So-called European secular countries are still governed by Hebrew-Christian laws, which they have diluted in certain areas. Some of those secularists who say they believe in freedom and in anti-discriminatory principles also say that Muslim women in public institutions have no right to wear the hijab (Islamic headscarf) in conformity with their faith, but have no objections regarding women publicly showing their cleavages or thongs or other visible signs of sexual attraction.

<B>?Modern? Turkey

Further to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 (World War I), the victors planned its partition between the United Kingdom and France [Ref. The 1917 Sykes-Picot Agreement]. Mustapha Kemal [1881-1938], a Greek Selânik Jew with a Muslim name, whom Hebrew journalist Ben-Avi reported to be a ?descendant of Sabbetai Zevi?, returned from his Palestinian military HQ to an occupied Istanbul [1918]. While the Arab uprising against partitioning led to independent Arab states such as Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Mustapha Kemal led the Turkish War of Independence and established the Republic of Turkey [1923] based on the western European secular values. In so doing, he adopted in the constitution an extreme interpretation of the French concept of laïcité (secularism). He disbanded all Islamic Courts, and replaced Islamic canon laws with a secular civil code based on the Swiss model, and a penal code based on the Italian model. He also gave women the vote, restricted Islamic dress and replaced Arabic script with the Roman alphabet.

He abolished the Caliphate (3rd March 1924) and transferred its powers to the Turkish Grand National Assembly. In 1934, the Assembly gave him the surname Atatürk (meaning Father of the Turks), hence Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. As a staunch advocate of the complete separation of government and religious affairs, Mustapha Kemal, a military man himself, gave tremendous powers to the military to intervene in civil matters. This military threat is still very much alive today in Turkey.

<B>?Ataturk?s laïcité manu militari?

The 22nd July 2007 elections were called because of what has been referred to as the ?e-coup? by the Ataturk?s Turkish military. Strange form of laïcité he put in place ? the militarist laïcité! The story behind the 22nd July elections is that Recep Tayyin Erdogan, PM and leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), put forward as president his Foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, who was certain to be elected by the 550-seat Turkish Parliament. But Gul was accused of being an ?observant Muslim?, and his wife, Hayrunisa, accused of wearing the hijab, the Islamic headscarf. Before Gul?s expected election, an orchestrated pro-European demonstration demanded the resignation of Erdogan and his party. Reporter Christopher Torchia of the Associated Press reported in the Washington Post of 30th April 2007 the following comments made by one protester, 67-year old Ayse Bari: ?We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace. We want civilized, modern people there.?

In Ataturk?s Turkey, the military is regarded as the ?guardian of the Republic?. Before Gul could be elected president, the military issued an ultimatum on its website on April 27th about the ?growing threat? to the ?secular? republic. The opposition Republican People?s Party (CHP) is so identified with the military that it seems like the military?s political wing. Erdogan out-manoeuvred them and called early elections which his AKP party won on 22nd July 2007 with 47% of the votes, compared with 34% in 2002. In fact, the military ?e-coup? has backfired.

<B>Modernism</B>

By adopting extreme European secular policies, Mustapha Kemal and his military clearly misunderstood the meaning of modernism. 99% of Turks are Muslims. By attacking their faith in this manner, although welcomed by the West, all it did was to undermine the identity of the Turkish people, many of whom, through imitation, want to be considered equally with other white Europeans who have been rejecting them for decades because they do not consider the Turks as Europeans. In the Washington Post, Christopher Torchia rightly commented that the recent Turkish elections are a ?Struggle over Identity?. By attacking Muslims? culture and their items of clothing, particularly for women, the laïcs in Turkey are attacking their identity. Why do they regard the hijab as backward and as a sign of separation when it is a respectable item of clothing ? The Guardian newspaper even carried the headline Women in Turkey : Divided by the Veil. They prefer a woman who shows her bare cleavage or her thonged buttocks in a see-through skirt or trousers, or mini-skirt, for men to dribble and fantasise over because they radiate sex and are regarded as ?modern?. Since when were bare breasts and buttocks civilised or modern? It is always thought they were the hallmark of primitive people. In truth, they want to destroy any symbol relating to the power of Islamic faith, particularly in Muslim women since they have a very special and pivotal place in Muslim homes.

If the Turkish military and its political wing really want modernism, they should ensure they manufacture their own aircraft, including fighters, missiles and defence systems. They should set up their own space programme and send up their own spacecrafts and satellites. They have to get rid of foreign military bases on their land. They have to be at the forefront of scientific and technological advancements. In so doing, they will modernise Turkey and preserve her security and that of her people.

In ?culturally modern? Europe, visible signs of male and female homosexuality, prostitution and indecent clothing have become much more acceptable than visibly decent signs of faiths, particularly the Muslim faith. Although secularism and laïcité have become faiths of their own, the laws which govern Europe are, by and large, still based on Hebrew-Christian laws. Tony Blair is a ?practising Christian?; this is not a crime, and he cannot be accused of being a Christian or a Christianist. What is wrong with Recep Tayyin Erdogan being a ?practising Muslim?? There is clear discrimination and racism against Muslims and Islam. Europeans must learn to respect other faiths, languages and cultures and not impose their own.

<B>Conclusion</B>

Mustapha Kemal was an excellent soldier and a fine military strategist, but he was not a good statesman with original ideas of his own. He merely copied other people?s ideas, which he hurriedly put together in defeat to please the victors with whom he shared many values. He behaved like someone who lost, not only his sense of direction, but also his identity. This loss of identity has gripped a whole nation and the Turkish people, 99% of whom are Muslims, were forced to become what they are not under oppressive laws. Their fundamental rights have been trampled over for many decades. They want their identity back and their rights restored. Ways must be looked at in reversing Mustapha Kemal?s unforgivable decision, in his frenzy, to replace the Arabic script with the Roman alphabet. Through appropriate laws, Erdogan should ensure that the military does not interfere in civil matters but, at the same time, he must work with the military for defence and security, and, for example, to counter Kurdish terrorism, which the military is anxious to tackle.

As far as the wearing of the Islamic headscarf (hijab) is concerned, the single issue, which provoked the elections of 22nd July 2007, it is purely a matter of personal choice, although the symbol is a powerful one which laïcs want to destroy.

<B>M. Rafic SOORMALLY</B> London, 23rd July 2007