On the one-hand, Wahhabism was originally forged by a reformer. Muhammad Ibn Abdel-Wahhab sought an Islam based on its sources: The Book (the Quran), The Sunna (Muhammad's tradition) and The Hekmah (common-sense interpretation). Earned high praise by Sheikh Muhammad Abdoh-the all-time Egyptian reformer and liberator.
On the other hand, Turkey, once relieved by Ata Turk in 1923 of the yoke of the Caliphate, began to move on as a secular State. Secularity, supported by its armed forces, was its way forward, straddling both Asia and Europe.
But then, as of the 1920's, the unification of most of the Arabian peninsula by King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud came at a heavy cost. The cost of ceding to the Wahhabis (Al Alsheikh) all matters relating to Islam. About the same time frame, Turkey's stabilization came also at a heavy cost to secularity: No tangible civil rights to either opposition or to the Kurdish minority.
In both Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) and Ankara (Turkey), the sword became the arbiter. That is the sword of a repressive Islam in Riyadh, and the sword of a repressive secularity in Ankara. In both countries, the contents of Islam was converted into non-Islamic authoritarianism.
Yet after nearly 100 years, something happened in both capitals. On the way to the 21st century, a new ideology came to the Saudi government as of the reign of King Abdullah -openness. But to the Turkish scene, came Ordogan, bent on closing the door to secularity, and espousing Islamism. From King Abdullah to King Salman, the road was leading to cutting Wahhabism down to size.
But in Ankara, under Ordogan, the road was leading through dictatorship and Islamism. Expunging secularism for the sake of an Ottoman-like revival.
The two opposite currents had a direct effect on the Muslim Brotherhood and its sanctuaries in both Qatar and Turkey, among other places. In tandem with the New Egypt, Riyadh closed its door to the Brotherhood. That was a historical extension of King Abdul-Aziz's famous retort to the Brotherhood: "Why a Brotherhood center in Riyadh, when we all are Brothers and are all Muslims!!"
The reverse took place in Ankara where, Ordogan raised his hand of four fingers in a symbolic salute to the Brotherhood.
From reading the tea leaves of the future, the gradual shrinkage of the Wahhabi role in governance is most likely to succeed. Riyadh now seeks true integration in the modern world community. By contrast, the gradual islamization of the new sultanate of pro-Ottoman Ordogan, is most likely to falter due to the historic inculcation of the Ata Turk secularism.
It is a tradition built in the Turkish Constitution as being the sacred trust of the huge NATO-supported armed forces. It was nearly a year ago that a coup against Ordogan nearly succeeded. Its reversal by Ordogan came at the cost of more than 250 people killed and more than 2000 injured.
Reflection on the happenings in both Riyadh and Ankara is a comparative way of guessing at the future in the entire Middle East, following the liberation of Mosul (Iraq) and Raqqa (Syria). While the destruction of the so-called caliphate of ISIS in its two centers of power is a most welcome development, one has to wonder as to what next?
What can the future role of an islamized Turkey and of a less-Wahhabi Saudi Arabia be? In Riyadh, we have a crown prince, Muhammad Bin Salman, seemingly bent on a Saudi Arabia for the 21st century. Can Syria or Iraq remain territorially united? And if not, what might be the effects of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, or of Kurdish nationalism in Turkey? Could the diplomatic isolation of Iran in the New Middle East last while the influence of Tehran in Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and Sanaa (Yemen) is a fact of political life?
For now, such questions have to remain unanswered. What is assured for now, is that Islam, whose main thesis is unity, shall continue to be divisively interpreted. Especially in the holy land of Mecca and Medina, and in the land of the neo-Ottomans!! No relation or linkage to the Fourth Caliph after Muhammad: Othman Ibn Affan. He was an enlightened leader. The Ottomans, whether old or re-invented, are not.
Note: New blog postings will resume on a weekly basis after my new book is ready for the press this Fall. Its title: "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution"
Turkey today seems bent on estabishing pure dictatorship at home (as opposed to the hypocritical democracy of the erstwhile ruling party under, say, Ciller in the 1970s, with thousands jailed and tortured, Kurds and other minorities putdown, but US ties and NATO strong) under Erdogan and his group. As well, it is, as Dr. Ayouty implies, bent on reestablishing its empire by other means, hence its interventionin Syria and Iraq and its ties with Qatar and other fiefdoms. I know Turks who interpret all events throughthefiltre of Ottoman history, deftly ignoring all these periods of resistance and all the crimes under the YoungTurks and then under Ataturk. My question though is whether Trump's regime will or can support these new Ottomans to the max. if Gulen or others try again to dislodge the ruling party, will Trump intervene to support his "friends" and their ultra-nationalism? Or is he contradicting himself?
ReplyDelete