to Western Europe of Byzantine scholars, who had contacts with Muslims. Atiya, Aziz S., Crusade, Commerce, and Culture, (Bloomington, 1962), 215–50Google Scholar.
60 It should be remembered that although most orientalistic studies regard and describe fıkıh as Islamic law or jurisprudence, traditionally it has a larger scope that includes the ethical, social, and economic dimensions of society.
61 Gökalp, Ziya, “Fıkıh ve ictimaiyat,” İM, 2 (1914), 40–44 Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 196.
62 Gökalp, Ziya, “Örf Nedir?,” İM, 10 (1914), 290–95Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 153.
63 Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 171–3, quoting “Milli İctimaiyat: Usul,” İctimaiyat Mecmuası, 1/1 (1917), 22–33, at 23.
64 Gökalp, Ziya, “Fıkıh ve İctimaiyat,” İM, 1/2 (1914), 40–44 Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 196.
65 Gökalp, Ziya, “İctimai Usul-I Fıkıh,” İM, 3 (1914), 84–7Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 197–9.
66 See Alatas, Syed Farid, Makers of Islamic Civilization: Ibn Khaldun (Oxford, 2012), 25–77 Google Scholar.
67 Gökalp, Ziya, “İctimai Usul-i Fikih,” İM, 3 (1914), 84–7Google Scholar; Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 199.
68 Libson, Gideon, Jewish and Islamic Law: A Comparative Study of Custom during the Geonic Period (Cambridge, MA, 2003), 68 Google Scholar; Taymiyya, Ibn, al-Siyasa al-Shar‘iyya fi islah al-ra‘i wa al-ra‘iyya, ed. ‘Uyun, Bashir Muhammad (Damascus, 1985)Google Scholar. For its English translation see Taymiyya, Ibn, Ibn Taymiyya on Public and Private Law in Islam or Public Policy in Islamic Jurisprudence, trans. Farrukh, Omar A. (Beirut, 1966)Google Scholar.
69 al-Sarakhsi, Muhammad b. Ahmad, al-Mabsut, vol. 13 (Cairo, 1393 A.H.), 14 Google Scholar. For a comprehensive approach to the emergence and development of custom as a source in Islamic law see Shabana, Ayman, Custom in Islamic Law and Legal Theory: The Development of the Concepts of ‘Urf and ‘Adah in the Islamic Legal Tradition (New York, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
70 “Wa‘lam anna i‘tibara al-‘adati wa’l-‘urfi, yurja‘u ileyhi fi’l-fiqhi fi masaila kathiratin hatta ja‘alu dhalika aslan.” See Nujaym, Zayn al-din Ibn, al-Ashbah wa’l-nazair ‘ala madhhab Abi Hanifa a’-Nu‘man, ed. al-Wakil, Abd al-Aziz Muhammad (Cairo, 1968), 93 Google Scholar.
71 Abidin, Muhammad Amin Ibn, Majmu‘at Rasail Ibn ‘Abidin (Beirut, nd.)Google Scholar. See also Hallaq, Wael, “A Prelude to Ottoman Reform: Ibn ‘Ābidīn on Custom and Legal Change,” in Gershoni, Israel, Erdem, Hakan, and Woköck, Ursula, eds., Histories of Modern Middle East: New Directions (Boulder and London, 2002), 37–61 Google Scholar.
72 For an example see Anhegger, Robert and Inalcik, Halil, Kanunname-i Sultani ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani: II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine ait Yasakname ve Kanunnameler (Ankara, 1956)Google Scholar.
73 Hoexter, Miriam, “Qadi, Mufti and Ruler: Their Roles in the Development of Islamic Rule,” in Shaham, Ron, ed., Law, Custom, and Statute in the Muslim World: Studies in Honor of Aharon Layish (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 68–85 Google Scholar.
74 Aydın, M. Akif, Türk Hukuk Tarihi (İstanbul, 2005), 69–82 Google Scholar; Heyd, Uriel, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law (Oxford, 1973), 167–83Google Scholar.
75 Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, 180, quoting Gökalp, “Milli İctimaiyat,” 32.
76 Berki, Ali Himmet, Açıklamalı Mecelle (Istanbul, 1982), 22 Google Scholar.
77 For a detailed article on the Ottoman period see Koç, Yunus, “Early Ottoman Customary Law: The Genesis and Development of Ottoman Codification,” in Dostal, Walter and Kraus, Wolfgang, eds., Shattering Tradition: Custom, Law and the Individual in the Muslim Mediterranean (London, 2005), 75–121 Google Scholar. See also İlhan Bilen, “Osmanlı Hukukunda Örfün Yeri (Klasik Dönem)” (MA dissertation, Hacettepe University, 1994).
78 See Çavdar, Ali Birinci-Tûba, “Halim Sabit Şibay,” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 15 (1997), 332–7Google Scholar.
79 Sabit, Halim, “İcma: Osmanlılarda Teşri Salahiyeti,” İM, 27 (1915), 630–31Google Scholar.
80 Sabit, Halim, “İctimai usul-i fıkıh,” İM, 5 (1914), 146–8Google Scholar.
81 Sabit, “İctimai usul-i fıkıh,” İM, 5 (1914), 149–50.
82 For instance, 2:180, 3:104, 9:71.
83 Sabit, Halim, “Örf-Maruf: İctimai Usul-i Fıkıh Münasebetiyle,” İM, 11 (1914), 322–5Google Scholar.
84 Sabit, Halim, “Örf-Maruf: İctimai Usul-i Fıkıh Münasebetiyle,” İM, 12 (1914), 354–7Google Scholar.
85 al-Tirmidhi, Muhammad b. Isa, “Kitab al-Fitan,” chapter 7 of al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, vol. 5 (Istanbul: Çağrı Yayınları, 1992), 465–7Google Scholar.
86 Sabit, Halim, “Örf-Maruf: İctimai Usul-i Fıkıh Münasebetiyle,” İM, 14 (1914), 418–20Google Scholar.
87 Ibid., 421–2.
88 Rahman, Fazlur, Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis, 1994), 37–52 Google Scholar.
89 Iqbal, Muhammad, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, ed. Sheikh, M. Saeed (Lahore, 1989), 121 Google Scholar.
90 Şeref, Mustafa, “İctimai Usul-i Fıkıh Nasıl Teessüs Eder?,” İM, 6 (1914), 162–4Google Scholar.
91 Hakkı, İsmail [Baltacıoğlu], “Din ve İctimai İctihad,” Yeni Mecmua, 32 (1918), 107–8Google Scholar.
92 Şerafeddin, Mehmed's ideas were proposed in a series of articles in İslam Mecmuası: 15 (1914), 434–6Google Scholar; 18 (1915), 490–91; 19 (1915), 506–7; 25 (1915), 604–605; 28 (1915), 650–53. Some parts of these articles were later republished in the same author's Dini Makalelerim (Ankara, 1944), without referring to or citing İctimai İlm-i Kelam.
93 For the strong link between ideas of Gökalp and Şerafeddin see Özervarlı, M. Sait, “Transferring Traditional Islamic Disciplines into Modern Social Sciences in Late Ottoman Thought: The Attempts of Ziya Gokalp and Mehmed Serafeddin,” Muslim World, 97 (2007), 317–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 For his life and works see Kazancıgil, Aykut, “Mehmed Şerafeddin Yaltkaya (1879–1947): Hayatı ve Eserleri,” İlim ve Sanat, 26 (1989), 52–62 Google Scholar.
95 Şerafeddin, Mehmed, “Din Akli Değil Makuldur,” İM, 28 (1915), 653 Google Scholar.
96 Şerafeddin, Mehmed, “İctimai İlm-i Kelam-I,” İM, 15 (1914), 436 Google Scholar.
97 Şerafeddin, Mehmed, “İctimai İlm-i Kelam-III,” İM, 19 (1915), 506–7Google Scholar.
98 Şerafeddin, Mehmed, “İctimai İlm-i Kelam-IV,” İM, 25 (1915), 604–5Google Scholar.
99 Şerafeddin, “İctimai İlm-i Kelam-I,” 435–6.
100 Şerafeddin, “İctimai İlm-i Kelam-I,” 434.
101 See Sebilürreşad, issues 292 to 298 in vol. 12. For a brief summary of this discussion between Gökalp and İzmirli without analysis see Şener, Abdülkadir, “İctimai Usul-i Fıkıh Tartışmaları,” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi İslam İlimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5 (1982), 231–47Google Scholar.
102 See Hakkı, İzmirli İsmail, “Örfün Nazar-i Şer’deki Mevkii,” Sebilürreşad, 12/293 (1914), 129–32Google Scholar; Hakkı, , “İctimai Usul-i Fıkha İhtiyaç Var mı?”, Sebilürreşad, 12/298 (1914), 211–16Google Scholar.
103 See Özervarlı, M. Sait, “Alternative Approaches to Modernization in the Late Ottoman Period: İzmirli İsmail Hakkı's Religious Thought against Materialist Scientism,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 39 (2007), 72–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
104 Pacha, Said Halim, Les institutions politiques dans la société musulmane (Rome, 1921), 27–8Google Scholar.
105 For details of his thought see Şeyhun, Ahmet, Said Halim Pasha: Ottoman Statesman and Islamist Thinker (Istanbul, 2003)Google Scholar. A more conservative scholar, Şeyhulislam Mustafa Sabri (1869–1954), also explicitly rejected Gökalp's approach of custom and its place in law. See Sabri, Mustafa, Dini Müceddidler Yahud Türkiye İçin Necat Yollarında Bir Rehber (Istanbul, 1919), 4–5 Google Scholar.
106 Sabit, Halim, “İcma: Osmanlılarda Teşri Salahiyeti,” İM, 27 (1915), 628–9Google Scholar.
107 Gökalp, Ziya, Makaleler VII, ed. Çay, M. Abdülhaluk (Ankara, 1982), 102 Google Scholar.
108 King, Michael, ed., God's Law versus State Law (London, 1995), 105 Google Scholar; Yılmaz, Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in the Modern Period, 101.
