Some Selections From What the World Press Has to Say About Dr. Öztürk

*
" According to Öztürk, all Islamic traditions need to be reexamined in the light of the Qur'an.... A religion based solely on custom must not be taken as Islam. Such an approach would be destructive for all Muslims." (Alexandra Kemmerer; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 23, 2000)

*
" Öztürk maintains that the Qur'an must be given a modern interpretation in sync with our times. In his view, those parts of the Qur'an dealing with worship are timeless and always valid. But its other parts must be evaluated anew according to the times, the region, even climatic conditions." (Kemal Güler, Fraenkische Nacht, October 2000)

*
" The immensely popular theologian Yaşar Nuri Öztürk is taking Turkey by storm... He is ubiquitous. He has written for Turkish newpapers for nearly four decades. The man with the persuasive tongue and the deft pen who communicates with thousands upon thousands is not simply a media personality. He is dean of the faculty of theology and author of vast numbers of scholarly articles and books... Who is this new religious hero? Öztürk has a glad-tidings approach to Islam. Unlike followers of political Islam, he dos not divide believers into so-called 'real Muslims' and so-called 'deviant seculars.' Where did such a figure in modern Turkey come from?... He explained that Atatürk, whom he calls 'a real revolutionary', saved Islam. Atatürk restored an other dimension of religion; he returned to the 'spirit of Islam wich has to live in the people not in the state.' Öztürk is a man highly educated in Islam. For him, 'the distinction between the secular and the religious is the product of political Islam. You can be a Muslim and secular... Öztürk helped people to see that to be secular and religious is not two coins but two faces of the same coin...He opens up a space for Muslims with closer links to traditional Islam to be religious and modern outside the paradigm of political Islam with its own agenda." (Margot Badran; el-Ahram Weekly, 1-7 February 2001)

*
" Öztürk seeks to bring forth from the sources of the Islamic faith a modern understanding of Islam, one which can be reconciled with secular democracy and give equal rights to women without the veil. Thus he hopes to fill the vacuum left behind by the anti-religious reforms of Atatürk... Öztürk sees himself as one of the Islamic revivalists who come along in every century... Öztürk did not just drop into his cradle with this open mind of his at birth. His father trained him in Arabic and Persian. At home he read mystic poetry and the standard works of theology. No other theologian has appeared on Turkish television as often as Öztürk." (Rainer Hermann, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, October 21, 2002)

*
" Professor Yaşar Nuri Öztürk is a famous theologian who has an equal number of suppertors and foes. Pioneer of reconstruction of religion in Turkey, is a man who opposes traditional religious practices and became the target of religious circles. Öztürk is the author of mor than 30 books and a number of his books have been translated into English, German and Persan." (Turkish Daily News, 16 February 2003)

*
" Yaşar Nuri Öztürk is the best known theologian of modern Turkey and is the leading theorist of a secular reformist Islam."
(Die Zeit, February 20, 2003)

*
" For Öztürk, democracy cannot be secured with bombs. Such a path is unworthy of man. Democracy must rise up from within, from the bosom of the community... In his opinion, 'The only way to bring democracy to the Islamic world without bloodshed and in harmony with Islam is to take up the secular Turkish model of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.' In Öztürk's view, the West made a mistake by presenting Artatürk as opposed to Islam. As a result of this error, Muslim peoples are repelled by Atatürk's model. Öztürk stands for a modern interpretation of Islam. To him, the 'Traditional Islam' based on old Middle Eastern customs is not the pure Islam as written in the Qur'an and taught by the Prophet Muhammad. The true Islam encompasses secular democracy and gives equal rights to women, whom it sees no need to hide behind a veil." (Gerhard Uhlemann, Rheinische Post, March 19, 2003)

*
" Öztürk has uncovered the two faces of Islam. One of these, 'The Islam of the Qur'an,' Öztürk presents as the "Authentic Islam." Islam's other face, what Öztürk calls "Fake Islam," was witnessed by the entire world on September 11..." (Silke Koppers, Westdeutsch Allgemeine Zeitung, May 25, 2003)

*
" Öztürk strives for a modern, liberal understanding of the Qur'an and is guiding Islam toward a deep-rooted reformation. His influence spreads from the broad masses of Turkey to the Turks of Germany. Öztürk stands at the head of a new movement to separate religious essentials from cultural accretions and for this reason he receives much praise and much criticism." (Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard, ARD Television personality)

*
" Professor Öztürk is presently Turkey's most popular and at the same time most controversial Islamic thinker. He maintains that most of the fears that so many people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, associate with Islam are not from the Qur'an but from the later additions of men. Unlike many Islamic theologians, Öztürk's book, 'The Islam of the Qur'an,' defends the view that other religions and beliefs are also Divine Truths, and it is considered the cornerstone of the 'Back to the Qur'an' movement." (Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold, Heidelburg University)

Ozturk spoke to the TDN about his new party.

TDN: Did the last CHP congress force you to change your opinions about the party?

OZTURK: It confirmed my opinions. Many of my friends from the CHP told me how right and principled my decision to resign was. I was both happy and upset about it. These are CHP''s internal matters. I don''t want to talk about them anymore, but I am telling you because you asked.

This congress made it clear for everyone that there is no one among the opposition movement within the CHP that can compete, experience and appeal-wise, with party leader Deniz Baykal. This movement is unlikely to produce an alternative candidate, because two of the most respected names in the group have joined the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Everyone condemned their transfer. It was a very unfortunate political move.

While everyone was criticizing Baykal and the party executive for their attitude during the congress, they are now supporting them. I believe, if we look from the political perspective, Baykal came out stronger after the transfer of the two deputies to the AK Party.

I resigned in protest to the CHP leadership. I did not resign myself from the founding principles of the CHP. That''s why I called my book "Post-Ataturk CHP." I have no problems with Ataturk''s CHP. However, I have serious reservations about its state now. They are yet to change their course.

TDN: How do you see CHP''s future?

OZTURK: I am very pessimistic about it. I believe it will fail to pass the 10 percent election threshold. It might even fail to pass the previous threshold of 6 percent.

TDN: Why?

OZTURK: Disagreements and the bloodletting continues. Just take a look at the possible alternatives to Baykal in the CHP. A municipality mayor (Sisli, Istanbul Mayor Mustafa Sarigul) says: "I got permission from the U.S. They appreciate me." Then he takes supporters to a rally with Istanbul plated busses (to Sivas) and compares himself to the local people.

They say: "Deniz Baykal is preventing the CHP from advancing. Someone else will come and take the CHP to victory." This individual is one of those who might replace Baykal. Be sure bigger crises are yet to come. If I was a CHP member, I would support none of those names that are being mentioned to replace Baykal. I would continue to support Baykal. However, this state doesn''t eliminate the CHP members'' need to wage some serious internal debates. This shows that Turkey is in dire need of a new social democrat political structure.

TDN: There are many who believed the present parties were inadequate and formed their on parties. We saw how badly they were defeated in the last national elections. You are trying to form a new party. How are you going to do any better?

OZTURK: Let''s not be discouraged and let''s not give into chaos. I never do that. If we are living in a democracy, the procedure necessitates the formation of a party. Two new parties split from established ones and entered the November, 2002 national elections. One was Ismail Cem''s New Turkey Party (YTP) and the other Recep Tayyip Erdogan''s Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Each robbed around 60 deputies from their parent parties. One, the AK Party, is in government with a majority enough to alter the Constitution, the other one has disappeared. Which one should set an example for a new party? Will you just stand by, arguing that such parties disappear eventually? What about the other example? It appears that both can happen. This is the quirks of politics and the democratic system. You have to be ready for such developments. You should never be discouraged. Whatever your message is, you should come out and say it openly. The people will decide who to support.

TDN: Can you tell us about the schedule of the formation of your party?

OZTURK: What we are saying is completely different from what others have said until now. Before releasing our party program, we will publish a philosophical manifesto in the next two to three weeks, which will form the foundation of the program. It will be around 100 pages. There will first be a philosophical manifesto, which will grow into a political project. A party program is a political project. This will be a first in Turkey. If you look at the party programs of various parties, you''ll see that all of them are almost the same.

Our deliberations are about inter-civilization, inter-religion, inter-regional and inter-continental relations. We are formulating our political project by assessing the developments in the West in the past century and investigating their affect on the Islamic World.

In this day and age, parties can no longer base their policies on bringing more cheese or olives to households. Global assessments are needed. We need to be aware of the matters that have to be included in the policy making process in both the Middle-East and especially Turkey. This is a process that can only be undertaken through experience. Can you tell me which party leader has the necessary philosophical background to formulate a political project? All of them are being kept upright with the support they receive from their cronies, because none of them have such a background. If there is a defect within the party, either the leader gets dominated by those around him or visa versa. Both are very unpleasant. However, there is an even worse third scenario, which is Party becoming dominated by an outside group and doings its bidding.

TDN: When do you think you will found your party?

OZTURK: I am hoping our founding member''s list will be finalized by September. Some time in September, we will announce the list at a meeting attended by our representatives around the country. We are thinking of establishing the party afterwards. Some changes might happen to the schedule, if early elections are called.

TDN: DO you expect an early election?

OZTURK: I believe an early election will be held in 2005 or 2006. We of course need to wait for the European Union''s decision in December. It will significantly affect any future development. Even if the decision is as we hope it to be, which I think is highly unlikely, it will have an affect.

TDN: What will be your party''s place in the political spectrum?

OZTURK: It will not be an ideological party. It will be based on the people. All those who carry two or three characteristics that we are asking for will be able to become our members. Our primary principle will be to follow change. I call this the "rationalist" principle. Rationalism will be our guiding principle in both domestic and foreign politics.

TDN: Which parties do you consider as your main competitors?

OZTURK: We are all competitors. This is a democratic race. A race to bring prosperity and happiness to the people. In this race, everyone competes with each other.

TDN: What do you think about your party''s future?

OZTURK: If we don''t make any mistakes in the formation of the party organization and our cadres, we will receive 15-million votes.

TDN: You are both a theologian and a lawyer. How will you link these with party leadership?

OZTURK: I was a leader in my private life too. I have been at the top of Turkey''s religious agenda for the past two decades. Whenever I utter two sentences, make a television broadcast or write an article in a newspaper, it starts a public debate lasting four, five months. One of my five Koran interpretations had 126 editions.

Right now, I am the leading figure of this movement. Everybody wants it to be like that. However, when our party is officially founded, it will be up to the founding members to decide who will lead. We will democratically decide who will lead us.

TDN: At what point are your efforts to select the founding members?

OZTURK: I am taking my time in preparing the list of the founding members. We choose to be very slow, because in the longer term, we want to form an inclusive political structure. There are Armenians, Christians and Greeks among my list of founding members.

There will be leftists, rightists or religious people, who are known for their honesty. The vocational composition of members is also important. At least 30 percent of the list will consist of women. If the people provide us with the opportunity, we will translate this gender sensitivity to the government. 52 percent of the population is female. We need to realize democracy from a women''s perspective.

TDN: The AK Party utilized religious symbolisms as it came to power. Your interpretation of Islam is quite different from the AK Party. How will the presence of your party affect the AK Party?

OZTURK: I don''t know. However, it should affect it a lot, because no matter who uses religion in politics, it means they have abused religion. Religion can never be abused. The first step in abusing religion is to corrupt it. That''s why all those political Islamists are guilty of corrupting religion. For example, the only way to link religion with terrorism is to turn religion into an ideology. When you talk about members of a certain religion are involved in terrorism, it means that that religion has been turned into an ideology.

We will never use religion in politics, because we don''t intend to corrupt it. You can be sure that religions will not be abused if I am present. Abuse of religion is the same as corrupting it. Do you think I would allow that?

Consequently, it should be the AK party and the others who should assess this matter. The AK Party is just the latest incarnation of this effort. This process has a history of at least 30 years.

TDN: As both a lawyer and theologian, how do you assess the recent upsurge in discussions over headscarves?

OZTURK: I will not talk about this issue yet. I aired my opinions about this matter in my books "Koran''s Islam," published in 1992, and "How was Islam corrupted," published in 1996.

Every person in Turkey will ask the AK Party executives about it, when the issue is raised. Four days before the November 3, 2002 national elections, these people said: "Headscarf issue is a matter of honor for us."

TDN: Bulent Arinc, who later became the parliamentary speaker, had said that.

OZTURK: Bulent Arinc is one of the leading personalities of the party. On a television show I attended, they said: "You are a leftist party. Don''t try to solve this issue." The people voted for them, believing they would be able to solve it. Today, they are strong enough to change the Constitution. You have to ask this question to the AK party and those who voted for them.

Political Islam government''s head Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan came out and said: "We cannot take the risk of solving this issue. We cannot pay the price." Now, we are waiting for the reply the people will give to such a statement. The nation will say: "They failed to keep their promises. They tricked us. We are giving you the power." Only then will I say more than I have already have. If the nation doesn''t give me the opportunity, I will continue to keep quiet.

I don''t believe political Islam has any intention to resolve such issues. If it had been, the campaigns by those people who tied themselves to fences to make their voices heard would not have stopped after AK Party came to power. How did these activities stop all of a sudden? That''s the key to the solution. If the people give us the authority, we will resolve the headscarf issue very easily.

                       ***

(REPORT FOR THE PABSEC CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE)

(Theologian and Jurist, Member of the Turkish Parliament)

ISTANBUL – 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.PRESENT STATE OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST

2.VISIONS OF THE 1940s

3.VIOLANCE TRAP FOR ISLAM

4.THE QUR’AN, WAR AND PEACE

5.DOES “MOHAMMED REPLACE MARX”?

6.BACKGROUND FOR A HOSTILE ATTITUDE TOWARDS ATATÜRK

7.PHILOSOPHICAL SPIRIT OF THE REFORMS BY ATATÜRK

8.THE REALITY REGARDING MUHAMMED IQBAL AND MUSTAFA KEMAL

9.UNEXPECTED STATEMENT BY KHATEMI

10.RELATIONS BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST AND THE EURASIAN REALITY

11.WHAT ONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND UNDER ISLAM?

12.ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY

The relations between Islam and the West have always been full of contradictions, paradoxes and collisions. Nowadays the Muslims do not believe in the West and they do have serious reasons for that. The Muslim peoples and countries being under pressure and oppression of the colonialist and imperialist West have been demonstrating their reaction in different ways. It is very unfortunate that terror has become one of the manifestations of these reactions.

The West, in its turn, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall, started to see Islam as the most serious threat to it and has been taking every possible measure to prevent or protract recovery and revival of the Islamic world. What is more important, the Muslim world, yet hardly able to set firmly on its feet and open its eyes, guided by the old malice and hatred became convinced to exploit all its possibilities to pose troubles to the West. At this time, the vengeful radical groups in the Islamic countries have found the most vulnerable and vital point for the West to be:

In modern times, while the West wishes to dishonour the Muslims by equalling terror with Islam, the radical Muslims are likely to increase the extent of violent actions saying “we have been begotten every misery and proclaiming our religion the religion of terrorism you strive to cast us beyond the modern civilisation!”

In other words, the West leaves to the Muslim world no other way but violence and abuse and it seems to be insistent in following this direction.

The humanity faces a terrible dilemma. The trouble, stemming from the confrontation between Islam and the West (especially the relations between the USA and Islam), affects the whole world. Crises and chaos following the September 11^th, occupation of Iraq and, especially, turning of a terror into a threat of destructive extent are among the obvious evidences proving this bitter truth.

We deem that the starting point in reaching a happy outcome for all the humanity in resolving the problems existing in the relations between Islam and the West has to become realism. We have to put this question: What is the strategy taken as a basis by the West and what are the mistakes that have been pushing the Muslim world into a present deadlock?

Let us now search for an answer to this question.

The basic strategy elaborated by the West in the 20th century related to Islam could be viewed as a strategy to extinguish Islam and turn the Muslim states into modern type colonies.

The preparation of this fundamental strategy has started back in 1940s upon the warning by one of the prominent thinkers of the West Arnold Toynbee (died in 1975), whose thoughts then were widely used by the western secret services. This strategy has been put to practice in 1950s.

Back in those years, Toynbee, a spiritual ancestor for Huntington who is an author of the famous thesis on “The Clash of Civilizations” overtaking a higher place on the agenda following the occupation of Iraq, used to draw the attention of the Western politicians and strategists to the fact that ideologies pass and that the humanity shall seek new recipes for happiness in great religions. In this process, Islam shall achieve the most beneficial result since compared to Christianity it preserves many values to be handed over to people: the mankind, very much tired from dealing with alcoholism, racism, inequality, permanent interference in God-human relations, may need to appeal to Islam…

VIOLANCE TRAP FOR ISLAM

The most scaring fatal disease of all times is violence. Unfortunately, so far the mankind has been unable to find a remedy to this poisonous disease.

Violence does bring harm to people, life, the God and constitutes betrayal towards the existence in general. Violence is a core feature for the action called “murder”. A burst of killing rage that generates murder is violence, which is never satisfied with minor. No matter how bitter and boundless death may be it is never as hopeless as murder, since death does not imply betrayal, there is no violence. The most scaring nightmare of medieval times – The Great Plague could not become as dreadful and devastating as another woe of the same period – the Inquisition. Because there was no violence in plague while the Inquisition was violence itself. The Inquisition was the most venomous violence since suppressive actions were ascribed to the most sacred of all – the God.

Pressure serves as a source and generator for violence. The societies and countries that put pressure upon education, thinking and religions always appear in the front line in producing violence.

Throughout the history the Islamic countries have always served as source for violence. The reason for that was not in Islam itself, which means genuine Islam, but in the false Islam that has been Arabised. False Islam turning for many centuries the subconscious apprehension of Arabs favouring bloodshed and violence into a religion made it a distinctive feature for the Muslim civilisation.

Neither westerners nor majority in the Muslim societies are aware of an interesting fact that the Qur’an complains heavily on the Arabs. The Arabs in these complaints are described as separatist, violent and hypocritical in their behaviour.

The Arabs in the Qur’an are referred by a word “a’rab” meaning a Bedouin or a nomadic Arab. It is very interesting that the Qur’an does not use any other expression to refer to the Arab race or the Arab community.

It is equally interesting that the word “a’rab” is used in a negative connotation in nine places out of ten implying viciousness, hypocrisy, stinginess and unreliability (see the Qur’an: 9/97; 9/98; 9/101; 9/120; 48/11-12; 48/16; 49/14; 33/20 and 9/99).

Islam, which was influenced by the hegemony of the Arab culture has been estranged from its genuine concept and turned into a source for pressure, fear and violence. The only way for putting an end to this negative development is liberation of Islam apprehension and training from the bondage of Arabism and its return to the genuine Quranic principles. In this case, it will become obvious that:

Since the very beginning the Qur’an blocks the way towards any violence or terror. The Qur’an uses a word “ikrah” (disgust) which stands for pressure and compulsion constituting starting point for violence and terror.

As a brief explanation: “ikrah”, standing for pressure and compulsion, implies to force someone to accept through deceit, violence or pressure what cannot be internalized and accepted with affection. “Kerh” (abhorrence), which is the root for the word “ikrah” stands for ugly, loathsome and hateful. As for “ikrah”, it was used to force people towards abhorrent deeds.

“Ikrah”, should not be applied either inside or outside religion. The hundreds of the Qur’an verses demand to drive “ikrah” out of the lives, since it is impossible to lead happy life when “ikrah” penetrates in it in one or another way. This Quranic principle is so unarguable and inviolable that almost fifty verses in the Qur’an which are addressed to Saint Mohammed deliverer of the Qur’an imply warnings towards the act related to “ikrah”. The following verses contain the most noteworthy warnings in this respect:

A free individual has to employ his mind and intellect without limits. If not, “Allah casts uncleanness on those who will not understand” (the Qur’an, 10/100). Pressure and oppression applied inside or out of a religion contradicts any doctrines and unquestionably is a manifestation of antitheism. Is it possible to employ antitheism as a tool serving for religion?

Free individuals should not be watched over as a sheep flock by certain shepherds (The Qur’an, 2/104).

All the above precautions show that the Qur’an (the genuine Islam) takes as a basis a principle to root out any pressure or oppression from the lives of people before it turns into violence. This will become possible if the leaders guiding individuals and masses remain righteous enough not to turn religion into a tool for dominion or profit (i.e. secular type governance) and to strive for raising awareness of people.

Unfortunately, under the influence of certain circumstances throughout the history, the traditional Muslim Code (fıkıh) constituting the Arab interpretation of Islam and dominating daily lives of the Muslims has been formed as a concept upholding “ikrah” and, consequently, the violence.

It should be noted with regret that the traditionalist Muslim Code is the one, which upholds violence. The Middle East despotism as well as violence and terror assigned to this despotism have been generated out of the oppressive doctrines of this Code. The religious political ideologies and movements like Taliban and political Islam generating violence have been nourished by the principles of this aggressive code of law.

The colonization strategists in the West have benefited to a large extent from this violence promoting Code in elaborating strategies to involve the Muslims in violence and bloodshed and then, to condemn them as fighters against the harmonious existence of people. This Code based on an anti-Quranic ideology has always been sanctified, supported and masterly used by the West (including the United States). This strategy has also been followed in regard to Taliban and Iraq. The core of this strategy is the following:

The West and, especially, the United States did not complain against any radical Islamic violent groupings before the September 11^th. Furthermore, the United States was the one who supported and promoted many radical religious groupings and leaders including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Everything has changed following the September 11th when these radical leaders and groupings started to poke out the eyes of the United States. The United States has cut its relation with Taliban, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, the ones whose actions they once supported, started to discredit them and launched occupation operations against the Muslin countries using as an argument what they did or what they could have done. First, the United States entered Afghanistan, then, it occupied Iraq. Now it casts its glances towards Iran. Next will be Syria, probably, followed by Turkey…

Furthermore, the USA has accused the Saudi Arabia, who used to be its close friend and ally in supporting radical Islamic organisations, of being aiding development of false version of Islam and its dissemination throughout the world. One of the prominent Pentagon officers and a promoter of the USA policy Richard Pearle said in one of his statements after the occupation of Iraq:

According to Pearle “the Saudi Arabia flows money throughout the world in order to support dominion of violence and distorted and intolerable apprehension of Islam ” (Newspaper “Hurriyet” (Liberty) of 20 April 2003)

The West through its double standard strategy games seems to teach the Muslim world a lesson… Disclosure and overcoming of these games by the Muslim world is viewed as a very remote possibility since the major obstacle in this process is posed by the “intra-Islamic radical groupings” who think that they “serve” Islam by acting in the name of “Jihad” but in reality aggravate their own future. These violent groupings involved in the games of the West do not even suspect that “Jihad” rather facilitates realisation of the plans of the colonialist West than brings any benefit to the Muslims.

The way to liberate Islam from being violent and oppressive, is to make Islam truly a virtue of faith in the union of the God and a human rather than simply declare that being “more devout” secures superiority of humans among themselves. This is what the Qur’an professes. This Quranic principle has also been degraded by the traditionalist Muslim Code.

Being more devout, i.e. “taqva” (piety) measures superiority of people not among themselves but of a human in the sight of the Lord (The Qur’an, 49/13). The God is well aware who is endowed with the piety (taqva) (The Qur’an, 53/32). If people are made responsible for taking decision regarding “taqva” it will entail misinterpretations of superiority leading to a situation when individuals striving to exploit religion in self-interest as well as a tool for sovereignty and despotism will see no one meriting this superiority other than those who suit their policies. It will generate deceit in respect to the God further leading to the exploitation of religion and people. This was also a basis for religious suppression and terror which constituted core of the inquisition.

In short, the westerners have prepared a violence trap for the Islam. As a response to the relevantly minor violence, they resort to a much bigger and even super violence occupying the Islamic countries and slaughtering the Muslims. They ruin not only people’s lives but also history, culture, thinking, nature….

In Iraq they killed not only people but also birds. They plundered not only the oil resources but cultural heritage and libraries. Observing these developments the Muslim world arrives at a judgement that Modern Christian Mongols are much more merciless and uncompassionate than the Mongols of the medieval times....

From the very first days the substantial majority of the orientalists and politicians in the West chose to introduce the Qur’an as a book praising sword and aggression… In this way they tried to pull up all the roots since the very beginning and label the timeless source for Islam – the Qur’an as a book generating violence and terror, thus, making people take firm stand against Islam. Unbelievable interpretations, opinions and doctrines have been put forth in this respect. Unfortunately, in this process the scholars were intentionally or unintentionally assisted and supported by the groups of so-called Muslims preaching false “Jihad”-type Islam.

The apocryphal religious representatives making politics based on a religion have been propagating Islam as “Jihad”, praising it and, consequently, violence and bloodshed. The western-Christian strategists in their turn have been masterly using this situation in order to target Islam….

The truth beneath these developments is quite different. Let us see what the truth is:

It is a natural consequence that upon pronunciation of the word Qur’an the notion of peace comes to our minds. This is because the religion professed by the Qur’an – Islam denotes peace. Consequently, the question whether war exists in the religion professed by the Qur’an is to be answered either “no!” or “it takes place as an exception only in certain circumstances”…

More precisely, to say that “a war is present in Islam”, means to misinterpret the Qur’an since such an expression may imply legalization of any kind of aggressive, violent or oppressive war.

The religion professed by the Qur’an permits war only in exceptional situations and with certain restrictions. More concretely, the religion professed by the Qur’an recognises only a defensive war. The Qur’an gives permission only to defensive actions. To say “there is war” is already a mistake; correct would be: “it gives permission for a fight”. The Qur’an says the following in this respect:

According to the estimations, religion masked sovereignty wars against the family and followers of Prophet Mohammad claimed thousands of lives in a less than a century after the Prophet’s death. Only in the wars of Karbala (Hegira: 10 Muharram 61; A.D: 10 October 680) and Harre (Hegira: 63; A.D: 683) conducted by the Omayyads, the transformers of Islam into a caliphate ideology, more than ten thousand people were killed including the Prophet’s grandchild, friends and followers.

It is my belief that unless Islam is purified from the grime of the Arab-Omayyad apocrypha that have penetrated into the core of the religion manifestation, it will be extremely imaginative to see the possibility for the concrete steps made either by the Muslims or the world. Until these impurities are preserved in Islam and until the western capitalism continues to gain profit out of it, violence and terror shall continue among the Muslims themselves and also between the Muslims and the other communities.

The Arab-Omayyad caliphate declined Islam and transformed it into a sort of a political ideology deprived of being the path to divine happiness and love. It is very difficult to characterise the wars as defensive since they were conducted in the name of the religion which was turned into a political ideology.

The Quranic principles stressing that a war in Islam could only be of a defensive character may be gathered in three separate titles:

Aggressive wars make these basic Quranic principles null and void. Ineffectiveness of these principles subverts the faith. While the Qur’an openly states that distorted faith cannot bring any trust and enlightenment.

The strategies designed to keep Islam backstage are based upon a principle to involve the Muslims in violence, bloodshed and terror and then to condemn them in the eye of the modernity. This strategy is aimed to bring the Muslims in place of previous Marxists and Maoists and as a result, the mankind would hate this new “ideology of violence”. Then, the humanity will start to search a “religion for love, tolerance, peace, partnership, harmony and aesthetics” and finally, the church doctrines will be seen as prime sources for love….

The West has been searching for a new “impelling enemy” to replace its former enemy – communism and chose Islam to be it. The first challenging opponent – communism has fallen. Islam has become a new opponent. Marx or Mao could no more serve as leaders. The new “leader” had to be the Islam Prophet Mohammad. The West had to find, develop and activate necessary strategies for replacing Marx by Mohammad. The violence trap prepared for the Muslims was a product of this particular strategy. It was then thought that:

“We have to expect that a problem posed by the Islamic threat to the West shall determine the agenda in the forthcoming decade. The followers of Mohammad have gone far ahead compared to those of Marx. Marxism died. Marx not only was a false prophet but as all other secular false prophets became a very short-living one. As for Islam, it resisted the history for centuries and is still active at present. Islam can become far more smashing for the western society from the economic point of view compared to the tough Soviet Empire…” (James D. Davidson, The Great Reckoning – Simon and Schuster Co. 1993).

To this end, it became necessary to take measures to prevent the Muslims to freely use their oil resources that would make Islam grow stronger and become a serious threat. This is because, “Islam, is the most viable and fast-growing religion among all religions and communities at present. The energy of this expansive religion can renew its militant character. It has to be understood that the aim of the capitalist West is to turn from a previous materialist enemy to a religious one…” (Davidson, the abovementioned study).

First, apparent signal of the “Islam threat” has been sent to the perception of the world community followed by the specific slogans similar to the ones below:

In order to make these statements and slogans work successfully the attempts have been taken to lay down a theoretical foundation by the works like “Muhammad replaces Marx” (James D. Davidson, The Great Reckoning – Simon and Schuster Co. 1993) on one hand, and to prepare people like Bin Laden, Saddam, Blind Omer and others for taking their places on the world scene, on the other.

Violence destroyed Marxism. Involvement in violence can also put an end to Islam. It is obvious that the Muslims are to be shown as perpetrators of violence in order to approve counter violence by the West. It is necessary to prepare a background to present the terror directed against the Muslims by the superpowers well deserved and legitimate…. Relevant strategies have been outlined and the individuals, groups and countries from different parts of the Muslim map have been chosen to become marionettes for their realisation.

It looks like that this trap will bring more harm to Islam than Mongol or Crusade armies since the radical Islamic groups considering violence as part of their religion commit many errors and continue to do so, thus, giving the trump cards in the hands of the western superpowers.

The violence erodes achievements, energy and hopes of the Muslims. Involvement of the Muslims in violence has been chosen by the West as the cheapest way to become successful in eliminating them with their own hands. The radical groupings first are developed, supported and used, then, because of the negative consequences of their action, the Muslims are attacked, countries are occupied and resources are exploited.

The attacks against secularism of the Turkish Republic in the recent years are made by means of fearless and direct assault by the West, especially the European countries and most of all the EU member states. Look at this bitter example:

When Turkey posed a “problem” to the USA related to the operation in Iraq, when it was expected that the EU will show its “friendly” attitude, the European Parliament issued the statement announcing that Kemalism blocks the way for progress in Turkey.

The basic messages implied in the report prepared on behalf of the European Parliament by the Rapporteur of the European Parliament on Turkey’s application for the membership of the EU, the Dutch Christian-Democrat Arie Oostlander are as follows: the Turkish constitution is based upon the Kemalist ideas. This constitution generates a feeling of constant fear in regard to the territorial integrity of the Turkish state. Based on this fear the army maintains a central position in Turkey as a guarantor of power and security. One of the negative effects of this constitution is that still there is a very rigid attitude to the religion.

The recommendations on the Atatürk’s Republic by the Christian-Democrat Oostlander implying an inconsistent view that the religious fundamentalism is a “phobia” generated from the Atatürk’s ideology are put forth in such a bold and threatening manner as if it is submitted by a rapporteur of an occupational army. Nevertheless, these proposals are extremely dangerous from the viewpoint of the future of the West. Would the complaints on “Islamic terror” by the Europe and the USA, permanently supporting its statements, be convincing in the light of the above assertions that the Islamic radicalism is a phobia stemming from the Atatürk’s ideology, in the times they get in trouble?

If the Islamic radicalism is a “Kemalism-phobia” why the attacks of September 11^{th and terrorist acts against the synagogues and consulates in Istanbul have been assigned to Al Qaeda? Or was Al Qaeda or any other terrorist sub-structure organised and nourished by the Kemalists?}

Those who hear such allegations will be right to ask a question: did Saddam’s Iraq, occupied as a perpetrator state to terrorism and Iran who faces similar allegations have reached the present condition due to the influence of “Kemalism-phobia”. If Islam radicalism and Islamic terror are results of phobia generated from Kemalism, why in the situations when the West suffers from the act generated by this “phobia” it refers to the example of the Kemlist Turkey as “one and only successful model unifying Islam with modernity, democracy and human rights”?

Does this mean that the Kemalist model, is good when the West needs it and bad when its political interests so require? If it is so, are not the Muslims right in mistrusting the inconsistency of the West?

In the so called report implying open aggression towards sovereignty and constitutional structure of the Turkish state Oostlander also says: the establishment of a new constitution is required, the Greek Orthodox Halki Seminary on the Heibeliada Island has to be reopened, the ecumenicity of the Greek Orthodox Partiarchy in Fener district in Istanbul has to be recognised, etc. The one of the big discomforts for Oostlander poses the utmost trust by the Turkish population to the army (the Report is published in the Newspaper “Hürriyet” (Liberty) of 21 March 2003).

This text of the report cannot be accommodated within any understanding of diplomacy, friendship, legal ethics or seriousness. Oostlander writes in a manner of an occupant commander issuing an order. It is rather difficult to relate the submitted text with the notions like friendship, diplomacy, humanistic values or legitimacy.

The main target for the assaults is always Atatürk and the secular Republic, since that constitutes the backbone...

The laicism that prevented the Republic of Turkey to become a medieval religious state is attacked from the two sides: in the name of religion, on one hand, and in the name of democracy, on the other.... Representing first group the radical religious representatives yell: Blasphemous laicism, blasphemous "Kemalism religion", It oppresses Allah’s religion and takes its place; Islam loses, step up!

The West provides permanent support to these groups by encouraging and provoking them with the words "follow this path, your salvation is here, this is Jihad." In this way it kills two birds with one stone: it makes ineffective the methods for reviving Islam it hates and, at the same time, weakens Turkey.

Those who are in the second group, i.e. separatists supporting religious radicalism for the sake of their economic interests say: "no matter if we are pertinent to the religion we are modern, democratic people respecting human rights. The democratic rights and freedoms of the religious segment of the society are violated in the name of laicism. Let us support them, let us destroy Atatürk’s republic and set up a new republic; Let it be entire freedom and full democracy!..."

The anti-laicism forces in Turkey are aware that they will not be successful without the external support. Although the anti-laicists directly target secularism from time to time, they prefer to dismantle it from the inside. The dream for Europeanization born back to the Ottoman times as well as today’s reveries for the EU membership are used as shields for anti-laicism movements and the strive for dismantling laicism are submitted under the efforts for adaptation to the EU standards, harmonisation with the Copenhagen criteria and implementation of the reforms. As a matter of fact, the truth is that:

The West views transformation of Turkey into a Middle East religious state through subverting the values of the secular republic and as its extremely important political interest exploits its vast possibilities to prevent the process of enlightenment and development in Turkey launched by Atatürk. The prime necessity for the West in reaching this goal is to tear Turkey from laicism, since Turkey deprived of laicism shall be dragged in a whirlpool of break-ups and disintegration making it the most cursed hell in the Middle East with ethnic strives and religious conflicts.

This concept and its scientific approach have been pioneered by the group of orientalist academicians in the West. The most renown among them are the German orientalist Udo Steinbach and his team and the American strategist Huntington and his followers who make their utmost efforts to attack Turkey.

It is necessary to read carefully the book by Huntington "The Clash of Civilizations" recognised as a prime work of century on religious disputes and resistance in order to see the attitudes discrediting Turkey, trying to distance Turkey from the West, criticising Atatürk and the Republic.

As for Udo Steinbach and his followers, they are the authors of the statements and slogans directed against the Republic and Atatürk used by the Marxist and religious extremist groups in Turkey. This reality is well known to the researchers who carefully follow the German press and literature.

The western politicians having nine-ten years’ necessary secondary education in their own countries criticise Turkey for introducing the 8 years’ obligatory education, even it was done with substantial delay. The core of the issue is not in what is good or bad the thing is that presenting the 8 years’ education as a development undermining religion they try to provoke the religious groups.

These scholars are the authors of the slogans like “Militant atheist Kemalism” and “laicism means antitheism”.

If laicism is antitheism could we say that the western countries who are completely secular in their structure are totally atheistic? If we say this would it be a fair statement?

Why the West is so discontented with Atatürk? Why it puts efforts to destroy him? Is not it necessary for the westerners to praise Atatürk as the one who accepted the western values and brought Turkey, the basic Muslim country, closer to the West? Why the West acts completely in an opposite way?

The reason is that Atatürk, realising the leading conceptual and scientific values of the Western progress put forth an ideal to reach a civilised society based on these values and to achieve the front line by launching serious reforms in that respect. He immortalised this basic viewpoint by his own words:

This statement actually belongs to Islam. The Islam Prophet said that the Muslims should seek to acquire knowledge wherever it may be. In this respect the Islam Prophet says: "Seek knowledge even if is in China!"

Atatürk has being doing the same. He collected the noble human values from where he could. Nevertheless, he did not refrain from criticising tyranny, exploitation and imperialism. This second feature of Atatürk is the one that disturbed and disturbs the West, since the example set by Ataturk is worthy to be followed. The West is irritated with the possibility that the Muslim world gets familiar with his deeds and takes his example as a basis for its future activities.

Unfortunately, the Muslim world instead of grasping this example resorts to violence and terror as a form of resistance against the oppression of the West. By doing so the Muslim world commits huge error and leads the wrong path.

One of the most prominent revolutionaries in the history of the mankind Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938) was a leader with a manifold personality combining at a time features of a military, a statesman and a thinker. As a figure who achieved victories in many glorious and difficult battles and who founded the new state, Ataturk, who was equally successful and skilful as a commander, a politician and a thinker, has left versatile heritage which preserves its full value even after passing almost a century from his death. Furthermore, Ataturk’s heritage did not lose its actuality and it still attracts attention of people as a value of increased significance especially in the light of the developments of the present day world.

In certain viewpoints, the heritage and the model set up by Atatürk are the only successful models existing in the world.

In my capacity as a scientist and a thinker who dedicated substantial time to serious analyses of his revolutionary reforms from the viewpoint of the Quranic principles, I would allow myself to boldly state that the main principle for a philosophy of the reforms and ideas by Atatürk is “saving a person from deceit in respect of the God”. Atatürk was the first prominent revolutionary who disclosed the most overwhelming betrayal in the Islamic history “deceit in respect of the God”. He pulled masks from the faces of its perpetrators and opened the eyes of the misled masses.

It is rather interesting that this warning, which has been concealed for centuries from the Islamic world and actually is of a vital importance for the Islamic countries, is one of the fundamental warnings contained in the Qur’an. It means that Ataturk, who from time to time is accused by the Islamic world of being “anti-Islamic”, became a leader of the revival so expected by the Muslim world for centuries without even resorting to any oppression or despotism.

Atatürk, pointing to the damage brought about to the Islamic world by “irrational emotions” tried to embrace the Muslim masses with the values like intelligence, science, progress, diligence and realism that make a human the human. In other words, Atatürk put an end to using Islam in the Islamic world as a tool for misleading and exploiting the Muslims.

This is the basic reason for the hatred of the western world towards Atatürk.

The West is well aware that the Muslim individuals or communities who share the Atatürk’s heritage can no more be misled or utilised by apocryphal Islam or in the name of false divinities.

It is because of this that the West harbours outrageous hostility against Atatürk as the one who rescued the Muslims from being an “emotional crowd easy to be exploited permanently”.

“Deceit in respect of the God” is one of the woes emphasised by the Qur’an. Such a deceit prepares solid foundation for all forms of religion exploitations, religious divergence and inquisitions. Deceit in respect of the God also forms the foundation for religious terrorism. What is religious terrorism other than actions by the victims of deceit in respect of the God?

According to the Qur’an, the core of all types of violence is deceit (see the Qur’an, 35/40). This is the reason why the Qur’an warns the humanity against being deceived. The Qur’an viewing deceit also as a basis for the evil devilish deeds refers to it in the number of verses provided below in the ascending order of its magnitude:

The most destructive form of deceit is the one which is done “in respect to the God”. The Qur’an warns: “O people! Let not this world''s life deceive you, nor let the archdeceiver deceive you in respect of the God!” (the Qur’an, 31/33; 35/5 and 57/14)

Based on history and especially the religion history we may say that the most acute conflicts for the humans are those, which derive from deceit in respect of the God. The most venomous oppressions have been generated from such deceit. The most lasting and devastating collisions are those, which embody such deceits.

Deceit in respect of the God cannot be associated with any compromise or compensation. That is so to say it is an eternal woe since the object in the name of which one is deceived is eternal – the God. While the woes from other types of deceits will end somehow someday since neither those who deceive nor the object of deceit are eternal.

Atatürk, in his capacity as a thinker, realised that the deceit in respect of the God served for centuries as a tool for religious exploitation in the Islamic world and, in his capacity as a statesman and a revolutionary, took necessary measures to root it out. If we look at Islam and the Muslims from the viewpoint of the Islam’s genuine source Qur’an rather than from the viewpoint of traditionalist Arab-Ummayad understanding, we may vividly see that in the course of history the Muslim world including the Muslim Turks have always been deceived in respect of the God.

Atatürk became the first leader to notice this development which is the most magnificent among his features.

In present day Turkey millions of peoples who do not know Arabic are still misled that it is required by the religion to read the prayers to the God in Arabic and that it is not allowed to do that in Turkish. As a result of this mislead the Quranic courses only instruct how to pronounce Arabic letters instead of teaching the contents of the Qur’an since it is believed that only those who succeed in pronunciation can get the God’s blessing. Until recently, there were clerics who said that it was a sin to translate the Qur’an into other languages as well as reading the Turkish version of the Qur’an. The masses are misled in this way; in fact being a Muslim is related to a requirement to “be an Arab”.

This is a manifestation of imposing typical imperialism upon the Muslims.

Details regarding the deceit in respect of the God have been submitted to the attention of the world in more than thirty works written by the author of the above lines. In this respect, I would like to point out the books titled “Islam according to the Qur’an”, “How has Islam been Distorted” and “Islam in 400 Questions” that have been printed until today respectively in 40, 14 and 15 editions (the German editions, Grupello Verlag, Düsseldorf, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003).

In the twentieth century we have witnessed existence of the two geniuses – Mohammad Iqbal and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk – who brought to the attention of the Islamic world approaches towards the values of knowledge and thought of the Islam Prophet Mohammad, first of them in theory and the second in both – theory and practice.

Both of them died in the same year (1938). The first was from Pakistan, the second was from Turkey. The first was a poet and philosopher, the second was a statesman and revolutionary. The way shown by these two genius people to the Muslims are almost the same: to grasp the scientific, ideological and technological values from the West respecting common human values in the achievement of which the immense contribution was made by the Muslim ancestors; not to share the ethics, double standards in terms of human rights and the views towards the other countries that are imperialistic, colonialist, cruel and anti-humanistic in their nature.

Atatürk is a typical genius who accepted from the West what was just and rejected what was wrong. In this respect, he comes to the same point with Mohammad Iqbal.

Iqbal being a faithful follower of the Qur’an got the western education. He obtained two doctoral degrees in the West, one in London, the other in Heilderberg. Most of his works are written in English.

Iqbal viewed Atatürk as a pioneer assuming the divine mission to save the oppressed Muslim people and protect the Quranic religion from the western assaults. Iqbal praised the solders of the Dardanelles and the Independence wars under the command of Atatürk as the holy solders of St. Mohammad.

Ikbal views the triumphant commander of the solders of the Dardanelles and the Independence wars as a bless from the Allah sent for the recovery of the oppressed Muslim people and in his hymn titled the “Address to Mustafa Kemal Paşa” praises him, his motherland and people. He says:

Just like Atatürk, Mohammad Iqbal blamed the West for oppression, colonialism and destructiveness. He told the Muslims:

By taking the progressive and just values from the West we do not imitate it, neither we beg or steal something from it. Doing this we get back the heritage of our Muslim ancestors who granted centuries ago these values to the West. Hence, do not feel inferior, ashamed or embarrassed.

The West knew Atatürk just as well as Atatürk knew the West. It is because of this well awareness that, the West could not stand the fact that Atatürk became a leader who brought Turkey closer to the West. The West knows well what it does and is able to identify the people who may pose problems to it. If there is a possibility for Turkey and gradually for the Islamic world to achieve recovery and progress by following the path paved by Atatürk it is necessary for the imperialist and colonialist West to destroy and discredit the ideas by Atatürk.

The West has noticed that Atatürk became a typical leader capable to use against the West its own values and because of this it launched a fierce campaign to prevent dissemination of his ideas in the Islamic world. It is so obvious that, in order to put an end to Atatürk’s influence the westerner like Huntington permanently tries to convince the Islamic world and Turkey that the western values like democracy, human rights, freedoms for women are of imperialistic (occupant-colonialist) character and that the Islamic world has to keep at a distance from them. One can obviously trace the aim of such convictions: to keep the Islamic world away from the values that could help its recovery in order to make it suffer….

If the Muslims could have really understood the essence of the ideas put forth by Mohammad Iqbal and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, it is largely possible that the Middle East would not have been occupied by the western imperialists. The Islam heritage on the Iraqi territories would not have been destroyed and the Iraqi children would not have become fatherless, motherless, handless, eyeless, hopeless and freedomless.

In the period when the West, and, especially, the EU, has been preparing policies to be more efficient in assaults against Atatürk by means of provoking the Islamic countries and the Muslims in Turkey against secularism, the most unexpected and surprising thing happened. A statement broadcasted by one of the television programmes in Turkey shocked the world, which in our opinion had the same affect for the Islamic world as Gorbachev’s statement back in 1989 had upon Russia and its neighbouring region. Unfortunately, due to the western influence upon the Turkish media, the statement, which in our opinion could open a new page in the relations between Islam and the West, Turkey and Iran and Turkey and the West, has not been adequately evaluated.

This statement was made by Mohammed Khatemi, the President of Iran.

The most vital part of the statement by Mohammad Khatemi along with other important messages regarding the topical issues like relations between Islam and terrorism, Islam and the West, Iran and Turkey was the issue on relations between Islam and secularism and Islam and democracy. Khatemi stated openly and frankly to the whole world that secularism and democracy could be quite compatible with Islam and that this coexistence would be beneficial for the future of the Muslims and the world at large.

This message was important not only from the viewpoint of its contents but more from the viewpoint of who was the author. It was this second feature that made the statement so powerful and effective.

First of all Iran is known as a state under the Shariat rule which for years confronts secularism and democracy. The statement by the president of such state dressed in traditional Islamic clothing that secularism in no way contradicts Islam and on the contrary is a system which could well coexist with it as well as apprehension and acceptance by him of this reality can be evaluated as beneficial development both for the Muslims and the whole world.

This was a real revolution. This was a statement thawing ice in the relations of Islam and secularism and democracy and the secular Turkey and Iran. Secondly, it led to the loss of credibility of the West (especially the EU) who permanently chilled relations between the Muslim countries and Turkey and between the religious circles and secularism supporters inside Turkey through continuous assertions by the religious politicians that secularism contradicts Islam. More concretely, the policy of the West to set the Muslims against each other has been unveiled in the most undeniable manner.

Khatemi has cast a blow on the West without even mentioning its name. This revolutionary statement could have become a starting point for the new relations between Iran and Turkey, as well as between Turkey and the Muslim world. Furthermore, this statement seems to be important in terms of promoting the relations between Turkey and Iran within the newly developed Eurasian union although at present Turkey refrains from the relations with Iran due to the attitude of the latter towards secularism and democracy. Turkey, in this way can use the opportunity to become a member of a new structure using it as a strong alternative against the tough EU dictate that gripped Turkey in a vice.

The West realising all these succeeded in cooperation with its devoted partners in Turkey to have this historical statement printed in the inside pages of the newspapers as an ordinary news. That is to say they did prevent appearance of the issue on the agenda. However, the statement by Khatemi implied important messages that could be discussed for days and even months, especially, in the country like Turkey.

In spite of all these developments, we