The Doctrine of Preemptive Intolerance
Excerpts from Mustafa Akyol’s article, “Secular Jihad”, in The Wall Street Journal:
Who would you expect to be zealous enemies of “moderate Islam”? Islamic fundamentalists? You bet. From Osama bin Laden & Co. to less violent but equally fanatic groups, Islamist militants abhor their co-religionists who reject tyranny and violence in the name of God. But they are not alone. In this part of the world, there is another group that holds a totally opposite worldview but shares a similar hatred of moderate Islam: Turkey’s secular fundamentalists….
According to Princeton historian Sükrü Hanioglu, this ideology is rooted in the “vulgar materialism” of late 19th-century Germany, which heralded a postreligious age of “science and reason.” This philosophy, which was emulated by some of the Young Turks and inherited by most of their Kemalist successors, has been openly endorsed by the Constitutional Court. “The secularism principle,” Turkey’s top judicial body argued in a 1989 decision, “requires that the society should be kept away from thoughts and judgments that are not based on science and reason.” … In Turkey secular fundamentalism is the official ideology, and it is eager to crush any alternative…. If religion is given even a little bit of space in public, they argue, it will soon dominate the whole system. This doctrine of pre-emptive intolerance guides, and misleads, Ankara’s establishment on virtually every issue….For them, there is no difference between the Gucci-wearing, head-scarved woman in Istanbul who wants to study business and the chador-wearing woman in Tehran who cries, “Death to capitalism!”
Click here for Mustafa Akyol’s article in The Wall Street Journal
I believe the main problem here is the so called ideals of “tolerance&plurality” which the now limping liberalist western mainstream has been trying to constitute since the cold war. One could point to the concept of “repressive tolerance” put forward by herbert marcuse in the 60s which was initially aimed at pointing out the illusive nature of freedom in capitalist societies. The supposed freedom these “democracies” allow is not without boundaries. Intellectual debate on alternatives is condoned (not during the “global” communist hunt) but political “action” is not. Now the exception stated in parenthesis is actually more than an exception it is the paradigm which has led to the “repressive®ressive tolerance” which has allowed for the upsurgence of religious beliefs. The natural succession of social&political thought was barred during the “red scare”, and the dichotomical choice between totalitarian communism and “free” democracy was forced upon the public. During the cold war era the US supported the afghan rebels against the Soviet Union. In light of the success attained in this “intifada” the US intelligence community realized how wonderful a tool the old opium of religion was in fighting communism and how wonderful it would be if only they could spread this notion of “islam against communism” to the other islam influenced regions of the Soviet Union. Though it may not be organically related we all know now that the iranian islamic revolution proved that the motto “the end justifices the means” doesn’t always work out as planned. Iran of course was the shiite backlash, while the greatest sunni backlash would be the al qaeda . So frankenstein was/is mad at master; well what’s to be done? Islam must be infiltrated and moderated. This is where Turkey, the AKP and the affiliated Gulen movement comes in. Just do a google search on “gulen and graham fuller” and see what comes up. The fact is that the US is quiet prepared to sacrifice the secular republican Turkey in hopes of creating a model for a moderate islamic democracy. Now republican secularists in Turkey naturally argue against this; on the basis of sovereignty and yes sir “science&reason”. The ideals of rationalism&humanism did not naturally dissolve, they were the collateral damage in the fight against communism. The Turkish Republic was constituted on the ideals of progress through reason&education. An education system and cultural reforms to facilitate these ideals were created by the state (john dewey&village institutes). But the introduction of the truman doctrine and the marshall plan forced the the turkish state to accept a multi party system when as of yet the public had not fully recognized and accepted the ideals of the republican revolution. The rest is a history of republican ideals against american interests and backward religiosity. Of course one may argue on the effects of specific internal and external influences, but the west (if there still is a west which cares for humanistic ideals rather than corporate revenues) must urgently re-evaluate its stance on “democracy”. Does “democracy” alone mean anything without enlightenment ideals? Can democracy allow “regressive-tolerance”, meaning tolerance towards backward ideologies. I say “No!” Democracy and the ballot cannot be used to vote away the ideals which constitute and allow Democracy in the first place. The indictment which may result with the closure of the AKP must be viewed in this light.
We’ve come a long way since this opinion piece appeared in the Journal, haven’t we? Though I am not sure if I should be proud of the far better talent exhibited by my fellow countryman, I am sure I’m not happy about the powers that be that made this kind of swipe at Turkish secularism possible. I won’t take the article apart, though it wouldn’t be that hard, since I do think he’s right about the flimsiness of the legal case. I will, however, suppress my giggling for a bit to point out the portrayal of the new prototype harmless Muslim:
Turkish secularists also portray the AKP as part of the radical Islamist movement. For them, there is no difference between the Gucci-wearing, head-scarved woman in Istanbul who wants to study business and the chador-wearing woman in Tehran who cries, “Death to capitalism!”
Conspicuous consumption coupled with a lust for knowledge of money-making is apparently what this ‘moderate Islam’ entails when one’s writing for the WSJ crowd. For some odd reason I prefer the mental image of a biology major from a modest background wearing an inexpensive t-shirt, but, hey, as long as capitalism isn’t opposed I suppose we’ll be fine.