From Unorthodox Sufism to Muslim Anarchism: The Disobedient Case of Islam-Based Political Thought in Turkey ^†

Abstract

This paper examines Muslim anarchists in Turkey who developed an Islam-based anarchist theory opposing private property, the state, capitalism, and all forms of authority. By analyzing their online periodical itaatsiz (disobedient), published since 2013, and earlier works by Muslim anarchist writers, this study explores their perspectives on the West, Islam, the Qur’an, and Sufism. Muslim anarchists stand out for their opposition to the hegemony of Enlightenment-based, anti-theist, and positivist thought in anarchist movements in Turkey and for their encouragement to re-examine concepts such as authority, private property, capitalism, and the state within the framework of Islam-based political thought. Studying how Muslim anarchists construct a social movement in today’s Turkey is essential to understanding Islam-based conceptualizations of politics in Turkey and unpacking the relationship between Islam and anarchism.

1. Introduction

A. Şahin, a prominent Muslim anarchist in Turkey, argues that the fundamental principle of Islam, which emphasizes the direct relationship between God and the servant, has established a remarkable connection with the anarchist tendencies that have emerged in Islamic geographies throughout history. According to Şahin, the questioning of the legitimacy of the clergy and the rejection of intermediaries prepared the ground for a stance opposing authority. Sufi movements, in particular, overlapped with some aspects of anarchist thought, with principles such as remaining true to the essence of Islam and not valuing worldly possessions. Anarchism’s definition of property as theft aligns with the Qur’anic verses on acquiring and sharing property. Şahin adds that, when Islam’s stance on hierarchy, authority, and the state is evaluated through the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad, its affinities with anarchism can be more clearly revealed. Sufi movements and the interpretations of Islamic scholars show that a historical, cultural, and theological bridge can be built between these two systems of thought. In this context, the fact that there are many commonalities between Islam and anarchism, especially the existence of similar approaches to property and authority, offers a remarkable discussion area (A. Şahin 2016, pp. 27–68).

Looking at the relationship A. Şahin (2016) establishes between anarchism and Islam, it is possible to see that he developed an Islam-based anarchist theory based on the interpretation of the Qur’an. Developing a conception of politics based on Islam-based knowledge production, Muslim anarchists stand out with the counter-hegemonic aspects of the thought they construct in Turkish politics. Muslim anarchists’ primary stance consists of a critical engagement with enlightenment-based, anti-theist, modern anarchism that denies the spiritual and religious elements of anarchism and opposes the state, capitalism, any form of micro and macro authorities, and institutionalized religions. While they have been marginalized and silenced by the enlightenment-based, positivist, anti-theist left and anarchist movements in Turkey, it has also been silenced, marginalized, and excluded by the Islamic intellectual field (IIF), which consists of various Islam-based intellectual movements, and the Justice and Development Party (JDP) government, which proclaims itself as the sole representative of Islam and establishes its hegemony by the institutions and sects affiliated with the truth regime they constructed.

By looking at their online monthly periodical entitled itaatsiz (disobedient), published since 2013, and Muslim anarchists’ earlier and late publications, this paper investigates how Muslim anarchists approach Islam, the Qur’an, and Sufism with their relationship with hegemonic epistemes. All articles published since the journal’s inception in 2013 were reviewed in addition to the books of prominent Muslim anarchists such as Dilaver Demirağ and Alişan Şahin, with a particular focus on texts that establish the relationship between Islam and anarchism and how they respond to everyday politics through this relationship. By doing so, this study aims to understand how the ideas of Islam and anarchism are blended, what their relationship is with contemporary social movements and politics, and in which areas they seek to intervene. Accordingly, the analysis examines how these perspectives challenge or reinterpret traditional understandings within Islamic-anarchist discourse. It also considers the implications and implications of such an approach for wider debates on religion and authority. Studying how Muslim anarchists construct a counter-hegemonic intellectual movement in this field is essential to understanding Islam-based conceptualizations of social movements and their political thoughts and to unpack the relationship between Islam and politics as an Islam-based counter-hegemonic movement as understood in Turkey.

The place and status of Muslim anarchists in Turkish politics within this double opposition actually represents only the tip of the iceberg of the modernization predicament in Turkey. The establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 intensified a feature of the late modern Ottoman intellectual scene by dividing knowledge into Western and Islamic spheres (Zencirci 2021). By eliminating the Islamic communities, the new Turkish regime restructured the influence of Islam on the intellectual, political, and cultural life of the country. These modernization efforts included secularization and Westernization, intending to separate Islam from knowledge production, although the Turkish regimes incorporated Islamic ideas selectively into their political programs in various fields (Çınar 2024a; Zencirci 2021). Turkey has been shaped mainly by state secularism, neoliberal economic policies, and the rise of political Islam and its modernization (Zencirci 2021). It is argued that the IIF in Turkey is developed within these complex elements. These building factors, besides historical events such as the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923 and its modernization efforts, have led to a complex interplay between secular and Islamic knowledge, resulting in varying levels of inclusion and exclusion for Islam-based knowledge production (Zencirci 2021, pp. 845–47; Çınar 2024a).

Çınar (2024a, 2024b) states that the IIF in Turkey is a broad field of political thought production that emerged around non-academic journals from the 1940s onwards. According to Çınar (2024b), it is possible to see this field as an area where the intellectual schools and ideological accumulations of political organizations inspired by Islam are shaped. The various perspectives in this field mostly aim to break away from the West’s epistemic/intellectual/cultural hegemony and construct forms of thought, political movements, and social models based on Islam (Çınar 2024a). Ongoing tensions between the two schools of thought highlight the ongoing struggle between Western-influenced secular thought and the various Islamic-based perspectives that have shaped political discourse in Turkey since the mid-20th century. Most of the leftist and anarchist movements in Turkey still adopt these Enlightenment-based, secular, positivist approaches in their political thought, and almost all modern anarchist movements are in constant friction with the different schools of thought based on Islam that have become visible in Turkey.

Under the JDP, Turkey has undergone a transformation in which a dominant and singular understanding of Islam has gained an important place in the political and cultural framework. Since coming to power in 2002, Islamic identity has become more visible and influential in public life in contrast to the dominant secular ideology of the early Republican period (Gole 2002). The JDP’s approach has involved the strategic integration of Islamic principles into state institutions, education systems, and social policies, which has influenced not only political discourse but also the broader intellectual and cultural landscape of the country. This political Islam, dominantly shaped during the JDP era, has redefined the relationship between religion and the state and influenced the dynamics within the IIF (Çınar 2024a, 2024b). Accordingly, trying to understand how Muslim anarchists’ critique of the political spaces created by the modernization impasse in Turkey is reflected in their thought and how they developed this thought is an important element that needs to be included in this analysis in order to grasp how Muslim anarchist thought is constructed in Turkey. This is also of great importance in terms of seeing where a political thought that wants to re-question the relationship between Islam and politics in Turkey can sit in contemporary politics as a social movement.

In this sense, the structure of the article is as follows: The article first locates anarchism as a counter-hegemonic movement in the social movements’ literature to place Muslim anarchism in Turkey in a more general context. It then highlights the relationship between anarchism and religions as represented by classical anarchist thinkers in modern anarchist theorization and movements. It then discusses the development of the anarchist movement in Turkey, religion-based social movements, and the status of anti-theist, positivist social movements in the paradigm of modernization in Turkey. Relying on the Muslim anarchists’ critical aspects of modern anarchism, the article focuses on analyzing the criticisms of the positivist, anti-theist aspects of modern anarchism in Turkey. The analysis mainly focuses on examining Muslim anarchist conceptualizations, such as the West, authority, the state, and capitalism, as prominent in the political thought of Muslim anarchists. By doing so, the article reassesses the relations between Islam, politics, and authority in Turkey by looking at Muslim anarchists’ thinking on these issues.

2. Anarchism as a Reference for Counter-Hegemonic Movements

Anarchy is usually defined as a society without government, and anarchism is a social philosophy that aims to achieve this. Anarchy has both a negative connotation of disorder and chaos and a positive connotation of a free society where government is unnecessary (Ward 2004, pp. 1–3; Marshall 2009, pp. 3–12; Gordon 2008). Still, anarchism is difficult to define clearly because it is inherently non-dogmatic and does not offer a fixed doctrine based on a particular worldview (Marshall 2009, pp. 3–4). It is an inherently counter-hegemonic social movement, as it rejects all forms of authority and power relations in micro and macro forms as a basic principle. It emerged in its modern form at the end of the eighteenth century in response to the rise of centralized states and nationalism, industrialization, and capitalism (Ward 2004, pp. 45–50; Marshall 2009). Anarchism thus undertook a struggle aimed at overthrowing both capitalism and the state.

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries witnessed the spread of modern anarchist theory and the development of the modern anarchist movements. William Godwin, a thinker who laid the foundation of anarchism with his criticism of the state and authority, defended the freedom and moral development of the individual. Max Stirner transformed Godwin’s individualism into a radical egoism and rejected all forms of authority (Marshall 2009, p. 188), while Proudhon combined anti-statism with economic and social reforms and proposed federalism. Godwin’s ideas paved the way for both thinkers to develop anarchism in different directions. After Stirnerist and Proudhonian approaches vitally shaped the basic principles of modern anarchism, such as opposition to the state, capitalism, private property, and institutions, revolutionary anarchism also began to develop as a response to pacifist anarchist movements, which rejected violent struggle against states. Russian anarchists such as, Mikhail Bakunin and Pyotr Kropotkin popularized anarchism with their sharp-tongued writings and took an important step in the theorization of revolutionary anarchism. This would later bring post-left anarchism’s necessity and possibility into discussion due to its tendencies towards the left and leftist ways of organizing anarchism (Black 1997). Later, Emma Goldman added an important feminist dimension to anarchism, while Murray Bookchin linked anarchism to social ecology (Marshall 2009, pp. 22–39).

Since then, most of the anarchist thinkers have been concerned with the theorization and application of anarchist ideas and values. Opposing capitalist exploitation, state authority, and environmental destruction, these movements put into practice anarchism’s principles of direct action, autonomy, and horizontal organization. For example, the No-TAV movement is building barricades and resisting in solidarity with the people against the high-speed rail line in Val di Susa (Poma and Gravante 2017), while ZAD (Zone à Défendre) is establishing autonomous living spaces near Nantes and practicing anti-state collective living (Bulle 2020). In Germany, the Hambach Forest movement is practicing tree occupation and direct-action tactics in an eco-centric resistance to coal mining (Kaufer and Lein 2020). The autonomy movement in Chiapas advocates the horizontal organization of local peoples to build a collective model of living against central authority. In addition, Black anarchist movements focus on dismantling the interconnected structures of racism, capitalism, and state power and advocate for community-led, non-hierarchical systems of governance (Kaufer 2023). Similarly, indigenous and eco-anarchists fighting for the protection of the Amazon forest resist capitalist exploitation and state authority, using direct actions such as forest occupations and road blockades to protect land and defend territorial sovereignty (Carlos 2016). Contemporary anarchist practices emphasize autonomy, solidarity, and resistance to oppressive systems, aiming to unite struggles against the forces of capitalism and environmental degradation.

Looking at its historical development, anarchism has an explicit anti-authoritarian character that does not involve negotiation with any authority; its practice mainly involves the decentralization of power to avoid authority (White and Sproule 2002). In this sense, they advocate for the decentralization of power as a counter-hegemonic and anti-authoritarian project (Williams 2018, p. 4; Levy 2010, pp. 1–2). Anarchist movements often contribute to the fields of anti-globalization, environmental justice, and post-colonial and Indigenous struggles, which are worthwhile for understanding the contemporary world, engaging with late-20th- and early-21st-century movements, and pointing out anarchism’s contributions against such hegemonies (Day 2005). Therefore, anarchism has been a reference for counter-hegemonic ideology and movement (Williams 2018); today’s anarchism has consolidated itself as a movement against the state, capitalism, and all systems of domination, with a greater emphasis on direct action and cultural or local experience (Gordon 2008).

Mutualism, collectivism, communism, and syndicalism can coexist within the same society as different communities and regions experiment with what works best to meet their specific needs and demands (Marshall 2009, pp. 6–7). However, religion has often been pushed to the margins of the political concepts of these anarchist principles and has remained controversial for anarchists in this diversity. Although it is difficult to categorize all contemporary anarchist movements as anti-theist or theoretically prejudiced against religion, modern anarchists are still deeply influenced by the classical anarchist thinkers’ anti-spiritualism and anti-theism. In this sense, the anti-authoritarian concepts that form the foundations of modern anarchism have, inevitably, included the Gods and religions at the center of everyday politics among their critical targets.

For Stirner (1995), glorifying God or any external authority means that the individual suppresses his or her inner self and loses the freedom to realize his or her own existence. In his book God and the State, like Stirner, Bakunin (1970) explicitly rejects spirituality, arguing that religion is an instrument of oppression that restricts the freedom of the individual and legitimizes authoritarian structures. Kropotkin (2011), on the other hand, defines religion as contrary to human nature and detrimental to social solidarity, emphasizing scientific and ethical values over spirituality. Goldman evaluates religion as an obstacle to women’s emancipation. From these perspectives, modern anarchist thinkers continue to consider God, religion, and spirituality as forces that restrict the freedom of individuals.

From classical anarchist thinkers to modern anarchist writers, figures such as Muray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Hakim Bey, and David Graeber have directly or indirectly distanced themselves from religion. Even today, modern anarchist movements have often drawn boundaries in their relationship with religion, suggesting that the relationship between religion and anarchism is still complex. Looking at the evolution of anarchism, it is possible to say that this relationship between religion and anarchism has often created an impasse.

3. Religious Anarchism Versus Anti-Theism and Positivism

The relationship between anarchism and religion is complex and multifaceted. It is often argued that, throughout history, religious institutions have gained many privileges for themselves by siding with the ruling powers. These institutions have sanctified the existing regimes and urged the oppressed to submit instead of inciting them to revolt (Marshall 2009, pp. 74–93). Relying on such critiques, anarchists have often opposed religions and religious institutions and criticized their role in preserving the status quo (Christoyannopoulos and Apps 2018, p. 211; Ward 2004, pp. 34–35).

Many European anarchists supported the idea that Christianity taught a servile morality of humility, piety, and obedience. They were opposed to seeing God as an authoritarian father figure and saw no need for supernatural authority (Marshall 2009, p. 74). Accordingly, many anarchist thinkers and activists adhered to atheism by seeing religion as a superstition burgeoning from man’s mental inability to solve natural phenomena and the church as an organized institution preventing human progress and enslaving the human spirit (Goldman et al. 2003, p. 373; Rossdale 2013, p. 76). Therefore, anarchists such as Proudhon, Stirner, Goldman, and Bakunin were unanimous in their rejection of Christianity (Christoyannopoulos and Apps 2018, pp. 121–22; McDonald 2012; Marshall 2009). Of course, this critical approach did not only criticize Christianity but also targeted all religions.

Despite the dominance of anti-theist, positivist, and evolutionist thought in classical and modern anarchist theorizing, not all anarchists are necessarily atheists and do not adopt an anti-religious approach. Both religious anarchists and other anarchists continue to question dogmatic claims and oppressive institutions, but religion is not the only target, and religion is not always seen as the main or only problem (Marshall 2009, pp. 74–75). In addition, many religious anarchists concurred with the secular anarchists’ opposition to religion and condemned the cooperation between religious and political institutions (Christoyannopoulos 2016).

Christoyannopoulos and Apps (2018) argue that studies show that religious texts encourage anarchist movements, and anarchist theology is full of reflections on understanding the world. The influence of anarchism in religious studies is varied; sometimes, anarchism criticizes religion, sometimes parallels are drawn between anarchist and religious ideas, sometimes interpretations of sacred texts lead to anarchist conclusions, and sometimes theologians turn to anarchist themes in religious debates. The intersection of anarchism and religion has been a vibrant field of study in recent years, attracting great interest among academics, anarchists, and religious communities (Christoyannopoulos and Apps 2018, pp. 140–45).

Consequently, religious anarchists can often come to anarchist conclusions because they may interpret sacred texts and commandments in a way that leads to anarchist conclusions. Christian anarchists such as Leo Tolstoy, Jacques Ellul, and Nikolai Berdyaev produced anarchist ideas based on the exegesis of sacred texts and set an example in this regard (A. Şahin 2016; Demirağ 2012). However, this process does not imply blind obedience to divinity. Despite the legitimate concerns of secular anarchists about the derivation of anarchism through revelation, religious anarchists also share criticisms of the state, capitalism, and the church (Christoyannopoulos and Apps 2018, p. 212; Underwood and Vallier 2020; Christoyannopoulos 2022). For instance, Tolstoy advocated anarchism as an ethical and moral way of life, and his anarchist views are generally based on the rejection of the state and violence. Tolstoy’s anarchism includes a deep criticism that it is ethically wrong for the state to try to rule people by force. In his view, people should act according to their own intrinsic moral values, which means that a state that controls people by force is unnecessary (Marshall 2009, p. 189).

Islam also has developed throughout its history in a close relationship with political authority, but it also has a rebellious and anti-authoritarian character within (Morris 2007; Kazmi 2015). Between the 13th and 16th centuries, the dervish communities, such as Melametis and Kalenderis, in the Islamic world, which rejected society, the state, intermediary institutions, and a singular understanding of Islam, have been discussed as one of the historical examples of anarchist principles in Islam (Karamustafa 1994; A. Şahin 2015f). Today, the concept of Anarca-Islam emerges as a post-anarchist reinterpretation of Islam, taking a stance against Western-centered understandings of anarchism and Islam (Veneuse 2009); moreover, philosophically and theologically, Islamic anarchism introduces a decolonial aspect to anarchist theorizing (Abdou 2022).

Looking at the itaatsiz journal in Turkey, it is possible to see a unique anarchist thought based on the production of knowledge and politics based on Islam. As one of the prominent writers in this journal, A. Şahin states that contrary to the stereotyped understandings and interpretations, “Islam does not accept any intermediary between God and the servant, even in the viewpoints of its holy book and even the most orthodox sects. With this as a basic principle, the existence of clergy, even as a cultural reality, necessitates a position in the Islamic geography that is always open to debate and whose legitimacy is questioned. Therefore, they have to explain and legitimize this positioning in different ways” (A. Şahin 2015b). Reassessing the relationship between Islam and anarchism, Muslim anarchists defend that, contrary to popular belief, anarchism and Islam share more common themes than is commonly believed.

The systematic development of modern anarchism in Turkey coincides with the late 1980s. The anarchist literature started to burgeon with the journals Kara, published in 1986, and Efendisiz, published in 1988, paved the way for anarchist organizations and theoretical debates (Başusta 2023; Öztan and Kartal 2014; Soydan 2015). Classical and modern anarchist thinkers have often been the subject of debate in the anarchist literature in Turkey. However, anarchism in Turkey has also attempted to localize anarchist thought. In particular, the journals Kara and Efendisiz took a stand against the Kurdish question in Turkey, the secular modernization project that came to the fore in Turkey with the Kemalist modernization process, and the policies taken by the state to build a singular understanding of Islam. In this sense, it has been argued that the anarchist movement in Turkey has been localized, albeit within certain limits, through its dialogs with the Kurdish movement and Islamist movements (Kuşçu 2024, pp. 164–88).

A. Şahin states that concepts such as property, hierarchy, and social justice stand out between Islam and anarchism. According to Sahin, in Islam, property belongs to God and people only play the role of a trustee. Similar to anarchist ideas, ijma (the consensus of the community) in Islam offers social decision-making as an alternative to centralized authority. In anarchism, private property is rejected as a phenomenon that fosters inequality and hierarchy. Both ideas are based on the principles of individual freedom and social equality, which leads to a criticism of hierarchies and authority. In this sense, Muslim anarchists in Turkey criticize the organization of the positivist and anti-religious movement on the left and the secular and singular understanding of Islam imposed on society by Kemalist modernization. At the same time, they criticize the Islamist identity, which became visible especially in the 2000s by criticizing Kemalism for internal colonialism and the politics that imposes a single understanding of Islam and tries to exclude Islamic and non-Islamic social movements from the political sphere. In this sense, it is important to examine the Islam-based political thought that has emerged around the magazine “disobedient”. Contrary to the common perception of fundamentalist Islam and authoritarian politics, it provides a good opportunity to question the relationship between Islam and politics.

Understanding the political significance of Muslim anarchists in Turkey is important in this context. In this framework, below, I first discuss Muslim anarchists’ criticisms of anti-theist anarchist movements in Turkey and how these criticisms relate to Western-based knowledge production. With the inferences I draw from these discussions, I examine the ways in which Muslim anarchists put forward an alternative political thought based on the texts they refer to in their political thought production.

4. Main Critiques from the Spirituals to Positivists

i. 

Modern versus Local Anarchist Perspectives in Turkey

Among modern anarchists in Turkey, “to act as an ideological passport officer for others” (Zileli 2013) has been an issue as it has been an ongoing topic to criticize each other through their understanding of anarchism and its application to real politics. Religious anarchism, especially Islamic anarchism, has also had its share of this debate within the hegemony of anti-theist and enlightenment-based anarchist movements in Turkey (see Zileli 2013). A. Şahin (2016, p. 15), one of the prominent Muslim anarchists in Turkey, attributes his writing on anarchism and religion in Turkey to two reasons: “Firstly, the fact that religion, especially Islam, and anarchism have not been sufficiently emphasized; and secondly, the fact that anarchism in Turkey has been embraced by leftists and atheists, thus creating the illusion that anarchism is a movement that is obliged to be atheist” (A. Şahin 2015f; 2016, p. 15). Accordingly, one of the most worrying issues for Muslim anarchists in Turkey is that the anarchist thought and movement has been misappropriated and promoted with an anti-theist understanding and that being an anarchist has, therefore, become equivalent to being an atheist.

Muslim anarchists’ critique of the positivist modern anarchist movements in Turkey provides a critical stance as a counter-hegemonic movement. In this sense, Demirağ (2012) states that anarchism, though recognized as a radical freedom movement, has struggled to escape its elitist intellectual image over the past two decades. This perception, fueled by those from rock culture and disillusioned leftists, has reduced anarchism to a lifestyle centered on anti-religious sentiment and hedonism. Despite its potential, a local form of anarchism has not taken root, and the movement is often seen as an imported concept. However, Demirağ adds that, recently, some young Muslims within the Islamist movement have begun to explore the intersections between Islam and anarchism. Their efforts could, for the first time, foster a local form of anarchism, according to Demirağ (2012, pp. 15–16).

According to Muslim anarchists, modern anarchists who evaluate Islam from an orientalist perspective rely on Western-centered theories and Enlightenment-based reasoning, adopt radical anti-religion, especially anti-Islamism, both in practice and theory, and are detached from the local reality of modern anarchism in Turkey. Since these thinkers are limited to a Western epistemology and perspective, they are unable to understand and underestimate religious movements in Turkey. Therefore, Demirağ’s (2012, pp. 15–16) critique of secular anarchist movements in Turkey as “translated anarchism” underlines that anarchist theorization in Turkey has also not gone beyond being a Western-centered, directly translated thought. Accordingly, it is possible to argue that translated anarchism refers to Muslim anarchists’ critical engagement with the epistemological hegemony of the West, even in anarchist theorizing. It is also because Muslim anarchists argue that the secular and atheist left and anarchist thought in Turkey legitimizes itself with Islamophobia and the orientalist perspective of Western dominance (Demirağ 2006) in their critique of Islamic anarchism. In addition, and in response to this, Demirağ (2012, p. 16) states that a local anarchist thought was fortunately beginning to develop.

Bey (2014) argues that orientalist perspectives and Islamophobia are not only evident in the everyday politics of Turkey but were even internalized and reflected within Islamist movements that were victimized during the February 28 coup. This approach towards Islam, they assert, is already deeply ingrained and further perpetuated by secular left movements, which often view religion-related communities as monolithic and homogeneous (Bey 2014). That is why, in their criticism, it is possible to argue that the secular left, the modern anarchist movements, and “militant secularism in Turkey (referring to Kemalist movements)” (A. Şahin 2015a) approach society with the intention to “save (referring to secular movements claiming to save society from poor political and social standards, including Islamist movements and Islamism) by looking from the West” (Eraslan 2014) is problematized by Muslim anarchists in this matter (bold emphases and italic style added by the author). To this tension between secular and religious movements, Demirağ (2012, pp. 343–45) adds that “Islamism goes beyond being a discourse that criticizes the West with the knowledge of the West; they criticize modernity with a specific episteme that they filtered from the experience of Western colonialism and Orientalism. Since positivism […] is a knowledge that disintegrates the social fabric in the Islamic world and also despises the cocoon surrounding life, Islamism constructs a discursive critique of double otherness against positivism.” With this statement, Demirağ (2012) underlines that Islamism is more prone to the production of local rather than Western-centric thought, that it is a critical response to the Orientalist perspective, and at the same time, it has the capacity to offer a critical discourse to the double otherness of positivism; it has the capacity to offer a thought that is neither fully Western nor completely detached from the world.

Relying on the Western-centric dominance in modern anarchist thought, Muslim anarchists add that the capacity of the modern anarchist movement to analyze the modern state is limited to describing the new world conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries, which changed with the rise of industrialization and nationalism. This is because Muslim anarchists attribute the fact that modern anarchists overlook how the state exploits spiritualism and portrays Islam as monolithic to this limited analysis of the state. Demirağ highlights (Demirağ 2012, pp. 117–23) that it leads to people who identify themselves as Muslims being considered monolithic, submissive, and anti-freedom. Modern anarchist movements, which analyze the state and similar organized authoritarian institutions within the limits of non-local and Western thought, have, therefore, lagged behind in their reading of the state’s relationship with spiritualism in Turkey. According to Demirağ (2012), when analyzing the state as an anarchist, not including the state’s relationship with spiritualism in this analysis and instead relying on a militant Western-centered secular thought that constructs a double otherness prevents modern anarchists from fully grasping the real state domination at the local level.

According to Demirağ (2012, p. 117), “Every state sees itself as God. Nevertheless, the biopolitical modern state has more to say in this matter. Because not only does it have the right to decide who lives and who dies, but it also has the audacity and passion to reject the order of nature and to build an artificial order equivalent to it.” That is why Demirağ (2012, p. 131) thinks modern anarchism left an important gap by not sufficiently emphasizing the metaphysical and totalitarian essence of the modern state. While acknowledging the negative relationship that modern anarchism has historically established with religions, according to Muslim anarchists, modern anarchist movements have failed to analyze the hegemony that the modern state has established over society and the individual with abstract concepts by producing concepts and assuming divine roles; therefore, they still accept an anti-theist approach with certainty.

ii. 

Modern Anarchism: Disconnected from the Local Reality

Based on Demirağ’s book Remembering the Forgotten, it is possible to argue that Muslim anarchists oppose the centrality of Western anarchism in the anarchist historical narrative of modern anarchist movements in Turkey in addition to the nation-state historiography. Muslim anarchists oppose the restriction of anarchist historiography to the development of Western anarchism and seek to create an alternative anarchist historiography for both the nation-state historiography and the history of anarchism in Turkey.

According to A. Şahin, today’s historiography has a shallow and manipulative approach shaped by nationalism and ideologies that appear religious. In order to question this mentality, a new perspective has been brought to the study of history, and this book of essays, supported by the data provided by anarchist anthropology, has been produced (A. Şahin 2023b). Muslim anarchists in Turkey often recall the unorthodox Sufi dervishes and orders that emerged in various geographies. According to them, such Sufi dervish movements had anarchist characteristics against the Ottoman centralization in bureaucracy, religion, and economy. Looking at the prominent historical references in their online journal itaatsiz, Melametism and Kalenderis vitally influenced their approach towards Islam and anarchism.

Melametism, as an example introduced by Şahin, is a religious movement in which Kalenderi-style dervishes were particularly active during the 13th and 16th centuries in Anatolia. These dervish communities took a radical stance against social norms and surprised society with their religious practices. They engaged in anti-societal, anti-authoritarian practices to avoid Ottoman bureaucratic and religious centralization in order to practice their Sufi thoughts, which made them both criticized and sympathized with by large segments of society (Karamustafa 1994). Melametism favored a life of asceticism and rejected all institutions of Islamic society (A. Şahin 2015d). These dervishes refused to participate in economic reproduction and despised working and owning property. They also rejected marriage and sexual intercourse (A. Şahin 2015d, 2015f; Karamustafa 1994; Ocak 1992). Their lifestyle challenged the norms of society with an anti-social stance and reflected a religious understanding that involved abstaining from worldly pleasures and daily pursuits in order to reach Allah (Karamustafa 1994). Melametism emerged as a radical religious movement that opposed society’s economic and social order and sought a spiritual quest (A. Şahin 2015d). Whether in a positive or negative meaning, Karamustafa (1994) does not hesitate to call them anarchists in his work.

Given such unorthodox Sufi orders’ example, A. Şahin (2015e) points out that Sufism and anarchism share remarkable similarities in terms of individual freedom and social criticism, although Sufism and anarchism seem to be two seemingly distant systems of thought. Both ideas center on the inner development and freedom of the individual, and in this respect, they form a deep common ground (A. Şahin 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, 2016). As long as they are not subordinated to the state’s regulations and similarly organized authorities, Sufism(s) emphasizes the individual’s quest for unity with the divine and inner freedom. Sufi practices encourage the individual to go beyond existing social and religious authorities while guiding them to discover their own essence and spiritual depth. This process is an individual’s quest for self-knowledge and spiritual integration. On the other hand, anarchism defends the individual’s freedom by questioning social structures and centralized authorities. Anarchist thought opposes existing social and political pressures and aims for an egalitarian and free society in order for the individual to realize his or her potential. Both systems emphasize the importance of personal experience. Moreover, Sufism exalts the value of inner intuition and personal experience for spiritual development. This is central to the individual’s self-understanding and the process of relating to the divine. On the other hand, anarchism places individuals’ free will and personal experience above social structures. This approach promotes individual freedom beyond social norms and authorities (Loutfy and Berguno 2005; A. Şahin 2016, pp. 12–15; H. Şahin 2020).

Apparently, it is possible to argue that such religious movements in the past, such as Melametism and Kalenderism, which have emerged in Anatolia and in different geographies, use the life proposals offered in the past as alternative historiography against both the nation-state historiography, which appears to be religious, and the modern anarchist historiography, which refers only to the West. Looking at Turkey’s modernization predicament and the IIF’s reactionary responses towards it, it is possible for Muslim anarchists to argue that the practice of appropriating and developing local knowledge can be considered a counter-hegemonic stance to the ready-made historiography.

So far, I have discussed the problematization of Muslim anarchists’ critical relationship with the West, state, and authority. The main reason for collecting these prominent concepts under the heading “Main Critiques from the Spirituals to Positivists” is that there are important intersections in Muslim anarchists’ critique of modern anarchism in Turkey. From the Muslim anarchist arguments I have introduced, we can deduce the following: First, the critique of the state analysis of modern anarchists in Turkey is a positivist, post-industrial revolution, state critique that fails to see how the state establishes hegemony by using spirituality; moreover, it is a state critique that evaluates religious movements as anti-freedom movements based on an understanding of religion that the state tries to standardize. It lacks a local anarchist evaluation and perspective because it bases its epistemic foundations solely on Western-centered ideas and excludes the anarchist elements, such as unorthodox Sufi communities, just because of their relationship with religion.

Secondly, in their criticism of the Enlightenment-based, secular, anti-theist, positivist approaches, they criticized the reproduction of the Western, orientalist, Islamophobic perspective by the secular left and anarchism. Thirdly, due to these Western-centered perspectives, anarchist historiography in Turkey has been silenced, excluded, and disconnected from its geography or even probably ignored local history while referencing the West. It is therefore possible to say that these critical approaches evaluate modern anarchism in Turkey as epistemically submitted to the West. To put it briefly, it is possible to state that they interpret a reading of history, state, and capitalism—whose epistemic foundations are focused solely on the West—as epistemically colonized. Muslim anarchists criticize the atheist left and anarchist movements for relying solely on epistemological foundations from the West and for ignoring and excluding Islamic-based knowledge production simply because of its Islamic origin. Their effort to make Islam-based movements with anarchist values in Anatolia a part of anarchist history can be argued as Muslim anarchists’ motivation to break away from Western-centered thinking.

Muslim anarchists’ criticisms of anti-theist leftist and anarchist movements, hegemonic Islamist movements, and the efforts of the JDP, which sees itself as the sole representative of Islam, to exclude and silence other social movements over the dilemmas created by modernization in Turkish politics provide important clues to understanding their place and stance in Turkish politics. It can be concluded that the concept of authority in Islam needs to be rethought with the anti-authoritarian approaches of Muslim anarchists. This is because the exclusion and silencing of Muslim anarchists from the IIF, the atheist left, or the anarchist movements at a time when Islam-based identity was visible in Turkey is evidence that Muslim anarchists emerged as a counter-hegemonic movement in at least three areas.

While trying to build a local anarchism that is not exclusively Western-centered, Muslim anarchists oppose a uniform understanding of religion and politics and emphasize the commonalities of Islam, especially the Qur’an and hadiths, with anarchism. Their stance is shaped by an effort to create alternative politics and thought against both Islamist and secular hegemonic structures in Turkey. Below, I will continue my argument in the following way: I will discuss how Muslim anarchists in Turkey have created an Islam-based political thought based on the Quran, that is, what kind of political conception they offer to the field where they are criticized for being Islam-based and where they oppose the singular understanding of Islam.

5. “The State Is Shirk” and “Property Belongs to Allah”

Like many anarchists, Muslim anarchists argue that “the state has historically been the source of economic inequalities, the root cause of property problems, the practitioner of organized violence, and the main instrument of social domination. According to anarchists, with these elements, the state restricts the freedom of individuals, reinforces social injustices, and perpetuates mechanisms of oppression. Therefore, anarchists see the existence of the state as the greatest obstacle to a just and free order in society” (Bey 2017b). However, Muslim anarchists have Qur’an-based explanations and elaborations for such matters.

A. Şahin (2020, 2021) quotes the verses that Abraham had absolute submission to his Lord and never bowed down to any other power. While idols and false gods were man-made symbols, Abraham devoted his entire being to the Lord of the worlds alone and defended His power. In al-Baqarah 2/258, Abraham stands up to the unbelievers in defense of Allah’s power, sending a clear message that idols are powerless and false gods do not exist. This stance includes not only the belief in tawhid but also a sharp criticism of the absurdity of idolatry. A. Şahin (2020, 2021, 2023a) adds that Abraham believed in Allah alone and opposed the idol worship of those who succumbed to their ego and went astray. The identity of hanif (one who believes in tawhid), which is emphasized especially in the verses al-Baqarah 2/135 and al-Imran 3/67, shows that Abraham completely avoided idols and surrendered to the one and only God. This submission makes it clear that he was not one of the polytheists (idol worshippers). Relying on these verses, A. Şahin argues that Abraham is a symbol of rejecting the idea of worshiping objects found in nature or man-made objects and its representations against idols. His interpretation suggests that the value one ascribes to objects is a fallacy.

A. Şahin also adds that Abraham’s questioning himself to what to believe in is a rational act because “after breaking the idols, he thought of adopting the moon and the star as deities, but when he did not see any permanence in them, he thought, ‘Verily, I have turned my face to the Creator of the heavens and the earth as a believer, and I am not of the polytheists’(Al-An’am, 6/79)” (A. Şahin 2020). According to Şahin, in this sense, icons, paintings, and crosses can be called idols because they are worshiped and ascribed divine attributes. The problem is not the existence of the idol but the worship and deification of it.

The sanctification of the state and the people associated with the state, which Şahin interprets in terms of idol worship, is, according to Muslim anarchist thought, equivalent to attributing the title of Allah to these institutions. A. Şahin (2020) adds the following in this regard: “today’s state, like the tyrants, pharaohs, and emperors of ancient times, presents itself as an idol—a deity—to be worshipped. It takes the place of Allah. It equates itself with Allah. The state asserts its omnipresence and omnipresence (Ash-Shahīd) by intervening in every moment of our lives, by claiming to rule with wisdom through judgment and law, and by claiming the right to kill (Al-Mumīt), punish and judge if necessary, Al-Hakam and Al-Adl; by establishing borders and claiming ownership of lands and people (citizenship, etc.), Al-Malik; it takes the place of Allah), Al-Malik, intervening in every field with the aim of knowing everything, collecting information, Al-Alîm, claiming to be great and indestructible, Al-Hayy”.

Relying on these narrations in the Qur’an and their interpretation, according to Muslim anarchists, idols are not necessarily only objects that can be seen or touched: “idol as an invisible yet touchable object; the most important idol inherent in us and in our lives is money and the ambition to make money. The ambition to earn money is critical for the people of contemporary societies. Today’s people have lost their existence and consciousness to obtain it... The order called capitalism is the order of a state built in the name of the idol of money, which, together with the nation-state, is everywhere, ready and waiting to be obtained, visible and invisible, but which affects life in its entirety. Money is a goal for which people die and are killed, for which people sacrifice themselves, for which a crazed ambition strives to achieve. Money is the name of greed and arrogance. It exists with and through the state and the system of values it regulates. This idol is the life and soul of capitalist society—I am not excluding other social systems, but capitalism is its real owner. Everyone has to be subject to it, willingly or unwillingly, and for the majority, it has to be worshipped and become the owner of “property”. It is thought that one can own property with money. The property is now owned by money and the ‘state’ rather than the original owner!” (A. Şahin 2023a).

A. Şahin (2015c) adds that “Verse 10 of Surah Yunus, which refers to the concept of property (‘Know well that whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth belongs to Allah’), stands out as the most important verse addressing the Muslim and humanity as a political, economic and cultural entity, the single within the community This means that he owns and possesses everything that exists in this world If you think that you have ownership and power over any object that you say belongs to you, you are wrong Power and authority belong to Him From the Qur’an, there are many verses about acquiring property and providing for your needs and earning and sharing what you earn and giving to the needy In addition, unjust gain and interest are severely condemned and those who practice it are cursed” (see Surah Al-Baqarah 175–179).

It is apparent that the state’s relationship with capitalism, which, according to the Muslim anarchists’ interpretation of the Quran, is already shirked, is also related to idolization. The state acts as the protector of capitalism, legitimizes capital with abstract concepts of its own making such as the welfare state, appoints owners to capital, and securitizes it. According to Bey (2016), “Islam has been interpreted and adapted to the mentality of the current capitalist system through Islamism and with a Calvinist mentality, detached from its main foundations and adapted to the current system and muddied with nationalism.” This relationship between the state and capitalism is interpreted as these institutions replacing Allah according to Islam, and the religion has also been made worldly. In this sense, we see those Muslim anarchists struggle against institutionalized religion, leadership, the state, and capitalism. Sahin underlines the necessity of breaking idols as the state, capitalism, and its institutions are a critical obstacle to the individual’s search for his own truth. By using abstract and concrete concepts, they dominate the individual and society. This sanctified state, ideology, and leaders counter this domination, starting from the individual to all areas of freedom; while the environment belongs to God and God is in everything, it is now monetized by capitalism, and the security of this capitalist system is secured by the means of state (Demirağ 2012, pp. 394–95; A. Şahin 2020, 2021, 2023a; Altunay 2016; Demirağ 2013b). The freedom of women and men is controlled by abstract hegemonic concepts (honor, family, etc.) produced and sanctified by the state (Bey 2017a, 2022; Erdem 2014; Bey 2024; itaatsiz 2022), and society is militarized (itaatsiz 2014; Bey 2017b).

A. Şahin (2015c) adds that “the affinity between the Anarchist idea of property ownership and these quotations from the Qur’anic verses should have been noticed. The basic motto of Anarchism, ‘Property is theft’, refers to Private Property and does not imply opposition to Possession. Anarchists declare that Private property must be abolished, and this is made clear enough in Proudhon’s ‘What is Property’.” Explicitly relating his interpretation of the Qur’anic verses on property to one of the basic principles of anarchism, “property is theft”. Through his dialog with Proudhon, one of the modern anarchist writers, he emphasizes the commonalities between classical anarchist thinkers and the anarchist aspects of the Qur’an.

Above, I set out the principles of the Islam-based anarchist social movement on the issues of the state, capitalism, and property, based mainly on verses and hadiths from the Qur’an. First, the study mainly revealed what Muslim anarchists understand by the localization of anarchist thought. Kemalist modernization in Turkey has always been described as “internal colonialism” or “self-colonization” by Islam-based movements, and it has been underlined that a Western-based understanding of modernity was imposed on Turkey (Zencirci 2024; Çınar 2024a). Looking at Muslim anarchists’ criticisms of positivist and enlightenment-based political thought, it is possible to see that they wanted an epistemological break with the West and emancipation. However, according to Muslim anarchists, this localizing political thought does not mean a complete break with Western systems of thought but rather advocates for the continuation of the dialog between local and non-local political thought.

Second, the exclusion of the idea of Islamic anarchism by the IIF also underscores the rivalries between Islam-based political thoughts. This is because, like the Kalenderi and Melameti dervish movements that opposed the singularization of Islam in the Ottoman Empire, Muslim anarchists today reject the hegemonic application of the singular understanding of Islam by the JDP. This not only underscores the diversity of Islam-based thought in Turkish politics but also points out that there are ongoing conflicts between various Islam-based schools of thought.

Third, the political thought of Muslim anarchists, based on interpretations of the Qur’an and hadiths, shows that Islam and anarchism can be linked on issues such as property, capitalism and the state. These approaches criticize Islam’s traditional relationship with existing political structures, especially the authoritarian state and the conception of politics as compatible with capitalism that is prevalent in Islamist movements. Muslim anarchists reinterpret Islam’s foundations of justice, equality, and the notion that property is not an individual right but a communal responsibility and reconcile the social solidarity and communal ownership that emerge from Islamic sources with anarchism’s stance against private property.

In this framework, based on the principle that property belongs to God, Muslim anarchists argue that individual ownership creates injustice and that social justice can only be achieved through the collective use of property. At the same time, they argue that capitalism and the state contradict Islamic principles because both structures reinforce authority over people and produce injustice. This perspective makes it possible to see Islam not only as a belief system but also as a revolutionary political ideology that is anti-authoritarian, libertarian, and based on social equality. Muslim anarchists emphasize the need for a reinterpretation of Islam-based politics, arguing that Islam cannot be reduced to a religion but can also be the source of a political and social practice that resists all forms of authority, hierarchy, and oppression.

The thinking of Muslim anarchists provides an important bridge between religious and non-religious social movements, demonstrating that both fields can meet common critiques and demands. In terms of religious social movements, Muslim anarchists argue that Islam proposes not only a system of worship and morality but also a social structure based on justice, equality, and anti-authoritarianism. In this context, they criticize traditional Islamic thought on the need to re-examine the concepts of authority, property, and the state. They propose an alternative understanding of politics based on the sources of Islam but is in conflict with authoritarian state structures and the capitalist economy.

In terms of non-religious social movements, Muslim anarchists oppose the radical anti-religious and positivist approaches of Western anarchism, arguing that local cultural and religious contexts should not be ignored. At this point, they emphasize that both Islam and anarchism overlap in their stance against authority and oppression. In the end, it is possible to state that Muslim anarchists offer non-religious social movements an alternative model of anarchist theorizing that is also compatible with universal principles of justice and equality but is also linked to local values.

This approach shows that Muslim anarchists have overcome the artificial divisions between religious and non-religious social movements and are building a new ground for political struggle that brings together anti-authoritarianism, social justice, and demands for freedom. By reinterpreting both Islam and anarchism, they show that these movements can create a common platform of struggle on issues such as capitalism, the state, and property.

6. Conclusions

In this study, I examined Muslim anarchists who developed an anarchist theory and intellectual movement. With a contextual focus on the relationship of secularism with social movements, which lies at the root of the problem of modernization in Turkey, I have evaluated the relationship of Muslim anarchism with the secular left and anarchist movements by looking at the critical aspects of Muslim anarchists. This is mainly because the concepts of Islam and authority are often negatively associated with each other, both when discussing the concept of authority in the literature on Islam and politics and in the literature produced by the left and anarchist movements in Turkey. Although Islam is often associated with authority in the political thought, it actually encompasses much deeper and more complex dynamics. This research has revealed that the relationship between Islam, politics, and authority can manifest in various ways, and therefore strongly emphasizes the need to reconsider the concepts of Islam and authority.

Muslim anarchists in Turkey contribute to modern anarchist thought and religious social movements by criticizing the state, capitalism, and authority through the interpretation of Qur’anic verses and reinterpreting them through Islam-based knowledge production. They advocate for a political thought based on the Qur’anic teachings of social justice and equality and question the state’s and capitalism’s legitimacy. However, this critical stance is excluded and marginalized by the dominant Islamic and secular intellectual circles in Turkey and is also marginalized and silenced by the enlightenment-based, positivist, anti-theist, leftist, and anarchist movements in Turkey.

Western versus local thought, as one of the most prominent concepts revealed within the scope of this article, also signals the efforts of contemporary religious social movements to break away from Western-based epistemological hegemony. While Muslim anarchists’ critiques of secular, anti-theist modern anarchist movements are often based on concepts such as West-centeredness and “translated anarchism”, the post-colonial character of Islamist anarchism is underlined (Demirağ 2013a). Accordingly, relying on Muslim anarchists’ critiques, this study highlights that religious anarchists in Turkey have been subjected to an orientalist reflection against the hegemony of Western-centered leftist and anarchist thought and have been excluded from the field of anarchist theory production (see Demirağ 2013a).

The basic tenets of Muslim anarchism reject the state as a form of shirk, a structure that denies the absolute sovereignty of Allah. This approach is based on the view that the state as an intermediary between people is an intervention that disrupts the direct relationship between Allah and the servant. Furthermore, the rejection of private property coincides with the belief that all property belongs to Allah and that humans are merely custodians of it. This view holds that the ownership of property ultimately rests with a single source, Allah, and that humans cannot have the right to use it for exploitative purposes. Muslim anarchists believe that capitalism, intermediary institutions, and institutionalization deepen inequality between individuals and undermine social justice. This perspective argues that capitalism functions to oppress people by creating economic inequality and hierarchies. By rejecting earthly power structures and emphasizing a direct connection to the divine, Muslim anarchists demand a just and egalitarian society based on spiritual values and collective responsibility. These demands aim for individuals and societies to live freely, without hierarchy and authority, in a way that best conforms to the will of Allah.

Lastly, looking at Muslim anarchists’ targets of criticism, it is possible to state that the JDP government positions itself as the sole Islamic authority to challenge Western thought and Turkey’s secular founding ideology, Kemalism, which is seen as a form of “internal colonialism” that suppresses Islam-based knowledge production. Muslim anarchists oppose the JDP’s use of this stance to silence other Islamic and non-Islamic movements while also critiquing the West-centric hegemony in anarchist thought that marginalizes religious anarchists in Turkey. It is mainly because the JDP’s stance towards the hegemonic political projects it opposes also supresses other Islam and non-Islam based political movements, that do not coincide with its system of thought. This reveals that although the JDP appears to be adopting an anti-hegemonic stance, it is actually using its own political projects as a tool of hegemony in Turkey.