From: lhermi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lotfi Hermi)
Subject: Thoughts/discussion with Mark Hubey
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:37:45 GMT

In Article: 25367 of soc.culture.turkish,  hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes

Mark: 

The real XXX-ism would look like
this and this and this...." But they can never produce one.
Instead they argue among themselves whether such and such system
is the 'real-XX'. This has been the story for this century about
various versions of Marxism.

Lotfi : 

This a very general statement, weren't glasnost and perestroika 
part of a reformist movement within the communist system initiated
by realities imposed on Gorbachev ?  There is a very good piece on
Communism I remember reading in RFE/RL two years ago about the diffe-
rent eras of the communist state and how every generation that comes 
curses the pervious one and declares that they reached the "ideal" com-
munist state as envisioned by Marxs and Angels.

Mark:

I see this constantly. Lots of people are cursing Ataturk for
abolishing the Caliphate, including Arabs, Turks and Iranians.

Lotfi : 

They curse him because he abolished the very thing that gave them
an honorable place between the nations, the thing that broke the lines of 
ethnic and tribalistic divisions that still divide Europe to this date. 

At the beginning they thought he was a reformist but he disappointed them. 
In fact before Attaturk, there were attempts at reform within the Islamic 
lands, as exemple you will find writings by the vazir, or sadr-e-a'zam 
Khayr-e-ddine Pasha, on governmental reform and so many other reformists
such as Jamaledine Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, the Khilafah movement in India
and other reformists parties, including calls for an institutionalized 
Parliament, along the lines of the peaceful British "revolution".  But it 
was too late for them, same case for the ex-USSR.

Mark:

Ataturk was not perfect but he did what he thought was the best
thing to do. So, he abolished the Caliphate. 

Lotfi:

No, he wasn't. But what people hate about him is not the abolishment of the
legal Islamic status of Khilafah, but his refutation of the Muslim identity 
and character of the East, and especially Turks.

Mark:

If another Caliphate is needed, what's stopping the people. 

Lotfi:

What is stopping them is the imposed status quo, and the powers that abort 
every single step in this direction. (I.E. Special interests mainly those of 
the West and the minority social bourgoisie).

Mark:

If the Caliph will solve all the problems of the
Islamic world then by all means a Caliph should be elected.

Lotfi:

He will not solve all people's problems, but at least he will have the allegi-
ance of people to rally behind him and find out solutions for their problems,
he will exercice the political leadership that his legal status provides him
with.  I am afraid no governor in the East has that quality to my humble know-
ledge.

Mark:

There are enough Sy'yeds in Iran and Pakistan to make a good
candidacy possible. If only the Sy'yeds were allowed to run, the
problems that plagued early Islam would be solved. There'd be
a democracy and a dynastic tradition at the same tim.

Lotfi:

Either you don't know that in Islam we have no clergy or you are trying to
hide it.  And why not Turkey, Iraq, or anyone of the 50+ Muslim countries.
It happens that much of Caliphate in Islamic history was dynastic (Umayyades
Abbasides, Ottomans).  They were not legal from an Islamic standpoint. The 
whole point behind the early civil war in Islamic History was about preserving 
the legality of the "democratic" choice of the caliphe. that he was a 
representative of the people and their trustee.  That caliphate is nothing 
but a trust between him and the people. This fact is agreed upon between 
Muslims, and Abu Hanifa's support for the 2 revolutions of his time suggest 
such. 

Mark:

The real question is this; If Iran (which claims to be an Islamic
republic) is not one, and Saudi Arabia (same claim) is not
one, and let's not forget Pakistan and Sudan, then where is the
'real' Islamic republic ?  

Lotfi:

I ask you: Can the king of Saudi Arabia decline his authority in favor 
of a populous chosen leader, I doubt that.  Can the Mullah's of Iran accept
that the leader of Iran be from a Muslim sect other than the Shi'i sect. I
doubt that.  At least, there is no provision in their constitution (case of
Iran) for such a decree.  

Mark: 

For anyone to claim that the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Sudan (even Libya) did not create a real Islamic republic is 
tantamount to saying that there does not exist enough people in
those countries who really understood the Koran, the Hadiths and
the Sharia to create a real Islamic republic--whatever that means.

Lotfi:

I hope you are joking in that part about Libya.  The question about 
knowledge can be answered simply by quoting a statement made by the PM 
of Israel a few days ago. " We have to speak with deeds" he said.  If
it comes to knowlege, then so many orientalist know more about Islam than
a lot of Muslims, why don't they come into Islam then? There are 2 types
of scholars: Ulema Sultan and Ulema Ummah, and this distinction has been 
drawn long time ago in Islamic history. Because of the flow of blood in early
history, so many of them chose the peaceful gradual change against the argument
of Khuruj or revolution. It was a mere choice that ended up being the norm.

Mark: 

Do the people who post to these newsgroups then actually claim to
be so knowledgeable about these affairs that they can create
a 'real' Islamic republic when all these countries could not ?

Lotfi

They will create it when they have the guts to deal with reality and leave
'intellectual jargon' "When there is a will there is a way."

Mark:

That's like saying that there does not exist a single person
in all of those countries who has really understood the intention
of the Koran and that the poster is the only one (among a few) who
has really understood it.

Lotfi: 

Pas du tout Monsieur 'Know it all'. Tout simplement,  we say we are 
brought in a secularized system of education, that of a defeated mentality.
They teach you the early civil war in Islamic history, quickly go through the
Ummayades, Abbasides, and Ottomans. Concentrate mostly on the French and 
Bolshevic revolutions the 2 WW, with no background on the reasons behind them 
or the major treaties that brought about the existing political map. And fina-
lly jump to draw a heroic picture of the founder of the modern state, and how 
the whole world swirles around him.  They leave the details which are the most
important part about studying history.  I guess we are in universities and this
kind of belittling people's minds is not the character of a 'scholar' like 
yourself.

Mark:

Yes, who is this person who has understood the real meaning of the
Koran and the Hadiths and the Sharia and the complexities of the
modern world so that he/she can create the perfect system for now
and for the next infinite number of centuries ?? Who ???

Lotfi: 

No body said there will ever be such a person, but at least give a chance to
the people to have a say in their destiny and present the facts in front of 
their eyes, so that witness is proclaimed.

Mark:

Let's light the candle instead of cursing the darkness.

Lotfi:

These open and frank discusions are part of lightening this candle. I which
the West who is mighty and strong give us the benefit of the doubt and deal 
with us on an equal human level, and accept that people have different expe-
riences.  But I am afraid they are too simplistic - except for a few - They
might be secular, but they live with a mediaval mentality, they live with the
mentality of the reconquista, the inquisition and the crusaders of that era.
This is what I came to conclude in my 6 yr stay in this country. 


Sincerely,

Lotfi


Xref: sparky soc.culture.turkish:13039 talk.politics.mideast:23364 talk.politics.soviet:9666 soc.culture.greek:11455 soc.culture.europe:10403 soc.history:10116