« Morocco's 'AKP' Is Moroccan, After All | Main | News from The Dallas Morning News »
July 13, 2007
The Sum of All Secular Fears
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
Do you now what the biggest nightmare of a secularist Turk is?
It takes place mostly when he takes a vacation to visit some place in Europe or North America. He packs up, wears his stylish jeans and t-shirt, puts on his iPod, takes his elegant girlfriend and boards a plane. During the flight, he chats with one of the European or American passengers on board. At some point this indigenous Westerner learns that this chic couple is from Turkey and he confusedly asks, “Hey, don't you guys wear fez or turbans in your country, is this your national dress?”
That's is a big insult to our secularist Turk. He gets really nervous, but calms himself down a bit, and then takes great pains to explain that Turkey is indeed a modern country and it has nothing to do with “the Arabs” and their culture. “We are a Western nation like you,” he insists, “when will you get that?”
The indigenous Westerner might quite be surprised by this reaction. Each culture has its traditions, after all, and what's wrong in assuming that Turks would have their own? He did not mean to offend anybody; he was just trying to understand.
Anyway, this unpleasant encounter leaves serious question marks in the mind of our secularist Turk. Why was he treated as if he were not a real Westerner? He really did his best. His outfit was perfectly fashionable and his girlfriend's fake blonde hair was as good as that of a Finn. And, of course, there is the 80-year legacy of the Kemalist revolution, which worked really hard to wipe off anything oriental from Turkish society. Why, so, these dull Westerners still don't get the fact that we Turks have become like them?
Hatred and Fear
Haunted by these questions, and after several days of pilgrimage in the temples of modernity, our secularist Turk returns home. Right after he gets off at Istanbul Atatürk airport, he comes across terribly unpleasant scenes. On Turkish streets there are men with beards who prefer mosques to nightclubs, and women with headscarves who, as their role model, take Prophet Muhammad's daughters – and not, say, Britney Spears. “These ignoramuses are the reason why we haven't become a real Western nation,” says our secularist Turk to his girlfriend. “I hate these cockroaches in those black veils.”
The hatred against anything that is Oriental – and, sometimes, simply Islamic – soon becomes an obsession for our secularist Turk. The more he reads newspapers like Cumhuriyet or listens to politicians like Deniz Baykal, the more he is convinced that Turkey is facing a lethal threat from these “Islamists” who are conspiring against the brilliant foundations of the Turkish Republic. Fear becomes his major theme.
Moreover, at some point, he realizes that the conspiracy is actually pretty international. He first sees that the “Islamists” are in power and they are doing a pretty good job in making Turkey a member of the European Union (EU). “There must be a catch here,” he thinks, “why, otherwise, would these backward bumpkins head toward the EU.” Then he realizes that the “Islamists” he hates and fears do not alarm most of the people from the EU or the U.S. Many Westerners actually dismiss his fears, and, instead, speak of nonsense such as religious freedom, pluralism, and democracy.
Here comes the “aha” moment for our secularist Turk: He decides that there is a huge conspiracy against the Turkish Republic, which the Westerners and Turkish “Islamists” are, supposedly, cooking up hand in hand. Aren't they all saying that Turkey should be a real democracy, not a quasi-military quasi-dictatorship? Aren't they all arguing for civil liberties and free markets? And, hasn't the dull Westerner on the plane implied that Turks could have an authentic culture, which could, naturally, involve some elements of the Islamic tradition? The whole world seems to be united against “the Republic”.
That's the point where our secularist Turk becomes fanatically anti-Western. He starts to see Atatürk not as a pro-Western modernizer, but an anti-Western national liberator. Filled with fear and rage, he decides to fight all the enemies within and without.
The Problem With Superficiality
That would be the sum of the tragic story of Turkey's authoritarian and radically secularist elite. The core of their problem is superficiality. While abandoning all the rich cultural heritage of the Islamic/Ottoman past, they only got the lifestyle of the West, not its ideas. So they well know how to dine, wine and valentine like a Westerner. Yet they don't know to think with Western concepts such as rationality, and they have no clue about Western values such as individual freedom.
So what can they offer to Turkey? Not much, really. That's why some of the secularist Turks – actually their wiser ones – recently said to the Financial Times, “We all will vote for the CHP, but we all hope it doesn't get into the government.” Why? Because the CHP – a party that still lives in the corporatist and statist mindset of the 1930s – will simply ruin the Turkish economy. The only attraction the party has is its blend of militant secularism and xenophobic nationalism. And you have to be a real die-hard secularist Turk to be impressed by that.
Thank God we also have the “Islamists,” who seem to be the best hope for modernizing Turkey. Some of them might wear headscarves, but their minds may be more open than of those who hate them.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at July 13, 2007 8:53 AM
So when these indigenous European countries like France and England begin to deal with the headscarf issue in much the same way as the Turkish secularists, are they being fanatically anti-Western, at the altar of militant secularism and xenophobic nationalism?
Get a grip, man. What's next for you, defending the medieval treatment of women in Afghanistan as Oriental modernization?
Posted by: Anona at July 13, 2007 10:48 AM
Great article...
Posted by: Admirim at July 13, 2007 2:19 PM
I would like to see you write an article about another fundamental pillar of the modern world - the equality of men and women. What does this mean from your moderate Muslim perspective? I have nothing to say against women wearing head scarves anymore than I have anything to say against women who wear tank-tops. The Quran improved the status of women but didn't explicitly make them equal to men (but it didn't explicitly make them inferior either.) Isn't this a reform that is needed in Islam? Isn't there a lot of tribal tradition that needs to be excised? It strikes me that there is a lot of serious reform work that needs to be done in Islam.
Posted by: Martin Bebow at July 13, 2007 4:34 PM
An interesting essay, which points out some of the anxieties that make Turkey such a puzzle to outside observers.
Those of us who are conservative religious folk in the USA and Europe are also looked upon with suspicion for being "reactionary," though it is in religious roots where ideas like personal freedom and civic responsibility flowered in western culture. Americans, too, find ourselves harangued by liberals to despise our own heritage. Without those deep roots, it's an open question how long western values can survive amidst internal decadence and external pressures.
Posted by: Gina at July 13, 2007 5:33 PM
What makes the treatment of women in Afghanistan and many other "islamic" nations is that the headscraf or islamic dress is imposed and forced upon them. Embracing secularism and democracy should give these women a choice of whether to wear a mini skirt or a headscarf or whatever else she likes. They key is it should be her own personal choice. What we are talking about is two extremes and people in general do not respond well to extremism. One side wants to FORCE all women to abide by an islamic code of conduct and take away her choice to wear anything that dosnt conform to islamic teachings. the other extreme wants to FORCE all women to not wear the headscarf or islamic clothing. Democracy is meant to bring personal freedom, the freedom to worship, dress, and act as i please as long as i do not force others to live by my personal beliefs and conduct.
it has been many years since Turkey banned the headscarf and yet women, under their own free will choose to wear it. So if such a ban dosnt work in a country like Turkey which has been strcitly secular for many years how would you expect it to take root in any other islamic country? If we want to spread freedom, tolerance, secularism, democracy and free thinking we cant attack and villify their deeply held beliefs.
Another point I would like to make is why many people attack the modest dress of muslim women around the world while freely accepting the modest practices of women of other religions? Orthodox Jewish women for example who also believe they must cover their hair but do so by wearing wigs, or some religious christian groups which believe in modest dress be it long skirts or headscarves in some cases. Why do we still accept nuns dressed in all black and covering their hair? are these practices attacks on secularism? i dont believe so. The only problem in many middle eastern countries is a forced dress code and the lack of personal freedom to dress as one pleases.
Posted by: Ahmet at July 14, 2007 7:58 AM
Anona wrote: "So when these indigenous European countries like France and England begin to deal with the headscarf issue in much the same way as the Turkish secularists, are they being fanatically anti-Western, at the altar of militant secularism and xenophobic nationalism?"
............................
This peudo-intellectualism of yours where you bring parallel between what can't be is a testimony of a mind locked ideolegue, but who unfortunately postures as 21st greatest crtic and enlightener. What has the veil and the way it is perceived in France or Englnad has got to do with the reality of the Turkish Nation and its history? The veil is part of the Turkish history unlike in the countries you referred to. That said, imagine if England bans the skirts won by the Scots in modern day? They can't bcoz as much as other people including Turks see a man wearing a skirt as unworthy {etc}, the reality is it is part of their societal norms and history and therefore they can't ignore their past simply that they want to ape others like our poor Kemalists in Turkey. I want to ask: Does the Scot man who wears a skirt today fail to be modern? definetely you will ay no and it is no, so how comes when a Turkish lady wears a headscarf, she fails to be a modern? It is intellectual penury. Between Ahmet Sezer and Dalailama of Tibet, whom do you think is more modern, educated, famous, assertive and worldwide material? Definitely Dalailama. Doe Dalailama need to wear a suit to be a great man? To be a modern? Modernism is ideas, not clothes and this is the tragedy that has gripped the Kemalists who in their blind pursuit of intellectual slavery go beyond any known human consideration. Modernism is roads, hospitals, Ivy League-kind universities, economy and so on, not the pants, bras and veil women wear. If your daugher {for example} wants to be a marauding, untethered she-goat in the name of secularism/modernism as if you are the only one who understands what modernism is, she is free to conduct herself accordingly like a she-goat on a heat. If another Turkish lady believes that modernism is education and contribution and wears a headscarf, then she is free. What has the dress of an adult got with you? Why don't u mind ur business. Rather, why don't you invent new ideas rather than consuming the worn out ideas of others if you are a critical thinker? You can't bcoz you are mentally poor but your buffoonery gives you the audacity and temerity to vomit on pple's shoes in the name of modernism as if modernism is the bras and pants women wear. Leave women alone and mind your business. Gender disparity, whether education, political, economic, Turkey stands at 105 out of 115, why don't you address these hard truths when you spend sleepless nights trying to interfere in the attire of women. Let women do what they like. The fact that you are interfering in their affairs is a testimony that you are not modern and that's why you want to dictate to them bczo you believe they should be herded like goats. If you are modern and believe in equality, why interfere in the affairs and attire of women? You mean they can't decide what they want/like? Your language betrays you and language is the dress of man's thoughts.
Anon wrote: "Get a grip, man. What's next for you, defending the medieval treatment of women in Afghanistan as Oriental modernization?"
...............................
Now, where is the wisdom in these words? It was Plato who defined your ilk when he quipped: "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” You just want to speak but you are not aware of heartrending handicap. You remind of a child who dreams of something good and on waking up pesters his parents demanding to be given what he dreamt of with the parents failing to comprehend what the child is talking about, now, you have heard about "medieval and Oriental", and since your mind didn't aborb neither the truth nor any other reality, you vomit on pple's shoes by always shouting about something "medieval". To be honest, you are locked in the past but you seem to be pretending to have moved forward. As writer Mustafa Aykol wrote, by wearing a tight jeans doesn't mean make you modern. Modernism is ideas and solutions not idealogies. Again, by aping the dress of a French girl or not, wouldn't make you Western bcoz a "log doesn't become a crocodile however long it stays in the water."
Posted by: Abdullah, Germany at July 14, 2007 9:26 AM
Ecxellent observation, Mustafa.
I have witnessed this over and over again.
With one additional comment: these people are friends of mine, but hard to convince that their fears are baseless.
The European and USA biasing comments all the time in the Turkish press is only an expression of these fears.
Time for self reflection and reconcilation in Turkey.
Posted by: Hans A.H.C. de Wit at July 14, 2007 10:14 AM
@Martin Bebow
"The Quran improved the status of women but didn't explicitly make them equal to men (but it didn't explicitly make them inferior either.) Isn't this a reform that is needed in Islam? It strikes me that there is a lot of serious reform work that needs to be done in Islam."
Ahem, loosely translating from the original Greek text
A Corinthians 11.3 "As God is the head of Christ and Christ the head of every man so is a man the head of his wife"
A Corinthians 11.7 "Man is in the image and glory of God, so the woman is the image of man"
Ephesians 5.22 "Wives submit to your husbands"
As an aside in my country the wedding ceremony includes the words "And the wive must fear the husband" during which time it is customary for the bride to step hard on the grooms foot.
And mind you that the NT polemics are pretty mild compared to what the older Jewish scriptures in labelled women as. Sufficeth to briefly mention this passage from Genesis 19.8 where the men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house demanding that he bring his two guests out so that they may "know" them (i.e. gang rape them). Lot is held as an example of Jewish virtue because he instead offers his two virgin daughters to be gang banged instead: "I have two virgin daughters, please let me bring them out to you and do what you want with them" (i.e. by all means screw my underaged, virgin daughters senseless, but please, for the love of God, don't disturb the male guests).
"The Bible DIDN'T improve the status of women but EXPLICITLY made them inferior to men. Isn't this a reform that is needed in Christianity? It strikes me that there is a lot of serious reform work that needs to be done in Christianity."
The beam in your eye and all that.
Posted by: Aristotelis at July 18, 2007 4:48 AM
To Ahmet:
You are completely wrong at two points.
The headscarves as weared by today's Turkish self proclaimed 'true' muslims has never been a part of 'Turkish' heritage. Go and see Turkish villages to see what a headscarve means.
Second modernity does not mean modern infrastructure or universities. It means equality of men and women in the truest sense, It means questioning all religious dogmas. It means not mixing your 'unquestionable' religious beliefs with the way you set up the rules for governing people. It means breaking away from traditional society. The lack of modernity is the reason why the Turkish secularist feels the pain in Akyol's article. But this pain is not something to loathe as he suggests.(On all accounts, Mustafa Akyol's understanding of modernity is also very questionable indeed.) It is a very natural response from a member of a society which is torn between modernism and traditionalism.
It has become almost a 'cliche' nowadays to criticise seculars being anti-modern nationalist , etc. The pseudo contrasts of islam-modernity secularism-anti modernity feeds these new generation of writers (including those in the west).
why don't you write an article about the real islamists behaviour in Turkey and let your real audience know about this 'other' side of the Turkish republic..I give you a hint: try to answer this question. Why are seculars are labeled as infidels by the islamists?
Posted by: Erkan at July 18, 2007 7:51 AM
Everybody should know something: Headscarf is not prohibited in Turkey! What prohibited is to have religious symbols in official places.
And please be enlightened:
European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkish law was consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the protection of women's rights in general. It metioned: "When examining the question of the Islamic headscarf in the Turkish context, there had to be borne in mind the impact which wearing such a symbol, which was presented or perceived as a compulsory religious duty, may have on those who chose not to wear it."
Of course there may be some people who don't like the decision of the Court, but surely everybody must respect it...
Posted by: Meral at July 18, 2007 10:30 AM
Meral
You cannot have it both ways. Either Turkey is a democratic secular country or not. A ruling by a 'European' court doesn't make this a just ruling. This is the same court that ruled in favour of Abdullah Ocalan against Turkey for not receiving a fair trial of charges of terrorism and murder. So therefore credibility is at issue here. Not allowing a woman to wear a headscarf to university and government places in Turkey is similar to laws of racial discrimination in the US in the 1950's which didn't allowed citizens of African background to attend University.
Europe isn't the only court in the world. Why wasn't the same ruling made in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Is it possible that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is more just than Europe? I really wonder? Why no mention is made of the US or UK or Autralian courts?
Respect is not given it is earnt. You must also understand the ruling by the European court. That European court ruled that the headscarf ban put place by Turkey was allowed to maintain public order and allows states to intervene against 'extremism'. So a reasonable conclusion here is that Islam is a religion of violence and terrorism. Now anyone with an ounce of intellect can see for themselves that this 'European' court has damaged its reputation for justice by implying that wearing the headscarf is a form of extremism. If a piece of cloth makes supposedly intellegent men such ridiculous and insane rulings then they have no credibility.
My feeling tells me that these people don't really like a woman wearing a headscarf. Which may be fine but they have no right to interfere in private lives of individuals or their choices they make.
At the end of the day the women wearing the headscarf in Turkey are citizens of Turkey. So, therefore the taxes they pay payroll the judges and authorities who discriminate against them. Which just goes to show what a sad reality is lived in Turkey.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at July 18, 2007 4:58 PM
Great article and Islamically universal. You are not just describing Turkey. The couple you are talking about are present in almost every Arab country that is under a secular dictatorship that I know of. They are the same fears, the same line of thinking, and the they take the same actions. The only difference is that instead of calling the people who were Turbans the "Arabs" (because they are Arabs), they call them the bedouins who live in the desert.
Posted by: Tareq at July 21, 2007 3:57 PM