Post-Ottoman Modernity

The question of modernization within the context of an Islamic society dates back to the 17^th century.  At its height, the Ottoman Empire represented one of the most powerful political entities in world history.  Stretching from the Maghreb to the Caspian and from Hungry to Yemen, the Ottoman Empire dominated a territorially vast and diverse domain.  Especially after its conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans, the casual observer would have considered the Ottomans one of the world’s superpowers. Yet, all of this soon changed.  The small Christian kingdoms that at one time were frightened of Ottoman influenced soon eclipsed the Turks.  How did the powerful Ottoman Empire fall behind to less significant states such as Britain or France?  The answer was the European countries ability to modernize/industrialize.  The discourse on modernity in the former Ottoman Empire bears ways in which Islam can co-exist with the modern world. 

            Turkey, the direct descendant of the Ottoman Empire, occupies a unique position geographically, politically, and intellectually within the context of Islam and modernity.  Like the ideas of the Enlightenment within the context of the foundation of the United States, the foundation of Turkey was marked by ideas of modernity.  To Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, the Ottoman Empire collapsed because it did not modernize (or more accurately modernize quick enough).  Ataturk set out to create a modern and secularized Turkish society from the top-down.  In creating a secularized society, Ataturk attempted to relegate Islam to the private sphere.  Islamic laws and/or traditions were attributed as Turkish (fitting within a strict concept of nationalism), changed, or discouraged.  An backlash against Ataturk’s modernization reforms occurred later in the 20^th century with the rise of Islamism.  Despite the negative connotations that political Islam was within western discourse, the Islamists are also seen as modernizing agents by historians such as Alev Cinar.  In the context of Cinar’s definition of modernity, both Ataturk and Islamism represent modernizing agents.  For Cinar, modernity is defined as a need for progress and change for a better future.  This is triggered by something wrong with the present.  The heirs of Ataturk and Islamists agree that something is wrong with their present society (although they certainly would disagree on what).  The major difference is the new society they are hoping to achieve.  Turkish Islamists are certainly no less modern then their secularist counterparts.  Here is Islam and modernity cooperating together.  On face value, it is different than the more secular modernity usually attributed to the West (and Ataturk).  But, it is modernity nonetheless.  

            At its height, the Ottoman Empire united almost all of what is considered today as the Middle East.  As Ottoman/Islamic unity would not last forever, other modernists such as al-Afghani used this unity as symbolism for the decay of the Islamic civilization.  Al-Afghani advocated the unity of the Islamic world and a return to the “true” Islam which he saw as equivalent to true reason.  Despite advocating a return to an older Islam, it would be incorrect to lump al-Afghani with fundamentalism or term him as a reactionary.  Al-Afghani was concerned with the decay of Islamic society in the political, technological, and moral spheres.  Using Cinar’s previous definition of modernity, al-Afghani was trying to progress society (Islamic) towards a better future.  Al-Afghani is a modernist who looks greatly different from the Turkish modernists (even among many Islamists).  If anything, al-Afghani shows a compatibility with Islam and modernity in a completely different fashion. 

BDF