Fethullah Gülen: a Dangerous Cult Leader

Share

Fethullah Gülen: a Dangerous Cult Leader

Edip Yuksel
2 March 2012
www.19.org

 

Fethullah Gülen has multiple personalities. The first personality, which is the most visible one, is a humble spiritual leader, like the good son of Ghandi and Mother Theresa. The other personality, however, is a calculated Machiavellian who secretly plans and establishes political alliances to pursue his long-term goal of grabbing power in Turkey so that to realize his longer-term dream of resurrecting a Sunni theocratic empire akin to Ottomans. He is a fan of Ottoman dictators, such as Fatih Sultan Mehmed, who killed their baby brothers to keep their throne! That aspiration alone should tell plenty about the real person behind his peaceful and humble facade.

His recent video statement regarding the Kurdish issue was one of the rare public expositions of his second personality, in which he prayed passionately for the destruction of the Kurdish rebels. This, of course would not be a sufficient reason for our inclusion him as an instigator. But in the same video he gave a number, 50 000, and asked the Turkish military ant its overt and covert allies, to destroy them all. Furthermore, in that public speech, he wished that their HOMES WOULD BE BURNED DOWN and uttered similar emotional condemnations that signalled for justification of a civilian massacre or controlled genocide.

Fethullah is more dangerous than Pat Robertson or similar power hungry evangelical charlatans, since he is master in tickling both religious and nationalistic hormones to attract and manipulate masses.

I know him personally since I was in my twenties, through my father who was a prominent religious scholar respected by him. In 1985-1986, I wrote a few articles at his first publication in Turkey, Sızıntı (the seepage, the trickle or the devious!), when I was a best-selling young author.

More than a year ago, I wrote a lengthy article questioning his intention, goals, theology, political standing and alliances. The title of the article was: “Fethullah Gülen’e 19 Soru” (19 Questions for Fethullah Gülen) which was widely circulated on Internet and Facebook. They were challenging questions, meant to expose him. I gave him a few months to respond.

As I expected, he did not, except he let his followers to respond without saying anything :). All those who defended (!) him focused on my mentioning his name as Fethullah, without fancy titles and praises that is aimed to create a holy shield around his persona, such as Efendi, Hoja, Hazretleri… 🙂 As one who appreciates the French thinker Bourdieu’s book “Language & Symbolic Power”, of course, I would not call him with the titles attributed to him by his cult. In fact, I ask my students not to call me with the title Professor, but by my first name so that we could have philosophical arguments free of hierarchical barriers.

Then, several months ago, I wrote the responses of each question that I thought he would or should have given… I am sure that after the publication of that article my name is on the list of wanted in Turkish courts and police records, which Fethullah Gülen’s cult have recently infiltrated.

I have not yet translated those 19 Questions. Perhaps, I should start doing that. Fethullah is a very dangerous men!

(See the other articles of this and other cults at the category titled Sects and Cults)

 

Share

Theometer or Sectometer

Share

Theometer or Sectometer

(First conducted on the participants of my lectures at Oxford University in November 3-5, 2008)

© Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

Name: _________________________________________________

Email Address: __________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________ Age: ______

Occupation: _____________________________________________

Nationality: _____________________________________________

Have you read the Manifesto for Islamic Reform? ______________

Favorite Books/Authors: ___________________________________

Your Sect: (a) Sunni (b) Shiite (c) Salafi (d) Another sect (d) No sect

Please put a CIRCLE around the letter of your choice:

1. According to the Quran, which one of these was never and cannot be idolized by people?

  1. Prophet Muhammad
  2. Desires or Wishful thinking (Hawa)
  3. Crowds or peers
  4. Ancestors or children
  5. Reasoning (Aql)

2. Which one of these is a true statement?

  1. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; in addition we need Hadith and Sunna.
  2. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; we need Hadith, Sunna and follow the teaching of a Sunni sect.
  3. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; we need Hadith, Sunna and follow the teaching of a Shiite sect.
  4. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; we need Hadith, Sunna, follow the teaching of a sect and join a religious order.
  5. The Quran is sufficient to guide us when we understand and follow it through the light of reason.

3. Which one of these hadiths narrated by Bukhari, Muslim and other “authentic” hadith books, do you think are fabricated?

  1. Muhammad was illiterate until he died.
  2. Muhammad married Aisha at age 54 while she was only 9 or 13 years-old.
  3. Muhammad dispatched a gang of fighters (sariyya) to kill a woman poet secretly during night in her home, for criticizing him publicly through her poems.
  4. Muhammad slaughtered 400 to 900 Jews belonging to Ben Qurayza for violating the treaty.
  5. All of the above.

4. Which one of these laws or rules does not exist in the Quran?

  1. Stone the married adulterers to death
  2. Do not play guitar
  3. Men should not wear silk and gold
  4. Men are superior to women
  5. All of the above

5. The Quran instructs us to follow the messengers. Following the messenger means:

  1. Follow Hadith and Sunna; Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Hanbal, etc.
  2. Follow his Ahl-al-Bayt.
  3. Follow hadith, sunna, consensus of sahaba, ijtihad of imams and fatwas of ulama.
  4. Follow Muhammad.
  5. Follow the message he was sent with, which was Quran alone.

6. The Quran is God’s word, because:

  1. There are verses of the Quran stating that it is God’s word.
  2. The Quran is a literary miracle. None can bring a sura like it surpassing its literary qualities.
  3. I do not need to have a reason. Reason is not reliable. I have faith in the Quran.
  4. The moral teaching of the Quran is the best for individual and humanity.
  5. The Quranic signs (aya) do not have internal contradiction nor does it contradict the signs in nature. Besides, it is numerically coded book with an extraordinary mathematical structure integrated with its composition and Arabic language.

7. Which one of the following is correct for Muhammad:

  1. Muhammad was the final messenger and prophet.
  2. Muhammad had the highest rank above all humans.
  3. Muhammad demonstrated many miracles such as splitting the moon, healing the sick, and crippling a child
  4. All of the above´
  5. Muhammad was a human messenger like other messengers.

8. In what year he Bukhari started collecting hadith for his hadith collection known as the Sahih Bukhari, the most trusted Sunni hadith collection?

  1. During the life of Muhammad inMedina
  2. Ten years after Muhammad’s death.
  3. 130 years after Muhammad’s death.
  4. 200 years after Muhammad’s death
  5. 230 years after Muhammad’s death.

9. According to Bukhari himself, he collected the 7,275 hadith among the 600,000 hadiths he collected. If each hadith, together with its isnad (the chain of reporters) and sanad (the text that was attributed to Muhammad) took about half a book page, how many volumes of books with 500 pages would they take to record all those 600,000 hadith allegedly collected by Bukhari?

  1. 7 volumes
  2. 10 volumes
  3. 70 volumes
  4. 100 volumes
  5. 700 volumes

10. What are the last statements in the Farewell Sermon (Khutba al-Wada) which was reportedly witnessed by more than 100,000 sahaba, making it by far the most authentic hadith among the thousands of hadiths?

  1. I leave you Abu Bakr; you should follow him.
  2. I leave you my sahaba; you may follow any of them.
  3. I leave you the Quran and Sunna; you should follow both.
  4. I leave you the Quran and Ahl-al- Bayt (my family); you should follow them.
  5. I leave you the Quran, you should follow it.

11. According to some “authentic hadith” found in Bukhari and other hadith books, there was a verse instructing muslims to stone the married adulterers to death: “Al-shayhu wal-shayhatu iza zanaya farjumuhuma nakalan…” According to hadith reports, what happened to those verses?

  1. After the Prophet Muhammad’s death, Umayyad governor Marwan burned the pages where those verses were written.
  2. Angle Gebrail came down and deleted it from the scripture.
  3. Ibni Abbas forgot it yet Abu Hurayra never forgot it.
  4. There is no reference to such a verse in any authentic hadith books.
  5. After the Prophet Muhammad’s death, the skin which the verse was written on was protected under Aisha’s bed. A hungry goat ate it. Thus, it was abrogated literally yet kept legally.

12. According to both Bukhari and Muslim, when Muhammad was in his death bed, he asked his comrades around to bring him a paper and pen to write something for them so that they would not divert from the right path. According to the same “authentic” Sunni hadith books, Omar bin Khattab stopped a sahaba who was hurrying for a paper and pen and said the following: “The prophet is sick and has fever. He does not know what he is saying. God’s book is sufficient for us.” According to the hadith, all the prominent comrades (sahaba) agreed with Omar and Muhammad passed away without writing down his advice. What do you think about this hadith?

  1. If it is narrated by both Bukhari and Muslim, then it must be true
  2. If it is true, then, Omar and all other Sahaba must have betrayed Muhammad and committed blasphemy.
  3. If it is true, then, Omar and all prominent Sahaba were followers of the Quran alone.
  4. If it is false then all other hadith too should be rejected.
  5. All of the above except the first option. Either true or false, Bukhari and Muslim lose their credibility.

13. Do we need to SAY “sallallahu alayhi wasallam” after Muhammad’s name?

  1. Yes, every time Muhammad is mentioned we have to praise his name.
  2. Yes, but we need to say only once in our lifetime.
  3. Yes, the more we say the better.
  4. Yes, and those who do not say it after Muhammad’s name disrespect him and they will not receive his intercession.
  5. No, the Quran does not ask us to say anything after Muhammad’s name; muslims were asked (salli ala) to support him, as he was also asked to support them (salli alayhim).

14. What is the correct Testimony (shahada) according to the Quran:

  1. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and the Quran is God’s word.
  2. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and Muhammad is His messenger.
  3. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and Muhammad is His messenger and His servant.
  4. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and Abraham, Jesus, Moses and Muhammad are His messengers.
  5. I bear witness that there is no god but the God.

15. Should Muslims who do not observe daily prayers be beaten in public?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

16. Should Muslims who are caught for consuming alcohol for the fourth time be killed?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

17. Did the prophet give permission to kill women and children in the war?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

18. According to the Quran, are women banned from reading Quran and pray during their menstruation periods?

  1. Yes
  2. No.

19. In the daily Sala prayers, do you recite “attahiyyatu lillahi wassalawatu …. as salamu alayka ayyuhannabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu”?

  1. Yes
  2. No

20. Does the Quran justify taxing Jewish and Christian population under Muslim authority with extra or different taxation called Jizya?

  1. Yes
  2. No.

21. Does the Quran instruct women to cover their hair?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

22. Are woman restricted from leading congregational prayers?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

23. Are women mentally and spiritually inferior to men?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

24. Does the Quran restrict women from initiating divorce?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

25. Is polygamy with previously unmarried women allowed?

  1. Yes, up to four women.
  2. No, polygamy is allowed only with the widows who have orphans.

26. Do pilgrims need to cast real stones at the devil?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

27. Is the black stone near Kaba holy?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

28. May a muslim own slaves?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

29. Is circumcision a required or encouraged practice in Islam?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

30. Should converts change their names to Arabic names?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

31. How much zaka charity one should give away?

  1. 2.5%
  2. As much as one can afford, without making themselves needy.

32. Are those who break their fast during Ramadan before the sunset required to fast 60 consecutive days as a punishment for not completing the day?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

33. Is leadership the right of Quraish tribe?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

34. Is drawing pictures or making three dimensional statutes a sin?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

35. Are there more dietary prohibitions besides pork, carcass, running blood, and animal dedicated to idolized names?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

36. Is displaying Muhammad’s name and the names of his closest companions next to God’s name in the mosques idol-worship?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

37. Did Muhammad advise some sick people to drink camel urine?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

38. Did Muhammad gauge people’s eyes with hot nails?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

39. After following the advice of Moses, did Muhammad, bargain with God about the number of prayers, lowering down from the impossible-to-observe 50 times a day to 5 times a day?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

40. Does Muhammad have the power of intercession?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

41. Was Muhammad sinless?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

42. Did God create the universe for the sake of Muhammad?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

43. Did Muhammad have sexual power of 30 males?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

44. Was Muhammad bewitched by a Jew?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

45. Do some verses of the Quran abrogate other verses?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

Here is the story and the answer of this test:

Between November 3 and 10 of 2008, I traveled to UK and Turkey to deliver four lectures; first two at Oxford University, the third at Muslim Institute in London and the fourth one in Istanbul Book Fair. I had prepared a test containing 45 multiple choice questions just the night before my travel. I duplicated them on both sides of a single sheet and I distributed to the audience before the lecture… They were asked to write their name, age, occupation, email address, favorite authors, and their sectarian affiliation. It was a bit awkward to test an audience that consisted of students and professors at one of the world’s top universities. The multiple-choice test proved to be a powerful instrument to deliver the message of Islamic Reform under the light of the Quran. The correct answer for each multiple choice question was the E option, and for the Yes or No questions was the B option. So, it would take me a few seconds to evaluate the tests after they were returned to me.

The Sunni or Shiite test-takers found themselves in quagmire of contradiction with their own sectarian teachings. They learned that they were thirty, forty or even more than fifty percent infidels or heretics. Some of those who marked Sunni as their sectarian affiliation contradicted the Sunni teachings on most of the issues. According to their own confessed sects, their lives were worthless; they deserved to be killed! I did not let this mirror or sect-o-meter remain an individual experience; I publicly declared the overall results. Many got all answers correct, including Eric, a monotheist from Unitarian church who already had a copy of the Quran: a Reformist Translation in his possession. Eric knew the original message of islam better than all the mullahs and the so-called “ulama” combined.

If you have chosen the wrong option for any of the questions and you are wondering why you have contradicted the Quran, please visit www.islamicreform.org and read the full version of the Manifesto for Islamic Reform. If you prefer to have it in a book form, you may order it by visiting www.brainbowpress.com

Share

Robert Spencer: a Crusader Riding a Catholic Zebra

Share

Robert Spencer:
A Crusader Riding a Catholic Zebra

Is the Zionist-Crusader who Inspires Terrorists and Warmongers, in fact:
an Intellectual Coward With a Plastic Sword Riding a Zebra?

(Robert Spencer was cited by Anders Behring Breivik, the Christian Terrorist, as his main source of inspiration. On 22 July 2011 Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers’ Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers. Robert Spencer himself is a coward, yet his sole mission is to inspire torture, massacre, wars against one billion Muslims and anyone who defends them. Robert is a Zionist-Catholic, a new mutation of Crusaders.)

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

 

Well, from the silly title above, what I really mean is this: Robert Spencer is pretending to be an intellectual islamophobe, while he is a coward and a liar. Several years ago, I had two Internet symposium with Robert, which was moderated by the online Frontpage Magazine founded by David Horovitz, a Zionist who argues that torture and massacres are kosher as long as in the receiving end are muslims. During that symposium, Robert and his friends were exposed as bigots and ignorant hatemongers. The symposiums are published online at www.19.org and also as two chapters of my book, Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers.

Upon the suggestion of some hyperactive islamophobes, such as, Chris Logan and his gang, Robert accepted my challenge of a face-to-face live debate. For some of the tweets see:

http://19.org/1813/warmongers/

Knowing his disappointing performance in those two symposiums, Robert then started having fear and perhaps panic attacks. Below are the Twitters he started sending around and our email conversation regarding the debate. As you will see, he tried every excuse to escape from a face-to-face live debate, since he is smart enough to know that he would be exposed as a liar and fake expert through the Socratic Method.

Today Robert Spencer tweeted several messages about our potential debate and falsely accused me:

Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@OccupyBawlStree Dont know; it happens often @loonwatchers is notorious coward; @edipyuksel ran away when asked to formulate topic properly

Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@Bill21594045 @OccupyBawlStree @loonwatchers @edipyuksel I am ready if any of these clowns ever work up the courage. @harris_zafar as well.

And from some of the responses to his tweeter, I learned that, thank God, there were some people who were watching him:

LoonWatch ‏@loonwatchers
@Bill21594045 @jihadwatchRS @OccupyBawlStree @edipyuksel @harris_zafar All you need to know about the bigot Spencer: spencerwatch.com

LoonWatch ‏@loonwatchers
@Bill21594045 @jihadwatchRS @OccupyBawlStree @edipyuksel @harris_zafar SpencerWatch: http://www.spencerwatch.com #Islamophobia

Robert is MISREPRESENTING the truth, as you will see in the 21 EMAIL communication below:

***

A SAMPLE OF TWEETS BY ROBERT SPENCER
LEADİNG TO THE CHALLENGE (June 19-23, 2012)

Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Mysterious money and motive behind monster mosque in Murfreesboro: Why is a huge Muslim compound going up where … http://tinyurl.com/7fqcnzp

6h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@edipyuksel My email is director@jihadwatch.org. Dearborn is near Detroit.

14h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@LogansWarning @edipyuksel Fly to Dearborn, I’ll be there to film ABN show & we can both do debate in-studio. Email me to set date & topic.

16h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Please help us stand for freedom against violent intimidation and Hamas-linked CAIR: Who stands for the right of… http://tinyurl.com/7djsoap

16h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@GroverNorquist …or with the Muslim Brotherhood (cf. that check Abdurrahman Alamoudi wrote out to you a few years back).

17h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Muslim convert gets 11 1/2 years of prison dawah for misunderstanding Islam, threatening “South Park” creators f… http://tinyurl.com/7pep9a4

22h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Tunisia: Muslim leader calls on Tunisians to wage jihad against the government, establish an Islamic state and w… http://tinyurl.com/78j4ewa

23h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
German neo-Nazis helped Islamic jihadists murder 11 Israeli athletes at 1972 Munich Olympics: Nazis and jihadis … http://tinyurl.com/7pnfxm2

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
“Time for jihad”: Misunderstander of Islam accused in US jihad bomb plots including dams, nuclear plants and hom… http://tinyurl.com/7jzhmte

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Sharia in action: Teenager lashed 100 times in Timbuktu for having child out of wedlock: Imam Rauf must already… http://tinyurl.com/85emlyn

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
First Apostasy Lawsuit Comes to Jordan: The true face of the “Arab Awakening’ continues to manifest itself. Acco… http://tinyurl.com/7q8fwkz

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@cairchicago “Director of the anti-Sharia movement,” eh? You clowns are good fiction writers.

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@Infiltrator4JC Thank you. Just answered: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/useful-idiot-cathy-young-wonders-which-is-the-more-serious-problem-today-islamic-extremism-or-anti-i.html

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Radical Christians murder two children at Sunni shrine — no, wait…: It seems actually to have been an explodi… http://tinyurl.com/7r75mm4

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Waqf tells UK student to remove kippa on Temple Mount: Islamic antisemitism: the student was told that he was no… http://tinyurl.com/7hfxf62

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Islamic Radicalization in America — on The Glazov Gang: On this week’s Glazov Gang, Dr. Nancy Bonus, Eric Allen … http://tinyurl.com/7rg4e5l

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Military instructor suspended over Islam course: Of course we are not at war with Islam. Obviously we aren’t, as… http://tinyurl.com/6wms6xg

20 Jun WND News ‏@worldnetdaily
@pamelageller rips #DOJ for ‘engaging in collusion’ with #jihad groups http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/aps-war-on-national-security/ @jihadwatchRS @frankgaffney #tcot #sharia #ocra

Retweeted by Robert Spencer

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Obama’s Justice Department secretly drops terrorism charges in Taliban case: One thing you can say about Obama: … http://tinyurl.com/88bqly3

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@ZNovetsky Not low enough to read your self-important dhimmi nonsense.

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
St. Louis: Iranian ex-Muslim and his Christian pastor receive death fatwa from Islamic Revolutionary Army in Ira… http://tinyurl.com/7zcpxtj

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Discipline recommended for 7 U.S. troops in Qur’an burning: Administrative punishments for doing their job. Thes… http://tinyurl.com/75q6yu3

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Islamic honor killings in America — on The Glazov Gang: Dr. Nancy Bonus, Eric Allen Bell and Karla Moxley battle… http://tinyurl.com/749mg9b

19 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Sharia in action: Saudi man beheaded for witchcraft, sorcery: Imam Rauf, call your office. Somehow the Saudis ha… http://tinyurl.com/cx9j24w

EMAIL COMMUNICATION between EDIP YUKSEL and ROBERT SPENCER

1. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: director@jihadwatch.org
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Irshad

6h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@edipyuksel My email is director@jihadwatch.org. Dearborn is near Detroit.

14h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@LogansWarning @edipyuksel Fly to Dearborn, I’ll be there to film ABN show & we can both do debate in-studio. Email me to set date & topic.

Robert,

I will be teaching an accelerated summer class in weekends between June 9 – August 12.

Thus, I might be available during the first week of June, from June 3-8 inclusively. This is a possibility.

During the month of June, I will be available in weekdays.

We had debated extensively via an Internet Symposium facilitated by the Frontpage.org. Though we had frank and occasionally heated debate, I found you a worthy adversary to deal with. However, I was surprised to see you in the company of Christopher Logan, Jarrad Winter and their ilk in the TWEETER world. I do not know about the nature of your affiliation with these bigots, but I did not expect such a cozy relationship…

These people have been bombarding Brook Goldstein and me throw twitters and website articles. They have been calling me all sorts of names. Their attitude and language does not invite intelligent conversation or debate. They are attacking everyone who is Muslim, even those who support the American warmongers and Neocons, such as  Daniel Pipes, Zuhdi Jasser, and many other anti-Islamists such as Tarek Fatah.  See: http://19.org/1813/warmongers/

These people are ignorant, bigoted, rude, aggressive, racist and bigoted. They are the Christian version of Taliban. All they want, is to create fear and hate against more than a billion Muslims and justify all sorts of discrimination and military aggression against them. This attitude might bring short-lived popularity among American jingoists, knee-jerk rapture-freak evangelists and the Zionists, but it is invitation to a total annihilation of both East and West. The Western world, or Christendom, will not survive through this attitude against a quarter of world population. We already know the financial and moral cost of the warmongering attitude of Neocons. The USA-Inc is in recession and prognosis is not promising. The USA is falling way behind of other industrialized countries in education, health care, infrastructure.

2. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>

Why do you lie? I know Logan slightly, but I do not know Winter at all, and do not work with either.

I know well who you are and what you are trying to do.

You mean July, not June below, right? If so let’s set it up for early July.

3. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>

Lie? Lie involves intentional distortion. Where did you get evidence regarding my intention? I noticed that Logan was tweeting you as an ally. Thus, I wrote this: “I do not know about the nature of your affiliation with these bigots, but I did not expect such a cozy relationship…”

As it seems, my perception and interpretation of your relationship was wrong. Thus, I apologize for making such an error. In fact, I am glad that you are not affiliated with those bunch.

Yes, I meant July…

After consulting my agent, I will contact you again, soon.

4. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>

We can do it anytime on skype. ABN will broadcast it. I just learned that they are not available for us both to be in studio. I apologize, as I thought they would be. If you find a face-to-face venue, let me know.

5. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Irshad

No problem Robert… I really prefer a face-to-face and friendly discussion.

It is important to hear and feel each other. I am tired of sound-bites, finger-pointing. We should talk not only on problems, but on solutions.

So, if you are okay with it, I will try to find a location to meet each other. Would you mind travelling to Tucson Arizona? We could have the debate here at the University of Arizona or Pima Community College.

I will respect your wish if you prefer no audience at all.

6. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Irshad

An audience is fine. Would need expenses covered — flight, hotel.

7. A SPONSOR

From: ……
Date: Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>

I will cover the expenses. Flight, lodging and cameraman.

8. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Subject: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

Robert, peace:

We have reserved a studio in Salem, one-hour distance from Portland/Oregon, for Tuesday July 17th from 1-5 p.m.

The debate, God willing, will be recorded by an experienced crew in HD in a studio. The moderator will let us discuss the theological, political and philosophical issues with minimum interruptions. We might have a few audiences so that they could ask us questions for further explanation, etc.

If that is okay with you, then we should get you a round trip ticket from where?

Would you prefer to come the night before and leave on 18th of July? You will be picked from Portland airport to the studio.

In case, this arrangement is approved, we are considering to reserve a room for you at: http://www.grandhotelsalem.com/

If you would like to invite some friends or your readers to the studio as an audience please feel free do to so.

9. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

Why are you cc’ing all these people?

Need to settle topic, moderator, etc.

10. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>

I cc’d some of the people who might wish to join us there. Perhaps many will not be make it.

Here are some of the topics:

  1. The theological, political and economic causes of terror and violence.
  2. Does Islam/Christianity promote peace or violence?
  3. What are the solutions for the current conflict/clash between the Western world and the Muslim World?
  4. The present and future of the Middle East.
  5. Muhammad, his life and message.
  6. Reason versus Faith
  7. Freedom of Expression and Islam
  8. Zionism and End Times Evangelism
  9. ….

If you have other topics in your mind, please let me know.

As for the moderator, he is Henry Najaf. He has produced numerous educational interviews with moderate Muslims and Christians.

I would appreciate if you confirm the date(s) so that we could purchase the ticket and reserve the room. If you wish to talk via phone, you may reach me via 520 … ….

11. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>

Too many topics.

None of them are debate topics.

Do you know how to formulate a debate topic? I agreed to one debate, not eight. Please formulate one debate topic properly, and propose it, and I’ll evaluate it.

Why are you choosing the moderator without any input from me? I just have to accept dictated terms?

12. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

These were the possible set of topics, I thought worth discussing… You could choose one or two of them… Or you could come up with your own. We have a whole world of differences. Since, it appears that you are expert in formulating topics, I welcome your help.

“Please formulate one debate topic properly, and propose it, and I’ll evaluate it.”

Okay, what about discussing your book; The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran? Here, how we might word this topic:

  1. Robert Spencer, Defending the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran against a Complete Muslim, Edip Yuksel.
  2. A Muslim’s Challenge to the Author of the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran
  3. An infidel Challenges the translator of the Quran: a Reformist Translation
  4. Which one to believe? The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran, or the Quran: a Reformist Translation?
  5. Did Robert Spencer, the author of the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran, influence Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist?

So, that is the topic. Yes, perhaps with the exception the last one, they are just different statement of one topic, to provide you with choices. If you know how to “formulate” it better, please go forward and come up with your formula.

“Why are you choosing the moderator without any input from me? I just have to accept dictated terms?”

Well, what should I have done? This is the time for your input. I was ready to fly to your “anti-islam evangelist den”, the IBNSAT studio in Detroit. I did not mind which Evangelical Christian or islamophobe, Crusader or warmonger you would be having as a moderator, did I? After you told me that the facility of IBNSAT was not ready for our debate, upon your request,  I looked for a professional studio with a moderator; and I found one in Salem, which is a perfect name for this debate. Salem = Salaam = Shalom = Peace = Ashiti…

Okay, as it seems, you are nervous. Knowing your performance during the two symposium, which I published in Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers, I understand. Since you have problem with a moderator with Persian last name; then should I suggest someone with an Anglo last name? I am serious. I can find a fantastic Anglo or Italiano with a last name and skin color that would make you feel at home. If you insist, I can search for a Catholic, a Zionist, or even a Rapture-freak Evangelist.

Or would you like to bring your moderator, your assistants, your managers, your agents, and some of you reader’s with you? No problem. You may even bring with you an American version of Anders Behring Breivik!

As I told you from beginning, Robert, I am ready to meet you anywhere, except in places such as Infidel’s Hell, Las Vegas or a pig farm. So, you have three choices in this regard:

  1. Pick your studio, your moderator, your producer, your city, your whatever; and I will fly there solo.
  2. Let me pick the studio and moderator.
  3. Come up with a constructive suggestion, modification.

If you know a fourth option, let me know.

So, are you ready for the debate, or are you going to find excuses?

PS: I really wanted to a more friendly tone, which was evident in my previous email. But, the language and tone of your two recent emails led me to respond in the same way in accordance to the Quranic rule, Golden-plated Brazen Rule. Now, it is up to you to soften the tone and language of this debate even before it starts.

Peace; and I mean it.

13. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>

Find out how to formulate a debate topic and get back to me. You challenged me, it is up to you to do it.

14. MIKE

From: Mike
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew

Edip:

Spencer is shrewd; I have dealt with him many times.

Your goal is to clarify things and find the truth; his goal is the opposite, to slander Islam, that is his business and reason for making money.

However, one thing he is not; dishonest and that goes strongly in his favor.

He will quote Ibn Kathir and other short sighted Islamic scholars whose words are considered Gods words by many Muslims.  He will make it between you and Ibn Kathir. Ultimately it will end up Edip against established Islamic scholars, a losing proposition.

We need to establish mis-information, and mis-interpretations of them old boys, and get it authenticated by major known names. You are a scholar, absolutely with the reformed translation, but to an average muslim a paved way is safer than yet to be concretized road.

A symposium is a much better format as a first step towards the process of sinking in the reforms. You say your things, and he says his….make a few attempts to see a different point of view, but largely, leave Muslims in a thinking mode and non-Muslims in a similar mode… That would be a advancement, rather than righting or wronging the other.

That’s been my experience. I’m embedded with every religious group, neocons as well as the liberals… My message of pluralism is advancing instead of getting challenged… Let’s win by not letting others loose, that would be a significant gain.

Just my thoughts, Thanks

15. MATT

From: Matthew
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Mike
Cc: Edip, Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond

I agree with everything Mike says.

Make sure you clarify all the logistical details on paper beforehand w Mr. Spencer. Get a contract in which he agrees to publication of the video/interview. Might need to make sure that you don’t make him overly antsy when you’re describing these details to him.

And for the speech – stay positive and avoid ad hominem attacks. As Quran says (I paraphrase), argue your points in a reasoned and beautiful manner. … Make sure that his logical fallacies are hammered HOME to the audience. This guy needs a cold-water wake up call.

16. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Aslbek
Cc: Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

I am not sure what is Robert talking about? He is patronizing me with an enigmatic “formula”? I thought we were NOT going to discuss algebra, physics or chemistry.

Any help to satisfy Robert’s obsession with the formula?

17. MIKE

From: <MikeGhouse@aol.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: 19@19.org, ahimaswelde@gmail.com
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew

Salaam Edip,

Start off with this and modify as you go:

Format: Symposium
Topic: Status of Women in Islam
Source: Qur’aan
Participants: Robert Spencer & Edip Yuskel
Moderator:
Time: 2 Hours
Venue: College Campus
Recording: Will be videotaped and made available to the public through net
Audience: Open invitation
Registration: All guests need to register in advance

Guidelines:

  1. Issues to be listed and exchanged in advance
  2. Focus on a singular point with reference to specific verse from Qur’aan
  3. Each participant will present the issue, and the other will respond, then two more exchanges
  4. If the disagreement is on the source, conversation concludes
  5. Add more…

18. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>

Format: Live one-to-one debate
Topic: Peace, war and violence according to the Quran
Source: Quran
Participants: Robert Spencer & Edip Yuskel
Moderator: Henry Najafi (or you choose)
Time: 2 Hours
Venue: Film studio, Salem, Oregon
Alternative venue: A church in Tucson
Recording: Will be videotaped and made available to the public through net
Audience: Open invitation
Registration: All guests need to register in advance

Guidelines:

  1. Issues, upon request, to be listed and exchanged in advance
  2. Focus on a singular point with reference to specific verse from Quran
  3. Each participant will present the issue for 15 minutes each. Then, each will respond for 10 minutes. Then free discussion on unsettled important points for 30 minutes. The rest of the 50 minutes will be used to answer the questions from the moderator/audience.

19. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>

I told you before: formulate the debate topic properly, and then we will have something to discuss. Until then, you’re wasting my time.

Obviously you don’t know how to formulate a debate topic. Do some research and figure it out.

20. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Cc: Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike, Aslbek

I see, Rorbert. You remind me the Turkish proverb:

“Oynamayı bilmeyen gelin, yerim dar dermiş. yerini genişletmişler, yenim dar demiş.”

No problem, I will, God willing, start writing a book refuting your distortions of the Quran in your Infildel’s guide. Then, perhaps you will be interested in “formulating a debate” and paying for my expenses too :))

Joke aside, you did not need to be afraid of an oral debate on your book, especially after receiving all the concessions you wanted. I am sharing this conversation with a few colleagues of mine and please feel free to share it with yours too.

PS: I am still open to the live debate, anytime you feel that you can endure the Socratic method. For instance, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAA873FE111650014&feature=plcp

21. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <19@19.org>
Cc: Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike, Aslbek

Whatever. Write all the books you want. I am perfectly willing to debate you. All I asked is that you suggest a debate topic formulated properly. If that is too much for you, that’s your affair.

Share

Robert Spencer and other Bloody Warmongers

Share

Years ago, I Warned against
Robert Spencer and other Bloody Warmongers

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

In April 2008, I had extensive debates in two symposiums organized by the Frontpage Magazine with a group of Zionists and wrong-wing Evangelical authors who have been calling for invasions and destruction of Muslim lands. One of the hatemongers that defended the new Crusades was Robert Spencer. I published those lengthy but very important and relevant debates in my 2009 book, Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers: Exposing Robert Spencer, Osama bin Laden, David Horowitz, Mullah Omar, Bill Warner, Ali Sina and other enemies of Peace (Brainbow Press).

Now the world learned that Robert Spencer was the major source of inspiration for Anders Behring Breivik, the “Christian Terrorist” who recently massacred dozens of children in Norway.  No surprise. In order to justify and promote another Holocaust, this time against Muslims, Robert Spencer was employing every tools and tricks of propaganda.

He distorted facts; he blamed the 99.9 percent of Muslims for the violence committed the few. He ignored the invasions, massacres, atrocities, torture, and terrorism committed by his favored states and their support of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East and beyond. He defended the aggression and oppression of the fascist Zionist regime against Palestinians. In sum, he had an incredible thirst for the blood of Muslims.

The following paragraphs are from the introduction of the book:

I have written more than 20 books in Turkish and English, and this is a book with the longest and ugliest title I have ever written. Without the names in the subtitle and the following list, the world would be a much better world. Of course, many would claim the same thing about my name too, since I have offended the religious and political sensitivities of millions, if not billions.

However, the people, organizations and corporations in my incomplete and casually compiled list have the following common characteristics: they directly or indirectly support or promote violence, aggression, occupations, and wars. We need to act and become catalysts for reform in ourselves and in the political system of our countries, before the religious and nationalist zealots of all colors and creeds hurl humanity towards an irreversible course of self-destruction.

There are many evil forces, both in the east and west, which work to inflame animosities and provoke another major calamities. They will not hesitate to engage in covert operations in order to incite hatred and atrocities.

On the other hand, there are bystanders which make up the majorities of people in every country. Yet they can easily be manipulated by warmongering politicians, media, religious leaders and war-profiteering corporations to cheer for bloody wars and atrocities. If they are scared by politicians and provocateurs, they would support every bloody conflict without hesitation, as they did when Hitler or Stalin incited them.

The same people and the same Hitler and Stalin are still alive among us. They just come in different colors and shapes, but they think (well, more accurately, they feel) and behave exactly the same. Therefore, it is no surprise to see incarnations of Hitlers and Nazis on the one hand condemning the Holocaust and on the other hand treating other people exactly like Hitler and Nazis did in the past.

If these gentlemen men have the right to depict Muhammad to be an evil guy and his supporters being as evil or duped, then I should also have the right to expose their so-called scholarly work, which is merely based on hearsay books and distortion and contortion of the Quranic verses by the followers of those hearsay stories. For instance, brother Spencer generously uses the hearsay stories fabricated centuries after Muhammad’s life to assassinate Muhammad’s character, while he knows well that according to the same sources which he trusts, Muhammad reportedly split the Moon causing half of it to fall in Ali’s backyard, or Muhammad reportedly made trees walk, Muhammad ascended to the seventh heaven with his body, and many other stories. Scholarly integrity requires consistency and honesty in using sources in evaluating a historic personality. But, your gentlemen crusaders pick and choose from those books as they wish. They take advantage of the crazy noises created by Jingoists, Crusaders and Jihadists, and hideously try to justify a bloody imperial Crusade with its resurrected Spanish Inquisition mentality against Muslims. I consider the work of these gentlemen a dishonest or ignorant attack against one of the most progressive and peaceful leaders in human history.”

This is a modified quote from my debate with the most rabid Crusaders, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, and other allies of the notorious torture-promoter Zionist David Horowitz. I later regretted using kind words to describe them. It was they who first reminded me of my naiveté; they were disturbed by my use of the word “brother” to depict them. In retrospect, I know that I was naïve to consider them “gentlemen” or “brother,” as they were a troop of bloodthirsty warmongers with clandestine missions and connections. All they were after was the promotion of a new Crusade through their depictions of all Muslims as threats to civilization (read: Christian hegemony and imperialism!).

Bill Warner is a rabid enemy of peace. In a recent article published at his website under the title Losing Israel, he criticized Israeli Zionists for not fabricating enough propaganda! Israel, doesn’t fabricate enough propaganda?! It is like criticizing of a braying donkey for not making a louder noise, or Fox News for not hiring enough rightwing demagogues, or a serial killer for not killing more! Towards the end of the article, Bill ensures his place in the short list of warmongers:

“Now, which one of the two maintains a stronger position — peace or victory? Today Israel desires peace and the Palestinians insist on victory. Guess who wins? Peace is for losers. Regrettably, Israelis and American Jews are choosing to be the losers. The consequences however are too dire; ultimately, Israel may get their peace, but it may be the peace after jihad’s victory.”

www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/losing_israel_1.html

Ironically, in the very article asking Israel to construct more propaganda, a coded way of asking for production of more lies, Bill Warner demonstrates his skills by subliminally peddling the loudest Zionist propaganda in the century: “Israel desires peace…” Perhaps, the main purpose of the article was to sneak in this bloody lie while diverting the attention of his readers. We may never know. But we know that his readers congratulated him for discovering the formula for victory: No peace! One of his readers commented, “I, for one, will no longer utter the word Shalom (peace) when hailing or farewelling Jews. Rather, I will say Netzah (victory). Who will join me?!”

The fascist propaganda machine is working: it is turning peace into an ugly word and it is making his bigoted and fanatic followers salivate for victory without peace. Robert Spencer is another member of this bloody cabal. He is one of the most active Crusaders and he has authored a few best-selling propaganda books to justify genocide against Muslims, such as: The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), and Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t.

Of course, the Horowitzs, Spencers and Bills of the world have a right and even a duty to criticize religious teachings and practices they deem harmful. I too have written numerous books exposing the problems with Sunni, Shiite, Jewish and Christian religions. But their agenda is much beyond an intellectual combat; it is ugly, devious, hypocritical, and bloody. Modern Crusaders do not directly fight as they used to in medieval times.

They now sing peace in their churches while voting for warmongers and promoting militarism. Instead of quoting verses from their holy books that instructs its adherents to burn and stone infidels, destroy cities and kill every living being including babies, they now use modern secular propaganda filled with euphemism and doubletalk. They do not hesitate to establish coalitions with nationalists, capitalists, or Zionists.

They have mutated with time and learned how to use secular governments and their militaries as proxy warriors for their bloody crusades. In fact, nothing has changed much: the king and the pope are toasting blood and these stooges are their public relation knights and bishops![1]

Thank God there are reasonable and progressive people who promote peace and stand against the destructive attitudes and actions. For instance, there are numerous religious or non-religious pro-peace organizations in the West such as, Unitarian Universalists, Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Jews for Peace, Muslims for Peace Justice and Progress, Progressive Muslims, and Code Pink, just to name a few. They are brave and resolute activists for peace. I compiled the following list of U.S.-based peace organizations: …

For the Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979671531/ http://19.org/books/brainbow-book-list/Read, Barry Lando, Mounting Anti-Semitism in Europe, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-lando/norway-mounting-antisemit_b_908126.html

 


[1]        As of July 2011, the Iraqi Death Estimator at www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq estimates 1,455,590 Iraqi deaths due to U.S.-led invasion, which deliberately started a civil war between the Shiite and Sunni Iraqis in order to crush the popular uprising against its brutal invasion, massacres, plundering, rape and torture. This is only Iraq! For the list of other atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by the West and Church see the article From Wounded Knee To Iraq: a Century Of U.S. Military Interventions.
Share

Fethullah Gulen: The Naked Sunni Caliph

Share

The US-Appointed Sunni Caliph is Naked
Gulen: a Hybrid character between Paul and Khomeini 

Edip Yuksel
12 July 2012
www.19.org

(I have recently made a home video exposing Gulen and his cult. You will find the link to the video in the bottom of this article)

No, I am not the only child who has been screaming this; but if you read this article, you will see that my voice is perhaps the loudest and clearest one. Let’s start with a piece of old news. The reputed American magazine Foreign Policy, in its August 4, 2008 issue, had declared “Fethullah Gülen, the World’s Top Public Intellectual.” The announcement started with the following introduction:

“When Foreign Policy and Prospect magazine asked readers to vote for the world’s top public intellectual, one man won in a landslide: Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, an inspirational leader to millions of followers around the world and persona non grata to many in his native Turkey, where some consider him a threat to the country’s secular order.”

Top public intellectual? Did they really mean it? Yes, they really meant it. I checked the date on the magazine and it was not April 1st! Let’s ask a few more serious questions. First, who are those “readers”? How do they know him? Which book or lecture of him makes him deserving such a title? Could it be a promotional service for the America’s new Caliph? Anyone who knows Fethullah Gülen closely will know that the word “intellectual” befits him as much as the word “fast” befits a turtle, or the word “person” befits a corporation. Fethullah might be the top business person; since he created a foundation that now owns big corporations, newspapers, television channels, hundreds of schools, and is valued in Billions of dollars. Fethullah might be the leader of the biggest, yet the most secretive and the least transparent cult. Fethullah might be the most successful politician in Turkey;

He is perhaps the world’s best living politician, since from being a preacher, he managed to gain the control of the nation’s political system; without even establishing a political party, without debating against a single opponent, without being cross-examined by a journalist; not even once. How such a person becomes a top public figure without being subjected to neither intellectual nor political scrutiny is beyond me.

From leakage to a stream, brook, river, and into a dam

Fethullah Gulen's Letter to Edip Yuksel's fatherFethullah Gülen was our family friend. He and my father, Sadreddin or Sadrettin Yüksel, knew each other well. Though they had differences in their style and political attitudes, there was a mutual respect between them; both were sharing the desire for a theocratic regime (sharia) in Turkey. Both were students and admirers of the Kurdish mullah, Said Nursi. (Said Nursi was born in our town, Bitlis, and he studied in the same madrasa where my father would study later. The madrasa in the town of Norşin was run by my mother’s family). Fethullah was found of Ottoman glory so much so that he would write his private letters in Arabic alphabet. His letter of condolences to my father, after my brother’s assassination by the Turkish nationalists, was in Ottoman.

In 1980s, when I was a best-selling Islamist author, I met Fethullah several times and wrote a few articles in his first monthly magazine, Sızıntı (Leakage, Ooze, or Seepage). He was writing editorial articles and poems, filled with Arabic and Persian vocabulary, under the nickname Dahhak, which was the exaggerated form of the Arabic translation of his last name, Gülen, that is ‘the one who laughs a lot’. From the title of his first magazine, it was obvious that he intended to infiltrate the Turkish institutions such as education, media, business, police, military, in a clandestine manner. His organization steadily flourished; starting from leakage it turned into a stream, brook, river, and currently has become a dam, perhaps the biggest one in the Muslim world. Years ago, the highly paranoid anti-religious Turkish generals were alarmed and they detected infiltration of the cult and they kicked them out in waves. But, the cult has been very successful in other fronts, including police. Today, the Turkish police force is dominated by Fethullah’s followers and many of the recent raids against high ranking military officials, including generals who are accused of planning military coups are considered to be the power struggle between Fethullah and the Turkish generals.

The fate of this colossal dam is difficult to predict, but the exponential growth of this movement was noticed by the USA-Inc long time ago, and apparently it has struck a deal with its leader, who is enjoying his life since 1999 in a ranch in Pennsylvania. Remember Khomeini was in Paris and led the revolution in Iran? Fethullah is leading a revolution in Turkey, albeit a stealthy one. Khomeini’s revolution was loud and obvious; but Fethullah’s cult is working like termites. I know what you might think, “Edip, you too live in the USA and you too have some controversial ideas. Then, what about you?” Well, I am open as one can be. My connections, income, wealth, history, character, and plans all are open. And some of my enemies, who wish to drawn me in a teaspoon, would not doubt about my integrity and bravery to stand for what I believe to be the truth. As for Fethullah and his cult, they are secretive, opaque, cunning, and full of hideous surprises.

Fethullah Gülen’s movement or the FG Cult

The members of Fethullah’s Nurcu (read, Nurju) cult do not rally or protest on the streets, but they are savvy and effective behind doors as well as in managing businesses. Ironically, two rival camps, both the secular and the anti-imperialist Islamist segment of the Turkish population, are in agreement that Fethullah is used as a pawn to create a model of “Cool Islam” (read it, imperial-friendly) in the Middle East. Of course, I have no hard evidence for the existence of such a deal, but regardless, Fethullah is a perfect choice for the USA’s imperialistic policies in the Middle and Far East. Fethullah might be justifying his alliance with the USA as “taqiyya.” Knowing both, I see who will be used in the end.

FG had a well-calculated plan to take over every major institution in Turkey. He used emotional appeal while preaching in mosques or private meetings. He would tell the stories of courage and dedication of Sahaba, (the idealized and idolized friends of the Prophet Muhammad) and weep and make his audience weep together. In those years, I noticed the prophetic irony between his last name and his style of communication. He was always crying in front of crowds.

He would raise funds and more funds. Soon, his organization and foundation became the wealthiest religious Sunni organization in Turkey, and now, in the world. Thanks to Fethullah’s talent of exploiting the religious and then the nationalistic emotions with sob stories aspiring to the golden days of the past. The power of his exploitation increased exponentially parallel to the number of people he influenced. Like an avalanche, more people attracted more people. It is a fact that a great majority of people prefer to follow a band wagon, especially the ones run by charismatic megalomaniacs.

The Mahdi and his soldiers

I found myself neither close to him nor to the people around him. I found them too calculating and sneaky. Too timid and obedient to their leader… They were a troop of nice “yes men”. I found FG too manipulative and dangerously charismatic for the naïve, and on top of that, too delusional. When his maudlin disposition, sobbing and crooning moved his audience and allowed him to raise big money for his foundation, he diversified his preaching style with sobbing, blubbering, weeping, sniveling, bawling and vociferating. Once, he added even more drama by throwing the holy book to his audience, but after receiving too many negative reactions, he did not repeat that gimmick again.

If you do not know about FB’s backward and dangerous theological dogmas and his infinite thirst for power, you might try to defend him based on Psalms 126:5-6. If you are an American, you may imagine Saint Paul, Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, Tim Lahaye, Glenn Beck , Sai Baba, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Deepak Chopra, Robert Tilton, Robert Tilton II, and Jimmy Lee Swaggart.  Mix them in a blender and add a gallon of tears and a sack of secrecy, replace the names of Jesus or Hindu gods with Muhammad, and the names of Christian and Hindu saints with the Sunni ones, you get our maudlin preacher whose last name laughs, even while he cries in public most of the time.

His cult also could be likened to a composite of Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Cabbalists, Discovery Institute, and the Left-Behinders. Fethullah, who is inspired by Said Nursi, has a messianic conviction. His followers pray daily for the coming of Mahdi who would be supported by Christ. Though there is no public declaration, but many among his followers believe that Fethullah is the Promised Mahdi.

Fethullah and his cult has become a major political and economic force in Turkey. He transformed Turkey, and his support for Tayyip Erdoğan’s AKP is vital. Fethullah and his followers focused on education system and opened private schools with dormitories in Turkey and also in former Russian Turkic republics, where he attained great success and respect for his cult. They are now operating dozens of secondary Charter Schools (privately run, yet funded by the USA government) here, in the USA. In city where I live, they run one of the top secondary schools and they recently built a huge campus of their own. Gülen’s cult has also been organizing Turkish businessman in the USA and they are getting successful, gaining the respect of many secular-minded Turkish expatriates. A Turkish lawyer and her businessman husband last year consulted me whether should they accept their invitation to join their business organization, I found myself in difficulty to say yes or no. Like a doctor prescribing a medicine, I told her about the benefits and side effects.

I am always impressed by their diligence, focus, hard work, and peaceful rhetoric and demeanor. Yet, I also find the cult extremely dangerous, since today’s good robots could easily turn to monster robots of tomorrow by the push of the button.

Top religious actor

In 3 October 2010, I published an article titled, “Fethullah Gülen’e 19 Soru” (19 Questions for Fethullah Gülen). I gave him and his close circle several months to respond. Yet, as I expected, he ignored my questions. I am almost sure that his lieutenants had informed him about my questions, since I am a well-known author in Turkey and my questions were on vital political and theological issues with important background information; they were a sort of indictment. Instead, I received ad hominem attacks, from his followers and admirers. Then, about a year after that article, I decided to answer them according to his religious and past political positions. I added that I would be gladly correcting any statement if he or his inner circle sends me a correction.

So far, they have been totally silent. Why? One might say, “Well, Edip who you think you are? Fethullah is a saint, he is the world’s top intellectual, he is the leader of hundreds of thousands followers. He is the most powerful man in Turkey and beyond! He even shook hands with Pope. He does not have time to respond questions by an author who dares to call him by his first name.” I understand. But, I still do not understand why anyone, any reporter would not be curious about those questions. Why all the reporters who interview him turn into zombies or sheep, and ask questions only to boost his image.

In other words, one of the secrets in Fethullah’s accomplishment is the truth-proof, the Socrates-proof walls of protection around him. It is an incredible achievement, which makes him the “World’s most powerful and the most protected religious/political leader.” This protection was initially accomplished through his well-calculated behind-the-scene dealings, and his loyal followers. But, since the moment he accepted the role of being the American Caliph in the Middle East, he has been protected and even promoted through his handlers, the WTV, which stands for… Well, read on.

Fethullah might be a great preacher and cult leader. Fethullah might be a gifted orator who knows how to impress his audience by talking in Ottoman language which is fully understood by almost none of his audience. Fethullah might be the reincarnation of St. Paul or Machiavelli. Fethullah might be Pope’s best hope and America-Inc’s dope in the Muslim world. But, “the world’s top public intellectual”? You must be kidding.

The crying, sobbing, wailing, weeping, bawling, howling, yowling, and snivelling preacher

While preaching his congregation, like some American televangelists with mega churches, Fethullah displays a one-man show. As a strange irony, contrary to the meaning of his last name (Güler = Laughs), he almost always cries, and after each crying, he collects thousands and sometimes millions of dollars for his foundations, or more accurately, cult. Pavlov! Some video clips at youtube that allow us to study his face gestures, his quick and freaky look at the camera in the middle of crying, the well-calculated timing, diction and tone of the sound-bites that he hurls during his hysterical crying sessions to elicit emotional reactions, etc., are textbook examples of not public inspiration or intellectual enlightenment but cunning manipulation. He is another proof for Marxist maxim, that Religion is opium of masses…  He would be a good actor in Broadway or Hollywood. Take away the ostentatious archaic language from his articles, you will end up with a mediocre rambling, bumbling, ranting of a town preacher.

Fethullah indeed should receive the World’s Top Naked Intellectual award. He has only elementary school education, yet he compensates with his smarts. He is capable of fooling his admirers and cheerleaders by mixing some scientific terminology into the mix, like new age gurus mix quantum physics into their mumbo-jumbo. He is a mediocre Sunni preacher who has the ability to peddle the most bizarre and stupid religious stories, and promote the VERY SAME backward and despotic religious dogmas and teachings that gave birth to various flavors such as Salafi version in Saudi Arabia, Shiite version in Iran, and Sunni version in Afghanistan. He has never directed any criticism to the source of multifold problems, Hadith, Sunna and Sectarian jurisprudence, afflicting Muslims for centuries. Yet, our Naked Sunni Mullah or Beardless Khomeini fools the world by the help of four distinct groups:

  1. His handlers (WTV, that is, Washington-Telaviv-Vatican).
  2. The core cult lieutenants who enjoy the perks and power bestowed on them.
  3. A growing crowd of admirers who are impressed by the growing number of the crowd; a fascinating loop, a perpetual machine, or self-fulfilling prophecy!
  4. The tailors; in this case, the Western and Eastern “intellectual and academic prostitutes.” Some are paid well by the cult and others work for WTV.
  5. Great talent to sell himself.

What has he done? He has opened hundreds of schools. So what? Governments and private companies and charter schools do the same, and some do much better job than his followers, with much less financial resources. He has opened numerous secondary schools in many countries, including the United States. How? By collecting money from religious people! How? By weeping, bawling, howling, yowling, and sniveling!

F and his cult has also done some little PR work for Turkey, which in fact is a fantastic PR work for him and his cult. Of course, with the fraction of the money any advertising company could do a much better job, but that is another issue.

The teachers serving in the cult’s school abroad pick some students and help them memorize Turkish poems. Then, they offer the best ones a free round-trip to Turkey to participate in the so-called Turkish Olympics, where teenagers from different countries recite poetry in Turkish. Of course, only a few people outside of Turkey know about this event, but the event is televised in Turkey and it attracts the attention of every Turk, from a student to the President. It is all about selling Turkishness to Turks. Unfortunately, the Turkish population have major psychological trauma since the demise of the Ottoman Empire. They have not yet accepted the defeat, the loss of so many lands. A great majority of Turks still angry with Arabs, accusing them of betraying Ottomans during the World War I. They just cannot accept their decline, from being the number one bully of the world, to have become a third world country. There is deep down nostalgia and anger in Turkish population. Thus, the nationalistic and jingoistic hormones are abundant. The expression of bragging about Turkishness is ubiquitous. You can see “Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene” (Happy is he who can call himself a Turk) at almost every corner, at every government institution. Millions of Turks repeat this mantra daily like a prayer. Thus, they are the easiest to be tickled by charlatans, by religious and political leaders. A few dozen foreign students who recite Turkish poetry on television screens, feed the inferiority complex of Turkish nationalists. By recognizing this demand and providing a cheap supply, Fethullah and his cult have received great sympathy and support from the population.

That’s it? No, he does the crying while he tells the exaggerated stories of idolized companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Why? To recruit the brightest of them and indoctrinate them in houses and dormitories controlled by the cult, turning them into nice robots, albeit until the master hits the red button to activate. If hysterically crying in chorus for their miserable lives, for not having married, for their sins, or for losing the glorious days of the Ottoman Empire, and then afterwards collecting buckets of money for his cult is an intellectual activity, then Fethullah deserves the first place as the “Top Public Intellectual”.

No, I am not making it up nor I am exaggerating. Search youtube for Fethullah Gülen and watch 5 to 6 videos randomly. You will understand what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3O9qtgEAYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPnHQxEHEuY

“The Quran is Orphan, The Quran is orphan. Quran’s father died!”

The following video is hilarious. Fethullah is manipulating his audience as usual, through a well-timed mix of weeping, sobbing, repetitions, literary eloquence, and provocative statements to elicit emotional reactions. At one point, he makes a ridiculous statement and repeats it over and over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s8Lv4q_4CQ

YouTube Preview Image

YouTube Preview Image

He repeats: “The Quran is orphan, the Quran is orphan!” What? The Quran is orphan? It is an utter disrespect to God’s word. But, when he notices that his statement excites his audience and make them cry loud, he takes advantage of the moment. He knows that he has now full control of their emotions. They are in a hypnotic trance, crying, weeping, sobbing, and screaming. He continues…  He then turns the metaphor into pure nonsense, buy declaring the following: “Quran’s father died!” Quran’s father? His first statement could be taken as a metaphor, but his second statement turns the metaphor to a stupid claim, to an insult to God’s word. Then, witnessing the impact of his silly statement, he start repeating the same statement “Kuran Yetim, Kuran yetim” (The Quran is orphan, the Quran is orphan).  His audience goes bonkers. The manipulation and the act is basically no different than of a stand-up comic in front of an audience.

During that speech he also wishes to repair one of the oft-criticized actions years before. Ten years before he declared the holy book orphan without father, he had flung the Quran to his flock. The Sunni and Shiite population might care less about the message of the Quran, but they worship its physical form in book format. Sunni and Shiite masses consider touching the manuscript without ablution or holding it below waist to be a great sin; they kiss the book an hang it to the wall with utter respect… Thus, hurling the manuscript of the Quran in the middle of the mosque was an outrageous sin. If any other preacher had done such a thing, he would receive a long term condemnation. But, Fethullah survived and continued increasing the number and power of his cult. Yet, he was aware of the negative impact of that action. His opponents would always cite that scene to criticize him. So here, while his audience are crying compulsively, he tries to repair his tarnished image. Hem turns it to the opposite, a wise act, a prophetic event: “Ten years ago, I had flung the Quran to your chests…” and now I see that you have owned the Quran….

A Compassionate Peacemaker or a Jingoist Instigating Mass Murder

Fethullah has both in him. The sins of the America’s Caliph or the Promised Mahdi, is not limited with manipulating his audience through emotional exploitation, or recruiting members for his cult from among students ending up in cult’s dorms because of their financial need, or exploiting the teachers by paying them half of what is on their official contract, or similar tactics common in every cult and religious organization… Fethullah is a Janus; he has two faces. Besides being a peaceful preacher, he is a racist instigator.

Don’t be fooled by his weeping in public and by his religious garbs. He is a man who is extremely talented to dance between extremes; between extreme show of compassion and extreme expression of cruelty, between humility and enormous hunger for power by any means possible. Thanks to his handlers, he is one of the most influential public figures in Turkey and beyond.

Last October (2011), Fethullah Gülen, issued a fatwa and political instruction by calling on the Turkish government to pursue a draconian policy towards the Kurds. His statement can be found on his website, herkul.com or youtube.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_kS-NZeLKE

There he advised and urged the Turkish government to kill up to 50 000 (Fifty Thousand) Kurds. He invoked God’s name with an emotional appeal by praying “May God rain fire on their homes,” and “May He uproot them root and branch.”  You do not need even to know Turkish to understand that he is in provocation mode; he is pushing the red button. With both of his hands he makes the gesture of grabbing someone from the neck and suffocating him or her to death, like the cartoon character Simpson does to his son, Bart. But, unlike Simpson, Fethullah is no cartoon character and his words have real life consequences: soon after his instruction to kill the dissident Kurds, the Turkish military massacred dozens of civilians in Uludere. 

Fethullah has always been with the powerful. He supported the Turkish military, in both military coups. No wonder, this, arguably most powerful Sunni Muslim leader, dared to criticize the Turkish human rights activists who tried to take medicine and other humanitarian aid to people in Gaza concentration camp through Mavi Marmara flotilla. The Israeli gestapos, in violation of both the Sixth Commandment and the international law, raid in international water massacred 9 of the activist and wounded many. According to our Pope-friendly Sunni evangelist, “they should have received permission from Israeli authorities” before sailing towards Gaza concentration camp.

Before Fethullah, there was Khomeini

Now let’s see a few examples about Fethullah’s intellectual capacity. He is no better than Khomeini. Once when I was an Islamist youth leader Khomeini was my hero. He led a historic revolution. Though he should get some credit for leading the revolution but most of the organization and work were done by his lieutenants, handlers, allies, merchants, and people on the street. So, we tend to unjustly distribute the credit to the lead person, while forgetting about many leaders and followers that support and manage the activities in his name. Sometimes, the success of activities has little to do with the visible leader; it is more due to chance and circumstances, such as the unfolding events, the factors, players, circumstances, the power struggle among competing groups, and pure luck.

Khomeini, in fact, was more a symbolic leader and an ignorant clergyman and the most important decisions, activities were carried out by a group of well-educated dissidents who were somehow forced to unite around him. As we know, after obtaining power, this clergyman sided with the worst party among his supporters and eliminated the progressive groups in the coalition that led to the revolution.

Later, when I discovered the backwardness of the Sunni and Shiite teaching, for the first time I got a chance to read a religious book authored by Khomeini. I was disappointed greatly. This mullah, who supposedly led a revolution in Iran, could not get his head out of the toilet seat. In his book Towzihul Masail he had obsession with pedantic details.

More than a quarter of the questions in Resaleh (846 out of nearly 2900), talk about purity and impurity. Khomeini relates

how many times to wash a container contaminated by a dog (three times in “small water” (a quantity of water less than about 380 liters [5C]) after first rubbing it with dirt, #150);

how many times to wash a container “from which a pig has drunk fluid” (seven times “with small water as well as with Kor (“big water,” i.e. greater than 380 liters) or running water,” #152);

that running water (from a stream or river) with excrement or urine in it is pure provided the “odor, color, or taste” hasn’t been changed by the excrement or urine (#29, #30). If it has, it can purified by “running water of rainwater which falls directly into it, or rainwater driven into it by the wind, or carried to it by a drainpipe.” (#53, (Resaleh p.66)

… but says not a word about purifying water by boiling or adding iodine. In fact soap is only mentioned in regards to how to clean IT (soap) once IT’S been contaminated. (#164, #165)

COMMENT: Should we care? After all these are religious definitions of cleanliness for religious rituals and duties. You want laws of religion you listen to a religious scholar. You want disease prevention or control you go to a public health worker … right? Not quite.

More on Purification

If a person crushes a mosquito on his skin and cannot determine whether the blood there from is the insect’s or his own, this blood is pure; but if the time between the bite and the death of the mosquito is so short that no such distinction can be made, the blood is impure. (#206, Resaleh, p.61)

What difference does it make? If it’s the person’s own blood, it’s impure and the person must wash himself. If it’s the mosquito’s blood, there’s no such need because it’s an insect and their blood is not impure.

**

Khomeini on Urinating and Defecating

Urinating and defecating are forbidden in four places: blind alleys, except with the permission of those living along them; the property of a person who has not given permission to do so; places of worship, such as certain madrasas; graves of believers, unless one does so as an insult to them. (#64, (Resaleh p.40))

It is not necessary to wipe one’s anus with three stones or three pieces of fabric: a single stone of single piece of fabric is enough. But if one wipes it with a bone, or any sacred object, such as for example, a paper having the name of God on it, one may not say his prayer while in this state. (#69, (Resaleh p.41))

Ayatollah Khomeini’s Gems of Islamism, (Excerpts from some of the legendary Ayatollah’s  books, speeches, comments [1A] ), Elmer Swenson,  accessed on 3 July 2012.

http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/khomeini_works.html#answer_resaleh

Since the similarities between Khomeini, who appeared to be a peaceful man before the revolution whose supporters were hurling slogans like, Istiqlal, Azadi, Hukumeti İslami, that is, Independence, Freedom, Islamic Government. Many intellectuals, such as Bazargan, Bani Sadr, were duped by Khomeini’s preaching and his apparently peaceful nature. They ignored the real-life consequence of the sectarian dogmas and literature he was advocating. Here, I would like to share with you one more article to demonstrate Khomeini’s intellectual level and state of dogmatic mind, which is no different than our America’s choice of the “top intellectual” for the Sunni world.

New versions of the Tahrir-al-Waslah have been published with all references to Khomeini’s perversions taken out. In fact, it is now illegal in Iran to publish Khomeini’s first edition of his book because of its blunders or that young generations of Iran’s ‘revolutionary society’ will ask, “Did the Imam sleep with sheep …. or small girls … or both”.

Anyway, I think it is the duty of all Iranians to know exactly how bonkers Khomeini was. Here are some of my favorite excerpts from Khomeini’s book:

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomizing the child is acceptable.  If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.”

Or how about this gem:

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on.  However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm.  He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed.  The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.”

(http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/simorgh555/mullah-slept-sheep;
The Mullah that slept with sheep, Simorgh555, 30-Aug-2010 , accessed on 3 July 2012.)

Unfortunately, many people who supported Khomeini in the beginning of revolution did not care about his distorted state of mind, his multiple personality.

Pandora’s Box of Theological and Political Contradictions

Fethullah is a Muqallid, that is, an adherent of Hanafite sect. He has never questioned a single hadith in the so-called Six Books. He frequently sites Buhkari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Hanbal… He relies on many other books, including Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Abidin, and of course, his main source of inspiration, Said Nursi. Said is notorious for his delusional statements that he received the 114 booklets as a revelation, and other claims that contradicts with the dogmas of all the four Sunni sects. In other words, Fethullah is a Pandora’s Box of Contradictions, both theological and political. The following statements, according to the numerous Quranic verses are idolworship and are exactly the statements of ingrates quoted in the Quran:

“God does not allow the corpses of his messenger to rot under the ground. The Most Honorable Messenger (PBUH), according to the statements of those who discover is “alive” and lives like martyrs. He is always aware of the situation of his people. Thus, when you say “Peace and praise to you O the Messenger of God” you should say it with respect and reverence as if you have kneeled next to the knees of the Sultan of Great Glory, as if you are in direct presence of him. Do not forget! If you become less aware, you may feel your knees touching his knees. And if you establish such close relationship, you may witness that his soul reincarnated there in front of you. (Fethullah Gülen, Metafizik Dünya, Seyyar (Gezginci) Melekler, 22 May 2006, http://tr.fgulen.com/content/view/10826/150/ Last accessed on 10 July 2012)

Our weeping preacher’s books and articles contain many stories in which he or his grandfather frequently meet and talk to his lord, Prophet Muhammad and other idolized figures in Sunni history, and they experience numerous miraculous events… For instance, in Küçük Dünyam (My Little World), he tells the story of Muhammad and Ali bin Abi Talib visiting his grandfather visiting his grandfather. Ali, according to Fethullah’s story, was carrying stakes in his hand and hammering in the ground to stop the earthquakes. He does not tell these stories as dreams, but real life events.

There was Paul before Futhullah

Fethullah is a clone of Saul, or the so-called St. Paul. Both are endowed with delusional mind capable of making up stories of meeting the incarnations of their idols, oratory and acting skills to peddle every ridiculous story as profound wisdom, cunning ability to manipulate impressionable people, becoming everything to everyone in order to reach their end, unrelenting desire to collect money and more money from their flock, and keen interest in carving idols.

Fethullah knows how to move and manipulate his religious audience. He tickles the raw religious emotions of his flock. For instance, in the link below, you will see him talking with cadence and great story telling skills. He hits the names of carefully selected three idolized heroes. He tells another delusional or schizophrenic story. He claims that three great saints of the past, who died centuries before, visited him on the land of his first K-12 school in Fatih, Istanbul. He tells them about his conversation with these dead people. Each time he mentions the glorious names of Hasan Basri, Abu Hanifa Numan bin Sabit, and Mevlahum Celaleddin Rumi, his flock cries and screams in chorus.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pxyy_hasan-basri-ebu-hanife-mevlana-okul_people

In another speech, he tells his flock that the Prophet Muhammad appeared to him, not in a dream, but in real life as a real person, and talked to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcD1uvbnMvk

Note that he refers to Muhammad as “Efendimiz” (Our Lord), which is condemned by the Quran as idolworship. Using God’s attribute Lord (Rabb) for Muhammad has recently become very popular in Turkey among the religious leaders.

Muhammad was the Father of Jesus!

In one of his books, Fethullah writes the following “intelligent” comments on verse 19:17:

“Mary took to a barrier which separated her from them, so We sent Our Spirit to her, and he took on the shape of a human in all similarity.”

So what was that spirit? Almost all commentaries consider the “spirit” as the angel Gabriel (peace be upon him). However, the Quran uses the word “rooh” (spirit) here, and there is disagreement regarding its meaning. The limits of probabilities are beyond the limits of disagreement; it is as wide as including the spirit of our Lord. Yes, this is a possibility; since the Honorable Mary was a very chaste and pure woman. Thus, no other image entered her eyes, nor it should have. Only someone who was morally acceptable could look at her. And that person could only be our Lord, since he once stated that the Honorable Mary was married to him [6]. Accordingly, it is a possibility that the “spirit” is the spirit of our Lord. But, this is not certain. The possibilities do not amount to certainty until they are supported by evidence.

[6] Taberânî, el-Mu’cemü’l-kebir, 8/258.
(Fethullah Gülen, Kuran’dan İdrake Yansıyanlar, Meryem, 19/17, 25 May 2006, http://tr.fgulen.com/content/view/1568/3/ Last accessed on 10 July 2012)

Fethullah suggests Prophet Muhammad as most likely candidate to be the father of Jesus appears to be in love with Muhammad, whom he frequently calls as Efendimiz (our lord), exactly like evangelical preachers call Jesus. (According to the Quran, we can call only God as “our lord”). Fethullah strives to emulate his role model.

Fethullah Promotes Fabricated Hadith Books full of Lies and Backward Teachings

To find the examples of his role model he relies on hadith books and he uses them as holy sources besides the Quran. Yet his Holy Hadith collections, depict Muhammad as violent, coward, cold-blooded murderer, sex-crazy, misogynist, perverted, superstitious, plunderer, hedonistic, retarded, racist, duplicitous, ungrateful, and manipulator. Hadith reporters and followers are the real enemies of Muhammad (For instance, see verse 6:112-116; 7:1-3; 12:111; 45:6; 68:35-38; and 25:30).

Below are the hearsay reports from Sunni sources respected and frequently cited by Christians and atheists. Keep in mind that Fethullah endorses all the 6 hadith books cited below and frequently uses them as the authorized references. Fethullah has so far never questioned nor rejected their authority. He also refers to Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Qurtubi and other Sunni sources:

  • The Prophet said, “We will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us.”—Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.435.
  • The Prophet allowed the raping of war-captives.—Sahih Bukhari, 3.46.718.
  • The Muslim soldiers had sex with the captive women in the presence of their husbands and “some were reluctant to do so.”—Sunaan Abu Dawud 11.2150.
  • One can have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is clear of her period and/or delivery. If she has a husband then her marriage is abrogated after she becomes a captive.—Sahih Muslim 8.3432.
  • Ali (Muhammad’s son-in-law) had sex with booty captive women. Muhammad presented him with the captive woman (to have sex).—Sahih Bukhari 5.59.637.
  • Women are domestic animals; beat them.—Tabari, vol. ix, pp. 9.112-114.
  • Muslims killed Umm Qirfa, “a very old woman” by tying her legs with a rope attached to two camels driven in opposite directions thus tearing her body (Ibn Ishak, pp. 664-665).
  • The Prophet said spears were his livelihood—Sahih Bukhari, Vol 4, Chapter 88.
  • Muhammad ordered a Muslim woman to breastfeed a man. She protested but ultimately had to do so— Ibn Majah, 3.1943.
  • Muhammad ordered a Muslim woman to breastfeed a bearded man.—Sahih Muslim, 8.3428.
  • Allah says that a woman must sexually satisfy her husband even when on top of a camel.—Ibn Majah, 3.1853.
  • Muhammad ordered the murder of Asma bt. Marwan, a Jewish poetess when she was suckling her babies.—Ibn Ishaq, p.676, Ibn Sa’d, vol. ii, p. 30-31.
  • Muhammad ordered the assassination of Abu Afak, a 120-year-old man of Medina.—Ibn Ishaq, p. 675, ibn Sa’d, vol. ii, p. 31.
  • Muhammad conducted ethnic cleansing of Banu Quaynuqa Jews from Medina.—Tabari, vol. vii, p. 85.
  • Muhammad hired a professional killer to assassinate Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, a poet of Medina.—Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.369.
  • The messenger of Allah said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.” So Muhayyish b. Masud killed his friend and business-partner Ibn Sunaynah- Tabari, vol. vii, p. 97-98.
  • Muhammad’s death squad murdered Abu Rafi, a critic of Muhammad in Medina.—Tabari, vol. vii, p. 103, Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.371.
  • Muhammad’s death squad assassinated Sufyan ibn Khalid.—Ibn Ishaq, p.664-665, ibn Sa’d, vol. ii, p. 60.
  • Muhammad did ethnic cleansing of B. Nadir Jews from Medina.-Tabari, vol. vii, p.158-159, Heykal, ch. B. Nadir, Sahih Bukhari, 3.39.519.
  • Muhammad beheaded between 600-900 Jews of B. Qurayzah who did not fight Muslilms but were attacked, and they surrendered unconditionally—Tabari, vol.viii, ch. B. Qurayzah; Heykal, ch. the Campaign of Khandaq and B. Qurayzah, ibn Ishaq, ch. B. Qurayzah.
  • Arabs are the chosen people of Allah; Allah resembles an Arab.—Ibn Sa’d, vol.1, p.2.
  • Allah favours Arab racism—prophets are to be of Quraysh stock and of white complexion (Ibn Sa’d, vol.1, p.95-96, Sahih Muslim, 20.4483.
  • Shafi Law m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another: (1) a non Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because Prophet said: Allah has chosen the Quraysh Arabs as His agent to rule the world (Islamic Caliphate).—Sahih Bukhari, 4.56.704.
  • Muhammad approved killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the children) are from them (i.e. the pagans)…(Sahih Bukhari 4.52.256).
  • Muhammad blessed Jarir for conducting the genocide (including the slaughter of the children) at Dhu Khalasa.—Sahih Bukhari, 4.52.262
  • Muhammad had a black slave; he traded in slaves.—Sahih Bukhari, 9.91.368 and Kasasul Ambia of Ibn Kathir Vol 3, p. 112—Bangla translation by Bashiruddin.
  • Muhammad traded slaves for beautiful, young, and sexy women, such as Saffiya.—Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.2987, 2991.
  • Muhammad’s hired killer assassinated Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and a party of Khaybar Jews at al-Qarqara.—Ibn Ishaq, p. 665-666.
  • Muhammad forced jizya on Zoroastrians—several cases.—Tabari, vol. viii, p. 142, Sunaan Abu Dawud, 19.9038.
  • The gratuitous destruction of pagan temples and their idols.—Several references: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Tabari: ch: The Occupation of Mecca .
  • Killing of polytheists is laudable—Muhammad said.—Tabari, vol. ix, p. 76.
  • Muhammad’s marauding troops conducted genocide at Jurash, Yemen.—Tabari, vol. ix, p. 88-89.
  • Killing infidels is fun.—Tabari, vol. vii. p. 65.
  • Muhammad ordered to kill the apostates; if somebody (Muslim) discards his religion, kill him)—Sahih Bukhari, 4.52.260.
  • Blood of animal is very dear to Allah.—Ibn Majah, 4.3126.
  • The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.—Sunaan Abu Dawud, 11.2142.
  • The Prophet said: – People ruled by a woman will never be successful.—-Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.709.
  • Majority of women are in hell.—Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301.
  • A woman must keep her sexual organs ready for service at all times (Ihya Uloom Ed-Din of Ghazali, Tr. Dr Ahmad Zidan, vol.i, p.235)
  • A wife can’t leave home.—Shafi’i law m10.4.
  • If a woman claims to be having her period but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her.—Shafi’i law e.13.5.
  • Support of a divorced wife is for 3 months.—Shafi’i Law m11.10.
  • Instant divorce is allowed for husbands. No support to a such divorced wives from that moment.—Many references.
  • It is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation. It is unlawful for women to be alone with a marriageable man.—Shafi’i Law m2.3.
  • Muhammad said, “No nation prospers over which a woman rules.”—Ihyya Uloom Ed-din of Ghazali, Tr. Fazl-Ul-Karim, p. 2.35.
  • If Muhammad wanted anyone to prostrate before another, he would have ordered a woman to prostrate before her husband.—Ibid, p.2.43.
  • A woman, a slave and an unbeliever is not fit to be a moral police.—Ibid, p. 2.186.
  • Muhammad said, “A woman is the string of the devil.”—Ibid, p. 3.87.
  • A woman is the best coveted of things to a man. He takes pleasures in penetrating his genital organ into female vaginal canal. Thus, vagina is the most coveted thing in a woman.—Ghazali, p. 3.162.
  • A woman is a servant and the husband is the person served.—Hedaya, the Hanafi Law manual, p. 47
  • You can enjoy a wife by force.—Hedaya, p. 141
  • Full dower is the payment for the delivery of woman’s person. Booza meaning Genitalia arvum Mulieris.—Hedaya, p. 44.
  • Women are your (men) prisoners; treat them well, if necessary beat them but not severely.—Tirmidhi, 104.
  • When a woman goes out, the devil looks at her; so conceal a woman.—Tirmidhi, 928.
  • In paradise, there is a market of rich, beautiful and ever-young women; they will be pleased whoever buys them.—Tirmidhi, 1495.
  • Women are stupid.—Ibn Majah, 5.4003.
  • The best Muslims had the largest number of wives.—Sahih Bukhari, 7.62.7.

So, how in the world, a person who considers these Sunni hearsay books as main source of his religious guidance, could be considered as “Top Public Intellectual?” by a prestigious semi-official American magazine? How in the world, so many scholars are competing with each other to write paper and books, mostly praising this clergyman who is the Sunni version of Rohullah Khomeini, who will only bring misery, oppression, and corruption to Turkey and beyond.

Well, the West does not care. They only care about their own interest. As long as Fethullah plays their tune, without costing them too much, like the King of Saudi Arabia, like Shah of Iran, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam of Iraq, and many other despots, they are happy with him. They care less whether Fethullah will restrict the democratic freedoms or take Turkey back to the darkness of Ottoman era. As long as he is in their pocket, they will be happy to accommodate the “sick man”

The America’s Strange Sultan

As it appears, the USA-Inc has also picked a Sultan for Turkey besides the Caliph, and advised them to work together so that they could both establish a moderate semi-democratic Muslim model in the Middle East, controlled by the USA and its allies. That will diminish the influence of Iran in the region, the rebellious nation.

By now, you should know who might be the appointed American Sultan: he is no more than my schoolmate and former comrade from youth moment: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Though Tayyip’s tamper, political views and background is very different than Fethullah, they are assigned to dance together the political realities created by the puppet-master. I know both men personally and professionally. Besides, I know the tricks in the sleeves of their master, perhaps more than they know.

These two people are the most important American local operatives in the Middle East and they will create a different ecology and different facade for the third major mutation of the Western colonialism.

The WTV-appointed Sultan was declared since 2004 when Tayyip Erdoğan bragged repeatedly about of being appointed by the USA-Inc as the co-leader of the Greater Middle East project. This leader of a sovereign country, according to numerous Turkish newspaper reports, somehow intimidated his political opponents by bragging about his being “the chosen one” by the USA. According to the same reports, he had repeated his new status more than 30 times. As it appears, he was telling the truth.

Since then, with the blessing of the USA-Inc., Tayyip Erdoğan became the most powerful man in Turkey. Tayyip’s party, AKP won all elections since 2002 and currently comprises 60% of the Grand National Congress. All the AKP congressmen (about 325) were handpicked by Tayyip through a central list of candidates. Thus, the elected congressman from AKP are no more the Tayyip’s yes-men, following the foot-steps of the chosen Sultan who will be following the instructions of his handlers in WTV.

During the last two years, Tayyip (no need to waste space for “the AKP” or “the government”) has castigated and imprisoned hundreds of hyperactive generals who once served as useful psychopaths for their master, NATO, or more specifically, the USA-Inc. The credit partially goes to Fethullah’s cult, since they infiltrated into the ranks of the Turkish police, as they have infiltrated in many other crucial institutions, and started gathering intelligence information about the secret military meetings and secret projects.

A great majority of people, including me, supported and prayed for Tayyip’s success against the overbearing generals. For the first time in the history of the Turkish Republic, the arrogant Turkish generals were being held responsible for their military coups, their meddling with politics and their illegal death squads. This was a celebration for me, since I was tortured for about one year in Turkish military prisons.

However, soon we noticed that after Tayyip eradicated the military juntas, he turned against dissenting voices in the media and political parties. To our dismay we learned that the illegal military gangs were now replaced by the Turkish police force, which operates under the instruction of attorneys and courts, which also have been infiltrated by Fethullah’s followers. Thus, both police and judicial system are now under the joint control of the American Sunni Caliph and Sultan. Parallel to this transformation of power, the dissenting media too were punished. The Hürriyet newspaper, the equivalent of the New York Times here, was once a loud critic of the duos, but since last year, it has transformed from being a formidable supporter of military and the paranoid voice of the secular segment of the Turkish population into a passive observer and occasionally a cheerleader for both the Sultan and Caliph. An incredible transformation in a short time!

What led such a shift in American policy? Why the USA-Inc decided to change horses?

Shah, Saddam and Mubarak were the USA-Inc’s former S.O.B.’s. But, the advancement in telecommunication technology, the rise of China, the imperatives of the global economy (read it as; global slavery) forced the Global Goliaths to change their modus operandi. Instead of psychopath generals, despot leaders, corrupt and repressive kings, they decided to use corporate-friendly “democratically elected” servants.

The Pope-friendly, Pro-Israeli Sunni clergyman, who recently became the chief-instigator of massacres against Kurdish population, is now declared as the USA-Inc’s official Khomeini for Turkey. Turkey has been prepared to replace Iran and Saudi Arabia as the new leader in the Middle East. Interestingly, I know personally the two actors in the new Middle East order.

Through a friendly and controlled Tayyip Erdoğan, an awkward ally of Fethullah Gülen, the uncontrolled voices against Israel will be eliminated. Though Tayyip does not hide the old sectarian hatchet and Ottoman sword against Shiites, but Fethullah is full of hate against Shiite and especially Iranian version of “rebelling the authority” or the United States.By replacing Turkey with Iran, as the champion of Palestinian cause, the Israeli-American hegemony aims to control the anti-imperialist sentiments and groups in the Middle East.

Through a friendly and controlled leaders, the USA-Inc will replace Saudi Arabia with Turkey, hoping to adapt to the new reality and also disguise its hypocrisy regarding its promotion of democracy and human rights.

Fethullah Gülen, the promised Mahdi or the America’s Caliph for the Middle East, receives the FP Magazine’s award not for any intellectual contribution, which is none, but for creating a motivated cult through collecting obscene amount of money by crying in public like televangelists and tickling the nationalistic and religious emotions of his audience. He follows all hadiths and sectarian teachings, yet he has shaken hands with Pope who declared Muhammad to be violent while the USA-Inc and its allies killed about a million Iraqis in a war based on lies. The same Fethullah supported the two Turkish military coups that committed atrocities, tortured thousands and halted the Turkish democracy for decades.

Fethullah or the FG-model will not serve the Turkish people, nor the Middle East as it has been intended by the West. He and his successors will probably serve their handlers WTV pretty well. But they will be a disaster, akin to blood, locust and frogs, for Turkey and the Muslim World.

I will finish this article with a few verses from the Quran:

2:174   Surely, those who conceal what God has sent down of the book, and purchase with it a cheap price; they will not eat into their stomachs except the fire, and God will not speak to them on the day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they will have a painful retribution.*

2:175   These are the ones who have purchased straying for guidance, and retribution for forgiveness. What made them patient towards the fire!

9:31     They took their scholars and priests to be lords besides God, and the Messiah son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god but He, be He glorified for what they set up.

9:32     They want to extinguish God‘s light with their mouths, but God refuses such and lets His light continue, even if the ingrates hate it.

9:33     He is the One who sent His messenger with guidance and the system of truth, to make it manifest above all other systems, even if those who set up partners hate it.

9:34     O you who acknowledge, many of the scholars and priests consume people’s money in falsehood, and they turn away from the path of God. Those who hoard gold and silver, and do not spend it in the cause of God, give them news of a painful retribution.

9:35     On the day when they will be seared in the fires of hell, their foreheads, sides and backs will be branded with it: “This is what you have hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you have hoarded!”

13:16   Say, “Who is the Lord of the heavens and earth,” Say, “God.” Say, “Have you taken besides Him allies who do not possess for themselves any benefit or harm?” Say, “Is the blind and the seer the same? Or, does the darkness and the light equate?” Or have they made partners with God who have created like His creation, so the creations all seemed the same to them? Say, “God has created all things, and He is the One, the Supreme.”

16:20       As for those they call on besides God, they do not create anything, but are themselves created!

16:21       They are dead, not alive, and they will not know when they are resurrected.

16:22       Your god is One god. Those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter, their hearts are denying, and they are arrogant.

16:23       Certainly, God knows what they hide and what they declare. He does not like the arrogant.

33:66   On the day when their faces will be turned over in the fire, they will say, “Oh, we wish we had obeyed God, and obeyed the messenger”

33:67   They will say, “Our Lord, we have obeyed our leaders and our learned ones, but they misled us from the path.”

33:68   “Our Lord, give them double the retribution, and curse them with a mighty curse.”

57:27   Then We sent in their tracks Our messengers. We sent Jesus the son of Mary, and We gave him the Injeel, and We ordained in the hearts of his followers kindness and compassion. But they invented Monasticism which We never decreed for them. They wanted to please God, but they did not observe it the way it should have been observed. Consequently, We gave those who acknowledged among them their recompense, while many of them were wicked.

 ——————————————————————————————————–

EDIP YUKSEL, J.D., American-Turkish-Kurdish author and progressive activist, spent five years in prison for promoting Islamic revolution in Turkey. In 1986, for criticizing the orthodox teaching and practices, multiple fatwa declared him heretic. Knows Turkish, English, Arabic, and Persian. Edip’s English books include Quran: a Reformist Translation, Manifesto for Islamic Reform, Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers, and Nineteen: God’s Signature in Nature and Scripture… After receiving his bachelor degrees from the University of Arizona in Philosophy and Near Eastern Studies, Edip received his law degree from the same university. Besides writing and lecturing, Edip works as an Adjunct Philosophy professor at Pima Community College. Edip is the founder of Islamic Reform and co-founder of MPJP (Muslims for Peace, Justice and Progress) organizations and organizes annual Critical Thinkers for Islamic Reform Conference. His online books, interviews, and articles are published at various Internet sites, including: www.19.org; www.yuksel.org; www.quranix.com; www.tanzil.net; www.islamicreform.org; www.free-minds.org; www.quranic.org; www.quran.org; www.mpjp.org

 

Recently I made a home video exposition of Gulen and his cult and shared it at my youtube channel.

YouTube Preview Image

 

Share

The Long Middle Finger at the European Parliament

Share

An excerpt from my speech at the European Parliament in 10 languages,
the list of Wars initiated by the USA-Inc, and the middle finger as measure.

Listen to the last words of the speech:
Cognitive Dissonance and Long Finger

Listen to the first section of the speech:
Last words at European Parliament

Read the full text of the speech:
http://19.org/1634/ep/

www.19.org

Share

Practical Benefits of Code 19

Share

 Practical Benefits of Code 19

Edip Yüksel

 

 

FARUK PERU: Edip, can you please demonstrate that in practical terms. Just one instance in how the 19 theory helps us understand a particular concept better?

EDİP YÜKSEL:  The unveiling of the hidden meaning of the number 19 in chapter 74 (The Hidden one),  in year 1974, exactly 19×74 lunar years after the revelation of the Quran, yes this great discovery explained many Quranic verses, challenges, concepts, features and fulfilled many prophecies, such as the following:

  1. The meaning of chapter 74.
  2. The meaning and role of 14 combinations of 14 letters/numbers in the beginning of 29 chapters.
  3. Why chapter 9 has missing Bismillah and why chapter 27 has an extra one.
  4. The reason for some unique spellings in the Quran, such as 7:69.
  5. The interrelation of attributes of God.
  6. The fulfillment of some Quranic promises such as: 2:106; 27:93; 29:1-4; 38:1-8; 38:29; 41:53; 78:27-30; 28:18-21.
  7. The importance of 17:36 and many similar verses.
  8. The fulfillment of verse 46:7-14; 20:133-135.
  9. The fulfillment of the promise in 74:31 and 74:37.
  10. The fulfillment of the prophecies in 27:82-85; 54:1-2; and 72:28.
  11. To prove the promise in 59:9.
  12. To fulfill the challenge in 17:88; 25:4-6; 10:20; 29:50-51.
  13. Witnessing the universal rule mentioned in 6:25-26; 7:140 and many other verses such as 6:4; 6:104; 6:158.

And many more…

Brother Farouk, how could you miss this important question? As it seems, you have not studied the issue, or read any of my articles and books this issue. You did not study the NINETEEN: God’s Signature in Nature and Scripture and the recent book, Running Like Zebras, we would have a much better debate on this issue.

During my debate with you in London, I noticed that all you have done was to search for some criticism on the Internet, and repeat them, as if they were new, and more importantly as if they were not responded (or refuted) by us.

Interestingly, with the exception of a few, most of your criticism was focused on some of the errors in Rashad’s early works, which he corrected afterwards. During our debate in London, which was sabotaged by the moderator of your choice, you indulged in those early errors. You forgot that you could do exactly the same thing to refute the heliocentric model, by finding errors in Copernic’s calculations. Similarly, you could reject the theory of Evolution by listing the many errors in Darwin’s book or the work of other scientists who did substantial contribution to the theory of evolution.

In other words, most of your criticism was based on logical fallacy called the STRAW MEN argument. Of course, you chose STRAW ERRORS to blind yourself and others to the “one of the greatest” divine signs and prophecies. You even painted horses in our names and kindly charged us of indulging in forgery. Then, you preached us against radicalism, which you perhaps wished people to associate it with terrorism. I was a radical according to you, since I was stating the truth of a Quranic verses or some numerical relationships! According to your definition of radicalism, the great majority of mathematicians and scientists were radical and dangerous people.

So, my dear brother, your new role of fighting against this Quranic prophecy is not something small. You may get fame and receive plenty of applause from all the ingrates and ignorant people who have chosen to ignore or fight against God’s signs. Indeed, they are in majority; you will have millions and millions of admirers and supporters. This is your choice and you will be the one who will face your Lord in the Day of Judgment. I hope that you will show the courage and wisdom to question your innermost intention, your prejudices and inshallah become a witness to this sign, which is paradoxically hundred percent objective and hundred percent subjective. Exactly, like the random-dot 3-D pictures.

 

Share

No Matter Who Is President of Iran, They Would Stone Me to Death

Share

No Matter Who Is President of Iran, They Would Stone Me to Death

By Lila Ghobady

Iranian Artist-in-Exile (Writer/Director/ Journalist)

Why didn’t I vote in the latest elections for the president of the country of my birth,Iran? Because no matter who is the president ofIran, they would stone me!

As an Iranian woman, I require big changes in order to convince myself that a change in president would mean an improvement of my basic rights as human being inside Iran.

I was among many Iranians who decided not to vote in the last election. We boycotted the sham election (read: selection) in my motherland and have not been surprised by the results publicized by the mainstream media, both inIranand elsewhere. This puppet regime has never considered the people’s wishes and has always acted in the interests of the few who are in charge of the prison called Iran. Cheating, lying and hypocrisy are the specialities of the religious demagogues that maintain the farce that Iran is a democratic state.

Having said that, I strongly support my sisters’ and brothers’ uprising back home, but believe that choosing Mousavi over Ahmadinejad would not help Iranians except to add four more years to the life of the regime of terror and oppression that is now called Islamic republic of Iran. The massive support that Mousavi seems to enjoy is attributable only to the fact that Iranians have had no real choice and no real democracy for more than 30 years. All they have been offered is a choice between bad and worse.

Here are some simple facts that demonstrate that irrespective of who is president, I would be stoned to death in Iran:

  1. As a woman whose husband refused to divorce her when she escaped the country and came to Canada as a refugee, I am considered this man’s wife as long as I am alive. It does not matter if I lived separate from him for years, have divorced him in my new country and am in a relationship with a new man. Under Iranian laws and the Iranian constitution, which are based on strict interpretation of Islamic laws, I am considered his wife and am at risk of being stoned for “adultery” if I ever go back to Iran. In fact as a woman, I have no right to divorce my husband under the country’s laws while he has the privilege of marrying three more times without divorcing me. This is the case no matter who is the president of Iran; Ahamdinejad or Mousavi.
  2. As a journalist and filmmaker, I am called upon by the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect the red lines. These “red lines” include belief and respect for the Supreme Leader and the savagely unjust rules of traditional Islamic law in my country. I am expected not to write or demand equal rights. I am not allowed to make the underground films I have made about the plight of sex trade workers and other social diseases rampant within Iran, as I did secretly 12 years ago. In fact, I am not allowed to make any film without the permission and without censorship by Iran’s Minister of Culture.  If I did openly do all these things in Iran, I would disappear, I would be tortured, I would be raped. I would be killed as have so many women journalists, filmmakers and activists in Iran. Among those killed include Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian photo journalist, who was brutally tortured and murdered for attempting to photograph and publicize brutalities committed by the Iranian regime.
  3. I would be considered an infidel if I was born into a Muslim family and later converted to another religion or had I considered myself a non-believer who does not follow strict Islamic morality. My branding as an infidel would result in my public murder, probably by stoning. No matter who is the president of Iran.
  4. I would be lashed in public, raped in jail or even executed or stoned to death for selling my body in order to bring food to my family, as so many unfortunate Iranian women have been forced to do secretly including many single mothers who have no access to social assistance in a rich but deeply corrupted country like Iran. Even the simple crime of being in love, engaged in a relationship outside of marriage, or worse yet, giving birth to a human being out of Islamic wedlock is considered a crime against humanity!  The product of such a union would be considered a bastard and would be taken away from me, and I would receive 100 lashes immediately after giving birth to my baby.   No matter who is the president of Iran.
  5. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be denied a university education, a government job and a say in politics and it would be as if I basically did not exist if I was a Baha’i. I would be considered half a Shia Muslim if I was Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or even a Sunni Muslim by all levels of society, no matter who is the president of Iran.
  6. I would disappear and might be found dead if I were to keep writing and demanding my basic rights as a woman and an intellectual who has no say in politics (there was not even one female minister in the so-called “reformist cabinet” of Mohamad Khatami), no matter who is the president of Iran.  This would be my fate had I continued to argue against and challenge the authorities to the fact that although Iran is one of the richest countries in the planet when it comes to resources, 70% of my people live in poverty because of corruption among the leaders and their generous contributions to external causes from fanatic Muslim Hezbollah in Lebanon to the communist government of Venezuela through which they build alliances around the world.  Huge numbers of children go to sleep on empty stomachs. Little girls are forced to sell their bodies in the streets of Tehran, Dubai and even China just to survive. I would be jailed or disappeared no matter who is president of Iran.
  7. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would not be able to be a judge or even a witness in court as a woman.  This is because according to Islamic Courts, two women are equal to one man. No matter how educated and aware, I still would be considered half of a man who might be at a demonstrably much lower level of education and qualification, no matter who is the president of Iran.
  8. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be lashed if I did not cover my head and body in public in compliance with the mandatory Islamic dress code. If I would be caught at a private family/friend/party or wedding taking place in mixed company, I would be punished for the crime of not being covered. Much worse would happen if I was caught drinking. It would not matter if I considered myself a non-believer of Islam who simply does not want to follow Islamic rules. I would be punished harshly, lashed, raped while in custody and even before going on trial.  No matter who is the president of Iran.
  9. No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be killed if I was openly a homosexual. I would be denied all rights as a human being since homosexuality is considered one of greatest possible sins under the Iranian Islamic regime. I would be considered a criminal and be killed because “there are no homosexuals in Iran!’ That’s odd, because some of my closest friends in Iran say they are gay, but stay “in the closet” for fear of execution, No matter who is the president of Iran.
  10. No matter who is the president of Iran, Iranian activists living in exile, including myself and many others who are openly opposed to the regime for its cruel human rights violations, will not be able to enter the country. We would be caught at the airport by the regime’s police forces and forced to sign an apology letter for our actions against the regime. If we refused, we would be jailed without trial for wanting freedom for our fellow people. I would be denied of my basic rights as an opposition to the regime and would be called a “spy”, jailed, tortured, raped and executed.  This would happen regardless of who was the president of Iran.

This is Iran. This is what it means to live under Ayotollah Khameini and his goons. No change is possible while Iran is controlled by autocratic, fundamentalist religious despots who determine the laws of the land. There has been no real election. Candidates are all hand-picked and cleared by a central religious committee. It is a farcical imitation of the free nomination/ election process that we have pictured in the free world. There is no possibility that a secular, pluralistic, freedom-loving democratic person who loves his or her country can become a candidate to run for president (or any other office) in Iran.

Twelve years ago, we went through the same process. Mohamad Khatami became the favourite of the western media, which called him a “reformist” who spoke beautifully about freedom of speech, civil rights and dialogue between cultures. But when he became president there was a crack down on a student uprising – a crackdown against the same students who voted for him. Many were killed, many disappeared, and many were tortured. Artists, authors and intellectuals disappeared and were found “mysteriously” murdered. The smooth-talking president Khatami, whom westerners loved, never tried to stop the violence and never showed sympathy to his supporters.   Instead, he openly avowed that his responsibility was to respect the wishes of the supreme leader, Ayotollah Khameni, and to protect the security of the Islamic regime.

Now, the passionate and oppressed young generation of Iranians are going through exact same situation. They are supporting Khatami’s friend, Mousavi. It is sad that history repeats itself so quickly in my beloved country of birth.  The people of Iran were fed up with poverty, injustice, corruption and international embarrassment with the knuckle-dragging, anti-Semitic, war-mongering cretin who was President Ahmadinejad. They chose to support a bad choice – Mousavi – rather than the worse choice, Ahmadinejad. However, when an election is really a selection, choice is an illusion. Mousavi is from the Islamic regime; he is inseparable from it, and all its abuses and cruelties.

The reality is that Iran has not had a democratic, free election for the past 30 years. Mr Mousavi, if elected, will not make any changes, not because he is powerless to do so (as Khatami’s supporters claimed during his presidency), but because he doesn’t believe in a democratic state as his background shows.  He belongs to the fanatic dictatorial era of Ayotollah Khomeini and he believes in the same command-and-control system of government. We should not forget Khomeini’s statement in one of his speeches after the revolution about democracy. He said that “if all people of Iran say ‘yes” I would say no to something that I would believe is not right for the Islamic Nation”.

Let us not forget that Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran in the 1980s when more than ten thousand political prisoners were executed after three-minute sham trials. He has been a part of the Iranian dictatorship system for the past 30 years. If he had not been, he would not be allowed to be a candidate in the first place.

A quick look at Mousavi’s political biography reveals him to be a fanatic Khomeini supporter and a fanatic hard-liner similar to Ahmadinejad and others in control of the Islamic regime.  His reign as Prime Minister was one of the darkest times in the history of Iran’s Islamic regime in terms of censorship and human rights violations. He is also backed up by the Rafsanjani mafia family, who have stolen oil money for their own family interests while 70% of the population lives in poverty. So ingrained as he is in a system of corruption and exploitation, that how could anyone believe that Mousavi genuinely wants reform?

For these and many other reasons, I did not choose to vote and instead boycotted the election, along with many other Iranians. But this time, many Iranians who boycotted the vote in the last election voted in this one because of their profound disgust with Ahmadinejad. I sympathise with them, but I believe that there exists no better option for the people of Iran than to entirely overthrow the Islamic regime that oppresses the country of my birth. I strongly support my people’s movement against the ever-present dictatorship and violence infecting my country. I will scream, along with my compatriots, ”Down with dictators!” “Down with murderers!” “Down with the brutal oppression that is the Islamic regime and all of its toxic, self-serving alliances.”

Long live freedom in Iran!

Lila Ghobady is an exiled Iranian writer-journalist and filmmaker living in Canada since 2002. She has been involved with human rights since working as a journalis in Iran and has continued her work in Canada when she arrived as a refugee. She has worked as a Producer and associate Director of internationally-praised underground films along fellow exiled filmmaker Moslem Mansouri before leaving Iran. Her recent film Forbidden Sun Dance has been well-received in several countries. As a journalist, she received the title of BlogHer of the Week for her Review piece on Slumdog Millionaire in March 2009. Lila has received her Master’s degree in Canadian/women studies from Carleton University in Ottawa. For more information, please read her blog at: www.banoufilm.blogspot.com. Lila can be contacted by e-mail at: lilacforfreedom@gmail.com

Share

Running Like Zebras (Documentary)

Share

Running Like Zebras (Documentary)

 

This is the first documentary of upcoming video series on Code 19, Islamic Reform, Philosophy and Politics.

It is the low quality for youtube. The HD QUALITY version, God willing, will soon be available at another site and will be announced through my twitter account

@edipyuksel

For the interesting full story of this docufilm, please visit:

http://19.org/1333/making-documentary/

Share

The Prime Argument

Share

The Prime Argument

Edip Yuksel vs. Carl Sagan

 1993-1994

Edip Yuksel and Carl Sagan argue on the “mathematical structure” of the Quran and its philosophical implication regarding the existence of God. Carl Sagan, as an agnostic astronomer, expresses his doubts about such an inference. The two-round short argument provides a different perspective on the “Miraculous Code 19” of the Quran. It is a prime argument on a mysterious prime number.


CHAPTER 74
AL-MUDDATTHIR (THE HIDDEN ONE)

74:0         In the name of God, the Gracious, the Compassionate.

74:1         O you hidden one:

74:2         Stand and warn.

74:3         Your Lord glorify.

74:4         Your garments purify.

74:5         Abandon all that is vile.

74:6         Do not be greedy.

74:7         To your Lord be patient.

74:8         So when the trumpet is sounded. [1]

74:9         That will be a very difficult day.

74:10       Upon the ingrates it will not be easy.

74:11       So leave Me alone with the one I have created.

74:12       I gave him abundant wealth.

74:13       Children to bear witness.

74:14       I made everything comfortable for him.

74:15       Then he wishes that I give more.

74:16       No. He was stubborn to Our signs.

74:17       I will exhaust him in climbing.

74:18       He thought and he analyzed.

74:19       So woes to him for how he analyzed.

74:20       Then woe to him for how he analyzed.

74:21       Then he looked.

74:22       Then he frowned and scowled.

74:23       Then he turned away in arrogance.

74:24       He said, “This is nothing but an impressive magic.”

74:25       “This is nothing but the words of a human.”

74:26       I will cast him in the Saqar.

74:27       Do you know what Saqar is?

74:28       It does not spare nor leave anything.

74:29       Manifest to all the people. [2]

74:30       On it is nineteen.

74:31       We have made the guardians of the fire to be angels; and We did not make their number except as a test for those who have rejected, to convince those who were given the book, to strengthen the acknowledgment of those who have acknowledged, so that those who have been given the book and those who acknowledge do not have doubt, and so that those who have a sickness in their hearts and the ingrates would say, “What did God mean by this example?” Thus God misguides whoever/whomever He wishes, and He guides whoever/whomever He wishes. None knows your Lord’s soldiers except Him. It is but a reminder for people.

74:32       No, by the moon.*

74:33       By the night when it passes.

74:34       By the morning when it shines.

74:35       It is one of the great ones. [3]

74:36       A warning to people.

74:37       For any among you who wishes to progress or regress.


In the name of God, Gracious, Merciful

12/20/1993

Dear Carl Sagan,

Since I read your novel “Contact” three years ago I have been thinking to “contact” you. Recently, your Parading articles* forced me to write this letter and send you my first books in English.

To create a mutual knowledge of each other I will give headline information about me with segregated phrases.

The following unsolicited information of snap-shot moments of my life with a grammatically handicapped English (or “literary challenged”, if you like!), may send twinkling silly messages for a world-wide famous scientist. But, I bet you like silly things. I know from the conspicuous smile on your face.

[Personal information omitted]

Here I enclose two of my first booklets in English. I am planning to complete them with “19 Questions for atheists.”

Please read them, at least the last question (which is almost identical in both). It is about the “miraculous” mathematical structure of the Quran. Please don’t reject it without studying it, since it is very easy to confuse it with numerology. How will you react to someone who think that Astronomy is a branch of Astrology?

I would like to discuss with you on many issues. Just for this reason I’m applying to Cornell university for graduate program in Philosophy. We may end up co-authoring a book together, if you keep alive your diverse curiosity and sparkles in your eyes.

Edip Yuksel

*[Here, I refer to Sagan’s article “How Can Games Test Ethics? A New Way To Think About Rules To Live By” published in Parade Magazine, November 28, 1993. There Sagan used empirical evidence to compare some well-known ethical rules. He concluded that the Goldplated Brazen Rule is the most efficient rule. He referred to a Quranic “Brazen” verse quoted by President Clinton at the Israeli/Palestinian peace accords. “If the enemy inclines toward peace, do you also incline toward peace.” (8:61; 4:90). Nevertheless, other verses encouraging forgiveness in the practice of retaliation (such as 2:178) makes the Quranic rule a “Gold-plated Brazen Rule”.]

PS: If you want, I can send some of my short arguments on paranormal phenomena. By the way, I strongly believe that there is life in other parts of the universe, with a probability of being a few intelligent kind. My primary reason for this belief is very different than yours.

 “This Is The Only Way”

“No, don’t you see? This would be different. This isn’t just starting the universe out with some precise mathematical laws that determine physics and chemistry. This is a message. Whoever makes the universe hides messages in transcendental numbers so they’ll be read fifteen billion years later when intelligent life finally evolves. I criticized you and Rankin the time we first met for not understanding this. ‘If God wanted us to know that he existed, why didn’t he send us an unambiguous message?’ I asked. Remember?”

“I remember very well. You think God is a mathematician.”

“Something like that. If what we’re told is true. If this isn’t a wild-goose chase. If there’s a message hiding in pi and not one of the infinity of other transcendental numbers. That’s a lot of ifs.”

“You’re looking for Revelation in arithmetic. I know a better way.”

“Palmer, this is the only way. This is the only thing that would convince a skeptic. Imagine we find something. It doesn’t have to be tremendously complicated. Just something more orderly than could accumulate by chance that many digits into pi. That’s all we need. Then mathematicians all over the world can find exactly the same pattern or message or whatever it proves to be. Then there are no sectarian divisions. Everybody begins reading the same Scripture. No one could then argue that the key miracle in the religion was some conjurer’s trick, or that later historians had falsified the record, or that it’s just hysteria or delusion or a substitute parent for when we grow up. Everyone could be a believer.” (Sagan, Carl. Contact. Simon and Schuster. New York: 1985, p 418-419)

The above excerpts are quoted from CONTACT, a book by Dr. Carl Sagan the famous astronomer and writer. Sagan’s CONTACT is a novel expression of philosopher’s prime dream: Mathematical evidence for God’s existence.

Mathematics is considered as an a priori, that is knowledge gained independently of experience. Most of the philosophers highly relied on mathematics. Descartes who employed extreme doubt as a method to reach the knowledge (certainty) could not doubt from mathematics. The language of mathematics is universal.

The Most Controversial Concept

Hindus believe that he is incarnated in many human beings. Christians pontificate that he has multiple personalities, one of them being sacrificed for humanity. Jews assert that he is Jehovah. Muslims claim that he is Allah. Many question his gender. Millions die for him, millions fight for him, millions cry for him. Clergymen use his name as a trademark for their business, and the very same name motivates many devotees to give away their belongings as charity. Many joyfully sing songs for his love, and others outrageously declare dialectic or scientific wars against him. Some even exclaim that he is no longer alive (Nietzche, p. 275, Vol. 10).

Volume upon volume of books were published for and against him. Big lies were attributed to him while scientific hoaxes were arranged to deny him. He is in the courts, he is on the money, he is in the schools, he is in the mind of saints and in the mouth of hypocrites. Yes, he is everywhere. And yet, philosophers continuously question his existence. In fact, world religions, with numerous versions of odd gods, have not helped philosophers prove his existence. On the contrary, they created further intellectual problems and logical obstacles for questioning minds who try to reach him.

The Prime Evidence

The “prime” evidence comes in the form of a highly sophisticated mathematical code embedded in an ancient document. Computer decoding of this document was originally started by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, a biochemist, in 1969. In 1974, this study unveiled an intricate mathematical pattern based on a prime number. (Having interested with the subject the author, like many others, I examined Dr. Khalifa’s findings and assisted him in his further research.)

With the computer decoding of an ancient document summarized below, the argument for the existence of God gained an examinable physical evidence. Although the document presented here had been in existence for fourteen centuries, its mathematical code remained a secret until computer decoding became possible. As it turned out, the code ranges from extreme simplicity to a complex, interlocking intricacy. Thus, it can be appreciated by persons with limited education, as well as scholars.

This ancient document is the Quran, revealed to Muhammad of Arabia early in the seventh century as The Final Testament. The following is a condensed summary of this unique literary code. Please note that one does not need to know Arabic, the original language of the Quran, to examine most of the evidences presented below. For some of them one may only need to recognize the 28 letters of the Arabic alphabet.

The Message For The Computer Generation

Chapter 74 of the Quran is dedicated to the PRIME number 19. This chapter is titled “Al-Muddassir” (The Hidden Secret). The number 19 is specifically mentioned in that Chapter as a “punishment” for those who state that the scripture is human-made (74:25). This number is also called “One of the greatest portents” (74:35). In 74:31, the purpose of the number 19 is described: to remove all doubts regarding the authenticity of the Quran, to increase the faith of the believers, and to be a scientific punishment for hypocrites and disbelievers. However, the implication of this number as a proof for the authenticity of the Quran remained unknown for centuries. For fourteen centuries, the commentators tried in vain to understand the function and fulfillment of the number 19.

Before The Secret Was Decoded

Before the discovery of the 19-based system, we were aware of a symmetrical mathematical wonder in the Quran. For example:

  • The word “month” (shahr) occurs 12 times.
  • The word “day” (yawm) occurs 365 times.
  • The word “days” (eyyam, yawmeyn) occurs 30 times.
  • The words “satan” (shaytan) & “angel” (malak), each occur 88 times.
  • The words “this world” (dunya) and “hereafter” (ahirah), each occur 115 times.

Simple To Understand, Impossible To Imitate

The mathematical structure of the Quran, or The Final Testament, is simple to understand, yet impossible to imitate. You do not need to know Arabic, the original language of the Quran to examine it for yourself. Basically, what you need is to be able to count until 19. It is a challenge for atheists, an invitation for agnostics and a guidance for believers. It is a perpetual miracle for the computer generation. Dr. Rashad Khalifa introduces this supernatural message as follows:

The Quran is characterized by a unique phenomenon never found in any human authored book. Every element of the Quran is mathematically composed-the chapters, the verses, the words, the number of certain letters, the number of words from the same root, the number and variety of divine names, the unique spelling of certain words, and many other elements of the Quran besides its content. There are two major facets of the Quran’s mathematical system: (1) The mathematical literary composition, and (2) The mathematical structure involving the numbers of chapters and verses. Because of this comprehensive mathematical coding, the slightest distortion of the Quran’s text or physical arrangement is immediately exposed (Rashad Khalifa, Quran The Final Testament, 1989, p. 609).

Physical, Examinable Evidence

Here is the summary of this historical message:

  • The first verse, i.e., the opening statement “Bismillahirrahmanirrahim”, shortly “Basmalah,” consists of 19 Arabic letters.
  • The first word of Basmalah, Ism (name), withouth conraction, occurs in the Quran 19 times.
  • The second word of Basmalah, Allah (God) occurs 2698 times, or 19×142.
  • The third word of Basmalah, Rahman (Gracious) occurs 57 times, or 19×3.
  • The fourth word of Basmalah, Rahim (Merciful) occurs 114 times, or 19×6.
  • Although this phenomenon (the opening statement consists of 19 letters, and each word occurs in multiple of 19) represents a minute portion of the code, it was described by Martin Gardner in the Scientific American as “ingenious” (September, 1981, p. 22-24)
  • The multiplication factors of the words of the Basmalah (1+142+3+6) add up to 152 or 19×8.
  • The Quran consists of 114 chapters, which is 19×6.
  • The total number of verses in the Quran including all unnumbered Basmalahs is 6346, or 19×334. If you add the digits of that number, 6+3+4+6 equals 19.
  • The Basmalah occurs 114 times, (despite its conspicuous absence from chapter 9, it occurs twice in chapter 27) and 114 is 19×6.
  • From the missing Basmalah of chapter 9 to the extra Basmalah of chapter 27, there are precisely 19 chapters.
  • The occurrence of the extra Basmalah is in 27:30. The number of the chapter and the verse add up to 57, or 19×3.
  • Each letter of the Arabic alphabet corresponds to a number according to their original sequence in the alphabet. The Arabs were using this system for calculations. When the Quran was revealed 14 centuries ago, the numbers known today did not exist. A universal system was used where the letters of the Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek alphabets were used as numerals. The number assigned to each letter is its “Gematrical Value.” The numerical values of the Arabic alphabet are shown below:

[the table is omitted]

A study on the gematrical values of about 120 attributes of God which are mentioned in the Quran, shows that only four attributes have gematrical values which are multiples of 19. These are “Wahid” (One), “Zul Fadl al Azim” (Possessor of Infinite Grace), “Majid” (Glorous), “Jaami” (Summoner). Their gematrical value are 19 , 2698, 57, and 114 respectively, which are all divisible by 19 and correspond exactly to the frequencies of occurrence of the Basmalah’s four words.

  • The total numbers of verses where the word “Allah” (God) occurs, add up to 118123, and is 19×6217.
  • The total occurrences of the word Allah (God) in all the verses whose numbers are multiples of 19 is 133, or 19×7.
  • The key commandment: “You shall devote your worship to God alone” (in Arabic “Wahdahu”) occurs in 7:70; 39:45; 40:12,84; and 60:4. The total of these numbers adds up to 361, or 19×19.
  • The Quran is characterized by a unique phenomenon that is not found in any other book: 29 chapters are prefixed with “Quranic Initials” which remained mysterious for 1406 years. With the discovery of the code 19, we realized their major role in the Quran’s mathematical structure. The initials occur in their respective chapters in multiples of 19. For example, Chapter 19 has five letters in its beginning, K.H.Y.A’.SS., and the total occurrence of these letters in this chapter is 798, or 19×42.
  • To witness the details of the miracle of these initials, a short chapter which begins with one initial, letter “Q”, will be a good example. The frequency of “Q” in chapter 50 is 57, or 19×3. The letter “Q” occurs in the other Q-initialed chapter, i.e., chapter 42, exactly the same number of times, 57. The total occurrence of the letter “Q” in the two Q-initialed chapters is 114, which equals the number of chapters in the Quran. The description of the Quran as “Majid” (Glorious) is correlated with the frequency of occurrence of the letter “Q” in each of the Q-initialed chapters. The word “Majid” has a gematrical value of 57. Chapter 42 consists of 53 verses, and 42+53 is 95, or 19×5. Chapter 50 consists of 45 verses, and 50+45 is 95, or 19×5.
  • The Quran mentions 30 different cardinal numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 99, 100, 200, 300, 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000, 50000, & 100000. The sum of these numbers is 162146, which equals 19×8534.
  • In addition to 30 cardinal numbers, the Quran contains 8 fractions: 1/10, 1/8, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3. Thus, the Quran contains 38 (19×2) different numbers. The total of fractions is approximately 2.
  • If we write down the number of each verse in the Quran, one next to the other, preceded by the number of verses in each chapter, the resulting long number consists of 12692 digits (19×668). Additionally, the huge number itself is also a multiple of 19.

Similar Phenomenon In Older Documents

It is significant that the same 19-based mathematical composition was discovered by Rabbi Judah in the 12th century AD in a preserved part of the Old Testament. Below is a quote from Studies In Jewish Mysticism.

“The people (Jews) in France made it a custom to add (in the morning prayer) the words: ” ’Ashrei temimei derekh (blessed are those who walk the righteous way),” and our Rabbi, the Pious, of blessed memory, wrote that they were completely and utterly wrong. It is all gross falsehood, because there are only nineteen times that the Holy Name is mentioned (in that portion of the morning prayer), . . . and similarly you find the word Elohim nineteen times in the pericope of Ve-’elleh shemot . . . .

“Similarly, you find that Israel were called “sons” nineteen times, and there are many other examples. All these sets of nineteen are intricately intertwined, and they contain many secrets and esoteric meanings, which are contained in more than eight volumes. Therefore, anyone who has the fear of God in him will not listen to the words of the Frenchmen who add the verse ” ’Ashrei temimei derekh (blessed are those who walk in the paths of God’s Torah, for according to their additions the Holy Name is mentioned twenty times . . . and this is a great mistake. Furthermore, in this section there are 152 words, but if you add ” ’Ashrei temimei derekh” there are 158 words. This is nonsense, for it is a great and hidden secret why there should be 152 words . . .” (Studies In Jewish Mysticism, Joseph Dan, Association for Jewish Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1978, p 88.)

How Can We Explain This Phenomenon?

There are basically four possible explanations:

  1. Manipulation: One may be skeptical about our data regarding the mathematical structure of the Quran. However, one can eliminate this option by spending several hours of checking the data at random. Several books on the subject have been published. Muslim scholars and clerics who have traded the Quran with primitive mediaeval fabrications, that is, Hadith and Sunna, strongly reject this mathematical system, since the mathematical system exposes the corruption of religions by clergymen. Today’s Islam (Submission) has virtually nothing to do with original teaching of Muhammad, that is, the Quran.
  2. Coincidence: This possibility is eliminated by the statistical probability laws. The consistency and frequency of the 19-based pattern is much too overwhelming to occur coincidentally.
  3. Human fabrication: While fabricating a literary work that meets the criteria of the document summarized here is a stunning challenge for our computer generation, it is certainly even more improbable during the time of initiation of the document, namely, 610 AD. One more fact augments the improbability of human fabrication. If a certain person or persons had fabricated this literary work, they would want to reap the fruits of their efforts; they would have shown it to people to prove their cause. In view of the originality, complexity, and mathematical sophistication of this work, one has to admit that it is ingenious. However, no one has ever claimed credit for this unique literary code; the code was never known prior to the computer decoding accomplished by Dr. Khalifa. Therefore, it is reasonable to exclude the possibility of human fabrication.The timing of the discovery may be considered another evidence for the existence and full control of the Supreme Being: The mystery of the number 19 which is mentioned as “one of the greatest events” in the chapter 74 (The Hidden Secret) was discovered by Dr. Khalifa in1974, exactly 1406 (19×74) lunar years after the revelation of the Quran. The connection between 19 (the code) and 74 (the number of the chapter which this code is mentioned) is significant in the timing of the discovery.
  4. Super Intelligent Source: The only remaining possibility is that a super intelligent source is responsible for this document; one who designed the work in this extraordinary manner, then managed to keep it a well-guarded secret for 14 centuries, for a predetermined time. The mathematical code ensures that the source is super intelligent and also that the document is perfectly intact.

(CONTINUED in NEXT PAGE)

Share

Female Circumcision

Share

Female Circumcision
or
The Virus Called Superstition

Edip Yuksel, 1997
www.19.org

 

Pain does not pay attention to social, political or legal theories; it does not care about cultures and religions. Pain is pain. It does not favor one nation over another or one culture over another. Human body, with its biological and physiological structure, does not interpret differently the feeling of pain delivered by neurons according to the cultures or theories. Besides, human children do not have religion, culture, or legal dogmas and they do not lie when they feel pain; they scream and cry for help.

Circumcision of both male and female children inflicts pain on innocent children. No parent should have the right to subject their children to pain without medical justification that might outweigh the harm and pain. It is preposterous to confuse the pain inflicted to children by vaccination with the pain inflicted by male and female circumcision. One has substantial evidence for its life saving benefits, while the other, especially female circumcision causes variety of harms and its only benefit is the pleasure or comfort obtained by adults from blindly following hearsay and mythologies. Equating mythologies with science is a ridiculous attempt or mere hypocrisy if it is suggested by educated people. The difference between the two is very clear; clearer than the difference between dark and light.

No religion, culture or mythology should be granted immunity if they are used to make others suffer without their consent. No country or community should be able to get away with racism, oppression, or child abuse in the name of a religion, majority, local laws, classes, or other constructed social norms and cultures.

Why should we respect the autonomy of a state if that state is intentionally and systematically, directly or indirectly disrespecting the integrity and the individual rights of its citizens? Why should we respect a culture that subject helpless children to torture and even death? Why should we respect the culture of parents and ignore the crying of her child who is subjected to a biologically or medically unnecessary torture? Are we so unsure that the child is innocent? Are we so unsure that (s)he is feeling tremendous pain?

The degree of pain and harm in case of female circumcision is so gross that no human being should chose to be a bystander, let alone a promoter of such a practice. The practice of female circumcision, especially the infibulation should stop. But how? By fight or by light? I believe that the best way to eradicate this ignorance is to expose those who practice this tradition to the light of reason and science. Human Rights Organizations and United Nations should educate people of the nations that superstitions and mythologies promoting such a practice have no reality.

One might ask who are we to decide what is mythology and what is reality, what is superstition and what is truth. Why should the western culture be the international judge and interfere other people’s social and religious practice? Aren’t we biased? I will not argue this by falsely labeling certain universal truth as “western” or “eastern.” I am from east and I agree with many so-called western concepts and I disagree with some. Conversely, there are many who live in western countries and subscribe to superstitions and mythologies which are falsely associated with east. How can we discover a universal culture or truth? My answer is simple: in open market of cultures and ideas!

I have no doubt that when there is freedom of expressing and exchanging ideas and there is a market for robust public argument, harmful mythologies, oppressive cultural norms and practices, be eastern or western origin, will evaporate to oblivion. The challenge is to invite nations to open themselves to the international market of ideas and cultures. Those who reject to put open their society and put their culture in the international market should not be able to defend their culture and they should not be able to justify oppression and abuse in the name of such a culture. How can a government expect respect from international community to a culture that fears the light of other cultures? Their national pride—which is often used an excuse to continue human rights violations—should be turned to shame in the international arena.

International pressure or mandates might result in unintended consequences. Governments or nations might negatively react to the external pressure and might fanatically stick with the harmful traditions and cultural dogmas. Governments might exploit the “national pride” and use them as opium of masses. Iraq and Iran are good examples of such exploitation and negative reaction to the imposition of “foreign” or “western” values.

Human rights institutions, instead of forcing governments or people on particular issues, should demand and mandate totalitarian governments to open their societies and guarantee freedom of speech for individuals and organizations. Free societies will ultimately establish a culture that is fair and just for all. They might differ in details of what constitutes human rights, but surely they will establish a system that is sensitive to oppression, discrimination and suppression.

United Nations and other public and private human rights organizations should communicate with intellectuals and support them in their mission for enlightening their people. Supplying batteries for domestic flash-lights held by local advocates is the most effective method of fighting against human rights violations. We should not forget that the light of reason and scientific inquiry is the most effective antibiotic against the virus called superstition.

As a devote muslim who promotes reformation in Islam by following the Quran ALONE, I invite Muslims to abandon hadith and sunna, that is fabricated sayings and practices falsely attributed to prophet Muhammad, and sectarian teachings made up by clergymen throughout 14 centuries.

P.S.: I do not condone male circumcision. I find it an unnecessary, occasionally harmful surgery and an ignorant attempt to correct God’s normal creation in the name of God! It is a topic of another paper.

 

Share

Lottery Elections

Share

I wrote this article in 1998. Then, the Supreme Court had not yet officially destroyed the little democracy we had through the Citizen United (2010).  Currently, elections are all about money. We have Plutocracy that uses Duopoly to fool people as if their votes matter.
In 2011, together with my colleague Layth Saleh al-Shaiban we drafted a progressive constitution,  which we called Peacemakers Constitution. One of the innovations in that constitution was adding another house elected through lottery to monitor the financial dealings, campaign finance and elections. The Peacemakers Constitution is posted on this very site, www.19.org

LOTTERY ELECTIONS:

DISINFECTING DEMOCRACY FROM LOBBIES

© Edip Yuksel, J.D. *
1998

“When politics desperately needs money, and money desperately seeks influence, money and politics cannot be kept apart.” (Ronald Dworkin, The Curse of American Politics, The New York Review of Books, October 17, 1996, p. 24).

“If you’ve got a good idea and $10,000 and I’ve got a terrible idea and $1 million. I can convince people that the terrible idea is a good one.” (Senator Bradley, Wayne, Loopholes Allow Presidential Race to Set a Record, The Washington Post, August 15, 1996, p. A26).

Some economists describe the human being with three adjectives: self-interested rational utility maximizer.[1] This description might seem insufficient to define such a complex being, but it provides a consistent explanation for almost all human behavior. Governments are the result of this human propensity. We know that we can maximize our interest if we interact with each other and cooperate. Thus, governments are regulatory national utility maximizers. Democracy, as the contemporary evolutionary stage of governing, so far is the best system to serve this purpose.[2]

Using this institution to get special favors, however, contradicts the original purpose of its establishment. We know from our human experience that this contradiction or inconsistency is not only logically incongruous, it also usually hurts.

For example, governments that serve only a minority fear free minds, since popular ideas can terminate their power. Democracies that are infected by interest groups tend to use freedom of speech as a commercial gimmick, as a safety net, or as a drug. Citizens are absolutely free to speak, but their speech is of little use in capitalistic systems where democracy is a sort of surrogate for the affluent oligarchy. Rarely do citizens realize that their freedom is impotent in the political arena, and that the degree to which the language of legislation is favorable to them is proportional to the amount of money they or their class “contribute” to political campaigns. Their options are limited by the candidates supported by interest groups, who most likely are the ones who sold their souls to the highest bidder.[3]

Democracy or Plutocracy: Welfare for The Rich

In this article I will demonstrate the corruptive role of money in our democracy and call for a solution. Though there are a number of plans proposed for campaign finance reforms, I think they are doomed to fail, since the elections, by their very nature are money dependent and money will ultimately find legal or illegal loop holes to influence the system. The unfortunate holdings of the Supreme Court blessing financial contributions as an exercise of one’s First Amendment right make it almost impossible to stop the war of money against the democracy. Here, I will suggest a radical alternative, lottery elections for the House members.

Special-interest democracies favor the most powerful and exploit the most vulnerable. This might be the consequence of Social Darwinism that governs the mind of the powerful elite. George Soros, the billionaire who gave $350 million for charity in 1995 alone, rightly criticizes the so-called laissez-faire ideology or social darwinism in his article titled “The Capitalist Threat”:

“By taking the conditions of supply and demand as given and declaring government intervention the ultimate evil, laissez-faire ideology has effectively banished income or wealth redistribution. I can agree that all attempts at redistribution interfere with the efficiency of the market, but it does not follow that no attempt should be made. The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. . . . But perfection is unattainable. Wealth does accumulate in the hands of its owners, and if there is no mechanism for redistribution, the inequities can become intolerable. “Money is like muck, not good except it be spread.” Francis Bacon was a profound economist.

“The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The argument is undercut by the fact that wealth is passed on by inheritance, and the second generation is rarely as fit as the first.

“In any case, there is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilized society. . . . The main point I want to make is that cooperation is as much a part of the system as competition, and the slogan “survival of the fittest” distorts this fact.[4]

Soros has a vision. He can see the inherent troubles of capitalism while the proponents of capitalism are intoxicated with arrogance after the demise of socialism. However, Soros ignores the fact that the American system is even worse than a laissez-faire system. The US government affirmatively helps the rich, probably more than it helps the poor.

In a country where the gap between the rich and poor is continuously increasing, in a country where 37% of net wealth is in the hand of the wealthiest 1% of the population, the influence of money on the legislative branch makes a mockery of democracy.[5]The old saying, “he who pays the piper calls the tune” applies. Special interest groups, ranging from public agencies to national or international corporations, create a system where the strong elite is made stronger and the majority is occasionally cheated and betrayed.  [As a reader’s comment under an article titled “Democracy for Sale” by John Cassidy at NewYorker.com in June 22, 2012, N. Sinclair, American citizen, posted these profound questions: “The upshot of that inequality manifests itself in politics because money is its Mother’s milk. Is this the democracy we want – where access and influence are of necessity for sale? The Supreme Court says money is speech in a campaign. If so then unequal money is unequal speech. Hardly a recipe for democracy is it?”]

This betrayal is not merely political; it has social and economic consequences. The cumulative effect of subsidies and tax breaks favoring the lobbying corporations and organizations costs citizens dearly. It increases both their taxes and the national deficit, which puts their children under massive debt. The examples of corporate rip-off are abundant. For instance, the legislation banning generic drugs helped the brand-name-drug companies to increase their profits, at the cost of consumers.[6] TV station channels, like many other corporations, contributed to the political parties and candidates in terms of thousands, or at most, millions.[7] However, the return for their contribution was much more generous. They got more than the so-called harmless “access.” They received $30 billion–right, billions–worth of free licenses.[8] Credit card companies contributed $3.6 million in PAC and soft money and as a return they killed the Prompt Payment Act that would require banks and utilities to consider the postmark, not the receipt date as the payment date.[9] As a result, credit companies dramatically increased their profits from ever-increasing late fees. All kinds of special interest groups plunder billions of dollars from people by the help of legislators who are supposed to be the representatives of all people.[10]

The fatal attraction and addiction to and infection of money is also endangering the national security. “Everything from nominating ambassadors to selling F-16s to Indonesia is being colored by the campaign finance controversy.”[11] Allegations that China was funneling money to US campaigns should alarm not only those who are sensitive to international human right abuses, but all US citizens, since every citizen will pay the cost of such a reckless interaction with intrusive foreign viruses, that is, international terrorism.

People may become numb and insensitive to this infection. They may suffer from “Boiled Frog Syndrome.” When you put a frog in hot water, it jumps out; but, if you put the same frog in lukewarm water and gradually increase the temperature, the frog will boil to death without reacting. Gradual corruption in political or social bodies can have fatal consequences without eliciting reaction from most people. The decline and demise of many civilizations are the result of this gradual desensitizing corruption. Though there is increasing concern regarding the influence of money on the government, unfortunately, it is not enough to bring the needed radical changes. Voters are getting less interested in the political process without looking for alternatives.

Mutual Alienation

Participation in elections is low. In 1994 only 38% of the voting-age population voted.[12] A representative elected by 51 percent of these votes, mathematically speaking, receives the approval of less than 20 percent of the population. The quality of participation is also very low. A recent poll taken in Arizona shows that citizens are incredibly out of touch with their legislators.[13] Only 8 percent of the 800 adults who participated in the survey could name a state senator from their area. Only 5 percent of them could name one of their area’s House members[14]. Is this a natural response to the isolation of politicians or is it the reality of democracy in the modern world, or both? Probably, both. The fast paced daily life of an average citizen is consumed by work, family, TV, Internet, entertainment, etc., and leaves no time to learn about political issues and candidates. Expecting an informed election based on 30-second sound-bite political TV commercials is not realistic.

Those who can spare a little time to educate themselves are turned off when they realize that the candidates are professional actors and actresses. Some even give up entirely when they realize that their vote is irrelevant. According to a recent poll, Americans think that the government is being taken hostage by the rich and powerful. For instance, 57 percent of voters believe that the federal government is controlled by lobbyists and special interests.[15]

In a democracy where for every Congress member there are 125 lobbyists[16], in a democracy where most of the elected officials spend more time on fund raising activities than on making legislation,[17] in a democracy where the business-funded political action committees (PACs) are increasingly dominating legislators,[18] in a democracy where the chance of being elected is proportional to the amount of money in your pocket,[19] in such a democracy the principle of “one person, one vote”  is a joke.

Supreme Court: Money Speaks

The Congress, to save its tarnished public image, passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) Amendments of 1974 which imposed a $1,000 limit on contribution spending by independent individuals and groups. The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo considered contribution limitations for campaigns to be constitutional, by reasoning that “the quantity of communication by the contributor does not increase perceptibly with the size of his contribution, since the expression rests solely on the undifferentiated, symbolic act of contributing.”[20] However, the contribution limitations imposed for candidates have been rendered useless by clever schemes. PACs[21] easily evade limits imposed by Buckley. For instance, a PAC gathers together separate campaign contributions from many sources and delivers them together to a candidate. This so-called “bundling” scheme enables a PAC to contribute far in excess of its contribution limits. Lobbyists have proved that they permeate like radioactive radiation to the political system.

The Buckley decision had an internal flaw. It allowed individual candidates or parties to spend unlimited amount of money for themselves, while it denied the same unlimited spending for individual citizens or groups wanting to contribute to someone else’s campaign. This distinction was in contradiction with the Court’s very reason for considering campaign contribution in its First Amendment jurisprudence. If spending money was equal to expression of ideas, how could Congress put limits on this vital right? Why should supporters not be able to speak up (spending) their ideas (money) in political campaigns as much as their candidates or parties do?

Two years later, in First National Bank v. Bellotti,[22] the same Supreme Court extended liberty to include financial contribution of corporations to the political referenda. The Court made a distinction between spending for candidates and spending on issues: “We noted only recently that the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”[23]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ignored the impossibility of making a practical distinction between candidates and issues. One does not need to be a legal wizard to help a candidate by campaigning on issues. A key word, an implication, an innuendo, a symbol used in the promotion of an issue can easily be used to promote a particular candidate. Even a small advertisement agency has sufficient talents to render the Court’s holding useless in regard to this distinction.

The dissenting justices, White, Brennan and Marshall pointed to some of the problems in First National Bank: “Indeed, what some have considered to be the principal function of the First Amendment, the use of communication as a means of self-expression, self-realization and self-fulfillment, is not at all furthered by corporate speech.”[24] However, the dissenting justices acknowledged the immutable reality: “These individuals would remain perfectly free to communicate any ideas which could be conveyed by means of the corporate form. Indeed, such individuals could even form associations for the very purpose of promoting political or ideological causes.” [25].

There are a multitude of examples of how the legislation cannot stop interest groups from manipulating elections:

Federal campaign law bars New York publishing heir Dirk Ziff from giving more than $1,000 to his favorite candidate for president. But Ziff, who backs President Clinton, gave the Democratic Party $380,000 last year, money that will be used to help finance the president’s re-election campaign. Ziff’s contribution–perfectly legal–spotlights how political parties, candidates and special interests are exploiting the loopholes in campaign finance laws. [26]

Though it is only the tip of the iceberg–in other words, the pimple of a dreadful disease–the unregulated gift contribution (in political euphemism, “soft money”) to political parties from individuals, corporations and unions is a popular concern of the day. “‘Soft money’ apparently too hard for US lawmakers to relinquish” was the title of a report in The New York Times: “For all the flaws in the system . . . many representatives and senators see the same redeeming virtue in leaving the laws alone. This system got them elected.”[27]

Vice President Al Gore, who hosted 23 coffee meetings for contributors in the White House, and solicited donations on the telephones, defended his fund-raising methods as being legal. True, it was legal, but every legal action is not necessarily moral or approved by the public. This impenitent attitude was incredible. A columnist lamented:

“In its determination to be fair, America has introduced law into every corner of life: the lone consumer can get even with the biggest corporation, the lone citizen can humiliate the mighty government in court. And yet, time and again, America is nagged by a sense that the law has made life less fair, not more so: the rich know the loopholes that protect their riches, the powerful work the rules so as to amass more power. And this nagging pessimism gives rise to a lament that has gained currency recently. Perhaps America should rely less on legal codes, and more on common-sense morality.”[28]

Another columnist rightly found the procedural rules “comically arbitrary”:

“The goal is not to keep politics from infecting governance but to keep money from infecting politics. Comically arbitrary procedural rules that allow fund raisers on Tuesday but not Thursday, or ban donors from the White House bathtub but not the shower, don’t merely miss the point. These rules also deodorize a lot of smelly behavior, even as they exaggerate the stink of other behavior that is no worse.”[29]

President Clinton, who turned the White House into a hotel for top contributors,[30] demonstrated contradictory positions. While defending political donations he asked again to overhaul campaign financing.[31] The reason behind this wobbly position was simple: “Clinton makes serious noises about campaign reform, but that may not be enough to change a cozy system that loves special-interest money.”[32]  The former Secretary of Labor, in his Washington diary, craftily reveals the power of corporations over the President:

“There is an awkward pause. Have I overstepped the line? The private dining room in one of Washington’s classiest restaurants suddenly feels like an inappropriate place to entreat the President of the United States to speak out against corporation irresponsibility.

“‘It seems to me,’ says Clare, weighing her words carefully, ‘that corporations are downsizing not only themselves but also a big part of the middle class.’ She’s bailed me out. I want to kiss her.

“I throw caution to the winds and ask Bill, ‘Would you be comfortable saying what Clare just said?’

“‘I have to keep myself from saying it every day,’ he says softly.”[33]

An anecdotal example from the “good old days” is worth mentioning. Marilyn Vos Savant, the famous columnist  with a recorded Highest IQ, answering a reader’s letter complaining from financial scandals around the White House, wrote: “Remember  how Harry Truman kept a motto on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House? It read, ‘The buck stops here.’ Well, I think someone should go in there and get the darned thing off the desk.”[34] Sure, the daily million-dollar-march in Washington is not a new phenomenon. The negative influence of money has always being a major concern of citizens. Unfortunately, politicians have responded to this concern by lip service.

Is the Congress doing better than the President? Dream on! Congressmen too are infected and addicted with the contributors’ money. They spend ample time chasing or pleasing contributors. Their secretaries spend most of their time on fund raising operations.[35] “Members of Congress may not offer overnight stays at the White House,” wrote David Grann and Erika Niedowski, “but they still promise their own mix of perks and politics.”[36] In an article titled “The Dirty Hill,” the authors charged the Congress of soliciting contributions from their offices and more importantly, selling legislation to the highest bidder.

“How shameless are they? In February, the man leading the House investigation into the Clinton fund-raising practices, Indiana Congressman Dan Burton, took a break from his do-good work and flew to Pebble Beach, California, to play golf in an AT&T-sponsored tournament with the company’s chairman, Robert Allen. As it happens, AT&T is competing with Sprint and MCI for a government telephone contract worth up to $10 billion. As it also happens, Burton’s Government Reform and Oversight Committee will oversee the awarding of that contract. Burton’s Pebble Beach outing was fairly discreet by the congressman’s standards.”[37]

It is evident that both parties have colluded against any dramatic change in campaign financing.[38]  In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court held the provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) imposing limits upon political party expenditures for general election unconstitutional. Though the Supreme Court’s concern about the First Amendment was laudable, the voice of dissenting justices about the corruption of political system cannot be ignored. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg in their dissenting opinion raised their concern:

“It is quite wrong to assume that the net effect of limits on contributions and expenditures-which tend to protect equal access to the political arena, to free candidates and their staffs from the interminable burden of fund-raising, and to diminish the importance of repetitive 30-second commercials-will be adverse to the interest in informed debate protected by the First Amendment.”[39]

The dissenting Justices also expressed a sarcasm in a footnote that notices the reality that both parties thwart campaign finance reform:

“Congress surely has both wisdom and experience in these matters that is far superior to ours.  I would therefore accord special deference to its judgment on questions related to the extent and nature of limits on campaign spending. [FN*]  Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

“FN* One irony of the case is that both the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party have sided with petitioners in challenging a law that Congress has the obvious power to change.  See Brief for Democratic National Committee as Amicus Curiae;  Brief for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae.”[40]

The flagrant hypocrisy of politicians in their call for campaign finance reform incited a weekly magazine to depict them with awful words. “No shame and lots to gain. Everybody shakes the money tree while urging campaign reform.” [41] More likely, the tree-shakers will pass another lame campaign reform just to sedate the popular outrage.

As long as candidates need to campaign for elections, money will be the most important factor, both for election and for re-election. “The congressional hunger for money is understandable. As the average cost of a House campaign has risen to more than $500,000 and a Senate race to $4.5 million, lawmakers are forced, as one Democratic consultant put it, to ‘pimp themselves.’ ” [42] The strong correlation between interest group endorsements and election outcomes for Congress is a statistical fact. Those who were endorsed by major interest groups gained great advantage over those who were not.[43] Thus, a person has virtually no chance of being a candidate of either major political party if he or she cannot raise hundreds of thousands of dollars!
The influence of money continues after the elections. A recent study shows a strong correlation between voting patterns and contributions. For instance, the Congress bowed down to the peanut industry when it preserved the subsidy to the peanut industry in 1996. “Lawmakers voting to preserve the subsidy had received an average of $1,542 each in campaign contributions from the industry in the last two-year election cycle. Those voting to end the peanut program had received an average of $152 apiece.”[44] The same correlation can be found in voting patterns regarding Timber, Cable, Sugar, Oil Industry, etc.[45] Those voting for subsidizing the big industries received much more special-interest money than those who voted against. Nancy Watzman, who co-authored the study, acknowledges the existence of other factors besides money that determine the voting behavior of lawmakers, such as party politics, constituent interests, ideology and friendship. But in the 42 issues she examined she found the correlation between voting pattern and special interest-contribution too strong to be coincidental.[46] A lobbyist directory pulled its readers’ attention to the simple fact that lobbyists are trying to influence the law makers: “It is important to note that while this group of 17,500 shares one goal–influencing the actions of our federal government–the motivations for and means by which they accomplish this are quite diverse.”[47] The diversity of the means employed by the lobbyists were documented in the second part of the same directory through an impressive list of monetary campaign contribution by those groups.

Real Solutions, Phony Solutions

Campaign reform is in trouble given the latest Supreme Court decisions. Unless the Supreme Court is ready to overturn Buckley, a Constitutional amendment would be needed to restrict the influence of interest groups. House Minority leader Dick Gephart, who is working for such an amendment, put the problem in terms of the following dilemma: “What we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can’t have both.”[48] Contrasting democracy with freedom of speech is bizarre. How can democracy and freedom of speech be incompatible? It is only possible in a world where democracy turns to lobbyocracy and ideas are equated with money. Given the gloomy chances of the McCain-Feingold reform bill, a more radical measure, such as passing Constitutional amendment is merely a utopia.[49] Walter Shapiro, in an amusing satire wrote: “The McCain-Feingold reform bill has about as much pulse as a 103-year-old cardiac patient.”[50]

Besides, reform is not a real solution. The current termite-like lobbying activities in Washington are the evidence of the failure of legislative measures against interest groups. Even if by a miracle the anti-interest lobbying amendment passed, the influence of money would still continue, either legally through new loopholes or illegally, under the table. In a populous country where an individual is bombarded by hundreds of commercial messages every day, the very nature of elections is money-dependent.

Some suggest a more radical approach, a complete prohibition of private contributions. Richard L. Hasen, professor of law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, believes that disillusionment with the current political process requires “serious” electoral reform which aims to create an “egalitarian pluralist political market.”  In that market, “each person has roughly equal political capital regardless of preexisting disparities in wealth, education, celebrity, ability, or other attributes. . . It minimizes the impact of wealth on the political system and empowers those who currently lack political capital.”[51] But his proposed model, which argues for a mandatory campaign finance system in which each voter supports his or her favorite candidates by vouchers, ignores the fact that those candidates with more money or celebrity will eventually have more media coverage and name recognition and thus, will most likely receive more “coupons.”

Prohibition of campaign spending entirely is also among the suggested solutions. Instead of TV or conventional media, personal contact and the Internet would be deployed:

“Special Web servers and newsgroups could be set up to handle the candidate’s debates–while including the commentary and reactions of others as well. For those of us who aren’t online yet, the newspapers will pick up the slack, reprinting transcripts of the net traffic. T.V. has its place too, carrying debates, not advertisements.”[52]

This suggestion ignores the fact that campaign through Web pages and Internet is also money dependent. Special interest groups can attempt to influence candidates by allocating web pages, bulk e-mailing, etc., for their campaign. The more web pages the more chance of being heard and consequently being elected. Besides, few citizens have the luxury of time and talent to find useful political information in the jungle of Internet. If elections were heavily dependent on this source, the clutter in related web sites would discourage even me, an experienced netsurfer.

Another suggested solution is participatory democracy. Direct involvement and participation of citizens through town meetings, public hearings, citizen advisory committees, charter drafting and amendment referendum, initiative, etc. are listed as practical techniques of such a system. Ronald Dworkin, in his article titled “The Curse of American Politics” argued that public should participate political enterprise in a more collective sense:

“To achieve that sense of a national partnership in self-government, it is not enough for a community to treat citizens only as if they were shareholders in a company, giving them votes only in periodic elections of officials. It must design institutions, practices, and conventions that allow them to be more engaged in public life, and to make a contribution to it, even when their views do not prevail. . . . No citizen  is entitled to demand that others find his opinions persuasive or even worthy of attention. But each citizen is entitled to compete for that attention, and to have a chance at persuasion, on fair terms, a chance that is now denied almost everyone without great wealth or access to it.”[53]

Electronic democracy through “televoting,” “electronic congress” and “electronic town meetings” are the latest ideas in this category. Ted Wachtel, in his book, The Electronic Congress, defended this alternative: “If heeded by congressmen, regularly held national referendums would legitimize legislative decisions and provide selective opportunities to transfer some decision-making directly to the public. Included in the legislative process, citizens would feel connected to their representatives.” [54] Even if we ignore the economic and social cost of direct participation, however, it is susceptible to becoming a power base for only those who have time on their hands, such as the elderly. Its chance of being adopted by the American people in the near future is another question. Nevertheless, its successful practice in Switzerland is a compelling reason to consider it as a viable option to our money-plagued democracy.

In this brief essay I cannot fairly evaluate all of these and other arguments for restoring, reforming or resurrecting democracy. None of the above mentioned solutions, however, is mutually exclusive from the lottery system that I propose for the election of House members.

Lottery System

Every citizen who meets the qualifications enumerated in Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution could become a candidate by filling out a simple application form. This application can be automatically done during voter registration. Every registered person will have an equal chance of becoming a member of Congress. The election or selection can be conducted by mechanical devises or computers with sufficient security and supervision.

Lottery voting can work very well for choosing members for the House of Representatives since its size can absorb the few eccentric or extreme members that may result. The lottery system would not work for electing presidents or governors, since it would be too risky. An eccentric person could cause chaos. This system is not recommended for choosing senators either, since their number is relatively small, and more importantly, diversity in election methods among governmental branches creates a healthier checks and balances mechanism. The president and senators would be elected through traditional voting, judges would be appointed by elected people, and members of Congress would be directly elected through lottery.

Initially, I did not take the idea of a lottery system seriously. Remembering the ancient Greek practice of election by lottery led me to consider it as a possible alternative to conventional elections,[55]  Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, briefly evaluated this historical practice in a law review article:

“Ancient Athenians adhered to a strict conception of democracy. In this sense, when they asserted that the people ruled, they meant every word of it. Their commitment to democratic rule was evident in their procedure for electing political and administrative officers. Citizens were elected to these offices randomly, without any competency or property requirement. While this proposal may seem much too radical for modern democracies, it would appear less so if our society adhered to the Athenian notion of isonomia, where all citizens are politically equal in a sense much stricter than the one espoused by American political standards.”[56]

Though I do not fully subscribe to the Athenian practice of lottery elections, I believe that they might provide a healthy boost for the ailing modern democracies if lottery elections are balanced by the conventional elections. Knowing the constitutional precedent in jury selection encouraged me to reflect on the lottery election furthermore.

To my surprise, I found an article suggesting lottery election by Akhil Amar in the Yale Law Journal.  In the first paragraph of the introduction, Amar expresses the theme of his article:

“Under ‘lottery voting,’ citizens would vote for representatives in local districts, much as they do today. Rather than automatically electing the candidate who receives a majority or plurality of votes, however, lottery voting chooses the winner in a lottery of the ballots cast: A single ballot is randomly drawn, and the candidate chosen on that ballot wins the election. If A receives sixty percent of the overall vote and B gets forty percent, A does not automatically win; rather, A’s ex ante chances of winning are sixty percent and B’s are forty percent.”[57]

Amar’s concern is not the influence of money or interest groups, but proportional representation of minorities. His lottery system, therefore, does not cure the corruption caused by lobbies. Instead of being primarily used for the election of representatives, the money would be used to elect candidates.

When I started discussing the issue with my classmates and professors, their initial reaction to the idea was generally the typical negative reaction to the unfamiliar. Experiencing the same reaction, Amar, a decade later wrote another article in defense of his proposal. He wrote:

“Now I am sure that some people will think that this lottery voting system is at first blush preposterous, absurd, weird, Yale-ish or whatever; but hear me out. Perhaps this initial reaction is itself a reflection of how little most people understand social choice theory (and sometimes simple math). What else generates the initial reaction of resistance? Let me talk about some of the possibilities, and in the course of doing so I’ll lay out some of the things that I think we can learn by taking lottery voting seriously–at least as a thought experiment.”[58]

After discussing the issue with a score of people and reading relevant materials, certain details and arguments for a lottery election evolved. Let’s first consider some of the advantages  of a lottery system over the current political system and then go over some details.

  1. The current political system favors the wealthy and well-organized at the cost of the poor and those who lack the resources for lobbying activities. The lottery system, on the other hand, would be blind to such factors.
  2. The current political system is costly for society. Time and energy spent on fund-raising activities distract incumbent legislators from focusing on the job they were elected to do. The wasteful and negative spending of contributions on pollsters, spinners, twisters, and dirty ads create mind pollution and misinformation. A lottery system, however, would neither require nor encourage such corruption.
  3. The current political system is elitist. It does not reflect the diverse demographic profile of America. Women, ethnic and minority groups have always been underrepresented. The social background of the members of Congress is evidence of this elitism. “No myth dies  harder in American politics than the log cabin, rags-to-riches notion that anyone can be elected president or a member of Congress. Although there are exceptions to the normal patterns, age, father’s occupation, family connections, and education are significant determinants of who is elected to Congress.” [59]  For instance, eight presidents, three vice presidents, thirty senators, twelve governors, fifty-six House members, and nine cabinet officers belong to just sixteen “dynasty” families.[60] “Blue-collar workers, the service sector, and farmers are underrepresented. About three-fourths of the members of Congress come from banking, business or law activities.” [61]  A lottery system would be blind to these biases in political representation.
  4. The current political system has created political apathy and disillusionment. The percentage of voters is alarmingly low. People are losing faith in the political process and in government so much so that opportunistic politicians are trying a foolish tactic of distancing themselves from government and politics. A congress elected by lottery voting would statistically reflect a cross-section of the population and would bring back faith in and respect for democracy.
  5. By limiting the lottery election to the House we can still experience the “exciting” adventure of the electoral process for members of the Senate and the president. Having some legislators who do not owe their allegiance to any interest-group will create a healthier checks and balances mechanism among the branches of American government.
  6. Professional politicians usually produce laws with complicated language and jargons. Lottery elections will help to simplify the language of legislation.[62]

Some details

Keeping a crystal clear rule, such as “one person, one chance” has great advantages for its simplicity and popular appeal. But, we may need to address some possible problems. The following specific details are just some thoughts regarding certain issues. Therefore, they should not be evaluated based on their specific contents; but on the relevancy and validity of the underlying concerns.

There is a reasonable argument for a certain degree of manipulation of chances. In view of the strong correlation between education and amount of acquired knowledge, citizens’ chances could be increased proportional to their education. (Illiteracy could be considered a reason for disqualification as well as having a record of mental instability.) For instance, a high school degree may increase their chance by 2, a university degree by 4, a doctorate by 8. Valuing education level as the only favoring factor can be criticized as an elitist manipulation; but it still has an advantage over the current system, since it would still be virtually blind to gender, religion, family connection, wealth, occupation, etc. Yet, even after the education-biased adjustment, the Congress elected by lottery probably would have less educated members than the current Congress. Approximately 90 percent of congressmen hold a college degree, compared to 17 percent of the American population.[63] The people who have practically no chance of getting elected in the current system thus would have at least a chance to be elected in an educationally manipulated lottery system.

To attract those elected to accept the job, salaries should be equal to the annual income of the median American family or to the salary of previous occupation, whichever is greater. Those who are employed by the government will be guaranteed a return to their previous positions after the end of their terms.

To encourage participation in the legislative process and discourage vacations and indolence, some incentives could be designed. For instance, those who attend the House meetings, say more than 200 days a year will be on a special list of the next lottery elections. Out of this list, up to 50 names could be drawn for the second and last term. The number of re-elected representatives should not exceed 10 percent of the total. This incentive may also create a healthy dose of continuity in a House whose members statistically have zero chance of re-election.

Finally, this model should first be tested in the government of small cities. If the results are promising then its scope can be widened to include the House of Representatives.

Lottery Elections For Redistricting Committee In The Pima County

While writing this paper I received surprise news from my professor. Pima County, Arizona had decided to elect the Redistricting Committee members through lottery election. Here is the relevant part of the draft:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           DRAFT – Pima County Charter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  April 7, 1997                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 10

ARTICLE VI   COUNTY ELECTIONS

Section 6.01 Board Districts; Adjustment of Districts (To be Considered on April 7, 1997)

  1.  There shall be five supervisorial districts.
  2.  The process of drawing supervisorial districts shall be independent of the Board.
  3.  There shall be a Redistricting Committee of eleven (11) members, selected at random from a list of all registered voters in County. Using commonly accepted methods of random selection, the County Attorney shall administer the selection process. At a public drawing, the County Attorney or his or her representative shall develop a list of potential Committee members. The County Attorney shall contact each individual on the list, describe to him or her the tasks that would be involved with serving on the Redistricting Committee, and determine whether each individual would be willing to serve as a member of Redistricting Committee. From among those expressing willingness to serve, there shall be a second random selection process, which shall produce an initial list of eleven (11) committee members and fifteen (15) alternatives. From this initial list, each member of the Board may delete, in his or her unfettered discretion, on prospective Committee member from the list. After Board members have exercised this power, any vacancies on the Committee shall be filled from the list of remaining alternates. As the Committee undertakes its responsibilities, any vacancies that occur shall be filled from the remaining list of alternates.[64]

This proposal, if passed, will provide a valuable test. I would like to analyze this draft of Pima County Charter and compare it with congressional elections done via lottery. First, the number of committee members, that is eleven, appears to be too low. If this number is under the threshold of a fair statistical representation, then, its legitimacy can be questioned. Second, the idea of randomly elected candidates being examined by the Board is a good idea, but it could be better. It is a good idea, since it takes care of a legitimate concern regarding eccentrics gaining too much power in close-vote cases. But, it could be better, since the method of elimination, in my opinion, usually works against candidates with strong convictions and character, as it happens with jury selection–use of peremptories.[65] Each board member will eliminate the strongest candidate that they perceive to be politically their adverse. The survivors of this elimination process will most likely will be those who lack strong background and opinions. I think this is a loss of quality.

Instead of elimination, I would propose selection. Each Board member should elect the ones that they think the fittest for the committee. This way, hopefully, the strongest candidates will be elected to the committee. The selection will also put a certain degree of responsibility on those who did the selection.

Arguments

There are legitimate concerns, questions and criticism regarding the conse-quence of lottery elections. Of those, I will respond to the five important ones. Below, the questions or concerns are written in bold characters, each followed by my response.

I.

Selection by lottery would be random, so the quality of their decisions would indeed be far more reflective of the population at large than the quality of the decisions of the current body. However, once they have relocated to Washington and begun deliberating, they will gradually deviate more and more from the population due to the (now) unique conditions under which they make their decisions (an office in Washington, lots of power, etc.). They would thus be more representative of the general population than the current body, but we could never attain perfect representativeness (in a statistical sense) by selecting people and sending them to Washington.[66]

True, power corrupts; however, there are good reasons to be optimistic. First, there are available measures. All gifts or contributions can be prohibited for the entire term. Like all federal employees, the House members will be subject to the employment law. There won’t be a First Amendment problem since there won’t no political campaign for their election. Furthermore, the lack of lengthy campaign activities or the probable lack of previous political activities will provide some extra time for those who are susceptible to corruption. The elected members for the House are corrupted by the power of money long before they are elected. They need money if they want to serve in the office. Even those who abhor the corruption and influence of money are obliged to bow down to this corrupt process. It is a Catch 22.

What is to prevent the elected individuals from maximizing their self-interest? Nothing. But, we should pray that they would look after their self-interest, in terms of voting for a particular legislation. Why? Because their self-interest is statistically analogous to the very self-interest of the general population. The very nature of the sample body will make such worries trivial.

The lottery-elected representatives with their diverse backgrounds will have less propensity for misrepresentation. For instance, a small businessman who was elected for four years to represent his district will be concerned about both the interest of his district and small businesses and after four years of service he will probably turn to his previous job. He has friends and perhaps relatives are in that sector. If he looks after his interest he will be protecting the class or the category of the population he is coming from. Similarly, the teachers, the factory employees, the secretaries, the jobless, the doctors, the housewives, the blacks, the blues, the greens will be expected to promote their self-interest. The negotiation among diverse interests will create compromises for the interest of the entire population.

II.

435 people constitute a rather small sample size. Where public opinion is evenly divided over some issue, the statistical uncertainty is plus-or-minus 4.7% if you can tolerate one out of twenty decisions’ not being representative of the population (although close). That’s the 95% confidence interval criterion, which is the one most commonly used. The implications for the decision-making body are that you need a margin of at least 4.7% to constitute a plurality in any decision. Thus, for example, if the vote is 235 to 200 to ban handguns, you have an 8% spread and therefore the ban should pass. However, if the spread is 20 or less, e.g., only 227 to 208, then there is no way to tell whose side actually represents the dominant position in the population, so no action could be taken that ostensibly represents the “popular” view[67]

This problem can be reduced by increasing the number of seats, but this will be a trade off from efficiency. It will take much longer to pass legislation in a House with a larger population. This problem is inherent in all democratic bodies. There will be always some imprecision in both elections and representation as well. We do not have a solution for this problem in a representative democracy. As for referendums, it is practically impossible to have referendums for every piece of legislation. Besides the efficiency and participation, the quality of referendums will be another concern. Time constraints of citizens and misinformation eliminates frequent referendums from being an alternative to representative system.

Here, I would like to shed an optimistic light on the problem of statistical uncertainty in representing the “popular” view. Close margins might work against “popular” view, but still they will not be very “unpopular,” since they will represent, according to the hypothetical, approximately 45% of the population. Furthermore, the random nature of lottery election will not let this anomaly continue forever. Within several elections the close margins might work in favor of the “popular” view. True, most of us have primary concerns, but we know that our interest in the legislation usually involves more than a single-issue. Since we have little reason to believe that lottery-elected members will limit their diverse perspectives within the political lines of the two major parties, future legislation might reduce the impact of past legislation accepted with close margins. The close margin that worked against the slightly “popular” view of hand-gun owners, in another vote, might please most of them with a slightly “unpopular” legislation, say, permitting the hunting of hyenas with arrows.

III.

An election through lottery will give too much negotiation power to a few eccentrics in cases where the margin of opposing views is too close. [68]

This appears to be a legitimate concern, however, the problem is not unique to lottery election. Any population, be it elected by lottery or by popular vote, will always have some eccentric individuals, since eccentricity is a relative concept. Putting aside the problem in defining the “eccentric” in an absolute sense, I think it is not something to worry about. The divided “non-eccentrics” will obviously will not become eccentric themselves, since it is not a contagious disease. Therefore, they may prefer compromising with the other “non-eccentric” parties instead of going along with the “deviant” or “bizarre” wishes of the few “eccentric” ones. Why worry about the free-market of ideas?

If this is a really serious concern, I will suggest a process of selection by the Senate. Each senator can be granted a right of picking half of the lottery-elected candidates coming from his/her district. For instance, the Arizona senators McCain and Kyl each will pick three new House members out of total 12 candidates who were elected by the lottery conducted in Arizona. This process might also relieve another legitimate concern regarding the quality of lottery-elect body. As I argued above, the elimination process tends to reduce the quality of remaining population. Each senator will be tempted to eliminate the most potent candidates that he/she thinks has opposing political convictions. But, if they are required to select among the elected ones, then, they will most likely pick the ones that they consider the most potent ones.

IV.

A lottery system could minimize influence. It would produce a cross section of the population and all gifts or contributions could be banned. There would be no need for political campaigning. Instead of citizen soldiers, we could have citizen politicians with rotation in office. However, elections might be viewed as performing a valuable function. There may be a need for more than a cross section of the population. Elections may furnish that quality. This view may necessitate the acceptance of a system which permits influence in order to be able to get the benefit of those other qualities. More important, perhaps elections are the source of a class of the population which makes political issues its professional specialty. Without elections there would be no class of professional politicians and, therefore, no group whose function it was to study the public’s desires and interests. Political parties came into being to contest elections. Without them, it is not clear what the information and normative world facing representatives elected through a lottery system would be like. Moreover, the process of discussion would be enervated without parties and professionals. Elections educate and representatives’ views form part of the definition of their constituents’ interests. In other words, free speech may depend on the people it is designed to oversee. Without free speech, it may be institutionally difficult to conduct the discussion necessary to enlightened self-government. As a consequence, competition is fundamental. [69]

That’s one of the reasons why I propose the lottery election for only House members. Employing lottery elections for a part of the government, therefore, does not exterminate political parties and their professional politicians. They will remain as a dynamic factor in the elections of Senate members and Presidency and they will have the power to influence the results of lottery elections to a certain degree. However, a money-dependent corrupt system generating corrupt politicians is the side-affect of the modern democracies. Trying to reduce this side-effect is essential for the survival of the democratic system.

V.

Conducting the lottery through computer might create suspicion and paranoid conspiracy ideas in the society.[70]

Computers are closed boxes (like close societies) and God knows what goes on inside their chips and circuits. Software and hardware programs, for instance, can be secretly designed to manipulate the results. Even the micro-chip manufacturers might manufacture chips that will pick the social security numbers from their hidden memories. Therefore, the lottery election should be done in each state via mechanical (not electronic) lottery devices. Many states have lotto or powerball drawings.  (Ironically, I consider this sort of lottery an unjust distribution of wealth and exploitation of dreams). Apple-size balls, each stamped with visible large numbers are in a transparent sphere and they are one by one pulled out by a machine. The simple mechanics and visibility of this drawing combined with live broadcasting via TV leaves no room for reasonable suspicion. When we add the fact that the lottery election will be monitored by rival politicians, the process of lottery-election becomes a reliable random drawing.

The lottery election can be done in a previously announced hour, so that the citizens of that state can experience a live political (?) spectacle on their TV.[71] Each drawing will declare a 9-digit number presumably indicating a social security number of a candidate. This number could be immediately put into the nearby computer. If the computer matches it with the social security number of a registered eligible citizen, then the name of the primary candidate would be announced.

Simply-designed application forms for candidacy should contain several multiple choice questions to assess the eligibility or chance factor for each applicant. Those forms will be automatically scanned to computers and the data will be used both during the lottery election and afterwards. Here, the reliability of computers is not an issue, since it is about retrieving stored data which can be checked anytime later. For instance, in Arizona, twelve of the eligible primary candidates will be declared to be the final candidates. Six of them, later, will be approved by Arizona senators and they will become the new members of the House.

Conclusion

We might still consider American government “by the people,” but we are becoming less sure whether it is “for the people” and “of the people.” [72] It is incumbent on us to protect our republic and democracy from the hegemony of interest-groups and money. Otherwise, the name of our political system should be officially changed from democracy to lobbyocracy or plutocracy, if we want to avoid hypocrisy.

The lottery system is just one of the alternative solutions. If it works for selecting 12 members of a jury, then, it could work for selecting 435 members of Congress. We are trusting the decision of 12 randomly chosen citizens on life and death issues, why not trust 435 randomly chosen citizens to participate in running the government?


*     Author, human rights activist. J.D., University of Arizona College of Law (1998). The author is thankful to Toni M. Massaro, professor at the University of Arizona College of Law, for her encouraging and helpful comments on this article. My ultimate thanks go to God for enabling me to immigrate to America, the land of freedom. Author can be reached via <www.yuksel.org>

[1] For the story of this human propensity in the domain of property use, see: Carol Rose, Property as Storytelling, 2 Yale J.L. & Humanities 37, 50 (1990).

[2] The 1990 Webster’s College Dictionary defines democracy as: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

[3] Unfortunately this is true. “In nine out of ten Congressional races, the candidate with the most money wins–even in the ‘revolutionary’ elections of 1994.” (Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.crp.org/net/reform.html).

[4] George Soros, The Capitalist Threat, Atlantic Monthly, February 1997, pp. 45-58.

[5] Federal Reserve Board, in March 1992 released a paper showing a dramatic increase in the concentration of wealth between 1983 and 1992, with the share of the top 1 percent of families rising from 31 to 37 percent. For an excellent article evaluating the Census data on the growing gap between the rich and poor, see: Paul R. Krugman, The Rich, the Right and the Facts; Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate, The American Prospect, No. 11, (Fall 1992): 19-31. For another excellent article on the growing income gap, see: Robert H. Frank, Talent and the Winner-Take-All Society, The American Prospect, No. 17 (Spring 1994): 97-107.

[6] The U.S. News &  World Report published a  spectacular report titled Hang on to your wallet in its April 14, 1997 issue, pp. 26-31. I recommend this report for those who wonder the dimension of plunder conducted by corporations and their accomplice legislators. Here are some excerpts from the report: “TV station owners got $30 billion worth of free licenses without being required to give free TV time to political candidates. The power of political money sabotaged the best chance to reduce the power of political money. . . Cable TV lobbyists promised that competition would mean low cable rates. Competition hasn’t increased. Cable rates have. . . Lawmakers once banned dubious ‘dread disease’ insurance policies. But industry money helped change their minds.”

[7] Id. at 27.

[8] Id. at 27.

[9] Id. at 30.

[10] Id. at 31.

[11] Susan Page, White House has big-donor jitters, USA Today, April, 8, 1997, 6A.

[12] In recent presidential elections, American voter turnout has been little more than 50%:

1960                                Kennedy-Nixon                   63.1%

1964                                Johnson-Goldwater             61.8%

1968                                Humphrey-Nixon                60.7%

1972                                McGovern-Nixon                55.4%

1976                                Carter-Ford                                           54.4%

1980                                Carter-Reagan                     52.6%

1984                                Mondale-Reagan                53.1%

1988                                Bush-Dukakis                      50.1%

1992                                Bush-Clinton                        55.2%

Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 420-422. & Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C., 1982, p. 615.

[13]  Voters Key Issues Unaddressed by Legislators, Survey Indicates, The Arizona Daily Star, June 16, 1996, 1A.

[14]  Id.

[15] Kenneth T. Walsh, No Shame and Lots of Gain, U.S. News & World Report, March 3, 1997, p. 32.

[16] For the alphabetical list of 17,500 lobbyists who advocate on behalf of various companies, labor unions, associations, government entities and special interest groups see: Washington Representatives, J. Valerie Steele, eds. et al., Columbia Books Inc., Washington DC., (1996). (http:www.d-net.com/columbia).

Lobbying is considered a Constitutional right under the last clause of the 1st Amendment: “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Wondering whether I am not aware of the full meaning of the word “petition” I consulted my Random House Webster’s Dictionary (1991). I could not find “financial contribution” in the definition of petition! Extending the Constitutional right to the main practice of today’s special-interest lobbying that has beleaguered Washington and State capitals requires a religious dedication to the philosophy of Adam Smith.

[17] Ronald Dworkin articulated this fact from the horse’s mouth: “But money is the biggest threat to the democratic process. The time politicians must spend raising money in endless party functions and in more personal ways–not only during an election campaign but while in office, preparing for the next election–has become  an increasingly large drain on their attention. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa complained in 1988. ‘As soon as a Senator is elected here, that Senator better start raising money for the next election 6 years down the pike. Everyone here does it, and to deny that is to deny the obvious and to deny what is also in the record.'” Ronald Dworkin, The Curse of American Politics, The New York Review of Books, October 17, 1996, p. 19.

[18] Political Action Committees are political entities that engage in election-related activities. PACs are affiliated with corporations, labor unions, political organizations, etc. The number of PACs has risen dramatically in last 20 years, from 608 PACs in 1976 to more than 4,000 PACs in 1996. For the list of PACs and their political contribution and financial tables, see: The PAC Directory, The Federal Committees, edited by David U. Geevy, Chadwick R. Gore, and Marvin I. Weinberger, Pac Research Ltd. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA (1991).

[19] See: David Grann, infra note 42, at 23.

[20] Buckley v Valeo, 481 U.S. 1, 20 (1976)

[21] See: The PAC Directory,  supra note 18.

[22] 435 U.S. 765 (1978)

[23] First National Bank v Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 791 (1978)

[24] Id., at 807

[25] Id., at 807

[26] Bruce B. Auster with David Bowermaster, Playing The Money Game, U.S. News & World Report, May 20, 1996, p. 25.

[27] Soft money’ apparently too hard for U.S. lawmakers to relinquish, The Arizona Daily Star, April 6, 1997, (quoting from The New York Times).

[28] Lexington, Al Gore falls to earth, The Economist, March 8, 1997.

[29] Michael Kinsley, The Conspiracy of Trivia, Time, March 17, 1997, p. 25.

[30] According to the Newsweek magazine, The Lincoln Bedroom was not the only thing for sale. A menu of the perks were out for sale in three packages: For $12,500, dinner and your picture taken with the president at a Washington hotel. For $50,000, coffee with Clinton and top administration at the White House. For $250,000, a full day at the White House. (Strange Bedfellows, Newsweek, March 10, 1997, p. 28). The commercial use of White House, is by no means a Clinton innovation. See: William M. Welch, GOP also used White House to attract big-money donors, USA Today, February, 26, 1997.

[31] Alison Mitchel, President Regrets Top U.S. Regulator Met With Bankers, The New York Times, January 29, 1997, front page.

The USA Today in its April 17, 1997 issue published the list of top 150 contributors to political parties in 1995 and 1996. (p. 6A). The donations were ranging between $138,000 and $661,000.

[32] Nancy Gibbs, The Wake-Up Call, Time, February 3, 1997,

[33] Robert B. Reich, Locked In The Cabinet, The New Yorker, April 21, 1977, p. 49.

[34] Marilyn Vos Savant, Ask Marilyn, Parade Magazine, April 6, 1997, p. 9.

[35] Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C., 1982, pp. 584-585.

[36] David Grann and Erica Niedowski, The Dirty Hill, The New Republic, April 7, 1997, p. 21.

[37] Id.

[38] William M. Welch, GOP also used White House to attract big-money donors, USA Today, February 26, 1997.

[39] Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 116 S.Ct. 2309, 2332, (1996). (Stevens, Ginsberg, JJ., dissenting).

[40] Colorado Republican, Supra note 39, at 2332.

[41] Kenneth T. Walsh,  No shame and lots to gain, U.S. News & World Report, March 3, 1997, p.32.

[42] David Grann and Erika Niedowski, The Dirty Hill, The New Republic, April 7, 1997, p. 23. The authors give some examples of bizarre fund-raising methods: “Former Republican Representative Enid Waldholtz of Utah, whose ex-husband was investigated for illegally pouring money into her campaign, became so anxious to fill her coffers that she exploited the birth of her first child. Days after she had given birth to Elizabeth in 1995, Waldholtz threw a party to introduce her little girl–not to family or close friends, but to $500-a-head contributors. GOP Congressman Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania has turned his birthday party into a $1,000-a-plate affair. And a former Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins, in pursuit of money, even held a fund-raiser at a strip club in Detroit.”

[43] Harold W. Stanley & Richard G. Niemi, Vital Statistics On American Politics, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, 1988, p.157.

[44] Campaign contributions reflect Congress’ voting, study shows, The Arizona Daily Star, January 23, 1997.

[45] Id.

[46] “It is sometimes said all that’s being bought and sold is merely “access,” not government policy itself. But access is worthless if it doesn’t affect policy, and experience has thought those who contribute that access works. And to state the obvious: it is unfair and undemocratic for those who buy access to have bigger voice in government than those who don’t.” Michael Kinsley, The Conspiracy of Trivia, Time, March 17, 1997, p. 25.

[47] Valerie Steele, supra note 16.

[48] Nancy Gibbs, The Wake-Up Call, Time, February 3, 1997.

[49] Time magazine briefly listed the five current reform bills and called McCain-Feingold bill a “dying” bill. Here are the “Five ways to fix the campaign Finance System:

1. The (dying) McCain-Feingold Bill: It would ban soft money, limit contributions from PACs and set voluntary spending limits for congressional candidates. Will it pass? Don’t bet on it.

2. Amend The U.S. Constitution: Spending caps could swallow the money chase. But the Supreme Court says limits violate free-speech guarantees. Carve out an exception to the First Amendment?

3. More Taxpayer-Supported Races: Presidential candidates who agree to spending caps get public financing for their campaigns. One Senate bill would extend that system to congressional races.

4. Give Candidates Cheaper Airtime: To cut campaign costs and the attendant fund-raising frenzy, have FEC distribute vouchers for TV and radio time that stations would be required to donate.

5. Let More Sunshine In: Lift all limits on money, but require candidates and parties to disclose data on contributors more fully, frequently and widely. On idea: post it all on the Internet.”

Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, Legal Tender, Time, March 17, 1997.

[50] Walter Shapiro, The universal refrain for campaign reform: Let it be, USA Today, Aril 25, 1997, p. 12A. Gloria Borger, Also see, Cynical, even for Congress, U.S. News & World Report, March 3, 1997. p. 42: “Few senators really want full scale hearings that could bring down the campaign system.”

[51] Richard L. Hasen, Clipping Coupons for Democracy: An Egalitarian/Public Choice Defense of Campaign Finance Vouchers, 84 California Law Review 1, 6-7, (1996).

[52] http://epn.org/prospect/

[53] Ronald Dworkin, supra note 17, at 23.

[54] Ted Wachtel, The Electronic Congress: A Blue Print for Participatory Democracy, 56 (1992).

[55] Wai Chee Dimock,  Residues of Justice, University of California Press, Berkely, 1996. The author dedicates a chapter to Lottery (p. 96) and refers to Barbara Goodwin’s book Justice by Lottery (1992).

[56] Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, The Emptiness Of Majority Rule, 1 Mich. J. Race & L. 195, 218-219 (1996).

[57] Akhil Reed Amar, Choosing Representatives By Lottery Voting, 93 Yale L.J. 1283, (1984).

[58] Akhil Reed Amar, Lottery Voting: A Thought Experiment, 1995 U. Chi. Legal F. 193, 195 (1995).

[59] The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress, Simon & Schuster, 1995, p. 1337.

[60] Id. at 1347.

[61] Id. at 1347.

[62] Professor Toni M. Massaro counted this among the good reasons for having jury trials: “This humanizing function serves the community by helping the law to operate in a way that is comprehensible to the people the law must serve. If legal theories are too complex for jurors, who represent the nonlegal community, then the theories must be simplified. Otherwise, the citizen who must abide by the law will not understand what it requires and therefore may not conform to its dictates.”  Toni M. Massaro, Peremptories Or Peers?-Rethinking Sixth Amendment Doctrine, Images, and Procedures, 64 N.C. L. Rev. 501, 514 (1986). Massaro’s article gives a brief historical account of trial by jury and proposes a “modest” change in the jury selection procedure and calls for abolishing the government’s peremptory challenges.

[63] The Encyclopedia of the United State Congress, Simon & Schuster, 1995, pp. 1371-1384. Also see: Congress A to Z, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington D.C., 1968, pp. 279-281.

[64] The Pima County Charter’s draft has other provisions such as the qualifications of members of the Redistricting Committee and their terms, etc.

[65] Professor Amar reminded the readers the jury system as an example of his version of lottery election. Nevertheless, he preferred a jury selection free of interference:  “But lotteries, you say. How can lotteries be anything but an abdication to irrationality and arbitrariness? Well, let’s think about a place where we do use lotteries to vindicate ideas of political equality and democratic deliberation: the jury. Here, we might put all the voters in a drum and pick twelve people out and they are your jury. This would be a different way of picking jurors than our current system, but the Supreme Court is, I hope, moving in that direction. It has focused much more in the last decade on the right of jurors to be represented and to participate rather than on the right of defendants to decide who will be on their jury. So the Court has been restricting peremptory challenges and other exclusionary measures. The Justices are moving towards an earlier vision that saw some interesting connections between the people’s representation in the lower house of the judicial branch through the jury and the people’s representation in the legislature itself.”  Amar, Supra note 58, at 201.

[66] This criticism was e-mailed to me by Richard Steven Voss, a Ph.D. candidate in Business Management.

[67] Id.

[68] This concern was raised orally by Robert Glennon, a law professor at University of Arizona.

[69]Stephen E. Gottlieb, The Dilemma Of Election Campaign Finance Reform, 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 213, 268-269 (Fall, 1989).

[70] This concern expressing distrust to electronic machines is from me. Though my computers have been my best confidants for more than a decade, I know that they are vulnerable to manipulations.

[71] This spectacle is primarily intended for those who crave the excitement of campaigns and the ritual of poking holes in cards in isolated dull compartments! Indeed, a whole night can be dedicated on lottery election on network TV channels, hosted by Letterman and Rush Limbaugh!

[72]  This popular expression is from Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg address in 1863. Lincoln defined democracy as: “a government of the people, by the people, for the people. . . our concept of democracy includes universal suffrage–one person, one vote–with freely conducted secret elections at stipulated intervals depending upon the location and the office. All governmental matters are subject to the Constitution of the United States, and to the several separate constitutions of the individual states.”

Share

Feminism is a storm and rainbow of social and political evolution

Share

Feminism is a storm and rainbow of social and political evolution

Edip Yuksel

11.06.1994


The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is a feminist manifesto that became effective in 1981 and was ratified by 144 countries in 1995. The text book has a comment on “Women’s Social and Economic Condition.” It states: “According to virtually every indicator o social well-being and status–political participation, legal capacity, access to economic resources and employment, wage differentials, levels of education and health care–women fare significantly and sometimes dramatically worse than men.” (International Human Rights in Context, Henry Steiner & Philip Alston, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 894). That is, of course, a bad news. However, I have problem with the comments and assumptions made regarding the disparity in employment. After citing disturbing statistics showing a world-wide discrimination against women, the authors continue: 

“Although employment outside the home provides women with increased income and often social status, employment remains a major source of discrimination. Women are doubly disadvantaged, occupying lower status and lower wage jobs in virtually every society while retaining the overwhelming burden of child care and household responsibilities.” (Ibid., p. 895)

I believe that the root of the problem here is the feminist assumption that women is exactly equal to men and they should compete in every area of life and they should demonstrate statistical equality of accomplishments or failures in every aspect of life. Pushing women to the areas that men are biologically advantageous and expecting equal performance is injustice both to men and women. Expecting military to have a 50-50 men and women participation and blaming every failure or shortcoming of women to men is absurd. Using the same mentality and holding the same assumptions I can claim that it is a grave injustice to men for being the majority in prisons. I can claim that majority of those who are sentenced to capital punishment are men, therefore, there is a great discrimination against men, prisons should be filled equally with women and equal number of women should taste capital punishment. Sure, you will shrug your shoulder and frown your eyebrows and discard this suggestion. Well, I do the same regarding the feminist assumption that women should comprise 50 percent of the employment force. Let me start from the beginning.

What was the gender of the Declaration of Independence?

The US is a male dominant country. If we look back, we cannot find a single woman among the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. We haven’t witnessed a single female president since its foundation. The present is not much different from the past. For instance, the number of woman senators is less than 10% of Senate. The World Almanac of 1992, lists 75 noted female personalities out of 300 widely known contemporary Americans. That is, 1 female for each 3 male.  Imposing man’s last name on married woman is a symbolic declaration of male dominance, and a big majority of American women lose their last name like they used to lose their virginity. 

From movies to children’s stories, from the business world to politics we can witness discrimination in par with the expectations of traditional sex roles. Using female body as a commercial object, sexual harassment, rape, women battering, and sexist language are endemic in our modern society. Feminist movement is an intelligent, but sometimes a highly emotional protest of this unjust historical treatment. 

One day, my wife came home with two promotional packs bearing the title “Free Campus Trial Pak.” But, the packs differed in their subheadings: male, and female. Her pack contained tampons, Tylenol, shampoo, shaving cream for legs, and corn nuts. Mine contained anti-perspirant, after shave, cologne for men, and corn nuts.

This was clear evidence that the market experts were not “sex blind.” It can be claimed that from their marketing perspective, my wife and I had only one thing in common: corn nuts! Were they affirming the sex roles imposed by the society? Were they conveying a subliminal message to my wife that she must have head-aches, and menstruation? Were they psychologically forcing her to shave her legs? On the other hand, were they telling me that my underarms should smell in order to be deodorized, and my face should grow beard in order to be shaved? These questions might contain a naughty clue for a serious argument. Since I’m not anxious to develop a feminist theory of my own, I will leave them as a tacit and spicy sarcasm in this short paper. 

Men and women, in general, are different by nature, and they have different needs and roles. However, there are some sex roles and inequalities that are created by society and exploited by man. In order to let the nature and justice prevail to superficiality and injustice, it is imperative to do the following: 1) Equal respect and appreciation of roles regardless of their gender. 2) Equal chance for both male and female to choose their roles freely and responsibly. 3) Laws to promote and guarantee these two goals.

Should we distinguish the “original, imposed, or imagined” differences?

Indeed, it is not necessary to distinguish what is natural and what is social in order to attain a fair relationship between both sexes. We cannot distinguish them from this point, since we cannot be sure about the bias of our perspective, and it is almost impossible to explain the causal relationship of infinite number of intricate correlation. 

I agree with Catharine A. McKinnon in her rejection of difference approach as a starting point: 

“Therefore, the more unequal society gets, the less likely the difference doctrine is to be able to do anything about it, because unequal power creates both the appearance and the reality of sex differences along the same lines as it creates its sex inequalities.” (Feminist Legal Theory, edited by Katharine T. Bartlett & Rosanne Kennedy, Westview Press, Oxford, 1991, pp. 85). 

She is clever in noticing the difficulty to separate the original differences from imposed ones. The mustache of dominant paradigm and women’s mindset that is shaped and defined in relation to men seems to handicap us in distinguishing the real differences from fake ones. The dominance version, which is currently represented by McKinnon, suggests to end the dominance without falling into the trap of trying to distinguish the nature of differences. 

Still, there are some differences which a sober person cannot suspect from their originality: child-bearing and the importance of breast feeding. By acknowledging this very clear biological difference and responsibility we can at least avoid the high risk posed by dominance version of feminism. While trying to balance the gender power, we can get intoxicated in power struggle and harm our children; a harm that will have an everlasting negative impact on the future of human societies. Therefore, we should aim to balance the power between men and women without becoming a blind skeptic regarding the clear biological differences between men and women. Society cannot just experiment ideologies recklessly; especially, when it is loaded with emotional hormones! 

“Eve is responsible for all evil things”

The black widow spider kills her mate after sexual intercourse. The governments of ant and bee colonies are ruled by queens, not kings. On the other hand, apes show a patriarchal social organization. The nature and motivation for survival–indifferent to the moral concerns of the human race–determine the sex roles in the animal world. Human history is also shaped by a cruel past where fighting for survival was more important than cooperating for survival. Since aggression and muscle were the most important qualities of humans for millions of years, they became the dominant characteristics. Man, took advantage of these characteristics to dominate woman, and usually exploited her physically and mentally. 

This exploitation reached its peak when man created religious institutions or distorted the ancient religions to sanctify the supremacy of man. The concept of God was reduced to human image and was referred as a male,   father god in many cultures. Even the Bible, the most influential book in American society, teaches discrimination between the two sexes. The Old Testament goes further and blames Eve for tempting Adam to eat from the forbidden apple. St. Paul, the real founder of Christianity pontificates this mindset clearly: 

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15).

This and similar religious teachings, directly or indirectly have a great impact on our conscious or subconscious regarding the value of sexes and their roles. As a result, women lost their self-esteem, and voluntarily bowed down to a long lasting slavery. Being a homemaker was not a choice, but a consequence of being a member of Eve’s party, the sinful party. Therefore, this thousands year of exploitation degraded the role of women in society. Child raising and housekeeping, two of the most important and difficult jobs in the world, were considered inferior by men. What is worse, women adopted this bogus perspective too. 

Enjoying the natural diversity of sexes: an intermediate ideal

The basic natural role for woman is motherhood, and partnership. Nevertheless, individuals, be men or women, should be able to choose their roles. If a woman decides not to bear children but have a career in management she should be able to do so without any legal obstacle and moral red light. Motherhood and partnership, on the other hand, should be rewarded both economically and socially. Life without diverse characteristics of women or men would be excruciatingly boring and detrimental for their survival. Even those feminists who have discovered an unorthodox emotional satisfaction and pleasure in lesbian relationship would lose their passion and pleasure if there were no children of heterosexuals around. The death of each lesbian friend and the mushrooming of ghost houses in the neighborhood would cover their faces with the terror of death and darkness. 

Without denying the inherent genetic differences, we can claim that “aggression and power” should not be the dominant characteristics anymore. This historical crime should stop. We, as the generation of information and intellect, should appreciate and enjoy the natural diversity of sexes, without refracting or exploiting them. 

It is not a coincidence that in the era when the balance of power shifted from muscle to brain, women cried for their dignity and freedom. The movement which became known as feminism  received full support from many male intellectuals as well. The feminist movement stretched out and created a rainbow with all colors, from purple to red, from pastel to neon. This rainbow, brought hope for the future of the human race. The feminist movement as an amalgamation of rational and irrational reaction, has been forcing us to reevaluate and modify our concept of genders and sex roles. 

Liberal feminism is partially (and subliminally) influenced and directed by male chauvinism. Liberal feminists claim that man sees motherhood as inferior and tries to fit women into that role. As a reaction, they try to deny the importance of this vital female quality. Instead of denial, they should fight for its dignity and value. An argument can be very compelling on behalf of economic appreciation and support of motherhood. If a husband and his business benefit from the emotional and physical effort of a housewife, then why not she split the salary? Besides, the job of bearing and raising the next generation is one of the biggest asset for human society. In a society where capitalist economy is valued, women, as the vital half of human race ought to be empowered economically. This is not just a utilitarian concern or a pragmatic solution, but the result of a universalized maxim. 

Blaming feminism for all evil things!

Kay Ebeling, a former liberal feminist, a freelance writer and a single mother of a 2-year-old daughter, criticizes the extreme feminism (doctrines of dominance, lesbian, domesticity, etc.) in an article called “The Failure of Feminism.” After telling us about her 50-minute blind date with a Yuppie of the same age, she claims that feminism freed men, not women:

“To me, feminism has backfired against women. In 1973 I left what could have been a perfectly good marriage, taking with me a child in diapers, a 10-year-old Plymouth and Volume 1, Number One of Ms. Magazine. I was convinced I could make it on my own. In the last 15 years my ex has married or lived with a succession of women. As he gets older, his women stay in their 20s. Meanwhile, I’ve stayed unattached. He drives a BMW. I ride buses. . . . Feminism made women disposable. So today a lot of females are around 40 and single with a couple of kids to raise on their own. Child support payments might pay for a few pairs of shoes, but in general, feminism gave men all the financial and personal advantages over women. What is worse we asked for it. . . . How wrong we were. Because like it or not, women have babies. It’s this biological thing that’s just there, these organs we’re born with. The truth is, a woman can’t live the true feminist life unless she denies her child bearing biology. . . . Women should get education so they can be brainy in the way  they raise their children. Women can start small businesses, do consulting, write freelance out of home. But women don’t belong in 12-hour-a-day executive office position, and I can’t figure out today what ever made us think we would want to be there in the first place. As long as that biology is there, women can’t compete equally with men. . . . The economy might even improve if women came home, opening up jobs for unemployed men, who could then support a wife and children, the way it was, pre-feminism.” (Newsweek, Nov. 19, 1992, p. 9).

This criticism based on personal experience reflects one of the side effects of feminist movement. Yes, in the arena of individual power struggle with men, some feminists lost the battle. But, not all the feminists. A number of women, on the other hand, won and drove BMW! Women progressed and won many battles in legal arena, which is more important than the current ratio of female BMW owners, when long run impact is considered. Besides, the ex-feminist author’s ability to express her ideas and having the opportunity to publish them in a national magazine is one of the achievements of feminist movement. 

I believe that the feminist movement has helped and will help women. I acknowledge that extreme feminism has created some problems. For instance, some may claim a correlation between the divorce rate and the feminist movement. Currently, every one out of two marriages ends up in divorce, and it creates millions of broken families, emotionally disturbed children, etc. Blaming feminism as the only or the main cause of recent problems in our families can be easily refuted. There are many factors to be considered for the troubles plagued our families, and there are many pre-feminist problems related to this institution, such as domestic violence, incest, etc. Besides, all reforms and revolutions create certain problems for status quo. The secular movement in 16th century caused a lot of pain for many. But, the long-run benefit of the reformations is clear. Generations have been freed from the fear of inquisition and excommunication, hopefully forever.

Feminism, with its all moderate and ultra factions, has helped the majority of women. It supplied them with self-esteem, and a sense of identity. When the side effects of liberal feminism are fully felt and understood, then, the correct dose will be accepted by the whole society. Trial and error will clarify the ambiguity between nature and nurture. Indeed, there won’t be any need to distinguish them, when women got equal freedom and opportunity to find themselves. There won’t be widespread sexism when women are empowered economically and respected for their free choice regarding their roles in the society. 

Women’s economic reliance on men has so far shaped family institution. As a result, women lost their identity and became slave mothers. Without legal protection and rights, the male hegemony was a sure destiny. Laws being suggested by feminist movement, eventually, will create a paradigm shift in male perspective regarding women. The war ignited by feminism will end with peace when this paradigm shift creates a mutual and equal respect in the minds of opposite genders. Then, each sex will freely and proudly choose social roles and occupations according to their biological, natural and personal abilities and responsibilities.

The struggle between genders will continue until, 1) men gets rid of all unfair advantages they have gained through muscle, and 2) educated women feel that they have equal rights and opportunities. The bargain between men and women will fluctuate for decades, probably centuries, but finally will settle down. Both liberal and conservative feminism will be catalysts for reaching this intermediate ideal. Diversity, the responsibility of motherhood, career opportunities, respect and peace between men and women, and technological advances will be the main factors in shaping women’s role in society. I think the future social condition for women will be somewhere between conservative and liberal feminism. Day by day we can see the erosion and transformation of traditional roles assigned by society. The feminist movement, with its extreme and moderate forms, is the storm and rainbow of this reformation.

So, CEDAW is a good step though with some unrealistic political agenda. The condition of abandoned or neglected children in modern societies and the associated problems will bring both men and women to their senses. Meanwhile, as a devote Muslim intellectual, I entirely disagree with the reservations made by mostly Islamic states, especially Bengladesh and Egypt. Although those reservationsare made in the name of God or Islam, they have nothing to do with God and Islam. Those so-called Islamic states are using and abusing a medieval culture that have replaced Islam as tought by Prophet Muhammad via the only book he preached, that is, the Quran. (For an argument on this issue, see: 19 Questions For Muslim Scholars by the author).

 

Share

Prison as a Prism

Share

The American prison population, to a great extend, is the byproduct of social darwinist ideology that has doomed tens of millions of Americans to a life of crime and prison, which inflicts enormous economic, social and emotional cost to the middle class.  It is in the best interest of the middle class to find ways to empower the underclass with economic and political power. It is imperative for the middle class to choose a new and radical attitude to eliminate the causes of crime.


Prison as a Prism:
Prison Demography Cries for Social Democracy 

Edip Yuksel, J.D.

www.yuksel.org

“His offense was the theft of four cookies from a restaurant. His punishment was jail for 25 years to life . . . Kevin Weber has served more than five years for the theft in 1995 of the four cookies, but a Santa Ana appeal court has decided he is a career criminal and the sentence should stand.” (Just Four Cookies and You’re Out-for 25 Years, Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, June 20, 2001).

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Preamble of the Constitution of the USA)

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed…” (Luke 4:18)

“There are also purely environmental explanations of crime–economic, social, psychological–based on slums, broken families, shattered dreams. These views are associated with the “bleeding hearts” of the left. They are unpopular wit the majority. Environmental theories have a grave flaw: they are inconsistent with the culture of choice and responsibility. It is much more attractive to think of the criminal as rotten apple in the barrel; as a human being without moral character, who has ignored the available and legitimate choices and elected to go down the crooked path. (The Republic of Choice, Lawrence M. Friedman, Harvard University Press, 1990, p. 148)

As one who spent four years of his youth in prisons of a “foreign” country, and as one who observed the American prison system as an intern in a county jail, and worked in the American legal system for several years, I am personally and professionally interested in American criminal system, its social, economic and political foundation, impact and ramification. I admit that my interest contains some hormones of passion, which I find it proper in treating the subject matter “objectively.”

One of the greatest virtues of Americans is their reverence of individual choice, responsibility, freedom, self-expression and respect to the rule of law. However, the propaganda of social Darwinism has abused and distorted those values, polluting these virtues with blemishes of apathy to the plights of others. Since, philosophy was my springboard to the study and practice of law, I am teaching evening philosophy and logic classes in a Community College. In every philosophy class, to stimulate the synapses of my student’s cerebral dendrites, I allocate few minutes asking them to write short answers to various questions on issues involving society, economy, politics, religion, law, logic, etc. Once I asked the following hypothetical question:

Albert, a lone businessman, worked hard and accumulated a wealth equaling to 10 million dollars. Before his death, he asked his attorney to draft his will. In his will he left all his inheritance, including his mansion, to his three-year-old dog. All his wealth to be used to hire a full time veterinarian, a cook, and a nurse for the dog and provide for her a luxurious life until her death. In the same town in which Albert worked, lived and died, there is a poor neighborhood. It is reported that many children in that neighborhood suffer from malnutrition and do not have proper health care or shelter. Some people asked the governor to declare this will void and distribute the proceedings to the welfare of the poor children. Assuming that the governor has legal right to void certain wills, what do you think the proper way of dealing with the issue? Should the governor order the will void and distribute the wealth of the deceased to the poor children or should she order the will be implemented accordingly?

The great majority of my students argued that the will should be deemed valid and the inheritance of millions of dollars be spent on the dog. “It was his money and should be spent according to his will,” was their common argument. Respecting someone’s will indeed is a sign of appreciation of freedom and choice. But to what extend? How did the businessman make his money? Why was he justified to make millions from the production of his employees who worked for little more than minimum wage? Whether he could accumulate his wealth without the hard work of his employees and without the customers residing in the town? Whether he owed to society the duty not to waste his wealth? Most of the students never even thought of these questions. Interestingly, they all belonged to middle and low-income families! They justified spending 10 million dollars on a dog, rather than spending it to save scores of children from hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, and arguably from becoming potential criminals.

The Land of Liberty, the Republic of Choice, ironically is among the top countries in the world that has a system that deprives many of its citizens from enjoying liberties, opportunities and the pursuit of happiness! The US accounts for 25% of all prisoners in the world although its population is only 5% of the world. In year 2000, the number of inmates in jails and prisons exceeded 2 Million, that is, 2,000,000! Almost one quarter of this number are for drug offences. Considering their relatives and those who had already passed through the prison system, we can safely say that prison bars and guards are intimate objects and faces for minimum 20 million of Americans. Tons of “rotten apples!” No wonder, the booming prison population has turned prison to a lucrative industry in America, attracting capitalist entrepreneurs; they are going to store and squeeze rotten apples to make more profit!

African Americans, according to the 2000 census, with 35 plus million, make up 13% of the population. However, African Americans constitute more than half of the total prison population. In 1997, 3.3% of all black males (or 8.6% of black males between ages 25-29) were in prison, compared to 0.5% of white male. This means that statistically an African American male has about 7 times more chance (!) of ending up in prison in any given year. The risk of a black male born in 1997 ending up in prison once in his lifetime is 28.5%, and of a black female is 3.6%. This risk for Mexican Americans is %16 for male and 15% for female, and for the rest of the white population is 4.4% and 0.59% respectively. In 1999, nearly 1.5 million kids had at least one parent in state or federal prison and millions more saw parents sent off to local jails.

Though 70% of prison population is from racial minorities and the correlation between race and crime is obvious, yet it is deceptive; the real and meaningful correlation is between poverty and crime. The connection between a particular group and poverty is mostly either due to having inherited the disadvantages of exploitation and discrimination of the past (as usually is the case for African Americans), or is due to not having inherited wealth and connection through ancestors (as usually is the case for the first generation of immigrants). As the poor and drunkard father of the beautiful girl in the classic movie My Fair Lady put it, many Americans “cannot afford” to abide by moral or legal rules of the society. Most are doomed from birth to live a life of poverty, which usually hurl them into the assembly lines of crime leading to prison wards. It can be argued that Americans are not born equally free to choose freedom.

Though American legal system could not resist the pressure of the civil rights movement and considered race as a suspect class deserving strict scrutiny in respect of equal protection, so far it managed to ignore one of the most important factors that determines one’s chance of being a free man or an inmate: poverty.

In 1996, the cost of keeping an inmate behind bars was 54.25 dollar per day. In 1997 alone, state prison system drained 29 billion dollars from the budget. Together with federal prisons, the cost reaches to 40 billion dollars a year! In other words, each inmate costs the society more than 20,000 dollars a year, which is close to the average per capita personal income in 1997 ($25,288) and more than the average per capita personal income in Mississippi, West Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas, or Montana. This number does not include the enormous economic, social and emotional cost of crimes, attorney fees and court expenses.

Who are these Americans that generation after generation are frequent residents or visitors of prisons? Where and how do they live? What are their common traits? How are they represented in legal and political landscape? How many lobbyists peddle their interest in Washington? How many of them vote? How long the “either communism or capitalism; communism is dead, therefore, long live capitalism” slogan will keep the middle class justifying the disturbingly increasing and crystallizing gap between upper and lower classes? How far will the “tough on crime” Americans justify sending millions of underclass population behind bars? How can prisons deter those who have little to lose? How can prisons rehabilitate without equipping the inmates with education and skills necessary for employment, and without employers hiring them? How can prisons isolate criminals while the wheels of class system continuously churns out criminals from the same neighborhoods? How can prisons provide justice while prisoners themselves are the victims of an unfair economic and political system? How can prisons satisfy those who seek vengeance while the vengeance of criminals passes from generation to generation? When will politicians start talking about the rights and dreams of the underclass, the American pariah? What is the chance of witnessing a social and economic rights movement akin to 1960’s civil rights movement in the next two decades?

We Americans, I believe, are suffering from what is called the boiled frog syndrome. A frog put in hot water will jump out and save its life. However, a frog put in lukewarm water will boil to death if the temperature of the water were increased gradually. Frogs do not detect and react to gradual, yet fatal changes. Nations, especially in times when they are intoxicated with their success, become complacent and arrogant, unable to react to gradual but fatal changes in the fabric of their society.

The American legal system needs a radical reform that might even prompt the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. If the American legislators do not lead such a reformation, the impoverished underclass may soon find its voice to revolt against the so-called “free market” that bestows the select 1% of the population with 40% of wealth and endless choices, while dooms the bottom 20% of the population to poverty and dismal choices between street, crimes and prisons. The underclass uprising will not be only black; it will contain all colors. The moment they realize that they have nothing to lose but their shackles, and learn how to organize to free themselves, it might be too late to put the jinni back in the bottle.

The next American Revolution, the economic rights and justice movement will not be the reincarnation of bankrupt Marxist ideology, since its extreme ideals created big bureaucracies, authoritarian regimes, prisons, corruption, disappointment, and destruction. The era of black and white television has long past, and there are promising alternatives to capitalism and communism: myriad flavors of social democracies.

The underclass will one day realize its own ignorance and political apathy as the main source of its misery, and will reject the clandestine and hypnotizing capitalistic propaganda omnipresent in every aspect of American life, including, Supreme Court opinions, legislation, TV shows, lotteries, commercials, the agenda of political parties, and most surprisingly Christian churches, since the Gospels advocates social welfare rather than wild capitalism. They will no longer accept the cycle of poverty, misery, prisons and the self-righteous condemnation of the rich that the underclass is criminals and rubbish of the society. They will see that they have lost their freedom, and occasionally their lives, generation by generation, to a legalized class warfare conducted and justified under the guise of sanctified terms such as “free market” and “competition.” A competition that the inheritors of wealth, fame and power start miles ahead of the unprivileged in a track legally and cleverly designed by their affluent ancestors, and continuously modified in their favor through lobbies and money-dependant elections, which allows the privileged, few take the most.  Here is one of the thousands examples:

“… Say you overdraw your account by $80 (which Strunt says is about average for an overdrawn check) and you pay a $30 fee … Then you cover the shortfall in a week, the grace period the banks generally give you. To you, it is 30 bucks. To the bank, it’s an annualized 1,955 percent on the $30 it fronted you. That’s right, 1,955 percent. (The math: the $30 fee is 37.5 percent of the $80 overdraft. You use the money for seven days, a daily rate of 5.357 percent. Multiply that by 365).

This rate makes even ‘payday’ loans, which many people consider predatory, look cheap . . . How come you’ve never seen numbers like 1,955 percent on any documents your ‘free checking’ account bank sends you? Because banks have good lawyers and good lobbyists.” (Allan Sloan, Newsweek, November 18, 2002).

The middle class will one day question its position as life long gamblers, bystanders of unreasonable greed and exploitation of the few in hopes of one day ascending to their ranks. The middle class will see in its best interest to end the legalized and camouflaged modern slavery. We will realize that though there will always be irreducible minimum number of criminals who are perhaps genetically inclined to commit crimes, yet many of those who are condemned to prisons, together with their children, can be rehabilitated and transformed into productive citizens. We will learn that we cannot continue increasing penalties and prison population without seriously dealing with the causes of crime. We will discover that social and economic justice and individual freedoms are not mutually exclusive values.

 

Share

Paradoxes of Anarchism

Share

Paradoxes of Anarchism

© Edip Yuksel, 2004

www.yuksel.org

 

Like a cleverly mutated potent virus, anarchism is challenging the immune system of every human organization and institution such as bureaucracies, governments, democracies, capitalism, socialism, corporations, religions, clubs, cults, orders, and even family structure. By putting the individual’s presumptive freedom in the center of universe, by declaring jihad against all forms of authorities and hierarchies, anarchism is providing a new utopia for those who have been disillusioned by capitalism and its alternative socialism.

Capitalism did not deliver happiness and freedom for majority of its subjects; rather it gave birth to a modern slavery and neo-colonialism as by-product of its greedy, exploitive and alienating class system. Capitalism corrupted the democracy so the so-called democratic governments were transformed to the “governments of corporations by corporations and for corporations.” Using both the power of big government and big media, big corporations established their hegemony in every facet of people’s lives; dictating them everything big or small, such as what to eat, what to wear, what to drive, what to watch, what and how to think, and who to vote… People had two choice; either big government or big corporations; which were ultimately the same. Millions of people who were doomed to work long hours found themselves in deep debt to banks and big corporations; they would work their tails off just to keep their chin above water. One of the collateral damages of this neo slavery was family and children, and interestingly, those who would roll the words “family values” more frequently on their tongues were the real destroyers of that institution. The fear of losing their jobs and credits, and the fear of falling to the hellish ranks of underclass, a class that is not only let to rot in slums and prisons but almost utterly ignored by the propaganda machine, yes this fear prevented the middle class from even contemplating an alternative system besides the official white and black ones. With the hope of one day joining the ranks of the few fat cats, they became ardent defenders of those cats; lazy and skinny mice deserved to be eaten by heard working cats. They just needed to get little fatter in the middle and serve fat cats better, thereby avoid being eaten by these deserving cats who somehow had developed appetite for skinnier mice. Complaining about the tragedy of sacrificial mice and the fears of middle class mice was an act of waging class warfare and it was a very bad idea. Politicized churches and their priests repeated their historical pattern and they too joined the chorus of praising fat cats and their economic system; they were the class who would enter the paradise first. Once a while, the propaganda machine would celebrate the mutation of a middle-class mouse into a fat cat. He or she was a hard-working mouse and deserved to join the upper class. This would suffice to rekindle the hopes of millions of other mice and strengthen their faith that the system was indeed rewarding the hard-working people.

Communism and its preparatory station socialism too did not deliver the promised paradise on earth in which people would get according to their needs and would give according to their capacities. The proletariat, according to the masters, had nothing to lose except its shackles, but under the socialistic systems they were shackled to factories and on top of that they lost their freedom for the sake of fulfilling the promised utopia. The dictatorship of proletariat had to be established by the communist party and bureaucracy. The party soon became a class controlling not only the politics but also economy and military. The communist oligarchy soon became corrupt, and it oppressed and occasionally massacred working people in the name of working people. Glorification of work and production was meant forced labor as a sacrificial ritual for new gods called ideology and communist party.

Competition between these two diabolic systems ended up with the victory of capitalism; albeit not forever. Capitalists needed an evil distraction to continue their exploitation of masses. So, after the demise of communism, or more accurately socialism, they found it with the attack of 9/11. The new evil was terrorism, or more specifically radical Islam. This new enemy would buy decades of distraction and schemes for the ruling class. It would also justify their hegemony and implementation of imperialistic ambitions. They had used drug prohibition to meddle with the domestic affairs of banana republics of South America. They had used Israel to keep the oil-rich states run by puppet kings and sheiks under control. Now, terrorism could accelerate and ease the fulfillment of their dream of exploiting the resources of third world countries. The better news, they could easily exaggerate the power of this new nemesis or even create its characters and effects via sophisticated propaganda and clandestine plots.

All of these events led many independent thinkers to search for another tool to fight against capitalism and its global ambitions. They discovered themselves. Even sensitive and averse to a particular definition, anarchism adheres to the ideology of rejecting absoluteness of ideologies, taboos, or dogmas, and considers its fuzzy ideology perpetually open to revisions and mutations; an anarchist is not supposed to be ashamed or reluctant of discarding or betraying a falsified position. It has no allegiance to flags, rules, moral laws, gods, temples, teachings, comrades, or leaders; reminiscent of “everything changes except change itself” it has no allegiance except allegiance to freely and unpredictably destroying allegiances… Inconsistency is a merit for an anarchist, not a weakness.

There is something attractive in this highly liberating paradigm. I see the color of anarchism not black but neon orange! I like the rebellious youth in anarchism, its courage to challenge established traditions, laws, and cultures; its determination to choose for self and take responsibility for own actions. It reminds me the proverb “whatever I like the most is either illegal, or immoral, or fattening!”

I have not read academic books or journal articles on anarchism; I am expressing the following points as my reaction to one and a half popular books, and two and a half articles I have read on the subject. If I am wrong, I will act like an anarchist considering consistency between the past, present and future not a value; and thus I will correct my misconceptions immediately. What was I saying? Yes, though an anarchist resembles the clever brother-in-law of hedonism who seeks prestige by expressing his selfishness in political terms, or resembles the aunt of stoicism who lost her mind, yes despite these similarities I have sympathy for anarchism; perhaps mostly because its emphasis on individual freedom. After age thirty, I left everything behind Atlantic to gain my freedom in a new land; freedom is as precious as air for me.

However:

Anarchism contains philosophical paradoxes. For instance, reflect on the following hypothetical discussion:

A ― I am a monotheist anarchist who has devoted his religion to God alone.

B ― Believers in one God or multiple gods cannot be anarchists.

A ― Why?

B ― You cannot be an anarchist. Period. Because, according to this expert or that master, according to this book or that constitution anarchism is defined as such and such!

A ― Are you trying to dictate me your own ideology by telling me what anarchism is and is not? Do you want to establish authority on me in the name of anarchism?

B ― You are not an anarchist, because I say so!

A ― Ditto! And bye-bye!

Now who is an anarchist? A, B, or Both? Let’s continue this discussion with another round:

A ― My God has many attributes one of his attributes is the Truth. I accept the Truth and all truth with my own mind and free choice.

B ―There cannot be “the truth” or “absolute” truth. Everything is relative. Today’s “truth” may not be “true” tomorrow.

A ― Is your statement “there cannot be absolute truth” is the only absolute truth?

Furthermore:

There are practical paradoxes regarding attaining the goals of anarchism, whatever they may be. For instance, anarchists will not be able to obtain a substantial victory against the well-organized governments and multinational corporations just because they cannot mobilize against them as a well-organized movement. When they attempt to organize they will reach to anarchism inversely proportional to their victory. In other words, the more they fight against authorities in organized fashion the more they will betray their dream. In the end, either they will organize in a hierarchical structure and get alienated from themselves or they will annihilate themselves by continuously dividing into atoms and subatomic particles through chaos and fission.

Even more:

Can the anarchists establish and run an internet forum reflecting their ideals?  Why anarchist forums have nice ADMINISTRATORS who blow ash in the fireplace of anarchism (a Turkish proverb!)? What if all those like me who got loose from their shackles and cages visit an anarchist forum, and what if some of those anarchists happen to be idiots? What if the idiot anarchists post child pornography or volumes of their life stories; in short, what if they turn the forum to a circus or Dingo’s Corral? Could in such situation an anarchist ask “Where is the authority? Where is the apartment manager?” Would it be against the tenets of anarchism if some cry out, or whisper, think, or at least fancy such demand for intervention? Would the decision of the most senior or veteran anarchist or the tyranny of majority be the ultimate authority regarding the etiquette and rules of using a common forum?

Is there a black or orange anarchist out there who would slay these paradoxes?

 

Share

Are Human Rights A Western Concept?

Share

Are Human Rights A Western Concept? 

Edip Yuksel, J.D.

© 1998, yuksel.org

“Does another culture also have the notion of Human Rights? –assuming that such a notion is absolutely indispensable to guarantee human dignity. No question is neutral, for every question conditions its possible answers. . . Human rights may turn out to be a Trojan horse, surreptitiously introduced to other civilizations. . . Can democracy imposed and remain democratic?” (Pannikar, Is the Notion of Human Rights A Wastern Concept, International Human Rights In Context, edited by Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston, Clarendon Presss, 1996, p. 202, 206, 207)

“In order to protect the world, for the sake of the protection of this universe, says Manu, He, Svayambhu, the Self-existent, arranged the castes and their duties. Dharma is the order of the entire reality, that which keeps the world together. . . Both systems (the Western and the Hindu) make sense from and within a given and accepted myth.” (Pannikar, Ibid, p. 207, 208)

Above are two sets of excerpts from Pannikar, a Hindu-Christian theologian. Though belonging to the same author, the first excerpt impressed me with its brilliance and the second disappointed me with its fallacy.

Western system is not based on myth like Hindu system as Pannikar claims. Pannikar conveniently confuses Hindu mythology with reason. The democratic and free system that falsely attributed to the Western civilization is generally based on reason and empirical evidence driven from our experience throughout human history. Ironically, Pannikar uses “reason,” though in a clumsy way, to banish and blemish the very reason he is using. He is not aware that he is using reason, the universal operative system program common among humans and dominant in the universe, to reduce it to the level of mythologies. In other words, he is not using mythology to equate reason to mythology.

Those who do not subscribe or inherit the Hindu religion will not seriously consider the divine nature of “dharma” or cast system. Who is Manu or Svayambhu? Where are they? How can you prove that the cast system is a divine order? Why should I believe your mythology and condemn myself or others to permanent subjugation and exploitation by those who promote self-serving stories? Why should I respect any mythology that, for instance, considers all other races Satanic and advocates their extinction? Why? The troublesome question “why” is the engine behind human rights. As long as relativists ask this question they will be doomed to use universal language of reason, and reason cannot accept to be equally treated with local mythologies. Whenever they try to defend relativism people of reason will be asking the question “WHY should we tolerate to the ‘abnormality’ of certain cultures?”

How can we say that the religious mythologies are in the same category with reason and experience? How can I evaluate the practice of “cast” system in the same category with opposing to “child sacrifice” or “infant’s starvation” or “the rape of abducted women” or “torture of another human” or “genocide?”

Mythologies advocating cast system has no claim of being rational, since it appeals to faith, perhaps a blind one. But a system opposing to torture, child sacrifice, and genocide etc., has universal appeal. It appeals to our reasoning and self-interest of all humans. It is supported by painful experiences from history that destroyed both parties: the torturers and the tortured ones. In order to accept that torture or racism is bad you do not need to become Hindu or Muslim or Atheist or Western, or Eastern. Your own reasoning will make you know this fact. There are many people from all religions, regions and cultures who have no problem with accepting the goals of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its appeal, in general, transcends cultures and religions. However, if you are not a Hindu, it is very unlikely that you would promote a “cast” system.

Sure, the so-called western concept of human rights is not entirely based on reason and experience. There is a tendency to inflate and exaggerate individual rights. For instance, an Alabama court, citing Roe v. Wade ruled that  a man had a constitutional right to sexual devices made of rubber. A law suit filed in Massachusetts demanded the right to have one’s breasts touched by strangers. The chairman of Sierra Club articulated the fundamental rights of trees and rocks to their own freedom. A convict claimed a constitutional and religious right to rape his wife at any time. Some feminists fought for women’s right to use men’s restroom. Some rejected authors claimed the right to get published for every writer. You can add to these “negotiated” rights many others, such as, prisoner’s right to procreate before being executed, the rights of gays to be affirmed by government, the right to commit perjury, the fundamental right to a Ph.D., or other long-term schooling, the fundamental right to proportional representation on television, etc. (see John Leo’s hilarious article titled “A man’s got a right to rights” in U.S. News & World Report, August 4, 1997, p. 15).

The inflation in demanding and creating new rights, I believe, is a temporary byproduct of a transitional period. Those rights that are plagued with inconsistency or contradiction which is not an attribute of “reason” and “sound empirical investigation” will not be accepted by free societies. Even if they are accepted because of distortion in the democratic process they will most likely not survive. For instance, US promotes equal rights, including right to marry for homosexuals while denying similar rights to those who want to practice polygamy. Those who are trying to impose gay rights as an extension of human rights are deaf and blind to the rights of those who are condemned because they are adults committing incest. Would they acknowledge and promote similar rights for beastealists? What if I want to marry with my loyal cat? Would they defend my rights to marry my animal friend?

While the US condemns female circumcision, it facilitates male circumcision. While the US condemns infanticide it promotes abortion as another right equal to other fundamental rights. Inconsistency and contradictions, I believe, are caused by the zeal and emotions. With time, I think, reason will prevail. The philosophy that negotiates individual rights with common good under the light of reason and empirical evidence will ultimately provide all citizens of this planet with a sound and universal human rights.

It is the communicated reason and human experience that tumbled the Berlin wall. It is reason and human experience that chained “slavery” to history books. And it is reason and human experience that will push forward reformation in my religion, Islam. Islam, either will become extinct like dinosaurs, or will purify itself from medieval teachings of clergymen. I will not welcome any “relativist” defending the rights of mullahs and clerics to condemn their critics to death by declaring them “apostate”. When life and death is at stake, who cares about relativism or anthropologists? Who gives a damn! When individual freedom and happiness is lost who cares about culture and society? Who cares about a society consisting unhappy individuals? Sure, only those who enjoy oppressing and exploiting in the name of culture.

It is very simple. Let individuals freely participate in shaping their government and legislation. With time, a healthy balance will be discovered between individual freedoms and social norms and constraints. Let Iranian woman (not male clergy) freely express their mind and chose their government. If they chose to live in sacks it is their choice. Sure, you can always criticize them or others, but you cannot enforce “your rights” on them if they have accepted different rights with their free will. As it turns out, the source of human rights is freedom of expression and open society. The rest is just a matter of time and space, in other words reason and experience.

 

Share

Universalits vs Universalism

Share

Universalists versus Universalism

Edip Yuksel, J.D.
www.19.org
1998

“Ironically, cultural relativists have accused feminist human rights activists of imposing Western standards on non-Western cultures in much the same way that feminists have criticized states for imposing male-defined norms on women.”(1)

Universalists rely heavily on human reason to solve the disagreements over human rights. According to Universalits, “Disagreements over human rights are errors in reason, logical mistakes which can be resolved through better thinking.”(2) Universalists accuse Cultural Relativists of using culture to justify the continued subjugation of women.(3)

Universalists or global feminists are blamed by Relativists to be Western imperialists who are trying to impose their values or cultures on the rest of the world. Relativists are accused of being nihilists who might justify every moral corruption and oppression. The different diagnosis and remedy proposed by Western feminists and the feminists of the Third World countries is an ongoing controversy. While the feminists of the Third World countries accuse the “global feminism” movement of lacking a deep understanding of women’s issues in non-western countries, Western feminists dismiss their arguments as falsely conscious.(4)   Non-Western women criticize Western feminists for their portraying women from other cultures “as perpetual victims and project their protection as a signifier for establishing a good society.”(5)   A non-Western feminist, Nawal el Saadawi deplores how Western feminists “see only clitoridectomy, but never notice the economic exploitation by multinational corporations and the like.”(6)

As a person who is familiar with the philosophical discourse and has developed a fair sense of smelling contradictions and logical fallacies, I think that relativism is a lousy idea doomed to commit suicide. As for the competing theory, universalism, it is either destined to become a tool of cultural imperialism or destined to accept a healthy dose of pragmatism seasoned with some relativism.

Relativism is inconsistent, since it cannot reject universalism without contradicting its premises (I abstain from saying principles, since the only principle in a really relativist world is the principle of not having principles). Accusing universalistic approach to women’s rights as dominating or being another form of Western Imperialism contradicts relativism, since the imperialistic character of universalism can be considered an element of Western culture. How can relativism reject or accuse one culture against other? Who can say that the cultures which are locally aggressive should have better chance to survive than the cultures who are universally aggressive, since defining the boundaries for aggression in a moral world is also cultural. The moment when relativists start using reason to disqualify universalist feminism they betray their core premises. In fact, any attempt to rationalize radical relativism will run into self-negation.

Similarly, Universalists cannot prescribe comprehensive uniform norms for all human societies as long as reason is their guide. Reason based on human experience dictates that some norms are strictly relative to the geography, condition, life-style, culture, history, technological advancement, time, mood, and population of societies. Some norms, on the other hand, are universal, that is they are strictly determined by the interaction between human bodies sharing similar biological make-up and the societies with the inherent imperatives. For instance, stealing or cheating is a universal crime regardless of the characteristics of a society.(7)  Based on wide spread disagreement among reasonable people regarding some of the individual rights and lack of conclusive empirical evidence on certain controversial issues,(8)  we can reasonably conclude that human reasoning has shortcomings in predicting or prescribing absolute universal norms in every category. However, we can expect universal norms emerge from free societies. In the era of satellites and affordable global communications, such as Internet, in the era of international trade, we will witness more universal norms emerging than ever.

I agree with professor Amede Obiora who pragmatically merges these two theories by “balancing the benefits of both universalism and relativism,”(9)  The only sound and pragmatic approach to human rights in general, and women rights in particular, is possible only by “conflation of boundaries”(10)  or amalgamation of reason and cultural paradigms that gives birth to culturally sensitive reason. The culturally sensitive reason might mandate changes only in the tone, the attitude, the tools, the language or the dose of universalist feminist movement. Universalits might inflict little compromise to the content of their cause by just considering the practical realities, such as the power and role of cultures and religions in other societies, and the propaganda machine of the oppressive states. Universalists can improve women’s condition by helping them in building open societies. I will discuss this later in the paper.

Professor Micere Githae Mugo, after listing at least eight reason why she is totally opposed to the practice of female circumcision, complains from the double-standard of Western intellectuals:

“Indeed, until Nawal El Saadawi pointed out that practices such as breast implantation, skin lifts, nose reconstructions, self-imposed bulimia, anorexia, and other forms of so-called women beautification rituals in the West were tantamount to body abuse, nobody described them as “mutilations.” . . . Without a doubt, one clearly heeds Obiora’s point that dominating cultures appoint themselves as the barometers of morality and ethical standards while simultaneously double-dealing.” (11)

The Western version of mutilations listed above are not comparable to female circumcision that is inflicted on children. Nevertheless, the list can be interpreted to be the problems of Western women suffering under the pressure of male-dominant and commodifying Western culture. Besides, the counter-part of female circumcision, male circumcision, is tolerated and is commonly practiced in Western countries. The silence of feminist movement against the “problems” of their own world creates cynicism and provides justification for the defense of oppressive regimes who claim that human rights issues are raised for political purposes.

The reaction of many Muslim women (read religious women) to the Western feminists, their self-appointed rescuers, is negative. For instance, a Muslim women finds Western women more in need of protection. Jamela Jafri, a Muslim women residing in New York, provides some examples or consequences of commodification of women in western world: “Unlike women in the United States, we are not measured by how short our skirts are or how we look. Eating disorders, liposuction, breast implants and cosmetics are not multi-million dollar businesses in the Muslim community. Just because Muslim women cover our hair doesn’t mean we cover our brains.”(12)   Iranian women who do not lose their lost names when they officially lose their virginity, might feel pity for Western women by claiming that they lose their identity when they get married.(13)

The political and cultural stains on the so-called Universalists become more visible in the case of the on-going turban (head-scarf) controversy in Turkey. The bizarre oligarchic-democratic-militarist regime of Turkey, fifteen years or so ago, started an official campaign supported by state-controlled media against women’s turban.(14)  Government banned students from wearing the traditional and religious turban in high schools and universities.(15)   Many religious families were forced not to send their daughters to schools. Unfortunately, this oppression was not condemned by Western feminists and their affiliates in Turkey.

Elizabeth Messud provides a list of the types of women’s rights violations cited frequently:

1. Rape by state representatives or private individuals;
2. Domestic violence;
3. Forced prostitution and trafficking in women;
4. Sexual surgery and female circumcision;
5. Denial of reproductive rights;
6. Dowry deaths;
7. Denial of equal rights to participate in political life;
8. Harassment of politically active women;
9. Denial of inheritance and property rights;
10. Discriminatory provisions in nationality law;
11. Unequal access to health care and unequal enjoyment of the right to life and to adequate food;
12. Discrimination against women refugees;
13. Denial of access to land and economic opportunities.(16)

The first six violations are directly involves woman’s body and the rest, though not inherently gender specific, traditionally are committed mostly against women.(17)   There are other types of discrimination against women which are not cited above, such as right to education and employment.(18)  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, Article 2) prohibits discrimination in respect of human rights on various grounds, including sex. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and more specifically the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) prohibits discrimination based on sex.(19)

Most of the rights violations listed above and expressed in CEDAW have universal appeal. A paper authored by a group of scholars headed by professors An-Naim and Mayer asserts the same fact:

“Moreover, human rights set aspirational norms, and no persuasive case has been made to show that universal human rights conceived as a goal is either illegitimate or unattainable. Furthermore, recognition of a possible tension between universality and relativism with regard to certain contestable human rights norms must not overlook the fact that many other human rights norms are regarded as universal and incontestable by the world’s moral-cultural traditions. . . . The tension, then, poses a practical problem, but it does not imply moral bankruptcy.” (20)

In the same paper, the authors draw our attention to an important aspect of the debate between universalists and relativists: the speakers and their perspective. They list three categories of perspectives speakers:

“(i) state actors, (ii) NGO’s, religious representatives, individual actors, (iii) the oppressed, both individually and collectively. The last category often will be comprised of women. For each of these perspectives we need to ask critical questions about the speaker’s position (e.g., powerful or powerless?), representation (e.g., on whose behalf?), motives (e.g., moral concern or self-interest), language and collateral behavior (e.g., are actions consonant with discourse?), etc.” (21)

The authors are highly skeptical of states that justify human rights violations on the grounds of cultural relativism because of their self-interested political motives, the existence of diverse cultures in their societies, and their undemocratic character depriving them from legitimacy of making such moral claims.

“State invocations of ‘culture’ and ‘cultural relativism’ seem to be little more than cynical pretexts for rationalizing human rights abuses that particular states would in any case commit. If cultural pretexts for their violations of international human rights were not available, states now invoking cultural defenses would probably emulate China in appealing to the principle of national sovereignty. . .” (22)

The authors find the positions taken by NGOs and individuals as genuine and worthy of consideration, since their motives are more decent than that of state actors.(23)

I  agree with this point and suggest that the defense of state actors based on “cultural relativism” should not be considered at all unless they raise an argument based on national autonomy. Then, the “sovereignty” defense should be weighed in proportion of the quality of their democracy. Unfortunately, more than 30 states, such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Mauritius, and Jamaica(24)  made significant reservations to ratification of CEDAW.(25)  So, how can these states be held liable for violations of the women’s rights protected by CEDAW? Perhaps we should just hope and pray that they will cancel their reservations and expect them to abide by the articles they have accepted.

We should rely less on the promises and actions of both totalitarian states and the so-called free states. The states who champion human rights around the world are usually double-dealing and using human rights issues as pretext for their political agendas, which in turn provides justification and propaganda for the violators. United States of America, the cradle of freedom and human rights, donates weapons to oppressive and racist Turkish government who is committing atrocities against the minority of Kurdish populations. The U.S, while waving the flag of human rights, had supplied Iraq with all kinds of ammunition, including chemical and biological technology during the war carried out against Iran in 1980-1989. The same US supported the Shah Reza Pahlawi, Ferdinand Marcos, and many other dictators in the past. The oppressive regimes of China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan receive financial and political support from the US.

So, what should we do? I believe that the engine of human rights movement is NGOs and individuals. They are the ones who will force states to respect human rights. The NGO and individual human right activists should focus on individuals and NGOs of oppressive and discriminating countries. To create healthy communication and alliance, they should try to understand the existing and potential problems in building such a bridge.

As a former fundamentalist Muslim political activist who also fought for the rights of Muslim women against an oppressive and secular (read atheistic) government,(26)  I think that majority of traditional Muslims will have no problem accepting the rights articulated by the UDHR, CCPR and CEDAW. They will unanimously condemn all the 13 violations that we listed in previous pages. The only exception might be the female circumcision which is an unknown practice by the majority of Muslim Communities outside Africa. Muslim women might defend the unequal distribution of inheritance among male and female inheritors, but they will condemn total denial of this right. So, why have Muslim women, including conservative Western women developed an allergy against feminist movements? Why do the very group who are considered to be the victims of male dominant societies not welcome their self-appointed rescuers? It is not generally the content of what they are promoting; it is the attitude, the symbolism, the tone, the double-standard of Western feminists.

Muslim women see Western feminist ideas too costly for family structure and too disruptive of social fabric. The high rate of divorce, children with single parents, custody battles, working mothers depriving their children of motherly care and compassion by leaving them to the mercy of assembly line day care facilities, teen crimes, sexual promiscuity, teenage pregnancies, abortion, rise of sexually transmitted diseases, commodification of women, lucrative porno industry, cosmetic surgeries, obsession with smoother skin and thinner bodies, etc., are considered as by-product of feminist movement.(27)  Universalist Feminists might not see some of these as problems at all. Besides, they might not even correlate any of these problems with their movement. However, they have done little to change the perception of Western feminists in the rest of the world.

Muslim women prefer a more peaceful approach in eradicating the violations against their rights. When the violator is the government, they do not frame the problem as women versus men, but as individual/community versus government.

In case of horizontal violations of their rights, such as rape and domestic violence, they prefer to solve the problem case by case within the limits of their family or community. They do not perceive those crimes as systematic male aggression, but as anecdotal crimes committed by individuals. They balance the value of their privacy, relationship and the cost of violations. Even the religious justification for wife-battering is not accepted by majority of religious women; they counter with some traditions or narrations from Prophet Muhammad and unconventional interpretations to counter that justification.(28)

Western feminists might blame the economic dependence upon men or poor education as the main factor in Muslim women’s non-aggressive or non-assertive attitude. For instance, Kristen Miller, a proponent of the late Reza Shah’s Westernization programs, interpreted the failure of Western standards in Iran by pointing at deficiencies in Iranian women: “In fact, many women themselves did not buy into the Shah’s Westernization attempts because the women were poorly educated, economically dependent on men, and deeply religious.”(29)   This is a very troubling perspective, since it does not question the utility or the merit of the so-called Westernization. What the use of Westernization if it does not address the very problem that Miller complains about? If Westernization (whatever it means) did not attempt to educate women, to empower them economically, and save them from superstitions, then, that Westernization deserves failure.

I do not deny that economic dependence, poor education and religious convictions play great role in determining the reaction of non-Western women to the ideas parading from the West. I believe that they are primary factors combined with the clumsy deliverance of the Universalists message in culturally foreign language. Universalits should consider all variables and should chose the best method to achieve the goal of improving human rights of women.

I suggest the following modifications in the attitude, language/medium, argument/platform, and emphasis for the Universalist movement:

Attitude: The movement should not be framed as an anti-male movement; but an anti-discrimination movement. This will target the same problems and issues while helping women to find many male supporters in their struggle for dignity and justice. Universalists should respect cultural differences if they do not handicap women, such as covering the hair with turban or other symbolic rituals. Pruning the hotly controversial issues that have little relevancy from their rhetoric will help the cause. I agree with professor Obiora’s diagnosis that:

“There are several problems with mainstream Western feminism’s narrow focus on gender oppression. One problem is that it presumes white, middle class women’s reality as the quintessence of women’s reality. This creates a tendency to deny difference where it is conceived as posing a threat to a unified front, even if it means purchasing solidarity with silence and submerging conflictive histories. Another problem is that the reification of gender identity implies that female apologists for ultimately misogynistic measures, women who artfully build their careers on the backs of other women, are more deserving of solidarity than demonstrably empathetic male compatriots who contest patriarchal oppressiveness in all its guises.” (30)

Language/medium: Feminist authors tend to trap their message in the liturgy of the educated elite who have already fought their way up in the hierarchy of their societies. As a feminist professor wrote, “To liberate my own expose from the kind of academic elitism that deliberately uses impenetrable vocabulary, enigmatic philosophizing, and alienating ‘trade’ language to display the writer’s intellectual power over her/his readers, I will speak to my audience in very plain words. Communication between those debating this subject is so urgently required that no barrier should be allowed to stand in the way of this burning conversation.”(31)  The majority of women who are illiterate, who are working with minimum wages, who are homemakers, are excluded from getting this message. The message should be delivered in plain language via different mediums that are accessible by the victims.

Argument/platform: A religious woman who is oppressed by her religious husband and community is not provided with ammunition by legal or philosophical arguments. Even if the oppressed women understand and accept those arguments, her family and community will reject them based on their religious dogmas. They need theological arguments to protect themselves and assert their rights. Those theological arguments are most likely available locally. Human rights organizations should contact and support the native intellectuals who are inviting for reformation in religion. As Elen G. Mountis suggested: “the utilization of existing social institutions and women’s organizations to promote gradual change in countries that would otherwise perceive the introduction of ‘women rights’ as imperialism by Westerners. Change must be from within and cannot occur by way of imposition.”(32)  The same message might be treated differently depending on the source of the message. Oppressive governments and their collaborators can easily attack and demonize ideas with foreign sources by tickling xenophobic and patriotic feelings.

Emphasis: Women rights activists should emphasize the importance of the democratic system. Democracy and its quality should be the number one demand for the rights of women. Democracy is a prerequisite for women rights and women human rights. After the democracy, right to education should be the focus.

Well, discussing these points is a topic for another paper.


(1) Tracy E. Higgins, Anti-Essentialism, Relativism, and Human Rights, 19 Harv. Women’s L. J. 89, 97 (1997).
(2) Ibid, at 95.
(3) Elene G. Mountis, Cultural Relativity & Universalism: Reevaluating Gender Rights in A Multicultural Context, 15 Dick. J. Int’l L. 113, 114 (1996).
(4) L. Amede Obiora, Feminism, Globalization, And Culture After Beijing, 4 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 355, 360-363(1997).
(5) Ibid, 370
(6) Ibid, 371
(7) When I was a political prisoner in Turkey I spent time among numerous groups of inmates. Once I shared a crowded ward with convicted thieves and con artists. I found it interesting when I learned that stealing was harshly punished by inmates. Professional thieves knew that they could not live together in a ward if they steal from each other. The Ten Commandment in the Old Testament is a good example of universal norms.
(8) Do I really need a footnote for this fact? I can cite ALL Supreme Court cases, including all the dissenting views and overruled holdings, especially on substantive due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, and privacy rights issues. Alas, I have no space for the list. But, a bouquet of feminist arguments on pornography can be a good example. See, Pornography: Private Right or Public Menace?, Edited by Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum, Prometheus Books, 1991.
(9) Supra, note 4, at 356
(10) Ibid, 357
(11)  Micere Githae Mugo, Elitist Anti-Circumcision Discourse as Mutilating and Anti-Feminist, 47 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 461, 466 (1997).
(12) The Channel Under the Chador, The New York Times Magazine, May 25, 1997, Letters section.
(13) My wife is an Iranian-American and she proudly preserves her last name. We have two boys who have their mother’s last name as their middle names. If we have another child and it is a girl, I will suggest to give her mother’s name as her last name and my last name as her middle name. This way, sons will carry their father’s last name and daughters will carry their mother’s last name and both will carry the other parent’s last name in their middle names. A friend of mine who learned this arrangement,  jokingly accused me of “screwing the social security system.” My answer was:  “From the name of children we will know who are their parents. This will be appreciated at least by many children who have single parents, and also it will save the divorced women, especially the repeat ones, from changing their last names like changing their phone numbers. Women’s last names should not be their lost names!”
(14) The state wants to abolish the Party which demands more freedom for religious groups. See: Edip Yuksel, Demokrasi/Oligarsi/Teokrasi (Democracy/Oligarchy/Theocracy), Ozan Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1997.
(15) You can find English articles on this controversy in the web site of a Turkish human rights organization, Mazlumder: www.mazlumder.org.. As an author who has written more a dozen books and numerous articles on Islam, I do not believe that women are required to cover their head in Islam. The Quranic verses are misinterpreted and mistranslated by all-male clergymen. For my arguments on this topic see: 19 Questions For Muslim Scholars, The Monotheist International, Tucson, 1996.
(16) Elizabeth Messed, Russian Women and Women’s Rights: A Case Study in Universalist/Cultural Relativist Debate, 12 Conn. J. Int’l L. 77, 94-95, (1996).
(17) For a report by Amnesty International see: Women in the Front Line: Human Rights Violations Against Women, Amnesty International Publications, New York, 1991.
(18) Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, p. 25, 1993.
(19) CEDAW, as of 1987, was ratified by 91 states and signed by many other states.
(20) Universality vs. Relativism in Human Rights, Religion and Human Rights, edited by John Kelsay and Sumner B. Twiss, The Project on Religion and Human Rights, New York, p. 35, 1994.
(21) Ibid, p. 37
(22) Ibid, p. 38
(23) Ibid, p. 39
(24) A report published by Freedom House rates states according to their civil and political liberties on maximum score of 7, the higher the worst. The above mentioned states are rated as follows: Bangladesh 3,  Brazil 3, Egypt 6, Iraq 7, N. Korea 7, Mauritius 1.5, Jamaica 2.5. See: Freedom in the World: the Annual Survey of Political Rights And Civil Liberties, 1996-1997, Freedom House, 1997.
(25) Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context, Clanderon Press, Oxford, pp. 920-924, 1996.
(26) I wrote books and articles for this cause. I participated in political demonstrations and gave lectures protesting the oppressive laws.
(27) A famous Turkish author, my former comrade, Emine Senlikoglu, in her books, articles and lectures accuses feminist movement of imposing Muslims their sick Western life-styles. Bize Nasil Kiydiniz? (How You Sacrificed Us?”, Ülkemi Ariyorum (I am Searching For My Country), Telefonlu Ropurtaj (Telephone Interviews), Aglatan Yollar (Roads Make You Cry), and Islam’da Erkekler (Men In Islam) are some of the interesting books written by a popular Muslim women author. These and similar books are published by Mektup Yayinlari, Yavusselim Cd. No: 62/1, Fatih/Istanbul, Tel: 90 212 521 8380, Fax: 90 212 534  1871.
(28) Ulama and mullahs justify wife-battery  by distorting the meaning of the verse 4:34  of the Quran. My analysis of this “notorious” verse was first published in my Turkish book “Türkçe Kuran Çevirilerindeki Hatalar” (Errors in Turkish Translations of the Quran). The English version of this article can be found on my web site www.moslem.org/yuksel in the folder titled Unorthodox Articles.
(29) Kristin J. Miller, Human Rights of Women in Iran: The Universalist Approach and the Relativist Response, 10 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 779, 782 (1996).
(30) Obiora, supra note 4, at 373.
(31) Micere Githae Mugo, Elitist Anti-Circumcision Discourse as Mutilating and Anti-Feminist, 47 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 461, 462 (1997).  I confess that I chose to write in plain language for another reason: I do not have the rich vocabulary of native speakers;-). So, I complied with the following advice: “When promulgating your esoteric cogitations or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable philosophical and psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your verbal evaporations have lucidity, intelligibility and veracious vivacity without rodomontade or thespian bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous propensity and sophomoric vacuity.”
(32) Mountis, supra note 3, at 115.

Share

Hatemongers and Warmongers are going Crazy!

Share

The Quran a Reformist Translation
Exposes their Lies against the Quran and Muhammad!

I challenged them to a face-to-face debate, but they are busy making up excuses

21 June 2012

 

American warmongers and Islamophobes are attacking Brooke Goldstein for promoting my Quran: a Reformist Translation. They are sending messages to the wrong-wing fascist media.

Below are some of the twitters exchanged by hatemongers, 91 belonging to the hysterically scared and hallucianting Logans, few of them from Robert Spencer and Zuhdi Jasser. Ironically, Zuhdi Jasser, who was cheering for the war agendas of Bush and his cabal, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Perle, yes, this very Zuhdi is now considered too moderate for this rabid warmongers. They are going crazy to see more blood shed in the Middle East, after more than a million were killed and two countries were destroyed. This newly mutated version of warmongers are so resilient and so highly Zionazied, they do not even talk behind the doors regarding subjecting one billion muslims to another Holocaust; they are out there trying to scare Americans idiots and ignorants to accomplish their bloody dream!

(My tweetter and email responses are under the page)
117.     19 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Cybersteve1 @GoldsteinBrooke @missdiagnosis @drzuhdijasser Brooke…that “reform” Koran still calls for dominance. TRY READING next time,.

116.     19 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke “Muhammad, and those who are with him, are severe against the ingrates, but merciful between themselves”,…..some reform

115.     19 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Stephen_Gash @GoldsteinBrooke her reform Koran promotes amputation and killing for spreading “mischief” (fasad). “Mischief” can be anything

114.     19 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @JarradWinter Point out where we said all Muslims are terrorists. They do not have to be violent to slowly takeover. UK.

113.     19 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @JarradWinter Should America end Muslim immigration. Have you ever read a Koran? Did you actually read “reform Koran”?

112.     19 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke She has not learned a thing from the mistakes Europe has made on this issue. She just parrots the Co. line.

110.     19 Jun Jarrad Winter ‏@JarradWinter
@GoldsteinBrooke not all muslims are terrorists – just like not all Nazi’s killed Jews. But there’s no moderate Islam or good Nazism

109.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter Come on Brooke name ONE Mosque condemning Sharia. U should consider writing childrens fairy tales.

108.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter have you read a Koran? You keep ducking that question purveyor of false hope.

107.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter It’s called facing the reality of what Islam is. When does Frank and Jasser show up?

106.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter was Mohammad a Muslim or an Islamist. You duck questions very well. Lol

105.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter did you read “reform” Koran? Simple questions too much for Brooke. Saleswoman of false hope. #waronIslam

104.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter Brooke, FACT is that you have been exposed for being ignorant and living in a dream world. Expect more.

103.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter Brooke’s way is a PROVEN failure. @frankgaffney team, selling a bridge to nowhere. Frank will play Houdini…

102.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter “reform Koran” is full of hatred. Why do u promote it? Lol you make little sense.

101.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter http://sheikyermami.com/2012/06/19/reform-koran-discovered-millions-of-muslims-riot-worldwide-to-get-a-copy/ Word is spreading. When it does not reform, what’s backup plan? Or do u not have one?

100.     20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke Of course. Reformation has begun! West will fall to Islam before a reform takes place.

99.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke Brooke’s reform nonsense will only allow things to get worse. Much worse. Being used as a tool of Islam.

98.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke don’t see any Mosques condemning Sharia. She foolishly pts to individuals. Complete waste of time.

97.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke Your honor, let the record show counselor has failed to answer EVERY question. #livinginadreamworld

96.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@polchristian @erotao #tcot #christian Islam.

95.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Did Islam “reform” yet? #Islam #Muslims #nothappening #Koran

94.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke Here is it Jarrad! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/

93.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter I’m not looking to impose a barbaric set of religious laws on all. Muslims are.

92.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter Using your “logic”, the Allied Forces were as bad as the Nazis.

91.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @MissDiagnosis @DrZuhdiJasser I suggest you actually read it. http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/ Jasser, do you support this “Koran?

90.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Human Rights Lawyer Brooke Goldstein Promotes “Reform Koran”, Book of Slavery, Hatred, and Abuse! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/

89.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @cheshirecat0025 @jarradwinter Lol what ignorance! The Koran is the problem. It is the book of Islam, NOT “Islamism.

88.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @cheshirecat0025 @jarradwinter Look at EU, only a fool would think Islam is reforming.

87.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @cheshirecat0025 @jarradwinter run from the truth. Ignorance and an ego too swollen to admit ur wrong. Just like Pipes.

86.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @cheshirecat0025 @jarradwinter For the record Brooke has not answered ONE question.

85.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@JarradWinter @GoldsteinBrooke lol who “educated” u Brooke. Mohammad said obey him and Allah. He called for dominance.

84.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke @cheshirecat0025 @jarradwinter Islamism is not a sect. It’s Western term made by those afraid to admit truth about Islam.

83.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @chesirecat0025 Same old “out of context” nonsense…..

82.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrook Brooke did you run for help? lol He said a Muslim is not a allowed to own a slave. BLATANT LIE.

81.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @chesirecat0025 CC, edip said Muslims are not allowed to own a slave. lolThe lies have started.

80.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrook Name ONE Mosque in USA that uses your “Koran”. Name one of the major Sunni schools that supports it.

79.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrook What’s wrong Brooke? Cannot back up your claims on your own? Gaffney should put a gag order on you.

78.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Amputation and human rights? Killing for “mischief” and human rights? I don’t think so.

77.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke She appreciates it because she is ignorant and lives in a dream world.

76.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Your childish comment address nothing. You talk nonsense.

75.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Here is a clue….It was addressed to you. Mohammad owned slaves. You are another lying Muslim.

74.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Mohammad owned slaves. http://www.quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx

73.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Point out where I said he literally wrote it. You cannot. Keep lying.

72.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke I have already proven you a liar. No need to waste time traveling. You were easy to expose.

71.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke You can easily show up on my site. So save the excuses.

70.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Once again, I already proved you a liar on my comment section. Anyone can see it.

69.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke The truth is that you are running from your lie now. The truth is that you had online debate with Mr. Spencer.

68.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke You have not exposed a thing. Save the cop out. Translation after translation show you lie http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-112282

67.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Brooke look at all the translations that prove edip a liar. Please wake up. http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-112283

66.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Once again, you can go back to my site. Anyone can see you are running away. Too funny, liar.

65.       20 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke So what Mosque in USA supports your Koran?

63.       21 Jun Tommy Hunt ‏@Brynmr
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke @Stephen_Gash @jarradwinter Brooke is betting our children’s freedom on Islam reform. Foolish and selfish

61.       21 Jun Tommy Hunt ‏@Brynmr
@GoldsteinBrooke @cheshirecat0025 @loganswarning @jarradwinter u r free to embrace harmful fantasies but stop infecting others with them

60.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Brynmr @GoldsteinBrooke she must have run to author of “Reform Koran” for help. He showed up on site & said Muslims cannot own slaves.lol

58.       21 Jun Tommy Hunt ‏@Brynmr
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke @Stephen_Gash @jarradwinter Brooke is the worst kind of dhimmi making a smooth road for Islam expansion

57.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Stephen_Gash @GoldsteinBrooke look on my site. Author of “Reform Koran” showed up. Said Muslims not allowed to own slaves. Lol #liar

56.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@soetorosux Hi Marty!

55.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Human Rights Lawyer Brooke Goldstein Promotes “Reform Koran”, Book of Slavery, Hatred, and Abuse! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/

53.       21 Jun Stephen Gash ‏@Stephen_Gash
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter @Brynmr “Moderate” Muslims are the real enemy. Fill popcorn-munching crowds at stonings.

52.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@soetorosux It might make a good horror movie.

51.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Translator of “Reform Koran” Shows up! LIES Right off the bat! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/21/translator-of-reform-koran-shows-up-lies-right-off-the-bat/

50.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@soetorosux @edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/21/translator-of-reform-koran-shows-up-lies-right-off-the-bat/

49.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Stephen_Gash @GoldsteinBrooke @jarradwinter @Brynmr http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/21/translator-of-reform-koran-shows-up-lies-right-off-the-bat/

48.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/21/translator-of-reform-koran-shows-up-lies-right-off-the-bat/ He proves my… http://fb.me/1Nd48VUAI

47.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
~Islam & Nazism: The Ideologies of Hate~ http://loganswarning.com/2011/03/15/islam-nazism-the-ideologies-of-hate/

46.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@cheshirecat0025 @Brynmr @goldsteinbrooke @jarradwinter http://loganswarning.com/2011/03/15/islam-nazism-the-ideologies-of-hate/

44.       21 Jun Hawkeye ‏@inhuggermugger
Via @LogansWarning Rights Lawyer Brooke Goldstein Backs “Reform” Koran! http://is.gd/WL1Kqk #SIOA #tcot #dprs #Rush #Sharia #Obamunism

42.       21 Jun Nermien Riad ‏@NermienRiad
“All this (persecution of converts) happened under a secular government. So what’s coming after this is going to be 10 times worse.” #Egypt

41.       21 Jun Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldOnion thanks!

40.       23h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@AlanColmes have you ever criticized Obama even once?

39.       23h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@inhuggermugger @OccupiedLands end their immigration or eventually lose. #TrojanHorse

38.       16h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Human Rights Lawyer Brooke Goldstein Promotes “Reform Koran”, Book of Slavery, Hatred, and Abuse! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/

37.       16h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@EMAdair225 @Dreaminloudly @BBCWorld @fatherjonathan @indigenous01 @AnotherUpstart @Unite4Liberty @exposeliberals #FF. Sorry, I’m at a limit

36.       7h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Official_EDL @VixxyLix @VinIenco @BarnabasFund @CConcern @persecutionnews Thanks mate!

35.       5h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Sharia Law (Islamic Law) 101: Non-Muslims Under Sharia http://loganswarning.com/2010/08/26/sharia-law-islamic-law-101-non-muslims-under-sharia/

34.       4h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
Member of US Military in Afghanistan: We Don’t Know Why we are Here! ~ Audio http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/22/member-of-us-military-in-afghanistan-we-dont-know-why-we-are-here-audio/

33.       4h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/22/member-of-us-military-in-afghanistan-we-dont-know-why-we-are-here-audio/ It’s… http://fb.me/sCsggMru

32.       4h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/20/human-rights-lawyer-brooke-goldstein-promotes-reform-koran-book-of-slavery-hatred-and-abuse/ Brooke, look at all the people who proved him a liar. U fail like MASH. Con men!

31.       4h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Still waiting…. Name ONE Mosque that uses your fake Koran. @jarradwinter @Brynmr @Stephen_Gash @Official_EDL

30.       4h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke 94 hits on your website for the month. How many were you professor? You are transforming the Islamic world.LOL!

29.       3h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
YouTube: US Muslim Runs Jihadi Fan Club! http://loganswarning.com/2011/12/09/youtube-us-muslim-runs-jihadi-fan-club-2/

28.       3h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
“Revolution Muslim” Leader Sentenced to Over 11 Years! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/22/revolution-muslim-leader-sentenced-to-over-11-years/

27.       3h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/22/revolution-muslim-leader-sentenced-to-over-11-years/ Take care buddy! http://fb.me/2eifxlykU

26.       3h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke ask Mosab Hassan Yousef, if he thinks Islam will reform. Time to face reality Brooke. @JarradWinter

25.       3h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@GoldsteinBrooke U imply Islam itself is not the problem. The link you posted proves you wrong. Mohammad/Islam is the cause of this mess.

24.       3h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Stephen_Gash @Official_EDL @JarradWinter @Brynmr @edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke good, still Islam is not reforming. End Muslim immigration.

23.       2h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Stephen_Gash @Official_EDL @JarradWinter @Brynmr @edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke edip calls us war mongers for not accepting Islam.

21.       8h Hawkeye ‏@inhuggermugger
Via @LogansWarning Translator of “Reform” Koran Shows up: Lies & Distorts! http://is.gd/hp0QaJ #SIOA #tcot #Rush #dprs #hhrs #LNYHBT

20.       2h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Brooke posted a link stating Mohammad was a warmonger. Does that make her a war monger Edip? @Brynmr

18.       3h Pamela Geller ‏@AFDINational
Free Speech Victory! Muslim gets 12 years for South Park Death threat http://nblo.gs/z5pVx

17.       2h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Bswindle71 Thanks Bobby!

16.       2h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@MuslimaApostate Hi! I am at limit on who I can follow now. Can you please follow me in the meantime?

14.       21 Jun Muslimah Apostate ‏@MuslimaApostate
People ask, what made you change? Simple: Islam affected my personal freedoms and living. It oppressed me as a woman. #ExMuslim #Atheism

12.       14 Jun Muslimah Apostate ‏@MuslimaApostate
Muhammad was allowed to marry more than 4 wives because he was ALWAYS the exception to his own man made rules #ExMuslim

10.       14 Jun Muslimah Apostate ‏@MuslimaApostate
Muhammad was a fraud, no? Or perhaps delusional. Will you behead me for offending your holy man? #ExMuslim #Atheist

9.         2h Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
“Revolution Muslim” Leader Sentenced to Over 11 Years! http://loganswarning.com/2012/06/22/revolution-muslim-leader-sentenced-to-over-11-years/

7.         1h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Please help us stand for freedom against violent intimidation and Hamas-linked CAIR: Who stands for the right of… http://tinyurl.com/7djsoap

6.         17m Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @jihadwatchRS I will debate you on LW or on the radio. Mr. Spencer said he will debate you ABN. Contact director@jihadwatch.com

5.         14m Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke So what? They are lead by Gaffney who has no long term answers, & Jasser who is misleading America.

4.         12m Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Name ONE Mosque that uses your fake Koran. How’s “Muslims Against Sharia” doing? lol

3.         12m Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Was Mohammad the war monger a Muslim or an Islamist? Made up terms like “Islamism” don’t work here.

2.         10m Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@edipyuksel @jihadwatchRS You already LIED about Islam not allowing slavery, and were called on it over and over…..

1.         4m Christopher Logan ‏@LogansWarning
@Brynmr @edipyuksel @GoldsteinBrooke Numerous people have called him on his lie about Islam NOT allowing slavery. He ran from them all.

Edip Yuksel’s Response to the Hysteria of the Warmongers

Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke You’re exposed by escaping from a face-to-face debate. It is more difficult to lie/hide on cross examination

20h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke It took weeks of writing to expose his lies and distortion. I will NOT WRITE the same thing with his copycat

20h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke Demagogues are best exposed through Socratic dialogue. I can fly there with a camcorder. Care about truth?

20h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke Logans I challenged you for a public debate. But, if you have a dirty mission, you will avoid the encounter.

20h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke A big lie…If the Quran was written by Muhammad as you claim then it would approve slavery.

20h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke “Same old ‘out of context’ nonsense.” Logan confessed that he is “old” & talks “nonsense”. See the quote 😉

21h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @chesirecat0025 “Same old ‘out of context’ nonsense.” Logan confessed that he is “old” and “nonsense”. See the quote :))

21h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrooke Logans twitter is not a place to discuss this. I challenge you to a face-to-face debate on this issue.

22h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@GoldsteinBrooke Golstein, I am glad to hear that you appreciate the Quran a Reformist Translation and its importance for peace/human rights

22h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @chesirecat0025 Logan, why do you distort, take out of context, and misrepresent the Reformist Translation of the Quran?

22h Edip Yüksel -Türkçe ‏@edipyuksel
@LogansWarning @GoldsteinBrook Logan, why do you distort, take out of context, and misrepresent the Reformist Translation of the Quran?

 

Edip Yüksel’s Response to Logan on June 20, 2012

I am the translator of the Quran in two languages.

The author of this article has either wrote this article while waiting in line for a hamburger in a MacDonald’s store, or he deliberately took verses out of their context or misrepresented them.

I challenge Logan regarding ALL his claims and distortions against the Quran.

For instance, he quotes a verse where the word SLAVE is mentioned, and HIGHLIGHTS the word, but ignores the few words before than encourages muslims to FREE the slaves.

In fact, according to the Quran a muslim can never have a slave, since claiming to be the lord of slave is the biggest crime, since it is akin to claiming to be the god of another human being.

I am not even sure whether this response will stay here or not, but if the author is honest regarding the truth of the matter I would like to meet him face to face to discuss all his criticism against the Quran.

I will be ready to fly where he lives or if he chooses to come where I live, I will gladly pay for his expenses.

Peace,
Edip Yuksel

 

Edip Yüksel’s Response to Logan on June 21, 2012

I have already discussed this and similar issues with Robert Spencer, Ali Sina, Bill Warner extensively and published the debate in a book, titled Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers. I have published all their argument and counter-arguments to the dot so that people could read and judge for themselves.

Besides, you will find plenty evidence and arguments in the very Reformist Translation, refuting your claims.

You are not doing much different. You are not honest in your criticism of the Quran.

As I told you: I will no more write the same thing for a copycat of Robert Spencer and Ali Sina.

However, for a change, I will be willing to meet you anywhere (except in hell or Las Vegas, or a pig farm:), debate this issue face-to-face. I will pay for my trip and for a professional camera crew so that our debate is recorded.

If you are honest you should jump on this challenge, since you will be able to incriminate me, expose my lies, etc. for millions of people who would prefer to watch a good debate rather than read volumes of literature that employs all sorts of tricks to hide the facts, distort the facts.

There is a great power in Socratic method. It is immediate, precise, concise and laser sharp. It will take me or you to expose a lie or contradiction in minutes and with all its visual drama.

I have also a bonus, an incentive for you. You may invite two more helpers. If Robert Spencer and Ali Sina accepts, that would be fantastic.

So, this will perhaps be my last challenge and invitation and I expect a response by the end of this week via email or twitter.

Warmongers are ultimate losers, and I hope you decide to become a peacemaker. “Accept the truth so that the truth shall set you free!”

Peace,

Edip Yuksel

THREE COMMENTS by ISLAMOPHOBES at:

http://loganswarning.com/2012/03/08/act-to-logans-warning-we-do-not-advocate-ending-muslim-immigration/

Debbie on March 8, 2012 at 4:08 pm

I see. So the Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser and Tarek Fatah who stood in solidarity with the NYPD publicly, who speak out against groups like CAIR constantly, they should be grouped in with Muslim extremists simply because they were born Muslim? Logan, I used to think like you and then I realized that there are actually Muslims not just in the West, but throughout the world, who just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, they are often silenced by their oppressive governments. When Muslims who are willing to take heat from their families and friends by standing up publicly against Islamists and for Democracy, we need to encourage them, not shut them down as liars. CAIR supporters are the fakes and it’s obvious. Zudhi Jasser and Tarek Fatah are legit and they’ve proven it time and time again. If you really wanted to see a policy that prevented certain people from immigrating here – you’re going to have to convince the liberals and your methods will do nothing more than alienate you and those who share your views and you’re actually working against your own goals. That’s pretty foolish and counterproductive.

The only people who will agree with you are those who are right-wing, and many of them are just as guilty, ironically, of pushing their faith down people’s throats too, just not at knifepoint. YouTube videos show exactly what you want them to show. I could show you many that are the opposite. It’s funny, when I debate about Israel with the anti-Israel people, they post YouTube videos as their evidence too. You share something with them, severe limitations in your intellectual capacity.

Erna on March 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Geert Wilder was aquitted after having been questioned as you do Mr. Logan with severe limitations to his intellectual capacity. During his defense adress to the Court, Mr. Wilder repeated time and time again,that he has nothing against assimilating law-abiding Muslims, but Islam. Debbie you make a long-winded defense for Zuhdi Jasser and Tarek Fatah when the real issue is about Islam and Islamisation of the West at present, or should we go back into not distant past and the countries who were lost to murdereous Islam.

Aaron on March 9, 2012 at 3:20 am

Murderous Islam?! More wars have been waged and more bloof spilled in the name of Christendom than Islam! Judaism may have Christianity beat on being a bloody religion, but that is simply because it has been around longer. How easily we forget about the crusades, and killing and stealing of lands from Native Americans partly due to the fact that they resisted converting to Christianity. Don’t forget about the inquisitions, the Salam witch trials, etc.

 

 

Share

Yes, I am a Kurd

Share

Yes, I am a Kurd

Edip Yuksel, J.D.*

7.3 Journal of International Law & Practice 359 (Fall 1998)

 

“The Kurds are homeless even at home and stateless abroad. Their ancient woes are locked inside an obscure language. They have powerful, impatient enemies and a few rather easily bored friends. Their traditional society is considered a nuisance at worst and a curiosity at best. For them the act of survival, even identity itself, is a kind of victory.” Christopher Hitchens (1)

“I believe that the Turk must be the only lord, the only master of this country. Those who are not of pure Turkish stock can have only one right in this country, the right to be servants and slaves.” Turkey’s former Minister of Justice Mahmut Esat Bozkurt (2)

As an individual I have many components. I can define myself in many ways depending on the context. I am a homosapien, a monotheist, Yahya’s and Matine’s father, a husband, a Turkish author, a philosopher, a lawyer, a skeptic, a believer, a democrat, a conservative, an American, a political activist, a reformist, a chess-player, a copywriter, a poet, a handyman, a Macintosh user, a teacher, . . . and I am also a Kurd. I am not sure how being a Kurd ranks among the manifold ingredients that makes up my personality, but recently it became one of the important characteristics. Why? Because I have realized that I am denied of this identity. I have also witnessed that many others who share the same culture and heritage are oppressed and killed just because of being born in a Kurdish family.

I am a Kurd who is less articulate in his mother tongue compared to the other four languages that I have learned, namely, Turkish, Arabic, Persian and English. I am a Kurd who lost his 21 years-old brother 19 years ago in Istanbul to the racist bullets of Gray Wolves or Turkish Nationalist militants. (3) I am a Kurd who was put in the same prison, for writing on religious-political issues, with the murderers of his brother and almost lost his life to the knives and teeth of Nationalist Grey Wolves! I am a Kurd who was systematically tortured in Turkish prisons (4) because of refusing to recite the Turkish Anthem that contains lines, such as, “I have lived free since eternity; which psychopath dare to chain me.”(5) I am a Kurd who was compelled to chant “Happy is he who can call himself a Turk”(6) and declare that “A Turk is worth the entire universe”(7) throughout elementary, middle and high-school years.(8) I am a Kurd whose Kurdish father prohibited the Kurdish language at home in order to survive in a city where being Kurd was regarded as being ignorant and lower class.(9) I am a Kurd who now enjoys eating rice with fork, unlike Kurds who prefer a spoon. I am a Kurd who wrote scores of books in Turkish and English, but none in Kurdish.

Alas, I was almost blind to the plight of my people until I immigrated to United States and studied law in my late thirties. At age 40, after a wife, two children and citizenship in the United States, I started reading about the history of my people, their tribal system, their innocence, ignorance, wisdom, heroism, betrayals, blunders, dialects, culture, poverty, mythologies, religions, mountains, rebellions, genocide, atrocities, and their current ordeal in a rugged land dominated by four ruthless and racist countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

The pictures of Kurdish children, men and women whose faces rarely show a smile now talk to me; I cannot escape their questioning eyes: Brayi Edip [brother Edip](10), you managed to become a best-seller author in Turkey, you managed to escape to America, the land of freedom, you managed to get a doctorate degree in law, you write and talk about God, about freedom and human rights, but how can you ignore us?

If you look at their eyes carefully they will talk to you too: you the civilized people, you the citizens of the Western civilization, how can you ignore us? How can you donate arms to the racist Turkish government who is committed to exterminate us? (11) How can you standby when thousands of us were suffocated to death, our babies in our hands, by the chemicals provided by your corporations? (12) How can you talk about morality, human rights, civilization while we are subjected to systematic genocide by your current or former allies?

My people are denied their identity, their culture, language, naming their own children, using their own land and living in freedom and security.

You might have paid money to watch the movie Titanic and cried for the fate of the passengers who tragically drowned in cold waters 84 years ago. There are people on this planet who are being deliberately subjected to tragedies in their everyday life. Kurds are slaughtered and massacred by the bombs, jets and helicopters made in the U.S. and given by the U.S. (13) As a proud citizen of the civilized world, how can you cry for the people who were drowned 84 years ago, but do nothing while your tax money is spent to support the racist Turkish genocide against the Kurdish population in the South East Turkey?

Forgive me for these bitter words. I am the worst bystander, since I could use my pen when it was much sharper and younger to speak for those who can only speak with lines of sadness on their faces, lost limbs and graves of massacred and assassinated relatives. Here, I will deliver you some snapshots of the tragedy that has befallen my people, a tragedy that we all share some responsibility for as inhabitants of a shrinking planet in the era of satellite communication, smart bombs, and global economy.

MY PEOPLE ARE DENIED THEIR IDENTITY 

According to the official history and school textbooks that I studied in high school, Turks as the descendants of the ‘Gray Wolves’ from Central Asia belonged to Aryan race and founded Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Lydian, Ionian and Hittite civilizations and raised heroes such as Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu, etc. This official account that stopped short of claiming American civilization nonetheless claimed Turkish origins for American Indians. Thus, it is no wonder thatTurkish nationalists cannot acknowledge my people as a distinct nation that can shine beside the glory of the great Turkish nation!

My people have been the inhabitants of the region for thousands years before Turks stormed Anatolia leaving behind the desserts of Mongolia in 11th century.(14) Turkish textbooks refer to my people as “Mountain Turks”(15) and the word “Kurd” is claimed to be created by their feet walking on the icy snow making the noise KURD, KURD, KURD. Yet the racist Turkish Historians forgot that the same silly theory could also work for TURK, TURK, TURK, since none can prove that the snow on top of the mountains speaks in only Kurdish!(16)

M.M. van Bruinessen observed the following fact: “[A]fter the great Kurdish nationalist revolts . . . a systematic policy aiming at detribalization and assimilation of the Kurds was adopted. . . . Everything that recalled a separate Kurdish identity was to be abolished: language, clothing, names.”(17) As the Turkish intellectual Dr. Ismail Besikci(18) wrote in one of his letters, “the political status of the Kurdish people is even lower than that of a colony. Because, for example, in Turkey even their existence is not accepted. The Kurds in Turkey can have rights only to the extent of becoming Turks. The alternative is repression, cruelty, prison…”(19) Serafettin Elci, who once soared in politics and served as Minister of Public Works in the late 1970’s, was sentenced to two years and three months in prison in 1981, just because he publicly said, “I am a Kurd; There are Kurds in Turkey.”(20)

A book published by a state-run misinformation agency, the so-called Turk Demokrasi Vakfi (Turkish Democracy Foundation) which brags that it is an objective and democratic group, tries to deny the very existence of my people in thirty-seven questions.(21) Under the question whether Kurds are a nation, it first defines the concept of a nation in two ways, one being “subjective” and the other “objective.” It concludes that Kurds cannot be considered a nation according to either definition. We lose the “subjective” test since our historical tribalism has deprived us from feeling ourselves a nation. We lose the “objective” test since we speak in many dialects and also because we follow several religious sects.(22) As if the Turkish hegemony will grant us the status of nationhood if most of the Kurds feel that they are a nation. How can those who promote the suppression of such feelings judge the degree of those very feelings? Using the same lame logic, we can deny the existence of Turks as a nation by pointing at the number of Laz, Cerkez, Turkmen, Azeri, Albanian, Bosnian, Caucasian, Abhazian and many other ethnic groups among Turks. If the number of sects and orders are used for deciding whether Turks are a nation, the outcome would not be jolly for Turkish fascists. Whether Kurds are a nation or not, they should be treated with dignity and fairness.

The hypocrisy of Turkish nationalists who claim a Turkish origin for Kurds is indisputably and repeatedly exposed: they are passionate advocates for the rights of Turkish minorities or groups in other countries, such as Bulgaria, Chechenia, and Azerbaijan, yet they are silent or even happy when they see Kurds massacred in Iran or Iraq!(23) When the rights for culture and language is the issue, Kurds become Turks, but whenever they are oppressed and repressed in other countries they are insignificant non-Turks!

We are not even granted the minority status.(24) An article in Turkish Political Parties Law with a bizarre title, “Preventing the Creation of Minorities” states that “Political parties: cannot put forward that minorities exist in the Turkish Republic based  based on national, religious, confessional, racial, or language differences…. cannot use a language other than Turkish. . . However, it is possible to translate party statutes and programs into foreign languages other than those forbidden by law.”(25)  But what about all the wars in the eastern part of the Turkey, the forced immigration, prisoners, and “the prohibited language”? We officially just do not exist.

Well, we do, according to Prof. Fahrettin Kirgizoglu, a Turkish nationalist. He claimed that he finally discovered the roots of Kurds among ancient Turkish tribes. In the preface of his book he declares this “discovery” with great excitement: “I have discovered that a powerful and crowded Turkish tribe called ‘Kurt’ lived on five different geographic regions.”(25) These claims can be entertaining if the consequence was not the suffering and sacrifice of thousands Kurdish men, women and children. “No where else in the world is a group of people as large as the Kurds deprived not only of national rights, but of their identity as people, different racially and linguistically.”(26)

MY PEOPLE ARE DENIED THEIR CULTURE AND LANGUAGE 

The very existence of my mother tongue, Kurdish,(27) has been denied by the official ideology of the racist Turkish government which for several decades advocated the so-called “Sun Language Theory”, relating the origin of all the languages in the world to Turkish,(28) to the extent that even the words such as Amazon and Niagara were claimed to be originally Turkish.(29)

Though the “Sun Language Theory” is dead today, its ghost is alive in the Turkish Constitution that was drafted by generals after the 1980 military coup. The Turkish Constitution is designed to ban my mother tongue by a repressive article which interestingly shows up under the title “Freedom of Expression and Dissemination of Thought.” In the third paragraph it states:

“No language prohibited by law shall be used in the expression and dissemination of thought. Any written or painted documents, phonograph records, magnetic or video tapes, and other means of expression used in contravention of this provision shall be seized. . .” (30)

Another Article with a similarly deceptive title “The Freedom of the Press,” details numerous restrictions, including Kurdish, without even acknowledging its existence: “Publications shall not be made in any language prohibited by law.”(31) The Article that defines rights to training and education aims to ban Kurdish: “No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens in teaching and learning institutions.”(32) The phobia against my mother tongue is so endemic, discriminating legislators try hard not to mention its name. Kurdish is referred by the Constitution as the “language prohibited by law” and “laws” prohibit it ventriloguially! For instance, the Turkish criminal law of 1983 criminalized the Kurdish language as the mother tongue of any Turkish citizens, again without specifically referring to it.(33) The Turkish oligarchy and military leaders have tried ingenious expressions to prohibit my language without mentioning its name.(34)

The government stopped enforcing the restrictions after the mass hunger strike in 1988 organized by political inmates in the Diyarbekir military prison demanding freedom to communicate in Kurdish to their visiting families.(35) It was considered a courage of heroic magnitude when finally President Turgut Ozal conceded that “it was no offense to speak the Kurdish language in private.”(36) Indeed, only in private! Consequently, Law 2932 was abolished in 1991, and the ban on Kurdish language was relaxed by another law. The new law allowed the use of Kurdish language “in music and in utilizing records, sound, video and other means of expression,” nevertheless, it kept the ban on the Kurdish language in state offices, education (English, French, Arabic, etc., were okay), in printed works, movies, on radio, TV, in writing or orally at public demonstrations.(37) Only God knows what the law will be and what its practice will be tomorrow.

I cannot present you the complete list of Kurdish periodicals that were confiscated and banned soon after they saw the daylight. Kurdish literature has been always subject to official extermination and penalties. Those Kurds who dare to write in their mother tongue or publish them usually end up in jails, prisons and taste all kinds of Turkish brand torture.(38) Erol Anar, the author of a four-page chapter titled “The Kurdish Question” (“Kurt Sorunu”) published in Insan HaklariTarihi (The History of Human Rights) was charged together with the publisher for violating the Article 8 of Turkey’s Anti-Terror law.(39)

Mehdi Zana, the former independent mayor of Diyarbekir, a major city in southeast Turkey, paid the price for defying the ban dearly. Three years after his election he was arrested and charged with being a separatist by the military coup of 1980. In an interview, he told of his struggle to protect his identity:

“While I was in prison, some other Kurdish people started to testify in Kurdish at the trials. A group of PKK people from Batman spoke in Kurdish, and they were beaten. And I told them, “Don’t’ be afraid; I will avenge you. Tomorrow I have my trial.” And the next day I went and spoke in Kurdish, but I was beaten and thrown out of court. Out of principle almost everybody started to speak in Kurdish, but the authorities didn’t bring translators. They beat me from 1987 until 1991. I never spoke another word in Turkish.”(40)

The resistance of my language against the racist Turkish hegemony is, however, legendary. Soon after they are crushed under soldiers’ boots or uprooted by bayonets or sprayed by toxic chemicals, Kurdish words spring out here and there, like flowers, like daisies. After each suppression, they blossom with a different name, hoping to survive few more days: Roja Welat (The Sun of Country), Deng (Voice), Riya Newe (New Path) are just few literary bouquets of the “language prohibited by law.” Kendal Nezan, the Director of the Kurdish Institute in Paris, as one of the planters of those flowers, describes the Kurdish-phobia well:

“In Turkey there are colleges and universities where the teaching is in French or in German or in English, but there is not one school where teaching is carried out in Kurdish, the language spoken by about one-quarter of the population. . . .newspapers, books and records are available in half a dozen non-Turkish languages, but the Kurdish people still cannot publish in their own tongue.”(41)

Hasan Cemal, a columnist in a popular Turkish newspaper, wrote: “Everyone should be able to open a language course. They should be able to listen their songs and news from Radio and TV. We do not expect the state to support it; but at least the state should not be an obstacle.”(42)

The story of MED-TV is evidence that the state has not cut out hope for cultural assimilation. MED-TV, the world’s first and only Kurdish satellite television station based in London, broadcasts news, documentaries and entertainment from a satellite parked over Africa and reaches 30 million Kurds in the region called Kurdistan. Though MED-TV is trying to be objective and represent all sides in the Kurdistan dispute, “the station has endured studio raids, staff arrests, and asset seizures by anti-terrorist police in Belgium, the U.K., and Germany. Correspondents have disappeared in Iraq. Turkish authorities have jammed signals.”(43) The Turkish government has also banned and destroyed the satellite dishes in Kurdistan and the Turkish army cuts off electricity at 5 p.m. in villages to stop Kurds from watching. MED-TV’s principal director Hikmet Tabak challenges the Turkish “satellite terrorism” in terms of telecommunication technology: “We will continue to broadcast, even if we have to move to India, China, or the Moon!”(44)

In addition to language the Kurdish attire also is banned.(45) Kurdish holidays are not spared either. My people celebrate the new year on the Spring Equinox, that is, March 21, and it is called Newroz (NewYear). Turkish people never celebrated Newroz and the Government tried hard to stop the tradition by arresting those who celebrate it. However, when the Turkish government realized that it could not stop such a deep-rooted celebration by force, it retreated from opposing it.(46) With a swift somersault, racist columnists and politicians started writing and talking about Newroz and praising it as an ancient Turkish tradition.(47) All of sudden, historians started discovering the roots of Newroz in ancient Turkish literature. This recognition, or in legal terms the “conversion” of the formerly foreign and repugnant holiday finally resulted in the official celebration of Newroz, which even linguistically has nothing to do with Turkish.(48)

Cengiz Candar, a prominent critic of the state’s racism, teased this official hypocrisy in his daily column:

“Until three or four years ago, celebrations of Newroz had nothing to do with ‘peace,’ on the contrary; Newroz celebrations rang the bells of ‘bloody skirmishes,’ especially in the Southeast. In last one or two years ‘Nevruz’ or ‘Newroz’ has been transformed to an official holiday. …

“It has been one or two years since Turkey began celebrating Nevruz under state supervision and participation. For instance, the Minister of the State, Tansu Ciller, besides inspecting hospitals, actively participated in the celebrations, striking eggs and ‘jumping over the fire.’

“. . . This way, the officially baptized Nevruz is transformed to an ‘idiosyncratic’ holiday by changing its ‘rituals’ rooted in Kurdish culture.

“But any Kurd cannot jump over the fire. Those Kurds who attempted to do so were soaked in blood. If Kurds ‘jump over the fire’ it is no doubt ‘divisive.’ If Ciller jumps, it becomes ‘celebration’ and ‘friendship.’

“For instance, while Ciller’s ‘jump over the fire’ in Igdir was organized by the state, people who gathered around the fire in Baglar, Diyarbekir, were dispersed by police and the fire was extinguished.

“The Ministry of Culture went further and printed ‘yellow-red-green’ Nevruz posters. The Minister from the Welfare Party declared that ‘These colors were used by the Ottomans since Gokturks and Uygur Turks.’ Thus, the color combination that we used to know as belonging to Kurds was suddenly Turkified and became official colors…”(49)

The Turkish state fought fiercely to suppress the Kurdish culture in the past. When the impossibility of eradicating our culture by force became obvious, the racist Turkish government started claiming Kurdish culture officially. The official “Sun Language” theory is now resurrected as the undeclared “Sun Culture” theory. With the Turkish generals behind it, it is a powerful theory indeed.

MY PEOPLE ARE DENIED OF NAMING THEIR OWN CHILDREN 

The Kurdish population cannot name their children with Kurdish names; they are compelled to use Turkish names in their birth certificates.(50) Ironically, it is the same government that protested the Bulgarian government for doing exactly the same thing to Bulgarian Turks.(51)

The government has long since changed the name of most towns, mountains, and rivers that were in Kurdish or Armenian language. For instance, my birthplace on my birth certificate is “Norsin” (pronounced Norshin), a town located in the county of Bitlis. Though local people still use this name in their daily conversation, the official name of my birthplace has been changed to Guroymak. So, I no longer have a birthplace on the Turkish map!

We were given Turkish last names by government officials soon after the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1920’s. My mother’s side was given the Turkish last name “Mutlu” (Happy) and my Father’s side “Yuksel” (Excel). Though I am happy that we were not given the antonyms of these names, yet the racist policy of my country has tried hard to take away our happiness and to hinder our progress.

MY PEOPLE ARE DEPRIVED OF THE WEALTH OF THEIR LANDS 

The wealth of their lands is transformed into bombs, biological weapons, poisonous gases and is showered on top of their villages under the eyes of the by-standing United Nations.(52) To whichever hand they have extended for friendship or help, those hands have betrayed them. It is a miracle if they still have trust or hope in humanity, the so-called “civilized” or “developed” world. They are people whose fate has been doomed by the plots of imperial powers and their allies.

The eastern and south-eastern regions of Turkey that are heavily populated with Kurds have been ignored economically for decades. The disparity is visible to the eyes of every visitor who crosses the country from west to east. Turkish authorities never deny this fact, though they try to undermine it or blame the geographic nature of the region, such as being far from the seas. The racist policy towards the east and southeast has deprived many Kurds from higher education and access to wealth.

A poll conducted by Milliyet newspaper, a mouthpiece of the Turkish elite, demonstrated the obvious results of discrimination.(53) The polls, though conducted in only Istanbul, a better place for Kurds, found that those who claimed to be Kurds were low on the social and economic scale. “Those who declared themselves as Turks had the highest average wages (TL4,120,000, slightly above the average of TL4,010,000), followed by those who declared as ‘Muslim Turks’, or ‘Muslims’ (TL3,820,000), then those who saw themselves as Turks but from Kurdish parents (TL3,497,000) and finally those declared as Kurds (TL2,940,000).”(54) The newspaper that conducted this poll did not have a benevolent purpose, though. It tried to demonstrate that the Kurdish problem was merely economic, not political or cultural. The commentators never wondered why Kurds were the ones who scored lower economically and socially. Turkish oligarchy is addicted to self-deception by distorting the facts. This may temporarily provide them with some hope that their exploitation, racism and corruption will last forever, but the problem is increasing day by day. The denial of their evil governance is analogous to the denial of alcoholics and criminals. There is no light at the end of their tunnels.

The health services are very scarce in the East and Southeast region. According to the 1993 census in the Western Marmara province there is 1 doctor for every 736 citizen while in the Southeast there is 1 doctor for every 2296 person and 1 dentist for every 20883 person (55).

MY PEOPLE ARE KILLED, MASSACRED, IMPRISONED AND TORTURED 

Steny H. Hoyer, a congressman from Maryland, provided an excellent summary of what has happened to my people and ancestors living within the borders of Turkey since the formation of the Republic. Describing the Turkish military’s repeated incursions into Iraq and their declared victory after each cross-border attacks as a fiction, he demanded action against Turkish government:

“It is tragic and ironic that Turkey seeks answers to its ‘Kurdish Question’ outside its borders, when in reality it should be working these issues out at home. Turkey’s 15 million Kurds have faced oppression since modern Turkey was forged in 1923. Since then, there have been 28 major Kurdish uprisings. The most recent, underway since 1984, has claimed almost 30,000 lives. According to Turkish Government sources 3,185 Kurdish villages have been evacuated and up to three million people have been internally displaced form southeast Turkey. Despite the severity of the conflict, Turkey refuses access by the International Red Cross to the stricken region. The conflict costs billions of dollars each year and destroys hopes and economic development that is greatly needed in the region.”(56)

Many Kurdish intellectuals and political leaders have been assassinated by government secret agents or forced to escape from Turkey.(57) Musa Anter was assassinated in 1992 and Meded Serhat in 1994. Serhat Bucak and Ismet Imset sought asylum in Britain after their lives were threatened by the state. Ismail Besikci, an anthropology professor of Turkish ethnicity, was sentenced to many years in prison because of his insistence on Kurdish identity. Hatip Dicle, after being stripped of his parliamentary immunity in 1994, was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for criticizing militarist oppression against the Kurdish population.(58)

A New York Times article is informative about the political aspects of the Kurdish problem in Turkey.

“Three former members of Parliament form a pro-Kurdish political party are serving 15-year jail terms after being convicted in 1994 of supporting terrorism. One of them, Leyla Zana, has become a heroine to groups around the world that seek to portray Turkey as repressive country; her supporters have even nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize. . . . A new pro-Kurdish political party emerged to replace the one to which Ms. Zana belonged, but it has fared no better. In January all of its senior leaders were arrested and charged with supporting subversion. Since then, more than 200 other members of the party have been arrested. . . . The army’s scorched-earth policy in the mainly Kurdish southeast has given it great success on the battlefield, but has not won many hearts and minds. Many Kurds in the region remain deeply resentful of the Government. Equally important, the United States and other foreign powers that want to help Turkey have found themselves handcuffed by worldwide anger at the way the Turkey is conducting its war against Kurdish nationalism.”(59)

Turkish authorities have created a legal paranoia worse than McCarthyism that any speech, petition, writing or peaceful demonstration that is sympathetic or empathetic to the Kurdish ordeal immediately raises the antennas of prosecutors. As a result, journalists, authors and even members of parliament are indicted for their statements critical of the official policy.(60)

When the pro-Kurdish People’s Democracy Party (HADEP)(61) was banned and its 31 officials were convicted of advocating violence and separatism, in a June 11, 1997 letter, the Washington Kurdish Institute (WKI) called on the State Department to protest Turkey: “It is incomprehensible that a NATO ally and government which promotes itself as a democracy could undertake such repressive measures without facing international condemnation.” The letter urged the U.S. Government to pressure the Turkish Government “to abandon undemocratic, militaristic responses to the cultural and political aspirations of its Kurdish citizens.”(62) The U.S. has employed a double-standard regarding the Kurds. “Those in Iraq are the pitiable, persecuted victims of arch-villain Saddam Hussein, whereas Turkish Kurds are deemed troublemakers and terrorists who need to be controlled.”(63)

Fortunately, the European Union, perhaps due to the proximity to the region and fear of mass immigration, appears to be more sensitive to the plight of Kurdish people. After awarding Leyla Zana with the European Parliament’s SakharovPrize, the European Parliament in a recent “Resolution on the release of Leyla Zana” condemned the Turkish policy of imprisoning Leyla Zana and other Kurdish politicians and the repeated human rights violations and urged for a political solution that would recognize the economic, social, political and cultural rights of my people.(64)

KURDS: THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF MESOPOTAMIA(65) 

Ernest Chantre, a French anthropologist described the Kurdish type after studying the skulls and features of 332 individuals in 1897 as follows:

“The physiognomy of the Kurds breathes savagery: their characteristics are hard, their eyes, of a fierce brightness, are small and sunken under the orb. The men are most commonly dark, tall, and lean and have uncommon strength. They wear hardly anything except for a mustache and the cover their heads with a turban that is sometimes of gigantic proportions. Their step is firm, they hold their heads up with pride, and their look has a supreme arrogance. They do not laugh or talk much.”(66)

As a Kurd, I cannot stop myself from laughing at the French anthropologist for discovering “savagery” and “arrogance” in the breath and look of my people. To justify their occupation of Kurdish lands, colonialists perhaps believed in their own lies. How could they expect those people to laugh and talk while they, the “civilized” westerners, were plotting their destruction by planting puppet rulers in a region whose borders were drawn by the colonialists? How could they expect Kurds laugh and talk while their skulls were measured by foreign anthropologists who knew or cared little about their centuries old tragedy?

This year, 1998, is 2610 by the Kurdish calendar which dates from the victory of Medes forces against the Assyrian empire at Niniveh, north of Mosul.(67) Linguists and classical historians generally find our roots in Medes, Iranian people moving down from central Asia and settling around the Zagros mountains in the 1200 years BC.(68) The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments refers to Kurds as the Medes frequently.(69) There are numerous theories or mythologies tracing Kurdish heritage to Indo-European people from Ukraine, or to Melik Kurdim who ruled a city established after Noah’s ark landed on the Mt. Ararat. There is even a mythology, which is my favorite, that we are descendants of demons and jinn who raped 400 virgins during Solomon’s reign! The hegemons not only wrote the history, but also made up mythologies to demonize Kurds.

The heartland of my people, Kurdistan, centers around the Taurus and Zagros mountain ranges divided by Turkey, Iran,Iraq and Syria. Some of the cities with a Kurdish majority population are Diyarbekir, Mus, Bitlis, Van (Turkey), Zakho, Amadiya, Mosol, Arbil, Kirkuk, Suleimanieh (Iraq), Urumiye, Mahabad (Iran). There are approximately 14 million Kurds in Turkey (20 % of the population), 7 million in Iran, 4 million in Iraq, one million in Syria, half a million in Armenia, 100 thousand in Lebanon, half a million in Germany and 100 thousand elsewhere, totaling 27 million. In the United Nations there are 135 nations whose population is less than the Kurds.(70)

Kurds are overwhelmingly Muslim, some 85 percent being of the Shafii Sunnite sect. Kurds are religiously discriminated against by the so-called secular Turkish government that employs about half a million clergymen, all belonging to theHanefite sect, which is popular among the Turkish majority. There is a small number of the Kurdish population that followsYezedi religion. There are some who are atheists and there are also a few who reject clergy-made sects derived from medieval Arab teachings and strictly follow monotheism. I belong to the last group.(71)

Kurds converted to Islam in the 7th century. The Kurdish leader Saladin became a legend by his heroic defense against the Crusaders in the 12th century. After the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the 20th century, nation-states emerged in its vast territories, and soon after the World War I the region witnessed many revolutions.

The Kurdish Simko uprising in Persia occurred in 1921-22. A revolt led by Kurdish cleric Sheik Said against secular Turkish government in 1925 was followed by Khoybun and Dersim revolts until 1938. After the World War II, Komala, an underground Kurdish political party, was formed in Iran. In 1945, Mulla Mustafa Barzani, the leader of the Barzani tribe, formed the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in Iraq and started an uprise. In the same year, KDPI formed in Iran. One year later the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad was formed. This first (and so far, the last) Kurdish republic lasted just one year. In 1947, Barzani had to retreat to the Soviet Union. In 1952 UKDP was formed in Iraq while Kurds revolted in Iran. In 1958, after a military coup in Iraq, Mullah Mustafa Barzani returned to Iraq. The Kirkuk massacre of 1959 was followed by unrest and revolts in 1960 against Turkish military junta. From 1961 to 1970, the mountains of Kurdistan witnessed six Kurdish revolts which were provoked or suppressed by Iraqi offensives.

In 1970, by a 15-point peace settlement, Iraq declared the war with Kurds over and Iraq established close relations with the Soviet Union. After the military coup in Turkey, as a University Student in Ankara, Abdullah Ocalan, formed the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) to promote the Kurdish struggle against the Turkish nationalistic regime. In 1974, Barzani raised another insurrection only to be suppressed by Iraqi’s seventh offensive. Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Eastern Cultural Organizations (DDKD) was formed in Turkey. Following the collapse of Kurdish insurgency led by KDP against Iraq’s Baath regime, another Kurdish party, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), was formed by Jalal Talabani, a tribe chieftain in Iraq. In 1978, PKK started guerrilla operations against the Turkish government. In 1979, Mustafa Barzani died in the USA. The same year, the so-called Islamic Revolution took control of Iran and continued the Shah’s policy of oppressing the Kurdish minority, this time in the name of God and holy imams! Two major Kurdish uprisings against the Iranian regime were suppressed ruthlessly in 1979 and 1980.

Turkey experienced another military coup in 1980 that dissolved political parties. The following year KDPI staged another offensive in Iran, and tried again in 1982 and 1983. The same year, the Turkish military, armed by NATO-supplied weapons, started operations in northern Iraq against Kurdish guerrillas. On the eastern front, Iran took back Kurdish gains and PUK made a peace agreement with the Iraqi government. The cycle of orchestrated offenses by Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi governments against revolting Kurds was repeated many times until Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. An unforgettable event of this era was the use of chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja.(72) The date of Halabja massacre that killed at least 5000 civilians was 16 March, 1988, a time when Saddam Hussein was the celebrated U.S.’s hit man in the region.

“In the late afternoon of 16 March the first wave of Iraqi planes appeared over the town to drop their bomb-loads of mustard gas, nerve gas and cyanide. Within a few hours as many as 5,000 people were dead and as many again lay burned and gasping for breath from the effects of the chemical attack. . . Men, women and children lay dead with no visible marks of injury, but with faces distorted by asphyxiation. . . Despite the scale of the massacre and the fact that Western journalists were on the scene within days, the international reaction to the bombing was muted. . . The eight-year Iran-Iraq war had entered its end game, and the world powers were unwilling to take action against Iraq for its use of illegal weapons in such a way as to appear to be siding with Iran. . . The Arab states stayed firmly on Iraq’s side, although they were in no doubt as to what had happened. When a Kurdish delegation appealed to Kuwait to protest against innocent civilians being sprayed with poison gas, the were asked by a Kuwaiti official: ‘What did you expect to be sprayed with, rose-water?’ “(73)

After the U.S.-led allied air offense against Iraq, Kurdish people revolted again against the Iraqi regime. Operation Provide Comfort created safe havens for the Kurdish population against Iraq’s air-force. Enticed by the encouragement and promises of the C.I.A. and the Bush administration that American air-forces will protect them from Iraqi helicopters, Iraqi Kurds organized a campaign against Baghdad. (74) They were betrayed by the American government once again. In desperation, one Kurdish faction betrayed the other and Saddam’s tanks moved in Kurdistan killing and arresting hundreds of Kurdish dissidents.(75)

In 1992, Newroz celebration in the eastern part of Turkey turned into a bloody skirmish between the Turkish military and Kurdish villagers. The Turkish military is continuing its routine incursions to the northern Iraq. The following year PKK declared a unilateral cease-fire, but it lasted less than a year. Turkish newspapers drummed for continuing military offensives; they interpreted the cease-fire as a sign of weakness on the Kurdish front. When Turkish president Ozal who courageously suggested some political solutions for the Kurdish problem passed away, extermination of Kurds continued to be the only solution for the Turkish regime.

The Kurdish parties HEP and DEP won some seats in Turkish parliament, but when they demanded a political, rather than a military solution for the Kurdish problem, they were arrested and imprisoned.(76) Besides filling the prisons with Kurdish politicians, intellectuals and journalists, the Turkish military has been using secret contra-guerrillas to assassinate prominent Kurdish leaders; contras have filled many graves with prominent Kurdish figures such as journalists Halit Gungen, Cengiz Altun, Yahya Orhan and Huseyin Deniz, author Musa Anter, and politician Mehmet Sincar. These are just few names among a lengthy list of assassinated Kurdish intellectuals.(77) Recently, mass Kurdish exodus from Turkey to Italy and other European countries alarmed the European countries.(78)

THE FUTURE OF KURDISH STRUGGLE 

The Kurdish population is still hanging on in a region soaked in blood with racist wars, revolutions, revolts, coups, offenses, massacres and incursions. My people are stranded in the middle of four oppressive racist countries. And there is no hope unless they end tribal rivalry and battles between factions and start forming lobbies around the world where international justice and moral responsibility are not as popular concepts as the color of money and power. We are reminded of this fact by Richard Falk, professor of International Law at Princeton University:

“Few observers in 1918 would have guessed that the vague promise of a Jewish homeland in the Balfaur Declaration would result in Jewish statehood before the acknowledgments of Kurdish national identity would have led to Kurdish statehood. There are important lessons to be learned, of success and disappointment, in these two disparate experiences, each shaped and deformed by the outcome of major wars within the region and beyond. Perhaps the central lesson is the relevance of a focused movement that represents and unifies the people in question. A secondary lesson is the importance of becoming a subject of geopolitics rather than being continuously cast in the role of object.”(79)

There are many Kurds in Western countries, especially in Northern Europe.(80) I believe that the Kurds living outside of Kurdistan, with their intellectual, political and financial resources, will eventually create an international Kurdish movement that will lead to a democratic, free and secure land for the Kurdish population.

“Self Determination” was a buzz word in international law during the turn of the 20th century. But after colonialism mutated into another stage, into a clandestine form, the international community started worrying about the integrity and stability of states with ethnic minorities. The right of “self-determination” that worked against colonialism now could turn the nation states into amoebae, dividing them to fragments.

The General Assembly of the United Nations suggested a new formula in 1960 to protect nation states against disintegration: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”(81) However, the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations and the 1993 Vienna Declaration carved an exception from the broad protection of nation states. The disclaimer of the 1993 Vienna Declaration extended the protection only to the governments representing the whole people in the territory without discriminating on the basis of race, creed or color.(82) Now there is a strong opinio juris in the field of international law that balances the demands of minorities for self-determination with the interest of states in unity and stability by comparing the nature of self-determination and the nature of the government.(83) Minority demands ranging from minimal destabilizing effects to secession will be balanced with the regimes of the states ranging from absolute dictatorship to all-inclusive democracies. The more authoritarian a regime, the more rights for minorities will be recognized.

After giving eight examples to illuminate what self-determination (may) mean or what it may aim to do,(84) Professor Fredric Kirgis elaborates on the tension between the right of states to remain intact and the rights of minorities for self-determination: . . . .

“In this schema, a claim of right to secede from a representative democracy is not likely to be considered a legitimate exercise of the right of self-determination, but a claim of right by indigenous groups within the democracy to use their own languages and engage in their own noncoercive cultural practices is likely to be recognized, not always under the rubric of self-determination, but recognized nevertheless. Conversely, a claim of a right to secede from a repressive dictatorship may be regarded a legitimate. Not all secessionist claims are equally destabilizing. The degree to which a claimed right to secede will be destabilizing may depend on such things as the plausibility of the historical claim of the historical claim of the secessionist group to the territory it seeks to slice off.”(85)

Considering the authoritarian nature of Turkish democracy and the current trend in international law,(86) should the Kurdish minority struggle for self-determination leading to secession, or for self-determination leading to an autonomy and equal rights with the Turkish majority? Kurdish people are divided on this question.(87) Professor Falk thinks that self-determination in terms of secession is possible but very difficult to attain:

“Given Kurdish numbers, self-identification, and association with specific territory over a period of at least 2,000 years, and given the consistent Kurdish experience of abuse and discrimination on behalf of the Kurdish peoples exists. Yet given the strength of statist and adverse geopolitical forces, as well as the fragmented character of the Kurdish movement, an argument for more modest or minimalist claims on behalf of the various Kurdish peoples may seem currently persuasive. Only the Kurds themselves can make these choices, but the failure to do so is likely to lead to new frustrations.”(88)

I agree that struggle aiming toward secession is not politically and socially feasible. (89) Even if secession in one of the countries becomes a possibility, the other neighboring states will become paranoid regarding the Kurds in their territory. For instance, if Iraqi Kurds come close to gaining their independence (which they did), Turkey as a member of NATO and a strategically important country can prevent it (which it did, too). “Any grant of independent homeland to the Kurds will be blocked by Turkey or its allies as a dangerous precedent. Resistance to such an idea will also come from other States like India where several sizable minorities are demanding self-determination”.(90) This will create an opposing pressure in the international arena discouraging superpowers afraid of risking the stability of the entire region which is both politically and economically crucial for the western world.

Furthermore, many Kurds have immigrated to the western part of Turkey either for economic reasons or by being forced to immigrate by the Turkish military. Major cities such as Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir now have a huge Kurdish population, especially in their ghettos. There is also a considerable number of intermarriages between Kurdish and Turkish populations. Despite the official racism and occasional provocations by racist organizations the majority of Turkish population still does not have hostility against Kurds. A separate Kurdish state, even if politically possible, would not be desired by many Kurds who have already started a new life in the western part of Turkey. I agree with David McDowall that the Kurdish struggle has strong roots and ultimately will win autonomy in the region: “In the event of military defeat Kurdish nationalism was likely to go to ground, in hibernation for the next spring. It remained most unlikely to die.”(91)

The history of Kurdistan is a proof of Kurdish heroic resilience and resistance against assimilation and genocide orchestrated by powerful countries. “One must question why state authorities make such a bogey of Kurdish nationalism. The usual state argument that Kurdish aspirations threaten the territorial integrity of the state is at best only partially convincing, for autonomists outnumber separatists in the Kurdish communities of all three countries.”(92) The Kurdish problem will remain dormant in the region unless the host countries transform their regimes from authoritarianism to democracy.

As for Turkey, it has much more to lose if it continues to deny Kurds their fundamental rights. Trying to solve the Kurdish problem via bayonets, tanks and bombs has been very costly for Turkey economically, politically and socially. Inflation and unemployment are in disastrous dimensions, and Turkey, despite its yearning to join the western world, lost its chance to join the European Union because of its horrible human rights record. Not only the Kurdish minority, but the Turkish majority too will benefit enormously if Turkey can teach its disoriented generals their real duty.

The Turkish oligarchy, consisting of military leaders, media moguls, big businessman, and their puppet politicians, has opened another huge front besides the Kurdish one. The bizarre secular religion practiced in Turkey has alienated many traditional citizens and pushed them to become more radical. At least one third of the Turkish population is subjected to great oppression because of their modest demands for religious freedom, such as being able to wear head-scarves in schools and universities.(93) So, with the generals guiding Turkish politics, Turkey has taken great risks. Turkey cannot afford to fight against both religious and Kurdish segments of its population.

We, the Kurds, considering the past and current geopolitical circumstances, should give up our claim of independence and ask for autonomy or a federal system. The future of the world is moving towards unification and globalism. This strategy will also attract international support and will work much better for us. We, as the indigenous people of Mesopotamia, should demand the protection of international law to secure our culture, language, political institutions and entitlement to land. The definition provided by the United Nation Indigenous Study perfectly applies to us:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, considered themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”(94)

Our distinct history, culture, ethnicity and ancestral lands are elements that make us indigenous people of Mesopotamia. The human rights of the Kurds are not only violated as an indigenous people, but also as minorities. Turkey is in clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which declares: . . .

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”(95)

We the Kurds should be able to be ourselves, like the Turks are able to be themselves. We do not have any desire to ban Turkish. We do not have any wish to force Turks to confess that they are a tribe of Kurds. We do not have any aspiration to force the Turkish population to name their children in Kurdish names. We have no reason to hate the Turkish music or Turkish poetry. We have no plan to destroy and burn Turkish villages. We have no intention to force Turks to immigrate.

Turkey and the international community have a moral and legal duty to allow us to enjoy our culture and use our language. We should be able to name our children in our language and teach them. We should be able to celebrate our holidays without governmental intrusion and involvement. We should be able to sing in Kurdish and write in Kurdish. We should be able to greet our Turkish neighbors with our Kurdish attires on. Our towns should be safe from military attacks. We should not be forced to leave our lands. We should not be killed or jailed when we do not approve racism. Our children should not be forced to say “happy is he who can call himself a Turk.”

Yes, I am a Kurd and I pray for freedom, justice and peace for all.

APPENDIX

I MISS MY MOTHER TONGUE

Edip Yuksel

 

After reading several articles on the linguistic, social and political aspects of bilingualism, certain memories of my childhood revived with much more meaning. Those articles did not contain much new information. They were common sense for me, since I had experienced most of the cases. However, I did not have a clear and systematic interpretation of my experi­ences. Now I know the reason my father suddenly forbid us from speaking Kurdish after we moved to the city. Now I realize how oppressive the government was. Now I appreciate the importance of bilingual education.

I was raised in a bilingual family. I spoke Kurdish until I was eight years old. At age nine, when we moved from a small eastern town to Istanbul, the biggest city in western Turkey, I was suddenly obliged to speak Turkish. Turkish was the only national language with high prestige. Indeed, it was the only prestigious language of my country. Kurdish, the language of approximately a twelve million, had much negative connotation. Speaking Kurdish was a declaration of ignorance and inferiority. Though at that age I was not fully aware of this racist attitude, I was influenced. My father did not have enough ammunition to fight against that pressure. He could not protect our original self-esteem. He submitted fully, even in the privacy of his home. Fighting back probably would be useless. The city with its mighty social, political and economical institutions was a ruthless mold reshaping every irregular individual thrown in. In order to resist that terrible molding machine you needed to be economically independent and heroically resistant. Unfortunately, my father was neither.

We were molded.

The communication language of our family changed dramatically. My father declared martial law against his own mother language which he had spoken until his late forties. My mother did not know a single Turkish word when we were banned from speaking our mother language. It was not that difficult for my father. He had learned Turkish as his fourth language while doing his military service. He had studied Arabic and Persian in religious schools. Being one of the top experts in Arabic language, he was invited to teach Arabic at the university. While he was trying very hard to polish his Turkish, we were struggling to communicate with our mother; sometimes sneaking in Kurdish.

In retrospect, I see that our family was victimized by the ruling majority. As a result, I traded my Kurdish for Turkish. My father ended up teaching Arabic in Turkish with a heavy Kurdish accent. My poor mother started speaking a new language, Kuturkish, a mishmash of Kurdish and Turkish. Nobody could understand her except us. Curiously, I started missing my mother tongue. I hope I will be able to recover it in its pure form. Alas, I am not sure whether my mother will be able to understand it.

APPENDIX I

An Open Letter to the First Lady of Turkey

By Leyla Zana

September 27, 1998

Dear Berna Yilmaz,

Because you are the wife of Prime Minister, you probably receive hundreds if not thousands of letters from people all over the country.

Some ask for peace,

Some for work.

Other share with you a problem with the hope that you will be part of its solution.

Some want to reach goals that may not be attainable.

There are still others who write you and tell you that they can not pay the cost of an operation for their loved ones and those who can not pay for the prescribed medication.

Some may be the relatives of deceased ones in the hospitals who may ask you to write to a hospital to let it release the body of deceased person since they can not pay for the hospital costs. And of course, there are other letters, the ones that congratulate you for your work or recognize you for your achievements.

I thought I too would add a letter, be another one in your mail list. You don’t know me or you may know me through the media or shall I say the way media has projected me. For example, a “Bandit!”, a “Terrorist!”, a “Separatist!” a “Traitor!” or a convicted member of PKK. The list goes on.

I am not the least concerned to be associated with these descriptions. They, in a way, point to the alleged players on the stage whose roots go back to history. I want to refer to a bleeding geography and also to the concerted efforts of the ruling circles to deny the very existence of a people. I am referring to the struggle of those who are standing up to oppression for peace, freedom, brotherhood, democracy and labor rights. I have in mind their principled stands and how they were seen fit to assume those names. In other words, I am referring to the reality of my country, of its peoples and the state of affairs that are unfolding in it.  If it needs to be stated again, I belong to those who seek peace.

I know you through the media. Your warm disposition, friendly face, interested and humble ways that come across in numerous places. So I am writing this letter to you as a woman and also as a mother. Because I think we have at least those two things in common. But then I may be mistaken.  You may ask what prompted this letter?

A few years back, I read in an interview your views about the ongoing conflict. You were asked to comment on the war between the Turkish army and the PKK. While you did the usual, calling the question a problem of the southeast, but you also uttered the taboo words, the need for peace and a humane approach to resolve the conflict. I may not be quoting you verbatim, but I remember you saying that you did not want the mothers to cry and that you were very worried about the state of things.

These words were moving, not the usual remarks of the wife of Prime Minister. There was no disguised form of chauvinism, racism, and the talk about blood in your remarks.

Then I remember the accident/incident in which your son hurting himself in a sporting event was sent to Austria with a private plane to get proper medical care. The televised images of your sadness were real. You were distraught. You wanted to be with your son and the anxiety was showing all over your face.

It was the anxiety of a mother. Watching you, I did not want to think that you were the wife of Prime Minister, I wanted to understand you as a mother. A part of you had been hurt and you wanted to be with your son as soon as possible. And you finally got to see him.

And yet, there are mothers in Turkey, forget about being able to be with their children, do not even know where they are. They cannot reach them, embrace them, smell them or touch them.

They do not even have a grave site for them, a place these mothers could shed their tears.

These mothers, for years now, every Saturday, meet in front of Galatasaray High School at noon, with pictures of their loved ones in their hands. They want to share their pain by means of peaceful sit-ins.

They do not loiter, they do not block the traffic, and they do not attack the spectators.

They want to sit there in front of that high school to voice their deadening silence about their losses.

The names of their loved ones were Mehmet, Hasan, Yavuz, Aysel and Savas at one time. But they all have one name now: disappeared ones.

The names of the mothers are Emine, Esma, Yildiz, and Pervin. Now, they have one name as well: the mothers of disappeared ones or Saturday Mothers.

Do you know what is happening to them for weeks now?

Elite police forces with their batons, shields, and guns accompanied with the sounds of siren attack these mothers, pull their hairs, haul their bodies, beat their torsos, subject them to pressurized water and force them to board the waiting busses for police stations. They are then kept for a few days and then released. These mothers gather in front of that high school for what they feel in their hearts. Will they ever stop coming? Dauntlessly, they come back. Their crime is to be the Saturday Mothers. Their crime is to love their sons and daughters.

You are a mother and they are mothers.

You have a son named Hasan and another named Yavuz. They had sons at one time.

You love your children. These mothers are even denied a opportunity to express their love for their children.

Moreover, these mothers don’t want other mothers to face their predicament. In other words, they love the children of others as well. They don’t want any disappearances. They love peace so that war will not consume their loved ones. And because of that, they keep coming back to the same spot for weeks and sit for hours without getting tired. In other words, their love is boundless, deep and universal.

One Saturday, I urge you, please, to go to Galatasaray High School. Go see those mothers. Take them a flower, a carnation, or a September rose, and be part of their pain. If only for a few minutes, be a Saturday Mother, be a mother of the disappeared. Don’t be afraid of elite police forces. Don’t be afraid of the sounds of siren that have legitimized lawlessness, injustice, and oppression. The police won’t touch you. No, they will not be able to touch you. Then, believe me, you will love yourself more and your children too.

You can be one of the “first” ones to do so. You can set aside the so called traditions of hundreds of years.

Remember that Princess Diana broke the tradition of remaining aloof, and became one of the people, and was mourned by millions when her untimely death arrived. And she lives today in the hearts of additional millions because of her principled stand against the threat of mines.

Back to our country, the cease-fire that PKK declared goes on despite the provocation, despite the silence of many in the positions of authority.

You said, mothers should not cry. But mothers are still crying even as one side to this war is willing to take the road of peace.

Here is a golden opportunity for you. You can bring the crying Turkish and Kurdish mothers together. And the mothers of disappeared as well.  Or you could choose to be the mother of only Yavuz and Hasan. …

(Translated by the staff of the American Kurdish Information Network)


 

FOOTNOTES

 

*Author, human rights activist. J.D., University of Arizona College of Law (1998). I extend thanks to professor Robert A. Williams, Jr., the co-author of a textbook on Indian Law, for his inspiration. He is also the author of my favorite law review article, perhaps the only law article with no footnotes. See: Robert A. Williams, Jr., Vampires Anonymous and Critical Race Practice, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 4, p. 741, February 1997. I also thank professors, David Gantz, David Golove, Tony Massaro, Leslye Obiora and many other members of faculty and administration at the University of Arizona College of Law for their encouragement and support during my legal education. … My ultimate thanks go to God for enabling me to immigrate to America, the land of liberty.

(1) Christopher Hitchens, Struggle of The Kurds, 182 National Geographic 32, 60 (August 1992)

(2) Hugh Poulton, Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent, New York University Press, p. 120, (1997) quoting the speech made by former Minister of Justice Mahmut Esat Bozkurt which was published in the Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 16 September 1930.

(3) Mehmet Coban-Muhammed Abdullah, Kavmiyetcilik ve Islam/Metin Yuksel (Racism and Islam/Metin Yuksel), Tevhid Yayinlari, Istanbul, (1980). Kul Sadi, Metin Yuksel, Madve, Istanbul, (1992). For extensive information on Gray Wolves, see: Hugh Poulton, supra note 2, pp. 130-167.

(4) I was sentenced to 6 years of prison because of two published articles promoting Islamic revolution in Turkey. For a summary of my prison experience see: Edip Yuksel, Kitap Okumanin Zararlari (Dangers of Reading Books), Beyan,Istanbul, pp. 52-59 (1988).

(5) In Turkish: “Ben ezelden beridir hur yasadim hur yasarim/Hangi cilgin bana zincir vuracakmis sasarim.” I had no problem with the content of the Turkish national anthem; I just protested the authority.

(6) In Turkish: “Ne mutlu Turkum Diyene”

(7) In Turkish:  “Bir Turk Cihana Bedel” (Ironically, as of June 11, 1998, one dollar has more value than 260,000 Turkish Liras!)

(8) “At the beginning of the century, under the [Ottoman] Empire, the term ‘Turk’ had been a humiliating designation reserved for ‘rude peasants.’ . . . It was this deep-seated contempt for Turks which provided the background for the emergence of an arrogant and aggressive ‘Greater Turkish’ nationalism. Turkism only became respectable with the Kemalist victory, when it was set up as the official ideology of the new state. The contempt and humiliation which the Turks had suffered turned into a feeling of arrogant superiority and contempt for non-Turks.” A People Without A Country: the Kurds and Kurdistan, edited by Gerard Chaliand, Zed Books, London, p. 59, (1993).

(9) See APPENDIX for my personal experience.

(10) That is, brother Edip.

(11) Michael M. Gunter, The Kurds and the Future of Turkey, St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 106-108 (1997).

(12) In 16 March 1988, Iraqi forces used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians living in the town Halabja and killed 5000 men, women and children. See, Human Rights Watch, infra note 72.

(13)  The Turkish military, as a member of Nato, receives massive military aid from the U.S. Similarly, Saddam Hussein’s military, which has been massacring the Kurdish population for decades, was heavily equipped by the United States in 1980’s to punish Iran. Human Rights Watch in its 1995 report demonstrates the inconsistency in the U.S. foreign policy.

Despite documenting the fact that Turkey has misused U.S. weapons, the  Clinton administration, which says it supplies Turkey with 80 percent of its foreign military hardware, has consistently refused to link arms sales to improvements in Turkey’s human rights record.  Shortly after publication of the June 1995 State Department report, the U.S.’s top military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili, wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress urging U.S. lawmakers not to cut military assistance to Turkey because of its human rights record.

In fact, based on Human Rights Watch interviews with U.S. military personnel, it appears that Pentagon representatives in Ankara are more eager than ever to sell Turkey U.S. weapons, including M-60 tanks, helicopter gunships, cluster bombs, ground-to-ground missiles and small arms.  The U.S. is also involved in co-production agreements with the Turkish defense industry, most notably helping to build the F-16 fighter-bomber, which the U.S. State Department acknowledged may have been used indiscriminately to kill Kurdish civilians, and a new armored personnel carrier. (Human Rights Watch, WEAPONS TRANSFERS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR IN TURKEY ISBN 1-56432-161-4, November 1995. See: www.hrw.org)

The Washington Post, reporting an improvement in U.S. Turkish military alliance, noted: “While the State Department backs Turkey’s effort to rout the guerillas, it has criticized the military’s and paramilitary’s tactics of killing, forcibly removing or destroying the villages of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the same region. More than 27,000 people have died in the fighting.” (Dana Priest, The Washington Post, July 12, 1998, A23.)

(14) See Mehrdad R. Izady, The Kurds: A Concise Handbook, Crane Russak, Washington, p. 23-49, (1992).

(15) Gerard Chaliand, The Kurdish Tragedy, Zed Books, London-New Jersey, p.30, (1994). Also, Hugh Poulton, supra note 2, at 121.

(16) “It has been official policy in Turkey from 1924 until the last few years to deny the very existence of a Kurdish minority. The Turkish sociologist Ismail Besikci has spent more than a decade in prison for having written about the existence of the Kurds and of Kurdish particularism. Nevertheless the Kurds are an ethnic minority with a language totally unrelated to the Turkish family of languages. Formerly known as the “Mountain Turks”, in recent years they have at least achieved open mention in the press. During Gulf War, the Turkish president, Mr. Ozal, even announced the lifting of the 1983 ban on speaking Kurdish in public.”  Gerard Chaliand, The Kurdish Tragedy, Zed Books, London-New Jersey, p.6, (1994). For the linguistic and historical roots of the name “Kurd” see: Mehrdad R. Izady, The Kurds: a Concise Handbook, Crane Russak, Washington, p. 31 (1992). For instance, Izady provides plausible information that the word Kurd most likely originated from Qardu or Karduk of the Babylonian Medes era which sounds similar to the Semitic Acadian word Qard and Indo-European Persian word Qurd, both of which mean a hero, or a warrior.

(17)  Quoting from Bruinessen’s Agha, Shaikh and State: Michael M. Gunter, The Kurds in Turkey: a Political Dilemma,Westview Press, Oxford, p. 12 (1990).

(18) Dr. Ismail Besikci, a well-known Turkish sociologist spent more than ten years in Turkish prisons for opposing the assimilation policy of the racist Turkish government against the Kurdish minority. For more information, see: id, at 47-49.

(19) Martin van Bruinessen, The Kurds in Turkey, MERIP Reports, No. 121, pp. 10-11 (Feb. 1984).

(20) Gunter, supra note 17, at 46.

(21) Turkiye Gerceginde Kurtler ve PKK Teroru (Kurds and the Terrorism of PKK  Under the Reality of Turkey), Turk Demokrasi Vakfi, Ankara, (1996).

(22) Id, at 6.

(23) The Chapter of the Turkish Constitution describing the political rights and duties starts with Article 66th which reads: “Everyone bound to the Turkish State through the bond of citizenship is a Turk.” Naming all the citizens of a country with the name of the majority race is one of the cause of official racism. The major newspapers and state officials refer to non-citizen Turks in other countries as Turk. This demonstrates that being a “Turk” is not a legal matter, but a matter of race and genealogy. This official double-speak is designed to assimilate the Kurdish minority and deny their identity in the name of citizenship and law.

(24) Turkiye Gerceginde Kurtler, supra note 21, at 8

(25) Political Parties Law, Article 81 (a), (c).(No. 2820, Adopted April 26, 1982)

(25) Fahrettin Kirgizoglu, Kurtlerin Turklugu (The Turkishness of Kurds), Istanbul, 1995.

(26) Kurds Existence Denied in Turkey, Toronto Star, March 25, 1994, at A 26.

(27) A journal article gives the following information about the Kurdish language: “The Kurdish language is divided into multiple dialects, the most prominent of which are Kurmanji, spoken in northern Iraq, eastern Turkey, and Azerbaijan; and Zaza, spoken in western Turkey. Despite these internal differences, Kurdish society developed a distinctive culture which has survived over 2,000 years. The Kurds believe themselves to be a distinct people and have established their own sense of identity.” Olivia Q. Goldman, The Need for an Independent International Mechanism to Protect Group Rights: A Case Study of the Kurds, 2 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int’l L. 45, 67 (1994).

(28) See: Poulton, supra note 2, p. 87.

(29) Amazon from “Amma uzun” (Too long), and Niagara from “Ne yaygara!” (What a noise!).

(30)  Turkish Constitution, Article 26.

(31) Turkish Constitution, Article 28.

(32) Turkish Constitution, Article 42.9.

(33) Turkish Penal Code, No. 2932.

(34) The law about broadcasting tries to prohibit Kurdish language by an arbitrary condition: “Radio and television broadcasts will be made in Turkish; however, for the purpose of teaching or of imparting news those foreign languages that have made a contribution to the development of universal cultural and scientific works can be used.” The Law Concerning the Founding and Broadcasts of Television and Radio, Article 4 (t), (No. 3984, Adopted April 13, 1994). Another law dictates the mother tongue of Turkish citizens: “The mother tongue of Turkish citizens cannot be taught in any language other than Turkish. . . . Taking into consideration the view of the National Security Council, the Council of Ministers by its decision will determine in Turkey what foreign languages can be taught.” Foreign Language Education and Teaching Law, Article 2 (a), (c), (No. 2923). Military leaders, again to avoid using the word Kurd and Kurdish, enumerated the names of non-prohibited languages in law: “It had been decided by the Council of Ministers on March 4, 1992 that in official and private courses education and teaching are to be made in the following languages: English, French, German as well as Russian, Italian, Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese.” Official Gazette, Decision No. 92/2788, March 20, 1992.

(35) Poulton, supra note 2, at 213.

(36) Gunter, supra note 17, at 54.

(37) Poulton, supra note 2, at 213.

(38) See, Chaliand, supra note 15; Gunter, supra notes 17, 18 and  Meiselas, infra note 40.

(39) Human Rights Watch/Helsinki in the 7th Report in 22 August 1996 defended Mr. Anar and other authors for defending the human rights of Kurdish minority: “Article 8 of the 1991 Anti-Terror Law has frequently been used to punish peaceful expression, especially concerning the ethnic Kurdish population and the conflict in southeastern Turkey between government security forces and the PKK. In late 1995, an amendment of Article 8 permitted the release from prison of an estimate one hundred persons jailed for peaceful dissent; however, many today are still being tried and punished under the amended Article 8 and under other laws that stifle peaceful expression.”

(40) Susan Meiselas, Kurdistan: in the Shadow of History, Random House, New York, p. 296, (1997) Mehdi Zana’s wife, Leyla Zana was also imprisoned and tortured at the same time. She was later elected to Congress from Diyarbakir. She is currently in prison serving a 15 year prison term. I recommend a book published by the American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN) on Leyla Zana: Free Leyla Zana!, Edited by AKIN and Human Rights Alliance (HRA), 1997, Washington, D.C. Can be obtained from www.kurdistan.org.

(41) Gunter, supra note 17, at 44.

(42) Hasan Cemal, Adini Ne Koyarsan Koy (Whatever Name You Assign), Sabah, February 8, 1998.

(43) Television Nation, Wired, December 1997, p. 98.

(44) Ibid.

(45) Gregory J. Ewald, The Kurds’ Right to Secede Under International Law: Self-determination Prevails over Political Manipulation, 22 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 375, 397 (1994).

(46) See all Turkish newspapers dated March 20-22, 1997. For instance: Sule Turker, Elif Ergu, Nevruz Atesini DevletYakacak (The State Will Kindle the Fire of Newroz), Sabah, 20 March 1997.

(47) Bol Kutlamali Nevruz (Newroz With Plenty of Celebrations), Sabah, 21 March 1997.

(48) Newroz is a compound Kurdish or Persian word consisting of “new ” (new) and “roz” (day). In Turkish the same word would be “Yenigun”

(49)  Cengiz Candar, Nevruz, Newroz, Nevroz…, Sabah Newspaper, 22 March 1997. Another pro-democracy Turkish columnist, criticizing the Turkification of Nevruz, complained “One more people’s holiday is stolen by the State.” MehmetAltan, Devlet Eliyle Sivil Toplum (Civil Society By The Hand Of State), Sabah Newspaper, 24 March 1997).

(50)  “Since 1982, the government no longer accepts typically Kurdish names.” Gerard Chaliand, The Kurdish Tragedy, Zed Books, London-New Jersey, p. 34 (1994).

(51) “The Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz criticized the Bulgarian government for its policy denying the Turkish minority of their cultural, religious and administrative rights.” All major Turkish newspapers, November 4, 1996.

(52) In 1946, one year after the establishment of the United Nations, my people appealed to the international conscience, though with unrealistic demands: “During the past 25 years the Kurds have and are suffering severely under the tyrannical regime of Turkey. . . . It is indeed a misfortune that the world is on the threshold of peace and many conferences are held to discuss and solve the world problems, and the Kurds in Turkey are unable to have their voice heard in these conferences. . . . In view of such a calamitous and hopeless situation our Party demands that this criminal Kemalist gang which calls itself a government be removed and the Kurdish people given its full natural rights and full opportunity to self-determination.” Quoted in Gunter, supra note 17, at 14.

(53) Milliyet, 27 and 28 February and 1-3 March 1993. For the details and evaluation of the poll see: Poulton, supra note 2, at 248-251.

(54) Pulton, supra note 2, at 249.

(55) Fatih Cekirge, Turkiye Rakamlari (The Turkey’s Numbers), Sabah, August 9, 1998.

(56) Congressional Record, November 7, 1997.

(57) McDowall, infra note 65, at ix.

(58) Id, at ix.

(59) Stephen Kinzer, In Scorching Kurds, Turkey Burns Itself, The New York Times, May 3, 1998, 6 WK.

(60) Paul J. Magnarella, The Legal, Political and Cultural Structures of Human Rights Protections and Abuses in Turkey, 3 J. Int’l L. & Pract. 439, 455 (1994).

(61) Despite harassment and threats by the Turkish authorities, HADEP received more than 1.2 million votes.

(62) Hadep Leaders Convicted in Turkey, Zagros, Washington Kurdish Institute, February 1998.

(63) Ewald, supra note 45, at 404.

(64) The Resolution of the European Parliament ends with the following articles: “1. Condemns the repeated human rights violations in Turkey, which chiefly target representatives of the Kurdish people; 2. Is particularly shocked by the sentencing of Leyla Zana to a further two years in prison and urgently reiterates its call for her release and for the release of all political prisoners;  3. Expresses its deep concern about the deteriorating political and institutional situation in Turkey, and notes the lack of any improvement with regard to the protection of human rights and the promotion of the rule of law; 4. Reaffirms its conviction that there can be no military solution to the Kurdish question and therefore calls on the Turkish authorities to engage in direct talks with the Kurdish people’s representative organizations, with the aim of finding a peaceful political solution enabling their economic, social, political and cultural rights to be recognized; 5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the Turkish Government and Grand National Assembly.” Minutes of 08/10/98 – Provisional Edition Human Rights, B4-0945/98.

(65) I recommend the following book for its comprehensive treatment of Kurdish history: David McDowall, A Modern History of the Kurds, I.B. Tauris, New York, (1996). Also see: Mehrdad R. Izady, A Concise Handbook: The Kurds, CraneRusak, Washington, (1992); James Ciment, The Kurds: State and Minority in Turkey, Iraq and Iran, Facts On File, Inc., New York, (1996),  and A Contemporary Overview, edited by Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Stefan Sperl, Routledge, New York, (1992). Susan Meiselas’ documentary work is another valuable source. See supra note 40, and infra note 66.

(66) Meiselas, supra, note 40 at 6 (1997). This large size book is a must for those who want to learn about the struggle, culture and history of Kurdish people. It is filled with pictures, maps, historical documents, newspaper clips, memoirs, and drawings related to Kurds living within the borders of Iran, Iraq and Turkey. For more information on the book please visit the website:  www.akaKURDISTAN.com. The book is available at www.amazom.com.

(67)  John Bulloch & Harvey Morris, No Friends But the Mountains, Viking, p. 50 (1992).

(68) Id. at 56.

(69) See, the Bible: II Kings 17:6; II Kings 18:11; Ezra 6:2; Esther 1:3,14,18,19; Esther 10:2; Isaiah 13:17; Isaiah 21:2; Daniel 6:8,15-28; Jeremiah 25:25; Jeremiah 51:11,28; Daniel 5:28; Daniel 8:20; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 11:1; Acts 2:9-11.

(70)  See: Edgar O’Ballance, The Kurdish Struggle, St. Martin’s Press, N.Y., p xxi (1996).

(71) I have discussed this issue in “19 Questions For Muslim Scholars” published both in Turkish and English. The English version can be downloaded from: www.yuksel.org

(72) Iraq’s Crime of Genocide: the Anfal Campaign Against Kurds, Human Rights Watch, Yale University Press, pp. 68-78, 149-153 (1995).

(73) No Friends But the Mountains, John Bulloch & Harvey Morris, Viking, pp. 142-143, (1992). After 10 years, the aftermath of Halabja massacre is told by Dr. Christine Gosden, head of medical genetics at Liverpool University in England. She “told the CBS news magazine that she was the first Western doctor to observe the health problems in the city. . . Some survivors of the attack are still suffering from health problems, including nerve damage, brain damage, untreatable skin diseases, infertility and cancers. ‘What one sees is very rapidly advancing cancers of particularly horrible types,’ Gosden said ‘I don’t think anybody in 1998 should have to die of these circumstances. ‘The chemicals also caused hideous birth defects that may continue for generations to come, said Gosden, who hopes to draw aid for the victims from international relief agencies.” Nerve Gas-Iraq, Associated Press, (AP US & World) Sun, Mar 1, 1998.

(74) Evan Thomas, et al, Bay of Pig’s Redux: How the CIA’s Secret War in Iraq Turned into Utter Fiasco, Newsweek, March 23, 1998, p. 36. See also: Michael Ignatieff, Power in the Service of Morality Abroad, U.S. News & World Reports, November 18, 1996. Alan Cooperman and Kevin Whitelaw, The Kurds: Guns, Money and an Endless Dream, U.S. News & World Report, September 16, 1996.

(75) Id., at 44.

(76) Gunter, supra note 17, at 73.

(77) Id, at 68-73.

(78) Frontier Wars, The Economist, January 10, 1998.

(79)  Richard Falk, Problems and Prospects for the Kurdish Struggle for Self-determination After the End of the Gulf and Cold Wars, 15 Mich. J. Int’l L. 591, 601 (1994).

(80) I could not find any statistics regarding the Kurdish population outside Kurdistan. Washington Kurdish Institute’s web site shows “distribution of hits according to country of origin.” This information might provide a rough idea about the comparative interest to Kurdish issues. The countries from which the website visited the most are the United States, Canada, Sweden, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Italy, Finland, Netherlands, France, Japan, and Belgium, ranked in descending order.

(81) Quoted in: Fredric Kirgis, Jr., The Degrees of Self-determination in the United Nations Era, 88 Am. J. Int. L. 304, 306 (1994).

(82) Ibid.

(83)  Ibid.

(84)  “(1) The established right to be free from colonial domination with plenty of well-known examples in Africa, Asia and Caribbean. (2) The converse of that? a right to remain dependent . . . as in the case of . . . Comoros, or Puerto Rico. (3) The right to dissolve a state, at least if done peacefully, . . . as in the case of former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. (4) The disputed right to secede, as in the case of Bangladesh and Eritrea. (5) The right of divided states to reunite, as in Germany. (6) The right of limited autonomy, short of secession, for groups defined territorially or by common ethnic, religious and linguistic bonds, as in autonomous areas within confederates. (7) Rights of minority groups within a larger political entity, as recognized in Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the General Assembly’s 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. (8) The internal self-determination freedom to choose one’s form of government, or even more sharply, the right to a democratic form of government, as in Haiti.” Id. at 307.

(85) Id. at 308.

(86) See: Edip Yuksel, Cannibal Democracies, Theocratic Secularism: The Turkish Version, (1998), Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Winter 1998. The Turkish version of this article was published in Turkey: Edip Yuksel, Devlet/Democracy/Oligarsi/Teokrasi, Ozan Yayincilik, Istanbul, (1997). I was expecting this book to be banned by the government. However,  it has not yet been. It is a nice surprise. Nothing is predictable in Turkey, including repression and oppression.

(87) “Kurds living in Middle East were generally in favor of modest solutions within the boundaries of existing States, while Kurds living in exile were overwhelmingly in support of the establishment of a single sovereign State, to be called Kurdistan.” Falk, supra, note 79, at 591.

(88)Id, at 603.

(89) Dr. Amir A. Majid, of London Guildall University, noted that self-determination (meaning independence) is very weak for Kurds. Citing some authors, the decisions of International Court of Justice, and the U.N. General Assembly resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, he claims that it is very difficult to make a case for Kurdish independence according the Customary International Law. See: Amir A. Majid, International Human Rights and the Kurds, 2 Ann. Surv. Int’l & Comp. L. 53, 60 (1995).   Recently, the main Kurdish guerrilla group gave up its demand for independence. Reuters North America news agency reported on Sun, Apr 12, 1998: “The leader of Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan said the PKK did not want a separate Kurdish state to be carved out of southeastern Turkey. ‘Following a realistic policy of Kurdish independence does not mean changing the borders,” he said. Ocalan did not clearly state his group’s demands, apart from saying they wanted a thorough restructuring of the Turkish state. “This restructuring is taking place in all European countries, but the only country moving the opposite direction to this is Turkey,’ he said.”

(90) Majid, supra note 89 at 60.

(91) McDowall, supra note 65, at 448.

(92) Ibid.

(93) Yuksel, supra, note 86.

(94) See S. James Anaya, Indigenous Rights Norms in Contemporary International Law, 8(2) Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 1, (1991).

(95) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 27 (1966).

 

Share