Inclusions and the Role of the Individual

This chapter continues the discussion of the work of Recep Alpyağıl. While the previous chapter discussed the question of what constitutes and authentically Turkish Muslim canon of philosophical theology and why it is integral to the Turkish context, this chapter investigates Alpyağıl’s views as to what this canon might look like in practice, how it relates to religious hermeneutics, and the role of the individual Muslim in navigating and drawing meaning from such a canon. For Alpyağıl, the individual stands in “hypoleptic” continuity with her past, best represented as a spiral that reaches back to the past but also moves forward into the future. This chapter portrays Alpyağıl’s vision of the believing individual in continuity with past and with future as a prime example of how Turkish theology can dialectically make use of multiple intellectual traditions to resist being reduced to simplified binaries.

Roots and Authorities: Resituating Revisionist and Ankara Paradigms in Light of Other Authorities

This chapter explains how an understanding of Turkish theology as Muslim theology in dialectical tension with multiple traditions can develop and challenge previous literature on Turkish theology, addressing the work of two scholars of Turkish theology faculties: Felix Körner and Philip Dorroll. Körner’s writings on Turkish revisionist Qur’an hermeneutics depicted Turkish theology in a unique position to undertake a truly modern Muslim approach to the Qur’an. This chapter raises the concern that when the standard that constitutes a truly “modern” approach is brought in from outside Turkish discussions, it is liable to reinforce a questionable Islam vs. modernity binary. Dorroll comes much closer to breaking out of binaries in his treatment of Turkish theology in his work on the Ankara Paradigm. He argues for a seminal vein in Turkish theology that considers itself modern by tradition, even if his discussions are still largely framed within a religious vs. secular binary. By elaborating the decision to treat Turkish theology as both subject and source of conceptual frameworks, this chapter emphasizes the dialectical aspect of Turkish theology in its interactions with Turkish identity, the classical Arabic tradition, and Western intellectual tradition, highlighting theological moments of engagement that resist reduction to binary frameworks.

Introduction: Turkish Muslim “Theology” and Religion in Turkey

This chapter gives a broad overview of broader trends within Islam in Turkey as well as a brief history of Turkish theology faculties. In addition, it explains and problematizes the term “theology” as a translation for the Turkish “ilahiyat.” It further provides a summary of the book’s main argument that Turkish Muslim theology involves dialectical mediation of multiple authoritative traditions and concludes with subsequent chapter descriptions.

Conclusion: Reflections on Turkish Islam, Modernity, and Dialogue

This concluding chapter draws together the host of dialectical elements encountered in the work of Alpyağıl, Düzgün, and those Turkish theologians touched upon in the previous chapter’s survey. After reaffirming the dialectical aspects of Turkish theology, that is, Turkish theology’s complex relationship to multiple intellectual traditions, the discussion takes up a broader treatment of modernity and academic inter-religious dialogue in light of Turkish Muslim responses to and understandings of modernity. Finally, the chapter closes by touching upon the implications these Turkish dialectical encounters might have for conceptualizing modernity’s relationship to Islam and the implications Turkish theology might have for continued Muslim-Christian encounters at the academic level.

From Dialectics to Direct Address: Turkish Theologians on Atheism and Other Religions

While this chapter still features discussions drawn from the work of Recep Alpyağıl and Şaban Ali Düzgün, overall it takes a broader scope to offer a survey of Turkish theologians’ general responses to Christianity, skepticism, atheism, and religious pluralism. This chapter argues that in the Turkish theological context, these three issues mutually implicate one another, with only some exception. Among various works of Turkish theologians, this chapter engages the figures of Adnan Aslan, Mehmet Bayrakdar, Mahmut Aydın and the late Yaşar Nuri Öztürk.

Düzgün’s Case for a Religion of Freedom

This chapter takes up the work of Ankara theologian and kalam scholar Şaban Ali Düzgün, treating his Muslim understanding of fitra, or primal human nature and how he uses this Islamic concept to redefine what it means to be primitive. From his understanding of primal human nature, the chapterreconstructs his theological anthropology—one defined by both Enlightenment values and classical Islamic understandings of the God-world relation. Through a holistic reconstruction of Düzgün’s theological anthropology, the analysis shows that his dialectical use of both Islamic and “Western” concepts not only allows him to cast authentic Islam as compatible with Western values of individual freedom. Further, Düzgün’s theological anthropology also allows him to actively defend individual agency and worth in the face of double-standards, be they religious or secular, or in the face of Western individualism gone to the extreme.

Human Agency, Responsibility, and Tawḥīd

This chapter continues to treat Şaban Ali Düzgün’s work, exploring his take on human agency and moving from an abstract sense of communal responsibility towards more concrete and constructive Muslim responses to the trauma of Western colonialism. By highlighting his understanding of human agency, it explores Düzgün’s theological and conceptual toolbox, showing how he draws confidently on Enlightenment and classical Islamic resources to produce a holistic vision of the individual in positive relationship with God. Specifically, this chapter shows how Düzgün finesses conceptions of human knowledge and affirms human plurality—a plurality facilitated by divine unity that does not stand in antagonistic relationship to individual agency. For Düzgün, tawḥīd, or God’s utter oneness, stands in positive and open relation to an empowered individual piously conscious of her responsibility to society and those around her.

Alpyağıl’s Case for Canon

This chapter introduces the reader to the figure and work of Istanbul theologian and philosopher of religion RecepAlpyağıl.Alpyağıl’s work reflects a deep critical interest in authenticity and the formation of intellectual canon. This discussion lays out his case for an inclusive canon of philosophy of religion and explores why Alpyağıl thinks it is needed in the context of an authentically Turkish and Muslim study of philosophy of religion. In his case for an inclusive canon, Alpyağıl turns to the example of French philosopher of religion Paul Ricoeur and his discussion of intertextuality. By teasing out the parallels between Ricoeur’s legacy in philosophy of religion and Alpyağıl’s use of Ricoeur’s example for a Turkish paradigm, this chapter argues for the dialectical and complex nature of Alpyağıl’s proposed path forward: that an authentically Turkish and Muslim philosophy of religion is intertextual and inclusive.