The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Erdogan Is /Ourguy/

based-erdogan

I might just turn my blog into the Internet’s number 1 Erdogan fansite.

Seriously, I don’t got what all the fuss is about.

Western politicians love pushing their snouts where they don’t belong – observe the flurry of European and American dignitaries sulking the streets in the runup to Euromaidan (immortalized in the Nuland Cookies meme), or during the 2012 protests against Putin in Moscow.

On those occasions when Russia bars their entry, they go and complain to the media about it.

So the Turks didn’t do nothing wrong.

Good on high energy Erdogan for making a stand. And good on his local fans for chimping out… I mean, campaigning so energetically for Geert Wilders on the streets of Rotterdam. This is so considerate and patriotic of them. /ourguys/!

Obviously I don’t actually care about the Netherlands banning Turkish politicians. If I had to insert a reaction.gif here, it would be the one of Michael Jackson eating popcorn.

Besides, its the sovereign right of the Dutch to decide who come in to politick in their country, and besides, this serves to accelerate the fissure between Turkey and the EU.

Turkey itself has been most cooperative. They have suspended high-level diplomatic relations with the EU. They have called half of North Europe “Nazis” (in the bad sense of the word: Erdogan does like the Nazi political system). They have also said they are reneging on the migrants deal with Europe. The Wall, when?

All of this helps objectively helps Eurosceptic forces, both in the Netherlands itself (which is having a most propitiously timed general election tomorrow) and in Europe generally. Anything bad for the EU is good for Europeans, their cultural and demographic prospects, and frankly for most everyone else on this planet.

It also helps Erdogan paint himself as a victim and increases support for the upcoming Turkish referendum on massively expanding his powers as President. If it passes, Turkey will essentially become a soft dictatorship (as Erdogan himself once said, democracy is like a train; you get off at your destination).

This will further accentuate the rift between the EU, at least so long as its functionaries continue to pay at least lip service to democracy. And eventually, it cannot help but reverberate to some extent on NATO, with which Turkey also has mounting problems in the form of tensions with the US in Syria, and with Greece.

So, my advice to Erdogan: Carry on, my dude! ЖГИ ИСЧО! Russia has your back!

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: European Union, Turkey 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
43 Comments to "Erdogan Is /Ourguy/"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. How real do you think is the presence of Gulenists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    They're definitely a thing, though I doubt Gulen himself is masterminding anything at this stage or during the attempted coup last year.

    I don't buy the false flag theories. In the first hours, Erdogan was genuinely panicked, and the kill squad that came for him only missed him by about 20 minutes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/erdogan-ourguy/#comment-1799585
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Re Gulen, Big Brother needs Emmanuel Goldstein. Orwell definitely had some insights.
    I doubt whether Erdogan has Russia’s back. It is barely 18 months since a Russian plane was shot down, even if this was later conveniently blamed on Emmanuel Goldstein. It is barely three months since the Russian ambassador to Turkey was killed, in a state where tweeting something disparaging about Erdogan can get you arrested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I said Russia has Erdogan's back, not that it is turning its back on Erdogan. That would be a bad idea! :)

    Andrey Karlov seems to have been killed by a lone wolf svidomite (Turkish/Islamist edition).
  3. @Daniel Chieh
    How real do you think is the presence of Gulenists?

    They’re definitely a thing, though I doubt Gulen himself is masterminding anything at this stage or during the attempted coup last year.

    I don’t buy the false flag theories. In the first hours, Erdogan was genuinely panicked, and the kill squad that came for him only missed him by about 20 minutes.

    Read More
  4. @Uebersetzer
    Re Gulen, Big Brother needs Emmanuel Goldstein. Orwell definitely had some insights.
    I doubt whether Erdogan has Russia's back. It is barely 18 months since a Russian plane was shot down, even if this was later conveniently blamed on Emmanuel Goldstein. It is barely three months since the Russian ambassador to Turkey was killed, in a state where tweeting something disparaging about Erdogan can get you arrested.

    I said Russia has Erdogan’s back, not that it is turning its back on Erdogan. That would be a bad idea! :)

    Andrey Karlov seems to have been killed by a lone wolf svidomite (Turkish/Islamist edition).

    Read More
  5. “this serves to accelerate the fissure between Turkey and the EU.”

    I hope so, by now it should be clear to anyone that Turkey isn’t a friend or ally. Unfortunately in my own country at least our spineless politicians still feel the need to pretend there’s some deep Turkish-German friendship worth saving (and of course Merkel basically let herself blackmailed by Erdolf). And of course there’s the problem what to do with Turkey’s fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey GR,

    This is hyperbolic. Sure you may not want a lot of Turks directly in Germany - I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly. Maybe things are a little too close for comfort with Turks in Berlin holding rallies, but Germany's historic relationship and cooperation with Turkey shouldn't simply be thrown away - we have to not be so emotional about these things (that includes Erdogan firing away with the 'N' word at anybody who doesn't agree with him).

    Peace.
    , @Parbes
    "And of course there’s the problem what to do with Turkey’s fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly."

    Just kick them out, plain and simple - and preferably, begin doing that, little by little, BEFORE things start to get "really ugly". It should have been done long ago! And don't worry overmuch about the optics and the unavoidable yowls of protest.
  6. A few comments…

    Erdogan must be a Kubrik fan:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=kubrick+stare&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwici8-6rdbSAhVMzVQKHf67Au4Q_AUIBigB&biw=1344&bih=774

    the upcoming Turkish referendum on massively expanding his powers as President

    Read the details – yes there are expansion of executive powers but also limitations:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017

    Turkey will essentially become a soft dictatorship

    Hey – if it’s being done legally – this is out in the open and being voted on by the public. Could we actually be seeing the first instance of a legal return to a pseudo-monarchy system by the will of the people? Not by a coup and not by an external power installing a puppet. This may be unprecedented.

    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/its-still-not-the-end-of-history-francis-fukuyama/379394/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Theocracy?

    Been there, done that, massive fail.
  7. @German_reader
    "this serves to accelerate the fissure between Turkey and the EU."

    I hope so, by now it should be clear to anyone that Turkey isn't a friend or ally. Unfortunately in my own country at least our spineless politicians still feel the need to pretend there's some deep Turkish-German friendship worth saving (and of course Merkel basically let herself blackmailed by Erdolf). And of course there's the problem what to do with Turkey's fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly.

    Hey GR,

    This is hyperbolic. Sure you may not want a lot of Turks directly in Germany – I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly. Maybe things are a little too close for comfort with Turks in Berlin holding rallies, but Germany’s historic relationship and cooperation with Turkey shouldn’t simply be thrown away – we have to not be so emotional about these things (that includes Erdogan firing away with the ‘N’ word at anybody who doesn’t agree with him).

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    " I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly."

    Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn't something I'm proud of.
    And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage. Turkey has never been a genuine friend (even to the degree "friendship" is possible between states) and I'm sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.
    And it's not like I'm an advocate of ethnic cleansing or the expulsion of all Turks from Germany (not all of whom are Erdogan fans anyway...e.g. he's obviously quite unpopular in the Alevi community). But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.

  8. @Talha
    Hey GR,

    This is hyperbolic. Sure you may not want a lot of Turks directly in Germany - I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly. Maybe things are a little too close for comfort with Turks in Berlin holding rallies, but Germany's historic relationship and cooperation with Turkey shouldn't simply be thrown away - we have to not be so emotional about these things (that includes Erdogan firing away with the 'N' word at anybody who doesn't agree with him).

    Peace.

    ” I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly.”

    Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn’t something I’m proud of.
    And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage. Turkey has never been a genuine friend (even to the degree “friendship” is possible between states) and I’m sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.
    And it’s not like I’m an advocate of ethnic cleansing or the expulsion of all Turks from Germany (not all of whom are Erdogan fans anyway…e.g. he’s obviously quite unpopular in the Alevi community). But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey GR,

    Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn’t something I’m proud of.
     
    Who says that's what I'm talking about?

    And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage.
     
    Don't know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn't benefit from Turkey as well? From what I've read, Germany is one of its biggest export markets. You're talking as if Turkey was some welfare queen - like I said, let's be real about this.

    I’m sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.
     
    I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. Most people on these forums seem to think he didn't go far enough.

    But aside from that, friends advise friends - that what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I mean, I guess it's up to the Germans, but I think they have traditionally had better relations with Turkey and Iran more than most other European countries. I think it's a shame (from both sides) if that was completely tossed.


    But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.
     
    Agreed - that's not how friends act.

    Peace.

  9. This neo-Ottoman-sultan-wannabe psycho should be spat upon and ostracized by anyone with any decency anywhere in the world – especially in Europe. Instead his regime is still the U.S. and EU’s “NATO ally” and “friend and partner” against Russia and Syria. How pathetic and disgusting!

    Read More
  10. @German_reader
    "this serves to accelerate the fissure between Turkey and the EU."

    I hope so, by now it should be clear to anyone that Turkey isn't a friend or ally. Unfortunately in my own country at least our spineless politicians still feel the need to pretend there's some deep Turkish-German friendship worth saving (and of course Merkel basically let herself blackmailed by Erdolf). And of course there's the problem what to do with Turkey's fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly.

    “And of course there’s the problem what to do with Turkey’s fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly.”

    Just kick them out, plain and simple – and preferably, begin doing that, little by little, BEFORE things start to get “really ugly”. It should have been done long ago! And don’t worry overmuch about the optics and the unavoidable yowls of protest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    That's easier said than done, many of those people are citizens of European states. And because of the Nazi past stripping people of citizenship would be especially difficult in Germany (those affected would be seen as the "new Jews").
  11. @German_reader
    " I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly."

    Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn't something I'm proud of.
    And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage. Turkey has never been a genuine friend (even to the degree "friendship" is possible between states) and I'm sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.
    And it's not like I'm an advocate of ethnic cleansing or the expulsion of all Turks from Germany (not all of whom are Erdogan fans anyway...e.g. he's obviously quite unpopular in the Alevi community). But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.

    Hey GR,

    Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn’t something I’m proud of.

    Who says that’s what I’m talking about?

    And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage.

    Don’t know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn’t benefit from Turkey as well? From what I’ve read, Germany is one of its biggest export markets. You’re talking as if Turkey was some welfare queen – like I said, let’s be real about this.

    I’m sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.

    I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. Most people on these forums seem to think he didn’t go far enough.

    But aside from that, friends advise friends – that what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I mean, I guess it’s up to the Germans, but I think they have traditionally had better relations with Turkey and Iran more than most other European countries. I think it’s a shame (from both sides) if that was completely tossed.

    But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.

    Agreed – that’s not how friends act.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "Who says that’s what I’m talking about?"

    The German-Turkish alliance in WW1 is sometimes brought up as evidence for how deep German-Turkish ties are (or at least I think it used to be like that, obviously nowadays not so much given how the Armenian genocide has been given increased attention in recent years). Apart from that rather questionable episode I can't really think of any deep ties between Germany and Turkey before the immigration of Turks to Germany (which started in the early 1960s...but contrary to what is sometimes claimed it really achieved massive proportions only relatively recently; as late as the early 1980s there were only a few hundred thousand Turks in Germany, not about 3 million like there are now). Some German emigres found asylum in Turkey during the Nazi era. But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn't much of a tradition here.

    "Don’t know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn’t benefit from Turkey as well? "

    In our direct dealings with Turkey I don't think Germany benefited on the whole. Turkish immigration to Germany was economically a net loss and has created significant problems; and right from the start Turkey pushed for it to advance its own interests ( there was grave concern even in the early 1960s what Turkish immigration could lead to, American pressure and Turkish demands played a significant role in overcoming those objections). Trade may be a different matter...but hey, you can trade with pretty much everyone, without the constant temper tantrums of Erdogan and his ilk.

    "I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. "

    Ataturk was a brutal man, and he set up a deeply flawed system that throughout its existence has been very intolerant towards national minorities and suppressed the desires of a large part of the population. I can also understand to some degree that from your point of view his stance towards religion is unacceptable (though I doubt whether Turkey was ever truly secular...Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many). Kemalism probably was untenable in the long term. But I can't say I like what's replacing it. It's going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
    Anyway, you're certainly right that one shouldn't burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it. But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us (while being themselves hyper-sensitive to alleged slights to their honour) is really too much...it would be nice if some channels of dialogue could be kept open with other elements of Turkish society, but with Erdogan the time for dialogue is well past.

  12. @Talha
    A few comments...

    Erdogan must be a Kubrik fan:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=kubrick+stare&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwici8-6rdbSAhVMzVQKHf67Au4Q_AUIBigB&biw=1344&bih=774

    the upcoming Turkish referendum on massively expanding his powers as President
     
    Read the details - yes there are expansion of executive powers but also limitations:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017

    Turkey will essentially become a soft dictatorship
     
    Hey - if it's being done legally - this is out in the open and being voted on by the public. Could we actually be seeing the first instance of a legal return to a pseudo-monarchy system by the will of the people? Not by a coup and not by an external power installing a puppet. This may be unprecedented.

    Liberal Democracy = "End of History"? I think not.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/its-still-not-the-end-of-history-francis-fukuyama/379394/

    Peace.

    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Theocracy?

    Been there, done that, massive fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Who says I'm talking about theocracy? The Islamic model was never a theocracy as it appeared in the West.

    The rulers were secular rulers (often very much so - them Seljuks could drink and party - let me tell ya'). The Muslim scholars were independent or involved in the judicial framework which they tried to guide by religion - no doubt. The secular authorities either were supportive or not, and at times overtly hostile and went after the scholars.

    If someone thinks we've been running a theocracy, they can explain why some of our top scholars spent time in government jails* or were tortured or killed by the secular authorities; Ummayads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc. all of them took part in the fun. Imam Ghazali (ra) himself had this opinion about involving oneself with the government:
    "He realized that the high ethical standards of a virtuous religious life are not compatible with being in the service of sultans, viziers, and caliphs. Benefiting from the riches of the military and political elite implies complicity in their corrupt and oppressive rule and will jeopardize one's prospect of redemption in the afterlife."
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/

    Imams Nawawi (ra), Subki (ra), Ahmad Zarruq (ra), Izz ibn Abdas-Salam (ra), etc. - it's like a right of passage - it gets you street cred.

    If Western people want to classify it as theocracy (for which, I find the definition: "'rule of God' - a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god"), that's fine - it doesn't mean much to us since our 'priests' haven't been ruling us and since we've never had a compatible word for theocracy in our tradition. Even when Imam Khomenei actually brought forth the concept of something which I would consider close to a theocracy, he called it Vilayat-e-Faqih (Custodianship of the Jurist) - never the 'Rule of God' - that would be far too presumptuous.

    And I agree, theocracy will fail. Why would anyone (except the juvenile extremists) want Muslim jurists trying to balance the economy or run the navy - the proposition is preposterous.

    Peace.

    *Note: This is not a joke, all four founders of the surviving Sunni schools, plus Imam Jafar Sadiq (ra) suffered at the hands of the governments.
  13. @iffen
    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Theocracy?

    Been there, done that, massive fail.

    Hey iffen,

    Who says I’m talking about theocracy? The Islamic model was never a theocracy as it appeared in the West.

    The rulers were secular rulers (often very much so – them Seljuks could drink and party – let me tell ya’). The Muslim scholars were independent or involved in the judicial framework which they tried to guide by religion – no doubt. The secular authorities either were supportive or not, and at times overtly hostile and went after the scholars.

    If someone thinks we’ve been running a theocracy, they can explain why some of our top scholars spent time in government jails* or were tortured or killed by the secular authorities; Ummayads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc. all of them took part in the fun. Imam Ghazali (ra) himself had this opinion about involving oneself with the government:
    “He realized that the high ethical standards of a virtuous religious life are not compatible with being in the service of sultans, viziers, and caliphs. Benefiting from the riches of the military and political elite implies complicity in their corrupt and oppressive rule and will jeopardize one’s prospect of redemption in the afterlife.”

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/

    Imams Nawawi (ra), Subki (ra), Ahmad Zarruq (ra), Izz ibn Abdas-Salam (ra), etc. – it’s like a right of passage – it gets you street cred.

    If Western people want to classify it as theocracy (for which, I find the definition: “‘rule of God’ – a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god”), that’s fine – it doesn’t mean much to us since our ‘priests’ haven’t been ruling us and since we’ve never had a compatible word for theocracy in our tradition. Even when Imam Khomenei actually brought forth the concept of something which I would consider close to a theocracy, he called it Vilayat-e-Faqih (Custodianship of the Jurist) – never the ‘Rule of God’ – that would be far too presumptuous.

    And I agree, theocracy will fail. Why would anyone (except the juvenile extremists) want Muslim jurists trying to balance the economy or run the navy – the proposition is preposterous.

    Peace.

    *Note: This is not a joke, all four founders of the surviving Sunni schools, plus Imam Jafar Sadiq (ra) suffered at the hands of the governments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Who says I’m talking about theocracy?

    Just sounding you out Talha.

    I know it's failing, I think about it everyday and complain about it in comments here.

    I can't come up with a plan. I thought maybe you had one.

    , @TheJester
    No theocracies in Islam? Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, or Kuwait? Theocracies by any credible definition of the word.

    You must be basing your judgement on Egypt, Syria, and Iraq during the short-lived secular Baathist dictatorships. (Only Bashar al-Assad in Syria is left from that movement.)

    In any case, Islam is not compatible with democracy or any the other Greco-Roman cultural or political peccadillos that define Western Civilization. In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams. Councils of imams then provide legitimacy to secular strongmen who seize political power and have shown their respect for the religious councils and Sharia law (ref. Saudi Arabia). That's God's plan for humankind as communicated through Muhammed PEUH ... creating and sustaining the City of God on earth for all times. Indeed, the defining characteristic of Islam is for all peoples to live in a global Islamic theocracy -- the Ummah.

    Firmly anchored in the 7th Century, nothing will ever change in the expanding Islamic City of God, including the Sharia-based politics and cultures of the growing Islamic diasporas in Europe, Russia, and the United States; that is, they will always be Islamic theocracies and never integrate into Western society or Western political systems.
  14. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Who says I'm talking about theocracy? The Islamic model was never a theocracy as it appeared in the West.

    The rulers were secular rulers (often very much so - them Seljuks could drink and party - let me tell ya'). The Muslim scholars were independent or involved in the judicial framework which they tried to guide by religion - no doubt. The secular authorities either were supportive or not, and at times overtly hostile and went after the scholars.

    If someone thinks we've been running a theocracy, they can explain why some of our top scholars spent time in government jails* or were tortured or killed by the secular authorities; Ummayads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc. all of them took part in the fun. Imam Ghazali (ra) himself had this opinion about involving oneself with the government:
    "He realized that the high ethical standards of a virtuous religious life are not compatible with being in the service of sultans, viziers, and caliphs. Benefiting from the riches of the military and political elite implies complicity in their corrupt and oppressive rule and will jeopardize one's prospect of redemption in the afterlife."
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/

    Imams Nawawi (ra), Subki (ra), Ahmad Zarruq (ra), Izz ibn Abdas-Salam (ra), etc. - it's like a right of passage - it gets you street cred.

    If Western people want to classify it as theocracy (for which, I find the definition: "'rule of God' - a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god"), that's fine - it doesn't mean much to us since our 'priests' haven't been ruling us and since we've never had a compatible word for theocracy in our tradition. Even when Imam Khomenei actually brought forth the concept of something which I would consider close to a theocracy, he called it Vilayat-e-Faqih (Custodianship of the Jurist) - never the 'Rule of God' - that would be far too presumptuous.

    And I agree, theocracy will fail. Why would anyone (except the juvenile extremists) want Muslim jurists trying to balance the economy or run the navy - the proposition is preposterous.

    Peace.

    *Note: This is not a joke, all four founders of the surviving Sunni schools, plus Imam Jafar Sadiq (ra) suffered at the hands of the governments.

    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Who says I’m talking about theocracy?

    Just sounding you out Talha.

    I know it’s failing, I think about it everyday and complain about it in comments here.

    I can’t come up with a plan. I thought maybe you had one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    I thought maybe you had one.
     
    Prayer - it's good for what ails you.

    Honestly, there is no clean plan I can think of. That's why I have never tried - there is benefit in admitting what is beyond oneself. And what works for Turkey does not work for the US - that should be obvious.

    Since Turkey is the subject here; I honestly don't see a problem with them becoming more centrally run. Secular democracy was forced down their throats - all we are seeing is a correction. Hopefully it won't swing back too far into fascism or an 'Islamic' version of the old hard-line Kemalist order (where the military used to sack elected governments - nobody complained then - because, well, they were our sons of b******). I like some things I am seeing and I'm frightened by other things - the things I am frightened by are what I am frightened by in a democracy; lack of transparency, corruption, abuse of power, etc. There are plenty of places in the Muslim world run by monarchs. Some of them are horrible people and some are quite popular and relatively benevolent (Jordan, Malaysia and Morocco come to mind) - for me, the forms don't matter as much as the results. You can have oppressive democracies and have kingdoms that care more for their citizens.

    For my part, last night I (and other Muslims) met with the man running for mayor in our town. Nice Jewish gentleman, he seems to be very concerned about corruption and lack of transparency in our little town. I have no idea what party he belongs to, nor do I care, he has some nice plans for the future that will benefit everyone in our town - we will be putting our support behind him. He surprised us with some questions about details of spiritual/theological understanding (he actually asked about the Sidrat ul-Muntaha) and had studied details of other Far Eastern traditions too - very cool guy.

    Chatting about hypothetical situations in Turkey are fine and dandy - but change starts at home.

    Peace.

    , @Talha
    And we have to be honest with ourselves - it didn't have a bad run nor was it spectacularly horrible. It had some great aspects - no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hopefully, we'll adapt to something else for a while until that doesn't suit our needs. We have to be flexible in thinking about these things - utopia is a pipe dream. We two...we just happened to open our eyes in a particular snapshot of human history - sooner than you think, we will shut our eyes for good and our inheritors will tackle the same issues we're discussing - details will differ, but the problems will be the same; greed, indifference, extremism, pride, etc. I pray they'll figure things out better than we did.

    I'm sure some people in Europe were thinking centuries ago; OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs - egads!!! But here we are.
  15. @iffen
    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Who says I’m talking about theocracy?

    Just sounding you out Talha.

    I know it's failing, I think about it everyday and complain about it in comments here.

    I can't come up with a plan. I thought maybe you had one.

    Hey iffen,

    I thought maybe you had one.

    Prayer – it’s good for what ails you.

    Honestly, there is no clean plan I can think of. That’s why I have never tried – there is benefit in admitting what is beyond oneself. And what works for Turkey does not work for the US – that should be obvious.

    Since Turkey is the subject here; I honestly don’t see a problem with them becoming more centrally run. Secular democracy was forced down their throats – all we are seeing is a correction. Hopefully it won’t swing back too far into fascism or an ‘Islamic’ version of the old hard-line Kemalist order (where the military used to sack elected governments – nobody complained then – because, well, they were our sons of b******). I like some things I am seeing and I’m frightened by other things – the things I am frightened by are what I am frightened by in a democracy; lack of transparency, corruption, abuse of power, etc. There are plenty of places in the Muslim world run by monarchs. Some of them are horrible people and some are quite popular and relatively benevolent (Jordan, Malaysia and Morocco come to mind) – for me, the forms don’t matter as much as the results. You can have oppressive democracies and have kingdoms that care more for their citizens.

    For my part, last night I (and other Muslims) met with the man running for mayor in our town. Nice Jewish gentleman, he seems to be very concerned about corruption and lack of transparency in our little town. I have no idea what party he belongs to, nor do I care, he has some nice plans for the future that will benefit everyone in our town – we will be putting our support behind him. He surprised us with some questions about details of spiritual/theological understanding (he actually asked about the Sidrat ul-Muntaha) and had studied details of other Far Eastern traditions too – very cool guy.

    Chatting about hypothetical situations in Turkey are fine and dandy – but change starts at home.

    Peace.

    Read More
  16. I honestly don’t see a problem with them becoming more centrally run

    You have noticed that this is your inclination, your solution to most problems.

    but change starts at home.

    From Wiki:

    The phrase, “all politics is local” is a common phrase in U.S. politics.[1] The former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Tip O’Neill is most closely associated with this phrase.[2]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    You have noticed that this is your inclination, your solution to most problems.
     
    Depends on circumstance actually. If you remember, I'm for Somalis being radically decentralized since it has actually proven better for their people:
    “Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

    http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    One size does not fit all.

    Peace.
  17. @iffen
    Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

    Who says I’m talking about theocracy?

    Just sounding you out Talha.

    I know it's failing, I think about it everyday and complain about it in comments here.

    I can't come up with a plan. I thought maybe you had one.

    And we have to be honest with ourselves – it didn’t have a bad run nor was it spectacularly horrible. It had some great aspects – no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hopefully, we’ll adapt to something else for a while until that doesn’t suit our needs. We have to be flexible in thinking about these things – utopia is a pipe dream. We two…we just happened to open our eyes in a particular snapshot of human history – sooner than you think, we will shut our eyes for good and our inheritors will tackle the same issues we’re discussing – details will differ, but the problems will be the same; greed, indifference, extremism, pride, etc. I pray they’ll figure things out better than we did.

    I’m sure some people in Europe were thinking centuries ago; OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs – egads!!! But here we are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs

    Robespierre wasn't worried.

    Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

    If you knew this shouldn't you have warned the people in Minnesota?
  18. @iffen
    I honestly don’t see a problem with them becoming more centrally run

    You have noticed that this is your inclination, your solution to most problems.

    but change starts at home.

    From Wiki:

    The phrase, "all politics is local" is a common phrase in U.S. politics.[1] The former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Tip O'Neill is most closely associated with this phrase.[2]

    Hey iffen,

    You have noticed that this is your inclination, your solution to most problems.

    Depends on circumstance actually. If you remember, I’m for Somalis being radically decentralized since it has actually proven better for their people:
    “Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

    http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    One size does not fit all.

    Peace.

    Read More
  19. @Talha
    And we have to be honest with ourselves - it didn't have a bad run nor was it spectacularly horrible. It had some great aspects - no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hopefully, we'll adapt to something else for a while until that doesn't suit our needs. We have to be flexible in thinking about these things - utopia is a pipe dream. We two...we just happened to open our eyes in a particular snapshot of human history - sooner than you think, we will shut our eyes for good and our inheritors will tackle the same issues we're discussing - details will differ, but the problems will be the same; greed, indifference, extremism, pride, etc. I pray they'll figure things out better than we did.

    I'm sure some people in Europe were thinking centuries ago; OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs - egads!!! But here we are.

    OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs

    Robespierre wasn’t worried.

    Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

    If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Robespierre wasn’t worried.
     
    Nihilists rarely are.

    Beyond Nihilism

    The baby is in the bathwater; sorry baby, should have gotten out of there before we chucked it out the window. Daesh operates very much along these lines; destruction of the old order and all traces is the purpose (why do you think they are destroying ancient sites and statues that neither the first generation [ra] nor any subsequent generations thought about despoiling).


    If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?
     
    They never asked - though I have to admit, if you are going to plan for a state to be ruled by tribal confederacies and decentralized - Minnesota and Nebraska would probably be on top of my list - Florida and California - not so much.

    Hey - new 'Native' American tribal reserve with autonomy - we've done this before.
    "Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America"

    Peace.

  20. @iffen
    OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs

    Robespierre wasn't worried.

    Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

    If you knew this shouldn't you have warned the people in Minnesota?

    Hey iffen,

    Robespierre wasn’t worried.

    Nihilists rarely are.

    Beyond Nihilism

    The baby is in the bathwater; sorry baby, should have gotten out of there before we chucked it out the window. Daesh operates very much along these lines; destruction of the old order and all traces is the purpose (why do you think they are destroying ancient sites and statues that neither the first generation [ra] nor any subsequent generations thought about despoiling).

    If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?

    They never asked – though I have to admit, if you are going to plan for a state to be ruled by tribal confederacies and decentralized – Minnesota and Nebraska would probably be on top of my list – Florida and California – not so much.

    Hey – new ‘Native’ American tribal reserve with autonomy – we’ve done this before.
    “Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    From Wiki:

    As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, Robespierre was an outspoken advocate for the poor and for democratic institutions. He campaigned for universal male suffrage in France, price controls on basic food commodities and the abolition of slavery in the French colonies. But although he was an ardent opponent of the death penalty, he played an important role in arranging the execution of King Louis XVI
     
    Damn nihilists.
    , @iffen
    Hey – new ‘Native’ American tribal reserve with autonomy – we’ve done this before.
    “Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America”,

    Whiteclay, Nebraska

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Whiteclay (Lakota: Makȟásaŋ;[1] "whiteish or yellowish clay"), is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Sheridan County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 14 at the 2000 census.

    A significant part of Whiteclay's economy is based on alcohol sales to residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, located two miles (3.2 km) north across the border in South Dakota, where alcohol consumption and possession is prohibited. According to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, beer sales at Whiteclay's four liquor stores totalled 4.9 million cans in 2010 (~13,000 cans per day) for gross sales of $3 million.[2] The four beer merchants paid federal and state excise taxes (included in liquor’s sale price) of $413,932 that year.[3]
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteclay%2C_Nebraska
  21. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Robespierre wasn’t worried.
     
    Nihilists rarely are.

    Beyond Nihilism

    The baby is in the bathwater; sorry baby, should have gotten out of there before we chucked it out the window. Daesh operates very much along these lines; destruction of the old order and all traces is the purpose (why do you think they are destroying ancient sites and statues that neither the first generation [ra] nor any subsequent generations thought about despoiling).


    If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?
     
    They never asked - though I have to admit, if you are going to plan for a state to be ruled by tribal confederacies and decentralized - Minnesota and Nebraska would probably be on top of my list - Florida and California - not so much.

    Hey - new 'Native' American tribal reserve with autonomy - we've done this before.
    "Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America"

    Peace.

    From Wiki:

    As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, Robespierre was an outspoken advocate for the poor and for democratic institutions. He campaigned for universal male suffrage in France, price controls on basic food commodities and the abolition of slavery in the French colonies. But although he was an ardent opponent of the death penalty, he played an important role in arranging the execution of King Louis XVI

    Damn nihilists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    More babies, more bathwater! Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

    Peace.

  22. @iffen
    From Wiki:

    As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, Robespierre was an outspoken advocate for the poor and for democratic institutions. He campaigned for universal male suffrage in France, price controls on basic food commodities and the abolition of slavery in the French colonies. But although he was an ardent opponent of the death penalty, he played an important role in arranging the execution of King Louis XVI
     
    Damn nihilists.

    More babies, more bathwater! Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

    Now you are just playing to the "he purged the ((()))s crowd." :)

  23. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Robespierre wasn’t worried.
     
    Nihilists rarely are.

    Beyond Nihilism

    The baby is in the bathwater; sorry baby, should have gotten out of there before we chucked it out the window. Daesh operates very much along these lines; destruction of the old order and all traces is the purpose (why do you think they are destroying ancient sites and statues that neither the first generation [ra] nor any subsequent generations thought about despoiling).


    If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?
     
    They never asked - though I have to admit, if you are going to plan for a state to be ruled by tribal confederacies and decentralized - Minnesota and Nebraska would probably be on top of my list - Florida and California - not so much.

    Hey - new 'Native' American tribal reserve with autonomy - we've done this before.
    "Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America"

    Peace.

    Hey – new ‘Native’ American tribal reserve with autonomy – we’ve done this before.
    “Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America”,

    Whiteclay, Nebraska

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Whiteclay (Lakota: Makȟásaŋ;[1] “whiteish or yellowish clay”), is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Sheridan County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 14 at the 2000 census.

    A significant part of Whiteclay’s economy is based on alcohol sales to residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, located two miles (3.2 km) north across the border in South Dakota, where alcohol consumption and possession is prohibited. According to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, beer sales at Whiteclay’s four liquor stores totalled 4.9 million cans in 2010 (~13,000 cans per day) for gross sales of $3 million.[2] The four beer merchants paid federal and state excise taxes (included in liquor’s sale price) of $413,932 that year.[3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteclay%2C_Nebraska

    Read More
  24. @Talha
    More babies, more bathwater! Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

    Peace.

    Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

    Now you are just playing to the “he purged the ((()))s crowd.” :)

    Read More
  25. @Parbes
    "And of course there’s the problem what to do with Turkey’s fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly."

    Just kick them out, plain and simple - and preferably, begin doing that, little by little, BEFORE things start to get "really ugly". It should have been done long ago! And don't worry overmuch about the optics and the unavoidable yowls of protest.

    That’s easier said than done, many of those people are citizens of European states. And because of the Nazi past stripping people of citizenship would be especially difficult in Germany (those affected would be seen as the “new Jews”).

    Read More
  26. @Talha
    Hey GR,

    Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn’t something I’m proud of.
     
    Who says that's what I'm talking about?

    And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage.
     
    Don't know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn't benefit from Turkey as well? From what I've read, Germany is one of its biggest export markets. You're talking as if Turkey was some welfare queen - like I said, let's be real about this.

    I’m sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.
     
    I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. Most people on these forums seem to think he didn't go far enough.

    But aside from that, friends advise friends - that what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I mean, I guess it's up to the Germans, but I think they have traditionally had better relations with Turkey and Iran more than most other European countries. I think it's a shame (from both sides) if that was completely tossed.


    But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.
     
    Agreed - that's not how friends act.

    Peace.

    “Who says that’s what I’m talking about?”

    The German-Turkish alliance in WW1 is sometimes brought up as evidence for how deep German-Turkish ties are (or at least I think it used to be like that, obviously nowadays not so much given how the Armenian genocide has been given increased attention in recent years). Apart from that rather questionable episode I can’t really think of any deep ties between Germany and Turkey before the immigration of Turks to Germany (which started in the early 1960s…but contrary to what is sometimes claimed it really achieved massive proportions only relatively recently; as late as the early 1980s there were only a few hundred thousand Turks in Germany, not about 3 million like there are now). Some German emigres found asylum in Turkey during the Nazi era. But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.

    “Don’t know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn’t benefit from Turkey as well? ”

    In our direct dealings with Turkey I don’t think Germany benefited on the whole. Turkish immigration to Germany was economically a net loss and has created significant problems; and right from the start Turkey pushed for it to advance its own interests ( there was grave concern even in the early 1960s what Turkish immigration could lead to, American pressure and Turkish demands played a significant role in overcoming those objections). Trade may be a different matter…but hey, you can trade with pretty much everyone, without the constant temper tantrums of Erdogan and his ilk.

    “I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. ”

    Ataturk was a brutal man, and he set up a deeply flawed system that throughout its existence has been very intolerant towards national minorities and suppressed the desires of a large part of the population. I can also understand to some degree that from your point of view his stance towards religion is unacceptable (though I doubt whether Turkey was ever truly secular…Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many). Kemalism probably was untenable in the long term. But I can’t say I like what’s replacing it. It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
    Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it. But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us (while being themselves hyper-sensitive to alleged slights to their honour) is really too much…it would be nice if some channels of dialogue could be kept open with other elements of Turkish society, but with Erdogan the time for dialogue is well past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey GR,

    Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it.
     
    i like dialogue and thinking things through - it's rare to get that genuine conversation on the Intranet where ideas are exchanged instead of insults.

    But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.
     
    I'll admit to this, even Goethe was positive on Islam, but negative on the Turks. But there is a recent history of cooperation which I think shouldn't be deep-sixed. I would imagine Turkey would have pushed for policies to its advantage, this is where Germany needs to be firm on what it feels is to its own advantage and a mutual give-and-take can be reached. I won't argue that the net from immigrants has been a loss, though I've read Turkish-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands - maybe it is still a net loss. The US has always been dictating to Germany (and kind of occupies it honestly) - so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly.

    Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many
     
    Turkey was extremely secular - Muslims who traveled through it reported debauchery that excelled European cities. The religion was driven underground. But it eventually came back because I don't think the Turks found much meaning in material life. The resurgence wasn't militant; it was slow and organic, and even suffered many defeats at the hands of the military and government. The only question is, will the resurgence be the old-guard Sunni order (with its respect for Turkey's Sufi roots) or be tainted by Salafi-Wahhabi extremism?

    This isn't unique to Turkey. You can go around and ask the older generation in many Muslim countries (those born in the 40's and 50's) - they'll tell you that they lived in a time without headscarves, when weddings had wine and dancing, bell-bottoms, the works. Eventually, the fun wore off, enough of the next generation simply doesn't want that any more. Often, they are fighting with their parents about being allowed to wear a scarf or grow a beard. This is a good read:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/10/hypermodern-religiosity-islam/


    It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
     
    That's rarely a problem. Jordan is less democratic and from what I've read Germany and Jordan are increasing ties and economic cooperation. I think what bothers most people is them butting in on your sovereignty. I mean, you could have a friend who runs his marriage completely differently than you and it's totally fine, it's when he starts criticizing the way you run yours and insulting your wife that you start getting upset; and rightly so.

    But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us
     
    Yeah see, that's not cool. Now, with respect to details, from what I read, Germany blocked Turkish officials from campaigning among Turkish citizens for the upcoming referendum. Now for sure, Germany has the right to do this, but is this wise? What's the big deal? So some officials come and campaign for this referendum (as long as it's peaceful) and if it helps to pass, then guess what - Turkey may become more and more like some of the immigrants want it to be. They may actually want it to be more overtly Islamic and centralized. This would actually ease the transition and give incentive for those elements to go back to Turkey - isn't that what Germans would like to see happen? I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

    Peace.

  27. @German_reader
    "Who says that’s what I’m talking about?"

    The German-Turkish alliance in WW1 is sometimes brought up as evidence for how deep German-Turkish ties are (or at least I think it used to be like that, obviously nowadays not so much given how the Armenian genocide has been given increased attention in recent years). Apart from that rather questionable episode I can't really think of any deep ties between Germany and Turkey before the immigration of Turks to Germany (which started in the early 1960s...but contrary to what is sometimes claimed it really achieved massive proportions only relatively recently; as late as the early 1980s there were only a few hundred thousand Turks in Germany, not about 3 million like there are now). Some German emigres found asylum in Turkey during the Nazi era. But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn't much of a tradition here.

    "Don’t know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn’t benefit from Turkey as well? "

    In our direct dealings with Turkey I don't think Germany benefited on the whole. Turkish immigration to Germany was economically a net loss and has created significant problems; and right from the start Turkey pushed for it to advance its own interests ( there was grave concern even in the early 1960s what Turkish immigration could lead to, American pressure and Turkish demands played a significant role in overcoming those objections). Trade may be a different matter...but hey, you can trade with pretty much everyone, without the constant temper tantrums of Erdogan and his ilk.

    "I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. "

    Ataturk was a brutal man, and he set up a deeply flawed system that throughout its existence has been very intolerant towards national minorities and suppressed the desires of a large part of the population. I can also understand to some degree that from your point of view his stance towards religion is unacceptable (though I doubt whether Turkey was ever truly secular...Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many). Kemalism probably was untenable in the long term. But I can't say I like what's replacing it. It's going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
    Anyway, you're certainly right that one shouldn't burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it. But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us (while being themselves hyper-sensitive to alleged slights to their honour) is really too much...it would be nice if some channels of dialogue could be kept open with other elements of Turkish society, but with Erdogan the time for dialogue is well past.

    Hey GR,

    Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it.

    i like dialogue and thinking things through – it’s rare to get that genuine conversation on the Intranet where ideas are exchanged instead of insults.

    But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.

    I’ll admit to this, even Goethe was positive on Islam, but negative on the Turks. But there is a recent history of cooperation which I think shouldn’t be deep-sixed. I would imagine Turkey would have pushed for policies to its advantage, this is where Germany needs to be firm on what it feels is to its own advantage and a mutual give-and-take can be reached. I won’t argue that the net from immigrants has been a loss, though I’ve read Turkish-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands – maybe it is still a net loss. The US has always been dictating to Germany (and kind of occupies it honestly) – so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly.

    Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many

    Turkey was extremely secular – Muslims who traveled through it reported debauchery that excelled European cities. The religion was driven underground. But it eventually came back because I don’t think the Turks found much meaning in material life. The resurgence wasn’t militant; it was slow and organic, and even suffered many defeats at the hands of the military and government. The only question is, will the resurgence be the old-guard Sunni order (with its respect for Turkey’s Sufi roots) or be tainted by Salafi-Wahhabi extremism?

    This isn’t unique to Turkey. You can go around and ask the older generation in many Muslim countries (those born in the 40′s and 50′s) – they’ll tell you that they lived in a time without headscarves, when weddings had wine and dancing, bell-bottoms, the works. Eventually, the fun wore off, enough of the next generation simply doesn’t want that any more. Often, they are fighting with their parents about being allowed to wear a scarf or grow a beard. This is a good read:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/10/hypermodern-religiosity-islam/

    It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.

    That’s rarely a problem. Jordan is less democratic and from what I’ve read Germany and Jordan are increasing ties and economic cooperation. I think what bothers most people is them butting in on your sovereignty. I mean, you could have a friend who runs his marriage completely differently than you and it’s totally fine, it’s when he starts criticizing the way you run yours and insulting your wife that you start getting upset; and rightly so.

    But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us

    Yeah see, that’s not cool. Now, with respect to details, from what I read, Germany blocked Turkish officials from campaigning among Turkish citizens for the upcoming referendum. Now for sure, Germany has the right to do this, but is this wise? What’s the big deal? So some officials come and campaign for this referendum (as long as it’s peaceful) and if it helps to pass, then guess what – Turkey may become more and more like some of the immigrants want it to be. They may actually want it to be more overtly Islamic and centralized. This would actually ease the transition and give incentive for those elements to go back to Turkey – isn’t that what Germans would like to see happen? I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?
     
    Ha! Good point.

    Realistically speaking, though, I think the numbers going back will be tiny regardless.
    , @German_reader
    I'm not sure it's correct to state that religion had been "driven underground" in Turkey...more like religion has been controlled by the state (I mean, would a truly secular state have something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs , which also, it seems to me, always implied an affirmation of Sunni supremacy within Turkey?). And I think your view of the re-Islamicization of Turkish society is a bit too rose-tinted...from what I've read and heard, it's a scary process full of intimidation and violence for more secular-minded Turks. But admittedly I don't have personal experience of the situation in Turkey.
    The current "crisis" between Germany and Turkey escalated partly because Turkey has jailed a Turkish-German journalist, Deniz Yücel, on what seems like trumped up charges. And there hasn't been a general ban on campaigning by Turkish politicians in Germany yet, only some individual towns have done so (if I'm informed correctly because of "safety concerns"...one may regard this as a pretext of course, but obviously it isn't in Germany's interest that Turkey's political antagonisms lead to violence on German streets; and there already seem to have been plenty of cases in Germany of Erdogan sympathizers actively intimidating and threatening their political opponents).
    As for your idea of Turks leaving Germany because Erdogan's Islamic paradise will be so attractive...that seems rather unlikely if Turkey's economy gets in serious trouble as seems quite possible. In any case Erdogan's increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.
    , @iffen
    so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly

    Hey, wait a minute. You are a citizen and you want to get rid of the "third wheel'?
  28. @Talha
    Hey GR,

    Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it.
     
    i like dialogue and thinking things through - it's rare to get that genuine conversation on the Intranet where ideas are exchanged instead of insults.

    But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.
     
    I'll admit to this, even Goethe was positive on Islam, but negative on the Turks. But there is a recent history of cooperation which I think shouldn't be deep-sixed. I would imagine Turkey would have pushed for policies to its advantage, this is where Germany needs to be firm on what it feels is to its own advantage and a mutual give-and-take can be reached. I won't argue that the net from immigrants has been a loss, though I've read Turkish-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands - maybe it is still a net loss. The US has always been dictating to Germany (and kind of occupies it honestly) - so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly.

    Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many
     
    Turkey was extremely secular - Muslims who traveled through it reported debauchery that excelled European cities. The religion was driven underground. But it eventually came back because I don't think the Turks found much meaning in material life. The resurgence wasn't militant; it was slow and organic, and even suffered many defeats at the hands of the military and government. The only question is, will the resurgence be the old-guard Sunni order (with its respect for Turkey's Sufi roots) or be tainted by Salafi-Wahhabi extremism?

    This isn't unique to Turkey. You can go around and ask the older generation in many Muslim countries (those born in the 40's and 50's) - they'll tell you that they lived in a time without headscarves, when weddings had wine and dancing, bell-bottoms, the works. Eventually, the fun wore off, enough of the next generation simply doesn't want that any more. Often, they are fighting with their parents about being allowed to wear a scarf or grow a beard. This is a good read:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/10/hypermodern-religiosity-islam/


    It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
     
    That's rarely a problem. Jordan is less democratic and from what I've read Germany and Jordan are increasing ties and economic cooperation. I think what bothers most people is them butting in on your sovereignty. I mean, you could have a friend who runs his marriage completely differently than you and it's totally fine, it's when he starts criticizing the way you run yours and insulting your wife that you start getting upset; and rightly so.

    But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us
     
    Yeah see, that's not cool. Now, with respect to details, from what I read, Germany blocked Turkish officials from campaigning among Turkish citizens for the upcoming referendum. Now for sure, Germany has the right to do this, but is this wise? What's the big deal? So some officials come and campaign for this referendum (as long as it's peaceful) and if it helps to pass, then guess what - Turkey may become more and more like some of the immigrants want it to be. They may actually want it to be more overtly Islamic and centralized. This would actually ease the transition and give incentive for those elements to go back to Turkey - isn't that what Germans would like to see happen? I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

    Peace.

    I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

    Ha! Good point.

    Realistically speaking, though, I think the numbers going back will be tiny regardless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mr. Karlin,

    Realistically speaking, though, I think the numbers going back will be tiny regardless.
     
    Sure, but even if you eventually incentivize (financially or otherwise) it'll make the transition easier and more likely.

    Just from a personal viewpoint. I'm a practicing Muslim, my wife wears hijab - we have zero problems transitioning into a society that is already running by Islamic rules. In fact, if an area is too secular, I'd likely not move there. For instance, I know a few families that moved to UAE (for the sake of preserving their religion - they didn't like hacking it in the West anymore). Now, they did not move to Abu Dhabi or Dubai, but rather Sharjah which is the emirate that enforces ban on alcohol and decency laws (and which is likely the only one where you won't be propositioned by an Eastern European prostitute any time you board or disembark from an elevator) :
    http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/sharjah-s-decency-law-takes-effect-today-1.425632

    I'm telling you, people in the West are shooting themselves in the foot if their goals are to try to empty the West of practicing Muslims and simultaneously prevent Muslim countries from becoming more Islamic.

    Peace.
  29. @Anatoly Karlin

    I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?
     
    Ha! Good point.

    Realistically speaking, though, I think the numbers going back will be tiny regardless.

    Hey Mr. Karlin,

    Realistically speaking, though, I think the numbers going back will be tiny regardless.

    Sure, but even if you eventually incentivize (financially or otherwise) it’ll make the transition easier and more likely.

    Just from a personal viewpoint. I’m a practicing Muslim, my wife wears hijab – we have zero problems transitioning into a society that is already running by Islamic rules. In fact, if an area is too secular, I’d likely not move there. For instance, I know a few families that moved to UAE (for the sake of preserving their religion – they didn’t like hacking it in the West anymore). Now, they did not move to Abu Dhabi or Dubai, but rather Sharjah which is the emirate that enforces ban on alcohol and decency laws (and which is likely the only one where you won’t be propositioned by an Eastern European prostitute any time you board or disembark from an elevator) :

    http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/sharjah-s-decency-law-takes-effect-today-1.425632

    I’m telling you, people in the West are shooting themselves in the foot if their goals are to try to empty the West of practicing Muslims and simultaneously prevent Muslim countries from becoming more Islamic.

    Peace.

    Read More
  30. @Talha
    Hey GR,

    Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it.
     
    i like dialogue and thinking things through - it's rare to get that genuine conversation on the Intranet where ideas are exchanged instead of insults.

    But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.
     
    I'll admit to this, even Goethe was positive on Islam, but negative on the Turks. But there is a recent history of cooperation which I think shouldn't be deep-sixed. I would imagine Turkey would have pushed for policies to its advantage, this is where Germany needs to be firm on what it feels is to its own advantage and a mutual give-and-take can be reached. I won't argue that the net from immigrants has been a loss, though I've read Turkish-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands - maybe it is still a net loss. The US has always been dictating to Germany (and kind of occupies it honestly) - so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly.

    Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many
     
    Turkey was extremely secular - Muslims who traveled through it reported debauchery that excelled European cities. The religion was driven underground. But it eventually came back because I don't think the Turks found much meaning in material life. The resurgence wasn't militant; it was slow and organic, and even suffered many defeats at the hands of the military and government. The only question is, will the resurgence be the old-guard Sunni order (with its respect for Turkey's Sufi roots) or be tainted by Salafi-Wahhabi extremism?

    This isn't unique to Turkey. You can go around and ask the older generation in many Muslim countries (those born in the 40's and 50's) - they'll tell you that they lived in a time without headscarves, when weddings had wine and dancing, bell-bottoms, the works. Eventually, the fun wore off, enough of the next generation simply doesn't want that any more. Often, they are fighting with their parents about being allowed to wear a scarf or grow a beard. This is a good read:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/10/hypermodern-religiosity-islam/


    It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
     
    That's rarely a problem. Jordan is less democratic and from what I've read Germany and Jordan are increasing ties and economic cooperation. I think what bothers most people is them butting in on your sovereignty. I mean, you could have a friend who runs his marriage completely differently than you and it's totally fine, it's when he starts criticizing the way you run yours and insulting your wife that you start getting upset; and rightly so.

    But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us
     
    Yeah see, that's not cool. Now, with respect to details, from what I read, Germany blocked Turkish officials from campaigning among Turkish citizens for the upcoming referendum. Now for sure, Germany has the right to do this, but is this wise? What's the big deal? So some officials come and campaign for this referendum (as long as it's peaceful) and if it helps to pass, then guess what - Turkey may become more and more like some of the immigrants want it to be. They may actually want it to be more overtly Islamic and centralized. This would actually ease the transition and give incentive for those elements to go back to Turkey - isn't that what Germans would like to see happen? I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

    Peace.

    I’m not sure it’s correct to state that religion had been “driven underground” in Turkey…more like religion has been controlled by the state (I mean, would a truly secular state have something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs , which also, it seems to me, always implied an affirmation of Sunni supremacy within Turkey?). And I think your view of the re-Islamicization of Turkish society is a bit too rose-tinted…from what I’ve read and heard, it’s a scary process full of intimidation and violence for more secular-minded Turks. But admittedly I don’t have personal experience of the situation in Turkey.
    The current “crisis” between Germany and Turkey escalated partly because Turkey has jailed a Turkish-German journalist, Deniz Yücel, on what seems like trumped up charges. And there hasn’t been a general ban on campaigning by Turkish politicians in Germany yet, only some individual towns have done so (if I’m informed correctly because of “safety concerns”…one may regard this as a pretext of course, but obviously it isn’t in Germany’s interest that Turkey’s political antagonisms lead to violence on German streets; and there already seem to have been plenty of cases in Germany of Erdogan sympathizers actively intimidating and threatening their political opponents).
    As for your idea of Turks leaving Germany because Erdogan’s Islamic paradise will be so attractive…that seems rather unlikely if Turkey’s economy gets in serious trouble as seems quite possible. In any case Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey GR,

    You are correct - that was the secular state controlling religion - not a pretty sight. Neither did I support intimidation or violence by the secularists, nor do I support it from the other side.

    Keep in mind, the opposition attempted a military coup - not very clean.

    In any case Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.
     
    Good point. Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones. I don't know which way things will flow, I hope the transition to being more religious is done upholding principles (which religion is incidentally supposed to instill). We live in interesting times.

    Peace.
  31. @Talha
    Hey GR,

    Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it.
     
    i like dialogue and thinking things through - it's rare to get that genuine conversation on the Intranet where ideas are exchanged instead of insults.

    But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.
     
    I'll admit to this, even Goethe was positive on Islam, but negative on the Turks. But there is a recent history of cooperation which I think shouldn't be deep-sixed. I would imagine Turkey would have pushed for policies to its advantage, this is where Germany needs to be firm on what it feels is to its own advantage and a mutual give-and-take can be reached. I won't argue that the net from immigrants has been a loss, though I've read Turkish-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands - maybe it is still a net loss. The US has always been dictating to Germany (and kind of occupies it honestly) - so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly.

    Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many
     
    Turkey was extremely secular - Muslims who traveled through it reported debauchery that excelled European cities. The religion was driven underground. But it eventually came back because I don't think the Turks found much meaning in material life. The resurgence wasn't militant; it was slow and organic, and even suffered many defeats at the hands of the military and government. The only question is, will the resurgence be the old-guard Sunni order (with its respect for Turkey's Sufi roots) or be tainted by Salafi-Wahhabi extremism?

    This isn't unique to Turkey. You can go around and ask the older generation in many Muslim countries (those born in the 40's and 50's) - they'll tell you that they lived in a time without headscarves, when weddings had wine and dancing, bell-bottoms, the works. Eventually, the fun wore off, enough of the next generation simply doesn't want that any more. Often, they are fighting with their parents about being allowed to wear a scarf or grow a beard. This is a good read:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/10/hypermodern-religiosity-islam/


    It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
     
    That's rarely a problem. Jordan is less democratic and from what I've read Germany and Jordan are increasing ties and economic cooperation. I think what bothers most people is them butting in on your sovereignty. I mean, you could have a friend who runs his marriage completely differently than you and it's totally fine, it's when he starts criticizing the way you run yours and insulting your wife that you start getting upset; and rightly so.

    But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us
     
    Yeah see, that's not cool. Now, with respect to details, from what I read, Germany blocked Turkish officials from campaigning among Turkish citizens for the upcoming referendum. Now for sure, Germany has the right to do this, but is this wise? What's the big deal? So some officials come and campaign for this referendum (as long as it's peaceful) and if it helps to pass, then guess what - Turkey may become more and more like some of the immigrants want it to be. They may actually want it to be more overtly Islamic and centralized. This would actually ease the transition and give incentive for those elements to go back to Turkey - isn't that what Germans would like to see happen? I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

    Peace.

    so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly

    Hey, wait a minute. You are a citizen and you want to get rid of the “third wheel’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Yeah - we are a major third wheel in waaaay too many international relationships. As a citizen I'd like us to mind our own business, whether in South America, ME, Pacific, etc.

    Peace.
  32. @iffen
    so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly

    Hey, wait a minute. You are a citizen and you want to get rid of the "third wheel'?

    Hey iffen,

    Yeah – we are a major third wheel in waaaay too many international relationships. As a citizen I’d like us to mind our own business, whether in South America, ME, Pacific, etc.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    But you still want to advise on how Germany and Turkey should relate.

    As a citizen I’d like us to mind our own business

  33. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Yeah - we are a major third wheel in waaaay too many international relationships. As a citizen I'd like us to mind our own business, whether in South America, ME, Pacific, etc.

    Peace.

    But you still want to advise on how Germany and Turkey should relate.

    As a citizen I’d like us to mind our own business

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    I doubt my level of advice translates to the 'American pressure' that GR was referring to. Us offering advice is fine and dandy - that's what diplomats are for. Interfering in the affairs of foreign states through strong arm tactics, not very nice.

    Peace.
  34. @German_reader
    I'm not sure it's correct to state that religion had been "driven underground" in Turkey...more like religion has been controlled by the state (I mean, would a truly secular state have something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs , which also, it seems to me, always implied an affirmation of Sunni supremacy within Turkey?). And I think your view of the re-Islamicization of Turkish society is a bit too rose-tinted...from what I've read and heard, it's a scary process full of intimidation and violence for more secular-minded Turks. But admittedly I don't have personal experience of the situation in Turkey.
    The current "crisis" between Germany and Turkey escalated partly because Turkey has jailed a Turkish-German journalist, Deniz Yücel, on what seems like trumped up charges. And there hasn't been a general ban on campaigning by Turkish politicians in Germany yet, only some individual towns have done so (if I'm informed correctly because of "safety concerns"...one may regard this as a pretext of course, but obviously it isn't in Germany's interest that Turkey's political antagonisms lead to violence on German streets; and there already seem to have been plenty of cases in Germany of Erdogan sympathizers actively intimidating and threatening their political opponents).
    As for your idea of Turks leaving Germany because Erdogan's Islamic paradise will be so attractive...that seems rather unlikely if Turkey's economy gets in serious trouble as seems quite possible. In any case Erdogan's increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.

    Hey GR,

    You are correct – that was the secular state controlling religion – not a pretty sight. Neither did I support intimidation or violence by the secularists, nor do I support it from the other side.

    Keep in mind, the opposition attempted a military coup – not very clean.

    In any case Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.

    Good point. Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones. I don’t know which way things will flow, I hope the transition to being more religious is done upholding principles (which religion is incidentally supposed to instill). We live in interesting times.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones."

    Yes, I thought of that as well :-)
    Interesting times indeed...though I'd prefer reading about them to living in them.
  35. @iffen
    But you still want to advise on how Germany and Turkey should relate.

    As a citizen I’d like us to mind our own business

    Hey iffen,

    I doubt my level of advice translates to the ‘American pressure’ that GR was referring to. Us offering advice is fine and dandy – that’s what diplomats are for. Interfering in the affairs of foreign states through strong arm tactics, not very nice.

    Peace.

    Read More
  36. @Talha
    Hey GR,

    You are correct - that was the secular state controlling religion - not a pretty sight. Neither did I support intimidation or violence by the secularists, nor do I support it from the other side.

    Keep in mind, the opposition attempted a military coup - not very clean.

    In any case Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.
     
    Good point. Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones. I don't know which way things will flow, I hope the transition to being more religious is done upholding principles (which religion is incidentally supposed to instill). We live in interesting times.

    Peace.

    “Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones.”

    Yes, I thought of that as well :-)
    Interesting times indeed…though I’d prefer reading about them to living in them.

    Read More
  37. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Who says I'm talking about theocracy? The Islamic model was never a theocracy as it appeared in the West.

    The rulers were secular rulers (often very much so - them Seljuks could drink and party - let me tell ya'). The Muslim scholars were independent or involved in the judicial framework which they tried to guide by religion - no doubt. The secular authorities either were supportive or not, and at times overtly hostile and went after the scholars.

    If someone thinks we've been running a theocracy, they can explain why some of our top scholars spent time in government jails* or were tortured or killed by the secular authorities; Ummayads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc. all of them took part in the fun. Imam Ghazali (ra) himself had this opinion about involving oneself with the government:
    "He realized that the high ethical standards of a virtuous religious life are not compatible with being in the service of sultans, viziers, and caliphs. Benefiting from the riches of the military and political elite implies complicity in their corrupt and oppressive rule and will jeopardize one's prospect of redemption in the afterlife."
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/

    Imams Nawawi (ra), Subki (ra), Ahmad Zarruq (ra), Izz ibn Abdas-Salam (ra), etc. - it's like a right of passage - it gets you street cred.

    If Western people want to classify it as theocracy (for which, I find the definition: "'rule of God' - a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god"), that's fine - it doesn't mean much to us since our 'priests' haven't been ruling us and since we've never had a compatible word for theocracy in our tradition. Even when Imam Khomenei actually brought forth the concept of something which I would consider close to a theocracy, he called it Vilayat-e-Faqih (Custodianship of the Jurist) - never the 'Rule of God' - that would be far too presumptuous.

    And I agree, theocracy will fail. Why would anyone (except the juvenile extremists) want Muslim jurists trying to balance the economy or run the navy - the proposition is preposterous.

    Peace.

    *Note: This is not a joke, all four founders of the surviving Sunni schools, plus Imam Jafar Sadiq (ra) suffered at the hands of the governments.

    No theocracies in Islam? Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, or Kuwait? Theocracies by any credible definition of the word.

    You must be basing your judgement on Egypt, Syria, and Iraq during the short-lived secular Baathist dictatorships. (Only Bashar al-Assad in Syria is left from that movement.)

    In any case, Islam is not compatible with democracy or any the other Greco-Roman cultural or political peccadillos that define Western Civilization. In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams. Councils of imams then provide legitimacy to secular strongmen who seize political power and have shown their respect for the religious councils and Sharia law (ref. Saudi Arabia). That’s God’s plan for humankind as communicated through Muhammed PEUH … creating and sustaining the City of God on earth for all times. Indeed, the defining characteristic of Islam is for all peoples to live in a global Islamic theocracy — the Ummah.

    Firmly anchored in the 7th Century, nothing will ever change in the expanding Islamic City of God, including the Sharia-based politics and cultures of the growing Islamic diasporas in Europe, Russia, and the United States; that is, they will always be Islamic theocracies and never integrate into Western society or Western political systems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TheJester,

    Like I said, that is fine - define them as theocracies as you wish. To a Muslim who has studied his tradition, the analogy is incorrect. The West doesn't really have a parallel framework in its history so it wants to try to define things through its eyes. Again totally fine, don't expect us to play along.

    You must be basing your judgement
     
    On studying the Shariah for years and its principles and Islamic history. The nation-state model may or may not be the best framework for setting up a Muslim society (it was adopted from external sources, it was not an organic, internal growth) - the jury is still out on that. An Islamic framework is extremely flexible, historically and currently it has helped define the parameters of anything from military dictatorships, tribal confederations, monarchies, and even parliamentary democracies. One size does not fit all.

    Islam is not compatible with democracy
     
    If you have studied the matter with traditional scholars then you'll know it is compatible enough. Right now there is a sea shift, the increased Islamic political changes reflect the voice of the people - read the polls, Muslim people increasingly want Islam. If you think that is not true, you have only been paying attention to the secular urban elites when they put out their rallies in places like downtown Tehran, and ignoring the many more voices in places like Mashhad.

    In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams.
     
    This only regards a genrally small subset of laws for society. Islamic scholars are not involved in the legal decisions as to what the penalty for running a red light are or build construction codes. The vast majority of human interaction and needs in and outside the Muslim world is secular - period.

    the Ummah
     
    The unified Ummah is an ideal and one unrealized since the Abbassid's political power splintered. Men whose hearts are mired in this world will always fight over it no matter which religion they profress, it is the nature of the material world to fracture; wealth, land, age, genetic differences, etc. As long as the hearts are unified in the mosques (which are not considered part of the domain of the earthly sovereigns) across the world - that is good enough.

    and never integrate into Western society
     
    Define parameters of integration first. Whole hog? No.

    There are some things that are flexible (in these, there are no problems to adjust or update) and some things that are not - we will not water down the principles that are unalterable to make people happy. Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse - he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

    Peace.
  38. @TheJester
    No theocracies in Islam? Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, or Kuwait? Theocracies by any credible definition of the word.

    You must be basing your judgement on Egypt, Syria, and Iraq during the short-lived secular Baathist dictatorships. (Only Bashar al-Assad in Syria is left from that movement.)

    In any case, Islam is not compatible with democracy or any the other Greco-Roman cultural or political peccadillos that define Western Civilization. In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams. Councils of imams then provide legitimacy to secular strongmen who seize political power and have shown their respect for the religious councils and Sharia law (ref. Saudi Arabia). That's God's plan for humankind as communicated through Muhammed PEUH ... creating and sustaining the City of God on earth for all times. Indeed, the defining characteristic of Islam is for all peoples to live in a global Islamic theocracy -- the Ummah.

    Firmly anchored in the 7th Century, nothing will ever change in the expanding Islamic City of God, including the Sharia-based politics and cultures of the growing Islamic diasporas in Europe, Russia, and the United States; that is, they will always be Islamic theocracies and never integrate into Western society or Western political systems.

    Hey TheJester,

    Like I said, that is fine – define them as theocracies as you wish. To a Muslim who has studied his tradition, the analogy is incorrect. The West doesn’t really have a parallel framework in its history so it wants to try to define things through its eyes. Again totally fine, don’t expect us to play along.

    You must be basing your judgement

    On studying the Shariah for years and its principles and Islamic history. The nation-state model may or may not be the best framework for setting up a Muslim society (it was adopted from external sources, it was not an organic, internal growth) – the jury is still out on that. An Islamic framework is extremely flexible, historically and currently it has helped define the parameters of anything from military dictatorships, tribal confederations, monarchies, and even parliamentary democracies. One size does not fit all.

    Islam is not compatible with democracy

    If you have studied the matter with traditional scholars then you’ll know it is compatible enough. Right now there is a sea shift, the increased Islamic political changes reflect the voice of the people – read the polls, Muslim people increasingly want Islam. If you think that is not true, you have only been paying attention to the secular urban elites when they put out their rallies in places like downtown Tehran, and ignoring the many more voices in places like Mashhad.

    In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams.

    This only regards a genrally small subset of laws for society. Islamic scholars are not involved in the legal decisions as to what the penalty for running a red light are or build construction codes. The vast majority of human interaction and needs in and outside the Muslim world is secular – period.

    the Ummah

    The unified Ummah is an ideal and one unrealized since the Abbassid’s political power splintered. Men whose hearts are mired in this world will always fight over it no matter which religion they profress, it is the nature of the material world to fracture; wealth, land, age, genetic differences, etc. As long as the hearts are unified in the mosques (which are not considered part of the domain of the earthly sovereigns) across the world – that is good enough.

    and never integrate into Western society

    Define parameters of integration first. Whole hog? No.

    There are some things that are flexible (in these, there are no problems to adjust or update) and some things that are not – we will not water down the principles that are unalterable to make people happy. Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse – he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization

    Because you are living in the literal descendant civilization, both genetically and culturally.
    , @TheJester

    Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse – he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.
     
    Your reply is an admission that Muslims will never successfully integrate into Western society. Their religion forbids it. This is why Islam is a threat to Western Civilization.

    As demonstrated in contemporary Europe ... Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands ... Muslim immigrants are more dangerous to Western society than Communist conspirators and should be banned accordingly. In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.
  39. @Talha
    Hey TheJester,

    Like I said, that is fine - define them as theocracies as you wish. To a Muslim who has studied his tradition, the analogy is incorrect. The West doesn't really have a parallel framework in its history so it wants to try to define things through its eyes. Again totally fine, don't expect us to play along.

    You must be basing your judgement
     
    On studying the Shariah for years and its principles and Islamic history. The nation-state model may or may not be the best framework for setting up a Muslim society (it was adopted from external sources, it was not an organic, internal growth) - the jury is still out on that. An Islamic framework is extremely flexible, historically and currently it has helped define the parameters of anything from military dictatorships, tribal confederations, monarchies, and even parliamentary democracies. One size does not fit all.

    Islam is not compatible with democracy
     
    If you have studied the matter with traditional scholars then you'll know it is compatible enough. Right now there is a sea shift, the increased Islamic political changes reflect the voice of the people - read the polls, Muslim people increasingly want Islam. If you think that is not true, you have only been paying attention to the secular urban elites when they put out their rallies in places like downtown Tehran, and ignoring the many more voices in places like Mashhad.

    In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams.
     
    This only regards a genrally small subset of laws for society. Islamic scholars are not involved in the legal decisions as to what the penalty for running a red light are or build construction codes. The vast majority of human interaction and needs in and outside the Muslim world is secular - period.

    the Ummah
     
    The unified Ummah is an ideal and one unrealized since the Abbassid's political power splintered. Men whose hearts are mired in this world will always fight over it no matter which religion they profress, it is the nature of the material world to fracture; wealth, land, age, genetic differences, etc. As long as the hearts are unified in the mosques (which are not considered part of the domain of the earthly sovereigns) across the world - that is good enough.

    and never integrate into Western society
     
    Define parameters of integration first. Whole hog? No.

    There are some things that are flexible (in these, there are no problems to adjust or update) and some things that are not - we will not water down the principles that are unalterable to make people happy. Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse - he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

    Peace.

    Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization

    Because you are living in the literal descendant civilization, both genetically and culturally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Of course, you can see it in the architecture - all of that is fine. As I said, there are some details we can adjust and some principles that we simply cannot compromise on. The religion means 'submission' for a reason; we will not break our principles for anyone. Neither did the first generation care whether they were up to snuff in the eyes of the Sassanid civilization. Does that mean we must necessarily be at logger heads with everything in Greco-Roman civilization? Of course not - a lot of Hellenistic ideas (that were compatible) were absorbed centuries ago by Muslim scholars and scientists.

    Peace.
  40. @Talha
    Hey TheJester,

    Like I said, that is fine - define them as theocracies as you wish. To a Muslim who has studied his tradition, the analogy is incorrect. The West doesn't really have a parallel framework in its history so it wants to try to define things through its eyes. Again totally fine, don't expect us to play along.

    You must be basing your judgement
     
    On studying the Shariah for years and its principles and Islamic history. The nation-state model may or may not be the best framework for setting up a Muslim society (it was adopted from external sources, it was not an organic, internal growth) - the jury is still out on that. An Islamic framework is extremely flexible, historically and currently it has helped define the parameters of anything from military dictatorships, tribal confederations, monarchies, and even parliamentary democracies. One size does not fit all.

    Islam is not compatible with democracy
     
    If you have studied the matter with traditional scholars then you'll know it is compatible enough. Right now there is a sea shift, the increased Islamic political changes reflect the voice of the people - read the polls, Muslim people increasingly want Islam. If you think that is not true, you have only been paying attention to the secular urban elites when they put out their rallies in places like downtown Tehran, and ignoring the many more voices in places like Mashhad.

    In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams.
     
    This only regards a genrally small subset of laws for society. Islamic scholars are not involved in the legal decisions as to what the penalty for running a red light are or build construction codes. The vast majority of human interaction and needs in and outside the Muslim world is secular - period.

    the Ummah
     
    The unified Ummah is an ideal and one unrealized since the Abbassid's political power splintered. Men whose hearts are mired in this world will always fight over it no matter which religion they profress, it is the nature of the material world to fracture; wealth, land, age, genetic differences, etc. As long as the hearts are unified in the mosques (which are not considered part of the domain of the earthly sovereigns) across the world - that is good enough.

    and never integrate into Western society
     
    Define parameters of integration first. Whole hog? No.

    There are some things that are flexible (in these, there are no problems to adjust or update) and some things that are not - we will not water down the principles that are unalterable to make people happy. Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse - he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

    Peace.

    Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse – he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

    Your reply is an admission that Muslims will never successfully integrate into Western society. Their religion forbids it. This is why Islam is a threat to Western Civilization.

    As demonstrated in contemporary Europe … Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands … Muslim immigrants are more dangerous to Western society than Communist conspirators and should be banned accordingly. In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TheJester,

    In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.
     
    Correct. The problem is, you see hostility everywhere. The West's cultural, political and religious demise is going quite handsomely at the hands of Westerners - we did not make porn nor gay-pride parades ubiquitous in the West. The reason people are pissing in their pants about us in the first place - even though we are a small minority - is because we are serious about our faith. I don't support Muslims violently taking over the West, I simply don't see a problem with them working, worshiping, having families and going about their business. If you find that threatening - that's your problem, not ours. If you had civilizational confidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If there are Muslims who are acting like thugs, by all means, kick them out. And I totally understand the push to stop any more from coming in.

    Peace.
  41. @iffen
    Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization

    Because you are living in the literal descendant civilization, both genetically and culturally.

    Hey iffen,

    Of course, you can see it in the architecture – all of that is fine. As I said, there are some details we can adjust and some principles that we simply cannot compromise on. The religion means ‘submission’ for a reason; we will not break our principles for anyone. Neither did the first generation care whether they were up to snuff in the eyes of the Sassanid civilization. Does that mean we must necessarily be at logger heads with everything in Greco-Roman civilization? Of course not – a lot of Hellenistic ideas (that were compatible) were absorbed centuries ago by Muslim scholars and scientists.

    Peace.

    Read More
  42. @TheJester

    Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse – he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.
     
    Your reply is an admission that Muslims will never successfully integrate into Western society. Their religion forbids it. This is why Islam is a threat to Western Civilization.

    As demonstrated in contemporary Europe ... Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands ... Muslim immigrants are more dangerous to Western society than Communist conspirators and should be banned accordingly. In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.

    Hey TheJester,

    In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.

    Correct. The problem is, you see hostility everywhere. The West’s cultural, political and religious demise is going quite handsomely at the hands of Westerners – we did not make porn nor gay-pride parades ubiquitous in the West. The reason people are pissing in their pants about us in the first place – even though we are a small minority – is because we are serious about our faith. I don’t support Muslims violently taking over the West, I simply don’t see a problem with them working, worshiping, having families and going about their business. If you find that threatening – that’s your problem, not ours. If you had civilizational confidence, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If there are Muslims who are acting like thugs, by all means, kick them out. And I totally understand the push to stop any more from coming in.

    Peace.

    Read More

Comments are closed.