Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Frustrated With West, Turks Revel in Empire Lost

ISTANBUL — More than eight decades ago, Ertugrul Osman, an heir to the Ottoman throne, was unceremoniously thrown out of Turkey with his family. He lived to be 97, spending most of his years in a modest Manhattan apartment above a bakery.

The traditional costumes of a band in the Sultanahmet district of Istanbul invoked Janissaries, elite Ottoman-era soldiers.

Cenan Sarc, 97, the descendant of an Ottoman pasha, was 10 years old at the time of the Empire’s collapse in 1922.

Mustafa Ozer/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Thousands mourned Ertugrul Osman, an heir to the Ottoman throne, in Istanbul.

But in September, at his funeral in the garden of the majestic Sultanahmet Mosque here, thousands of mourners paid their respects, including government officials and celebrities. Some even kissed the hands of surviving dynasty members, who appeared shocked at the adulation.

The show of reverence for the man who might have been sultan, historians said, was a seminal moment in the rehabilitation of the Ottoman Empire, long demonized by some in the modern, secular Turkish Republic created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923. During Ataturk’s rule, the empire was remembered mainly for its decadence and its humiliating defeat and partition by the Allies in World War I.

Mr. Osman’s send-off was just the latest manifestation of what sociologists call “Ottomania,” a harking back to an era marked by conquest and cultural splendor during which sultans ruled an empire stretching from the Balkans to the Indian Ocean and claimed the spiritual leadership of the Muslim world.

The longing for those glory years — by religious Muslims and secularists alike — partly reflects Turks’ frustration with a European Union that seems ill disposed to accept them as members. And in a country where the tension between religion and secularism is never far from the surface, members of the new governing class of religious Muslims have seized upon nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire as a way to challenge the pro-Western elite that emerged during Ataturk’s rule, and to help forge a national identity of Turkey as an aspiring regional leader.

“Turks are attracted to the heroism and the glory of the Ottoman period because it belongs to them,” said the director of Topkapi Palace, Ilber Ortayli, who, as the keeper of the sumptuous residence where Ottoman sultans lived for 400 years, is also a zealous unofficial gatekeeper of the Ottoman legacy. “The sultans hold a place in the popular consciousness like Douglas MacArthur or General Patton have for Americans.”

The current vogue of all things Ottoman, from the proliferation of historical docudramas to the popularity of porcelain ashtrays adorned with harem women, is sometimes manifesting itself in ways that would surely have made a real sultan blanch.

During Ramadan, Burger King offered a special sultan menu featuring dishes popular in the Ottoman years. In the television commercial promoting the meal, a turbaned Janissary — a member of an elite group of Ottoman soldiers — exhorts viewers not to “leave any burgers standing.”

Ottomania has also infected the nation’s youth; 20-somethings at hip dance clubs here wear T-shirts emblazoned with slogans like “The Empire Strikes Back” or “Terrible Turks” — the latter turning the taunt Europeans once used against their Ottoman invaders into a defiant symbol of self-affirmation.

Kerim Sarc, 42, the owner of Ottoman Empire T-Shirts and the scion of an illustrious Ottoman family, believes that the newfound fondness for a mighty empire that lasted more than 600 years and once reached the gates of Vienna is linked to the long struggle for membership in the European Union. The bloc has imposed tough conditions on Turkey, including asking it to compromise in its longstanding dispute over Cyprus.

“We Turks are tired of being treated in Europe like poor, backward peasants,” he said.

The Ottoman renaissance is equally prevalent in the nation’s highest political circles, where the Muslim-inspired Justice and Development Party government has been aggressively courting former Ottoman colonies, including Iraq and Syria, in at least a partial reorientation of foreign policy toward the east that Turkish analysts have labeled as “Neo-Ottoman.”

That shift has alarmed officials in Europe and Washington, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to reassure President Obama when he meets him at the White House on Monday that Turkey has not abandoned its Western course.

It is a sign of the Ottoman Empire’s new hold on the popular imagination that in January when Mr. Erdogan publicly rebuked the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, over the war in Gaza, at a debate at Davos, Switzerland, he was greeted enthusiastically by his supporters back in Turkey with the chant, “Our fatih is back!” The allusion was to Fatih — or conqueror — Sultan Mehmet II, the towering sultan who at age 21 conquered Constantinople, now Istanbul, in 1453.

Colleagues said Mr. Erdogan proudly displays an original decree in his office by Sultan Mehmet II granting autonomy to religious minorities within the empire.

“The Ottoman Empire conquered two-thirds of the world but did not force anyone to change their language or religion at a time when minorities elsewhere were being oppressed,” said Egeman Bagis, the minister for European Union affairs. “Turks can be proud of that legacy.”

Pelin Batu, co-host of a popular television history program, argued that the glorification of the Ottoman era by a government with roots in political Islam reflected a revolt against the secular cultural revolution undertaken by Ataturk, who outlawed the wearing of Islamic head scarves in state institutions and abolished the Ottoman-era caliphate.

“Ottomania is a form of Islamic empowerment for a new Muslim religious bourgeoisie who are reacting against Ataturk’s attempt to relegate religion and Islam to the sidelines,” she said.

In a society struggling with its identity, not everyone welcomes the phenomenon.

Some critics accuse its proponents of glossing over the empire’s decline and of glorifying an anachronistic system that, at the very least, was mired in corruption and infighting in its later years. The massacre of Ottoman Armenians between 1915 and 1918 stands as a particular dark spot in the history of the empire.

“The religious Muslims now in power are trying to feed the Turkish people an Ottoman poison,” said Sada Kural, 45, a housewife and staunch supporter of Ataturk’s vision. “The Ottoman era wasn’t a good period; we were the sick man of Europe, rights were suppressed and women only got the vote after Ataturk came to power.”

While some bemoan what they consider the crude commercialization of a nation’s history, others, like Cenan Sarc, 97, who was 10 years old at the time of the empire’s collapse in 1922 and is the descendant of an Ottoman pasha, cautioned against idealizing an era of dictatorship.

Mrs. Sarc recalled her idyllic childhood in a mansion on the Bosporus, a poetic time, she said, when fathers ruled, mothers stayed at home and Islam held sway. But, she insisted, “we can never go back to that time.” Ertugrul Osman, the Ottoman heir, had himself accepted obscurity. When he visited Turkey in 1992, for the first time in 53 years, and went to see the 285-room Dolmabahce Palace, which had been his grandfather’s home, he insisted on joining a public tour group.

Asked frequently if he dreamed about restoring the empire, he always emphatically answered no. “Democracy,” he said, “works well in Turkey.”

SOURCE

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Masjid Al-Aqsa speaks!

A powerful message, delivered in the form of words spoken by Masjid al-Aqsa. Presented by Sheikh Issam Ameera (member of Hizb ut-Tahrir) during a public gathering for Palestine in Sydney with other local community members.

This would have to be one of the best talks I have ever witnessed. I still get goosebumps everytime I watch it.


The God Debate, Evolution and “Who Designed the Designer?”


In the last seven years or so, I have participated in a number of ‘Does God Exist?’ debates with various intellectuals and academics [1]. Next week I will be participating in the ‘God: Delusion or Truth?’ debate with Rick Lewis, the editor of the Philosophy Now magazine, at the University College London. Last week I participated in a debate with Alan Woods, who has written the History of Philosophy and is a Marxist political theorist [2], on the same topic and I was disappointed that he did not sufficiently address any of the arguments I presented. Additionally he did not even produce a strong case for the atheist worldview.

Mr Woods’ main premise was that the evolution theory provides the best explanation for the origins of life. The problem with this argument is that evolution doesn’t negate the existence of God; rather it just provides an alternative explanation to the question of how life started. At best the evolution theory, if taken to be true, may provide a theological problem as there would be a need to reconcile the theory with mainstream religious discourse on the origins of life. However it doesn’t take God out of the picture.

Mr Woods’ evolution ‘defeater’ was an attempt to deal with one of my arguments for the existence God, known as the Teleological argument or the Argument from Design. The form of the design argument I chose to present used examples relating to the physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Hence I explained to Mr Woods that evolution is billions of years away and it doesn’t even have a foot in the door as the design argument I chose to present used examples understood in physics and not biology, so I politely advised him to be more attentive to my argument.

Mr Woods then decided to use another argument which is always used by the atheists who clutch at intellectual straws: “who designed the designer?” Even the prophet of neo-Atheism Richard Dawkins writes in his best seller The God Delusion,
“The Temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” [3]

Having prepared for this I addressed his question promptly. However in order for the reader to understand my response I will summarise the form of the design argument that was presented at the debate. I argued that God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life and I started off by presenting the premises of this argument,
1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Explaining Premise 1
The existence of a life permitting universe is due conditions that must have been fined tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable! The fine tuning is of two types,
When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant.

There are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe.

I used the following are examples of fine tuning to explain premise 1,
Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.

Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."[4]
There are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe,
Physical necessity
Chance
Design
Why it can’t be Physical Necessity

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,
“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.” [5]

Why it can’t be Chance

Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, "It could have happened by chance!" However would they say such a thing in order to explain how an Elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or if a 747 was parked in your garden on your return from work ?!

Additionally people have tried to get out of this problem by saying “we shouldn’t be surprised at the finely tuned universe, for if it wasn’t the case we would not be here to be surprised about it!” In response to this Philosopher W. Craig aptly puts it,
“But such reasoning is logically fallacious. We can show this by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? "Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss." Of course not! You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some reason by someone. While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design.”[6]

It Must be Design

Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe to permit life.
Responding to “Who Designed the Designer?”

The above contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. Firstly, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation doesn’t require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point.

Imagine 500 years from now a group of archaeologists where to start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not a result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we can’t make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!

Secondly if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. Because if we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?

Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regress of explanations. And an infinite regress of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place, which is to provide an explanation!

References
[1] For example see my debate with Dr Bashour from the American University Beirut http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJtM40TzJAA
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Woods_(politician)
[3] Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. 2006, page 158
[4] Roger Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum Gravity 2, ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 249.
[5] Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 169.
[6] William Lane Craig. http://www.professorblume.com/uploads/1/0/6/9/1069884/does_god_exist-_w._l._craig.doc