What would that guy think of me, I wonder:

1. I was born and raised in a "Soviet" family of convinced Darwinists and Communists, though "ethnically" Muslim

2. I went to one of the "Turkish" or Fethullah Gulen schools (no religion in schools is allowed throughout post-Soviet Union, still)

3. I used to argue with my Turkish teachers about origins of life and humanity (as a convinced Darwinist)

4. I was accepted to one of the best universities in Moscow (thanks to my education in the "Turkish" school)

5. I realized that God the Almighty exists and Islam is the true religion (after thorough research of quite a few religions and ideologies)

6. I was awarded two Soros, yes SOROS, scholarships while prusuing my undergraduate education.

7. I was awarded a "Russian" Fullbright scholarship for Masters degree program in the US by the US Department of State, yes by AMERICA

8. I work for a Western (US-British) company since my return from US

I remain convinced that Islam is the true religion and democracy and market principles are the best ways of functioning of states and economies.

Greetings to Burak Bekdil,

Behruz.

Mustafa,

I understand that you are fed up with being compelled to defend yourself, but I don't think you need to do it in the future...because, first of all, you can't satisfy every one, and second, while silence means consent...it's not always the case...sometimes, the best answer to an ignorant( the best euphemism for stupid I guess) is also silence...

So, I personally support, and applaud your stance as a Turkish-Muslim intellectual...

Keep up with the good work,

Mustafa,

Just to express my support. Keep it up.

Mr. Akyol,

Do I seriously need to point out line by line and article by article how disturbingly your stance changed - quite dishonestly I must admit - over issues, such as Intelligent Design, Creationism, science and scientific knowledge depending on where you publish, and to whom you present? Changing one's perspective is a sign of maturity; however, if you are not honest and/or sincere about it then it is not too difficult to understand Mr. Bekdil.

I have read many debates between Mr bekdil and yourself. from following your articles in TDN i have seen that we have the same liberal views. A strong belief in equality and live and let live. The secularists in turkey have always been intransigent and believed that turkey is fully democratic. They feel threatened because they see the world through different glasses. What do you expect they see every country as enemies trying to tear turkey apart and they even feel that the majority of turks want turkey to implode. how can you talk reason with people like that. My recommendation is continue with your contribution to harmony amongst people and dont let them make you deviate in your noble quest to voice tolerance, harmony and democrasy.

Kenan,
I share quite a lot of values with Mr. Akyol over liberalism, and I believe in the separation of religion and state, which makes me a secularist. I also do not believe that Turkey is fully democratic but I do not think Mr. Akyol's interpretation (in fact misinterpretation) of secular democracy does not fit Turkey. So where do I fall? Instead of arguing over how to categorize people, why dont we argue over thoughts and ideas?

cingoz
i was brought up and educated in country that you and most turkish secularists would call a secular democracy. A real secular state recognizes and respects the right of its citizens to practice their beliefs. It protects their right to belief. Most of the countries that most turks see as western secular democracies actually have christian/religious based politics and legal systems. I believe that a politically secular democracy that bases its citizens rights on islam (as "turks" see Islam) would be a more democratic system than the western political systems. and would be a shining light to all the muslims in the world. It would destroy the hopes of the fundamentalists. If we had a real functioning democrasy in turkey 10 years ago, i believe that the fundamentalists in pakistan who are taking it over province by province would not have had any support what so ever today. Lets make us the example to the rest of the islamic world and prove that we as turks are proud to be muslim and we are the democray that the muslims should aspire to be, not the taliban, iran nigeria pakistan or saudi arabia. As long as we dont respect the right of our citizens to be muslim. we will just sow the seeds for division and hatred and before you know it we will be no different to pakistan, a secular nation slowly being taken over by a people who were disregarded, disenfranchised and never respected or recognized by its secular politics. There is only 2 ways to stop turkey becoming a sharia state and that is to either kill the majority of its citizens or to wake up FAST and embrace our own democracy based on simple muslim values of equality, human rights, freedom of thought and speech. So far this is what i have seen from the AKP. In regards to Erdogan he like all democraticly elected politicians who get a strong mandate and have been in power for more than 1 term, needs to step back and slowdown with what is percieved by some as arogance

Kenan,

I agree with most of your arguments, specifically those regarding radicalization through oppression. However, one must be careful comparing Australia and the US on the one hand and Turkey on the other. These are exceptional countries with exceptional histories. Their political system, ideologies and development do not resemble to any other country for many reasons. Even the institutionally twin Anglo-Saxon England is quite different than the US. Australia is another exceptional country, and it also has its own problems of exclusion. I am sure you know more than I do about the aborigines and their right to access to health care and etc.

As you perfectly mentioned, you are living in an "educated [and secular] country." Unfortunately, secularism requires a high level of education, and almost 70 percent of Turkish population is undereducated. Unemployment rate is more than 10 percent (a high proportion of this 10 percent is below the age of 25.) In other words, we are sitting on a time bomb. You must visit Turkey and talk to people in rural areas, and listen how their life changed since AKP came to power. In some parts of Istanbul, you would think you went back in time to the dark ages. I am not referring to conservatism but sheer fundamentalism and radicalism. There are quite a few studies on neighborhood pressure (mahalle baskisi). Please refer to one by Bogazici University, Binnaz Toprak "TÜRKİYE’DE FARKLI OLMAK: Din ve Muhafazakarlık Ekseninde Ötekileştirilenler". It is a very informative study on how conservatism is polarizing and radicalizing our society.

Moreover, Australia respects freedom of religion for the majority of its citizens represent a reformed religion (Christianity) that does not dictate a state ruled by religious dogma. Turkey demands freedom "from" religion in order to maintain its democratic - albeit imperfect - regime. Remember, the issue is not freedom of religion but freedom from religion and that is only in Public sphere. Have a look at Toprak's study, and let me know how you would guarantee justice and freedom if the state is captured by Islamic rules. Will atheists, agnostics, Christians, and women who do not wear headscarves (bad Muslims) labeled as the "other" and simply be "tolerated"? I personally believe that Islam needs to experience some kind of a grand reformation in order to become compatible with democracy. Until that day, I am afraid I will remain skeptical about the intentions of Islamic community.

By the way, I am not arguing that Baykal is the solution either. I would be equally critical about his government. However, Baykal's mistakes do not justify those of Erdogan.

cingoz

i'm glad to hear we agree on most things. I would like to comment on your last post and clarify several things. In Australia the parliament is always opened with the "lords prayer" its laws are based on Christianity. and there are no laws restricting the practice or conduct of religious beliefs (as long as they do not incite violence or hatred). The aborigines had been persecuted to unimaginable levels in the past, but today they have the same rights as any citizen and in some cases they have more. Here in Australia we have legal aid for people who dont have the money to get legal representation. This is available as long as the funds dont run out. Aborigines on the other hand get this whether there are funds left or not and they enjoy many other benefits that other Australians can only enjoy if the funds are available. The health care system does not discriminate. the problem is in providing health services to very small communities (whether aboriginal or not) of people spread over a land mass 8 times the size of Turkey.
You say Christianity is a reformed religion. Who reformed it? people did, so in effect its not the word of god anymore it has become a culture with its history based on a religion. As far as i am aware Islam is the only Abrahamic based religion that still contains ONLY the word of its original creator.
In regards to your request for me to read a report writen by Binnaz Toprak. I read this today in a turkish paper and figured, he has explained it perfectly. Through experience i have found that in turkey the vast majority of studies have politically dubious motives and so as a result i tend to avoid them now.
This is taken from an interview of F Gulen by Mustafa Yeşil, the chairman of the Journalists and Writers Foundation's (GYV) executive board, a Turkish NGO undertaking projects that emphasize mutual understanding and tolerance to establish global peace

(MY)
"Professor Binnaz Toprak conducted a study with the Open Society Institute and found that Turkey is increasingly becoming more conservative and that this is a threat for other lifestyles. They talked about this “neighborhood pressure,” specifying this “threat.” What do you think about this?

(FG)
First, if Turkey is becoming more conservative, it cannot be explained only by domestic transformations. Today, the world has become a global village, so much so that a social formation can easily take on a universal identity in a short period of time. Presently in the entire world, particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tragic 9/11 incidents, there is this increasing interest of people in religion. It is a reality that people are now talking about religion more than they used to. Turkey, as part of this whole, is not immune from this global trend. Yet, it is natural for a country like Turkey, whose people have always been sensitive to religion, to develop a similar interest. However, Toprak's research is flawed because of its sampling methodology. She herself confessed that they only interviewed a limited number of people having a particular way of life. In proper research that is supposed to be saying something about a country's realities, the sample needs also to be as diverse as the country's population. Imagine a survey of economic well being that used only unemployed people as respondents, then you would have a picture as if the entire country is crumbling upon itself. And, imagine the same questions asked only to millionaires of the country, and then the picture you get will be very different from the former one. But one thing remains valid for the two: They are distorted images of the reality. Toprak's research is one of them.

Now in regards to your statement that you need a high level of education to be a secularist. I disagree. most of my secular friends have little education but come from families that benefit from a corrupt system. I also believe that the Turkish education system is based on, to learn by blind obedience and not to question what you are taught and memorize what you are taught. Todays Turkey has a high proportion of its youth educated and as you said the majority of Turkeys population is young so i think you might have to re-evaluate your statistics that you provided. Yes Turkey is experiencing 10+% unemployment but you fail to mention that these are the best employment figures turkey has experienced. You fail to mention turkeys economy has grown under AKP evidenced by turkeys growing GDP. Today the youth have new technologies that are opening their eyes, like the internet and making them question the subtle political indoctrination they received in the education system and then followed on in the military. The secular elite that still have power in turkey do their best to stop these impressionable youth from seeing undesirable and different views by banning any site that differs with their views eg youtube.

I have visited Turkey on many occasions, admittedly i havent been there for 5 years but when i do go i take every opportunity to experience the village life. One thing i noticed in turkey is that there has ALWAYS been 3 political camps. Secularists, Islamists and lastly the vast majority being in the middle. The days of secularism as you know it are quickly evaporating and is being replaced with a Turkish/Islamic version of European social democracy. I dont understand the secularists fear of this democracy, because i were to ask them about democracy in Germany. They would tout it as a fine example of democracy, but why? when Germany is governed by A Merkel and her CDU (christian democratic union) which does not deny that their political beliefs are HEAVILY base on christianity. It is not as you put it freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion because today the secular system is in power restricting religion not the other way round. the constitution garantees the ristriction of religion, thought and disent not the other way around. what i see in Turkey today is a new party that is saying to everyone it dosnt have to be EITHER secularist or fundamentalist. carnt Turkey evolve and modernise and move into the middle. In modern nations its called western democrasy.

P.S If i have offended any christians i sincerly apologize and would like to let you know that it is not my intention to offend you or my mothers beliefs.

Kenan,
I have no idea where to begin. I think you are missing the gist of most of my arguments. I will try to be systematic.

In plain words, it is almost pointless to compare "democracy" in Australia, England, and the US (and others) with democracy in Turkey. They all have their problems with inclusion, exclusion and discrimination – one way or another and at varying degrees. Having rights does not automatically eliminate issues surrounding discrimination. There are different types of discrimination (myopic, economic, statistical, ethnic, and etc.), and not every discrimination is intentional or malignant.

There are two sets of arguments implied in my previous comments. First, democracy is not an end in itself (a final destination) where one gets off when it is reached. This kind of conceptualization of democracy is too static, and it fails to explain varieties. Instead, democracy should be conceptualized as a "method" of governing/rule that is custom designed for and by every society depending on each country’s historical, institutional and behavioral legacies, geography, and etc. - that collectively determine each country's perception of legitimacy, sovereignty, justice, security and etc. My point is that principles of democracy rather than specific countries should be the focus of a sound analysis.

I am also confused with your argument on Christianity and Islam. I may be wrong but your statement seems to demonstrate the Islamic bias towards other religions. It is highly controversial that Christianity no longer spreads the word (love as they call) of the God because it was reformed by the "people", and ONLY Islam contains the word of the God. I identify two issues here. The first one is easy to handle and it relates to relevance (so what? Does it make Islam more Holy? And who says so? God?) Second, this kind of argument implies some kind of hierarchy among religions (good vs. better, original vs. altered, etc.), and suggests superiority of Islam over other religions for it is the last, unaltered and by implication the best religion. I think this type of argument is offensive, counterproductive and unjustifiably arrogant but I do not think you meant that.

Regarding Prof. Toprak's research: I am not surprised that Gulen lacks the level of maturity and honesty to refrain himself from making comments on topics that he has no knowledge of; as a result, his comments are misinformed and unintelligent. They are almost as unintelligent as arguing that smoking does not cause cancer because not every smoker dies of cancer. I would like to pull my hair out partly because you referred to Gulen as the spokesperson for academic research but I will try to explain the gist of Dr. Toprak's methodology so that you would not cite plumbers, electricians, Imams, tribesmen and etc. as authorities on academic research and scientific methodology.

In very simple terms, the scope of Prof. Toprak’s study is to examine whether or not there is increasing conservative pressure on "population living a certain life style (which is secular). As a result, OF COURSE her sample will be those representing the secular life style. Hypothetically speaking, if I conduct research to explore whether or not there is political pressure (or anything else for that matter) on the Alevi population in Turkey (you can even apply it to Kurds), OF COURSE my sample will be the Alevi population and not the whole population in Turkey. How would I examine pressure on Alevis (Kurds) if I expand it to the whole country? The size of her sample would be a legitimate topic to talk about. In short, Gulen has no knowledge of research design, methodology, method, quantitative and qualitative analysis and etc. but he is unjustifiably arrogant in criticizing an academic research simply because he does not like the outcome. Perhaps, academicians should run all their research by him first for methodological precision. Seriously, why did you cite him?

Regarding secularism and etc. I did not say "you need a high level of education to be a secularist". I said secularism (the understanding of it to be more precise) requires a high level of education. You can be an illiterate secular person without understanding what secularism means. There is a big difference between being a secularist and understanding secularism. You are in fact supporting my argument with your examples with one exception. You are associating secularism (principle) with corruption (practice). This approach is no different than associating Islam with fundamentalism or backwardness. If I am an illiterate depressed suicidal Marxist with homosexual tendencies does that mean Marxism advocates suicide, illiteracy and homosexuality?

Moreover, the statistics are correct but your interpretation of them is not. 10 percent unemployment rate may be the best employment rate Turkey may ever have had (which is not by the way, check the period between 1960-1970. I think at some point it was higher than AKP) that does not negate my point. So what? because unemployment rate is relatively better, does it mean there is no significant unemployment??? Should we assume that Turkey has a good educational system if every youth could attend university? What about quality of education? Who cares if the GDP grew by 1000 percent if it serves to the top 5 percent of the country? Turkey grew rapidly in the early Republican years during the single party regime. Should we go back to the single party regime? Turkey is one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution. By the way, did you know Richard Dawkin's website was banned because it criticized Adnan Oktar's (version of Gulen) views on creationism? Apparently, Oktar was offended by Dawkins' criticism. Do you think the Military was behind it? (by the way, I am against all internet censorship) Like I said, some of the past governments had better economic growth rates. Does that mean they were better than the AKP? According to your logic, they should be.

This entry is way too long; but please, read my comments more carefully. You seem to misinterpret my arguments.

To cingoz
Firstly we are only expressing our opinions in relation to M Akyols excellent article.
I disagree that it is pointless to discuss the differences in democracies between turkey and the western democracies. yes its true they all have their own fine tunings of democracy but they all have the same basics, like transparency and accountability. It is these basic tenets of democracy that any nation moving from authoritarian republicanism to democracy needs to employ.
I dont understand your frustration at the reference to fetullah Gulen. I send my sons to one of his schools so i can tell you first hand that these schools provide an education to my children that is consistently achieving the highest educational achievements in the state where i live. it is ranked number 1 in our state. it has achieved better results that 150 year old established private schools at a fraction of the price. i dont belong to any "cemat" i am as M Akyol refers to himself freelance, but i have to thank Mr gulen for providing my sons with the best education possible. Many of my friends children have graduated from university with honours and are now exceptional contributors to society as a result of these schools. if you were to take the time to go to one of his schools you would see pictures of Ataturk everywhere. here in Australia the government does not classify his schools as religious because only 1 hour a week is allocated to religious studies (public schools allocate 2 hours a week). can you tell me why you have such a hatred for a man that has not been convicted of any crime, who professes moderate islam and has been referred to by several different and respectable magazines like TIME for his tolerance and level of intelligence. He was voted as the worlds greatest intellectual. he has been invited by some of the most renowned statesmen and politicians of our time. And you want to pull your hair out when you hear his name??? Well thats your prerogative but it tells me a lot about you. If they disagree with your thoughts they are "unintelligent".
when i replied to your statement that unemployment is terrible and i reminded you that these are the best figures turkey has seen you replied with "i THINK back in the 60's-70's at some point it was higher". well my response is you vaguely refer to a period 40-50 years ago and qualify your statement with "i think". not good enough.
In regards to my statement regarding Christianity. i believe i made my point clear enough. I have the utmost respect for the followers of christianity and i am not discriminating against my christian brothers i am just giving my opinion as to whether the bible is still only the word of god. Not only is my mother christian but my best friend and most of my friends are either Anglican or catholic.
in future if you respond to one of my posts. could i ask you to be enlightened enough to read the post in its entirety.
after reading my post you stated "I think this type of argument is offensive, counterproductive and unjustifiably arrogant" obviously you selectively read the parts you wanted and disregarded the main content.
selective reading and hearing is a tactic employed by the secularists in turkey when they can not debate a topic with logic and mutual respect.
In the remote possibility that you didnt understand. i am for interfaith tolerance and equality, respect for each individuals right to believe what ever they want, as long as it does not impeach on the rights of others.

Kenan,
I do understand why you are getting this emotional about my comments, and accusing me of being a secularist as if it were a sin. Let me further clarify my points but please try to focus on the gist of my argument rather than my style of argument, and read as slowly as possible. I have a strong feeling that there will be further misunderstandings on your end followed by AKP type accusations (Kemalists, secularists, and my upcoming favorite “darbeci”

My point about democracy was that our discussions on democracy should focus on the fundamental principles of democracy rather than country specific practices. You seem to argue that we can reach to the "basic tenets of democracy" by focusing on country practices - or country specific practices help (whichever you would like to take). I think overall we are on the same page. We lay primary emphasis on the fundamental principles of democracy except I further argue that we should not refer to any country as an example partly because this type of argument is inherently vulnerable to the criticism that not every country is alike. Otherwise, we have to talk about the Iranian type of democracy too (which by the way I have no sympathy).

I do understand your sympathy for Gulen. I would like to refer to him in the context of academic research we were talking about so that you will not get offended. Let me further simplify my point by taking him out of the picture, and replacing him with one of my friends who happens to be a rich technician and a philanthropist. He has been cited by the TIME, Economist, Al Jazeera TV and etc., he helps children, he loves Ataturk, Jesus, and Muhammed equally, he drinks his milk before he goes to bed, never drinks alcohol or never cheats on his wife. I personally like him as well because he helps me with my finances. Do or should all of his positive attributes make him an expert on academic research?

My point is that Gulen is not making a comment on what he thinks about the research or its findings. In other words, he is not expressing his opinion but he is stating and claiming that the research is flawed on the grounds that it has a sampling error (therefore, its findings are flawed). That is a very strong and unjustifiable statement from someone who does not support his argument with any valid academic justification (not to mention his lack of academic credentials). That is unintelligent, deceptive, dishonest and arrogant. He just claims so, and his believers/followers/partisans (whatever you would like to call them) do not even think; they take his word, and defend his points without doing the thinking themselves. These believers/followers also believe (since they do not object either) that he should be able to criticize anything and everything simply because he is a good person. That is how religious orders/cults/tarikats work.

Take yourself for example. You do not seem to be surprised or even concerned with the fact that Gulen was criticizing an academic research without having any credentials. And when I challenged Gulen’s argument, and ask you why you cited him as your spokesperson, you refrained from the issue at hand, started outlining your personal connections with Gulen while accusing me of being a secularist and listing Gulen’s achievements that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. How does your personal love for Gulen have anything to do with his credentials for making very rigid statements about scientific research that he has no knowledge of?
Personally, I do not hate Gulen but I dislike (not hate) the subject mentality that surrounds him for a very simple reason. These people let him do the thinking for them just because he is a “good” guy or even worse, he provides financial and emotional protection or support. If the question is why I should take Gulen's words on academic research seriously, the answer should be better than "he is a great guy; he provides education to my kids; I like him or I love him". I am sure you do understand and value the meaning behind "I think therefore I am".
Moreover, I honestly do not care whether or not you are a member of Gulen’s herd. But I care about your arguments, and I have a lot of respect for them as long as they are your own. So my question to you is what do YOU think about the research, and why do you think so? But if you insist that Gulen must be right because he is a good guy then perhaps Gulen should comment on this blog on your behalf.

Regarding Christianity, Islam and etc., I did not mean to selectively read and cite your point. In fact, in the beginning of my comment, I stated that “I may be wrong” and that your comment "seemed to demonstrate…". At the end, I also claimed that I did not believe that you meant what I explained. I just simply did not know what your point was by stating that Islam was the ONLY Abrahamic religion that contained the word of God. By implication and by the way your argument was framed, you seemed to be leading to an argument with an Islamic bias because you did not refer to the basic "so what" question. Where does it fit in your argument, and what do you mean by it? I understand that you are expressing an opinion but opinions alone do not construct an argument. To have an argument you also need to ask the question as to why you have that opinion, and what makes you to have such an opinion. Otherwise, we would end up with a list of uninformed opinions that would not tell us much. Or alternatively, we can always ask Gulen.

Merhaba cingoz its been a while since we commented on this blog. Its obvious to me we both have misunderstood each other. thanks for your reply even though it was given in a left handed way i do appreciate it. i believe the misunderstanding lies in the polarization and labeling of thought present in turkey.
just to clarify again my position in regards to F.Gulen. i am not part of any cemat or tarikat, i just respect a man who has shown me that he is prepared to make an effort to educate people through out the world. i wish i had the ability, motivation or the resources to contribute to the youth and intercommunal dialog and peace as he has(without profit). He may or may not have formal academic qualifications to make a comment on the study in topic but he has been courted by many statesmen around the world for his opinion and his views. i also have a strong respect for other people who may or may not have formal academic qualification like Mandela, Desmond Tutu, the dali-lama and gandi.
my experience in turkey has shown me that the outcome of the vast majority of studies done in turkey generally are politic biased and motivated. as you are very well aware any statistical study can be manipulated to reflect the outcome you desire. Anyway enough has been said about him. back to secularism.
Through out the world secularism manifests itself in many different forms ie Turkey, Germany, Australia or Mexico they all have the basic tenet of separation of religion and politics. to give you an example here in Australia (a secular state) secularism means purely and sole the supremacy of the Westminster system of law. It does not try and restrict or control religion or the individuals right to believe. it actually protects the individuals right to believe what they want and how they want with the one provision. That your belief does not impinge, hurt incite hatred or restrict any others individuals right to live and believe freely as he chooses in peace. which is not the case in turkey. the turkish state controls religion and the individuals right to practice his/her beliefs. that is not secularism because in my opinion instead of removing religion from politics it has created an ideology that has been developed and influenced as a result of religion, it focuses on religion. the moment the government takes a stand eg. headscarf issue it looses its secular credentials. The turkish version of Secularism had its place back in the 1920-30 where the people of turkey were more unified by religion than nationalism. but that was nearly a century ago and not only has turkey changed but so has the world.
We will always have religious crack pots in turkey as every other country in the world has, but to restrict the individuals fundamental right to belief in a country that is over 95% muslim is not going to create a country that is safe from fundamentalism on the contrary it will fuel fundamentalism.
No matter how many reports are written and whether the most renowned academics in the world were to present these studies, i still could not accept that the population of a nation (grown free thinking adults) can be dictated by pressure to believe a religion/ideology. you either agree with that religion/ideology or you dont.
Sorry that once again i haven't responded to your original post as requested, but currently i am totally focused and excited by the developments in the azeri/armenian situation and hopefully soon i will respond to your original request.