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
News from The Dallas Morning News
Mustafa Akyol, a 35-year-old Istanbul journalist who often defends the AKP in his column, says the party miscalculated when it tried to criminalize adultery and to create alcohol-free areas in some towns. That gave secularists an excuse to accuse the party of setting off on the slippery slope to Turkey's Talibanization. "From my point of view, this is just a conservative moral policy which even sometimes I criticize – but this is not the way to sharia," Mr. Akyol says. "If you can't negotiate and agree on these things, you push [observant Muslims], and you tell them there is no place for your lifestyle in this country."
"Since there's a justified suspicion of Islamism in the world, they're calling anybody with an Islamic identity who wants to get involved in politics a Taliban. The thing we have to remember is that the Muslim world is really diverse. It's not always a clean debate between 'good' secularists and 'bad' Islamists."
The affable Mr. Akyol is himself a practicing Muslim, at ease with European and American thought. He believes it is certainly possible for Islam to be reconciled to liberal democracy and points out that the modernizing ideas of Fazlur Rahman, the late University of Chicago scholar who was a towering figure of contemporary Islamic thought, are highly influential in leading Turkish Islamic circles – including the AKP leadership. Mr. Akyol also points to the popularity of Islamic teachers like Fethullah Gulen and Mr. Gulen's mentor, the late Said Nursi, who advocate a more liberal form of Islam that seeks dialogue with other religious traditions, for the sake of resisting materialism.
Mr. Gulen, like Mr. Nursi before him, ran afoul of the Kemalist state and had his views suppressed. This crushing of even moderate Islam is exactly the kind of thing that feeds religious radicalism, Mr. Akyol argues. That, and the class snobbery of secularists. Among the elite, he says, religious consciousness is considered a mark of the rube. But this stereotype, which the journalist admits has more than a kernel of sociological truth, is giving way to a new reality that secular elites are reluctant to accept.
"What's happening now is that Islamic people are changing. Their children are getting an education, and they're getting some power," says Mr. Akyol. "In Turkey, this is a class issue, too. The upper classes are afraid of the lower classes becoming as high as themselves."
"Since there's a justified suspicion of Islamism in the world, they're calling anybody with an Islamic identity who wants to get involved in politics a Taliban. The thing we have to remember is that the Muslim world is really diverse. It's not always a clean debate between 'good' secularists and 'bad' Islamists."
The affable Mr. Akyol is himself a practicing Muslim, at ease with European and American thought. He believes it is certainly possible for Islam to be reconciled to liberal democracy and points out that the modernizing ideas of Fazlur Rahman, the late University of Chicago scholar who was a towering figure of contemporary Islamic thought, are highly influential in leading Turkish Islamic circles – including the AKP leadership. Mr. Akyol also points to the popularity of Islamic teachers like Fethullah Gulen and Mr. Gulen's mentor, the late Said Nursi, who advocate a more liberal form of Islam that seeks dialogue with other religious traditions, for the sake of resisting materialism.
Mr. Gulen, like Mr. Nursi before him, ran afoul of the Kemalist state and had his views suppressed. This crushing of even moderate Islam is exactly the kind of thing that feeds religious radicalism, Mr. Akyol argues. That, and the class snobbery of secularists. Among the elite, he says, religious consciousness is considered a mark of the rube. But this stereotype, which the journalist admits has more than a kernel of sociological truth, is giving way to a new reality that secular elites are reluctant to accept.
"What's happening now is that Islamic people are changing. Their children are getting an education, and they're getting some power," says Mr. Akyol. "In Turkey, this is a class issue, too. The upper classes are afraid of the lower classes becoming as high as themselves."
Michael Gerson, Washington Post Columnist, Reports
Michael Gerson, who used to be the speech writer of President Bush, and is currently a fellow at the CFR and a columnist for The Washington Post, has a piece titled, "An Islamic Test for Turkey." I appear in Mr. Gerson’s remarks as follows:
Secularists accuse the AKP of seeking a slow-motion Islamist revolution. Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol — a young, pro-American moderate conservative with a tendency to quote philosopher Leo Strauss — regards this as a serious overreaction: "The AK Party has traces of Islamism, but it is moving toward becoming a conservative, Muslim democratic party," more akin to the Christian Democratic parties of Europe. So far, the AKP has been pro-capitalism, pro-European Union and a defender of Islamic family values, instead of being an advocate of Islamic law.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Secularists accuse the AKP of seeking a slow-motion Islamist revolution. Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol — a young, pro-American moderate conservative with a tendency to quote philosopher Leo Strauss — regards this as a serious overreaction: "The AK Party has traces of Islamism, but it is moving toward becoming a conservative, Muslim democratic party," more akin to the Christian Democratic parties of Europe. So far, the AKP has been pro-capitalism, pro-European Union and a defender of Islamic family values, instead of being an advocate of Islamic law.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
US News and World Report Reports
[Turkey’s] delicate issues will continue to include Islam and the question of how much religion is permissible in the public sphere. Mustafa Akyol, a bright young columnist for the English-language Turkish Daily News, makes a very convincing case for the moderate traditional religiosity that most AKP supporters embrace.
This is very far from the totalitarian variety of political Islam that Islamists promote. It does not seek to impose religious sharia law on society. It does not go in for the fundamentalist simplicities of the Saudi Wahhabis. Some religiously minded Turks were attracted to political Islam after Iran's 1979 revolution, Akyol explains, but Islamism largely disappeared when the military dissolved the Welfare Party-led government in 1997.
AKP's brand of Islamic religiosity derives, Akyol says, from the rich Ottoman traditions, which include a strong admixture of philosophically broad-minded Sufism. The party's religious inspirations are not Islamists like Sayyid Qutb but Said Nursi (1879-1960), whose apolitical writings on faith and morality sparked a popular movement. More recently, Fethullah Gulen's teachings on interfaith dialogue and the compatibility of belief and secularism have inspired followers to found schools, publishing houses, and even a newspaper to spread his message.
But there are many Turks who argue that not even Gulen can be trusted. They say his followers in government eventually attempt to legislate Islamic morality. "The secularists' argument is that if you let a little religion in the public sphere, you will ultimately have a big problem," Akyol counters. "My argument is that if you don't, then you will have a bigger problem."
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
This is very far from the totalitarian variety of political Islam that Islamists promote. It does not seek to impose religious sharia law on society. It does not go in for the fundamentalist simplicities of the Saudi Wahhabis. Some religiously minded Turks were attracted to political Islam after Iran's 1979 revolution, Akyol explains, but Islamism largely disappeared when the military dissolved the Welfare Party-led government in 1997.
AKP's brand of Islamic religiosity derives, Akyol says, from the rich Ottoman traditions, which include a strong admixture of philosophically broad-minded Sufism. The party's religious inspirations are not Islamists like Sayyid Qutb but Said Nursi (1879-1960), whose apolitical writings on faith and morality sparked a popular movement. More recently, Fethullah Gulen's teachings on interfaith dialogue and the compatibility of belief and secularism have inspired followers to found schools, publishing houses, and even a newspaper to spread his message.
But there are many Turks who argue that not even Gulen can be trusted. They say his followers in government eventually attempt to legislate Islamic morality. "The secularists' argument is that if you let a little religion in the public sphere, you will ultimately have a big problem," Akyol counters. "My argument is that if you don't, then you will have a bigger problem."
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Fareed Zakaria Agrees on ‘Fact-Free Paranoia’
On May 2, I had a piece in the Turkish Daily News titled "The Secularist Hype In Turkey Is A Fact-Free Paranoia.” In his May 14 piece, Fareed Zakaria, the editor and columnist of the Newsweek magazine, agreed with my assessment in his piece which had the web title, “Worries About Turkey Are ‘Fact-Free Paranoia’.” Based on his evaluation of the Turkish political scene, and his interview with Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül, Dr. Zakaria wrote,
Gul is right. The secular establishment's suspicions about the AK are best described by Turkish columnist Mustafa Akyul as "fact-free paranoia.
The only thing is that my surname is Akyol, not Akyul. But no problem. I appreciate Dr. Zakaria’s quote and agreement.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Gul is right. The secular establishment's suspicions about the AK are best described by Turkish columnist Mustafa Akyul as "fact-free paranoia.
The only thing is that my surname is Akyol, not Akyul. But no problem. I appreciate Dr. Zakaria’s quote and agreement.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Interview in the Danish Daily Kristeligt Dagblad
The full text is down below, for those who can read Danish. (And if any of those privileged kindly decide to let me know about the content, I will appreciate.)
Til kamp mod den gensidige mistillid
Der er ingen modsætning mellem at være muslim og modernist, mener den tyrkiske upcoming intellektuelle Mustafa Akyol. Han har et ben i hver lejr og ser det som sin mission at gøre op med de mange misforståelser mellem Vesten og Islam.
Af Camilla Wass
Den lyse lejlighed i den europæiske del af Istanbul er som taget ud af et Ikea katalog - rene linier, cremefarvede vægge og funktionelle møbler. I køkkenet snurrer en espresso maskine, og i en hvid reol står Koranen side om side med tyrkisk litteratur og tunge værker med vestlige tænkere.
Henslængt i en hørsofa sidder Mustafa Akyol – han er 34 år og betegner sig selv som en modernistisk muslimsk intellektuel.
”Jeg kalder mig selv freelance muslim. Jeg tilhører ikke en retning inden for Islam, men jeg tror på en rationel vej i Islam. Jeg mener, at mange af de værdier, der findes i den moderne verden, er i overensstemmelse med Islam, ” siger han.
Skrivebordet i hjørnet af stuen bliver flittigt brugt. Som fortaler for en demokratisk, pro-vestlig og moderne udgave af Islam er Mustafa Akyol en efterspurgt kommentator i både tyrkisk og amerikansk presse. Han er fast klummeskribent på den tyrkiske avis Referans, og han skriver desuden for bl.a. The Weekly Standard, Washington Times og IslamOnline. Oven i det rejser han jævnligt til udlandet for at holde foredrag om Islam og modernitet.
”Jeg ser mig selv som en ’upcoming star’ på den intellektuelle arena – ikke fordi jeg går efter berømmelsen, men fordi jeg føler, at jeg har en forpligtelse til at gøre mit for at stoppe de mange misforståelser mellem Vesten og Islam,” siger han.
Misforståelser på begge sider
Den skrattende lyd fra et af Istanbuls mange minarettårne når ind i lejligheden, men Mustafa Akyol gør ikke mine til at rejse sig og vende snuden mod Mekka. Ganske vist er han dybt troende muslim, men han har sin egen måde at praktisere troen på.
”For det meste samler jeg mine bønner om aftenen, det passer bedre ind i min dagsrytme. Jeg faster heller ikke under Ramadanen, for jeg har brug for mad og drikke til at kunne tænke klart, ” siger Mustafa Akyol.
Lige nu kredser hans tanker om den såkaldte ’profetvideo’ fra Dansk Folkepartis Ungdom, der truer med endnu engang at bringe Vesten og den islamiske verden på kollisionskurs.
“Det kan godt være, at det er lovligt at gøre grin med religion. Men det er moralsk forkert, det er uhøfligt, og det vil føre til flere reaktioner og mere fjendtlighed. Jeg synes ikke, det er det, vi skal prøve at opnå,” siger Mustafa Akyol.
Efter hans mening er fronterne mellem ’Vesten’ og Islam efterhånden blevet kridtet alt for skarpt op.
”Mange muslimer mener, at modernitet er det onde selv, ligesom mange folk fra Vesten mener, at Islam er en voldelig, intolerant religion. Jeg mener, at begge sider tager fejl,” siger han.
I de vestlige medier går der ikke en dag, uden at Islam, terrorisme og krav om reformer i Mellemøsten trækker de store overskrifter. Ifølge Mustafa Akyol begår de vestlige medier en stor fejl ved at sætte lighedstegn mellem Islam og Mellemøsten.
”30 procent af alle verdens muslimer bor i Mellemøsten, men det, der sker i regionen, er ikke repræsentativt for Islam. Det er ikke Islam, der skaber intolerance eller fastlåshed i Mellemøsten, det er de sociale, historiske og politiske betingelser, der gør Islam snæversynet i denne region. Hvis man i stedet kigger på Bosnien, så ser man en helt anderledes fredelig praktisering af Islam,” pointerer han.
Mustafa Akyol mener desuden, at medierne har et stort ansvar for at skabe de stereotype billeder af Islam.
”Højtråbende radikale muslimer får stor plads i medierne. Det er sexet i mediemæssig forstand, når der sprænges selvmordsbomber, men ikke når der plantes blomster. Og det er med til at forvrænge billedet af Islam,” siger han.
Anti-vestlig tendens i Islam
På den anden side mener Mustafa Akyol også, at muslimerne har et forvrænget billede af Vesten.
”Blandt muslimer er der en udbredt opfattelse af, at der er et stærkt had mod Islam i Vesten. Jeg er helt sikker på, at der findes mange mennesker, der hader Islam – men jeg tror ikke på, at der er en samlet vestlig blok, der vil angribe Islam,” siger han.
Han mener derfor, at muslimerne gør klogt i at holde hovedet koldt, når karikaturer af Profeten Muhammed og andre provokationer dukker op i medierne.
”Jeg synes, det er meget vigtigt, at vi som muslimer reagerer rationelt og separat på hver enkelt af disse hændelser, frem for at se det som en samlet konspiration mod os og vores religion. Der er mange vers i Koranen, som siger, at muslimer ikke skal være vrede, men i stedet kontrollere deres vrede,” påpeger Mustafa Akyol.
Han mener ikke, at den aggressivitet, der bliver forbundet med Islam, har rod i Koranen.
”Fundamentalt set handler Islam om at elske Gud for alt, han har skabt, om at have en positiv attitude over for andre mennesker, og om at være taknemmelig, tilgivende, hjælpsom, rolig og tolerant,” siger han.
Kristne og muslimer har meget til fælles
Mustafa Akyol mener, at et andet stort problem ved Islam er, at religionen er gennemsyret af en anti-vestlig, anti-kolonialistisk ideologi.
”I radikale islamistiske kredse er der en tendens til at beskrive hele den vestlige civilisation som egoistisk, overfladisk og hedensk. Men vi muslimer er nødt til at bryde med myten om ’det materialistiske Vesten’. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at der også findes et Vesten med høj moral og en tro på, at der findes en Gud,” siger han.
Mustafa Akyol er oprindelig uddannet historiker og var i slutningen af 1990’erne på studieophold i USA. Opholdet blev en øjenåbner for ham.
”Jeg har altid været ’en muslim i jeans’, forstået på den måde, at jeg kender og beundrer den vestlige livsstil og de moderne værdier som demokrati, frihed til at træffe individuelle valg, og frihed til at udtrykke sig, som man vil. Jeg blev meget inspireret af at se, hvordan de troende i USA har formået at smelte deres religion ind i et åbent, liberalt samfund. Jeg har fået nogle rigtig gode venner i det kristne miljø i USA, og jeg synes, det er utrolig vigtigt at huske på, at Islam ikke er så forskellig fra kristendommen eller jødedommen. Det er alle tre monoteisitiske religioner, der udspringer fra de samme kilder,” siger han.
Mustafa Akyol lægger i mange af sine tekster vægt på det religiøse fællesskab, han har oplevet med kristne. Mens konflikten omkring karikaturerne af profeten Muhammed var på sit højeste, skrev han en kommentar om, at det var forkert at se konflikten som et eksempel så sammenstød mellem civilisationer.
”Jeg oplevede, at der under karikaturkrisen tegnede sig et skel mellem de troende og de ikke-troende. Mange kristne autoriteter tog muslimernes parti, fordi de godt kunne sætte sig ind i, at muslimerne følte sig krænket. Jeg mener derfor ikke, at det vi oplever, er en konflikt mellem det moderne, frie vesterlændinge og fundamentalistiske muslimer. En muslim behøver ikke at være fundamentalist, bare fordi han tror på, at Gud skabte verden. Det er faktisk hjørnestenen i den muslimske tro. På den anden side, så behøver man ikke at være ateist for at være modernist,” siger Mustafa Akyol med et intenst blik i de mørke øjne.
Muslimer misforstår Koranens budskab
Budskabet om, at Islam og modernitet sagtens kan gå hånd i hånd, glider ikke lige let ned hos alle. Mustafa Akyol modtager jævnligt mails fra muslimer, der mener, at han er på vildspor.
”Men som jeg ser det, er et af de største problemer ved Islam, at mange muslimer følger de gammeldags fortolkninger af Koranen. Koranen indeholder en række principper, som man kan fortolke på flere forskellige måder, men det er indlysende, at vi ikke skal tage det, der står i Koranen, bogstaveligt. Muslimer rider ikke længere rundt på kameler, vi kører bil ligesom alle andre. Og det er på tide, at vi sætter spørgsmålstegn ved de traditionelle fortolkninger af Islam. Jeg mener, at vi skal tage de moralske principper, der ligger i Koranen og putte dem ind i en kontekst, der passer til vores tid,” siger han.
Lydene fra Istanbuls gader sniger sig sammen med efterårssolen ind i lejligheden. Her lige uden for døren mødes modernitet og tradition i en by, der som den eneste i verden strækker sig over to kontinenter.
I Tyrkiet er omkring 98 procent af befolkningen muslimer, og Tyrkiet er det eneste sekulære styre i den muslimske verden. Ganske vist har regeringspartiet Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), med premierminister Erdogan i spidsen, rødder i Islam, men partiet kalder sig konservativt og er en af de varmeste fortalere for et tyrkisk medlemskab af EU.
”Tyrkiet er langtfra perfekt, men jeg mener alligevel, at Tyrkiet er et godt eksempel på, hvordan man kan integrere en åben form for Islam i et moderne samfund. Muslimerne i Tyrkiet vil ikke have en islamisk, men en demokratisk stat. De ønsker at leve i en stat, hvor de har frihed til at praktisere deres religion. Jeg går ind for, at Tyrkiet skal være en sekulær stat. Men man kan sagtens have et religiøst samfund i en sekulær stat,” siger han.
Mustafa Akyol rejser i denne uge til USA for at holde foredrag sammen med kristne intellektuelle. Her skal de bl.a. diskutere ’intelligent design’.
”I naturen findes der utallige tegn på, at universet er designet – og det ser jeg som et bevis på, at Gud eksisterer. Det er tydeligt, at det er en del af ’den guddommelige plan’, at folk skal være forskellige. Så det er op til os at få det bedste ud af forskellighederne,” siger han.
På hjemmesiden www.thewhitepath.com kan man læse et udpluk af Mustafa Akyols tekster, der stort set alle sammen kredser om islam og modernitet. The White Path er en engelsk oversættelse af Mustafas efternavn Akyol.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Til kamp mod den gensidige mistillid
Der er ingen modsætning mellem at være muslim og modernist, mener den tyrkiske upcoming intellektuelle Mustafa Akyol. Han har et ben i hver lejr og ser det som sin mission at gøre op med de mange misforståelser mellem Vesten og Islam.
Af Camilla Wass
Den lyse lejlighed i den europæiske del af Istanbul er som taget ud af et Ikea katalog - rene linier, cremefarvede vægge og funktionelle møbler. I køkkenet snurrer en espresso maskine, og i en hvid reol står Koranen side om side med tyrkisk litteratur og tunge værker med vestlige tænkere.
Henslængt i en hørsofa sidder Mustafa Akyol – han er 34 år og betegner sig selv som en modernistisk muslimsk intellektuel.
”Jeg kalder mig selv freelance muslim. Jeg tilhører ikke en retning inden for Islam, men jeg tror på en rationel vej i Islam. Jeg mener, at mange af de værdier, der findes i den moderne verden, er i overensstemmelse med Islam, ” siger han.
Skrivebordet i hjørnet af stuen bliver flittigt brugt. Som fortaler for en demokratisk, pro-vestlig og moderne udgave af Islam er Mustafa Akyol en efterspurgt kommentator i både tyrkisk og amerikansk presse. Han er fast klummeskribent på den tyrkiske avis Referans, og han skriver desuden for bl.a. The Weekly Standard, Washington Times og IslamOnline. Oven i det rejser han jævnligt til udlandet for at holde foredrag om Islam og modernitet.
”Jeg ser mig selv som en ’upcoming star’ på den intellektuelle arena – ikke fordi jeg går efter berømmelsen, men fordi jeg føler, at jeg har en forpligtelse til at gøre mit for at stoppe de mange misforståelser mellem Vesten og Islam,” siger han.
Misforståelser på begge sider
Den skrattende lyd fra et af Istanbuls mange minarettårne når ind i lejligheden, men Mustafa Akyol gør ikke mine til at rejse sig og vende snuden mod Mekka. Ganske vist er han dybt troende muslim, men han har sin egen måde at praktisere troen på.
”For det meste samler jeg mine bønner om aftenen, det passer bedre ind i min dagsrytme. Jeg faster heller ikke under Ramadanen, for jeg har brug for mad og drikke til at kunne tænke klart, ” siger Mustafa Akyol.
Lige nu kredser hans tanker om den såkaldte ’profetvideo’ fra Dansk Folkepartis Ungdom, der truer med endnu engang at bringe Vesten og den islamiske verden på kollisionskurs.
“Det kan godt være, at det er lovligt at gøre grin med religion. Men det er moralsk forkert, det er uhøfligt, og det vil føre til flere reaktioner og mere fjendtlighed. Jeg synes ikke, det er det, vi skal prøve at opnå,” siger Mustafa Akyol.
Efter hans mening er fronterne mellem ’Vesten’ og Islam efterhånden blevet kridtet alt for skarpt op.
”Mange muslimer mener, at modernitet er det onde selv, ligesom mange folk fra Vesten mener, at Islam er en voldelig, intolerant religion. Jeg mener, at begge sider tager fejl,” siger han.
I de vestlige medier går der ikke en dag, uden at Islam, terrorisme og krav om reformer i Mellemøsten trækker de store overskrifter. Ifølge Mustafa Akyol begår de vestlige medier en stor fejl ved at sætte lighedstegn mellem Islam og Mellemøsten.
”30 procent af alle verdens muslimer bor i Mellemøsten, men det, der sker i regionen, er ikke repræsentativt for Islam. Det er ikke Islam, der skaber intolerance eller fastlåshed i Mellemøsten, det er de sociale, historiske og politiske betingelser, der gør Islam snæversynet i denne region. Hvis man i stedet kigger på Bosnien, så ser man en helt anderledes fredelig praktisering af Islam,” pointerer han.
Mustafa Akyol mener desuden, at medierne har et stort ansvar for at skabe de stereotype billeder af Islam.
”Højtråbende radikale muslimer får stor plads i medierne. Det er sexet i mediemæssig forstand, når der sprænges selvmordsbomber, men ikke når der plantes blomster. Og det er med til at forvrænge billedet af Islam,” siger han.
Anti-vestlig tendens i Islam
På den anden side mener Mustafa Akyol også, at muslimerne har et forvrænget billede af Vesten.
”Blandt muslimer er der en udbredt opfattelse af, at der er et stærkt had mod Islam i Vesten. Jeg er helt sikker på, at der findes mange mennesker, der hader Islam – men jeg tror ikke på, at der er en samlet vestlig blok, der vil angribe Islam,” siger han.
Han mener derfor, at muslimerne gør klogt i at holde hovedet koldt, når karikaturer af Profeten Muhammed og andre provokationer dukker op i medierne.
”Jeg synes, det er meget vigtigt, at vi som muslimer reagerer rationelt og separat på hver enkelt af disse hændelser, frem for at se det som en samlet konspiration mod os og vores religion. Der er mange vers i Koranen, som siger, at muslimer ikke skal være vrede, men i stedet kontrollere deres vrede,” påpeger Mustafa Akyol.
Han mener ikke, at den aggressivitet, der bliver forbundet med Islam, har rod i Koranen.
”Fundamentalt set handler Islam om at elske Gud for alt, han har skabt, om at have en positiv attitude over for andre mennesker, og om at være taknemmelig, tilgivende, hjælpsom, rolig og tolerant,” siger han.
Kristne og muslimer har meget til fælles
Mustafa Akyol mener, at et andet stort problem ved Islam er, at religionen er gennemsyret af en anti-vestlig, anti-kolonialistisk ideologi.
”I radikale islamistiske kredse er der en tendens til at beskrive hele den vestlige civilisation som egoistisk, overfladisk og hedensk. Men vi muslimer er nødt til at bryde med myten om ’det materialistiske Vesten’. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at der også findes et Vesten med høj moral og en tro på, at der findes en Gud,” siger han.
Mustafa Akyol er oprindelig uddannet historiker og var i slutningen af 1990’erne på studieophold i USA. Opholdet blev en øjenåbner for ham.
”Jeg har altid været ’en muslim i jeans’, forstået på den måde, at jeg kender og beundrer den vestlige livsstil og de moderne værdier som demokrati, frihed til at træffe individuelle valg, og frihed til at udtrykke sig, som man vil. Jeg blev meget inspireret af at se, hvordan de troende i USA har formået at smelte deres religion ind i et åbent, liberalt samfund. Jeg har fået nogle rigtig gode venner i det kristne miljø i USA, og jeg synes, det er utrolig vigtigt at huske på, at Islam ikke er så forskellig fra kristendommen eller jødedommen. Det er alle tre monoteisitiske religioner, der udspringer fra de samme kilder,” siger han.
Mustafa Akyol lægger i mange af sine tekster vægt på det religiøse fællesskab, han har oplevet med kristne. Mens konflikten omkring karikaturerne af profeten Muhammed var på sit højeste, skrev han en kommentar om, at det var forkert at se konflikten som et eksempel så sammenstød mellem civilisationer.
”Jeg oplevede, at der under karikaturkrisen tegnede sig et skel mellem de troende og de ikke-troende. Mange kristne autoriteter tog muslimernes parti, fordi de godt kunne sætte sig ind i, at muslimerne følte sig krænket. Jeg mener derfor ikke, at det vi oplever, er en konflikt mellem det moderne, frie vesterlændinge og fundamentalistiske muslimer. En muslim behøver ikke at være fundamentalist, bare fordi han tror på, at Gud skabte verden. Det er faktisk hjørnestenen i den muslimske tro. På den anden side, så behøver man ikke at være ateist for at være modernist,” siger Mustafa Akyol med et intenst blik i de mørke øjne.
Muslimer misforstår Koranens budskab
Budskabet om, at Islam og modernitet sagtens kan gå hånd i hånd, glider ikke lige let ned hos alle. Mustafa Akyol modtager jævnligt mails fra muslimer, der mener, at han er på vildspor.
”Men som jeg ser det, er et af de største problemer ved Islam, at mange muslimer følger de gammeldags fortolkninger af Koranen. Koranen indeholder en række principper, som man kan fortolke på flere forskellige måder, men det er indlysende, at vi ikke skal tage det, der står i Koranen, bogstaveligt. Muslimer rider ikke længere rundt på kameler, vi kører bil ligesom alle andre. Og det er på tide, at vi sætter spørgsmålstegn ved de traditionelle fortolkninger af Islam. Jeg mener, at vi skal tage de moralske principper, der ligger i Koranen og putte dem ind i en kontekst, der passer til vores tid,” siger han.
Lydene fra Istanbuls gader sniger sig sammen med efterårssolen ind i lejligheden. Her lige uden for døren mødes modernitet og tradition i en by, der som den eneste i verden strækker sig over to kontinenter.
I Tyrkiet er omkring 98 procent af befolkningen muslimer, og Tyrkiet er det eneste sekulære styre i den muslimske verden. Ganske vist har regeringspartiet Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), med premierminister Erdogan i spidsen, rødder i Islam, men partiet kalder sig konservativt og er en af de varmeste fortalere for et tyrkisk medlemskab af EU.
”Tyrkiet er langtfra perfekt, men jeg mener alligevel, at Tyrkiet er et godt eksempel på, hvordan man kan integrere en åben form for Islam i et moderne samfund. Muslimerne i Tyrkiet vil ikke have en islamisk, men en demokratisk stat. De ønsker at leve i en stat, hvor de har frihed til at praktisere deres religion. Jeg går ind for, at Tyrkiet skal være en sekulær stat. Men man kan sagtens have et religiøst samfund i en sekulær stat,” siger han.
Mustafa Akyol rejser i denne uge til USA for at holde foredrag sammen med kristne intellektuelle. Her skal de bl.a. diskutere ’intelligent design’.
”I naturen findes der utallige tegn på, at universet er designet – og det ser jeg som et bevis på, at Gud eksisterer. Det er tydeligt, at det er en del af ’den guddommelige plan’, at folk skal være forskellige. Så det er op til os at få det bedste ud af forskellighederne,” siger han.
På hjemmesiden www.thewhitepath.com kan man læse et udpluk af Mustafa Akyols tekster, der stort set alle sammen kredser om islam og modernitet. The White Path er en engelsk oversættelse af Mustafas efternavn Akyol.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Why is The AKP Reasonable on Kurds?
Anybody who follows Turkish politics these days will notice that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government is quite reasonable on matters relating to the Kurdish question. First, Prime Minister Erdoğan has resisted the calls from other parties and the “mainstream media” to launch a massive war against northern Iraq. He, instead, insisted on building an effective cooperation with the United States to crack down on the terrorist PKK — and only the PKK, not Iraqi Kurds. Plus he managed to build that cooperation in his meeting with U.S. President Bush early this month.
More recently, Erdoğan opposed the closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) — which is commonly and aptly called “PKK's Sinn Fein” — by Turkey's Constitutional Court. In fact the prime minister severely criticizes the DTP for not renouncing terrorism, but he also wants to keep its cadre in the democratic game rather than “sending them to the mountains.”
No Cowboys Here
As the Turkish Daily News reported yesterday, the prime minister also said the priority is to make the terrorists lay down their weapons and not launching an offensive into northern Iraq.“We are not cowboys with guns in our hands,” he reminded. And he said so in the face of harsh accusations from Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the ultra-nationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who blamed him for “treason.”
Ruşen Çakır, a senior journalist and an expert on Kurdish politics, notes in his latest column that Erdoğan is the dove on the Kurdish question while Bahçeli is the hawk. Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Baykal, according to Çakır, is somewhere in between. (Whereas I think he is rather close to Bahçeli.)
TDN columnist Semih İdiz points to the same fact about AKP. In his piece in daily Milliyet, which is titled “The way of Erdoğan is the most reasonable way,” İdiz argues that Erdoğan “follows a pragmatic policy based on humane, legal and democratic parameters instead of a revanchist line.”
President Abdullah Gül, who is coming from the same political tradition with Erdoğan, is similarly sensible. Yesterday, during his official visit to Georgia, he made reconciliatory remarks about Iraqi Kurdistan and its leader, Massoud Barzani. He added that Turkey would isolate terrorism only with “stronger democracy”.
Now, how should we explain all this? Why the AKP people are much more open-minded than others on the Kurdish question? These people are called “Islamists,” right? So they are supposed to be more dogmatic than their secular rivals such as the CHP folks. But the reality is just the opposite. Why is that?
State Ideology
I think the answer lies in a very basic fact about Turkish politics. Here, the most rigid dogmatism is what the former president Ahmet Necdet Sezer proudly called “state ideology.” The political scene is divided between those who believe — and even worship — the state ideology, and those who rather believe in plain reality.
Kurds are the litmus test here. According to the state ideology, there are no Kurds. They simply aren't supposed to exist on the face of the earth. If they live in Turkey, they are called “mountain Turks.” (They at best can be a trivial branch of the glorious Turkish race.) If they live in Iraq, then they are called Iraqis. If someone dares to call them Kurds, the adherents of the state ideology go crazy. They even go crazier if someone utters the term “Kurdistan.”
But a reality-based mind would see no problem in any of these terms, because they have been is existence for centuries. In the Ottoman Empire, eastern provinces such as Diyarbekir were called “bilad-ı ekrad,” which means “the lands of the Kurds.” In mid 19th century, the Ottomans even established a “Kurdistan province,” which included much of today's southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. For the Ottomans, people were called what they were. Theirs was a reality-based empire.
Then came the ideology-based republic, whose elites had decided to rename and re-identify the whole country. This, these elites presumed, was the only way to modernization. And they have tried really hard to realize their dream.
But reality is a stubborn thing. The more you attack it, the more it hits back. And it did.
The Reality-Based Community
Today reality has become much more vindicated than it was in the Cold War years. The brave new world of globalization takes everything hidden under the carpet puts them in the middle of your living room. All the diversity that exists within the Turkish society is becoming more visible and vocal. We now have Kurds, Sufi orders, other Sunni communities, Alevis, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Protestants, Shiites, and so on. Unlike the neighboring Iran, we even have gays and lesbians.
Now, the question is how to build a new Turkey which will accept all these differences and give them space under a liberal, pluralist democracy. The AKP folks get that, because they are not brainwashed by the “state ideology.” This doesn't guarantee that they won't make mistakes, which they do. But it means that they have the mental capacity to understand reality and act accordingly. And, alas, that's not a very common talent in our officially-ideologized Turkey.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
More recently, Erdoğan opposed the closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) — which is commonly and aptly called “PKK's Sinn Fein” — by Turkey's Constitutional Court. In fact the prime minister severely criticizes the DTP for not renouncing terrorism, but he also wants to keep its cadre in the democratic game rather than “sending them to the mountains.”
No Cowboys Here
As the Turkish Daily News reported yesterday, the prime minister also said the priority is to make the terrorists lay down their weapons and not launching an offensive into northern Iraq.“We are not cowboys with guns in our hands,” he reminded. And he said so in the face of harsh accusations from Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the ultra-nationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who blamed him for “treason.”
Ruşen Çakır, a senior journalist and an expert on Kurdish politics, notes in his latest column that Erdoğan is the dove on the Kurdish question while Bahçeli is the hawk. Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Baykal, according to Çakır, is somewhere in between. (Whereas I think he is rather close to Bahçeli.)
TDN columnist Semih İdiz points to the same fact about AKP. In his piece in daily Milliyet, which is titled “The way of Erdoğan is the most reasonable way,” İdiz argues that Erdoğan “follows a pragmatic policy based on humane, legal and democratic parameters instead of a revanchist line.”
President Abdullah Gül, who is coming from the same political tradition with Erdoğan, is similarly sensible. Yesterday, during his official visit to Georgia, he made reconciliatory remarks about Iraqi Kurdistan and its leader, Massoud Barzani. He added that Turkey would isolate terrorism only with “stronger democracy”.
Now, how should we explain all this? Why the AKP people are much more open-minded than others on the Kurdish question? These people are called “Islamists,” right? So they are supposed to be more dogmatic than their secular rivals such as the CHP folks. But the reality is just the opposite. Why is that?
State Ideology
I think the answer lies in a very basic fact about Turkish politics. Here, the most rigid dogmatism is what the former president Ahmet Necdet Sezer proudly called “state ideology.” The political scene is divided between those who believe — and even worship — the state ideology, and those who rather believe in plain reality.
Kurds are the litmus test here. According to the state ideology, there are no Kurds. They simply aren't supposed to exist on the face of the earth. If they live in Turkey, they are called “mountain Turks.” (They at best can be a trivial branch of the glorious Turkish race.) If they live in Iraq, then they are called Iraqis. If someone dares to call them Kurds, the adherents of the state ideology go crazy. They even go crazier if someone utters the term “Kurdistan.”
But a reality-based mind would see no problem in any of these terms, because they have been is existence for centuries. In the Ottoman Empire, eastern provinces such as Diyarbekir were called “bilad-ı ekrad,” which means “the lands of the Kurds.” In mid 19th century, the Ottomans even established a “Kurdistan province,” which included much of today's southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. For the Ottomans, people were called what they were. Theirs was a reality-based empire.
Then came the ideology-based republic, whose elites had decided to rename and re-identify the whole country. This, these elites presumed, was the only way to modernization. And they have tried really hard to realize their dream.
But reality is a stubborn thing. The more you attack it, the more it hits back. And it did.
The Reality-Based Community
Today reality has become much more vindicated than it was in the Cold War years. The brave new world of globalization takes everything hidden under the carpet puts them in the middle of your living room. All the diversity that exists within the Turkish society is becoming more visible and vocal. We now have Kurds, Sufi orders, other Sunni communities, Alevis, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Protestants, Shiites, and so on. Unlike the neighboring Iran, we even have gays and lesbians.
Now, the question is how to build a new Turkey which will accept all these differences and give them space under a liberal, pluralist democracy. The AKP folks get that, because they are not brainwashed by the “state ideology.” This doesn't guarantee that they won't make mistakes, which they do. But it means that they have the mental capacity to understand reality and act accordingly. And, alas, that's not a very common talent in our officially-ideologized Turkey.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
The Verse at The Gate — and a Koranic Debate
Is the Koran a “created” or an “uncreated” book?
This question might sound vague and even meaningless to many modern minds, but it was a crucial one among Muslims during the initial centuries of Islam. Indeed, there were bitter disputes and even clashes between those who gave different answers.
Those who thought that the Koran was “created” were mainly the followers of the Mutazilite school. They were also known as “Rationalists,” because they made emphasis on the role of human reason in understanding God’s will. For the Mutazilites, both the Koran and human reason were created by God, and a believer had to use both of them in harmony to make a sense of the world.
Rationalists versus Traditionalists
On other side, there were the “Traditionalists,” which were spearheaded by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. They were skeptical of reason, which they saw as a potential to lead men astray. They rather insisted on the “imitation” of the Prophet: a Muslim had to try to emulate all the details of the life of Muhammad, instead of using his own judgment.
If reason was one issue that divided the Mutazilites and the Traditionalists, the nature of the Koran was another. The question I mentioned — whether the Koran is a “created” or an “uncreated” book — was actually their toughest bone of contention. The Mutazilites said that the Koran is a “created” book, which meant that it presented God’s message to a specific society at a specific point in time. The Koran’s principles were eternally valid, they said, but its “wording” was affected by temporal realities. So, they said, the Koran should be interpreted by looking at its context — and with the help of reason.
The Traditionalists, on the other hand, believed that Koran was “the uncreated word of God.” This meant that the Koran existed in eternity with God himself. So its verses could not have been influenced by the context of a specific period in human history. They thought not only the principles but also the literal details of the Koran were eternally valid.
The dispute between the two groups lasted for centuries, until when the Traditionalist won over the others around the 13th century. But the Mutazilite thought did not totally disappear. Moreover, new schools emerged which found middle ways between the two opposing view. The Maturidi school, which became popular mainly among the Turkish speaking peoples, was the most popular of these compromises. On the other hand, the strictest form of Traditionalism survived in the form of Wahhabism — which is the official faith of today’s Saudi Arabia.
Enter Zeynep Sultan mosque
What made me recall all this “Islamic hermeneutics 101” knowledge is the recent controversy in the Turkish media about a Koranic verse (5/51) put on the entrance of an Istanbul mosque by its imam. “O you who believe! Do not the Jews and the Christians as your friends and protectors,” the verse reads. “They are the friends of one another; any of you who takes them as friends is one of them.”
The daily Hürriyet made a news story out of this Koranic display, which apparently commended Muslims to not to be in good terms with Jews and Christians. Can each verse of the Koran be displayed like this, the paper asked, or should Muslims be a selective?
Then some secularist commentators started to question whether the Koran should be taken seriously at all. Fellow TDN columnists Burak Bekdil took a similar line yesterday in his piece, “The 'script' at Zeynep Sultan Mosque.” According to Mr. Bekdil, “dogmatic Muslims” had to stop being “selective.” They had to either take everything literally, or stop taking the Koran as a guide in daily life. Otherwise, according Mr. Bekdil, Muslims would end up in being unprincipled. At least, he argued, that was the case with the vice president of the Religious Affairs Directorate, who asked the imam of the aforementioned mosque to remove that Koranic verse on Christians and Jews. “Why does he not approve the ‘script' at the Zeynep Sultan mosque,” Mr. Bekdil asked. “On what grounds?”
Yesterday, an answer came from the vice president of the Religious Affairs Directorate, Dr. İzzet Er. “We have commended our imams to use verses that will not create misunderstandings” he said. Then he explained the problem in this particular case:
“Misunderstandings take place when verses are taken out of their context. This verse relates to a war situation… At the time, Muslims were at war with Jews and the verse was basically warning them for not establishing close links and passing information that could amount to war secrets. In peace, the verse does not apply, and all Muslims are indeed supposed to be friend with other peoples.”
Dr. Er also noted to the famous motto of the Turkish Sufi sage Yunus Emre, “Loving all creation for the sake of the Creator,” as the Islamic ideal. He could also have pointed out to another Koranic passage, 60/8-9, which indeed puts the controversial verse about Jews and Christians in context:
“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them... God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion.”
A principled effort
Here is my take on the whole affair: Turning some particular Koranic verses into slogans might indeed create big problems, because these verses need to be understood within their contexts. (Similarly, quotes from the books of Joshua or Leviticus could give very harsh messages, by which most contemporary Jews and Christians would not stand.)
Therefore, it was indeed a mistake to put the “don’t take Christians and Jews as friends” verse on the gate of a mosque. There are many other verses of the Koran which are not bound with context — such as the ones relating to God’s majesty, mercy or justice, or human morals — and which can be freely quoted. But not all verses are like that.
Making this distinction is not treason to God’s word, as some fundamentalists would angrily claim — and some secularists would sarcastically conclude. No, quite the contrary, it is indeed a sincere and principled effort to understand what the divine message really means. It is also the effort which will help creating a bright future for the Muslim world — if there will ever be one.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
This question might sound vague and even meaningless to many modern minds, but it was a crucial one among Muslims during the initial centuries of Islam. Indeed, there were bitter disputes and even clashes between those who gave different answers.
Those who thought that the Koran was “created” were mainly the followers of the Mutazilite school. They were also known as “Rationalists,” because they made emphasis on the role of human reason in understanding God’s will. For the Mutazilites, both the Koran and human reason were created by God, and a believer had to use both of them in harmony to make a sense of the world.
Rationalists versus Traditionalists
On other side, there were the “Traditionalists,” which were spearheaded by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. They were skeptical of reason, which they saw as a potential to lead men astray. They rather insisted on the “imitation” of the Prophet: a Muslim had to try to emulate all the details of the life of Muhammad, instead of using his own judgment.
If reason was one issue that divided the Mutazilites and the Traditionalists, the nature of the Koran was another. The question I mentioned — whether the Koran is a “created” or an “uncreated” book — was actually their toughest bone of contention. The Mutazilites said that the Koran is a “created” book, which meant that it presented God’s message to a specific society at a specific point in time. The Koran’s principles were eternally valid, they said, but its “wording” was affected by temporal realities. So, they said, the Koran should be interpreted by looking at its context — and with the help of reason.
The Traditionalists, on the other hand, believed that Koran was “the uncreated word of God.” This meant that the Koran existed in eternity with God himself. So its verses could not have been influenced by the context of a specific period in human history. They thought not only the principles but also the literal details of the Koran were eternally valid.
The dispute between the two groups lasted for centuries, until when the Traditionalist won over the others around the 13th century. But the Mutazilite thought did not totally disappear. Moreover, new schools emerged which found middle ways between the two opposing view. The Maturidi school, which became popular mainly among the Turkish speaking peoples, was the most popular of these compromises. On the other hand, the strictest form of Traditionalism survived in the form of Wahhabism — which is the official faith of today’s Saudi Arabia.
Enter Zeynep Sultan mosque
What made me recall all this “Islamic hermeneutics 101” knowledge is the recent controversy in the Turkish media about a Koranic verse (5/51) put on the entrance of an Istanbul mosque by its imam. “O you who believe! Do not the Jews and the Christians as your friends and protectors,” the verse reads. “They are the friends of one another; any of you who takes them as friends is one of them.”
The daily Hürriyet made a news story out of this Koranic display, which apparently commended Muslims to not to be in good terms with Jews and Christians. Can each verse of the Koran be displayed like this, the paper asked, or should Muslims be a selective?
Then some secularist commentators started to question whether the Koran should be taken seriously at all. Fellow TDN columnists Burak Bekdil took a similar line yesterday in his piece, “The 'script' at Zeynep Sultan Mosque.” According to Mr. Bekdil, “dogmatic Muslims” had to stop being “selective.” They had to either take everything literally, or stop taking the Koran as a guide in daily life. Otherwise, according Mr. Bekdil, Muslims would end up in being unprincipled. At least, he argued, that was the case with the vice president of the Religious Affairs Directorate, who asked the imam of the aforementioned mosque to remove that Koranic verse on Christians and Jews. “Why does he not approve the ‘script' at the Zeynep Sultan mosque,” Mr. Bekdil asked. “On what grounds?”
Yesterday, an answer came from the vice president of the Religious Affairs Directorate, Dr. İzzet Er. “We have commended our imams to use verses that will not create misunderstandings” he said. Then he explained the problem in this particular case:
“Misunderstandings take place when verses are taken out of their context. This verse relates to a war situation… At the time, Muslims were at war with Jews and the verse was basically warning them for not establishing close links and passing information that could amount to war secrets. In peace, the verse does not apply, and all Muslims are indeed supposed to be friend with other peoples.”
Dr. Er also noted to the famous motto of the Turkish Sufi sage Yunus Emre, “Loving all creation for the sake of the Creator,” as the Islamic ideal. He could also have pointed out to another Koranic passage, 60/8-9, which indeed puts the controversial verse about Jews and Christians in context:
“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them... God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion.”
A principled effort
Here is my take on the whole affair: Turning some particular Koranic verses into slogans might indeed create big problems, because these verses need to be understood within their contexts. (Similarly, quotes from the books of Joshua or Leviticus could give very harsh messages, by which most contemporary Jews and Christians would not stand.)
Therefore, it was indeed a mistake to put the “don’t take Christians and Jews as friends” verse on the gate of a mosque. There are many other verses of the Koran which are not bound with context — such as the ones relating to God’s majesty, mercy or justice, or human morals — and which can be freely quoted. But not all verses are like that.
Making this distinction is not treason to God’s word, as some fundamentalists would angrily claim — and some secularists would sarcastically conclude. No, quite the contrary, it is indeed a sincere and principled effort to understand what the divine message really means. It is also the effort which will help creating a bright future for the Muslim world — if there will ever be one.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Turks, Jews and Arabs
In the year 1454, Rabbi Yitzhak Sarfati of the Ottoman city of Edirne sent a letter to his co-religionists in Europe who were suffering under the persecutions of medieval anti-Semites. “"Leave the torments you endure in Christendom,"” the Rabbi suggested, “"and seek safety and prosperity in Turkey."” This Islamic land was a haven for all, he added. “"Here every man dwells at peace under his own vine and fig tree.”"
Many Sephardic Jews listened to Sarfati's advice in 1492, when they were expelled from the all-Catholic Spain simply because they remained loyal to their faith. Ships carried many Jewish refugees to Ottoman lands, where they were personally welcomed by Sultan Bayazid II, who was one of the most pious of all Ottoman monarchs.
Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle Eastern studies in the West, once said: "the Jews were not just permitted to settle in the Ottoman lands, but were encouraged, assisted and sometimes even compelled." For them, the lands of Islam became the lands of safety.
Islamdom versus anti-Semitic Europe
The fact that medieval Islamdom was much more tolerant to Jews than Christendom had much to do with theology. The Christian doctrine, for a long time, considered Jews as “"Christ killers"” and showed a strong zeal to convert them into the faith of the Cross. Islam, on the other hand, regarded both Judaism and Christianity as somewhat flawed and outdated yet still legitimate monotheisms. That's why anti-Semitism, the paranoid hatred of Jews, was unknown in the Islamic world when it was the norm in Christian Europe.
Indeed, anti-Semitism would come into the Middle East from Europe. In Islamic lands, the first blood libel — the crazy slander that Jews use the blood of young children for the “matzo,” the unleavened Passover bread — erupted in Damascus in 1840. And it was the French consul in the city, Monsieur Ratti Menton, who made it up. After several months of craze, and some international protest, Sultan Abdülmecid issued his famous decree on the "Blood Libel Accusation" to settle the matter. "For the love we bear to our subjects,”" the Sultan said, "“We cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented."
Well, that was the scene in the 19th century, during which Islamdom was still much more Jewish-friendly than Europe. Yet the picture is completely opposite today. The Middle East is probably the most anti-Semitic part of the world, whereas Europe has done a lot to compensate for its historic sins. Lunacies such as the blood libel would appear only in some very marginal, neo-Nazi type circles in Europe. In the Arab world, though, all such classic elements of anti-Semitism show up in quite mainstream publications.
The Curse of The Conflict
The main reason for the anti-Semitization of the Middle East has been the Arab-Israeli conflict. Until the 20th century, Arabs saw Jews as just a religious community whose right to exist was guaranteed by Islamic law. In the 20th century, though, Jews became the colonizers. The reaction to Israel's policies turned into a hatred towards Jews. The Arabs who were motivated by this political fervor went back to traditional Islamic texts to mine elements that could, at least seemingly, justify their rage.
This anti-Semitic attitude found in the contemporary Arab world is one of the obstacles toward peace in the Holy Land. (Another obstacle is, of course, Israel's own fanatics, who bitterly oppose the formation of a viable Palestinian state and whose hatred toward the Arabs matches the abhorrence felt against the Jews by the anti-Semitics.) What is needed is the rise of leaders on both sides who can reject and even tone down the loathing in their societies toward the other side. Another thing that is needed are third parties that will understand both sides and will encourage a peaceful solution.
The United States, as the world's superpower, is obviously the most important of these third parties, but it has a problem: Most Palestinians, and Arabs in general, consider the American government as not an honest broker, but a supporter of Israel first and foremost. That's why; first, the US should move towards neutrality, and secondly, make other third parties involved in the process.
While the first option above does not seem very likely to happen in the near future, the second one is possible, and actually in progress. The existence of a Quartet on the Middle East, which includes, besides the US, Russia, European Union and the United Nations, corresponds precisely to that.
Get Turkey in the process
Now here is the heart of this matter — and this column: Turkey can well become an important third party in the peace effort between Israel and Palestine. It is not only an imperative country of the region, but also the heir of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the Middle East quite peacefully for four centuries. As a predominantly Muslim but non-Arab country, it has been more or less free from the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East. The tragedy of the Palestinians have of course effected the Turkish people, but it did not have the same impact that it had in the Arab world.
That's why Turkey has very good relations both with Palestine and Israel. That's why both the Israeli President Shimon Peres and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were warmly welcomed in the Turkish Parliament the other day. Moreover, just note the fact that 340 of the 550 members of the Turkish Parliament who applauded Peres were members of the so-called Islamist AK Party. Here, obviously, you have an Islam which is more on the tradition of Ottoman Sultan Bayazid II than on the line of radical Islamists of Egypt or Pakistan. It should be appreciated, and utilized, more.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Many Sephardic Jews listened to Sarfati's advice in 1492, when they were expelled from the all-Catholic Spain simply because they remained loyal to their faith. Ships carried many Jewish refugees to Ottoman lands, where they were personally welcomed by Sultan Bayazid II, who was one of the most pious of all Ottoman monarchs.
Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle Eastern studies in the West, once said: "the Jews were not just permitted to settle in the Ottoman lands, but were encouraged, assisted and sometimes even compelled." For them, the lands of Islam became the lands of safety.
Islamdom versus anti-Semitic Europe
The fact that medieval Islamdom was much more tolerant to Jews than Christendom had much to do with theology. The Christian doctrine, for a long time, considered Jews as “"Christ killers"” and showed a strong zeal to convert them into the faith of the Cross. Islam, on the other hand, regarded both Judaism and Christianity as somewhat flawed and outdated yet still legitimate monotheisms. That's why anti-Semitism, the paranoid hatred of Jews, was unknown in the Islamic world when it was the norm in Christian Europe.
Indeed, anti-Semitism would come into the Middle East from Europe. In Islamic lands, the first blood libel — the crazy slander that Jews use the blood of young children for the “matzo,” the unleavened Passover bread — erupted in Damascus in 1840. And it was the French consul in the city, Monsieur Ratti Menton, who made it up. After several months of craze, and some international protest, Sultan Abdülmecid issued his famous decree on the "Blood Libel Accusation" to settle the matter. "For the love we bear to our subjects,”" the Sultan said, "“We cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented."
Well, that was the scene in the 19th century, during which Islamdom was still much more Jewish-friendly than Europe. Yet the picture is completely opposite today. The Middle East is probably the most anti-Semitic part of the world, whereas Europe has done a lot to compensate for its historic sins. Lunacies such as the blood libel would appear only in some very marginal, neo-Nazi type circles in Europe. In the Arab world, though, all such classic elements of anti-Semitism show up in quite mainstream publications.
The Curse of The Conflict
The main reason for the anti-Semitization of the Middle East has been the Arab-Israeli conflict. Until the 20th century, Arabs saw Jews as just a religious community whose right to exist was guaranteed by Islamic law. In the 20th century, though, Jews became the colonizers. The reaction to Israel's policies turned into a hatred towards Jews. The Arabs who were motivated by this political fervor went back to traditional Islamic texts to mine elements that could, at least seemingly, justify their rage.
This anti-Semitic attitude found in the contemporary Arab world is one of the obstacles toward peace in the Holy Land. (Another obstacle is, of course, Israel's own fanatics, who bitterly oppose the formation of a viable Palestinian state and whose hatred toward the Arabs matches the abhorrence felt against the Jews by the anti-Semitics.) What is needed is the rise of leaders on both sides who can reject and even tone down the loathing in their societies toward the other side. Another thing that is needed are third parties that will understand both sides and will encourage a peaceful solution.
The United States, as the world's superpower, is obviously the most important of these third parties, but it has a problem: Most Palestinians, and Arabs in general, consider the American government as not an honest broker, but a supporter of Israel first and foremost. That's why; first, the US should move towards neutrality, and secondly, make other third parties involved in the process.
While the first option above does not seem very likely to happen in the near future, the second one is possible, and actually in progress. The existence of a Quartet on the Middle East, which includes, besides the US, Russia, European Union and the United Nations, corresponds precisely to that.
Get Turkey in the process
Now here is the heart of this matter — and this column: Turkey can well become an important third party in the peace effort between Israel and Palestine. It is not only an imperative country of the region, but also the heir of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the Middle East quite peacefully for four centuries. As a predominantly Muslim but non-Arab country, it has been more or less free from the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East. The tragedy of the Palestinians have of course effected the Turkish people, but it did not have the same impact that it had in the Arab world.
That's why Turkey has very good relations both with Palestine and Israel. That's why both the Israeli President Shimon Peres and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were warmly welcomed in the Turkish Parliament the other day. Moreover, just note the fact that 340 of the 550 members of the Turkish Parliament who applauded Peres were members of the so-called Islamist AK Party. Here, obviously, you have an Islam which is more on the tradition of Ottoman Sultan Bayazid II than on the line of radical Islamists of Egypt or Pakistan. It should be appreciated, and utilized, more.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Apostasy is a Right, Not a Crime
NEW YORK- Western governments and the international media focused on a bizarre court case in Afghanistan in February 2006. The accused was Abdul Rahman, a 41-year-old Afghan citizen, who was on the verge of receiving a death penalty. His “crime” was abandoning Islam and converting to Christianity.
Soon Rahman was saved thanks to international pressure on the Afghan government, but his story was only one of the many severe violations of religious freedom in the contemporary Islamic world.
Traditional Shariah (Islamic law) considers apostasy a major crime that deserves capital punishment. And this continues to be implemented. In some cases like that of Rahman, official courts sentence converts to death. In other cases, barbaric vigilantes attack converts from Islam to other religions such as, and most commonly, Christianity.
Persecution of Christians
Compass Direct News, an agency devoted to “raising awareness of Christians worldwide who are persecuted for their faith” routinely passes information on such apostasy cases. Ex-Muslims are consistently suppressed, harassed and attacked by their former co-religionists. As a Muslim, I feel ashamed to read such news.
But does it mean that Islam is a religion that is inherently at odds with human rights, as some critics argue? No. It just means that there are elements in the Islamic tradition, which were created by men in pre-modern times but should be discarded in the modern era.
What I mean by that is most obvious when we look at the origin of the Islamic ban on apostasy. To the surprise of many, this prohibition does not originate from the Koran, Islam's one and only divine source. The Koran includes no earthly punishment for apostasy, and actually includes many verses, which cherish religious freedom.
There is no compulsion in religion” declares a famous verse (2:256). There are also other ones, such as, "It is the truth from your Lord; so let whoever wishes have faith and whoever wishes be unbeliever." (18:29). There is nothing in the Koran that would justify a forced belief in Islam. And, of course, a forced belief in anything is a totally absurd concept. If someone becomes or stays a believer because he is forced to do so, then that faith will simply have no meaning. That can at best create a “hypocrite,” the character that the Koran denounces as the worst of men.
How then came the ban on apostasy? Well, it was a political, not religious, verdict that soon became a part of the religious canon. David Forte, professor of Law at Cleveland State University, explains this fact very briefly and vividly in his article titled “Islam's Trajectory.” “"The primary justification for the execution of the apostate is,"” he notes:
“That in the early days of Islam, apostasy and treason were in fact synonymous. War was perennial in Arabia. It never stopped. To reject the leader of another tribe, to give up on a coalition, was in effect to go to war against him. There was no such thing as neutrality. There were truces, but there was never permanent neutrality. It is reported, for example, that immediately after the death of Mohammed, many tribes apostatized. They said in effect, "the leader whom we were following is gone, so let's go back to our own leaders.' And they rebelled against Muslim rule. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, ordered such rebels to be killed.
Many scholars argue that the tradition that all apostates had to be killed had its origin during these wars of rebellion and not during Mohammed's time. In fact, many argue that these traditions in which Mohammed affirmed the killing of apostates were apocryphal, made up later to justify what the empire had been doing.”
A Natural Right
This shows two things: Apostasy cannot be considered as a crime in today's world. It is, indeed, a natural right. People should have the right to believe or disbelieve in Islam.
The second thing that the origin of the apostasy ban shows is that Islamic sources need a serious reconsideration. What most Muslims attach themselves to as divine commandments are actually the political and cultural codes of the early centuries of Islam, which were, to be sure, man-made facts. The divine principles of a religion should remain eternally valid, but not its historical context.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Soon Rahman was saved thanks to international pressure on the Afghan government, but his story was only one of the many severe violations of religious freedom in the contemporary Islamic world.
Traditional Shariah (Islamic law) considers apostasy a major crime that deserves capital punishment. And this continues to be implemented. In some cases like that of Rahman, official courts sentence converts to death. In other cases, barbaric vigilantes attack converts from Islam to other religions such as, and most commonly, Christianity.
Persecution of Christians
Compass Direct News, an agency devoted to “raising awareness of Christians worldwide who are persecuted for their faith” routinely passes information on such apostasy cases. Ex-Muslims are consistently suppressed, harassed and attacked by their former co-religionists. As a Muslim, I feel ashamed to read such news.
But does it mean that Islam is a religion that is inherently at odds with human rights, as some critics argue? No. It just means that there are elements in the Islamic tradition, which were created by men in pre-modern times but should be discarded in the modern era.
What I mean by that is most obvious when we look at the origin of the Islamic ban on apostasy. To the surprise of many, this prohibition does not originate from the Koran, Islam's one and only divine source. The Koran includes no earthly punishment for apostasy, and actually includes many verses, which cherish religious freedom.
There is no compulsion in religion” declares a famous verse (2:256). There are also other ones, such as, "It is the truth from your Lord; so let whoever wishes have faith and whoever wishes be unbeliever." (18:29). There is nothing in the Koran that would justify a forced belief in Islam. And, of course, a forced belief in anything is a totally absurd concept. If someone becomes or stays a believer because he is forced to do so, then that faith will simply have no meaning. That can at best create a “hypocrite,” the character that the Koran denounces as the worst of men.
How then came the ban on apostasy? Well, it was a political, not religious, verdict that soon became a part of the religious canon. David Forte, professor of Law at Cleveland State University, explains this fact very briefly and vividly in his article titled “Islam's Trajectory.” “"The primary justification for the execution of the apostate is,"” he notes:
“That in the early days of Islam, apostasy and treason were in fact synonymous. War was perennial in Arabia. It never stopped. To reject the leader of another tribe, to give up on a coalition, was in effect to go to war against him. There was no such thing as neutrality. There were truces, but there was never permanent neutrality. It is reported, for example, that immediately after the death of Mohammed, many tribes apostatized. They said in effect, "the leader whom we were following is gone, so let's go back to our own leaders.' And they rebelled against Muslim rule. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, ordered such rebels to be killed.
Many scholars argue that the tradition that all apostates had to be killed had its origin during these wars of rebellion and not during Mohammed's time. In fact, many argue that these traditions in which Mohammed affirmed the killing of apostates were apocryphal, made up later to justify what the empire had been doing.”
A Natural Right
This shows two things: Apostasy cannot be considered as a crime in today's world. It is, indeed, a natural right. People should have the right to believe or disbelieve in Islam.
The second thing that the origin of the apostasy ban shows is that Islamic sources need a serious reconsideration. What most Muslims attach themselves to as divine commandments are actually the political and cultural codes of the early centuries of Islam, which were, to be sure, man-made facts. The divine principles of a religion should remain eternally valid, but not its historical context.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Why is The AKP Reasonable on Kurds?
Anybody who follows Turkish politics these days will notice that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government is quite reasonable on matters relating to the Kurdish question. First, Prime Minister Erdoğan has resisted the calls from other parties and the “mainstream media” to launch a massive war against northern Iraq. He, instead, insisted on building an effective cooperation with the United States to crack down on the terrorist PKK — and only the PKK, not Iraqi Kurds. Plus he managed to build that cooperation in his meeting with U.S. President Bush early this month.
More recently, Erdoğan opposed the closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) — which is commonly and aptly called “PKK's Sinn Fein” — by Turkey's Constitutional Court. In fact the prime minister severely criticizes the DTP for not renouncing terrorism, but he also wants to keep its cadre in the democratic game rather than “sending them to the mountains.”
No Cowboys Here
As the Turkish Daily News reported yesterday, the prime minister also said the priority is to make the terrorists lay down their weapons and not launching an offensive into northern Iraq.“We are not cowboys with guns in our hands,” he reminded. And he said so in the face of harsh accusations from Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the ultra-nationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who blamed him for “treason.”
Ruşen Çakır, a senior journalist and an expert on Kurdish politics, notes in his latest column that Erdoğan is the dove on the Kurdish question while Bahçeli is the hawk. Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Baykal, according to Çakır, is somewhere in between. (Whereas I think he is rather close to Bahçeli.)
TDN columnist Semih İdiz points to the same fact about AKP. In his piece in daily Milliyet, which is titled “The way of Erdoğan is the most reasonable way,” İdiz argues that Erdoğan “follows a pragmatic policy based on humane, legal and democratic parameters instead of a revanchist line.”
President Abdullah Gül, who is coming from the same political tradition with Erdoğan, is similarly sensible. Yesterday, during his official visit to Georgia, he made reconciliatory remarks about Iraqi Kurdistan and its leader, Massoud Barzani. He added that Turkey would isolate terrorism only with “stronger democracy”.
Now, how should we explain all this? Why the AKP people are much more open-minded than others on the Kurdish question? These people are called “Islamists,” right? So they are supposed to be more dogmatic than their secular rivals such as the CHP folks. But the reality is just the opposite. Why is that?
State Ideology
I think the answer lies in a very basic fact about Turkish politics. Here, the most rigid dogmatism is what the former president Ahmet Necdet Sezer proudly called “state ideology.” The political scene is divided between those who believe — and even worship — the state ideology, and those who rather believe in plain reality.
Kurds are the litmus test here. According to the state ideology, there are no Kurds. They simply aren't supposed to exist on the face of the earth. If they live in Turkey, they are called “mountain Turks.” (They at best can be a trivial branch of the glorious Turkish race.) If they live in Iraq, then they are called Iraqis. If someone dares to call them Kurds, the adherents of the state ideology go crazy. They even go crazier if someone utters the term “Kurdistan.”
But a reality-based mind would see no problem in any of these terms, because they have been is existence for centuries. In the Ottoman Empire, eastern provinces such as Diyarbekir were called “bilad-ı ekrad,” which means “the lands of the Kurds.” In mid 19th century, the Ottomans even established a “Kurdistan province,” which included much of today's southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. For the Ottomans, people were called what they were. Theirs was a reality-based empire.
Then came the ideology-based republic, whose elites had decided to rename and re-identify the whole country. This, these elites presumed, was the only way to modernization. And they have tried really hard to realize their dream.
But reality is a stubborn thing. The more you attack it, the more it hits back. And it did.
The Reality-Based Community
Today reality has become much more vindicated than it was in the Cold War years. The brave new world of globalization takes everything hidden under the carpet puts them in the middle of your living room. All the diversity that exists within the Turkish society is becoming more visible and vocal. We now have Kurds, Sufi orders, other Sunni communities, Alevis, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Protestants, Shiites, and so on. Unlike the neighboring Iran, we even have gays and lesbians.
Now, the question is how to build a new Turkey which will accept all these differences and give them space under a liberal, pluralist democracy. The AKP folks get that, because they are not brainwashed by the “state ideology.” This doesn't guarantee that they won't make mistakes, which they do. But it means that they have the mental capacity to understand reality and act accordingly. And, alas, that's not a very common talent in our officially-ideologized Turkey.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
More recently, Erdoğan opposed the closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) — which is commonly and aptly called “PKK's Sinn Fein” — by Turkey's Constitutional Court. In fact the prime minister severely criticizes the DTP for not renouncing terrorism, but he also wants to keep its cadre in the democratic game rather than “sending them to the mountains.”
No Cowboys Here
As the Turkish Daily News reported yesterday, the prime minister also said the priority is to make the terrorists lay down their weapons and not launching an offensive into northern Iraq.“We are not cowboys with guns in our hands,” he reminded. And he said so in the face of harsh accusations from Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the ultra-nationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who blamed him for “treason.”
Ruşen Çakır, a senior journalist and an expert on Kurdish politics, notes in his latest column that Erdoğan is the dove on the Kurdish question while Bahçeli is the hawk. Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Baykal, according to Çakır, is somewhere in between. (Whereas I think he is rather close to Bahçeli.)
TDN columnist Semih İdiz points to the same fact about AKP. In his piece in daily Milliyet, which is titled “The way of Erdoğan is the most reasonable way,” İdiz argues that Erdoğan “follows a pragmatic policy based on humane, legal and democratic parameters instead of a revanchist line.”
President Abdullah Gül, who is coming from the same political tradition with Erdoğan, is similarly sensible. Yesterday, during his official visit to Georgia, he made reconciliatory remarks about Iraqi Kurdistan and its leader, Massoud Barzani. He added that Turkey would isolate terrorism only with “stronger democracy”.
Now, how should we explain all this? Why the AKP people are much more open-minded than others on the Kurdish question? These people are called “Islamists,” right? So they are supposed to be more dogmatic than their secular rivals such as the CHP folks. But the reality is just the opposite. Why is that?
State Ideology
I think the answer lies in a very basic fact about Turkish politics. Here, the most rigid dogmatism is what the former president Ahmet Necdet Sezer proudly called “state ideology.” The political scene is divided between those who believe — and even worship — the state ideology, and those who rather believe in plain reality.
Kurds are the litmus test here. According to the state ideology, there are no Kurds. They simply aren't supposed to exist on the face of the earth. If they live in Turkey, they are called “mountain Turks.” (They at best can be a trivial branch of the glorious Turkish race.) If they live in Iraq, then they are called Iraqis. If someone dares to call them Kurds, the adherents of the state ideology go crazy. They even go crazier if someone utters the term “Kurdistan.”
But a reality-based mind would see no problem in any of these terms, because they have been is existence for centuries. In the Ottoman Empire, eastern provinces such as Diyarbekir were called “bilad-ı ekrad,” which means “the lands of the Kurds.” In mid 19th century, the Ottomans even established a “Kurdistan province,” which included much of today's southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. For the Ottomans, people were called what they were. Theirs was a reality-based empire.
Then came the ideology-based republic, whose elites had decided to rename and re-identify the whole country. This, these elites presumed, was the only way to modernization. And they have tried really hard to realize their dream.
But reality is a stubborn thing. The more you attack it, the more it hits back. And it did.
The Reality-Based Community
Today reality has become much more vindicated than it was in the Cold War years. The brave new world of globalization takes everything hidden under the carpet puts them in the middle of your living room. All the diversity that exists within the Turkish society is becoming more visible and vocal. We now have Kurds, Sufi orders, other Sunni communities, Alevis, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Protestants, Shiites, and so on. Unlike the neighboring Iran, we even have gays and lesbians.
Now, the question is how to build a new Turkey which will accept all these differences and give them space under a liberal, pluralist democracy. The AKP folks get that, because they are not brainwashed by the “state ideology.” This doesn't guarantee that they won't make mistakes, which they do. But it means that they have the mental capacity to understand reality and act accordingly. And, alas, that's not a very common talent in our officially-ideologized Turkey.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
The Wedge Strategy Turkey Needs Against Terrorism
The Turkish Parliament has given the government authorization to order a military operation into northern Iraq in order to hit the outlawed Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) terrorists. Thus we might see some “action” in Iraq soon. Yet I don't expect a massive, full-scale incursion. There rather will be, I guess, pointed attacks to specific PKK camps. Some guerrillas might be killed — and I hope that no civilian will be harmed. But will this “end the PKK terror” as some hot-headed Turkish pundits wishfully think?
No, not really. Military action against the PKKwill give some harm to the terrorist organization, but it will not finish it off. Actually, even if our armed forces had managed to kill all the PKK fighters in arms — which is not even remotely possible — the problem would have not ended. Because the PKK is not a squadron of isolated and numbered aliens beamed from a far galaxy. It is a movement with popular support among some of Turkey's Kurdish citizens. When the army kills a PKK militant, he is soon replaced by his cousin or nephew who is driven by the same sentiment and ideology. If that psycho-ideology remains alive, then so will the PKK.
Kurds? What Kurds?
It is hard to fully analyze that mindset which continuously feeds the PKK, but I think its root causes can be divided into two broad categories:
1) The sins Turkey has committed against its Turkish citizens.
2) Ethnic Kurdish nationalism, which was provoked by Turkey's sins, but which has become a force of its own.
The first category refers to all the assimilationist policies that Turkey has inflicted on its Kurdish citizens since 1925. The latter had proudly lived as Kurds for centuries under the Ottoman rule, but the brand-new Turkish Republic suddenly decided that they are, in fact, Turks. In fact, the whole design of the Turkish Republic was a bit problematic. It was not constructed according to the aspirations of the citizens. Quite the contrary, the state started to construct the citizens according to its own aspirations. Therefore “the principles of the Republic” have a become rigid doctrine which deny the realities of the people. The very existence of Kurds, for example, was not accepted until the early 90s. Even the slightest usage of the Kurdish language was considered as a criminal act.
No wonder that during my childhood years in Ankara, I wasn't aware of the existence of such an ethnic group in Turkey. The first time I heard two men speaking Kurdish in Istanbul, I thought that they must have been tourists from some Middle Eastern country.
It was impossible for most of our Kurdish citizens to avoid being traumatized by this repression. So there is a justification for their distrust towards the traditional establishment and its official ideology. But a democratic and free Turkey is also possible and we have been moving toward that direction for quite some time. Restrictions on the Kurdish identity have been eliminated gradually since the 90s. Under the incumbent AKP, and thanks to the EU process, Kurdish citizens have gained virtually every legal right that they had been dreaming of. The economic situation in the predominantly Kurdish southeast is also improving. So, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and it has become pretty close.
But the PKK, which claims to stand for Kurdish rights, still carries out attacks and kills people at this hopeful moment. Why?
The answer brings me to the second root cause I have mentioned above: Ethnic Kurdish nationalism. Like all late nationalisms, the Kurdish one is romantic, irrational and furious. Its believers want not to live under a free and democratic Turkey, but to form a whole brand new country called “Kurdistan.” The formation of that state will be a bloody and messy affair, and it is even impossible for the foreseeable future, but these realistic troubles do not matter for the surrealist nationalist.
Inserting A Wedge
The PKK is driven to irrationalism because not only of this ideology, but also of the megalomania of its leader. Abdulllah Öcalan has speeches in which he compares himself to Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammed. “When Jesus died, people cried for him only for three days,” he once said, “but I when I was captured, hundreds of Kurdish sons and daughters burnt themselves alive.” So, he can well continue to order them to burn themselves — and the whole country — alive.
In the face of all that, Turkey should realize what its strategy should be. Since the problem is not Kurdish identity but Kurdish nationalism and especially its militant form, we should be very careful to distinguish between the two. The whole strategy indeed should be directed at wining the Kurdish citizens and marginalizing the Kurdish nationalists. All the policies should be directed at inserting a wedge between the two.
As for the Kurds in north Iraq, we should have no problem with them, too, as far as they don't support the PKK. The existence of a Kurdish entity in Iraq doesn't necessarily threaten us, if we can manage to make our own Kurds happy and satisfied.
The bottom line is that our enemy is not the Kurds or “Kurdishness.” The only enemy is the PKK and we can defeat it only by winning more and more Kurds on our side — whether that be in Turkey or in Iraq.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
No, not really. Military action against the PKKwill give some harm to the terrorist organization, but it will not finish it off. Actually, even if our armed forces had managed to kill all the PKK fighters in arms — which is not even remotely possible — the problem would have not ended. Because the PKK is not a squadron of isolated and numbered aliens beamed from a far galaxy. It is a movement with popular support among some of Turkey's Kurdish citizens. When the army kills a PKK militant, he is soon replaced by his cousin or nephew who is driven by the same sentiment and ideology. If that psycho-ideology remains alive, then so will the PKK.
Kurds? What Kurds?
It is hard to fully analyze that mindset which continuously feeds the PKK, but I think its root causes can be divided into two broad categories:
1) The sins Turkey has committed against its Turkish citizens.
2) Ethnic Kurdish nationalism, which was provoked by Turkey's sins, but which has become a force of its own.
The first category refers to all the assimilationist policies that Turkey has inflicted on its Kurdish citizens since 1925. The latter had proudly lived as Kurds for centuries under the Ottoman rule, but the brand-new Turkish Republic suddenly decided that they are, in fact, Turks. In fact, the whole design of the Turkish Republic was a bit problematic. It was not constructed according to the aspirations of the citizens. Quite the contrary, the state started to construct the citizens according to its own aspirations. Therefore “the principles of the Republic” have a become rigid doctrine which deny the realities of the people. The very existence of Kurds, for example, was not accepted until the early 90s. Even the slightest usage of the Kurdish language was considered as a criminal act.
No wonder that during my childhood years in Ankara, I wasn't aware of the existence of such an ethnic group in Turkey. The first time I heard two men speaking Kurdish in Istanbul, I thought that they must have been tourists from some Middle Eastern country.
It was impossible for most of our Kurdish citizens to avoid being traumatized by this repression. So there is a justification for their distrust towards the traditional establishment and its official ideology. But a democratic and free Turkey is also possible and we have been moving toward that direction for quite some time. Restrictions on the Kurdish identity have been eliminated gradually since the 90s. Under the incumbent AKP, and thanks to the EU process, Kurdish citizens have gained virtually every legal right that they had been dreaming of. The economic situation in the predominantly Kurdish southeast is also improving. So, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and it has become pretty close.
But the PKK, which claims to stand for Kurdish rights, still carries out attacks and kills people at this hopeful moment. Why?
The answer brings me to the second root cause I have mentioned above: Ethnic Kurdish nationalism. Like all late nationalisms, the Kurdish one is romantic, irrational and furious. Its believers want not to live under a free and democratic Turkey, but to form a whole brand new country called “Kurdistan.” The formation of that state will be a bloody and messy affair, and it is even impossible for the foreseeable future, but these realistic troubles do not matter for the surrealist nationalist.
Inserting A Wedge
The PKK is driven to irrationalism because not only of this ideology, but also of the megalomania of its leader. Abdulllah Öcalan has speeches in which he compares himself to Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammed. “When Jesus died, people cried for him only for three days,” he once said, “but I when I was captured, hundreds of Kurdish sons and daughters burnt themselves alive.” So, he can well continue to order them to burn themselves — and the whole country — alive.
In the face of all that, Turkey should realize what its strategy should be. Since the problem is not Kurdish identity but Kurdish nationalism and especially its militant form, we should be very careful to distinguish between the two. The whole strategy indeed should be directed at wining the Kurdish citizens and marginalizing the Kurdish nationalists. All the policies should be directed at inserting a wedge between the two.
As for the Kurds in north Iraq, we should have no problem with them, too, as far as they don't support the PKK. The existence of a Kurdish entity in Iraq doesn't necessarily threaten us, if we can manage to make our own Kurds happy and satisfied.
The bottom line is that our enemy is not the Kurds or “Kurdishness.” The only enemy is the PKK and we can defeat it only by winning more and more Kurds on our side — whether that be in Turkey or in Iraq.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Dawkins' 'Delusion' Should Be Free
Richard Dawkins is probably the world's most famous atheist evangelist. In his numerous books, the Oxford zoologist argues that modern science, and in particular the Darwinian theory of evolution, has disproved God. He is a gifted writer, and his recent volume, The God Delusion, has become a global bestseller. Some call him “the Harry Potter of non-fiction.”
More recently Dr. Dawkins made the news in Turkey, too, yet not by his arguments. As the Turkish Daily News reported on Nov. 29, following a complaint by a Turkish reader that some passages in the The God Delusion were an assault on "sacred values," an Istanbul prosecutor has opened an official investigation on the book's Turkish version. Its publisher, Erol Karaaslan, is said be “questioned” soon.
Probably nothing will come out from that, and Dawkins' book will continue to show up on Turkish bookshelves. And I think it should be so. And here is why.
Sleights of Hand
Followers of this column might have easily guessed that I would not be among the greatest fans of Dr. Dawkins. Yes, I am not. And the reason is not his atheism, but the way he uses sleights of hand while promoting his views.
Just look at the back cover of his book, which mentions, “the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.” Ah, how impressive… Yet some other writer could also rant about, “the grievous harm atheism has inflicted on society, from Stalin to Pol Pot.” And that writer would be using the same trick with Dr. Dawkins: Cherry-picking the worst representatives of the worldview that you want to bash. It is a way of propaganda, not analysis.
Further tricks are hidden in Dr. Dawkins' efforts to “disprove” the existence of God by referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. First of all, Darwinian theory has serious problems. Evolution, I think, is a solid fact, and Darwin has given us important insights on the mechanisms of this colossal process. But whether every step of this process can really be explained through random and purposeless mechanisms as Darwin had suggested is a hotly debated question. The scientists who defend the “Intelligent Design” (ID) theory, such as biochemist Michael Behe, point out to the extremely complex “machinery” that exists in the living cell, whose origins have not been adequately explained by the proponents of Darwinism.
Most mainstream scientists disagree with ID and argue that naturalistic explanations for all natural phenomena will be found at some point. Fair enough. But that's a presumption, not a proven conclusion.
Darwin Reconsidered
Yet let's go with mainstream science and accept that Darwinian theory is an adequate explanation of biological origins. But even then Dawkins' atheism is not vindicated. There are in fact many Darwinists who think that this theory is perfectly compatible with belief in God. Some of these scientists actually think that the whole drama of life points to a Creator, who gave nature built-in mechanisms (aka natural laws) that are designed to support the emergence of life. One of the world's prominent paleontologists (scientists who study fossils), Simon Conway Morris, is one such “theistic evolutionist.” I listened to several lectures of him where he teaches at, The University of Cambridge, and the philosophical conclusions he drew from evolution was just the opposite of Dawkins'.
Another scientist who not only disagrees with Dawkins but also counters his arguments is Alister McGrath, both a theologian and a molecular biophysicist, who teaches at Oxford University. In The Dawkins Delusion?, the 2007 book he co-authored with his wife, Joanna Collicutt McGrath, he shows why Dawkins' inferences from science in favor of atheism are flawed. According to Publishers Weekly "The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism... and run him from the battlefield.” The same comment adds, “The book works partly because they are so much more gracious to Dawkins than Dawkins is to believers.”
A Great Idea
And I think that is the correct theistic attitude to take vis-à-vis Dawkins and other preachers of atheism. A faith's strength comes from not its fervor to silence critics, but its ability to refute them. If Muslim believers in Turkey are annoyed by Dawkins' book, then they should bring counter-arguments to his theses, instead of asking for censorship by prosecutors.
It would be naïve for them to fear that theism would lose from such intellectual encounters with atheism – and especially of the kind promoted by Dr. Dawkins. That would be giving him too much credit.
Ah, by the way, fellow TDN columnist Sylvia Tiryaki made a good suggestion on this topic in her piece last Monday. “What we should do at this stage,” she wrote, “is to invite Mr. Dawkins to Turkey to discuss his views here publicly.” Great idea. Let me know if you hear that he decides to come, and, perhaps, if he needs a challenger to debate with. It would be my pleasure to discuss with him who is really deluded about God — and who is not.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
More recently Dr. Dawkins made the news in Turkey, too, yet not by his arguments. As the Turkish Daily News reported on Nov. 29, following a complaint by a Turkish reader that some passages in the The God Delusion were an assault on "sacred values," an Istanbul prosecutor has opened an official investigation on the book's Turkish version. Its publisher, Erol Karaaslan, is said be “questioned” soon.
Probably nothing will come out from that, and Dawkins' book will continue to show up on Turkish bookshelves. And I think it should be so. And here is why.
Sleights of Hand
Followers of this column might have easily guessed that I would not be among the greatest fans of Dr. Dawkins. Yes, I am not. And the reason is not his atheism, but the way he uses sleights of hand while promoting his views.
Just look at the back cover of his book, which mentions, “the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.” Ah, how impressive… Yet some other writer could also rant about, “the grievous harm atheism has inflicted on society, from Stalin to Pol Pot.” And that writer would be using the same trick with Dr. Dawkins: Cherry-picking the worst representatives of the worldview that you want to bash. It is a way of propaganda, not analysis.
Further tricks are hidden in Dr. Dawkins' efforts to “disprove” the existence of God by referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. First of all, Darwinian theory has serious problems. Evolution, I think, is a solid fact, and Darwin has given us important insights on the mechanisms of this colossal process. But whether every step of this process can really be explained through random and purposeless mechanisms as Darwin had suggested is a hotly debated question. The scientists who defend the “Intelligent Design” (ID) theory, such as biochemist Michael Behe, point out to the extremely complex “machinery” that exists in the living cell, whose origins have not been adequately explained by the proponents of Darwinism.
Most mainstream scientists disagree with ID and argue that naturalistic explanations for all natural phenomena will be found at some point. Fair enough. But that's a presumption, not a proven conclusion.
Darwin Reconsidered
Yet let's go with mainstream science and accept that Darwinian theory is an adequate explanation of biological origins. But even then Dawkins' atheism is not vindicated. There are in fact many Darwinists who think that this theory is perfectly compatible with belief in God. Some of these scientists actually think that the whole drama of life points to a Creator, who gave nature built-in mechanisms (aka natural laws) that are designed to support the emergence of life. One of the world's prominent paleontologists (scientists who study fossils), Simon Conway Morris, is one such “theistic evolutionist.” I listened to several lectures of him where he teaches at, The University of Cambridge, and the philosophical conclusions he drew from evolution was just the opposite of Dawkins'.
Another scientist who not only disagrees with Dawkins but also counters his arguments is Alister McGrath, both a theologian and a molecular biophysicist, who teaches at Oxford University. In The Dawkins Delusion?, the 2007 book he co-authored with his wife, Joanna Collicutt McGrath, he shows why Dawkins' inferences from science in favor of atheism are flawed. According to Publishers Weekly "The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism... and run him from the battlefield.” The same comment adds, “The book works partly because they are so much more gracious to Dawkins than Dawkins is to believers.”
A Great Idea
And I think that is the correct theistic attitude to take vis-à-vis Dawkins and other preachers of atheism. A faith's strength comes from not its fervor to silence critics, but its ability to refute them. If Muslim believers in Turkey are annoyed by Dawkins' book, then they should bring counter-arguments to his theses, instead of asking for censorship by prosecutors.
It would be naïve for them to fear that theism would lose from such intellectual encounters with atheism – and especially of the kind promoted by Dr. Dawkins. That would be giving him too much credit.
Ah, by the way, fellow TDN columnist Sylvia Tiryaki made a good suggestion on this topic in her piece last Monday. “What we should do at this stage,” she wrote, “is to invite Mr. Dawkins to Turkey to discuss his views here publicly.” Great idea. Let me know if you hear that he decides to come, and, perhaps, if he needs a challenger to debate with. It would be my pleasure to discuss with him who is really deluded about God — and who is not.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Secular Apartheid at Work
"Injustice anywhere," said Martin Luther King, "is a threat to justice everywhere." Therefore the world should learn and care about the story of Tevhide Kütük, the 17-year-old Turkish schoolgirl who just became the latest victim of Turkey's self-styled apartheid.
It all started several months ago in Kozan, a municipality in the southern city of Adana. The young and bright Tevhide, a student of the state-sponsored quasi-religious "Imam-Hatip" schools, heard about the essay contest that the Education Ministry launched to celebrate the annual Teacher's Day. She wrote a fine piece on the virtues of teaching, and submitted it to the organizing committee. Soon the jury decided that she was the best writer among all the other students in her hometown, and thus she deserved to win the award, which was a very modest present by all standards, but a very inspiring reward for a modest teenager.
VIP apparatchiks
On Nov. 28, Teacher's day, Tehvide, along with other winners in poetry and painting, was invited to a ceremony at the town hall. She, of course, accepted the invitation and showed up on that day with all her enthusiasm. After some boring speeches by the usual dignitaries, the winners of the contests were called to the stage. With joyful music playing in the background, Tevhide cheerfully climbed the steps and exuberantly lined up with other kids in order to be congratulated and applauded.
Yet things were not destined to go right. In the VIP seats, there were a bunch of sinister men whose loyalty to tyrannical state principles exceeded their respect and care for human beings. The moment they saw Tevhide, they were shocked and abhorred. Because the little girl was wearing the Islamic headscarf! In official Turkey, that symbol only belongs to the untouchables, those who pollute the sacred soil of the secular republic with their offensive religious presence. Especially army commander, Major Hüseyin Çopur, and local governor, Aydın Tetikoğlu, were deeply affronted by this little girl who dared to break the rules of the caste system. The outlaw had to be punished, and law and order had to be restored.
So, after less than a minute that little Tevhide took stage, these two men – one in uniform, the other in unimind – took a quick measure to save the secular republic from her. "Take her down," they told their aides. And a man in a black suit approached Tevhide to whisper into her ear that she had to leave the stage immediately. She was shocked for a few seconds, and then rapidly moved away while bursting into tears.
Local TV cameras were shooting the whole event. Somewhere at the back, Tevhide cried for minutes and minutes, while her parents and friends tried to calm her down. But she neither calmed down nor decided to give up. She walked again toward the front seats, in order to speak to the VIP men. She stood right in front of the national education director. "Why don't you give me my award, my teacher," she asked. "This is a great injustice."
The "teacher" – a man with a thick mustache and apparently a thin conscience – just looked at her with a humiliating face. “No,” he ordered, “just get back to your seat!” There was nothing he could do, actually. As a loyal apparatchik, he was only following orders.
Tevhide, who was still crying, left the hall along with her family and many other people who reacted against this official injustice. Days have passed since that episode and the family says that the young girl is still very sad and they fear that she might get into depression. Even if she doesn't, she will probably remember this trauma for the rest of her life. And not just her, but millions of others in this country who cover their heads because their beliefs will continue to feel insulted and humiliated.
Shame, not happiness
The weekly humor magazine “Leman” has a great cover this week, with the title “The tears of a young girl” and a cartoon that shows the poor Tevhide being kicked by a huge army boot. (Leman is a secular magazine, by the way. It is just non-fascist.) I think this caricature is a very accurate depiction of not just Tevhide's drama, but also the whole apartheid regime in this country, which is, despite all our democratic achievements, still intact.
This has to end. Now is the time for freedom for all Turkish citizens, whatever their creed, langue and way of life may be. The unelected and self-appointed VIP's of Turkey have to accept a “freedom chart” similar to the one that their ilk in South Africa had to concede in the ‘90s. Enough is enough.
If they insist on preserving this system of organized injustice, then they will be undermining the very foundation of this country: The consent of the citizens. I have to admit that I am already shaky in that regard. I love Turkey with all its history, people, and culture, but I can't find a way to sympathize with its authoritarian state. It really doesn't help much to reiterate Atatürk's motto, “How happy is the one who says I am a Turk.” I do say that I am a Turk, but that hardly gives me happiness. In fact, when I see all the cruelties done in this country to its people by its sovereigns, it even gives me shame.
Writer: Mustafa Akyol
It all started several months ago in Kozan, a municipality in the southern city of Adana. The young and bright Tevhide, a student of the state-sponsored quasi-religious "Imam-Hatip" schools, heard about the essay contest that the Education Ministry launched to celebrate the annual Teacher's Day. She wrote a fine piece on the virtues of teaching, and submitted it to the organizing committee. Soon the jury decided that she was the best writer among all the other students in her hometown, and thus she deserved to win the award, which was a very modest present by all standards, but a very inspiring reward for a modest teenager.
VIP apparatchiks
On Nov. 28, Teacher's day, Tehvide, along with other winners in poetry and painting, was invited to a ceremony at the town hall. She, of course, accepted the invitation and showed up on that day with all her enthusiasm. After some boring speeches by the usual dignitaries, the winners of the contests were called to the stage. With joyful music playing in the background, Tevhide cheerfully climbed the steps and exuberantly lined up with other kids in order to be congratulated and applauded.
Yet things were not destined to go right. In the VIP seats, there were a bunch of sinister men whose loyalty to tyrannical state principles exceeded their respect and care for human beings. The moment they saw Tevhide, they were shocked and abhorred. Because the little girl was wearing the Islamic headscarf! In official Turkey, that symbol only belongs to the untouchables, those who pollute the sacred soil of the secular republic with their offensive religious presence. Especially army commander, Major Hüseyin Çopur, and local governor, Aydın Tetikoğlu, were deeply affronted by this little girl who dared to break the rules of the caste system. The outlaw had to be punished, and law and order had to be restored.
So, after less than a minute that little Tevhide took stage, these two men – one in uniform, the other in unimind – took a quick measure to save the secular republic from her. "Take her down," they told their aides. And a man in a black suit approached Tevhide to whisper into her ear that she had to leave the stage immediately. She was shocked for a few seconds, and then rapidly moved away while bursting into tears.
Local TV cameras were shooting the whole event. Somewhere at the back, Tevhide cried for minutes and minutes, while her parents and friends tried to calm her down. But she neither calmed down nor decided to give up. She walked again toward the front seats, in order to speak to the VIP men. She stood right in front of the national education director. "Why don't you give me my award, my teacher," she asked. "This is a great injustice."
The "teacher" – a man with a thick mustache and apparently a thin conscience – just looked at her with a humiliating face. “No,” he ordered, “just get back to your seat!” There was nothing he could do, actually. As a loyal apparatchik, he was only following orders.
Tevhide, who was still crying, left the hall along with her family and many other people who reacted against this official injustice. Days have passed since that episode and the family says that the young girl is still very sad and they fear that she might get into depression. Even if she doesn't, she will probably remember this trauma for the rest of her life. And not just her, but millions of others in this country who cover their heads because their beliefs will continue to feel insulted and humiliated.
Shame, not happiness
The weekly humor magazine “Leman” has a great cover this week, with the title “The tears of a young girl” and a cartoon that shows the poor Tevhide being kicked by a huge army boot. (Leman is a secular magazine, by the way. It is just non-fascist.) I think this caricature is a very accurate depiction of not just Tevhide's drama, but also the whole apartheid regime in this country, which is, despite all our democratic achievements, still intact.
This has to end. Now is the time for freedom for all Turkish citizens, whatever their creed, langue and way of life may be. The unelected and self-appointed VIP's of Turkey have to accept a “freedom chart” similar to the one that their ilk in South Africa had to concede in the ‘90s. Enough is enough.
If they insist on preserving this system of organized injustice, then they will be undermining the very foundation of this country: The consent of the citizens. I have to admit that I am already shaky in that regard. I love Turkey with all its history, people, and culture, but I can't find a way to sympathize with its authoritarian state. It really doesn't help much to reiterate Atatürk's motto, “How happy is the one who says I am a Turk.” I do say that I am a Turk, but that hardly gives me happiness. In fact, when I see all the cruelties done in this country to its people by its sovereigns, it even gives me shame.
Writer: Mustafa Akyol
Turkey's Veiled Democracy [A Must-Read Article]
This article, published in the November/December issue of The American Interest magazine, is available here online (but in full only for subcribers), and here in full as a PDF file
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
The Scandal of The Kemalist Mind
I, unluckily, made a lot of people upset with my piece in last weekend's edition of the Turkish Daily News, “The gospel according to Atatürk.” A few dozen readers sent fuming emails, which rebuked me for daring to criticize the level of veneration shown in Turkey to its founder.
If you have been reading the “Letters to the editor” section, you might have come across two of these reactions, which came from two Turkish readers living in the United States. The one from New Jersey noted that he was “shocked” by my piece, and added, “someone should tell Akyol that he is dead wrong.” The other one, a lady, expressed “anguish” at me and my “very naive look.” I, she also argued, “cannot be a Turk.”
In response, I am sincerely thankful to such critics, because they present nice case studies of what I have been talking about. I said that there is a popular “cult of Atatürk” in Turkey, whose followers have a “strict mental blueprint” that leads them to “detachment from reality.” And that's precisely what you can find in these annoyed comments.
Cognitive dissonance
Let me show you one example. The first reader, besides bashing me, argued that “dialogue among all people in Turkey should be improved so that no one should be afraid of saying ‘I am proud to be a Turk.'” It is really hard to understand how “dialogue among all people in Turkey” will make everybody proud of being a Turk, but that's the minor issue. The real gem is the presumption that some people in Turkey are afraid of saying, “I am proud to be a Turk.” In fact, in this country, it has never been a problem to say that, and it is in fact an officially sanctioned mantra. The real problem has always been to say that you are proud of being something other than a Turk — such as a Kurd, an Armenian, a Christian, and even a supranational Muslim. (For the record, in 1982, politician Şerafettin Elçi was imprisoned for simply saying, “I am a Kurd and there are Kurds in Turkey.”)
So it is really mind-boggling that our Kemalist reader thinks that “Turkishness” is suppressed in Turkey, while the fact is that Turkishness is the only identity which is not suppressed at all.
If you would like to see more detachment-from-reality in action then take a look at the second reader. She criticized me for criticizing the “I am watching you” motto put on some Atatürk flags. But she got it totally wrong by writing: “It simply means for anyone that understands English language ‘We are following your steps.'” Because the motto I criticized did not mean that Turks follow Atatürk. It rather meant Atatürk watches over the Turks. It was plain clear for anyone who has a grasp of either the English or the Turkish language.
Neither publish nor perish
I won't point out every case of cognitive dissonance in the writings of Kemalist readers. For most unbiased observers, it should be obvious that Kemalism has turned into a dogmatic ideology and its adherents present a pitiable intellectual poverty. The latter phenomenon is visible almost in every field. In the Turkish media, for example, die-hard Kemalist commentators are among the least sophisticated ones. Their columns are full of either dry clichés or angry polemics. In the academia, scholars or faculties who are famed to be devout Kemalists hardly produce anything that would get into international academic literature. (Alas, they neither publish nor perish!) Actually the handful of globally acclaimed Turkish scholars are detested by their Kemalist colleagues at home. Şerif Mardin, who is probably the most prominent Turkish sociologist ever, was boycotted by the all-Kemalist Turkish Sciences Academy (TÜBA), simply for that he is too lenient on religion. Actually in the field of social sciences, Turkey seems to be divided among the fruitful and articulate academics, and the rest, which includes almost all Kemalists.
In literature, the situation is no different: Turkey's globally successful novelists, such as the recent Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk or Elif Şafak, are the ones who have the ability to think outside of the Kemalist box. No wonder they are abhorred by the Kemalists, who explain their achievements by conspiracy theories. They think Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize, for example, because the “imperialists” decided to promote him for “insulting Turkishness.”
For quite some time, I have been pondering what makes the Kemalist mind so shallow. This cannot be related to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk himself, because he was a smart, well-educated and cultured statesman who vigorously promoted science and learning. I believe the problem is in the way he is perceived by his devotees. Since they see him and his period as the source all the wisdom they need, they don't have an urge to understand the world. They think the Supreme Leader already understood it perfectly and all we Turks need to is walk on his righteous path.
The evangelical mind
This line of thinking creates intellectual poverty within any paradigm. Religious fundamentalism is the most obvious example. Indeed religion can be a driving force for intellectual enterprise if it is interpreted in a dynamic way — and that's what gave rise to towering figures such as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) or Newton. But religion would be a mind stopper if its believers think that all they need to study is the life of a holy man and the scripture he brought.
In his famous book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," American historian Mark Noll suggests that most evangelical Christians in his country suffer from that misconception. He shows that evangelicals have failed to engage in "the whole spectrum of modern learning, including economics and political science, literary criticism and imaginative writing, historical inquiry and philosophical studies, linguistics and the history of science, social theory and the arts." “The scandal of the evangelical mind,” he concludes, "is that there is not much of an evangelical mind."
I am not an expert on American Christianity, and can't tell whether Noll is right or wrong. But I do know about Kemalism, and this ideology suffers from the same problem he points out. Yes, Kemalism has a “scandal” of its own, too, and it is that that there is not much of a Kemalist mind.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
If you have been reading the “Letters to the editor” section, you might have come across two of these reactions, which came from two Turkish readers living in the United States. The one from New Jersey noted that he was “shocked” by my piece, and added, “someone should tell Akyol that he is dead wrong.” The other one, a lady, expressed “anguish” at me and my “very naive look.” I, she also argued, “cannot be a Turk.”
In response, I am sincerely thankful to such critics, because they present nice case studies of what I have been talking about. I said that there is a popular “cult of Atatürk” in Turkey, whose followers have a “strict mental blueprint” that leads them to “detachment from reality.” And that's precisely what you can find in these annoyed comments.
Cognitive dissonance
Let me show you one example. The first reader, besides bashing me, argued that “dialogue among all people in Turkey should be improved so that no one should be afraid of saying ‘I am proud to be a Turk.'” It is really hard to understand how “dialogue among all people in Turkey” will make everybody proud of being a Turk, but that's the minor issue. The real gem is the presumption that some people in Turkey are afraid of saying, “I am proud to be a Turk.” In fact, in this country, it has never been a problem to say that, and it is in fact an officially sanctioned mantra. The real problem has always been to say that you are proud of being something other than a Turk — such as a Kurd, an Armenian, a Christian, and even a supranational Muslim. (For the record, in 1982, politician Şerafettin Elçi was imprisoned for simply saying, “I am a Kurd and there are Kurds in Turkey.”)
So it is really mind-boggling that our Kemalist reader thinks that “Turkishness” is suppressed in Turkey, while the fact is that Turkishness is the only identity which is not suppressed at all.
If you would like to see more detachment-from-reality in action then take a look at the second reader. She criticized me for criticizing the “I am watching you” motto put on some Atatürk flags. But she got it totally wrong by writing: “It simply means for anyone that understands English language ‘We are following your steps.'” Because the motto I criticized did not mean that Turks follow Atatürk. It rather meant Atatürk watches over the Turks. It was plain clear for anyone who has a grasp of either the English or the Turkish language.
Neither publish nor perish
I won't point out every case of cognitive dissonance in the writings of Kemalist readers. For most unbiased observers, it should be obvious that Kemalism has turned into a dogmatic ideology and its adherents present a pitiable intellectual poverty. The latter phenomenon is visible almost in every field. In the Turkish media, for example, die-hard Kemalist commentators are among the least sophisticated ones. Their columns are full of either dry clichés or angry polemics. In the academia, scholars or faculties who are famed to be devout Kemalists hardly produce anything that would get into international academic literature. (Alas, they neither publish nor perish!) Actually the handful of globally acclaimed Turkish scholars are detested by their Kemalist colleagues at home. Şerif Mardin, who is probably the most prominent Turkish sociologist ever, was boycotted by the all-Kemalist Turkish Sciences Academy (TÜBA), simply for that he is too lenient on religion. Actually in the field of social sciences, Turkey seems to be divided among the fruitful and articulate academics, and the rest, which includes almost all Kemalists.
In literature, the situation is no different: Turkey's globally successful novelists, such as the recent Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk or Elif Şafak, are the ones who have the ability to think outside of the Kemalist box. No wonder they are abhorred by the Kemalists, who explain their achievements by conspiracy theories. They think Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize, for example, because the “imperialists” decided to promote him for “insulting Turkishness.”
For quite some time, I have been pondering what makes the Kemalist mind so shallow. This cannot be related to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk himself, because he was a smart, well-educated and cultured statesman who vigorously promoted science and learning. I believe the problem is in the way he is perceived by his devotees. Since they see him and his period as the source all the wisdom they need, they don't have an urge to understand the world. They think the Supreme Leader already understood it perfectly and all we Turks need to is walk on his righteous path.
The evangelical mind
This line of thinking creates intellectual poverty within any paradigm. Religious fundamentalism is the most obvious example. Indeed religion can be a driving force for intellectual enterprise if it is interpreted in a dynamic way — and that's what gave rise to towering figures such as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) or Newton. But religion would be a mind stopper if its believers think that all they need to study is the life of a holy man and the scripture he brought.
In his famous book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," American historian Mark Noll suggests that most evangelical Christians in his country suffer from that misconception. He shows that evangelicals have failed to engage in "the whole spectrum of modern learning, including economics and political science, literary criticism and imaginative writing, historical inquiry and philosophical studies, linguistics and the history of science, social theory and the arts." “The scandal of the evangelical mind,” he concludes, "is that there is not much of an evangelical mind."
I am not an expert on American Christianity, and can't tell whether Noll is right or wrong. But I do know about Kemalism, and this ideology suffers from the same problem he points out. Yes, Kemalism has a “scandal” of its own, too, and it is that that there is not much of a Kemalist mind.
Writer : Mustafa Akyol
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)