The madrasa tradition and madrasas in the process of modernization

Muş Alparslan University hosted a very important three-day symposium. At the symposium titled "The Madrasa Tradition and Madrasas in the Process of Modernization," attended by some 110 scholars from Turkey and other countries, many subjects were addressed in very good papers, starting from the very concept of the "madrasa tradition," and extending to what this tradition corresponds to today and what state it is in, and to what role these madrasas, which in one way or another continue to survive in the Southeast, the madrasa discourse, and the students or teachers trained in the madrasa play in the existing social structure or in change.

At the symposium, where the participant profile was quite high, the historical suitability of the madrasas, the adequacy of their curricula, their fitness for needs or their problems, their tensions with modern theology faculties or imam-hatip schools, and educational quality were also addressed. Among the papers presented, there were eulogies of the madrasa tradition, and there was also ruthless criticism to the effect that these eulogies prevent one from seeing the chronic and hard-to-resolve problems of this tradition.

To be frank, with the Tevhid-i Tedrisat regulation, the madrasa tradition was officially brought to an end throughout Turkey. From that point on it is not possible to speak of an uninterrupted tradition. However, in the Southeast the madrasa tradition continued even in the Republican period, with very limited means and channels and as a kind of underground activity. The efforts of the teachers, in very few places, who wanted to pass on the madrasa curriculum to their students as it was, under gendarmerie pressure in which even a single page written in Arabic was enough to get one thrown into prison between 1928 and 1950, are legendary. In an earlier column I touched on this historical event by referring to Rasim Özdenören's "Man Who Grew Roses" character.

Under the struggle for survival in illegal conditions, this curriculum of course could have had no chance to renew itself. Moreover, an education system fretted over with that sensibility took on a state in which, under an intense discourse of sanctity, eulogy and nostalgia, it could not be criticized, touched or reflected upon. Although it eased relatively from the fifties onward, this tradition never fully found its old channel again.

The madrasa practice that remains in our hands today as a tradition is an indisputable sociological phenomenon of the region. Its developing itself, and adapting to the age with its curriculum and system, has been left somewhat to chance. It has tried to survive in a way with what remained of the traditional heritage. Over time, the ease provided by the incomplete system that survived, and the prevalence produced by this ease, have given rise to other problems. But in the end it is an institutional structure that, as a sociological phenomenon, has a place and an influence in society. This phenomenon, which has an actual counterpart in society, was in the past entirely ignored by the official authorities; no development in this regard could be observed, the possibilities it produced were not made use of, and no solutions were produced for its problems.

Yet this phenomenon, for its part, continued to produce its own results, effects, influence and culture. Although they came first in the eyes of society in terms of religious education and their organic relations or communication with the people's religious discourse, for the state they simply "did not exist." Just as with many problems or realities, the state was under the illusion that, if it shut its eyes to the madrasas, the problem would disappear on its own. In that case, a rich and widespread socio-human-cultural capital existing in this region remained entirely idle and could even become more open to use by others.

Until the Mele initiative begun in the previous period by the Presidency of Religious Affairs. With this initiative it was seen that attaching these madrasas to the modern education system, and thereby including a very important source of people, knowledge and culture in the country's total output, could quite well be possible.

In fact, it is seen that an important part of the road to this initiative was paved through the universities opened in this region. Among the benefits of the "a university in every province" project is also the development of each province's cultural and human capital. Through the university, while every city of Turkey is integrated into the whole country with stronger ties, it can also offer its own contribution to this whole more.

Based on my many years of experience with scientific meetings, I can say with confidence that this symposium at Muş Alparslan University was carried out as a first-class work of international standard. The most distinguished scholars and men of ideas known for their research, thought and experience on madrasas, members of madrasas and universities, came together in Muş and together lived and made others live a veritable feast of ideas.

(It is not possible for me to mention all 110 names, but as samples let me name Süleyman Ateş, Yusuf Ziya Kavakçı, Hüseyin Atay, Sait Şimşek, İhsan Süreyya Sırma, Şinasi Gündüz, Ahmet Ağırakça, Cemalettin Erdemci, Müfit Yüksel, Abdülhamit Birışık, and you can guess the rest).

15 days ago, similar subjects were also raised at a smaller-scale meeting in Siirt-Tillo. That these meetings continue, that there is reflection on madrasas or madrasas reflect on themselves, is certainly a very auspicious state of affairs. On this occasion I congratulate the Rector of Muş Alparslan University Prof. Nihat İnanç and the Dean of the Faculty of Theology Prof. Fethi Ahmet Polat for showing that such a first-class scientific activity can be carried out in Muş.