Ideological anger and left habitus

In a sense, the mosque metaphor is the manifestation of anti-Islam habitus of the Turkish left that propounds continuity. Socialist leftists' and Kemalizm's genetic roots meet over this habitus.

Ideological anger and left habitus

Akif Emre - Istanbul

One of the most essential matters the Kemalists and the Kemalist left never understood is the community's existential relation with religion. The indicator, which symbolizes this situation the best, is the nation's interest in mosque constructions. The Kemalists elite, which is dreaming of having a civilization transformation overnight, was thinking that following the community engineering, the religion and its influence would have decreased gradually and disappeared, and the community would reach the “modern civilization” levels with the secular Western values.

As the government pressure over the community subsided, there had been abnegations towards mosque constructions, from the cities to villages. With scarce facilities, the community built mosques in villages and city suburbs and looked after the existing ones. Most of them, with their aesthetic and limit compelling architecture, were the visibility claim of the identity in a religious sense.

Secular Kemalists and their successor leftists/socialists didn't want the mosques to stop being a metaphor and turn into an existential indigenousness expression. The polemics over the mosques is actually the distillation of the “what the Islam, pan-Islamism and Islamic developments in Turkey correspond to” matter. Because, within the context of pan-Islamism, Islamic movements and Islamic developments, if every segment brought forth an explanation to the matter according to your ideological attitude, then the intellectuals would have difficulty in making sense of the communal manifestation. Since the Turkish left, especially the Kemalist left wingers, never accepted that Islamic developments, pan-Islamism is somehow the actual identity of these lands, and always showed the tendency to explain it by looking for foreign investments, and relating it to external factors.

In one period, the left wing in Turkey started to re-mention the explanation style, which they've borrowed from Kemalizm, directed at pan-Islamists. According to the leftist rhetoric, Islamic developments develop under two categories; within the country and in international levels. The ones in Turkey are traditionally paid by the Saudis as a tradition. Even though the Iran factor contributes towards this, it's not valid recently.

As for the international aspect; it's feeding off two channels. One is; the international investments of the Saudi-origin Rabıta. Second one is; the “green belt” project that started with the Afghan jihad during the U.S.'s Cold War period.

In a sense, the mosque metaphor is the manifestation of anti-Islam habitus of the Turkish left that propounds continuity. Socialist leftists' and Kemalizm's genetic roots meet over this habitus.

Their attempts to explain the construction of the mosques in the slums, which had been built after the workers and people with low-incomes sacrificed from their sustenance, with Saudi money pushed the outside Turkey's agenda. With this myopic view, while they couldn't understand Turkey's Islamic identity, they were also unable to comprehend the happenings in the communal level and politics.

This expression had been laid aside by the conservative democrat AK Party rulership. Besides, with justifications like the EU vision and the borrowed liberal expression, some leftist intelligentsias didn't see any harm in being side by side with the masses they accused in terms of sociological authenticity.

The template, which had been forgotten for the past couple of years, had been made ready-to-use again. Besides, without being updated. Nearly, we are crowded with intellectual fables, with the 1970's arguments and terminology, related with how Islamism is a Saudi/American production. The left made a return to their fictive genes. They are preparing for a revolutionist attack with Kemalist reflexes.

At this point, with a leftist agility, they are putting forth a deceiving target in order to imprison every kind of value related with Muslimism over Islamism. Over the actions of conservative democrats, who had never announced that they are Islamists or even show special effort to prove they are distanced to it, the left must be thinking that it's time to imprison Islamism. This is the return of the left habitus, which is directed at stopping their AK Party criticism from being only a government criticism, and match it up with Islamism and Muslimism, and imprison the religion, which is the existence opportunity of these lands, completely. In a more aggressive language, it's the ideological anger's, which even leads them to the idea of “Islamists are not Muslims”, disengagement from reality. It's a wholesaler reflex that removes the line between a person's actions that does not correlate with his/her beliefs and their belief. It seems that this reflex had brought forward every implementation, morally problematic implementation, which a Muslim or Islamist never approved, in the name of generalizing interpretations, revolutionist secular moral principles that shows Muslims, Muslimism and Islamism as responsible. Their attempts to imprison Islamism, which is attempted to be presented as the subject/responsible of depravation, injustice and exploitation, and Muslimism in people's consciousness, has no principal or intellectual equivalent….

This minimalist intellectual attitude is actually the turmoil of kill Muslimism completely, by adding equity and freedom sauce to the intellectual arguments in Paris cafes, within the parenthesis of the Western lifestyle, values, and, people and community imagination…

While Muslimism is imprisoned over AK Party's activities, with a defiance to their sociological base, they don't seem to have any intention to change their comforts or lifestyles. Besides, even though most of its members are Muslims, the rightist conservative policies are mistakes that requires criticisms and objections; and actually this is an essential system problem that is reflected on the practice. Any criticism that is done without cancelling the individual and communal moral responsibility and before criticizing Global Capitalism and Neoliberal policies on a paradigmatic level, is an effort to capture expression supremacy.

The drifting of criticisms, directed at the rulership's economy-politics implementations, towards Islamism hatred; without questioning the Western paradigm, applauding at Turkey's integration to the global system in the names of Westernization and Western values, and objecting to them as a necessity of communal and political rivalry; can all be explained as an effort to gain an ideological position…

Putting aside the vindictive manifestations of the leftist reflexes against Muslim values, the ones, who are not making principal criticism and/or striking an attitude due to political excuses, should not forget that they are acting as an unnerving, screening function in the name of Islam's promise to these lands and humanity.

Güncelleme Tarihi: 11 Haziran 2015, 10:21