Ekopolitik Panel: Muslims in Modern World
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: The Muslim world has experienced several ‘breaking points’ or momentous events in its history. Like the breakdown the Omayyads experienced. By this, I mean customs and manners of the Byzantium Palace, as well as the traditions of the Abbasids and Sasani emperors, have influenced Islamic civilization… With the conquest of Istanbul by Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Byzantine traditions were introduced to Islamic Civilization, Indian-Mogol state traditions were also introduced to the Muslim World with Selcuk Beg’s invasion of Iran from the South of Anatolia, then after the Ottoman political reforms made in 1839 the state began to be influenced by French political and cultural traditions as well, culminating in the World War I breakdown of Safevi, Babur and Ottoman Empires and the birth of the nation states…
Nowadays we are facing a big transformation called the “Arab Spring,” but we cannot properly recognize this transformation. To understand this transformation, first we should understand the fundamentals of Western philosophy and civilization, which are the base and “reference” of these Arab transformations. This morning I was at a conference. All the concepts there used were Western. The understanding of how think-tanks should cooperate was Western. All the suggestions made were Western. It is also like this in Arab world. That’s why I think we can start with modernity, then modernization of the Islamic world, modern Islamism, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and the Arab Spring.
Abdurrahman Arslan: Different societies can and have influenced each other in historical periods. Nobody can deny this. However, the modern era we have been through is not a determined age but an age that is being determined. Maybe it is possible to explain it with focus’ military power, which determines us. However it is possible also to explain it with information power. Maybe we should think about both of them. However we should notice that with modernity, we face an unexperienced phenomenon in the history of humankind. Although it is western-centered or it is born and developed in the matrix of the west, it is first in the history when we think about its results. Especially after the breakdown of Berlin Wall we have faced this scene: the world became one; whenever we take our eyes from ideological poles we see that the world, although it has experienced ideological poles, has become a ‘one’ world with lifestyle, knowledge, technology and social formalization. It is of course tried to be explained with globalization concept as you know and it was not so wrong. However we can find our if globalization is time-space restriction or an issue we have already experienced in history. According to me this issue has physical and unphysical, in other words essential, principal qualitative and quantitative aspects. It is essential. Also for the first time the world turned out to be a world, which is shaped by the same knowledge, same logic, same mentality. In a sense, the world entered a set of conditions that have overcome opinions, ideologies and religions. For example, Taoists are beginning to think about Muslims and their problems with the same logic. Or a house where a Taoist was born and grew up and a house where a Muslim was born and grew up can be architecturally identical. Streets were shaped according to the same urban planning. In other words it is a situation, in which not only they way they think but also the way they solve problems are shaped according to same mentality. I think that it is somewhat qualitative dimension. For the first time earth is conquered with one civilization’s domination. There is the time-space restriction of globalization. Is it something like that? No, these definitions cannot explain us, in other words people like us, who do not live in “the western” parts of the Earth, cannot accept these definitions. Anthony Giddens can say something like that, but we do not accept it. According it is a constant exposure to this mentality, which produces a hegemony of knowledge. In other words receiving by this mentality, because in this situation there is hegemony of knowledge. In this situation it is impossible to talk about a cultural commerce. Here we are talking about a hegemonic structure. Especially this knowledge’s feature needs to be analyzed by other cultures, because its particular understanding of humanity, nature, and God cannot be accepted by other cultures. These definitions cannot even be perceived by Christian cultural tradition. However the world has got its meaning according to these definitions and got its contemporary shape. Muslims encounter with the idea on which was built this mentality for the second time in the history, in my opinion. When we look at the principal ideology or philosophy, we see that modern institutions has got their sparkle, inspiration from the ancient Greek philosophers. As you know, they use Platonic and Aristolean ideas as a weapon of desire against scholastic ideology . Then according to this context, patterns, and concepts the world is redefined. Muslims encountered this ideology for the first time between 7th and 11-12th centuries.. We see that Muslim intellectual world has divided into two parts. On the one side were Mutakallimun (Theologians), sufis and on the other side were philosophers, neo-platonists. However, the most interesting aspect of this encounter was that discussion/debate/dialogue came out and developed as an intellectual activity and found its dynamism there. In a process like this Muslims evaluated this ideology in their daily lives, in the cities where they lived, in a physical world, which was shaped by Islamic notions. (or vice versa?) They may have considered it, supported it, or rejected it . As I said before, it happened in an intellectual world, but one that was shaped by muslims. But contemporary encounters, ranging from the 17th century until the present, are no longer simply intellectual. The type of ideology we encounter, no matter how you name it, also has shaped the physical world according to its mentality. In the houses shaped by this ideology, we are trying to make sense of the property according to its property relations. We live in cities, which are shaped according to its urban plans. That’s why when we are trying to object to these dominant norms, we live in a physical world which confirms them. When the physical world fits to this ideology it becomes harder to object, this is why we are in a more difficult position than in the 17th century.
I think that the fundamental elements of modern ideologies, like their understanding of God, definition of what a human is, and understanding of reason, do not fit with Islam. These are crucial parts of an ideology and I don’t think they can fit with Islam. That’s why we Muslims should reanalyze politics, knowledge and culture, which have all gotten their essence from the modern ideology. I want this personally for two reasons: firstly Muslims should do this to build up their future; secondly they need to do this if they want to offer something to humanity. Because, I think that solutions for contemporary problems like environmental problems can come from Muslims and Islam. In history of humanity there are drift points like this. I draw a parallel between this situation and the pod of a silkworm. As you know, a silk worm makes its pod, sometimes it stays inside and dies or sometimes it goes out by tearing down the pod. When a silk worm tries to get out of his pod, the pod is put into a water, to stop the worm and protect the silk from damage.
Like that, sometimes a human makes its pod and stays inside. Then comes a prophet, take out the human from his pod and puts him on a way, it’s called sırat-ı mustakim in Islam, which means “from now on you are responsible.” The Prophet does not control, he just shows the way. At least it is how we understand Islam. I am not saying it to criticize but in the church there is a type of control. I think modern civilization made us stay in our pods. I mean we followed them for the solutions of humanity’s problems, in a several fields from medicine to industry. At this point it showed us that we have a problem with our relation to environment. It means this civilization or ideology could not give us a healthy relationship with nature, could not define what a “human” is properly, and could not interpret the world correctly (according to him). We should rethink about this problem. For western ideology, the most important product is the era of reason. *switch* They also accept it. However, I think that the West cannot deal with this problem because they always try to solve reason with reason. Only a knowledge which is not a product of reason can provide it a rescue. We can say that, this knowledge is vahy (word of Allah.)
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: According to your speech, Muslim World has experienced two crucial encounters. At the first encounter, our potential was sufficient. Because the physical background of this intellectual encounter was shaped according to Islamic norms. However the second encounter’s background was not shaped according to Islamic norms because of the transformation of daily life. That’s why our situation now is much harder. The reason of this transformation is the change of understanding of god, nature and human which does not fit to our traditional understandings. However the civilization, which shapes the understanding of god, nature and human has also problems inside and they cannot solve these by themselves. Like you have said in your pod example, a solution from outside is needed and this solution should be vahy-centered, on the way we call “sırat-ı mustakim”. This hard work is taken over by Islamism movement. According to one of experts, Mumtazer Türkone, this Islamism movement has started with Muhammed Abduh and Celal Afgani. We are trying face it in last 150 years. From this point of view I want to ask about this confrontation and maybe we can also consider the movement from Welfare and Justice and Development Parties, lastly Islaimst organizations in Arab world. At the beginning we can start with considering the Islamist movement’s role in this great account.
Abdurrahman Arslan: As Muslims, we don’t have to use “the Islamist concept.” This issue is a little bit complicated. When we say : “we are Muslims,” people are not aware of the distinction of life between profane and sacred. However, Islamists use this word, because they are aware of this distinction and they want to declare their rejection of it. I define Islamism like that: Islamism is a reaction of Muslim to modernity or his/her idea and attitude to it. When we think like this, I cannot imagine a Muslim who is not also a Islamist. This reaction is not special only to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Shintoists have also new comments on modernity and they also have resisted against it. Their inspiring new ideas or critics did not reach to countries like us. For example personally I think that Gandhi’s intelligence on this issue have tried to be covered up. For the reason that Gandhi had the sharpest reactions on modernity, his ideas on Western civilization are covered or forgetten; thus only the ideas of his leadership are brought to the fore. Reactions to the western ideology are not coming only from Muslims. By the way I want to add that, the tension we experience is not a tension between Muslim and Christian Worlds. The tension we experience is a tension between Islam and modernity. Christians also experience this tension. The Pope also expresses it at different times, he blames the West of being nihilist, he objects abortion and cloning, etc. Christians also have this conflict with modernity. I think that in the future Muslims can move with Catholics together on common points. If the future of humanity is under danger, firstly religions have the right to say something against it, because before modernity religions were the first to voice serious aspects about humanity. Christianity and Judaism also have this right.
Islamists used an analogy to draw a parallel between the West and themselves. We can give an example from the word “civilization”. This word was used in around 1775 in the West. Islamists say we also have this word and it was produced from the word “Medina” and was started to use in around 1838. Koran has it, that’s why we and the westerns also have it. They say “we also have science”. However there is no similarity between “ilm”, how it is mentioned in the Koran, and the science of the West, paradigmatically, essentially and according to production and purpose of the science. In the democracy issue, Islamists say “we have shura”. I mean by these examples that Islamists are trying to find a similarity between the concepts of the West and Islam, so they transfer these concepts to their own lives. Islamism was born with this weakness. I think because of this weakness they experience a serious inconveniency. This leads to an apery, when you miss the essence of issues. For example, what is “good” for life is redefined according to modernity, not according to essence of Islam. According to it new standards are put for the establishment of daily life. After a while Muslims turn into a kind of people, who are trying to change their class statues. That’s way this aspect of Islamism is one of its great weaknesses and they could not recover this weakness until today. If the problem this weakness had lead to can be solved or not, we can think about it in another context. However we should add something here: when we encountered with modernity there were two type of modernization. One of them, I call, “Mahmud ІІ” style and the other is “Abdulhamid ІІ” style. For a while I have expressed them as “Mahmudism” and “Abdlhamidism”. What is the difference between them? Mahmud ІІ’s modernisation’s determining elements tried to realize it with physical and external aspects. For example he changed the clothing in the palace. He gave importance to external motives and hoped modernity could begin from that point and go forward. Of course these kinds of changes face several reactions, because the society does not want to seem similar to others. This change faced a big resistance. We saw an example like that only in Mad Pedro’s method. He wanted to Russians cut their beards to seem similar to Western people, as a starting point of modernization. On the other side Abdülhamidism, does not care about semblance or “looking modern”, but the essence of being modern. From this point of view he opened schools, which shaped the Republican side of Turkey, like Galatasaray or Kabatas. In case of society’s reaction, philosophy is educated in madrasahs or universities in the name of physics. Not the clothing habits of the society, or their usages were the target; but rather their mentality and intelligence tried to be changed.
When we look at these three types of modernization personally I see that: The modernization process’s mentality which started with Mahmud ІІ, has been protected by Party of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki) and the Turkish Republic, and came until today. On the other hand, modernization process, which has started with Abdulhamid ІІ protected its line from Free Party (serbest fırka), Democrat Party, ANAP and Justice and Development Party. One of them is statist, strict about liberation of the society, the other one is more liberal, more tolerated about liberation of the society, and more tolerant about the clothing habits of the society. We can find a similar example in Soviet Russia. Their modernization process has started with Pedro and Stalin followed the same way, not Lenin, and this kept going until today. Stalin does not deny cultural heritage, but he is also more oppressive.
The second modernization style of Turkey is similar to Japanese modernization process. Maybe this is the reason of why Islamists in Turkey approve it this much. They say: “The Japanese were modernized without changing their traditions.” When we look at only the surface, yes their traditions did not change, but their essence was cleaned out. I think there is only one difference between these two modernization styles: one of them wants to leave religion behind, the other wants to keep going with religion. However, I think that this process is determined by modernization itself. The second style does not think about or care what can happen to religion on its way. We are at the beginning of this questioning experience.
There are several critics on this issue. One of them is “because of Islam, we are left behind.” I do not accept this critic. Who has left the Taoists behind? Who has left the Buddhists behind? Who has left the Shintoists behind? I give these examples, because these societies’ religions have names. What about the Africans, why did not they become like the West, why didn’t they produce the modern? Also Aztecs, Incas did not produce something modern. That’s why I think that the critic about religion should not be taken seriously. Taking this critic seriously prevents us to see the essence of modernity. We see the beginning of modernity especially in north of Europe and especially in Protestantism not Catholicism. I do not want to make a Weberian explanation, but this is the truth.
I want also give an example out of our context. They say,”With the invention of the printing press,the Muslim World lagged behind.” We should not take this theory seriously. This does not explain the reason of backwardness, because in China it was used before modernization. We should ask here who owns the knowledge. In these times the priory had owned the knowledge; it needed the press to distribute its knowledge from Alexandria to England, a very huge area. In Islamic world nobody had owned the knowledge. Today it is crucial, because the nation state owns the knowledge and it keeps this process going with help of its universities. We should take of this.
We should also take of the modernization process of the Far East. They modernized more successfully than in the West, the “homeland of modernity.” Why did they imitate modernity so flawlessly? I think it is because of their religion. I think it is because of the different perceptions about “the other” in their religions and Islam. Islam is a tewhid-centered (oneness-centered) religion, it puts a distance with the other and stresses the difference. Far eastern religions on the other include involvement of the other and coverage of difference. Because of this we see in far eastern Taoist, Shintoist traditions that they do not externalize the other. They believe that at the end of this world there will be no difference, they think it will be harmless. I think because of this aspect of their religion Islam could find a way to spread in Far East.
By imitating the West so perfectly, they try to overcome the other and making this as a fulfillment of a religious practice. That’s why they are so successful on this. However the West is not afraid of it, because it is an imitation, has no creation aspect. This is not an objection culture and that’s why it is not threatening. They can be economically powerful, but unless the West loses its creation ability, they are not a threat against the West.
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: During this second encounter there emerged several main movements: Islamism, Ottomanism, Westernism and Nationalism. You have said that during the emergence of Islamism there was a tendency of finding many western references. You have also mentioned the reactions of different societies and historical experiences in different parts of the world. When we come from this perspective of Islamists to their reaction in Turkey, after the establishment of Turkish Republic we see several ideas on the opposition side. One of these is Islamism. It appears in different fractions. The followers of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi was emerged as a reaction. There were also religious sects (tarikats) that were common in Anatolia. There is also example of Süleyman Hilmi Tunahan. Until the 1950s-60s there were the two type of modernizations you have mentioned. One of them excluded religion; the other one took religion with it. At the end, you have said that Islamism is religion-centered, but that its dynamism comes from modernization.
After the 1960s,several new Islamic opposition movements appeared. It began to interact with and contact different parts of the Muslim World. The “Muslim Brotherhood”, which was established by a teacher Hasan El Benna, started to affect Turkey. Some movements in Saudi Arabia and also some Islamic movements in 1970s-1980s in Iran also affected Turkey. In that process at the beginning of 1970s Milli Nizam and Selamet Party was established. Before its establishment Islamism has started to grow in the shadow of Democrat Party. Milli Nizam Party faded in with Milli Intizam Party. Then comes the “akıncılar” and it keeps going until Welfare Party. Today’s Justice and Development Party was established by staffs who had been affected by different parts of the Muslim World, who also had a connection with the followers of Said Nursi and followers of Süleyman Hilmi Tunahan. However like the point you have mentioned, these people usually imitate the West. According to me, as a part of Islamism tradition, Justice and Development party has a central role in the big transformation, the ‘Arab Spring.’ How healthy is the attitude of Justice and Development Party, which has a Islamist background and Islamist experience, to the movements in Arab world?
Abdurrahman Arslan: As you have said, this is the base of Islamism: using the science of the West and leaving the rest. The reason of losing in battle field was that: technique and technology. However after a while we have seen that, it is not so easy. We experienced that when we use only the technology, it also shapes us, make us similar to them. It shaped our environment. For example Kenneth Galbraith, Kennedy’s advisor on economics, had wrote in his book that, not ideologies but technique and technology shape the society. Like the other societies on earth, Islamists also thought that they could get an edge over the West by taking technology; it could shape its environment or at least protect itself against the West. All societies did this not to become westernized, but to protect the essence of their existence and to go back their religion. So they became westernized, but there was no way back. It is so tragic. This process leads us today to see the West as our future. This is called modernization.
It seems normal according to a developmentalist historical perspective, but it is also tragic. Islamism did not analyze very well the institutions it offered, that’s why it was mistaken. For example, it did not analyze the nation state well enough and thought it was possible to establish an ummahism under the nation state. However they did consider a nation state’s cultural or hegemonic world. I have made several readings in 4-5 years about the state perception of Islamism. I have come to a conclusion that Islamism’s, I mean the “State of Islam’s” discourse is not something different from nation state. Islamism wants to reproduce the nation-state’s concepts according to Islamic concepts. When we consider the quotations of Ali Abdul Rezzak , “There is no state”, and Reshid Rıza’s “There is state in Islam”, we understand that both of them surmised these by considering the modern state system. This is a tragedy for both sides. Under this reality, I think that although there were different movements I see all of them in the Islamist context, as a search for a new method or as results of a different method, not as a variation from the main line of Islamism. Said-I Nursi’s efforts to establish an intellectual class or Suleyman Tunahan’s courses for Koran education should be understood under the Islamism topic. This is the same for founder of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
However, superiority is not about technique, technology, science or knowledge anymore. The West dominates the world with these technologies, but with globalization a new process has begun. I call this “beat of the platonic mind.” It is transformation of the essence, which will make technique and technology meaningless in future. That is the main point of this debate about the purpose and nature of knowledge, and this transformation should produce a new type of knowledge which can bring more dynamic people together.
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: In the traditional societies, although political authority was centered civil area was sophisticated, it wasn’t under the state’s domination. Civil society was multifarious, multicultural. However, this aspect had no effect on the political arena. In modern times it is the opposite. In modern times, political arena is multifarious and multicultural, the civil arena is getting monotonous. Like you have mentioned in your speech all the daily habits of a Taoist, a Christian, a Judaist or a Muslim is getting similar from India to United States. However this monotony opens a way of multiculturalism in the political arena. By this way Islamism…
Abdurrahman Arslan: Excuse me, may I add something here?
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: Sure.
Abdurrahman Arslan: Your speech has remembered me that modernization is a centralization process. I think because of it Buckingham Palace didn’t like modernization. However, the Ottoman Palace, Dolmabahce liked it very much. Because of the reason that with telephone system, land register law etc. the state’s decentralist structure came to the center of the state. That’s why Buckingham Palace found a shelter under conservatism when it lost its power with modernization; on the other hand modernization was wanted by Ottoman bureaucracy because it actually strengthened their power through centralization. Centralization lead to for example Islamic law was modified according to western law. Society’s main problem here is that they encounter more with “state” rather than Allah or they start to call name of the state rather than Allah’s name. For example, I see that Muslim girls want state intervention for the violence issues against women. However in Islam these kind of problems should be solved by relatives rather than state. State intervention is limited to its minimum levels according to Islam. A Muslim is responsible even from the name he/she gives to his/her child or the child’s education to Allah, not to the state. The west is in a dilemma between saying “ we should constrict state’s rights” and saying “state is responsible for everything”. I cannot agree with it and I do not like that Muslims keep these statements saying while following the West.
Gizem Şenyurt: Is the tension between the West and the Muslims only ideological, cultural or political? What is the role of economic structure, which is now widespread on earth?
Abrdurrahman Aslan: It is very widely spoken about capitalism, especially by leftists. Of course capitalism and economic relations are important; capitalism is an element of modern project. One of the reasons for the spread of modernization is capitalism combined with science and technology. Can you ask the question again?
Gizem Şenyurt: What is the role of economic structure in the new construction process you have mentioned?
Abdurrahman Arslan: Capitalism determines your lifestyle. Your lifestyle is constructed according to consumption. I think main question here is that: How can we control a human’s provoked needs?
I think Sufism can play an important role here. We can object ccapitalism by reducing our consumption. Economy is important but not so much as to be a determinant element. The production process needs this kind of ethics; it can last the way it now goes. Secondly this production process produces poverty. According to Islam, one more bite that you don’t need, is actually the right of a poor in Africa. If we can look at the issue from this point of view we can object to a consumption society. I think Muslim’s relationship with things is transformed, it is no more an Islamic relationship but rather a capitalist relationship. Muslim is no more bailee of a product, but its owner. Marx can defend propertylessnees, because the west has a this kind of period in its history. However in Islamic history this kind of thinking does not exist.
(?): I want to add something. We need to understand concept of globalization very carefully. It became a concept not 50 years before, but is becoming a concept today. We should pay attention to changes it brings, the changes on countries structures. If Islam is a protest against capitalism, it needs to give better answers without abstract concepts. Within this framework how can Justice and Development Party and Turkey, after the Arab Spring, make a contribution? We should answer this question this question in a more perceptible way, so the young can also understand it. We know that the and especially Europe is declining demographically. 60% of Europe Population is older than 65. For economic growth young population is needed. On the other hand Europe also has democratic problems. European private sector is now trying to deal with debt problem and also the states have high debt levels. Without young population it is hard to pay these debts. While Europe is declining economically, its value system is also declining. It is the same for American economy. In this declining process previously unsupported economies like China, Latin America, India, Turkey and the Middle East are seen like a new opportunity. To turn this process into a chance, Islam needs to give more sophisticated answers. Without externalizing the knowledge produced by the West and capitalism, without fear of similarity, Islam needs to build a new system on it. However I think intellectual heritage is not sufficient enough for it. If countries like Turkey, do not use the opportunity to dominate on the markets in the Middle East and Asia, they will only remain as markets used by the West. Despite their young population, these countries will not able to sustain a developmental way, because of their continual consumption of western products. For Turkey to assume leadership in this region, Islamic intellectuals should play their roles. A mix of Islam with the humanist side of capitalism is needed to produce a productive, relax, libertarian, competitive vision. We should not miss this chance.
Tarık Çelenk: As you have mentioned in your speech, the modernity concept emerged as a paradigm shift, change in definitions of concepts, enlightenment and science revolutions, but Muslims were not only ones who suffered in this process. Also Christians, Ukrainian Russian villagers, people living in middle Asia or Africa were damaged. Contemporary situation, problems like carbon emission, financial crises cannot be solved in meetings made by Westerners. Instead of the Islamic World, which seemed dormant or asleep for 200 years, Westerners led this discussion, people on the west side of America set forth original ideas. Economic power owned by Justice and Development power does not always turn into or equal intellectual or cultural power.
Abdurrahman Arslan: As the lady has mentioned, it is true that we are in a recession period. For this we can do what John Roberts has said. Should we be a part of this civilization or should we criticize it from within? From this point of view, does the transformation in the Muslim world legitimize modernity and lead to its populations assimilating and accepting it ? In spite of the dictators, the populations have been against modernity. Now that the dictators are leaving, is it a movement to be an alternative against modernity, or is it a kind of a movement accepting modernity? However, we do not see an alternative. Yes, intellectually we cannot find new ideas, but that does not mean that we do not have something to say.
(?): In ancient Greece it was important to find “the ideal” in politics, but with Machiavelli the question turned into “how” instead of “what”. What we can take from the ancient Greeks is important.Your definition’s point of view inhibits interaction. Different cultures and civilizations have contributed to science. However, we do not see a good analysis. I think this approach only offers a critique of modernity, not a solution against modernity. It does not to say too much for us or for the youth.
Abdurrahman Arslan: I have written in one of my articles, you cannot expect a madrasah to produce a rocket. In the West, like in Cambridge or Oxford Universities, it all starts with social sciences, not engineering. A Madrasahs duty is to produce knowledge, which will enable Muslims protect their values in history and a Muslim way in history. Islamists expect madrasahs to produce rockets, but it not the madrasah’s duty. Madrasahs can produce for Muslims daily structures. The modernity issue is a knowledge issue. Like Gazzali and Kant have discussed, we should question the existence of a “pure mind.” Modernity is based on an assumption of a perfect mind, it does not accept that mind, rationality can also be inaccurate. I believe that Islam has a different epistemology and it can build up a world in a different way from modernity. This production of knowledge can be made in madrasahs. Its methodology does not fit with western methodologies.
We should question both the change and the stability. In history, everything does not change like modernity argues. There is also a lastingness besides the change. We should rethink concepts such as development and progression. Is there a stable dimension?
Seyfullah Emrah kekilli: Thank you very much. This has been a very helpful panel.
Ekopolitik Panel: Muslims in Modern World
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: The Muslim world has experienced several ‘breaking points’ or momentous events in its history. Like the breakdown the Omayyads experienced. By this, I mean customs and manners of the Byzantium Palace, as well as the traditions of the Abbasids and Sasani emperors, have influenced Islamic civilization… With the conquest of Istanbul by Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Byzantine traditions were introduced to Islamic Civilization, Indian-Mogol state traditions were also introduced to the Muslim World with Selcuk Beg’s invasion of Iran from the South of Anatolia, then after the Ottoman political reforms made in 1839 the state began to be influenced by French political and cultural traditions as well, culminating in the World War I breakdown of Safevi, Babur and Ottoman Empires and the birth of the nation states…
Nowadays we are facing a big transformation called the “Arab Spring,” but we cannot properly recognize this transformation. To understand this transformation, first we should understand the fundamentals of Western philosophy and civilization, which are the base and “reference” of these Arab transformations. This morning I was at a conference. All the concepts there used were Western. The understanding of how think-tanks should cooperate was Western. All the suggestions made were Western. It is also like this in Arab world. That’s why I think we can start with modernity, then modernization of the Islamic world, modern Islamism, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and the Arab Spring.
Abdurrahman Arslan: Different societies can and have influenced each other in historical periods. Nobody can deny this. However, the modern era we have been through is not a determined age but an age that is being determined. Maybe it is possible to explain it with focus’ military power, which determines us. However it is possible also to explain it with information power. Maybe we should think about both of them. However we should notice that with modernity, we face an unexperienced phenomenon in the history of humankind. Although it is western-centered or it is born and developed in the matrix of the west, it is first in the history when we think about its results. Especially after the breakdown of Berlin Wall we have faced this scene: the world became one; whenever we take our eyes from ideological poles we see that the world, although it has experienced ideological poles, has become a ‘one’ world with lifestyle, knowledge, technology and social formalization. It is of course tried to be explained with globalization concept as you know and it was not so wrong. However we can find our if globalization is time-space restriction or an issue we have already experienced in history. According to me this issue has physical and unphysical, in other words essential, principal qualitative and quantitative aspects. It is essential. Also for the first time the world turned out to be a world, which is shaped by the same knowledge, same logic, same mentality. In a sense, the world entered a set of conditions that have overcome opinions, ideologies and religions. For example, Taoists are beginning to think about Muslims and their problems with the same logic. Or a house where a Taoist was born and grew up and a house where a Muslim was born and grew up can be architecturally identical. Streets were shaped according to the same urban planning. In other words it is a situation, in which not only they way they think but also the way they solve problems are shaped according to same mentality. I think that it is somewhat qualitative dimension. For the first time earth is conquered with one civilization’s domination. There is the time-space restriction of globalization. Is it something like that? No, these definitions cannot explain us, in other words people like us, who do not live in “the western” parts of the Earth, cannot accept these definitions. Anthony Giddens can say something like that, but we do not accept it. According it is a constant exposure to this mentality, which produces a hegemony of knowledge. In other words receiving by this mentality, because in this situation there is hegemony of knowledge. In this situation it is impossible to talk about a cultural commerce. Here we are talking about a hegemonic structure. Especially this knowledge’s feature needs to be analyzed by other cultures, because its particular understanding of humanity, nature, and God cannot be accepted by other cultures. These definitions cannot even be perceived by Christian cultural tradition. However the world has got its meaning according to these definitions and got its contemporary shape. Muslims encounter with the idea on which was built this mentality for the second time in the history, in my opinion. When we look at the principal ideology or philosophy, we see that modern institutions has got their sparkle, inspiration from the ancient Greek philosophers. As you know, they use Platonic and Aristolean ideas as a weapon of desire against scholastic ideology . Then according to this context, patterns, and concepts the world is redefined. Muslims encountered this ideology for the first time between 7th and 11-12th centuries.. We see that Muslim intellectual world has divided into two parts. On the one side were Mutakallimun (Theologians), sufis and on the other side were philosophers, neo-platonists. However, the most interesting aspect of this encounter was that discussion/debate/dialogue came out and developed as an intellectual activity and found its dynamism there. In a process like this Muslims evaluated this ideology in their daily lives, in the cities where they lived, in a physical world, which was shaped by Islamic notions. (or vice versa?) They may have considered it, supported it, or rejected it . As I said before, it happened in an intellectual world, but one that was shaped by muslims. But contemporary encounters, ranging from the 17th century until the present, are no longer simply intellectual. The type of ideology we encounter, no matter how you name it, also has shaped the physical world according to its mentality. In the houses shaped by this ideology, we are trying to make sense of the property according to its property relations. We live in cities, which are shaped according to its urban plans. That’s why when we are trying to object to these dominant norms, we live in a physical world which confirms them. When the physical world fits to this ideology it becomes harder to object, this is why we are in a more difficult position than in the 17th century.
I think that the fundamental elements of modern ideologies, like their understanding of God, definition of what a human is, and understanding of reason, do not fit with Islam. These are crucial parts of an ideology and I don’t think they can fit with Islam. That’s why we Muslims should reanalyze politics, knowledge and culture, which have all gotten their essence from the modern ideology. I want this personally for two reasons: firstly Muslims should do this to build up their future; secondly they need to do this if they want to offer something to humanity. Because, I think that solutions for contemporary problems like environmental problems can come from Muslims and Islam. In history of humanity there are drift points like this. I draw a parallel between this situation and the pod of a silkworm. As you know, a silk worm makes its pod, sometimes it stays inside and dies or sometimes it goes out by tearing down the pod. When a silk worm tries to get out of his pod, the pod is put into a water, to stop the worm and protect the silk from damage.
Like that, sometimes a human makes its pod and stays inside. Then comes a prophet, take out the human from his pod and puts him on a way, it’s called sırat-ı mustakim in Islam, which means “from now on you are responsible.” The Prophet does not control, he just shows the way. At least it is how we understand Islam. I am not saying it to criticize but in the church there is a type of control. I think modern civilization made us stay in our pods. I mean we followed them for the solutions of humanity’s problems, in a several fields from medicine to industry. At this point it showed us that we have a problem with our relation to environment. It means this civilization or ideology could not give us a healthy relationship with nature, could not define what a “human” is properly, and could not interpret the world correctly (according to him). We should rethink about this problem. For western ideology, the most important product is the era of reason. *switch* They also accept it. However, I think that the West cannot deal with this problem because they always try to solve reason with reason. Only a knowledge which is not a product of reason can provide it a rescue. We can say that, this knowledge is vahy (word of Allah.)
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: According to your speech, Muslim World has experienced two crucial encounters. At the first encounter, our potential was sufficient. Because the physical background of this intellectual encounter was shaped according to Islamic norms. However the second encounter’s background was not shaped according to Islamic norms because of the transformation of daily life. That’s why our situation now is much harder. The reason of this transformation is the change of understanding of god, nature and human which does not fit to our traditional understandings. However the civilization, which shapes the understanding of god, nature and human has also problems inside and they cannot solve these by themselves. Like you have said in your pod example, a solution from outside is needed and this solution should be vahy-centered, on the way we call “sırat-ı mustakim”. This hard work is taken over by Islamism movement. According to one of experts, Mumtazer Türkone, this Islamism movement has started with Muhammed Abduh and Celal Afgani. We are trying face it in last 150 years. From this point of view I want to ask about this confrontation and maybe we can also consider the movement from Welfare and Justice and Development Parties, lastly Islaimst organizations in Arab world. At the beginning we can start with considering the Islamist movement’s role in this great account.
Abdurrahman Arslan: As Muslims, we don’t have to use “the Islamist concept.” This issue is a little bit complicated. When we say : “we are Muslims,” people are not aware of the distinction of life between profane and sacred. However, Islamists use this word, because they are aware of this distinction and they want to declare their rejection of it. I define Islamism like that: Islamism is a reaction of Muslim to modernity or his/her idea and attitude to it. When we think like this, I cannot imagine a Muslim who is not also a Islamist. This reaction is not special only to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Shintoists have also new comments on modernity and they also have resisted against it. Their inspiring new ideas or critics did not reach to countries like us. For example personally I think that Gandhi’s intelligence on this issue have tried to be covered up. For the reason that Gandhi had the sharpest reactions on modernity, his ideas on Western civilization are covered or forgetten; thus only the ideas of his leadership are brought to the fore. Reactions to the western ideology are not coming only from Muslims. By the way I want to add that, the tension we experience is not a tension between Muslim and Christian Worlds. The tension we experience is a tension between Islam and modernity. Christians also experience this tension. The Pope also expresses it at different times, he blames the West of being nihilist, he objects abortion and cloning, etc. Christians also have this conflict with modernity. I think that in the future Muslims can move with Catholics together on common points. If the future of humanity is under danger, firstly religions have the right to say something against it, because before modernity religions were the first to voice serious aspects about humanity. Christianity and Judaism also have this right.
Islamists used an analogy to draw a parallel between the West and themselves. We can give an example from the word “civilization”. This word was used in around 1775 in the West. Islamists say we also have this word and it was produced from the word “Medina” and was started to use in around 1838. Koran has it, that’s why we and the westerns also have it. They say “we also have science”. However there is no similarity between “ilm”, how it is mentioned in the Koran, and the science of the West, paradigmatically, essentially and according to production and purpose of the science. In the democracy issue, Islamists say “we have shura”. I mean by these examples that Islamists are trying to find a similarity between the concepts of the West and Islam, so they transfer these concepts to their own lives. Islamism was born with this weakness. I think because of this weakness they experience a serious inconveniency. This leads to an apery, when you miss the essence of issues. For example, what is “good” for life is redefined according to modernity, not according to essence of Islam. According to it new standards are put for the establishment of daily life. After a while Muslims turn into a kind of people, who are trying to change their class statues. That’s way this aspect of Islamism is one of its great weaknesses and they could not recover this weakness until today. If the problem this weakness had lead to can be solved or not, we can think about it in another context. However we should add something here: when we encountered with modernity there were two type of modernization. One of them, I call, “Mahmud ІІ” style and the other is “Abdulhamid ІІ” style. For a while I have expressed them as “Mahmudism” and “Abdlhamidism”. What is the difference between them? Mahmud ІІ’s modernisation’s determining elements tried to realize it with physical and external aspects. For example he changed the clothing in the palace. He gave importance to external motives and hoped modernity could begin from that point and go forward. Of course these kinds of changes face several reactions, because the society does not want to seem similar to others. This change faced a big resistance. We saw an example like that only in Mad Pedro’s method. He wanted to Russians cut their beards to seem similar to Western people, as a starting point of modernization. On the other side Abdülhamidism, does not care about semblance or “looking modern”, but the essence of being modern. From this point of view he opened schools, which shaped the Republican side of Turkey, like Galatasaray or Kabatas. In case of society’s reaction, philosophy is educated in madrasahs or universities in the name of physics. Not the clothing habits of the society, or their usages were the target; but rather their mentality and intelligence tried to be changed.
When we look at these three types of modernization personally I see that: The modernization process’s mentality which started with Mahmud ІІ, has been protected by Party of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki) and the Turkish Republic, and came until today. On the other hand, modernization process, which has started with Abdulhamid ІІ protected its line from Free Party (serbest fırka), Democrat Party, ANAP and Justice and Development Party. One of them is statist, strict about liberation of the society, the other one is more liberal, more tolerated about liberation of the society, and more tolerant about the clothing habits of the society. We can find a similar example in Soviet Russia. Their modernization process has started with Pedro and Stalin followed the same way, not Lenin, and this kept going until today. Stalin does not deny cultural heritage, but he is also more oppressive.
The second modernization style of Turkey is similar to Japanese modernization process. Maybe this is the reason of why Islamists in Turkey approve it this much. They say: “The Japanese were modernized without changing their traditions.” When we look at only the surface, yes their traditions did not change, but their essence was cleaned out. I think there is only one difference between these two modernization styles: one of them wants to leave religion behind, the other wants to keep going with religion. However, I think that this process is determined by modernization itself. The second style does not think about or care what can happen to religion on its way. We are at the beginning of this questioning experience.
There are several critics on this issue. One of them is “because of Islam, we are left behind.” I do not accept this critic. Who has left the Taoists behind? Who has left the Buddhists behind? Who has left the Shintoists behind? I give these examples, because these societies’ religions have names. What about the Africans, why did not they become like the West, why didn’t they produce the modern? Also Aztecs, Incas did not produce something modern. That’s why I think that the critic about religion should not be taken seriously. Taking this critic seriously prevents us to see the essence of modernity. We see the beginning of modernity especially in north of Europe and especially in Protestantism not Catholicism. I do not want to make a Weberian explanation, but this is the truth.
I want also give an example out of our context. They say,”With the invention of the printing press,the Muslim World lagged behind.” We should not take this theory seriously. This does not explain the reason of backwardness, because in China it was used before modernization. We should ask here who owns the knowledge. In these times the priory had owned the knowledge; it needed the press to distribute its knowledge from Alexandria to England, a very huge area. In Islamic world nobody had owned the knowledge. Today it is crucial, because the nation state owns the knowledge and it keeps this process going with help of its universities. We should take of this.
We should also take of the modernization process of the Far East. They modernized more successfully than in the West, the “homeland of modernity.” Why did they imitate modernity so flawlessly? I think it is because of their religion. I think it is because of the different perceptions about “the other” in their religions and Islam. Islam is a tewhid-centered (oneness-centered) religion, it puts a distance with the other and stresses the difference. Far eastern religions on the other include involvement of the other and coverage of difference. Because of this we see in far eastern Taoist, Shintoist traditions that they do not externalize the other. They believe that at the end of this world there will be no difference, they think it will be harmless. I think because of this aspect of their religion Islam could find a way to spread in Far East.
By imitating the West so perfectly, they try to overcome the other and making this as a fulfillment of a religious practice. That’s why they are so successful on this. However the West is not afraid of it, because it is an imitation, has no creation aspect. This is not an objection culture and that’s why it is not threatening. They can be economically powerful, but unless the West loses its creation ability, they are not a threat against the West.
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: During this second encounter there emerged several main movements: Islamism, Ottomanism, Westernism and Nationalism. You have said that during the emergence of Islamism there was a tendency of finding many western references. You have also mentioned the reactions of different societies and historical experiences in different parts of the world. When we come from this perspective of Islamists to their reaction in Turkey, after the establishment of Turkish Republic we see several ideas on the opposition side. One of these is Islamism. It appears in different fractions. The followers of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi was emerged as a reaction. There were also religious sects (tarikats) that were common in Anatolia. There is also example of Süleyman Hilmi Tunahan. Until the 1950s-60s there were the two type of modernizations you have mentioned. One of them excluded religion; the other one took religion with it. At the end, you have said that Islamism is religion-centered, but that its dynamism comes from modernization.
After the 1960s,several new Islamic opposition movements appeared. It began to interact with and contact different parts of the Muslim World. The “Muslim Brotherhood”, which was established by a teacher Hasan El Benna, started to affect Turkey. Some movements in Saudi Arabia and also some Islamic movements in 1970s-1980s in Iran also affected Turkey. In that process at the beginning of 1970s Milli Nizam and Selamet Party was established. Before its establishment Islamism has started to grow in the shadow of Democrat Party. Milli Nizam Party faded in with Milli Intizam Party. Then comes the “akıncılar” and it keeps going until Welfare Party. Today’s Justice and Development Party was established by staffs who had been affected by different parts of the Muslim World, who also had a connection with the followers of Said Nursi and followers of Süleyman Hilmi Tunahan. However like the point you have mentioned, these people usually imitate the West. According to me, as a part of Islamism tradition, Justice and Development party has a central role in the big transformation, the ‘Arab Spring.’ How healthy is the attitude of Justice and Development Party, which has a Islamist background and Islamist experience, to the movements in Arab world?
Abdurrahman Arslan: As you have said, this is the base of Islamism: using the science of the West and leaving the rest. The reason of losing in battle field was that: technique and technology. However after a while we have seen that, it is not so easy. We experienced that when we use only the technology, it also shapes us, make us similar to them. It shaped our environment. For example Kenneth Galbraith, Kennedy’s advisor on economics, had wrote in his book that, not ideologies but technique and technology shape the society. Like the other societies on earth, Islamists also thought that they could get an edge over the West by taking technology; it could shape its environment or at least protect itself against the West. All societies did this not to become westernized, but to protect the essence of their existence and to go back their religion. So they became westernized, but there was no way back. It is so tragic. This process leads us today to see the West as our future. This is called modernization.
It seems normal according to a developmentalist historical perspective, but it is also tragic. Islamism did not analyze very well the institutions it offered, that’s why it was mistaken. For example, it did not analyze the nation state well enough and thought it was possible to establish an ummahism under the nation state. However they did consider a nation state’s cultural or hegemonic world. I have made several readings in 4-5 years about the state perception of Islamism. I have come to a conclusion that Islamism’s, I mean the “State of Islam’s” discourse is not something different from nation state. Islamism wants to reproduce the nation-state’s concepts according to Islamic concepts. When we consider the quotations of Ali Abdul Rezzak , “There is no state”, and Reshid Rıza’s “There is state in Islam”, we understand that both of them surmised these by considering the modern state system. This is a tragedy for both sides. Under this reality, I think that although there were different movements I see all of them in the Islamist context, as a search for a new method or as results of a different method, not as a variation from the main line of Islamism. Said-I Nursi’s efforts to establish an intellectual class or Suleyman Tunahan’s courses for Koran education should be understood under the Islamism topic. This is the same for founder of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
However, superiority is not about technique, technology, science or knowledge anymore. The West dominates the world with these technologies, but with globalization a new process has begun. I call this “beat of the platonic mind.” It is transformation of the essence, which will make technique and technology meaningless in future. That is the main point of this debate about the purpose and nature of knowledge, and this transformation should produce a new type of knowledge which can bring more dynamic people together.
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: In the traditional societies, although political authority was centered civil area was sophisticated, it wasn’t under the state’s domination. Civil society was multifarious, multicultural. However, this aspect had no effect on the political arena. In modern times it is the opposite. In modern times, political arena is multifarious and multicultural, the civil arena is getting monotonous. Like you have mentioned in your speech all the daily habits of a Taoist, a Christian, a Judaist or a Muslim is getting similar from India to United States. However this monotony opens a way of multiculturalism in the political arena. By this way Islamism…
Abdurrahman Arslan: Excuse me, may I add something here?
Seyfullah Emrah Kekilli: Sure.
Abdurrahman Arslan: Your speech has remembered me that modernization is a centralization process. I think because of it Buckingham Palace didn’t like modernization. However, the Ottoman Palace, Dolmabahce liked it very much. Because of the reason that with telephone system, land register law etc. the state’s decentralist structure came to the center of the state. That’s why Buckingham Palace found a shelter under conservatism when it lost its power with modernization; on the other hand modernization was wanted by Ottoman bureaucracy because it actually strengthened their power through centralization. Centralization lead to for example Islamic law was modified according to western law. Society’s main problem here is that they encounter more with “state” rather than Allah or they start to call name of the state rather than Allah’s name. For example, I see that Muslim girls want state intervention for the violence issues against women. However in Islam these kind of problems should be solved by relatives rather than state. State intervention is limited to its minimum levels according to Islam. A Muslim is responsible even from the name he/she gives to his/her child or the child’s education to Allah, not to the state. The west is in a dilemma between saying “ we should constrict state’s rights” and saying “state is responsible for everything”. I cannot agree with it and I do not like that Muslims keep these statements saying while following the West.
Gizem Şenyurt: Is the tension between the West and the Muslims only ideological, cultural or political? What is the role of economic structure, which is now widespread on earth?
Abrdurrahman Aslan: It is very widely spoken about capitalism, especially by leftists. Of course capitalism and economic relations are important; capitalism is an element of modern project. One of the reasons for the spread of modernization is capitalism combined with science and technology. Can you ask the question again?
Gizem Şenyurt: What is the role of economic structure in the new construction process you have mentioned?
Abdurrahman Arslan: Capitalism determines your lifestyle. Your lifestyle is constructed according to consumption. I think main question here is that: How can we control a human’s provoked needs?
I think Sufism can play an important role here. We can object ccapitalism by reducing our consumption. Economy is important but not so much as to be a determinant element. The production process needs this kind of ethics; it can last the way it now goes. Secondly this production process produces poverty. According to Islam, one more bite that you don’t need, is actually the right of a poor in Africa. If we can look at the issue from this point of view we can object to a consumption society. I think Muslim’s relationship with things is transformed, it is no more an Islamic relationship but rather a capitalist relationship. Muslim is no more bailee of a product, but its owner. Marx can defend propertylessnees, because the west has a this kind of period in its history. However in Islamic history this kind of thinking does not exist.
(?): I want to add something. We need to understand concept of globalization very carefully. It became a concept not 50 years before, but is becoming a concept today. We should pay attention to changes it brings, the changes on countries structures. If Islam is a protest against capitalism, it needs to give better answers without abstract concepts. Within this framework how can Justice and Development Party and Turkey, after the Arab Spring, make a contribution? We should answer this question this question in a more perceptible way, so the young can also understand it. We know that the and especially Europe is declining demographically. 60% of Europe Population is older than 65. For economic growth young population is needed. On the other hand Europe also has democratic problems. European private sector is now trying to deal with debt problem and also the states have high debt levels. Without young population it is hard to pay these debts. While Europe is declining economically, its value system is also declining. It is the same for American economy. In this declining process previously unsupported economies like China, Latin America, India, Turkey and the Middle East are seen like a new opportunity. To turn this process into a chance, Islam needs to give more sophisticated answers. Without externalizing the knowledge produced by the West and capitalism, without fear of similarity, Islam needs to build a new system on it. However I think intellectual heritage is not sufficient enough for it. If countries like Turkey, do not use the opportunity to dominate on the markets in the Middle East and Asia, they will only remain as markets used by the West. Despite their young population, these countries will not able to sustain a developmental way, because of their continual consumption of western products. For Turkey to assume leadership in this region, Islamic intellectuals should play their roles. A mix of Islam with the humanist side of capitalism is needed to produce a productive, relax, libertarian, competitive vision. We should not miss this chance.
Tarık Çelenk: As you have mentioned in your speech, the modernity concept emerged as a paradigm shift, change in definitions of concepts, enlightenment and science revolutions, but Muslims were not only ones who suffered in this process. Also Christians, Ukrainian Russian villagers, people living in middle Asia or Africa were damaged. Contemporary situation, problems like carbon emission, financial crises cannot be solved in meetings made by Westerners. Instead of the Islamic World, which seemed dormant or asleep for 200 years, Westerners led this discussion, people on the west side of America set forth original ideas. Economic power owned by Justice and Development power does not always turn into or equal intellectual or cultural power.
Abdurrahman Arslan: As the lady has mentioned, it is true that we are in a recession period. For this we can do what John Roberts has said. Should we be a part of this civilization or should we criticize it from within? From this point of view, does the transformation in the Muslim world legitimize modernity and lead to its populations assimilating and accepting it ? In spite of the dictators, the populations have been against modernity. Now that the dictators are leaving, is it a movement to be an alternative against modernity, or is it a kind of a movement accepting modernity? However, we do not see an alternative. Yes, intellectually we cannot find new ideas, but that does not mean that we do not have something to say.
(?): In ancient Greece it was important to find “the ideal” in politics, but with Machiavelli the question turned into “how” instead of “what”. What we can take from the ancient Greeks is important.Your definition’s point of view inhibits interaction. Different cultures and civilizations have contributed to science. However, we do not see a good analysis. I think this approach only offers a critique of modernity, not a solution against modernity. It does not to say too much for us or for the youth.
Abdurrahman Arslan: I have written in one of my articles, you cannot expect a madrasah to produce a rocket. In the West, like in Cambridge or Oxford Universities, it all starts with social sciences, not engineering. A Madrasahs duty is to produce knowledge, which will enable Muslims protect their values in history and a Muslim way in history. Islamists expect madrasahs to produce rockets, but it not the madrasah’s duty. Madrasahs can produce for Muslims daily structures. The modernity issue is a knowledge issue. Like Gazzali and Kant have discussed, we should question the existence of a “pure mind.” Modernity is based on an assumption of a perfect mind, it does not accept that mind, rationality can also be inaccurate. I believe that Islam has a different epistemology and it can build up a world in a different way from modernity. This production of knowledge can be made in madrasahs. Its methodology does not fit with western methodologies.
We should question both the change and the stability. In history, everything does not change like modernity argues. There is also a lastingness besides the change. We should rethink concepts such as development and progression. Is there a stable dimension?
Seyfullah Emrah kekilli: Thank you very much. This has been a very helpful panel.