The main aim of Birol Başkan's From Religious Empires to Secular States is to solve two research questions. The first research question is what characterizes secular states? Başkan critically discusses current literature on this theme and offers an original theoretical model of a secular state that is free from discerned constraints. The second research question is what feasible paths might religious states follow toward secularization? The author proposes three ideal types of state secularization paths in order to show that these processes are not as straightforward and homogenous as current literature suggests. Importantly, three empirical case studies reveal the path from religious empire to secular state, as well as each type's distinctive features and stages.

The book consists of three parts, which in turn concern Turkey, Iran, and Russia. Each part is divided into two chapters. The first chapter in each part discusses how the religious community developed its political, social, cultural, and economic assets in the 18th and 19th centuries to the time of state secularization. The second chapter puts forward a comparative historical description of state secularization and delves into how and why the reformers took on various secularizing strategies in the 1920s and the 1930s, and then realized them.

Başkan notes that secularization of the state, defined as establishing absolute state sovereignty, commenced in Turkey in the early 19th century. He argues that state secularity was fully established in the early 20th century and the accommodationist model of state secularity was adopted. The explanatory framework of this path shows that it was a result of the reformers' power consolidation in the midst of pending intra-elite competition and the religious community acquiescent stance toward the new regime (51). These chapters contribute to the literature in the creation of the ideal type of accommodative state secularization. It assumes that the state takes over critical public functions from religious community, abolishes the religious law, denounces it as a source of legislation, and establishes itself as a secular state (58).

The second part explains that in Pahlavi Iran state secularization was separationist because the reformers initiated secularizing reforms after they had already consolidated their power. Therefore, there was no strategic urgency to incorporate religion into the state. Furthermore, as Başkan notes, the religious community could more peacefully part from the state because it had an alternative source of power in society (95). These chapters contribute to studies on secularization by proposing the model of separationist state secularization which is useful for analyzing how and why the state and the religious community/institutions separate from one another.

The third part claims that state secularization was eradicationist in the Soviet Union because the reformers established secularizing reforms in the midst of a brutal civil war and the religious community was been firmly opposed to the new regime (132). The ideal type of eradicationist state secularization is this part's main contribution. Significant features of this model include waging a brutal and hostile campaign against religion and religious community, closing down religious institutions, plundering their wealth, and promoting atheism to eradicate religion in the population's “hearts and minds.”

The three case studies offer descriptive accounts of the relationship between religion and state. However, at times, it is overly detailed and these details do not provide relevant arguments to solve the research questions. For instance, numerous and detailed religious scholars' biographies (60) fail to be variables useful for determining the type of state secularization. Furthermore, examples concerning Turkey are over-represented. On the other hand, the argumentation relating to Soviet Russia is under-represented, which causes some omissions. For example, Başkan evaluates the meaning of Michael Gorbachev's Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) reforms and avoids mentioning Uskoreniye (acceleration) (153).

Başkan's major contribution to the literature is more theoretical than empirical. First, he sheds light on the limitations of the dominant research approaches based on Charles Taylor's, Silvio Ferrari's, José Casanova's, and Ahmet Kuru's definitions of a secular state. This criticism reveals that the approaches are useful just for studying the modern liberal democracies. Furthermore, it clarifies that empirical studies on non-democratic regimes conducted based on these approaches fail to capture distinctive features of secularization processes because they do not consider the particular relationship the state has with religion. Importantly, the book stands out from its disciplinary context by employing a relational approach through the set of ideal types in the processes of secularization analyses.

Second, the author develops the categorical grid of the discipline formulating definitions, which have high operationalization potential. They allow discerning theoretical categories that are erroneously considered equitable. For instance, he states that “state secularity” is the type of relationship between a state and religion, while “state secularization” is the historical process that brings about that relationship (5).

Third, the argument is highly inspirational to future studies because it suggests that the ideal types of separationism, eradicationism, and accommodationism have their antinomic ideal types, i.e., non-separationism, non-eradicationism, and non-accommodationism, which may be the basis of the trajectory of state-religion relationships (158). Arguably, the semantic fields of antinomic ideal types demand reconsideration as well as the typology may be extended through (e.g., escapism). It would be also meaningful to discuss their possible subtypes. Nevertheless, this approach outlines an important research direction for scholars.

In sum, Birol Başkan's From Religious Empires to Secular States, accomplishes the aim of contributing substantially to the social sciences. He provides a thorough and critical review of the current literature on secularization. The book is well-argued and presents challenges relating to the development of the discipline categorical grid. Finally, it offers the original set of theoretical categories, which are highly applicable to intersubjective empirical studies on relationship between states and religion. Although the volume contains minor shortcomings, it is strongly recommendable to scholars interested in state secularization processes.