What do you mean, "if we have a minute", we're already reading your column!!

Mr. Akyol,

Come on. You can do it. Or should I say "Yes you can". Perhaps that would inspire you more.

You CAN criticize the AKP and Erdogan (unless you do not have any tax related issues, I must add). Stop dancing around the issue, and covering up Erdogan's bad policies and ridiculous statements. Even statements, such as "God forbid, what would Kemalists and secularists do if they were in power" or "it could have been worse if it was Kemalists and secularists" cannot hide Erdogan's latest mishaps. Take a deep breath, and contribute some "Constructive criticism" as you demanded. Only then you would be contributing intellectually.

You say: "In fact, many American Jews that I know are attached to the Jewish State with a nationalism that perhaps can be called "Jewishism." There is nothing wrong with that, I believe, unless it comes to the point of blindly supporting Israel regardless of whatever it does."

I don't think your neologism "Muslimism" is synonymous with "Jewishism" in this context. Islam is indigenous to the Middle East - in particular with respect to the unique in which it has informed political and cultural life. By contrast Israel magically became a "Jewish state" thanks to allied intervention after WW2.

Israel is an artificial state. The rise of militant Jewish thinking in combination with Zionism is a huge problem. During the Gaza atrocity (I refuse to call it "a war") - Rabbis were present at the front inciting Israeli soldiers with appeals to Old Testament examples - even likening the Palestinians to the ancient Philistines. The only comparison with the Bible was the level of atrocity with large numbers of women and children butchered.

There is no way Israel can be acceptable as "a Jewish state" because many of its citizens are Muslims, Christian and other... moreover a large percentage of Eastern European migrants to Israel are agnostic and/or atheist. What needs to happen is that Israel needs to evolve toward a democracy in practice, and not only in name. It doesn't need to regress to a Jewish fortress... and if this happens then really... it has no future, even with the cosmetic label "democracy".

Tayyip Erdoğan is a complex individual with many seeming paradoxical sides. I'm not sure if this makes him a "man of mystery" but it certainly makes him newsworthy and compared to most boring politicians - interesting.

I actually like Erdoğan because he has guts... a person the Irish might refer to as "a character". He is a Kasımpaşa man - never dull. Also he played semi-pro football so he can dribble. I would like to have a beer with him and tell a few jokes (oh wait he's a Muslim, maybe an espresso). He's not afraid to challenge the Israelis. He sparked headlines by walking out with a grand flourish at the Davos World Economic Forum to drive his point home about Gaza. On the other hand his seeming affection for Tehran's Mahdi-man is a little puzzling. I'm sure there are sides to Mahmoud that are human, even civil, and that he is not of course the devil-incarnate (with horns and tail) depicted by the American media, but he can be rather myopic and fanatical in unhelpful ways. Of course, in my humble opinion, some of his rage is understandable. Iran doesn't have a track record of instigating wars of aggression - unlike Israel and America - so why people believe nukes are safer in the hands of Zionists is indeed a deep enigma especially with the former Moldovan disco bouncer, Avigdor Lieberman, acting as Israel's foreign minister.

Mr Erdoğan's contradictions are not really so puzzling among those who understand his psychology. He's a proud guy, and I'm sure most men know that this can lead to impetuous actions that may not always reflect one's higher ideals. For example although the PM is known to have assumed the role of defender-of-freedom-of-speech on a number of occasions, the fact remains that he pursued a personal vendetta against cartoonist Musa Kart for the "crime" of depicting him (Erdoğan) like a cat entangled in wool on the pages of Cumhuriyet - reprinted to his chagrin later on the pages of Sakarya.

So the argument could be made that Erdoğan supports freedom of expression so long as the object of satire isn't himself. We all have had fathers and uncles like this. They make rules for others, but when they break their own rules nobody is supposed to notice. This doesn't make them bad men, just human.

To be honest I have been impressed with the AKP. They have shown a dynamic businesslike quality that suits Turkey - the party has stood up for their nation while also working on the European agenda. This row over headscarf wearing in universities made some hysterics cry "the Islamists are coming" but really this is an overreaction. As Mr Akoyl correctly points out the AKP may be Muslim-and-proud (certainly not Islamist) - and why not - it's their tradition after all. As for the ban on Muslim women wearing scarves to university, this is actually cultural fascism in a sense and unnecessarily repressive. I feel sorry for those women who can't even make this minimal gesture as a token of their faith, they must feel humiliated to be treated like children. To say that headscarves will pave the way for Islamism is paranoid thinking given Turkey's brilliance at balancing competing forces.

Mr. Akyol, you wrote:

"He said nothing to criticize the brutal crackdown on the Iranian opposition after the country's faked elections."

Excuse me, but I doubt you have really seen any obvious proof that the elections were indeed faked.

Hadji Asvatz, you wrote:

"For example although the PM is known to have assumed the role of defender-of-freedom-of-speech on a number of occasions, the fact remains that he pursued a personal vendetta against cartoonist Musa Kart for the "crime" of depicting him (Erdoğan) like a cat entangled in wool on the pages of Cumhuriyet - reprinted to his chagrin later on the pages of Sakarya./So the argument could be made that Erdoğan supports freedom of expression so long as the object of satire isn't himself. We all have had fathers and uncles like this. They make rules for others, but when they break their own rules nobody is supposed to notice. This doesn't make them bad men, just human."

I haven't ever heard or seen that Mr. Erdogan ever defended any such right as to call another person an animal to deride him. This kind of a crude sense of not humor but derision and insult is not within my sense of freedom of speech, and I think Erdogan thinks the same way.

To me it's clear that the real inconsistency is in the belief that people should be democratic and then should be absolutely free to insult and de-humanize each other. This viewpoint is not a true belief in man's freedom. It is rather just a very common but undemocratic, overly disrespectful and even pathological western hallucination.

Is the death by lethal injection of a mentally ill Muslim man Mr.Akmal Shaikh (aged 53) by China, a anti-Islamist and anti-Muslimist act? Clearly, by the conduct of Mr. Shaikh's past actions we can conclude that, this man was suffering from a mental condition. Clearly, he was duped and deceived by evil persons into entering China with a suitcase full of drugs. No experinced person within drug trafficing would have acted in such a manner, for fear of discovery. Chinese officials would have known this, they are experienced with such matters, from past experinces and had known the pattern used by such criminals and that, Mr.Akmal Shaikh did not follow such a pattern. There was no previous history of Drugs (taking or trafficing) by this man. This would have been known by not only those Chinese border control police but also by the Chinese judiciary and also by the ruling political leaders of China. The British embassy, British Foreign Office ministers, Prime Minister Gordon Brown made 27 Appeals for clamancy from the execution of this individual but, China did not want to listen. Mr. Gordon Brown did not make a direct appeal to the Chinese Premier why? Why did the leaders of other EU countries NOT make a direct appeal for mercy to the Chinese Premier? By failing to act re Clamancy, are these EU leaders also guilty of being anti-Muslimist? Was their(EU leaders) reasoning and failure to act, influenced by trade and financial implications with China? What was China's reason to pick upon this innocent, confused Muslim man? What was China's reasons for this 'barbaric act' this unecessary loss of a human life? What was China's reason to pick upon such a lowly and impoverished individual? The only logical reason was that China wanted to make an example of this Muslim man. China wanted to send out a message to the World. Was China's message to appease the USA leaders? To send a message, via the execution of this man that, China is anti-Muslim? America (USA) due to their financial burden was already beholden (US deficit) to China thus the Chinese leaders knew that their would not be any condemnation from the Obama (US) administration. Thus, China went ahead with the 'murder' of this Muslim man.

China's Attack upon Islam

Is the death by lethal injection of a mentally ill Muslim man Mr.Akmal Shaikh (aged 53) by China, a anti-Islamist and anti-Muslimist act? Clearly, by the conduct of Mr. Shaikh's past actions we can conclude that, this man was suffering from a mental condition. Clearly, he was duped and deceived by evil persons into entering China with a suitcase full of drugs. No experinced person within drug trafficing would have acted in such a manner, for fear of discovery. Chinese officials would have known this, they are experienced with such matters, from past experinces and had known the pattern used by such criminals and that, Mr.Akmal Shaikh did not follow such a pattern. There was no previous history of Drugs (taking or trafficing) by this man. This would have been known by not only those Chinese border control police but also by the Chinese judiciary and also by the ruling political leaders of China. The British embassy, British Foreign Office ministers, Prime Minister Gordon Brown made 27 Appeals for clamancy from the execution of this individual but, China did not want to listen. Mr. Gordon Brown did not make a direct appeal to the Chinese Premier why? Why did the leaders of other EU countries NOT make a direct appeal for mercy to the Chinese Premier? By failing to act re Clamancy, are these EU leaders also guilty of being anti-Muslimist? Was their(EU leaders) reasoning and failure to act, influenced by trade and financial implications with China? What was China's reason to pick upon this innocent, confused Muslim man? What was China's reasons for this 'barbaric act' this unecessary loss of a human life? What was China's reason to pick upon such a lowly and impoverished individual? The only logical reason was that China wanted to make an example of this Muslim man. China wanted to send out a message to the World. Was China's message to appease the USA leaders? To send a message, via the execution of this man that, China is anti-Muslim? America (USA) due to their financial burden was already beholden (US deficit) to China thus the Chinese leaders knew that their would not be any condemnation from the Obama (US) administration. Thus, China went ahead with the 'murder' of this Muslim man.

"But the AKP's performance since 2002 proves otherwise" Just because they could not does not mean they would not. They would if they had the chance. But they will never be able to, thanks to the active secular resistance to tyrannical mind set.