Neo-Ottomanism

 

It looks like people resisted it somehow. Still we are at the middle of east and west.

Zia Gokalp, who has been considered as the most influential spiritual founder of Turkish nationalism, affirmed that Islam had been equipped with an adequate framework to accommodate and adapt to morphological changes in time and space. He says that the injunctions of the Quran (nass or text) stay eternal and unchangeable while 'urf' or the collective ideas and ijma --the consensus of the scholars -- allow enough room for the dogma to adapt itself to changing necessities of life. According to Gokalp, the Islamic law has a two-fold source: the traditional Shariah and the Social Shariah. The Social Shariah is continually changing in accordance with social evolution. The stagnation of the world of Islam is due to the failure of the Muslims to relate the 'nass' to the 'urf' by means of ijtihad. Gokalp has no doubt that Islam is the only religion that exhorts change. He found Quranic sanction for the secular authorities to assume legislative functions in Islam in the verse: 'Obey God and the Prophet, and those in authority among you.' (IV:59) Those 'in authority' are surely to exercise their authority in the secular-mundane sphere. For this differentiation, he demanded the transfer of the judiciary functions of the Sheikh al Islam to the legislature and urged that the office of Sheikh al Islam should be more of a scholar, devoid of political authority. Another of his demands was the abolition of the Ministry of Awkaf and a ban on the various Dervish orders who had misused the pious endowments for self-perpetuation and the propagation of their exaggerated belief in fatalism. Gokalp also advocated the modernization of Muslim family life and urged the complete abandonment of purdah and the unqualified recognition of equality of the sexes. Ziya Gokalp was among the earliest public figures in Turkey to champion a purely secular state which was later established by Mustafa Kemal. "In the first place, in a modern state, the right to legislate and to administer directly belongs to the people. No office, no tradition and no other right can restrict and limit this right. In the second place, all members of the modern nation, regardless of their relgious affiliation, are regarded as equal to each other in every respect. In short, all provisions existing in our laws that are contrary to liberty, equality and justice and all traces of theocracy and clericalism should be completely eliminated

 

I am glad i am not the only one who feels that the southern most balkan is culturally distinct from teutonic europe.

Turkey is not east because you yourself cut the connection  80 years ago.

You guys used to be the heart of islamic culture, now that culture is so strange for you. How many of you can read the newspapers belonging to Kurtulus Savas time? I was reading an old turkish newspaper to the my Turkish friends because they were not able to read it, intrestingly I found that you guys used to speak a language more eastern than what you speak now. Big change eh. Anyhow personally I believ you did the right thing I wish in Iran we had done the same.

 

First off all. What Ataturk did is Westernization. Fully. What Ziya Gokalp was talking about in Turkculugun Esaslari is also Westernization. Exactly. However westernization isn't a bad thing that you could be thinking of. On the contrary Ataturk did it to protect the Turkish culture and tradition. And It's so called modernization that makes you look a bad european imitation. Just look at the arabic countries or Tanzimatcilar period in Turkish history. Arabs are doing what Turkey was doing in 1800's. "Modernized things" that come from western civilization that is produced by industrilization and urban culture in an eastern civilization that is produced by feudalism and monarchyism. The result: Inferiority complex. That's why the role models of the industrilized and modernized arabic people are western people.

 

But Turkey... Turkey redefined herself completely in Western civilization. Therefore there IS an industrilized and urbanized Turkish culture and tradition. That's still eastern but based on Western civilization.

 

Let's see an example.

 

One of the most important rules for industrilization is: Women must work and produce for society. Therefore "Women rights" is extremely important for western civilization. However in the middle eastern civilization there's no conception of "Women workers". Because the civilization is the result of agricultural and feudal life style. Therefore the only role model for arabic women workers is the westerner ones.

 

However when you tell a Turkish woman worker how terrible Turkish culture is about women and their rights she says "the terrible things about Turkish women in past are not because of the turkish culture. It's related to arabic. In past Turkish women were warriors like their men which means that women and men are equal in central asian Turkic culture." This is because of the Turkish westernization. Turkish history -like every single turkish thing- is carefully fixed to fit industrilization and westernization.   

 

 

There're many other examples.  

 

 

 

As for Turkish political and cultural europeanness. Politically and Culturally Turkey is a member of almost all of the western political and cultural orgazations (Say UEFA for instance) and nearly none of the middle eastern or asian orgazation. Even though she is not tradionally a european country.