Thoughts and Truth from the Impossible Life

| Winds Of Jihad | Turkey: Parliament Speaker Warns Against Racism &”Islamophobia” In Europe

See on Scoop.itIslam Revealed

Desperately trying to conflate racism with our God-given right to defend ourselves from slavery. “Islamophobia” is a term concocted by the Muslim Brotherhood to make us defenseless continue reading

Islamophobia is a myth, false narrative, and psychological attack.

Fatwa On Islam

See on sheikyermami.com

Advertisements

April 25, 2012 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Turkey and Islamic Politics

The Arab revolts of 2011 awakened interest in the Turkish model, exemplifying an Islamist-rooted party building a liberal democracy. Turkey’s experience with the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government since 2002 shows quite the opposite.
When the AKP came to power, some saw it as an opportunity to end Kemalism and liberalize the country. They suggested that the AKP, rooted in Turkey’s Islamist opposition, would move beyond rigid Kemalism, creating a truly liberal democracy. Some added that the AKP would also shed illiberal Kemalist traditions, such as its nationalist foreign policy line on European Union accession, as well as its taboos surrounding the Armenian issue.

The AKP did not move Turkey beyond Kemalism. Instead, the party destroyed Kemalists, while at the same time it perpetuated old Kemalism’s taboos and attitudes and abandoned its liberal ideals, such as gender equality. Hence, a decade after the AKP assumed power, Turkey has become more illiberal. The old Kemalists are out and the “new” old Kemalists are in. The AKP’s “new” old Kemalists do not share any of Kemalism’s pro-Western tendencies and have plenty of illiberalism to spare.

Take, for instance, the Armenian issue: When the AKP came to power, some maintained that the AKP could normalize Turkey’s ties with Armenia and open a liberal debate on the fateful events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. The AKP initially toyed with the idea of rapprochement — to the extent of involving U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to broker a deal in 2009, only to break its promise later.

Another illustrative lesson in AKP intentions can be drawn from a recent visit by AKP leader and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Kars, a town on the Turkish-Armenian border. Erdogan commented on a statue, a symbol of Turkish-Armenian friendship depicting two abstract characters in shared agony, calling the statue “a freak show” and requesting that it be destroyed. So much for casting out old Kemalism’s taboos: the AKP perpetuates these taboos, even if it eliminated Kemalists.

Nor has the AKP abandoned old Kemalism’s nationalist stance in its foreign policy. Rather, the party has maintained this posture, and even moved beyond it to the point of undermining Turkey’s historic goal of joining the EU.

Initially, the AKP pursued EU accession, though it now appears this was a tactical choice intended to allay fears about the AKP’s political identity as an Islamist party. When Turkey entered membership talks in 2005 and the idea of a liberal society appeared within reach, the AKP backpedaled.

What is worse, the party is now fanning anti-European sentiments. Recently, the AKP’s chief negotiator for EU accession warned that Europe risks “emulate[ing] the fascist methods of the 1930s.” The power of such rhetoric should not be underestimated: according to a recent German Marshall Fund poll, 74 percent of Turks supported EU accession in 2004 while only 38 percent supported membership in 2010.

The AKP’s “new” old Kemalism is painfully un-European. Take, for instance, gender equality: In 1994, 15 percent of executive civil service positions were held by women, according to IRIS, an Ankara-based women’s rights group. This number has since decreased to 11 percent. While 33 percent of all lawyers in Turkey are women, not a single woman exists among the nine top bureaucrats in Turkey’s Justice Ministry. Contrast this with the large number of female jurists in the country’s high courts where, until recently, judges were appointed by their peers rather than the government. Nearly half of the members of the Council of State, Turkey’s top administrative court, are women. A recent amendment to the constitution gives the AKP the right to singlehandedly appoint judges to the high court, which will effectively end judicial independence and further erode women’s rights.

Lastly, consider the AKP’s record on freedom of expression. Recently, it started an investigation into comments by Suheyl Batum, deputy chair of main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Speaking on the Turkish military’s diminishing role in politics, Batum said that the “military is like a paper tiger.” The AKP reacted with efforts to press criminal charges against Batum for “insulting the military.” Here is the ultimate proof that the AKP enshrines “new” old Kemalism: the party is investigating a Kemalist for criticizing a Kemalist institution!

After nearly a decade in power, the AKP has not eliminated Turkey’s taboos, embraced Europe, or increased freedoms. Instead, using its unbridled control over the executive, legislative and now judicial branches and the media, the party has eliminated Kemalists, and now aims to shape Turkish society in its own narrowly conservative and authoritarian image. In other words, the old Kemalists are gone and the “new” old Kemalists are in charge of Ankara.

Turkey and the Arab countries are different in many ways, and it is difficult to draw direct analogies. However, if Turkey’s experience under the AKP proves anything, one should not expect Islamist parties to build liberal societies after the great Arab revolt is over.

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

March 31, 2011 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Turkish German Woman Finds Freedom From Islam

February 8, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Egypt is the start of the end for Freedom Worldwide

Two huge processes are happening right before our eyes. One is the Arab liberation revolution that is instigated by Islamic tyrants to be that seek to impose strict Sharia Law and end freedom, free speech and all that is non-Islamic. After half a century during which moderate Arab leaders have ruled the Arab world, their control is weakening. After 40 years of decaying stability, the rot is eating into the stability. The Arab masses will no longer accept what they used to accept. The Fundamental Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood are seeing their chance to seize control in the false name of “the people”.

Processes that have been roiling beneath the surface for about a decade are suddenly bursting out in a scripted show of violence and rioting. Modernization, globalization, telecommunications and Islamization have created a critical mass that cannot be stopped. The example of a possible democratic Iraq is awakening others, and Al Jazeera’s accurate broadcasts are fanning the flames. And so the Tunisia fell, Cairo is falling and other Arab moderate states will fall.

The scenes are similar to the Palestinian uprising of 1987, but the collapse recalls the Soviet collapse in Eastern Europe of 1989. No one knows where the uprising will lead. No one knows whether it will bring Islamic Tyranny or a modified Sharia compliant democracy. But things will never again be the same.

The old order in the Middle East is crumbling. Just as the revolution in the 1950s brought down the Arab monarchism that had relied on the colonial powers, the 2011 revolution in the square is bringing down the Arab leaders who were dependent on the United States.

The second process is the acceleration of the decline of the West. For some 60 years the West gave the world imperfect but stable order. It built a kind of post-imperial empire that provided relative quiet and maximum peace. The rise of China, India, Brazil and Russia, like the economic crisis in the United States, has made it clear that the empire is beginning to fade.

And yet, the West has maintained a needed sort of international hegemony that has helped temper the radicalism of Islamists and assisted to maintain the moderate Arab leaders such as Mubarak in the Middle East. Just as no replacement has been found for the dollar, none has been found for American leadership. As Stealth Jihad has taken hold in the West, the Western countries’ show only a very poor handling of the Middle East. Right before our eyes the superpowers that maintained the freedoms the world has known, especially in the Middle East are becoming dhummi to the Tyranny of Islam.

There are no excuses for the contradictions. How can it be that Bush’s America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world, but not the deep seeded threat of Islamic Tyranny represented by the Muslim Brotherhood and its off shoots such as Al-Qaeda , and Obama’s America ignored it until last week and now is taking sides against freedom and moderate leaders such as Mubarak? How can it be that in May 2009, Hosni Mubarak was an esteemed president whom Barack Obama respected, and in January 2011, Mubarak is a dictator whom even Obama is casting aside? How can it be that in June 2009, Obama didn’t support the masses who came out against the zealot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while now he stands by the masses who are coming out against the moderate Mubarak?

There is one answer: The West’s position is not a moral one that reflects a real commitment to human rights. The West’s position reflects the adoption of Jimmy Carter’s worldview: kowtowing to benighted, strong tyrants while abandoning moderate, weak ones.

Carter’s betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West’s betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It’s not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It’s a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West’s word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.

The Islamic Tyranny revolution will fundamentally change the Middle East. The acceleration of the West’s decline will change the world. One outcome will be a surge toward China, Russia and regional powers like Brazil, Turkey and Iran. Another will be a series of international flare-ups stemming from the West’s lost deterrence. But the overall outcome will be the collapse of North Atlantic political hegemony not in decades, but in years. When the United States and Europe bury Mubarak now, they are also burying the powers they once were. In Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the age of Western hegemony is fading away and with it the last hope for freedom, human rights and decency. It is the beginning of perpetual violence, oppression of woman, Christians, Jews, loss of free speech, loss of freedom, and war.

February 3, 2011 Posted by | Christianity / God, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: