« Voices from the Capital of Sufism | Main | The Protocols of the Elders of Turkey »
October 4, 2007
The Islamic Case for a Secular State -II-
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
There are some myths that many well-educated Turks believe to be true. One of them is the idea that the Ottoman Empire's modernization efforts were continuously resisted and crippled by religion. Italian scholar Rossella Bottoni summarizes the falsity of this cliché well in her article titled, “The Origins of Secularism in Turkey.” “According to received wisdom,” she notes:
“In the Ottoman Empire there was a Manichaean struggle between, on one side, the reformers who were Westernizers, liberals, secularizers and modern, and, on the other side, the opponents, especially the ulema (Islamic scholars), who were obscurantist, backward-looking and hooked on the most obsolete customs dictated by religion.”
“However,” Dr. Bottoni adds, “some studies prove that the religious class... was divided over the reform issue and that many ulema did collaborate on the modernization and secularization program.” In fact “some ulema were reformers themselves,” while “the protest against secularizing reforms was mainly expressed by the lower echelons of the religious class, such as preachers of small mosques and softa ( medrese students and aspiring ulema).”
One great irony of history would be the wiping out of the open-minded ulema by the ultra-secular reforms of the early Turkish Republic. This, unintentionally of course, left religion in the hands of the close-minded softas who dominated rural areas, whereas the cities became secular citadels. That's why, again despite common wisdom, the ultra-secularist project in Turkey did not help the modernization of the country's Islamic heritage. It actually halted its progress.
Back to Medina?
Yet still Turkey's Islamic circles started to reform themselves thanks to their roots in the Islamic-modernist synthesis of the Ottoman Empire, and their growing engagement with democracy, capitalism, and more lately, globalization. That's why since the '90s, many remarkable ideas emerged among Turkey's Islamic intellectuals on the compatibility of Islam and secular law.
One interesting -- but not very promising — effort was the idea of “multiple legal systems” proposed by a group of Islamic pundits including Ali Bulaç. They referred to the “Medina Constitution” of the prophet and argued that there should be a plurality of legal systems in Turkey. Practicing Muslims would be able to choose the Islamic code, whereas others would be free to continue with the current one.
However other intellectuals soon reminded that multiple legal systems would be practically impossible in a modern society, and that was precisely why the Ottoman Empire had to unify them in the late 19th century. But the revived Medina Constitution idea was an important experience, because it underlined that Islamic law can't be imposed on people who don't want to live by it.
The real groundbreaking thought would be the “historicity” of Islamic law. The theologians who emphasized this view were inspired by the works of Fazlur Rahman, the Pakistani-born Islamic scholar who used to be professor of Islamic thought at the University of Chicago. Rahman emphasized the difference between the principles of Islamic law (such as justice, freedoms and rights) and the way these principles were applied during the history of Islamic civilization. Rahman argued that Islam's principles are eternally valid, but they could take different forms in different ages and societies. Thus, he concluded, Muslims don't need to insert the tribal customs and laws of seventh century Arabia into the life of the 21st.
The Turkish theologian who was very influential in introducing Fazlur Rahman's thinking to Turkey was Dr. Mehmet Aydın. Since 2002, Dr. Aydın has been in politics and has been a minister in both of the successive governments of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). I think this implies that the AKP's peace with the secular system, which the ultra-secularists believe to be a ploy, has indeed serious theological justifications. And I will continue to explore them in my next column.
A NOTE
In his TDN piece dated Oct. 1, 2007, Mr. Robert Ellis makes this comment: “Mustafa Akyol has repeatedly argued that the headscarf ban is a violation of human rights, but unless he is referring to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which only recognizes those human rights that are in accordance with Shariah, he is barking up the wrong tree.”
Not really. I am referring not to the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights,” but to the annual reports of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, in which the headscarf ban in Turkey is noted as one of the “significant problems in Turkey that seriously affect religious freedom.” In its 2007 report, the Commission points to the “restrictions on religious freedom in Turkey, including for the majority Sunni Muslim community” and explains: “Muslims are prohibited from wearing certain kinds of religious garb in state institutions, including government offices, the parliament, judicial buildings, and both public and private universities.”
I know that the Anglo-Saxon sensitivity on religious freedom does not always find parallelism in continental Europe, and especially in France, whose perception of religion is negatively affected by its unpleasant history of religious wars and repression. But the reactionary secularism of the old continent leads its societies into deep existential problems, as well pointed out by erudite thinkers such as Pope Benedict XVI. Will write more on that later.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at October 4, 2007 10:23 AM
so are you actually suggesting that the ulema were in favor of modernization along with other classes? not because i appreciate how they misinterpreted "modernization" but yet, i wonder why Ottoman Empire didnt achieve the modernization goal if everybody was so in favor of it.
besides, allow me to correct you so that people will not get a wrong idea: headscarf is not banned in govermental institutions as long as women get in there as citizens, not public servants. well, you may argue that public servants should freely practise islamic clothes, but isnt this the idea of secularism that you shouldnt indicate your beliefs in places where you are supposed to be completely impartial? and as a matter of fact anyone can easily observe that women do wear headscarves in places where theoretically they arent suppposed to.
i also enjoyed the way how you try to utilize the most-ridicolous plural-law systems. anyone with a little common sense can see that plural law system is just a nutcase and it can serve nothing but chaos, as if we dont already have too much of it.
Posted by: superhero at October 4, 2007 11:05 AM
A violation of human rights? Compared against the moral/legal yardsticks of most any other country, this is the equivalent of requiring a license to drive, requiring a permit to build a home, or requiring a citizen to pay income taxes.. The headscarf ban is law. It is also constitutional. (As of this date, but not for much longer it seems)
When the headscarf is inevitably permitted in state institutions we are in for a real wake up call: It will then be the "open" women who become the isolated minority and who begin to attract the unwanted attention which was previously reserved for those who cover up. Not an attractive scenario..
During a hot day in Mudanya recently, my dear wife was sleeveless as we walked along the waterfront 'boardwalk'. Never before had we seen so many girls wearing headscarves.. and the dirty looks and stares were enough to make her feel very uncomfortable and even unsafe. She grew up in Mudanya, and recalls a time when she could walk to/from the beach in shorts and a bikini top, without so much as a second glance from anyone. Things have sure changed. Better? I think not.
Posted by: Murat Altinbasak at October 4, 2007 2:46 PM
@Murat
No it is not. The stupidity is that there is not any legal base for this ban. Even if there would been, it is nonsense. There are more stupid laws that make wearing hat compulsory for officials whereas nobody is wearing it. What's your explanation on that? As you said it's a scenario. King Kong were a horrible scenario also. Things not going this way in liberal countries. Forgive me but it is nonsense. Mudanya is a touristic place & in summer it is more likely to see dirty looks on headscarved girls. Give me any record on headscarved girls attacking the sleeveless or even topless women? Is there any?Posted by: blue at October 5, 2007 4:08 PM
Murat you complain about your wife getting looks from random strangers on the street, yet you justify the government forcing people to dress the way YOU want them to? Wow. This is why at this rate Turkey will never get into the EU.
Posted by: Kerim at October 5, 2007 5:09 PM
Blue,
The head scarf ban is quite constitutional. How else would you explain why the constitution is being changed in order to allow it?
I did not suggest that headscarved girls would attack anyone..
Kerim,
I was not complaining, I was sharing how my wife felt. I do not justify the government "forcing" people to dress a certain way. (this is about what NOT to wear, after all) I simply respect the law, as should you. The root of the matter is that church and state must not integrate. This is something that is constitutionally established. It is the single most respected Turkish value in the eyes of the West and the Western reaching Turkey of old. Once the constitution is amended, we won't be talking about this again, will we? You can then fist the air in triumph. Human rights victory! Great success!
I would rather see Turkey stay the course than join the EU. The new government seems intent upon leading us into the weeds, as if this makes us more attractive to the EU.. I don't think so.
Posted by: Murat Altinbasak at October 5, 2007 7:10 PM
Murat
The current "constitution" was drafted by a military junta! When you keep writing "it's constitutional" it's insulting to our intelligence. And just because something is on paper doesn't make it right. Statistically most Turkish women cover their heads.
Turkey was never a secular country. It's all a big lie. Everyone has "Muslim" written on your ID cards and the government totally controls all aspects of religion in the country. Do you know what secularism is? It's the separation of church and state, not the domination of either one by the other. Nobody here is arguing for a theocracy, they're arguing for democracy.
I'm the second generation of Americans in my family, so let me say that Turkey will never be a respected or Westernized country until it embraces everything the establishment is currently against. That includes a liberal democracy, a military under civilian control, free market values, diversity, and freedom of expression. It's insulting to Western civilization to believe you can just imitate it by playing dress up with a suit and top hat.
Posted by: Kerim at October 5, 2007 9:43 PM
Kerim and Blue I agree with your arguments wholeheartedly. I myself am a first generation Australian of Turkish origin. Let me tell you all including you Murat that in Australia women with a headscarf are allowed in government buildings and are allowed to go to University. After all they are apart of Australia society and are 'taxpayers' which the state collects from them.
It seems to me that these 'Kemalists' are a defeated bunch who are clinging onto the last vestiges of their power. Australia is an example to the world including Turkey Murat. The purpose of governments is to always make their own countries and societies a better one. The current Turkish government has proven to be a great government and thus was dully rewarded at the last elections.
The issue Kemalists have is Secularism which is strange considering how many lectures you hear regarding 'Secularism' from these people. Can it be categorically stated that Secularism is the separation of religion from state and vice-versa. However this is not the case with Turkey. Again this is where Australia passes the test but Turkey fails consistently. Now Murat bey, do you seriously want the state to have so much power to dictate to its citizens including yourself to wear what the state orders? Don't you think this is a bit too much and actually dangerous. Banning the headscarf is not doing you or your wife any favours.
I would also like to ask you Murat bey this question. Which country would you rather live in? Turkey or Australia? If you ask any person around the globe it is Australia. Wouldn't you rather live in a state where people are allowed to wear what they want without any fear, feel how they feel, talk as freely as you like. I can tell you right now where I'd rather be and not be.
It is a high contradiction by suggesting on the one hand that Turkey should not be continuing on its course to the EU but at the same time being an ardent supporter of Ataturk who coincidently was an ardent believer in Westinisation. You cannot have it both ways Murat bey. Either you want to be free and independent or you don't and allow the state to be intrusive on you and your life.
I would trust you to make the right decision for yourself and your family Murat bey.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at October 6, 2007 5:47 PM
"The current "constitution" was drafted by a military junta! When you keep writing "it's constitutional" it's insulting to our intelligence. And just because something is on paper doesn't make it right. Statistically most Turkish women cover their heads."
(Murat:) What will they name the amended constitution's "drafters"? "Geri kafali dinciler"? Who cares? Look, I'm not intelligent enough to insult anyone else's intelligence, so please cool your jets. Your statistics sound more like speculation. Proof? Source? or just your wishful thinking? If "most" means 51%, you might be marginally close to being right.
"Turkey was never a secular country. It's all a big lie. Everyone has "Muslim" written on your ID cards and the government totally controls all aspects of religion in the country. Do you know what secularism is? It's the separation of church and state, not the domination of either one by the other. Nobody here is arguing for a theocracy, they're arguing for democracy."
(Murat:) Point taken. But if it's not secular what is it then? If theocratic values weren't so intrusive, would there be any need to dominate it? (are Kurds subjugated just for the hell of it, or because limiting their strength is a necessity for peace?) Religion.. especially Islam, is a threat to the greater good. Curbing it's influence, especially in government, is priority one. You will no doubt disagree and find another way to pigeon hole me based on these resolutions. Fine. I can live with that, even if I'm the last person on earth to feel this way. You say you're not arguing for theocracy, but you do not seem to be arguing against it either. The Muslim world is engorged at the possibility of Turkey's Islamification (which symbolically kicks off with elimination of the headscarf issue) The Western nations, together with all enemies of Turkey, delight in the idea of Islam in Turkey taking a stronger and more divisive direction. Anything which weakens Turkey is a good and welcome change for them. Like it or not, Muslims have somehow cultivated a reputation for being TNT happy. They blow up whatever troubles them. "Our religion has been hijacked!" is a bigger lie than the one you suggest at the beginning of your argument. TIP of the iceberg.. if one needed to explain the concept of "guilt by association"..
"I'm the second generation of Americans in my family, so let me say that Turkey will never be a respected or Westernized country until it embraces everything the establishment is currently against. That includes a liberal democracy, a military under civilian control, free market values, diversity, and freedom of expression. It's insulting to Western civilization to believe you can just imitate it by playing dress up with a suit and top hat."
(Murat:) Turkey does not NEED to be respected or Westernized as you so describe it's criteria. Nor should any Turk care whether any Westerners are insulted. Furthermore, any "civilian" who is placed in charge of the military, is no longer a civilian are they? Just ask Americans how pleased they are with a so-called "civilian controlled" military. You make it sound as if invading Iraq was put up to a civilian vote. It was not. If civilians (government) were more qualified to judge the threats which exist, and more qualified to eliminate them, then they would control the military! They are not, and thusly do not!
Back to my original point: Headscarves are not allowed as of this date and I do not consider it to be a "violation of human rights". I attended public schools here in the US. Many things were forbidden at that time, are still forbidden today, and many more things have become prohibited since that time, and for far lesser reasons than "something that is on paper.. drafted by a military junta".
Posted by: Murat Altinbasak at October 7, 2007 6:33 AM
Murat bey, your ideas are totally abhorrent and beggars belief. How can you ever in your right mind not care who drafts the constitution of your country? A constitution is a set of laws that are written by the people for the people. It is not a document set down by the people by unelected military strong men who think they know best. Are you really that carefree or even stupid enough to have faith in people you don't know?
Most women in Turkey do cover their heads in fact it is about 60-65% mark which if you care to check your facts are corroborated by TESAV (think tank) and by many newspapers in Turkey.
Suppression of religion especially Islam for the greater good idea defies logic and belief Murat bey. It is a testament to the Turkish people that despite being suppressed are not revolting against the authorities. It is Islam that is having a moderating effect on the people by teaching them to respect the law. I can assure you though if this occurred in any other nation the people would have risen up and taken those oppressors to the sword.
How the hell can you curb Islam in government? Can you explain this please? Curbing a religion is not helping Turkey rather it is hindering its development. Why can't you be more honest and say you don't like Islam rather than putting up phoney arguments then you would get more respect. The overwhelming majority of the Turkish people want a secular state, but not at the expense of thier way of life and suppresion of their identities. So it is possible to be a practicing Muslim and also live in a secular state. I for one live in Australia a modern secular state and also I am a Muslim.
All your other arguments such as Muslims are TNT happy are really disgraceful and make yourself look tragic. I will not even bother to comment on your stupid bigotry.
You are wrong if you think that Turkey doesn't need to be respected. Again you fail to understand modernity and how a modern country should be. I for one as a Turk living in Australia want Turks to be respected and to be looked upon favourably. That respect can only be earned and gained not given on a silver platter. I don't want the Turks to be a laughing stock to the world which Murat bey with your ideas and suggestions lead to. Respect is built over time and can be gained by developing a modern law abiding civil society. Military coups, suppression of minorities, torture, extra-judicial killings etc are not the making of a modern state. But rather the making of an impoverish third would failed state.
So my advice to you and to your fellow Kemalists is to move on and develop Turkey in the right direction and give up on your old recycled ideas. Think about your futures. It is yourself that can make your future and save yourself. Not Ataturk or the generals in Ankara.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at October 7, 2007 4:00 PM
Goksel,
Sorry but I do not appreciate your approach. I do not state my positions to impress you or anyone else. Why the hostility? You seem threatened by a difference of opinion. Get over it and please refrain from insulting me. As one who openly admits they would rather live in Australia over Turkiye, it makes you sound like a self-hating Turk who is embarrassed by the fundamental principles and reforms which put us (kept us) on the map in the first place. Please, stay in Australia.
You speak of respect.. What do you think the world respects most about the United States? They shake like French soldiers in the shadow of it's military strength. Prove me wrong.
Yes, Muslims appear to be TNT happy to most Americans. I've been here all my life, ask me how Americans stereotype Muslims. The truth is painful. You label me a Kemalist, what would that make you?
Posted by: Murat Altinbasak at October 7, 2007 8:48 PM
Murat bey,
Edeb, edeb, I am inviting you to edeb. You are making me laugh with your tragic ideas and beliefs. Your not giving Kemalism or yourself a very good impression with your backward ideas and beliefs.
As for my preference for living in Australia rather than Turkey, let me say this to you. Australia is a modern, democratic, 'egalitarian', secular, multicultural country respected all around the world. We don't have statues in our schools, we don't fear our state or its leaders who we democratically elect, we don't idolise our state. We can happilly criticise our leaders without fear. We don't have military generals going around parading like mafia bosses and threatening political leaders if they don't agree with them.
These are our principles. I recommend to you a copy of the Australia constitution it makes for great reading, maybe if you read them you can see for yourself what a great document it is. I recommend you also read Turkish history as well, because you conveniently neglect that secularism is not a founding principle of Turkey, but rather it was put into law into Turkey in 1937 not 1923. There is a 14 year gap, so go and read for yourself. Turkey has good principles but left a lot to be desired with implementation.
As a Muslim I can practice my religion easily without pressure or ridicule. Also we have wealth, the UN report rates Australia the third best place to live after Norway and Canada. So Murat bey, with all these facts where else should I live? We don't just say these things for no reason but because interntional surveys report them.
What approach of mine do you oppose? What stating the bleeding obvious. Let me assure you I am in no way threatened by you or your ideas. The difference between me and you is that I can criticise and take critism whereas you interpret critisism as insults. Looks like you need some education in your life. I am not a self-hating Turk but critical of Turkey and many of its short comings. Critism is important Murat bey and people must be able to take them in their stride not feel threatened by them.
Respect is earned not given. I am not going to comment on the conduct of American troops on the battlefield in Iraq, but I can honestly say that I have met more Americans than you and they have a very favourable view of Muslims. As for your claim that Americans stereotype Muslims as TNT happy, well that is laughable since you have no evidence to backup your claim.
I didn't label you a Kemalist but it is obvious that it is what you aspire to be. What do I call myself? Well simply you can call me a Muslim, how about that.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at October 9, 2007 9:18 AM