Islamic Mediation in Turkey: The Role of Ulema

Abstract

In this study, Islamic dispute resolution methods and processes in contemporary Turkey are examined. The findings indicate that the dispute coming to ulema (Islamic scholars who are experts in Islamic legal jurisprudence) forms three cluster types: marital, financial, and those related to fights and accidents. The ulema’s legitimacy is faith and knowledge based, and does not depend solely on professional expertise, procedures, or settings. Transformational, facilitative, and muscle mediation approaches do not directly correspond to the ulema’s third‐party approaches. Family elder/counselor, peace‐broker, and facilitator/arbitrator are indigenous third‐party roles. Their techniques include elements of the mediation procedures employed in western contexts, as well as those originating in Islamic law, such as fatwa, kısas‐diya, and providing explanations according to sharia. Ulema do not get additional help from other third parties and do not socialize with disputants. Adelet (“justice”), mahremiyet (“privacy”), kardeşlik (“brotherhood”), and bağışlamak (“forgiveness”) are concepts and metaphors to which reference is frequently made in explaining the logic and fundamental values of the ulema’s intervention.

How Informal Institutions Matter

“…Actors might simply view informal arrangements as more legitimate and appropriate than their formal counterparts and turn to those informal means and mechanisms. This case study of Cem courts also suggests that even if modern, secular, and formal law does not recognize traditional religious institutions, such informal institutions might coexist with formal ones, playing a substantial role in sociopolitical processes (see also Erdemir 2005;Köse and Beriker 2012;Eş 2013). This view implies that "modern" institutions do not necessarily replace "traditional" institutions; rather, traditional, informal institutions might reappear in new forms or shapes in modern times and settings and operate in parallel to modern formal structures (see also Vorhoff 1998;Van Cott 2006;Radnitz 2011).…”

Building an Inclusive Climate for Intercultural Dialogue: A Participant‐Generated Framework

“…A multiplicity of disciplines have given attention to dialogue, including anthropology, education, psychology and psychotherapy, sociology, management, political theory, philosophy, linguistics, and religion (see Cissna & Anderson, ). In conflict resolution, researchers have studied dialogue in negotiation and intergroup relations (Cheldelin, Druckman, & Fast, ; Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, ; Deutsch & Coleman, ; Fisher, ; Kriesberg, ; Sandole & van der Merwe, ; Zartman & Rasmussen, ), peacebuilding, reconciliation processes, and coexistence programs (Abu‐Nimer, ; Broome & Collier, ; Byrne, ; Fisher, ; Glenn & Kuttner, ; Hadjipavlou, ; Köse & Beriker, ; Kuttner, ; Richmond, ; Schirch, ), and inter‐religious conflicts (Abu‐Nimer, ; Coward & Smith, ; Gopin, ; Groff, ; Herzog, ; Lederach, ; Omer, Appleby, & Little, ).…”