Hasan Ali Tokuqin

many people said the same things he sad but they dont made fuss this case has a open modus operandi to fool and fuddle Turkey and Turks so our nation acted collectively

the case is not against his books, it is his remarks about Turkish identity and Turkish Millitary it is a defensive reflex, we need time, after dust settled we have mature jurisdiction our nation is upset deeply, we don't deserve this but nobody gonna hang him, it will pass.

yes.... nobody cares about his books, nobody cares what you say or do anything in Turkey, you can find books in any subject, press is free, academies are free, religion is free Turkey is heaven on earth the point is that, he has career ambitions the only way achiving this was insulting national identity I read all his novels, if you want reading something read 'White Castle'.

no replies, but people views it, my postings are not baseless, it needs background, I am not the only one saying this things, so people might be cautious so quick and personalized replies can make a person foolish.....

Turkish writer may face new charge 27dec05 ANKARA: Best-selling Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk might face another court case for allegedly insulting the Turkish military in an interview with a German newspaper, his publishers said yesterday. Pamuk is already on trial under article 301 of Turkey's revised penal code for telling a Swiss newspaper no one dared discuss the alleged massacre of a million Armenians 90 years ago and the deaths of 30,000 Kurds in the past two decades. The issue of freedom of speech has dogged every stage of Turkey's efforts to join the European Union. While the EU agreed to start entry talks with Turkey in October, such court cases are likely to hinder Ankara's progress towards full membership. Nihat Tuna, of publishers Iletisim Yayinlari, said the prosecutor of an Istanbul court that charged Pamuk for denigrating Turkish identity had begun an investigation under the same article. "This is a preliminary investigation. It does not mean that another case against Pamuk will be launched," Mr Tuna said. The Vatan newspaper said the nationalist Lawyers Unity Association had called on prosecutors to charge Pamuk under article 301, which prescribes punishment of up to three years in jail for insulting Turkish identity, the army and parliament. The 53-year-old author of best-sellers My Name is Red and Snow is seen by many as a contender for the Nobel Prize for Literature. His novels deal with the clash between past and present and the values of East and West from the point of view of a bourgeois intellectual. Reuters

Pamuk Ought to be Tried not in Court but in Public Conscience His greatest aim was to receive the Nobel Prize for literature. He was aware it would not suffice to write only a good novel or to create a good work of art to win this prize. He had to find something that would attract the attention of the west. He thought he could achieve this target with the words he would say about the two issues that he perhaps never even came face to face with and never internalized before; the Kurdish and Armenian issues. Since the West would always award prizes to anyone who criticized the Orient. His strategy, I think, was laying underneath the statement "We killed one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds", a sentence that he said aloud prior to the Nobel Prize. The West would reward an Oriental only for criticizing himself/herself. After all, the most significant support came from Salman Rushdie, who wrote an article on 14 October 2005 for The Times, a British daily. It would be ludicrous to think that Mr. Rushdie would not support his spiritual counterpart. He made a minor miscalculation, however. The Nobel Jury disliked becoming politicized. They would not award a Nobel Prize to anyone who became politicized, even if they came from the Orient. Luckily, the German Union of Writers came to his aid. And the Union thrust into his hands a prize of lesser value than the Nobel. This prize was titled "The Peace Award". He responded to this by saying his former statements louder. "You cut down thousands of Jews too," he could not say when he was receiving the prize from the German Union Leader. If he could have said it, I would not consider the Pamuk statements as a typical Young Turk movement that expected to be given a clap by the West, I would say that he is sincere in his words, and I would still respect him, though I do not agree with his statements. Seeing that Pamuk is thumbing around the old notebooks, he should have reminded France of the Algerian massacres and asked the same nation to explain how they paid the blood money for those massacres. It was already then apparent the French were responsible for the murdering of 500,000 Rwandans; however, this was documented once again last week. Or he should have condemned the West for the murdering of 110,000 Bosnians in front of the whole world's eyes. Hundreds of thousands of Bosnians were either killed or assaulted because the great European countries tolerated and turned a blind eye to those crimes. What is more, I am curious about what Mr. Pamuk said about the First and Second World Wars. A total of 40 million people, most of whom were innocent civilians, were killed in the interests of the European. Mr. Pamuk is turning the history into a political discourse. His intention, rather than his thoughts, is insincere. He gives the appearance of a contemporary Young Turk who would say the kind of things that would return him applause. He expects to get support from some lobbies by having a finger in every pie in terms of the Armenian and Kurdish issues. He does not say anything about the ban on headscarf. He is abstaining from this not as a matter of believing or disbelieving in this freedom, rather because it would not please the circles from whom he expects to receive an applause. That is to say, he is being very opportunist in expressing his thoughts. He is talking about the things to earn him money, whereas he is remaining silent about other issues. Leaving all this aside, I strongly object to anyone being tried for their thoughts and pronouncing them aloud. Although their thoughts and what they say do not please us, Orhan Pamuk – like anyone else – can express his thoughts freely. The court that he will actually be responsible to is the public conscience. Let us leave it to this court to hear the case and issue a decree about it… December 17, 2005 19.12.2005 MEHMET KAMIS http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists

Orhan Pamuk and 'Untouchability' of the Art Once upon a time, I made two interviews with Orhan Pamuk for the magazine Aksiyon. I held the interview in light of his novels and with his novelistic personality. I titled a saying of his: "The novelist can wrong the history" he said; a strange irony of fate. This means, the transitivity between art and life is faster and sharper then we think. Furthermore, this wrongfulness does not remain vague and imaginary as it does to some extent in the novel when it is reflected in to reality., And the figures step in, 30,000 Kurds, a million Armenians. However, it is obvious, this is not the first time the historian wrongs the history; thus, there must be another problem. If Orhan Pamuk, "in addition to his assessments we did not like as a nation", had uttered a few noteworthy words about the ongoing war in Iraq, the forces that are now trying to lean on Syria and about the Palestinians victimized in Israel, he would be respected a little at this point, but this is not the case. On the other hand, when did Orhan Pamuk become a "man of thought", did he know the suppositions on history he put forward would be taken so seriously, these are points that need clarification. I think all his discourses that lead to the claim that "Turkey does not deserve the EU" originate from the writer's worry of losing his privilege and from his jealousy of "wanting Europe for itself," since his books entered the EU before Turkey. Reducing the great novelist's statements that became a national cause to a simple reason such as jealousy may appear strange to some, but the person before us is not an old-timer politician, an intelligence spy, or an expert businessman. There is no need to be a clairvoyant to see the issue turned into a conspiracy of disgracing the new TCK (Turkish Penal Code) and spoiling the Justice and Development Party's (AKP) pleasure of "victory” of making Turkey approach the EU much far beyond Orhan Pamuk’s aim. I do not think the writer planned all these in detail. The issue must be related to the delusion of a novelist who is accustomed to the "untouchable" atmosphere of the art, of an artist whose most novels are an arena of free shot over history, to his delusion that he can use this power of his at all places. For an eye that looks at art by a western point of view, the art aims for itself before all; for a novelist in this context, the history is just a material, even the religion and esteemed personalities in the history are so as well. In his books, "The Black Book," "The White Castle," "My Name is Red," and "The Silent House," we see Pamuk deals with the history as the projection of his imagination. In "The Black Book," he fictionalized the relationship between Mevlana and Sems as a "gay relationship" probably with a point of view of the Western sources. In "My Name is Red," Pamuk fictionalized the relationship of the characters who are as pious as to hold an opinion on the ban on depiction of human forms for pages with young boys within the logic of the art of novel peculiar to itself. As a result? He did not receive even a third of the reactions he does today. If a meaningful discussion and criticism platform could be formed for the discussion of these books in this country, which is abundant with Rumi lovers and people attributing holiness to the Ottoman Empire, this ground would serve as a brake for Orhan Pamuk who, we see, has a passion for being " a man of thought and stance". If those reading his books had not surrendered to the concept called "art" and treated as a half god with the fear of looking reactionary, if they had said "no my friend, you cannot dress the historical reality according to your imagination even if this is for art, their unique characters are not less valuable than the authorization you think to obtain from art;" in other words, if the relationship between the historical reality and novel fiction had been hurt just a little bit, our sense of justice -and even the writer himself -would not have been so hurt at the moment. There was probably a last exit before the bridge, before the eggs and fists. The weakness of our reflex of criticizing something at the right place and at the right time plays a role in missing this "exit". I do not know whether Pamuk would or would not have taken these seriously but the issue still interests the pious lovers of literature. Because literates with religious values try to read and digest the art within the secular universe the art belongs to; even while the "unquestionability" of the modern art is nothing but a "dogma". December 22, 2005 23.12.2005 NIHAL B. KARACA Istanbul http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&hn=27866

Low tolerance levels of Messrs. Pamuk and Dink! Tuesday, December 27, 2005 AYŞE ÖZGÜN Last weekend we were introduced to Mrs. Verkin Kasapoğlu Arıoba, a Turk of Armenian origin, during her interview with one of the newspapers. Here was her claim: "I represent the people of Armenian origin of Turkey just as much as Hrant Dink [who is embroiled in a court case for allegedly belittling the Turkish identity in one of his articles in the Armenian language Argos newspaper that he edits; he is very famous in European Union circles]. Since they insist on using the word 'democratic' in every sentence they utter, I insist that speaking up is also my democratic right." A group of “enlightened' people including Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink, Mr. Lagendijk (an EU parliamentarian) and others who leave no stone unturned regarding human rights, liberties, freedom of expression and democracy, went to have dinner at a restaurant in Şişli last week following the hearing in Pamuk's case. Verkin Hanım decided to join them and introduce herself to Pamuk and Dink. "I went to where Pamuk was sitting and extended my business card while introducing myself. He immediately took my card and a smile appeared on his face. He obviously thought I was going to congratulate him. I continued by telling him that I am a Turk of Armenian origin and that I had come here on behalf of thousands of silent Turks of Armenian origin living in Turkey and that wanted to exercise my democratic rights to admonish him for exploiting such a deep-rooted issue in such a manner. I told him that what he did was not helpful to anyone and that such actions could, to the contrary, be harmful." What do you think Pamuk did when he heard this statement? Embrace the lady and thank her for coming? Bow and ask her to join their table? Show respect for her courage? None of the above! He crumpled her business card and turned his back on her. Sitting next to Pamuk was Hrant Dink (whom Verkin Hanım had met before) and he must have overheard her because, when she turned to talk to him, he also got very upset and blurted, "Don't you talk to me!" Obviously, the man was not in a state of mind to hear the lady out. We can see from this small episode that our famous heroes-of-the-year get upset very easily. What is this disrespectful attitude to those who don't think like you? At least hear them out. At least listen to them for three minutes and express your views on the matter. After all, Verkin Hanım came all the way to a restaurant and to your table where you were seated to express her views and disagreement with your way of handling a situation. Where is your supposedly sound sense of justice and equality, let alone freedom of expression? As you see, it is easier said than done, ladies and gentlemen. When such attitudes are expressed by such people in such a manner, I really lose hope for Turkey's entry into the EU. Short fused, wouldn't you say? © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

Most of the readers don't like him.He is bad.This is a popular taste.Only media says his good and bandwagon him. Salman is deceving himself.British uses him as a puppet.He is not happy and never will be. Look in history, where is bloodshed, behind them is British. Turkish Armenians divided by British.For Iraqi oil, British set attrocities among Turks, Kurds and Armenians.British have the blood stain of world on their sleeve.Armenians were reach, peacefull and skilled citizens.They were the most pampered segement of our society.Armenians always belonged East Anatolia and Turkey.Most city names still in Armenian.They are still part of Turkey instead of our bloody foes.

A few points: Orhan is a bad writer. Orhan appears to love fame and prestije.What is doing now, is doing for himself, not for free speech, democracy etc etc.He wants to win Noble prize.That is all Salman Rushdie is living in England and write in English , he is not english.His homeland is India. The British, our arch enemy had a hand in Armenian case.They caused much trouble.The poisonous seeds that British had sawed did this things.Armenians were freindly terms with Turks.They had high ranking positions.Nobody foreced them to anything.The evilhood of British caused many bloodshed around the world. Turks are not beggars.Only rootless and rich people like Orhan Pamuk wants to join homosexual EU.

I don't like Orhan Pamuk and his novels.He doesen't know anything about Turkey as a naive westrener.He thinks that Europe is golden land for Turks and Turks don't fit into it.He is too polemical than as a author.Like Salman Rushdie who insulted Holy Quran in his Satanic Verses, he looks for fame and prestije.Westren circles like him, because he went American Robert Academy in Istanbul.This academy- always been a headache for Turkey- produced political nightmares like Bulent Ecevit and Tansu Ciller.The Academy produced columints, translators, scholars, scientists, politicians and all of them were harmfull for Turkey.I think this academy must be abolished.It hurts our nation deeply. I want to point some similarities of Orhan Pamuk and Salman Rushdie here: Both belongs a wealthy family. Both went English speaking missionary schools. Both had no regular jobs. Both used masonic and religious themes in their novels. Both had a westren lobby behind themselves. Both became modern day Fausts, Both caused a international controversy. Novels of Orhan Pamuk merely frauds, masonic plots in oriental sense.There is a racsist tinge in them.Turkish storeotypes are ugly, vulgar, unfair and backward. I can pinpoint a similarity between him and Umberto Ecco: The best known work of Ecco is: The Name Of The Rose.If the rose is red, it points a famous Rosicurican archtype. My name is Red, a previous novel by Orhan Pamuk contains a plot on murders of book copiers, caligarphers in Ottoman times.Both books have a plot wise affinity. He is too narcist .He considers himself as the best writer of Turkey.But too many readers find his novels obscure, boring and inconsistent.The critics don't like his books.His Turkish is awfull.He speaks English better than Turkish.I think he has writer and correction team for his books.The westren lobby behind him used every marketing tool to boost the selling of his novels.Western media made remarks like that : foremost novelist, renowend writer, a great story teller etc etc. Maybe he is most known, but he is not the best writer in Turkey. His last declarations on Armeninas are baseless and biased.Orhan Pamuk is a great liar.He using this topic for his own interset not his plight for democracy, free speech, human rights etc etc.He used this chance to leap frog to grasp the Nobel prize.This week Turkish press and media divided on his trial, some defending him as a victim and some blaming him as traitor.He made a havoc at the heartland of our nation. I am sure jurisdiction will not punish him.He is powerfull, he is rich.He knows West will support him.He considers Turkey as a banana republic and subservient to Western demands on any ground.So his case will not be a litmus for foreign pressure. Orhan Pamuk is not the first writer insulting Turkish identity.Aziz Nesin, after his books translated into English, had said '60% percent of Turks are dumb.', Ahmet Altan another charlatan said ' Turks are vulgar people.' That is main theme tactic of prolific writers in Turkey: insult Turkish identity, gain fame, money and prestije world wide.A lot Turkish writers who carved for fame and money and who had nothing to say sold their souls and became lackeys and mouthpieces of West. The West will back clapp him, applause him, maybe give him Nobel prize.But he will not have a homeland, like Salaman Rushdie.

Surahs are articles of Holy Quran.They suppose to be revelations of God.The punishment forms belongs nacent years of Islam.They are old and out dated.I found this surahs-articles on internet, but you can check authenicty of them from traslations of Quran.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't like Orhan Pamuk and his novels.He doesen't know anything about Turkey as a naive westrener.He thinks that Europe is golden land for Turks and Turks don't fit into it.He is too polemical than as a author.Like Salman Rushdie who insulted Holy Quran in his Satanic Verses, he looks for fame and prestije. Westren circles like him, because he went American Robert Academy in Istanbul.This academy- always been a head ache for Turkey- produced political nightmares like Bulent Ecevit and Tansu Ciller.The Academy produced Pro -Westren columints, translators, scholars, scientists, politicians and all of them were harmfull for Turkey.I think this academy must be abolished.It hurts our nation deeply. The most significant support to him came from Salman Rushdie, his spiritual counterpart who wrote an article on 14 October 2005 for The Times. I want to point some similarities of Orhan Pamuk and Salman Rushdie here: Both belongs a wealthy family. Both went English speaking missionary schools. Both had no regular jobs. Both used masonic and religious themes in their novels. Both had a westren lobby behind themselves. Both became modern day Fausts, Both caused a international controversy. Faust or Faustus is the protagonist of a popular German tale that has been used as the basis for many different fictional works. The story concerns the fate of a learned gentleman named Faust, who in his quest for forbidden or advanced knowledge of material things, summons the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles, often also referred as Mephisto), who offers to serve him for a period of time, at the cost of his soul. In this case, Orhan Pamuk is Fausts and West is Mephistopheles. Novels of Orhan Pamuk merely frauds, masonic plots, esoteric mumbo-jumbo in oriental sense.There is a racsist tinge in them.Turkish storeotypes are ugly, vulgar, unfair and backward.But west thinks his novels deal with the clash between past and present and the values of East and West from the point of view of a bourgeois intellectual.The truth is that, Orhan Pamuk says the same thing what Samuel Huntigton says in 'Clash Of Civilizaitions- West is good East is bad. I can pinpoint a similarity between him and Umberto Ecco: The best known work of Ecco is: The Name Of The Rose.If the rose is red, it points a famous Rosicurican archtype. My name is Red, a previous novel by Orhan Pamuk contains a plot on murders of book copiers, caligarphers in Ottoman times.Both books have a plot wise affinity. He is too narcist .He considers himself a man of thought and stance, a artfull mediator and convice others so.But too many readers find his novels obscure, boring and inconsistent.The critics don't like his books.His Turkish is awfull.He speaks English better than Turkish.I think he has writer and correction team for his books.The westren lobby behind him used every marketing tool to boost the selling of his novels.Western media made remarks like that : foremost novelist, renowend writer, a great story teller etc etc. Maybe he is most known, but he is not the best writer in Turkey.But he has westren media bandwagoning him . He faces charges for telling a Swiss newspaper in February that : -30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it." This declarations on Armeninas and Kurds are baseless and biased.Orhan Pamuk is a great liar.He using this topic for his own interset not his plight for democracy, free speech, human rights etc etc.He sees himself as a contender for Nobel prize. His ostensible aim is to receive the Nobel Prize for literature. He was aware it would not suffice to write only a good novel or to create a good work of art to win this prize. This case has a open modus operandi :to fool and fuddle Turkey and Turks. So our nation acted collectively. This week Turkish press and media divided on his trial, some defending him as a victim and some blaming him as traitor.He made a havoc at the heartland of our nation. Turkish Armenians divided by our bloody foe, British army against the state.British had set attrocities among Turks, Greeks, Kurds and Armenians.Like other minorites, Armenians were reach, peacefull and skilled citizens.They had high ranking positions in goverment and state .They omitted military service.They were the most pampered segement of our society when most of Turks were poor and illitirate.Most city names in eastern provinces still in Armenian.They are still part of Turkey instead of our bloody foes. I am sure jurisdiction will not punish Orhan Pamuk .He is powerfull, he is rich.He knows West will support him.He considers Turkey as a banana republic and subservient to Western demands on any ground.So his case will not be a litmus for foreign pressure. Turks are not beggars like Third World.Only rootless and rich people like Orhan Pamuk wants to join homosexual and sodomite EU. Eu is not a dream for Turks.She was and is a nightmare for many people. The last incindents in France showed Western ideals: democracy, freedom, and equality were mere illusions. The western nations procured this ideals for themselves only not for the third world. The Western goverments and instutions think there is a inherent biological cause. The third world is not compatible racially with Europeans. So, they want to deport them back to their countries or send them to prisons to rot. But western nations like Britain exploited the resources of the third world and give them gospels and told them to be subsurvient to their orders. Then, they exported them to do dirty and hard jobs for them. Only rich people from third world gained access to education and good living conditions. The West served like large shopping mall for rich all around the world . Orhan Pamuk is not the first writer insulting Turkish identity.Aziz Nesin, after his books translated into English, had said '60% percent of Turks are dumb.', Ahmet Altan another charlatan said ' Turks are vulgar people.' That is main tactic of prolific writers in Turkey: insult Turkish identity, gain fame, money and prestije world wide.A lot of Turkish writers who carved for fame and money and who had nothing to say became lackeys and mouthpieces of West. Orhan Pamuk fell prey to the trap West way layed for him.The West will back clap him, applause him, maybe give him Nobel prize.But he will not have a homeland, like Salaman Rushdie.He will stroll aimlessly at the cold streets and oppulent sky of west like Marcel Proust.

From Holy Quran: Men are superior to women (surah 2:228). Women have half the rights of men: in court witness (surah 2:282) and in inheritance (surah 4:11). A man may punish his wife by beating her (surah 4:34). A man may marry up to four wives at the same time (surah 4:3). A wife is a sex object for her husband (surah 2:223). Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29). A Muslim must not take a Jew or a a Christian for a friend (surah 5:51). A Muslim apostate must be killed (surah 9:12). Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands (surah 5:38). Adultery is punished by public flogging (surah 24:2). Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet (surah 5:33). Fate decides everyone's eternal destination (surah 17:13). Every Muslim will pass through Hell (surah 19:71). Heaven in Islam is the place where a Muslim will be reclining, eating meats and delicious fruits, drinking exquisite wines, and engaging in sex with virgins (surah 55:54- 56) & (surah 52:17,19).

When Islam Meets West By M. A. Muqtedar Khan, Foreign Policy in Focus Posted on February 17, 2004, Printed on December 14, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/story/17869/ After attending two back-to-back "international dialogues of civilizations," one in Doha, Qatar (Jan. 9-12) organized by Brookings Institution and the Emir of Qatar, and another at UNESCO in Paris (Jan. 17-19) hosted by UNESCO, Euro Mediterranean, and President Jacques Chirac, I cannot help but reflect on the promise and the politics of dialogues. In response to Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington's now infamous argument predicting a future full of clashes between civilizations, the world's liberals responded with a call for a civilizational dialogue. After 9/11, this call for a dialogue between Islam and the West has become even more urgent. The philosophical assumptions behind these dialogues are not too difficult to discern. Islam and the modern West share a common Abrahamic tradition and their foundational sources; Islamic law and philosophy and Western enlightenment philosophy have common roots--Hellenistic reason and Biblical revelation. The two civilizations have a common past and a common future, particularly in the light of strong economic relations between the West and the Muslim world and the growing presence of Islam in nearly every Western society. Because the future of the two civilizations is inseparable, any clash will be devastating to both, regardless of the asymmetry of power. A clash between Islam and the modern West would be like a collision between the present and the future for both. Islam is integral to the future of the West and Islamic civilization's reticence toward modernity is untenable. Eventually, the Muslim world will have to modernize, democratize, and recognize that its future, too, is interdependent. Neither the West nor the Muslim world can imagine a mutually exclusive future. Clearly, the long-term benefits of cooperation and co-existence are apparent to all except those who are quite obtuse and whose reason and good will is blunted either by their hatred for the other or by the intoxication that comes from power. For them, the clash is not only inevitable but also desirable, as they seek a future for the one without the other. Dialogues between the two civilizations help convince the undecided on both sides that there is hope and conflict is not inevitable. In the dialogue itself, one can convince the other that not all interests are sacred and not all positions are etched in stone. With a little more understanding, patience, and a willingness to recognize the legitimate concerns of the other, along with some compromise and much restraint, dialogues can bridge even the widest of divides. For those who believe in the common humanity of all and dream of a world where all can live in dignity and security, dialogues are necessary and the only means to resolve disagreements and disputes. Needless to say, I went to both international forums with hope, excitement, and anticipation. But I discovered that the promise of a dialogue can be so easily compromised, even subverted by the politics that underpin these dialogues or by those political entrepreneurs who seek to exploit them to score political points at the expense of advancing understanding. Bashing the U.S. and Islam The forum in Paris was entitled "The Clash of Civilizations Will Not Happen." Both President Jacques Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin argued that the clash of civilizations must not be allowed to happen. They expressed fear that the growth of terrorism and the undermining of multilateralism in the world was threatening peace and enhancing the prospects of a clash. The forum was apparently designed to underscore the common traditions between Islam and the West, but it actually ended up as a forum that rejected Islamic resurgence in the Muslim world and America as a neocolonial power. Some topics were clearly provocative and in keeping with the French attempt to position themselves as the primary balancer of American unilateralism. One panel was titled "U.S.: Common Enemy or Shared Ally?" But there was no panel designed to examine how groups such as al Qaeda might be contributing to realizing the Huntingtonian prophesy. Another panel on which I was a speaker was titled, "Is the Arab World Undergoing Another Colonization?" I have been a very vocal critic of George Bush's foreign policy, which I agree is often contrary to international law, international norms, and common morality, but the Paris forum was seeking to bring secular forces in the Arab world closer to Europe by positioning the U.S. as a new-colonial power seeking to dominate the oil resources of the region by force. Clearly, the objective was to paint the U.S. as an international villain and France as the international hero that is defending international norms, the multilateral order, and a champion of third world rights. As a result, I found myself as the only defender of America, pointing out to the audience that compared to Europe's history, American colonial ambitions are insignificant. As far as democracy and freedom of religion was concerned, I noted, the U.S. is streets ahead of the French, who even legislate what Muslim women can wear and not wear. I reminded attendees that the U.S. was, as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright pointed out, the "indispensable nation," and it was the U.S. that acted to prevent genocides in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo) and not France. Finally, I had to remind Europeans that in spite of their pro-Palestine rhetoric, they had done little for Palestinians. Even the Palestinians recognized that if they were to get their independence, it would have to be through a transformed U.S. role. On the panels that discussed Islam, only those Muslims were invited who saw no role for Islam in the public sphere. As one of the voices advocating Islamic democracy, I was surprised to find myself in the audience as people who had done little or nothing on the subject discussed how secular Muslims alone--not any interpretation of Islam--were ready for democracy. The general mood at the conference was that there could be no peace or dialogue with Islamists. The occasional voice that advocated Islamic democracy was booed. The radical secular fundamentalism of France, in my opinion, will enhance rather than diminish the prospects of a clash of civilizations. Secular westernized Muslims have little influence in the Muslim world. Islam has become the dominant idiom of the Muslim world and the West must find a way to cooperate and co-exist with moderate/liberal Islamists who believe in democracy, tolerance, and pluralism, but within the Islamic rubric. French-style secularism is neither welcome in the Muslim world, nor in America, nor by a majority of French Muslims who now constitute about one-fifth of the French population. Between Rhetoric and Reality The Doha dialogue was orchestrated by the Saban Center for Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution. Unlike Paris, where the main players--Americans and Islamists--were conspicuously absent, the Doha dialogue focused on bringing in all key players in the ongoing struggle between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Academics, policymakers, former government officials, media, former military personnel, and a strong contingent of American Muslims represented the U.S.. The American delegation included former President Bill Clinton, Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke, Martin Indyk, and Edward Djerejian. The Muslim world was represented by former government officials, scholars, journalists, politicians, and key Islamists such as Professor Qazi Hussain, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami and also leader of the opposition in the Pakistani Parliament, and Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, an important leader in the Muslim Brotherhood and easily the most prominent opinion-maker and cleric of the Arab world. The dialogue included open plenary sessions and several closed-door, three-hour workshops. The different formats revealed the extent to which political considerations on the part of all parties undermines the promise of dialogues. In open sessions, Muslim representatives focused on U.S.-Israeli relations as the crux of the crisis in U.S.-Muslim relations and sought to underscore the injustices that Muslims suffer at the hands of the U.S. and Israel. In closed-door sessions, representatives from the Muslim world acknowledged that political and even cultural reform was necessary in the Muslim world. Many were willing to concede that the Israeli-Palestinian issue could be settled peacefully. Above all, even the most stringent public critics of the U.S. were more cooperative and willing to discuss things openly in private. The American delegates tended to waffle publicly on most issues. They were often unwilling to discuss key complaints that Muslims had regarding U.S. foreign policy. While there was a plenary session dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the American delegations' discomfort on the topic was palpable. But in private, not only were many Americans willing to admit the insanity of the Bush administration's policies, but they also acknowledged the policy logjam that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute constituted. Many prominent Americans even acknowledged that perhaps it was time to rethink U.S. positions vis-à-vis the Middle East crisis. But the only public statement that everyone remembers is Ambassador Holbrooke's. At first, he refused to discuss the issue and then finally made one statement: "The U.S. will never turn its back on Israel." Many Islamists interpreted this as "no matter what happens, no matter what Israel does, the U.S. will continue to finance, support, and arm Israel." Until Bill Clinton came to the rescue, Holbrooke's commitment to Israel had subverted the dialogue. Some cynics concluded from Holbrooke's comment that perhaps he might become the U.S. Secretary of State if Democrats should win in November 2004, now that he had sworn his allegiance to Israel in public. On many issues, it appeared as if Americans and Muslims were public enemies but private allies. When not posturing for the consumption of respective constituencies, both arrogant Americans and intransigent Islamists were actually willing to negotiate, share their fears and aspirations, and really open up to one another. In public dialogues, the sources of divergence dominated. In private conversations, areas that constituted common ground were explored. One important development at the Doha dialogue was the realization by all parties of the potential of American Muslims as a catalyst for better communications and better relations between America and the Muslim world. Muslims from Malaysia to Morocco made it clear that they were looking toward American Muslims for guidance, support and initiative while dealing with the American establishment. Americans also began to realize that through American Muslims, America had an inside track to the Muslim world. The conference ended with an eloquent and thoughtful talk by Former President Clinton. Unlike some Americans who showed both ignorance and insensitivity to Muslim concerns, Clinton demonstrated not only a clear understanding of the underlying problems, but also great respect and familiarity with Islam, the Quran and Muslim issues. He was willing to acknowledge past mistakes, admit American limitations on key policy issues, and did not shy away from criticizing the Arabs, the Israelis and Americans for failing to resolve the Middle East crisis by now. Former President Clinton would make an excellent "Dialogue Czar," and the White House should perhaps take notice of this and appoint him an Ambassador-at-large to deal particularly with intractable conflicts such as Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, and North Korea. On the Virtues of Dialogue Sept.11 and its aftermath has exposed the underbelly of U.S--Muslim relations. The existing differences have been highlighted and exacerbated, while new ones have emerged as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Everyone understands that while security issues are involved, so are identity, cultural, religious and economic issues. Therefore, military solutions have limited purchase. The tensions between the two can only be resolved through economic development, political reform and cultural dialogue. The lesser the use of force, the better the prospects for a more amicable resolution to Muslim grievances and American insecurities. Dialogues such as those discussed must happen more often, and include more and more perspectives. They serve several useful purposes. Wars of words can sometimes help delay or even render unnecessary wars of guns. Familiarity with the other's fears and aspirations will help modulate one's own positions. While dialogues are most productive in an atmosphere of mutual trust and mutual willingness to compromise, they also can help understand and identify core political issues. In an era when misunderstanding and faulty intelligence can have devastating effects, dialogues can go a long way. Muqtedar Khan is a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, the Director of International Studies at Adrian College, and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/1167 Debate: Islam and Democracy by Daniel Pipes PBS "Wide Angle" July 15, 2003 In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, many individuals have come to the conclusion that the lack of democracy in some Muslim countries has contributed to the spread of Islamic extremism and poses a continued threat to global stability. With the United States actively attempting to establish democracy in a Muslim nation -- Iraq -- we invited two scholars to discuss several issues related to the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Participant's Bios Dr. Muqtedar Khan Dr. Muqtedar Khan is the Chair of the Department of Political Science and Director of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is the author of AMERICAN MUSLIMS: BRIDGING FAITH AND FREEDOM (Amana, 2002) and JIHAD FOR JERUSALEM: IDENTITY AND STRATEGY IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS (forthcoming from Praeger, 2004). He is a fellow of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and the Vice President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. He earned his Ph.D. in international relations, political philosophy, and Islamic political thought from Georgetown University in May 2000. Dr. Khan's column has appeared in: THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NEWSWEEK (Arabic), THE GLOBALIST, NEW YORK POST, NEWSDAY, ARIZONA TRIBUNE, DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (London), THE SUN (UK), AL AHRAM (EGYPT), AL JAZEERAH, DAWN (PAKISTAN), JAKARTA POST, JORDAN TIMES, MANILA TIMES, OUTLOOK INDIA, PALESTINE TIMES, CALGARY HERALD, THE DAILY TELEGRAM (MI), SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, DETROIT FREE PRESS, DETROIT NEWS, WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, MUSLIM DEMOCRAT, Iviews.com, THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, ISLAMIC HORIZONS, THE MESSAGE, ptimes.com, Progressive.org, Theglobalist.com, fpif.org, Freerepublic.com, MiddleEast Online, Beliefnet.com, ARABIES TRENDS, AL-MUSTAQBAL, SAUDI GAZETTE, and many other periodicals worldwide. Dr. Daniel Pipes Daniel Pipes is Director of the Middle East Forum and a prize-winning columnist for the NEW YORK POST and the JERUSALEM POST. His latest book is MILITANT ISLAM REACHES AMERICA, published by W. W. Norton in late 2002. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, offers an archive and a chance to sign up to receive his new materials as they appear. He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history. He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He has served in various capacities at the Departments of State and Defense, including vice chairman of the presidentially appointed Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships. Mr. Pipes frequently discusses current issues on television, appearing on such U.S. programs as ABC WORLD NEWS, CBS REPORTS, CROSSFIRE, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER, NIGHTLINE, O'REILLY FACTOR, and THE TODAY SHOW. He has appeared on leading television networks around the globe, including the BBC and Al-Jazeera. Mr. Pipes has published in such magazines as the ATLANTIC MONTHLY, COMMENTARY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HARPER'S, NATIONAL REVIEW, NEW REPUBLIC, and THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Many newspapers carry his articles, including the LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,WASHINGTON POST, and another 90 dailies, plus hundreds of Web sites. His writings have been translated into 18 languages, and he has lectured in 25 countries. Islam and Democracy The lack of democracy in many Muslim nations around the world gained greater public attention in the West following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As a result, some individuals have come to the conclusion that Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible. What is your view? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: The debate about the compatibility of Islam and democracy is much older. We established the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in 1998 for the explicit purpose of showing the compatibility of Islam and democracy. According to recent Pew Research studies and a survey by Pippa Norris (Harvard) and Ron Inglehart (University of Michigan), an overwhelming majority of Muslims everywhere would like to have democracy. Today, many Muslim countries are in various stages of democratization, for example, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. Nearly 800 million out of 1.4 billion Muslims live in democracies, and unlike the U.S., four Muslim nations have or had women heads of government. Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan have elected women to power, and Iran has a woman vice president. I am convinced that it is just a matter of time before the entire Muslim world democratizes. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Unfortunately, Professor Khan has ducked the question, which is whether Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible, not whether Muslims prefer democracy. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: History is full of surprises. As late as 1892, the German was described as an "obscure and impractical dreamer." As late as the 1960s, it was said that "Jews do not fight." Confucianism was long thought to be inimical to economic growth. In other words, just because something seems obvious today does not mean it will be true tomorrow. Muslims today groan under dictatorships, but one day could be model democrats. Further, Islam can be interpreted many ways, and there is nothing about it that immutably contradicts democracy. That said, deep and extensive changes will have to precede such changes. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I agree there will have to be deep and extensive changes within the Muslim world and in U.S. relations with the Muslim world. What we can do to hasten this process is to ensure that our government stops supporting, financing, and legitimizing dictatorships and monarchies in the Muslim world. We will also have to recognize that democracy in the Muslim world will mean that we will have to contend with Muslim public opinion more seriously. Democracratization will probably mean that Muslim governments will be more interested in advancing the wishes of their own people (as in the case of Turkey and its reluctance to support the U.S. in the war against Iraq), but we should be ready to accept this as a necessary consequence of democracy. As we know, the alternative is extremely undesirable to all. Sharia Law In Muslim nations advocates for the implementation of Sharia (Islamic) law believe it will establish a more just society, where crime would be nonexistent given the harsh punishments that the law imposes, including flogging, amputation, and stoning. Is it possible to give primacy to Sharia law and still have a democratic society? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Most non-Muslim critics and often ignorant Muslim advocates of the Sharia (the Islamic Way) equate the Sharia to Hudud laws, the stringent punishments for fornication (flogging), theft (amputation), and adultery (stoning). The maqasid (objectives) of the Sharia is to establish social justice, equality, tolerance, and freedom of religion in societies. The Hudud laws are a tiny part of the Sharia. Some of these laws are not even Qur'anic; they are taken from the Old Testament, such as stoning the adulterer (Deuteronomy 22:24). Yes, I believe that when the Sharia is interpreted and implemented by educated, enlightened, and compassionate people it will establish social justice and coexist harmoniously with a democratic polity. But if uneducated, angry, and bigoted people take the law in their hands and presume to speak on behalf of God, then tyranny is the most likely outcome. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Professor Khan confidently tells us that the Sharia as he understands it will "establish social justice and coexist harmoniously with a democratic polity." But this is argument by assertion. He has not provided any basis for this optimism. So far, the record in countries where the Sharia is applied -- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan -- is less than encouraging. In this and several other answers, Professor Khan forwards the reformist interpretation of Islam that once was ascendant but now [is] little heard from. I wrote at length about this and the other two main interpretations (secularist, Islamist) in my book, IN THE PATH OF GOD: ISLAM AND POLITICAL POWER. Here is a brief description of reformist Islam, from a 2000 article of mine: "Whereas secularism forthrightly calls for learning from the West, reformism selectively appropriates from it. The reformist says, 'Look, Islam is basically compatible with Western ways. It's just that we lost track of our own achievements, which the West exploited. We must now go back to our own ways by adopting those of the West.' To reach this conclusion, reformers reread the Islamic scriptures in a Western light. ... "In case after case, and with varying degrees of credibility, reformists appropriate Western ways under the guise of drawing on their own heritage. The aim of the reformists, then, is to imitate the West without acknowledging as much. Though intellectually bankrupt, reformism functions well as a political strategy." Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: No: the Sharia harks back to a decidedly antidemocratic sensibility in everything from its emphasis on God's will (not popular sovereignty) to its privileging of Muslims over non-Muslims. For Muslims to develop functioning democracies requires that they put aside the Sharia or transmute it into something quite different from what it is understood to be today. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Dr. Pipes seems to contradict himself. First he says that there is nothing in Islam that contradicts democracy and then insists that Sharia is antidemocratic. Sharia is the essence of Islam. The Sharia is decidedly democratic. The reason for Islam's great record of tolerance and pluralism in the past is the correct understanding and application of the Sharia. Unfortunately, the recent examples set by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and others are against the letter and the spirit of the Sharia and have given it a bad name. The Sharia is elicited from the Qur'an and the Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Qur'an advocates consultative governance and the practice of the Prophet, as enshrined in the Compact of Medina, treats minorities equally, and he governed by consent and consultation. Unfortunately, the underdevelopment of the Muslim world also includes a widespread ignorance of Islam -- even among those who claim to speak for it -- and this severing of Muslims from Islam is partially a result of colonialism. The key really is who, the ignorant or the knowledgeable, defines and interprets the Sharia. Secular or Religious State? In the United States the separation of church and state is one of the nation's founding principles set forth in the Constitution. Can democracy only succeed in a nation where there is a separation of religion and state? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Secularism may be a desirable, but not a necessary precondition in order to foster state neutrality in a multireligious society. Consider the U.K., which is formally a theocratic democracy. The monarch is head of the church as well as head of the government. Changes in the doctrines of the Church of England are a matter for the British Parliament. While England is a theocratic democracy, India is a secular democracy; in England the government remains neutral, whereas in India government takes sides in communal violence. Recently, in Gujarat in March 2002, the Hindu ruling party, BJP [bharatiya Janata Party], was implicated in the massacre of Muslims. According to Human Rights Watch, the Gujarat government had ordered the police not to protect minorities. The key issue is whether states realize religious freedom and religious equality and not constitutional secularity. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: We generally agree on this one. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: The United States is the most secular and the most democratic society, suggesting a correlation between the two; but there are plenty of examples of countries with established religions, starting with the United Kingdom and ending with Israel, that also have fully functioning democracies. So, no, secularism is not a prerequisite. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I am not sure whether the U.S. is more secular than, say, France and Canada or even Iraq under Saddam; after all, we have a president who believes in "faith-based initiatives" and has Bible sessions in the White House. We have also had Christian mullahs running for president (Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson). The federal government employs thousands of chaplains and actually provides religious services. America is a very religious state, and the Christian Right is a major political force and Christian values (on, say, abortion, gay unions) do shape the political landscape. American politics is not entirely secular. But yes, there are constitutional limits imposed by a Jeffersonian reading of the First Amendment on the fraternity of state and religion. Having said that, I agree with Dr. Pipes that secularism is not a necessary condition for democracy. Individual Rights In a western democracy such as the United States, government is instituted in order to protect individual rights. Does Islam support values and structures that are incompatible with safeguarding individual rights? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Islamic legal systems were articulated in the Middle Ages before the advent of the all-powerful centralized state, which necessitates constitutional protection of rights from state power. Modern Islamic law can derive individual rights (see the Universal Declaration of Islamic Human Rights) from Islamic sources. For example, the Qur'anic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) can function as the Islamic equivalent of the American First Amendment. M. H. Kamali, in two brilliant books, FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE IN ISLAM (ITS, 2002) and THE DIGNITY OF MAN: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (ITS, 2002) demonstrates how individual rights inhere in Islamic sources. The focus of the Sharia is on social justice, and Muslim thinkers need to advance contemporary understanding of social justice that includes individual rights and guarantees equality, including gender parity. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Professor Khan says that the Universal Declaration of Islamic Human Rights can be derived from Islamic sources, but in fact they deeply and extensively contradict each other -- for details, see Ann Elizabeth Mayer, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991). The Qur'anic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" has nothing in common with the First Amendment: to take just one point, the Qur'an imposes the death penalty on apostates from Islam, something, last I checked, the U.S. Constitution does not do. This is the reformist apologetic for Islam (saying that it's just the same as what the West believes in) and it is unconvincing as it is intellectually fraudulent. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: The question assumes that Islam is an unchanging entity; but it has been evolving for fourteen centuries and will continue to do so. Islam as understood today tends not to be compatible with safeguarding individual rights, but that can change if Muslims are willing and able to rethink some premises of their religion. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I agree. It is problematic to treat Islam as a nondynamic concept and also to treat its civilizational manifestations as monolithic. Islamic law itself is very diverse and Islamic practices are kaleidoscopic. Nothing, including the understanding of what constitutes the Sharia, is frozen or static. Today, the Muslim world suffers from a deep sense of insecurity, largely from the West, which it rightly or wrongly sees as a force determined to separate Muslims from Islam. We have seen how insecurity can immediately undermine the protection of rights. Even the U.S., when insecure, severely limits individual rights. The passage of the Patriot Act in the U.S. -- the most powerful and the most democratic state -- undermines many rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. When Muslim societies will feel safer and will be assured that the West is not seeking to recolonize them or destroy their faith, I am confident they too will become more democratic and protective of individual rights. Recent Pew studies confirm that Muslims deeply fear the U.S., and this fear is heightened by the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike. When more secure, Muslim understanding of their faith becomes more liberal, as in Islamic Spain, and when insecure, Muslim interpretation of their faith becomes more conservative, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Promoting Democracy Although the government of the United States helps to promote democracy throughout the world, it has also continued to support repressive and undemocratic regimes in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Has this support hindered democracy from taking root in these Muslim nations? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: There are internal as well as external barriers to democracy in some parts of the Muslim world. Much of the Muslim world was under colonial occupation. It has yet to recover from the debilitating impact of exploitative foreign occupation. However, a large part of the Muslim world is democratizing now except for most of the Middle East. This region has become politically authoritarian and will need systematic reforms to trigger democratization. Muslim democrats must work towards reform and elimination of internal barriers. Until now the U.S. was a major external barrier to democracy in the Middle East. For example, in 1953 a CIA coup transformed a democratic Iran into an oppressive monarchy that resulted in the revolution of 1979. The U.S. has also supported monarchs and dictators, including Saddam Hussein, in the name of stability and freedom of access to oil. Yes, the U.S. has obstructed the flowering of freedom in the Muslim world. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Ah, the familiar colonialism-made-me-do-it gambit. Professor Khan states that the Muslim world has "yet to recover from the debilitating impact of exploitative foreign occupation," but Nigeria won its independence 43 years ago, Morocco 47 years ago, Egypt 51 years ago, Pakistan 56 years ago, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia never experienced imperial control from Europe. For how much longer will the colonialism excuse be played? And then there's the Saddam Hussein canard: perhaps the good professor confuses the United States with France, Germany, and Russia? Their governments, not the American one, sold weapons to Baghdad. Professor Khan's reply, in brief, is laced with apologetics and inaccuracy. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: This raises the matter of so-called Middle Eastern exceptionalism. I believe the key difference here is an American one. Unlike other regions of the world -- Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, East Asia come to mind -- successive U.S. governments have been leery about promoting democracy in the Middle East, fearful of a hostile vox populi. The deposing of Saddam Hussein could initiate a new era in which Washington approaches the Middle East more in synchrony with its policies elsewhere. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Dr. Pipes is completely correct, and I appreciate his candor in acknowledging partial U.S. responsibility for the absence of democracy in the Muslim world. I am also hopeful that if Iraq were to be reconstructed, and if Iraq quickly established an indigenous and democratic government, even an Islamic democracy, it would trigger a strong impulse for democratization in the region. Already countries like Qatar and Bahrain are moving towards political liberalization, and even key members of the House of Saud have made appropriate noises about reform. Washington must not fail Iraq. A failure in Iraq will jeopardize the prospects of democracy and will increase anti-Americanism and further radicalize and destabilize the region. An Islamic democracy in Iraq will signal to the Muslim world that the U.S. is pro-democracy without being anti-Islam. Islam and Modernity Some scholars have argued that Christianity and Judaism have essentially come to terms with modernity, as represented by western pluralistic societies such as the United States, and don't view modernity as a threat. Is Islam opposed to modernity? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: This is a dubious claim. Do these scholars include Orthodox Jewish practices in Israel and the role of religion in Israeli laws such as citizenship when they make this claim? Do these scholars also show how the beliefs of the coming Armageddon and creationism are compatible with modernity? Modernity had repressed Christianity and to some extent Judaism through reformation, but Christianity is experiencing resurgence in the Americas and Africa. Modernity helped Europe colonize the Muslim world, but it did not defeat or repress Islam, and therein lies the difference. I believe that Islam is incompatible with modernity, inasmuch as modernity is opposed to religion. However, Islam has a built-in tradition of Ijtihad (independent thinking), which facilitates reform and reinterpretation. If encouraged, Ijtihad can help modernize and revitalize Islamic societies. Let us not assume that everything about modernity is good; the Holocaust, the two world wars, nuclear weapons, and environmental degradation are some of the consequences of modernity. Terrorism too is a modern phenomenon. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: That Professor Khan denies that Christianity and Judaism have come to terms with modernity, while Islam has not, again bespeaks that reformist apologetic. One striking difference in the religions concerns the "higher criticism" that Christianity and Judaism had to contend with in the late 19th century; this was a no-holds-barred scholarly inquiry into their origins, history, and sacred texts. As I have written elsewhere, "those two faiths survived the experience -- though they changed profoundly in the process"; in contrast, as a similar inquiry into Islam gains steam, the main Muslim strategy until now has been "one of neglect -- hoping that revisionism, like a toothache, will just go away." It won't. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: No, Islam is not opposed to modernity. Rather, it has not yet (with rare exceptions, such as the Daudi Bohras) begun the process of modernization. Here's how I put it in a recent article: "Five hundred years ago, Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed that owning slaves was acceptable but paying interest on money was not. After bitter, protracted debates, Jews and Christians changed their minds. Today, no Jewish or Christian body endorses slavery or has religious qualms about paying reasonable interest. Muslims, in contrast, still think the old way. Slavery still exists in a host of majority-Muslim countries (especially Sudan and Mauritania, also Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and it is a taboo subject. To enable pious Muslims to avoid interest, an Islamic financial industry worth an estimated $150 billion has developed. The challenge ahead is clear: Muslims must emulate their fellow monotheists by modernizing their religion with regard to slavery, interest and much else. No more fighting jihad to impose Muslim rule. No more endorsement of suicide terrorism. No more second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. No more death penalty for adultery or 'honor' killings of women. No more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy." Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I think Dr. Pipes's conception of what "modernity" means is a bit unusual. First of all, slavery, as was practiced in America as an industry and as an economic strategy, was a modern phenomenon. Sweatshops and sex slavery, both are modern forms of slavery, and still benefit western consumers. Yes, slavery is terrible, but it is not just a traditional institution, it is also a modern one. Also, the allegation that slavery is practiced in many Muslim countries is an overgeneralization of a vestigial practice in remote and backward regions of the world. Most Muslims do recognize that the Muslim world has not fully modernized. As far as interest is concerned, many western economists also maintain that interest-free economies can be extremely salutary. Interest-free banking is an experiment in Islamic modernization and not antimodernism. The fact that Islamic banks are now worth $150 billion attests to their modern viability. I do not think that just because some Jews and Christians are abandoning their faith for material gains, so should Muslims. The use of terrorism by some is abhorrent, but struggling for freedom in Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, and fighting against genocide in Bosnia is, I think, a good thing. Dr. Pipes seems to suggest that Muslims should give up the struggle for justice and the Wilsonian ideals of self-determination. Modern Islamic Society In a discussion about Islam presented on the PBS series NOW WITH BILL MOYERS, author Fareed Zakaria noted that religious texts cannot be used as "blueprints for organizing modern society." Would you agree or disagree? Within a modern Islamic society, can religious texts be used selectively? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: I agree with Fareed Zakaria. Religious texts are not blueprints for any society; they are essentially answers to existential questions and articulate general universal principles of ethics. Unlike some contemporary Islamists who insist that the Qur'an is the constitution of the Islamic state, the Prophet Muhammad himself governed Medina by a social contract called the Compact of Medina. The compact did reflect Islamic as well as Judeo-Christian principles. Indeed, Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian tradition. The U.S. Constitution is an embodiment of Judeo-Christian values and the U.S. has eventually evolved into a secular, multicultural, and pluralistic society in 220 years, without doing much violence to that tradition. Can we have an Islamic society where barbaric punishments are not enforced? Most certainly. Stable and secure Muslim societies will not feel the need for identity politics -- demands for Hudud implementation is an exercise in identity manifestation -- and will work towards public good, and for that we need democracy in the Muslim world as soon as possible. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: I am impressed with this answer and especially with the statement that "Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian tradition," which is quite at variance with the Qur'anic assertion that Islam preceded all other religions, and that Judaism and Christianity are distorted versions of that ur-religion. I also endorse the condemnation of hudud punishments and the appreciation of the United States. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: I agree with Zakaria that religious texts can inspire, counsel, and guide on a personal level, but they cannot provide the specifics for figuring out how to modernize. Further, those texts that reduce the rights of women and non-Muslims can be reinterpreted. For example, as I explained in 1983, one group, the Republican Brothers of the Sudan, "distinguished between those passages of the Qur'an that Muhammad received before he became a political leader (the Meccan verses) and those that followed his ascent to power (the Medinan verses). In this group's view, the former defined the eternally valid principles of Islam whereas the latter were intended only for Muhammad's own instruction and therefore do not serve as a model for subsequent Muslim life. As nearly all the Qur'an's precepts are contained in the Medinan verses, this reasoning virtually eliminates the Qur'an as a source of commands." Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: While I agree that religious texts are not blueprints for building societies, they are the fountainheads of values and principles and not structures and processes. Before we start doctoring texts, we must understand what we are talking about. The Qur'an, for Muslims, is the revealed word of God. If we believe that the entire Qur'an is a revelation, one cannot follow it piecemeal. Islam is a profound form of worship through submission of the human self to the will of God. Submission by definition is not selective or conditional. Islam brought equality and dignity to all, including women, and that is undisputed. The problems are the current postcolonial hodgepodge of Muslim practices guided by widespread ignorance of Islamic principles in an environment of insecurity. The solution is Islamic educational reform, not deformation of Islam. Nevertheless, American Muslims have shown that Islam and modernity, Islam and democracy, Islam and pluralism are completely compatible. Yes, Muslims need to reform their understanding of their faith, but out of fidelity to Islam and not because Islam itself is anachronistic. Status of Women In the West, the image of the veiled Muslim woman has come to symbolize Islam's oppression of women. Do women hold an inferior position in Muslim society? Can equality for women only be fostered in societies governed by secular laws as opposed to Islamic law? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: In some Muslim societies, women's liberation is associated with sexual promiscuity and hence rejected. These societies have used the veil, specially the chador in Iran after the revolution, to reject modernity, assert Islam, and defend the traditional notion of family and family values. In the process, Muslim women have been deprived of the opportunities that women enjoy in most places. Islam came as a liberating force and women in early Islam had more rights than ever before. But evolving patriarchic structures have eroded the influence of Islam, and today women in many Muslim societies suffer as a result. But we must be careful not to generalize; Muslim women are indeed playing a prominent role in Pakistan, in the West, in Iran and Turkey, and in South and East Asia. Women continue to fight glass ceilings even in secular societies, and in that sense, the struggle for women's emancipation is a universal project. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Whether or not women's liberation is desirable; whether or not Islam liberated women in 17th-century Arabia; the symbolic role of the chador in Iran -- however interesting these topics, they are unrelated to the question at hand, which is whether or not women hold an inferior position vis-à-vis men in Muslim society. Professor Khan would seem to lard his answer with such irrelevancies as a tactic to avoid having to acknowledge what is only too plain to see, namely that women do hold an inferior position in Muslim society. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: Of course, women hold an inferior position in Muslim society, as indicated by their lesser legal status, the power of males to make key decisions in their lives (whom to marry, permission to travel, etc.), their humiliating wearing of face and body covers, and much else. Two reflections: as with the democracy and individual rights questions, this can change. And there is a fascinating sort of Stockholm syndrome at work here, whereby Islamist women against all evidence insist that their religion empowers them more than their western counterparts. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Yes, women in Muslim societies are suffering from the patriarchic structures of traditional cultures. But it might be erroneous to blame Islam for this sorry state. Patriarchy is a universal phenomenon; millions of Hindu women in India live under similar conditions as Muslim women do. Until a few years ago, women in the West too were living under similar conditions. The present backward state of Muslim women is commensurate with the general underdevelopment of Muslim societies. Where Muslims live in a developed environment -- Malaysia, India, Europe, and America -- Muslim women do much better than their sisters in the Muslim heartland. Democracy in the Muslim world will ensure that along with political tyrants, theological tyrants too will not have the power to impose their narrow views on Muslim men and women. From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/1167

Muslim's Mentality by Columist ETYEN MAHCUPYAN www.zaman.com There are several political reactions to the hegemonic dissemination of Western culture and norms to the entire world as a result of globalization. These reactions naturally are limited to mental capacity, intellectual horizon and depth of the reactors. But at the same time, they need an ideological background to feed the mental worlds of these people. Hence, while we witness the genesis of an “anti-global” stance failing to detach itself from the classical left line in the West, politicized movements reducing Islam to an ideological envisagement are seen in the East. However, there is a significant nuance between these two forms of reactions from the point of view of identity: As leftism is a political identity based on how others perceive you, being a Muslim is a cultural identity functionalizing as a form of identifying and introducing the self. In other words, leftism requires our internalization as “leftists” by others; however, the state of being a Muslim does not need the approval of a third person as is valid in all religions. That’s why when differences arise among Muslims, none of the groups can be excluded from Islam although some of them claim they are the only “genuine Muslims.” The only thing that can be said is that differing understandings of being a Muslim exist. Hence, in order to grasp the nature of a religious identity at any time in history requires a meticulous analysis of the mental diversity between people who adopt this identity through their own free will. Today, we can see forms of democratic and fascist-like conservatism side by side in the Christian world and still accept both as “Christian.” Similarly, we need to absorb the fact that Muslims as well perceive their own religion through differing mentalities and that’s why they produce differing approaches and policies. But this seems difficult for some Muslims…As a matter of fact, even Kerim Balci, who says, “not every act by every Muslim is necessarily Islamic,” interprets the issue as follows: “I am not saying that terrorists cannot spring up from amongst Muslims. Instead, all I am saying is, if such people emerge, they become non-Muslims.” This surprising slackening needs to be focused upon. That is to say, you will determine what being a genuine Muslim means based on your own interpretation and assessment and later haphazardly exclude others from the religion because of their ideas and acts. All right then. But what if another Muslim claims he/she has the same right? At this point, a second slackening like, “The Koran tells us what being a genuine Muslim means,” also does not sound like a saver. Because if what the Holy Text says had been crystal clear for human beings, there would not have been no debates or sectarian divisions in any religion. In short, as long as the Holy Texts have to be grasped and realized by human beings, they will always require a subjective interpretation and that’s why no one’s interpretation will be ontologically dominant over that of another person. This means Muslims who commit violent acts do not become non-Muslims. They are also Muslims but have authoritarian mentalities. They perceive life as a conflict area, think that the end justifies the means and believe that practicing violence means seeking remedy, even purifying the self. I don’t know whether it is possible to say that Balci is far from this approach. He did not only manipulate my quotation but also metaphorically described Zaman as the famous Halil [faithful friend of Allah] Ibrahim’s [Prophet Abraham] bosom flowing with milk and honey, and me as a single hair dropped on this table. Moreover, his appendix in this newspaper did not mean, “Come and be whatever you like here.” That is to say, he meant I should go if I don’t adjust to their codes. If you really have a world of meaning with an authoritarian mentality, you will have difficulties in absorbing diversities. And excluding the “other” is always easy. But what will you do with those undergoing a metamorphosis while carrying your identity? October 28, 2005

Which West? Which Islam? by columnist SAHIN ALPAY http://www.zaman.com The “Clash of Civilizations” theory with the clash between the West and Islam at the center, which was first put forward by Bernard Lewis and later publicized by Samuel Huntington, is a theory which is misleading, which distorts reality and which at the same time is quite dangerous. In order to see this, it suffices to ask the following questions: Which West, which Islam? What is meant by the West? Does it mean the West that gave birth to nationalism, racism, fascism, militarism, colonialism, imperialism or the West that is the cradle of liberalism, human rights, the rule of law, democracy, multiculturalism that envisages respect for different views, faiths and lifestyles? What is meant by the West? The US or the EU? What is meant by the US? Does it mean “Red America” or “Blue America”, two Americas wide apart? Does it mean Clinton’s liberalism or Bush’s militarism? What is meant by the EU? “Old Europe” or “New Europe”? Monoculturalist Europe, EU as a “Christian club” or the multiculturalist EU that is built on universal values? Does the West mean the one that supports Israel’s domination of Palestinians, Arab dictators, invasion of Iraq or the one that stands for settlement of international conflicts through law, fairness, dialogue and peaceful means? What is meant by Islam? Is it Sunni or Shiite Islam? Is it the Islam of ulema, religious scholars or of Sufi mystics? Is it the Shiite tradition or the Khomeini interpretation? Is it Islam as a spiritual -moral creed or political Islam? Is it the fundamentalists who oppose modernism or modernists who reinterpret Islam according to the requirements of the contemporary world? Is it the Islam of the Wahhabis and Osama bin Laden or the Islam of Fethullah Gulen and Abdulkarim Soroush? Do we refer to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Turkey when we use the word “Islam”? The truth is that there are many different religions and cultures in the world, but there is just one modern civilization to which they all contribute; and modern civilization is nothing but the principles that stand for respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, respect for diversity of opinion, beliefs and lifestyles and settlement of conflicts not through force but through law, fairness and dialogue. The conflict between modern civilization and forces that resist it continues today in almost all regions, cultures and countries of the world. Bush militarism in the US challanges both modern civilization and the liberal and pluralist traditions of America. Those who want to build the EU as a “Christian club” challenge the EU as a project for permanent peace and democracy in Europe which started two disastrous world wars. (Do not the recent riots in France witness to this?) The main struggle in the Muslim world is between those who want to adopt modern civilization and those who resist it. The basic cleavage in Muslim-majority Turkey is certainly not between those who defend secularism and those who want to establish a religious state. It is between those who want to consolidate a liberal and pluralist democracy and the style of settling conflicts through law, fairness, dialogue and peaceful means on the one side, and those who oppose it on the other. To explain the conflict between Bush’s militarism and al-Qaeda’s terrorism as “a clash of civilizations” or “a clash between the West and Islam” is turning reality upside down. What is common to both Bush’s militarism and bin Laden’s terrorism is that both are enemies of civilization; one is equally dangerous as the other, and the fight against one of them cannot be won without fighting the other. These were my concluding words of the statement I made at the international conference on “Dialogue among cultures and religions” that was organized by Fundacion Atman in Madrid on October 28. The founder of peace studies, Professor Johan Galtung said the following: “There is really no difference between bin Laden and Bush in essence, but the former may be more intelligent than the latter.” November 8, 2005

dear repliers, forget Islam, let's turn liberal politics.What we all need personally? * Good Health. * A Family bond. * A good job and good payment. * An nice suburban home and a car. * Good envoriment. *A welfare society at large.OK?

when we tune to the revelations of God, old tesnament, bible and quran, god speaks only.Not the osama bin laden, cromwell, pope or saddam hussein, not political or millitary leaders all around the world.The revelations are the non-stop channel of the god.The creator of the sacred and intelligent design we call life.we must listen him, not others.

Dear repliers, Islam and muslims can be secular, democratic, liberal, modern, tolerant, capitalist and rich and cause less trouble, if they have the chance.Islam is not the future of humanity.It is a faith like others.People must belive something.I said from the begining, people could be different if they hold the same faith.Turks different from arabs, some arabs different from other arabs, iranians, bosnians , caucisasians, hindus ethnically and lingusticly .Turks treat women fairly.There is no state coercion on practice of religion.You can swim nude in the beaches.Turkish cinema has long erotic tradition from 70's as Germany.There is no scientific gap between west.We have scholars on a vide range of topics.We have ivy league kind universities etc etc.

dear repliers, Islam doesn't belong middle east and middle esasterns.It belongs humanity. what is bad and poor belongs islam and east, what is good and reach belongs christians and west.Stop this.Make comments about future of humanity, not global wishy-washy politics.If US and west offers something good to humanity, personally I will follow them, not the political pscyhobable and paranoia.

Islam is not arabic life style.My country, Turkey mostly not arabic.We use latin alphabet.Turkish is rich and old.Women are more free than in the US.As a teacher I can say, we muslim Turks are not suffering from systematic racism and hate, ghetto dwelling, high income gaps.We have the best of human stock in the world, young, strong, healthy and vibrant.Our country is not a desert.We live four seasons and have the best resorts of winter and summer.We don't like capitalism.We have our own social and welfare structure.We have a glorius past and history.Our fore fathers were mighty warriors from caucasia, central asia and iran.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------