Atatürk Breaks the Islamic Chain

A century ago, in Istanbul, a diminutive man with a thick, white beard was forced to depart Turkey. The decree was immediate, as commanded by the police inspector. Despite his pleas to prepare for his departure and consider his family’s situation, the inspector was unyielding in carrying out his orders. The man would be expelled without delay.

On the 4th of March, 1924, at 5 a.m., the Caliph of all the Faithful, Abdulmejit II, exited Dolmabahce Palace for the final time. Equipped with an envelope containing 2,000 pounds sterling, temporary Swiss visas, and a small entourage, he journeyed to the border. However, he faced a legal predicament due to his polygamous marital status. Eventually granted entry, Abdulmejit II found Switzerland’s high cost of living too burdensome and relocated to Nice, France, where he spent two decades painting before his death in Paris.

This day marked the end of a significant era in Turkish global history. The Ottoman Empire had governed the area now known as Turkey for nearly half a millennium, holding both Sultan and Caliph titles. The power they wielded originated from their Sultanate, with the Caliph title, granted to Prophet Muhammad’s successors in the 7th century, carrying a divine mandate. However, the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, dismantled this dual-part dynasty, deposing the last Sultan in 1922 and declaring a republic in 1923. Yet, Turkey’s National Assembly retained the Caliph’s office, with Abdulmajit being chosen as Caliph.

The abolition of the caliphate was a defining event. Even without executive power, it symbolized Islam’s continuity and held a divine mandate. The Caliphate endured through centuries and shifts in power, from its inception to the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in the 13th century and its move to Mamluk Egypt. It persisted even when Sultan Selim I took it to Istanbul in 1517.

Atatürk’s objective was to sever the knot

Ironically, the Empire and the political life of the Caesars’ demise gave the priesthood renewed significance. The Sultans clung to it during the 19th century, countering modern reforms and nationalism. It served as a reminder of Turkish nationalism’s infancy, with all Middle Eastern national movements emerging relatively recently, inspired by Europe in the late 19th century.

Islam was interwoven into the empire’s life, making the separation of religion from the state impossible. Establishing a secular regime like those in Europe would require approval from the confiscation. Despite his actions, Atatürk wasn’t anti-Muslim. He aimed to expedite Turkey’s full modernization, which he believed could only be achieved by completely dismantling the old regime. However, his efforts fell short of his aspirations.

Alternative Caliphs were being sought in the Middle East

The abolition of the caliphate shocked Muslims, becoming a significant political issue in British-ruled India and contributing to the religious polarization that led to its partition and the establishment of Muslim Pakistan. In the Middle East, Arabs attempted to establish an alternative caliphate, primarily in Mecca, under Sharif Hussein, King of Jordan’s great-grandfather. Attempts were made to make the then-king of Egypt a caliph, but they were unsuccessful.

In Turkey, there isn’t a tangible movement to reinstate the caliphate. Still, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has centered official propaganda around Ottoman Empire nostalgia. He has permitted a semi-official funeral for the “last princess” of the Ottoman House and sent the foreign minister to visit the exiled family’s head in Europe. He often behaves like a Sultan, with the press associating him with imperial and caliphate crowns.

Could a Caliph ever return to Dolmabahce Palace? It seems unlikely, but 30 years ago, so did the idea of Turkey retreating from Atatürk’s secular tradition. It raises the question: what if the Caliph had remained, even symbolically? Atatürk feared his presence would have incited political and religious reaction, which happened anyway. It’s possible that if a symbolic Caliph had remained, the secular state wouldn’t have offended millions of religious Turks. But, it’s all conjecture.

Interestingly, the Turks don’t appear to be celebrating, even though Atatürk’s portraits remain hung.