Support NeoGAF

[Golden_Pigeon]

I can, actually, agree with you on the ban on religious clothing (including the hijab) and the mandation of Western clothing.

However, some of your points are nonsense.

1. Atatürk, the very person who spearheaded the establishment of secularism in the Turkish law, "nationalized Islam"? This is so self-contradictory that it isn't even funny.

2. Where, or even what is this "state-clergy" you are speaking of?

3. I really don't need to learn the Address To The Turkish Youth from you. You contradict yourself here as well- the latter quote is one of the central statements behind the attempt to create a new Turkish identity that's not about ethnicity but a sense of unity above all. Technically, the "noble blood in your veins" does not necessarily translate to "ethnically Turkish blood", either- it can simply be "the blood of one who identifies as Turkish".

4. If you are glad to see a country descend into rampant Islamism and outright dictatorship, then you are simply a spiteful asshole.

People here really need to get out of anal stage. We are among adult but everything i says must somewhat "go back to my ass where it belong" or i am myself "an asshole". Vulgarity don't add anything to the current discussion.

1. There was no secularism in Kemalist Turkey since Islam stayed the religion of the state from the birth of the Republic until today. Secularism is Turkey (like in Pahlavi Iran) was just a tool for the State to take over the religious authority and submit it to the political power. Religious authority and political power were always globally separated in sunni caliphate.

2. The school of Imam-Hatip, nationalized by Ataturk himself, who were trained and formed to teach a compliant version of Islam, submissive to the new rule. It's also the minister of the vakif, who name every Imam or religious teacher in Turkey and also publish religious books. In what kind of secular country those kind of thing exist?

3. You can read the articles i provided to see by yourself that Turkishness was conceptualized as a race and not a cultural/state belonging.

4. I am glad that kemalism is getting challenged in Turkey, yes. I am not happy about authoritarianism and i don't consider Erdogan to be an islamist. The only islamist party i know of in Turkey is Saadet Partisi and even those are not calling for a re-instatement of shari'a law.

 

[dakun]

People here really need to get out of anal stage. We are among adult but everything i says must somewhat "go back to my ass where it belong" or i am myself "an asshole". Vulgarity don't add anything to the current discussion.

1. There was no secularism in Kemalist Turkey since Islam stayed the religion of the state.

2. The school of Imam-Hatip, nationalized by Ataturk himself, who were trained and formed to teach a compliant version of Islam, submissive to the new rule. It's also the minister of the vakif, who name every Imam or religious teacher in Turkey and also publish religious books. In what kind of secular country those kind of thing exist?

3. You can read the articles i provided to see by yourself that Turkishness was conceptualized as a race and not a cultural/state belonging.

4. I am glad that kemalism is getting challenged in Turkey, yes. I am not happy about authoritarianism and i don't consider Erdogan to be an islamist. The only islamist party i know of in Turkey is Saadet Partisi and even those are not calling for a re-instatement of shari'a law.

LOL there is so much wrong with this post. Islam stayed the religion of the state? Erdogan is not an islamist? You don't know anything, do you?

 

[Stinkles]

LOL there is so much wrong with this post. Islam stayed the religion of the state? Erdogan is not an islamist? You don't know anything, do you?

Pigeon has very different history books than I do. I believe Golden Pigeon has claimed that he's not even Turkish. So wherever he is from might be to blame for the differing versions of events.

But today is the first day I have been exposed to the fascinating new fact that Ataturk did not in fact create a secular government.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

LOL there is so much wrong with this post. Islam stayed the religion of the state? Erdogan is not an islamist? You don't know anything, do you?

The State religion was Islam in the 1924 constitution.
You can remove an article of that same constitution, but if you keep a state-funded and state-controlled clergy of one particular religion, you have a religion of State.
I didn't said that Erdogan was not an islamist, i said that i don't consider him to be an islamist. He is certainly considered an islamist for many political commentator in or outside Turkey but not for me. Please provide me your definition of islamism, as you know there are a quite a lot.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

But today is the first day I have been exposed to the fascinating new fact that Ataturk did not in fact create a secular government.

It's the thesis of the french researcher from CNRS Pierre-Jean Luizard in his book:

 

[Funyarinpa]

People here really need to get out of anal stage. We are among adult but everything i says must somewhat "go back to my ass where it belong" or i am myself "an asshole". Vulgarity don't add anything to the current discussion.

1. There was no secularism in Kemalist Turkey since Islam stayed the religion of the state from the birth of the Republic until today. Secularism is Turkey (like in Pahlavi Iran) was just a tool for the State to take over the religious authority and submit it to the political power. Religious authority and political power were always globally separated in sunni caliphate.

2. The school of Imam-Hatip, nationalized by Ataturk himself, who were trained and formed to teach a compliant version of Islam, submissive to the new rule. It's also the minister of the vakif, who name every Imam or religious teacher in Turkey and also publish religious books. In what kind of secular country those kind of thing exist?

3. You can read the articles i provided to see by yourself that Turkishness was conceptualized as a race and not a cultural/state belonging.

4. I am glad that kemalism is getting challenged in Turkey, yes. I am not happy about authoritarianism and i don't consider Erdogan to be an islamist. The only islamist party i know of in Turkey is Saadet Partisi and even those are not calling for a re-instatement of shari'a law.

1. No secularism in the Turkish government? Nope, that's just straight up not true.

2.I'd be glad to be rid of Imam Hatips myself. Didn't know they dated back to the 1920's. Allegedly, the Ministry of Religion is established simply to ensure that there are sufficient mosques and churches, and allocates imams to mosques. It's always been annoying to me as well.

3. I'll check those out later, but there's definitely an element of societal unity underlying the Kemalist vision of a Turk. I don't think I'd deny that ethnicity also plays a role.

4.The challenging of Kemalism, however, is accompanied by the drift towards authoritarianism. Challenging Kemalism, even if it were really as vile as you suggest, means harming the values of secularism and democracy in contemporary Turkey. Not realizing that a person who wants to further popularize Imam Hatips, a person WHO MAKES HIS AUDIENCE CHANT "ALLAHU AKBAR", is Islamist? Come on. Come. The. Fuck. On. Erdoğan's biggest shtick is playing on religion. He's a threat to secularism.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

1. No secularism in the Turkish government? Nope, that's just straight up not true.

2.I'd be glad to be rid of Imam Hatips myself. Didn't know they dated back to the 1920's. Allegedly, the Ministry of Religion is established simply to ensure that there are sufficient mosques and churches, and allocates imams to mosques. It's always been annoying to me as well.

3. I'll check those out later, but there's definitely an element of societal unity underlying the Kemalist vision of a Turk. I don't think I'd deny that ethnicity also plays a role.

4.The challenging of Kemalism, however, is accompanied by the drift towards authoritarianism. Challenging Kemalism, even if it were really as vile as you suggest, means harming the values of secularism and democracy in contemporary Turkey. Not realizing that a person who wants to further popularize Imam Hatips, a person WHO MAKES HIS AUDIENCE CHANT "ALLAHU AKBAR", is Islamist? Come on. Come. The. Fuck. On. Erdoğan's biggest shtick is playing on religion. He's a threat to secularism.

1. You can say something but if you don't challenge what i am saying it dosen't change anything.

2. You can be against it, it doesn't change the fact that Ataturk did it and established it.

3. I am glad you recognize this.

4. Turkey didn't need Erdogan or AKP to be authoritarian, you know better than me as a Turk that the country was under constant military coup and that the CHP, kemalist party, was in power most of the time thanks to various military coups.
I am sorry to announce you that Allahu Akbar is not an islamist chant. I can agree that Erdogan is using religion as a political tool, but he is mainly using pre-existing tools made by Ataturk himself.
For me, islamism have to do with the nature of the Law. Erdogan don't want to change that, at least yet, so i don't consider him to be an Islamist. Assad is for instance far more islamist than Erdogan since the constitution of Syria (art. 3) state that islamic law is the fundamental source of the Law. And there is an official mufti. However, western media still portray him as a "secular dictator".
I can, though, understand that coming from a kemalist point of view, just speaking the language of religion is islamist. Since i am not Turkish, i hold a global definition of islamism.

 

[RamzaIsCool]

4. Turkey didn't need Erdogan or AKP to be authoritarian, you know better than me as a Turk that the country was under constant military coup and that the CHP, kemalist party, was in power most of the time thanks to various military coups.

As you are such a pro in Turkish history, please do tell when those authoritarian CHP periods were?

Also...

#imamhatiplerkapatılsın

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

As you are such a pro in Turkish history, please do tell when those authoritarian CHP periods were?

Also...

#imamhatiplerkapatılsın

I never have pretended to be a pro in Turkish history but whatever.
The genesis of CHP is dictatorship, since it came in power by force and crushed its opponent by force, like the fierce repression against the kurdish leader Said Nursi when tens of thousands were executed.
In fact, CHP never have ruled Turkey (since the death of Ataturk) alone but had to form alliance, but those alliance were almost always helped by military coup bringing the former government down.
The 1960 coup bring an alliance with CHP into power.
As the 71 coup put the CHP into power in the next elections.
It's true that it's mostly military who ruled Turkey until the 2000's, so authoritarianism is in the DNA of the Turkish republic. Even the (former) constitution allowed the military to overthrow the government if "secularism was in danger".

So speaking as Turkey as if it was a democracy until Erdogan came and bring with him authoritarianism is simply false. Most of western media have a big focus on Erdogan's authoritarianism because he is perceived as an islamist. If he was displaying the same authoritarianism in favor of westernization and a perceived secularism, he won't have half the hate he is getting now. Just look how Assad was perceived before the 2011 revolution. Or even the ambivalent image of Sisi in Egypt, which is purely a dictatorship.

 

[Stinkles]

I never have pretended to be a pro in Turkish history but whatever.
The genesis of CHP is dictatorship, since it came in power by force and crushed its opponent by force, like the fierce repression against the kurdish leader Said Nursi when tens of thousands were executed.
In fact, CHP never have ruled Turkey (since the death of Ataturk) alone but had to form alliance, but those alliance were almost always helped by military coup bringing the former government down.
The 1960 coup bring an alliance with CHP into power.
As the 71 coup put the CHP into power in the next elections.
It's true that it's mostly military who ruled Turkey until the 2000's, so authoritarianism is in the DNA of the Turkish republic. Even the (former) constitution allowed the military to overthrow the government if "secularism was in danger".

So speaking as Turkey as if it was a democracy until Erdogan came and bring with him authoritarianism is simply false. Most of western media have a big focus on Erdogan's authoritarianism because he is perceived as an islamist. If he was displaying the same authoritarianism in favor of westernization and a perceived secularism, he won't have half the hate he is getting now. Just look how Assad was perceived before the 2011 revolution. Or even the ambivalent image of Sisi in Egypt, which is purely a dictatorship.

So you admit at least that Erdogan is an authoritarian dictator with Islamist tendencies and that it's a really bad path to take?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

So you admit at least that Erdogan is an authoritarian dictator with Islamist tendencies and that it's a really bad path to take?

No, i think Turkey is still a democracy with an authoritarian president taking a very dangerous road for the future, to say the least. I still don't think it will turn to anything close to islamic revolution iranian-style, since Erdogan is not an ideologue by any stretch and don't have a revolutionary discourse. Those kind of things don't build overnight. So i don't think that Turkey will live a change of regime under Erdogan. I don't even think it will become even as bad as the situation we have now in Venezuela. But humans rights, freedom of the press and political liberties in general will continue to pay a heavy price.

I just hope that somebody else in the AKP will take the succession quickly, since i believe in the general direction of AKP as a good thing for the country and i believe that it's always a dangerous situation to concentrate the power in one man. But i don't think they will just put abandon the crazy popularity Erdogan have, not only in Turkey but in the muslim world in general.

 

[nynt9]

Childs in Turkey have to learn, to this day, this Ataturk declaration:

"However, every Turkish child still grows up memorizing Atatürk's 1927 address to the youth, which speaks of ‘the noble blood in your veins' and ‘how happy the one who says he is a Turk'."

So Turkishness is not about nationality, but about blood.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the pledge. The full pledge is:

Türküm, doğruyum, çalışkanım,
İlkem; küçüklerimi korumak, büyüklerimi saymak, yurdumu, milletimi özümden çok sevmektir.
Ülküm; yükselmek, ileri gitmektir.
Ey Büyük Atatürk!
Açtığın yolda, gösterdiğin hedefe durmadan yürüyeceğime ant içerim.
Varlığım Türk varlığına armağan olsun.
Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!

Which translates as:

I'm Turkish, I am good, I am hard-working
My principle is to protect those younger, respect my elders and love my nation and people more than anything
My creed is to rise above and push further
Great Ataturk!
I promise to follow along the path you've laid, towards the goal you've set
May my existence be devoted to the Turkish (nation's) existence
Happiness to those who call themselves Turkish

The intention of this pledge was to bring together a divided country, not by religion or ethnicity, but by simply those who call themselves a member of the nation. It was supposed to unify the people.

No, i think Turkey is still a democracy with an authoritarian president taking a very dangerous road for the future, to say the least. I still don't think it will turn to anything close to islamic revolution iranian-style, since Erdogan is not an ideologue by any stretch and don't have a revolutionary discourse. Those kind of things don't build overnight. So i don't think that Turkey will live a change of regime under Erdogan. I don't even think it will become even as bad as the situation we have now in Venezuela. But humans rights, freedom of the press and political liberties in general will continue to pay a heavy price.

I just hope that somebody else in the AKP will take the succession quickly, since i believe in the general direction of AKP as a good thing for the country and i believe that it's always a dangerous situation to concentrate the power in one man. But i don't think they will just put abandon the crazy popularity Erdogan have, not only in Turkey but in the muslim world in general.

If you believe the general direction of AKP is good for the country then I don't know what to say to you. This is an islamist party, and a party that is wholly corrupt. I get that you're super anti-kemalist for some reason, but the answer is not to turn the dial all the way to the other side. Even without Erdogan we have shitbags like Melih Gokcek, conservative nutjobs, and authoritarian bullies. Erdogan isn't the only one here.

You're eating up some pretty good pro-AKP propaganda from somewhere, that's for sure. But when a party has over 10 years of garbage behavior, corruption, authoritarianism and bullying and incompetence under their belt, I just don't know where to begin, and if you somehow willingly ignore all of it you're clearly not arguing in good faith.

Also, FYI, Erdogan did prison time in 1999 for revolutionist discourse trying to incite religious hatred, saying: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...."

 

[superdeluxe]

Turkish embassy statement:

They had on camera Turkish security officers attacking people, that was backed up by the US Govt & the DC police. No one should believe this.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This discourse you mentioned at the end is not from Erdogan (Mosque are our barracks etc..), but, ironically, from an hardcore early turkish nationalist who heavily influenced Ataturk, Ziya Gökalp (even if Erdogan did said it).

I don't take my propaganda from nowhere, i made my views being in Turkey and speaking with a large array of people. I believe in the general direction of AKP party, i am not speaking of the people in the party. I believe in de-kemalisation, de-centralization of the state and a multicultural turkey, with strong M-E policies and an islamic identity. Corruptions, flawed individuals and authoritarians moves don't alter the validity of those ideals. So when i am speaking about the direction of AKP i am not speaking about the physical political party nor his leaders but those ideals.

About the oath of the youth, i cannot tell you since i don't speak turkish, but i found this translation about the noble blood in various article and it's present in a turkish website which seem to be related with a turkish university.

 

[nynt9]

This discourse you mentioned at the end is not from Erdogan (Mosque are our barracks etc..), but, ironically, from an hardcore early turkish nationalist who heavily influenced Ataturk, Ziya Gökalp (even if Erdogan did said it).

I don't take my propaganda from nowhere, i made my views being in Turkey and speaking with a large array of people. I believe in the general direction of AKP party, i am not speaking of the people in the party. I believe in de-kemalisation, de-centralization of the state and a multicultural turkey, with strong M-E policies and an islamic identity. Corruptions, flawed individuals and authoritarians moves don't alter the validity of those ideals. So when i am speaking about the direction of AKP i am not speaking about the physical political party nor his leaders but those ideals.

About the oath of the youth, i cannot tell you since i don't speak turkish, but i found this translation about the noble blood in various article and it's present in a turkish website which seem to be related with a turkish university.

That phrase I quoted by Erdogan, even though he read it during a Ziya Gokalp recitation, is not in the original text. It is his addition. You can see that in this link here which also references a link that contains the original poem.

The ideal of the party is islamism. And saying "I support the ideals of the party, not literally every major figure in the party" is just ridiculous pedantry. The party is defined by the people in it and the policies they make. If you were arguing in good faith you'd say you support anti kemalism and multi culturalism. Not that you support AKP. Again, anti-kemalism and AKP don't have to be the same thing.

Also, an islamic identity should never be the platform of a political party. Religion should be kept out of politics.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

That phrase I quoted by Erdogan, even though he read it during a Ziya Gokalp recitation, is not in the original text. It is his addition. You can see that in this link here which also references a link that contains the original poem.

The ideal of the party is islamism. And saying "I support the ideals of the party, not literally every major figure in the party" is just ridiculous pedantry. The party is defined by the people in it and the policies they make. If you were arguing in good faith you'd say you support anti kemalism and multi culturalism. Not that you support AKP. Again, anti-kemalism and AKP don't have to be the same thing.

Also, an islamic identity should never be the platform of a political party. Religion should be kept out of politics.

Wow the original poem is waaaay more hardcore than the version of Erdogan, so i don't really see your point. It's quite a powerful example of how Islam was used by kemalism/"secular" turkish nationalism when useful:

A rifle in my hand, faith in my heart,
I have two desires: Religion and the homeland...
The army is in my heart, the sultan is great...
Aid the Sultan, oh God!
Prolong his life, oh God!
Our path is holy war (gazâ), martyrdom is its end,
Our religion asks for loyalty and service,
Our mother is the homeland, our father is the nation,
Make the homeland prosperous, oh God!
Uplift the nation, oh God!
My banner is the Oneness of God (Tevhît), my flag is the Crescent (Hilâl)
One is green, the other is red,
Take bitter revenge on the enemy for Islam,
Make Islam prosperous, oh God!
Ruin its enemies, oh God!
Our commanding, powerful fathers,
Our sergeants, corporals, chiefs,
Our ordered and respected laws,
Make the army in good order, oh God!
Make our banner superior, oh God!
Many brave heroes in the battlefield,
Became martyrs for religion and country,
Let the hearth give off smoke, let hope not be extinguished,
Do not let the martyr be mournful, oh God!
Do not let his end be powerless, oh God!166

Akp is not an islamist party, i disagree. I said that i support their general line, their tenets if you like. There is nothing in common between egyptian muslim brotherhood and AKP party. This is not a revolutionary party, Erdogan said recently that he was secular. So maybe he is an islamist for the turkish context, for the anti-AKP people. But i doubt Erdogan voters identify themselves as islamists. And he is not an islamist in the absolute sense. He don't support the instauration shari'a law which is the fundamental tenet of islamism.

And i don't think that religion should be kept out of politics. It's just a myth, religion always play a big role in politics. Humanism is heavily inspired by christians ethics and it's the base of liberal democracy.
The issue is how religion is used. Ghandi, MLK, Malcolm X were people who mixed politics with religion. Abolition movement who in many case religiously influenced. Many independentist movement use(d) religion has a tool for liberation. So saying that it's a rule of thumb that religion should always be separated from politics don't make any sense. Secularism can be as bad as religion in politics, as history showed us.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Come the fuck on. You were the one who gave the DPRK example yet you still talk about Erdoğan's own claim to be a secularist.

Turkey's a legally secular government (Article II of the Constitution), and Erdoğan keeps making religious references in his EVERY SINGLE SPEECH. Atatürk might have displayed similar tendencies as well, but his very act of placing secularism in the very foundation of the country's law and his removal of the Caliph stature (both, as you would imagine, acts with great political resistance) display his true, progressive intentions. Under Erdoğan, high schools left and right are being converted into Imam Hatips - their very existence makes you allege that Atatürk wasn't a secularist, but you seem to not care about that (or the fact that the initial Imam Hatip schools were closed in 2-3 years and didn't return in full capacity until late 1940s) or the current proposed changes to the Turkish curriculum that removes much reference to evolution.

Islam is (or at least seen as) a central tenet of the Turkish identity, so it's likely that the Turkish government had to establish some infrastructure to govern it in the country. The issue is that now it's gone beyond that (actually, researching the Early Republic period turns up the impression that the early CHP governance had tried to establish an incredibly non-religious system of education) and became a danger to the scientific education of new generations.

AKP, though? AKP is the CENTRAL RELIGIOUS POLITICAL FORCE in Turkey. If Atatürk occasionally using religion as a uniting/political force delegitimizes his secularity (even though he was the one to establish it in the first place), then why do you shy away from saying the same for Erdoğan? Every single criticism you make about Atatürk just brings him closer to what Erdoğan is doing right here, right now (before you counter with "muh turbans"- that ban was instated in 1990). So why do you insist on portraying Erdoğan as more secular than Atatürk?

 

[Condom]

AKP is at the very least, the party islamists vote for.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I guess this is now Turkish History and Identity: the thread, rather than about how a foreign leader likely ordered and oversaw assaults on American citizens exercising their first amendment rights.

Huh, funny how it goes... I wonder what happened...

Too bad Golden_Pigeon couldn't be there to explain to them why they were being beaten up. Maybe the protesters wouldn't have exercised their freedom of speech if they had known how much it would hurt the feelings of the Erdogoons.

"Erdogoons"

Can I steal that? I'm stealing that.

 

[HarryKS]

Those cops were out of shape eh.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

AKP, though? AKP is the CENTRAL RELIGIOUS POLITICAL FORCE in Turkey. If Atatürk occasionally using religion as a uniting/political force delegitimizes his secularity (even though he was the one to establish it in the first place), then why do you shy away from saying the same for Erdoğan? Every single criticism you make about Atatürk just brings him closer to what Erdoğan is doing right here, right now (before you counter with "muh turbans"- that ban was instated in 1990). So why do you insist on portraying Erdoğan as more secular than Atatürk?

I never said that Erdogan was more secular than Ataturk. I said that Ataturk was not secular and kemalism is not a secular ideology. There are five brand of auto-proclaimed secularism in the world, and the turkish blend have very little in common from it's original meaning in western context since it's applied in a non-christian context. Secularism in the western christians nations was about to separate the church and the State. The church don't exist in Sunni Islam. The political power was independent of the scholars, and scholars had, by large, their independence as well. Turkish "secularism" just nationalized the scholars and have created a "muslim church" in order to use the religion as a tool, and neutralize its autonomy in respect to the political power.

If anything, AKP took away the more oppressive side of turkish secularism like banning of the hijab in superior education and public office and use the "muslim church" founded by kemalism for another agenda, that is promoting the values of AKP. The Diyanet (official religious body) is the perfect example of this. The Diyanet before 2010 was promoting a "state-compliant" Islam which had very little resemblance with Hanafi Islam. After 2010 and the installment of Mehmet Germuz, who is a proper hanafi scholar, as the head of Diyanet.Therefore, the Diyanet is starting to look more like any religious establishment in the muslim world. So, somewhat, the religious body is taking its intellectual autonomy.

Like i said, Erdogan is not a revolutionary, he is not changing the regime, he is just turning things around.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

About the roots of AKP and to understand more it's ideological roots and trajectory, you can read this study from the Brooking Institute.

Also this is a very interesting article about the relationship with AKP and the sufi orders in Turkey.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I never said that Erdogan was more secular than Ataturk. I said that Ataturk was not secular and kemalism is not a secular ideology. There are five brand of auto-proclaimed secularism in the world, and the turkish blend have very little in common from it's original meaning in western context since it's applied in a non-christian context. Secularism in the western christians nations was about to separate the church and the State. The church don't exist in Sunni Islam. The political power was independent of the scholars, and scholars had, by large, their independence as well. Turkish "secularism" just nationalized the scholars and have created a "muslim church" in order to use the religion as a tool, and neutralize its autonomy in respect to the political power.

If anything, AKP took away the more oppressive side of turkish secularism like banning of the hijab in superior education and public office and use the "muslim church" founded by kemalism for another agenda, that is promoting the values of AKP. The Diyanet (official religious body) is the perfect example of this. The Diyanet before 2010 was promoting a "state-compliant" Islam which had very little resemblance with Hanafi Islam. After 2010 and the installment of Mehmet Germuz, who is a proper hanafi scholar, as the head of Diyanet.Therefore, the Diyanet is starting to look more like any religious establishment in the muslim world. So, somewhat, the religious body is taking its intellectual autonomy.

Like i said, Erdogan is not a revolutionary, he is not changing the regime, he is just turning things around.

You misunderstand Turkish secularism. In the Ottoman Empire, sharia was law. The Padishah had the rank of Caliph. That's where "separation of church and State" came into play. By the removal of the Caliph stature, the Turkish President bears no religious rank. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, your "proper hanefi scholars" issue fatwas that encourage incest with 9-year-olds, decry tattoos, or forbid engaged couples from holding hands. Is that what you understand from "intellectual autonomy"?

Why do you portray the relegation of religion to a force weaker than law as a negative thing? Religion shouldn't hold power over law in a country. Something like a religious ministry being "state-compliant" is not a bad thing.

If you believe that a person who turned a country into a PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLIC isn't a regime change, I don't know if I can ever get through to you. Erdoğan is not "turning things around"- he's not the anti-Kemalist hero you're envisioning him to be. He's not liberating the oh-so-oppressed muslims in Turkey. He's presented himself as an Islamist hero, and with the support of half the country on his back, he's becoming a dictator. A leader coming to power with primarily religious rhetoric is a danger to secularism.

Under Erdoğan, Islam reigns- it just so happens that this also counteracts the "oppressive" side of Kemalist secularism, but it does not mean that Erdoğan is a force of good for this country.

Edit: The article you linked says that AKP made more progress in EU accession than ever before. Hilarious. It says "citizens now hold more power than ever". Utterly. Hilarious.

Stop acting like AKP hasn't embraced Islamism. It's obvious in every single thing they do.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

You misunderstand Turkish secularism. In the Ottoman Empire, sharia was law. The Padishah had the rank of Caliph. That's where "separation of church and State" came into play. By the removal of the Caliph stature, the Turkish President bears no religious rank. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Yes, it have nothing to do with Christianity. The Caliph is not the head of the "Muslim church". It's the head of the muslims politically. Shari'a was indeed the personal law, but Sultan decret could overturn it. It was also decentralized and non-muslims were not subject of shari'a law.

Also, your "proper hanefi scholars" issue fatwas that encourage incest with 9-year-olds, decry tattoos, or forbid engaged couples from holding hands. Is that what you understand from "intellectual autonomy"?

Incest with 9 years old ? Can i see this fatwa ? [edit: ok i found the story, it was not about the legality of the incest, held prohibited universally by all muslims since it's in the Quran but the validity of the marriage with the mother, it was quickly removed from the website of Diyanet after sparking controversy. I understand how it could be shocking but it's a misunderstanding. It's like if you are asking me if your marriage is still valid if you kill a man. I will say "yes", but it dosen't mean that killing a man is permissible. Of course, the fatwa was wrong because it wasn't stating that it was prohibited in the first place, but it's obviously an error and was not made out of the desire to legalize incest, here you can find the diyanet rejecting having allowed incest]
Tattoos are held prohibited in hanafi fiqh in general, nothing surprising. The ruling about holding hands is mostly based on customs [edit: the ruling was about non-married couple].

Why do you portray the relegation of religion to a force weaker than law as a negative thing? Religion shouldn't hold power over law in a country. Something like a religious ministry being "state-compliant" is not a bad thing.

You don't understand how religious law works in muslim context. The shari'a is followed by any muslim, it doesn't matter if the State is enforcing it or not. So for instance, to follow with your tatoo example, the religious authority can say that tattoo is absolutely prohibited and this is have ZERO incidence over the state law. If the state take over and decide what fatwa can be published and what fatwa cannot be published, the religious authority will loose it's grip and the people will follow independant people on the margins.
So by wanting to control the religious law, which can be totally independant from the common law, the State will only create chaos in the religious sphere and will make it easy for radicals to take over.

If you believe that a person who turned a country into a PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLIC isn't a regime change, I don't know if I can ever get through to you. Erdoğan is not "turning things around"- he's not the anti-Kemalist hero you're envisioning him to be. He's not liberating the oh-so-oppressed muslims in Turkey. He's presented himself as an Islamist hero, and with the support of half the country on his back, he's becoming a dictator. A leader coming to power with primarily religious rhetoric is a danger to secularism.

I was speaking about a regime change of nature like the iranian revolution.

Please find me only one quote of Erdogan saying "I am an islamist" or AKP presenting itself as an "islamist party".

I don't see him as a hero. If it was the case, i wouldn't be critical. I understand that for most of people here, if you don't call him a brutal dictator, you must be consider a Erdogan fanatic. I am not, i am highly critical of many thing he have done and continue to do, especially suppressing the press.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Yes, it have nothing to do with Christianity. The Caliph is not the head of the "Muslim church". It's the head of the muslims politically. Shari'a was indeed the personal law, but Sultan decret could overturn it.

Irrelevant.

Incest with 9 years old ? Can i see this fatwa ?
Tattoos are held prohibited in hanafi fiqh in general, nothing surprising. The ruling about holding hands is mostly based on customs.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/01/turkey-religious-affairs-directorate-fatwa.html

The fatwa itself was removed.

Do idiotic customs excuse a government body making statements like "engaged couples should not be holding hands"?

You don't understand how religious law works in muslim context. The shari'a is followed by any muslim, it doesn't matter if the State is enforcing it or not. So for instance, to follow with your tatoo example, the religious authority can say that tattoo is absolutely prohibited and this is have ZERO incidence over the state law. If the state take over and decide what fatwa can be published and what fatwa cannot be published, the religious authority will loose it's grip and the people will follow independant people on the margins.
So by wanting to control the religious law, which can be totally independant from the common law, the State will only create chaos in the religious sphere and will make it easy for radicals to take over.

So are you supporting that the government should acknowledge religious authorities as sovereign over its own laws? I think that's BS.

No problems whatsoever with the controlling of religious law either.

I don't buy that religious authorities should be allowed to fester to keep radicals from taking over. What'd be the difference between those radicals and a religious authority if either were allowed to go unchecked?

Please find me only one quote of Erdogan saying "I am an islamist" or AKP presenting itself as an "islamist party".

I am not seeing him as no kind of hero neither.

Their actions speak louder than words. Erdoğan literally prays to Allah in rallies and his audience responds.

One of Erdoğan's election slogans was "Ne yapsalar boş, göklerden gelen bir karar vardır"- "All they do is futile, for there is a decision from the skies".

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Irrelevant.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/01/turkey-religious-affairs-directorate-fatwa.html

The fatwa itself was removed.

Do idiotic customs excuse a government body making statements like "engaged couples should not be holding hands"?

It's a religious question. It's dosen't have any legal weight. It's like an advice. If you want to follow Islam, you have those experts who can help you.

So are you supporting that the government should acknowledge religious authorities as sovereign over its own laws? I think that's BS.

Religious law don't overlap. In any secular country you have those same office for judaism or islam who give religious response to any sort of problems. If Erdogan was saying that Diyanet would now replace the assembly as the legislative body of Turkey, he would be an islamist.

I don't buy that religious authorities should be allowed to fester to keep radicals from taking over. What'd be the difference between those radicals and a religious authority if either were allowed to go unchecked?

Diyanet is not at all unchecked. They need to show credential and need to have a proper formation to do what they are doing. They cannot use their office to form political sedition or for their own interests.

You can hate Diyanet or Islam or Hanafi fiqh for being heavily conservative, but it's not like having reals radicals spreadings over like when salafism saudi blend is spreading.

Religious law cannot be defined by the State, it would be totalitarian. It's like wanting to have the teaching of philosophy defined by the state. Believe it or not, but the production of fatwa is made by a specific methodology, it's not a scholar mere opinion and people know that and it's why it's respected. If people detect that it's just the State speaking, he would lose all his credibility in favor of whatever is trending on YouTube.

Their actions speak louder than words. Erdoğan literally prays to Allah in rallies and his audience responds.

So what ? It's that any different that any US president who said Aleluia and the audience says "Amen"?

You said that Erdogan present itself as an islamist and it's totally false.
Praising God in rallies have nothing to do with islamism, it have to do with being muslim. In any muslim country, politicians does that whatever their political affiliation as everybody do that. It's the language of the society, but kemalist elites in Turkey have little to do with their own society, except the urban high class of Istanbul. I had the chance to see a lot of Turkey countryside and it's clear why people would vote for AKP.

You could argue that he make a display of piety for political gain, and we could eventually agree on that, but that is not islamism.

 

[Rukun]

And now there's a video showing Erdogan was maybe fifty feet away from the incident and allegedly ordered his guards to attack.

This is unprecedented. Americans being attacked in our own capital by a foreign dictator's men. I'm calling the state department and my representatives tomorrow to see what we're doing about this and to request sanctions.

 

[civilstrife]

Holy shit.

This is truly terrifying.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

So what ? It's that any different that any US president who said Aleluia and the audience says "Amen"?

no it's just clear whataboutism. US politics are already crazy religiously fervent.

 

[III-V]

Can't really call this video "apparent". Erdogan sent the muscle.

 

[Alucrid]

you can't make this shit up

Turkey condemns U.S. over ‘aggressive’ acts against its bodyguards in D.C. during President Erdogan’s visit in Washington

Turkey’s foreign ministry on Monday lodged a formal protest with the U.S. ambassador to Ankara over what it said were “lapses of security” during President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Washington earlier this month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.ab27eda9fb6d

 

[Apathy]

you can't make this shit up

Turkey condemns U.S. over ‘aggressive’ acts against its bodyguards in D.C. during President Erdogan’s visit in Washington



https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.ab27eda9fb6d

So full on admitting that non US citizens were beating aactual US citizens while the police did as close to nothing as possible. Lovely. Watch out friends in the US, you're own government won't want to protect you if the orange turd is sucking off some foreign dictator.

 

[ahoyhoy]

you can't make this shit up

Turkey condemns U.S. over ‘aggressive’ acts against its bodyguards in D.C. during President Erdogan’s visit in Washington



https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.ab27eda9fb6d

Trump or Tillerson better say something. Hypocritical fucks.

 

[blu]

Turkey blamed the violence on demonstrators linked to the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), while Washington's police chief described the incident as a "brutal attack" on peaceful protesters.

Now, if only I could remember where I've read this..

 

[psyfi]

I just heard about this -- holy shit. This is fucking egregious.

 

[KDR_11k]

you can't make this shit up

Turkey condemns U.S. over ‘aggressive' acts against its bodyguards in D.C. during President Erdogan's visit in Washington



https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.ab27eda9fb6d

I wish those policemen had shown them aggressive behavior... Preferrably the kind normally reserved for black Americans.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

you can't make this shit up

Turkey condemns U.S. over ‘aggressive’ acts against its bodyguards in D.C. during President Erdogan’s visit in Washington



https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.ab27eda9fb6d

 

[DeadTrees]

https://apnews.com/amp/e1e60fc2470c4b909416a2a15724d0dc

Twelve of Erdogan's guards will be charged tomorrow, per an anonymous source. Two (both in the US) have already been arrested:

The Metropolitan Police Department said in a brief statement that Sinan Narin had been arrested in Virginia on an aggravated assault charge.

It said Eyup Yildirim had been arrested in New Jersey on charges of assault with significant bodily injury and aggravated assault.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

https://apnews.com/amp/e1e60fc2470c4b909416a2a15724d0dc

Twelve of Erdogan's guards will be charged tomorrow, per an anonymous source. Two (both in the US) have already been arrested:

Good. Erdogan and his cronies can fuck off.

 

[Tallshortman]

Good they should be reminded they're not in Turkey and that horseshit won't fly here.

 

[Funyarinpa]

https://apnews.com/amp/e1e60fc2470c4b909416a2a15724d0dc

Twelve of Erdogan's guards will be charged tomorrow, per an anonymous source. Two (both in the US) have already been arrested:

Good!

...Perhaps this is why they're imposing a new, 15% tax on all international transactions lol.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

https://apnews.com/amp/e1e60fc2470c4b909416a2a15724d0dc

Twelve of Erdogan's guards will be charged tomorrow, per an anonymous source. Two (both in the US) have already been arrested:

Would be great if one of them admits Erdogan personally gave the order to attack the protesters.