On the human states of Islamism

A very fine two-day symposium on "The Transformation of Islamism in Turkey" was held at Sakarya University under the main title "Crisis and Critique." We see that Islamism is frequently raised and discussed within an academic framework in other countries, but this is the first time we have witnessed it being discussed at this level in Turkey. First of all, I would like to congratulate everyone who contributed.

On the occasion of this symposium, in which I took part as a speaker in the opening panel together with İsmail Kara, Ümit Cizre and Ferhat Kentel, we can continue the discussion of Islamism that we had begun earlier.

Whether some of the criticisms directed at Islamism are justified is a separate matter; they reveal interesting pictures about the limits of expectations of it. We are talking about criticisms such as that Islamism brings nothing new, that it is a modern movement, that it is not indigenous. That Islamism and Islam are not the same thing does not of course mean that there is no relationship between the two. Moreover, although Islam as a religion has been decreed and sealed by an absolute will, its historical manifestations have always been possible through human-mortal mediations. Never mind Islamism, whose ideological sides are assumed to weigh more heavily: an Islam independent of human interpretation exists only with God; what falls to human beings is to try, with sincerity, to understand exactly what is intended by that Islam, and to fulfill its requirements.

"Meanwhile, the reactions displayed, both from within the Islamist segment and from outside, against Islamism's change and transformation, its multiplication of images, require us to point to a problem in this matter. We can speak of a metaphysical constancy attributed to Islamism in Turkey. But given the nature of the sentence we have built, by saying up front that this is first of all something "attributed," there is also a risk of having completely neglected the share of the Islamists in it. Yet both Islamists and non-Islamists have, each in their own way, important roles in the metaphysical discourse that clings to the definition and position of Islamism and forces it to remain outside the political. The role of non-Islamists shows itself in the ways they receive the changes that are at times seen among Islamists.

It is indeed hard to follow the political maneuvers and strategies of Islamist politics accompanied by a metaphysical constancy attributed to Islamism. Moreover, Islamists may not always actually be deviating, for the sake of grand strategies, from a definition or a style they had announced in advance. They may not have such a strategy, or if at certain periods they made such a definition of strategy, they may have shown a weakness in following it, they may have later decided to change these definitions. Their cadres may also make very great mistakes in the meantime. Those who move within Islamism, in good faith or bad faith, can enter into very different engagements with very bad interpretations.

Islamism, as a worldly ideology, may at times take part in different alliances and enmities. The compositions and parties of these alliances or enmities may also change from time to time. Every political movement has, in its own course, a complementary inner logic that justifies and legitimizes itself. The speed and routine of the operation of this logic can often work in such a way as to make itself forgotten, so that it is not felt by its subject. All of these are things that are "permissible" for "Islamism as a human movement" as well, but of course its being permissible does not mean that it is not criticized or untouchable, but precisely the opposite. In truth, what we must know at this point is that criticizing Islamism means criticizing not Islam but an interpretation about Islam, or a practice based on an interpretation.

Essentially, the fact that we feel obliged to stress the humanness of Islamism and not of some other ideology shows by itself under what sort of implicit expectation, even pressure, Islamism stands. The human side of Islamism is recalled from time to time by both Islamists and non-Islamists, because in fact the expectation placed on it exerts a pressure that, by referring it to the constancy and indivisible wholeness of a political metaphysics, serves in a sense to push it outside life and politics.

In truth, it is indeed hard for a movement that attributes its political claims to a religion that has divine foundations and is therefore, at least in its given form, held to be absolute, and to its leader who must be accepted as flawless (innocent), not to be caught in the disadvantages of a political metaphysics under the moral weight stemming from this very attachment alone. Although Islamism is not Islam itself, it is a discourse that can very easily be identified with Islam in the discourses of Islamists.

Within this discourse, which consists of an interpretation of Islam by Islamists, one can readily see a grammar at work that brings its subject into being through itself. That is, it can be seen that Islamists often do not see their own interpretations as separate from Islam itself, and therefore attribute a trans-historical value to an interpretation they have attributed to Islam in a certain historical period. In this case, again, in certain historical periods, when the command of the truth has occurred, every retreat that takes place from such discourses can tragically expose Islamists to the shocks that the fragility of the absolute can awaken."

At the same time, it can be said that at the very moment Islamism discovered the political, a certain resilience against such fragilities was also developed. An assessment of the discourses of authenticity created both by the phase of fragility and by the protective reflexes developed against it is also necessary.

In the light of the considerations above, which also appear in the introduction to most of my Islamism studies (Political Thought in Modern Turkey, Vol. 6, İletişim Publishing), whether Islamism is indigenous, whether it is saying something new, and its relationship to modernity and tradition must be evaluated in an entirely different context.

May your Feast of Sacrifice be a means that brings you closer to your relatives, your loved ones, all the ways that are good for you, and ultimately to Almighty God; may it be blessed.