Its official name in history is the “March 31 Rebellion.” The Unionists and Kemalists call it the “reactionary/unprogressive rebellion.” The ulema, low-ranking military officials, merchants, madrasah students and wide segments of the society participated in the revolt that began on the morning of April 13, 1909 (March 31, 1325, according to the Rumi calendar), and lasted 1 days until it was put down by the Hareket Ordusu (Action Army), which departed from Thessalonica and came to İstanbul.As soon as the rebellion started, some intellectuals and administrators that supported the İttihad ve Terraki junta’s arbitrary practices fled the country to Europe. After the Hareket Ordu, which mobilized in Thessalonica, took matters under control, the cruel intellectuals and administrators were able to show the courage to return to the country.
Although much time has passed since the incident, there are several questions that remain unanswered. Was this social revolt truly a “reactionary movement”? What did the people who took to the streets want? Who were they protesting? Why were people shouting “We want Shariah [Islamic Law]” in a country where the official legal system was based on Shariah? Was Shariah not in practice? Were the laws being violated?
It is a fact that the main demands of those who participated in the March 31 incidents included the implementation of the law and the elimination of arbitrary detention, killing and inhumane treatment. In other words the people wanted measures to be taken against the despotism of the İttihat ve Terraki, which kept control of political power like a gang.
Sultan Abdülhamid II sent Sheikh-ul Islam (authority on religious affairs) Mehmet Ziyaeddin Efendi to meet with the people that participated in the rebellion. Upon returning, he said the demands of the people on the streets were: full implementation of Shariah; the removal of Grand Vizier Hüseyin Hilmi, War Minister Rıza Pasha, and Assembly of Deputies President Ahmet Rıza Bey; the suspension of Tanin daily chief writer and deputy Hüseyin Cahid, Şuray-ı Ümmet publication owner Bahaeddin Şakir and Parliament Vice President Talat; the return of regimental field officers and the removal of student officers; and no punishment to be imposed on any soldier for joining the rebellion
Literally, Shariah means “the path to war”; figuratively it means law. The legality and legitimacy of a certain action is measured by its “conformity to Shariah.” Illegality means “against Shariah.” It is for this reason that in Ottoman legal culture Shariah is essential not only for Muslims but for non-Muslim people as well. After all, the striking number of non-Muslims such as Greek Orthodox Christians, Jews and Armenians who participated in the March 31 incident, shouting “we want Shariah,” reveals that the Shariah during the Ottoman period corresponded to today’s concept of “supremacy of law.”
Contrary to the claims of secularists, the March 31 Rebellion was not a reactionary unrest that unprogressive people started due to their longing for backwardness, but instead a civil reaction that wanted the law, in other words Shariah, to be implemented and the principle of the supremacy of law to be protected against the arbitrary practices of the İttihat ve Terraki gang. If this was not the case, there would be no plausible explanation for why Christian and Jewish citizens participated in the rebellion.
The same game was put into play in every outcry over “reactionaryism” that was used in each military coup attempt, from the May 27, 1960 coup and the Feb. 28, 1997 postmodern coup to the April 27, 2007 e-memorandum.
First military personnel, civilian bureaucrats and intellectuals put pressure on Muslim groups. When the situations becomes unbreakable and the Muslim people start to speak out to defend their rights, immediately a fuss is made about a “new March 31” being imminent and “reactionary people wanting Shariah,” and then comes another oppressive regime.
In 1909, when the March 31 incident took place, the official law at the time was Shariah, but it was not being practiced and legal violations were being revealed. Not much
has changed since then. In fact, from time to time there has even been regression.
The assassination plans included in the “cage plan” prepared by a junta nested within the Naval Forces Command to destroy the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government shows that the junta legacy of 100 years ago is still alive.
