The Gulen movement and Turkish power revival

[samatar133]

Samatar 133,
Isn't it the case that both the Turkish secular state and the Gulen movement were born to counter the arabisation of islam?

Countering arabization of Islam is probably one of the various reasons it wants to achieve. But there are other motives too, mainly economics where Turkey uses this kind of islam to reinsert its leadership in the muslim world which has huge prospect for economic growth. Some important western circles might see their interest coincide with that of Turkey and hence reinforce policy in that direction.

[Lamagoodle]

Samatarow, I hope the ideas of this movement spreads to non-arab countries of the muslim world. Arabs are already criticising it. They view it as a reactionary movement which will challenge their culture based cult of wahabism/salafism.

[gurey25]

The turkish secularists/kemalists have done the turkish people a favour by fencing it off from influence coming from Saudi arabia,
leaving islam in turkey untouched and the way most muslim countries were a 100 years ago.
It sounds incorrect but the reality is that salafism/wahabism is a modernist movement and most muslim were at least before the spectacular rise of salafist , traditionalists.
basically the average turk outside of istanbul is a traditionalist muslim that practices exactly what your grandparents practiced before salafism conquered somalia.

because of the lack f salafism they have been able to think clearly and find a way out of their predicament, through organizing, and hard work.
The predicament of the Turkish muslim was that he was outside the political establishment and outside the small circle of oligarchs that ran the economy .
The government and millitary officers and the economy was monopolized by the 20% of the Turkish population that is essentially non-muslim.
you may call them a fancy name like secular muslims etc, which is an oxymoron but in reality their lifestyle and thinking is no different to the french or swede.

What caused the rise of the AKP and its predecessor and the gulen movement was the rise of the small and medium sized businesses that were owned by conservative muslims from the interior of turkey. They were based on manufacturing and high technology like electronics and IT, while the "secular" oligarchy had the old industries that were failing and were propped up by the government.
Discrimination in the field of education also pushed the muslims of turkey to success, because they were forced to go into more difficult courses like engineering and science instead of law and business, and they were forced to send their children to foreign universities.
This is why you will find it more common for a muslim in turkey to be educated outside the country, work in multinational corporations and speak foriegn langauges,
while most secular turks study inside the country and hardly speak any foreign languages.
most of the time if you come across a turk that speaks excellent english, he is a conservative muslims, while your secularist would struggle with it.

economic power leads to political power if you play the game right and this is what the AKP have done,
they used the application to join the EU, to stop the army from just banning them like last time.
Then when in power they used the EU to destroy the armies political power and thus the secularists by democratization.

genuis.

i would also like to add that Kemal attaturk did not introduce secualrism into turkey.
The Ottoman empire was secular from 1843 till it expired in 1922.
The 1853 laws removed the jizya tax on non-muslims, introduced interest based banking, removed the power of the ulema and moved all power to secular courts, leaving them only in family law. The laws from the same year legalized prostitution and implemented taxation of whorehouses and their regular medical checks.
Hommosexuality was also decriminalized.

This was 18 frikkin 53 !!!!!

[Lamagoodle]

Gurey, do you prefer living in a "secular" state to pseudo islamic state?

Economic system is very important but even more important is technological profileration.


P.s. There is a difference between a secular state and a secular individual. In a secular state, individuals have the right to worship/engage in any religious activity. A secular individual is a person who embraces secularism as a mode of governance but could be religious.

[gurey25]

Since a muslim dawla does not exist today, if given the choice between a psuedo islamic state and a secular state, i would choose a secular state hands down.
unlike you i do not think a secular state is the best system,
as a muslim i have the duty to follow my religion and my religion is not like others.
It is not some cult wear people isolate themselves into small communities wear different clothing and have strange customs but live under some other state.

it is a universal system, all encompassing .

The secular discourse is this, all religion are essentially the same, superstitions for the poor uneducated masses.
let them believe what they like but "enlightened" people will run the country.

If you are a muslim this is unacceptable, because islam is the only true religion and way of life.

[gurey25]

I am a product of the west and i am thoroughly westernized, as i child i also had an excellent islamic education, which was not in a quran memorizing school but in my actual school.
growing up i found our wadaads even allot of those who come in tv shows and gave out advice and fatwas to be intellectually stunted , even friends who went to arabic schools were the
same, no curiosity, no desire to learn or try new things, while the west was the opposite , vibrant and dynamic in every sense.

its no wonder that allot of muslims exposed to the west become secularist especially if they come from the intellectually and culturally stagnating muslim world.

but i was lucky to love history and it gave me prespective, i found in the muslims of 1000 years ago kindred spirits.

[metamorphosis]

It is one thing to be so fond of science and mathematics, and dont get me wrong because I agree that it is these concepts on which the usa/uk economies were built and still are the driving factors, but it is completely another to suggest that these notions take precedent over Islam like lamagoodle has suggested where he said more scientific institutions ought to be built and less mosques.

Moreover, Islam is a religion, it is a way of life and to state the obvious it isnt something you can change or discard when it doesnt "work" which is the theme of this thread.

Lastly, secularism has its own Flaws and limitations and adopting it doesnt necessrily guarantee sucess in economy and technogical innovation. Not to mention some of the ways in which secular states have reached their success works in direction opposition to the fundamental teachings of Islam.


I think we should focus on improving our relations with Allah because no matter how much success and innovation you achieve in this world you will leave it sooner or later. The smart are those who plant the the seeds of the fruits they will harvest tomorrow in the hereafter. My two cents.

[Titanium]

Sharia today is only for poor people.

[abdikarim86]

by the way bal cabdikarinaw ii sharax what system of governance you would want and how it would be implemented. what do you think about democracy? elected people making laws that might contradict with what some interpretations of Islam say?

Sorry for the late reply.

I don't think democracy is such a bad thing though I would want it limited.
Basically I am all for choosing your president....but voting on "gay marriage" for example
is a step too far. If an elected government dealt with governance and left the masses
to themselves meaning, independent Imams, Jurists and Qaadis left to do what they've
always done and free from government interference, meddling and free from
government encroaching on its territories and vice verse, I would not mind too much if the government were secular.


What I do not want to see is this all encompassing secularism envisaged by you were you not only banish
Religion from government but from public life all together. I don't want a state being responsible for everything
and having an opinion on everything.

And I don't want today's "Islamic" states which I don't think are islamic anyway. I would not
want a Saudi arabia or an Iran. No Muslim dawlad exists today and anybody claiming as such
is fooling themselves.

Before we go anywhere though all muslims, especially us Somalis need to undergo
an extensive moral revolution, without which I think would result in us disappearing both
as a people and a culture.

Lamagoodle ..I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect system, nor do I believe
a utopia is possible in this lifetime (The next one will be of course for those who believe and earn it).

[abdikarim86]

I don't think an elected government should even be capable of making laws, let alone ones contrary to Islam.
A government governs, it does not make law.

[Lamagoodle]

Since a muslim dawla does not exist today, if given the choice between a psuedo islamic state and a secular state, i would choose a secular state hands down.unlike you i do not think a secular state is the best system,
as a muslim i have the duty to follow my religion and my religion is not like others.
It is not some cult wear people isolate themselves into small communities wear different clothing and have strange customs but live under some other state.

it is a universal system, all encompassing .

The secular discourse is this, all religion are essentially the same, superstitions for the poor uneducated masses.
let them believe what they like but "enlightened" people will run the country.

If you are a muslim this is unacceptable, because islam is the only true religion and way of life.

Dear Gurey,
There seems to be a fallacy in what you are saying. On the one hand, you seem to appreciate that the secular system is the best available system. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that there are other better systems. If we don't have that system today, it is not an issue to discuss.

A discussion on secularism has everything to do with all kinds of religions. If we, as muslims, believe that our religion is the best and as such should govern us, then there is nothing which prevents other religious dominations to do the same.

I have resided in "secular" states for many years and I am not forced to embrace secularism in my relationship with God.

We could discuss what a religion is- whether it is a superstition for the undeducated masses or whether enlightenment is a secular issue but that is not the crux of this thread.

[Lamagoodle]

I am a product of the west and i am thoroughly westernized, as i child i also had an excellent islamic education, which was not in a quran memorizing school but in my actual school.
growing up i found our wadaads even allot of those who come in tv shows and gave out advice and fatwas to be intellectually stunted , even friends who went to arabic schools were the
same, no curiosity, no desire to learn or try new things, while the west was the opposite , vibrant and dynamic in every sense.

its no wonder that allot of muslims exposed to the west become secularist especially if they come from the intellectually and culturally stagnating muslim world.

but i was lucky to love history and it gave me prespective, i found in the muslims of 1000 years ago kindred spirits.

We could talk about a wonderful historical legacy and utopias but the reality is that we have yet to see a "muslim" state.

You have to convince us saaxib; what is wrong with secularism? is it the case that most muslims can practice islam in secular countries while this freedom is limited in islamic countries? Have you anyone forcing muslims to embrace secularism or christianity?

It is important that when we are discussing this issue, we discard the usual BS that are based on logical fallacies.

[Lamagoodle]

It is one thing to be so fond of science and mathematics, and dont get me wrong because I agree that it is these concepts on which the usa/uk economies were built and still are the driving factors, but it is completely another to suggest that these notions take precedent over Islam like lamagoodle has suggested where he said more scientific institutions ought to be built and less mosques.

Moreover, Islam is a religion, it is a way of life and to state the obvious it isnt something you can change or discard when it doesnt "work" which is the theme of this thread.

Lastly, secularism has its own Flaws and limitations and adopting it doesnt necessrily guarantee sucess in economy and technogical innovation. Not to mention some of the ways in which secular states have reached their success works in direction opposition to the fundamental teachings of Islam.


I think we should focus on improving our relations with Allah because no matter how much success and innovation you achieve in this world you will leave it sooner or later. The smart are those who plant the the seeds of the fruits they will harvest tomorrow in the hereafter. My two cents.

Meta; thanks for your contribution. If that is the case i.e. we focus on the world hearafter, why is that we are obsessed with nation building? what is that we want to have secular mechanisms of governance in e.g. somalia? what are we imitating secular nations? why are muslims today better off in secular societies?

Soo cajiib ma aha saaxib?

[Lamagoodle]

Sharia today is only for poor people.

Titanium; why is it so? I sense Marxist/Hegelien dialectics in your comment; kind of religion is the opium of the masses.

[Lamagoodle]

I don't think an elected government should even be capable of making laws, let alone ones contrary to Islam.
A government governs, it does not make law.

So, who makes laws? Allah does right? in that case, how comes we have "governments"? You are not leaving project utopia saaxib. If that is the case, then we should not be waving flags which are the panultimate love for nationhood which entails lawmaking.

Lamagoodle ..I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect system, nor do I believe
a utopia is possible in this lifetime (The next one will be of course for those who believe and earn it).

True, there is no perfect system; if you have read systems' theory, you will not that a system is not perfect.
The BOLD; aren't you dithering in your earlier assertation that that "an elected government should even be capable of making laws"?

So, are you for anarchism sxb?