Hasn't the ECHR now defined all Alevis?

The most important reality brought out by the series of workshops held in 2007-2008 under the moderation of Dr. Necdet Subaşı was the diversity within the Alevis themselves. They thought differently from one another on many subjects, and nothing could be more natural than that. Today, who can say that the Sunni world too is of a single color, school and temperament within itself?

When one looks a little closely, all the differentiations within the Sunni world can be identified. A series of diversities running from the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali juristic schools to the Salafi and Sufi temperaments, from the Maturidi and Ash'ari creedal schools to Sufi orders such as the Naqshbandi, Qadiri, Cerrahi and Khalwati, and down to the sub-branches of each of these. All of them have been the subject of research, a world which anyone who wishes can readily follow both from its practice and from its texts.

The problem with Alevism is that no such history, classification and study of it has been made until now. Apart from popular clichés about the Alevis, those looking from afar have no data. Until now nobody had listened to them with this attention and tenderness. The state ignored them, and the peoples knew one another through clichés. Seen from afar, differences become invisible and clichés speak. But one of the first things recorded by somewhat more careful listening was how much it wounds the Alevis not to be counted as Muslims by Sunnis. This was also one of the most frequently voiced subjects during the workshops. The Alevis had always displayed this sensitivity against not being counted as Muslims.

Personally, in the relations I established through my academic studies on the Alevis since the early nineties, I had in-depth conversations and friendships with people from every segment of the Alevis. I also heard, spoke with and listened to those who regard Alevism as outside Islam, but I witnessed that the overwhelming majority, quite to the contrary, count themselves as Muslims. I can say that in the dialogues I established, the greatest resentment and reaction between them and the Sunni segment was displayed against not being counted as Muslims.

As a principle, nobody has the right to tell anyone who counts himself a Muslim, whatever his religious understanding or interpretation, "you are not a Muslim." In truth, nobody has the right either to forcibly tell those who say they are not Muslims and have nothing to do with Islam, "no, actually you are a Muslim." The wish of a certain segment among the Alevis to be recognized as non-Muslim, by deliberately and willingly regarding their own interpretation of Alevism as outside Islam, is also their own right, their own decision. Nobody has the right to tell them "you are a Muslim." The issue here is that this segment, a small minority among the Alevis, attempts to make its own preferences in a way that also binds all the Alevis who wish to be recognized as Muslims.

This picture emerged clearly during the workshops. The only definition that could not be attributed to the Alevis as a whole, who for the first time were listened to so comprehensively both by the state and by Sunni academics and people of learning, and who also listened to one another among themselves, was that they were outside Islam. Moreover, the fact that the definition of Alevism by one segment alone could not bind all other Alevis was also a measure to be stressed. This was not an injustice to be done to the Alevis, whose rightful sensitivity against being defined from outside had been established.

The ECtHR's recognition of Alevism as a separate faith in a case that the Federation of Alevi Unions in Austria (AABF) filed against the Austrian government is precisely such an intervention. Deciding, in the person of the AABF, that not all Alevis are Muslim is a decision that oversteps its bounds and, above all, one that the overwhelming majority of the Alevis can never accept. With this decision, which defines the Alevis and rules on the nature of their relationship with Islam, a serious intervention is made in the self-definition of all Alevis.

If the AABF had taken a decision exclusively on behalf of Alevis in Europe or belonging to organizations affiliated with this federation, even that would be understandable and nobody could say anything. Not wishing to be called a Muslim is everyone's right. There is no compulsion in Islam. Counting those who do not wish to be Muslim as Muslims brings no benefit or gain to Islam; on the contrary, it harms it. But when the case is filed on behalf of all Alevis in Europe, a result emerges that unilaterally binds all Alevis and imposes a new definition on them. It is an intervention that ignores the will of the majority of Alevis who wish to be recognized as Muslims.

Truly, organized Alevi structures in Europe were also present at the workshops, and they too expressed their views to the end and openly. There was a clear difference between their views and the Alevis in Turkey. It has been known from the beginning that these structures in Europe, which generally gathered as a diaspora produced by leftist-socialist movements and in the last lane organized under Alevi associations, try to produce a new Alevism peculiar to themselves, even an Alevism without Ali. Alevism without Ali is something like Christianity without Jesus, Judaism without Moses.

We said earlier that in the fifties and sixties the first thing the Alevis who took part in the socialist movement sacrificed was their Alevism. Because Alevism, as a superstructure institution, was nothing but superstition for leftist socialism. Now they try to build, by clinging to Alevism, the ground they could not find for leftist-socialist politics, but this time they do so by tearing Alevism from the religious roots to which it belongs.

The answer the ECtHR gave to this will of theirs, whatever anyone may say, cannot be thought of independently of Europe's political strategies concerning Turkey and Islam. To count Alevism as outside Islam and the Kurds as outside Turkey, and thus to tear pieces from Turkey's unity and integrity, is a European strategy that can no longer be hidden at all. But of course it is a hopeless strategy. Alevis and Kurds are today the essential elements of Turkey, indicators of its religious and ethnic wealth, but they are equal citizens, inferior to no one else in their rights and responsibilities.