Islamophobia in Europe and the ways to end it Harun Yahya ;  The writer has authored books on Islam

JAKARTA POST, 20 Februari 2015

                                                                                                                                     

                                                

Although the fear known as “Islamophobia” emerged across the globe in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, its roots go back to the Crusades, or even earlier. Islam has now spread across the world: Muslims represent 6 percent of the population of Europe, more than 45 million. By 2050, Muslims are estimated to make up some 20 percent of the population and one in five people in Europe will be a Muslim — some of the main reasons for the rise in Islamophobia among Europeans in recent years. However, the real trigger behind the rise in Islamophobia is the radical terror groups that have emerged in the name of Islam. These radical organizations, with their perverse mind-sets, far removed from the essence of Islam, have caused fear and hatred of Islam.  Various circles opposed to Islam played the most effective role in planting this fear into people’s minds and virtually led to a cottage industry of Islamophobic talk and activities and to the emergence of a security, intelligence and industrial apparatus worth trillions of dollars. The concept of “Islamic terror” in almost all areas of social life and the deliberate inculcation of Islamophobia in world political centers is intended to prevent the rise of the Islamic world, which possesses economic and financial power centers, major energy resources and underground wealth. The policies adopted by Western governments, especially after Sept. 11, 2001, which generally targeted Muslims, and the laws passed in that context, accelerated the growth of Islamophobia. Extreme right-wing parties play a major role in encouraging opposition to Islam. These parties use Islamophobic speech to gather votes and grow strong on the back of it. The National Democratic Party in Germany, the National Front in France, Pim Fortuyn List in the Netherlands, the Northern League in Italy, the Freedom Party in Austria and the Danish People’s Party in Denmark are some of the far-right parties with significant shares of the vote in Europe. These parties target Muslim migrants in particular. Muslim migrants in Europe have to strive against xenophobia as well as Islamophobia. The ethnocentric mentality that regards them as different, excludes and despises them and subjects them to physical and psychological attacks on the grounds that migrants threaten their cultural and social lives, is on the rise in many European countries. Attacks along the lines of physical beatings, stones thrown at mosques and workplaces, the throwing of Molotov cocktails, the beating of employers and workers, swastikas and insulting slogans being written on walls, the vandalism of cemeteries, attacks on homes and families being beaten and threatened and verbal harassment, are some of the things that Muslims in Europe are frequently subjected to. However, like all other migrants, Muslims are people who leave their own homes and seek to integrate into the countries they go to, making great economic contributions to their new societies. Discrimination and hostility toward them is surely incompatible with human rights and modern democracy, as well as being unjust and intolerant. However, it would be equally wrong to consider hostility toward Islam and Muslims in Europe under a single category. People who think that Muslims are taking jobs and other benefits away from Westerners, those who deliberately play on these concerns to encourage hostility toward Islam and Muslims, those who think that increasing numbers of Muslims will eliminate Christianity and/or degenerate Western culture and those who equate Islam with terror and radicalism must all be considered separately. There is only one way of overcoming all these fears; true Muslims must describe their faith with patience and moderation and explain and show that an Islam purged of all nonsense is modern, compatible with science, democracy and logic, enlightened, progressive, opposes terror and commands love, brotherhood and peace. They must explain that Muslims have no intention of doing away with Christianity and that the Koran praises Christians. They must explain that the mentality equated with terror, slaughter and suicide attacks, that is against art, science and all beauty and that is hostile to other faiths derives not from Islam, but from deluded fanatics. Under the influence of fringe fanatics, Westerners imagine that Islam rejects reason, tolerance and modernity and advocates terror and radicalism, and that Islamic values are incompatible with democracy and human rights. Muslims must therefore engage in a systematic consciousness-raising campaign, bearing in mind that misinformation is perhaps the main cause of Islamophobia, that many people who fear Islam know very little about it and that much of what they think they know is untrue. The West, which boasts of the importance it attaches to democracy and human rights and how it treats all beliefs equally, also has a major responsibility. The first thing the West needs to do is introduce legal measures against Islamophobic and racist activities. Islamophobia must be regarded as a hate crime in the same way that anti-Semitism is. The West’s priority must be to develop a culture based on love, respect, friendship and brotherhood, without despising those who are not from it. Western countries, international organizations and civil society organizations must all demonstrate sensitivity on this subject. It is a matter of the greatest urgency in terms of world peace for new laws to be introduced and for the public to be educated so new generations are freed of these prejudices to emerge. ●

Global cooperation against extremism Harun Yahya ;   The writer has authored hundreds of books translated in many languages on politics, religion and science

JAKARTA POST,  26 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

Today it should be well understood by people with a certain level of intellectual skills that closing borders, invalidating passports or resorting to force of arms cannot bring a solution to extremism and radicalism. Radical groups or other violent terrorist organizations do not simply consist of individuals who engage in violent actions; rather, they are formations composed of dangerous thoughts. As ideologies do not recognize borders, we need to launch a worldwide intellectual struggle and think of an action plan against these dangerous ideas. As of today, the US has already dropped 148 bombs on regions in Iraq occupied by the Islamic State (IS) movement and caused the deaths of around 1,000 Iraqi civilians. For those who take lessons from the past, it is an obvious fact that by trying to fight an ideology with bombs, the West is merely repeating its previous mistakes. Statistics and data show us that over the past decade, the US fight against terrorism led to a quantitative increase in terrorist attacks all around the world. While the number of al-Qaeda terrorists had been in the low thousands in 2009, this number had shot up to tens of thousands by 2013. In addition to that, we can clearly see the steep increase in the numbers of extremist fighters after the successes of the IS. NATO keeps pouring money into fighting extremism with armed force, but then why does this menace keep growing? The answer is in the direction the finances are being directed. Trying to fight an extremist ideology only by using physical force will do little but increase the number of the supporters of that ideology. As the military campaign in the region costs more innocent human lives, the relatives and the close circle of those who died in those attacks will be motivated to join the extremists due to their resentment toward the West. While these destructive ideologies feed primarily on hatred and grievances, simply bombing those who are involved in these groups only produces negative results. In point of fact, it is hypocritical and unreasonable to expect weapons and military solutions — which only have the power to lead to destruction, death and sorrow — to produce positive results and social reconciliation. In today’s world, it is becoming ever easier to acquire the deadliest of weapons and as nations try to fight terrorism with weapons, all we get in return is more violence from the other side, adding to the pains of the world. In a meeting I had recently with the former foreign secretary of Italy, Franco Frattini, this important issue was discussed and our meeting was broadcast live on a Turkish TV channel. Frattini and I agreed on two vital issues concerning the problem of wars and extremism. He believes that a lack of moral leadership and the dangerous notion of a so-called clash of civilizations are two major problems that need to be dealt with. To quote Frattini: “Today more than ever, the world is full of wars. In my opinion, this is due to the lack of leadership and the lack of vision in many, many leaders in the world, including European leaders. The main problems, which I know that you pay great attention to, are to me how to avoid giving the impression to the Muslim world that there is a clash of civilizations and religions, which is not, to me, the case. On the contrary, we need international cooperation against any kind of extremism. There is no clash between religions, but there should be a confrontation between moderates and extremists.” What Frattini said regarding the dubious idea of a clash of civilizations was perfectly true. There is this dangerous point of view floating about in the world and it is so pervasive that many politicians seem to regard approaching matters with love, affection and reason as impossible. After US President Barack Obama’s latest decision to carry out military operations in Iraq against the IS, we can see yet again that the world is after the bodies of jihadi fighters, forgetting that the problem comes from their minds, not their bodies. For this reason, the only solution that will work against them is re-educating and rehabilitating them. Such dangerous movements must be brought to an end all over the world and their ideological basis should be annihilated all over the world. As a matter of fact, this is something that can only be done by the Middle Eastern nations with the help of their Western allies. The impact of these dark forces comes from their training and their ability to recruit people on a truly global level. In order to fight this, a well-established new ideology needs to be instilled into the minds of people and the narratives of these groups must be falsified by “counter-ideas”, not counter-insurgencies. Positive ideals such as democracy, pluralism and human rights cannot be imposed upon people by force, but they can be encouraged and developed. To accomplish this, we all need to have great patience and deep understanding. ●

The best strategy to defeat IS Harun Yahya  ;   The writer has authored hundreds of books translated in many languages on politics, religion and science

JAKARTA POST, 05 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

What is the Islamic State (IS) movement? How can it commit such violence in the 21st century? How did it obtain so much power and what does it want? What is the solution? In his recent speech, even US President Barack Obama admitted that “they haven’t figured out a strategy for IS yet.”  Further, the international community has spent significant amounts of resources in the Middle East to battle radicals in the region to bring an end to terrorism since 9/11, yet the problems continue to escalate in the Middle East.  IS is not a shadow, run-of-the-mill, small-time terror group. It is a force to be reckoned with. Taking large swaths of land in both Syria and Iraq, it aims to establish a caliphate. In Iraq alone, due to IS’ ruthless aggression and inhuman practices, 1.25 million people have left their homes and fled to other towns, or left Iraq altogether. The attacks in Iraq also have major repercussions for Turks in the north. Hundreds of thousands of Turkmens, Arabs and Kurds living in these areas have already been forced to abandon their homes. Those who remain are suffering greatly under IS’ extremely repressive policies. Some 300,000 Alawite-Bektashi Shabaks with close ties to Turkey have also been subjected to these attacks. In addition, 48 people at the Turkish Consulate in Mosul were taken hostage by IS and still have not been released. IS is also trying to capture the Tomb of Shah Suleyman, which is Turkish sovereign territory, in Aleppo.  To understand IS we must look deeper into the ideology that drives it. The majority of the experts get the IS phenomena wrong. It is not just a group of misguided people but a way of looking at life. The notion of taking out its members one by one is completely misguided and will not destroy it. We have to deal with its ideology, its foundations, and we need to cut its life line — the new recruits — by explaining to the youth how it is a deviant form of religion.  IS, which misinterprets the Koran and relies on non-Koranic sources filled with nonsense, employs policies of the severest repression based on an erroneous philosophy. The more it departs from the essence of Islam, the more inhumane, repressive, despotic and violent its rule becomes.  While IS has become stronger, drawing thousands to its ranks with promises of power, money and adventure, policymakers have started looking into finding quick fixes with minimal cost and impact. There is one disturbing scenario that begs closer scrutiny. It is how the US and Europe seem to be willing to arm the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), hoping that it will bring an end to IS. It is quite ironic that the US could arm the PKK, an organization that has been designated as terrorist, to destroy another terror group, namely IS. This strategy is fundamentally flawed and is a highly implausible scenario that has no chance of success whatsoever.  The PKK emerged in the 1980s with a Marxist-Leninist ideology and has used violence and terrorism for the past 30 years in an attempt to break apart southeastern Turkey. In doing so, it claimed the lives of 60,000 people. The PKK is a communist, Stalinist and Leninist organization that merely uses Kurdish nationalism as a tool in light of its own interests. Communist terror seeks to spread fear among people and to slaughter as many as possible, regardless of whether they are women or children. With its terrorist actions, the PKK is fulfilling this requirement of communism. Terrorism will not be eliminated until the communist mindset is done away with. Violence is an inherent part of the PKK philosophy. Thus, we should realize that laying down arms is only possible with ideas. So long as ideas remain unchanged, weapons may change, but they will never be laid down. Arming the PKK will not stop IS. Instead, some circles hope that it will help the PKK in its fight against Turkey. It is important that this baseless and absurd idea of using the PKK against IS, as a disguise to further plans to divide Turkey, is abandoned immediately. Those that hope to divide Turkey should know that Turkey will protect its territorial integrity and will not allow anyone to break apart its land no matter how heavily armed. You often hear the argument that the solution lies in moderate Muslims speaking louder against the terrorists.  However, with regards to the IS problem, it should be dealt with quickly but it takes more than words and speculation. During the painful events of the Arab Spring, its aftermath, and even more painful and horrific incidents that occurred in Egypt and Syria, the majority of the Muslim countries maintained a shameful silence. It is high time for them to step in, take action and act like real Muslims, rather than waiting for the US to swoop in and save the day. They should come together, build a united front and speak up against IS. They should ensure that political, religious figures as well as respected opinion leaders among them clearly state their opposition to and rejection of IS. They should work to spread real Islam, which is the epitome of peace, compassion and love. ●

Sustainable stability in Turkey Harun Yahya  ;   The writer has written in many languages on political, faith-related and scientific topics

JAKARTA POST, 23 Agustus 2014

                                                

On Aug. 10, the Turkish people directly elected their head of state for the first time. With Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and Selahaddin Demirtas also in the race, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s three-term prime minister, won the election for the highest office in politics. The former secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ihsanoglu, who ran as the joint candidate of 14 opposition parties came second in the presidential race. Even though Ihsanoglu was endorsed as the joint candidate of multiple parties and was running as a center-right candidate, there were many reasons why he could not beat Erdogan in the election. Before all else, Ihsanoglu should be applauded for his impeccable manners during the presidential race. He never ceased to appear the perfect gentleman. However, at some point he also proved to lack a connection with a majority of the Turkish public. Despite having a background with a conservative education and career, when compared to Erdogan’s fluidity in eloquence, Ihsanoglu couldn’t help but fall short. Ihsanoglu’s ambiguous remarks about Abdullah Ocalan (leader of the PKK terrorist organization, which is responsible for the killing of 60,000 Turkish citizens) made many people uncomfortable about the future, and his criticism of the government’s open-border policy with Syria let down an overwhelming majority, especially in Anatolian cities. Even though Turkey has already spent more than US$2 billion on Syrian refugees, the Turkish public approaches the Syrian refugees welcomingly and patiently. We all consider that we might go through the same afflictions one day and having an egotistical stance toward our Syrian guests does not fit the texture of the Turkish public. Turks consider helping the displaced Syrians as a religious duty; therefore, Ihsanoglu’s criticism about the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey forced many of his supporters to vote for a Turkey without him. While Ihsanoglu attracted attention to Turkey’s limited resources, what he failed to see was that despite this disadvantage, the Turkish people would always choose to help people in need, regardless of race or faith. Demirtas, the candidate for the co-leading Peoples’ Democratic Party, received the backing of eight left-wing parties and came third in the race with 9.78 percent of the vote. Demirtas has been quite an interesting candidate, offering a seemingly perfect discourse in the race. He praised women’s empowerment programs and initiatives; he paid attention to the voice of the young; he was a well-spoken and warm gentleman, and he repeatedly talked about ending the polarization inside Turkey for the sake of greater unity. If Demirtas was running under the banner of the AK Party or the CHP, it can safely be said that he would have gathered an overwhelming majority of votes. But there are very important reasons why Demirtas would not match up against his opponents in any of the upcoming elections; namely, he proposed that the presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) should be disbanded, and his party is well-known for accepting Abdullah Öcalan as their opinion leader. This can be a deathblow to a politician in Turkey, where many people are disturbed by the fear of division. Erdogan, on the other hand, has always been a man of the people ever since his days as the mayor of Istanbul. He has never been too proud to rest in a random village home with impoverished villagers or kiss the hands of senior citizens. Erdogan has always had a warm relationship with religion and he does not hesitate to recite the lines of well-known poems by conservative poets. With his success with the economy and in transforming governmental bodies, Erdogan has also proved himself to be a very successful statesman. One concern about his presidential bid was whether or not it would be possible for him to be as active as the head of state as he was when he was the prime minister; but with talk of only small shifts in the system and his eagerness to run for the presidency, the Turkish public decided he deserved the seat, though it is the general consensus of most Turks that a presidential system is inappropriate for the Turkish Republic for the time being. Leaving behind another important election season, Turkey took one step forward in a volatile region. In the Middle East, where all our neighbors are going through rough transitions with wars, uprisings and military coups, it is not easy to find stability let alone sustain it. The Turkish people chose financial and political stability by choosing Erdogan as their head of state. ●