In my last post, I proposed that the US should use Turkey as a middleman to spread its tolerant and modern version of Islam. With countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fostering and spreading radicalism through out their respective regions and the world, and Saudi Arabia having almost infinite resources to do so, radicalism can’t help but spread despite our best efforts in the War on Terror. Though occasions such as the Tsunami in Asia and the more recent earthquake in Pakistan have given the US opportunities to bolster its image in the Muslim world (though it would have responded with aid and asisstance anyway), they are merely bandaids which help in the short term and do little to counter future terrorism. A simple lesson from the news is that bad news sells. Similarly, the image of poor Pakistanis receiving medical care from US soldiers won’t last as long as images of dead Iraqis or tortured prisoners (or even silly cartoons!).
Saudi Arabia distributes radical hate literature through a variety of methods:
- Through distribution from Saudi Embassies
- Official publications of Saudi ministries
- Religious pronouncements by state appointed religious authorities
- Disseminating hate material through Saudi funded mosques and schools
More specifically they:
- Build mosques in developed and undeveloped countries
- Provide low cost or free books to mosques around the world
- Provide low cost or free religious schoolbooks to poor countries to prevent them from purchasing more expensive non-Wahabi textbooks
- Provide scholarships for Muslims from poor countries to study at radical schools in Saudi Arabia.
This is all done both by the government itself as well as individual members of the royal family. So when a country like Malaysia is looking to buy textbooks, but the Saudis come in offering their own Wahhabi textbooks at 1/10th of the price, it’s a decision that makes itself for most poor countries. When countries like those in Central Asia, where Islam was oppressed, want to use their newfound freedom to build mosques but don’t have the resources, the Saudis come in to build them, staff them with radical Saudi preachers and fill them with hate materials.
Thus, I’d like to propose The Chirol Plan. While the US steps up its propaganda or PR campaigns with Arabic language news like Al Hurra and Persian tv and radio, our reputation has already been damaged that if they don’t believe people like Saddam need to go, they sure won’t believe what a US funded channel says. I scratched the surface in my previous post and now propose using Turkey as a middle man to spread its more tolerant and moderate version of Islam throughout the world.
Given Turkey’s geography and cultural and linguistic influence, target countries would include:
- Border countries like parts of Syria
- Former Ottoman posessions with strong Turkish influence such as Bosnia and Albania.
- Turkish and Turkic lands like N. Cyprus, Azerbaijan and the Stans.
Arab countries, though perhaps the most important, would likely be the most difficult to penetrate. Now that we have defined the different types of target countries and listed them, what exactly would such a program entail? It would be funded through US and EU money with broad instructions on what it’s to be used for leaving the details up to the Turks. Additionally, it would be necessary to cover up the source of the money so as not to discredit the programs. They would offer
- Scholarships to study in Turkey
- Low cost and free religious materials to bookstores, schools and mosques
- Scholarships to study at certain schools in one’s home country
- Subsidies and sometimes outright construction of mosques and religious schools abroad.
- Funds for tolerant and modern religious leaders to go abroad and teach.
By promoting a tolerant and modern version of Islam, both the US, EU and Turkey itself would benefit, not only from increased influence but also from the tolerance it would hopefully lead to. It would enhance Turkey’s role as a regional player and its stature as a leader in the Islamic world. It would expose young men from across the globe to a country that is 98% Muslim, secular and probably the most advanced Muslim country. During their time in Turkey, these prospective people would also be exposed to real democracy and see its tangible benefits in comparison to their native dictatorships.
While the US and EU would indirectly benefit from it, there would be a great deal of gain on Turkey’s side not to mention its earning brownie points with America and increasing its chances of joining the EU by openly promoting a tolerant and modern version of Islam, thereby countering its many right-wing critics in Europe. Examples of other less direct benefits would be things like hiring locals to build the mosques and thus providing jobs to locals or increasing Turkish influence in Central Asia which would help counter Russian and Chinese advances. It’s a win-win situation. I urge USAID, the State Department and the federal government to implement the Chirol Plan!
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
davesgonechina
February 16, 2006
8:53 pm
Kit
February 16, 2006
10:22 pm
Also what do you think of Turkey's talks with Hamas? Turkey is one of those countries I wish I knew more about. I found it interesting during the whole French headscarf deal, that Turkey has been banning headscarves for a long ass time.
Jordan is another country I wish I knew more about. Throughout Muhammad Cartoon-Gate '06 they seem to have been one of the more moderate voices in the Muslim community. Do you think that they could be tapped in a similar scheme as your Turkey plan?
davesgonechina
February 16, 2006
11:12 pm
Mi-Hwa
February 16, 2006
11:15 pm
The Chirol Plan is good because Turkey can act as a bridge between the West and the Middle East. If Turkey is accepted into the EU, modernization can spread more quickly to the Middle East.
However, Turkey is not immune from anti-Americanism. Recently, an anti-American movie was made in Turkey, and it has become a box-office hit.
"The plot continuously plays the good Turks against the bad Americans ...
it typecasts the Americans as evil and psychotic"
Chief Wiggum
February 17, 2006
3:28 am
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul insisted that the film was no worse than some of the schlock from Hollywood, and he's right. But in the film, actor Gary Busey plays a Jewish doctor who removes body organs from Iraqis murdered by the US military to sell to Jews and Europeans. This is _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ stuff. Hannibal Lecter was not portrayed as an employee of the U.S. government.
Emine Erdogan, wife of the prime minister, attended the gala opening. An official from the American embassy in Turkey is quoted as saying: "Can you imagine the first lady or the head of the House of Representatives going to the gala performance of a film that could incite anti-Turkish feeling among Americans?"
Are the Turks backing away from the U.S.?
StrategyUnit
February 17, 2006
6:07 am
I have seen a paper by some think-tank calling for the encouragement of Sufism and I would add to that the need to encourage a moderate form of the Hanafi School of Sunni Islam.
I do like the Chirol Plan. I must say that a Muslim political group I have been in contact with advocates a similar vain and I have written a white paper in support of this a couple years back.
Furthermore, we should take a look at the Hamas model. Islam is a religon, social welfare, a way of life and so forth. Moderate Muslims running not only schools and mosques, but health facilities, civil groups, youth centers, job training etc - would be key to making the Chirol Program work.
But on Central Asia, I think we should support (via a third party) the moderate and native form of Islam traditionally practiced there before they are they're fully overwhelmed by foreign influence. Traditional Islam, as practiced by Central Asia, is very moderate and liberal compared to the other groups and regions.
I do agree with Chief Wiggum that Turkey has taken a very odd turn recently, as reflected in the popularity of some recents films and even of the government. But unfortunately, when looking for a major Muslim nation - I think Turkey is as best as it can get.
Turkey and its people are known for its good relationship with Israel - something not many (or no?) Muslim majority nation can say.
Other countries claimed to be models - like Indonesia and Malaysia - would simply not work at this time.
Security Watchtower
February 17, 2006
6:45 am
PRINTER-FRIENDLY FORMAT This biweekly feature appears Monday and Thursday. It is intended to discuss issues to which I do not devote a full post in summary format providing brief commentary with links. Responding to a decree from Egyptian Tyrant Presid...
Elizabeth
February 17, 2006
7:53 am
The only problem is that while no Muslim can bring him/herself to really hate the Arabs as a race- Arab supposedly being the language of God and moreover the race of the prophet- lots of Muslims hate Turks.
Strategy Unit: "But on Central Asia, I think we should support (via a third party) the moderate and native form of Islam traditionally practiced there before they are they're fully overwhelmed by foreign influence." This is basically what Turkey is doing there. However don't be fooled: when the communists deveiled the women and brought in modernization at the beginning of the 20th century, the basmachi did their damndest to prevent it. Had they not been able to flee across the Oxus, God knows how long they'd have kept it up. This "traditional" Islam was developed during the 20th century and Central Asians know it. Therefore it will be tough to convince them to keep it when "more traditional" societies offer something that they may perceive as closer to their prophet's aim.
StrategyUnit
February 17, 2006
8:08 am
I agree with you on "The only problem is that while no Muslim can bring him/herself to really hate the Arabs as a race".
In Indonesia, there is a lot of respect for Arabs, but for reasons that may seem difficult to understand. Indonesians working in Arab countries are often treated like slaves and the rich Arabs have done little for the poor masses of Indonesia.
Nathan Hamm
February 17, 2006
8:59 am
Bunk. Are you honestly suggesting that they were part and parcel of the Arab Muslim world's juridical and practical traditions?
If you mean "Uzbeks and Tajiks know it," then say so. But if you honestly feel that way, you're probably talking to a fairly narrow group of people.
"Central Asians" include plenty more than the traditionally sedentary society, and even they had well-established Hanafi and Sufi traditions that allowed for plenty of clasically "non-Islamic" beliefs and practices well before the Soviets came along. Even among the most sedentarized of Central Asians, saint veneration and mazar "worship" is a very deep tradition as are many other practices at odds with what outside Muslims, especially Arabs, label as genuine Islam.
The Soviets are not responsible for these practices, even if certain outward forms of Islamic practice such as the veiling of women (though Kyrgyz will tell you that Uzbek treatment of women is still noticeably different--more "Islamic,: if you will). Just because the basmachi fought--and, it's important to point out, removed themselves from Central Asian society for about 70 years--it does not necessarily follow that the mass of Central Asians view Arab or even Turkish Islam as "their" tradition.
Central Asian Islam is something unique, and insofar as Arab Islam is viewed as "traditional" by Central Asians, I would argue that that is where we can blame the Soviets because they knocked out much of the foundation and continuity for Central Asian societies. And for those who are interested in Central Asian Islam, why it's unique, and why it should be treated as genuinely Islam, I suggest picking up Devin DeWeese.
And on the point of hatred of Arabs, I met plenty of Uzbeks who genuinely distrusted, if not quite hated, modern Arabs while at the same time having a historical respect for them. (Same goes for Persians.)
Chirol
February 17, 2006
9:04 am
Kirk: Your cavaets are spot on. Concealing the money would probably be the most difficult and thus I'd recommend a very slow and quiet start as to not arouse too much suspicion or attention. Their work in different regions could be done under different names. In Central Asia, for example, it could be done in the name of some pan-Turkic friendship program. In Azerbaijan it could be neighborly love or Turk helping Turk. In the Balkans, it could be regional collaboration or muslim helping muslim. Nevertheless, as you mention, it would indeed take time and is a long term strategy rather than something that will help in the short term. But solid long term strategies are exactly what we need!
Elizabeth
February 17, 2006
2:59 pm
My point is only that the sort of Islam they practiced, which I am familiar with and which is not anything like Wahabism and other extreme forms of Islam practiced by some Arabs today, was certainly more conservative and less moderate than what is practiced now. Were it to return in full force, we surely would not consider its practice to be modern or moderate.
What is worrying is that the very sorts of Central Asians whom Chirol's plan would presumably target are aware that they were once a more conservative country which observed, more or less, shari'a law. This is a small group, of course, but I don't think that Chirol's plan was meant to prevent mass defections to Wahabism. We all know that they start with small, vulnerable groups. That's the group I'm referring to.
Regarding hatred of Arabs: Indeed, many Central Asians will speak against Arabs (I think I have heard them most often referred to as "dogs"), but in their heart of hearts, they know Mohammed was an Arab and this kind of biases them. Whereas for many Muslims (especially Irano-Persian ones), nothing good ever came out of Turkey or Turkestan, and unfortunately the Turks do not have the advantage of being the race of the prophet or speaking the language of God.
James
February 17, 2006
5:54 pm
The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Catching my eye: morning A through Z
February 17, 2006
6:23 pm
Chirol
February 17, 2006
6:34 pm
Barnabus
February 17, 2006
7:29 pm
Kelvin
February 18, 2006
1:02 am
I would have almost no trouble endorsing such a plan if Kemal was still running the place (only qualms I have with Kemal are how he dealt with the Kurds and Armenians), but I'm more hesitant to endorse this with the current government.
davesgonechina
February 18, 2006
3:08 am
Elizabeth and Nathan, what's your take on the Aga Khan?
Kirk H. Sowell
February 18, 2006
4:58 am
I like the Chirol Plan. I think that something like is really the only way that the conflict with radical Islam will be won; militarily we can keep them at bay, minimize our losses and protect our vital interests. But no military victory will be a total victory. Radical Islam must be defeated ideologically. The strength of Chirol's plan is that it is specific and targeted to the means by which radical Islam is spread. That said, I want to add a few caveats:
(1) The main potential weakness is that there is really no way that this funding can be kept secret; it will get out. And when it does, radical Islamists (which is the vast majority of them in the Arab world) will say that this is a Westernized form of Islam, and there will be a backlash, undermining the effectiveness of the whole plan.
I think any successful plan would have to come from inside the Muslim world. Former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal recently outlining such a plan, and he actually his an organization set up to promote it. I wrote a post on this that links both the op-ed and Wahid's website: Indonesia's Response to Radical Islam. Karim Elsahy has a post at One Arab World in response to the Pakistani cleric offering a bounty for killing a Danish cartoonist which is a good example of the fight only Muslims can wage effectively.
(2) Let's bear in mind what the Turkish model really is: Turkey did not reform spontaneously to a moderate Islamic society; it was forcibly secularized by Attaturk, and from his time until now a military council has guarded Turkey's secular constitution. It was only about seven years ago that the military last intervened to force out an Islamist government. This by itself doesn't mean that the plan can't work, but to the extent that many Turks are simply secular, non-practicing Muslims rather than practicing moderate Muslims, this will have a practical drag on the effectiveness of the program. If Egyptians come to Turkey to study and see the whorehouses and think "So this is Turkish Islam?" they aren't likely to be impressed.
(3) I don't see any indication that the Turkish model, however it is defined, is actually found to be attractive to many Arabs. It would be hard to underestimate how minimal an impact Turkey has in the modern Arab world. Israel and Iran are in the news a lot; Turkey isn't much at all. Its democracy all these years has had zero effect on neighboring Arab countries.
I think where a plan like this would be most effective is in the Central Asian states, and there more as an innoculation against radical Islam in areas where it isn't currently well entrenched.
(4) Bear in mind the impact of the legacy of Ottoman colonialism in the Arab world (most of which was ruled by the Turks from circa 1517-1918). True, the Ottomans are remembered much better than the British and French empires; the Turks aren't hated, but they aren't thought of fondly. Any hint of a Turkish neo-colonialism will not go over well.
(5) I would question the extent to which the Turks themselves are up to it. Of course, any plan assumes the players are interested, and I think that the current government would be, but frankly the lack of interest that Arabs have in Turkey seems to be mutual; except for the Kurdish issue, Turkey just isn't involved. I don't know Turkish or Turkey all that well, but I get the impression that a plan like this would enthuse some in the government and some intellectuals, and that is about it. The government would really have to get behind it.
(6) In terms of being realistic, we have to bear in mind that there are Arab leaders pushing something like this now; the Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, King Abdullah in Jordan, the Wasat (Center) Party in Egypt, King Muhammad in Morocco, the Sabah family in Kuwait, etc. These leaders have had mixed success; Sistani seems to have accomplished a lot in Iraq to steer the masses from radical Islam, but in Jordan Abdullah has failed miserably; Jordanians are more pro-Bin Laden than almost any other Arab society.
A major implication to be taken here is that the Saudi-Wahhabi propaganda campaign, while central to the problem, is successful not simply because of money but because of preexisting factors which made certain parts of the Muslim world fertile ground for extremism. I can't take the space to go into all my theories on this issue here, but suffice it to say that I think that there is a religious psychology at work here, which is more present in the Arab world and Pakistan than elsewhere, which is a root problem aside from the cheap Saudi textbooks.
Okay wise guy, what's your plan? I hate to just rain on everyone's parade and not offer an alternative, but the best that I can do is just broadly endorse the idea, perhaps with some details needing changing, and encourage all to not be too optimistic and recognize that if this could succeed at all, as Chirol notes, it will takea very long time. I'm willing to endorse plans like this because I think that they will help a little and certainly won't hurt, but frankly I don't know what the answer is. Radical Islam is the challenge for our times.
Elizabeth
February 19, 2006
4:35 am
Also it's well known that the vast majority of people working at his development institutions and businesses are Ismaaili(except for the tokens...). Nothing wrong with helping your own, I always say, but it doesn't exactly endear him to the local population.
As a force for a religious movement, forget it. As a force for development that could help moderate movements indirectly- he's already there.
Kenneth:
"the Turks aren't hated, but they aren't thought of fondly"
Among reasonable people. Lots of people do hate the Turks.
"I would question the extent to which the Turks themselves are up to it."
I wouldn't. You can't spit here without hitting a Turkish clinic, school, lyceum, restaurant, hospital, or mosque. They are very involved already. The brand of Islam is a bit more extremist than I'd like, but it's a hell of a lot less extremist (and less hysterical and anti-American) than the Islam which Saudi Arabia is preaching.
"The main potential weakness is that there is really no way that this funding can be kept secret; it will get out."
That's true, but when you consider the fact that most of the people who would react negatively already believe that the entire world outside of Al Qaeda is run by a cabal of Jews and CIA agents, you begin to wonder whether it's worth covering anything up at all. (E.g. last week I had a discussion with a Pakistani in which he insisted that the riots that broke out after those cartoons were printed were planned by the CIA to make Muslims look bad. The CIA and Jews orchestrated the whole thing, from the newspaper printing to the shooting on the crowds. This is coming from someone in the middle class!)
Kirk H. Sowell
February 19, 2006
8:36 am
Your point about paranoid conspiracism is right on. Academics over here don't like to talk about it, but you can't understand certain Muslim countries without understanding the conspiracism factor. Nevertheless, I think that a purely internal effort would be relatively more effective. But you can't out-pessimist me on these things. I think Chirol's plan will mainly be effective as an antidote in Central asian states.
Elizabeth
February 21, 2006
12:49 pm
I agree about the Turks. My only point is about the better position Arabs hold, compared to the Turks.
I won't out-pessimist you, either. I think that Chirol's plan is a fine one. I'd like to see more about the results of the existing intervention, though. Considering how many millions the Turks have spent on schools and hospitals and scholarships already, what are we getting, besides immigration to Istanbul?
davesgonechina
February 25, 2006
2:18 am
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=262681
Maybe there'll be interest in your plan by a contingent of Saudi princes who consider this the straw that broke the camels back (no pun intended).
biasedandignorant
March 15, 2006
2:43 pm
(http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=50)
Istanbul
WITH LAST WEEK'S vote in Brussels, the admission of Turkey to the European Union has come one step nearer. Yet some still suspect that the accession of an overwhelmingly Muslim nation to the E.U. will signify an alarming new intrusion of Islam into a continent already uneasy about its Muslim minorities. Some fear--to put it more provocatively--that Turkish membership in the E.U. will turn out to be an Islamic Trojan horse.
Indeed, if one sees Islam as a monolithic faith, and reckons its influence simply by counting its adherents, the doubters could well be right. If, however, the reality is more complex, it may be that Turkey's accession to the E.U. will help remedy, not aggravate, Europe's Muslim problem. To see this, it is necessary to appreciate the distinctive nature of Turkish Islam.
Compared with the Arabs, the Turks were latecomers to the Muslim faith. The former were politically and intellectually more advanced until the 13th century, when the Arabs' brilliant civilization was nearly destroyed by one of the most devastating conquests ever, the Mongol catastrophe. The Arabs never recovered, and the leadership of Islam passed to the Turks. The Turks flourished, especially under the Ottoman Empire, the global superpower of the 16th and much of the 17th centuries. Although it then entered a steady decline, the Ottoman Empire survived as a powerful state until World War I.
The political power of the Turks, and their continual interaction with the West, gave them an important insight: They learned to face facts. While the
Arabs stagnated in their closed tribal universe, the Turks had to rule an empire, make practical decisions, adopt new technologies, and reform existing structures. This praxis helped them develop new religious perceptions, too. During the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566), for instance, the sultan's head of Islamic affairs, Ebussuud Effendi, authorized the charging of interest by foundations working for the betterment of society. This is still a revolutionary idea in the Islamic world, where banking is generally associated with the usury denounced in the Koran. To this day, legal and theological gymnastics are required to make Western banking and investment acceptable to most Muslims.
During the 18th century, the Ottomans started to reform their age-old sharia laws. A big step was the abolition of slavery. While this was a nonissue in many parts of the empire, there were strong reactions from the Arab Middle East, whose tribal social structure still relied on slaves. The fiercest resistance took the form of a revolt in the Arabian peninsula--led by none other than Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the eponymous founder of Wahhabism, the fanatical sect that is breeding most Islamic terrorists today.
After World War I, Turkey became an independent nation. Here again, its experience differed from that of the Arab world, which was colonized by the British and the French. The colonial experience of the interwar period gave rise to an anti-Western nationalism in nearly all the Arab states, to which Turkey was immune. After World War II, when most Arab states became allies of the Soviet Union, Turkey again took a different path and aligned itself with the United States and NATO.
ALL THIS HISTORY infused Turkish Islam with a far more friendly outlook toward the West. During much of the 20th century, the No. 1 enemy for Turkey's pious Muslims was "godless communism," and the United States was perceived as a valuable ally against that hated threat. Probably the most influential Islamic sage in Turkey in the last hundred years, Said Nursi, repeatedly called for an alliance between Christianity and Islam against communism and its underlying materialist philosophy. Some of his followers proudly joined in the Korean War.
Turkish Islam has been free of anti-Semitism, too. The Ottoman Empire welcomed the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, and ever since, Jews have lived peacefully in Turkish lands. The Arab-Israeli conflict, although it has generated sympathy among Turks for the plight of the Palestinians, never created widespread hatred of Israel, let alone Jews in general.
Despite all this, it is true that Turkey has had its own radical Islamist movements, especially since the early 1980s. But they were not homegrown. Arab, Pakistani, and Iranian ideologues of radical Islam--such as Sayyid Qutb, Sayyid Abul-Ala Mawdudi, and Ali Shariati--inspired a generation of Islamists, who found their Turkish Islamic past too pacifist. The political Islamism that would carry Necmettin Erbakan's Refah ("Welfare") party to power in 1996 was also of foreign origin: It was modeled on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and exploited the radicalism of the aforementioned Islamist youth. But in the late 1990s, this movement lost steam. Its more liberal faction gave birth to the AKP,
which has been in power since November 2002 and is leading Turkey's E.U. effort more successfully than any previous Turkish government.
Some Westerners, along with some hard-core secularists in Turkey, fear that the AKP's move toward democracy could be a taqiyyah, a tactical deception allowing the party to carry out a secret Islamist agenda. Yet there is not a shred of evidence to support that conspiracy theory. Some recent "evidence," such as the AKP's attempts to make adultery illegal and give religious-school graduates greater access to secular universities, should more properly be seen as the party's effort to appease its conservative voters.
In fact, the decline of radical Islamism in Turkey is no superficial defeat; it is supported by many Islamic thinkers, including some who have renounced a radical past in favor of democracy. Furthermore, Turkey has many modernist theologians who envisage a comprehensive renewal in Islam, and they find considerable support among the public.
In short, Turkey is the archetype of what is called "moderate Islam." Thus, its entry into the E.U. should be seen as an antidote to the radical misinterpretation of Islam, not as a religious threat to the West.
SOME WESTERNERS see a catch in this argument. They think that Turkish Islam is moderate only because it was marginalized and suppressed during the early Turkish Republic, under the one-party rule of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This line of reasoning leads to the suspicion that if Turkey deepens its democracy to satisfy the E.U., it will only unleash the previously marginalized Islam and invite a fundamentalist backlash.
The moderation of Turkish Islam, however, is not a product of the Kemalist period. Rather, it is the product of a long process of modernization of which Kemalism was just one phase. An important phase, to be sure, but still a phase.
Turkish modernization began at least a century before Kemalism. In the 19th century, the Ottomans produced a new secular civil law, a constitution, a parliament, and Western-style schools and universities. They also encouraged sophisticated intellectual debate. Even Abdulhamid II (1876-1909), the most "Islamist" sultan of the later empire, launched an extensive modernization program that included the founding of modern schools where the Young Turks would flourish. In 1895, Descartes's Discourse on Method was translated into Turkish under the auspices of the sultan. Many other Western classics, as well as the political debates of the day in Europe, became part of Ottoman intellectual life. And this was embraced not just by the secular Young Turks, but also by more open-minded Islamists.
That heritage makes Turkish Islam--along with the Islam of the Balkans--a unique manifestation of Islamic modernity. Turkey would introduce this modern Islam into Europe, which is currently troubled by an undesirable version of the same faith. The E.U., then, would be wise to welcome the Turks for its own sake.
Whatever the arguments for Turkish ties to Europe, of course, many Turks attach greater importance to an even more fundamental alliance with the United States.
Actually, Turkey is closer to the United States than it is to Europe in many respects--most notably, the role of religion in public life. Many Turkish conservatives, including me, find the spirit of a "nation under God" much more appealing than the bluntly secular European ethos. It is unfortunate that when the Europeans recently decided to exclude any mention of God from the E.U. constitution, Turkey's liberal intelligentsia, including some public officials, expressed the view that such a secular union would be a better fit for Turkey than one that acknowledged any religious allegiance. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (whose objections to Turkey's accession had earlier alienated many Turks) was wiser when he commented, "It has been said that the European Constitution could not mention the Judeo-Christian roots so as not to offend Islam, but what offends Islam is contempt for God." Conservative Turks couldn't agree more.
As to the Mars/Venus dichotomy between the United States and Europe, we Turks would line up with the Americans on the Martian side. Notwithstanding the controversy over the Iraq war, we realize that, in the grand scheme of things, "Old Europe" has displayed a lack of vision and initiative that is not commendable. We well remember that the same Europe did nothing to save our ex-Ottoman Muslim brethren in Bosnia during the 1990s, and it was the United States that halted the Serbs' ghastly ethnic cleansing.
But the United States is not inviting us to join its Union. Besides, there is an ocean between us. Rather, Turkey's destination is Europe. And if we reach it, the effect will be to change the world. Europeans remember with distaste the Ottoman siege of Vienna. Once the gates of Vienna are open to the Turks, however, and the gates of Istanbul are open to Europeans, the age of sieges will be well and truly over.
Mustafa Akyol, is an advisory board member of the Free Muslims Against Terroism
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Chirol Plan in Action
May 6, 2008
1:23 am