The Bektashi Sufi Order and the Politics of Ethnic/National Identity in the Balkans: The Bearing of a History of Religions Case Study on International Relations
“When God first sought to show His face He made mankind His dwelling place. A man that knows his inward mind Knows what God is. It is mankind” (Naim Frashëri)
Basically, the present paper is an interdisciplinary exercise on a historical case study. It considers a specific Sufi/Dervish order, namely the Bektashiyya tariqa, from the perspective of the implications that a Studies in Religion approach can have on International Relations theory and practice. In particular, it focuses on the phenomenological distinctiveness of the Bektashiyya tariqa –as this is exemplified throughout history– and attempts to bring forth its significance for the formation, consolidation, and ongoing dynamics of the politics concerning ethnic/national identity in the Balkans. The Bektashi distinctiveness could be defined as the most conspicuous example of Islamic syncretism, i.e. as a prominent and at the same time potent inter-religious communication that aspired to create a historical, social, and by extension a political space for multi-religion. It was in the background of this particular syncretic performance of a common yet diversified multi-religion that much of the ethnic/national identity agenda was played out, first within the Ottoman Empire and afterwards within the State relations of Greece, Turkey and Albania.
I reckon that some preliminary remarks on Sufism are necessary as a start. Sufism, or in other words what Western scholarship has construed as Islamic mysticism, stands for a multitude of diverse religious traditions that have attempted, undertaken, and achieved a variety of accommodations between Islamic and non-Islamic elements. One should keep in mind that historically these Sufi accommodations are not some kind of peripheral or alternative phenomena that cluster around an allegedly mainstream Islam; on the contrary, they have their roots in the very origins of Islam and remain very much alive even nowadays. It is precisely the historical presence and dynamics of these accommodations that betray the place, role, and significance of Islamic syncretism within the wider multi-, inter-, and cross-cultural condition of the past and present. Moreover, one could say that the foundation or frame of reference with regard to Sufi syncretism is the persistent idea that Islam constitutes a “perennial philosophy”, a spiritual level that underlies all genuine religious expressions, regardless of their cultural, ethnic or other registers. Personally, I think that this all-encompassing and comprehensive principle was realized in Asia Minor and the Balkans by the Bektashiyya tariqa in ways unprecedented in their forcefulness, boldness, and insight.
There is a substantial amount of bibliography that delves into the discussion on whether the Bektashi Sufi/Dervish order should be treated as a genuinely Islamic development. Notwithstanding the pros and cons, the whole discussion seems to perpetuate a series of confusions and prejudices concerning the epistemological, methodological, and of course the theological status of “syncretism”. In simple words, it is presumed that anything syncretic cannot be truly Islamic. To my understanding this kind of juxtaposition is, in terms of analysis at least, misleading. The Islamic identity of the Bektashiyya tariqa cannot be questioned –that would amount to questioning the self-consciousness of the Order itself, i.e. to the misapprehension of the very phenomenon under observation– but at the same time it is beyond dispute that the Bektashi order has been affected by the complex religious history of the Turkmen clans in Anatolia. By the 13th century CE these clans had already accommodated religious elements from Turkish shamanism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Mandaeanism, Manichaeanism, Judaism, and Eastern Christianity within the frame of a religious system that was gradually bringing forth and realizing more and more its Islamic character. It should be noted, however, that what eventually constituted the differentia specifica of the Bektashiyya tariqa vis-à-vis Islamic religiosity in general and Sufi traditions in particular was the fact that the Bektashis appropriated a great deal of the religious morphology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To be more exact, this syncretic performance on the part of the Bektashiyya tariqa was performed as a link between Islam and Christianity, on the one hand, and as an ongoing inter-religious dialogue that had broader socio-political effects, on the other. Up to nowadays, theology, worship, ethics and customs, all of them unite and divide Bektashis and Eastern Orthodox Christians in a very concrete and historical way. What is noteworthy, though, is that this way was the catalyst that facilitated the expansion of Islam in the Balkans, and the same time made life more bearable for Eastern Orthodox communities.
To be sure, the history of the Bektashi Sufi/Dervish order proves that multi-culture conditions can result in new religious formations that are capable of mediating polarities, lessening fanaticism, and resolving tensions. This, of course, cannot work without the presence of broad-minded, responsible, bold, and inspired religious leaders; leaders that can address the needs of the present by transcending the past in the light of the vision they have for the future. But let’s follow the unfolding of the meaning of such a religious history, created by the Bektashi babás, by looking into four distinct though inter-related levels: the anthropological, the theological, the historiographical and the phenomenological.
The Implications for International Relations
The bearing of all this on International Relations theory and practice is evident if one takes into consideration that Bektashism as religion and ideology played –and still plays– a significant role in the State relations between Greece, Albania, and Turkey. In Greece, for instance, it is quite telling that the issue of nationality (or, to be more precise, the issue of ιθαγένεια) has from the very start been intrinsically related to religion: virtually a Greek can only be a (Eastern Orthodox) Christian. This precondition has resulted in one of most rigorous assimilation policies in Europe, on the one hand, while seen in the light of the Muslim minority affairs in Thrace it has led to a paradoxical continuance –so to speak– of the Ottoman millet administration, on the other. Although the Bektashis of Thrace have not been officially recognized as such, they have been left –along with the rest of the Muslims– to their administrative and social fate. Recently, however, they have been re-discovered, promoted, and utilized through regional Bektashi festivals, wrestling tournaments, and ceremonies, in the spirit of postmodern multiculturalism and ethnic/folklore sensitivities in order to work out a range of good relations with Bulgaria, Turkey, and Albania.
As to Albania, I have previously mentioned a few things pertaining to the bonds between Albanian nationalism and Albanian Bektashism. Nevertheless, at this point it is quite pertinent to quote from Muhammad Mufaku, referring to the work of Naim Frashëri: “Turkish authority, with success, employed the faith as an agent for its own ends in the Albanian regions, so that the word ‘Turk’ or ‘Turkish’… was applied in general to the Albanians. As a consequence there was no longer any meaningful existence for the Albanians as a people or for the Albanian language… With Naim no contradiction is to be observed in the essence of religion between love for the sons of men and the Albanians’ love of themselves. Just as ‘every sparrow has its nest, so has every people its homeland’. By this logic the Albanian had their homeland just as the Turks had theirs, and it was their right to enjoy it… He [Naim] tries to link Karbala in some way with the future of Albania and the Albanians. He wants an Albanian to find his inspiration in the events which occurred in Karbala for the interest and welfare of his homeland and his nationalism”. Lastly, with regard to Turkish administration policies, it is well known that the secularist agenda resulted in the abolition of all Sufi/Dervish turuq in general (1925), and the transfer of Bektashi headquarters to Tirana, Albania.
However, the above remarks are just an external observation that should not lead us to overlook or underestimate the internal and inherent significance of Bektashism with regard to the interface between religion and State relations. The syncretic inter-religious communication and performance of the Bektashiyya tariqa compels us to investigate a number of important issues: (a) How can “religion” be theoretically utilized in International Relations; (b) What can Bektashi syncretism contribute to the discussion of International Relations as a case of the (post)modern dialectics between the Same and the Other; (c) Is this sort of syncretism a sufficient condition for the formation and implementation of policies concerning security dilemmas and minority problems? and (d) How should State and religious organizations in the Balkans cooperate in order to promote syncretism as a basis for socio-political unity and at the same time spiritual distinctiveness?
With regard to the first question, one could justifiably maintain that, if it is true that State and international relations affect and are affected by all sorts of human life-forms, social processes, and values, then it is evident that religion is included therein. The problem, of course, consists in the conceptualization of this inclusion. A preliminary suggestion would be to promote further the history-oriented tradition of International Relations theory and supplement it through a firm knowledge of local and global religious history. This could probably serve as a first step towards a more integral and penetrating understanding of the connection between religion, or better hierophanies, and all sorts of human life-forms. As to the second question, Bektashi syncretism –among lots of other religious expressions– witnesses to the fact that the dialectics of the Same and the Other are by no means a (post)modern novelty; it is an issue that has arisen time and again in a variety of contexts whenever multi-, inter-, and cross-cultural conditions came to the fore. Nevertheless, the case of the Bektashiyya tariqa also shows that religion, and more specifically Islam, has realized viable ways to incorporate the Other without betraying the Same, or in other words ways to preserve the Same without overlooking the Other. If this has been realized by an Islamic sector, then it seems at least promising and fruitful for International Relations theory to consider global Islamic dynamics from this perspective as well.
The third question refers more closely to International Relations practice, and as such it should be properly assessed only within specific contexts. However, one could say that if State relations policy in the Balkans were to keep in mind and familiarize itself with the history and the living experience-memory of such syncretic endeavours as the one Bektashis undertook, then it could tackle in a more humanitarian manner lots of minority problems and security dilemmas. Lastly, the fourth question is a much broader issue, since it involves a sort of revolutionizing in both State and religious organizations mentality. State officials seem to be negatively disposed towards a genuine collaboration with religious officials, while the latter seem to reject from the outset any positive outcome on the part of syncretism. To this seemingly unbridgeable gap, it looks as if the only solution –at least for an interim period– is the mediating presence and function of religionists (historians of religion, anthropologists and sociologists of religion), who would sensitize State officials to the prospects of a collaboration with religious dignitaries, on the one hand, and enlighten religious organizations as to the real place, role, and significance of syncretism in religious experience and history, one the other…
-
Previous Post
Australian – Greek Self-Reflection
-
Next Post
Beyond Fundamentalism
