Turkey has long been seen as the gateway between the East and the West. With its Capital Istanbul straddling the Bosphorus it is the place where Europe meets Asia and modernity meets conservative values of old. Turkey is a nation with an identity crisis. Is it defined by its Ottoman history and Islamic rule or by a secular state sitting comfortably at the table of the European Union? Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has chosen the path of an Islamic flavoured democracy that has left it open to attack from the Secularists.
Ever since the Kemalists abolished the old Caliphate and installed in its place a secular state overseen by the iron grip of the military, Turkey has been torn between what it wants to be and what the world wants it to be. With a majority Muslim population and a growing desire for Islam there is little doubt, despite what the secularists say, that the Turkish people want to have Islam as part of their governance. This is the single major factor why the AKP has been elected and re-elected because they offer the promise of Islam. In reality Turkey is a victim of its own and the AKP’s insistence of being all things to all people.
The recent events in Istanbul over the redevelopment of Gezi Park are becoming less a fight over green space in a sprawling metropolis and more about the continuing struggle to recapture the heart of Turkey away from what Western inspired secularists see as the Islamist threat. What is happening in Istanbul is no Arab Spring. It is not the poor oppressed rising up against dictatorial rule but a minority new generation who look more to the West for their solutions than Turkey’s Ottoman past. To them everything the Erdogan government does is an attempt to Islamicise the country. So when alcohol sales are restricted during the night hours, a disagreement about legislation becomes a battle between moderate minded youth actioning their democratic rights on one side and a religious zealot in the form of Erdogan on the other.
Muslims who are smitten with secularism should remember Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى words:
أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ ۚ فَمَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ يَفْعَلُ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْكُمْ إِلَّا خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ ۗ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ
“Do you, then, believe in one part of the Book and reject the other? What repayment will there be for any of you who do that except disgrace in this world? And on the Day of Rising, they will be returned to the harshest of punishments. Allah is not unaware of what you do.”
(Al-Baqara, 2:85)
The problems facing Erdogan are not too dissimilar to those faced by Mohammed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Al-Nahda party in Tunisia. Both came to power following their country’s uprisings using their perceived Islamic credentials to sway Islamic minded voters into their camps. However, just as Turkey’s secularists find the AKP’s very partial implementation of Islam abhorrent the same is true of Western leaning oppositions in Tunisia and Egypt.
Having chosen democracy as their methodology for change all three parties in very different parts of the world are facing the same problems. Namely how to keep their Islamic face and at the same time keep the West and internal secular sentiment at arm’s length; in effect fighting a losing battle. It is of little surprise that more often than not the compromise is of core Islamic principles rather than a shunning of un-Islamic policies be they foreign or domestic. Morsi has gone on record saying that he does not mind if nudists come to Egypt to holiday as long as they come in their droves. His policies towards Israel are equally un-Islamic.
Erdogan for so long a friend and partner of Israel is no different allowing alcohol to be freely sold and consumed in Turkish streets, unwilling to overturn the Hijab ban in Turkish universities and continually professing his secular credentials. The AKP are fully aware that these protests will be used to stoke up secular sentiments amongst certain stratas of society. This is why they have spent the last five days attempting to reassure the people and the media that they are not a threat to Turkey’s secular state. What will be equally concerning the AKP is the perception of the West towards their handling of these protests. Western support is what worries political groups that make pragmatism and compromise the bedrock of their existence the most. Mainly because they know that without Western support they will be vilified for being in the extremist camp of the Muslims.
Democracy can never be a vehicle for the implementation of Islam. What is being implemented in Turkey, Egypt and Tunisia will ultimately fail. In a democratic state the secular vultures will always circle waiting for any opportunity to call for an end to the “islamicisation” of the democratic process. It is true that these groups are fully capable of gaining and maintaining a grip on power for many years. However, being a guest at someone else’s feast you must take what you are given.
The West has no problem in allowing a certain amount of Islam to exist within the political setup of a state as long as it is done within the democratic process. A process which then allows those who oppose even basic Islamic principles to attack Islam and call for less authoritarian rule. This is exactly what is happening in Turkey. Authoritarian is nothing more than a code word for disliking legislation which has any semblance of an Islamic basis to it.
Erdogan’s biggest challenge when he decides to come home from a state visit to Morocco will not be clearing Istanbul of protesters but convincing them that he is as much a secularist as they are. This is a direct consequence of attempting to islamicise a system which only exists to uphold liberal secularism.
Whatever the outcome of the continuing protests in Istanbul one thing has become clear that despite the wishes of most of those who voted for the AKP, Turkey is and will remain a staunchly secular state. Any attempt to change this will be met by the kind of protests seen over the last few days.
Islam can and should only be implemented using the system ordained by Allah سبحانه وتعالى the Khilafah state. A system which allows for the unrestricted implementation of Islam without the fear of secularists passing accusations of hijacking the political process. Under the Khilafah it would be secularists who would have to accept a political, economic and social system which is based on Islam and not liberal values.
Under the Khilafah, the Khaleefah implemented Islam and carries the burden of being removed from his position if he fails to implement even the smallest aspect of Islam on his citizens. The very notion of keeping all sides happy when legislating is completely alien to the Khilafah. The Khaleefah wouldn’t need the permission of the opposition or the tacit approval of the Western world to build a worldview based on Islam.
إِنَّمَا كَانَ قَوْلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذَا دُعُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَنْ يَقُولُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“The reply of the believers when they are summoned to Allah and His Messenger so that he can judge between them, is to say, ‘We hear and we obey.’ They are ones who are successful.”
(An-Nur, 24:51)