Özet:

This article investigates the changing relationship between teacher, student and the text after the closure of madrasa in relation to modernizing social and political variables. Specifically, it focuses on the activities of Ali Yakup Cenkçiler and Fejzullah Hadzibajric. There are certain differences between Turkey and Yugoslavia in the fields of religious education and state-religion relations, yet the experiences of Ali Yakup Jenkçiler and Fejzullah Hadzibajric bear striking resemblances.  Turkey and Yugoslavia are the two countries where the Ottoman tradition prevailed over Islamic culture and institutional memory. Ali Yakup Jenkçiler and Fejzullah Hadzibajric were born in the Balkans during the 1910s and Madrasas were still open in the region at that time. Both of them received madrasa education during the 1920s. Fejzullah Hadzibajric lived in Sarajevo, ran several courses and produced his works during the time of Tito's Yugoslavia. He ran Masnawī classes and reached a large audience from different social backgrounds. Though he spent most of his life in Yugoslavia he paid visits to Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Whereas, Ali Yakup Jenkçiler was born and raised in Kosovo, but went to Egypt for higher education and completed his degree at Al-Azhar University. After completing his works in Egypt he did not return to Yugoslavia and moved to Turkey in 1957. He focused on Ihyā' 'ulūm al-dīn classes and spent 20 years teaching the same text. Despite difficult conditions of the time they sought to reach prominent scholars in the region. Both Cenkciler and Hadzibajric had a strong command in different languages, which them form connections with scholars, read classical texts and study manuscripts. They knew Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Bosnian and Albanian. It was also noteworthy that for a long period they worked in various libraries. Ali Yakup Cenkciler worked in a library in Cairo and Fejzullah Hadzibajric worked in Husrev Beg Library in Sarajevo. In that regard the texts they selected to study were obviously intentional choices. Their familiarity with the texts did not come from the training they received in the Theology Faculty but from the education they got outside the school. Both scholars were considered as the authority on Masnawī and Ihyā'. How they approached the transmission of Islamic knowledge in a secular context display intriguing patterns. For example, during the time Ali Yakup Cenckiler were running his courses there were only a limited number of students at Theology Faculties and Imam Hatip Schools. The content of education was under the control of the state. In Yugoslavia it was even harder for Muslims to receive religious education. The Tito regime only allowed one madrasa to operate and strictly controlled the content of education in this institution. Meanwhile, the level of literacy and higher-education significantly increased in both countries. The followers of their courses were mainly university students in big cities, men of letters and middle class craftsmen. It is through the reading of texts of Cenkciler and Hadzibajric that made it possible for those groups to the fundamentals of religious knowledge. It is also known that both scholars were in close contact with Sufi circles. Though both in Turkey and Yugoslavia Sufi lodges were officially not allowed to operate, the culture of Sufism was still very much alive. Fejzullah Hadzibajric was himself known to be attached to the Qādirī order. Through these channels they were able to extend their availability and strengthen the connection with the traditional doctrine. Both Cenkciler and Hadzibajric avoided criticizing governments and official ideology openly. They criticized certain practices. Despite this circumvention, Hadzibajric was arrested in the early years of the Tito regime. It is documented that Ali Yakup Cenkciler continued his courses at mosques and various houses and Fejzullah Hadzibajric was also known to have ran his courses in the mosques and the lodges. They periodically taught at official institutions but did not take higher posts at the Theology Faculties or the Dianet/Riyaset institutions. The fact that they did not take permanent positions as instructors in state institutions made it possible for them to plan their own programs and reach the wider audience. This study relies on memoires, biographies and oral sources. There is still no comprehensive study on the works of Ali Yakup Jenkçiler, but we have an edited volume of memoires collected from his students. Many of his students have pursued scholarly career and joined the university. There are many other students who did not take part in the memoir book. Almost all of the sources on Fajzullah Hadzibajric are in the Bosnian language. We have scholarly research on his works and studies but there is no specific research on his students. In this regard an in-depth study of the oral sources on their lives and works will be a valuable contribution to the literature.