STATE OF GRANDSUBLIME

THE WEST IN THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW

Just like olive oil, lemon and egg as essential ingredients of "mayonnaise," the West in the Western point of view is actually based on three fundamental essentials: Ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity. Therefore, the Occident is extremely precise and arithmetical while endorsing and signing its own analysis report as this. The West briefly describes itself with the following words, belonging to one of its greatest thinkers: "Any sample which Romanized and Christianized and submitted itself to ancient Greek mental order is European." And Ancient Greek, again within the style of a great Western thinker, and likewise which can be categorized as chemical analysis, is described as: "Dominant intellect, precise reasoning, sound knowledge, manifestness, light and clarity." The Occidental men believe that they have received the geometry of his emotions, the criteria for the Meaning over all forms and the method of his contemplation from Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greek impact, according to them, provided the superior man with everything and made the superior man the essence of everything and requires him to knead and shape and grasp things in the clearest, brightest, and most harmonious fashion possible. The Occidental man says: "For the first time, it inculcated the attention to soul and material into the human beings; it trained the soul to defend itself against the gaps of imagination and dreams and it curbed the delusive and ambiguous products of soul through a faculty of a subtle analysis and critique!" And now there emerges science within this order of contemplation; science, which is the exclusive sign of a private and definite victory and the unique distinctive feature of the West and Western spirit. And Rome, in the eyes of the man from the Occident is the eternal sample of the organized and well-founded power of man: "The state, the empire, institution, law, order, organization, sense of superiority, understanding of act, a body woven by strong muscles as individual and society, the chariot of triumph, the arch of triumph, and the spirit of pressure dominating everywhere." Christianity: At this point, the central viewpoint of the West is that, after the impact of Ancient Greece and Rome, they found the source of their sensitivity, morality and inward universe they need in Christianity. According to them, Christianity is an expression of a need to represent immersing into the spiritual, de-materialization, an internal life, inner morality and inner view as it has been in India for centuries and once during the time of the Alexandrian mystics. According to them, Christianity provides the most sublime, most essential, most productive and potent features for the soul; man centers faith and Reason, observation and verification, idea and action, product and aim, freedom and sacrifice, judgment and mercy, right and justice, individual and society, man and woman and consequently the contrast and harmony between material and spiritual forces within the light shed by Christianity. What the European means by this is that Ancient Greece is the unique source which provides the order of mind based on sound emotions and ideas for the mystery of connection and relationship between man and nature. And Rome is the consciousness of power and domination which elevated this order of mind to the most dominant and royal form on the most vast of scale. And Christianity is the center of interpretation, sensitivity and morality, at the deepest level, of the conditions mentioned above. Thus, what the European means by this is that the Occident has a three-unit identity consisting of the pleasure of geometric perception which makes man accountable for material dominance, the imperial organization of this enthusiasm and the world of inner emotions which perpetuates a spiritual balance at the deepest level.

THE EAST IN THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW

Yes, it was the Westerners who first distinguished West from East. In Ancient Greece, looking at the Persian masses who rammed the Occident from the direction of the East and the Occidental world which he thought to be the only western community (in fact, it was as to meaning, at that time), the father of history, Herodotus distinguished the East and the West as two separate worlds in terms of the difference between the abstract essence of thoughts and emotions: the Occident and the Orient. And since that day, although the Occidental man saw that the Oriental world was broken into different and opposing spiritual climates in itself, and knew that the Oriental world witnessed a lot of rebirths and changes during the course of time before the appearance of the West, he sought a stable spirit and mood in this picture. As in Ancient Greece and Rome, the Occidental man, especially after the Renaissance and until today, decidedly associated the Orient with a specific and guilty descent of man. Briefly and roughly, this is the core of this meaning of the East: "A group of silly and desperate people who are unable to understand the geometric warning and requirement of facts, and exposing its shell and skin to any impact without possessing and protecting itself while running after confused imaginations!" The West's view of the Orient emerged and was established after the Renaissance as above, and was very similar to the same view from a different angle, during the time of Ancient Greece and Rome: "The Orient is a den of wild men knowing nothing but blind and deaf physical force, and insensitive genius of acting aggressively and violently!" The Orient with all its parts as a whole, in the eyes of the Occident with all its eras as a whole, represents a ruthless wild man while attacking; and a fool without any idea in mind while defending itself. After the Renaissance this description became nailed in the Western mind just like the axiom "the earth is round," became common knowledge, particularly, of the vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men. For some other Occidental intellectuals, on the other hand, who were able to reach out to the fake and inadequate aspects of the Occident, the Orient, despite everything, was a horizon of intricacy and wonders, source of prophets and cradle of spiritual climates, which preserves its complicated depth and personality, far from a cause that can be imprisoned into a multiplication chart. However, mostly, the Occidental men, who has not only an average level of perception but also fairness, can turn their most conscientious and understanding look towards the Orient only when they see a piece of diamond on the turban of an Indian raja in Piccadilly; that is, a view which cannot go beyond a simple fantasy and dream of "One Thousand and One Nights." Let us quickly note the fact that until now, the vulgar herd of the Oriental literate men (who could question neither his friend nor his enemy in the chaotic environment when a critique is needed between the two worlds) who were influenced by the vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men and started to view the world through their glasses; in order to see the recent stage of the issue, it is sufficient to look at the herd of cows who are pleased to hear the efforts against the spirit of jihad (holy war) by the West who spills the blood of the innocent everywhere yet describes the Islamic movement as "terror or savagery." That the rote-learned words of Islamic and non-Islamic groups such as "living together in democracy" or "boons of democracy" and that the existing puppet secular regime has been consciously or unconsciously kept alive through this means, is another example of Western thinking and lifestyle that can be seen in our country. After the Renaissance, in the eyes of the "notable" vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men and omnipresent information distributors, the Orient, is a huge world of excessiveness (lacking criteria) and unawareness which is unable to build an interrelated network for human and social beliefs and becomings, distancing the individual from their natural right and capability to take an interest in everything and inspect, ignoring the value of the individual and which is nothing but a few spiritual colors and expressions. To the "notable" vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men (who are quite powerful, indeed), here is the implied and wider description of the Oriental: "The Oriental man lives always in the past, cannot fight to grasp the present and is afraid of reaching out to the future. He has neither science nor critical analysis. He can be religious but he never seeks cause and effect chain. He believes in anything but never bothers himself in any topic as to description, comprehension or proof. In other words, he knows neither what to believe nor what not to believe. He just believes; he is not interested in 'knowing' part. He cannot go beyond the games of poem and talismans in order to dominate nature. He can never invent any tool or method, which shows the right to penetration belonging to Reason over material elements. In the Oriental mind, you cannot find any element which can be counted by finger or seeable by eyes or measured by hand span or proved by Reason. He believes in all that cannot be proved and is obsessed with bodiless entities; therefore, he gradually lost the world of real facts. The Oriental man has to remain superficial and incapable no matter how skillfully adopts the Western discoveries and inventions of machines and devices, because he will never be able to grasp the essence of cause together with its own spirit and method. Whenever the Oriental man longs for pure science, natural sciences, outer world, triumphs over the outer world, freedom, the relationships between individual and society, systematic right and order, all sorts of geometric measurements, anything that has a criterion and measure outside, all kinds of fine arts, literature that embraces whole life, he is doomed to be a ridiculous and idle imitator of the Occident!" This is the Occidental diagnosis of the Oriental man on the autopsy table. The rough eye of Reason and arithmetic calculation that cannot go into the depths of secrets and expects, to no avail, to be able to grasp the inner "spiritual" flexion of the heart by means of observing the outer convolutions belonging to a piece of flesh!

LET US UNDERSTAND THE WEST

The critical aspect of the issue is determining the way the East will regard the West when the core of all the findings belonging to the past and history is taken into consideration, and it should be looking from the very pole of the truth just like looking at the world from outer space, not through the artificial and limited necessities of the relativities of distance and direction. The judgment of a mind who analyzed the West, together with the East, through penetrating into its deepest roots and also scrutinizing it in fibers, will reveal the fact that the West is nothing but a wonder of sapless Reason which is in close relation and touch with material domain from end to end. If you want you can call the West a huge logarithmic chart which makes the relationships between all the elements of the immensely wide but superficial material domain scientific rules. The West found the soul of the sapless Reason chart it possesses in value of delectation, sensitivity and gracefulness which cannot go beyond a sort of outer appearance mostly in plastic forms. However, note this expression; it is a soul which cannot go beyond the framework of plasticity in most situations, that is, the outside relief of things and events or spatial merriment. All western cities, squares, streets, attitudes, and samples of art and ideas can witness the precision of this description without exception; the West is the huge ground for the ultimate capability of Reason which was entirely dedicated to a genius of mold, which can only chisel the substance and shape life within thousands of fields of labor and utility. This mentality was given to the West by the genius of Ancient Greek and Latin which were the magnificent sources of rhythm and harmony, geometry and ratio, measurement and balance, brightness and clarity invariably at a plastic level. This, through the deep breath given out by the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) from the East toward the West, reverberated as sparks of morality and sensitivity as a thorough unit despite thousands of falsifications and personifications. However, the Western man always remained faithful to his nature and invariably scrutinized the shallow material world and passed through the labyrinth of the Middle Ages and attained the highest product of its own right after the age called "Renaissance, reawakening": Positive science. The West consists of a single thing, at its maturity, be it vital or not: "An ambition to grasp the material things both mentally and spiritually and the system of exact sciences as a consequence of this ambition." Alas, there is still one thing missing in this magnificent "mold" genius of the West: "The vital juice, the sap in the mold; that is, the root of soul with an endless depth."

THE WESTERN CRISIS

The crisis in the West started to ooze out of the skin in the second half of the Nineteenth century. And in the beginning of the Twentieth century, the crisis broke out and surrounded the whole structure, as a fire, inwards and outwards: "The epileptic and convulsive poets of the Nineteenth century French literature, like Baudelaire and Rimbaud, were the messengers of this social mood subconsciously at the individual level. One can explain this crisis as the inner man's loss of all his supports one by one on this material ground surrounded thoroughly by a thousand tools of its exact sciences!" In the second half of the Nineteenth century and at the beginning of the Twentieth century, the Western man started to dominate the material elements so powerfully that they needed to connect this dominance to a well-matched spiritual root, which they failed in doing. Moreover, since their former roots gradually dissolved, they started to be dominated by the material elements themselves; thus, his soul started to drain away, oozing out of an indefinite tear. And, in an inversely proportional manner, as the material sciences progressed, the Western world, like an hourglass whose bottom is full when the top part is empty and vice versa, started to feel with its convulsions that its spiritual balance, which is the source of the harmony sculpting, is about to get lost for good. In one single turn of your head towards the West, you can see the insurrectional consequences of this crisis (whose spiritual and main knot we are trying to explain) at social, economic, administrative and political levels: "Starting from the Nineteenth century, Western thought became a chain of skepticism and convulsion, and this skepticism and convulsion as a nature of denial penetrated into everywhere, from pure science and art to the exact sciences. Among the prominent figures, as exemplifying this era, were Nietzsche, the sufferer of melancholy and seeker of a new authority and competence for the Western man who was experiencing the darkness in philosophy as the ultimate state of the West; Heidegger, the founder of the philosophy of 'Angst' (anxiety); Bergson, the destroyer of the sapless Reason; Freud, the organizer of hidden spiritual knots in a systematic way. Although the First World War is a simple material movement as to the secrets underlying it when compared to the Second World War, it, as an astounding matter for the first time in the history of humanity in terms of the material and quantitative ground it covered and boiled up, became a gigantic statue of the Western spiritual crisis waiting to be materialized for at least a century, just like the huge crowds of people produced typhus. While the communist revolution, on the one hand, in terms of diagnosing thousands of contradictions and expressions of decay in the social life of the West, proved to be positive but in terms of searching for a cure for it, as the worst experience of all, represented the suicide of the Western intellectuals for the sake of resurrection, when it attempted to solve the spiritual and systemic chaos through resorting to the destruction of all the spiritual values and hoping for help from the most artificial and material order. On the other hand, the fascism and Nazism, under a new banner of faith and ideal, attached all the right to authority and competence of Greco-Latin civilization to certain communities in a psychologically selfish mood, and groundlessly imagined it would find a cure for the Western crisis. Therefore, the Western crisis, due to the contradictions and incongruities which grew as large as a state like a tumor, developed to produce the Second World War which was a truly great war of ideology; in other words, the West reached the final stage of its crisis where it would find either a complete cure or a complete destruction. Democracies which were thought of the liberation of the West and which were wanted to be destroyed and eliminated by the two negative poles of the West in different times and spaces, and which were the grounds of both cause and cure of the Western crisis, magnificently seized power after a period of material and spiritual stagnancy and with a move to generate another order for humanity from its own structure; and the greatest account of self of the Western hero was seized by the main inheritors of the 'Greco-Latin' civilization. The fate of the West would be clarified only after this very act of seizing."

THE SUPERIORITIES OF THE WEST

While the East, indicating a disorganized picture in different times and places and within different frameworks of manifestation, although they are all from the same spiritual root in terms of a general and intrinsic character, the West represents one single unity divided and established in Western nations. This unity has certain origins and turning points with all their specific causes and effects: "Ancient Greece; a very sudden and unexpected miracle of individual and society. Rome; the bridge which allowed the light to be received from Ancient Greece by adding new glitters from the Latin spirit. Christianity; the brand new yeast of the sensitivity of the West. The Middle Ages; the pitch dark labyrinth of the West in which it matured smoldering, devoid of the past income of the West, candidate to inherit the legacy of the future but ignorant of all. Renaissance, reawakening; the soul's attempt, at one go, to fly towards the first lights of dawn in order to find itself in a new composition with the need stemming from Reason to dominate the material world. And the harmony happened right after this liberating move causing the Western cauldron to overflow and then the division of its content to the other nations and after a few stages, the generation of Reason, the exact sciences which thoroughly and tightly embrace all things and events. In between, despite the wizardly moves taken further, the epileptic convulsions of losing the soul and balance of it." When the issue is reduced to the issue of races and nations, the greatest share of the capital should be first given to Ancient Greece; the right to run this capital with fresh additions should be given to the Romans; and to the groups of Latins, German and Anglo-Saxons which produced national categories afterwards. In the formation of the West, the Latin represents the subtlety and intricacy of the Occidental man's pure mind and emotions within his inextricably intertwined nature; the Germans and Anglo-Saxons represents the Occidental man's criterion for dominating the world outside and positively benefiting from them with a truly balanced combination of mind and spirit; and Slavs represent the effort to follow and catch them up, and the United States of America is: "A formation that was produced by these parts boiled over to the westerly direction later called 'the New World.' That is, 'the Americas', unfamiliar to the ordeal of soul and harmony which was about to disappear in the West; concentrated on material world and accelerated owing to this material merriment and just not so old as to experience its own crisis; a wonder of quantity, a formation not within but in the margins of the West." As a consequence, despite the magnificent genius of mold it possesses, the West lacked one thing:
"The vital juice of life in that mold; that is, the spiritual root with an endless depth."

THE SOURCE OF THE CRISIS IN CONTEMPORARY WORLD

As it is known, the word crisis is very widely heard in today's world in relation to domains and relationships such as individual, between individual and society, between structure of society and structure of state, between states, between various social groups and classes in a society, briefly all the "relationships" and "Becomings-institutions" of individual and social life which is entangled with it. Crisis, in addition to the meaning that describes the situation of the "underdeveloped countries" who became so because of the political and strategic concepts, which are based on economic benefits, of the imperialist countries, as it is already known, is a world-wide expression of a situation covering all sorts of relationships and Becomings ranging from part to the whole or vice versa.

If the conviction that the West is wherever the Western way of thinking and living have reached is accepted within the principles of the nobility of the "authentic" and banality of the "imitation," in the middle of all these contradictions and incoherencies, we may have indicated the reason for the world crisis in terms of idea and direction along a line extending from individual to the state; that is, the West. While humanity was going in circles around a dilemma like a miller's horse and the horrible cries reach the heavens and systems can show no truth but the mistakes committed by the users, one actually sees the contemporary picture of Western thinking and living, as an outline of its sociological, psychological and political structure, which is principally formulated as "Greek Reason, Roman order and Christian morality." In other words, this is the vision of the mistake which can be seen at the end of its own evolution. An American woman scientist who became Muslim explains this wonderfully: "The evil nature of the Western civilization is not incidental; or it is not a defect stemming from not living according to its major principles as solely a weakness of humans. What it lacks is particularly the major principles; the Western civilization is evil both theoretically and practically."

The mistakes of the systems which have widespread applications in our age, are not because of some false applications of the system, but because of the inability to obtain the "absolute principles" with these systems that are established by limited data of experience and observation; because, the events give the responses in accordance with the questions asked to them, and therefore, when they are evaluated by different consciousness, mind and understanding, different consequences are obtained accordingly.

As we are aware of the fact that there can be no true activity of thought without a true thought and that the truth changes according to any different consciousness, mind and understanding, we see that we have no system that we can apply. We can either remain mere spectators or interpret events, things and human beings through the lens of a super-human idea. This provides the only hope we can have. Either "Islam-the Absolute Idea" which shows the truth within the absolute framework to every perception who is seeking it, or nothing.

While it is a clear fact that the relationships between elements should be understood on the basis of the "Complete Idea," the systems established through general knowledge instead of the "Absolute Knowledge" can be resembled to the attempts in the well known cliche: "to fit the man to the clothes, instead of fitting the clothes to the man." It is clear, in the effort to reach a composition other than that of the society we live in, the theory set through general knowledge is a sort of compelling faith which forces induction according to this assumption, because it is seen as a deductive point around which everything is turned and integrated, and it is not exactly accurate but desired to be so. As a matter of fact, a social philosophy emerges when an existing community is unable to solve the inner or outer problems with the traditional forms, when the current hierarchy and law in that community becomes insufficient and when new strata for administration are produced, in short, when there is a disorder in society. Needless to say, what is needed here is ideas that can be applied systematically when there is a difficulty or a problem related to common life along with the issues caused by other matters. We see that this is a typical situation producing social thoughts in history and thus these thoughts are the life's answers which are given to issues being constantly produced by the common run. So, what cannot be a social thought becomes clear; because, a social thought has a definite historical place. This historical place is actually a need emerging at a certain time and the social thought in effort to solve has been produced in response to that need. Regarding to all these, the principles of the French Revolution emerged as an answer to some needs, however, all these principles proved to be false at the latest stage. The origin of the contemporary crisis, before all else, is the incapability of institutionalization of the relationships between humans while showing or describing the source of power by resorting to false systems, as well as the consuming effect of technology, which is lacking its "humanly" interpretation, on the classical values within the Western social structure.

Especially since the French Revolution in 1789, there has been this issue of "seeking the source of sovereignty in people," which has become widespread both as a thought at every turn and a clause in the laws. In its essence lies the intervention of the Church into the society through Middle Ages, the despotism of feudal lords and their seeing people as their goods, and the protest against the oppression and arbitrary administration of prerogative position of the "king who was assigned by God": "The picture is quite clear during the period of the three Louises, at the beginning and end of the Eighteenth century. As opposed to such a cruel understanding which can go to the extent of saying 'L'État c'est Moi' (I am the state), humanity sought only the freedom of individuals. They did not pursue an idea related to the freedom and right to equality, justice and equity among individuals. They could not. Finally the French Revolution was the result. The reason why it is an incredible revolution lies in the fact that in the Middle Ages, in the darkness of this period, it took centuries to find out the idea that a king, too, might err; that the King is a human being just like you and me. Upon realizing this, revolution broke out." In the points we indicated, we can see why the view "seeking the source of sovereignty in people" is against "theocracy" as well. We will also show that Islam presented in the Western categorizations has nothing to do with the administrative forms like "monarchy" and "theocracy" within this framework. Let us continue: "According to the view of national sovereignty, the owner and source of the superior power and dominant force is the society which has a particular personality, consciousness and will. The view of public sovereignty, on the other hand, finds the superior power not in an incorporeal entity (nation) other than the individuals comprising it, but directly in those individuals themselves, and everything is determined by the majority of these individuals, each of whom owns a part of this superior power." The first view has been criticized because the society cannot have a real personality and will independent of the individuals comprising it, thus will and personality can be a consideration only for real persons; and the second view has been criticized because a superior power cannot be broken into pieces. For both views, it is impossible to explain how the use of power is transferred to real person in terms of legitimacy. As a result of the theoretical criticism of the "national sovereignty", the view of "sovereignty of people" developed and sought the source of power again in people; but in this case, some significant issues come up such as: through what rules the individuals in a society show their will, who set such rules as "you are to show your will in accordance with those compulsory conditions," and whether a real will can be shown through these regulations; of course, it cannot be shown. We should indicate that it is only foolish to measure the "truth" by the number of the crowd, which produces the piece of nonsense "the majority is right." So, if we are to put it briefly: "With all these views, which cannot present a consistent explanation about the source of power and about whose the will is and about what justifies the use of power, it is impossible to combine the administrator and the administrated at a "real" and "fair" point and to establish a social structure at the level of "the Good, the True and the Beautiful."

In terms of categories, we see that there are almost no contemporary democratic, fascist or socialist regimes which do not claim in some way that their regimes are based on "people" or "nation" or "sovereignty of people". In accordance with this, the government in power which is described as "decision-makers and directors," as qualified by its practices, takes its origin from society. The actual use of it is given to real persons by society or real persons use this power, whose origin is in society, in the name of society. Regarding their claims, the distinction between the democratic, fascist or socialist regimes is related to "the legal and political procedures of passing the power from society to real persons." In other words, the distinguishing point between the descriptions (of one another) of these regimes is seen not in the source of power (who should be the source) but whether or not the domination of the society would be accomplished through the current legal and political procedures. If we are to evaluate this reactive consequence, in a Western way of idea categorization, against (apart from the issue of the emergence of despotic regimes such as Nazism and fascism which brought the power from the sky to the earth) the despotism of "L'État c'est Moi" (I am the state), opposed by individuals and as generated by the ideas over the "common good-common benefit," we can see that, especially along the line developed since the Eighteenth century until our age, all regimes have adapted themselves to the views which "seek the source of power in people." The concepts of "common good" and "common benefit" are the ones taking root from a need which highlights "the present time-practical benefit". This need highlighting those concepts is a result of philosophy's being unable to find whatever it seeks moving in a closed circle and also unable to arrange the practical life in accordance with the truth of life, mainly as a result of the reaction to the arbitrariness of the kings and to the Church, and within this framework, as a result of being incapable of indicating the relationship between "justice and injustice" and "the truth." As opposed to the confession of pragmatism (a school of thought) that "the situation of human being in the universe is like a cat in the library; it listens to and sees but understands nothing," the regimes which regard themselves as an exception to this statement bring the source and legitimacy of power from "the skies to the earth" and show it in society and then in individual accordingly and decide on the concept of "the nation's sovereignty/the people's power," they in fact resemble the cat in the library; this is the embarrassed confession of their fundamental mistake and being incapable of indicating the truth. Again, this is the reason why there is always an incongruity between "common good" and "truth." Their justice too, comes at the point of stealing the rights of the society or individual. However, in the question "whose is the power?" the controversial issue is who gave the authority to command and make decisions, and to whom and in the name of whom and who set the rules to do so, also the meanings of people, nation and class, and where to begin and end the limits. Nevertheless the reality is that the people form only the subject of the "command and decision." Here, we clearly see the inconsistency between the reality and that which is claimed. "Sovereign"(!) nation, who have no authority to command and make decisions (this is the main characteristic of the power) and "sovereign"(!) nation who only form the subject of the command and decision. This demonstrates how fictitious and baseless the statement "Sovereignty belongs to People" really is. As a consequence: "The contemporary regimes which we describe the quality of their power as democratic, fascist and socialist actually demonstrate what power is not and simply does not show whom it is on behalf of."

A regime is the active form of a model, that is, the active form of a "social system" which previously was only a model in mind; and the characteristic of a government in power is determined by the existing regime. Apart from the issues: whether these systems of ideas are explanatory universally (some claim to be), which they should be so; whether they are accurate; whether the relevant social systems, which are to be established under the light of them, are applicable; why the regimes alienate from the system or do not alienate; first of all, a system is the criterion by which the accurateness of the application will be inspected in social life, as well as the objective that is to be accomplished. Within the same framework, if the explanation of a social system on "in the name of whom the power is to be used, to be ruled" is not the expression of the "truth," the legitimacy of practicing of power cannot be explained either. And, if one does not explain the source of power in the "absolute" way, they may have no legitimate reason to use that power. No matter what regime it is, the acceptance of the dominance of the human will over human beings is actually nothing but becoming only a tail on another human being's behind. In such situations, one cannot talk about the "fairness" of that system or application. What we have here is this: a minority trying to impose their wishes and will on the "people" or the "nation", for this purpose, the will of the minority is shown as the will of the "people" or the "nation" through word games; and they try to legitimate this de facto situation in which "whoever obtains the power, since he is able to make his will the dominant one, is right." Ultimately, this justifies the situation in any regime in which the ones who are administered by anything other than ABSOLUTE IDEA do not obey the administrators.

Considering all the points we emphasized so far, we may now move on to analyzing democracy, which finds acceptance both in the world and in our country, as the "unique pretty thing".

THE DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRACY

Since a very early time, one may have seen various descriptions and explanations of democracy. When talking about the types of states and governments, there is a widespread habit of categorizing them into three general types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. By the way, let us point out the following fact: "The word government means the power used by the state agencies as well as the agency using this power. This concept sometimes expresses all the boards using the power including the 'Great National Assembly' and sometimes it targets only the 'Council of Ministers.' In short, the government is a part and an organ of the state."

In a rather cliche description, democracy is the people's administration, based on the principle of equality and in which the power agents cannot do any harm to the people since they are subject to them.

If in a state, the power belongs to only a part of the people it is called aristocracy, and if the power belongs to all the people, it is called democracy. When the power belongs to the people, the regime is said to be a democracy. Instead of all people, it can also be the majority of people, then: "The power, in democratic regimes, belongs to the majority of people!"

A system is democratic as long as it accepts that the power belongs to the people and which provides for their direct participation in the system as much as possible.

Democratic administration is a governing regime which is based on the sovereignty of the people and in which administrators' authority to use power can be obtained through the consent of the people as a subject to the political control of the people and whose underlying principles are freedom and justice.

In terms of the right to elect, the regime in which the right to rule belongs to the majority of people who have the right to elect is a democracy. As we have mentioned before, the article in the declaration made by the United States President Wilson during the First World War, which states; "Nations have the right to determine their own fate," took the notion of democracy further than being an internal regime or law; and announced it to the entire world as the basis of international relations.

THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY

In democratic regimes, the power of the administrative agents is a function or authority based on the position which they occupy.

In democratic regimes, the actual owner of the power is the public, that is, the human element of the state embodied by individuals.

In democratic regimes, although power is a right which cannot be transferred, the ones who use this power are (compulsory) the representatives of the real owner, the citizen.

In democratic regimes, the power is temporary for those who use the power in the government or in administration.

In democratic regimes, the agents of the administration, during their use of the power, undertake penal, legal or political liabilities.

In democratic regimes, the public can enjoy their right to inspect the administrators through a political, administrative or judicial way.

In democratic regimes, before the Law, there is no difference between the administrators and the administrated.

PRELIMINARY CRITICISM

As for the "the source of the sovereignty," together with all those systems and regimes which declare that "sovereignty belongs to people," democracy, too, is obviously rendered disabled by this groundlessness. Taking this into consideration, one can find a lot of descriptions based on "people's sovereignty," individual and liberal basics and freedom. Yet none of them is able to describe democracy in a clear way expected of any other description. None of them is able to explain, in particular, how "the right to rule" is going to be employed by the people. However, what they have in common is "the superiority of people's will" as a characteristic; but none of them can sufficiently state the role and relationship of the social and economic structures of the society in order to execute this principle. In other words, it is regarded that being an individual of that society, a citizen, is a sufficient condition to enjoy this right to sovereignty. The type of democracy based on such an understanding is called "classical democracy-political democracy," for its formal and political characteristics. Besides, the familiar historical samples named "people's democracy, new democracy or Marxist democracy," are just artificial democracies, with their great distance from the freedom that the soul and the very essence of democracy. Can democracy be described, in this case, through indicating the non-democratic ideas?

Language is a means to exchange ideas; however, it can also be used as a trick or concealing method to deceive others, even oneself. For example, we may talk about justice; nevertheless what we really mean is punishment and when it comes to benefiting from justice, what we actually mean is compassion, not to distribute justice. One might talk about the dominance of Reason, yet by "Reason" they in fact mean their own Reason. Take, for instance, the sanctity of freedom is uttered; yet the real intention of the speaker is, most often (and necessarily), to do whatever he wants to do and to be able to restrict others from doing what they wish to do. As a consequence, using the same word does not always suggest the same thing. The point we made generally in terms of language is valid, in particular, for democracy as well. Rarely does a word in our political vocabulary challenge the logic and reason of human beings as much and demonstrate such a provoking feature in a fickle way. Even a causal glance at various doctrines formulated in contemporary literature is enough to see that there are as many definitions of democracy as the number of political thinkers, and that the multiple views are related not only to what democracy is or should be but also it is not. In fact, the views of some theorists considering what democracy is not became diverse, to an even strange extent, that one may feel confused and become entangled in contradictions and finally have to believe that there is no necessarily incongruity between democracy and dictatorship; that democracy is a sort of dictatorship, let alone being "against" it, and that it is possible to talk about both a "democratic dictatorship" and a "totalitarian democracy." It is difficult to argue against such linguistic jugglery; however, if democracy and dictatorship have real and different meanings limited to themselves, they should obviously have some fundamental criteria in order for us to distinguish one from the other. The distinctive characteristics of democracy, the clear distinction between it and other types of administration such as dictatorship and other forms of oligarchy, should be stated. These are practical elements which will make it possible that we understand what democracy is and what an anti-democratic idea is. When analyzed within this regard, it will be seen that a democratic state is exactly different from any other types of states in terms of at least two basic elements. Firstly, it is free to encounter of opposing ideas and convictions. The other is the liability, based on the constitution, of administrators towards the people to be administered. Among all types of states, it is only the democratic state which allows, and is completely and inevitably based on, opposing views to get organized without any restriction, and only democracy regards the conflicts of ideas as the basis of the state. It is through this "main" freedom of ideas that the ones who are temporarily in power are responsible for those who are subject to this power; and people who are free to organize to express their distinct ideas and beliefs in a more effective way equally collaborate, as citizens, in the establishment of the order they live in. This idea has very significant consequences. First of all, it shows that democracy has no relevance with a certain type of government, be it by a mass or by a majority or by the people themselves. Within this respect, democracy: "First of all...is a means to determine who to govern and within a general framework for what purposes to govern"; and secondly, it demonstrates that it is imperative for the decision makers be at least the majority, not just one or only a few persons. Furthermore, it points out that it is necessary to accept the decision of the majority as a practical way so that the will of the majority can be determined; and it includes the permanent authorization to oppose, organize and, when the time comes (the sufficient support is provided), to become the dominant majority. In other words, the sovereignty of the majority is an inevitable requirement of the democratic state; however, this majority is a fluctuating and temporary one and is never fixed. The minorities should always be free to carry out their opposition, and their struggle to obtain the political power should never be prevented or discouraged. These two elements are unique and the most essential qualifications of a democracy; elements which cannot be found in any other systems. No mentality or applications corresponding to this can be seen in any other type of state. When it is viewed within this framework, the doctrines of thought qualified as anti-democratic are the ones that only regard democracy impossible or argue that democracy is not a desirable way of administration: "The former claims that free conflicts of ideas cannot have an essential impact on the policies and foundation of the government; the latter, on the other hand, asserts that these free conflicts of ideas should never have an essential impact on the policies and foundation of the government. The anti-democratic theories, besides, and in fact as a consequence of this, claim that the administrators cannot and should not be held responsible for the people they administer: They argue that the means of political power does and should belong to the minority, as opposed to the majority, and that such minorities do and should always dominate the state." These most significant aspects of the oligarchic thought indicate another similarly significant contradiction. The contradiction which is related not to the side the political power takes but to the scope of it is as follows: "Although democracy is a necessarily limited state, an oligarchy can only be a totalitarian state. Despite Hegel's views regarded as authority, people live outside the state as well as they live inside it. They may act outside the authorized limit of the political area. They live and think not only as political agents but also social entities. Since democracy constrains the area of state intervention and makes the area of thinking and even of culture outside the limits controlled by the state, it confirms the existence of these non-political facts and registers them as a constitutional base; and finally declares the exact difference between the state and society. However, oligarchy may or may not bother to show the difference. When it does not, which is the usual situation in a totalitarian dictatorships, the whole area of thinking and culture would be within the claws of the state, who intervenes into every activity. People do not have the right to have and express opposing ideas. Ideas are deprived of the possibility of shaping or improving the government policies. On the other hand, in the places where oligarchy respects the separation of areas between the state and society, as can been in the autocracies of intellectuals in the 18th century, ideas are free but ineffective; they are totally unauthorized in determining the government's objectives or selecting its bodies. Therefore, in any place where any of these two conditions are prevalent, there is no democracy." Thus, so far we have seen the vital difference between the democratic and oligarchic concepts from another perspective. In the first one, thinking is free; in the second, it can be controlled. In a democracy, free thinking causes governments to come to power or fall from power. Free thinking draws and influences and shapes the outline of general politics. In oligarchies, be it free or controlled, thinking/ideas cannot play a major role as a driving force in shaping the political process. Ideas (if they support the party or elites in power) can receive protection from the people in official positions, yet it can neither administer nor have an impact on them. Democracy alone is based on free discussion of different ideas in order to survive. Oligarchy admits only one view; the view of the administration. This is the sharp line separating a democratic way of thinking from that of an oligarchy. This is the origin of all anti-democratic thoughts.

While making a definition of democracy as objective as possible within its own definition, we discover that its essential contradiction/inconsistency is in respect of freedom. The conclusive deadlock is as follows: "Social order is primarily based on moral and historical process. Political regimes determine the way of operating this order and the constitution determines the rules with which to operate it. Under these circumstances, a protective attitude, on the political principles of state, is required. It is crystal clear: 'Is it possible to come up with a type of freedom of destroying freedom?' Is it necessary to acknowledge such a freedom in a democratic regime to those who aim at establishing an authoritarian regime? There are two reasons why we had to ask such a question: as to protecting and destroying this free order. Apart from the differences of these two situations, they overlap at one point. Is it possible to protect democratic order with non-democratic means? Is a democratic order supposed to acknowledge freedom of activity to ideologies and political forces which aim at destroying it?" No to lose ourselves in verbiage, let us talk about the essence of all issue: if democracy became a condition which protects itself with forcibly imposed sanctions instead of inspirational force against ideologies and political forces that will terminate itself, there would be no democracy. After we have related the "the arrangement, distinction and protection of public freedom" within a textbook style, we will come back to this topic.

THE ARRANGEMENT, DISTINCTION AND PROTECTION OF PUBLIC FREEDOMS

"There is point in talking about the attitudes of political power against public freedoms: not to get involved in the private sphere and to protect the individual in public sphere and save him from certain pressures. Thus, we have once again entered the territories of 'authority and freedom' and 'individual and state.' Whether individually or socially, the government in power will have to handle the issue of individual rights and freedoms. Limitless freedom, at an individual level, will definitely result in anarchy. If we start from the conviction that 'my freedom ends where your nose begins,' the necessity of a superior power to prevent us from harming others' freedoms is crystal clear. At an individual level, although we can be against the government in power, we have to assign them to protect our freedoms, direct them, provide various and opposing interests with free space to move, and put them all in some type of order. However, while accomplishing this task, the essential point will always be to keep the freedoms extensive and not to harm them. Constitutions are the documents showing such cautions; because one cannot talk about freedom as long as there is no restriction on the political power. And this is what makes the topic so controversial. In a monarchic regime, the power is not 'We' and we have to walk in a line drawn by another authority which is not our own. Nevertheless, it is different in democracy, because it is 'We' who is both the power and the state itself. At this point we have to remember Montesquieu: 'The sovereignty of people is not always the freedom of them.' The bodies of power we institute, with the votes we give, can both administer and restrain us, while determining our freedoms. How can we prevent this danger? Which organ(s) should determine our freedoms: legislative bodies or executive bodies?"

Since 1789, the authority in determining the limits of freedom has been left to the legislative bodies; therefore, freedoms are arranged according to some certain laws. Arranging is in a way restraining. Now that the Law is an expression of national and public will, it cannot be a means for oppression. Therefore, the authority to arrange public freedom belongs only to the legislative agency, to the extent that it does not acknowledge any delegation in case of public freedoms, based on a republican tradition, even when the executive body is given the authority to change them through delegation, laws and decrees. There is another reason why freedoms are arranged through law. To say that laws are the public expression of the common will is to say that the public has a role and contributes in making the laws. Laws, in a sense, can be regarded as a product of the people in a gradual way. To keep "execution", which is a body that has to act within the Law, out of arranging freedoms is derived from the distinction and aspect of the source of the "superiority of law." In this respect, the arrangement (via law alone) of the public freedoms is possible only in democracy. If democracy is perceived absolutely as the dominance of an arithmetic majority, as a common argument, it is so easy for this majority to establish an oppressive regime with which to repress public's freedom. Therefore, it should not be forgotten that there are more "libertarian monarchies" than such democracies. Democracy is not a victory by numbers; but to act upon some certain democratic principles. To claim that a party supported by a majority can do whatever they want is as strange as saying that a dictator is in fact a libertarian. And even if law made by the vote of the majority legislates "general rules" and is "done by open negotiations and discussions," the power established by the people can terminate the freedom of the people itself. In order to prevent this, it is necessary to establish some organizations like constitutional courts, in order to provide judiciary control.

The concept of "public order," seen here and there in the constitution and laws, is in relation with limiting freedoms. The definition of public order is extremely difficult. What does "pubic order" actually mean? From the most objective point of view, at least, such concepts aim at providing necessary conditions for a social life to live securely, peacefully and healthily. If administrative bodies stop the excessive purchase of some particular goods in order to prevent black market, this is an economic requirement related to the peace and security of society. Yet, such cautions might also include prohibiting certain performances in a theatre. Besides, "the substance of freedom" might change according to different world-views. What should a legislative agent do in order not to harm this substance? Constitutions do not explain this concept in their own texts; as a matter of fact, it is impossible to explain it. In such cases, the judiciary bodies develop Case law (precedential law-decisional law) after finding out the connections between events and principles. However, including these practices within the framework of Case law, these cases are all from Western samples and are within the current customs, traditions and moral values of that society, which shows that democracy is a "customary" regime. The point should be clear enough: Democracy is a "customary" regime which requires Western social structure, in regard to its birth, survival and capacity to settle the emerging issues related to it.

Can there be anything like the freedom of destroying freedom? The best example of this was given by the French Revolution. The revolution was made in the name of "sacred freedoms;" in order to live freely. Soon after that, the revolutionists who waved the flag of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen used the policy of "terror": Their purpose was to intimidate the enemy inside the country and to arm the country against the enemy outside. Robespierre justified the horrible system he wanted to establish as follows: "In order to reinforce democracy and to reach the happy dominance of laws, the war waged by freedom against despotism should continue and be finalized and go beyond the stormy straits of a revolution. People's Government is based on virtues at peace; yet on both virtues and terror during a revolution. A policy of terror is nothing but an swift, rigid and merciless justice. Terror should not be regarded as an exception. Terror is a consequence of the principle of general democracy to be implemented so as to meet the immediate demands of the country, along with life itself. In the previous order, despotism wanted to repress freedom. On the contrary, during revolution, freedom will repress despotism; in this situation, the despotism of freedom on despotism will be talked about!" The thesis of Robespierre would be completed by his comrade Saint-Just: "You asked for the Republic; yet if you do not want the elements embodying the Republic, it would collapse on the whole country like a ruinous heap. What makes a republic a true republic is to thoroughly destroy everything that opposes it!" The price paid for this philosophy of terror was very high: mass executions by hanging or shootings. Prisoners in Nantes were found drawn in the River Loire, and there were even babies among them. The corpses dragged by the sea to the coast of Nantes were so many that the sea water became poisoned and the municipality prohibited eating any fish. These events, however sincere they may be, demonstrate that the democratic order cannot be provided through non-libertarian ways. No doubt, corrupt revolutions may bring the order they demolished back, as a far more horrible regime. Revolutions should have an ideology and be based on moral values.

Within the plurality of democratic political life, as an obligation of this plurality, are those who want to destroy libertarian order supposed to be acknowledged this right? The issue pertains to the whole of public freedoms. Yet, it is particularly the issue of freedom of speech in a general sense and political parties. For example, are Islamist, communist or fascist parties supposed to be founded? According to the proponents: it is important to accept it with regards to not only individual freedoms but also the health of the democratic structure. For, democracy is both a regime to believe in and a regime to make others believe; to convince them to believe. As for the opponents, nobody has the right to accept "the destruction of freedom in advance." A democratic regime has the right to protect itself like every other political and social order. A regime that remains an onlooker to its own destruction, actually denies itself. Watch that: "The issue is not one that could be settled in a few lines, it is the issue of the age. The solution is related to the strength of democracy. If a democratic regime and democratic feeling is established in a strong fashion, the regime will of course be as much 'tolerant against its enemies' as the confidence it has in itself. It is impossible not to agree with this. However, first the understanding of democracy should be agreed upon. Then, the issue should be handled in terms of social structures (underdeveloped, overdeveloped); because the consequences one may get in the political life of an underdeveloped country are completely different." The trick here, I think, can be very easily seen: In terms of the strength it expressed about coming to power or not, the regime might be "tolerant" or "intolerant" against the opinions which are in opposition to its existence as a power. As for the matter of being "developed or underdeveloped," let me point out a fact which is rarely stated: democracy is a regime of an advanced and industrialized country. It emerged in a liberal economic order; and, through "mass organizations" in which various social classes and groups can express themselves on this ground, obtained its own indispensable organs for its existence. As for the underdeveloped countries, we should simply note that, taking into consideration that the word "underdeveloped" might as well mean "undeveloped," and most often it is so, the attempt at democracy for them can be expressed by nothing but "best comb for a bald head," that is, a ridiculously showy thing. In order to understand this, one may simply look at the history of Turkish democracy, which is embroidered with military coups. Within the framework of the principle of criticizing democracy not on the basis of ridiculous imitations of it but considering the original, let us look at the group who "do not want to acknowledge the freedom of destroying freedom": "The experience of the national-socialism... The characteristics of democracy as an active, reactive and fighting entity were especially prevalent (as a general tendency) during the Second World War. In the period between the two world wars, the Western democracy saw the totalitarianism of both communism and fascism. While this caused a war of ideologies, democracies were taught to make war in the Second World War. As a consequence, the issue was extended to the area of positive law and handled first in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then in the European Convention on Human Rights. Democracy, like every other social order, has the right to protect itself. However, this protection should not be based on a party's, which is in fact a minority in the country as a whole, estimation and interests. And the tendency to see any new idea as dangerous is the safest way to destroy democracy and make it a screen for despotism of majorities, let alone protecting democratic order."

The classification of public freedoms is as follows. Fundamental freedoms; those that cannot be surpassed by the political power: individual freedom, inviolability of domicile, safety, right to property, equity. Internal freedoms; (again which cannot be surpassed by the political power) freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and religion and worship and freedom of teaching and education. Political and social behavioral freedoms are as follows: freedom of assembly, association, the press and communication. Let us quickly remind ourselves that all these freedoms mentioned above, just as in the statement "your freedom is one thing, mine is another," are like empty jugs that can be filled with any thing one wishes. And they are the types of freedoms some of which can be and are advocated by non-democratic regimes as well. Such freedoms are not within the monopoly of democracy. Let us leave a note with regard to the aspect called "protection of public order": the justifications brought forward about the public order to be protected, to the advantage of the regimes described as democratic, are valid also for the regimes who want to protect its own "public order!

Be the regime called as liberal democracy or people's democracy, how come it does not have oligarchy in its scope? What matters is how this oligarchy emerged, how it employed the political power, and to what rules it is subject to while prevalent; and the price the community has to pay for it and what benefits it brings to the people. Other issues which can be numerously exemplified considering various aspects can be stated as follows: 1. First of all, who are the members of an oligarchy? Who are the members of this dominant minority and how easy is it to be one of them? Is the administrating minority more or less open to everyone or is it closed? 2. In any type of regime, what sort of persons have a chance to become part of the political staff? 3. What are the prerogatives given to the administrative minority? 4. What are the guarantees given to the public which is administrated in this type of regime? 5. Who holds the power indeed? And what is the meaning of the generally used phrase, "obtaining power?"

THE ISSUE OF FREEDOM

Our own interpretation of democracy will be covered in Chapter IV, which is titled "Grandsublime State". Here, let me relate the view of "freedom" within the framework of the "Ideology of the Great East."

Can a person be regarded as free when he is forced to say "I am free!"

Isn't a person who is able to cry out "I am a slave" more free than those people who are a sort of false-free?

Where are the criteria that will draw the limit between the freedom of a donkey (animal freedom) and the freedom of a human being?

When we are a slave to the truth, why do we feel that we are so free to the last bubble of air in our lungs? Who is that sultan to whose slavery is the greatest of all freedoms?

While Allah says "There shall be no coercion in religion (in matters of faith)!" and shows how innately free man is and exempted from any type of coercion, how can one construe any attempt to hunt for conscience through assigning police to his lips?

When shall we be able to understand that freedom is a means to an end, not the end itself, as a right peculiar to the slaves of the truth?

Is the freedom meaningless when it is to be used against the doctor at a hospital, the commander in the army and the teacher in the classroom?

One who wants to search for the address of freedom, apart from a party or the name of a newspaper or a pedicure salon or capital under one's belt or the statue in an American harbor, why does he not stick to Islam?

Unfettered, total freedom; that is, freedom without any brakes to refrain oneself, is limited even in animals. They were even somehow convinced, out of shame, to cover their excrement up with some earth!

Man has two opposite identities; one of which should be set free and crowned, and the other of which should be imprisoned and shackled, endowed to the same man, soul and self (Nafs). The soul finds freedom in being a slave to the truth. Self, on the other hand, takes it as doing whatever it desires and has no limit to the extent of claiming to be a god.

According to the Sufi criteria which we can call the topography of the man, that which covered every speck of the human soul, the self was created to be a screen against the divine light and it should absolutely be destroyed, bent and trampled in order to reach the great knowledge of Allah (Marifah). And just like the self is something that should be controlled individually, on the other hand, at the social level, it is a fact that inspires the authority of absolutism given to the social conscience, binding individuals to the social conscience.

In that case, whatever the self is against the soul on the individual level, the individual is what is against the social conscience on the social level; and on condition that its right is not given fully, as a Law of Creation for the survival of society, it has to stay completely bound by a disciplinary clamp.

The countries which demand freedom just for the sake of freedom are bound to be the slaves of others while they are running from being their own slaves.

Freedom is a means, not an end, and the end cannot be left aside to make an end out of a means.

"There shall be no coercion in religion (in matters of faith)!" That is, the freedom verified and granted by Allah with this decree is nothing but a means to conscience to reach the truth, just like the air needed to survive, and once the truth is reached, the greatest freedom, that is, to submit to the truth, will be revealed.

One may not find the "Right (haqq)" everywhere the freedom is revealed but when the "Right (haqq)" is revealed freedom cannot be defended.

The disaster seen in a place where freedom (for the sake of the Right/haqq) does not exist can never be greater than the disaster in a place where freedom (just for itself) exists. That is, submission to despotism is equal to submission to self.

While the original truth and source of everything, including freedom, is inside us, those who set up traps to destroy our magnificent and tremendous order, which was reached through a complete independence of conscience as its sacred meaning within its perfect geometry like a full honeycomb, provided us with freedom but in the opposite way of their understanding of freedom, that is, intentionally urging us to run wild. They made our souls slaves with a medal of so-called "freedom," pinned on our breast, while the hidden side of that "freedom" remains unknown to us.

IDEAL AND GOAL

The ideal is a yearning; a longing; a dream and a plan, stated by an idea which desires to see its own applications and traces on things and events. And if we call ideology the brain, the ideal is the heart.

No desire or zeal or curiosity or behaviour can be ideal if it is based on a miserable idea. In order for it to be an ideal, it should set its vision on a nobility and maturity on the social level.

Each ideal is a goal but not every goal is an ideal. Goals can be of lower levels; ideals cannot.

It would not be an ideal for a military officer to have an ambition or goal to be the General of the Army; and for a tradesman to have an ambition or goal to be a millionaire. Yet, if that officer dreams about a "Golden Army" or if that tradesman is planning to have a fortune in order to later spend it on some social cause, then both types are idealists.

The best example for the great effort belonging to love, ecstasy, exertion and determination, which an ideal requires on the individual level, is Ferhad, who dug into the mountain in order to reach his love Sirin. The man in this case goes well beyond simply demanding a woman, made of bones and flesh. In our case, Sirin is a mystical element, a symbolic entity; that is, the "idea."

All ideas that are believed in and attached inculcate into the subject an entrancement of the higher step and the next horizon to conquer further and beyond. And this is the ideal! This entrancement may go further until melancholy or insanity is the result.

On the other hand, nothing can be expected of those who are not melancholic or "insane," out of his ideal. In Islam as the ideal of ideals, a person who performs his ritual prayer like a civil servant as though he signed out a record book insensitively cannot be called an idealist. However, the one whose ribs were making a crackling noise out of love and respect for the Shari'a when performing his ritual prayer such as Bayazid Bastami is the greatest idealist.

Within about 600-year Islamic state administration in the history of our country, the idealist period does not even exceed 250 years. And what happened to it afterwards must be related to the loss of this entrancement.

All those administrative, social, economic, cultural, educational, scientific, scholarly, disciplinary, moral (and whatever else) causes obtain their capability from that entrancement and any field of labor cannot take even one step forward without it.

PUNCTUATIONS

The findings, diagnoses and truths we framed under "the Issue of Freedom" and "Ideal and Goal" demonstrate, besides the criteria of the view we obey, the meaning and value of democracy as a means and a goal, considering it as the social background to help the best one superior to the common run to emerge. "Freedom" is the means; and democracy is a goal for an ideal. They are entangled.

We pointed out the well-known problem of democracy: "Can there be the freedom of destroying freedom?" If the response "yes" is heard, then there is democracy within its actual meaning; that is, democracy can cancel democracy with the demand of the community. And despite the will of the community, if there are some power centers who prevent it, it is the proof it has never been democracy though it has been called so. All those cautions democracy developed to defend itself are ultimately the destruction of freedoms and superiority of certain people's will despite the will of the community, besides the fact that there are some people who somehow have the power to determine others' actions through some deceitful attitudes. Reasoning such as "we will assimilate them within the system" or "if we give them the chance they'll destroy the regime," just proves that both democracy and equality are nothing but palaver. On the other hand, when the response is "no," then there is neither democracy, nor freedom.

"How come one asks for freedom to terminate others' freedom?" Supposedly, there is a sort of freedom somewhere out there and someone who wants to destroy it. As a matter of fact, freedom is a word whose meaning changes from person to person and a crucial expression uttered when one wants to cancel another one. For instance, before the understanding of freedom of the Islamic regime, democracy cannot be accepted as it is freedom for destroying freedom. Here is the principle: "Freedom and the process of acquiring knowledge are synonymous; and one is free as long as he can pursue his truth in the truth of the truth. Is there a demand for an order in which one will not destroy other's freedom unless he destroys his own? The answer is in one word: Islam!" It means, then, all the limitations and constraints an Islamic regime imposes in order to protect itself are actually a sort of "the secret of Allah's mercy" for the opposing others as well, for it will help them to prevent destroying their own freedom!

"Freedom is something we cannot own unless we regard it as something others deserve!" This is what the proponents of democracy should understand. Besides, with respect to the understanding of freedom we mentioned: the essence and principle of "freedom that is regarded as something others deserve" is in Islam in an "absolute" sense.

Yet, it is also ridiculous to begin an explanation with "everybody will express their thoughts freely but�" and distinguish ideas from actions to be evaluated according to two different criteria. Tolstoy, in his work "The Kreutzer Sonata," points out and notes the contradiction between these: while "uncensored" music, as an example for the cultural imperialism, which inspires the human various immoral things and sows seeds of evil into the human subconscious, is allowed, on the other hand, cautions are taken against and punishments are given to the ones who are affected by it and do evil and behave immorally. This demonstrates that democracy, in its classical meaning, has nothing to do with a notion of an Islamic regime.

"My freedom ends where your nose begins!" Here is another statement like an empty mold, to be filled with whatever each view may want and thus reach incongruent ideas and different regime demands. A lovely example for this is as following: "Let people do whatever they want to do!" This democracy is such a sweet(!) thing! Let people worship if they want to and let people drink and engage in prostitution if they want to! We can give more color to the situation by giving such an example: "As a parallel action to your drinking and engaging into prostitution wherever you want, can I shit in the way they want?" As a matter of taste; there must be freedom, so, in order to prevent it to be suspended due to some "health reasons" and the like, here is a proposal: "In public spaces where everything is free ranging from mini skirts to necking and even notorious mating, as long as one does not leave any trash to the men responsible for collecting the garbage, anybody who would like to can (or may) shit on a piece of paper or into a nylon bag!" Apart from the fact that it is against the nature of man, the "freedom" under consideration is not challengeable at all in terms of logic, taking into account the "freedom of a donkey (animal freedom)" which some people desire. And just as the real (faithful) Muslim would be against such an "animal freedom," they are also strongly against this "freedom of prostitution" (which is far worse in his eyes) and all sorts of "animal freedoms" which cripple the mental health of people and destroys his life here and in the other world; they will never allow such things, whether as ideas or as actions, to be publicly announced or inspired on the social level.

Periodicals, newspapers and television channels with sexual, immoral, indecent contents are everywhere. There are also countless places for prostitution. And those with distinctive personality(!) and democratic jaws will say: "It's up to you, buy it or not. It's up to you, watch it or not. It's up to you, go there or not!" This is in fact within the allowance, even encouragement, of Turkish Republic's understanding of morality, hostile to Islam, and the extent of the prostitution which became the whole of the "general culture." The statement above actually belongs to both parties with regard to the prostitution sector. Our statement, on the other hand, goes to the fools at higher positions: "Now that you allow the ones who exploit the idleness (like an endless resource) of people, you should also legalize the sales of hashish and heroin and the like! It's up to them, they'll buy it or not."

Question: Apart from the mistake while ignoring the ABSOLUTE owner of the power, is there anything more foolish than attaching no value to the individuals when they are separate entities but seeing them as the most valuable when they get together and form a mass? Answer: Never! To express it clearly and honestly without any flattery or hypocrisy, people are usually so prone to idleness and confusion that (with the words of the Architect of the Great East) this "thousand-and-one-headed creature" cannot be expected of accomplishing on its own the task of guidance in the Right (haqq), sovereignty and Truth (haqiqat)! As for us, we passionately believe in the sovereignty that makes people believe in, and chains to, the RIGHT (HAQQ) along with itself. We passionately believe in the humanity of slavery of the Truth (haqiqat); not in the one who sits at the seat of power just because they were toady to people.

The most terrible slavery is the struggle for Western type of "idle" freedom. This cult struggling for collecting stray votes, which is actually a sort of disease, demonstrates one of the exemplary symptoms of the rotten structure of a society. Freedom will become degenerated if it is made a goal, not a means, and it will reach the extent of an "animal freedom". The purpose of freedom should be nothing but the Right (haqq) and the Truth (haqiqat). In fact, there is no such thing as a word peculiar to everybody or an idea peculiar to everybody, or as a truth peculiar to everybody. The truth is one. And only one person finds it and makes it confirmed by one million. Thus, we will have order and harmony. And thus, votes necessarily join at one single point. If whatever found by this one single person is false or not true, then there comes another person and again makes it confirmed by one million. And thus all the votes are joined at the Right (haqq) once again. A great and noble struggle among these "one persons" is carried out within a method, analysis and synthesis. All the radical changes and revolutions, with their rights and wrongs, consist of the jumps of these "one persons," ahead of the sleeping masses in society and severe beatings of these "one persons" against all the obstacles through bringing forward their own personalities and embroider the architectural plan in their own souls into the society. The greatest accomplishment emerges in everything null or Right (haqq) at the great personalities' announcement of their ideas on condition that the nullity is followed by the Right (haqq). Yet, the authority of this exceptional "one person," whose essence belongs to the Right (haqq), is not the reason for accepting the same in everyone. Whenever we accept this authority in everyone, everybody finds something in it; that everybody brings out an "incorrect" sample out of endless wrongs instead of the unique correct one; nobody will verify any of them and thus there appears what we call hustle and bustle and cacophony. "The lightning of truth originates from the clash of ideas!" This is a song of the slavery called freedom and what is one hundred per cent correct is the opposite: "The clash of ideas only produces dust and smoke!" Where there is order and harmony, there is no idle decision, choice or vote. A soldier in the army cannot be asked about what he thinks of the command of an attack; a patient in a hospital cannot be asked about the medication he plans for himself; a musician cannot be asked when he desires to sing or be quiet. Idle choices and such a tendency might just be in "women's bathroom," bohemian cafes, in the ballrooms of the snobbish ones and in the non-idea looms called "Bab-i Ali" (the place where most media companies are in Istanbul). The real freedom is to get rid of the slavery of self (Nafs) and be enslaved to the absolute Truth: "Submit to the absolute Truth and have your freedom!"

By means of spies they found among us, Europeans inculcated freedom and democracy into us in order to destroy our religion and unity of our people. Since the Administrative Reforms (1839), every now and then, the same words have noisily been uttered without knowing the true meaning and paying the necessary price: "Freedom, democracy!" We, who possessed the truth of both freedom and democracy while we were strictly attached to an order throughout our history, and we, who established a world empire with this truth, were asked to be convinced to leave our essential order only to get into a disorder to get consumed by the provocation above. The first experience, which emerged during the reign of the Abdulhamid II, and was eliminated thanks to the great genius of politics and administration, was suppressed; otherwise the disaster of 1918 would have been in 1878. Constitutional monarchy and later the Republic brought the factionary tyrannies which made us disgust ourselves and destroyed our own root through singing the same song. Finally, at the end of the Second World War, the "compulsory" democracy exported by the Treaty of San Francisco and tolerated by Inonu (the Turkish president at the time) involuntarily but for the sake of "foreign aid" and the following: desperate Democratic Party government, aimless 1960, the shed-like 1972 and foolish 1980, and after all those military coups, the situation today. Due to the activities of the idiots who are unable to achieve anything but hostility against Islam and futile talks again and again around democracy, the sewage system has exploded and all the roads and squares, in short, everywhere has been covered by filth. And now, with the permission of Allah, the future belongs to the generation of Great East-Ibda.

The subtle point underlined above should have been understood so far: this is the freedom which was imposed by the Treaty of San Francisco. The United States of America, warns: "If there is no democracy, there will be no aid," in American books which came out later, one can easily find the documents about the way the USA employed, such as military or economic aids, to make countries like ours slaves to lead them by their nose rings. And why would they behave differently? Why should one do a favor for someone else and give power if that favor would harm himself, just for the sake of doing you a favor? Shame on those who still find it unclear!

The best example for the critique of direct democracy is the point made in a meeting by a French Masonic Lodge, which admitted their contribution to the 1879 French Revolution, in the 1800s. The Masonic Lodge announced that the principles of "liberty, equality and brotherhood," which appeared as the cause and effect of the 1789 revolution, are in fact the ones they imposed on them and added: "The way we will follow it is to argue for administrating the nations with their lowest classes!" Let us give an example from our country. Being toady to people, telling lies, addressing idleness and frivolities instead of their real needs, and snatching their votes whatever the price. As a matter of fact, ninety-nine point nine per cent of such men and women are dishonorable, under-qualified, or pimps or prostitutes, depending on what is needed! For example, after calculating the votes that should be received from farmer groups; the result of which is buying their goods at a price more than their actual cost; or after calculating that there will come no votes, ignoring a particular segment of a society; or instead of placing the investments in the required ways and appropriate fields, targeting the focuses on particular people and places from which one can get votes; or with the concern of being elected, and leaving aside the cautions for stability, applying "general election economy" after every two and a half or three years (knowing that elections are done every four years); or employing not the one who deserves or is qualified but the one who supports his/her party; or starting the election campaigns with the help of biggest capital centers and paying for it through the resources of the state; or giving the chance to a prostitute, who drags men like a herd of cows from her behind, to take the highest position, and so on.

Fearing that a Muslim party would never leave power, that is, abolish democracy, after being the primary party in the election, some say:
"Democracy is impossible for Islamists!" If an Islamist party is indeed Islamist, their demand for power must actually be targeted to bring an "Islamist regime"; that is, to terminate its opponents. The blasphemous one jumps and proclaims with the conviction that he is right:
"You should be prohibited!" Then the question we shall ask is this:
"What is the difference between this prohibition of yours on us and our prohibition on you?"

STATE OF GRANDSUBLIME

10 Temmuz 2008 Perşembe

Chapter III WESTERN WORLD AND DEMOCRACY

Blog Arşivi

Hakkımda