Robert Crews “Empire and the Confessional State: Islam and Religious Politics in

Nineteenth-Century Russia” American Historical Review (February 2003) p. 50-83

Concern with nationalistic identity and the growing suspicion of foreign

elements within the empire were paramount issues faced by the Russian
government in the 19th century. Especially difficult were questions regarding the
role of the Russian government in the affairs of non-Orthodox communities,
particularly the Muslim groups that spanned throughout the south and southeastern
portions of Russia. Fears of a pan-Muslim state under the leadership of the Ottoman
Sultan prompted the Imperial authorities to come up with a method of
incorporating the Muslim groups into the bureaucratic structure, binding them to
the fate of the Russian state. The model chosen based itself upon the relationship
the Tsarist state held with the Russian Orthodox Church, in that the Muslim
religious community would be able to govern its own affairs so long as they affirmed
to the idea of an ‘Orthodox’ belief and not one of a ‘heretical’ nature. The conflict
then shifted towards defining what was ‘Orthodox’ and not in Muslim belief, similar
to the debate occurring with Russian Orthodox believers and dvoeverie. Instead of
suppressing the Islamic faith, the Russian state policed it. Therefore, elites in the
Muslim faith competed to define true Muslim ‘Orthodoxy’ to the State using the
discursive frameworks already established within the Imperial context.
Using court records, petitions, and denunciations from central and regional
archives, as well as accounts from local Muslim communities to analyze the
relationship the Imperial state held with the Islamic faith, Crews argues that this
particular situation possessed two levels. First, the model established to integrate
the Muslim faith into the Imperial bureaucracy based itself upon the ideal of a
‘confessional’ state, which implied construction and implementation of an
‘Orthodox’ ideal in recognized religious communities. Second, attempts by Muslim
elites to define ‘Orthodoxy’ to the State represented a battle between co-religionists
to define and establish their own content of orthodox belief. Their arguments drew
in all levels of society and also incorporated the Tsarist regime to act as a mediator
for disputes that arose. Muslim communities sought to construct a relationship
using Imperial terms and concepts, allowing the State to regulate traditional areas of
Islamic faith, marriage, divorce, inheritance, clerical appointments, etc… While
these regulations drew the Muslim communities closer to the Tsarist state, it also
made Russian authorities responsible for enforcing Islamic ‘Orthodox’ doctrine and
supporting functionaries they often mistrusted. Despite these potential pitfalls, the
Muslim/State relationship formed the core of empire building and promoted
stability of Tsarist rule.
Crew’s analysis explores the tensions inherent between promotion of
Russian national and imperial state-building ideals. Interactions with the Muslim
community allowed the Tsarist regime to develop new methods of interaction with
non-Orthodox religious communities, a concern for the expansive and diverse
empire. Yet the acceptance of other faiths outside of Orthodoxy complicated the
States goal of defining and pursuing a Russian nationality, which inherently
contained Russian Orthodox belief as a key component. This aspect of Crew’s
analysis is the most interesting, and warrants further investigation of this dynamic
tension with regards to other religious groups within the Russian empire.

Jeremy Antley