British Journal of Religious Education

ISSN: 0141-6200 (Print) 1740-7931 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbre20

A model for Islamic education from Turkey: the

Imam-Hatip schools

İbrahim Aşlamacı & Recep Kaymakcan

To cite this article: İbrahim Aşlamacı & Recep Kaymakcan (2017) A model for Islamic education
from Turkey: the Imam-Hatip schools, British Journal of Religious Education, 39:3, 279-292, DOI:
10.1080/01416200.2015.1128390

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2015.1128390

Published online: 06 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 646

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbre20
British Journal of Religious Education, 2017
VOL. 39, NO. 3, 279–292
https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2015.1128390

A model for Islamic education from Turkey: the Imam-Hatip

schools
İbrahim Aşlamacıa and Recep Kaymakcanb
a
İnönü University, Malatya, Turkey; bThe Ministry of Youth and Sports, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The aim of this article is to examine the Imam-Hatip schools and their basic Imam-Hatip Schools; Islamic
features, the characteristic model of Islamic education in Turkey that was education; Turkish Islamic
education model
proposed as an alternative model for other Muslim countries during their
madrasa reform movements in the aftermath of the September 11 events
in the USA. In the continuation of the madrasa tradition during the Saljuki
period under state supervision, along with the modernisation efforts in
education since the late Ottoman period, these schools have been revitalised
and adapted to the contemporary conditions of educational institutions. At
the foundation of these schools, there lay a notion of reconciliation between
the ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’. Throughout the years of the Turkish Republic,
these schools have constantly become a controversial issue in terms of
their number, structure, and student and alumni profiles. Especially after
the opening process of the Turkish people and Turkish foreign policies to the
world, the issue has become an international one since the 1980s. After the
events of 11 September 2001, these schools were offered as an alternative
model for madrasas in Muslim countries and therefore drew international
attention to themselves.

1. Introduction
Turkey is a constitutionally democratic and secular country of which the vast majority of its population
are Muslims. After the War of Independence in 1923, the establishment of Turkey was based on the
Ottoman heritage, but it passed many reforms in order to become a modern, secular nation state. In
the scope of these reforms, the educational system was transformed. The multiple school education
system consisting of Mektep, Madrasa1 and foreign schools which were inherited from the Ottomans
was terminated. In their place, a national education system was established.
In terms of constitutional law, Turkey defined itself as a secular state. From the foundation of the
Republic, while having admitted the separation of religion and the state, the state assumed a large role
in supervision and intervention that did not allow autonomous religious organisations and activities
to exist simultaneously. With such a peculiar view of secularism, the meeting of the religious service
needs and the supervision of religious education and training under state supervision was preferred.
It did not leave the function of the religious services and educational needs to any nongovernmental
organisation, religious group or community.

CONTACT İbrahim Aşlamacı ibrahim.aslamaci@inonu.edu.tr

© 2016 Christian Education
280 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

As a result of this, Imam-Hatip schools in the early Republican period adopted educational and
religious policies under specific conditions in order to train the required religious officers. However,
these schools are not entirely a republican project because it is possible to find the notion and practical
traces of these schools in the pre-republican period. As a continuation of the madrasa notion under the
supervision and support of the Islamic educational tradition during the reign of the Saljuki dynasty, these
schools with certain modernisation reforms were revised as educational institutions from the last part
of the Ottoman Empire up until the present, developing with the conditions of contemporary Turkey.
Imam-Hatip schools throughout the republican history have always been a controversial topic
between ‘the conservative’ and ‘secularist’ communities in terms of structure, curriculum, students and
alumni. From the point of view of the conservative community, these schools were regarded as helpful
for creating a base and at the same time rejected for being instruments in shaping religion by the state.
For the secularist community, it means an imminent threat to the regime due to their expansionist hold
on religion in the community and, while it is accused of separating society by creating an alternative
education system, it is considered as an integrative institution for rationalisation of religion and its
incorporation by the state. Thus, it is noted that various layers of the society have contrasting opinions
and expectations with regard to Imam-Hatip schools along with different interpretations concerning
their roles (Kaymakcan and Aşlamacı 2011).
While discussions concerning Imam-Hatip schools were ongoing, the schools became the focus of
the international public in the post 9/11 period. After this, the USA began to consider education and
in particular, religious education in Muslim countries, first and foremost in Pakistan and other nations,
as a national security matter (9/11 Commission Report 2004). This added an international dimension
to the topic. In this framework, religious education in Muslim countries, which became a significant
topic for global security and stability, was brought onto the agenda of international education policies.
This international concept, which developed after 9/11 entailed a model search for the reformation
of the madrasa and religious education in Muslim countries. The experience of Imam-Hatip schools in
Turkey, their institutional structure, curriculum and the educated student profile are the most notable
and remarkable model among these.2
The aim of this article is to examine the Imam-Hatip schools as a model represented by Turkey for
Islamic education, their historical trajectory and basic characteristics along with the evaluation of their
international dimensions. Therefore, the first section focuses on the historical process of the Imam-Hatip
model since the Ottoman period to the present and the second section examines the basic distinguish-
ing characteristics of these schools from other Islamic education experiences. Finally, the international
aspects of these schools are assessed.

The historical background of the Imam-Hatip schools

In terms of their historical background, the Imam-Hatip schools are the deepest-rooted educational
institutions in Turkish educational history. These schools can be dated back to the beginning of the
Nizamiya madrasas, which continued the line of traditional Islamic education represented by the his-
torical evolution of the Saljuki-Ottoman-Turkey experience. In this sense, Imam-Hatip schools are the
continuation of the madrasa tradition that began under state supervision and support of the Seljuki
dynasty and developed by adapting to modern conditions along with the modernisation of education
until the present.
The institutional history of the Imam-Hatip schools began with the Law of Unification of Education
(Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu). However, the notion of these schools and laying their foundation mostly
were formed in the pre-republican age. The ideal foundation was to incorporate references to both the
‘traditional’ and ‘modern’. In the Ottoman state, the pursuit of this aim began with the engagement of
the modernisation process after the era of Tanzimat (1839–1876), the reform movement in relation to
the question of relative regression when compared to the western world. In this process, in the works
of the Tanzimat intellectuals, the traditional sources of Islamic civilisation and the newly discovered
terms and conceptional contents of western sources were in most cases brought together. (Davutoğlu
 British Journal of Religious Education 281

2001, 371). On the conceptual level, the traditional and modern were put side-by-side in effect by the
Tanzimat Paşhas in the same way and this was reflected in the education field, where madrasas repre-
senting tradition and schools representing modernity co-existed.
For the Imam-Hatip model, the endeavour to join the traditional with the modern first occurred
in the 1880s with the concept of the school, through a private school opened by Turks (Akşit 1991).
Several Turkish entrepreneurs who found the education insufficient in madrasas and did not want to
send their children to the non-Muslim schools began opening their own schools.3 In the curriculum of
these schools, modern sciences and Islamic sciences were combined and this curriculum illustrated the
most reformed madrasa curriculum model in the 2nd Constitutional Era/İkinci Meşrutiyet (1908–1922).
The official realisation of the endeavour in bringing together the ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ on the
same basis began in the İkinci Meşrutiyet with activities associated with reforming the madrasa. The
so-called reform endeavour on the centuries- old enduring madrasas did not transform on their own
initiative. Rather, Western style schools which emerged in the educational life with the Tanzimat period
(the Ottoman Reform Movement) and became widespread helped to achieve a relatively more standard
system. Therefore, the western educational system and understanding were adopted as the reference
point of the reform movement. Thus, as a result of these reform endeavours the Dar al Khailafa Madrasas
(Dar’ul Hilafe) occurred and were majorly assimilated to the western style of education both in terms of
curriculum and organisational structure. In this sense, madrasas were gradually transformed in accord-
ance with the western schools and for each level separate curriculums were prepared and scheduling
was predetermined, ranging from the number of hours of instruction, to what level, and how many
hours per week (Ergin 1977, 127; Zengin 2002). The incorporation of secular courses in science and
social sciences to the curriculum, in addition to the religious curriculum, and establishing innovative
regulations such as passing courses, transferred into the Imam-Hatip model too. In this respect, it is
possible to say that the educational idea of the Imam-Hatip model beyond the traditional madrasa
approach stems from the western education idea via these western-oriented schools.
The Turkish Republic founded on the principles of a nation state decided that schools, which were
inherited from the Ottoman state and represented diverse mentalities, including the madrasa, mektep
and foreign schools, should not co-exist separately. Therefore, in 1924 with the Law of Unification of
Education (Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu), the entire set of educational institutions were incorporated into
the Ministry of Education (Maarif Vekaleti). It was decided that education was to be ruled centrally under
the Ministry of Education. In the implementation of the law all the madrasas in the country were shut
down, thus the dilemma between the school mektep and madrasa was ended. With this law, religious
education was not terminated, as the religious and secular education was presented in the modern
school framework. In this respect, with Article 4 of that law, it was decided that for training Imams and
Preachers, Imam-Hatip schools were to be established and for training religious experts, Schools of
Divinity were to be established. In accordance with this article of the law the Dar al Khilafa madrasas
(Dar’ul Hilafe), which were present in 29 different locations and were originally reformed madrasas were
converted to Imam-Hatip schools (Jaschke 1972, 74–75; Parmaksızoğlu 1966, 25).
In the single party period of the Republic (1923–1946) many problems were seen to be caused by the
continuation of religious education. The possible emergence of positivist understanding, the influence
of the extreme secularists on certain elites and concerns that the traditional perspective of religion could
harm the process of the nation-state building led to a negative perception of religious education in that
period. All the Imam-Hatip Schools, which were opened in 29 different locations in 1924, were closed
by 1930 due to the lack of students. The reasons for students’ lack of interest in these schools emerged
due to the following reasons: no vocational promise to graduates, discontinuation after middle school
without offering a high school level education, and constraint in university opportunities for potential
graduates of Imam-Hatip schools (Öcal 2007).
In 1946 with the transition to the multi-party regime, the system of religious education inevitably
became the topic of the ruling power, the People’s Republican Party (CHP) as well. In particular, the
absence of competent religious officers who could lead prayers and funeral services led to an increasing
reaction from the people (Akseki 1951). The promises of the newly established Democrat Party (DP)
282 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

responding to the needs of the people forced the CHP to focus on the issue of religious education. In the
report of the commission assigned to investigate this issue, it was decided that religion courses were to
be incorporated into the curriculum of the schools and the re-opening of the Imam-Hatip schools was
to be offered. Yet after the discussions in the party group meeting, instead of these schools, Ministry
of Education-embedded courses were to be established. Hence, in order to meet the social need for
the religious services in 10 different locations, 10-month long Imam-Hatip courses were to be opened
in 1949. Middle school graduates who completed their military draft were recruited to these schools
(Ayhan 1999, 140–164; Jaschke 1972, 77).
After the elections of May 14, 1950 the DP came to power and Turkey began to experience a
series of changes in many fields and social demands found more response in the administration.
The concerns regarding the aftermath of the outbreak of World War II and the demands for the
membership of NATO, as well as the relationship with the US at its peak, led the DP administration,
which tended to have a liberal world view toward more positive religious and education policies
compared to the single party period (Karpat 1996, 229). In this context, with the decision of 13
October 1951 in order to train the religious officers which the society needed, it was decided that
Imam-Hatip schools were to be built first as a 4 year programme and in the second cycle another
3 years was to be added, which was in total 7 years of education. In accordance with this decision,
seven Imam-Hatip schools were open, respectively, in the provinces of Adana, Ankara, Isparta,
İstanbul, Kayseri, Konya and Maraş (Dinçer 1998, 97; Reed 1955).
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the number of Imam-Hatip schools increased swiftly and in 1970
the number reached 72. With the Fundamental Law of National Education (Milli Eğitim Temel Kanunu)
Imam-Hatip schools were converted into Imam-Hatip High schools (IHL) and the graduates were granted
the right to apply to universities with their diplomas. In 1976, the state council decided in favour of
allowing female students to register in these schools. These rapid developments, and in particular the
existence of the National Salvation Party (Milli Nizam Party), in three successive coalition governments
during 1970s, which represented the National Vision movement (Milli Görüş Hareketi) (Özgür 2012, 45),
increased the number of schools rapidly and helped it reach 374 by 1980.
The government after the military coup of 12 September 1980 did not make any sudden changes on
the status of IHL. By the year 1973, it granted the graduates of these schools, who already held the right
to social science fields of universities, the opportunity to attend all departments in universities through
its enforcement of the Fundamental Law of National Education. After the military administration ended,
the Motherland Party (Anavatan Party) came to power by winning the elections of 6 November 1983
under the leadership of Turgut Özal, which ruled Turkey until 1991. In Özal’s period, Turkey underwent
liberalism and as a result of the achieved economic and social developments, a new conservative com-
munity emerged which integrated modernity and traditional values (Tarhan 1996, 139–154). This new
direction sought means to develop the mechanism for its own reproduction, self-improvement, and
self-reinforcement. The IHL became its institutional correspondence in this search (Gökaçtı 2005, 236).
However, despite the intensive demand of the people through the 1980s, no new IHL school opening
was permitted. In this period, through opening many branches, an attempt was made to make the
schools widespread and accessible to the people.
In the 1970s, the upgrading of the status of the IHL, enabling the graduates to enter all university
departments, and the recruiting of female students in these schools, were among the fundamental rea-
sons for transforming the quality of the schools. With this transformation, the IHL dimension of raising
religious officers as stressed in the official discourse, which also constituted the fundamental reason for
their existence in the Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu, was overshadowed. These schools were converted into
institutions in which students who knew the religion well but did not aim to become religious officers
and who intended to study in different fields of universities became possible. This quality transformation
in IHLs also was reflected in university placements as IHL graduates tended to attend different fields
from their own high school education such as political science, law, public management and teaching
(MEB 2012, 49; Pak 2002, 89).
 British Journal of Religious Education 283

The increasing popularity and the profiles of the graduates led these schools into a series of
intense discussions. In addition to the discussions concerning the number of these schools and
the student population in the 1970s and 1980s, since the 1990s new ones were added concerning
the preferences of universities made by their graduates and their qualifications. The attitude of
secularists towards IHLs started to change in the 1990s. Where the schools had once been regarded
as an instrument to provide religious education under the state’s control and to train enlightened
religious officers, with its preventive role from menacing movements such as communism, with
the qualitative transformation of these schools, it is possible to argue that what was effective in
this change was the role given to IHLs. The removal of the communist threat after the cold war
and finally the beginning of the discourse in the world concerning radical Islamism had begun.
Hence, with the positive discourse which developed abroad in favour of IHLs at the time, a relatively
more serious oppositional discourse emerged in the 1990s at home. In this oppositional discourse,
the reports of Turkish Industry and Business Association (TUSIAD), İstanbul Chamber of Industry,
Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists and other most remarkable NGOs came to
the forefront (see Baloglu, 1990). The conservative community against this oppositional discourse
developed an apologetic discourse for these institutions and prepared reports through the socie-
ties and associations under their possession and organised symposiums in order to point out the
significance of these schools and attempted to avoid any unfavourable legal decisions. Therefore,
IHLs became one of the ideological conflicting tools between the conservative and secularist
community in Turkey during that period (Kaymakcan and Aşlamacı 2011).
For IHLs, which indicated an increasing student population and school numbers until 1997, the same
year became an important breaking point. The result of this period, which is also recognised in Turkey
as the ‘28 Şubat Süreci’ (February 28 Process), was the enforcement of the law for an 8 year compulsory
primary education, which caused the abolishment of the IHL middle schools, and a decrease in the
number of students. Three days after the enforcement of the law, through a decision of the Board of
Education and Instruction (Talim Terbiye Kurulu), the IHL was converted into a 4 year high school, one
year consisting of the preparatory class and three years for the standard high-school education. In this
process again with the decision of the Council of Higher Education (Yükseköğretim Kurulu) dated June
30, 1998, the graduates of IHL were banned to enter any department other than the Divinity Schools
(İlahiyat Fakülteleri). In the February 28 process, the negative developments corcerning the IHL caused
a decrease in student enrolment in these schools.
After coming into power through the elections of 3 November 2002, the Justice and Development
Party (AK Party) began to revive the IHLs. The fact that Recep Tayip Erdoğan the leader of AK party came
from the National Vision movement and many other members were graduates of the IHLs, developed
an expectation in IHL circles that the negative picture was going to be changed (Özgür 2012, 61–63).
With the AK Party administration, the number of students in IHL indicates a constant increase since
2003. Although the number of schools has not largely changed, the number of students between 2003
and 2012 increased approximately three times.
The AK Party government realised a radical reform in 2012 in the context of restructuring the Turkish
education system, which also concerned the status of IHLs. With the change of law, which was accepted
in March 30, 2012, the 8 year compulsory education was replaced with the 12-year compulsory edu-
cation and the 12-year period was divided into three stages. It was organised in the following way: the
first stage included 4 years of elementary school, the second stage included 4 years of middle school
and the final stage included 4 years of high school education (Official Gazette 2012/28261). In this
frame, the middle schools of the IHLs were re-opened due to the law. Also, the procedures regarding
university entrance and placement has been reorganised and the IHL graduates are now allowed to
participate in all university fields without impediments.
The changes in the number and student population of the Imam-Hatip schools throughout the
Turkish Republic are represented in the chart below:
284 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

Junior division (Middle school) Senior division (High school)

Academic year Schools Students Schools Students Total number of students
1923–1924 29 2268 – –
1931–1950 – – – –
1951–1952 7 876 – – 876
1960–1961 19 3374 17 1171 4545
1970–1971 72 41,767 39 6708 48,475
1980–1981 374 138,798 333 62,206 201,004
1990–1991 382 209,377 379 100,176 309,553
1996–1997 601 318,775 601 192,727 511,502
1998–1999 – – 604 191,183 191,183
2002–2003 – – 536 64,534 64,534
2014–2015 1597 385,830 1017 546,443 932,273

Source: Ministry of Education of the Turkish Republic, statistics of the Imam-Hatip schools.

By the 2014–2015 education year, 1597 middle schools out of 16,969 were IHL middle schools. In
other words, 9.41% were the IHL middle schools. 7.31% of all middle school level students study at IHL
middle schools. 11.22%, that is 1017 schools out of the 9061 secondary schools in Turkey, are IHL High
Schools. 9.60% of the whole student population in secondary schools in Turkey study in these schools
(MEB 2015, 74,112).

2. The basic characteristics of the Imam-Hatip model

The distinguishing features of the Imam-Hatip model from other Islamic education experiences com-
prises several basic characteristics. These characteristics range from the state supervision and control of
IHLs, to their inclusion in the educational system, the presentation of religious and secular curriculum in
a modern frame, their integration with the socio-cultural environment and the Islamic understanding
provided in these schools.

2.1. IHL under state supervision and control and its positioning in the public area
One of the most distinguishing features of IHLs is that they are provided by the state under its super-
vision and control. It is possible to find traces of this characteristic in the state supervision and control
dating back to Islamic education under the Nizamiya madrasas in the Saljuki period. From this angle, the
Imam-Hatip model in terms of its existence under state control presents a continuation of this tradition.
In the Republican period, even though Turkey defined itself constitutionally as a secular state, with
its own peculiar understanding of secularism, instead of drawing a sharp line between religion and
state affairs, it adopted the principle of providing religious services and education under state control
and supervision. According to this understanding, religious services, as well as religious education
and training, were not left to the private sphere, and independent civil societies were not allowed to
be established. It was decided that religious services and education would be provided to the people
through established state institutions in a framework, defined by the state. Throughout the history
of the Turkish Republic, this practice never changed. Article 24 which is still in effect from the 1982
Constitution states that the religious and moral education is to be done under state supervision and
control. Hence, in Turkey the notion of religious education and training has been regulated as a basic
right to be fulfilled by the state.
In accordance with this perspective, which the Republic adopted, IHLs since their establishment,
through the enforcement of the Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu up until now, have provided education in the
public sector as state schools. There are no religious schools belonging to a specific religious group
or community. In this way, the formal education which is provided in the general education system
through these schools is given in the framework that is defined by state control and supervision in a
systematic way and is not left to the sphere of civil society.
 British Journal of Religious Education 285

The presentation of religious understanding through these schools and other relevant institutions,
which are recognised by the state, no matter how controversial a topic in Turkey, make a significant
contribution in consolidating unity and peace and establishing religious understanding and tolerance
in the society as well as a stable and safe style of religious life. The presentation of a general religious
understanding over the diversity of religious understanding and foundations in the society also plays
a preventive role from the religion-originated problems in the society.

2.2. IHLs as a part of the general education

Another significant feature of the IHL schools is that they do not grant a parallel education but are
integrated into the general education system. The law of Tevhid-i Tedrisat, which was accepted in 1924,
brought all education institutions under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. In other words,
it included all of them under the national education system. Article 4 of the law annexed IHLs to the
same ministry and incorporated them into the same national education system which permitted their
opening.
In the current configuration, IHLs correspond to the middle and high schools in the Turkish edu-
cational system. If we break this down, grades five through eight, correspond to Imam-Hatip Middle
Schools and grades nine through twelve correspond to the IHL. The setting of the education policies
concerning these schools, which comprise a part of the general education system, their planning, the
selection of administrators and teachers and their appointments, also occur centrally, just like in other
schools. In these schools all kinds of educational activities and processes are supervised and controlled
by the Ministry of Education. Within the central organisation of the ministry, there is a general directorate
of religious education (Din Öğretimi Genel Müdürlüğü) for the administrative affairs of the schools. The
financing of these schools are met by the state from the budget allocated to education.
According to these legal regulations, the Imam-Hatip schools, since their foundation until the present,
without creating a parallel system of education, these schools have made significant contributions to
the model of religious education. Owing to the fact that IHLs share a common basis with general edu-
cation institutions in the education system, it enabled these schools to operate in a system of national
education policies and practices. Hence, from identifying the objectives of the national education
systems, to the arrangement of the education system, its evaluation, and finally its administrative body
in all organs, unity has been realised.
Besides the removal of duality, another significant achievement in the integration of the Imam-Hatip
schools into the general education system is that IHLs are able to benefit from a constantly developed
education experience, modern educational approaches, as well as modern methods and techniques
in education. In this way, the practices of education in IHLs are able to benefit from developments in
the Turkish national education system and educational sciences.

2.3. The presentation of religious and secular curriculum in a modern way

In the later part of the Ottoman State, the madrasa curricula, which was subject to reformations
parallelling the modernisation of education, involved social and science courses along with Islamic
sciences. IHLs gave place to religious and secular courses together in their curricula, which were pre-
pared throughout the republican period as a continuation of the same tradition. The so-called curricula
included 60% secular courses, while 40% were religious courses. This rate was mostly retained in all the
prepared curricula (Aşlamacı 2014).
In these schools, the religious courses include: Quran, Arabic, Tafseer (Quranic exegesis), Hadith
(Prophetical traditions), Qalaam (Islamic Theology), Fıqh (Islamic Jurisprudence), Seerah (Prophetical
biography), Rhetoric, and Comparative History of Religions. The secular courses consist of both social
studies and science, including: Literature, History, Geography, Foreign language, Philosophy, Health
Science, Music, Visual Arts, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. The education programmes
in these schools are being prepared centrally by the related units of the Ministry of Education, just like
286 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

the curricula of the other state and private schools. The prepared education programmes are applied
in all the IHLs across the country. Likewise all the textbooks and materials are only taught after being
approved by the Ministry of Education.
The secular courses alongside the religious ones serves to unify general education and religious
education in these schools. Therefore, an alternative is presented to the families who do not want
their children to be deprived of general education while receiving their religious education. Those
who consider the religious education to be insufficient in general education institutions or those who
consider the IHL environment and its religious activities to be important also view the IHL as an alter-
native model to which they can send their children. The structure of this type of curriculum provides
educational opportunities to students, not only in terms of religious services but also in terms of the
diversity of fields of study in their future university education. At the same time, these schools provide
the opportunity for the integration of students and their graduates into society in an easy way.
Another important aspect of the Imam-Hatip school curricula is that both the religious and secular
courses together are all given compatibly with the understanding of modern pedagogy. The secular
courses in their own curriculum are given according to an understanding of their formation, inde-
pendently from the religious perspective. Teachers of these courses have mostly graduated from rel-
evant university departments. This modern educational format adopted in the schools is not only for
the secular courses but also for the religious courses. This methodological change leads to a change
in the perspective of religion and the approach to the knowledge of religion. This education system
therefore establishes a fundamental understanding on the interpretation of the information and its
understanding according to the modern age, instead of transferring the current knowledge of religion
to new generations without enabling students to question it as was the case in the past.

2.4. IHLs unification with the socio-cultural environment

IHLs since their re-opening in 1951 have until now always found huge public support. Between the years
1930–1950 due to the increasing need for religious officers after the emerging problems in the field
of religious services and religious education, the Turkish people demonstrated much support for the
opening of these schools. The public support that first manifested itself in financing the construction of
schools, in time evolved into unification of the schools and led to the formation of an IHL community.
After the IHLs re-opened in 1951, Turkish people opted to help in the construction of these schools as
a religious responsibility. By constructing buildings offered them, the service of these schools was carried
out under an association called the Association of Imam-Hatip School Establishment and Maintenance
(İmam Hatip Okulu Yaptırma ve Yaşatma Derneği) (Adam 2004; Reed 1955). In this way, the vast majority
of the school buildings and pensions were constructed through associations and societies without state
support (Bolay and Türköne 1995, 153; Ünsür 2005, 203).
The associations and societies established to build Imam-Hatip Schools, beyond this essential sup-
port, also help through their education activities; they make a significant contribution as the first con-
servative and Islamically oriented organisations. Speaking socially and economically, if not politically,
the organisation of the conservative community was done through these associations and societies,
which led them to build their own characteristic identity (Gökaçtı 2005, 200). Hence, these societies
and associations laid the foundation of an emerging community around these schools. Besides their
financial assistance to these schools, they functioned as a bridge between their bases and the schools
and undertook important roles in establishing solidarity among the IHL graduates.
Today, many societies and associations, are notable for their IHL support, including the Ensar
Foundation, the Alumni Association of IHL (ÖNDER), the Community of the Dissemination of Religious
Knowledge, the Foundation for Dissemination of Knowledge (İlim Yayma Cemiyeti), and the Foundation
of Turkey’s Imam-Hatip Members (TİMAV). These foundations are conducting their activities in order to
support, develop and sustain these schools in accordance with their respective policies. These founda-
tions are serving as a bridge between IHLs and society, helping these schools socio-culturally become
 British Journal of Religious Education 287

integrated and united with their environment. In such a social environment with public support, they
provide for the establishment of these schools, their sustenance and development.

2.5. The Islamic understanding presented in the Imam-Hatip schools

Another outstanding characteristic of IHLs is the quality of the Islamic understanding they present. It
is possible to find a certain Islamic understanding in these schools, that which is historically known as
Turkish-Islam (Ocak 1996, 132). It was shaped through the interaction of various cultures and civiliza-
tions beginning in Central Asia, developing in Anatolia, and spreading to Eastern Europe and formatted
by the Islamic understanding of the early Turkish Republic. In the curricula of these schools, all the
religious courses, except the comparative history of religions, provide an Islamic understanding that is
also compatible with the Turkish historical record.
One of the most significant characteristics of Turkish-Islam is that it adopted the Sunni-Hanafi school
of thought. This school of thought followed two different paths throughout the history of Ottomans.
The first of these two channels, which also nurtured Turkish-Islam, is called ‘Islam of the elite’ (Yüksek
İslam) or the ‘Islam of the clergy’ (Ulema İslamı) or ‘academic Islam’ (Kitabi İslam), which reflects a rather
jurisprudential understanding of Islam represented by the scholars and madrasas (Kaymakcan 2006).
The second representative is the ‘mystic’, ‘folkloric’ or ‘Volk Islam’ which is based on the saint ‘evliya’ cult
that finds its appeal in the great masses of common people (Ocak 1996, 135, 1999, 112–113). Both
Islamic approaches have their own way of providing religious knowledge.
Another movement followed these two Islamic understandings. Beginning in the last period of the
Ottoman empire within the westernisation process, Tanzimat intellectuals began to shape what is called
‘modern Islam’, a new understanding of Islam. According to the Tanzimat intellectuals, it was not Islam
per se but the de facto situation that was not available for modernisation, progress and reformation and
thus it needed to be transformed in accordance with the authentic teachings of Islam. They desired to
make Islam dominant through their revivalism, reformation and renovations (Kara 2001, 192). However,
this Islamic understanding never replaced the static folk Islam nor the Islam of the clergy, both of which
were rooted for centuries in society. They attempted to develop a rational and progressive interpretation
of Islam which was purified from superstitions and which could inspire a strong motive to deal with the
problem of regression stemming from an eclectic view of both Islamic thought and western thought.
The end result was a dialogue which synthesised the concepts and theories of both (Türköne 1994, 271).
These three approaches inherited from Ottomans were subject to a re-assessment within the frame-
work of the Republican religious policy. This policy found Islam of the clergy and modern Islam relatively
more agreeable, while almost completely deserting folk Islam. In this period, the compatibility of the
Sunni-Hanafi view of Islam in accordance with the Turkish Islamic tradition was rendered compatible
with political authority; the new regime created a religious form that confirmed national unity and
solidarity. This adopted Islamic understanding was presented to society not through civil society but
through the organised religious services and education by state institutions.
The Islamic understanding in IHL schools since their foundation has developed within the frame-
work of this policy of religion that is determined by the republic. In the school curriculum the courses
comprising the basic Islamic sciences, including the Quran, Tafsir, Hadith, Islamic Jurisprudence, Islamic
Theology, and other courses, were determined from an eclectic point of view and the topics were
chosen for teaching in accordance with the Orthodox Sunni Islam belief system (iman), knowledge
of prayer (ibadet) and moral fundamentals (ahlak). All the topics that seemed incompatible with the
economic, legal and political tenets of the state were excluded. In addition, the aspects of Islam such as
Sufi interpretation and forms, while they are a living experience in Turkey and other Muslim countries,
were extracted. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that in these schools a state controlled under-
standing of Islam has been taught.
In the statements of the curriculum of these schools, we find that in the Islamic teaching, the Quran
and Sunnah are recognised as fundamental sources and that no sect or religious opinion is given pri-
ority. We also find that the integrative and peaceful aspects of the faith are stressed and that an Islamic
288 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

understanding based on modern science is being taught. The faith is not presented in an oppressive
manner but is taught in an analytical and interpretative way (MEB 1999, 2000, 2008).

3. The addition of the dimension of internationality to Imam-Hatip schools

The Imam-Hatip schools, which Turkey produced as an Islamic education model in its own peculiar
conditions especially since 1980s, have acquired an international dimension that parallels the opening
of Turkish people and Turkish foreign policy to the world. The idea of meeting the need for religious
education and religious officers of Turks living abroad particularly with other Muslim communities
brought a new mission to the IHLs. In this context, either IHLs are opened in various countries as similar
education institutions, or foreign students are brought to Turkey and accepted to study in IHLs.
Concerning this subject, the first attempt occurred when a German language intensive Anatolian
Imam-Hatip school was founded in Beykoz, İstanbul in 1985 in order to meet the need for religious
education and religious officers for Turks living in Germany. A large number of the children of Turkish
citizens living in Germany took their seats in the first semester among the students of this school, which
later on set a model for the future language intensive Imam-Hatip schools (Öcal 2011).
Throughout the 1990s, after the dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia, in order to meet the need
for religious education and religious services to Muslim societies in the Balkans and Central Asia, Turkey
led by the Presidency of Religious Affairs and Turkish Diyanet Foundation (Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı) began
to transfer their experience abroad. In this context, Imam-Hatip schools or similar education schools
were opened in the aforementioned regions. A college in Romania, 4 Imam-Hatip schools and an
İlahiyat School were opened in Azerbaijan and Bulgaria. Also a total of 217 students from Bulgaria,
Crimea (The Ukraine), the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Macedonia and other Eurasian countries were brought to Turkey in order to receive their education in
IHL between the years 1999–2005.4
The requests for cooperation and aid in order to benefit from the Islamic education model, which
Turkey represented through their Imam-Hatip schools, increased rapidly after September 11. In this
process, IHLs were not just seen as a model or the focal point of discourse. These requests transformed
into official demands by certain authorities who wanted to transfer this model to their countries. In
particular, Pakistani, Afghan, Chinese and Russian authorities expressed their explicit demand to ben-
efit from the Turkish educational experience. During the Turkish Prime Minister’s visit to Pakistan on
25 October 2009, the Pakistani authorities explicitly expressed their demand to the Prime Minister for
adopting the model of Turkey’s IHLs in order to prevent religious extremism in their country.5 Russia
in 2009 sent a delegation to Ankara and expressed their demand to Turkey for their desire to adopt
the model of IHLs and Ilahiyat Faculties (School of Divinities) in order to meet the need for religious
education and religious officers of the increasingly rising Muslim population in their country.6 The
Minister of Education of Afghanistan on January 1, 2010 visited Tevfik İleri Anadolu Imam-Hatip High
school and expressed their nation’s desire to open religious educational centres, ones similar to the
IHLs. Meanwhile, a business protocol was signed among Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey in Ankara on
19 January 2010.7 In the final declaration of the ‘Second Summit of African Muslims on Religion’ organ-
ised by the leadership of Presidency of Religious Affairs between 21 and 25 November 2011, Turkey
was requested to take more initiative in meeting the urgent need for providing human resources for
religious services. In this scope, a demand was reported for adopting the model of IHLs in Turkey and
similar education institutions in neighbouring countries.8
Turkey responds to these types of corporation and aid demands with two different activities. First,
students are brought to Turkey from other countries, which make the demand for aid and cooperation,
and the education is given to them in IHLs established for this end in Turkey. The General Directorate of
Religious Education in Ministry of Education, along with the Turkish Diyanet Foundation, are conducting
the project. The aim of the protocol, which was bilaterally signed, states in the following passage: ‘to
contribute to world peace by passing down a reasonable understanding of religion to the students and
 British Journal of Religious Education 289

establishing a strong, persisting friendship and bridges between the related countries and Turkey, and
finally meeting the needs of religious officers in various locations of the world.’
In this scope first in 2006 in the city of Kayseri, in Istanbul in 2011, and in Konya in 2012 three
‘International Anatolian Imam-Hatip High Schools’ were opened. In these schools, students are admitted
on the following premises: they must graduate from primary school in their respective countries with a
‘fair’ level at least (70% out of 100) and must not exceed the age limit of 17. In the 2014–2015 education
year, 1110 students from 76 different countries studied in these three schools.
Secondly, Turkey responds to the aid and cooperation demands by opening IHL types of schools in
various foreign countries. Some of these schools, which were opened by the leadership of the Turkey
Diyanet Foundation and the guardianship of Ministry of Education, provide services to Turkish citizens
in foreign countries and to the citizens of neighbouring countries. In addition to the schools providing
education services to foreign citizens, which were previously established in Azerbaijan, Romania and
Bulgaria, the IHL in Magodishu, Somalia and Osh Imam-Hatip High school in Osh, Kyrgyzstan were
established in 2012. In order to provide education for the children of Turkish citizens, there are IHL and
Middle Schools in the cities of Mecca, Madina, Jidda, Riyad and Ta’if. There are boarding Imam-Hatip
Schools for girls (İbn-i Sina Girls Anatolian Imam-Hatip High School) in the region of Mons, Belgium and
one Imam-Hatip High school programme (Mina Hindholm) in Copenhagen, Denmark.

4. Conclusion and recommendations

The Imam-Hatip schools represent a continuation of the madrasa tradition that began under state
supervision and support of the Seljuk dynasty; further developing by adapting to present-day condi-
tions along with the modernisation of education until the present. Having been shaped by Turkey’s
characteristic conditions such as religion-state relationships, religious policy, Islamic understanding, and
socio-cultural structure, these schools have survived until now seeking to bridge the divide between
the traditional and modern references as their fundamental ideologies.
Even though the number of these schools, their curriculum, and alumni have always been a con-
troversial topic between ‘the conservative’ and ‘secularist’ communities throughout the history of the
Turkish Republic, and especially after September 11 attacks, they are increasingly seen as a model for
education by Muslim communities in many parts of the world. Integration with the general education
system, state control of institutional structures, including their curriculum involving both religious and
secular courses, and the Islamic understanding presented in these schools, which opposes extremism,
has increased the profiles of educated students as well as the level of attention given to the Imam-Hatip
model of education.
Due to this increased attention, Imam-Hatip schools are seen as model schools, so much so that
political authorities have officially requested the transfer of Imam-Hatip schools to foreign countries.
There are two groups which make requests for cooperation and collaboration with Turkey: the countries
where Muslims are a majority, and the countries where the Muslims are a minority.
The first group consists of countries where the vast majority of the population is Muslim and
which currently have a classical education system (madrasas). These are countries such as Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia.9 In these countries, madrasas generally act remotely from state
control and are organised by Islamic communities as an alternative to formal education institutions. In
this way, every Islamic group with its own particular madrasa is providing a different Islamic education
that is compatible with their doctrine. By being remote from the state control, some of these institu-
tions provide an extremist Islamic perspective, which menaces the social cohesion and stability in the
above-mentioned countries, and therefore, the existence of Islamic education in madrasas presents a
fundamental problem.10
Given the social base and exclusive conditions in these countries, it is difficult to transition to new educa-
tional institutions from the existing settled educational structure. A deficiency in the state’s ability to provide
educational services, and the lack of a strong central education system results with madrasas functioning
as alternative education institutions. In these countries, Islamic communities instead of the concerned states,
290 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

fund education. In turn, on a great scale, madrasas are becoming the ideological tools of the financing
parties or groups. On the other hand, with the case of Turkey, the state itself funds the Imam Hatip schools.
This prompts the escalation of state control on these schools. Therefore, considering the modality of Imam
Hatip schools for the given countries, a more viable plan is to analyse the particular conditions of each coun-
try, and transform the current madrasas gradually rather than eradicating them. Imam Hatip schools can be
adopted as a primary model for the madrasa for its educational approach, curriculum structure, teaching
methods and materials. For that reason, a negotiation process is inevitable for implementing such a project
without overlooking current actors in the community.   
The second group of countries, which request the Imam Hatip school model for cooperation and
collaboration, are the countries where the population of Muslims is the minority. These are countries
such as Russia, China, Philippines, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and Denmark. These countries aspire to
meet the need of their minority religious education and services from an Islamic perspective, which
does not permit or promote extremism; therefore, they are willing to benefit from the Turkish experi-
ence. In comparison to the majority Muslim countries in the first group, in these countries there is no
settled educational tradition for Islamic education, which is perhaps the most significant aspects of
their curriculum and Islamic understanding. This setting is well-suited for the Imam Hatip model since
it combines religious and secular courses while disallowing and discouraging extremism in the pro-
gramme. Every country can achieve this objective through a relationship with their corresponding
Islamic community in a convenient way with their legal structure.
The centralist institutional structure of Imam Hatip schools under the state control makes it seem
more difficult for its modality in countries from the first and second group since policies of education
and religious education are fundamentally determined by the characteristic conditions of every country,
including the regime, religion-state relationship, historical background, religious demographics, and
socio-cultural structure. Therefore, when these schools are taken as a model for any country, whether a
Muslim majority or minority society, an assessment and analysis of the country’s needs must be done.
It will be helpful to identify which aspects of the Imam-Hatip school model are not applicable, which
aspects are applicable, and give priority to transferring that experience to the relevant aspects.

Notes
1. Madrasa means ‘place to study’. It is the oldest intensive institution of religious education. In the Ottoman madrasas,
which were providing middle and high level education, this became insufficient after the eighteenth century due
to the rapid change of the world in processes of modernisation. Their influence gradually waned. Madrasas, which
lost their function and position to the western style Mekteps, were reformed after the Second Constitutional Era.
2. Western media sources discuss the way in which Imam-Hatip Schools might go through a madrasa
reformation. In one of these, which was written by Simon Adam and published by Reuters, was
published on 24 February 2010, cited by many other national and international media outlets.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/24/us-turkey-islam-education-idUSTRE61N00O20100224 the accessed 1
May 2012. Other news sources include that of Dorian Jones on 13 April 2010 which was published by Voice of America.
http://www.voanews.com/content/turkeys-religious-schools-being-used-as-model-to-fight-islamic-
extremism-90856834/169468.html, the accessed 1 May 2012.
3. Some of these schools which were opened in 1873 taking Daruşşafaka as a model include Medrese-i Hayriye,
Medrese-i Edebiye, Şemsü’l Maarif, Mekteb-i Hamidi, Numune-i Terakki, Mekteb-i Osmani, Bürhan-i Terakki, and
Ravza-i Terakki (Ergin 1977, 937–1027).
4. See http://www2.diyanet.gov.tr/DisIliskilerGenelMudurlugu/Sayfalar/ImamHatipLiseleri.aspx. Accessed: 11.01.2014.
5. See http://www.sabah.com.tr/Dunya/2009/10/25/gilaniyle_imam_hatip_modelini_konustular. Accessed: 26 August
2013.
6. See http://aksam.medyator.com/2009/12/24/haber/3130/dunya/haber.html. Accessed: 26 August 2013.
7. See http://www.meb.gov.tr/haberler/haberayrinti.asp?ID = 7510. Accessed: 26 August 2013.
8. See http://africa.diyanet.gov.tr/tr/zirve/ii-afrika-musluman-dini-liderler-zirvesi-sonuc-bildirgesi_52.html. Accessed:
10 January 2014.
9. Among the countries, which request for assistance and cooperation from Turkey are: Kirgizstan, Tajikistan,
Azerbaijan and other central Asian, Turkic countries, as well as African countries such as Somali, Niger, and Chad.
10. For an extensive description of the madrasa education system in these countries, see Malik 2008; Riaz 2008; Ahmad
2004; Aşlamacı 2014; Fair 2008.
 British Journal of Religious Education 291

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
İbrahim Aşlamacı is assistant professor in Religious Education in the Faculty of Divinity at the İnönü University in Malatya,
Turkey. His main research areas are Imam-Hatip Schools, Pakistan madrasa education system, Islamic education, compar-
ative religious education, pluralism and religious education. His PhD thesis is about the Imam-Hatip Schools as a model
for Pakistani Madrasas. Until now he has published a book on this theme, as well as articles in refereed Turkish journals.
Recep Kaymakcan is a professor of religious education, and an advisor to the Ministry of Youth and Sports in Turkey. He
is also an editor-in-chief of Turkish Journal of Values education. His main research areas are comparative religious educa-
tion, pluralism, human rights and religious education, youth and values, policy development in religious education, and
teaching Islam and Christianity in schools.

References
Adam, H. 2004. “The Profile of Imam-Hatip Schools in Contemporary Turkey (From the Beginning until 1997).” Akademik
Araştırmalar Dergisi s. 19: 163–182.
Ahmad, M. 2004. “Madrassa Education in Pakistan and Bangladesh.” In Religious Radicalism and Security in South Asia, edited
by Satu P. Lamiaye, Robert G. Wirsing, and Mohan Malik, 101–151. Honolulu: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
Akseki, A. H. 1951. “Din Tedrisatı ve Dinî Müesseseler Hakkında Bir Rapor” [A Report on Religious Education and Religious
Institutions]. Sebilürreşad, c.5, s. 1: 100–105.
Akşit, B. 1991. “Islamic Education in Turkey: Medrese Reform in Late Ottoman Times and Imam-Hatip Schools”. In Islam in
Modern Turkey: Religion Politics and Literature in a Secular State, edited by R. Tapper, 145–170. London: I.B. Tauris.
Aşlamacı, İ. 2014. Pakistan Medreselerine Bir Model Olarak İmam-Hatip Okulları [The Imam-Hatip Schools as a Model for
Pakistani Madrassas]. İstanbul: DEM Yayınları.
Ayhan, H. 1999. Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi, (1920-1998) [Religious Education in Turkey (1920–1998)]. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi
İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.
Baloğlu, Z. 1990. Türkiye’de Eğitim [The Education in Turkey]. İstanbul: Türkiye Sanayici ve İşadamları Derneği.
Bolay, S. H., and M. Türköne. 1995. Din Eğitimi Raporu [Religious Education Report]. Ankara: Ankara Merkez İmam-Hatip
Lisesi Öğrencileri ve Mezunları Vakfı Yayınları.
9/11 Commission Report 2004. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Washington, DC: The 9/11
Commission Report.
Davutoğlu, A. 2001. “Modernleşme Sürecinde Entelektüel Dönüşüm ve Zihniyet Parametreleri” [Intellectual Transformation
and Mentality Parameters in Modernization Process]. In Modernleşme, İslam Dünyası ve Türkiye [Modernization, Islamic
World, and Turkey], edited by Sabri Orman, 361–400. İstanbul: Ensar Neşriyat.
Dinçer, N. 1998. İmam-Hatip Okulları Meselesi: 1913'ten Günümüze [The Imam-Hatip Schools Controversy: from 1913 to
Present]. İstanbul: Şule Neşriyat.
Ergin, O. 1977. Türk Maarif Tarihi [History of Turkish education]. İstanbul: Eser Matbaası.
Fair, C. 2008. The Madrasa Challenge: Militancy and Religious Education in Pakistan. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.
Gökaçtı, M. A. 2005. Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi ve İmam-Hatipler [Religious Education and Imam-Hatip Schools in Turkey]. İstanbul:
İletişim Yayınları.
Jaschke, G. 1972. Yeni Türkiye’de İslamlık [Islam in the New Turkey]. Translated by Hayrullah Örs. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi.
Kara, İ. 2001. “Türkiye’de Din ve Modernleşme” [Religion and Modernity in Turkey]. In Modernleşme, İslam Dünyası ve Türkiye
[Modernization, Islamic World, and Turkey], edited by Sabri Orman, 184–210, İstanbul: Ensar Neşriyat.
Karpat, K. 1996. Türk Demokrasi Tarihi: Sosyal, Ekonomik, Kültürel Temeller [History of Turkish Democracy: Social, Economic
and Cultural Foundations]. İstanbul: Ala Yayınları.
Kaymakcan, R. 2006. “Religious Education Culture in Modern Turkey.” In International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and
Spiritual Dimensions in Education, edited by M. de Souza, G. Durka, K. Engebretson, R. Jackson, and A. McGrady, 449–460,
The Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
Kaymakcan, R., and İ. Aşlamacı. 2011. “İmam-Hatip Liseleri Literatürü Üzerine Bibliyografik Bir İnceleme [A Bibliographic
Review on Literature of Imam-Hatip Schools].” Değerler Eğitim Dergisi 9 (22): 71–101.
Malik, J. 2008. Madrasas in South Asia: Teaching Terror? London: Routledge.
MEB. 1999. “İmam Hatip, Anadolu İmam Hatip, Yabancı Dil Ağırlıklı İmam Hatip Liseleri Meslek Dersleri Öğretim Programları”
[The Curriculum of Imam-Hatip and Anatolian Imam-Hatip Schools Vocational Courses]. Tebliğler Dergisi, 2501. Ankara:
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
MEB. 2000. Din Öğretiminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar [New Approaches in Religious Education]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Din Öğretimi
Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
292 İ. Aşlamacı and R. Kaymakcan

MEB. 2008. İmam-Hatip Lisesi ve Anadolu İmam-Hatip Lisesi Meslek Dersleri Öğretim Programları [The Curriculum of Imam-
Hatip and Anatolian Imam-Hatip Schools Vocational Courses]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
MEB. 2012. İlköğretimden Ortaöğretime, Ortaöğretimden Yükseköğretime Geçiş Analizi [Transfer Analysis from Primary to
Secondary Education, and from Secondary to Higher Education]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
MEB. 2015. Milli Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim [National Education Statistics Formal Education]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim
Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı.
Ocak, A. Y. 1996. “Değişen Dünyada İslam’ın Batıya Dönük Yüzü: Günümüz Türkiye Müslümanlığına Genel Bir Bakış”[Face
of Islam Looking to the West in a Changing World: An Overview of Today’s Turkish Islam]. In Müslüman İmajı [Muslim
Image], 131–139. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
Ocak, A. Y. 1999. Din [Religion]. In Osmanlı Medeniyeti Tarihi, cilt 1, edited by Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, 109–158. İstanbul:
Feza Gazetecilik A.Ş.
Öcal, M. 2007. “From the Past to the Present Imam and Preacher Schools in Turkey: An Ongoing Quarrel.” Religious Education
102 (2): 191–205.
Öcal, M. 2011. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi [Religious Education in Turkey: From the Ottoman Empire to
the Present]. İstanbul: Düşünce Kitabevi Yayınları.
Official Gazette. 2012/28261. “İlköğretim ve Eğitim Kanunu ile Bazı Kazunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun” [Law
Amending the Primary Education Law and Certain Laws]. Resmi Gazete 11.04.2012/28261.
Özgür, İ. 2012. Islamic Schools in Modern Turkey: Faith, Politics and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pak, S. Y. 2002. “At the Crossroads of Secularizm and Islamism.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsın-Madison.
Parmaksızoğlu, İ. 1966. Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi [Religious Education in Turkey]. Ankara: MEB Basımevi.
Reed, H. A. 1955. “Turkey's New Imam-Hatip Schools.” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, 4 (2): 150–163.
Riaz, A. 2008. Faithful Education: Madrassahs in South Asia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Tarhan, M. 1996. “Religious Education in Turkey: A Socia-Historical Study of the Imam Hatip Schools.” PhD diss., Temple
University.
Türköne, M. 1994. İslamcılığın Doğuşu [The Emergence of Islamism]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Ünsür, A. 2005. Kuruluşundan Günümüze İmam-Hatip Liseleri [Imam-Hatip Schools: From Foundation to the Present]. İstanbul:
Ensar neşriyat.
Zengin, Z. S. 2002. II. Meşrutiyette Medreseler ve Din Eğitimi [Madrasas and Religious Education in the 2nd Constitutional
Era]. Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları.