| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Turks rally against Turkey's becoming an Islamic state in Izmir (that is, Occupied Smyrna). This is the third rally in support of Turkish secularism.
These large-scale rallies are most encouraging, and show that while there is widespread popular support for an Islamic state in Turkey (otherwise the Prime Minister and others would not be in office), there is also widespread support for Kemalism.
It is also worth nothing that while the rally participants are nominally Muslims, at least some voices in Turkey deny that the ralliers represent a contingent of "moderate Muslims" who are opposing "radical Muslims." Onur Oymen of the Turkish Republican People's Party, said recently: "You can't have democracy without secularism. The notion of moderate Islam to check radical Islam is nonsense. This idea being promoted by certain countries should be abandoned." Kemalism itself was not predicated on a construct of "moderate Islam," but of explicit rejection of political Islam in favor of secularism. That is, it was never presented as an Islamic construct or justified by Islamic teachings, but was an explicit rejection of certain traditional aspects of Islam.
But what does Oymen mean? Isn't his distinction between secularism and moderate Islam a distinction without a difference (at least in Turkey), since Islam without its political component is "moderate," and since almost all of those who are protesting against Islamic rule in Turkey would identify themselves as Muslims? Part of the problem here stems from loose usage. No one has ever defined what a "moderate Muslim" really is, and the term has been applied to jihadists who are proceeding through deception and peaceful argumentation rather than by bomb-throwing, as well as to genuine Islamic reformers and cultural Muslims who know little and care less about the traditional Islamic teachings on jihad.
Those cultural Muslims give us the answer to the question about Oymen's statement. For most of the "moderate Muslims" who have lived through the centuries until now have been cultural Muslims who, because of a variety of historical circumstances, were ignorant of or indifferent to the Islamic doctrines of jihad as taught by all four mainstream Sunni schools of jurisprudence (madhahib). For Ataturk that wasn't enough, for it always allowed for a recrudescence and reassertion of political Islam, whenever there was a revival of religious fervor. So Ataturk became the first political figure ever in the Islamic world to reject -- explicitly and without apology -- political Islam in favor of a Western model of the separation of the religion from the state. While this would not forever prevent -- as recent events in Turkey clearly show -- a reassertion of political Islam, it would give the state greater ability to resist this reassertion, while a state that was nominally an Islamic one or that paid even lip service to Sharia in its Constitution would not have that ability. So Turkish secularism is predicated not on moderate Islam, but on premises that are not Islamic at all. And Oymen knows that any modification of Turkish law to change that will simply open the door to a full reassertion of Sharia -- Islamic law -- in Turkey.
By Suzan Fraser for Associated Press:
IZMIR, Turkey - Choking the highways and crammed onto ferries, hundreds of thousands of Turks streamed into this port city on Sunday in an enormous show of opposition to the pro-Islamic ruling party, increasing pressure on the government ahead of early elections.Some 1.5 million protesters carried anti-government banners, red-and-white Turkish flags and pictures of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded the secular republic in 1923. Turkish flags hung from balconies and windows, as well as buses and fishing boats and yachts bobbing in Izmir's bay.
"I am here to defend my country," said Yuksel Uysal, a teacher. "I am here to defend Ataturk's revolution."
Throughout the morning, thousands were trying to reach Izmir and highways leading to the city were at a standstill. Municipal authorities said some 200,000 people sailed in on ferries.
Posted by Robert at May 14, 2007 8:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Having lived in Turkey I am acquainted with Kemalism vs Islam. I found that the Turks merely substituted Kemalism/rabid nationalism for Islam and Attaturk for Mohammed. The Turkish secular state is not conducive to human rights and can be just as antagonistic and brutal toward human rights as Islam is. The police are brutal and never held accountable for abuses. Islamists use the government to suppress and persecute Christians and others who try to assert their "rights" under the Turkish constitution. The rule of law is not important in Turkey
Attaturk only loosened the grip of Islam, he did not wrest the state from Islam. There are all good advances in Turkey but here we are almost 90 years after Attaturk started his reshaping of Turkish Islamic society. Can we afford to wait another 50 or 100 years to see secularism completed? What about other countries who have not even started down the path that Attaturk took? How long will it take them given the resurgence of Islam we see today?
I don't think we can afford to wait. The only course I see is to quarantine those countries and allow no help or dialogue between us and them. Abandon them to the inevitable and logical conclusions of their Islamic worldview.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 14, 2007 9:34 AM
Though I am a newcomer to this site and therefore largely ignorant of its history and issues, this is the most encouraging post I have seen here yet.
Posted by: Freedom at May 14, 2007 9:36 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
Mr. Spencer say that the rallies are most encouraging. Emmm...I don't know about that....I think it is the musilms who are most encouraged that there is a need for these rallies in the 1st place.
Fancy settling for 2nd best...I didn't think that was Robert's way...but I DO like the fact that there is flexibility in this position.
You will see over the next 10 years that this position is further eroded and we are talking about a muslim state with mild sharia.
Now, I know that peoples like Peyalo, exsgtbrown and others think this is a laughable proposition....and it maybe...for now...but I am working on the edge here...this is where the envelope folds..it is the frontier for global peace...and I want you to go there with me....your grandchildrens will....armchair specialists on playstation 4/5/6 will want a peaceful existance.
Yes, THEY will want peace, they won't care to be known as christians or wuslims....as long as they can sit & fiddle with those controls in peace. This will include those who had their head wetted in a church.
These rallies only prove that there are decisions to be made...no one likes change....but it will settle down just like the byzantines did.
Please do not be worried about rallies in Turkey...worry about it when these rallies take place in times square in your "big apple"....and stop laughing we will be talking about them in your lifetime....just ask the pigfarmer.
Posted by: Naseem at May 14, 2007 9:39 AM
"Onur Oymen of the Turkish Republican People's Party, said recently: 'You can't have democracy without secularism. The notion of moderate Islam to check radical Islam is nonsense.'"
-- from the article above
Print this out. Put it on your refrigerator, under the one magnet still not in use. If all are in use, remove a Roz Chwast cartoon, or a recipe, or a picture of one of your kids, and use that magnet to keep this statement in place. And let it be understood, whatever others may say about "moderate Muslims" being the solution, that those who have lived in societies still suffused with Islam (as Turkey outside of Istanbul, and Ankara, and even in many parts of Istanbul, still is), and have fought their mental free, understand perfectly. Onur Oymen would have no difficulty communicating his understanding to Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Not all of the non-Muslim commentators, however, even those deemed critical and wary of Islam, have been nearly critical (in the right and productive way, if Islam is to be put on the defensive in the minds of Muslims, and not "defended" by having its doctrines overlooked or implausibly interpreted away) nor wary enough.
Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 9:47 AM
THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION here is do these 'secular' turks deny that the Armenian Genocide happened? Do they believe that turks commited these atrocities? Or do they deny such a thing ever happened as well, like most turks. I saw a lot of turkish flags being waved at the last gathering. But how can you be enthusiastic about a country that commited such a horrible genocide and which it refuses (along with its people) to admit even to this day?
Posted by: bff at May 14, 2007 9:54 AM
OT but it should be noted:
Where we are successful in the war against islamism,in Iraq, in Afgann, in Phillipines, is where we hunt down and kill, where we pursue, and not allow any to escape, jihadis.
Where and when we kill jihadis, we win.
This stark military truth must not be lost on the civil side.
A good jihadi is a dead one.
Translated into Turkey or Fort Dix or Gaza, the message should be the same and all track back from the jihadi: to the imam to the mosque to the muslim: you worship jihadis then you and your well being and your political entity are dead (suicide by cop and by history).
Posted by: dgene at May 14, 2007 10:05 AM
You will see over the next 10 years that this position is further eroded and we are talking about a muslim state with mild sharia.
Naseem, you clearly know little of Turkey. Kemalism is far more ingrained in the majority (especially those in the West) than Islam. Look at the faces of those people at the protests yesterday. Do they look as though the need the Religion Of Peace&trade? No, these are the faces of freedom!
And with the largest standing army in Europe, they've little need to be worried too much by dark mutterings and half-baked prophecies from the likes of your good self. These people marched in the face of bomb threats to assert their secular beliefs.
Waalaikum a'salam
Mac
Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 14, 2007 10:25 AM
My question is very important here. Are these protestors proud of their country's history? Let's see. 500 years of raping serbs and greeks. Threw out the original inhabitants of western turkey (greeks). Killed 1.5 million Armenians. Killed many Assyrians. Hmm, not the kind of country I'd be proud of if I was born there. What do these protestors believe in? Why isnt anybody asking this question? Do they think that what happened to the Armenians was a good thing? Bad thing? Hello?
Posted by: bff at May 14, 2007 10:27 AM
What is mild sharia?
Using smaller rocks for stoning?
at May 14, 2007 10:33 AM
bff
I think there must be better forums where you can exercise your particular prejudices and get some answers to your questions. We're talking about how this secular country with a muslim majority is resisting the march of Islamism.
Most countries have committed dark deeds in their pasts.
Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 14, 2007 10:34 AM
pr126 LOL ... or only digging them a couple of feet in :)
Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 14, 2007 10:37 AM
So you have forgiven the turks for everything that they have done? Wow! No surprise there. Perhaps we should forgive the arabs too. My question pertains to this subject because, why should we care about what road turkey takes if the majority of its people believe that the crimes of their past were justified? If the secular turks feel this way, then bring on sharia law. Im all for it. Let them loose their freedoms, they dont deserve it. Who really cares?
Posted by: bff at May 14, 2007 10:38 AM
bff
So what would you have me do? Spend my time berating today's Turks for Armenia, button-holing every modern-day German I meet for the Shoah and indulging in self-flagellation for my own country's past murderous misdeeds?
At some stage, whist not necessarily forgetting the past, you have to move on.
Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 14, 2007 10:46 AM
No i dont think that we should move on. I dont think that we should EVER forget the crimes of the past. How could you possibly say so? Why do you think there are neo-nazis today in Germany? Because the world has forgotten?
What of all the innocents that have perished over the last thousand years because of Islam. Should we just 'forget' about it? Yeah, just keep with that thought and you will fail in this war miserably. In fact, you have already lost. No need to care any further. Im telling you - you're all dead in 30 years when islam takes over and you'll never even have a chance to stop it because you have no idea what it takes. And yes, remembering all the evils of the past and avenging them is one of those things.
at May 14, 2007 10:51 AM
"Most countries have committed dark deeds in their pasts. "
Now that is foolish. It's some equivalism. What are you equating the crimes of turkey with??? What has eg Denmark done thats just as bad as what turkey has done? Or perhaps georgia? How about Australia? Samoa? Pathetic.
at May 14, 2007 10:56 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
What is mild sharia...This is a concept that many will not be familiar with.
I have introduced you to the wuslim...and now this.
Briefly mild sharia is a watered down version of sharia...to be intrroduced hand in hand with the rise and rise of the wuslim.
Given time certain aspects of sharia will lawsdisappear altogether, new ones will come in (tenets of democracy), while others will be relaxed.
Countries have different laws...and that is ok for now...but as globalisation increases ...we need laws for the world ...and this will be mild sharia. It will fit because muslims can see the benefit of muslim law...and the infedel will accept it because he see peace..it's a win-win.
Lots of work, over many years need to be applied by many far clever than me ...but I am only here to mould strategy...the devil is in the detail.....and that is for others.
Posted by: Naseem at May 14, 2007 11:09 AM
Biff you say......
"And yes, remembering all the evils of the past and avenging them is one of those things."
Please tell me what you mean by avenging ?
And would you so readily deny a chance for positive change if you did not get your vengeance.
If you answer this in the affirmative then you are hauling around some serious baggage.
at May 14, 2007 11:15 AM
"Please tell me what you mean by avenging ?"
Isnt that the most important question of all. Something that nobody seems willing to discuss on this web site. I know why, I'm sure you know too. I'm also sure that my comments would be deleted if I answered the question (Freedom of speech! - not).
There is only one solution. At present you are all too afraid to even bring it up. But soon when western europe falls, perhaps you will realize the only way forward. But you'd rather die than being accused of...hate, right?
Enjoy the new world my friend. It will all be over soon.
at May 14, 2007 11:22 AM
Lots of interesting threads here.
bff is right that the Armenian genocide needs to be acknowledged, and the masses in Turkey are probably still not at that point. If they do not prevail, however, don't hold your breath hoping for a truth movement there. Un-dhimmi is right that we should not expect every culture to self-flaggelate over the sins of their ancestors -- we ask only that the truth be acknowledged.
For example: The assyrians, 2500 years ago, were responsible for horrible atrociities across much of the civilized world, but over the centuries they have contributed more to western science and culture than almost every ancient society (look it up -- in particular, most of what muslims and arabs claim as "their" contribution actually came out of the Assyrian empire); in the first couple of centuries AD the entire nation discarded the ideology of their forebears and became christians, contributing positively to the world over the last two millenia, surviving several conquests by muslims but largely retaining their christian identity. Today they are perhaps the hardest oppressed minority in the middle east, holding on by a thread -- please don't ask these people to grovel on the ground in grief today over their ancestor's sins. The few that are left now represent one of the oldest christian groups in the world, but at the current rate of genocide this may be their last generation.
Spencer is right that a proper definition of "moderate Islam" or "moderate muslim" is lacking. Oymen's statements are not so much wrong as they represent a particular interpretation of the terms, which are not universally accepted.
Spencer and Pipes have said loud and long that one must accurately name one's enemies before one can defeat them. In the same spirit I say one must also accurately name one's friends. On the whole I'd say these protesting masses are our friends. They oppose the imposition of Sharia Law, they oppose Islamic religious meddling in state affairs, they are pluralistic and tolerant, allies of the west. Who are they?
As Spencer points out the majority of them would self-identify as "muslims", but they are unradicalized in either the political sense or the extremist sense used by those who deal with terrorists. Whatever our actions in relation to these folks, we should avoid driving them into a radicalized position and we should not allow the islamists to take them over.
Let us, for lack of a better term, call them apolitical muslims . Someone else can quibble at length as to whether such a classification is an oxymoron, etc. These people exist, there are millions of them in Turkey, they need to unify under some banner, and we need to identify them clearly as friends, not enemies (until the opposite becomes clear).
These apolitical muslims appear to be less squeamish about language than we are here. Why are these folks, who identify as muslims themselves, not afraid to say out loud that Islamism is their enemy? Or, perhaps a better question: why are so few muslims in the west willing to do so?
I think it is because they can identify a banner under which to unify, an ideal that they can hold on to. They are unified by being against something -- but even more strongly, they are unified by what they are for. As one said, ""I am here to defend my country, I am here to defend Ataturk's revolution." Having tasted of secularism, they are unwilling to let it go. These folks know of what they speak; they know what a return to Islamism means.
What lacks elsewhere in the Islamic world is a flag of secularism around which to rally ... well, okay, they had one in Iraq, but we sort of blew that one away didn't we? Not that I'm pining away for a return to Sadaam's regime...
Why are so many western muslims striving so hard for the very thing these people are trying to shake off? Do the naseems of the west really want to live under an oppressive regime, or do they regard world politics as some sort of soccer match in which supporting one's team, right or wrong, win or lose, is more important than peace, justice and truth?
at May 14, 2007 11:30 AM
Yes you have a great point there - truth MUST be acknowledged. And the great question is, do these 'secular' turks believe in the truth or do they believe in the lies? Thats what primarily interests me in this issue.
As for the Assyrians commiting atrocities, yes true but when compared with islamic countries it is very insignificant. There is no country or race that has done more damage to this planet and its inhabitants more than Islam has over the last one thousand five hundred years. The turks especially and they would have to repudiate their actions over and over many times until I would consider forgiveness. But that will never happen. If it does, sure perhaps I'd be willing to forgive and forget (of course they'd all have to renounce islam too, but lets say the secular ones repudiate, i'd be willing to give them a go - the eastern turks are crazy for islam and they will never even think of it). So therefore, what do we do with those turks that still think the Armenian genocide was a great think and would do it again in a heartbeat?
at May 14, 2007 11:41 AM
Biff
I feel sorry for you.
You seem as if your spirit has been broken.
But fear not, oh shattered one.
As there are those on this site and countless others elsewhere, high spirited individuals who WILL NOT capitulate as readily as you would have them do.
Why, they will even fight for those such as you that have lost their will and have no fight left in them. Have a little faith Biff. Chin up champ
at May 14, 2007 11:42 AM
I havent lost my will my friend. I am going to fight. I am just not going to fight for the west because the west has already been lost. I will fight for my country, a country which was rejected (and bombed) by the same west that it helped once defend in an ottoman invasion. But for the west i feel no pity for it for it has done this to itself. It deserves this after all the backside kissing it has done to islam. Why bother defending the communism of the 21st century?
Posted by: bff at May 14, 2007 11:51 AM
Biff
Though I live in a Western country, when and if I fight, I will not, (as you have stated you will )blindly fight for my country.
I will fight for the inherent principles that I believe to be worth fighting for.
Also, the West Will prevail.
I'm off to bed, sure hope you sleep as sound as I will tonight
at May 14, 2007 12:12 PM
" No one has ever defined what a "moderate Muslim" really is...."
A "moderate Muslim" is like the Lock Ness monster: Many people believe in it, many claim to have seen it, but no one has ever caught one -- and unless they do, we'll never know what it is.
Posted by: rational at May 14, 2007 12:14 PM
Mild sharia .........
Hmmmmmmm
Naseem,
Does that mean we may one day see YOU in a short dress or a bikini ?
at May 14, 2007 12:22 PM
i wish it were that easy for me, freedom.
Posted by: bff at May 14, 2007 12:23 PM
Naseem -- you are such a brainwashed comedienne; and I enjoy reading your posts because not only do they make me laugh, but they inspire me to fight against the evil that you are promoting with such enthusiasm -- this evil known as Islam.
Islam = Insane = IMPLODE!
Posted by: champ at May 14, 2007 12:28 PM
What absolutely incredible news. We should all be dancing and rejoicing at this wonderful news that Turks are rallying for secularism. Allah akbar!! Allah akbar!!
So we have had 80 odd years of secularism in Turkey and...? Well the behaviour still seems pretty Islamic to me. Let's see, we have secular Turkey that denies any rights to its religious (re: Greek/Armenian) Christian minorities. Don't they deny those Christians, Jews and any other non Muslim, their basic rights in other more 'Islamic' lands. Hmmm. I seem to remember a couple of weeks ago, a couple of Christian missionaries had their throats slit. Oh, but that's just a tiny minority of extremists in the country. Turks are secularists you know.
Um, what else has been happening since Turkey became secular? Oh yes, we have the 1974 invasion of Cyprus, with the ethnic cleansing of up to 200 000 Greek Cypriots from their ancestral lands. Hmmm. And what has become of all those Orthodox Churches - some are now mosques and the 'luckier' ones, museums. Who's footsteps could these secularists be following in? Someone beginning with an M, perhaps?
And what about all the hullabulloo and all the threats that were made when Pope Ratzinger was about to visit that secular Turkey last year, after he had made those, well, um truthful comments about mohammed. In fact, we even had an airliner hijacked because a Turk was in such despair at those nasty comments made by the Pope. Dear, oh dear. Such a shame something like that could occur in the secular Turkey that we have all so dearly come to love.
Oh yes. And who could forget our fellow citizens of 'Turkish descent', whose communities have become like wild mushrooms, sprouting up in just about every major western European city. How integrated they are these secular Turks. Just like us. Who could ever spot the difference. Colourful, multicultural Europe at its best.
And finally, how could we forget the Fort Dix plotters. Turks once again? Oh, Turks AND Kosovar Albanians.
Yes. With friends like these...
Posted by: GreekFrenchInfidel at May 14, 2007 1:45 PM
Keep the Turks in Turkey and let them fight it out.
Same with all Muslims.
They should stay home and work through the Sunni-Shi'ite divide in their own lands, and leave Civilization out of their homicidal vendettas.
Once they come to a majority choice, then the West can decide whether they are
or are not
capable of being trusted.
Till then: NOT.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 14, 2007 3:06 PM
To bff: Kemalism is for Greeks and other Christian minorities in Turkey what is Baathism for Israel.For the rest of the non-Muslim world Assad,or Nasser,or even Saddam Hussein were not dangerous while bin Laden is,but for Israel it is the same.
For similar reasons secular Turkish nationalism is preferable from Islamism for the larger non-Muslim world but for Greeks or Armenians it is the same.
Onur Oymen is remembered in Greece for his role in the Imia crisis in 1996 when war was avoided the last minute,as one of the most belligerent types.
Of course all this leads to the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest between the local infidels who confront a Muslim state and the totality of the infidel world.Secular nationalism is the solution only for faraway non-Muslims.
at May 14, 2007 3:16 PM
"Having lived in Turkey I am acquainted with Kemalism vs Islam. I found that the Turks merely substituted Kemalism/rabid nationalism for Islam and Attaturk for Mohammed. The Turkish secular state is not conducive to human rights and can be just as antagonistic and brutal toward human rights as Islam is. The police are brutal and never held accountable for abuses. Islamists use the government to suppress and persecute Christians and others who try to assert their "rights" under the Turkish constitution. The rule of law is not important in Turkey
Attaturk only loosened the grip of Islam, he did not wrest the state from Islam. There are all good advances in Turkey but here we are almost 90 years after Attaturk started his reshaping of Turkish Islamic society. Can we afford to wait another 50 or 100 years to see secularism completed?"
-- from a posting above
This observation - that Kemalism replaces Islam not by offering a different myth, in which "the Believers" (i.e., Muslims) are replaced by "the Turks," and these Turks, these members of the "Sun People," are held to have always lived in Anatolia, all the way back to the time of the Hittites. It's a crazy theory, elaborated with philology, archeaology, the whole works -- designed to appeal to the primitive masses of Turks who could not, naturally, be won away from Islam's grip by Spinoza, Hume, and back issues of "The Rationalist." Similarly, the figure of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, is replaced by another Great Man, this one Ataturk, and so the cult of Ataturk was planted, and watered, and grew to quite a height -- and now along come the erbakans and erdogans and guls, smiling as they visit the monument to Ataturk, but what's this he's holding behind his back? Why, I declare -- it's a hatchet. My god, he's got a hatchet!
Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 3:41 PM
strange times make for strange bedfellows.
On the one hand we have the Armenian ASALA and Kurdish PKK terrorists being trained in PLO camps in the bekaa valley, supported by the Syrians and Palestinians, on the other hand we have the Turkish Republic being one of the first nations as well as the first "Muslim" nation to recognise Israel.
"Muslim" Turks forming a military pact with "Jewish" Israel, and "Christian" Armenia and Greece forming a pact with "Muslim" syria and Palestinians.
Armenians forming a front against "Muslim" Turkey and Azerbaijan with Iran.
The world is not simple as it seams eh?
Armenia and Greece the most anti-Semitic "Christian" countries on the planet forming pacts with Iran and Arab states against an Israeli-Turkish axis.
Interesting times call for interesting bedfellows.
Greeks and Armenians siding with Palestinians against Turkey and Israel.
Then we have Armenians siding with the Kurds today despite most of the killing of Armenians being carried out by the Kurds back in 1915.
Also not being able to explain how they both have maps of parts of eastern Turkey being part of Armenia according to the Armenians, kurdistan according to the Kurds, if Turkey pulls out of that region it will be interesting how they resolve who gets what; the result? an Armenian genocide by Kurds, or a Kurdish genocide by Armenians. will be interesting, but if Turkey pulls out, which is not really a plausible theory.
meanwhile it is the Turkish secularists who are rallying against an islamist government despite a bomb threat.
And it is the US, and the Eu telling them that they are paranoid, that "moderate" Islam is not a threat.
the world is truly an ironic place.
Posted by: neoromancer at May 14, 2007 3:47 PM
Odd coincidence, 1.5 mil Turks protesting. 1.5 Armenians murdered by Turks.
Posted by: sark at May 14, 2007 4:53 PM
I am pessimistic about Turkey. Democracy there only means that the Islamists will keep winning again and again, in free, democratic elections. And I don't even need to speak about the horrible results of "democracy for the Arab people" in Iraq and Gaza.
The only light of hope in the Muslim world comes from the formerly Soviet "Stans" of Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. I am an American originally from Russia. In the Soviet Union, I used to be an anti-Communist, but now, every time I think of the Stans, I say: "Thank God for the Commies!". The 70 years of Communist rule left there a very valuable legacy: a strong secular culture, far stronger than Turkey's "secularism". Most Stans are still ruled by their Soviet-era apparatchiks who transformed themselves into a fully positive force and proved to be very capable anti-Islamist leaders. Kazakhstan, the largest and richest of them is also the very best in every way, nothing like the "Kazakhstan" depicted in "Borat", just the opposite. Imagine a vast country large than France, UK, Italy and Germany combined, fabulously rich in oil, gas and just about every other mineral in existence. But by far the greatest treasure of the nation is its ruling apparatchik, President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I wish we had a president half as capable as he is, I am serious. He ably guides a very diverse, multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious population. The native Kazakhs are an Asian, Turkic-speaking people of Muslim background who comprise just slightly over half of the population. The rest are white Christian Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Armenians, Greaks and others, and also a healthy-sized, thriving Jewish community. All those communities live together peacefully in perfect harmony, just like those in Singapore. A Jew walking a street anywhere in Kazakhstan is a lot safer than in Britain or anywhere else in Eurabia. I'll take Kazakhstan over Londonistan any time. We should not be totalitarian in our blind belief that our Western democracy is one-size-fits-all solution that can be mechanically applied anywhere in the world. In many places, democracy is a sure prescription for a disaster. In my view, the Singapore system of government is the best ever known to man. Even Uzbekistan singled out for the worst critisism by our imbecile Western media and governments is a paradize of freedom compared to the Arab world, Iran or Pakistan. Women there have equal rights, are free to wear Western dress, go to co-ed colleges together with their male collegues, and to hold professions. Its tough ruling apparatchik, President Islam Karimov is an implacable foe of Islamists, his first name nonwithstanding. "I will kill a fundamentalist with my own hands", he repeatedly declared. Don't we wish we had someone like this in the White House? And with him, it is not just words. He repeatedly beat back onslaughts of the murderous Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, flesh of flesh, blood of blood of al-Qaida. He also helped us enormously in the war against al-Qaida in neigboring Afghanistan, giving us full control of a strategic base Karshi-Khanabad, or K-2 as US military calls it, practically for free. And how did our degenerate State Department repayed him? By making him a whipping boy & viciously vilifying him for "violating human rights" of ... terrorists(!), while nasy tyrannies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait got free pass. Two years ago almost to the day, in May 2005, jihadis launched a "Friday the 13th" terrorist putsch against him in Andijon, murdering hundreds of people. He gave jihadis a very bad wooping. State Dept denounced him!
at May 14, 2007 5:11 PM
Do those so called secular turks protest for the Armenian genocide to be recognised by Turkey? Do those secular Turks protest against the Turkish illegal Occupation in North Cyprus? Answer is No
if those Turks where truely secular they would protest for agia sophia to be a church again and they would not persecute christians and they would protest against the illegal occupation of Cyprus but they dont.
Posted by: Greek Gurl at May 14, 2007 5:35 PM
Archimedes2
Thanks for your comments, which I thought brought some of the salient threads running through the discussion together quite nicely.
With regard to your assertion that the protesters form an 'apolitical Muslim' class, I'd go one further. In a very loose sense, you could also call them 'irreligious Muslims' too, provocative as that might sound.
What I mean by that is that (and I'm to some extent drawing on my own experience with the country, having several Turks of this category as friends and having been there many times), I believe another trait characterising the weekend protesters is that very few or even none of them will attend Cami (mosque) on a regular basis. They may be observant to a degree, but that degree will be surprisingly limited.
Your point about Robert's comments regarding 'defining moderate Islam' come in to play here as well. He is right to say that they are un-radicalised (which fits with my mosque assertion; because we all know where most of the brainwashing is carried out!), but they are also a people hardened, through bitter experience with the PKK et. al., against terrorism. This is an important additional dynamic in my view.
A complex mix, you might say. And if Robert is saying that we need to be able to name our enemy, to profile what we are fighting against, if you will; then this large swathe of Turkey is I believe helping us (and themselves) do that. They are absolutely unique in the Muslim world and should be encouraged, not berated or have the sins of their fathers visited upon them in their endeavours. After all, their efforts are, in some ways, a metaphor for ours.
U:D
at May 14, 2007 5:54 PM
neoromancer: Your history knowledge needs a little brushing up and you're not going to get that by watching CNN. ASALA was a *leftist* Armenian organization and is now long defunct. Where do you get that Greeks are anti-semtic? I don't remember any They didn't cooperate with Nazis during WWII in packing Jews to Auschwitz like some other countries from the region (that are now buzzom buddies with last two US administrations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Greece
Turk secularism is strange, to say the least. Priests and Bible printers shot. They still arrest Christians for preachering. When they restore Armenian churches, they forget to put the cross at the top of them. And of course, Turks never did any wrong to anyone. Mentioning any of that Armenian business will land you in jail for insulting 'Turkishess'.
at May 14, 2007 7:19 PM
Enragedsince1999
I partly agree with you that thanks to Communism, the ex Soviet stans aren't the shitholes that, say, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other such countries are. There is however no basis to believe that they would be a light unto Muslim nations, since most of them still have their Soviet era dictatorships, and are seen by the rest of the ummah as heretics. In fact, they can be categorized in two ways - Sunni vs Shia, and Farsi vs Turk. Under that model, you have:
Azerbaijan - Shia Turk
Tajikistan - Sunni Farsi
Others - Sunni Turk (like Turkey)
The interesting thing here is that Azerbaijan, despite being Shia, is more heavily influenced by Turkey than Iran due to its cultural similarities, and conversely, Tajikistan, despite being Sunni, is more heavily influenced by Iran - Radio Teheran is very popular there, and the end result has been a civil war with Jihadis trying to take over that country.
Of the others, Kazakhstan is almost evenly split between Christian and Muslim - the only way Muslims are a plurality there is that Russian Orthodox is 38%, Protestant is 11% while Muslims are 47%. Nazarbayev is still running things there, and it is a prosperous dictatorship, again thanks to oil (what's it about oil and dar ul Islam?), with the Communist era regime making sure that the country doesn't Islamize. As long as Kazakhstan has this significant Russian population, it's unlikely to Islamize, but if Russia starts trying to attract ethnic Russians from other former Soviet Republics to deal with their population decline and Russians respond accordingly, then Kazakhstan would be in trouble and you would have areawise the world's largest Islamic country. Thankfully, Kazakhstan got rid of their nukes after they became independent, since the control was still under Moscow.
Turkmenistan today practices with Niyazov exactly what Turkey did with Kemal: the cult of Turkmenbashi replicating the cult of Ataturk. Basically, this country reminds one of both Kemal's Turkey, and Saddam's Iraq. Problem here is that in a post Nayazov Turkmenistan, if they ever democratize without de-Islamizing their populace i.e. making them Christian, Buddhist, whatever, Turkmenistan will end up being where Turkey is today, if not worse.
Kyrgyzstan is a perfect example of what might happen if any of these countries were to become democracies. Once they do, Jihadis will find a safe haven there, and try Islamizing those countries. If you recall, when there were riots in the Ferghana valley in Uzbekistan last year, several Jihadi rioters fled to Kyrgyzstan, which became a haven as a result of being democratic. Today, while you are right that Jews are safe in Kazakhstan, they are unsafe in Kyrgyzstan.
Uzbekistan is a fascinating case to watch. Like you pointed out, Islam Karimov has been busy cracking down on Jihadis, and has been doing a good job. And you are right that in the wake of 9/11, Uzbekistan had granted the US forward operating bases, but that didn't earn them the gratitude of the Jihadi State Department. Last year, after all that bellyaching, Tashkent finally pulled the plug on US bases there - a snub rightly deserved.
However, an important thing to note about that country is that as an independent country, just as Mongolia looks at Chengiz Khan as their national hero, Uzbekistan looks at the 15th century Turkic conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) as their national hero. They have all the major Timuride cities - Samarqand, Boqhara, Ferghana and Andijon (birthplace of the Moghul emperor Babur). Timur was very much a Jihadi conqueror, and his conquests in Armenia, Moscow and Delhi were very much of a Jihadi nature, and he himself held Mahmoud of Ghazni - the founder of Afghanistan - as his hero. As a result, if Uzbekistan ever becomes democratic, don't be surprised to see another Chechnya style Islamic country.
I do hope that these countries are de-Islamized before they ever become democracies, and don't repeat the mistake of Kyrghizstan. Tajikistan is probably a lost cause - they might as well annex themselves to Afghanistan. Azerbaijan, OTOH, might do well by attracting Iran's province by that same name, and triggering myriad ethnic revolts in Iran.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2007 8:10 PM
You will see over the next 10 years that this position is further eroded and we are talking about a muslim state with mild sharia.(From Naseem)
Naseem...you crack me up. I dont think there will be a mild sharia. What I see is a"sick" people who has no regard for life. It do not matter where the Muslim is from or color of his/her skin..but you got one deadly religion.
Keep Sharia Law over in Satan's world (Islamics). My God don't teach me to shed blood and slit throats and body parts. Even intestine's...yuk!
Satan loves those tactic's.. you know your moongod is Satan. Satan bind's you..I love freedom! He isn't welcome in my life.
Globalisation increases ...this is the One World Order under your Satanic Religion....got news for you! He will rule over 10 nations and not the world. His time is very short...then "POW" right in his kisser. He gets it with his hordes of people. Their downfall is sure! When they try to fight the "Son of God" and Holy Angel's, who do you think will have victory?
Posted by: Cher at May 15, 2007 12:47 AM
Infidel Pride:
I can tell that you are knowlegeable of the region. Guess who sent the Trojan Horse of democracy to Kyrgyzstan? The State Dept. degenerates who fomented a "color revolution" there that overthrew President Askar Akayev, the kindest and gentlest of the apparatchiks, who, unlike Karimov, did not even resort to any heavy-handed police action, but was still able to beat back the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan cutthroats invading through Ferghana Valley. He was also very friendly to the US, but friendly is not good enough for our ruling degenerates. They want the leaders of Russia's neighbors to be hostile to her, in the mold of "our man" Mikhail Saakashvili who overthrew friendly Shevardnadze in the first "color revolution". Elated with this success, our degenerates followed-up with the Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" spending $62 million of our tax dollars on it. They spent the same amount of money on the anti-Akayev revolution which succeeded so swiftly, it was over before the "revolutionaries" even picked a color for it, so they named it the "Tulip Revolution" after the fact. A few months back, a New York Russian language daily "Novoye Russkoye Slovo" interviewed Bruce McGowan, a US Foreign Service Officer who was involved in it. McGowan was cagey, but the few details that he gave confirm the US modus operandi that was already evident from the "Orange Revolution":
1) Heavily infest the intended victim country with the NGO vermin, all working hand-in-hand with the US gov.'t, under the cover of "promoting democracy and human rights";
2) Recruit young, articulate, English speaking, telegenic local men and women and entice them with an exciting offer of "democracy training" in the US, all travel and expences paid;
3) Ship them to the US and brainwash them against their own government, and coach in subversion;
4) Once the "coup de street" starts, those young "stars" present the youthful, atractive face of the "revolution" to the world media, while thugs hired by the US with the help of mob batter police and storm the palace.
Now, total chaos there.
at May 15, 2007 3:22 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)