Loyal Turks or Fake Muslims? up would have been complete, as it was for the other two groups.”^59 The
Kapancı, “after managing to stay united for a while because of economic
ties, later began to break up due to social reasons.” The process of assimi-
lation was not yet complete, however, he says in the final article. Some
“debris” remained and needed “clearly to be swept away.”^60
Yalman argues that the discussion of Rüştü’s pronouncements presented
a good opportunity to compel the dissolution of the “tribe” and to “pub-
licly rip off the veil of secrecy that has been covering them for centuries,
and do away with it once and for all.” He finds it astonishing that people
were “kept captive for generations by a charlatan” named Shabbatai Tzevi,
“engaged in ridiculous practices that anthropologists encounter only
among the most simple and primitive tribes,” or endogamy, and that they
had existed for so long. Dönme had maintained their difference mainly
through endogamy; even after they stopped believing in the practice, it
continued due to their strict obedience to their parents. The Dönme had
consolidated as a group because of the lack of acceptance by others, and
had maintained their identity for centuries due to internal marriage. If
only others would accept them, he implies, they would assimilate. He also
places part of the responsibility on the shoulders of the Dönme. Marrying
out was, however increasingly and definitively breaking down the barriers
between Dönme and Muslims. Only a few traces remained among the
elderly Karakaş, mainly, mutual assistance and the desire to maintain a
separate cemetery. Yalman criticizes them for only wanting to aid those
they knew; he urges them to tear down the old group barriers, help all
Turks and Muslims, and give up the “ridiculous” idea of having a separate
cemetery, since if they were Muslims, they could be buried with other
Muslims. Rational men should scrap meaningless old beliefs. Neverthe-
less, although it was “ridiculous that for generations, three tribes had lived
a life in Salonika as a Sufi order, bound by superstition, or as a secret so-
ciety,” the low incidence among the Dönme of murderers, criminals, and
paupers was praiseworthy, and a modernized version of their system of
social control and mutual assistance could usefully be employed in cities
like Istanbul.
Overall, Yalman gives a rather positive assessment of the Dönme.
Although he admits that they have distinct customs, he describes the
Yakubis as living by the laws of Islam, not those of Judaism. The new gen-
eration of progressive youth identify with Turkey and the nation. Dönme
identity should be considered a social and not a governmental problem.