To Ianus: Turkish vs Arabian imperialism

Submitted by Plato (India), Mar 9, 2007 at 05:42

"He allegedly fought Islam but no one else did so much to make Turkey a virtual Moslem monoculture "

Here was a man who went about systematically destroying many of the outward manifestations of Islam, especially with an Arabian flavour to them. What of Islam was left? Just the rituals? Did he issue any call for jihad to further the Islamic empire. He sounds to me more like a Turkish imperialist (as you yourself noted) rather than an Islamic one.

I have never attached much significance to such superficial things, dear Plato. He changed not only the alphabet but also the language ......to be proud of what they are as they are the most ancient nation on earth. They come directly from the Sumerians and the Hittites ! ..."

Reading that para, one does not see the Ataturk trying to carry forward the Islamic agenda of the Prophet.

"were only cosmetic changes and just a sort of camouflage to fool the rest of the world.

I would never never try to to dismiss the conclusion as irrational."

From what you have put forward previously it does look as though he was trying to camouflage his Islamic agenda. But clearly he seemed to have had a rather a clear Turkish agenda.

"And now thinking about Islam I couldn't resist the impression it is a sort of intellectual infantilism , a collective regression in mental development of mankind..."

You have described the Muslim thinker to perfection. Regressive thinking to end regressive thinking. The Koran is immutable to the last full stop. All knowledge is encapsulated in its 114 surahs.

"Are you referring implicitly to ordinary Moslems , dear Plato ?"

I know you dislike the example of the Nazis but I think it is appropriate here. You cannot have explicity blamed all Germans for Nazi crimes though implicity you could. Just as all Catholics cannot be blamed explicitly for the Inquisition though implicitly you could.

"I find the Europe analogy quite unsatisfactory and misleading while dealing with the Moslem world. We have never produced anything comparable to Islam."

Ianus, please remember that I am not a professional historian but these are some statements and figures I have gathered:

The destruction of the

World WarI & II, secular events, but European: Estimated dead around 15 million & 50 million. Atlantic slave trade: around 18 million dead . And some secular and others religious casualties: Thirty year war, Napoleonic wars, French religious wars together about 15 million. Stalin 20 million.

As you say the analogy is probably unsatisfactory but the deaths seem quite comparable.

Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: the Conquest of the New World (1992) page x

"....Christianity has never developed this deadly self-defence mechanism to that horrible degree. That's why it was possible for us to wake up from the Christian hypnotisation. It's not possible to awaken from the Islam hypnotisation."

You say 'to that horrible degree'. I agree, all disparities in human behaviour, collective and indivdual are all matters of degree. That is why categorically ruling out that Muslims can be dehypnotised is questionable.

"I was surprised by your insistence on the innocence of moderate Islam ....It runs counter to what Islam was , is and will always be all about ."

I believe I have never talked about moderate Islam. Yes I have talked about moderate Muslims. Islam is what it is, it cannot be changed. Muslims are human beings and their mental states can be changed like any persons. They can be persuaded to interpret their religion differently. You probably think that is an impossible task. That is where we part ways.

"Given the perversion of ideas and meanings practised by Islamic semantics , Moslems mustn't think there is anything wrong with their Allah-inspired paranoia. On the contrary, all is fine and positive in it as the obligatory laudatory vocabulary of Islam insinuates."

That is something interesting you say. It means it is possible to interpret Islamic teachings to mean what they did not originally mean. Islamic semantics has inspired the paranoia and the vocabulary of Islam. Can the semantics not be reworked to domesticate Islam from its wilder manifestations? It does seem to have happened when the Mutazilites prevailed for a brief time in Islamic theology.

Ianus, I find it difficult to reconcile some of your statements among themselves:

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".