EL ESCORIAL - The medieval monks who built the giant Monastery of El Escorial couldn't have imagined that their all-Catholic civitas dei would someday host hot debates on the future of political Islam. Yet that's exactly what happened here, in this little Spanish town located some 45 kilometers northwest of Madrid, this week. The “political Islam” in question was Turkey's incumbent AKP, the Justice and Development Party, and its namesake in Morocco, the Parti de la Justice et du Développement.
“The Moroccan AKP”, as they call it, or simply the PJK with its French initials, is an interesting phenomenon. Some Turks are aware of the party and many assume that the AKP is its franchiser, but actually the Arab/Berber party precedes that of Mr. Tayyip Erdoğan. It was vaguely on the scene for a long time, until it adopted its current name in 1998 and accepted the leadership of Dr. Saâdeddine El Othmani, with whom I shared a panel in El Escorial, and a dinner at the residence of Turkey's ambassador to Madrid, Mr. Ender Arat.
The Debate Over ‘Political Islam'
Both Dr. El Othmani and I was here to speak at a seminar organized by Casa Árabe, a newly-established Spanish institution supported by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. The aim of the seminar was mainly to analyze Turkey's experience with the AKP, and to explore whether it can be a source of inspiration for Islamic parties in the Arab world to become legitimate actors in democratic politics. The organizers have apparently been impressed by the AKP's transition from Islamism to conservative democracy, and hope that it can be a model in the Middle East and the Maghrib. Indeed, this is a much-debated issue in the Western media and the intellectual circles nowadays. “Should we support the existence of Islamist parties,” many people ask, “would it help them moderate themselves?”
In the face of that question, there are those who say that “political Islam” should never, ever be tolerated. (In the West they would be called “the hawks.” In Turkey, they would be called “the establishment.”) On the other hand, there are people who say that “political Islam” indeed should be given a chance. For my part, I think that the debate is misconstructed, because the term “political Islam” can be quite misleading. (Similarly, one would be wrong to speak about “political Christianity,” if he refers to it to explain strikingly different phenomena such as the Christian Democrats of modern Europe and the Inquisition or the Crusaders of medieval Christendom.) There can be quite different ways that Islam can influence politics – and for a believer it is only right that it should do so. The crucial question is whether Islam will influence politics in a democratic or totalitarian way. What is definitive is whether Muslims will synthesize their faith with tyranny and violence or freedom and moderation.
The Taliban or al-Qaeda has shown that the former is possible. But the latter is viable, too. And the latter is possible only when Islamic parties – or other political forces – accept the fact that in any society, not everybody is going to be a Muslim, and not all Muslims are going to be pious and practicing ones. Once that is acknowledged, then “political Islam” will abandon its coercive goals and tools to Islamize society, and will be forced to articulate and represent Islamic values within the rules of the democratic game. In Turkey although there are many ultra-secularists who are still suspicious of the AKP in that regard – because for them the only good Muslim is a totally non-observant one – but there are also many secular analysts who think Mr. Erdoğan's party indeed has evolved into what one can call “Muslim democracy.”
The Bulb and The Gas Lamp
I was wondering whether that would apply to the “Moroccan AKP,” and asked this of Dr. El Othmani. His answer was positive and he emphasized that his party does not have any aim to impose any sort of Islamic life on Moroccans when it comes to power. (In September this year, there are general elections and the JDP hopes to be number one, which they hope will make them the leader of the expected coalition.) He underlined that “Turkey is their model,” and what they want to build is a peaceful, open, democratic Morocco – a message he also gave at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently. However there are differences between Morocco's JDP and Turkey's AKP, and there is a very good reason for that: Morocco is neither secular nor republican. It is a monarchy whose king is defined as “the commander of the faithful” – a title Islamic caliphs held from the earliest times. Thus references to Islam are totally valid in Morocco's political life.
There are also other issues that the JDP does not share the AKP's more liberal attitudes. “We believe in the market economy,” says Dr. El Othmani, “but with an effective redistribution system.” When I asked about the way Hamas fights Israel, he says they don't support attacks against civilians – which is commonly known as terrorism – but also doesn't condemn them by noting that Israeli bombs also kill Arab children. This is different from the stance of the AKP, which holds that Hamas should stop its armed struggle and work within the ways of diplomacy.
Perhaps, the symbolic difference in the emblems of the AKP and the JDP are there for a reason. Interestingly, lamps represent both parties: But while that of AKP is a modern electric bulb, the latter has a very classic and oriental gas lamp.Which implies the fact that there will be differences among parties with Muslim values according to the context they emerge from and operate in. They should all be welcomed if they renounce totalitarianism in the name of Islam. If they don't, then they, of course, would not deserve a legitimate space in the democratic game.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
9 Aralık 2007 Pazar
Morocco's 'AKP' Is Moroccan, After All
EL ESCORIAL - The medieval monks who built the giant Monastery of El Escorial couldn't have imagined that their all-Catholic civitas dei would someday host hot debates on the future of political Islam. Yet that's exactly what happened here, in this little Spanish town located some 45 kilometers northwest of Madrid, this week. The “political Islam” in question was Turkey's incumbent AKP, the Justice and Development Party, and its namesake in Morocco, the Parti de la Justice et du Développement.
“The Moroccan AKP”, as they call it, or simply the PJK with its French initials, is an interesting phenomenon. Some Turks are aware of the party and many assume that the AKP is its franchiser, but actually the Arab/Berber party precedes that of Mr. Tayyip Erdoğan. It was vaguely on the scene for a long time, until it adopted its current name in 1998 and accepted the leadership of Dr. Saâdeddine El Othmani, with whom I shared a panel in El Escorial, and a dinner at the residence of Turkey's ambassador to Madrid, Mr. Ender Arat.
The Debate Over ‘Political Islam'
Both Dr. El Othmani and I was here to speak at a seminar organized by Casa Árabe, a newly-established Spanish institution supported by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. The aim of the seminar was mainly to analyze Turkey's experience with the AKP, and to explore whether it can be a source of inspiration for Islamic parties in the Arab world to become legitimate actors in democratic politics. The organizers have apparently been impressed by the AKP's transition from Islamism to conservative democracy, and hope that it can be a model in the Middle East and the Maghrib. Indeed, this is a much-debated issue in the Western media and the intellectual circles nowadays. “Should we support the existence of Islamist parties,” many people ask, “would it help them moderate themselves?”
In the face of that question, there are those who say that “political Islam” should never, ever be tolerated. (In the West they would be called “the hawks.” In Turkey, they would be called “the establishment.”) On the other hand, there are people who say that “political Islam” indeed should be given a chance. For my part, I think that the debate is misconstructed, because the term “political Islam” can be quite misleading. (Similarly, one would be wrong to speak about “political Christianity,” if he refers to it to explain strikingly different phenomena such as the Christian Democrats of modern Europe and the Inquisition or the Crusaders of medieval Christendom.) There can be quite different ways that Islam can influence politics – and for a believer it is only right that it should do so. The crucial question is whether Islam will influence politics in a democratic or totalitarian way. What is definitive is whether Muslims will synthesize their faith with tyranny and violence or freedom and moderation.
The Taliban or al-Qaeda has shown that the former is possible. But the latter is viable, too. And the latter is possible only when Islamic parties – or other political forces – accept the fact that in any society, not everybody is going to be a Muslim, and not all Muslims are going to be pious and practicing ones. Once that is acknowledged, then “political Islam” will abandon its coercive goals and tools to Islamize society, and will be forced to articulate and represent Islamic values within the rules of the democratic game. In Turkey although there are many ultra-secularists who are still suspicious of the AKP in that regard – because for them the only good Muslim is a totally non-observant one – but there are also many secular analysts who think Mr. Erdoğan's party indeed has evolved into what one can call “Muslim democracy.”
The Bulb and The Gas Lamp
I was wondering whether that would apply to the “Moroccan AKP,” and asked this of Dr. El Othmani. His answer was positive and he emphasized that his party does not have any aim to impose any sort of Islamic life on Moroccans when it comes to power. (In September this year, there are general elections and the JDP hopes to be number one, which they hope will make them the leader of the expected coalition.) He underlined that “Turkey is their model,” and what they want to build is a peaceful, open, democratic Morocco – a message he also gave at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently. However there are differences between Morocco's JDP and Turkey's AKP, and there is a very good reason for that: Morocco is neither secular nor republican. It is a monarchy whose king is defined as “the commander of the faithful” – a title Islamic caliphs held from the earliest times. Thus references to Islam are totally valid in Morocco's political life.
There are also other issues that the JDP does not share the AKP's more liberal attitudes. “We believe in the market economy,” says Dr. El Othmani, “but with an effective redistribution system.” When I asked about the way Hamas fights Israel, he says they don't support attacks against civilians – which is commonly known as terrorism – but also doesn't condemn them by noting that Israeli bombs also kill Arab children. This is different from the stance of the AKP, which holds that Hamas should stop its armed struggle and work within the ways of diplomacy.
Perhaps, the symbolic difference in the emblems of the AKP and the JDP are there for a reason. Interestingly, lamps represent both parties: But while that of AKP is a modern electric bulb, the latter has a very classic and oriental gas lamp.Which implies the fact that there will be differences among parties with Muslim values according to the context they emerge from and operate in. They should all be welcomed if they renounce totalitarianism in the name of Islam. If they don't, then they, of course, would not deserve a legitimate space in the democratic game.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
“The Moroccan AKP”, as they call it, or simply the PJK with its French initials, is an interesting phenomenon. Some Turks are aware of the party and many assume that the AKP is its franchiser, but actually the Arab/Berber party precedes that of Mr. Tayyip Erdoğan. It was vaguely on the scene for a long time, until it adopted its current name in 1998 and accepted the leadership of Dr. Saâdeddine El Othmani, with whom I shared a panel in El Escorial, and a dinner at the residence of Turkey's ambassador to Madrid, Mr. Ender Arat.
The Debate Over ‘Political Islam'
Both Dr. El Othmani and I was here to speak at a seminar organized by Casa Árabe, a newly-established Spanish institution supported by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. The aim of the seminar was mainly to analyze Turkey's experience with the AKP, and to explore whether it can be a source of inspiration for Islamic parties in the Arab world to become legitimate actors in democratic politics. The organizers have apparently been impressed by the AKP's transition from Islamism to conservative democracy, and hope that it can be a model in the Middle East and the Maghrib. Indeed, this is a much-debated issue in the Western media and the intellectual circles nowadays. “Should we support the existence of Islamist parties,” many people ask, “would it help them moderate themselves?”
In the face of that question, there are those who say that “political Islam” should never, ever be tolerated. (In the West they would be called “the hawks.” In Turkey, they would be called “the establishment.”) On the other hand, there are people who say that “political Islam” indeed should be given a chance. For my part, I think that the debate is misconstructed, because the term “political Islam” can be quite misleading. (Similarly, one would be wrong to speak about “political Christianity,” if he refers to it to explain strikingly different phenomena such as the Christian Democrats of modern Europe and the Inquisition or the Crusaders of medieval Christendom.) There can be quite different ways that Islam can influence politics – and for a believer it is only right that it should do so. The crucial question is whether Islam will influence politics in a democratic or totalitarian way. What is definitive is whether Muslims will synthesize their faith with tyranny and violence or freedom and moderation.
The Taliban or al-Qaeda has shown that the former is possible. But the latter is viable, too. And the latter is possible only when Islamic parties – or other political forces – accept the fact that in any society, not everybody is going to be a Muslim, and not all Muslims are going to be pious and practicing ones. Once that is acknowledged, then “political Islam” will abandon its coercive goals and tools to Islamize society, and will be forced to articulate and represent Islamic values within the rules of the democratic game. In Turkey although there are many ultra-secularists who are still suspicious of the AKP in that regard – because for them the only good Muslim is a totally non-observant one – but there are also many secular analysts who think Mr. Erdoğan's party indeed has evolved into what one can call “Muslim democracy.”
The Bulb and The Gas Lamp
I was wondering whether that would apply to the “Moroccan AKP,” and asked this of Dr. El Othmani. His answer was positive and he emphasized that his party does not have any aim to impose any sort of Islamic life on Moroccans when it comes to power. (In September this year, there are general elections and the JDP hopes to be number one, which they hope will make them the leader of the expected coalition.) He underlined that “Turkey is their model,” and what they want to build is a peaceful, open, democratic Morocco – a message he also gave at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently. However there are differences between Morocco's JDP and Turkey's AKP, and there is a very good reason for that: Morocco is neither secular nor republican. It is a monarchy whose king is defined as “the commander of the faithful” – a title Islamic caliphs held from the earliest times. Thus references to Islam are totally valid in Morocco's political life.
There are also other issues that the JDP does not share the AKP's more liberal attitudes. “We believe in the market economy,” says Dr. El Othmani, “but with an effective redistribution system.” When I asked about the way Hamas fights Israel, he says they don't support attacks against civilians – which is commonly known as terrorism – but also doesn't condemn them by noting that Israeli bombs also kill Arab children. This is different from the stance of the AKP, which holds that Hamas should stop its armed struggle and work within the ways of diplomacy.
Perhaps, the symbolic difference in the emblems of the AKP and the JDP are there for a reason. Interestingly, lamps represent both parties: But while that of AKP is a modern electric bulb, the latter has a very classic and oriental gas lamp.Which implies the fact that there will be differences among parties with Muslim values according to the context they emerge from and operate in. They should all be welcomed if they renounce totalitarianism in the name of Islam. If they don't, then they, of course, would not deserve a legitimate space in the democratic game.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Thus Spoke the Zarathustrian Kurds
Mehdi Zana, the former mayor of Diyarbakır and a prominent figure among Turkey's Kurdish nationalists, has made the news twice in the past weeks with his claims on Kurdish history. First, he argued that Kurds simply had a brighter record before Islam. Second, as we read in the weekly news magazine Aksiyon, he claimed that the authentic religion of the Kurds is Zoroastrianism. They later converted to Islam, according to Zana, “due to the fear of the sword,” and “as a big mistake.”
By all that, Mr. Zana actually presents a pattern of thought that many modern nationalists have adhered to: the glorification and revival of the pre-Islamic or pre-Christian pagan religions. Since both of these Abrahamic faiths preach a brotherhood which transcends and even surpasses all tribal, ethnic and national identities, they are highly disturbing for the nationalist agendas. That's why the Nazis hated Christianity and tried to replace it with a neo-pagan faith in the German Reich and its messianic Fuehrer. Less radical nationalisms tried softer programs of de-Abrahamification. In its first two decades, Turkey lived through a similar experience with the official denigration of Islam as an “obstacle to progress,” and the invention of a mythical “glorious history” of pre-Islamic pagan Turks. The bizarre “Turkish Language Thesis,” which argued that the Turkish race simply created much of the human civilization during the Neolithic period, is a joke and perhaps and embarrassment for today, but it was the official truth in the 30's.
’The Seed of The Aryan Race’
Now it is the Kurd's turn, apparently. And it is not just Mehdi Zana who tries to glorify the pre-Islamic history of the Kurdish people. As I have examined in my book, “Rethinking the Kurdish Question,” (unfortunately, only available in Turkish for the moment) there is a rhetoric among Kurdish nationalist which one can justifiably call as “Kurdish History Thesis.”
Kurdist ideologues such as Cemşid Bender have long argued that Kurds are the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization and they were the ones who invented pottery, agriculture, and even mathematics. These are simply speculations, of course, because there is in fact no historical data to confirm or falsify them. What these writers do is simply to pin some important achivements in the history of the Middle East and then to invent links between them and “Kurdishness.” It is exactly the same “method” that Turkists used in the 30's to “discover” links between Central Asian Turks and Ancient Egyptians. (The Ancient Egyptians must have been of the Turkish stock; how else could they be so smart to build the pyramids?)
Another emphasis of the Kurdist ideologues is that they are of the Aryan race. This actually started in the heydays of the Nazi regime, when nationalist Kurdish intellectuals bought into the ideology of their German masters, including their hatred towards the Semitic peoples and cultures. Luckily for us, the plans for the Aryan domination of the world failed with the victory of the Allies against the Wehrmact in 1945. But the spirit lived among radical nationalists, which included some Kurds who were keen to potray their disputes with Muslim Turks and Muslim Arabs as the struggle of the modern Aryans against the narrow-minded Semites. No wonder Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the terrorist PKK, once proudly declared, “Kurds are the seed of the Aryan race.”
History by invention
The effort by Kurdish nationalist such as Mehdi Zana to praise and revive Zoroastrianism (or, Zarathustrianism) is a part of thispolitical agenda. Whether this is a justified project or not is a matter of debate and the answer will change according to where you stand. I personally think that creating a separate Kurdish nation — which will, inevitably, demand its own nation-state — is a bad idea, both for the Kurds and their long-time neighbors. The process of creating such an entity will unavoidably raise the ethnic tension in the region and spark horrible ethnic cleansing operations. Just remember what happened during the Indo-Pakistani Partition or the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Moreover, how can one know that a Kurdish nation-state, even once established, will be good for the Kurds? (Believe me, having your own nation-state is not necessarily a blessing.) What really matters is whether you live in a political system which is run by democracy and which respects your rights and freedoms.And a hypothetical “Kurdistan” could well be far-off from those principles.
The second and more objective trouble with the project for Kurdish nationalism is that it deliberately distorts historical facts. Islamic period was not a “dark age” for Kurds. Quite the contrary, according to Kurdish historian Mehrdad Izady, “the golden age of Kurdish culture” was lived between the 10th and 12th centuries, which is long after Kurds' acceptance of Islam. Izady even defines the period as “the Kurdish centuries of Islam.”
The same is true also for Turks. Pre-Islamic Turkish history does not bear many signs of a rich civilization. All the great poets, writers, philosophers, scientists, or architects of Turkish history come from the Islamic period. (This was no suprise: The Islamic Middle East was the peak of civilization in the Middle Ages, and both Kurds and Turks benefited from that. And what allowed that golden age was the openness of the Muslim civilization towards other cultures; a wisdom some Muslims seem to have forgotten today.)
Denying and distorting these facts of the history of the Middle East will not help any of its peoples, including the Kurds. We need to discover, not invent, our history. We Turks lived through a bad experience in that regard. It would be only unwise for the Kurds to repeat the same mistake.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
By all that, Mr. Zana actually presents a pattern of thought that many modern nationalists have adhered to: the glorification and revival of the pre-Islamic or pre-Christian pagan religions. Since both of these Abrahamic faiths preach a brotherhood which transcends and even surpasses all tribal, ethnic and national identities, they are highly disturbing for the nationalist agendas. That's why the Nazis hated Christianity and tried to replace it with a neo-pagan faith in the German Reich and its messianic Fuehrer. Less radical nationalisms tried softer programs of de-Abrahamification. In its first two decades, Turkey lived through a similar experience with the official denigration of Islam as an “obstacle to progress,” and the invention of a mythical “glorious history” of pre-Islamic pagan Turks. The bizarre “Turkish Language Thesis,” which argued that the Turkish race simply created much of the human civilization during the Neolithic period, is a joke and perhaps and embarrassment for today, but it was the official truth in the 30's.
’The Seed of The Aryan Race’
Now it is the Kurd's turn, apparently. And it is not just Mehdi Zana who tries to glorify the pre-Islamic history of the Kurdish people. As I have examined in my book, “Rethinking the Kurdish Question,” (unfortunately, only available in Turkish for the moment) there is a rhetoric among Kurdish nationalist which one can justifiably call as “Kurdish History Thesis.”
Kurdist ideologues such as Cemşid Bender have long argued that Kurds are the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization and they were the ones who invented pottery, agriculture, and even mathematics. These are simply speculations, of course, because there is in fact no historical data to confirm or falsify them. What these writers do is simply to pin some important achivements in the history of the Middle East and then to invent links between them and “Kurdishness.” It is exactly the same “method” that Turkists used in the 30's to “discover” links between Central Asian Turks and Ancient Egyptians. (The Ancient Egyptians must have been of the Turkish stock; how else could they be so smart to build the pyramids?)
Another emphasis of the Kurdist ideologues is that they are of the Aryan race. This actually started in the heydays of the Nazi regime, when nationalist Kurdish intellectuals bought into the ideology of their German masters, including their hatred towards the Semitic peoples and cultures. Luckily for us, the plans for the Aryan domination of the world failed with the victory of the Allies against the Wehrmact in 1945. But the spirit lived among radical nationalists, which included some Kurds who were keen to potray their disputes with Muslim Turks and Muslim Arabs as the struggle of the modern Aryans against the narrow-minded Semites. No wonder Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the terrorist PKK, once proudly declared, “Kurds are the seed of the Aryan race.”
History by invention
The effort by Kurdish nationalist such as Mehdi Zana to praise and revive Zoroastrianism (or, Zarathustrianism) is a part of thispolitical agenda. Whether this is a justified project or not is a matter of debate and the answer will change according to where you stand. I personally think that creating a separate Kurdish nation — which will, inevitably, demand its own nation-state — is a bad idea, both for the Kurds and their long-time neighbors. The process of creating such an entity will unavoidably raise the ethnic tension in the region and spark horrible ethnic cleansing operations. Just remember what happened during the Indo-Pakistani Partition or the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Moreover, how can one know that a Kurdish nation-state, even once established, will be good for the Kurds? (Believe me, having your own nation-state is not necessarily a blessing.) What really matters is whether you live in a political system which is run by democracy and which respects your rights and freedoms.And a hypothetical “Kurdistan” could well be far-off from those principles.
The second and more objective trouble with the project for Kurdish nationalism is that it deliberately distorts historical facts. Islamic period was not a “dark age” for Kurds. Quite the contrary, according to Kurdish historian Mehrdad Izady, “the golden age of Kurdish culture” was lived between the 10th and 12th centuries, which is long after Kurds' acceptance of Islam. Izady even defines the period as “the Kurdish centuries of Islam.”
The same is true also for Turks. Pre-Islamic Turkish history does not bear many signs of a rich civilization. All the great poets, writers, philosophers, scientists, or architects of Turkish history come from the Islamic period. (This was no suprise: The Islamic Middle East was the peak of civilization in the Middle Ages, and both Kurds and Turks benefited from that. And what allowed that golden age was the openness of the Muslim civilization towards other cultures; a wisdom some Muslims seem to have forgotten today.)
Denying and distorting these facts of the history of the Middle East will not help any of its peoples, including the Kurds. We need to discover, not invent, our history. We Turks lived through a bad experience in that regard. It would be only unwise for the Kurds to repeat the same mistake.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
The Turkmen Theocracy Lost Its God
Saparmurat Niyazov, or "His Excellency Turkmenbashi, President of Turkmenistan and Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers" as his official title reads, was one of the few remaining icons of a 20th century political phenomenon: Cult of personality. As a man who grew up in a Soviet orphanage, and who built his political career in the Communist Party of the Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan, he was loyal to the heritage of his late comrades such as Stalin or Mao, who depicted themselves as secular gods.
"Turkmenbashi," i.e. "Head of Turkmens," had been running Turkmenistan since the fall of the Soviet Union. He continued with the Soviet style politics, and thus didn't allow any political opposition to flourish. During his 15-year reign, freedom of speech has been virtually non-existent. Any criticism of the leader has been considered treason and punishable by lengthy prison terms, imprisonment in mental institutions, or exile to camps in remote areas. Government informers have been closely monitoring the society to find out such enemies of the people, i.e. proponents of freedom.
Autocratic rule seems to be the norm in most ex-Soviet Republics — including the mother of all, Russia — but Niyazov had taken it to new heights. He portrayed himself as an all-knowing guide to his people. In tradition with Lenin and Stalin — remember Leningrad and Stalingrad — he renamed the town of Krasnovodsk, on the Caspian Sea, after himself. "Turkmenbashi" also became the name of several schools and airports. His face appears on all banknotes and his large portraits hang all over the country, especially on major public buildings and main streets.
There is even a "Melon Day," in which the "Turkmenbashi melon," a new crossbreed product, is praised for "its delicious aroma, excellent taste and large size," and Turkmen children eat them joyfully under the all-seeing eyes of their leader's abundant busts. "The Turkmen melon is the source of our pride," said Niyazov in a statement published in Turkmen newspapers."Its taste has no equals in the world, the smell makes your head spin."
And it really had done so. The ideas of Turkmenbashi have been the official ideology of Turkmenistan since 1991. His pink and green volume known as the Rukhnama (Book of the Spirit) was translated into many languages and was continuously reproduced by state newspapers. Turkmenbashi had also adopted the image of the "sun-leader," a popular theme in other dictatorships like North Korea, which envisions an almost supernatural savior enlightening his otherwise-in-darkness nation. Niyazov actually brought his own creative contribution to this political cult with the Neutrality Arch, a fancy structure which is the tallest building of the capital Ashgabat. At its top, there is gold-plated statue of Niyazov that rotates 360 degrees every 24 hours so as to always face the sun. The idea is that the illuminates his nation with the one he gets from the skies.
But don't get it wrong: All this official cult was not for the sake of the all-modest Niyazov, but for his all-thankful people. "I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets," he once said, "but it's what the people want."
Interestingly, the state propaganda — which had been defining what the people want without asking them much — have recently been stressing the Turkmen leader's health and vigor, emphasizing his once-grey hair miraculously turning jet-black. Which could, of course, be explained in more mundane terms.
And just yesterday Niyazov faced the inevitable ending of every mortal. The question awaiting his people is whether they will come to explain the whole Niyazov experience in mundane terms — as an embarrassing relic of communist despotism, perhaps — or whether they will seek yet another sun-leader.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
"Turkmenbashi," i.e. "Head of Turkmens," had been running Turkmenistan since the fall of the Soviet Union. He continued with the Soviet style politics, and thus didn't allow any political opposition to flourish. During his 15-year reign, freedom of speech has been virtually non-existent. Any criticism of the leader has been considered treason and punishable by lengthy prison terms, imprisonment in mental institutions, or exile to camps in remote areas. Government informers have been closely monitoring the society to find out such enemies of the people, i.e. proponents of freedom.
Autocratic rule seems to be the norm in most ex-Soviet Republics — including the mother of all, Russia — but Niyazov had taken it to new heights. He portrayed himself as an all-knowing guide to his people. In tradition with Lenin and Stalin — remember Leningrad and Stalingrad — he renamed the town of Krasnovodsk, on the Caspian Sea, after himself. "Turkmenbashi" also became the name of several schools and airports. His face appears on all banknotes and his large portraits hang all over the country, especially on major public buildings and main streets.
There is even a "Melon Day," in which the "Turkmenbashi melon," a new crossbreed product, is praised for "its delicious aroma, excellent taste and large size," and Turkmen children eat them joyfully under the all-seeing eyes of their leader's abundant busts. "The Turkmen melon is the source of our pride," said Niyazov in a statement published in Turkmen newspapers."Its taste has no equals in the world, the smell makes your head spin."
And it really had done so. The ideas of Turkmenbashi have been the official ideology of Turkmenistan since 1991. His pink and green volume known as the Rukhnama (Book of the Spirit) was translated into many languages and was continuously reproduced by state newspapers. Turkmenbashi had also adopted the image of the "sun-leader," a popular theme in other dictatorships like North Korea, which envisions an almost supernatural savior enlightening his otherwise-in-darkness nation. Niyazov actually brought his own creative contribution to this political cult with the Neutrality Arch, a fancy structure which is the tallest building of the capital Ashgabat. At its top, there is gold-plated statue of Niyazov that rotates 360 degrees every 24 hours so as to always face the sun. The idea is that the illuminates his nation with the one he gets from the skies.
But don't get it wrong: All this official cult was not for the sake of the all-modest Niyazov, but for his all-thankful people. "I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets," he once said, "but it's what the people want."
Interestingly, the state propaganda — which had been defining what the people want without asking them much — have recently been stressing the Turkmen leader's health and vigor, emphasizing his once-grey hair miraculously turning jet-black. Which could, of course, be explained in more mundane terms.
And just yesterday Niyazov faced the inevitable ending of every mortal. The question awaiting his people is whether they will come to explain the whole Niyazov experience in mundane terms — as an embarrassing relic of communist despotism, perhaps — or whether they will seek yet another sun-leader.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Holocaust Denial Won't Help Iran—or Palestine
Iranian leaders apparently think that they are doing their nation a favor nowadays by hosting anti-Semitic ideologues such as David Duke, the leader of Ku Klux Klan, for a conference which challenges the truth of the Jewish Holocaust. Are they right?
First, one should recall what Holocaust denial, or as its proponents call it, "Holocaust Revisionism," is. It is a fringe movement that started in the 60's by the French historian Paul Rassinier's "The Drama Of The European Jews" and American historian David Hoggan's "The Myth of the Six Million." In the 70's a few other historians like Arthur Butz, David Irving and Robert Faurisson joined the line. In 1979 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded in California, which became, and still acts as, the headquarters of the "revisionist" movement.
Those in the movement might have different tones and shades, however their basic argument is the same: Although many Jews did suffer and die during World War II, there were no specific measures to exterminate them, such as the horrific gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belzec or Treblinka. All the evidence pointing to the Nazi Final Solution - which, according to mainstream historians, resulted in the extermination of six million Jews, along with millions of Gypsies and Slavs, and many communists and homosexuals - is, according to these "revisionists," fake or somehow exaggerated. They argue that there was indeed an American, British and Jewish conspiracy to make Jews look like victims and to demonize Nazi Germany.
Of course such a reading of history makes the Nazis look much nicer then they have been seen up to now. Therefore it is no accident that some of the leading figures in "Holocaust Revisionism" are Nazi sympathizers and neo-Nazis. Other fascist groups like the Ku Klux Klan are also enthusiastic supporters of Holocaust denial.
The Iranians, who accuse the Israelis for using the Holocaust propaganda to serve their political causes, need to see the irony here: "Holocaust Revisionism" is a political tool, too, which is used to whitewash the Nazis. And it is not only morally corrupt but also politically unwise to try to help the Palestinian cause by forming an alliance with the latter day saints of Nazism. President Ahmedinejad will serve his nation better if he realizes that the anti-Semitism of the Nazis incorporated a deep hatred towards not only Judaism, but also its theological legatees, i.e. Christianity and Islam.
Actually if the Iranians, and other Muslims nations, really want to help Palestinians, they can do this not by objecting to but by empathizing with the Jewish Holocaust. Then, they can, for example, challenge the Israelis for imitating the brutality of the Wehrmacht with their bloody incursions in Palestine and Lebanon.
It is a pity that for the current conference in Tehran, the mullahs didn't consider inviting Khaled Mahameed, the Palestinian peace activist who opened a Holocaust institute in Nazareth last year, to help his fellow Arabs understand, not deny, the Holocaust. Such guests would bring more honor to the land of the Persians then the Ku Klux Klan leaders.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
First, one should recall what Holocaust denial, or as its proponents call it, "Holocaust Revisionism," is. It is a fringe movement that started in the 60's by the French historian Paul Rassinier's "The Drama Of The European Jews" and American historian David Hoggan's "The Myth of the Six Million." In the 70's a few other historians like Arthur Butz, David Irving and Robert Faurisson joined the line. In 1979 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded in California, which became, and still acts as, the headquarters of the "revisionist" movement.
Those in the movement might have different tones and shades, however their basic argument is the same: Although many Jews did suffer and die during World War II, there were no specific measures to exterminate them, such as the horrific gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belzec or Treblinka. All the evidence pointing to the Nazi Final Solution - which, according to mainstream historians, resulted in the extermination of six million Jews, along with millions of Gypsies and Slavs, and many communists and homosexuals - is, according to these "revisionists," fake or somehow exaggerated. They argue that there was indeed an American, British and Jewish conspiracy to make Jews look like victims and to demonize Nazi Germany.
Of course such a reading of history makes the Nazis look much nicer then they have been seen up to now. Therefore it is no accident that some of the leading figures in "Holocaust Revisionism" are Nazi sympathizers and neo-Nazis. Other fascist groups like the Ku Klux Klan are also enthusiastic supporters of Holocaust denial.
The Iranians, who accuse the Israelis for using the Holocaust propaganda to serve their political causes, need to see the irony here: "Holocaust Revisionism" is a political tool, too, which is used to whitewash the Nazis. And it is not only morally corrupt but also politically unwise to try to help the Palestinian cause by forming an alliance with the latter day saints of Nazism. President Ahmedinejad will serve his nation better if he realizes that the anti-Semitism of the Nazis incorporated a deep hatred towards not only Judaism, but also its theological legatees, i.e. Christianity and Islam.
Actually if the Iranians, and other Muslims nations, really want to help Palestinians, they can do this not by objecting to but by empathizing with the Jewish Holocaust. Then, they can, for example, challenge the Israelis for imitating the brutality of the Wehrmacht with their bloody incursions in Palestine and Lebanon.
It is a pity that for the current conference in Tehran, the mullahs didn't consider inviting Khaled Mahameed, the Palestinian peace activist who opened a Holocaust institute in Nazareth last year, to help his fellow Arabs understand, not deny, the Holocaust. Such guests would bring more honor to the land of the Persians then the Ku Klux Klan leaders.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Put the Fear of God Back Into the Mideast Peace Process
The historic visit to Israel earlier this month by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party, proves a Muslim who is serious about his religion can be friendly to Israel, and that those who predicted a decline in Turkish-Israeli relations following the rise of Erdogan's Islamic-inspired conservative party were wrong.
As another Muslim from Turkey, let me offer a personal story of my visit to Israel, especially to those who might still be, quite understandably, suspicious about the possibility of a real, committed amity between serious Muslims and the Jewish state.
This past December, I was in Israel for the first time as a guest of the American Jewish Committee's "Project Interchange." Along with eight other fellow journalists from Istanbul and Ankara, I toured the Holy Land and marvelled at most of what I saw. The most astonishing moments for me, though, were two prayers I made in Jerusalem.
The first one was at the al-Aqsa Mosque. Like all Muslims, during that prayer I paid tribute to the one and only God, the creator of the heavens and the earth. Toward the end of the prayer — again, like all Muslims — I also commended former believers, including "the descendants of Abraham."
After that, I left the Temple Mount to head toward the Western Wall, where Jews were praying toward the spot where the Holy of the Holies once stood. I could not resist the empathy. These believers were praising the one and only God, the Creator of heaven and earth, too. Moreover, they were the very descendants of "the descendants of Abraham" that I had commended just five minutes before.
I did not hesitate to join them in prayer. I approached the Wall, and I recited the single phrase that I know in Hebrew: "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehad." I was quite sure that "Our Lord" was one.
This figurative moment deepened my existing conviction that a lasting peace between the Jewish state and its Muslim neighbours, and a rapprochement between Judaism and Islam, is possible.
Let me explain how.
Jews According to the Koran
The term Islam is mostly used to define the faith that started with the Prophet Mohammad in 7th century Arabia. In that context, Islam is a distinct — or even a rival — faith to Christianity and Judaism. However, there is a second and more encompassing meaning of Islam: It merely means submission to God; and it dates back not to Mohammad but way beyond to Adam, the first human being. We can call this primordial Islam, which is actually mere monotheism.
One little-recognized fact is that when the Koran speaks about Islam, it virtually always means the primordial one. That's why many Old Testament prophets are mentioned as "Muslims." They were, of course, Jewish prophets, but this meant that they were "Muslims," as well, for being a Muslim simply means submitting to God.
This is why the Koran makes no distinction between the Prophet Mohammad and the prophets and kings of the Old Testament. It also tells us that God "sent down the Torah containing guidance and light" (5:44). Moreover, the Koran declares Abraham as the "forefather" to all Muslims (22:78). Therefore, one could argue that all Muslims are, whatever their ethnic origin might be, honorary Semites.
There are also parts of the Koran that criticize Jews severely, and some current Muslims who embrace anti-Semitism quote them quite frequently. Yet there is a very crucial point that they fail to recognize: The Koran criticizes Jews not for being Jews, but rather for failing to be so. To be more precise, the Koran condemns only those Jews who disobeyed God and abandoned His law — such as those who worshipped the Golden Calf, refused to enter the Holy Land, disobeyed Jewish prophets, venerated the idol Baal and so on.
Moreover, while such deviators are condemned in the Koran, righteous Jews are praised. In one particular chapter, after first telling about the sins committed by those from "People of the Book" — a term that refers to Jews and Christians as the bearers of previous revelations — the Koran says, "They are not all alike; of the People of the Book there is an upright party; they recite God's communications in the night time and they adore (Him)... Those are among the good (3:113-4).
The logical outcome of this is that Muslims should esteem and appreciate Jewish — and Christian, for that matter — piety.
Unfortunately, among many contemporary Muslims it is very hard to find such a positive approach to Jewish piety. This stems from a misconception that they take for granted: The Koran teaches that its advent de-legitimised Judaism and Christianity. In fact, the Koran itself presents a somewhat different view. Of course all humans are invited to enter Islam, but those who choose to remain as Jews and Christians are promised salvation, as well, as long as they are faithful and pious. "Those who are Jews, and the Christians," says the Koran, "all who have faith in God and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord" (2:62).
Moreover, the Koran envisions a kind of monotheistic pluralism. In a direct appeal to Prophet Mohammad, we read that the existence of different monotheistic paths is not against God's will: "Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good" (5:48).
Respecting Israel, As a Muslim
The perspective I am describing is pretty unorthodox in today's Islamic world, but it is right there in the Koran, the single unquestionable source of Islam, waiting to be rediscovered.
That koranic perspective led me to admire much of what I saw in Israel during my six-day trip last December. I kept, and still keep, my reservations and criticisms on some of the Israeli policies toward Palestinians, but the nature of Israeli society gained my approval in many ways. I was, for example, pleased to see the respect and recognition of the Sabbath, kosher laws and other religious practices in the Jewish state.
I was also glad to see that fellow Muslims who live under Israeli rule are quite free to practice their faith — a blessing they could not have in some countries with a Muslim majority. One such place is my own country, Turkey, where any religious symbol is fiercely expelled from the public square. In contrast to Turkey's secularist monism, the overall picture in Israel presented a pluralism in which the sacred and the secular coexist with mutual respect. At least to my eyes, the Israeli model looks much more appealing than the Turkish model.
The idea that Jewish religiosity deserves respect from Muslims leads us to reconsider another issue: Zionism. Most Muslims loathe the term and what it represents, but maybe that is not a very Islamic position at all.
As is well known, Zionism developed in the late 19th century with the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish nation state, which was definitely not an unjustified objective. But where should this hypothetical state be founded? Most Zionists were pretty secular, and they did not appeal to religion to find an answer. That's why they considered many alternatives. Yet the religious and historical aspiration to Eretz Israel gained ascendancy and became undisputed after the Balfour Declaration.
When I, as a Muslim, rethink that early debate in Zionism, I see no other way than sympathizing with the choice of Eretz Israel. There are two important reasons.
First, the Jewish aspiration to the Holy Land is valid. Not only is it declared in the Torah, which is definitely important for us Muslims, but it's also confirmed in the Koran. In verse 5:21, we read that Moses led the Israelites to the Holy Land and said: "My people! Enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you, do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers."
The second reason is that the Jewish aspiration to Palestine is a religious commitment that we Muslims cannot ask the Jews to abandon. The very fact that Jews did not give up a central theme in their religion is a profound testimony to the power of faith. Had Israel been a state in Uganda named "The People's Republic of the Jewish Nation," with a hammer and sickle in its flag — or anything but the star of David — then it would be a testimony to the power of secularization. We Muslims, by default, have to support the religious, not the secular, way.
All this means that there can well be an Islamic argument for the right of Israel to exist. However, and of course, this should be combined with an insistence on the rights of Palestinians to live in security, dignity and peace. How this will be achieved is a political question, but a proper Islamic theology would demand that the two peoples in the Holy Land, Jews and Arabs, find a way to co-exist in peace and mutual respect.
Another piece of good news is that Jewish theology presents a similar basis for peaceful coexistence, as well. Biblical passages such as "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 22:21) makes it clear that Jews have an obligation to be generous to gentiles. Today's Palestinians are such strangers. Moreover, unlike the pagan Canaanites of biblical times, who hated both Israel and its God, they are fellow monotheists.
No Peace Without God
This final evaluation should lead us to reconsider the role of religion in the quest for peace in the Middle East. Many people think that such a role is inherently negative in effect, and therefore must be marginalized as much as possible. Once you put the "religious zealots" out of the picture, this secularist view assumes, things will be much easier.
Yet the secularist view has a serious flaw: It does not work. If religion is pushed out of the picture, it strikes back vigorously. In short, religion has to be a part of the solution; otherwise the solution becomes impossible.
Islam has the potential, in itself, to help bring about that solution. This is also true for Judaism, as it is for Christianity. As the Psalmist sensibly declared three millennia ago, "fear of God" is the beginning of wisdom — not of fanaticism, hatred and violence.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
As another Muslim from Turkey, let me offer a personal story of my visit to Israel, especially to those who might still be, quite understandably, suspicious about the possibility of a real, committed amity between serious Muslims and the Jewish state.
This past December, I was in Israel for the first time as a guest of the American Jewish Committee's "Project Interchange." Along with eight other fellow journalists from Istanbul and Ankara, I toured the Holy Land and marvelled at most of what I saw. The most astonishing moments for me, though, were two prayers I made in Jerusalem.
The first one was at the al-Aqsa Mosque. Like all Muslims, during that prayer I paid tribute to the one and only God, the creator of the heavens and the earth. Toward the end of the prayer — again, like all Muslims — I also commended former believers, including "the descendants of Abraham."
After that, I left the Temple Mount to head toward the Western Wall, where Jews were praying toward the spot where the Holy of the Holies once stood. I could not resist the empathy. These believers were praising the one and only God, the Creator of heaven and earth, too. Moreover, they were the very descendants of "the descendants of Abraham" that I had commended just five minutes before.
I did not hesitate to join them in prayer. I approached the Wall, and I recited the single phrase that I know in Hebrew: "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehad." I was quite sure that "Our Lord" was one.
This figurative moment deepened my existing conviction that a lasting peace between the Jewish state and its Muslim neighbours, and a rapprochement between Judaism and Islam, is possible.
Let me explain how.
Jews According to the Koran
The term Islam is mostly used to define the faith that started with the Prophet Mohammad in 7th century Arabia. In that context, Islam is a distinct — or even a rival — faith to Christianity and Judaism. However, there is a second and more encompassing meaning of Islam: It merely means submission to God; and it dates back not to Mohammad but way beyond to Adam, the first human being. We can call this primordial Islam, which is actually mere monotheism.
One little-recognized fact is that when the Koran speaks about Islam, it virtually always means the primordial one. That's why many Old Testament prophets are mentioned as "Muslims." They were, of course, Jewish prophets, but this meant that they were "Muslims," as well, for being a Muslim simply means submitting to God.
This is why the Koran makes no distinction between the Prophet Mohammad and the prophets and kings of the Old Testament. It also tells us that God "sent down the Torah containing guidance and light" (5:44). Moreover, the Koran declares Abraham as the "forefather" to all Muslims (22:78). Therefore, one could argue that all Muslims are, whatever their ethnic origin might be, honorary Semites.
There are also parts of the Koran that criticize Jews severely, and some current Muslims who embrace anti-Semitism quote them quite frequently. Yet there is a very crucial point that they fail to recognize: The Koran criticizes Jews not for being Jews, but rather for failing to be so. To be more precise, the Koran condemns only those Jews who disobeyed God and abandoned His law — such as those who worshipped the Golden Calf, refused to enter the Holy Land, disobeyed Jewish prophets, venerated the idol Baal and so on.
Moreover, while such deviators are condemned in the Koran, righteous Jews are praised. In one particular chapter, after first telling about the sins committed by those from "People of the Book" — a term that refers to Jews and Christians as the bearers of previous revelations — the Koran says, "They are not all alike; of the People of the Book there is an upright party; they recite God's communications in the night time and they adore (Him)... Those are among the good (3:113-4).
The logical outcome of this is that Muslims should esteem and appreciate Jewish — and Christian, for that matter — piety.
Unfortunately, among many contemporary Muslims it is very hard to find such a positive approach to Jewish piety. This stems from a misconception that they take for granted: The Koran teaches that its advent de-legitimised Judaism and Christianity. In fact, the Koran itself presents a somewhat different view. Of course all humans are invited to enter Islam, but those who choose to remain as Jews and Christians are promised salvation, as well, as long as they are faithful and pious. "Those who are Jews, and the Christians," says the Koran, "all who have faith in God and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord" (2:62).
Moreover, the Koran envisions a kind of monotheistic pluralism. In a direct appeal to Prophet Mohammad, we read that the existence of different monotheistic paths is not against God's will: "Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good" (5:48).
Respecting Israel, As a Muslim
The perspective I am describing is pretty unorthodox in today's Islamic world, but it is right there in the Koran, the single unquestionable source of Islam, waiting to be rediscovered.
That koranic perspective led me to admire much of what I saw in Israel during my six-day trip last December. I kept, and still keep, my reservations and criticisms on some of the Israeli policies toward Palestinians, but the nature of Israeli society gained my approval in many ways. I was, for example, pleased to see the respect and recognition of the Sabbath, kosher laws and other religious practices in the Jewish state.
I was also glad to see that fellow Muslims who live under Israeli rule are quite free to practice their faith — a blessing they could not have in some countries with a Muslim majority. One such place is my own country, Turkey, where any religious symbol is fiercely expelled from the public square. In contrast to Turkey's secularist monism, the overall picture in Israel presented a pluralism in which the sacred and the secular coexist with mutual respect. At least to my eyes, the Israeli model looks much more appealing than the Turkish model.
The idea that Jewish religiosity deserves respect from Muslims leads us to reconsider another issue: Zionism. Most Muslims loathe the term and what it represents, but maybe that is not a very Islamic position at all.
As is well known, Zionism developed in the late 19th century with the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish nation state, which was definitely not an unjustified objective. But where should this hypothetical state be founded? Most Zionists were pretty secular, and they did not appeal to religion to find an answer. That's why they considered many alternatives. Yet the religious and historical aspiration to Eretz Israel gained ascendancy and became undisputed after the Balfour Declaration.
When I, as a Muslim, rethink that early debate in Zionism, I see no other way than sympathizing with the choice of Eretz Israel. There are two important reasons.
First, the Jewish aspiration to the Holy Land is valid. Not only is it declared in the Torah, which is definitely important for us Muslims, but it's also confirmed in the Koran. In verse 5:21, we read that Moses led the Israelites to the Holy Land and said: "My people! Enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you, do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers."
The second reason is that the Jewish aspiration to Palestine is a religious commitment that we Muslims cannot ask the Jews to abandon. The very fact that Jews did not give up a central theme in their religion is a profound testimony to the power of faith. Had Israel been a state in Uganda named "The People's Republic of the Jewish Nation," with a hammer and sickle in its flag — or anything but the star of David — then it would be a testimony to the power of secularization. We Muslims, by default, have to support the religious, not the secular, way.
All this means that there can well be an Islamic argument for the right of Israel to exist. However, and of course, this should be combined with an insistence on the rights of Palestinians to live in security, dignity and peace. How this will be achieved is a political question, but a proper Islamic theology would demand that the two peoples in the Holy Land, Jews and Arabs, find a way to co-exist in peace and mutual respect.
Another piece of good news is that Jewish theology presents a similar basis for peaceful coexistence, as well. Biblical passages such as "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 22:21) makes it clear that Jews have an obligation to be generous to gentiles. Today's Palestinians are such strangers. Moreover, unlike the pagan Canaanites of biblical times, who hated both Israel and its God, they are fellow monotheists.
No Peace Without God
This final evaluation should lead us to reconsider the role of religion in the quest for peace in the Middle East. Many people think that such a role is inherently negative in effect, and therefore must be marginalized as much as possible. Once you put the "religious zealots" out of the picture, this secularist view assumes, things will be much easier.
Yet the secularist view has a serious flaw: It does not work. If religion is pushed out of the picture, it strikes back vigorously. In short, religion has to be a part of the solution; otherwise the solution becomes impossible.
Islam has the potential, in itself, to help bring about that solution. This is also true for Judaism, as it is for Christianity. As the Psalmist sensibly declared three millennia ago, "fear of God" is the beginning of wisdom — not of fanaticism, hatred and violence.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Ibn-Khaldoun Essay Contest
Here is a brief note: The Atlas Foundation is organizing the second Ibn-Khaldoun Essay Contest and I strongly advise young writers to consider joining it. Islamic world needs to focus on the means of creating economic prosperity, and the best medium for that, as Islamic scholar Ibn-Khaldoun argued centuries ago, is based on free markets and limited governments. It is time to rediscover that wisdom and apply to modern realities.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)