Post-Islamists and Neo-Secularists
Excerpts from Pinar Tremblay’s column in The Turkish Daily News:
Islamists are dead, along with dinosaur secularists.
[But] “religion matters.” It is crucial that we accept this stubborn fact. …It has been around for a long time, as a source of both comfort and conflict…. Therefore, it is time to wake up for those who assume “religion” is a fashion-show, or “the opium” of the pre-modern, poor, rural people….
[Those] whom I call “latte Islamists” are everywhere in Turkey now. They are the ones driving Volvos, using cell phones, podcasting sohbet sessions. Their daughters are enrolled in Koran courses and along with self-defense classes; their scarves may be Gucci or Tek-bir Giyim, but they surely exist on all socio-economic levels. Religion adapts to the needs of the times. Remember the “hodja” who suggested that phone rings should be “bird sounds”, rather than any other music, even religious music, so if someone is praying at the mosque and forget the turn off his ringer, he will not disturb our fellow Muslims. These nuances about religious behavior are updated every day. …
Post-Islamists are still political, but with rather modest goals….Post-Islamists encourage reformulation and reinterpretation of theological and philosophical issues. As they have acknowledged the failure of political Islam over time, they struggle to find solutions. Throughout the process they utilize secular and apolitical solutions on critical issues. This is an important factor to emphasize as many observers expect everything to be perfectly in line with the essence of “Islam.” It is not. These are some of the signposts of post-Islamism….
The success of post-Islamism depends upon the healthy functioning of secularism. … There are various types of secularisms, and indeed Turkey is on the path to create one of its own. For this to happen we need both post-Islamists and neo-secularists in the mix, the former has to understand they need secularism and should strive for an endogenized secularist system, the latter needs to accept that religion matters and it cannot be erased out of the political system, its effects can be best modified though neo-secularism. This struggle is a sign of a healthy, vivid civil society as long as it is conducted within the boundaries of law and order…
Those who seek enhanced religious freedoms should value neo-secularism as it guarantees neutrality between different types of religious beliefs and between religion and non-religion. The moral purpose of the state should be to find unity within diversity, and respect religious pluralism as well as limiting its intervention in individual liberties.
The bottom-line: religion does not matter, or should not matter, from the perspective of a state institution. Otherwise, how else are we going to find unity between religion and non-religion, or between certified and non-certified religions?
Nihat, apparently it takes some education we lack to truly understand this matter.
I quote from the article:
Those who seek enhanced religious freedoms should value neo-secularism as it guarantees neutrality between different types of religious beliefs and between religion and non-religion.
This cannot be accomplished as stated, unless the state does nothing at all. There seems to be this fantasy that any and all aproaches to religion can be somehow accomodated by a PC-ish state. They cannot. The examples are are trivial to come up with here and elsehere (just ry to differentiate between a cult and a religion, for starters and guess what approach trumps all in a secular society).
The moral purpose of the state should be to find unity within diversity, and respect religious pluralism as well as limiting its intervention in individual liberties.
No. I will not attempt to seek a ‘moral purpose’ of my own to assign to the state, but this one isn’t it. I don’t even know what it means. It seems like somethinga poltician would make up when being careful not to offend anyone.
Whatever it means, it cannot mean the state here in Turkey. The one we got is busy funding a directorate of religious affairs[1] and then turning around and banning a piece of clothing that its own directorate claims to be ordered by God. Despite all the sophisticated post-mumble analyses, the plain and simple fact on the ground is that we have a situation where one civil servant teaches something, and another bans it. So as far as Turkey goes, there’s no ‘neutral’ state, no ‘unity seeking’ state and, if you ask me, not even a sane one when it comes to religion.
[1] More than $1.5B/yr — more than the budget of many cabinet ministries. For example see this link for last year.
well, no not really the author is saying that the religion matters, how we understand religion matters. It is a great piece. Making amazingly bold points and very clear. WOW
Exactly Bulent. I find these pleas a bit like sweet nothings.
Did you notice a certain pair of news articles that appeared next to each other in Radikal the other day? One was about Diyanet’s equating flirting with adultery and reiterating other usual sins like wearing perfume; and the other one was about a hapless yound couple attacked and wounded by an angry mob for flirting in public in Sincan. Now, what would that state with ‘the moral purpose’ do about this?
I wrote another comment but I was not sure if it went thru. I think what you guys are saying is complementing the arguments generated in this piece. The author is not talking about “WHAT IS” considering the moral purpose of the state, but rather what ought to be. There is no claim that that is what we are living through. Rather it is stated clearly that the ultimate goal is the islamic state and only through a neo-secularist revision this can be prevented. The message is there even though it is sugar coated, which can be attributed to personal style. Now given what is going on and how important what diyanet says is for the public opinion, how can we make this better? how can we become a part of the change we strive to see in the world. I appreciated the piece bec it provides a fresh point of view, rather than summarizing our daily worries it shows us a different view point, a way to compromise without being too harsh on either say. Politics is about compromise and reducing the tensions right? I think it is a thought-provoking piece. It definitely got us talking, plus it highlights that the debate btw secularist islamist is so passe. I did not like the title much though, it does not do the piece justice. thx
Ilknur, in the final analysis, and under logical and historical scrutiny, the piece comes down to saying, ultimately, religion should be a private matter (does that sound familiar?), and a secular state system that is hand-off about it to the extent possible would be the best thing to have. But I understand your take, too: the piece is in search of a way out of the current difficulties. I am not questioning the author’s intentions in that regard. I would be on the same page with her if she said Turks’ converting to, say, Buddhism en masse should not concern the state.
Nihat, yes I think we are all complementing each other’s argument. I guess we can email the author and ask her as well. However, I value her argument on “neo-secularism” and “latte islamists” bec whatever the diyanet says with regards to the rules of religion, in practice very few people and groups follow the religious law to the letter. It is not an easy achievement unless you have a political system a ala Iran or Saudi which enforces these laws. Of course, there will be crazy people attacking miniskirted women now the problem is how will the security and judiciary forces react to that? will this be punished harshly or seen as a minor misdemenour. That is the problem. Bec afterall yes religion is a private matter, but religious ideas affect the state system, laws, life style arrangements. They influence what is possible and what is desirable. Therefore what is private is very public at times. Again, if for nothing else it is a great piece to bring new concepts to the table. I would be curious to see if anyone would like the term “latte islamist” amongs the yuppi islamists in turkey. Who knows?
Nihat,
Diyanet has always been like that (at the mosque personnel level). They are somewhat more vocal now and can reach people who don’t frequently go to mosques, that’s all.
Apparently the folks in Sincan haven’t heard about their transformation to post-Islamism. Silliness aside, the Sincan incident is an apt example. I don’t know what the state with a moral purpose of the described sort would do, but it seems clear what some (many?) folks there wish.
If the power were to shift to the local governments, the people there would probably have the cops do the ‘morality enforcement.’ This does not necessarily concern religion directly. For example, the US, as far as I know, by-passes any talk of religion and sanctions ‘community standards’ to shape the behaviour of the gov’t when it comes to obscenity and such in public. That’s not quite a principled position to take, but not taking that position and standing firm on principle, would, to the holders of those standards, amount to tyranny. It seems that you cannot have ‘liberal’ principles applied w/o an ‘illiberal’ public crying bloody murder. If the populace doesn’t do it on its own, there will always be opportunists who’ll try to press the right buttons to provoke the reaction.
Freedom of expression is somewhat like that too, if the people want offensive opinions or, say, cartoons etc. to be punished, a government that protects the holders of such opinions and the artists of such cartoons will not be popular. It seems the author of this article had some kind of a liberal approach to such matters in mind with the post-Islamism label.
Re: “If the power were to shift to the local governments, the people there would probably have the cops do the ‘morality enforcement.’”
Imo, power may shift in this manner and such may be for the better, provided that proper checks and balances, and accountability are also in place. Currently, the challenge or danger we’re facing is wide-ranging powers’ being grabbed by a certain segment of dubious intentions and credentials. I happen to think that the American system has (had?) an almost uniquely brilliant aspect: the people applying the divide-and-rule principle on its government. They hated kings and mobs, and struck a pretty decent balance between the two extremes. Anyway, I am not entirely sure if the American example is directly applicable to Turkey; historical differences and all. But sometimes, I feel sick with what’s going on back home (yeah, I am abroad), and I wish it were.
Just two recent examples that make me sick:
1) Fikri Saglar’s gossip column where he wrote about the alleged talk in AKP circles re: the contents of the Dolmabahce summit between Erdogan and Buyukanit (quite plausible claims imo). And the “how dare you call into question my honor and integrity” response.
2) The revelation of CHP offices’ being tapped, and other plausible suspicions of illegitimate surveillance of numerous other players. And the same kind of response these complaints get from AKP ranks, Interior Minister, etc. The general chief of police even went so far as to say, there is no investigation to be made, we didn’t listen, and that’s that. What? You don’t even think it to be your duty to find out who did?
It’d be a bit crude, but I liken our political theater to Turkish bath, where bathers don’t want people to hear what happens when one drops the soap bar. How dare do you think I am …? Riiight!..
Yeah Nihat, aren’t governments cute when they are little? You’re right on accountability too. We should get our latte-drinking people to adopt another imported custom and wear ribbons advocating this. I’d suggest The Accountability Awareness Ribbon.
http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2008/06/you-have-to-han.html
did you guys see this? I think our attention to this piece is shared by many others. It is not about whether or not the author is correct, it is about the fact that she highlights a crucial point, this is not a new struggle but there are new ways to solve these old dilemmas before it all becomes an impasse. I think this piece got the attention of several blogs bec it actually is very bold yet makes good calm points. I thought you guys may want to check the other blogs as well where the author related this piece to the israeli-syrian peace process and the AKP closure case.