Autonomous Dynamics of Cultural Modernization at the Provincial Level: Muslim

Private Educational Initiatives in the Ottoman Provinces (1856-1908)*

by

Selçuk Akşin Somel

(Sabanci University)

The Reform Edict of 1856 represents a crucial moment in terms of the official
acknowledgment of the principle of educational freedom for all religious communities. From
that time onwards it could be observed at the provincial level the rapid expansion of local as
well as foreign non-Muslim schools. The same phenomenon was true for private Muslim
initiatives from the 1860s onwards. The Regulation of Public Education (1869) aimed at
integrating government, community, private and foreign schools within one legal framework,
which was enforced to a certain extent only during the rule of Abdülhamid II. The foundation
of non-Muslim and Muslim private schools and networks constituted a challenge to the
Ottoman administration which, following the Russo-Ottoman war of 1877-78 in particular,
abandoned the previous Ottomanist policy of relative cultural liberalism in favour of
Islamism. The growing pressure from the center, however, only helped to strengthen cultural
nationalisms in the provinces. This paper aims to discuss the development of private Muslim
educational ventures in the Balkans, Anatolia and Arab-speaking provinces of the empire.
Since the Islamic private school initiative in Istanbul, which emerged in 1865 and led to the
foundation of the Dâr üş-Safaka-school, had a considerable impact upon the development of
other private schools in the capital as well as in Anatolian towns, this article will first discuss
the appearance of the private school initiatives in Istanbul, followed by provincial towns and
regions.

Introduction

*
I would like to express my thanks to the Library of the Islamic Research Centre of the Divinity Endowment of
Turkey (TDV Đslam Araştırmaları Merkezi Kütüphanesi) as well as Boğaziçi University Library for using its
facilities during the preparation of this article.

1
The term “private school” as opposed to government schools poses some difficulties in terms
of definition. Until the military reforms of the eighteenth century there were no state schools
in the strict sense, with the excepion of the palace school at the Topkapı Palace. The primary-
level mosque schools and the madrasas constituted an educational network autonomous of
government authority, which were supported by pious foundations.1 The military and naval
engineering schools, founded first in 1734 and again in 1773 (or 1775), are probably the first
examples of government schools.2 The reforms in the bureaucracy in the first half of the
nineteenth century led to the foundation of government schools of civil character (rüşdiyye-
schools). We are able to talk about a full-fledged government school system only in the
second half of the nineteenth century.3
While a government school system did develop, there already existed extensive non-
Muslim school networks throughout the Ottoman Empire. These included native non-Muslim
educational networks, maintained by the Greek, Armenian and Jewish communities, as well
as foreign school networks belonging to various Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox orders or
Jewish philanthropic organizations. Considering that the Greek and the Armenian
Patriarchates were official institutions, one could logically argue that the non-Muslim schools,
operated by these patriarchates, were public schools. Also, the financial basis of these schools
were mainly church foundations, and depended less on student fees. This example shows us
one difficulty in differentiating in terms of private and public schools.4
Another difficulty stems from the object of establishing schools. An important part of the
foreign school networks were not established for the sake of profit, but for the sake of
dissiminating their religious beliefs among the population. From the viewpoint of the
missionaries their networks were serving the public. In that sense these networks could not be
simply dismissed as “private schools”.
Looking at the official definition delineated by the Regulation of Public Education all
schools not founded by the Ministry of Public Education were simply labeled as “private
schools” or “special schools” (mekâtib-i husûsiye), as opposed to “state schools” or “public
schools” (mekâtib-i umûmiye).5 For the sake of convenience, this paper will remain faithful to
the official definition of the Regulation and will consider all schools as “private” which are
not founded by the Ministry of Public Education. In this paper only those Muslim private
schools will be taken into consideration which did not display a traditional character, i.e. not
founded as a madrasa or through the support of pious foundations, but by individuals or by
associations aiming at the dissemination of worldly, practical and empirically-based
knowledge among the pupils and students in addition to Islamic knowledge.

2
The Reform Edict of 1856 and its Impact on Education

The emergence of civil Muslim initiatives to invest for private Muslim schools cannot be fully
understood without discussing the political and cultural impact of the Reform Edict of 28
February 1856. The Crimean War (1853-1856) which broke out initially between the Ottoman
Empire and Russia, led to the intensification of diplomatic, political, military as well as
cultural contacts between the Ottomans and her Western allies such as France and Great
Britain.6 These contacts did intensify to an unprecedented level; between 1854 and 1856 tens
of thousands of British and French soldiers and their families encamped around Istanbul, and
this city, hitherto touched only at certain degrees by European cultural influences, now was
virtually shaken by this massive wave of European socio-cultural presence.7 The Ottoman
State found itself diplomatically and politically deeply obliged to the liberal powers who
provided full political and military support to the Sublime Porte. On the other hand, the
decisive defeat of the arch enemy thanks to the alliance with European powers provided
considerable domestic legitimation to the reformist political cadre, led by Mehmed Emin Âlî
Pasha and Keçecizâde Fuad Pasha. The reform measures, applied during the period of 1856-
1871 by this “second generation” of Tanzimat reformers in the political, judicial and cultural
fields, would bear unmistakable signs of Westernism.8
It was under these circumstances that the Sublime Porte bowed to the diplomatic pressures
of France, Britain and Austria for reform steps, and Sultan Abdülmecid issued the Reform
Edict of 1856 (28 February 1856).9 Though this document consisted of stipulations related to
the basic rights of the non-Muslim people of the empire, these in fact concerned very closely
the Muslim population, and would have a deep impact on the political as well as social
constitution of the Ottoman Empire. For the purposes of this paper it is necessary to have a
look at some passages of the edict text. In the introductory paragraph of the Sultanic
document the following statement can be read (emphases are mine):

“…all the subjects from different communities, constituting the domestic base for the
strengthening of our Sublime Sultanate, and connected to each other through the heartily
bond of citizenship, are equal in my righteous and compassionate consideration. It is a
requisite of my imperial and merciful will to support the means and conditions which will
provide the fulfillment and attainment of happiness among my subjects in every aspect as well
as the prosperity of our Imperial Lands…”10

3
This statement signified the termination of the ancient differentiations and legal inequalities
between Muslims and non-Muslims, at least at the level of official discourse. This position
was a novelty which clearly constituted a violation of the Islamic Law.11 The expression
“heartily bond of citizenship” (revâbıt-ı kalbiyye-i vatandaşî) seems to be noteworthy, since it
apparently denoted not only the notion of a citizenship based on loyalty to the same monarch
and state, but in addition to the necessity of an emotional bond among citizens from different
religious communities. In other words, it points to the importance of a common spirit or of a
feeling of solidarity among the different subjects of the empire, which the administration
considered as crucial to create. The policy of Ottomanism, which aimed to found an “Ottoman
nation”, should be understood within this context. Within this new political paradigma,
education could not remain anymore defined through narrow communal limits.
Another passage from the edict which concerns this article, is as follows (emphasis is
mine):

“…and those who are my imperial subjects will be admitted to the military and civil schools
of my Sublime State without any discrimination and separation provided that they fulfil the
preconditions of age and examinations determined by the promulgated regulations of my
imperial schools…”12

In other words, non-Muslim subjects acquired the right to enter government civil and
military schools designed to raise civil servants and military officers. The Ottoman state
apparatus, until then considered to be an indisputable realm of Muslims, from now on would
be opened to those non-Muslims who possessed the necessary qualifications to enter the
bureaucracy and the army. This stipulation would have a profound impact upon the whole
political arrangement which did continue without significant changes for centuries. The
Greek, Armenian and Jewish comunities, according to the Ottoman interpretation of the
Islamic Law, used to be treated as the “protected people” (ehli zimmet), however with rather
limited possibilities to enter the state elite which consisted predominantly of Muslims.13
Despite the fact that there emerged, from the late eighteenth century onwards, a wealthy
Greek and Armenian merchant class with considerable financial power and close cultural ties
to Europe, they still were considered to be second class subjects, at best.14
Therefore, when the Edict of 1856 was publicly declared, educated Muslims in general
considered it as a major concession which would have rather unfavourable consequences for
the Muslims. The line of thought was that since Greeks and Armenians had the advantage of
better education and of control over major financial resources, the equality between Muslims

4
and non-Muslims would work to the disadvantage of the Muslims in general. The feeling was
that the Ottoman state would be gradually abandoned to the Christians.15
A final passage from the Edict of 1856, concentrating educational freedom is as follows:

“…every religious community has the permission to found community schools for education,
trade and industry. However, the methods of instruction as well as the selection of the
instructors of these public schools will be under the direction and supervision of a mixed
Educational Council, and its members will be appointed through my Imperial capacity…”16

Prior to this edict non-Muslims did not possess the liberty to found schools unless
acquiring a special Sultanic decree. 17 Therefore the abovementioned edict passage provided
an unprecented freedom for non-Muslims to set up and expand their own schools. In addition,
since Catholics and Protestants, in 1831 and 1850 respectively, were officially recognized as
legal religious communities, Catholic and Protestant missionary organizations were now also
able to benefit from the freedom provided by the edict.
To sum up, the Reform Edict of 1856 destroyed the ages-long community differentiation
between Muslims and non-Muslims by providing legal equality in entering civil service and
army as well as providing freedom for all officially recognized commuities to found their own
schools. Many Ottoman Muslims, however, perceived this development as a termination of
their privilege as being natural members of the ruling class, and at once felt themselves
vulnerable vis-à-vis cultural development and economic resources of non-Muslims, with
which they felt unable to compete.
In fact, following the Edict of 1856 there has been a virtual explosion of educational
initiatives among Greeks and Armenians. Again, the Edict of 1856 required non-Muslim
communities, hitherto governed by church oligarchies, to undertake community reforms
which would enable secular members of communities to participate in the community
administrations. As a consequence, Greek, Armenian as well as Jewish communities produced
their so-called constitutions between 1859 and 1865, and community assemblies consisting
both of clergymen and laymen were inaugurated. In sequence with these administrative
transformations, Greek and Armenian, and later Bulgarian laymen gained the opportunity to
initiate the foundation of a series of local cultural associations in different towns of Anatolia
and the Balkans. Previously, any private initiative of secular non-Muslims to found schools
had been obstructed by the clergy.18

5
Reaction to Ottomanism: Emergence of Private Muslim Educational Initiatives

The emergence of the first Muslim private educational initiatives should be considered as a
reaction to the effects of the Reform Edict of 1856 and possibly to the limited efficiency of
the state to expand modern schools.
Soon after the declaration of the edict Sublime Port took measures to transform its
educational policy in harmony with the policy of Ottomanism. In 1857 the Ministry of Public
Education was founded. Between 1857 and 1869 educational networks were designed which
would admit non-Muslim students and promote mixed education. As a result of these
endeavours the Regulation of Public Education of 1869 emerged, which stipulated the
foundation of government primary schools both for Muslims and for non-Muslims.19 It is a
fact that the late Tanzimat-regime of Âlî and Fuad Pashas strove for developing a public
educational system, open to all members of various religious communities. However, the
main problem remained to be its inability to revolve the character of the state schools from
being institutions to raise government officials into truly civilian institutions which would
serve the economic and social aspirations of civilian population, Muslim and non-Muslim
alike.20
The growing worry of educated Muslim Turks concerning the increasing economic and
educational influence of non-Muslims, combined with the slowness of the government school
system to adapt itself to the challenges created by the Edict of 1856, resulted in the foundation
of civil Muslim Turkish iniatives to promote modern education among the Muslim population
of Istanbul and Salonica.
At this point it is possible to observe the emergence of two major traditions of modern
private Muslim school foundations in the Turkish-speaking parts of the empire. One tradition
originated in Salonica, and the other emerged in the capital. Both traditions put a stress on the
importance of the teaching of Islamic precepts, while underlining the need to offer modern
and practical subjects such as French and courses related to commerce. On the other hand,
looking at the social origins of these traditions, the Salonica-tradition emerged among the the
community of the Dönmes or Maaminim, i.e. former supporters of the seventeenth century
Jewish messianic movement led by rabbi Shabtai Tzvi who later was forced to convert to
Islam, but whose converted Muslim followers did not mix with ordinary Muslims and
unofficially remained a separate community.21 These Dönmes constituted a wealthy and well-
educated urban Muslim middle class who had close commercial contacts with Europe, with
France and Belgium in particular, and thus were open to new ideas and developments.22

6
 The Istanbul-tradition, on the other hand, emerged as a part of efforts of certain Muslim
Turkish civil servants to set up modern schools to educate Muslim orphans or Muslim boys of
modest origins. This tradition, initiated by the “Islamic Association of Instruction” (Cemiyyet-
i Tedrîsiyye-i Đslâmiyye) and exemplified by the Dâr üş-Şafaka (“Abode of Compassion”)
orphanage, signified a Muslim reaction against the equal rights given to non-Muslims and a
worry that non-Muslims with their substantial financial resources and educational strength
could overwhelm the Muslims.
The foundation of the Dâr üş-Şafaka triggered the foundation of other private schools not
only in Istanbul, but also in some Turkish-speaking provinces of Anatolia. Therefore, it is
necessary to deal in short with the development with Muslim private schools of Istanbul.

Private Muslim Schools of Istanbul

In 1865 a group of public-minded Muslim bureaucrats and military officers founded the
“Islamic Association of Instruction” (Cemiyyet-i Tedrîsiyye-i Đslâmiyye, hereafter IAI). The
initiators of this association were Yusuf Ziya Bey (later “pasha” and Minister of Finances,
[1828-1882]), Ahmed Muhtar Bey (later “pasha”, “gazi” and military commander at the
Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78, [1839-1919], Vidinli Tevfik Bey (later “pasha” [1832-
1901]) and Ali Nakî Efendi (later director of education of Trabzon province [1836-1923]). As
will be seen below, Ali Nakî also devoted himself for the educational development in
Trabzon. The original aim of the IAI was to provide basic modern education to the
apprentices of the Grand Bazaar. Two schools were set up close to the bazaar where courses
such as reading and writing, basic mathematics and geometry, geography, and the instruction
of rudimentary religious, moral and social values were offered. It was expected that the
graduates would become able to write commercial letters as well as dealing with receipts and
deeds. All textbooks, notebooks and pens were provided by the IAI for free.23 In 1865-1866
around 1630 apprentices were registered at these schools, and 723 of them did graduate. In
1866-1867 nearly 700 apprentices received instruction.24 These figures reveal the major
demand for basic education among the modest strata of Istanbul.
Looking at the regulation of the IAI (Cem’iyyet-i Tedrîsiyye-i Đslâmiyye’nin Vezâifini
Müş’îr -izâmnâmedir), the text reveals us the rather elite-character of its membership.
Members had to pay an annual fee of four Ottoman Pounds.25 Also, the regulation underlines
that “the association is a body of solidarity based on the principles of the love for the
fatherland and zeal for the religious community” (cem’iyyet-i mezkûre muhabbet-i vataniyye

7
ve gayret-i milliye esâsına mübtenî bir hey’et-i mu’âvene olmasına nazarân).26 This
expression exposes us the meaning of the IAI-venture, i.e. the aim to support educational
development among the Muslim community in the face of the new conditions of socio-
political competition with non-Muslim communities following the Reform Edict of 1856.
Encouraged by the increasing demand for schools, the IAI founded in 1873, with the
financial support from Sultan Abdülaziz, the Khedive Đsmail Pasha of Egypt as well as
numerous wealthy Ottoman citizens, the Dâr üş-Şafaka (“Abode of Compassion”) to provide
high school education for Muslim orphans. Though it was originally planned that female
orphans would also be admitted to this school, in effect it became restricted to male orphans.27
The Dâr-üş-Şafaka proved to be a success story both in terms of institutional continuity
and educational quality. As a high school it became a model school comparable to the
francophone government high school Mekteb-i Sultanî. The instruction and curriculum at the
Dâr-üş-Şafaka was modelled after the French military high school La Flèche, though the
language of instruction was Ottoman Turkish.28
The success of the Dâr üş-Şafaka orphanage created an encouragement for the
development of other private educational initiatives in Istanbul as well as in the provinces.
Many of the founders of modern private schools in Istanbul were former instructors at the Dâr
üş-Şafaka. It would not be an exaggeration to talk about a “Dâr üş-Şafaka-wave”.
All private Muslim schools in Istanbul shared the common worry of providing sound
Islamic knowledge to pupils. Within this common denominator, on the other hand, one group
of schools combined Islamic knowledge with modern course subjects, whereas another group
of schools put a major emphasis on religion.
Schools such as Şems ül-Maârif (“Sun of Education”, 1873), Halîle-i Mahmûdiyye (“Wife
of Mahmud” 1878), Dar ül-Feyz-i Hamîdî (“the Hamidian Abode of Enlightenment”, 1880),
Mekteb-i Hamîdî (“the Hamidian School”, 1882), -ümune-i Terakki (“Example of Progress”,
1884), Mekteb-i Osmanî (“Ottoman School”), Burhân-ı Terakki (“Evidence of Progress”,
1888), Şems ül-Mekâtib (“Sun of Schools”, 1890) were institutions serving the upper middle-
class and wealthy citizens of Istanbul. The courses were designed to match their educational
counterparts in Western Europe. In all of these schools French was given priority.29 Among
these institutions the Şems ül-Maârif was founded by Abdi Kâmil Efendi, a member of the
Dönme-community from Salonica. As will be seen below, Abdi Kâmil Efendi previously took
part in founding a school in Salonica.30 On the other hand, Mehmed Nâdir, founder of
-ümune-i Terakki, was a mathematical genius who previously had instructed at the Dâr üş-

8
Şafaka and also at Şems ül-Maârif. Most of these schools had also sections for female
students.31
The Medrese-i Hayriyye (“School of Benevolence”, 1876), Dâr üt-Talîm (“Abode of
Education”, 1882), Rehber-i Marifet (“Guide of Knowledge”, 1887), Dâr üt-Tedrîs (“Abode
of Instruction”, 1890), Mekteb-i Edeb (“School of Literature”) were schools offering a mainly
Arabic-language oriented and Islamic-based curricula. These schools satisfied the educational
and religious needs of the lower middle-class and modest Muslim families of Istanbul, who
were concerned that government schools and modern private schools would weaken the
religious beliefs of their children.32 The founder of Dâr üt-Talîm, Hacı Đbrahim Efendi (1826-
1889), was a well-known personality due to his controversial claim that Ottoman Turkish
should be considered only a “dialect” (şive) of classical Arabic, the language of perfection.
According to him Ottoman Turkish could be properly taught only if the pupils would be
instructed classical Arabic. Since this claim was put forward at a time when cultural Turkism
was in rise, Hacı Đbrahim’s ideas created vehement reactions among the younger generations
of intellectuals.33
A different kind of a school was the Ravza-i Terakki (“Garden of Progress”), opened in
1887 by Eğinli Faik Bey, a graduate of Dâr üş-Şafaka. As a former orphan who suffered from
hardships in his childhood he dedicated himself to children in poverty. Thus he opened his
school in a poor neighbourhood of Üsküdar, Istanbul. Most of the instructors were graduates
of the Dâr üş-Şafaka, who taught at this school for free. In a few years this school became
known to be a successful educational institution.34
Looking at the student body of these private schools, it is striking that schools such as
Şems ül-Maârif, Halîle-i Mahmûdiyye, Dar ül-Feyz-i Hamîdî, -ümune-i Terakki included
sizable numbers of non-Muslim students. This was true even for the more Islamic oriented
Rehber-i Marifet.35
The educational activities of Abdi Kâmil Efendi in Istanbul, the foundation of Şems ül-
Maârif, and Mehmed Nadir Bey’s temporary connection to that school tells us about the
interaction and mutual influences between the private school traditions of Istanbul and of
Salonica.
Around 1893-1894, according to the official library statistics for the year 1311-1312 AH
there existed a total of twenty private schools in Istanbul, and nineteen of them consisted of
both primary and rüşdiyye-level classes.36 Nearly ten years later, according to the Official
Yearbook of the Ministry of Public Education for the year 1321 AH/1903 there existed
fourteen private rüşdiyye and fifteen private primary schools in the capital, i.e. a total of

9
twenty-nine primary schools.37 Thus, there has been a quantitative increase of private schools
of nearly forty per cent within a decade; however, the number of private rüşdiyyes had
declined.
Before moving to provincial private Muslim schools, the attitude of the regime of
Abdülhamid II concerning private Muslim schools in general should be discussed in short.

The Hamidian Regime and Private Muslim Schools

It was during the Hamidian regime that government education witnessed an unprecedented
expansion both in the capital and in the provinces. The Regulation of Public Education of
1869, until then applied only in the capital, began to be implemented at the provincial level.
Major progress was made to secure local financial resources such as the maârif hisse-i iânesi
(“educational contribution tax”) in founding idâdî-secondary schools in nearly all of the
provincial capitals and in other important provincial towns. At the same time, provincial
educational councils were set up which included representatives of local notables. The
inclusion of provincial notables in local educational administration enabled the securing of
other local funds for the support of provincial schools.38
Looking at the position of the Hamidian regime toward private Muslim schools, it can be
stated that the administration actively encouraged the foundation of private Muslim schools
and provided financial support to many of them. In fact, the Ottoman administration, from the
formation of the IAI in 1865 onwards, used to provide financial support to private Muslim
educational ventures as a part of the policy to expand schooling among the Muslim
population.39 The consolidation of the Hamidian regime, on the other hand, brought a certain
nuance in the government policy of supporting private ventures. There emerged a more
differentiated attitude toward private Muslim schools.
First of all, the Hamidian administration with its authoritarian character considered
independent enterprises mostly with suspicion. Despite the fact that private schools were
encouraged, they at the same time were tried to be kept under surveillance. Consequently, the
attitude of the administration toward private Muslim schools could acquire variations related
to the character of the individual schools. Numerous private schools received financial
support, however at a price of being exposed to possible interferences from the government.
Certain other private schools, in spite of requesting for financial support, were ignored by the
regime. Such schools were possibly considered as too independent to be controlled, hence not
worthy of financial support. In some cases, the central authority preferred to take

10
administrative control over schools and turn them into government institutions. Finally, in
cases of open opposition to the regime or ethnic propaganda, the administration prohibited the
activities of such schools. As will be seen below, there were underground schools in Albania
where illegal education was offered to local students.
The position of the Hamidian administration concerning Muslim private schools was
clearly formulated in the Instruction of 1896, known as Vilâyât-ı Şâhâne Maârif Müdîrlerinin
Vezâifini Mübeyyin Talîmât (“Instruction Concerning the Duties of Directors of Education of
the Imperial Provinces”). Here we see on the one hand an attitude to encourage and support
such initiatives, and on the other a tendency toward controlling and regulating. Article 26 of
the instruction states that one of the duties of the educational director of a province is to take
care of the private Muslim schools, founded and governed either by individuals or by local
communities. The educational director is expected to harmonize the curricula of these schools
with those designed by the Ministry of Public Education. In addition, he has to assure that the
teachers of these private schools be officially approved for instruction, and supervise the
financial incomes and expenditures of these institutions. If in financial need, the educational
director is empovered to provide material support to private Muslim schools.40

Private Muslim Schools in Salonica

From the early 1870s onwards members of the Dönme community commenced with the
foundation of private Muslim schools in Salonica. Apart from the fact that the growing
integration of Salonica to world economy increased competition among various communities
and forced the Dönme community to invest in modern education, a crucial factor has been the
need to expand Ottoman Turkish language proficiency among the Dönmes. Until mid-
nineteenth century the Dönmes, despite being nominally Muslims, were shy to interact with
other Muslims and preferred to lead a rather secluded life. This nearly two centuries-long
seclusion provided the preservation of their ancient Castilian Spanish tongue, but prevented
them to acquire a substantial degree of proficiency in Ottoman Turkish language.41 As already
discussed, the Reform Edict of 1856 did establish legal equality among Muslims and non-
Muslims, promoted the notion of citizenship and provided the opportunity for all communities
to enter public service, bureaucracy and army. Under these new conditions certain members
of the Kapancı-group within the Dönme community began to argue in favour of an increased
openness towards other Ottoman Muslims, and the expansion of Ottoman Turkish language
within the community. However, the more conservative Karakaş-sect resisted to the opening

11
of the community to the outside Muslim world. The disagreement between the members of
these groups reflected itself also in realm of education. It were the intellectuals of the
Kapancı-group who initiated the foundation of first private Muslim schools of Salonica,
which led to the rise of the Terakki-school. The Karakaş-sect, in turn, responded by opening
the Feyziyye-school. In contrast to the Kapancıs, the Karakaş opened schools with the aim to
preserve the communal coherence of the latter group.42 These factors altogether promoted the
emergence of private Muslim educational initiatives in Salonica.
It appears to be that the earliest known attempt to found a modern Muslim private school
in Salonica came from Mehmed Şemseddin Efendi, Đsmail Hakkı Efendi and Halil Vehbi
Efendi. Mehmed Şemseddin Efendi (1852-1917), also known as “Şemsi Efendi”, was a
member of the Kapancı-group and a well-known Kabbalist. After graduating from the
rüşdiyye-school in Salonica, Şemsi Efendi learned French through personal effort and worked
at an unspecified foreign school. Receiving financial support of the Kapancıs, Şemsi Efendi,
together with Đsmail Hakkı Efendi and Halil Vehbi Efendi, ventured to set up a modern
private primary school, which was founded in 1872 under the name Mekteb-i Sıbyâniyye-i
Osmâniyye (“Ottoman Primary School”).43 This school was opened earlier than Dâr üş-
Şafaka, and if disregarding those apprentice-schools founded by the IAI in 1865, it was
probably the earliest Turkish-speaking private Muslim school in the Ottoman Empire. It
included the instruction of Islamic religion, Ottoman Turkish and French. The significance of
this school lies in the fact that it was the first Muslim educational institution in a provincial
city where the educational method of usul-i cedîd (“new method”) was properly applied.44
During the governorship of Midhat Pasha in Salonica in early 1874 Şemsi Efendi was praised
and awarded by the governor due to the “modern” instruction offered at that school.45 One of
the founders of this school, Đsmail Hakkı Efendi, compiled the so-called Đsmail Hakkı Elifbâsı
(“Primer of Ismail Hakkı”) which introduced a modern method of instructing Ottoman
letters.46
It appears to be that after a short period Đsmail Hakkı Efendi and Halil Vehbi Efendi left
the Mekteb-i Sıbyâniyye-i Osmâniyye. Around 1875 Đsmail Hakkı Efendi, together with Derviş
Efendi and Abdi Kâmil Efendi, set up another primary school. At this school a major
emphasis was given to the instruction of French. It was even forbidden for the pupils to speak
any other language other than French within the school compound. As already mentioned
previously, Abdi Kâmil Efendi had set up in Đstanbul the Şems ül-Maârif. He wrote a primer
titled Mebde-i Kırâat (“Beginning of Reading”) as well as textbooks such as Tecvîd

12
(“Recitation [of the Quran]”), Đlm-i Hâl (“Catechism”) and Kavâid-i Türkiyye (“Turkish
Grammar”).47
The emergence of two primary schools and the apparent disagreements between the
members of these schools were factors which brought up the issue of coordinating these
schools. In addition, the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878 and conditions of political
uncertainty must have incited parts of the Kapancı-group to set up an institution which would
ensure some degree of stability in education. In June-July 1877 an educational commission,
the Encümen-i Terakki (“Commission of Progress”) was founded. This commission consisted
of thirteen members and chaired by Emin Lütfi Efendi. Its self-declared duties included the
inspection of the pupils and instructors twice a week and a weekly meeting where educational
issues would be discussed and decisions taken.48
It appears to be that between 1878 and 1882 the two schools, supervised by the Encümen-i
Terakki, merged into one primary school.49 From 1882 onwards this school was known as
Terakki Mektebi (“School of Progress”). Though Şemsi Efendi’s school Mekteb-i Sıbyâniyye-i
Osmâniyye was one of the founder institutions of the Terakki Mektebi, Şemsi Efendi himself
did not take part in the teaching staff of the new school.50 As will be seen below, Şemsi
Efendi pursued a teaching career separate from the Terakki Mektebi.
The Terakki Mektebi consisted of nearly two hundred students, and in addition to Turkish,
Arabic and Persian, a special emphasis was given to the instruction of French language. The
director of Terakki Mektebi in the early 1880s was a certain “Şovalye Efendi”, apparently of
French origin. In 1893 a section for female students was founded (Terakki Kız Mektebi), and
around the same time a kindergarten (vâlide sınıfı, “mother-class”) was included. The director
of the female section was again a foreign female teacher.51 As will be seen below, these new
sections were opened three years after same steps were taken by the rival Feyz-i Sıbyân
Mektebi of the Karakaş-sect. The employment of foreign personnel at the administrative level
is a possible indication that the Terakki Mektebi was enjoying powerful financial support from
a part of the Dönme-community. Though this school formally was at the rüşdiyye-level, the
educational quality was considered to be equal to government day-time idâdî-schools. The
instruction of additional courses related to commerce and economics provided its male
graduates the advantage to be employed at various companies located in Salonica.52 In 1900,
to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sultan Abdülhamid’s accession to the throne,
the school was renamed as Yâdigâr-ı Terakki Mektebi (“Souvenir of Progress-School”) to
express loyalty to the monarch. In 1902 idâdî –level classes were introduced together with
new boarding facilities. 53 This successful school became a meaningful educational alternative

13
for those Muslim families who did not wish to send their kids to government schools or to
schools of other communities.
Looking at Şemsi Efendi’s later educational activities, he opened a new primary school
toward the mid 1880s. The founder of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
received his primary education at that school. Around 1890 this second school merged with
the Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi, and Şemsi Efendi continued as instructor at the latter school. 54 In
1894 Şemsi Efendi founded a third school, the Ravza-i Talîm Mektebi (“Garden of Instruction
School”). However, this school does not appear to have lasted for long. Between 1872 and
1894 Şemsi Efendi founded at least three schools, but none of them had an institutional
continuity. Finally Şemsi Efendi acted as instructor for Islamic Catechism and Reading
(‘Akaid-i Diniyye ve Kırâat Muallimi) as well as Arabic Practices (Tatbîkat-ı Arabiyye
Muallimi) at the primary-level classes of Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi (1885-1908).55
It is noteworthy that though Şemsi Efendi was originally from the Kapancı-group and
supported by that circle, he in his later years taught at the Karakaş institution of Feyz-i Sıbyân
school.
The Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi (“School for the Enlightenment of Children”) was founded in
1885 by members of the Karakaş-sect.56 The founder of the school was Mustafa Tevfik, a
civil servant at the provincial administration of Salonica. In 1890, a female section was
inaugurated (Feyz-i Sıbyân Kız Mektebi, “Feyz-i Sıbyan Girls’ School”) together with a
kindergarten. Similar to the Terakki-school, the director of the female section was a foreigner,
a certain Madame Clothilde.57 In the same year, Şemsi Efendi’s primary school merged with
the Feyz-i Sıbyân-School. In 1900 this school began to be called Feyziyye Mektebi
(“Enlightenment School”). In terms of curriculum, student body and educational quality, the
Feyziyye School was nearly equal to its rival, the Yâdigâr-ı Terakki School. Again the
teaching of French was given a special emphasis, while Ottoman Turkish, Arabic and Persian
as well as Islamic subjects were taught in an intensive manner. Educational tools such as
maps, posters of animals and plants, instruments for physics and chemistry courses were
imported from Europe.58 Courses related to commerce, economics, economic geography and
book-keeping occupied more weekly hours at advanced classes of this school where the
teaching period lasted nine years. What strikes is that graduates of the Civil Servant School
(Mekteb-i Mülkiyye) in Istanbul were hired as instructors at the Feyziyye School.59
In 1902 Mehmed Câvid Bey, the later Young Turk minister of finances (1875-1926),
became the director of Feyziyye and remained at this position until 1908. Câvid Bey was a
supporter of the then illegal Young Turk opposition and influenced some of the students of

14
the Feyziyye toward the cause of political liberty.60 A noteworthy incident in the history of the
Feyziyye during the Hamidian period was about the request of the school for financial support
from the Ottoman administration. In 1888-1889, while the Feyz-i Sıbyân was still in its early
years of foundation, it faced major financial constraints and therefore applied the Ministry of
Public Education for financial support. However, this request was rejected.61 Though the
reasons for this rejection are not known, one might speculate that the founders of the Feyz-i
Sıbyân were members of the Karakaş-sect, a religious group rather secluded toward the
outside world and, in contrast to the Kapancı-group, reluctant to enter close contact with the
rest of the Muslim community. It is possible that the Hamidian administration was not ready
to invest money for a school which was run by a social group difficult to influence and
penetrate, and insisting on remaining outside the Muslim community.
The provincial administration of Salonica, perhaps with the aim to force the Karakaş-sect
to open itself to the outside world, exerted pressure on the Karakaş and the Kapancı-groups to
join their forces and set up a jointly administered school. As a result, a joint high school for
commerce (Ticâret Mektebi) was opened in 1904. The school board consisted both of the
administrators of Yâdigâr-ı Terakki as well as Feyziyye Mektepleri. However, this venture did
not last for long due to disagreements between the Kapancı and the Karakaş-groups.62
After 1906 both Yâdigâr-ı Terakki and Feyziyye maintained their separate schools for
commerce. In fact, the final eighth and ninth classes of the Yâdigâr-ı Terakki and Feyziyye
schools were called “school for commerce”, where the curricula consisted mostly of courses
related to commerce and economics.63
Another school, which evolved to a school for commerce, was the Leylî Mekteb
(“Boarding School”) of Đsmail Hakkı Bey, a former director of the Yâdigâr-ı Terakki Mektebi.
Đsmail Hakkı Bey founded that school in 1902, while acting as as director of the Yâdigâr-ı
Terakki. At that time this institution functioned as a boarding facility for the Yâdigâr-ı
Terakki, where pupils had additional evening classes before going for rest. However,
following disagreements with the administrative board of the Yâdigâr-ı Terakki (Encümen-i
Terakki), Đsmail Hakkı Bey resigned from his administrative position at the Yâdigâr school in
1904 and took over the Leylî Mekteb. He turned the former boarding facility into a separate
school for commerce, named as Leylî ve -ehârî Ticâret Mektebi (“Boarding and Diurnal
School of Commerce”). However, Đsmail Hakkı Bey’s unexpected death in 1906 led to the
dissolution of the school.64
A private primary school venture in Salonica outside the Dönme-realm was the Mekteb-i
Osmânî (“Ottoman School”). It was founded in the late 1870s or early 1880s and directed by

15
Đbrahim Bey, to be replaced later by Sadi Bey. In 1882 this school consisted of six classes,
with altogether 230 pupils.65
Following the Balkan Wars and the Population Exchange of 1923-1924 with Greece, the
Terakki and Feyziyye-educational traditions moved to Istanbul, and still continue to exist in
Turkey. Numerous authors have underlined the crucial role the Dönme-schools have played in
the modernization of the urban Turkish Muslim society. Graduates of the Yâdigâr-ı Terakki
and Feyziyye made major contributions to modernize the late Ottoman Empire and the early
republican Turkey.

Private Schools in Izmir

Izmir was another major Turkish-speaking center where private Muslim schools
flourished. Despite the fact that Izmir, similar to Salonica, emerged as a major porte town
with connections to world markets, the development of Muslim private schools came rather
belatedly. The existence of the Dönme-community in Salonica appears to be a major factor for
the expansion of private schools in that city. In Izmir, however, a stratum of urban Muslims
with a modern educational vision eager to invest financial resources to educational ventures
appeared in the 1890s. It is noteworthy that many of the private schools of Izmir were
founded by members of the ulema. Though chronologically being a latecomer as a major
educational center, Izmir as a locus of private educational ventures exceeded Salonica in
terms of the quantity of schools and even came close to Istanbul.
Probably the first private Muslim school of Izmir was founded in 1886. The Terakki
Mektebi (“School of Progress”) apparently was founded with some degree of administrative
support, since the founders included names such as vice governor Ragıp Pasha and secretary
general of Aydın province, Kadri Bey. It consisted of primary-, rüşdiyye- as well as idâdî-
level classes. This school was closed down in 1892 due to its inability to compete with the
government idâdî-school.66 The failure of this school seems to be noteworthy, since well-
managed and sufficiently-staffed private schools usually were able to attract the children of
those wealthy Muslim families who were dissatisfied with the quality of government schools.
Though difficult to determine the factors behind the closure of the Terakki Mektebi, it might
indicate an actual insufficiency of this school as an institution.
Following a hiatus of five years, a new private school was set up by an ulema from
Albania, Đşkodralı Mahmud Nedim Efendi. The Menba-yı Füyuzât Mektebi (“Source of
Enlightenment School”, 1897) originally included primary- and rüşdiyye-level classes. After

16
few years idâdî-level classes were also included. This school provided modern education,
while putting a strong emphasis on Islamic subjects.67 The Menba-yı Füyuzât Mektebi was
successful in terms of addressing the religious concerns of the conservative Muslim families
of Izmir in terms of the Islamic education of their children.
The foundation of a modern private school with an emphasis on Islam possibly challenged
those secular-oriented Muslim strata toward the setting up of an alternative private school
with innovative qualities. In 1897 Yusuf Rıza Efendi and Giridli Ali Efendi founded the Dâr
ül-Đrfan Mektebi (“Abode of Knowledge School”). Though both founders were again from the
ulema, they pursued a modernist educational policy. This school admitted also non-Muslim
students. In addition to the obligatory curriculum imposed by the Ministry of Education, the
Dâr ül-Đrfan Mektebi included the instruction of English language. Special emphasis was
given to musics and gymnastics. Yusuf Rıza Efendi and Giridli Ali Efendi conceived their
institution as a rival of the Menba-yı Füyuzât Mektebi. In 1905 it opened boarding facilities.68
In 1901 the Dâr ül-Đrfan founded a section for female students, named Bedreka-yı Đrfan
Mektebi (“Guide to Knowledge School”). This section, consisting of primary- and rüşdiyye-
level classes, was indeed the first private Muslim school for girls in Izmir.69
Between 1897 and 1901 the Menba-yı Füyuzât and the Dâr ül-Đrfan seemed to cover to
some extent the Muslim Turkish demand of Izmir for private schools. From 1901 onwards
one observes the foundation of a series of new private institutions.
The Dâr ül-Edeb Mektebi (“Abode of Literature”, 1901) was set up by Yusuf Ziya Efendi,
the former director of the Teacher’s Seminar of Izmir. In the same year Đzmirli Sadık Efendi,
an ulema, founded the Burhan ül-Maârif Mektebi (“Evidence of Education”). In 1902 another
ulema, Abrurrahman Efendi opened the Kenz ül-Maârif Mektebi (“Treasure of Education”).
All these schools consisted of primary-level classes, employing modern teaching methods.
Finally, in 1907, the ulema Müderris Hafız Osman Ferid Efendi set up the Dâr üt-Tedrîs
Mektebi (“Abode of Instruction”). The latter school, similar to the school in Istanbul with the
similar name, was a mainly Islamic-oriented institution. Despite the fact that it included
rüşdiyye-level classes, its educational outlook was traditionalistic, and was devoid of courses
like French, history or geography.70
In contrast to Istanbul and Salonica, Izmir was the only major Turkish-speaking city where
a private school for Muslim girls was founded, being a completely independent institution
without being a part of a male school, and opened by a Muslim woman. The Ravza-yı Đrfan
Đnas Mektebi (“Garden of Knowledge Girls’ School”, 1905) was built by Fatma Zîşân Hanım.
Following her graduation from the Teacher’s Seminary for Women in Istanbul (Dâr ül-

17
Muallimât), she came to Izmir and became the founder as well as the director of this school.
This institution included both primary- and rüşdiyye-level classes, and known to be a modern
school. It is possible that Fatma Zîşân Hanım was the first female Muslim pedagogue in the
Ottoman Empire who founded a modern school on her own.71
Similar to Salonica, the integration of Izmir into world economy led to the setting up of a
private Muslim school of commerce. The Lisân ve Ticâret Mektebi (“School of Language and
Commerce”, 1903) was founded by Bıçakcızâde Đsmail Hakkı (1860-1930?). Bıçakçızâde was
a local notable of Izmir, who, after studying at a local medrese of Izmir, went to Istanbul and
graduated from the School of Law (Mekteb-i Hukuk). Following a bureaucratic career by
serving as secretary at local administrations of various provinces, Bıçakçızâde returned to his
native city and published the daily Đzmir (1890). It was during this period that he founded the
Lisân ve Ticâret Mektebi. This school, consisting of secondary-level classes, offered courses
such as English, German and Modern Greek as well as professional courses pertaining to
commerce, economics and law.72
It can be observed that Izmir as a Turkish-speaking major port town of Anatolia was not a
part of mutual educational exchange in terms of private Muslim schools, which could be seen
between Istanbul and Salonica. Izmir was rather a regional cultural center for itself,
influencing its immediate environment.

Private Schools in Anatolian Towns: Influences of Dâr üş-Şafaka at the Provincial Level

It is noteworthy that the Dâr üş-Şafaka-wave, which promoted the foundation of a number
of private schools in Istanbul, had also a partial effect in Anatolia. We know that at least in
the town of Balıkesri (west Anatolia) the first private secondary school was set up in 1886 by
Ahmed Nureddin Efendi, who was a graduate of the Dâr üş-Şafaka-school. This school, the
Medrese-i Edebiye (“School of Literature”), contained also primary-level classes. However,
this venture could not last long, since at that time Balıkesri was only a town of six thousand
populations, and the school probably did not receive a substantial financial backing from the
local Muslim notables. After two months this school was closed down.73 Shortly afterwards
Ahmed Nureddin Efendi returned to the capital and eventually became the director of
telegraphic communications at Yıldız Palace.74
Trabzon is another town where the Dâr üş-Şafaka-tradition imposed its influence. As a
Black Sea port town, Trabzon was an access porte to inner parts of east Anatolia as well as to
Caucasus and Iran. Being a center of the region of Pontus, Trabzon experienced major

18
educational developments, promoted mainly by the local Greek community. As a
consequence there existed toward 1880 well-equipped Greek secondary schools and a Greek
high school. In addition, there were schools for Armenians, Catholics as well as a French and
a Protestant educational institution. In contrast, Muslim education was characterized mainly
by Quran schools and only one government rüşdiyye-school.75 In 1880 Muslim notables of
Trabzon, considering the pressing need for modern Muslim education, took steps to found a
modern private Muslim secondary school. This group of notables, consisting of ten
individuals led by Nemlizâde Hikmet, Nemlizâde Hacı Ahmed and Mehmed Efendi, invited
the poet and intellectual Ali Nakî Efendi from Istanbul to Trabzon to support their project. As
already discussed previously, Ali Nakî Efendi had already taken part in the formation of the
IAI and the Dâr üş-Şafaka in Istanbul. Being originally from Trabzon, he invested his energy
for this project and founded the Mekteb-i Hamidiyye (“The Hamidian School”) primary and
secondary school. It appears to be that this school offered courses for French as well as
gymnastics.76
In 1887, upon the foundation of the government idâdî-school in Trabzon, the Mekteb-i
Hamidiyye school became integrated into the government school. Ali Nakî Efendi was
appointed director of the government idâdî and also became the Director of Education of the
province of Trabzon.77 There are no clues whether this development was forced by the
government to put this school under strict administrative control. We know that such a policy
was not applied for any of the private Muslim schools in Salonica or in Izmir. On the other
hand, as will be seen below, the Maqāsid-schools of the Levante were forced to be integrated
into the government educational system due to possible political concerns of the central
authority.
While the upper classes of the Mekteb-i Hamidiyye became a part of the government idâdi-
school, the primary-level classes of the former Mekteb-i Hamidiyye continued to function
independently as a primary school named as Zeytinlik Mektebi (“Olive Grove School”). This
school was directed by a local ulema, Đbrahim Cûdi Efendi (1864-1926). Đbrahim Cûdi Efendi
was a prominent personality well-respected not only by Muslims, but also by local non-
Muslims. He acted at different times as school administrator and Turkish language teacher as
well as history instructor at local French, Greek, Armenian and Persian schools. In addition,
he became member of the local educational council. He wrote a number of school textbooks
on Ottoman ortography, Islamic catechism, Islamic history and history of the prophets. He
also compiled a dictionary of Arabic and Persian words, to be used by secondary-level school
pupils.78 This school, today known as Cudibey Đlkokulu, still functions in Trabzon.

19
 Another private school related to a certain extent to Dâr üş-Şafaka-tradition was founded
in the town of Adapazarı, located east of Istanbul. As discussed above, Eğinli Faik Bey,
founder of the Ravza-i Terakki in Istanbul, was a graduate of Dâr üş-Şafaka and a promoter of
philanthropic ideals. Following the success of his school, Faik Bey went to Adapazarı in the
early 1890s to open another private school. Like the Ravza-i Terakki in Istanbul, this school
aimed at providing education to orphans and children of modest background.79

Other Private Schools in the Turkish-Speaking Provinces

It is difficult to provide information on other private schools in the Turkish-speaking

provinces. Looking at the official yearbooks, it is possible to trace some data on Muslim
private schools in the Anatolian and Balkan provinces. The earliest official yearbook which
provides statistical data on private schools at empire-wide level is the State Yearbook for
1328. It displays information dating from 1906-07. Here we can get certain statistics about
primary-level private schools. However, there are some problems about this data. For
example, looking for the province Edirne, it appears to be that in 1906-07 there were 14
“private primary schools” (husûsi ibtidâî) for boys, 4 “private primary schools” for girls, and
103 “co-educational private primary schools”. For the province of Hüdâvendigâr
(northwestern Anatolia, administered from Bursa) we get the figures 1208 for boys’ “private
primary schools”, 7 for girls’ “private primary schools”, and 191 “co-educational private
primary schools”.80 These rather high numbers of “private schools” creates the suspicion that
these statistics possibly did not make a differentiation between traditional Quranic schools
and private primary schools in the modern sense. Thus these figures cannot be considered as
reliable in terms of differentiating between traditional Quranic schools and modern private
primary schools.
Looking at the figures for rüşdiyye-schools, the quantitative data appears to be a little more
reliable. Since rüşdiyye-schools by definition did not have a traditional Muslim alternative,
the numbers provided can be considered to be representing modern schools. Accordingly,
there existed around the period of 1906-1907 six private rüşdiyye-schools in the province of
Monastir, and one each for Afyon (province of Hüdâvendigâr), Ankara, and Isparta (province
of Konya).81 Despite the fact that these numbers may be correct for the provinces mentioned,
it also has to be kept in mind that these figures do not really represent all of the existing
private secondary schools in the empire. As discussed above, Salonica and Izmir hosted
numerous private schools, which are not registered at the State Yearbook of 1328.

20
 In addition, the increasing expansion of private Muslim schools in Izmir had its effects in
other towns of western Anatolia. The Dâr ül-Đrfan Mektebi of Izmir opened private schools in
the towns of Ödemiş and Alaşehir. This example tells us that Izmir as a regional urban center
developed its own educational tradition which began to expand in western Anatolia.82

Private Muslim Schools in non-Turkish Provinces

Private Muslim schools in non-Turkish regions of the Ottoman Empire developed due to
reasons comparable to the factors leading to the emergence of the IAI and the Dâr üş-Şafaka-
school in Istanbul. The inclusion of coastal regions to the world economy and the rise of non-
Muslim merchants created a new environment of competition which strengthened upon the
urban Muslim notables of Syria the consciousness of the importance of modern education.
Also, local notables were worried concerning the influence of non-Muslim as well as foreign
missionary schools over Muslim youth. In addition there existed a distrust of the local
population toward government schools in terms of its ability to convey proper religious values
to the children.83
However, there were additional factors, absent in Istanbul, Salonica, Izmir or Trabzon,
which triggered the foundation of local private schools in the Levante and in the Albanian
provinces. The Tanzimat reforms of the mid-nineteenth century brought unprecedented
centralization to Syria as well as to the western Balkans. The application of the principles of
the Edict of Gülhane of 1839 in these regions more or less curtailed ancient feudal privileges
and autonomous social structures. Local powerholders came to realize for the first time a
direct presence of central authority in their regions. Moreover, the Reform Edict of 1856
stipulated legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, which destroyed ancient
communal balances both in Albania and in the Levante, leading to civil-warlike circumstances
in localities like Shkodër or Damascus. It is noteworthy that school expansion in western
Balkans and in Syria began after the incidents in these cities.84
The Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 revealed everybody about the probability of the
dissolution of the empire in the forseeable future. This condition of uncertainty strengthened
local activities to found schools which were designed to address local cultural and political
needs. It was under these conditions that the Maqāsid-movement flourished in the Levante,
while the demand for Albanian education was expressed by the League of Prizren.
A local school development which does not fit into this framework were the private
schools in the Hijaz. These educational bodies constituted a phenomenon more cosmopolitan

21
and Islamic in nature. It was cosmopolitan, since the promoters were not originating from the
Hijaz, and found schools which were open to pupils from all parts of the Islamic world. Since
the founder of the earliest private school in Mecca was an ulema from India and had
experienced British rule and political subjugation, he probably was concerned about the
cultural and educational backwardness of the Islamic world vis-á-vis the West. It might be
possible that the founders of other private schools in the Hijaz shared similar sentiments. If
these assumptions are correct, the supporters of this Hijazi educational development shared an
Islamic global worldview, and the schools they founded were characterized by a major stress
on Islamic subjects.
There is no sign that any of these non-Turkish private educational developments remained
in an educational and institutional exchange with the private school movements of Istanbul,
Salonica or Izmir. However, educational developments in Syria and Albania were not isolated
from the expansion of government schools in these regions. In many cases instructors of the
local ventures were also teachers in government schools, or a former private school director
became an administrator of a government school. The private ventures in Hijaz, in contrast,
remained isolated from the process of educational modernization emanating from the imperial
center.
The State Yearbook of 1328, which we already had discussed within the Anatolian
context, also provides data on private Muslim schools in the Arabic-speaking provinces for
the period of 1906-1907. Looking at the more reliable data concerning private rüşdiyye-
schools, we encounter for the province of Beirut, which included towns of Nablus and Acre
in the south as well as the porte of Lattakia at the northwestern Syrian coastline, a total of six
schools. There is no data for the provinces of Damascus, Aleppo or Baghdad. The only other
Arabic speaking province which included data concerning private rüşdiyye schools is the
Hijaz, with a total of four schools.85 However, as already mentioned above, these figures may
represent only Beirut and Hijaz, and it is highly possible that there existed other modern
Muslim private schools in other urban centers like Damascus and Aleppo, considering that in
1879-1882 Maqāsid-schools were founded there too.

The Maqāsid-Movement in Greater Syria

The emergence of private Muslim schools of Greater Syria could be traced back to the
efforts of the Protestant Arab encyclopedist and enlightener, Butrus al-Bustānī (1819-1883).
Originally a Maronite Christian, al-Bustānī acted as teacher at the American Protestant school

22
at Abīh (Beirut) following his conversion to the Protestant creed (1846-1848). Until the early
1860s, while acting as translator at the American consulate in Beirut, al-Bustānī was engaged
in the translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into modern Arabic. From 1863
onwards al-Bustānī dedicated his energy to educational cause by founding the school
Madrasa Wataniya (“Homeland School”). It is essential to note that al-Bustānī seems to have
developed his educational vision to a considerable extent through the inspiration he got from
the philantropic educational model of the American missionaries.86
At the Madrasa Wataniya modern educational subjects were taught in Arabic language.
This was the first institution in the Ottoman Arab region which admitted pupils of all
denominations. Its teachers included both Christians and Muslims. Despite the fact that this
school functioned only until 1875, its graduates formed a new generation who initiated or
inspired the setting up of Muslim private schools in Greater Syria. Among its graduates were
personalities known for their educational activities such as ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Qabbānī and
Mahmūd Minah al-Sulh, while Shaikh Ahmad ‘Abbās al-Azharī was one of the instructors.87
A small circle of Muslims of Beirut, influenced and inspired by the Madrasa Wataniya of
al-Bustānī, considered the necessity to expand modern education among the Muslim
population. This circle, which included also the educator and publisher ‘Abd al-Qādir al-
Qabbānī (1847-1935), founded around 1875 the Jam‘īyat al-Funūn (“Society for
Experimental Sciences”) to promote an interest among the population for science and
culture.88 This society began to publish the journal Thamarāt al-Funūn (“Benefits of
Experimental Sciences”), which was informing the reader about the latest scientific
discoveries and technological inventions. Besides, the attention was drawn on the local
Christian associations which were founding schools, and implied that Muslims themselves
should found schools to expand education in the region. It was claimed that Muslim boys
were not admitted to government rüşdiyye-schools due to their lack of elementary education.
Meanwhile al-Qabbānī compiled the primer Kitāb al-Hijā’ li-Ta‘līm al-Atfāl (“Book of
Letters for the Instruction of Children”), which was printed and distributed by this society. It
proved to be a success and underwent numerous editions.89
Al-Qabbānī’s concern for founding modern primary schools for local Muslims led him to
negotiate with the notables of Beirut. After ensuring the financial support of some of the
notables, al-Qabbānī founded the Jam‘īyat al-Maqāsid al-Khairīya al-Islāmīya (“The Islamic
Association for Benevolent Aims”) in July 1878. This association was able to found in Beirut
two primary schools for girls (1878-1879).90

23
 In these years Midhat Pasha, the governor of Syria, was impressed by this association and
encouraged the foundation of similar Maqāsid -associations in Damascus, Saida, Lattakia,
Tripoli, Acre and Hums. All these towns were within the administrative jursdiction of Midhat
Pasha, and he personally induced local notables to support Maqāsid -associations. These
developments were reported in Thamarāt al-Funūn, which was probably followed by the
urban elites of other Syrian towns. This may be one explanation for the fact that similar
Maqāsid-associations were established between 1879-1882 in towns such as Aleppo,
Jerusalem and Jaffa, which were outside Midhat Pasha’s administrative realm. These
developments point to the development of a local dynamism for the expansion of education in
Greater Syria.91
The Maqāsid-association of Damascus was able to found eight primary schools for boys,
and the association of Beirut founded two primary schools for boys and two for girls. In
addition, a secondary school, called Madrasa al-Sultānīya (“Sultanic School”) was
established. Other Maqāsid -associations, however, were not able to establish more than one
or at most two primary schools. This situation was connected with the local financial sources
available for the construction of schools. Midhat Pasha attempted to allocate a part of the
incomes of the local Islamic foundations for the foundation of these schools. The ulema of
Beirut were willing to provide support, whereas the notables of Damascus fiercely resisted the
governor’s efforts.92
The governorship of Midhat Pasha in Syria (1878-1880) coincided with a period when
Ottoman central authority had been weakened due to the disastrous Russo-Ottoman War and
French and British rivalry for extending their influence in Greater Syria gained an impetus.
Already being a suspected personality in the eyes of Abdülhamid II, Midhat Pasha’s
independent policies in Syria and his support to the Maqāsid -associations was perhaps
interpreted by the Sublime Porte as steps of the governor toward securing a local power basis
for himself. Not surprisingly, Midhat Pasha was promptly dismissed from the governorship of
Syria and replaced by Ahmed Hamdi Pasha, former grand vizier and a military officer known
to be loyal to the sultan.93
Ahmed Hamdi Pasha, pursued a different strategy to find financial sources for these
private schools: he succeeded in 1881 to transfer parts of the government funds, designed
originally for supporting local government rüşdiyyes, to the Maqāsid-schools. However, this
positive development brought together the growing dependence of the Maqāsid-schools to
state funds. This tendency turned in a very short time into a complete take-over of the
Maqāsid -associations and schools by the Ottoman state: in 1882 the Ottoman administration

24
took the step of turning the Maqāsid -associations of Beirut, Damascus and Tripoli into
official provincial educational councils (meclis-i maârif). Though the membership of the
former Maqāsid -associations remained nearly the same as the new official councils, the
chairmen of these new councils were appointed officials from Istanbul. This meant that the
autonomy of these associations had terminated. All of the schools, previously founded by the
Maqāsid -associations, became government schools. Also, the Madrasa al- Sultānīya in
Beirut was converted into a government idâdî-school.94
This transformation of the originally independent Maqāsid -associations of Beirut,
Damascus and Tripoli into official educational councils could be interpreted as a part of the
state policy to implement the stipulations of the Regulation of Public Education of 1869. As
discussed previously, provincial education was to be regulated by local educational councils,
consisting both of local notables and appointed officials. Through this transformation in 1882
the Regulation of Public Education began to be fully implemented in Greater Syria. ‘Abd al-
Qādir al-Qabbānī remained member of the educational council of Beirut, and even became the
Ottoman educational director for the Beirut province toward the end of the Hamidian
regime.95
There have been discussions among historians concerning the possible reasons for the
transformation of the Maqāsid-associations into state bodies. According to Donald Cioeta
these associations were purely benevolent educational and cultural formations, without any
political aim. This view has been contested by historians like Fritz Steppat, Shimon Shamir as
well as Abdellatif Tibawi, who stated that the Maqāsid-associations were rather political
bodies. Steppat and Shamir underlined that these associations were encouraged by Midhat
Pasha to create a movement which would perhaps serve his political ambitions vis-á-vis the
Sublime Porte. In addition, Steppat and Tibawi underlined the growing politicization of the
regional notables during the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 and the emergence of a demand
for an autonomy for Syria. According to Steppat Maqāsid-associations, which were controlled
by local notables, were considered as harmful to state interests, and therefore transformed into
official bodies or even closed down.96
The neutralization of the Maqāsid -associations led the well-known Egyptian Islamic
Modernist, Muhammed Abduh, to write a memorandum to the governor of Syria. In this
memorandum Abduh claimed that it were the jealousy of the local Christians concerning the
successes of these associations which led them to propagate the idea that the Maqāsid -
associations were bodies with political goals. According to Abduh the neutralization and

25
closure of the Maqāsid -associations meant a major loss for the Muslims and a gain for the
Christians.97
It appears to be that other Maqāsid -associations did not suffer the same fate as the
associations of Beirut, Damascus, and Tripoli. In a report, prepared at a later time, the
observation was made that the Maqāsid-association of Saida, founded by Mahmūd Mina al-
Sulh, became financially stabil in the course of the 1880s and was able to found a private
school in Nabātiya. The Maqāsid-association of Saida, toward 1908, was coordinating two
primary schools for boys and two for girls. The total number of students was 618 male and
532 female students, together with 17 male and 18 female instructors. However, due to the
intensivity of the Hamidian administrative control that association remained, until the Young
Turk Revolution of 1908, unable to act independent of the district governor (kaymakam). 98
There existed other private educational ventures, independent of the Maqāsid-associations.
One of them was founded in Tripoli by an Islamic scholar, Husayn al-Jisr Tarāblusī (1845-
1909).99 Known to be an Islamic modernist and maintaining contacts with Abdülhamid II, he
founded in Tripoli a Madrasa al-Watanīya (“Homeland School”), which was indeed a
secondary-level school. The educational philosophy of this school was to combine Islamic
and modern sciences. Arabic, Turkish and French were taught at this school. The natural
scientific textbooks, used at this school, were the Arabic-language textbooks compiled by the
American missionary Dr.Cornelius Van Dyck to be used at the American Protestant
missionary schools. Tarāblusī tried hard to have his school acquire the official status of a
religious school, which would exempt the students from compulsory military service. When
the government refused to acknowledge this school as a religious institution, Tarāblusī had to
close down this school (1883).100
In 1895 Shaikh Ahmad ‘Abbās al-Azharī, the former founder of the Maqāsid-association
of Damascus, opened in Beirut a new secondary school, the Madrasa al-‘Uthmānīya
(“Ottoman School”), which had similar educational ideals as Tarāblusī’s former school in
Tripoli. Despite the modernist Islamic character of this school, also non-Muslims were
admitted to this institution. This educational venture proved to be a success, since it was able
to attract double as much students as the government idâdî-school was able to do. Most of its
students belonged to the wealthy Sunni Muslim upper class of Beirut. In addition, boys from
other parts of the Islamic world came to study at the Madrasa al-‘Uthmānīya. This school
included also special classes which was in fact a school for commerce. Arab nationalist
intellectuals such as ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-‘Uraisī graduated from this school. In 1911 the

26
Ministry of Education accepted the enlargement of this institution into a higher educational
body, which took the name al-Kullīya al-‘Uthmānīya (“Ottoman College”).101
We learn from R.Tamīmi and Behcet that the Muslims of Haifa following the Young Turk
Revolution founded two cultural associations, the al-Ihā’ al-Islāmī (“Islamic Brotherhood”)
and the -ahda al- Tamthīl al-‘Arabī (“The Advancement of Arabic Theater”). Among these,
the -ahda al-Tamthīl al-‘Arabī did not restrict itself with theater, but also founded a primary
school, called Maktab an--ahda. However, this school was not successful, and had to be
closed. During the Young Turk period Muslim private schools were also founded in
Jerusalem and Nablus.102
The Maqāsid-movement and its intellectual continuations in Tripoli and Beirut cannot be
understood fully without considering the political repercussions of the Russo-Ottoman War of
1877-78 and the emergence of new political aspirations in the form of benevolent cultural
associations. Similar historical cirsumstances created comparable developments in the
western Balkans, among Albanian intellectuals, however with different administrative
reactions and unique outcomes.

Struggle for Education: Underground Albanian Schools

The measures of centralization in the Western Balkans during the period of 1820-1850 was
met with a strong local resistance. Even after the power of powerful Albanian landlords such
as Buşatlı Mustafa Pasha and Tepedelenli Ali Pasha were crushed, regional unrest did not
terminate until 1844-45. The introduction of standard obligations such as taxation and
obligatory military service were conceived by the local population as equal to foreign
occupation. Therefore it is striking that around the same period of resistance to centralizing
reforms there emerged early steps toward the promotion of national Albanian culture.103
In 1844 Naum Veqilharxhi, a Greek Orthodox Albanian intellectual and previously
influenced by Hellenic ideals, developed the first Albanian national alphabet. In the 1850s
members of the Albanian colony in Istanbul found a cultural association with the object of
printing books in Albanian language and of setting up Albanian schools. However, there is no
data concerning the outcome of these attempts.104
The uprisings in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1875, the Bulgarian rebellion of 1876 and the
following Balkan crisis leading to the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 jeapordized the
political existence of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Educated Albanians worried that
the collapse of the Ottoman rule in the region would lead to the partitioning of the Albanian

27
lands among the neighbouring Balkan monarchies. Due to these concerns, leading Albanian
notables and intellectuals formed the Arnaudluk Đttihadı (Lidhja e Prizrendit, “League of
Prizren”) to convey to the international community as well as to the Sublime Porte the
political will of the Muslim and Christian Albanians to remain united as one nation. Among
other political and administrative demands, the League of Prizren appealed for the foundation
of Albanian schools.105
The Hamidian regime considered the Muslim Albanians, who constituted the majority of
the Albanian population, as the demographic backbone of the Ottoman political presence in
the western Balkans. Thus a major emphasis was put on the religious bonds between the
Muslim Albanians and the Ottoman state. Therefore, any manifestation of secular Albanian
nationalism and as well as Albanian national culture was regarded by the Ottoman
administration as a major threat to the future of the Ottoman political presence in the
region.106
Any open expression of Albanian nationalism began to be subdued by the administration
following the suppression of the League of Prizren in 1881. However, Albanian nationalism
continued to express itself in cultural and educational forms. The well-known Ottoman-
Albanian encyclopedist Şemseddin Sami Frashëri (1850-1904) had developed in 1878 his
own version of an Albanian alphabet. His brother, Naim Frashëri (1846-1900), who was the
director for the supervision of texts at the Ministry of Public Education, wrote textbooks in
Albanian language for primary-level schools.107 However, Albanian-language Muslim schools
were not allowed in principle by the Ottoman administration. One attempt was to found an
Albanian-language primary school for Orthodox Albanian boys, which was set up in Korçë
(province of Manastır) in 1887. In 1891 girls were also admitted to this institution. This
school was closed down in 1902, when the Ottoman authorities suspected that this school was
secretly attended by Muslim Albanian boys. Some other schools were opened in the region of
Korçë and Janina (southern Albania and northern Greece). Their educational quality,
however, was lower than regular primary schools.108
Despite political pressures and secret police surveillance, the demand for Albanian schools
rose in towns such as Debar, Elbasan, Kolonjë, Korçë, Ohrid, Tepelene, Tirana and Vlorë. As
a consequence there emerged an Albanian “national education” of a conspirative nature,
where pupils learned reading and writing through “notebooks on the knees”. The necessary
primers and textbooks were compiled and printed by Albanian cultural associations (Drita
[“Light”], Dituria [“Knowledge”], Shpresa [“Hope”]) located in Bucharest, i.e. outside the
Ottoman borders. These illegal educational material were smuggled by merchants from

28
Bucharest and Sofia to the abovementioned towns. Instructors, who were teaching at daytime
at government rüşdiyye- and idâdi-schools in Turkish, offered the same education to the same
students at night time in Albanian language. This education was provided at make-shift
schools at abandoned warehouses and stores.109
The guerilla activities of various Balkan etnicities against the Sublime Porte and against
each other reached a climax when Bulgarians opened the major revolt of St.Elias (Ilinden) in
1903 and founded the short-living socialist republic of Krushevo. The bloody suppression of
this revolt triggered a international political intervention which forced the Ottoman state to
accept a Macedonian reform scheme. This reform process signified an increasing
administrative and financial involvement of the great powers in western Balkans. Albanian
notables suspected that this process would work for the benefit of the Christian ethnicities at
the expence of the local Muslims. Thus, from 1905 onwards some Albanian landlords from
the region of Leskovik (southern Albania), being in contact with Albanian associations in
Bucharest, took steps to develop independent Albanian education. These notables went to
London to provide the necessary educational material to found schools with Albanian as the
language of instruction. However, the Hamidian regime became informed about these
activities and succeeded to prevent this undertaking.110
The issue of Albanian education was taken into consideration by a different authority, i.e.
the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Austro-Hungarians were concerned that the collapse of the
Ottoman administration in the Balkans would strengthen the Slavic elements while Albania
would be partitioned by the Balkan monarchies. An increase of Slavic power in the Balkans,
however, would not be in the interest of the Danubian Monarchy who was confronting its own
Slavic separatist movements, and feeling threatened by Panslavism. Therefore Austro-
Hungarians pursued the policy to support and strengthen Albanian nationalism as a counter-
balance to the Balkan Slavs. A close ally of the Austro-Hungarians was Faik Konitza, a
landlord and intellectual, who offered in 1897 Austro-Hungarian authorities a comprehensive
programme for the foundation of Albanian schools and the development of Albanian national
consciousness. As a consequence of such contacts, Austro-Hungarians provided the support of
local landlords such as Murad Toptani and Dervish Elbasani for the development of Albanian
schools. The Ottoman administration, realizing the activities of Murad Bey and Dervish Bey,
promptly arrested them (1898).111
It was only following the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 that Albanians found greater
freedom to set up their own schools.

29
Private Schools in the Hijaz

A region which manifested private school developments but cannot be easily placed within a
clear pattern shared by other private educational ventures of the Balkans, Anatolia or Greater
Syria is the province of Hijaz, located in the Arabian peninsula. There, we observe a
concentration of Muslim primary schools in the Hijazi cities of Mecca, Jiddah, and Medina.
During the early decades of Islam these three cities were the main cultural centres of Islam.
With the “globalization” of Islam during the following centuries main political and cultural
centres of the Muslim world shifted from the Arabian peninsula to Damascus, Baghdad,
Cairo, Cordoba, Isfahan, Samarkand, and Istanbul. In comparison to these centres, cultural
life in the Hijaz observed stagnation. Travellers visiting Mecca, Medina and Jiddah in the
mid-nineteenth century observed the low level of education even compared to the traditional
schools of Syria or Egypt.112 However, from the mid-1870s onwards there emerged
educational ventures to found private schools which included also modern subjects.
It should be remembered that Mecca and Jiddah in particular were urban concentrations
with a highly cosmopolitan nature. Due to the regular visits of thousands of pilgrims from all
parts of the globe, these places functioned for a long time as commercial centers, with resident
merchants from India, Jawa, North Africa, Russia and Central Asia.113 It were indeed
Muslims from India who began to open private schools in the Hijaz.
The first private school was founded in Mecca in 1875 by the Indian Islamic scholar
Shaikh Rahmatullah Khalīl al-‘Uthmānī from Muzaffarnagar (north of Delhi). He had been
politically active in India and was forced to leave his native country to settle in Mecca since
he took part in the Sepoy-revolt against the British rule in 1857. He seems to have been a
well-known scholar and politician of his time, since he was apparently invited by Sultan
Abdülaziz to Istanbul around 1863-64/1280 AH and wrote him a treatise, titled “Disclosure of
Correctness” (Izhār al-Haqq), where he criticized the growing European cultural influence on
the Turkish youth. During his stay in the capital he also contacted the Tunisian statesman
Khayr al-Dīn Pasha, who was favouring a modernist Islamic attitude. Later, during the
Hamidian era, he revisited Istanbul in February-March 1884 and then in March-April 1887,
remaining in contact with Abdülhamid II.114
Shaikh Rahmatullah directed, until 1875, a small traditional Quranic school in Mecca. In
1875 he met a rich woman from Calcutta, Sawlat un-Nisā Begum, who had come to Mecca to
perform hajj. Sawlat Begum gave financial support to Shaykh Rahmatullah to found in 1875 a

30
bigger school with a variety of courses. This first private primary school, called al-Madrasa
al-Sawlatiyya (“The Sawlat-School”), also received financial support from wealthy residents
of Mecca. Most of the teaching subjects were religious in character, but there were also
subjects such as writing, mathematics and algebra, history, and geography.115
This Madrasa al-Sawlatiyya was followed other schools in Mecca known as Fakhriyya
Uthmāniyya (“Ottoman Glory School”, 1879), Islāmiyya (“Islamic School”, 1886), al-
Khaīriyya (“Charity School”, 1908) and al-Falāh (“Salvation School”, 1911). From 1899
onwards private schools were set up in the porte town of Jiddah, namely al--ajāh al-Ahliyya
(“Success with Competence School”, 1899), ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Tarāblusī (“Abd al-Karim al-
Tarablusi School, 1902”), al-Falāh (“Salvation School”, 1905) and al-Islāh (“Correction
School”, 1909). In Medina twelve private schools were opened.116
These institutions were financially supported by wealthy merchants, Indian Muslims and
also by incomes from local pious foundations. Most of these schools had the same educational
level as the Madrasa al-Sawlatiyya. Among these institutions only two schools in Mecca, i.e.
al-Falāh and al-Khaīriyya, both opened after 1908, could be considered to some extent as
modern primary schools. In these schools courses such as Ottoman Turkish, drawing,
bookkeeping, hygiene were offered. When the al--ajāh al-Ahliyya in Jiddah suffered from
financial crisis its founders applied to the Ottoman government for material support. The
government accepted this request, but under the condition that Ottoman Turkish would be
taught to the pupils.117
According to Ochsenwald it was the new wealthy but conservative stratum of merchants
who emerged in Mecca and Jiddah during the second half of the nineteenth century and did
support Indian Muslim initiatives to found numerous private primary schools. These private
schools were actually extended Quranic schools, enriched with some of the course subjects
offered by government ibtidâî-schools.The religious subjects were mostly taught within limits
of Sunni orthodoxy, without being influenced by Islamic modernism. However, practical
subjects such as arithmetics and bookkeeping were offered at all of these schools. In that
sense these private primary schools were in a perfect harmony with the economic and cultural
life of Mecca and Jiddah, and manifested themselves as effective alternatives to the
government schools where the curricula were designed according to the bureaucratic needs of
the Sublime Porte.118

31
Conclusion

Private efforts to modernize Muslim education emerged due to a series of factors. The
Reform Edict of 1856 with its liberal attitude toward non-Muslim education led to worries
among the Muslims in general that they would lag behind the non-Muslim communities in
terms of socio-economic and cultural development, a feeling that also was important in the
emergence of the Islamist Young Ottoman opposition in the 1860s. At the same time, the
expansion of foreign missionary schools, such as the Robert College (1863) and their
philanthropic ideals must have been observed by intellectual Muslims and considered to be
exemplary. The foundation of the first private schools of Istanbul could be attributed to these
factors.
In the Turkish-speaking regions of the empire two important private school traditions did
emerge. In Istanbul the formation of the IAI in 1865 resulted in the opening of the Dâr üş-
Şafaka orphanage and high school. This philanthropic institution constituted a model for the
foundation of other private schools in Istanbul. Indeed, some graduates, instructors or
administrators of the Dâr üş-Şafaka founded schools in provincial towns of Anatolia. Around
the same time members of the Dönme community in Salonica began to found modern Muslim
private schools, which were considered exemplary by modernist Turks in terms of the
efficiency in teaching European languages. The Terakki and Feyziyye-schools of Salonica
possibly were considered as examples by other Turkish philanthropists; one can observe the
opening of schools with comparable names (terakki, feyiz, füyûzât) in Istanbul as well as in
Izmir.
The Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78, which brought the Ottoman Empire virtually to the
brink of collapse and the disappearance of a long term prospect concerning the viability of the
empire strengthened the already existing discontent among the non-Turkish Albanian and
Arab populations in the Balkans and in Greater Syria concerning the centralist policies of the
center. In these parts of the empire cultural associations and private schools could be
interpreted as a cultural expression of nationalism. The Maqāsid-associations, which
originated in Beirut, in a short time expanded from Aleppo in the north to Jerusalem in the
south, founding numerous schools. With the consolidation of the Hamidian regime in the
early 1880s most of the Maqāsid-associations as well as the schools were turned into
government bodies for local education. On the other, former promoters of this movement

32
were able to found the Madrasa al-‘Uthmānīya in 1895, thus continuing the Maqāsid-
tradition of founding modern private schools.
The Albanians, however, were not as lucky as the Syrian Arabs. The emergence of a
unified Albanian political will in the form of the League of Prizren and the demand for
Albanian schools was conceived by the Ottoman state as a vital threat to the Ottoman
presence in the Balkans. Consequently, Albanian educational activities were suppressed
harshly, which forced Albanian intellectuals to continue education in Albanian language in
secrecy. The reason why Syrian Arabs have been treated in a lenient way is possibly related to
the Islamist policy of the Hamidian regime and to the aim not to alienate the urban Muslim
notables of Greater Syria.119 Albania, on the other hand, was a strategic region and a
hinterland of Istanbul where separatist developments would have compromised the imperial
center.
The private school ventures in the Balkans, in Anatolia and in Greater Syria have been
determined to a major extent by the Reform Edict of 1856, by government educational
policies and also by the influence or challenge of foreign missionary schools. Most of these
ventures shared the common ideal of modernization while putting more or less emphasis on
Islam. In that sense, these private school movements were a cultural outcome of the
Tanzimat-reforms in the civilian sphere. The private schools in the cities of the Hijaz, in
contrast, developed within a rather different context of Islamic cosmopolitanism combined
with conservatism. Despite the existence of some modern course subjects, the intellectual
outlook of these schools was determined by traditionalism.
The formation of all these private educational activities were due to certain exceptional
personalities who devoted their energies for founding new schools. Yusuf Ziya Bey, Ali Nakî
Efendi, Şemsi Efendi, Mahmud Nedim Efendi, Fatma Zîşân Hanım, ‘Abd al-Qādir al-
Qabbānī, Shaikh Ahmad ‘Abbās al-Azharī, Shaikh Rahmatullah Khalīl al-‘Uthmānī
pioneered in their respective localities for the enrichment of the existing educational
opportunities. At the same time, the opening of private schools in the 1870s was a major
challenge for its founders, since there was a virtual lack of school textbooks in Turkish as well
as in Arabic or Albanian languages. It was only from 1870 onwards that textbooks for
government schools had begun to be produced in a systematic way. Therefore we observe
pedagogues associated with these private school ventures who compiled primers and
textbooks for the pupils of these schools, such as Vidinli Tevfik Bey (Pasha), Đbrahim Edhem
Pasha, Đsmail Hakkı Efendi, Abdi Kâmil Efendi, Đbrahim Cûdî Efendi, ‘Abd al-Qādir al-
Qabbānī, Naim Frashëri Bey. The independent writing of new and alternative primers and

33
textbooks in the provinces as well as in Istanbul displayed the fact that cultural modernization
among Muslims had become autonomous of the top-to-bottom modernist social engineering
of the Tanzimat-state. Despite the Hamidian attempts to control or suppress these autonomous
Muslim cultural developments, they continued their presence, either independently, or within
an ostensibly official institutional framework, or underground. This persistence was due to the
fact that the social foundations of this autonomy rested on the existence of Muslim urban
merchant strata.
All of the private Muslim schools in the Ottoman Empire, whether in Korçë, Salonica,
Đzmir, Beirut or Mecca, were supported by wealthy urban merchants. Most of these schools
were fully integrated into economic, political and religious life of the town of their location.
In Salonica, Izmir and Beirut, even private Muslim schools for commerce were opened. These
schools had a greater popularity among the locals, in comparison to the government schools
who were designed mainly for bureaucratic needs of the Ottoman state.
What is even more interesting is the fact that though most of the private Muslim schools
confessed their Muslim identity and gave emphasis to Islamic subjects, numerous ones also
admitted non-Muslim pupils. We know that many of the private Muslim schools of Istanbul,
Salonica, Izmir and Beirut in fact had considerable number of non-Muslim pupils in their
classes. However, this was not the case for most of the government schools. It is ironic that
while the government educational modernization after 1856 envisaged the ideal of a mixed
education of Muslims and non-Muslims to mould an “Ottoman nation”, the Muslim civil
reaction to the Reform Edict of 1856 and to its egalitarian stipulations eventually created
alternative private schools which came much closer to the Ottomanist educational ideal of a
mixed education.

1
For a concise information about pre-nineteenth century Ottoman educational structures, see Halil Đnalcık, The
Ottoman Empire; the classical age, 1300-1600. Transl. by Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber (London:
Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1973), 77-84, 165-172. See also Mehmet Đpşirli, “Medrese. Osmanlı Dönemi”, in TDV
Đslâm Ansiklopedisi (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2003), Vol. XXVIII, 327-333.
2
For the Hendesehâne (“School of Geomerty”, 1734), see Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in
Turkey (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964), 48. See also Kemal Beydilli, “Mühendishâne-i Bahrî-i
Hümâyûn”, in TDV Đslâm Ansiklopedisi XXXI, 514-516.
3
See Selçuk Akşin Somel, The modernization of public education in the Ottoman Empire, 1839-1908 :
Islamization, autocracy, and discipline (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 1-64.
4
Concerning discussions on non-Muslim schools in the Ottoman Empire, see Akşin Somel, Das
Grundschulwesen in den Provinzen des Osmanischen Reiches während der Herrschaftsperiode Abdülhamid II.
(1876-1908) (Egelsbach; Frankfurt; Washington: Hänsel-Hohenhausen, 1995), 192-252.
5
For Article 1 of the Regulation of Public Education, see Mahmûd Cevâd ibn üş-Şeyh Nâfî, Maârif-i Umûmiyye
-ezâreti. Târîhçe-i Teşkilât ve Đcrââtı (Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1338 [1920]), 469. Also Somel,
Grundschulwesen, 192.

34
6
Roderic H.Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1963), 69-77; Stanford J.Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol.II
(Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 118-125.
7
For a contemporary critical view of the Western cultural impact upon the Muslim population of Đstanbul, see
Cevdet Paşa, Ma’rûzât. Edited by Yusuf Halaçoğlu (Đstanbul: Çağrı Yayınları, 1980), 8-10.
8
Butrus Abu-Manneh, “The Roots of the Ascendancy of Âli and Fu’ad Paşas at the Porte”, in Butrus Abu-
Manneh, Studies on Islam and the Ottoman Empire in the -ineteenth Century (18261876) (Đstanbul: The ISIS
Press, 2001), 124.
9
Davison, Reform, 52-80; Shaw & Shaw, History, 100, 106, 124-125.
10
For the original edict text, see Şeref Gözübüyük & Suna Kili, Türk Anayasa Metinleri (Ankara: Ankara Ü.SBF
Yayınları, 1982), 7-8.
11
Concerning the communities in the Ottoman Empire and the intercommunal relationships, see Benjamin
Braude & Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural
Society. Vol. I (New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 1-88; Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrı
Müslimler: Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları (Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi,
2001).
12
Gözübüyük & Kili, Anayasa, 10.
13
Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, “Introduction”, in Braude & Lewis, Christians and Jews, 5-33; Carter
V.Findley, “The acid test of Ottomanism: the acceptance of non-Muslims in the late Ottoman bureaucracy”, in
Braude & Lewis, Christians and Jews, 339-343.
14
Donald Quataert, “The Age of Reforms, 1812-1914”, in Halil Đnalcık with Donald Quataert (eds.), An
economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1914 (Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University
Press, 1994), 837-841; Charles Issawi, “The transformation of the economic position of the millets in the
nineteenth century”, in Braude & Lewis, Christians and Jews, 261-285.
15
Cevdet Paşa, Tezâkir 1-12.Second edition. Edited by Cavid Baysun (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih
Yüksek Kurumu Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1986), 67-76; Mümtaz’er Türköne, Siyasî ideoloji olarak
islâmcılığın doğuşu (Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları, 1991), 60-71.
16
Gözübüyük & Kili, Anayasa, 10.
17
See Mehmet Akman, “Kilise”, in TDV Đslâm Amsiklopedisi XXVI, 17.
18
Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Christian community schools during the Ottoman reform period”, in Elisabeth Özdalga
(ed.), Late Ottoman society. The intellectual legacy (London and New York: RoutledgeCurson, 2005), 254-273.
19
Somel, Modernization, 42-47.
20
Somel, Modernization, 166-179.
21
See Marc Baer, “Globalization, Cosmopolitanism, and the Dönme in Ottoman Salonica and Turkish Istanbul”,
Journal of World History XVIII-2 (2007), 5.
22
Baer, “Globalization”, 5-6.
23
Osman Nuri Ergin, Türkiye Maarif Tarihi, Vol.1-2, 487-488; Mehmed Đzzet, Mehmed Es’ad et al., Dâr-üş-
Şafaka. Türkiye’de Đlk Halk Mektebi (Đstanbul: Evkaf-ı Đslâmiyye Matbaası, 1927), 3.
24
Đzzet and Es’ad, Dâr-üş-Şafaka, 183.
25
See Article 7 of Cem’iyyet-i Tedrîsiyye-i Đslâmiyye’nin Vezâifini Müş’îr -izâmnâmedir (Đstanbul: Matbaa-i
Âmire [1873?]), 4.
26
Article 5 of Cem’iyyet-i Tedrîsiyye-i Đslâmiyye, 3.
27
According to Article 9 of the Regulation of Darüşşafaka female graduates originally had the option to become
private instructors or governesses at wealthy households. See Dâr-üş-Şafaka’nın Đdâresine Dâir -izâmnâmedir
(Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire [1873?), 10; Ergin, Maarif , Vol.1-2, 490.
28
Ergin, Maarif , Vol.1-2, 491.
29
Ergin, Maarif, Vol.3-4, 948, 951-956, 997-1020.
30
According to Özcan Mert, the name Şems ül-Maârif possibly stemmed from Abdi Kâmil Efendi’s devotion to
the educator Şemsi Efendi. See Özcan Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni Şemsi Efendi (1852-1917)”, Atatürk
Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi VII-20 (1991), 337 fn.42; Ergin, Maarif , Vol.1-2, 470-471.
31
Ergin, Maarif , Vol.3-4, 951-956, 997-1006, 1015-1016, 1020-1023, 1025-1026; Erdal Đnönü, Mehmet -adir.
Bir eğitim ve bilim öncüsü (Ankara: TÜBĐTAK Bilim Adamı Yetiştirme Grubu Yayınları, 1997), 6-12; Necdet
Sakaoğlu, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Eğitim Tarihi (Đstanbul: Đstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2003), 83-84;
Yusuf Kemal Tengirşenk, Vatan hizmetinde (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1981),18-25; Maârif-i
Umûmiyye -ezâret-i Celîlesi Đdâresinde Bulunan Mekâtib-i Đbtidaiyye, Rüşdiyye, Đdadiyye, Âliyye ile Mekâtib-i
Husûsiyye ve Ecnebiyyenin ve Dersaâdetde Tahrîri Đcrâ Kılınan ve Taşrada da Mevcûd Bulunan Kütüphânelerin
Đstatistiki. 1310-1311 Sene-i Dersiyye-i Mâliyyesine Mahsûsdur (Dersaâdet: Matbaa-i Osmâniyye, 1311), 21.
32
Ergin, Maarif, Vol.3-4, 948-951, 992-996, 1016-1018, 1020-1023.

35
33
Ergin, Maarif, vol.3-4, 957-987. About Hacı Đbrahim Efendi, see also David Kushner, The Rise of Turkish
-ationalism 1876-1908 (London; Totowa, N.J.: Frank Cass, 1977), 63-69.
34
Ergin, Vol.3-4, 1018-1020.
35
Maârif-i Umûmiyye -ezâret-i Celîlesi Đdâresinde Bulunan, 21.
36
Maârif-i Umûmiyye -ezâret-i Celîlesi Đdâresinde Bulunan Mekâtib-i Đbtidaiyye, Rüşdiyye, Đdadiyye, Âliyye ile
Mekâtib-i Husûsiyye ve Ecnebiyyenin ve Dersaâdetde Tahrîri Đcrâ Kılınan ve Taşrada da Mevcûd Bulunan
Kütüphânelerin Đstatistiki. 1311-1312 Sene-i Dersiyye-i Mâliyyesine Mahsûsdur (Dâr ül-Hilâfet ül-Aliyye:
Matbaa-i Âmire, 1318), 21.
37
Salnâme-i -ezâret-iMaârif-i Umûmiyye. Sene 1321 (Đstanbul: Asır Matbaası, 1321), 143-171, 182-206.
38
For these details, see Somel, Modernization, 92-108, 143-155.
39
Ergin, Maarif, Vol.1-2, 488-489.
40
Salnâme-i -ezâret-i Maârif-i Umûmiyye. Sene 1316 (Đstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1316), 144-145; Somel,
Grundschulwesen, 172.
41
The language spoken by the Dönmes was different from the Judeo-Spanish Ladino, since the Sepharad Jews
maintained closer contacts with their non-Jewish social environment and thus adopted numerous Turkish, Greek
and Slavic vocabulary. In contrast, the language of the Dönmes was a purer form of Castellano. See Ilgaz Zorlu,
“Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni Şemsi Efendi Hakkında Bilinmeyen Birkaç Nokta”, Toplumsal Tarih I-1 (1994), 59.
42
Zorlu, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni Şemsi Efendi”, 59, 60, 60 fn 4, 60 fn 14.
43
Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni”, 332-333; Mert Sandalcı, Feyz-i Sıbyan’dan Işık’a. Feyziye Mektepleri
Tarihi (Đstanbul: Feyziye Mektepleri Vakfı, 2005), 35; Zorlu, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni Şemsi Efendi”, 59, 60
fn 16.
44
See Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni”, 336-337. About the usûl-i cedîd, see Somel, Modernization, 168-173.
45
Mehmet Ö.Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e Selânik’ten Đstanbul’a Terakki Vakfı ve Terakki Okulları
(Đstanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu, 2003), 59.
46
Ergin, Maarif, Vol.1-2, 470. About the details of the Đsmail Hakkı Elifbâsı, see Ergin, Maarif, Vol.1-2, 471-
472.
47
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 60; Ergin, Maarif, Vol.1-2, 470, 471.
48
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 60-61.
49
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 41. According to Özcan Mert the Mekteb-i Terakki began to function
in 1879. See Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni”, 334.
50
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 40.
51
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 62-63, 68, 73.
52
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 68.
53
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 72-79.
54
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 40, 41; Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni”, 334.
55
Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni”, 334-335.
56
Mert, “Atatürk’ün Đlk Öğretmeni”, 334 fn.26. According to Alkan, the Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi was founded in
1887. See Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 82.
57
Sandalcı, Feyz-i Sıbyân, 40, 51-52, 54.
58
Sandalcı, Feyz-i Sıbyân,45-47, 56-57, 66.
59
Selânik Vilâyeti Salnâmesi Sene 1315 (Salonica: [?], 1315/1897), 272; Selânik Vilâyeti Salnâmesi Sene 1318
(Salonica: [?], 1318/1900), 337-341.
60
Sandalcı, Feyz-i Sıbyân, 102-103. About Mehmed Câvid Bey, see also Selim Đlkin, “Câvid Bey, Mehmed”, in
TDV Đslâm Ansiklopedisi VII, 175-176.
61
Sandalcı, Feyz-i Sıbyân, 50-51.
62
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 82-83.
63
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 83-84.
64
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 75, 81-82.
65
Alkan, Đmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e, 39.
66
Sadiye Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim ve Eğitimciler (1850-1950) (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2002), 206-210.
67
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 211-213.
68
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 213-215.
69
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 216-217.
70
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 223-225, 226-227, 230.
71
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 229-230.
72
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 226.
73
TC Balıkesir Valiliği Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğü, Cumhuriyet Dönemi ve Öncesinde Balıkesir’de Eğitim
(Cumhuriyetin 75.Yılı Münasebetiyle) (Balıkesir: Đnce Ofset-Matbaa, 1998), 34; Kemal Özer, Tarihte Balıkesir
(Balıkesir: Türk Dili Matbaası, 1957), 12.

36
74
Siraceddin Ergun, Darüşşafaka. Türkiye’de Đlk Halk Okulu (Đstanbul: Đsmail Akgün Matbaası, 1948), 76.
75
Hüseyin Albayrak, Kuruluşunun 100.Yıldönümünde Cudibey Đlkokulu (Trabzon: Erol Ofset, 1988), 21.
76
Albayrak, Cudibey, 22-23.
77
Albayrak, Cudibey, 23-24.
78
Albayrak, Cudibey, 29, 31, 35; Hüseyin Albayrak, Trabzonlu Muallim Đbrahim Cûdî. Hayatı, Eserleri, Şiirleri
(Ankara: Kozan Ofset Matbaacılık, 1998), 28-33.
79
Ergin, Maarif, Vol.3-4, 1018-1020.
80
Salname-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniyye. Sene 1328 (Đstanbul: Selânik Matbaası, 1328), 176-177.
81
Salname 1328 , 176-177.
82
Tutsak, Đzmir’de Eğitim, 215ç
83
See Martin Strohmeier, “Muslim Education in the Vilayet of Beirut, 1880-1918”, in: Caesar Farah (ed.),
Decision Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire (Kirksville: The Thomas Jefferson University Press 1993),
215-241.
84
See Leila Tarazi Fawaz, An occasion for war. Civil conflict in Lebanon and Damascus in 1860 (Berkeley, Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1994); Stavro Skendi, The Albanian -ational Awakening, 1878-1912
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); Somel, Modernization, 61-63, 67-73.
85
Salname 1328 , 176-177.
86
Concerning the biography and activities of Butrus al-Bustānī, see A.L.Tibawi, “Al-Mu‘allim Butrus al-
Bustānī”, in idem, Arabic and Islamic themes: historical, educational and literary studies (London: Lusac and
Company, 1976), 228-252.
87
Donald J.Cioeta, “Islamic Benevolent Societies and Public Education in Ottoman Syria, 1875-1882”, in the
Islamic Quarterly XXVI-1 (1982), 42-43; Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798-1939. Third
edition (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 99-102; ‘Abd al-Hamīd Fāyid, Dirāsa ‘an
al-ta‘līm wa tatawwūr al-manāhij fī al-marhala al-ibtidā’īya al-‘ālīya fī Lubnān (Beirut: [?], 1970), 18.
88
Concerning detailed information on ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Qabbānī, see Hisham Nashabi, “Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir
al-Qabbānī and Thamarat al-Funun”, in Marwan R.Buheiry (ed.), Intellectual Life in the Arab East, 1890-1939
(Beirut: American University of Beirut Press, 1981), 84-91.
89
Cioeta, “Islamic Benevolent Societies”, 43-44.
90
Cioeta, “Islamic Benevolent Societies”, 45.
91
Cioeta, “Islamic Benevolent Societies”, 46-48; Muhammad Kāzim Makkī, Al-Haraka al-fikrīya wa al-adabīya
fī Jabal ‘Amil (Beirut: [?], 1963), 200.
92
Cioeta, “Islamic Benevolent Societies”, 46, 48-49.
93
For the Syrian governorship of Midhat Pasha, see Engin D. Akarlı, “ʿAbdülhamīd II’s Attempt to Integrate
Arabs into the Ottoman System”, in David Kushner (ed.), Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period. (Jerusalem: Yad
Izhak Ben Zvi, 1986), 82-83; ”Shimon Shamir, “Midhat Pasha and the Anti-Turkish Agitation in Syria”, in
Middle Eastern Studies X-2 (1974), 128-134; Đbnülemin Mahmud Kemal Đnal, Son Sadrazamlar. Vol.I. Third
edition (Đstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 1982), 379-382.
94
Cioeta, “Islamic Benevolent Societies”, 49-51; Somel, Grundschulwesen, 180-181; Strohmeier, “Muslim
Education”, 215-217.
95
Nashabi, “Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Qabbānī”, 87; Somel, Grundschulwesen, 181-182.
96
Shamir, “Midhat Pasha”, 132-134; Fritz Steppat, “Eine Bewegung unter den Notabeln Syriens 1877-78. Neues
Licht auf die Entstehung des arabischen Nationalismus”, in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschafts-Suppl.I, XVII.Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21.bis 27.Juli 1968, Teil 2, 641-643; A.L.Tibawi,
“From Islam to Arab Nationalism. With a Special Reference to Egypt and Syria”, in idem, Arabic and Islamic
themes, 117-121.
97
Tibawi, “From Islam to Arab Nationalism”, 126.
98
Mehmed Refik [Tamīmī] and Mehmed Behcet, Beyrût Vilâyeti: Cenûb Kısmı (Beyrût: Vilâyet Matbaası,
1333/1917), 320, 336; Ruth Roded, “Social Patterns Among the Urban Elite of Syria During the Late Ottoman
Period (1976-1908)”, in Kushner, Palestine, 150; Somel, Grundschulwesen, 182.
99
About the life and activities of Husayn al-Jisr Tarāblusī, see Johannes Ebert, Religion und Reform in der
arabischen Provinz. Husayn al-Ğisr at-Tarābulusī (1845-1909).Ein islamischer Gelehrter zwischen Tradition
und Reform (Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, 1991).
100
Hourani, Arabic Thought, 222-223; Strohmeier, 216-217; A.L.Tibawi, A Modern History of Syria, including
Lebanon and Palestine (London, Macmillan; New York, St.Martin’s Press, 1969), 196.
101
Rashid Khalidi, “Abd al-Ghani al-Uraisi and al-Mufid: The Press and Arab Nationalism Before 1914”, in
Buheiry, Intellectual Life, 41; Strohmeier, 230-241.
102
Refik and Behcet, Beyrût Vilâyeti, 258-260.

37
103
Stefanaq Pollo-Arben Puto, Histoire de l’Albanie des originees à nos jours (Roanne: Horvath, 1974), 127;
Skendi, Albanian -ational, 20-27; Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Ottoman Islamic Education in the Balkans in the
Nineteenth Century”, Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 36:2,3 (1997), 441-442, 451-452.
104
Johannes Faensen, Die albanische -ationalbewegung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 22-30; Bojka
Sokolova, “Origine sociale de l’intelligentsia albanaise à l’époque de la Renaissance”, in Etudes Balkaniques
(Sofia), 18-1 (1982), 23-24.
105
Peter Bartl, Die albanischen Muslime zur Zeit der nationalen Unabhängigkeitsbewegung (1878-1912)
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1968), 126; A.Buda, “Albanien und die Balkankrise der Jahre 1878-1881”, in
Actes du Premier congrès International des études balkanques et sud-est europeénnes. Ed.by V.Georgiev. Vol.
IV (Sofia: AIESEE, 1969), 126-127; Skendi, Albanian -ational, 31-108.
106
George Walter Gawrych, “Ottoman Administration and the Albanians, 1908-1913”. PhD Dissertation, The
University of Michigan (1980), 1-2; Bojka Sokolova, “Charakterni čerti na albanskoto văzraždane v kraja na
XIX v.”, in Studia Balkanica (Sofia) 12 (1976), 169; Somel, “Ottoman Islamic Education”, 452.
107
Bartl, Die albanischen Muslime, 108-109; Faensen, Die albanische -ationalbewegung, 43-44; H.T.Norris,
Islam in the Balkans. Religion and Society between Europe and the Arab World (London: C.Hurst and Company,
1993), 162-176; Somel, “Ottoman Islamic Education”, 453.
108
Bartl, Die albanischen Muslime, 133, 147; Faensen, Die albanische -ationalbewegung, 52-53, 56, 103-104;
Sokolova, “Origine sociale”, 18; Somel, “Ottoman Islamic Education”, 453.
109
Faensen, Die albanische -ationalbewegung, 59, 62; Somel, Grundschulwesen, 173-174.
110
Somel, Grundschulwesen, 174.
111
Skendi, Albanian -ational, 157, 238-240, 258; Bojka Sokolova, “Les institutions d'instruction étrangères et la
formation de l'intelligentsia albanaise à l'époque de la Renaissance”, in Études Balkaniques (Sofia), 19-4 (1983),
26; Somel, Grundschulwesen, 175.
112
See Abdullatif Abdullah Dohaish, “A Critical and Comparative Study of the History of Education in the Hijaz
during the Periods of Ottoman and Sharifian Rule between 1869-1925”. PhD Disertation, Leeds University
(1974), 25-32.
113
For the cultural conditions in the late nineteenth century Mecca and Jiddah, see C.Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka
in the Latter Part of the 19th Century: Daily Life, Customs and Learning (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1931) and William
Ochsenwald, Religion, Society and the State in Arabia: The Hijaz under Ottoman Control, 1848-1908
(Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1984).
114
Dohaish, “A Critical and Comparative”, 149-154; Ahmad Hijāzī al-Saqqā, Al-Madrasa al-Sawlatīya (Al-
Qāhira: Dār al-Ansār, 1978), 30; Muhammad ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Šāmih, Al-ta‘līm fī Makka wa al-Madīna āhir
al-‘ahd al-‘Uthmānī (Al-Riyādh: Dār al-‘Ulūm, 1973), 39-44.
115
For a detailed account on the course subjects of the Madrasa al-Sawlatīya, see al-Saqqā, Al-Madrasa al-
Sawlatiyya, 38-49. See also Dohaish, “A Critical and Comparative”, 174.
116
Dohaish, “A Critical and Comparative”, 147-149; Al-Šāmih, Al-ta‘līm fī Makka wa al-Madīna, 50, 53-57.
117
Dohaish, “A Critical and Comparative”, 154-168; Al-Šāmih, Al-ta‘līm fī Makka wa al-Madīna, 84-86.
118
Dohaish, “A Critical and Comparative”, 145-147, 171-173, 175, 177; Ochsenwald, Religion, Society and the
State in Arabia, 78.
119
See Akarlı, “ʿAbdülhamīd”, 77-86.

38