DR. CEMÝL PASLI

ÜÇÜ BÝRLEYEBÝLÝR MÝYÝZ? (Türkçülük/Ýslamcýlýk/Batýcýlýk)

• admin
• 15 Ekim 2024
• Yazar
• 11517 Görüntüleme

ÜÇÜ BÝRLEYEBÝLÝR MÝYÝZ?

(Türkçülük/Ýslamcýlýk/Batýcýlýk)

Güçlü ve köklü bir milleti yenmenin en stratejik yolu onu bölüp birbirine karþý kýþkýrtmak ve gücünü kendi içinde eritmesini saðlamaktýr.

1000 yýldan fazla Ýslam’a bayraktarlýk yapmýþ bir milleti yenmenin çözümü olarak Batýnýn akýllý insanlarý ayný yola baþvurdular.

O milleti üç farklý rüzgârýn anaforunda tutmaya çalýþýyorlar.

Osmanlý Devleti’nin son dönemlerinde onu kurtarmak üzere canhýraþ bir biçimde mücadele eden aydýnlar genel itibariyle üç sýnýfta ele alýnabilir.

Türkçüler Ýslam Mecmuasý’nda, Ýslamcýlar Sebil’ür-Reþat, Batýcýlar ise Ýçtihad Mecmuasý’nda mücadelelerini sürdürüyorlardý.

Aslýnda Ýslam Mecmuasý’nýn mottosu da “Dinli bir Hayat, Hayatlý bir Din” idi.

Ve mecmua her sayýya Kur’an meali ve o ayetlerin kýsa tefsiri ile baþlýyordu.

Hanefi/Maturidi/Yesevi çizgide makasýdýn sabit kalmasýyla beraber vesailin deðiþimine dair Ýslam Mecmuasý yazar kadrosu radikal öneriler kaleme alýrken; birkaç istisna dýþýnda Sebil’ür-Reþat yazarlarý Eþarici bir çizgide daha muhafazakar yazýlar kaleme almýþlardý.

Ýçtihad Mecmuasý yazarlarý ise maziyi Katolik bir taassup olarak ele alýyor çok daha radikal/Protestan görüþ ve düþünceleri dile getirmekten geri durmuyorlardý.

Hepsinin önce Osmanlý Devleti’ni kurtarmak bu mümkün olmayacaksa küllerin yeni bir devlet kurmak gibi ortak bir gayeleri vardý.

Bu fikir damarlarýnýn bugün de aynen devam ettiðini düþünüyorum.

Bu üç farklý yaklaþým siyasetten kültüre ve yaþam tarzýna sosyal hayata yansýdýðýný söyleyebiliriz.

Bir zenginlik, farklýlýk olarak görülmesi gereken deðiþik fikir ve düþünceler bir araya gelerek deðerlendirme ortamýndan yoksun.

Herkes fildiþi kulesinden sadece kendi doðrularýný tekrarlamakla ve karþý gibi gördükleri mahalleye ateþ etmekle meþgul.

Ziya Gökalp, Türkleþmek-Ýslamlaþmak-Muasýrlaþmak derken bu ekolün aþama aþama birleþerek yürümesini kast ediyordu.

Her millet önce kendi öz kültürünü/dilini öðrenecek, Ýslam’ý makasýd sabit olmakla birlikte vesailini kendi öz kültürüne has biçimde yorumlayacak ve yaþayacak; kültür ve dini ile dünyadaki yaþanan deðiþim ve dönüþümleri yakýndan takip ederek oraya entegre olacak, katký alacak, katký sunacak.

Ali Fuat Baþgil, “Türkiye’de ölmek istemeyen bir mazi ile hayata doðmak isteyen bir müstakbel var. Milletin selameti bu ikisinin kavgasýný izlemekte deðil; bunlarý barýþtýrmaktadýr” demiþti.

Bize þu günlerde bu üç akýmý birleþtirebilecek bilge kral Aliya Ýzzet Begoviç gibi hem doðuyu hem batýyý, kuzeyi ve güneyi bilen bir deðer lazým.

Ne dersiniz?

Üçü birleyebilir miyiz?

CAN WE UNÝTE THE THREE?

(Turkism/Islamism/Westernism)

The most strategic way to defeat a strong and deep-rooted nation is to divide it, provoke it against each other, and make it dissolve its power within itself.

The smart people of the West resorted to the same path as a solution to defeating a nation that had been the standard-bearer of Islam for more than 1000 years.

They are trying to keep that nation in the whirlpool of three different winds.

The intellectuals who fought hard to save the Ottoman Empire in the last periods can generally be considered in three classes.

Turkists continued their struggle in the Islamic Magazine, Islamists in the Sebil'ür-Reþat, and Westernists in the Ijtihad Magazine.

In fact, the motto of the Islamic Magazine was "A Religious Life, A Living Religion".

And the magazine started each issue with the meaning of the Quran and a short commentary of those verses.

While the Islamic Mecmuasý writer staff wrote radical suggestions regarding the change of means while the purpose remained constant in the Hanafi/Maturidi/Yesevi line; With a few exceptions, Sebil'ür-Reþat writers wrote more conservative articles in an Asharist line.

The writers of Ijtihad Magazine, on the other hand, viewed the past as a Catholic bigotry and did not refrain from expressing much more radical/Protestant views and thoughts.

They all had a common goal, which was to first save the Ottoman Empire and, if this was not possible, to establish a new state among the ashes.

I think these veins of thought continue today.

We can say that these three different approaches are reflected in social life, from politics to culture and lifestyle.

It lacks an environment where different ideas and thoughts, which should be seen as richness and diversity, come together and evaluate.

Everyone is busy just repeating their own truths from their ivory tower and shooting at the neighborhood they see as the opposite.

When Ziya Gökalp said Turkification-Islamization-Contemporaryization, he meant that this school would unite and progress step by step.

Each nation will first learn its own culture/language, and although the purpose of Islam is fixed, it will interpret and live its means in a way specific to its own culture; By closely following the changes and transformations in the world with its culture and religion, it will integrate there, receive contributions and make contributions.

Ali Fuat Baþgil said, “In Turkey, there is a past that does not want to die and a future that wants to be born into life. The welfare of the nation does not lie in watching these two fight; "It reconciles them," he said.

These days, we need a figure who knows both east and west, north and south, like the wise king Alija Izzet Begovic, who can unite these three movements.

Say what?

Can we combine all three?