Erdogan's purge in Turkey

[alfaniner]

The guy they want extradited from the U.S looks a lot like Anton Karidian.

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry, I know the thread's moved on, but this is one of the funniest things I've seen in a very long time:

Maybe, but Western interference is one thing that has approximately zero correlation with Islamic extremism.

In the real world, that is at least as smart as the bloke who's claiming Martin Bryant didn't kill all the people during the Port Arthur Massacre and that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

 

[metacristi]

Yes. Islam encompasses many different interpretations, even among two people who successively held the same position.

Abduh, interestingly enough, was a salafist: his interpretation was an intentional attempt at restoring the original Islam of the salaf as he saw it. Bakhit was a staunch anti-salafist.

Abduh seem to have been an Islamic modernist (a current having no chance before the strong 'push' exercised by the Europeans on the Islamic world, the reforms under Muhammad Ali in Egypt for example are rather a legacy of Napoleon's expedition in Egypt, growing European influence there in general). Definitely he couldn't have been a Salafist in today's acceptation. The big problem with this approach is that there is very little logic inside the basic Islamic traditions which to lead to moderation in the Western sense (even the use of unaided Human Reason is severely discouraged, there is much more support for this in the Islamic traditions, no surprise that Ash'arism is still widespread in the Islamic world, way too much 'Insha'Allah' in the minds of people). Unfortunately the Quran and other Islamic traditions are not that elastic in reinterpretation as claimed by these reformers. Not a surprise that they are still a tiny minority even today after 100 years of more exposure of this religion to Modernity. Not a surprise that these movements are the strongest there where the 'infidels' are large majorities.

The British didn't care about curbing conservative forces, they cared about curbing challenges to their rule. That's how Bakhit was made Grand Mufti in the first place.

That's true. But while acting on these lines they also helped implement the modern ideas in the Islamic world as well (Abduh for example was liked by some British officials for his bold ideas). Even when they were a brake to Modernity (for example when they overturned in the 1880s in Egypt some progressist legislation regarding women) that was not for a long time, after 1910 the idea that women deserve equal rights gained thrust in Britain and made possible also that Huda Sha'arawi could remove the veil publicly in the 1920s without fear of being punished. Even the forced secularization of Turkey by Ataturk with very little opposition (impossible to be done in normal conditions) was due to the fear of not being colonized by the West, even very greedy policies had actually a positive effect. The idea that the colonialists could not have also an important positive impact in the Islamic world is one of the cultural relativist myths of our time. I'm afraid they were perfectly right to say that the rigidity of islam hindered the necessary innovation needed to bring the Islamic societies in the Modern era.

Yes, you've posted this quote before, and again you don't cite it. It's from Lewis' 2012 memoirs Notes on a Century.

Lewis appears to be the only source for that story, too. It's certainly not mentioned in Middle East Remembered, the 1983 memoirs of John Badeau, the former US ambassador to Egypt who was dean at the American University of Cairo while Jeffery was teaching there and researching for his book and later was on the faculty at Columbia University with him after World War II. He does relate a story about how Jeffery's assistant, a scholar from al-Azhar, tried to tear up their notes for Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an while Jeffery was distracted by a phone call in another room, and that this incident is why he left AUC, shortly after the book's publication. Badeau also related how Jeffery would complain about how the Muslims he would run into weren't practicing the medieval Islam that he was studying.

Considering that Badeau's recollection is thirty years closer to the events in question than Lewis', Badeau's is probably more accurate.

Bernard Lewis was in Egypt soon after the incident related in his book and he says there that 'I had the good fortune to become acquainted with Professor Arthur Jeffery'. Given the meticulosity which Lewis always advocated in doing research I don't think he invents anything. Probably that was what Jeffrey himself told him, there may have happened things of which Badeau was not aware (probably Jeffery had also some private discussions with some al Azhar 'scholars for example). Anyways what he says there remains sound irrespective of whether Jeffrey's book was burned or not (besides there are all good reasons to believe that Al Azhar 'scholars' were fully capable to do that).

 

[A'isha]

Abduh seem to have been an Islamic modernist. Definitely he couldn't have been a Salafist in today's acceptation.

He was a modernist salafist rather than a fundamentalist salafist, but he was still explicitly attempting to restore Islam to the way it was at the time of the salaf, which is the entire definition of "salafist".

The big problem with this approach is that there is very little logic inside the basic Islamic traditions which to lead to moderation in the Western sense (even the use of unaided Human Reason is severely discouraged, there is much more support for this in the Islamic traditions). Unfortunately the Quran and other Islamic traditions are not that elastic in reinterpretation as claimed by these reformers.

So you keep saying, but it's not exactly true. Abduh certainly had no problems believing in modernist salafism, and he was hardly the only one at the time.

That's true. But while acting on these lines they also helped implement the modern ideas in the Islamic world as well (Abduh for example was liked by some British officials for his bold ideas).

Which was entirely incidental to British goals, which were to maintain their control of the territories they ruled. They certainly had no problem putting in place anti-modernists as long as those anti-modernists supported British rule.

Bernard Lewis was in Egypt soon after the incident related in his book and he says there that 'I had the good fortune to become acquainted with Professor Arthur Jeffery'.

And Badeau was there before, during, and after the supposed incident took place, and was more than merely "acquainted" with Jeffery - they were good friends for decades.

Probably that was what Jeffrey himself told him, there may have happened things of which Badeau was not aware (probably Jeffery had also some private discussions with some al Azhar 'scholars for example).

Perhaps, but a public denunciation and book burning wouldn't exactly fit into those categories.

Anyways what he says there remains sound irrespective of whether Jeffrey's book was burned or not (besides there are all good reasons to believe that Al Ahzar 'scholars' were fully capable to do that).

That was merely an opinion, tainted by embellishment, expressed in his memoirs. You certainly have no problem dismissing his other opinions regarding Islam in the same book.

 

[metacristi]

Which was entirely incidental to British goals, which were to maintain their control of the territories they ruled. They certainly had no problem putting in place anti-modernists as long as those anti-modernists supported British rule.

The British were definitely interested to implement more modern laws in the Islamic world while pursuing of course their goals of keeping their possessions under firm control. Thus they were also interested to promote religious leaders who could give them justification for such laws. Muhammad Bakhit for example seem to have been preferred by the British because he publicly defended the compatibility with sharia of some reforms promoted by Saad Zaghloul (acceptable to both the British and Egyptian nationalists at the time).

Anyways is not my goal to convince you regarding the nature and impact of islam. Centuries of exposure of this religion to Modernity haven't yet brought a durable Islamic Enlightenment. The existing evidence speaks for itself I'm afraid. Largely against you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Abduh seem to have been an Islamic modernist (a current having no chance before the strong 'push' exercised by the Europeans on the Islamic world, the reforms under Muhammad Ali in Egypt for example are rather a legacy of Napoleon's expedition in Egypt, growing European influence there in general).

The reforms were a considered response to European example, not European influence. Events in Egypt and Greece made it very clear that the Ottoman world had fallen seriously behind. They were still the match of the Persians but Europe was a whole new thing, and even the Russians were getting the better of them.

Those reforms, like so many other efforts, ran into the sand because of conservative opposition, naturally allied with religious establishments. This is what nationalists like Ataturk recognised and tried to suppress.

There were two general answers given to the question of Muslim backwardnes : one blamed it on not enough religion, the other on too much. Until very recently it was the latter opinion that was on top, and there's no reason to think it won't get back there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Anyways is not my goal to convince you regarding the nature and impact of islam. Centuries of exposure of this religion to Modernity haven't yet brought a durable Islamic Enlightenment. The existing evidence speaks for itself I'm afraid. Largely against you.

You're making too much of a relatively short period during which the Middle East has been under pretty constant stress, starting with the Iraq-Iran War (which was, let us not forget, a huge affair). Central authority eroded away with the usual result - the desert tribes turn bandit and come swooping in.

That's what led to the Arab Invasion and subsequent empire - the Byzantines and Persians beat each other to a standstill creating massive opportunities for a charismatic and capable general. Religion wasn't behind it at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's not entirely correct. Zbig admitted to have lured the Soviets into invading with his support of the crazies starting half a year earlier, and was mighty proud about it in 1998. Don't you know the famous interview?

Even if you give credence to his preening (which, frankly, I don't) it was Soviet interference in Afghanistan which preceded the US's.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Anyways is not my goal to convince you regarding the nature and impact of islam. Centuries of exposure of this religion to Modernity haven't yet brought a durable Islamic Enlightenment. The existing evidence speaks for itself I'm afraid. Largely against you.

What do you even mean by Islamic Enlightenment? Salafism and Ba'athism both bear characteristics of enlightenment thinking, as does Khomeini's theory of velayat-e faqih.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What do you even mean by Islamic Enlightenment? Salafism and Ba'athism both bear characteristics of enlightenment thinking, as does Khomeini's theory of velayat-e faqih.

If Slafism is enlightenment, I am not sure you are using the same word the other party is using.

Ba'athism is nationalism and a bit of modernism/secularism overlaid on a generally Muslim baseline. Khemeini's theory is a fascinating parlour discussion. The reality of what Ayatollah rule has done for Iran is another matter. Please, go back to the green movement of 2009 and see how the Ayatollah's thugs treated the people. Or are the Basij your home boys?

Here is my favorite part of this thread: crescent's post. Go back and read the quotes about Erdogan's new popularity on the Arab Street.

If a Turkish despot-in-making can arrest 2,700 judges on his "enemies list" and about 20,000 educators, and the "Arab street" cheers him as a champion of democracy, then the Arab world and the Arab Street not only doesn't understand democracy, they richly do not deserve it.

He's a Turk -- he is the Alpha male of a group who had Arabs under their thumbs for four to five centuries. This is, culturally, hilarious.

Next on the hit parade of bizarre, crowds of black Americans will cheer a leader of the KKK in Ohio since he stands for family values, and Chinese will fill the streets to cheer the Japanese Emperor, and all of his ancestors.

You can't fix stupid.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If Slafism is enlightenment, I am not sure you are using the same word the other party is using.

Ba'athism is nationalism and a bit of modernism/secularism overlaid on a generally Muslim baseline. Khemeini's theory is a fascinating parlour discussion. The reality of what Ayatollah rule has done for Iran is another matter.

Nationalism and textual originalism are both cardinal examples of Enlightenment thinking, as is the idea of rule by a great and wise judge.

 

[A'isha]

The British were definitely interested to implement more modern laws in the Islamic world while pursuing of course their goals of keeping their possessions under firm control. Thus they were also interested to promote religious leaders who could give them justification for such laws. Muhammad Bakhit for example seem to have been preferred by the British because he publicly defended the compatibility with sharia of some reforms promoted by Saad Zaghloul (acceptable to both the British and Egyptian nationalists at the time).

Bakhit supported legal reforms that benefited the British, so they backed him. They certainly didn't give a **** about his conservative, anti-modernist positions, and only withdrew their support when he supported open revolt against their rule (something of a pattern with the British - they did the exact same thing with Amin al-Husseini).

They also had no problem throwing Zaghloul the reformer out of the country for the heinous crime of leading an Egyptian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference that asked Britain to recognize the independence of Egypt.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nationalism and textual originalism are both cardinal examples of Enlightenment thinking, as is the idea of rule by a great and wise judge.

Uh, mostly horsefeces but nice try at a cherry pick. "Benevolent dictatorships" are not the final product of Enlightenment thinking, unless your first name is Nicolo. Democracy, and the "rights of man" made famous during the French revolution, are the fruits of that tree. (Then again, you might argue that eugenics was also a byproduct of the age of reason, in its original form ...)

By the way, did you not read crescent's post?

Turkish authorities are suspending civil rights, human rights, etc. And the Arab street is cheering them?
You are cheering them as champions of the Enlightenment? (Wait, no, you are just acting the apologist for the Aayatollahs. Sorry, I got ahead of myself there for a bit).

Islamic Enlightenment is a non sequitur, or an oxymoron, for a very good reason: it hasn't happened.
And it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Darth Rotor]

They also had no problem throwing Zaghloul the reformer out of the country for the heinous crime of leading an Egyptian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference that asked Britain to recognize the independence of Egypt.

Waah. Woodrow Wilson stiffed Ho Chi Minh. It was 1919. It was still very much the Age of Empires, albeit the plaster was cracking on the walls. B league and C league teams were not given the time of day. The League of Nations did NOT happen. If you weren't in the club, you got the shaft. End of.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Uh, mostly horsefeces but nice try at a cherry pick. "Benevolent dictatorships" are not the final product of Enlightenment thinking, unless your first name is Nicolo. Democracy, and the "rights of man" made famous during the French revolution, are the fruits of that tree.

Do you think Voltaire, Adam Smith, Hume and the Founding Fathers were the only Enlightenment thinkers? Evangelical Christianity was a product of the enlightenment, and the rights of man no more an end product than fascism.

Nicolo? Machiavelli? The guy lived in the 15'th century. That was... not the time of the Enlightenment. Think Napoleon instead.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you think Voltaire, Adam Smith, Hume and the Founding Fathers were the only Enlightenment thinkers? Evangelical Christianity was a product of the enlightenment, and the rights of man no more an end product than fascism.

Nicolo? Machiavelli? The guy lived in the 15'th century. That was... not the time of the Enlightenment. Think Napoleon instead.

Robspierre? Marat? Sure. Metternich? Sure. Your cherry picks do not convince.

The philosophical basis of the Enlightenment grew from that which preceded it. The Renaissance had to happen or the Enlightenment could not. It's a continuum, not a digital step function.

All that said, I agree that Ba'athism, Fascism, nationalism, and a variety of other secularist based ideologies share some common ground. Evangelism is as old as Christianity, and Protestantism preceded the Enlightenment ... maybe it even helped make it possible. (Need to ponder the influence of Calvin, that humorless git).

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Robspierre? Marat? Sure. Metternich? Sure. Your cherry picks do not convince.

The philosophical basis of the Enlightenment grew from that which preceded it. The Renaissance had to happen or the Enlightenment could not. It's a continuum, not a digital step function.

All that said, I agree that Ba'athism, Fascism, nationalism, and a variety of other secularist based ideologies share some common ground. Evangelism is as old as Christianity, and Protestantism preceded the Enlightenment ... maybe it even helped make it possible. (Need to ponder the influence of Calvin, that humorless git).

The thing with Evangelical Christianity is the belief in a literal truth that can be extracted by a plain reading of the gospels containing the message Jesus intended. This is a very typical and somewhat flawed idea of the Enlightenment, the belief in various self-evident truths and intents.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The thing with Evangelical Christianity is the belief in a literal truth that can be extracted by a plain reading of the gospels containing the message Jesus intended. This is a very typical and somewhat flawed idea of the Enlightenment, the belief in various self-evident truths and intents.

We have strayed somewhat from the original topic, even when the self evident truths of Al Quran is part of the topic of the party in power in Turkey.

 

[McHrozni]

Opinions and beliefs regarding the shape of the earth have no effect on that shape. But opinions and beliefs about the attitude to be adopted towards other faiths do indeed have an effect on the "shape" of a religious community. It is you who are saying that Christians are tolerant, and inclusive of non-Christians, as indeed most of them are. Are you proposing that this has no effect on the "shape" of Christianity? Has Christianity not changed - for the better - the very different "shape" it had when it promoted exclusiveness and intolerance?

My point is that the fact groups of Muslims disagree with which interpretation of Islamic scripture is the most straightforward one does not, in fact, mean they're right.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It was a medieval siege.
That's what happened in them.
Three days of pillage for the besieging army.

If you're trying to say Turks were essentially en par with their peers of the time I won't disagree. They were better in some aspects, worse in others. Overall the Ottoman empire certainly wasn't much better or much worse than the majority of contemporary Christian Europe. There's a reason why their fanboys focus solely on Spain, who was an outlier.

It's kind of like judging all Islamic states by what ISIS does, and then declaring Islam to far less tolerant than, well, just about any ideology in history really. For better accuracy of the statement we may need to replace "kind of" with "exactly". Somehow they understand that to be false, but Spain is supposed to be representative of late medieval and early modern Christianity. Funny, that.

Did I mention I find most defenders of Islam to be inherently dishonest?

McHrozni