And the secularism in question here is one of a kind. The state is secular only in the sense that it is not dominated by religion. But it cheerfully dominates religion, organizes and regulates religious practice, and, most importantly, severely restricts religious freedom. The champions of this authoritarian model argue that the state actually has the duty to secularize the society and even create “secular individuals.” Hence comes the ban on Sufi orders, religious foundations and headscarves. When compared to Turkey, even the staunchly secular France looks like a haven of religious freedom.

Why Not ‘Moderate Secularism'?

So, in order to save Turkey from the endless clashes over secularism, wouldn't it be a good idea to soften and liberalize that principle? Wouldn't a “moderate secularism”, which respects religious freedom, be a better choice?

Turkey's Kemalists respond to this question with an astounding “no.” They rather insist that Turkey's unique model is what Islam deserves. Last weekend my column neighbor was making this argument by complaining from the lack of “reform” in Islam. Turkey needs to keep up with its “far more rigid understanding and practice of secularism than even [that of] France,” he wrote, until Islam gets reformed and stops trying to “regulate all aspects of life.”

In other words, if we had a “reformed Islam,” the secularism aspect of our official ideology would be much more liberal.

At a glance, this argument might look convincing. But please don't rush. And just ask this question: Is Turkey's official ideology liberal at all on any issue?

For example consider the Kurdish case. From the mid-20's to the early 90's, the Turkish Republic banned the Kurdish language and identity. Even using the word “Kurd” was a criminal offence and a politician went into prison 1982 for simply saying “I am a Kurd.” What do you think was the reason for this totalitarian notion of nationalism? Was the Kurdish language not “reformed” enough?

Well, you can say there was Kurdish separatism around and that was the justification for forced assimilation. (Whereas actually forced assimilation was the very factor that fueled Kurdish separatism.) Anyway, then move on to consider the more recent fuss about “insulting Turkishness.” As you would know, dozens of liberal intellectuals in this country have been sued for “insulting” the Turkish nation, Atatürk or the military by simply making critical comments. Was the problem that these intellectuals, such as Turkey's Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, were “unreformed?”

Or consider the stance of the Turkish establishment on the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, whose very name is abhorred and banned. Or see how the proponents of our official ideology lash at Christian missionaries and their right to evangelize their faith. Or just look at how they have blocked a peaceful solution in Cyprus for decades. Or, if you are bored with politics, move on to the economy and see how the same circles still cling to “statism” and protectionism, which were fashionable ideas in the 30's, but are quite outdated today.

Do you think that these problems exist because the forces that our official ideology doesn't like — conservative Muslims, Kurds, liberals, Christians, minorities, the global economy, etc. — are all “unreformed?” Or, would it be better judgment to say it is actually our official ideology that is unreformed and desperately in need of some change?

Call me a relativist, but instead of thinking there is something wrong with the whole world, I would rather conclude that there is something wrong with Ankara.

Reform, But How?

Having said all that, I must add that I actually agree on the need for some “reform” — or to use a better term, a renewal — in Islam. Contemporary Islam is full of medieval traditions and interpretations that need to be questioned and revised. Muslim thinkers such as Mehmet Akif Ersoy have been saying this as early as the 19th century. Turkey's own Islamic tradition is actually relatively more modernized than the ones in most Middle Eastern countries, but there is still a real need for change.

Yet the crucial point is that this change will not come through the authoritarian measures of a secularist state. In fact, through its strategy of forced modernization by limiting religious freedom, the Turkish state made matters much worse. Islamic movements and orders regarded the state as an “infidel entity” that attacks their values, and became reactionary and isolated. “In Turkey, the closure of madrasahs meant that the more educated, sober and responsible element in Islam declined,” reminds Karen Armstrong, one of the world's prominent historians of religion. “The more extravagant forms of underground Sufism were the only form of religion left.”

Today our secularists watch those extravagant forms of folk Islam with disdain and regret that they haven't suppressed them enough, without realizing their own role in the whole scheme of things. When a shanty Koranic course building collapses in Konya, leaving 18 students tragically killed, they lash out against these “backward minded underground sects.” Yet they don't realize that they have never given these people the chance to be open and transparent, and thus find the medium for progress.

In short, yes, Islam needs renewal, but secular fundamentalism doesn't help that. That much-sought “reform” will come when Muslims engage in democracy, capitalism, globalization, and religious freedom. This process is already underway in Turkey, and it just needs to be given a chance.