Also on this page Denial: A Characteristic of the Islamic Mind and Human Rights Violations in Arab Prisons

Turkey: A Case Study in Failure to Secularize

Kemal Ataturk was born in Salonika, in 1881. That city in northern Greece (known also as Macedonia,) was still part of the Ottoman Empire. From his earliest days, he did not behave as a good Muslim; his mother often remarked about his lack of respect for “Allah’s Shadow on earth.” She was referring to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul, who was not only the Ruler of the empire, but acted as the Caliph of the worldwide Islamic Umma. Mustapha Kemal, as his full name was, enrolled in the army, and soon began to climb in the ranks of the officer corps.  

The Ottomans joined Germany and Austria against the Allies in WWI. When the war ended with the defeat of Germany and its allies, it appeared as if the Ottomans were going to lose not only their distant territories, but a good part of the Turkish heartland. Mustapha Kemal rallied the remnants of the Ottoman Army, and managed to defeat the Allies, and forced them to leave Turkey. He became the undisputed leader of the country, and earned the honorary title of “Ataturk,” i.e. the Father of the Turks! 

Ataturk had many ambitious plans for his country. He declared Turkey a republic, abolished the Caliphate in 1924, and invited Western scholars to re-write Turkish laws by secularizing them. Other changes followed in rapid succession: the Arabic-based Ottoman script was replaced by a Latin-based alphabet. Men were no longer permitted to wear the fez, and women were forbidden to wear the veil. However, we should not imagine that Turkey adopted a truly Western democratic model. This fact was made clear recently in an article published by the Italian online magazine Chiesa, dated March 22, 2006: 

“[…] in fact, Turkish secularism has little in common with the liberal, Enlightenment-inspired doctrine of the so-called separation between Church and state in the public arena. In Islam, whether fundamentalist or radical or moderate, there is no distinction between the religious and the political arena; the two realities interpenetrate each other. [...] In the Christian world, on the contrary, there are two powers, that of God and that of Caesar; these can be associated or separate, they can be in harmony or in conflict, as has often been the case in history – but they are always two powers, distinct from each other and autonomous in their respective areas of competence.”

After the death of Ataturk in 1938, the secular tradition continued under the tutelage of the army. His successor, Ismet Inönü was a former officer in the Ottoman Army. He continued the policies of his predecessor. Certain basic Islamic traditions such as the Call of Prayer chanted in Arabic, had to be done in Turkish. And those devout Turks of Anatolia would no longer be permitted to go on the Hajj! Still, as the article in Chiesa put it

“But Turkish Islam, expelled from the public sphere, survives and prospers in civil society: in the numerous Sufi confraternities and in the pro-Islamic political movements that have emerged in recent decades. This complex Islamic movement includes various tendencies within itself, both the fundamentalist tendency inspired by the radical movements present in almost all the Islamic countries that preach jihad against the “atheist and corrupt” West and want shari’a to be the law of the state, and the moderate tendency that is eager for dialogue with modernity and interested in forming friendly relationships with the Western world. [...]” http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=47175&eng=y

Having explained the background of modern Turkey and the attempt of its leaders to secularize all aspects of Turkish culture, I submit the following thesis: The history of Turkey since 1918, serves as a Case Study in the Impossibility to Permanently Secularize Islam.   

Successive developments within the Turkish Republic, since the death of Ataturk in 1938, demonstrate that his great efforts to permanently change his country’s allegiance to Islam were not to be successful. Both he, and his immediate successors, failed to realize how deep-rooted Islam was, especially in the rural areas of Turkey. It would turn out that the citizens of Istanbul and Ankara, and other metropolitan centers near the Mediterranean, were unable to counter-balance the efforts of the faithful Muslims of Anatolia (central and eastern Turkey) who sought to restore to Islam the privileged status it had enjoyed in the life of their country. The very democratic system that gave every citizen the right to vote eventually brought about the victory of a nascent Islamic party. This proved that more Turks preferred some version of the Ottoman Islamic tradition to prevail rather than the secularized ideology of Ataturk. 

I have been musing along these thoughts ever since the rise to power of an Islamist leader, Recep Tayyib Erdogan. Finally, an article in the Wall Street Journal of March 18, 2006, reminded me how urgent the subject has become. The title of the article was: After Ataturk.  The Interview with Mr. Erdogan had this sub-title: Talking Turkey with Ankara's Islamist prime minister. It was conducted by Robert L. Pollock, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. (Recep is pronounced: “Rejep.” The letter “c” in Turkish has the equivalence of “j” in English or French.)  

After exchanging some pleasantries, Mr. Erdogan remarked about a Turkish movie, “Valley of the Wolves – Iraq” that Mr. Pollock had seen, and said, “They might ban you from re-entering the United States.” Now when the interviewer asked the Prime Minister whether he had seen the film, he did not answer directly but asked in return: “What did you think of the movie?” “To which I reply that it made me sad. While there are many things one might criticize about U.S. policy in Iraq the suggestion that U.S. troops are murdering and dismembering Iraqis to facilitate a Jewish organ-selling scheme isn't one of them.” 

As one who has mastered the art of evasion, Prime Minister Erdogan retorted that Mr. Pollock himself had written an article in the Wall Street Journal that made him sad, because it was not based on facts!

Actually, the opposite was true. Mr. Pollock’s article dealt with a wave of “anti-American madness.” There were headlines in Turkish newspapers “calling U.S. soldiers ‘Murderer Johnny’ and newspaper articles describing imagined atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons--and, yes, organ theft--committed against civilians in Iraq. And rather than express his disapproval of such reports, the Prime Minister went on a tangent, by claiming that “These kinds of things happen in the world. If it’s not happening in Iraq, then it’s happening in other countries.” And when cornered to be more explicit, he weaseled out of his spot: “I'm not saying they are being killed. . . . There are people in poverty who use this as a means to get money.”

Reflecting on this interview, Mr. Pollock ended with these words:

“Ever since Mr. Erdogan's Islamic-oriented Justice and Development Party swept to power on 35% of the vote in 2002 elections (amazingly, only one other party passed the 10% threshold for parliamentary representation), people have questioned whether his smooth manner wasn’t cover for a more radical agenda to fundamentally change the secular character of the Turkish Republic established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

“No, if there is any cause for concern here, it would be the undeniable fact that Turkey's first successful overtly Islamic prime minister has cultural and foreign policy compasses different from those of earlier Turkish leaders, who have inclined steadily toward the West. I sense a deeper estrangement at work than mere disagreement over Iraq, and whether or not to use force to remove roadblocks to democracy in the Middle East. "When we took office there was a Turkey which was not having talks with its neighbors. Now Turkey is having a dialogue with all of them. That's why we don't want any bombs to fall anymore in our region," Mr. Erdogan says.

“But can he really believe this saccharine rhetoric, and that "all problems" can be solved at the negotiating table? (It's been less than a decade since Turkey nearly invaded Syria.) Or is it mere cover for the theories of advisers who believe that Turkey can be a bigger player on the world stage by distancing itself from the U.S.? And does he not recognize the import of the concession that his somewhat cavalier confidence on Iran is possible because NATO (i.e., the U.S.) ultimately stands behind Turkey? After all, such ‘strategic’ alliances are not written in stone. They are dependent over the long term on public attitudes in the countries involved. As I leave his office I wonder how carefully he has thought through what would seem to be a most pressing question: Of what value will Turkey's opinion really be in a world of increasing or unresolved tension with the U.S. and where, God forbid, the mad mullahs next door have nukes?

I more than share the concerns of Mr. Pollock regarding Turkey’s future relations with the West under the leadership of an Islamist Prime minister who has mastered the art of Kitman (Concealment). I have no doubt that Mr. Erdogan imagined that his duplicitous style would persuade a representative of the WSJ, that nothing was to be feared about the future course of Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies. However, I am sure that Mr. Pollock saw through the feigned magnanimity of Mr. Erdogan as his closing remarks showed a deep concern for Turkey’s future, especially as it has been knocking at the door of the European Union. 

When I look back at the tumultuous events that followed the end of the Great War (WWI) and taking into account the tenacity of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk as he sought to modernize his country, I can understand how his efforts were initially successful. As a brilliant military leader he did his utmost to modernise Turkey according to his deep-seated secular worldview. However, he underestimated the strong allegiance that most of the Turks of Anatolia held for Islam. Thus, gradually Ataturk’s legacy was being undermined by the resurgence of Islamic political parties after decades of economic and political upheavals. The Islamists took advantage of the outward and structural aspects of democracy, and “legally” gained power. But from that point on, the chipping away at Kemalism, as Ataturk’s legacy is known, continued. Nothing can stop it, as far as I can see. In the rural areas of Turkey, the population is increasing at a faster rate than in the metropolitan areas of Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, and other cities near the Mediterranean. This indicates that the Islamists have a greater pool of votes coming from committed true believers who dream of reviving the glories of the Ottoman past. 

I would like to make one more point that supports my thesis. Even when the Kemalists ruled Turkey, their secular ideology was never similar to the Western European kind that tolerated pluralism and true democracy. Ataturk’s regime had no use for non-Turks living within the republic, and did his best to expel them as happened to the Greek population of Smyrna (Izmir.) Most Christians that had lived for centuries within the heartland of the Ottoman Empire eventually immigrated either to nearby countries in the Middle East, or to the Americas. In other words, the Turkish Republic, as created by Ataturk was never a genuine democracy. And yet its leaders keep knocking at the door of the European Union seeking full membership! One wonders what would become of the E.U. should seventy million Turks, under the leadership of Recep Tayyib Erdogan, become full citizens of this Union!

~~~~~

Denial: A Characteristic of the Islamic Mind

Early in 2006, I discovered a relatively new Arabic web site: www. kwtanweer.com.

It originates in Kuwait, and its goal, as its name Tanweer (Enlightenment) implies, is to provide a forum for the discussion of such topics as Religion & Modernity, Civil Society, Democracy, Human Rights, and Women’s place and role in society.   

The subjects discussed in this forum are intriguing, as most of them would be considered avant-garde by an average Muslim. What catches my attention in my frequent perusal of the articles on this site are the readers’ comments. They tend to be very negative, and annoyed by any suggestion of changes in the status quo! 

I would like to share with you an article with this title: Inkar (Denial). The author dealt with the topic of denial as a characteristic of the Islamic Mind. Years ago, I read books that dealt with the Arab Mind, but to my knowledge I have not noticed any book dealing with this larger topic such as the Islamic Mind. Even though, I would regard V. S. Naipaul’s books, An Islamic Journey, and Beyond Belief, as attempts to fathom and describe this mind.  

The writer goes by the name of Ahmad al-Baghdadi; I presume that he is a Kuwaiti, but of an Iraqi background. He began with these lines:  

Dr. Kamel al-Najjar, a respected author now living securely in the West, wrote an article published on the Internet dealing with the Crisis of the Islamic Mind. What he meant was the mind of Muslims and not of Islam, as a faith. 

This crisis manifests itself as a serious illness besetting Muslims nowadays, namely their persistent denial of their lack of progress in the fields of scientific and human endeavors. At the same time, they keep on claiming that they are God’s best people; thus, justifying their mistakes or ignoring them in a rather shockingly naïve manner. 

Everyone is aware of this lack of progress. The solution for this chronic illness requires an acknowledgement of this denial, in the same way as Dr. al-Najjar requires alcoholics, or drug addicts seeking healing, to acknowledge their condition, and confess publicly their desire for a cure. It is only after such a confession takes place that the treatment for the cure of an addict begins. On the other hand, as long as an alcoholic or a drug addict refuses to acknowledge the seriousness and reality of his condition, he is bound to continue in his substance abuse. People around him notice the results of his addiction, in spite of the fact that he persists in his denial. 

Today, the Arabs’ failures are noticeable everywhere: in education, in economics, in politics, in culture, in administration, in technology, in manufacturing, and in human relations. If it were not for the mercy of God and the existence of the West, the Arabs would have perished, as their life expectancy would not have exceeded thirty years. [They should thank] the West that provides them with the necessities of life: such as food, medicines, technology, as well as university training for those fortunate Arabs [who manage to enter Western universities.] 

And regardless of this evident lack of progress, we find Arabs taking a stand against intellectual pursuits, civil liberties, and science. They neither control the present, nor the future; all they possess is a past that ceased to exist around five hundred years ago. In other words, they glory in a culture that is no more! 

Just as a car does not move without fuel, so is the condition of human civilizations; their fuel is liberty and democracy. Arabs refuse both. But they insist on claiming that they love freedom, intellectual life, and culture; while they keep on playing a broken record that proclaims the West’s indebtedness to the Islamic civilization. This is the apex of delusion! 

Today, Arabs are in need of a quick medicine that would end their addiction to a dead past, and allow them to start a new life. This will not happen, as Dr. al-Najjar pointed out, unless they are ready to confess publicly their backwardness. This is the first step. The next step is the search for a cure. The prescription is ready and available from the American doctor: freedom and democracy. 

That gifted Arab essayist Adonis once wrote: “A society that places at the top of the pyramid of its national concerns a policy of an oppressive security, and makes it the custodian for the conduct of politics, is in the process of self-destruction. There is no such thing as security without a security that guarantees freedom and democracy. Any Arab regime that arrests a citizen on account of his thoughts or opinions is arresting not merely one citizen, but an entire country. And a government that sends a citizen to prison for his thoughts is actually incarcerating itself.” 

The Arabs today are living in the prison of their past, and the key to the gate of that prison is lost. What’s needed is the destruction of the gate itself, so that they may get out and experience freedom. Therefore we must destroy the shackles of that imaginary history that causes us to indulge in claiming a spurious greatness. We need to learn the lessons of history. Sometimes, however, we deny these lessons in the name of religion; other times in the name of Arab nationalism. Such denials lead to the death of any attempt for progress. So as long as Arabs cling to their concept of history with all its deceptions without attempting to separate truth from falsehood, facts from fiction, they will continue in their present state for ever.

These words of al-Baghdadi are strong medicine. They must express the exasperation of several Arab and Muslim intellectuals who are fed up with the status quo. The Internet allows them to utter such words which are regarded as extreme by the very people who need them the most.  

Unfortunately the counter-denials pour into the web site. I was very disappointed by one response from a person who lives in Kuwait, the home of the Enlightenment site. I hesitate to share it with you. This is what he wrote, not only condemning the author of “Denial,” but all, yes all the contributors to Tanweer. Unfortunately, there are many like him who prefer to live within the prison of the past, because they are unwilling to acknowledge their addiction to a mythical view of Islamic history. 

Mr. Badr (full-moon, as his Arabic name means,) shot back at the article with these shocking words: 

Half of those contributing to this web site should be sent to prison, and the other half, should be confined to mental hospitals.

What a pity that a civilization that persists in denial, and prefers darkness to light!

 ~~~~~

Human Rights Violations in Arab Prisons

That some Iraqi prisoners were mistreated at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad is now a fact of history. Soon after these violations of human rights became known to the United States Administration, they were properly dealt with. Unfortunately, some sections of the American media keep on harping on the topic. Every now and then, the New York Times for example, drags up some “event” that had taken place at that prison, and heralds it to its shrinking readership. One cannot escape being aware of that kind of propaganda parading as news.  

So it was rather interesting to discover a more honest assessment of the whole affair, in an international online Arabic daily. I have in mind the March 13, 2006 issue of Al-Sharq al-Awsat that published an article with this headline: Human Rights Abuses in Arab Prisons. 

I hesitate to share all the shocking information that appeared in this article. Some of the torture methods are beyond description. Nevertheless, I decided to translate the article and comment on some of its parts, not to minimize what happened at Abu Ghraib, but to underline the fact that some of our print and broadcast media have lost their balance, and therefore forfeited all credibility. So, here are excerpts from the article written by an Arab columnist for an Arab readership. 

We have all been talking about the human rights violations that took place at Abu Ghraib Prison. Unquestionably, those American jailors were ugly and very repulsive by any human standards, in their treatments of the prisoners. But what about the human rights violations that have occurred in Arab prisons, and have been perpetrated by Arab hands? 

I am holding in my hands a summary of the First Yearly Report for 2005, regarding conditions at the prisons and the treatment of prisoners in nine Arab countries. It was published by the Organization for the Reform of Criminal Law. The main points of the Report were printed in Al-Watan newspaper of Saturday, 11 March 2006. 

At this point I would like to warn the reader to take a deep breath, and sit calmly as he, or she, reads the Report. I have purposely censored certain terrible descriptions that appeared in the Arabic original text. 

The report highlights the fact that the Arab World has become a place of expertise in the various means of torture. Here are some of the methods used to torture prisoners: ‘beating them with canes or cables in various areas of the body; placing a prisoner inside a rubber tire so that he becomes unable to move while he is being tortured. Not to forget the use of electric shocks, and the so-called ‘German chair’ for torture. In this horrible method a prisoner is placed on a moving iron chair that causes unbearable pressure on his back-bone, resulting in partial and temporary paralysis, and sometimes   permanent. One should not forget to mention the resort to burning prisoners with cigarettes, and torturing them in water!’

The columnist concluded his comments on the Report:  

According to the report, the Organization for the Reform of Criminal Law aims at bringing about a reformation in the legislative structures and penal laws of the Arab world, protecting and defending human rights by building bridges of cooperation between the ORCL and the local branches in every Arab country. Its goal is to bring about a complete change in the concept of penal philosophy that would be in harmony with the dignity of human beings in accordance with International Law.  

Taking account of the report of this young Arab organization, and accepting the veracity of its findings, we may conclude that the inhuman conditions as described in its report, would result in exacerbating the violence that grips the Arab world. Such prisons cannot but breed souls that, upon their release, are filled with feelings of hatred, victimhood, and desire to inflict vengeance upon society. Rather than becoming instruments for the reformation of their inmates, these prisons engender souls that are bent on committing more crimes.

How I wish the above article could have appeared on the pages of such dailies as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune; as well as being read by the men and women at NPR and PBS in their daily accounts of world news! 

What added credibility to the shocking revelations of the article about the Human Rights Abuses in Arab Prisons were several responses that were published in the daily. The vast majority agreed with the columnist. Here are some examples: 

From Egypt came this Email. The writer related a fable to underscore his conviction that those who torture prisoners will receive a terrible punishment in the hereafter: 

A woman ended up in Hell because she had imprisoned her cat. If that was the punishment of a person who had maltreated an animal, what would be the punishment of those who torture their fellow-human beings?

An Arab living in Turkey wrote:

The Arab media have been preoccupied with the beatings that took place at Abu Ghraib; but they have forgotten, or purposely neglected those tortured in Arab prisons, as well as the mass graves of Saddam Hussein, and those of other Arab regimes. The media did that to cause the Arab street to forget their real problems.

An Iraqi having found refuge in Monte Carlo wrote on the 13^th of March the following:  

Iraqis have experienced various means of torture. As an Iraqi, let me share my experiences for the welfare of my Arab brothers. We have experienced horrific torture in Saddam’s jails. It is not even possible to compare them with conditions at Abu Ghraib. In all honesty I must say that American and British prisons [in Iraq] are more humane than those existing in Arab lands. Arab prison guards know nothing but a culture of inhuman treatment and the torture of their prisoners.

The article in Al-Sharq al-Awsat and the comments of some of its readers, revealed how necessary it is for a truly responsible media in the West to focus their attention on such subjects as the “Human Rights Abuses in Arab Prisons” rather than endlessly resurrecting those abuses that took place in Baghdad. After all, these were temporary, while those going on right now (at least in nine Arab countries) are very real and under-reported!