Who is disturbed by faculties of theology, and why?

One of the first realities that confronts those who think of sociology as a kind of social engineering is that the entirely unintended consequences of social projects can often be far more decisive. In fact, to understand this one does not even need metaphors like "social engineering." That every kind of power politics should meet the reality of society in such a "disillusionment"-producing encounter is also a historical custom.

For that reason we must not be too arrogant toward society, must not talk too big. Precisely for this reason we need to measure and track often the distances between our conceptions of society and the reality of society.

We can say that the state the Faculty of Theology took on afterward, compared with the intentions and expectations underlying its founding in 1949, has presented one more excellent example of this situation. First of all, if the debates at the 7th Congress of the CHP are taken as a basis, we can say with ease that the subsequent development of the Faculty of Theology and the imam-hatip schools did not occur in keeping with these intentions and expectations.

Indeed, under developing democratic conditions the Faculty of Theology moved further toward answering the expectations of the ulema held by the devout people rather than the expectations of the state. Although at first, in keeping with the very purpose of its founding, the influence of those with orientalist approaches was felt, in a short time it became a center of Islamic learning where very valuable work was done in the field of the Islamic sciences, indeed where work could be done that could not have been done in madrasas even had they been open.

We had earlier listed names such as Necati Öner and Talat Koçyiğit, who produced very competent work in their fields. In fact we must also mention the contribution both of these names and of Muhammed Tayyip Okiç, who conveyed the discipline of the Islamic sciences very well in the faculty and enabled the training of many scholars. Okiç, who had come to Turkey from Bosnia-Herzegovina right after the Second World War, was appointed Professor of Hadith to the newly opened faculty, and as a true Islamic scholar he probably influenced the faculty's development far more than those who founded it. Teachers such as İsmail Cerrahoğlu, M. Sait Hatipoğlu, Süleyman Ateş, M. Esat Coşan and Hüseyin Atay, who trained through his instruction and carried out scholarly activities in the faculty, made very important contributions to the re-establishment of the discipline of the Islamic sciences, over which an interregnum, as it were, had passed.

Of course, along the path opened by the Faculty of Theology established at Ankara University, in the Democrat Party period new steps were again taken in keeping with the demands and wishes of the Muslim people. The Higher Islamic Institute in Istanbul, which would later turn into the Marmara Faculty of Theology (1982), was likewise founded (1959) to train the religion teachers and people of learning the Muslim people as a whole needed, and became an important institution.

While the Ankara Faculty of Theology at first advanced more in the dimensions of philosophy, sociology and comparative history of religions under pressure to conform to its founding purpose, it put forward a difference of its own. In the early period the faculty admitted ordinary high school graduates, not imam-hatip graduates. The Marmara Faculty of Theology, for its part, put forward its own difference from the start, that is, from the period when it operated as the Higher Islamic Institute, with its teachers, its mission, its atmosphere.

This difference can of course be dwelt on, but I find it useless and unnecessary here. In my view the very valuable teachers of the Ankara and Marmara Faculties of Theology, with their academician students trained in their faculties and with their chairs, largely demonstrate the competence and quality to meet the scholarly needs of Muslims in their present situation. In this institution names such as Salih Tuğ, Hayrettin Karaman, Bekir Topaloğlu and Ali Özek stood out not only as academicians whose competence and hardship on the path of learning are beyond dispute but also as names who gave direction to the society in which their organic roots lay.

Today the faculties of theology in Turkey, just like the imam-hatip high schools and the Presidency of Religious Affairs, are important achievements of society. Far from the mission that Jacobin circles assigned them when they were first founded, they are institutions that have, as they should, become the property of the Muslim people. But it must not be forgotten that the faculties of theology especially are modern institutions, and all their output and activities are open to transparent and institutional oversight. At the same time, in some respect they must breathe the atmosphere of free thought and science under the university roof. In doing so, it is seen that, on account of sensational outbursts that from time to time are far from academic ethics, arise from serious problems of style, and could in fact be answered within the academic setting, the faculties of theology are immediately subjected to a serious campaign of discrediting.

It is not at all surprising that those who do this aim to render their own unsupervised, closed, mysterious little kingdoms even more unquestionable, vested with absolute authority. What could be the only gain of trampling all the Faculties of Theology and even the imam-hatip culture on the strength of a few examples, other than finding a religion-customer whose entire belongings and will can be plucked?

I am not a graduate of theology; I say these things as someone who has for thirty years done academic work on the Faculties of Theology in comparison with the existing Islamic scholarly traditions in Islamic countries.

For example, it is impossible to understand those who try to find fault with the Faculties of Theology by making comparisons with the madrasa tradition. Is there a properly functioning madrasa tradition today? Some of the existing examples are nothing but imitations of certain past practices with no updating whatsoever. They have no effort or search to respond to present-day conditions. They also lack the means and institutional support that would allow it. One can only write nostalgia literature about it, for which we have neither room nor strength.

By contrast, although much evil has perhaps been aimed at them today, from the Faculties of Theology and the Imam-Hatip Schools we have at least a beneficial model that we can talk about, perhaps develop further, and that is watched with interest and envy all over the world.