This study examines the development and nature of the regulation of prostitution in Beyoğlu during the late Ottoman Empire with special emphasis on the way the regulationist regime reinforced existing patterns of class and gender domination. The regulation of prostitution became a matter of urgency in the last decades of the nineteenth century in Istanbul, particularly in Beyoğlu, the cosmopolitan centre of the city. Through this process, the protests of the local residents of the area objecting to the proliferation of prostitution in their neighbourhoods played a crucial role in prompting the governmental authorities to tighten the regulations.

This article analyzes the politics of preaching in Turkey in the last decade by focusing on the appointment of women as preachers and vice-muftis by the Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), a state institution established for the protection of secular foundations through religious service. It asks what happens when women wearing headscarves become civil servants and give religious guidance in a secular state, which prohibits headscarves in public offices and schools. It shows that the context, the use and the interlocutors of preaching make ordinary religious activity a complicated political practice that interacts with gender, ethnicity and state sovereignty. It argues that exceptional integration of headscarved women into public offices would seem to be an achievement given the long lasting political activism of women over the headscarf, but in the final analysis it serves the sovereign power of the state, which aims to absorb both Islamist and Kurdish challenges by mobilizing women preachers.

Giorgio Agamben argues that in contemporary governance the use of 'emergency' is no longer provisional, but 'constitutes a permanent technology of government' and has produced the extrajudicial notion of crisis. The engendering of 'zones of indistinction' between the law and its practice is what Agamben defines as a 'state of exception'. This article adopts the notion enunciated by Agamben and revisits it in the Islamic Republic of Iran. There, the category of crisis has been given, firstly, a juridical status through the institution of , 'expediency', interpreted in a secular encounter between Shia theological exegesis and modern statecraft. Secondly, crisis has not led to the production of a 'state of exception' as Agamben argues. Instead, since the late 1980s, a institution, the Expediency Council, has presided and decided over matters of crisis. Instead of leaving blind spots in the production of legislative power, the Expediency Council takes charge of those spheres of ambiguity where the 'normal' - and normative - means of the law would have otherwise failed to deliver. This is a first study of this peculiar institution, which invites further engagement with political phenomena through the deconstruction and theorization of crisis politics.