Looking at the Past for Today: The Refugee Crisis of the Modern World and the Ottoman Commission for Immigrants (Muhacirin Komisyonu)
Authors: KIZILKAYA Necmettin 
Published: October 2020

The Ottoman Empire handled the massive populations fleeing to its lands through various institutions tasked with settling them in different parts of the empire. One such institution was the Muhacirin Komisyonu, established on January 5, 1860. In this article, I will examine the Ottoman migration experience, as well as the theoretical and historical background on which it was built. While studying the historical experience, I will explore the concepts developed regarding migration within the context of hijra and amān. I will discuss the legal and institutional dimensions of these concepts as developed in Islamic law and the Ottoman experience. This will show us on which conceptual background the Ottoman migration experience is based. I will use the concepts discussed in Islamic legal manuals and documents in the Ottoman Archives to support my argument. The theoretical framework of the article depends on 5 x 5 matrices. There are five interrelated tensions derived from my comparison between the Ottoman experience and modern approaches to refugee rights. On the basis of my research, it is possible to express these tensions as follows: Hijrah versus asylum: This refers to the tensions between the Islamic understanding of migration and modern policies of asylum, which will become clearer through the following tensions. Permanency versus temporality: These concepts point to the tensions between the permanency of residence assumed in the idea of hijra and the limitation of stay based on the concept of refuge. Contribution versus burden: This tension refers, on the one hand, to contributions of the muhājirīn to the local population as a result of being accepted as permanent residents, and, on the other hand, the barriers to integration as a result of the temporality of the modern migrants’ status settled in camps. Obligation versus favor: This refers to the tension between the Qur’ānic principle that declares the obligation of accepting those who seek safeguard, including non-Muslims, and the modern rights to asylum and humanitarian aid based on the choice of the sovereign state. Safeguard (amān) versus well-founded fear: This tension refers to the main concepts of migration in Islamic law and modern refugee law, respectively. As mentioned in a Qur’ānic verse, it is necessary under Islamic law to grant safeguard to whosoever seeks protection. In contrast, according to modern law, granting the right of asylum to the citizens of another state must be based on well-founded fear. One of the main arguments of the article is that the Ottoman migration policies show how the theory guides the practice and how the practice develops a human-centered approach based on this theory. Therefore, I will examine the theoretical background of the Ottoman immigration policies and how it has turned into practice as a model that can be used by the current policy makers, legal scholars, sociologists and institutions dealing with the migration issue. I will argue that the historical practices of Muslim societies have made significant contributions as a solution to the refugee phenomenon that has turned into a crisis today.