Lütfi Sunar states that the Western state theorists of the Enlightenment Era and afterwards tried to explain everything that belongs to the political life of the East with a dialectic built on the concepts of patrimonialism and despotism. (Sunar, 2018) This is like the glasses they wear against the "sun of the east". This view in Turkey is also said that until the 60s was unquestionably an academic paradigm. It is still a dominant understanding despite the criticisms made even today. The easiest way to see the signs of this is to ask the sultan's imagination in the mind of a student who has just passed in primary school history lessons. What we have heard undoubtedly will be the subconscious reflections of the concept of "sultanism", which Max Weber used to characterize the Ottoman political system and accepted as the manifestation of despotism in the Ottoman Empire.

Although analytical analysis of the aforementioned concepts will not be presented due to the subject and volume of our article, the common core of the thought built on these concepts is absolute obedience, arbitrariness, the political and bureaucratic organization that is the extension of a single person, the wealth that is gathered and distributed in the center, and the sultan is personally responsible for the welfare of the people. In order to understand how this method of thought is used, I find it necessary to give the following thesis example: The foundation establishment was the result of this despotism. According to this thesis, foundations are the reaction of high bureaucrats who live with the possibility of their property to be confiscated at any time and cannot acquire private property, sometimes through fame, sometimes to be remembered, and sometimes through family foundations to keep their lineage alive, and there is nothing to be proud of. (Sunar, 2018) So what does foundation culture mean to us? It is an institutionalization of our social life, which is evident from our civilization and built on bestowal.

It can be said that such views are the result of the efforts of Westerners to define the non-self by acting on their own and a selective understanding of history and they contain many mistakes. Unfortunately, these misconceptions have been adopted by our academy, which has followed this literature, for years and without providing sufficient evidence. In this respect, the specific issue we will focus on is the claim that "throughout history, there has been no head of state who was dismissed by the people of the state". (Yıldız, 2015) While meeting this claim, our starting point is Assoc. Dr. Özgür Kavak's Resignation and Revolution: It will have an article titled Some Determinations on the Government Changeover in Islamic States and will not focus on the fiqh infrastructure of the issues.

The general attitude of the literature of contemporary Islamic political thought is to consider the post-Four Caliph period political life as a period of absolute deviation and departure from the ideal, and to claim that the powerful hold power without worrying about heroism and legitimacy. (Kavak, 2019) It has been stated that the system, whose provisions are stated and idealized in fiqh works, is imprisoned there, has no practical equivalent, and even flexes in order to rationalize the actual. The main claim of the article is that "the principle of binding shariah in texts with political-fiqh provisions is central to changes in power as reflected in classical history books, and the concrete reflections of concepts such as compromise, crossing borders and sedition in historical events are undeniable." (Kavak, 2019) The main method of proving this claim of the article is to evaluate the meaning of the data conveyed in the classical history books on government changeovers. The statistical data presented in this manner is very meaningful as a starting point. According to this, the number of caliphs who have come to power with the lifetime service condition, which is the common belief of scholars, is 67, among them, who could not continue their duty until the end of their lives, when 129 of them with high representation power are examined. In other words, more than half of these heads of state were dismissed or resigned. Also according to this study, half of the 67 presidents lost their lives as a result of the fact that they were not competent or acted against the principle of obeying Shariah, or because of political conflicts, which in this case was a secondary or incendiary factor. In any case, it is the general opinion that it mostly follows the principles, even in terms of procedure.

After presenting these data, the article supported his claim by making a classification based on the reasons and methods of dismissal, with examples from the outstanding works of names such as Suyuti, İbnü'l Cevzi, Belâzuri, Makrizi, Taberi and Naima, the fatwas of the state and other sources of political thought. Each example shows that the theory outlined in fiqh books is applied in the practical field. The particular examples mentioned in this article will not be included. Both the template in which the reasons for the dismissal of 129 caliphs are presented at the end of the article and the impeachment process of around 25 caliphs and sultans mentioned in detail in the text are open to use.

So why has a literature diametrically opposed to these claims developed? It can be said that the main problem is that classical history books are not examined from a comprehensive perspective, occasionally intention readings are made or a selective attitude is displayed. For example, the following claim can be given as an example of the selective attitude: “Although some doubts are mentioned by some of the contemporary researchers about the wellness of the information in the history books, which are mostly targeted by the Umayyad caliphs, as it was written in the Abbasid period, the contemporary literature that accepts the direction of democratization to the Islamic world as the main symbol, eclectically reveals this and similar information, it is used to negate". (Kavak, 2019)

This situation can be approached from another angle as follows. Post-Enlightenment Western theorists tried to make sense of everything related to political and civil life through "formal structures". (Görgün, 2018) Perhaps, the theorists who dealt with the Islamic states they examined, from this perspective, missed the "shar'i-political reasoning process" pointed out in the article, which includes the state mind, tutelage centers, soft power elements or all of them, which are not institutionalized, have no legal framework but are often at least as effective. Sometimes, they labeled all the judges, professors, and sheikhulislams as “palace toadies” and ignored their authority arising from their reputation in the eyes of the people. In this respect, it may be useful to compare the issue with the current one and clarify it. It is known that the guardianship system has been talked about in Turkey for decades, the juristocracy is still a scourge that, according to some, has not been saved, whether the current power has cultural power is on the agenda, and the power of congregations and sects in the bureaucracy, which should be defined as a non-governmental organization in the current order, is discussed. Although we consider it on a global scale, the role of non-state international organizations (NGOs) in the construction of international law and its place as an element of soft power are discussed. (Azarova, 2018) Even in modern times, when every phenomenon belonging to civilians and politics is institutionalized, there are almost no areas that are not mechanical and that the law does not classify and categorize, if we talk about them, everyone gets as much as they can (!) we cannot ignore these internal dynamics when talking about the politics of periods. As a section of these internal dynamics, we would like to present the following part from the article: In a process that we define as “shar'i-political reasoning”, different power centers observe the course of the state, and the state of affairs, which usually starts with the finding of an alternative to the sultan, who has been dismissed for legal or other reasons, turns into action when the problem of sedition is solved, that is, this new person finds military / bureaucratic support. (Kavak, 2019)

All this shows us that the idea that many issues related to the history of Islamic politics have been punctuated must be abandoned. While there are many words yet to be said, what has been said must be handled again, and sometimes even their dignity must be questioned. The field of Islamic political thought needs the determined effort of civil servants.

References

Azarova, V. (2018). Adjudicators, Guardians, and Enforcers: Taking the Role of Non-Governmental Organisations in Customary International Law-Making Seriously. S. Droubi, & J. d'Aspremont in, International Organisations, Non-State Actors and the Formation of Customary International Law. Manchester University Press.

Görgün, T. (2018). Medeniyet Meselesi - İslam ve Batı İlişkileri Çerçevesinde. İstanbul: Endülüs Yayınları.

Kavak, Ö. (2019). Hal',İstifa ve İhtilal: İslam Devletlerinde İktidarın El Değiştirmesi Üzerine Bazı Tespitler. Dîvân Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi 2019/2, 141-196.

Sunar, L. (2018). "Patrimonyalizmin Gölgesinde İslam Siyasal Sisteminin Anlaşılması Sorunu". İslam Siyaset Düşüncesi-Adil Devlet, Erdemli Şehir, Mükellef İnsan (p. 297). in Ankara: Nobel-İLEM Kitaplığı.

Yıldız, T. (2015). İslam ve Batı Hukuk Düşüncesinde Devlet Başkanının Azledilmesi Problemi. Journal of İslamic Research 1, 297.