Turkish Islam(s). In the writings of Xxxxx Xxxxxx, who is considered the Xxx Xxxxx of Turkish sociology (Filiz & Uluç, 2006, p. 32), we find an innovative sociological attempt to explain the religious diversity observed in Turkish society. Mardin uses two concepts for this: kitâbî İslam, which means Islam based on a book or text, and halk İslamı, which refers to popular Islam (Şeker, 2007). He also uses central (Merkez) and periphery (çevre) to explain religious differentiation (1963, 1973, 1995, 2005, 2006). Mardin (1973) argues that this social dichotomy was primarily a cultural dichotomy that differentiated the elites of the “centre” from the non-elite (teba, subjects of the Ottoman Empire) of the “periphery”. The cultural division has remained deep, despite urbanization and the fairly recent opening of Turkish society through the adoption of market-driven economic policies, which in fact meant that the country became subject to the consequences of globalizing trends. However, he also indicates that neither the centre nor the periphery has its pure and monolithic representatives. Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx called this phenomenon “elitist Islam” and “populist Islam” and traced it through Islamic history (1985, 1993, 1995). Xxxxxxx argued that Islamic movements rose and developed in a populist way by using democracy and the media as a tool in the Islamic world. He stated that populist Islam motivates ordinary people by referring to the imagination of a “mystical past and utopic future” (1993). Xxxxxxx’x work is largely based on Xxxxxxx’x conceptualization and describes elitist Islam as religiosity created by ulamā, the guardians, transmitters and interpreters of religious knowledge, of Islamic doctrine and law, living in the city. Sarıbay emphasizes that the common characteristics of these ulamā exhibit the values and tastes of the middle class.21 These values are shaped by systematic methodologies, jurisprudence, moderation and the sacred text. On the other hand, populist Islam is not systematic, but very emotional. Moreover, he states, popular Islam does not pay attention to the text (al kitāb), and places a strong emphasis on belonging to the dervish lodge (tekke) and the order of the dervish (tarika) (Çelik, 1995, p. 11). These religious differentiations which have been explored by Turkish sociologists and especially by Xxxxx Xxxxxx, have also been the subject of harsh criticism from
