"Therefore throughout the Republican period, Turkey’s observant Muslims felt themselves suppressed and humiliated"

So, good, true, and real Muslims are humiliated if Islamic law doesn't have preeminance over secular law. That tells non-Muslims all they need to know about Islam.

Yes, the Turkish debate is very important, perhaps the most important of any debate anywhere in the Muslim world. At least there is a debate, which says a lot about the character of the good Turkish people. The problem is that the debate clearly shows how "moderate" (the usual term used for non-radical or non-fundamentalist Muslims) or "Observant" (your term for the moderates) Muslims feel oppressed if sharia is not the basis of law, and if crazy western ideas like "equal citizenship and religious freedom" are applied to all (your words!). Your statement that "When a devout believer is forced to choose between God (sharia) and modernity ("equal citizenship and religious freedom") he/she will choose the former" means that reform is impossible for "devout" and "observant" or "moderate" Muslims. This is not good news, and it is reallly not news at all to anyone that watches Islamic societies.

Mustafa, I like your blog and writing, but you are a living example of why Islam is incompatible with human rights. It treats people differently according to their faith - and worse, it makes Muslims incoherant and dishonest when they argue basic principles. Yes, the Quran says "no compulasion in religion", as you said, but the Quran also makes makes it very clear that non-Muslims are second class citizens, something you forget to mention and all Muslims seem to ignore - I can't imagine why. Maybe because it is very hard to do a synthesis around the concept of "Equal second class citizen".

I guess you should be happy because I think the "moderate" "observant" Muslims will win in Turkey. That is bad news for the rest of us, but since when do good Muslims really care about the rights and liberties of Non-Muslims in Islamic societies? You will see the "observants" take control and when Turkey becomes more and more intolerant and oppressive, you can always blame others (Secular fundamentalists, the west, crusaders, jews, etc...) because it is never Islam's fault.

Sad, sad and very sad.

John Kactuz

PS: Quote: it is possible to argue that these "verses of the sword", refer only to those non-Muslims who have been belligerent toward Muslims in the first place... and of course it is possible to argue the contrary, also... Does that tell you anything?

Great history lesson. I agree that the direction Turkey takes is crucial in what is happening in the world now. Given such a choice I too would have to choose God over modernity. But this is a false dilemma as any serious study of the Quran will show.

Dear John Kactuz,

Give me an example of another Holy Scripture (or any other religion) when non-adherents of it would not be second-class citizens. Moses (peace be upon him) allegedly orders in the Old Testament to kill all non-Jewish males & females had been touched by a male, others would be sex-slaves.

We, Muslims, don't believe Moses could have said such a horrible thing.

Yet, only Koran acknowledges and even approves of other religions (Judaism & Christianity) and says followers of these religion shall enter Paradise.
Compare to Christian sectarian believes that only those who believe in Jesus (peace be upoin him) as a son of God (may Lord forgive me) will enter Paradise while all others shall burn in Hell. I'm not talking about billions of Protestant sects claiming superiority over their fellow Protestants, cursing Catholics and the latter hating the Orthodox.

Per your belief Koran treats non-Muslims as second-class. Even if I agree with your bigotry, I can say that Koran at least treats others as second class, while any other religion simply denies any rights.

Every religion, except for Islam, gives no right to another! Just read the history!

This is not to say that I claim superiority of my faith over yours or any other. To me my belief and to you yours!

As for Mustafa Akyol, you, regrettably try to fit Islam to Western values. Whatever fits is praised by you, what doesn't - you call to reform. What is your standard/frame, brother?! I pray to Almighty that you be very careful, it's indeed dangerous!

I studied in the States and have deep respect for people of the West & some values they have! In fact here in Moscow I work for Western firm and like it!

However, Islamic values are self-sufficient and not worse or much different from the best values the West has!

Peace!

Dear John Kactuz,

Give me an example of another Holy Scripture (or any other religion) when non-adherents of it would not be second-class citizens. Moses (peace be upon him) allegedly orders in the Old Testament to kill all non-Jewish males & females had been touched by a male, others would be sex-slaves.

We, Muslims, don't believe Moses could have said such a horrible thing.

Yet, only Koran acknowledges and even approves of other religions (Judaism & Christianity) and says followers of these religion shall enter Paradise.
Compare to Christian sectarian believes that only those who believe in Jesus (peace be upoin him) as a son of God (may Lord forgive me) will enter Paradise while all others shall burn in Hell. I'm not talking about billions of Protestant sects claiming superiority over their fellow Protestants, cursing Catholics and the latter hating the Orthodox.

Per your belief Koran treats non-Muslims as second-class. Even if I agree with your bigotry, I can say that Koran at least treats others as second class, while any other religion simply denies any rights.

Every religion, except for Islam, gives no right to another! Just read the history!

This is not to say that I claim superiority of my faith over yours or any other. To me my belief and to you yours!

As for Mustafa Akyol, you, regrettably try to fit Islam to Western values. Whatever fits is praised by you, what doesn't - you call to reform. What is your standard/frame, brother?! I pray to Almighty that you be very careful, it's indeed dangerous!

I studied in the States and have deep respect for people of the West & some values they have! In fact here in Moscow I work for Western firm and like it!

However, Islamic values are self-sufficient and not worse or much different from the best values the West has!

Peace!

Mustafa,

Thanks for the article. You wrote:

“One should recall that Islamdom was probably the most advanced and enlightened part of the world a thousand years ago.”

This is probably true when compared to the status of western Europe in 1000 A.D., though I would include both the Byzantines and the Chinese, as they were certainly as advanced, if not more so. There is an oft-told anecdote of a Byzantine princess who was married off by the Emperor to some German princeling about that time. She created quite a scandal in his court, as she could read and write, used a fork, and insisted on a bath every day. This just illustrates the cultural divide between East and West a thousand years ago.

You wrote:

"Many think that intolerance is built into Islam, but actually the Qur'an decrees no sanction for apostasy and recognizes the rights of Christians and Jews to worship according to their own traditions."

In my view, the question is not IF the Qur’an can be interpreted this way, for clearly it can. The question is, rather, has it been previously interpreted this way, and will it be interpreted this way in the future? The answer to both questions is; largely no, and probably not. Herein lies the West’s discomfort.

True, the Ottoman record is not altogether bad. Certain elements within Christian minorities got along alright—even prospered--under the Ottomans. But their second class status was never in question. Their conversion to Islam was encouraged and often coerced. Conversion to Christianity was unthinkable, and punishable by death. Their treatment was often subject to the whims of the particular ruler at the time and the passions of the day. And it was not as if they were immigrants who could not be assimilated—the Christians were there first. There was never a doubt that they occupied subservient position relative to Muslims.

Secular Turkey’s record in this regard is poor. I had hoped Tayyip Erdogan’s approach to religious minorities would be better than his secular predecessors. Sadly, his discomforting recent interview in Der Spiegel gives little sense, or hope for that. Perhaps I am wrong.

As an American, I am an outsider looking in at the entire EU membership question. My view, for what it is worth, is that Europeans, while largely irreligious, are still “cultural” Christians and they have an innate affinity for other Christians. They view Turkey’s treatment of its miniscule Christian community with alarm. They also recognize that the concessions that they gladly afford other faiths within their own countries are not reciprocated in Turkey.

As a friend of your country (now planning my 5th visit in the next few weeks), I suggest that if Turkey were to do 2 things, then European opposition to EU membership would largely vanish. First, Turkey should come clean about the events of 1915-1918, admitting (however belatedly) to the historical reality and abandoning their perverse mythology. Second, Turkey should decisively stop the slow strangulation of its remaining Orthodox Christian population in Istanbul. Believe me, this is terribly bad press in the West. Turkey can easily afford to be magnanimous. Will it? That remains to be seen.

Mr. Himo. I would like to know if your understanding of Islam allows a Muslim freedom of conscience. Can a Muslim choose to leave Islam for another religion or no religion? This is of the essence of the modern world.

How can Islam modernize when I see conflicting stories in the Australian media.

This story appeared in the paper today:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21752706-950,00.html

Behruz Himo, on which planet are you living?

Mr. Bebow & echaton,

There are millions of people in the Muslim world who are counted as Muslims, but who hardly think of themselves as Muslims. Turkish secularists, for instance,(I guess at least 25% of Turks) and at least 10% of population in every Muslim nation.

Nobody wants to kill or otherwise punish them. Problems arise when media (esp. Western) tries to publicize and popularize them, at least that's what millions of pious suspect/perceive.

The guy in Afghanistan lived under fanatical Taliban regime when he converted to Christianity, but problems started when he was used as a PROPAGANDA tool, again, at least, that's what Muslims perceive.

Please, look through the history and you will see that Islam has been the most tolerant religion WHEN compared to, say, Roman Catholic Church. Slight deviations from "official" religious teachings in Christiandom were brutally persecuted, pogroms and anti-semithism is a Christian "invention". While different Christian sects and Jews were welcomed in Islamdom.

There are Jews, Christians, and pagans still living in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Egypt is almost half Christian for centuries. Almost any Muslim country has religious diversity for centuries, while Western world's diversity is a modern achievement (not a default!).

It's not a demagoguery, please, research and compare!

I'm afraid I must agree with echnaton's question to you, Mr. Himo.

Mr. Himo. You didn't answer my question. I agree that Islamic societies in the past have been very tolerant. My question is about now. Do you believe (I assume you consider yourself a moderate Muslim) that a Muslim should be allowed to choose another religion or no religion? For example suppose a Muslim, studying biology, comes to the conclusion that evolution means that there is no God the Creator. He then decides that he no longer believes in God or Islam or any other religion. The reason I am asking you this is that you warned Mr. Akyol about trying to fit Islam within western values. What values are you talking about? Freedom of conscience is really the basis of all other western values. It is what made it possible for science to progress against the opposition of the Church. I believe the Quran supports freedom of conscience when it says that there is no compulsion in religion (as an example. The whole focus of the Quran is to give a person the choice between good and evil. If there is no freedom of conscience then there is no ability to choose.) I think the extremists deny this right. They decree death for apostasy. This is not an idle question but I think it goes to the heart of the conflict between Islamism and the rest of the world.

I would add that you yourself should beware of compromising your Islamic values with those of the Islamists. This seems to me to be the much greater danger than that Mr. Akyol would compromise Islam by emphasizing its compatibility with the modern world.

"Islam has been the most tolerant religion when compared to, say, Roman Catholic Church"
...HAHAHA, ridicolous, again, Behruz Himo, on which planet are you living?

"Mutig waren die Woerter, weil es die Taten nicht waren"
Schiller (Wallenstein)

Martin, sorry for explaining you some key elements of islamic orthodoxy (teached by all 4 schools of sharia):
a) "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)is a verse that is abrogated (although there are people that don't believe in it (as Mr Akyol), but it is plainly explained in Q 16:101, 13:39 2:106 and is called Naskh (or doctrine of abrogation). It is fully quranic!
b) 2:256 actually is related to the conversion of a muslim boy into a Jew by an Ansar (=Medina) woman in the case she would survive.
Here from a "true hadith": From The Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2676:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error."

so I would say a) that putting the Qur'an into contexct clarifies a lot (at the expense of the prevailing myth about freedom of religion in the islamic world) b) if the Qur'an was written on golden tables on the high, then the whole issue about Naskh is illogical, contradictory at the expense of the only God....so...?

...have a nice looong we!

Here is a rather cautionary article about the changes the Islamic party is pursuing in Turkey: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/news/turkey.php
Here is a quote: "That has also led to lifestyle changes in the bureaucracy: In Denizli, during the month of fasting in Ramadan, the lunchroom in the Ministry of Education no longer serves food, in an assumption that all workers are religious, employees said." These kinds of assumptions go against the 'freedom of conscience' principle that is for me the sine qua non of a modern state.

Echanton. You can't really understand the Quran or any other holy book if you study it with a prejudiced mind. There is no doubt that some Muslims have corrupted the Quran with their abrogations of Quranic texts using dubious sayings of the prophet or interpretations of other Quranic verses. You can justify anything.

Another article today relating to the freedom of conscience principle: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6703155.stm
An excerpt:
"Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of worship but says all ethnic Malays are Muslim. Under Sharia law, Muslims are not allowed to convert."

This is an issue that any largely Muslim country must face if it wants to consider itself modern and moderate.

Martin's "You can't really understand the Quran or any other holy book if you study it with a prejudiced mind. There is no doubt that some Muslims have corrupted the Quran with their ABROGATIONS of Quranic texts using DUBIOUS sayings of the prophet or interpretations of other Quranic verses. You can justify anything.

Sorry but this shows your ignorance (from latin "not knowing") of the islamic faith.
The concept of Naskh is fully orthodox islam and has noting to do with the "corruption" of the Qur'an. (btw for a muslim this sounds completly heretic)
Dubious sayings? hahaha..again, in orthodox islam of course there are dubious sayings about muhamad, but there are as well the "sound" ones, accepted by all sunnis. These are considered authentic, genuine with a "sounds isnads." (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sahid ABU DAWUD, the one I cite)

Of course, if you want to talk about your personal islam, we can, but I doubt it is interesting for the audience. You can not decide by your own to discard what doesn't fit to your mind"
If I had to talk to all "perosnal faiths" around I would get crazy. If you want you can call the subject I would like to comment as of "prejudiced", but it arrives that it is the orthodox view of all 4 major sharia schools
someone said "truth will set you free"
;-))

echnaton. Whatever your technical knowledge of Islam, your prejudice makes it impossible for you to understand the spirit of justice and mercy that pervades the Quran.

Martin,

a) you shold study a little bit of latin and of theory of knowledge:

technically "prejudice" is a "light" judgment you make before you assess the issue (ie you “pre-judge"). It is necessary to have prejudices if you want to live. Have you ever seen for example the island of Bikini? (very probably not), but you have no doubt it exists...why? bcs you have a prejudice. You cannot experience everything in your life to have knowledge. It would be impossible

But of course you mean something else by prejudice (a derogatory form of course)….in fact having myself studied the whole 4 (main ) schools of sharia (ie having material knowledge of islam), it is NO MORE a prejudice, it is know how.

b) by simply stating “your prejudice makes it impossible for you to understand the spirit of justice and mercy that pervades the Quran.”, is says a lot more about you than about me

c) I still would like to see some hard fact about the issues I brought forward to you (naskh, 2.256, sahih abu dawud) etc etc. Your opinions merit respect but without arguing, they are simply “weak thoughts”. Still waiting…

d) last but not least…”the SPIRIT of justice and mercy that pervades the Quran.”…you as well you never read the Qur’an!!! You make laugh the whole world!!! You are living on the same planet as Himo!!!. I don’t deny that a lot of muslims live this way, but to state this makes you just ridicolous!!!!

Quo usque tandem abutere patientia mea?

echnaton. I have read a very good translation of the Quran (the Oxford version.) There really is no discussing this with you. Knowledge can be one of the greatest barriers to the truth. Christ said you have to be like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. He didn't say you have to study latin and the theory of knowledge. Let's agree to disagree.

John Kactuz is absolutely right. There is always someone out there to blame; Zionists, American imperialists, now Turkish "secular fundamentalists". It is never ever the fanatical Islamists with their backward ideas themselves.

Religion should be kept apart from the public space. Full stop. And the military has not only right, but obligation to step in, when fundamentalists, however "moderate" and soft-talking begin to cross the lines that separates the two. And really, I couldn´t care less what newspapers like The Economist think about. Neither do the generals. Which is exactly the right thing to do.