The colonial minds' grudge against Yusuf Tekin

For roughly two centuries there has been a pressure on Muslims that summons them to defend themselves, to question themselves, to criticize their own essence. Even many Muslims regarded as intellectuals have internalized this pressure so thoroughly that, under it, they have produced a very rich apologetic discourse and literature. The other day, on a certain occasion, I touched upon a conceptualization developed by the Algerian Mohammed Arkoun, one of the figures who reached the peak of this literature in complexity and in intellectual weight, in answer to this summons to defense. Arkoun spoke of the "unthought" or "unthinkable" domains of Islam among Muslims.

He depicted the situation in such a way that one would think Muslims never touch certain subjects, never think about them, never allow them to be thought about. Beware: Arkoun was either deliberately ignoring, or did not sufficiently know, the immensely rich plurality of voices and the courage that exist within the history of Islamic thought regarding every field and every question. There is not a single subject, not the slightest domain, in the history of Islamic thought that has not been questioned, doubted, and, because of that doubt, gone over again and again. In fact, even those who seek a reference in the history of Islamic thought for ideas most contrary to their own would hardly have difficulty finding one. This is the situation in the field of Islamic thought; but one must also look at the intellectual milieu that led a figure like Arkoun to make this conceptualization. That milieu is not an Islamic one to begin with; on the contrary, it is a French-Western milieu. That is, a milieu with occupation at one end and, at the other, a hypocritical claim to civilization.

Arkoun did not really live in Algeria, but Algeria's position under occupation must have given sufficient inspiration for the milieu of Islamic thought that he depicted. At least for the last century, there has been no environment at all in which Islamic thought could be produced with all its competence and depth. And it was never Islam that placed limits, taboos, and prohibitions on thought. On the contrary, it is the limits that the occupiers created in minds that have set the crudest boundaries for thinking about any subject. Malik bin Nabi, who was in fact an Algerian like him, showed these limits very well. "Colonialism/occupation is something that takes place in minds. For one to be colonized, minds must have accepted being colonized." This approach casts an altogether different light on the reality of colonialism from which we have been suffering for a century.

Today, the people of many countries who suppose themselves free and independent are not even aware that they are under occupation. Indeed, colonialism is an insidious enemy that advances without making itself felt. By contrast, the people of Gaza, though their lands have been occupied, are a people who could not be colonized, because the enemy has not been able to seize their minds.

Colonialism, on the contrary, establishes itself through the domains that cannot be thought: with simplicity, vulgarity, dry rhetoric, ignorance, and crudeness. A subject which Minister of National Education Prof. Dr. Yusuf Tekin invited people not even to think about but merely to remember was enough to make the hearts of colonized minds leap. Colonized minds and personalities cannot bear even that much thought.

What Yusuf Tekin said about secularism rests on historical data that anyone with even a little knowledge of political science can readily appreciate. He says that for some, secularism meant banning the Qur'an, closing the mosques and turning their buildings into other things, and oppressing religious people. In saying this, he of course relies on an abundant body of historical data that is very easy to establish, indeed simply to recall. But colonial minds do not want to enter this long road. For them it is an "unthinkable," indeed "not even to be proposed for thought," domain. Why? Do they think that no such things happened?

If they think so, an interesting situation emerges. That is, they do not consider such an act fitting for the one-party politicians to whom they are bound with such great faith. In other words, from another angle, they presumably think that the CHP would never have approved such an act and that attributing such an act to it is an insult. This is of course an optimistic view; still, it is interesting that such a gap has formed between the first Kemalist generation and the last Kemalist generation.

But the historical data are plainly in the open: the Qur'an was indeed banned, a significant portion of the mosques were closed and some were turned into stables or other spaces, the call to prayer was silenced, the Imam-Hatip schools were shut down, the Muslim people were forced to wear the headgear of the enemy they had fought and expelled from the homeland, and this people was compelled to resemble the very enemy it had fought in every field. Which of these can be denied? Let alone denying them, a kingdom of taboo immediately raises its voice, regarding even reminding people of these matters, even thinking about them, as sufficient reason to raise an uproar.

Upon these words that Yusuf Tekin said somewhere, all the taboo guards of the CHP, with all their bigotry, are said to have mobilized and rushed to lynch him. Thus it has once again become visible, in all its clarity and instructiveness, whose unthinkable domains are what.

Yet Yusuf Tekin is not categorically opposed to secularism. He only set out the meaning, content and standard understood by secularism everywhere in the world: that the freedom of religious belief and worship of all citizens is guaranteed. The taboo guards were not content with a social media lynching; they also ran to the court. Actually, perhaps that is a good thing: in this way what the CHP did in this field would be assessed in the course of the trial, and it would not be Yusuf Tekin who is tried but precisely these shameful acts that even CHP members today do not consider fitting for their own party, as if they wished to forget them.

If they were truly ashamed and wanted to forget, then in the name of "national unity and solidarity" we too would help them forget; we would not throw it in their faces at every opportunity. We, God willing, have that much courtesy. But on this matter they are neither ashamed nor do they refrain from displaying the same value at every opportunity.

Those who say it was not right for Yusuf Tekin to open such a subject precisely in these days when closing ranks is being discussed seem to think that it was really he who opened the subject. The subject was never closed. Even in the AK Party era, without any break, our education continues to be as ideological, even mythological, as possible concerning the history of the Republic. The subject is old, but its influence and effectiveness continue to repeat themselves every day and every hour; we have reached a point where remaining indifferent carries a greater burden of sin. Even if we kept silent and helped them forget these shameful acts, they never refrain from reminding us of themselves anew every day.

Let alone what happened 75 to 100 years ago, they can even deny that only 14 years ago, in this country, with the same colonial-colonized nature, they banned the headscarf, brought the Imam-Hatip schools to the point of closure and, through the coefficient system, prevented the graduates of these schools from attending university, and banned Qur'an lessons until the age of 15.

As I said, if they did not insistently and bullyingly try to impose on us and on our children, every day, their banalities, their ignorance, and their mythological-ideological obsessions about history, we too, saying "to you your religion," would mind our own business without even looking at how blindly they worship what they worship. Yet although we say "to you your religion," they continue to insist: "No, not your religion to you, but our religion to you as well."

Yusuf Tekin spoke very rightly, spoke at the right time, and spoke even too little. What he represents is not merely his own views: there is no inappropriate time to oppose the unjust authoritarianism that is constantly pampered, raised to a fascistic position, and fed there continually.