37 killed in attack on Tunisian tourist beach resort

[littlebabyjesus]

This is simply untrue. After the dissolving of the caliphate he set up the department of religious affairs, forced all mosques statewide to recite the adhan in Turkish, and even tried to institute a Turkish style of praying. Alevis and other dissident Turks/Kurds were seen as muslim and it was a criminal offence to contend otherwise. One could, of course, be a Christian or a Jew.

Ok, but is secularism a simple all-or-nothing phenomenon? I would argue that the UK is largely secular in its nature despite the fact that its form is that of a theocracy. In practice, there is a great deal of separation of state from religious control. In the case you're stating above, what were his motives in seeking to control the mosques? He had a very aggressive nation-building agenda, no? It wasn't that he wanted imams at the heart of government or to give religious leaders the right to veto, as they have in Iran.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You may find this article from the time of the hebdo attacks of interest:

Olivier Roy on Laicite as Ideology

I'll give that a read.

 

[butchersapron]

And on ataturk's material actions towards religion this piece is very good:

Sins of the Three Pashas

...but there’s one aspect of Kemalist Turkey that meets with their fullest approval: its uncompromising nationalism, which, though secular per se happens to define a ‘Turk’ as a Muslim Turk, treating all non-Muslim Turks as half citizens, with full obligations but few rights, and no chance of achieving political office. Kemal’s secularism, though commendable in its focus on the emancipation of women (Istanbul’s Sabiha Gökçen airport is named for his adopted daughter, who became a combat pilot in 1936) was not transitive: serenely non-believing himself, he strove to liberate the Turks from the lethargy of Islam, but didn’t proceed logically to accept non-Muslims as equals.

Turkey’s current leaders often abrogate or subvert remnants of Kemalist rule with the aim of fully Islamising the country, but carefully preserve others to pursue the same aim. So in spite of repeated promises to Obama and all and sundry, they refuse to allow the reopening of the country’s only Greek Orthodox seminary at Halki (closed in 1971 when the Turkish constitution of 1961 was properly interpreted: Article 132 specified that only the Turkish Armed Forces and police are allowed to open private colleges). With this, the Orthodox Church established in Constantinople in 330, whose patriarch is still the primus inter pares of all Greek Orthodox patriarchs, can survive only precariously, because another Kemalist survival prohibits the importation of foreign priests.

Goes onto to give plenty of examples of kemalist one-eyed secularism and its rotten coalition with nationalism and reactionary 'modernisers':

But the way the tax was actually levied was savagely, destructively discriminatory. Wealthy Muslims were to pay a rate of 4.94 per cent of assessed value, which was nominally the agricultural rate (poorer Muslims paid nothing); Greeks were to pay a 156 per cent rate, which was evidently meant to immiserate them; Jews were levied a 179 per cent rate; but to make it perfectly clear that they were at the very bottom of the pile, the Armenian rate was set at 232 per cent. In the event of underpayment or non-payment, the law prescribed the confiscation of all related and non-related wealth attributable to any and all family members, and detention for forced labour.

 

[phildwyer]

Was watching a news report yesterday and someone had put a sign next to the scene saying 'Why?' The reporter said something like 'That's a question that seemingly has no answer' and I thought to myself 'yes it does' and it's in large part due to what you just said. It's so spectacularly obvious really and yet those with power just can't see it, or they can but don't care. I mean there's obviously no concern for yours and mine's safety because if there was, country after country wouldn't carry on being destabilised like Iraq, Libya and so on. Until it's recognised that this happens every day in that part of the world, has been happening every day for decades and is largely down to imperialism then this type of thing won't stop. I'm frankly amazed it's not worse.

Absolutely right, great post.

My only qualification would be to say that those in power and in the media know perfectly well why it is happening, but they do not want to remind us of the reasons. Because then we might start demanding that they change their dangerous and evil foreign policy.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Ok, but is secularism a simple all-or-nothing phenomenon? I would argue that the UK is largely secular in its nature despite the fact that its form is that of a theocracy. In practice, there is a great deal of separation of state from religious control. In the case you're stating above, what were his motives in seeking to control the mosques? He had a very aggressive nation-building agenda, no? It wasn't that he wanted imams at the heart of government or to give religious leaders the right to veto, as they have in Iran.

The state as an organ of bourgeois rule can't be secular, because the bourgeoisie cannot rule in a secular fashion, it's a categorical impossibility. Otherwise capitalism would collapse utterly.

No, Imams were at the heart of government. It was imams of his liking (those who accepted reactionary nationalism) rather than Kurdish dissidents like kâzım Karabekir.

I don't think it is accurate to contrast early Kemalist Turkey with post-revolutionary Iran. Completely different eras.

ETA: the main ideologue of pan-Turkism and Turkish Nationalism (Ziya gökalp) was in fact ethnically Kurdish.

 

[phildwyer]

Why isn't anyone pointing out that it was Blair who made the British a target for Islamic terrorists?

Lots of people in the general public are. But nobody in the mainstream media is. Funny that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The state as an organ of bourgeois rule can't be secular, because the bourgeoisie cannot rule in a secular fashion, it's a categorical impossibility. Otherwise capitalism would collapse utterly

I think we're using the term 'secular' very differently from each other. There's no contradiction between capitalism and secularism in the way I understand the terms.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I think we're using the term 'secular' very differently from each other. There's no contradiction between capitalism and secularism in the way I understand the terms.

Perhaps, but then how do you define religion?

And please don't say neoplatonism for the masses

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Perhaps, but then how do you define religion?

My definition would not allow an ideology such as liberalism as a religion.

 

[phildwyer]

This is simply untrue. After the dissolving of the caliphate he set up the department of religious affairs, forced all mosques statewide to recite the adhan in Turkish, and even tried to institute a Turkish style of praying.

But those were secularıst-natıonalıst polıcıes. The ıdea was to move Islam away from Arabıc and make ıt more Turkısh.

I know you know your stuff regardıng Turkısh hıstory, but you're usıng the term 'secularıst' ın a manner so ıdıosyncratıc as to be useless. Yes Ataturk was prepared to exploıt relıgıon as an opıate for the masses, or as fuel for natıonalısm, and yes the AKP sometımes try to claım hım as one of theır own, but by any accepted or useful defınıtıon of the term he was a secularıst.

 

[DotCommunist]

if you are a wedding, church and funeral man: secular, cultural christian


If you go when you haven't been compelled by social dictates surrouding these things, well, dangerous territory. Carol service? slippery slope lads.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

But those were secularıst-natıonalıst polıcıes. The ıdea was to move Islam away from Arabıc and make ıt more Turkısh.

I have not denied that Ataturk wanted to Turkify Islam. The question for me is did he or didn't he want the mystifying social relations to remain in tact and/or adapt to the bourgeois revolutions? To which one is compelled to respond with an unequivocal 'yes.'

I know you know your stuff regardıng Turkısh hıstory, but you're usıng the term 'secularıst' ın a manner so ıdıosyncratıc as to be useless.

Idiosyncratic, yes. But useless, hardly. I'm just illustrating the inherent contradictions within the term secularism. Dialectical, innit?

Yes Ataturk was prepared to exploıt relıgıon as an opıate for the masses, or as fuel for natıonalısm, and yes the AKP sometımes try to claım hım as one of theır own, but by any accepted or useful defınıtıon of the term he was a secularıst.

I don't much care for accepted definitions of 'secularism' just as much as I don't much care for accepted definitions of 'liberalism' and 'communism.'

The accepted definition of secularism, however, is entirely useless. Which is exactly my point!

 

[phildwyer]

I have not denied that Ataturk wanted to Turkify Islam. The question for me is did he or didn't he want the mystifying social relations to remain in tact and/or adapt to the bourgeois revolutions? To which one is compelled to respond with an unequivocal 'yes.'

Not unequıvocal. He was too ıdıosyncratıc to be labelled 'bourgeoıs.' The ınherıtance law ıs very clever for ınstance--you can't make a wıll, ıts all pre-determıned by the state. I lıke that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why isn't anyone pointing out that it was Blair who made the British a target for Islamic terrorists? If anyone deserves to be murdered on a beach, it's him. There are lots of photos in the press of a bouquet with a note saying 'Why?' on it. How can people not know the answer to that question?

TBF Dave, it goes back a bit further than Blair, to Thatcher and then Major giving asylum to Saudi and N.A. Islamists in the '80s and '90s. This set in train some explosive shit which the invasion of Iraq was the perfect catalyst for.
Yes, Blair created the catalyst, but the other ingredients were already there.

 

[bi0boy]

It's OK, David Cameron, the man with a plan, has declared a national minute of silence to be held at 12 noon on Friday.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

It needs to be understood by muslims and non muslims alike that ISIS is blasphemy, haram.

It is led by a self appointed, narcissist, billionaire playboy with CIA connections.

I hope this will help non-Muslims understand how UN-Islamic the self proclaimed Caliphate is.....

A letter from over 100 different Islamic scholars to the Islamic State

At a time when extremists calling themselves Islamists and purporting to be interpreting true Islam, calls have been rising for the voices of moderate Islam to come out and explain the true values and morals of Islam, countering the misconceptions created by the extremists.The detailed letter was summarized in 24 main points reproduced below:

Open Letter

To Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’,

To the fighters and followers of the self-declared ‘Islamic State’,

Executive Summary

It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas , and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith .

It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.

It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud ) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God ﷻ.

It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.

It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

 

[dendrite]

It's OK, David Cameron, the man with a plan, has declared a national minute of silence to be held at 12 noon on Friday.

So he's literally telling us all to shut up. No political ball grab being attempted there at all. Not when the ATOS victims already got their minute.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's OK, David Cameron, the man with a plan, has declared a national minute of silence to be held at 12 noon on Friday.

other countries get days of mourning we get seconds of silence

 

[Tankus]

competitive grieving.....?..,nah

 

[Pickman's model]

competitive grieving.....?..,nah

a minute's silence is just a pisstake

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Idiosyncratic, yes. But useless, hardly. I'm just illustrating the inherent contradictions within the term secularism. Dialectical, innit?

That's a big claim, and not something I think you have achieved. I'll continue to use the term and feel reasonably happy with what I mean by it and what others take me to mean by it.

 

[Pickman's model]

It needs to be understood by muslims and non muslims alike that ISIS is blasphemy, haram.

It is led by a self appointed, narcissist, billionaire playboy with CIA connections.

I hope this will help non-Muslims understand how UN-Islamic the self proclaimed Caliphate is.....

A letter from over 100 different Islamic scholars to the Islamic State

At a time when extremists calling themselves Islamists and purporting to be interpreting true Islam, calls have been rising for the voices of moderate Islam to come out and explain the true values and morals of Islam, countering the misconceptions created by the extremists.The detailed letter was summarized in 24 main points reproduced below:

Open Letter

To Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’,

To the fighters and followers of the self-declared ‘Islamic State’,

Executive Summary

It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas , and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith .

It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.

It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud ) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God ﷻ.

It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.

It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

sadly open letters all too often ineffectual

 

[ManchesterBeth]

That's a big claim, and not something I think you have achieved. I'll continue to use the term and feel reasonably happy with what I mean by it and what others take me to mean by it.

Classic LBJ style of argument.

 

[tim]

other countries get days of mourning we get seconds of silence

We'll get the days of mourning if ISIS get their act together and manage to top Liz

 

[Pickman's model]

We'll get the days of mourning if ISIS get their act together and manage to top Liz

cometh the hour, cometh the man

if they do get her the milky bars are on me

 

[Patteran]

(Interesting contributions from dialectician & butchersapron on historical reality of secularism in Turkey - thanks)

 

[ManchesterBeth]

This book is also worth a read cc frogwoman Patteran

Kemalism in Turkish Politics: The Republican People's Party, Secularism and Nationalism - Sinan Ciddi.

This book is concerned with Turkey's political evolution, the role of Kemalism and why a social democratic alternative has never fully developed. Concentrating on the electoral weaknesses of the Turkish centre-left, represented by the Republican People's Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP), Sinan Ciddi examines the roles of nationalism and the political establishment and the role of Kemalist ideology.

Established by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s, the CHP is seen to be the founding party of modern Turkey. Kemalism sought to create a secular and democratic society based on the principles of republicanism, populism, secularism, nationalism, statism and revolutionism. Although this ideology became an integral part of leftist politics in Turkey by the early 1960s, it has remained a comparatively weak representative movement. Its strong ideological stance advocates an authoritarian and exclusionary position, particularly in relation to matters such as multiculturalism and democratisation, fuelling many debates concerning the role of religion and nationalism within Turkey and perpetuating elements of xenophobia and intolerance. Since 1950, 'parties of the periphery' such as the Demokrat Parti have been more successful as representative parties and in achieving results. In contemporary times, revisionist political Islam seems to have continued this tradition.

The sections on pre-1960s right-wing authoritarian étatism as practiced by the CHP are very informative, esp. in the first couple of chapters.

 

[brogdale]

Cameron saying this demands 'a full-spectrum response'. And so it goes.

Looks like Fallon has seen his legacy opportunity...bomb the fuck out of Syria.

This all seems to be the basis of one "meta-thread"....

 

[frogwoman]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/me...camerons-phony-war-against-the-islamic-state/

David Cameron has adopted a quite different strategy to his Conservative predecessor. Paradoxically, while declaring an existential war against Islamic fundamentalism, he has refused to commit any more forces even to the operation against the Islamic State. The United Kingdom has currently committed only six Tornadoes to the international effort against the group — the same number as the Netherlands, a country with less than a third of Britain’s gross domestic product and about a quarter of its population. The Cameron government has limited military strikes to Iraq, even though the Islamic State does not recognize the Syrian border. With the militarized repatriation of the victims of Sousse, Cameron has unwisely announced a war against a diffuse terrorist movement while simultaneously refusing to commit the United Kingdom to an actual war against the Islamic State where it actually holds territory.

It is a double failure; he is fighting a phony war on two fronts.

 

[frogwoman]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33537345

French investigators have found a device after fires broke out at a chemical plant a few weeks ago.