Turkey, of course, is the only majority Muslim secular state. It lives in constant tension between resurgent political Islam and the principles of secularism. This story has interesting implications for France and Europe in general, where it is still taboo even to admit that Islam has a political aspect that may impinge upon the secular character of the established governments. But Turkey, for all its many faults, doesn't have that problem. Ataturk established the secular state as an explicit rejection of political Islam. They don't have to try simultaneously to deny that it exists and fend it off, the way the French seem to think they have to do. From the BBC, with thanks to JScott:
Turkish state universities have the right to ban Muslim headscarves, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled.It rejected an appeal by a Turkish student who said the ban - and her subsequent exclusion from class - violated her freedom of religion.
Turkey's government had argued that headscarves violated the secular nature of the state.
Correspondents say the decision could have implications for other countries.
In Turkey, as well, the mosques are monitored, with particular attention to what is said in the khutbas. Funding for the mosques is also examined. Religious officials need to receive approval by the state. Ataturk understood this need.
So do others. Look at how the inheritors of Bourguiba and the Destour Party in Tunisia have tried, using all manner of non-democratic means, to continue to create an atmosphere in which Islam is constrained, and a large number of secularists, or quasi-secularists, are permitted to exist -- thereby creating a class that has a stake in protecting, and promoting, that system.
And then there is the example of Singapore, where that enlightened despot (emphasis on the epithet) Lee Kuan Yew understood the threat to the advanced Chinese, Indians, and smattering of others in Singapore, and -- especially after the terrific casualties that had resulted from Malayans running amok -- keenly understood the need to watch Islam, within Singapore, like a hawk. After all, in that "success story" Malaysia (a "success" based on 1) the abundance of natural resources and 2) the existence of a very large non-Muslim entrepreneurial class), a jizya-like tax on non-Muslims for the support of Muslims, gussied up and titivated for the modern world, and labelled the "Bumiputra" system, is in place. In Singapore, every single "revert" to Islam must be reported to the government -- da'wa is thus watched, and limited. And the Lee Kuan Yew policy of promoting a policy of eugenics, supporting an increase in family size among the better-educated in Singapore, had -- unstated -- an obvious element of fighting to maintain, or increase, the non-Muslim population, which was more highly represented in those educated classes.
But even as Ataturk's supporters win a court victory or two, the real guarantors of Kemalism - including the limits on the career possibilities of those who have received education in a religious school, or exhibit too deep an interest in Islam -- are being chipped away at slowly, by Erdogan and his party. They will proceed slowly now, for the secularists are just too numerous and powerful. And besides, they don't want to scare the EU too much -- but if Turkey is admitted, they will proceed less hesitantly. And if Turkey is rejected, they will also proceed less hesitantly.
And Turkey's application will be rejected. The United States should not be pushing this, out of the same naivete beliefs that seem to have motivated, not the war in Iraq, but all the grand Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations project.
When Bush yet again tells the world, as he did yesterday, that the example of Turkey proves that "Islam" and "democracy" are compatible, he shows he fails to understand. What the example of Turkey shows is that a determined leader, who carries out a program of limiting and constraining Islam over several decades, and who has some domestic support because he constantly shows how Islam holds back both individual potential, and that of the nation, then conditions are created where something like democracy can be attempted.
It is the de-islamization that has to proceed the "democracy." Real "democracy" in the Arab and Muslim countries without de-islamization -- what would a free election bring in Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? -- will always be harmful to Infidel interests, and increase the pressure on a Western world all too susceptible to caving.
Along with the example of Turkey, there is one other Muslim country whose inhabitants show signs of having, in a sense, entered a process of limiting and constraining Islam -- at this point, only within the confines of their own minds. That country is the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the quarter-century of power held by Muslim clergy, from the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the hanging judge Khalkhali, all the way to the present galere, have done more to damage the very idea of Islam as a belief-system, than any outside propaganda or pressure ever could.
At some point Iran will re-enter the world. Its filmmakers already have, and their productions have done more than books to create the right attitudes of widespread skepticism and ridicule without which systems do not collapse.
But elsewhere, the history of the Arab and Islamic countries shows that it has been monarchs and strong men who brooked no opposition -- Bourguiba, King Mohammed V, the Shah himself (despite the fond memories of his loyal Shahbanou, the Shah was not clever nor strong enough, to be an Ataturk, and though the emphasis on pre-Islamic Iran was well-meant, he should have spent far less at the Persepolis coronation -- vanity and corruption are always a problem).
One hopes that at least among themselves, secularist Turks are talking, planning, taking the measure of Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party. They have to cling to every single one of Ataturk's laws, and make sure that they, the grandchildren of those who benefited from Ataturk, are not fooled into taking that inheritance lightly. They should not ape in any way the spoiled children of the Western world, who treat the remarkable achievements of their own civilization with an indifference born of ignorance and ingratitude.
We have been here before (with respect to Turkey)haven't we?
The key is, as Hugh says above that non-democratic means have to be used to restrain Islam. Too much of Turkey's population is not 'secularist', and allowing free movement within the EU would be just stupid.
At the risk of being repetitive (along with fixed typos):
1) We at www.nojihad.com have collected ALL of Hugh's past postings and are putting them up on the site (with Hugh's blessings) along with a continually refined word index, to create an 'Internet Book' of the 'Writings Of Hugh'. Go to http://www.nojihad.com/contributors/hugh/hughjihadwatch.htm.
Feedback welcome!
2) We are issuing an open invitation to anyone who wants to contribute to our site by writing cogent essays or doing a bloggish thing (like I do). No need to be a scholar (after all there is only one Hugh), just well-read. Email me at questioningIslam@yahoo.com. We have been getting some emails, which is heartening, and plan a section of onetime or sometime contributors.
3) We are trying to put together a letter to be sent ON A SPECIFIC DAY, say, after the election, (November 15th?) AND MONTHLY THEREAFTER, to the President and Vice President, along with the appropriate local congress-people stating the facts about Islam, our concerns about current policy and specific actions that we would like to be taken. IF 10,000 OR 100,000 OR 1,000,000 PEOPLE SENT EMAILS, our concerns cannot be ignored. It is one thing to preach to the converted, quite another to convert others to action. We should keep doing this until the government responds. Any suggestions can be sent to the above email address.
Ethelred Smith
The above links are:
www.nojihad.com
and
Hugh's Posts to JihadWatch
Sometimes my stupidity astounds me!
Ethelred