“Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered,” the radical Pakistani cleric wrote in his book, “Islam and Modernism,” which in 2006 was translated from his native Urdu into English.Usmani advocates spreading sharia law in America and the West — the barbaric legal code that not only justifies holy war, but the stonings, floggings, amputations and even beheadings for petty crimes seen in Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan.The aim of Muslims, he wrote, is to “take out people from the rule of people and put them under the rule of Allah.”

You can be sure Usmani will make a case as being a victim of criminal Islamophobia. About his obvious Infidel-a-Phobia, however, no one will say a word! No doubt the multicultural crowd will claim that the capitalist Dow Jone has overreacted and will urge us all to be more understanding. At any moment I expect to see a statement from CAIR (although they seem to have their own little problem right now), and the various Muslim associations in the US, condemning Dow Jones move. While you are expecting the usual reactions… don’t hold your breath waiting for the UN Human Rights Council to condemn Infidel-a-Phobia, or to declare it a crime like they did in the case of Islamophobia.

Read the rest at: Freedom’s Cost

Pope Benedict XVI has no doubt invited more death threats and sanctimonious outrage upon himself following comments made on Thursday about the oppressive nature of political Islam:

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.

His comments came almost exactly a year after he provoked a wave of anger among Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who linked Islam to violence.

Yesterday, near Rome, the 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in “defence of religious liberty”, which, he said “is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right”. (more…)

Lina Joy is a Malaysian woman who converted to Christianity and wanted to marry a Christian man. Before she was a Christian she was a Muslim. As we all know, it is not allowed, according to the Sharia, to leave Islam. Michelle:

Joy bravely went to court to stop being identified as a Muslim–and earned death threats and family disavowal for her apostasy. Now, the verdict is in. Sharia wins, Lina Joy loses:

“You can’t at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another,” Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in delivering judgment in the case, which has stirred religious tensions in the mainly Muslim nation.

Muslims cheered:

The ruling was greeted by shouts of “God is great” from many in the assembled crowd outside the Palace of Justice in Kuala Lumpur…The Joy verdict, which will likely become a precedent for several other pending conversion cases, is seen by many in Malaysia as evidence of how religious politics are cleaving the nation, with a creeping Islamization undermining the rights of both non-Muslims and more moderate adherents to Islam. Last November, at a party conference for the Muslim-dominated United Malays National Organization ruling party, one delegate vowed he would be willing to “bathe in blood” to defend his ethnicity — and, by extension, his religion. In several Malaysian states, forsaking Islam is a crime punishable by prison time.

Like Michelle I wonder: “Where are the feminists? Oh, and how about CAIR? Or our State Department?”

This is a major setback for religious freedom in Malaysia. It deserves to get a lot of attention. Lina Joy dared convert to Christianity, judges told her she cannot. If there is anything in breach with human rights, it is this. As usual, progressives would be wise to respond to this news: if they do not, it will make it very easy for conservatives to blast them for being hypocrites.

More importantly though: I wonder what there is anyone can do to help Lina.

More stress in Turkey:

Arınç, an influential figure in the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), said Parliament would elect a religious president during the rounds of voting held to elect the president. The military released a memo and warned the government not to start a discussion on secularism.

Yesterday, the Hürriyet published an interview with AKP presidential hopeful Abdullah Gül. Gül said: “There can’t be such criteria for the presidency.”

Arınç (thank God for copy and paste with those letters), of course, forgot to wear his secular mask there. The AK Party is a party based on Islamism. Its leaders, like Arınç, Gül and Erdogan, often act as if they support Turkey’s secular system, but make no mistake: all would get rid of the secular system immediately if they could (especially Arınç and Erdogan).

One can only hope that Turkey’s voters will not let themselves be deceived by Erdogan et al. These people oppose a lot Atatürk, the founder of Turkey, stood for.

Meet Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan (quotes from speeches delivered by him from 1994-1998 when he was mayor of Istanbul):

PM Erdogan on Secularism:

“If the people want it, of course secularism will go away. You cannot rule this people by force; you don’t have the power to do that. This [i.e. secularism] cannot work in spite of the people.

“And anyway, for the love of Allah, what is this secularism? You ask them to define it. They can’t. They say that it varies from place to place. So what sort of a strange thing is this [secularism]?

“Today, for every concept there is a definition in the dictionary. Every concept must have a definition […] The interior minister comes and says that the state can interfere with religion. What about the rest? Why don’t you say the rest? No! He does not say that the religion can interfere with the state.

“Yesterday I was at the Bosphorus University; and some of the - probably impressionable - young people there asked me, ‘Mr. Mayor, what do you think about secularism? There are concerns that secularism is disappearing. What will happen?’

“This is what I said to those young friends: ‘In the West they say, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. But this country’s interior minister says that Caesar has rights but God does not!’

“But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says ‘I am a Muslim’ to go on and say ‘I am secular too.’ And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!”

On the Turkish Constitution and Democracy:

“”As for [the motto of Turkish democracy] ‘Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people.’ Now, look here. This is a lie! And it’s a huge lie! We [former PM Erbakan’s Islamist RP (Welfare) Party] suggested this to them for their constitution: We said ‘Let’s put brackets next to ’sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people’ and write within the brackets, ‘once every five years.’

“They began to laugh. I asked them why they were laughing. Do the people have such a privilege, other than once every five years? Then what’s-his-name says - and where does he say this? - it is in 1985 and we are having a discussion on the constitution in a meeting in the Marmara Hotel. He gets up and says ‘No, this is not right.’

“At that moment, the former finance minister, who was completely drunk, also joins in to give advice. I told them that they must have prepared this constitution at the same table [at which they together consume alcohol]. Why? Because they do not prepare these constitutions with sober heads, but with drunken heads! That is why their constitutions last no more than two years.”

Some other nice quotes:
- “There is no need to stand up to honor Ataturk”
- “They [secular Turks] make such a big fuss every November 10th [the anniversary of Ataturk’s death]”
- “We will turn Istanbul into Madina”
- “I am the Imam of Istanbul”
- “Our reference [guide] is Islam. Our only goal is an Islamic state. They can never intimidate us. If the skies and the earth open up, if storms blow on us, if the lava of volcanoes flow on us, we will never change our way. My guide is Islam. If I cannot live according to Islam, why live at all? [Turk], Kurd, Arab, Caucasian cannot be differentiated; because these peoples are united under the roof of Islam.”

What in the world were the Turkish people thinking when they voted for this man? “He changed…” Yeah right, that’s because Islamists often change their ways, right? I mean, he wouldn’t be acting to have changed just to be able to push through some of the reforms he deems necessary (to re-establish the caliphate)… rrrright?

Oops: and here’s the YouTube video, only problem… it’s Turkish, for translation click on the link above.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3hkWCnA8c]

The Jerusalem Post reports:

A defiant cleric warned Pakistan authorities that a raid on his mosque where two policemen are being held captive by radical Islamic students would lead to a holy war against the government, as police detained dozens of students.

The abduction tops months of bold challenges by the Red Mosque to the authority of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s secular, military government.

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said there were no plans to move against the mosque or a radical Islamic seminary attached to it in downtown Islamabad, adding Sunday that use of force to free the captured officers was a “last option.”

But chief cleric at the mosque, Maulana Abdul Aziz, said police detained about 200 students and warned that a show of force by authorities would result in “jihad,” or holy war.

So, lets see: radical Muslims have kidnapped two policemen, but the government won’t attempt to free them because doing so might cause before-mentioned radical Muslims to declare jihad.

That’ll show ‘em!

The extremists promised to release the cops if the government releases nine ’students’ “who are in government custody.” Luckily, the extremists have proven that those nine students were not involved in any extremist organization at all and that they, therefore, should be released. They are clearly completely innocent.

Will Musharraf give in to the demands of these extremists?

Why yes, I am quite sure he will.

Reader David links to this post at Melanie Philips’ place, in the comment section of yesterday’s “Open Thread.” Melanie’s post is a great, fascinating read: she starts off by quoting Tory leader David Cameron who said that “the term ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ terrorism is a form of ‘racism or soft bigotry’ and that those who employ such terms

help do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign.”

Melania remarks, “I wonder therefore whether Cameron would denounce the British Muslim Ed Husain for ‘soft bigotry’ over his book ‘The Islamist’?” She goes on to describe the path Husain took from spiritual, peaceful Islam to political Islam, or Islamism, how Islamists, according to Husain, influence young Muslims, how they use the media to further their agenda, etc. etc.

The anti-AKP rally in Izmir was a success:

Hundreds of thousands of pro-secular Turks gathered in the third largest city of Turkey Sunday to protest against the Islamist-rooted government that they fear is working to raise the influence of religion on society and pressure the secularist center-left parties unite ahead of parliamentary elections set for July 22.

Organizers of the pro-secular rally estimated the participating crowd at around two million. This was the first ever rally which was staged simultaneously both on land and sea as scores of small ferry boats and fishermen boats packed with demonstrators joined the rally from the sea.

Izmir is a port city on the Aegean coast that is a bastion of secularism, and Islamic parties fare poorly there. According to eyewitness accounts the demonstration was the biggest ever held in the port city of Izmir since the 1977 campaign rally in the city by late Bülent Ecevit, who was then heading the Republican People’s Party (CHP). The CHP had won the 1977 parliamentary elections with a 43 percent landslide…

“Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” protesters chanted. “No to sharia (Islamic law).”

The CHP and other opposition parties hope to use the protests to build momentum for the parliamentary elections (July 22). At this moment, the AK Party is, sadly, doing quite well in the polls: more than 40% of Turkish voters say that they support Erdogan’s party.

Two million people, quite amazing.

The New York Times has an article up about today’s protest in Izmir as well.

You can leave it up to Western media to embrace Islamists: Ruling Party Charms a Turkish City With New Take on Secular Heritage.

Six decades of work has arched his back, age has slowed his speech. But Ahmet Hamdi Gul was quick to praise the people running this city in the heart of Anatolia, awash in a transformation from backwater to bustling entrepot, from stronghold of Turkey’s ultranationalists to redoubt of the religiously rooted party that rules the country.

“They’ve done well for the city,” the 81-year-old Gul said simply, during a visit to a factory where he worked until last year.

The words were not unusual, but the speaker was. He is the father of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, whose nomination as Turkey’s president, eventually derailed, touched off a political crisis last month. The father’s modesty says something about Gul’s grass-roots appeal in Kayseri. And his words say something about the ruling Justice and Development Party’s draw here — as modernizers, populists and devout guardians of the poor.

Long the most secular and modern of Muslim nations, Turkey is in the throes of a social and political transformation that began nearly 60 years ago and crested with the Justice and Development Party’s surprising ascent to power in elections in 2002. It is sometimes cast as a simple contest between the secular orthodoxy of Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and the ruling party’s origins in the country’s Islamic movement of the 1990s. But the party’s success in Kayseri shows how it has leveraged the rise of a new elite to create a broad, subtle, sometimes visceral appeal.

It is undoubtedly true that the AK Party has improved Turkey’s economy quite tremendously, but there are bigger issues at stake here. This is not just about the economy, this is also about Turkey’s secular system.

It is quite nice that the Washington Post decided to publish an advertisement for Erdogan / the AK Party, instead of truly giving space to the other side of the debate to make their case as well.

I am sure Erdogan et al. appreciate it.

The beautiful coastal city of Izmir, Turkey, has been hit by a terrorist attack earlier today. A bycycle bomb exploded on a market, injuring 15 people. As far as I know, so far, no one has been reported dead, thank God.

What group is responsible for the attack is, as of yet, unknown. “The blast came a day before a planned anti-government rally in Izmir, Turkey’s third largest city, amid rising political tensions ahead of a July general election.” Perhaps that this has something to do with it. Of course, it could also be the PKK / Kurdish organization.

Izmir is one of the most secular Turkish cities: organizers say that the protest could “draw up to two million people opposed to the Islamist-rooted government of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.”

I have something personal with Izmir, so this blast worries me tremendously. Izmir is one of the most beautiful cities of Turkey: at the coast, surrounded by mountains / hills. It was occupied by the Greec right after the second World War, after which it was liberated by Atatürk(’s forces).

UPDATE
One of the 15 has passed away. 14 injured, 1 dead. May God bless that person.

As I understand it, people think that the PKK is behind the attack. If true, this could increase the call on the government to do something / to invade / attack northern Iraq.

Roger L. Simon reviewed the documentary “Islam vs. Islamism” (Islam vs. Islamists), which was ‘commissioned by PBS for its “American Crossroads” series, but never shown by the network.’ Roger wondered, before watching the doc.: “Quality control or censorship?”

The answer: censorship. According to Roger, the documentary is ‘a riveting and creatively made film about the most important subject of our time: what to do about radical Islam? It confronts this dilemma in a sly, novelistic manner, inter-weaving the stories of good, moderate Muslims with the Imams and supposedly “true Muslims” who, not surprisingly, accuse the moderate Muslims of not being Muslims at all. Soon enough we learn these Imams are apologists for terrorism and for the worst kind of medieval religious sadism.’

So, then, what was / is the problem?

But it does have a strong point of view – and therein lies the rub. PBS, clearly, does not like what this movie says. And I suspect it likes it less because the film is well made (the reverse of what the network originally claimed).

PBS’ views seem particularly troglodytic today in light of recent events at Fort Dix. But that is the least of it. What is far more important to our country is that our Public Broadcasting network, an organization supported by taxpayer money, is practicing the most obvious censorship. PBS is operating here in the manner of similar institutions in the former Soviet Union and in modern day Iran – financing artists and then withholding distribution of their work when it is not deemed ideologically “correct”. It’s a form of though-control and it’s unconscionable.

He then calls on his “fellow Motion Picture Academy members, whatever their political leanings, to protest this cowardly and un-American act of censorship.”

Sadly, it is difficult for John Doe, like me, to watch this documentary himself right now, so he has to rely on the reviews of people like Roger L. Simon (who is, of course, an expert and very trustworthy). Hopefully, we’ll be able to judge for ourselves very soon.

H/t commenter Yonason

A good, hopeful article over at Daniel Pipes’ website:

“Moderate Unicorns,” huffed a reader, responding to my recent plea that Western states bolster moderate Muslims. Dismissing their existence as a myth, he notes that non-Muslims “are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities.”

It’s a valid skepticism and a reasonable demand. Recent events in Pakistan and Turkey, however, prove that moderate Muslims are no myth.

In Pakistan, an estimated 100,000 people demonstrated on April 15 in Karachi, the country’s largest city, to protest the plans of a powerful mosque in Islamabad, the Lal Masjid, to establish a parallel court system based on Islamic law, the Shari‘a. “No to extremism,” roared the crowd. “We will strongly resist religious terrorism and religious extremism,” exhorted Altaf Hussain, leader of the Mutahida Qaumi Movement, at the rally.

In Turkey, more than a million moderate Muslims in five marches protested the bid of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to take over the presidency of the republic, giving it control over the two top government offices (the other being the prime ministry, currently filled by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan).

He goes on to write about the situation in Turkey right now: moderate Muslims, political secularists, there are by no means inclined to let Erdogans AK Party, which has Islamist roots, take over the country. Abdullah Gül was forced to withdraw his candidacy due to the opposition, in Parliament, by the army, and by the Turkish people. These secular Turks refuse to sit by idle, they raise their voices in condemnation of Islamism and want to do everything necessary to preserve Turkey’s secular system.

Hopeful signs? On the one hand yes, on the other hand, no. Why not? Because it is now, seemingly, necessary (suddenly) for the secularists to do so. Suddenly, moderate Muslims feel forced to take action. This means that the situation has become, in their opinion at least, (too) dangerous.

When, then, ‘yes’ as well? Because at least, in Turkey (and some other Muslim countries), moderates are standing up and raising their voices in opposition to Islamism.

An, umh, slightly unorthodox way of finding yourself a woman:

Marina Nemat’s name had been scrawled on her forehead, and she was about to be shot.

She had been locked up in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison since early 1982, when, at age 16, she complained that math and history lessons in her school had been replaced by Koran instruction and political propaganda.

Nemat was rounded up for speaking out against the Ayatollah Khomeini’s brutal regime, and she was sent to Evin to be interrogated, tortured and executed.

Just minutes from death, her life was spared. But the blessing came with a heavy price.

A prison guard named Ali had fallen in love with Nemat and used his father’s connection to the Ayatollah to commute her sentence to life in prison. Threatening to harm her family and friends, he forced Nemat — a Christian — to marry him and convert to Islam.

She wrote a book about her experiences called Prisoner of Tehran; NPR has an excerpt of the book (which I will get for myself). If you want to read it as well, you can order it at Amazon.

Quite surprising news (at least the timing of it): Abdullah Gül has withdrawn from the ‘race’.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has withdrawn from the race to be Turkey’s president after supporters were unable to gather the necessary two-thirds quorum in the parliament for a vote on his candidacy.

The parliament’s speaker twice counted heads in the chamber Sunday but each time announced it was just eight members short of the needed 367 for a quorum.

It is the second time parliament has been unable to vote on Gul, due to a boycott by opposition parties.

Turkey’s Constitutional Court declared the first vote held on April 27 void because a two-thirds quorum was not present for the balloting.

Gul, a member of the ruling AK Party and the only candidate being considered, indicated he was no longer a candidate as he left the parliament building Sunday.

The news as such is not that surprising; the timing, however, is. I expected Gül to play the game like the CHP plays it: till the very end.

It will be interesting to see where they will go from here: early elections, will the AKP win / keep its majority or will the CHP (whose leader is highly unpopular) make a comeback?

It seems that the Turkish army has said that it will do everything necessary to to defend Turkey’s secular system.

In a statement released late on Friday night, the General Staff says it is following with ‘concern’ the debate over secular system in the presidential elections and would ‘openly display its position and attitudes when it becomes necessary’

The military issued a memorandum-like statement saying that Islamic reactionary activities were expanding in scope and vowing that it would fulfill its “lawful duties” to protect the state. The statement came on Friday night, hours after Parliament held the first round of the presidential election.
In a statement posted on its Web site, the General Staff said it was following with “concern” the debate over Turkey’s secular system in the presidential elections and would “openly display its position and attitudes when it becomes necessary.”

The is very powerful in Turkey and has several times in the past acted / overthrown governments. In other words, when the army makes statements like this, everybody takes it very serious.

Some Turkish civilians meanwhile responded with anger, as did some politicians and the EU.

The Turkish government itself did not remain silent either. Turkish Daily News:

The Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) government said Saturday a military warning against it was democratically unacceptable.

In a rather unaccustomed manner the Turkish government lashed out at the army, which accused it of endangering secularism, saying that the general staff “remains under the orders of the prime minister.”

“I would like to underline that it is inconceivable in a democratic state based on the rule of law for the general staff, which remains under the orders of the prime minister, to speak out against the government,” government spokesman Cemil Çiçek told a news conference.

He stressed the government’s commitment to the secular order of the country and said it was “unacceptable” for Turkey to resolve its problems outside the democratic system.

This is an extremely complicated matter. Turkey is secular and it would be a disaster for itself and for Europe if Erdogan and company destroy it bit by bit. On the other hand, a take over by the army would be quite disastrous as well, at least in the short term.

It seems to me that the army won’t act yet… but Erdogan and Gul have to be very, very careful. One mistake and the army might act.

Meanwhile, Ataturk’s party, the CHP, goes to court:

Turkey’s election of a new president headed to court Friday, after opposition deputies boycotted in an effort to deny a 367-vote majority to the nominee, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül. If the resort to the 11-judge Constitutional Court by opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) is successful, it would mean the effective annulment of Gül’s election late in the afternoon by 357 votes of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and a handful of maverick deputies and new parliamentary elections.
Turkey’s unicameral legislature was the scene of day-long, high-stakes political maneuvering, as all sides sought to slalom through arcane procedures and interpretations of the Constitution, resulting in an ambiguous result that could take days or weeks to resolve. The skirmishing turns on a provision that requires a two-thirds majority — 367 votes — to elect a new president in the first two rounds of voting. If a choice is not made in the first two rounds, a final third round only requires a simple majority — 276 votes. After failing early Friday to win the support of independent and minor party deputies, the AKP strategy appeared to be a plan to muddle through two inconclusive voting rounds and put Gül in office on the third. The opposition, however, has countered that a 367 majority must at least be present during voting for the round to be legally completed and a second round authorized.

I wrote one week ago that we could expect more mass demonstrations in the coming weeks in Turkey. A Turkish commenter stopped by and said that I was wrong: there would be no protests. Well, if I were the “I told you so” type of person, I would say so now: “Some 700.000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey’s leaders threatened to destroy the country’s modern foundations.”

A retired government employee said (about Gül and Erdogan): “They want to drag Turkey to the dark ages.”

Ayse Bari on Gül’s headscarf wearing wife: “We don’t want a covered woman in Atatürks presidential palace. We want civilized, modern people there.”

More protests to come I am sure.

The New York Times reports that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan will not seek the presidency. This is quite a surprising move, at least for me. I expected him to run. That being said, I think that for Turkey, for Erdogan and for his party this is the right decision: Erdogan is too controversial a figure. Instead of Erdogan, Turkey’s governing party has chosen Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as its candidate

Gul was expected to win the post when lawmakers vote Friday in the 55-member Parliament, where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development party has a majority.

Erdogan said Gul would be a candidate who would be “embraced by all of Turkey.”

Now, that might seem to be a good decision, but, as I understand it, many Turks are not happy with this choice. Why not? Gül was prime minister before Erdogan: Erdogan wanted to become Prime Minister, but could not, and then Gül became Turkey’s PM. When Gül, however, was PM, Erdogan was the de facto Prime Minister. Erdogan ruled through Gül, many people would say.

For secularists there is no difference between Gül as President or Erdogan, again, as I understand it. Both are suspected of having Islamist tendencies. Ms. Erdogan and Ms. Gül both wear scarves.

In short: both are not (considered to be) secularists.

Expect more mass demonstrations in Turkey.

A great column at Today’s Zaman about Turkey’s ‘identity problem’:

It is hard to avoid the impression that every issue in Turkish politics somehow relates to the country’s complex identity problems. From the Kurdish question to whether the president’s wife can wear a headscarf, we are always debating identity issues.
Yet we are often unable to address the root causes of the problem. A major part of the problem has to do with the peculiarity of Turkey’s “civilizational” dilemmas with “Westernization.” Having a complex civilizational identity, or being a “torn country” to use Samuel Huntington’s terminology, is part of Turkish history. Indeed, the difficulty with assigning Turkey to a specific geography or civilization derives from the fact that it had always been a border country. A glance at the map shows why Turkey does not fit into any of the clear-cut geographical categories formulated by Western scholars. The country straddles the geographical and cultural borders between Europe and Asia, without really belonging to either. Such an “in-between” Turkish identity is made all the more complicated by a number of historical factors.

Perhaps most important is the fact that the Ottoman Empire was historically the intimate enemy of Europe. In religious and military terms, the Turk represented “the other” who played a crucial role in consolidating Europe’s own Christian identity. However, as centuries of Ottoman imperial splendor came to an end and territorial regression began, the Ottoman ruling elite sought salvation in one of the earliest projects of modernization. Since modernization was pragmatically identified with Christian Western Europe, the Ottomans faced major difficulties in adapting to the new paradigm without surrendering their Islamic pride. Throughout the 19th century, the result has often been a chaotic coexistence of traditional Islamic and modernized institutions. This situation did not change until the radicalization of the Westernization project, first under the Young Turks and later under their Kemalist successors.

The Kemalist revolution was by far the most radical attempt at cultural transformation in the Islamic world. Yet, it achieved a rather limited penetration of Turkish society at large. Especially the rural parts of Anatolia remained largely unaffected by the social engineering taking place in Ankara during the single party rule. In that sense, the Kemalism was too state-centered and elitist to be fully absorbed by Anatolian society. As in Ottoman times, it was essentially the governing elite and the urban bourgeoisie that supported Westernization and easily adapted to its norms. In the meantime, the gap between the state and rural periphery widened even further.

Right after the second world war, the Kemalist regime was forced to hold multiparty elections: different parties divided the country in to left and right and, “Kurdish and Islamic dissent were no longer high on the political agenda, since they soon came to be absorbed by the new political divisions in Turkey.”

When left-wing and rightwing politics lost their relevance with the end of the Cold War, Kurdish and Islamic dissent quickly re-emerged. This Kurdish and Islamic revival during the 1990s once again triggered a strong Kemalist reaction. After the long Cold War interlude, it was as if Turkey was back in the 1930s. The military had to take the initiative against Kurdish-Islamic forces by forcefully reasserting Turkish nationalism and secularism. The result was the “lost decade” of the 1990s. If we want to avoid another lost decade, now that similar dynamics are once again at play, we need to find liberal solutions to our identity problems.

Read the whole thing at Today’s Zaman.

I find this to be a more than fascinating subject. Turkey’s ‘identity problem’ is highly interesting, not in the least because Western European nations struggle with the same problem these days. Oversecularization, moral relativism and a sense that it is wrong to be proud of one’s country and history, combined with the constant flow of Muslim immigrants have caused many European countries to have some of the same problems Turkey has.

The New York Times reports that Iran’s Supreme Court has exonorated six members of a “prestigious state militia” who killed five people because those five individuals were, according to the six murderers, “morally corrupt.”

The six members of the Basiji Force - “volunteer vigilantes favored by the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (who was also a member of this ‘militia’ - were convicted for murder by a lower court.

Luckily, this is does not have to be the end of it: the “lower court in Kerman can appeal the decision to the full membership of the Supreme Court.” Full membership means that 50 judges will take part of the, then, final decision.

Lets see, these murderers are members of a militia favored by Khamenei and… Ahmadinejad was a member of it… It seems to me that chances are slim that the full membership of the court, will decide differently: these, excuse me, thugs will - most likely - get away with.

Hopefully, the Western media will pay quite some attention to the case, as to make more people aware of the evil and ruthless nature of the Iranian regime. Perhaps international pressure will change something (although I am quite sure it won’t). The best chance of changing the verdict, is by domestic pressure: the Iranian people responded with outrage to the decision by the Iranian Supreme Court.

As Ed Morrissey points out, the court in essence ruled that “the fair-haired boys of the mullahcracy (so to speak) need not bother with courts or judges at all. They can freely operate outside the law.”

Hot Air links to this article in the Independent:

“This is a new plan now for the Mahdi Army, it is part of a new strategy,” he said. “We know we are against a strong enemy and we must learn proper methods and techniques.”…

Abu Rafed [a Mahdi Army veteran] estimated a total of almost 4,000 Iraqi Shias, including “many important Mahdi Army leaders”, had received training there last month alone, living at the camp for weeks at a time. He said the number of Iraqi Shias arriving there had increased significantly since the start of the “surge” in February…

Abu Amer said: “The training was done by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. I saw Iraqi fighters from Missan, Basra, Diwaniyah and Nasiriyah [areas of southern Iraq]. They were mainly Mahdi Army, but not all of them.” More Iraqi Shias had sought military instruction, he added, after the 2006 bombing of the Samarra shrine, the event widely blamed for triggering widespread sectarian war between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shias.

Hot Air’s AP comments: “The camp is in a town called Jalil Azad, outside Tehran. An independent expert on al-Sadr interviewed for the piece goes out of his way to say this doesn’t mean the mullahs are sponsoring it. Really? There’s massive paramilitary training going on outside the capital by members of the country’s most elite force and the Iranian government is indifferent in the matter?”

Of course they are not sponsoring it, they are condoning it, which is, of course, much less bad…

Flopping Aces meanwhile, has a video up of Glenn Beck interviewing Ghazal Omid, author of Living In Hell, about the rape and murder of one woman and the lack of interest the MSM shows towards the pro-Democracy protests.

It is one of those major beefs I have with the MSM: why don’t we hear anger about how women are treated in Iran? Why don’t we hear anything about how the Mullahs continue to break every possible human right they can break?

The Times has more about the anti-Erdogan / pro-secularism protests last weekend in Turkey:

Hundreds of thousands of Turks took part in two days of protests hoping to persuade the Prime Minister against running for president, amid concerns that his election would put at risk the separation of religion and state in the predominantly Muslim country.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to decide this week whether to stand for president next month. Since his Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has roots in political Islam, has a substantial parliamentary majority, its candidate is assured of succeeding Ahmet Necdet Sezer, the President, who is a staunch secularist.

Mr Erdogan, who has presided over strong economic growth and has worked hard to secure Turkey’s European Union candidacy, presents himself as a conservative democrat. But opponents remain suspicious of his Islamist past. Mr Erdogan has served a prison term for sedition and his wife covers her head in the Islamic manner. During his leadership his party has attempted to criminal-ise adultery, banish alcohol from some establishments and relax restrictions on religious education and headscarves.

His opponents, who include top bureaucrats, academics, judges and generals, believe that he has a hidden Islamist agenda to undermine the strict separation of religion and state, which he could put into practice if AKP held all the top government and state posts.

Something I missed:

Shockwaves ran through the country when Nokta, a political magazine, revealed what it said were aborted plans by the senior figures in the Armed Forces for a coup to dislodge Mr Erdogan. They apparently believed that, as well as the Islamist threat, Mr Erdogan’s Government was prepared to make too many concessions to the EU. The chief of staff, who is believed to have opposed the plans, has not rebuffed the report. Last week police raided the offices of Nokta.

That he has not rebuffed it does not, of course, mean that it is true. It might very well be true, though, considering Turkey’s past. The military has committed several coups when it thought that civilian leadership was not moving the country in the right direction.

If true, it will - undoubtedly - remind Erdogan of the political danger he is in. I would not rule out that Erdogan decides not to run, out of fear for a possible coup by the army.

Fascinating developments in this secular Muslim country in the last couple of weeks.

The Haaretz reports that approximately 300,000 Turks protested in the capital, Ankara, today “to try to stop the ruling AK Party from picking Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan as their presidential candidate next week because of his Islamist roots.”

The protestors, most of them members / supporters of the party founded by the father of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, shouted slogans like “Turkey is secular and will remain secular forever!” while waving Turkish flags and banners of Ataturk.

As the article at the Haaretz points out, “the AK Party has its roots in political Islam, and a possible presidency headed by Erdogan has split this secular but predominantly Muslim country seeking European Union membership.”

Secularists - who count, historically, among themselves the powerful army - “fear that if Erdogan, or someone close to him, wins the presidency next month, the government will be able to implement an Islamic agenda without opposition.”

A victory for Erdogan will definitely be a step back for Turkey. Turkey is the most secular ‘Muslim country’ in the world - and the secularists are - as anybody who knows quite some Turks knows - darned proud of it.

“Turkey’s staunchly pro-secular president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer” is one of Erdogan’s fiercest opponents. He warned the Turkish people that “for the first time, the pillars of the secular republic are being openly questioned.”

“‘We are aware of the danger’, the pro-secular Cumhuriyet newspaper headlined on Saturday in white letters printed against a red background.”

Although Erdogan “has shown his commitment to future European Union membership by enacting sweeping reforms that allowed the country to start accession talks in 2005″, secularists do not believe for one second that Erdogan has distanced himself from his Islamist roots: “he has also stoked secularist concerns by speaking out against restrictions on wearing Islamic-style head scarves in government offices and schools and taking steps to bolster religious schools. He tried to criminalize adultery before being forced to back down under intense EU pressure. Some party-run municipalities have taken steps to ban alcohol consumption.”

The chief of the Turkish military - which is, as said, still very powerful in Turkey - General Yasar Buyukanit, has already warned Erdogan not to run for president. Or, at least, that is how his words were interpreted by many. He said last Thursday: “As a citizen and as a member of the armed forces, we hope that someone who is loyal to the principles of the republic - not just in words but in essence - is elected president.”

If Turkey wants to join the E.U. (which more and more Turks oppose, mainly because the E.U. has demanded some ridiculous things of Turkey), it better not elect Erdogan as its president. Many, many Europeans are already quite suspicious about Turkey (yes, because it is a Muslim country. Don’t underestimate the influence of the E.U. - it is much, much more than a European NAFTA. In time, most Europeans expect the EU to become the United States of Europe), a victory for Erdogan won’t do that any good, to say the least.

As I said, quite some Turks are very proud secularists. For these Turks, secularism is an intregal part of the Turkish identity: without secularism, Turkey will no longer truly be Turkey for them.

Lets hope that these secularists will be victorious.