The Approach of the Sirât-ı Müstakim Journal to Sultan Abdülhamid II and the Constitutional Administration
Different approaches and evaluations regarding the 33-year rule of Sultan Abdulhamid II continue by keeping up to date. According to some, Abdülhamid II is a great khan and the most important political figure of the 19th century, and to some others, he is a tyrant and the crimson sultan. However, one sees him, he is a personality that leaves important traces in Turkish history. The important issue is why most of the Islamist intellectuals of the period were against him, even though he promulgated policies that kept a collapsing state alive. The Sirat-i Mustakim Journal was one of the important publications of Islamist thought, publishing works shortly after the proclamation of the Second Constitutional Monarchy. The journal carried out a publishing policy for Abdülhamid II's administration and the Second Constitutional Monarchy. While the journal describes Abdulhamid II's administration as a“dictatorship,” it recognizes the Union and Progress administration as legitimate in Islamic terms. In this study, the approach of the Sirat-i Mustakim Journal, published by Eşref Edip and edited by Mehmet Akif, will be discussed. In this direction, copies of the journal published between 1908 and 1912 will be analyzed, and an attempt will be made to seek answers to the questions of why an Islamist media organ opposed the Sultan and his administration so vehemently.
Sırât-ı Müstakim Mecmuası’nın Sultan II. Abdülhamid ve Meşrutiyet Yönetimine Yaklaşımı
Sultan II. Abdülhamid’in 33 yıllık yönetimine ilişkin farklı yaklaşımlar ve değerlendirmeler güncelliğini koruyarak devam etmektedir. Kimilerine göre 19. yüzyılın en önemli siyasi figürü ve ulu hakanı; kimilerine göre ise müstebit ve kızıl sultan olarak nitelendirilen II. Abdülhamid, Türk tarihinde önemli izler bırakan şahsiyetlerden biridir. II. Abdülhamid’in çökmekte olan bir devleti ayakta tutmak için politikalar geliştirmesine rağmen, İslamcı entelektüellerin çoğunun ona karşı olmaları konusu üzerinde durulması gereken bir husustur. II. Meşrutiyet’in ilanından kısa bir süre sonra yayınlanmaya başlanan İslamcı düşüncenin önemli neşriyatlarından biri olan Sırat-ı Müstakim Mecmuası, II. Abdülhamid’in yönetimine ve II. Meşrutiyet’e yönelik bir yayın politikası yürütmüştür. Mecmua II. Abdülhamid yönetimini “İstibdâd” rejimi olarak nitelerken İttihat Terakki yönetimini ise hem siyasi anlamda hem de İslami açıdan meşru olarak tanımaktadır. Bu çalışmada Eşref Edip tarafından çıkartılan ve Mehmet Akif’in başyazar olduğu Sırat-ı Müstakim Mecmuası’nın konuya yaklaşımı ele alınacaktır. Bu doğrultuda mecmuanın 1908-1912 yılları arasında yayınlanan nüshaları analiz edilerek, İslamcı bir yayın organının padişaha ve yönetimine neden karşı çıktığı sorusuna cevap aranmaya çalışılacaktır.
After Abdülhamid II was dethroned, his 33-year reign began to be described as a tyranny. In the period after the dethronement, both the Union and Progress administration and the new Turkey did not show a positive approach toward him. They associated words like “the crimson sultan,” “tyrant,” and “reactionaryism” with him. However, some who severely criticized him at the time later came to regret it. Considering that there is a group of people who described him as “the great khan,” praised him excessively, and raised him to the level of a saint, there are evaluations up to the degree of exaggeration and understatement about Abdülhamid II. In this respect, the approaches of extreme love or hatred about historical figures revolve in a spiral of praise and satire. This situation puts impartial evaluations about Abdülhamid II, who is one of the important characters of history, in a difficult position.
The Sirat-i Mustakim Journal, which started to publish before the Second Constitutional Monarchy, followed a publication policy against tyranny and supported the monarchy. Its first issue, which was published thirty-five days after the proclamation of the Second Constitutional Monarchy, has followed a publishing policy that praises constitutionalism, attaches importance to consultation, and criticizes tyranny. While making these criticisms, the journal frequently used Islamic evidence to prove the religious legitimacy of the Constitutional Monarchy. The concept of “tyranny” was used to describe the reign of Abdülhamid II, associating it with all kinds of evil, e.g., backwardness, oppression, and ignorance. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), which was also influential in the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy, was described, by the journal, as the “Holy Society” and the transition to the constitutional order was seen as a “revolution.” Contributors to the journal, such as Musa Kazım, Manastırlı İsmail Hakkı, and Mehmet Akif, considered the proclamation legitimate and the sultan’s dethronement beneficial. They reported censorship of intelligence and police repression in large numbers. The main actor of the tyrannical period, which they criticized very harshly, was the sultan himself.
The journal also evaluated the 31 March Incident as a new attempt at tyranny, and it was claimed that the sultan was an active player in the rebellion. In this respect, they claimed that they supported the 31 March uprising to regain the lost reputation of the sultanate. Thus, the journal considered the 31 March Incident not as an ordinary action, but as both religious and political objectionable and evaluates it in the context of returning to the tyranny regime. Thus, after the 31 March Incident, the journal, intensified its characterization of Abdülhamid II as a tyranny. The most emphasized issues are that tyranny is a regime of oppression and domination, the pressures of spies and journals on the people, and the restrictions imposed by the regime on freedom of thought. Issues such as Abdülhamid II's use of religion for himself, and the management staff he established which led him to “delusion” were frequently touched upon by the journal.
The most striking aspect in the journal's criticism of Abdülhamid II is the reactions that emerged from the Islamic world, especially in India and the Arab world, after his dethronement. The journal wrote about the devotion of the Islamic world to Abdülhamid II, smearing a campaign against him. Even so, it is essential to consider while the articles praise the constitutionalism of the CUP while slandering the old administration in their severe criticism of Abdülhamid II’s personality and his reign.
Although it is occasionally mentioned in the copies of The Sirat-i Mustakim that the expectations demanded from the constitutional monarchy were not fully met, there is no direct opposition to the CUP. In fact, it has been revealed that there was a painful transition period, which were mostly answered by criticism, and that some of the disruptions experienced were excused. The journal did not show this positive attitude towards the administration, the people with secular thoughts, and the media organs in the society, advocating in this direction, for Islam. After the Tripoli War, there is an air of despair about the constitutional administration. However, the Islamists were the first to see the tyranny in some practices of the CUP and reacted to it. Some of the practices that they criticized the most were seen by the Unionists after a short time.
