Shared Values - A Shared Future

This is the transcript of the meeting titled “Extremism in the World and Turkey” held on June 19, 2008 at Bahçeşehir University. I would like to thank every single participant: Deniz Ülke Arıboğan, Bekir Karlığa, Nilüfer Narlı, Ali Yaman, Aydın Topaloğlu, Deniz Saporta, Joti Kohli, Cemal Uşak, and Mustafa Akyol. I would also like to thank Levent Dal and Nil Girgin who transcripted the recording and to Ece Yıldız who revised the text.
– Kaan H. Ökten

Transcript of the meeting held on June 19, 2008

Kaan H. Ökten: You’re all welcome. Bahçeşehir University has attended an international project in the field of “fight against extremism” of which it is also an executant of.
The aim of this project is to raise talks about perception of extremism, especially in Turkey, and to put the case clearly, and to learn what we think about extremism while doing this. Our biggest problem was the way of expressing this in Turkish language; since, the word “extremism” does not exist in Turkish.
I had to entitle the meeting as “Extremism in the World and Turkey”. We are going to raise talks on this issue and think on what we can do further. As we have done today, we are going to talk about this subject through bringing together the specialists and related parties around the same table. We will also have other types of activities, as well. For instance, BETAM, the research center of Bahçeşehir University, is going to conduct numerical researches to find out how the perception is in Turkey. Besides, we are going to organize a contest among university students in Turkey.
We make great efforts to form a very active internet page, i.e. blog. Mr. Çınar Kurra, Director of Bahçeşehir Technology Development Center, and his team are very helpful to us in these works. There are various possibilities in relation with computers and technologies. I would like to thank him. Some great and important moments of this meeting which are being filmed right at the moment are going to be broadcasted in form of podcast; whereas, the related text is going to appear on our internet page.
I would like to introduce the attendants very shortly…
Mr. Cemal Uşak, Vice President of the Journalists and Writers Foundation. He personally supported our project right from the beginning. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Nilüfer Narlı, Head of our Sociology Department. She is probably the most competent person of our university in relation with these issues.
Mr. Bekir Karlığa, Director and Executive of our Civilization Research Center.
Mr. Ali Yaman, Assistant Professor at Abant İzzet Baysal University. He is well known both in Turkey and abroad through his studies on Alevism. His roots go back to a dervish family. He conducted quite important activities both in Turkey and abroad. He is one of the persons who follow up the Alevism problem closely.
Mr. Aydın Topaloğlu, researcher at İSAM (Center of Islamic Researches). I guess Mr. Topaloğlu is going to point out to vital issues.
Father Dositheos was going to be present here today; however, he was not able to because of his heart problem. I hereby wish him the best. He is the press and public relations spokesman of Fener Patriarchate.
Mr. Deniz Saporta, Member of the Board of Directors responsible of press at the Türkiye Hahambaşılığı. It was a must that both a partisan and “sufferer” in relation with this subject should be here together with us.
Mr. Joti Kohli, instructor at Bahçeşehir University. Joti participated this meeting due to his ethnic identity and trends that he is a member of. I guess that Joti is going to contribute this meeting thanks to some “specialties” he owns. I would like to thank him for his attendance.
Mr. Mustafa Akyol, he is present since the very beginning of the project. I would like to thank him for his attendance. He is also one of the persons who follow up the subject both through his articles in Turkish Daily News and the web page that he runs.

Kaan H. Ökten: You’re all welcome. I want to commence the discussion with this sentence: Intellectual fighting will be conditional. I have a few notes in relation with extremism. “Extreme”, is a Latin word, as obvious to all which is the superlative state of the word Extremus meaning something at the outermost point, which is at extremities and marginal. This means that there are some issues located in the middle having sides both on the left and right which we call extreme. This also seems to make implication: There exists an entirety of ideas and actions; whereas, we are able to outline such entirety. Just like a spectrum. We classify the right and left sides of the spectrum as extreme while we think of the center as the one and only method of reason and appropriate way. This discussion is made since centuries. For instance, how does one get into extremity and how is the center point determined? Aristotle, the great instructor and the master, is accepted as the greatest teacher. He tells to Nikomakhos that we can divide everything which is constant and dividable in Ethic and evaluate the major part according to ourselves. And what we call Equal is the middle point of extremism and what is ‘lacking’, ‘missing’. And something that is at the same distance from the middle point is the same thing for everyone. The center point for us, in the meanwhile, is the one which neither is in excess nor missing. This is not singular, and not the same for everyone. Now, Aristotle doesn’t speak of something which is the same for everyone even he defends the teaching of mesotes. The center point in Aristotle is going to be a center point that depends on negotiation maybe. Your perception of center point and mine perception differ. So how are we going to meet at the center point? Aristotle tells Nikomakhos that this could be done by foresight (phronesis) and virtue (arete). In Aristotle, foresight bears the meaning of someone equipped with wisdom and insight who knows what to do in a specific situation. Now, generally it is impossible to accept a person as someone equipped with wisdom and insight. At that point, my central point becomes his central point. This is an interesting situation. Aristotle scrutinized upon this; but it is a problematic issue in relation with its implementation in social life and political life. It directly interconnected with power issues. There are few more concepts about political extremism. In fact, extremism is the right and left states of political ideas; i.e. being on the left or right side within an “assembly”. There are concepts such as left extremism and right extremism. Just like religious extremism that has emerged lately. And unfortunately, this will directly connote Islamic extremism. But there can also be heresy, those who declined from religious way. At this point, terms or concepts such as ifrat, tefrit and fitne are discussed intensely in Turkish language and literature. I think that we are in such a level of discussion. Now, I want to start with Mrs. Nilüfer Narlı.

Nilüfer Narlı: Well, thank you very much. Let me introduce my title just like in a keynote speech: We are all aware that extreme propaganda is a problem. I am going to discuss the search for a new paradigm as a solution proposal created by extreme propaganda and the cosmopolitanism within this search for paradigm. I want to express myself with the most possible short and simple phrases; because it is going to be very technical and a little bit hard when we enter the subject “cosmopolitanism”. Let me commence my discussion like this: Extreme propaganda, as also mentioned by Kaan, is today’s most important social political problem. And this problem leads both to human rights and security concerns for all humanity. As you all know, our rector works in the field of security. Security is divided into two in form of soft security and hard security. It is the field of soldiers and weapons. We need to scrutinize upon the conditions that lead to this problem. Under which conditions and why did extreme propaganda grow stronger? We have to study on this issue in order to be able to produce proposals in order to solve the problem. On the other hand, I am going to deal with issues such as the weakening or fragility of the democracy culture (as it is also the case in Europe), the insolvency of multi-cultural structure and cosmopolitanism in the search for new paradigm.
In relation with democracy, one of the main issues of democracy is that it forms a sociopolitical environment and legal structure that enable diversities to live together. Indispensable conditions of democracy such as free elections, the political participation of the citizens and basic political rights such as freedom of thought and freedom of meeting together with the existence of a state based on the supremacy of law highly depend on democracy culture. If a powerful and mature democracy culture lacks, democracy becomes highly fragile. And in an environment where democracy becomes highly fragile, we see that extreme political trends appear and extreme propaganda makes it way.
Now, I want to deal with extreme propaganda not only in relation with Turkey but also globally. I am going to make my declarations by handling the problems of the European Union countries and the problems in America.
The most important issue today is to be able to live together despite all diversities. Because such a problem emerges with this respect: In the past, diversities were seen as different colors and beauties; however today cultural and religious differences started to disturb people. Perceptions underlying this disturbance are of great importance: Perceptions and extreme propaganda! Because politics has its roots in perceptions. How do you perceive a religion and cultural identity? When you perceive it as “the other” and start to “demonize” it, this means that you begin to feed extreme propaganda. Now, the struggle that is formed by diversities strengthens extreme propaganda. In case that diversity is perceived on basis of identities, identities begin to be politicized and start to act as a means for extreme propaganda. My Turkish identity or Muslim identity or ethnic identity may be a hue; but it can feed extreme propaganda when I politicize this; both for myself and for the counter party.
I can say this if I redefine the problem that I deal with in this speech: What type of cultural project and paradigm do we need in order to be able to live together in a period where diversities, especially religious and cultural diversities turned into materials for political tension and extreme propaganda? I call out to all my journalist colleagues; what is the duty and responsibilities of media?
I’m going to sum up the current situation, i.e. how did we find ourselves in such a search? Extreme propaganda and fights existed during the cold war period; however, today we are facing a more complex problem. We are once again face to face with this question: What type of a world order and philosophy is required in order to re-establish peace after cold war?
This time the problem is even more complex. Wars do not take place between states and their well defined armies. Ex-state organizations have emerged as new actors. People talk about asymmetric war. Criterion and parameters other than soldiers and weapons are defined when defining enemies as it is in conventional wars. We are face to face with an invisible enemy presence concept that can emerge anywhere at any time. Cultural and religious diversities feed extreme propaganda while the search for this invisible enemy goes on. This material is utilized both by extreme groups and states.
In fact, states can also produce and utilize from extreme propaganda. Therefore, we may handle with extreme propaganda from the view point of actors. When we take a look at European Union countries, we can see that immigrants with different cultural and religious identities undergo an integration problem. And illegal immigrant of which the number has increased drastically during the last decade is now deemed as one of the problems that Europe faces nowadays. The situation of immigrants bears critical importance in terms of extreme propaganda. The extreme rightists in Europe, as well as political Islam, utilize these problems, I mean the integration problems of immigrants in their extreme propagandas. We may have some objections against the word “integration” at this point; we can also discuss it.
All these issues gained a more complex structure after September 11. We are all aware of the current situation. Now, I want to discuss the insolvency of multiculturalism. Because, it was thought that diversities, various religious and cultural groups were able to live in Europe under the “multiculturalism” project.
However, what we witness today is that even such multiculturalism underwent bankruptcy.
And I bring forward the “we are in need of a brand new paradigm perception” thesis on basis of the bankruptcy of multiculturalism. Thus, let’s have a look at cosmopolitanism for a new paradigm.
What can be the alternative of multiculturalism? We can be able to protect ourselves against extreme propaganda if we can be able to integrate cosmopolitanism into our education philosophy, conception of journalism, philosophy of life and if we can internalize it with our education system. And only in this way we may be able to gain doctrines from cosmopolitan philosophy in order to be a man of wisdom and prudent human being that Kaan has mentioned.
Now, I want to mention a few words on the bankruptcy of multiculturalism. I’ve talked about the problem of immigrants. The problems in relation with immigrants and terrorism are discussed frequently in the western media. And multiculturalism is targeted in European countries since many years; i.e. this issue turned out to be the main target of criticisms. Both leaders and intellectuals commenced to discuss on the bankruptcy of multiculturalism. Especially in Germany, both Schröder and Merkel talked about the criticisms about this subject. Those who criticize multiculturalism mostly emphasize such points: They say that multiculturalism interferes with basic universal norms that are required to sustain democracy and that it disregards universal norms. Secondly, they may demand a different implementation of law on basis of cultural differences. Thirdly, such a demand damages the union of law and they choose cultural differences in order to create political demands that are in contradiction with democratic principles. They say that their religious culture requires a different implementation of law and thus, they want to form an order of law which is not similar to the one existing in that related country. And they entitle societies in which immigrants live as “parallel societies”. And in this parallel societies (they may be immigrant or third generation), they deem themselves isolated in cultural compartments. And the reason of extreme propaganda in such an environment arises from multiculturalism. Because multiculturalism does not bring together people; it detains everyone within its own cultural compartment (this can also be religious culture). This also has some arguments that are in contradiction with democratic principles which give rise to political demands.
One of the criticisms made against multiculturalism is that it gives rise to cultural separatism; parallel societies which endanger the unity of the state; that it forms extreme religious views in parallel societies which enables propagandas; and collapses social and political solidarity. These are the arguments of those who criticize multiculturalism. Besides, political demands that are brought forward on basis of cultural and religious differences are another argument thereof.
We come across a question at that point: The world has to commence a search for a new paradigm in order to sustain peace and democracy and to fight against extreme propaganda
Now, I am going to interconnect cosmopolitanism with Socrates. Kaan is also a philosopher. Albeit, Socrates may not have expressed it clearly; he was followed by his pupil, the cynical philosopher Diogenes of Sinope. He was asked: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am a citizen of the world”. And the term he used was “cosmopolites”. The roots of this term date back to this event. I’ll skip the technical explanations of cosmopolitanism; however, I want to summarize the basic ideas of it which can be helpful to us in our fight against extreme propaganda.
Now, cosmopolitanism bears such an understanding: Human beings are rational. Because of being rational, human beings bear the capacity of finding the “golden center” which Kaan has mentioned. And this is in the nature of human beings. The nature of human beings does not consist of extremism and criminal tendencies. The union of human beings is at the second stage. And as a third point, we can mention human beings’ tendency of living harmonically, despite living within different political systems. Tolerating diversities is the fourth point. The fifth issue is that all rational human beings are a part of the same moral society. And as a sixth point, whereas this is going to be a little bit my personal comment, the individual’s ability to blend different cultures while forming his/her own life philosophy and to appropriate it. Because we posses such a collective intelligence. Of course, when we take a look at the ideas of cosmopolitanism at the level of politics, these ideas are reflected as forming a world state and order in which all human beings live together… However, this does not mean that borders are shuffled aside. It is only a matter of majority verdict or consensus on international norms and standards. Today, everybody talks about human rights norms; an international law that secures the basic rights and liberties of all human beings. As it is obvious to all, an International Criminal Court exists. This Court penalizes people when one commits a crime, especially a war crime, even if the one is in harmony with the laws of the related country. But, countries have to undersign the related agreements.
This universal understanding in cosmopolitanism defines the individual with his or her communal identity. This may isolate the individual even more. This can either happen in his or her country or in the country where the individual lives as an immigrant. This is an issue worth thinking on in order to form an alternative. I am bringing forward this point; but you are free in saying that it is a “crackpot”. But what I say is that this may be our starting point.
It is also of high importance to scrutinize the philosophy on which our education system is based on; both in all countries and in Turkey. Does the philosophy of our education system provide the perfect environment for extreme propaganda?
Let’s have a look at the education system of many countries; I took a look at the literature and saw the following: Many of the education systems try to teach us where we belong to. Of course, history lessons are of high importance at that point. Powerful values in relation with identity, about the country, social group and family where we belong to are infused into everyone.
The idea that all human beings are tied together with a natural bond, in fact this is the cosmopolitan view, is not infused into us. The viewpoint which is infused into us through our education system tries to explain and strengthen conventional political bonds. This is the same in all countries. The consciousness of national unity and entirety is formed on basis of “us” and “them”. Such an understanding of education can strengthen the fear for strangers. Whereas, this system may lead to feeling of hostility against different groups and to those that are perceived as different. Of course, this is an anti-cosmopolitan understanding. This is the opposition of “us” and “them”. To put in other words, you adopt the idea of constantly thinking whether or not if “they” are different than us or “enemy” to us, starting from the family where you belong. Sometimes, the education system can be the education system within the family: “Look, we are like this, but they are different!” But, it creates the perfect environment for extreme propaganda if you emphasize that they are also “satanic” besides stressing that they are different. To demonize the other one, to handle it only as “the other one” may not be that important in extreme propaganda. However, when we look at these demises and tortures, for example the one done by Serbians to Bosnians, we can realize that it demonizes to other party. Thus, someone can easily kill or torture another person that he/she perceives as Satan or a demonized creature.
Let me sum it up. I have a proposal: We need to place the cosmopolitan understanding into our education system. Our identities, national identity and religious identity are also important but placing the idea that all human beings are tied together with a natural bond is more important.
We have to explain this from kindergarten up to universities.
I also want to be a little bit “priggish” about the media; I have some advices on this issue. The media has such a problem: Especially, in news about clashes or wars in any country broadcasted by the western media, as well as the Turkish media, the parties are sometimes demonized. It is sometimes possible that the media may increase the opposition by reflecting the news not objectively. This is valid for all types of clashes.
In order to enable the media to act as a pioneer in this case, the media should take over a role that encourages cosmopolitan understanding and that stands against prejudice, intolerance and ‘othering’. Thus, the media should prevent the spreading of extreme propaganda. Secondly, the media that is able to increase clashes should play a role in solving the clashes. Media should adopt this in principle. Third, the media should shuffle aside the role of naturalizing extreme political views and violence; it is important that violence should not be handled as natural when making news about all types of clashes and wars. An objective style should be utilized in such news.
We can discuss on basis of these issues. But the education system that I try to emphasize is quite important. The media also plays an important role in this education philosophy. We all closely follow up the world wide event through media. And I define TV as “The God of the 21st Century”. Therefore, the language to be used by the media is very important. We need the support of media in preventing extreme propaganda. But they also need to come together around a collective language. Thank you very much.

Kaan H. Ökten: Thank you Mrs. Narlı. Now, I want to address a question to our rector, Mrs. Deniz Ülke Arıboğan. Do we act discriminatory in form of “us” and “them” in the school; how would you evaluate this as a head of an educational institution?

Deniz Ülke Arıboğan: Of course we do. We do it everywhere.

Kaan H. Ökten: So, what should we do?

Deniz Ülke Arıboğan: First of all, we have to accept the existence of “us” and “them” discrimination. But the main problem is to find the out motivation that drives people to beat or kill them. A new tribe was discovered lately; a tribe never seen before. They flew over them with an aircraft and photograph them. And what the members of the tribe do is to attack them with spears. We should try to understand the motivation behind this. Why do they think that the helicopter flying above them is going to hurt them? And why are their first reaction, first instinctive reaction an attack oriented towards killing them? Why does someone furnish himself with such a protective instinct and consider the other party as an enemy?
Now, from the idealist point of view, there are many comments stating that human beings are innate perfect beings and that what corrupt human beings are the external conditions. The basic paradigmatic discrimination of international relations is this; the discrimination of realists against idealists.
I guess, in fact, both of them represent two extremities when we handle the issue on basis of thought; I mean we have to be somewhere in the center. I think that the priority is to get acquainted with human beings and the nature of human beings. I mean we have to apply “wishful thinking”; i.e. we have to try remedying human beings. The logic of some people with regards to life is like this: constantly striving to orient others towards the “good”. But human beings have a bad side that it constantly tries to correct. Well, this means that it is not what happens when you leave someone alone. And this natural aspect of human beings sometimes turns out to be an issue for politics. It is utilized in international relations and internal politics. It has also an economical dimension. Human beings produce weapons, for example.
Did you know that the world economy will collapse if “we” and “they” wouldn’t exist? Or can you imagine a world without wars? In such a case we will face a situation just like the physicians would feel in a world free of microbes. This is a world that the physicians can’t think of. We should talk about realities; that’s why I tell these.
Mrs. Nilüfer Narlı talked about very important issues. I am stuck into this “extreme reality” concept. The word extreme is used in form of “hyper-reality”.
We are face to face with a world that is far from reality. I mean, there is a historical structure that the transition from agricultural society to industrial society took place through materialism. This means that human beings passed from a world full of divine experiences to a world which is the resultant of its own experiences.
The perception and mental structure of the thing that we call industrial society depends on man’s finding his own bogeymen as a result of his experiences. I mean if it rains, God isn’t behind it. Raining depends on some physical reasons. And for example earthquakes occur due to fault zones; it’s not a kind of punishment or anger reflected by God.
Now we live in a completely different era; an era that is beyond industry. Human beings live once again in a world which is not the result of its own experiences. The 9/11 attacks are not our own experiences. But it is a terrorist attack; it terrorized us. The good, true, beautiful values that determine the structure of today’s world are not the realities of our own tribe or quarter. These values are formed and created in completely different places and transferred to us by the Gods of the 21st century. I evaluate the 21st century as the return game of the pre-industrial society and industrial society.
Brand new belief conditions are specified; this is a new perception of belief. Believing unconditionally that capitalism is good; the belief in the power of media; the belief in the perfection of the western world; belief in modernism… No interrogation, unconditionally… We handle these as good as the angels are. The same applies for the bad things. As a result, this is can be classified as a belief in the existence of Satan. But that Satan is not a result of our own experiences. We accept Al-Qaida or Osama Bin Laden as Satan without knowing them. If you think that the media broadcasts from only one direction, in fact this is the situation in western societies, this will change the voting habits of people. George Bush was elected as president even he received less votes. However, he received 3.5 million more votes after the 9/11 attacks. It’s a miracle that George Bush was elected for the second time in America. This can be defined as a “miracle” in world standards. This is only possible through an abrupt change in the psychological conditions of the people. The change in the psychology and mood of human beings is determined by environmental conditions. Now, if I as the rector of this school terrorize the environment the whole day long no ne of you can feel comfortable. I can create these conditions. Or if I say that there is a bomb somewhere in the room, you all will try to get out in panic. It is of no importance if there is a bomb in this room or not. What I do is to make you feel uncomfortable and insecure. Your reality undergoes a change when you get into such a psychology. Fear does not have to be rational. What is really interesting is that you will feel secure if I don’t tell you that there is a bomb in this room. In other words, the comings and goings between feeling secure and insecure has nothing to do with reality. You are limited with only what you know.
What is information? How much are you informed? The thing that is informed to you and that shapes you is the most powerful weapon used against you. This means that your world is shaped by others.
What I am standing against since the very beginning are some projects called The Clash of Civilizations and Dialogue of Civilizations. Dear Mr. Bekir, please forgive me; in fact, Mr. Bekir is within this dialogue project. But I definitely reject the idea of dividing human beings into civilizations. And I think that you accept these hierarchic definitions as from the moment of accepting a concept called the dialogue of civilizations.
The dialectic antonym of the clash of civilizations cannot be the dialogue of civilizations. There is no such clash existing. There is also no civilization or civilization is unique; you call it human civilization. What is really existing is different societies, folks. The dialogue of the civilizations that we study on right now is the values that feed the project of a specific group. What we are able to produce are the values that feed it. We define it as a priori. Even the concept of civilization has been created conceptually in a hierarchic manner. If you take a closer look, you’ll see that it doesn’t define civilization. Civilization is a term that defines the perfection of the west. It is created just for them. The civilized ones are there, and the barbarian eastern is at some lower level. We are still using these terms. Wittgenstein has expressed it very well: “We perceive life through labels”. Concepts are the labels on everything. But who fills these concepts? Who tells us what we are talking about? Wars, peace…these are all “filled” concepts. I always ask my students this question: “Which one is better; peace or war?” Every one of them yells that’s peace is better. “If so, why didn’t you accept the Sevres peace agreement?” What was the thing that encouraged you for the war if peace is a good thing? Then most of the students hesitate. I mean, the world of concepts is quite interesting. I attended an international meeting lately; I addressed a question to the viewers because I was asked a question about suicide bombers. In response of a question about the goodness and badness about the suicide bombers I asked the 300 viewers: “Is there any one among you who can say that he/she can be a suicide bomber?” No one responded. I asked if any one of them could be a suicide bomber, but no one responded. Afterwards, I modified my question: “If your country is occupied by some forces and if they destroy everything known as sacred by you, how many of you could be a suicide bomber?” More than one third of them raised their hands. Then I continued once again to ask: “If your country is occupied by some forces and if they destroy everything known as sacred by you, if they kill your parents and rape your sister and hand over the corpse of your child divided into three parts, how many of you could be a suicide bomber?” all of them raised their hands.
Is there anything or any attitude more extreme than suicide bombing? And I told everyone, present there, that they are all potential suicide bombers. We all are. I can do everything if I feel that my children are under danger. Therefore, there is nothing called extreme; what exist are the conditions. I mean there is nothing called “rationalism of extremism”. Only the feeling of experiencing certain conditions does exist. Just like feeling that there is a bomb somewhere in this room even if there is none. It is of no importance if exists here or not. What we should do is to find out the rationality of extreme people and scrutinize on it. This is the field of study of political psychology. Now, we are working with Mr. Vamık Volkan. There are people who always feel dirty and constantly wash their hands. It is an attitude to tell someone that he/she is clean and doesn’t have to wash the hands. Or you are the owner of a soap factory and tell the other one to constantly wash his/her hands because by doing so you will be able to sell more and more soaps. Or you are a jurist or let’s say a defender of human rights…then you tell that the one has the right to wash his/her hands. These are all points of view.
However, political psychologists try to find out why this man feels dirty and the reason behind this feeling. They try to find out the trauma underlying this fact. We have to look to the past of this person. It is not enough to say that he/she is clean. What is the feeling that tells him/her that he/she is dirty? If you aren’t able to find out the said reason, you won’t be able to prevent him washing his hands by only saying that he is already clean. Let say these are rational, normal or extreme…these are entirely relative concepts depending on conditions. We should study on the reasons behind those conditions and the motives orienting people towards extremities. Of course, the “Gods” of the 21st century are going to be utilized in doing this. The “Gods” of the 21st century are the media, universities and academia. I mean, everything that creates knowledge and information is included within. Schopenhauer says that “this is the world that I’ve designed”; i.e. the world we live in. He has right. This world is designed by us all. How can we put this world into another design? And n which ways can we do this? Because, trying to heal or improve the people in the world under this design is not different telling them to wash their hands.
Extremity will always be existent. If you find out its rationale, you will marginalize it as well. There is no way to end it up. Terror will never end; if you learn to live together you will only then marginalize or push it back.
The thing that is called extremism is, in my opinion, quite relative. It possesses its own rational conditions and cannot be perceived until these rationales are fully understood.

Kaan H. Ökten: I want to address a question to Mr. Ali Yaman. Last year we conducted a summer school program at another university where different people of various religions attended. There were three Bosnian Sunnis. The group was consisting of almost 40 people. We went to the Cem Evi in Yenibosna. There, they gave us food which is called lokma. But, they said that they wouldn’t eat the foods of Alevis. We were completely astonished. And what happened was that they really didn’t eat the food offered to us. Now, the “others” always exist; but rejecting the food offered by the “others” is a serious human attitude. It is one of the most important attitudes of human beings. Isn’t it a major insult to reject a food offered by someone? This is a emotional violence. Does the “other” always need to apply violence? What are we going to do, how would you defend yourself? What would you, as the Alevi offering food, tell the Sunni who is rejecting it? Can you speak about religious brotherhood? Can you say that this is in the essence of everything? Or can we say that this world consists of entirety and we are all brothers, in fact?

Bekir Karlığa: It would be fine if he further explains the Alevism in the Balkans. Alevism in the Balkans is the most widespread thing. It is how it goes there.

Ali Yaman: Well, first let me thank to Bahçeşehir University for inviting us to such a meeting. Secondly, in relation with this subject, this is applied also in marriages and not only in food matters. No one lets his daughter marry to an Alevi; nothing cooked by an Alevi should be eaten or Alevis don’t wash themselves…there are many stuff like this. These are endless. I have traveled to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in 2004-2005. A group called the Lachis lives in that region. These Lachis are a group that are deemed as organizing “perverted” meetings, just as it is the case in the Alevis who aren’t allowed to marry Muslim girls. I mean, there are many versions of this situation around the globe.
But we can give such examples because we are talking in the context of Islam.
Now, of course, we have to study the historical background of this subject. Even if the Sunnis, instructors of theology and the Directorate of Religious Affairs in Turkey state that “we are tolerant, such events won’t happen here”, in a very optimist manner, I am sure that our instructors (hoca) display such an attitude. Unfortunately, real life is completely different than this. There are still many people in Turkey who cannot declare that they are Alevis. We should look for the reason for this. There are of course some historical reasons for that; starting from the Ottoman-Safawi problem up to the comments brought to Islam by the Alevis which were hard to accept. I mean to be accepted by the Sunnis. How is a Sunni going to accept that a Cem Evi is a place of worship? It is really hard. But today, there are 50 Cem Evi in Istanbul and they are all accepted. I mean, there is a de facto situation.
Legally, there is nothing existing under the name Cem Evi. It is forbidden; but actually there are around 50 Cem Evi in Istanbul. There are people who say that they are worshipping there. And an officer from the Religious Affairs department entitles such places as House of Carousal. Well, you can say that…but the other one says that he is worshipping there. Thus, when we look at the issue in relation with the non-radical acts of Alevis under these conditions…now, we see that Alevis support the Safawi state in majority around Anatolia. Who is leading the state? For example, our books tell us that Shah of Iran is leading it; of course there is also fake information. In fact, Shah Ismail is a person speaking and writing in Turkish language. And at that era, when Yavuz Sultan Selim wrote divan in Persian language, he was the person who wrote poems in Turkish which even now we are able to understand. Now, please pardon me, but it is natural for an Alevi person living in Tekeeli, Antalya to choose Shah Ismail instead of Sultan Selim. This is very natural. However, there are such history instructors who do not include the Safawis while writing about Islamic Turkish states. And unfortunately these instructors are entitled as assistant professor, vice-assistant professor or professor; I mean they are aware of history. I don’t know why they act like this; whether intentionally or not. But it is obvious that the Safawis are an Iranian state. These people were on the side of an Iranian state. Thus, it is said that it is natural to subject them all to types of slander, or even it is normal to kill them. This is how it goes at the moment.
Now, the subject was the Alevis a little while ago…I mean the food offer, etc. But let’s look what they do. They name the Sunnis as Yezit (devil). They did it in the past and still continue to do so. Well, the Sunnis generally act as following: we named them as Kızılbaş but they call us Yezit. This is an act of defending. You call him Kızılbaş…you tell him that he sleeps with his parents and you insult him with many other things. Ahmet Refik authored a book titled 16. Asırda Hafizilik Bektaşilik (The Hafizi and Bektashi order in the 16th century). There are things in it gathered together from the Ottoman archives. There are many people thrown into the Kızılırmak River or strangled just because of being a Kızılbaş; these take place within the Ottoman archive. You do all these things but the man just names you as Yezit; that’s all! Today, the Turkish Republic, and as claimed by some people the Alevi society (except marginal segments), are inside some political cliché dating back to the right-left era. Except some groups in the Tunceli region or inside PKK, if we make a division like Alevi-Sunni, we’ll see that the rate of the Sunnis is going to be more. But the larger portion outside them hasn’t tended to be extreme in Turkey. If they did so, Turkey wouldn’t be in its current structure. I mean, it will be the end of Turkey in case that an Alevi problem arises in an extreme manner besides the Kurdish problem. Today, we can see that Alevi and Sunni people live peacefully in the same apartment building. Well, think of the Bosnia Herzegovinian, former Yugoslavian model; that would lead us into a more clashing environment. This is of course a completely different subject: why did the Alevis accept a more pacifist trend? At point, we see the role of the state; we should accept this. The Alevis and Sunnis never got into struggle in Turkey. I mean, they may not marry each other or don’t eat the food that has been offered. This can be called as passive polarization. But these two folks never got into something more serious. Only the ones in power accepted Sunnism as a sign of power and did something for the Alevis on behalf of the Sunnis. And the state, I feel sorry to say it but the Turkish Republic, keeps this sectic structure transferred from the Ottoman Empire alive. And if it continues the same way, Turkey will lose control over the situation. I mean, Turkey is about to lose its initiative about Alevism and is about to miss the chance to produce solutions thereof.
Because today, Alevism takes part as a paragraph within the content of the Religious Freedom Report, European Human Rights Reports and America’s religious freedom reports; whereas, this said paragraph enlarges constantly. I mean, any issue that didn’t exist 10 to15 years ago is now mentioned as one, two, three or ten sentences. But for some reason or other, nothing is done by religious affairs officers, including the Directorate of Religious Affairs, to change the status quo structure. Even the current AKP government, which calls itself as the most democratic and most different party, did nothing in relation with this subject. They resist, because in my opinion, they already do not believe in such a thing. From time to time, it is told that new frontiers are going to be unveiled in relation with this subject. But unfortunately, there is an internal resistance. Besides, they clearly display this resistance. For example, some modifications have been conducted within the content of religion books. The 12th class religion book has not been published yet. The General Director of Religious Education sent the book to me; and I realized that the book uses the term “Alevi-Bektashi Thought”. This is what we’ve mentioned here a while ago. I mean, an Alevi person worship Cem; but the title within the book is selected carefully: “The Cem Ritual in Alevi-Bektashi Thought”. This means that what the Alevis perform is a ritual, a ceremony…but the thing done by Sunnis is called worshipping. This is unacceptable for every human being, religious instructor or any other officer at the Directorate of Religious Affairs. But, the Director of Religious Affairs speaks as follows: “The mandatory religion lectures should continue in its current form”; here are a lot of newspaper clipping that I’ve brought. Because he says that “its current structure is above sects”. What he defines as “being above sects” is Sunnism; i.e. Sunnism is above all sects. The other one, I mean Alevism, is already a perverted sect. It is approved historically. Thus, he collects tax from the Alevis but feels free in talking so. That’s disgusting.
Let me give an example on the continuation of such things about religion books in this country. Here, in the 11th class book…there are phrases clearly insulting Shi’ism: It says that the 12 Imam Beliefs in Shi’ism is affected by Persians and Jews. Now, how come that such a phrase takes place in a book that’s above sects? This is not a book above sects; it’s a book that should be felt ashamed of. I have told himself as well as the General Director of Religious Education and Mr. Hasan Onat from whom the quotation was made. I visited him at the School of Theology and said: “Mr. Onat, this is what’s going on; you are mentioned herein”. He said that he was quoted because he is working on Shi’ism. But he added that everything in Sunnism came from the heaven.
But the others make statements that it is completely a mixture of idol worshipping; it’s really unbelievable. In Turkey, status quo institutions sustain some stuff that doesn’t cohere with intelligence and understanding. And Turkey is lead into a funny situation within the international platform. Especially those who study religious matters defend this. This is the situation. The Schools of Theology, Directorate of Religious Affairs, Ministry of National Education and the Directorate General of Religious Education are the institutions that benefit from the current structure of religion in Turkey; thus they resist in not changing it. We should ask “why doesn’t it change?” to those who claim that it should change. I mean, if a theologian or Directorate of Religious Affairs says that they make efforts for it, we should ask this question: “Then why does it continue to be so and why do you support it?” The same stuff continues since 1920s. I don’t want to give details; but I will when required. That’s what I want to tell in general.

Nilüfer Narlı: When scrutinizing upon religious matters, ı can give an example about religion classes bearing in mind that the education philosophy is not able to locate the cosmopolitan understanding in the center: “The history of religions should be compared with a religion which is free of judging statements”. Now, what you have told is very important because they use a judging style. This is how Alevism is….yes, it’s alright if it is worshipping…this is important. I actually deem Alevism as richness, i.e. heterodoxy. The religious perception in Turkey takes place in heterodox manner. And this type of perception includes the cosmopolitan understanding. Thus, our own culture displays such richness; we should make use of it.

Cemal Uşak: Doesn’t it mean that there is no heterodoxy?

Nilüfer Narlı: No, it includes it.

Cemal Uşak: Can we say that solely Alevism can provide unity?

Nilüfer Narlı: No, I only said that it exists in our understanding. I mean Alevism is a part of it; maybe they perceive Mevlevism (also Sunnism) as a kind of heterodoxy. I think that this is positive. Because, in this way, someone can facilitate extreme propaganda through Orthodox religious understanding. Just like Mevlana said: “Join us, whoever you are”. You can join us whenever you want; you are not from “the others”. There is also the unity understanding of humanity; the human understanding sharing common rationalism. The things that Mrs. Arıboğan told are also very positive. We shouldn’t talk of the dialogue of civilizations; I want to establish dialogue with an individual as a human being. That’s the simplest way I can explain it.

Kaan H. Ökten: Thank you. I want to address a question to Deniz Saporta: In an examination during the History of Civilization class, I wanted the pupils to compare the 13 principles of Maimonides and the 5 conditions of Islam. We also studied this subject during the lessons. The students were surprised of the similarity between them. But I said that there is a time gap of 2000 years among them. Does a scaring ignorance exist, aren’t we aware of facts and, if so, why?

Deniz Saporta: Let me make a preliminary statement before replying your question. I also nodded while Mrs. Narlı was speaking, because she said many things that I was going to say. Now, first of all, I am here in order to represent the Turkish Jewish community. No need to introduce myself. You were right in saying that we are not ‘aware’. Nobody really knows. You called this ‘ignorance’. The reason of this may be really ignorance. The source of it can also be not having seen and not being able to see issues. Now, since I am a citizen of the Turkish Republic, I would like to speak on basis of Turkey. We can only make estimations since no query in relation with religion has been made during the last census. We guess that our population is around 23.000. And when we take into consideration that the population of country is around 70 million people, it is really hard for a Turkish citizen to come across a Jew. It is known that around 20.000-21.000 out of this 23.000 people live in Istanbul; whereas, 2.000 of them live in Izmir. This is a very low number. There are around 50 to 100 people in Ankara, Bursa and Antakya. So, it is quite normal that people don’t get acquainted with a Jew.
Extremism in all fields is fed by ignorance. We call the extremism displayed against us as anti-Judaism or anti-semitism. We do not generalize this. It is also a question asked by journalists when I go abroad due to my studies: “Does anti-semitism exist in Turkey?” It is not that easy to reply this. It is not a yes/no question. Well, we all have a daily life. For example, some portion of it consists of school hours, office hours, we have relations with our neighbors, and we have friends. When I say school hours, I mean my child going to school. My child may the only, second or third Jew in class. This applies also for business life.
And looking from this point of view, everybody becomes friends with us once he or she knows us closer. We also witness very interesting approaches. For example they say that we are really different. Well, different from whom? Different from the others. Different from “those” Jews. Who are those Jews? He/she doesn’t know it. There are some prejudices. There are some stereotypes in people’s minds. He or she evaluates you according to these stereotypes. I want to make a quotation from the Hahambaşı (Chief Rabbi). He lectured many times at theology schools; he is good in communication. He says that, whenever he travels to Anatolian cities, other lecturers approach him with statements such as “you are normal”. Well, he says that he doesn’t have four ears and a tail. These are upsetting situations of course.

Nilüfer Narlı: They become aware that they are speaking to a human being when getting acquainted.

Deniz Saporta: Just as I have said; they generally feel sorry because of such prejudice once they know people closer. So what can be done at that point? It is impossible to introduce 20.000 people with 70 million people. I would like to mention once again some issues stated by Mrs. Narlı. The most important issue here is education. Media has been named as “God”. Media has lots of stuff to do at that point. And we generally follow up event through the media. And besides, events from daily life help us in arranging matters. There are also many statistical researches conducted both in Turkey and abroad; just like the ones conducted by TESEV. I don’t know if you ever came across to one of them but there is a type of question asked every time.
“With whom would you like to be a neighbor of?” You as sociologists know it very well, I guess. I always get surprised when I face such questions, may because I didn’t study sociology. Well, just tell me with whom you’d like to have neighborhood relations: A killer, drug addict, homosexual, prostitute, Jew-Armenian-Greek or Christian? Sometimes a separate choice in form of Alevi is also asked. These are some of the questions. An unfortunately, the results are generally negative. I feel sorry of this because I live in an apartment building. 10 of my neighbors are Muslims; and they all love me. This is sad but true.

Cemal Uşak: What’s the general result in such questionnaires; what do people write?

Deniz Saporta: The results are similar. According the last research conducted by TESEV, 24.4% have said that they would raise objection to people from a different sect; 28.2% to a Kurdish family; 39.1% to a Jewish family; 42.01% to Armenians; 42.9% to Greeks; 49% ton on-religious people and 66.2% to homosexuals.

Cemal Uşak: So, they would not like to be a neighbor of these people?

Deniz Saporta: Exactly. Would you say that you would not place objection to any of them? This was an example of the research conducted lately by TESEV. As I said before, education is of high importance. Want to give some more examples in order to make it clear. Well, one of them…a student from Private Koç Elementary School. And Zeynep, Ahmet, Mehmet are the closest friends. One day he asked me a question: “Deniz how is it possible to be a Turk and Jew at the same time?” He was almost 11 when this question came. At that moment I saw the naïveté in his eyes. That kid asked met his question because he did know nothing about this issue. They are educated in a very good elementary school. They are taught many interesting things in many areas. But they aren’t taught anything about this issue. Just as you’ve said a while ago; every child should be taught about such issues in a simple way conforming to their group of age. Well, it is obvious and well known that we, Jews, have lived within the Ottoman Empire and still live in Turkey since 1492; i.e. for more than 500 years.
They are the absolute and principal elements of the Turkish Republic. They are the principal founding elements. I personally display a negative approach to the concepts of guest and hospitality. I am not a guest here. I am a Turkish citizen who is equal with all. Well, that kid will ask this because he doesn’t know it, that’s natural. He thinks that Jews and Turks are totally different. We need to tell this. A person can become anything under his Turkish identity. He or she can even become a Buddhist. I told all these to the kid and he immediately understood everything. Then he said Ataturk is your ancestor as well. ‘Yes’ I said; ‘he is our ancestor as well’. In fact, it’s that easy to teach it to the kids. However, these are overlooked and then we face it as different problems. Our educators do not know how to teach this. At this point, I would also like to add something to the word tolerance. We do not display a warm approach towards the word tolerance. If you tolerate someone it means that the related person has something lacking, missing. I would like to replace the tolerance with respect, if you dear Hahambaşı permit me. Be respectful to each other, accept everyone as they are. Of course we live in a society; there are certain conditions. But we should definitely be respectful.
I would also like to say something about the media while Mr. Akyol is here.
This issue about the media is very intense for sure. We are frequently unjustly treated by the media because the concept of Judaism is used in different types. Jewish and Musevi (Judaism) are reflected as different things. In fact, both are the same. But unfortunately our media is affected immediately by the events taking place in the world. Of course there is also the Middle East factor.

Mustafa Akyol: The term “Musevi” is invented by the Turks, isn’t it?

Deniz Saporta: I think so, because in foreign languages there is only one word for it: Jewish, Judaism.

Kaan H. Ökten: So they don’t worship Moses, isn’t it?

Deniz Saporta: No, definitely not.

Cemal Uşak: Worshipping may be valid for İsevi (worshipper of Jesus) but not for Moses.

Kaan H. Ökten: The Christians sometimes call it Muhammedi.

Deniz Saporta: There is also the similarity of the religions emerging. I would like to give a few examples about the media. We made great efforts as community. When, for example, talking about a business man the term Jewish usurer, etc. is always used. And when this business does something good the term Jew isn’t used as prefix. But his Jewish identity is revealed when he does something bad. This happened many times. I mean, he is a Turkish citizen. It’s impossible to say Muslim Ahmet when a Muslim does something good. These are the events in the Middle East as I have mentioned before; but you may criticize the policy of this country. You may criticize. But when you start to criticize the policy of a country, you should start and end with that peculiar country. It is something different than criticizing the policy of the country when some negative terms are used together with the religion or ethnic roots of that country. Please let me give a very clear example. For instance, when you use the headline “Bloody Jews once again in Gaza” instead of “Israel in Gaza”, you include all local Jewish communities around the world. That’s unfair. We experienced very sad events in 2003. I say that our country experienced these events not only our community. At those times, I joined many interviews both domestically and abroad. And the question asked by foreigners to me was this: “What do you think about Islamic terror?” And I answered this without having it planned before: “Of course, ask this question to me in this way.” I mean, for me, the words bloody and Jew shouldn’t be used together…and when you say Islamic terrorist I will say that my closest friend Esra is a Muslim. I mean she is not a terrorist…do you understand? You can’t generalize this. There are all types of Muslims. But you cannot use this both words together.
The media has an important role at that point. Some portion of the media gets fed by these. There are some people paying for it; these get worse after a bit of time.
I have two proposals at that point: the first one as I have said is education. And the second point is law which is of high importance. I mean, a well defined, clear legal arrangement is a must in order to prevent expressions of hate. But here, you are only punished when someone threatens you with a gun; besides, those who apply the laws should be well educated. They should individually be able to place lawsuits; they should follow up events. While Mr. Mustafa was here, I got permission from him; there are some events in the media nowadays. It explains our feelings very well. I would like to read his writing: “There some wrong understandings interrelated with this issue. First of all there is this anti Semitic thought that has no relation with Judaism. I don’t think that both generals have something to do with Judaism. The fact that someone is of Jewish blood may not be a reason for condemnation. It’s being Sabataist should be evaluated as right within religious freedom”.
This is a quote from Mr. Mustafa. Mrs. Gülay [Göktürk] wrote this today: it is not important by whom this news is made. But it is sad that this is perceived as guilt if someone who is a Muslim, Christian or atheist, would this be published if he or she had a photograph in front of the Wall of Crying? This is made use of because it exists. This is the point that we should study. In other words, this publication has its counterpart in the society. This is the hostile behavior of those who are seeking freedom of belief and worshipping for themselves. What is really creating fear is the hostility against Judaism that exists within the religious sections of the society. It is believed that the damnable acts in the world source from the Jews and that they underlie every bad action. This is really bad.” This is what Mrs. Gülay Göktürk says in the Bugün newspaper today. I mean both Mr. Mustafa and Mrs. Gülay talk about the things that we think. It hurts us when people are defined as Jewish origin and when this is used as slander.
The unending “cursed Jewish tribe” concept is not going to end. Lastly, I would like to read a part of Ahmet Hakan’s column of today:
“To a friend who says that Jews are cursed…” But I don’t know to which friend he writes it:
“You say that Jews are cursed; you refer to the holy book as basis to your fascist opinion and you act totally wrong from start to the end. There is no need to have studied lessons such as Islamic theology, fiqh, tenets and the formation of Arabic verbs in order to realize your fault. It would be enough for you to think a little bit, to have some feelings of empathy and to have a humane point of view. For example, think of this: Let’s say that you were born as a Jew in Poland instead of a Muslim child in Kastamonu; i.e. you are a Jewish baby instead of a Muslim baby. And according to your thesis you are a cursed baby. And now think of this: Can God, of which all 99 names include justice curse a sinless baby”
He tells us so good…I guess our instructors here will add their opinions thereof.

Mustafa Akyol: I agree with Mrs. Deniz. I thank her for his reading. I want to contribute by going from end to start. First, our education system is really full of problems. The education system plays an important role in all these. Not only this; but also the fanaticism or nationalism of the Islamic section in the society has a role as well. I mean, our education system should at least be controlled. The problem in our education system is this: It teaches us that this country is mono block: “We are all Turks”. That’s all. And when we meet someone on the street who is not a Turk we get surprised and ask him or her where he is from; if he immigrated newly, etc.
The problem of Kurds is another problem in Turkey. Can you tell e what a young person learns about Kurds after he graduates from high school? I learned nothing. I even wasn’t aware of the Kurds when I was at the age level of high school. I had heard that word but it was far for me like the ethnic group Pashtuns. I mean, I didn’t know if they existed in Turkey or not.

Bekir Karlığa: It was also forbidden.

Mustafa Akyol: Yes you are right.

Cemal Uşak: If you were born in the region where I was born you’d know that tailed Kurds existed.

Mustafa Akyol: It is worse there in terms of public dimensions. I only remember this: Actually, you hear the word Kurd in the education system. You are taught about the Association of Kurdish Rise (Kürt Teali Cemiyeti) that is a part of the Sevres. They have an image like bad people. You don’t know what a Kurd is. You also learn about the rebel of Sheikh Sait. You are taught that it was driven by the Englanders. I wrote a book about this issue. There is no evidence that the Sheikh Sait rebel was provocated by the Englanders. İsmet İnönü talks about this in the assembly. It works for the Englanders in Mosul; but the Englanders paid for it and these got the gold…Is it therefore? No. Sheikh Sait doesn’t like the newly established regime… he is both Kurdish and Islamist…I mean it is politic. It is a problem that aroused from a disagreement within Turkey. Now, you learn this when you are a kid: There are people called Kurds…foreigners give them gold and they start a rebellion. And when you meet a Kurd in the street no matter about the level of tolerance, this perception directly appears in your mind. This is inevitable. Or the Armenian concept… For years, we were told that PKK was Armenian. It is such a thing that, when you define everything as Armenian, it is obvious that they are hostile. So, it is alright if PKK is Armenian. And for example there is nothing like this in our education system: There are different ethnic groups, beliefs, in Turkey like Armenians, Jews and Greeks. Some of them died while serving for the Turkish state during defending the country. There is study titled “Non Muslim Martyrs”. We are together with them since thousand years. They exist in our society and they have contributed much. There are different ethnic groups; for example Kurds, Zazas or Alevism…
We don’t learn anything about Alevism. Simply nothing. This is also means that, at least, not is said in negative manner. But not mentioning anything about it means that the society is not reflected to you and when you meet the real society you get upset and say: “Hey, we didn’t learn this. What is this? Aren’t we all Turks?” And you define Turkishness in a different format. I mean, a Jew is a Turk at the same time and a citizen of the Turkish Republic; but this is not taught to you. There are different beliefs but you are told nothing about it.
Thus, someone who is subjected to our education system should get liberalized in some way; only then can these issues be evaluated correctly.
If you continue as you are after such an education system, then this nationalist trend emerges. This is exactly this situation: “there are people that want to divide us; they are the traitors; they are all paid and they want to divide us…” You start live ready to perceive it in this manner when you are subjected to our education system.
This system has some reasons. The Ottoman Empire was collapsed; we were scared that we were really disintegrating. The state was also scared and pumped us with the thought of nationalist unity. We were always motivated with national unity and taught that “there will be no problem if we continue this way”. But we weren’t able ato see that intolerance, paranoia and hate would arise from this. Those who did this also didn’t care about it. When you teach nothing about the diversity in the nation, this turns diversity into a threat in the mind of the nation. This is our problem.
I handle the definition of extremism as follows: In fact, we give meaning to extremism. When you consider it in a natural way, extremist means a person who is not average. In fact, this is not a bad thing. For example, Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet Union was not average; but he was good. He defended freedom, democracy. As a result these are all relative concepts. Especially in Turkey, it may be good if you are not average in some cases. For example in such cases that I have mentioned. Thus, maybe we need to materialize some points like hate speech that Mrs. Deniz talked about in order to define our problem clearly.
A person can possess different opinions. But this person can also say that the political system shouldn’t include such things. He or she may also be a monarchist. Let me give a very extreme example; may be it even does not exist in Turkey: Some one can say that he or she believes in monarchy. This is an extremist politic view. But is it this that we should handle as problem? Or is it the issue that orients people towards violence? It is such a thing that, when you pump people with hate against others, it doesn’t have to turn into violence. We may see events that emerge in another area let’s say 10 years later. Think of the Armenians in the same way. For example who knows how much the Hrant Dink murder disquieted them. Before going into action you have to show that this person is bad for us and the world, so you create an a priori hate against him in order to legitimize your action. For example this is very important: We ay criticize Israel. And I believe that it is needed to criticize Israel. And I criticize it when required. It has reasons; that’s a different issue. This is different; it is totally different to say that Jews make it as a priori. The history of world shows one thing clearly: every nation can do every type of bad acts when under threat. America was known as the country of freedom. But take a look at Guantanamo or the perception of terrorism in Americans. These suddenly turn into extraordinary times; people are transferred from one point to another in CIA aircrafts, etc. no nation can be defined as good or bad; it is a philosophical issue to discuss if humanity is good or bad. I agree with Mrs. Deniz. I guess humanity has both good and bad sides. Humanity has demonic, bad sides but…that’s what religions tell to us. The religions tell us to obey our conscience. Preference is an issue of paradigm; the most important thing is to prevent hate and prejudice. But how will we be able to prevent them? The fact that we people here who are all against extremism is a good thing. If we are going to improve this project, we should call those people from the Vakit newspaper. For example, one of them mentioned that my race is Kurdish. According to the Yeniçağ newspaper I am a Kurd. I mean there are such things; these are the most marginal ones. Maybe a logical person comes from there and sits with Mrs. Deniz around the same table.

Deniz Saporta: We tried it once but it didn’t happen. We tried it at least.

Mustafa Akyol: This is a proposal at least. Because there is this question: “How are we going to solve it?” We say that these are bad things; we as educated people determine it but what are we going to do? Mr. Cemal’s foundation does a big study in relation with this. It eliminated many prejudices in the Islamic section.

Cemal Uşak: We had such an experience in the Jewish community. I am going to talk about it later. No matter how much you abstain; it becomes effective after a while. I agree with the evaluations made before me. But especially, during Mrs. Narlı’s speech I felt as if I have written the text.

Nilüfer Narlı: That’s nice to hear, you are welcome.

Cemal Uşak: You have written down the issues that I share with foreigners for years. The point that Mr. Mustafa emphasized is this: we have a problem of title. And it is this: Fight against extremism and evaluating extremism. What is in balanced, what is in the center and what is extreme? Now, you can discuss this philosophically by quotes from Aristotle and previous lectures. Now I think that we should discuss sub-concepts or sub-products. Well, I am going to discuss on this issue. Just as Mr. Mustafa has expressed it, someone has the right to be an extremist with comparison to another person according to his or her philosophy or religion. I mean, late Cemil Meriç both wrote it and said. For example he felt discomfort in relation with the Middle East concept. It is a slippery and treacherous term. Who is the ‘center’? Who determines it? The English empire stated as follows: “I the center point. The one on my left is either east or near east. As I have mentioned before it is a slippery and treacherous term when you place yourself in the middle. And who are those that are moderate? You say that the philosophers are going to determine this. We can discuss this philosophically. The evaluation of extremism is going to be more within the framework of activists and journalists rather than being academic. Extremism is not a threat by itself. Extremism is a threat because of the extremities it possesses.

Extremism is dangerous because it feeds other concepts. Thus, this Project should continue…Mr. Ökten said that it is going to continue. We should focus on sub concepts. We should make our prior fight against “discrimination” especially in Turkey; I mean hostility against foreigner. Let’s make some studies on this issue. We should focus on the issue through making more classification; and as it is mentioned before the school books are of great importance; especially history, language and religion books. The language and religion books that Mr. Ali complains about… For example you complain about the media. In novels and stories the Jews are shown as loan sharks. Let me give an example about my cousin Selma. She conducted a study with Bilgi; a very superficial one. As from the first years of the republic until the 50s, there is no single positive Jew, Armenian or Greek character in the novels. And after the 50s, there are only a few of them mentioned as positive. As I said, the school books are of high importance. What I want to draw attention is this hostility against foreigners, discrimination and the tendency of defending violence. We are not security powers that will fight physically against these but we are going to discuss it and focus on it. When you fight against the tendency of defending violence, it means that you are already fighting against extremism. Creating an “other”, Mrs. Deniz talked about it as you did. As long as we and the other humanity exist, this concept is going to exist also. Now, for example the “other” i.e. myself. I was born in a village of Bursa. My mother is from the Kınık clan whereas my father is from the Black Sea region. I lived in the village until I was 12. I think it is still the same in my village: when someone is going to swear only the concepts are used for this sake. These are as follows: Armenian offspring, Greek offspring and son of a Moskof (Russian). Especially the latter was started to be used after the 60s and 70; whereas, the exact term was Moskof and not Russian. Nothing was said about the Jews. I came to Istanbul when I was 13. One day, I and a friend of me are on the vessel sailing to Kadıköy. My friend was talking like this: “There were all types of people; çingen (gypsy), çıfıt…all types of people man”.

Mustafa Akyol: What does çıfıt mean; Jew?

Cemal Uşak: Yes. It means Jew. I learned this term on that vessel in 1965and another gentleman on the same vessel turned around and said: “Well, young man; I don’t know where the Çingen are but here Çıfıt for sure”.
And I asked “Sorry Sir, what does Çıfıt mean?” Then this gentleman replied: “Look son, Çıfıt is a term used to insult Jews”. Now, to talk about the other: Just as Mr. Mustafa mentioned; this “other” is either a threat or enemy or it is a potential enemy as it is taught to us through school books. Our country is surrounded by enemies. However, in our Islamic understanding (our instructors here know it better than me) there are four stages. Nevertheless, there are also mystical trends. Firstly, the most important thing is to learn “myself”. It is important to discover “to be an individual”. After this comes “me and you”. And then comes “we”. “We” also consists of some layers. “We” may also fall within cosmopolitism or within the definition of all creatures. This is the concept of belonging to somewhere; the 3rd stage in Islamic mysticism. And then, if you are strong enough and if your breath is enough powerful, comes “It”. I’ll go, I and you will go we will go; but “It” will remain. You will reach the point of “You exist just because of it”.
Now, I totally agree with Mr. Ali Yaman. I also want to say something based on his statements. Now, someone who is or is not a Sunni has the right to say this: “You may define it as extremism. Now, in accordance with the Sunni tradition and the Koran and hadith they I understand and according to the statements of the Prophet Mohammad, the thing that the Alevis is a heterodox ceremony even if they call it worshipping.” Someone has the right to talk like this. But if this person says that there should be no other place than mosques and that Cem Houses should be removed this shall mean discrimination. So, we have to discriminate between the philosophical and social behavior sides of this issue. I support the proposal made by Mr. Mustafa. Now, a few friends of mine from the Jewish community said to this: “Do you know this person?” I will not mention any name because it is someone that you know. He is writing in a newspaper. He includes all Jews while he is criticizing the policies of Israel. So I introduced them and organized a meeting. They became close friends. They borrowed from each other volumes of the Jewish Encyclopedia.
I closely followed up the columns of this person for a period of 2 years. There were no signs of danger. But unexpectedly, 6 months ago, upon the Gaza event I saw him writing like this: “in fact these Jews are cursed; no wonder that they are cursed”. Just as Ahmet Hakan’ said: “Here, you saw what they did.” Surprisingly, it had a warranty period of 2 years. Thus, I say all these based on my experiences. The issue that I want to emphasize is this: do not get stuck in the title; but only if we were able to find a less problematic title… But I don’t know how to formulate the title of this project. But we should focus on the sub derivatives of it.

Kaan H. Ökten: Yes, we should hold such a meeting until autumn…

Cemal Uşak: I mean discrimination, hostility against foreigners, xenophobia and the things that were said during the last meeting by a lady who is an instructor at the Bahçeşehir University. It is about the creation of hate through our schoolbooks; the Minister of National Education conducted a study but it didn’t come to an end.

Bekir Karlığa: It has end.

Cemal Uşak: He has a preparation in relation with the Russians; I mean during his visit to Russia. He removed all the terms in relation with Moskof and Russians from the books. He brought it to the Russian national education minister and said: “Here, we did what we should do. Now it is your turn”. The Russians accepted this. I don’t know if it is done but at least an agreement was undersigned.
But our Greek friends still continue to discuss. The same was done by Greece. They said that they were going to remove the terms that lead to hate. But the Greeks said this: “This is a part of our culture; this is the literature of swearing. It is a wealth of our language”. They still continue to talk like this.
Our gypsy citizens, the dark skinned citizens, and the Romans possess a confederation.
He used such terrible things in a meeting that may be someone can use this style in a text, i.e. encyclopedia, dictionary or story) belonging individually to him or her. But it ı think that it is worth thinking on if this takes place in school books and official texts by the Directorate of Religious Affairs and Ministry of National Education. I mean in texts that are financed with our taxes.

Kaan H. Ökten: In fact, dialogue among civilizations is not necessary; because there is only one civilization. We have to study on the unity of this instead of dialogue said our rector. I want to learn more about your opinions.

Bekir Karlığa: I would like to talk about the issues that has been talked about until now. It will be better if I start from that point. Then I will focus on the issue of whether it is a dialogue, unity or meeting of civilizations.
There are of course some points that we should take care of while speaking about extremism. One of these issues that we should not be extreme as well. I mean we shall not lose our objectivity with our judgments and decisions. It is hard to find that so called golden center but we should be careful to catch it. Thus, we should focus on realist and widely accepted facts by not generalizing it through marginal examples. Because, marginal examples occur in every society. Always. And we don’t have to chance to prevent these to happen. I want to start from this point: You said that 3 Bosnian students didn’t eat the food offered to them. In fact, the simplest perception of Islamism happened in the Balkans until the war between Bosnians and Serbs. And even many religious rules weren’t attached the needed importance. Now, may be because the psychology that the Bosnian students underwent it is possible for them to get in contact with an extreme group. This is common in becoming pious. A person turns himself suddenly to religion. And then he starts to reject everything. He also shuffles aside history, culture and traditions as if he created a religion from the beginning.
Thus we should focus on the problems existing in a large portion of the society instead of taking such events as a base. What I have always thought is this: There is always a fault of us underlying the problem. We try to overcome this fault slowly. And we think that we have overcome it. But then we see that it is still there.
There is a fault that we all do: we try to understand our own history, culture and tradition in a realistic way; we try to understand them as they are. We do not display a critical manner. These also continue in the field of history, language, secular-ant secular struggle and many other things. But there is a fact that underlies these faults: Ignorance. We mostly speak about the Turkish history. I don’t think that a good Turkish history education is given to the students. In the recent years it has been talked about religion. Isn’t the lesson of religion mandatory? I also think that the religious education is also not enough. When you don’t equip people with enough knowledge, this ignorance will lead them to extreme denial or extreme acceptance. The Turkish society is now between two extremities. I don’t care much about marginal talking; because they will always be there. If you put them in the heaven they will say like this: “well, this heaven but something is missing here”. But they make our way; it is not correct how Mustafa said it: “let’s suppress them and prevent them saying such things”. The basic lack of knowledge in these fields sources from another point: The Turkish intellectuals didn’t take religion for serious during the last 80-100 years. When you don’t take religion for serious, when you don’t learn it from its main source and when you don’t equip the folk with its main source then the folk will create a religion by themselves. And they will chase this newly created religion. If you ask whether or not the high schools which are training Islamic religious people and the theology schools that have been opened during the last 40 years do not meet this, I will say “no”. Because we see that the tendency of free thinking, freedom of criticizing (even himself) does not exist here as it doesn’t exist in any other institution of the state. Mrs. Deniz expressed it very good. A university rector terrorized the Istanbul University so much; I was a graduate of that university. I received my doctorate there and I continued there for years. Then one day I visited a friend. Everybody was afraid to say something. Everyone hesitates with the fear of being spotted. This atmosphere will spread to all the society if it is this way in the university.
If you define the concepts very well you may call it extremism, radicalism or something else. But what we have to do is to define it well. Because both in Turkey and Turkish language there is a fight among concepts; nor has the time to discuss the roots and meanings of thee concepts. With this regards, you have started from a good point: the golden center point. This not only exists in Aristotle. This theory of the golden center point starts from Plato and is developed in the fields of ethic, medical science and philosophy. This theory is extremely well explaining for us. There are many books written in the Islamic philosophy tradition that is related with this golden center point which is starting from İbn-i Sina up to the others. Now they, as you have mentioned, construct it on these two basics and they comment on Aristotle in this way. It is related with wisdom and justice. They define the golden center point as justice, excess and remissness as you have stressed it a while ago. We can call this a lack of virtue. They perceive it as the middle point of these and it is not only in legal terms. Their basis is the balance issue of an individual. I mean the point where someone has to act in justice in terms of psychology and physiology. They also express that the Islamic thought should be well balanced and closed to all types of extremities. Based on this, Mr. Cemal said that we can’t be able to catch this. But for us, it is possible to find a middle way. We find this middle way when we take universal values, universal acceptances as basis. Otherwise, by saying that the starting point of everyone is the same, we shouldn’t be skeptic by saying that we can’t be able to find the middle way. We will be able to find it because nature never fails. When we walk hand to hand with nature we can find the middle way. Now, the society’s perception and knowledge of religion is not enough. Our colleague complained about the faults of Alevis and Sunnis. Then other issues were also mentioned here. But we must understand the fact of changing the society’s perception of religion in only one dimension. There is a large Alevi population in the region that I am in. the region of Adıyaman, Maraş and Malatya. Maybe they don’t let their daughters marry to Alevis but there was no other problem.

Aydın Topaloğlu: But they let they let their sons marry, isn’t it?

Bekir Karlığa: As far as I now they take and give girls in that region but that’s quite rare. But nobody applauds another because of taking an Alevi girl or giving a girl to the Alevis. This happened in a limited manner. These events became clearer after full freedom dominated in every field during the last 50 – 70 years, or whatever, when everybody started to think and say everything. But I never heard of something that lead to fight between Alevis and Sunnis in the region that I lived until the 70s. Following the 70s when the right-left struggle commenced these events emerged. Besides the Alevis weren’t also sinless; they said Yezit. I remember very well, one night we went to an Alevi village. At those times there were no places in villages to stay. They called us Yezit and didn’t accept us. No need to exaggerate this; it sources from the ignorance of the man. May be a Sunni did something else to him. And he reacted to this. But the society never fed it up. My father was a hodja. He never exaggerated it despite being a hodja. I mean, when you improve, explain and transfer this understanding that refuses struggle these barricades can be eliminated. But with an approach with struggle, when we say “You did this to an Alevi and ı will do this to you” the reactions will be big. Now I want to speak about the place of worship. I request our Alevi citizens not to misunderstand me. I have a liberal way of thought at that point. I think that few of the things that should be done are made actually. But we should take into consideration this place of worship problem. Now, in Islam, when you say temple one understands it as mosque, church or synagogue. When we put Cem house in front of mosque as a separate thing, then a problem will emerge. In that case we define Alevism as another religion in front of Islam. Alevism is an understanding and approach within Islam. Cem houses are places where they conduct their special religious services. Don’t we entitle Shi’ih mosques as mosques? Yes, we call them mosques. There are even some more extreme trends. They also have mosques. And we also call them mosques. Now, there is only one temple in Islam and it is mosque. When you think about Cem houses as temples, then we should be prepared to the following events.
There is a group that deems Alevism as non Muslim. This is a group that tries to abstain from establishing relation with Islam and their group will be reached. Share should be taken from the directorate of religious affairs; that’s right. Alevis should take place there. I defended this in many meetings even at meetings held with the Ministry of State responsible of religious affairs. Alevis should be represented there. Their institutions and Cem houses should be supported. The state should help them; I mean the authorities. I personally think that this should not turn into an anti mosque approach. We deem religious extremism as subject here; but we should handle and perceive all types of extremism. Is there only religious extremism existing? We should also perceive it. There are ideological extremisms, philosophical extremisms, etc. We also witness fascist approaches that can’t even resist the talks of someone who thinks contrary. We should perceive extremism as a whole. If this study focuses only on religious extremism, we will have a problem. Secondly, we should talk about religious extremism instead of Islamic extremism. These are this way in the western world, in America. One month ago I was in America. I attended a meeting there. A Palestinian priest and Palestinian head imam held a conference. After the conference an Orthodox priest stood up and said: “You are talking very well. But nowadays something called Christian Zionism has emerged. You didn’t talk about this. This is one the most dangerous things nowadays.” I didn’t hear anything about that term until that moment. I thought that Zionism was only within Judaism. Then the man explained: “There is a large crowd of people in the United States who believes within the framework of things to be done in order to bring Jesus down to earth just to bring the world to an end.” He asked this to the Palestinian Orthodox priest. He said: “What can we do at that point?” We should refer to the types of extremism and types of religious extremism. You talked about the insolvency of multiculturalism and paradigm. I guess you express the practical up to date events. But I think this way: Europe never got used to multiculturalism. When you put America aside, Europe’s transition to multiculturalism commenced after the Algerian events in 1830 and the arrival of Algerians to France or the arrival of Indians to London. But we know what Jews experienced in Europe.
The Muslims were never able to enter Europe; it happened never after they entered Andalusia. We know what the Jews experienced until the end of the 1st and 2nd world wars. Europe never tolerated other religions and cultures. They improved the monolithic structure. And when Europe began to get used to pluralism, the wave of workers started. Now they see it as total danger. Actually they define it more clearly because their academic studies and science institutions are better and they have an ability of expression. But we should not attribute it to Christianity. The anti pluralist approach in Europe didn’t occur since the reformation period; since the 13th century. I think that multiculturalism didn’t bankrupt at all.

Nilüfer Narlı: I didn’t use it in response of pluralist; it is in response of multiculturalism.

Bekir Karlığa: Yes, I want to express my own opinions. There is a large crowd in Europe that respects this multiculturalism or diversities of culture. We handle the attitude against Turks or Arabs according to ourselves. It will be a fault to evaluate the attitude of Arabs against French with the eye of French. This man gets in the bus and tears apart the seats of the brand new city bus in front of everybody. Then he attacks everyone. And in such an environment these people become against Arabs or peoples from the east. I guess during your evaluations you pointed out to poly-formism. By integrating it to or own culture, we can solve it easily within the universal dimension. Now, the society doesn’t accept it when we overlap our evaluations with foreign cultures. However, during your evaluations in relation with cosmopolitanism, I remembered verses and hadiths from the Koran. No need to read them now. I have many notes in relation with them but no need for them; they overlap. So, we shouldn’t make the same mistake with our previous intellectuals. We should search for a solution through the integration of our own culture and the universal culture.
Only then will we be able to eliminate these extreme approaches in our country. Thus, one of the names of Islam is “moderate religion, i.e. central religion. The Islamic community is defined within the Koran as moderate community, i.e. central community. When we say central community, generally the people who live in the Middle East are understood. However, this word directly overlaps the golden central point. If we can emerge these specialties of Islam and resolve historical misunderstandings with an objective eye, then we will be able to stop extremism.
I want to end my words after expressing one more issue. The Safavi-Ottoman struggle is the basic and political reason of the Sunni-Alevi struggle in us. Both are Turkish and they both come from Turkish families. There is a series of letters written by a Shi’ih Turk written in the 17th century. I had special interest in it; he was a good thinker. When the Ottomans talked about the Safavis they said “red headed unbelievers”. They use the term “red headed unbelievers” including the Sheikh ul-Islam and Ulema. And they call them “Sunni unbelievers”. This man here told the letter traffic between a Persian and Turk and the events at that time. For example he said: “we were 17 when we walked on the street, then they came and killed 14 of us”.

Cemal Uşak: Is that unbeliever definition there in form of enemy rather than disbelief in God?

Bekir Karlığa: No, they use it also in form of unbelief in God. And also as an enemy. However, when you go to Isfahan, you see a city as Turk as Istanbul and a city Muslim as Istanbul and vice versa. Both are Turkish families. There is a political race here. It is the same for the Mamluks, not only for the Ottomans. They call them Mamluki unbeliever for example. This is extreme hostility towards each other at those times. The same applies to our situation with the Greeks. Now we can’t easily forget the event prior to our war of freedom. We are right at some points. We killed them and they killed us. Thus, it is hard for the society to forget this.
And what underlie these fears are the fears that source from the disintegration of the Empire before the republic. For example the Englanders did this but we weren’t able to greet (for many years) the communities that lived under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire for 300-500 years. We fought them all. Today we try to fix it but it is not that easy. However, the Englanders are much worse than us. They easily established the commonwealth and evaluated them. I once again say that it will be possible to overcome extremism through finding the golden center point.

Kaan H. Ökten: Thank you very much. For me, the concept of mesotes is also very important. I thought that we would end like 16:30. But I want the contributions of Mr. Aydın and Mr. Joti as well.

Joti Kohli: First I tried to speak in Turkish; then I decided that I can’t. ı wrote it in English and my colleague Mr. Serkan Köybaşı translated it form e. It is going to be a little bit repetition. Besides, ı would also like to add a few statements. I am sorry for reading it but my Turkish level is not that well.
First of all I want to make discrimination between extremism and terrorism. Terrorists can be extremists at the same time; however every extremist is not a terrorist. There are many people who do not perform terrorist acts despite being an extremist. Societies make great efforts to get rid of terrorists but not of extremists. For example Baader-Meinhof or Carlos the Jackal; they do not exist anymore. But extremism continues to be here. According to the general understanding of the public, extremism has emerged newly. But this is not the case. It is also not peculiar to religions especially to Islam. Every nation, society and family can include extremism. We all experienced, as a part of the humanity, massacres, slavery, and killing of natives, colonism, racism, sexism; and these also include the cold war. I don’t know if there is any survey conducted in order to determine the reasons of the wars that we experienced since centuries. But if such a survey is conducted, I am sure that extremism will occupy a small percentage among the reasons. The large portion will source from the above mentioned reasons.
And to focus on some Islamic groups due to the reason that they are extremists, is in fact denying and not facing the fact that our family, society, nation and religion is extremist. This is a feeling of comfort that sources from others being extremists. Thus, the term “Crusades” used by Bush was not extreme. However, the term “jihad” used by Islamic groups is extremist. Thus, the caricatures in relation with Prophet Mohammad cannot exceed the limits of expression. But denying the Jewish genocide does; it is even deemed as crime in some European countries. But why are we still extremists despite all these knowledge and technology? The reason for this is that our emotional development is not as fast as our technological development. Thus, despite these developments and level of education violence against women is still a big problem in Turkey. And it is also due to this reason that India lives within the caste system despite producing 85% of all the software in the world. And once again due the lack of emotional development, a father in Austria locks his daughter in the cellar and rapes her (and has a child from her) just because he thinks that she didn’t obey him. These social and individual examples are extremist events that we witness everyday and do not stand against. Such extremist feelings are in all of us. Some of us apply to the terrorist within and some do not. And how do such extremist feelings get in us? They are given to us by our families. The society and the world start to act as soon as our families neglect us. I want to add the issue of education to this. Formal education is not enough. For example Bush is a graduate of the Yale University. But in my opinion he is not well educated. What one person is taught is much important as education. We should look to some other issues besides education. And not only is the media important: we should look at families and other types of relations…
I will use three words here: mezzo, micro and macro. This is quoted from Johann Dalton. He has a theory called conflict transformation. Mezzo is a small conflict, micro is a little bit bigger and macro is the largest. I made analyzed it for the family, nation and world. And the thing that is at mezzo level within the family is the mixture of social injustice, impropriety and limitation of freedom at macro and micro levels which has been marinated with neoliberal spices consisting of authority, patriarchy and sexual constraint. Here, this an Indian curry hot enough to explode in your stomach. I cooked curry because I am an Indian.
One of these events was the rise of Hitler. As the author William Rice mentioned in his book titled “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”, one of the main reasons behind the rise of fascism is the psycho-sexual clash. Anger during that period in Germany oriented towards economical collapse and political hopelessness. And exactly at that moment, Hitler created a father figure who orders a child of who is confused with sinful feelings of freedom and pleasure. Hitler offered freedom to his society by pointing out an exit to this uncontrolled anger and by turning this into an army. The title of Rice’s book can be changed as The Mass Psychology of extremism or fanaticism. And we can use the arguments within in order to explain what is happening to us today. This psychoanalytic explanation and deep insight to the family concept creates some question marks in me. Nowadays, we think that we respond or react to someone else’s extremism. But, looking from this point of view, are Hamas and Hezbollah really extremist groups? Or are they sociopolitical organizations pushed into extremism due to Israel’s activities? Another question that I ask myself is this: How can Germany and even Japan turn into economical giants within a short period of 30-40 after the Second World War despite being insulted and collapsed? And even Vietnam turned into an important economical power after widespread American attacks and the napalm bombs that that deserted their soils. As it is obvious to you all, the human improvement index in Vietnam, China and Cuba is at highest level. My answer for Vietnam is this: they are not extremists as soon as they started to possess a society without violence. This rationale is also used for India. For many people, the reason that India is happy despite all poverty is the reincarnation rule; i.e. religion and karma. For example the idea of “I accept this due to my previous life” or “everything will be fine in my future life” is something against the rule of karma. I would also like to mention before I end up, it will be very important focusing on all extremities oriented towards our lives besides some selected extremities that power policies apply on us. We should also address extremities such as poverty, child workers, human smuggling, women constraint, environmental damages. We will fail if we don’t handle them as a whole.
Because, the extremists that were silenced during this period of time will emerge with new faces. Just like Ghandi said: “it is impossible to experience reality in only a single field of our lives. We ought to let reality dominate reality in every single field of our life.” I only want to add this: If we are really eager to create a world that we want to pass to the next generations, a holistic cooperation is needed. And I know that this soul exists.

Mustafa Akyol: Can I ask a question? Does Cuba have a high level of human development index?

Joti Kohli: I didn’t check it recently but 2 years ago Cuba, Vietnam and China possessed high levels of human development indices.

Mustafa Akyol: I heard that this index isn’t good in Cuba due to social principles.

Joti Kohli: Cuba may not be at a good level in terms of freedom and human rights…

Mustafa Akyol: China isn’t a socialist country anymore.

Joti Kohli: It is not socialist but has signs of socialism. They are still good. Let’s mention Turkey in relation with this human development index.

Mustafa Akyol: How about UK and America?

Joti Kohli: As you know these countries are always good in this. You know, Sweden and Norway is always number one in this index. But I don’t know the ranking of UK…

Kaan H. Ökten: Thank you very much.

Joti Kohli: I want to say only one last thing. There is only one thing important for education. In my opinion, academic institutes don’t want to get interested with this. There exists such a scientific point of view but they don’t handle it as scientific.
But there are great studies sourcing from quantum physics and the quantum theory. I also run a peace center at Bahçeşehir University. There is this consciousness project at Princeton University. We want to cooperate with them. I don’t want to get in this right now; also it is impossible to explain it in Turkish. But these studies are also very important because education doesn’t consist only of reading books. There is this The Hundred Monkey story. How can we explain that? I play here with a rope, and why does the girl in Africa play with a rope too? How did she learn it? There is a kind of consciousness. I can’t say that I understand the quantum theory very well. Thank you very much.

Kaan H. Ökten: Thank you very much. Just as I have thought, Joti contributed much. Mr. Aydın, let us end up with you. Let me ask you a hard question.

Aydın Topalıoğlu: I am listening to you Mr. Ökten.

Kaan H. Ökten: How come that one religion tells another religion how to be?

Aydın Topalıoğlu: In fact, this is the main problem. We are already talking about this. I just won’t talk about another religion. I was impressed by Mr. Ali’s speech. I appreciate him. I do agree with him. The problem is the fact that one defines another one. I mean, someone else determines the limits, conditions and life conditions. For me, this is the source of the problem.
I have lots to say. Many good things were told here. I don’t want to repeat them all. I am happy to be here today. I am thankful to you as well. This is a very good event and project. Of course, this is a very basic problem; not only in the field of religion. It is the same in school, politics, etc. But it also possesses a realistic, idealistic side. I think that we accept what already exists. I mean, if there is Alevism and Alevis we should accept them. Despite the fact that I am against the discrimination of Sunnism and Alevism, one shall be free in saying “I am an Alevi” or “I am a Sunni”. But if this divides, disintegrates and puts people in stress, then I think this is political. We should overcome this in some way.
But a person must express himself or herself easily. I personally try to express myself in Islam or any other place. For example when somebody asks me during a discussion if I am a Sunni or Alevi I reply as follows: “I am from ehlibeyt (from the family of Prophet Mohammad)”. But people get surprised…”what is this ehlibeyt?”
What I try to say is this: I am not a part of this discussion. There is this phenomenon, family called ehlibeyt. There is this event of Karbala. It is impossible for a person to stay neutral in front of this violence, brutality. My heart is there. But I am not a part of these categories. Besides, I am also against the discrimination of believer or non believer. This also affects us. But there is such a reality. We should also accept that. Now, in response to your question Mr. Ökten…well, the answer for it is in fact very easy. I mean at this meeting here. But I don’t know which religion Mr. Kholi is a member of.

Joti Kholi: I am a member of the Sih religion.

Aydın Topalıoğlu: From the Sikh religion. It is not hard for a Jew, Muslim and Christian to understand each other at heart. May you will agree with me. In fact, their tradition roots back to the Ibrahimi tradition…

Cemal Uşak: Sikhism is also near to it. It is half Muslim.

Aydın Topalıoğlu: Sure, there is also a stance of monotheism. But the issues of why they are like this or why they fight…you know…it is a problem since ages.

Kaan H. Ökten: Jerusalem; the old city. Now work it out…

Aydın Topalıoğlu: But I want to say this: It is impossible to neutralize this hate. But the more we decrease its level the better it will be. What can we do? For me, acquaintance is a very good approach. It may be acquaintance; we can get acquainted and try to find the ways to introduce people.
I worked in Bulgaria for 4 years. I still travel to that country; I have ongoing relations. And I know what our Alevi brothers, friends do there. And I know what happened in the past. Now when I look to the people from our same race I realize that I learned more about the Bulgarians. Believe me or not, those who feed hate inside towards Istanbul and Turkey change their minds even after a 2-3 day trip to Istanbul. I mean, to get acquainted with people is a very good key. This doesn’t mean that you have to accept or reject the ideas of the counterparty. Of course, I think that everybody should be who she or he is. If this individualism doesn’t disturb the counterparty then we should stop at that point.
Now, I want to present an example from my own field. This Cem House issue: Both Mr. Ali and Mr. Bekir talked about it. In my opinion, there is a problem in Turkey and it becomes locked at that point. Well, should there be Cem Houses or not? Of course I handle it with a humane perspective; in terms of education. According to me we should discuss this instead of scrutinizing on Cem Houses and mosques: Should our Alevi children go to these Cem houses? Because in my opinion, a large portion of a generation or students can’t go to the mosque. There are some barriers. Of course there are some of them who overcome this. The Cem houses also aren’t active, they are not activated. They are slowed down and prevented somehow. But what will happen to the people there? Won’t those children in Anatolia be educated, won’t they have a religious education, and won’t they become aware of what is good or bad? Now, we overlook one point during this discussion: The education part of a human being. Some parts of the society take it under control; it is the same in religion. First of all we should abstain from this. I mean if a person or religion or sect places itself in the center and tries to define the other one, this discussion will never end.
But I want to say this: I am a person who believes in pluralism. Now, it is related with thinking that there are people who are not like me. They don’t have to be like me. I mostly don’t agree my brother on some issues. I sometimes discuss with my own relatives, instructors, etc. Then, for sure, there will be differences among us. There are many lacks in our education system, as mentioned previously.
We have to fill these lacks. Education should be more pluralist, more transparent, more democratic and emphatic instead of single oriented, mono centered and single angled. This is what I think.
One of the main problems is fanaticism. This fanaticism is, unfortunately, under the monopoly of any human, religion or political issue. There are both good and bad things where a human being exists. Extremities will lose their affect if responsible people take the initiative and commence an activity just as it happened here.
It doesn’t mean that extremities are at a high number if we talk about them here. And in my opinion, in the real world, extremities do not dominate. But they are louder at the moment. It is the same in Islam; Islamism, Alevism, Kurdism and Judaism.
May be logical people hide themselves; maybe they say: “No use to speak”. But as a result they are silent at the moment. They are not able to make people hear them. I don’t blame them; they are active and even activists in some way. Thus, in this case, discussions never come to an end. And what is worse is that, someone waits a movement from the other. Everybody waits permission from each other.
For example, if Mr. Ali awaits something from the Cem houses, in my opinion he is right, he feels as if he awaits a favor from the directorate of religious affairs, from an Imam or Hodja.
Now, why should the directorate of religious affairs get involved in the Cem House or head scarf issue? These are all a matter of preference. People feel as if they need to get permission from somewhere or someone. In my opinion, if our state accepts all these differences, extremities won’t be fed anymore. Besides, extreme people won’t emerge anymore. But discussions arise at these points of congestion. And thus people only watch, get scared and bored.
For example I want to give another example. The feelings of an Alevi friend of mine, my neighbor, really made me feel bad. Now the Ramadan is about to start. A person may not fast. I personally sometimes fast and sometimes do not. Now this culture has issues like this, I mean Ramadan, the happiness during breaking the fast, etc. and the Bairam of course. We have many Alevi citizens who fast. One of my relatives is also an Alevi but the society is structured in such a way that this boy never felt the happiness of breaking a fast, the happiness of sahur or the namaz at the morning of a bairam. Or if he goes he hides himself. I was a teacher of religion; I had students who bowed their heads down.
Now when I make some empathy, I really break down. Who gave us this right? Why do we sadden someone else just because she or he is someone else? We have to talk about these. But I am aware that officials can’t talk about these in such a way. For example I know Mr. Ali Bardakoğlu. We worked at the same institution; he is now the director. May be you know him too, I don’t know. If he was here may he’d say much better things than us.

Ali Yaman: Makes no sense is he doesn’t express everything clearly.

Aydın Topalıoğlu: I agree. Exactly!

Ali Yaman: If he differs before and after being a hodja it is a different thing…

Aydın Topalıoğlu: We need to break this vicious circle at that point. I support every effort made for this sake. And I respect you all; you really say very good things. I respect all types of diversities on condition that they are humane and ethic. That’s all. Thanks.

Mustafa Akyol: One more point that has been forgotten. These extremist people, I mean they are radicals. These are people without any religion, they are nationalists and reactionists. There is this problem: they are fed by a single source of information. For example in Turkey a radical nationalist person reads only one specific newspaper.
And he doesn’t believe in the other one. His or her TV channel is also a specific one. That channel feeds him. Or let me say that Vakit newspaper example that has been mentioned a while ago. The readers of the Vakit newspaper are specific people. And it is hard to enter that world. We talked about something that enabled that. I mean they form a physical wall in front of themselves. The places they visit, the cafes they go, his or her neighbors, the newspapers they read and TVs they watch are like an input from the same source. And they continue to maintain this. Now, if he or she gets something else they will know that there is a different explanation for this. There are such people. You know, there are people who say they were reactionists but state that they are moderate now.
How does this transformation happen? This happens to those who interrogate everything from deep inside. But not to every individual that interrogates. Some individuals are at a very fanatic level of ideologies; by test everything deep inside. They keep on testing; and then at a point change happens. This occurs at intellectuals but if it is a community transformation happens harder there. The only question is that how can we or other people get in there? Physically with which publication? How can we persuade their leaders for transformation?

Cemal Uşak: These extremists also feed each other. For example Akit and Vakit are fed by Cumhuriyet. And Cumhuriyet gets fed by Vakit. For example our extreme nationalists exchange arguments and support with the Nazis. For instance, when I was in England I went to a fair with the Hasidiks…they were hand to hand. This is the fact that extremes feed each other. Now in Turkey, those in Turkey who are against EU and those against Turkey within EU produce very good materials for each other. Their logistic support to each other is great. This is another aspect of this issue.

Mustafa Akyol: This is also related with the interconnection of the society. Thus I said we have to talk with Vakit. And we should also talk to God knows who…those people should come. Human stories are always impressive.
The denigration of an Armenian child at school in Turkey and this boy’s feeling are humane. You may feel sorry if you learn about it. This title may make people feel so sorry. Or they learn to be more careful after they learn this person’s situation. For example what happens is this: he puts his headline or title and his fans think that he wrote very well today. But what is the meaning of that title, column, etc. for others? As a result I think that everyone has a heart at some degree. On condition that it doesn’t turn into Faustus this is worth to try at least.

Cemal Uşak: May be it is worth… I don’t know. 4-5 years ago when I was in Japan I wrote something. It was like this: “Listening to Meriçkin in Zorafyon – as a Muslim Turk”.
There is a Greek school in Taksim named Zorafyon High School. Their association of graduates invited the Russian Consulate General. Most of the listeners were Muslims, I mean they were Turks. But there occurred such an atmosphere that the sound of the azan was heard.
Meriçkin stopped. Many Muslims or Turks don’t stop during the azan. Bu Meriçkin stopped and waited until its end. Now I thought about the swearing in relation with Greeks, Armenians and Russians in my childhood; and the improvement of the Turkish Russian relations. I wrote w writing within this framework. Everything is about getting in contact to break the barriers.
I spoke to late Mr. Ecevit in London. I was one of the people who reacted to his poem (You will understand that you are brother with the Greeks when you are back at home). While I was staying in Brighton for 9 months, I realized that may bet fellow was from Kos. I spoke to him from there: “You Karaoğlan, how right you were”. So, was it necessary to go England to understand that were brother with the Greeks? The issue of sharing and contact is of high importance at that point.

Mustafa Akyol: At that point we should understand this: extremists are also human beings. I mean we should not forget that there is a possibility for him to get transformed; we should open our arms. As a result the most fanatic one is also an individual and maybe he or she was scared for years: “They kill you, they divide your country”. Mrs. Deniz pointed out to something very good: he or she is a result of conditions. May be we with these genes and mind wouldn’t be different than them if we were subjected to their conditions. May we would also say that Jews are our enemies, etc. I don’t to mention everything as relative but there may also be something satanic in it. The Nazis were exactly like this. But there are always people that can get stuck in it. May be it is possible to transform them.

Ali Yaman: I didn’t mention directly theoretical issues related with Alevis.
Some of our instructors did, in fact. It is not fair to blame the extremists about everything. I don’t find it correct to say that the extremists and fanatics are responsible of everything and the stepping aside of those at the center. Because who are the extremists sociologically? Or how much do those at the center benefit from extremism? These are all so detailed and complex matters. I mean when we handle the issue sociologically. These are all interconnected. No need to mention all of these here. Let me give an example from Mr. Bekir. Mr. Bekir isn’t an extreme person, maybe he is moderate or I am moderate. But one of my phrases may be identified with extremism. He made some definitions; he defined the Cem Houses. So what are we going to do with it? A person at the center talks like this; and the thing he said is to engulf the definition of another community.

Bekir Karlığa: This is your red line…

Ali Yaman: Well you may say this or that… That’s another issue. But as a result you enter a perception of threat. How much are extremists and those in the center interconnected? We should take into consideration such cross relations.
May be we have to study on it by dividing into compartments. Lessons, discrimination sect differences; these are complex issues. May be we can hold a large scale symposium in the future.

Kaan H. Ökten: We will organize an international symposium in March 2009.

Ali Yaman: That would be great.

Kaan H. Ökten: These are the warming laps. We need a gradual approach to the subject. These need to be discussed in a very long period of time.
I would like to thank you all for your attendance. It was an efficient meeting. Good evening.