Moral Revolutions: The Politics of Piety in the Ottoman Empire Reimagined

Abstract

Over the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries an immense body of morality literature emerged in the Ottoman Empire as part of a widespread turn to piety. This article draws upon the anthropology of Islamic revival and secularism to reassess this literature's importance and propose a new view of the history of political thought in the empire. It does so through a close analysis of a fundamental concept of Ottoman political life: “naṣīḥat, ” or “advice.” Historians have used “advice books” to counter the presumption that the Ottoman Empire declined after the sixteenth century, but in doing so they have overlooked the concept's broader meaning as “morally corrective criticism.” I analyze two competing visions of naṣīḥat at the turn of the eighteenth century to reveal how the concept was deployed to politically transform the empire by reforming its subjects’ morality. One was a campaign by the chief jurist Feyżullah Efendi to educate every Muslim in the basic tenets of Islam. The other was a wildly popular “advice book” written by the poet Nābī to his son that both explicates a new moral code and declares the empire's government and institutions illegitimate. Both transformed politics by requiring that all subjects be responsible moral, and therefore political, actors. The pietistic turn, I argue, turned domestic spaces into political battlegrounds and ultimately created new, individualistic political subjectivities. This, though, requires challenging functionalist conceptions of the relationship between religion and politics and the secularist inclination among historians to relegate morality to the private sphere.

New Paradigm of Indonesian Islamic Education: Analysis of Changes in the Relations of Islamic Education Institutions with Post-Reform Political Power

“…In a particular formula, its function as caliph also means that it contains a horizontal perspective. In that position, LPI requires its alums to be able to sympathize with fellow human beings (Shafir, 2019).…”

Flexible States in History: Rethinking Secularism, Violence, and Centralized Power in Modern Egypt

“…In reviewing Mahmood’s 2015 book, Makdisi notes how she did not compare secularism in Egypt to politico-religious inequities in Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon, each of which has their own unique histories that greatly complicate Mahmood’s conclusions (Makdisi 2016). Similarly, Zouhair Ghazzal asks why Agrama did not contrast Egypt’s purported secularism to Turkey’s formally secular context (2015), while Nir Shafir, in his examination of piety in the Ottoman Empire, highlights the need “to explore secularism’s multiple histories in the Middle East” (2019: 622). Talal Asad makes similar acknowledgements about secularism, writing “secularization follows different paths according to different historical circumstances”; and, “It is one thing to seek essential origins, quite another to identify elements of a tradition that have been retrieved, reorganized and put to modern use in contemporary formations” (2011: 672).…”

“…That is Europe’s history!” Stopping again to puff his cigarette, he added, “Of course, this was all for a Western audience. Because they are the ones who have the sulṭa (authority).” 10 It is precisely these sorts of ties to Western or imperial assumptions around secularism, liberalism, and religious equality which have understandably driven so much anthropological critique of the concepts (Mahmood 2006; see also Shafir 2019: 622; Schielke 2015b).…”

The limits of going global: The case of “Ottoman Enlightenment(s)”

“…In the long run, these beliefs gave rise to an emphasis to each and every individual's personal responsibility, in a rather modern combination of morality with politics (Sariyannis, 2019a , pp. 368–369, 424; Shafir, 2019 ).…”