Syria’s Brotherhood Favors Turkish Model, Not Iran’s

[tabatha]

Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood would follow the Turkish model were it to gain power should President Bashar al-Assad’s regime fall, said Mohammad Shaqfah, the exiled leader of the outlawed Syrian group.

“We are impressed with the Turkish governance system and we are not keen on the Iranian model,” Shaqfah said in a telephone interview from Turkey today. “We don’t want to impose anything on the people.”

While Turkey is mostly Muslim, it has been secular since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the republic in 1923, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and abolished the sultanate and power of the ruling religious institutions. Iran has been under the leadership of Shiite Muslim clerics who define the country’s political and social policies since the toppling of the monarchy in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of the Egyptian organization that is the oldest and most powerful Islamist movement in the region, has “always asked for freedom and democracy,” Shaqfah said. “We will not replace one dictatorship with another. We are against dictatorships.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-28/syria-s-brotherhood-favors-turkish-model-not-iran-s.html

[Ghost Dog]

1. "Abolished the sultanate." Just like that.

Still sounds an amazingly, fantastically, historically GREAT act from those great people, the Turks.

[AverageJoe90]

2. I wouldn't trust the Muslim Brotherhood with a turkey sandwich, let alone a whole damn country.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Muslim Brotherhood are ALL FOR dictatorships, and AGAINST REAL freedom & democracy.....sadly, some of the people in Libya appear to be learning this lesson the hard way. :(

Perhaps sometime in the near future I should post some of the fantastic work done by the anti-fascist researcher known to the world as Dave Emory....because he blew the lid right off these S.O.B.s.

[tabatha]

3. Can you provide some background and information

that makes you say that. Also, what has happened to make Libya learn this the hard way?

[happyslug]

6. The Moslem Brotherhood would always prefer a Turkish model to an Iranian Model

Most of this is based on the difference between Sunni (Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and most other "Moslem" Nations) and the Shittes (Iran and most of the people of the Persian Gulf, but NOT the rulers of those same Persian Gulf Nations).

The Shiites (Literally the "Party of Ali", the son-in-law of Mohammad) are people who believe that Ali should have been Mohammad's successor at the time of the death of Mohammad. The Leaders of the Moslem movement at that time picked someone else, and this second "Caliph" is recognized by the Shiites and Sunni Moslem as valid, as both groups do to the Third and finally Ali when he became the Fourth Caliph. At the death of Ali, the two branches split. The Shiites believed the Caliphate should have gone to Ali's son, the Sunni believes the Fifth Caliph, elected by the elders of Moslems movement AFTER excluding the Shiites, is the the rightful successor.

I will NOT go into all the details of how both the Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam evolved from that date. The significance was how BOTH branches dealt with the concept of Church and State. This difference came out of the fact the Shiites were, more often then not, a banned minority within Islam, thus Shittes developed a view that the Government was separated from religion. Shiites also had to often fake being a Sunni to avoid attacks and thus known to this day to go through the motion of another religion (more often then not Sunni Islam) while secretly doing their Shiite devolutions.

On the other hand the Sunni developed a Culture that the Church and the State were one and the same. The Caliph was not only the secular leader of the Moslem Empire but also its religious leader (a concept rejected by the Shiites).

I bring up this difference, for the Moslem Brotherhood is a SUNNI movement not a Shiite Movement. The Brotherhood thus embraces the concept that the Church and State should be one and the same. Thus they like Turkey, for once in control they can make the Government and Islam one and the same.

The Iranian Islamic Republic, on the other hand, was devised by Ayatollah Khomeini (the original Ayatollah) as an attempt to make a Government that follows traditional Shiite view as to Government and religion. i.e. Government is secular, but under the influence and guidance of the Shiite Religion. The guidance is to be provided by Shiite Religious Leaders, but day to day operations are to be done by secular, and even popularly elected professionals. This is a concept rejected by the Brotherhood for it means religion is in the background NOT one and the same with the Government.

Just a comment on why the Brotherhood would prefer the Turkish model of Government to the Iranian version.

[happyslug]

4. Yes, the Turks abolished the Sultan, while butchering any non-Turk

Turkey from 1914-1920 was is disarray. The Ottoman Empire had been a multinational, multi-religious society. While the various people of the Empire did not always worked together, but the rights of the various people were recognized and respected.

This all changed with the fall of the Sultan. Instead of being a Islamic Empire that tolerated non-believers, the Turks became a NATIONAL state based on TURKISH NATIONALITY. This lead to the Armenian massacre and the war with Greece (Greece maintain that Western Turkey had a Majority Greek Population when they invaded to stabilize the situation, the Turks claim the area had a majority Turkish Population. The Greeks had alienated the Western Allies for restoring their pro-German King as King, the Turks sought support from Soviet Russia in the forms of Arms, these two events lead to the Turks driving out the Greeks. In the subsequent Peace Treaty, Greeks from Turkey were "exchanged" for Turks from Greece. The ratio was almost 3-1, for every two Greeks from Turkey the Greeks sent one Turk. Please note, on part of the Greeks it appears the transfers were voluntary, i.e. the Turks could stay if they wanted to, but it is clear the Greeks had to leave Western Turkey. Thus I have to give more weight to the Greek version of events then the Turkish version,

The Chief area of Contention is the Greeks were concentrated along the Coast, while inland the area taken by the Greeks were more Turkish, best seen in the following map:


The problem was the best defensive position to defend the Greek Area was in the Majority Turkish area OR off the coast line itself (i.e. No Greeks left on Asia Minor). The Greeks tried for a good defensive position, but in a hostile population area and do to that fact AND the lack of support from the Western Allies AND the support of the Soviet Union to the Turks, the Greeks were forced out of that part of Asia Minor. The Turks then imposed its solution to the problem of the different populations of that part of Asia Minor, the Turks just drove all the Greeks off the coast.

Side comment: In 1919-1921 Germany was going through a Revolution as was Russia, but England and France were not in much better shape economicly (Both had seen massive internal strikes AND even "Communist Up heavers" even while WWI was going on). In the US, Steel was on Strike and the West Virginia Coal War was about to start. Thus no one in 1920 was about to do anything when it came to war anywhere. Thus the Greeks had no support and lost the war.

Greek-Turkish war of 1919-1921:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%931922)

The Armenian Genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The expulsion of the Greeks from Pontus on the Northern Coast of Modern Day Turkey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Genocide

The Turks also went after the Assyrians who lived in Turkey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide

This was all an effort to make Turkey more Turkish, the various Christian groups that had lived under the Ottomans were in the way of that view and thus had to be removed.

Just pointing out religious and national minorities had more rights and less harm done to them under the Sultan then under the Secular Government that followed the Sultan.

[tabatha]

5. That is Turkey's past. The US also has a shameful history

making the US more white and less native American. As well as its shameful history with the Black population, and the Asian population (WWII) and Hispanics.

Turkey today:

Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic with an ancient cultural heritage. Turkey has become increasingly integrated with the West through membership in organizations such as the Council of Europe, NATO, OECD, OSCE and the G-20 major economies. Turkey began full membership negotiations with the European Union in 2005, having been an associate member of the European Economic Community since 1963 and having reached a customs union agreement in 1995. Turkey has also fostered close cultural, political, economic and industrial relations with the Middle East, the Turkic states of Central Asia and the African countries through membership in organizations such as the Turkic Council, Joint Administration of Turkic Arts and Culture, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey

[happyslug]

7. Turkey has fallen back on its Nationalism since WWI, often at the cost of its non-Turkish citizens

The recent problems with the Kurds is an example, started with the Turkish policy of forbidding the Kurdish language from being used and other restrictions. This policy has been off and on since the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the Empire began to embrace nationalism over religion as the unifying item in their country. Re-started in the 1930s and continued for decades afterward. Today the Turks seem to officially drop the policy but part of those restrictions still exist::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Turkey

I would point out the problems with the Greeks, but the Turks drove out most of the Orthodox Greeks out of Istanbul in the 1950s. Now, after the 1960 Military Coup in Turkey the leaders of the Anti-Greek movement in Istanbul was arrested, tried and executed, but more as an effort to show that the Turkish Military meet Western definitions of "equality" and "fairness" then any real effort to punish all who were responsible OR to undo the damage done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

Now, some of this is related to the Cyprus Problem, but even there it appears more a Greek Reaction to possible Turkish action then a Turkish reaction to a Greek Action:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_intercommunal_violence

The main problem is that the Greeks and Turks since the Battle of Mazikurt in 1054 have had an on going relationship. Many a Ottoman Caliph's daughter married a Byzantine (Greek) Emperor in the 1200-1400s and many an Greek Emperor's daughter ended up in the Harem of the Turkish Caliph (Generally as First Wife, under Moslem rule the most important "wife" position). The Turks would hire the Garrison of Constantinople when it was needed and the Greeks would ally themselves with the Turks.

In many ways the Greeks and the Turks slowly merged as they turned against former allies. The Greeks were the first to turn, do to the sacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade (The only Crusade ever Condemned by the Vatican even as it was being held) in 1204, and the re-taking of Constantinople from the Latin Empire in 1261.

The Ottoman Turks had allied and worked with local Greeks in modern day Turkey (In fact in the legend of Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire, his best friend and main supporter was an Greek Orthodox nobleman). This support was increased after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire's army by Tamerlane in 1402. The Ottoman had to retreat behind the Dardanelles with Venician and Byzantine help to escape Tamerlane. This reinforced the connection between the Greeks and The Turks, that together they could fight off their enemies.

Thus the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 were more in some form of Marriage dance then hated enemies. The continued till about 1700 when the Turks started to become more Moslem and Turkish and less Greek and Christian. Starting in the 1600s (some say the 1500s) the nobles of the Ottoman Empire were forced more and more to become Moslem and thus Turkish as oppose to being Orthodox and thus Greek. This pressure was severe for many a noble family of the Ottoman Empire had been Greek and Orthodox even before 1453 and continued till the 1600s.

The real dispute between the Greeks and the Turks occurred after the Moslems in Turkey started a "Islamic Reformation" in the late 1600s. The elite troops of the Ottoman Empire had been the Janissary, prior to 1648 these had been Christian enslaved into the Turkish Army and converted to Islam. These Janissay would work they way up the bureaucracy till they would be in high position. This had the side affect that the Christians of the Empire could often go to these Janissary and they could relate and solve many of the problems the developed between the two religious groups.

For more on the Janissary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

The problem as part of the Reform of Islam adopted in the 1600s (the system of recruiting from Christians ended in 1683, but the conversion started decades before) the Janissary were opened to sons of Moslem families, and then recruited exclusivity from such Moslem. This broke the Connection many Greeks and other non-Turks had with the Sultan's Government.

Thus as the Ottoman turned more "Islam" and "Turkish" it slowly turned off not only the Greeks, but most of the other non-Turkish population of the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore the Christian subjects (and other non-Turkish Subjects) became more and more isolated from the Government. This slowly turned off these non-Turks to the Ottoman Empire, something even the "Young Turks" of the 1800 refused to address.

At the same time the Empire had become the "Sick Man of Europe" given its various internal disputes that the decline in power and the increase in being Islamic produced. Together, the growing isolation of the non-Turkish population, the decline in the Empire, the rise of nationalism, all lead to the various wars of Independence in the 1800s starting with Greek Independence in 1830.

This divorce has been nasty. The Greeks and Turks had lived side by side for centuries by the 1800s, many since the 1200s as the Byzantine Empire slowly reduced itself to only the City of Constantinople (The rest of the former Empire had been taken over by the Ottoman Turks, but retaining many Greek Orthodox nobles to act as middlemen between the Turks the the Greek Subjects).

Starting in the 1600s, starting with the Janissary, but extending to other areas of Government, the positions used to be held by Greeks and other non-Turks were made into position that had to be held by a Moslem and that term meant a TURK not an Arab, Kurd or other nationality who happen to be Moslem.

Some Greeks Converted to Islam, most did not, through many of the Greeks who did make the change in Religion started to call themselves Turks at the same time, confusing the issue. Please note till the 1800s, one "Nationality" consisted more of one's religion then blood lines, this was even more true in Eastern and Southern Europe then, thus a conversion from Orthodox to Islam also often meant you were no longer Greek, but Turkish.

Just pointing out the history of the dispute between these two people, more of a Marriage that had gone bad then anything else. Both sides have a habit of blaming the other for the breakup, through both sides can be blamed. The problem is for most of the time of the breakup, i.e. since about 1600, it was the Turks who were in position of power, thus the Greeks had to accept what the Turks gave them, which meant the Turks had the greater opportunity to impose their will on the Greeks as oppose to the Greeks imposing their will on the Turks. Thus I have to blame the Turks more then the Greek over the conflict this breakup has caused since the 1700s.

[Ghost Dog]

8. Thanks for the detail, happyslug.

I continue reading.

Each Sultan exercised that Absolute Power differently, of course. Some were undoubtedly relatively fine. Some were totalitarian tyrants. Some were mere representatives, elected, as it were (or sometimes mere slaves) of the Janissary military and bureaucratic power, and such...

Quite Byzantine, in other words...