Kenan Camurcu

In 1996, during Erdoğan's tenure as Mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, we invited Gilles Kepel to one of the impactful intellectual programs we organized. His book, "Allah in the West", which resonated as expected given the heated discussions of the time, had just been published. In the book, he penned his observations and theses regarding Muslim communities that had become part of the West. It was the best study conducted in this field, perhaps even the first book on the subject.

In Algeria, the Islamist (and Salafist) Front Islamique du Salut (FIS), while campaigning for the 1990 local elections, built its main platform on the idea of "expelling France, which was physically driven out of Algeria, intellectually and ideologically as well, and for this, getting rid of its supporters who have sucked its poisonous milk" (Allah in the West, 1995: 204). This was the second example after Iran of Islamists' algorithm to seize power by religiously polarizing society. Polarization became the fuel for Islamism's doctrine of action, ensuring the continuation of conflict throughout the 90s in Europe and Turkey. They are still continuing this, and it works.

Front Islamique du Salut actually means "Islamic Salvation Front." However, due to the "salvation" evoking associations with leftist organizations, the Turkish translation "İslami Selamet Cephesi" (Islamic Welfare Front) was preferred. This was to recall Erbakan's National Salvation Party, which was shut down by the September 12, 1980 coup.

When Kepel arrived in Istanbul, he expressed his desire to converse with us about the topics in his book before the conference. We hosted him at the office; over food, coffee, and tea, the conversation deepened. Many topics were discussed, but the most important was the Islamist experience in Algeria. We focused on what fate awaited the Welfare Party, which was treading a similar path. Kepel knew that the Islamists' local election success in Turkey would bring victory in the general election. But what he wondered was whether the Welfare Party would lean towards religious radicalism, like the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria, or towards democratization. Those participating in the conversation argued that the path of democratization, increased rights and freedoms, law, tolerance, and dialogue would be beneficial for religious people. They specifically stated that religious radicalism would be a dark choice.

Kepel reminded us that Muslims often view democracy merely as winning elections, and once they seize power, they revert to their own world, disregarding others. He cited the Iranian revolution as an example. When FIS in Algeria also embarked on the same path, the system reacted with a coup, and then things spiraled out of control.

The Algerian example was repeated in Turkey in 1997 and in Egypt in 2013.

In Egypt, Morsi, elected with 26% of the total electorate in the boycotted 2012 election, disregarded this legitimacy crisis and set about conquering the country from day one. Despite encountering mass protests similar to the February 2011 revolution in response, he paid no heed to objections and demands. As tensions escalated, the army staged a coup in 2013, which also led to disastrous consequences.

In Turkey, during the Welfare Party's local and central government experience, although Erbakan did not give credit or hope to religious radicalism, the military coup on February 28, 1997, was attempted to be justified by the "preemptive strike (or blow)" doctrine to prevent Turkey from becoming another Algeria. For this reason, it was openly stated that despite his removal from power, the target was not actually Erbakan and his National Outlook (Milli Görüş).

In Algeria, where FIS, intoxicated by victory, rushed to become the sole ruler of the country, the old ideological regime was certainly not great, but the Islamists wanted to do the same with the dominance of their own worldview. Kepel likened Islamists in the conversation to "pirates who board a plane with a ticket but then hijack it." When I, representing the municipality, told him that despite his views, we were confident and believed in democratization enough to invite him, he retorted, "The politicians you speak for might not think like you, don't be too confident."

If anyone encounters Kepel, please convey my message: You were right, Gilles, the Islamist politicians I spoke for apparently didn't care about democratization, freedoms, human rights, or law. Their secret agenda was vile despotism. There was no evil they wouldn't commit for personal prosperity and its preservation. The complaints about religiosity being oppressed and victimized were merely a prelude to establishing religious despotism. The accusation of anti-Islam, now branded as Islamophobia, was actually a strategy to eliminate situations that prevent usurpation, tyranny, and domination.

It is very true that they did all this by boarding the democracy plane as ticketed passengers. And it is also true that our own democracy romanticism was misplaced and unnecessary.

The Victimhood Melody of the Conquest Instinct: The West is Always to Blame

Why are Muslims so eager to display their religiosity? And call it "da'wah" (proselytizing)? Praying in the streets in European cities, loud Quran recitations from loudspeakers, ostentatious displays in the streets with sanctified attire? The reason is simple: In their perception, Islam is not a religion for personal development, self-discipline, and becoming a good person, despite dozens of verses in the Quran to that effect. For them, religion is merely a tool for political ends. It is an identity to be struggled for dominance in this world. The ideology of the ambition to suppress others, conquer countries, and establish dominion, instead of making oneself a good person, is the result of this neurotic belief. This is why they cannot adapt to democratic values in Europe.

Because law, human rights, freedom of thought and expression, equality, justice, and morality hold no meaning in their world, they are always at odds with the standards of the countries they reside in. They are angry because they cannot act as they please in traffic, cannot stain the city with blood during "Eid al-Adha," cannot pollute the streets, are exposed to Christmas celebrations with all its symbols, and see pork, alcohol, joy, and entertainment around them but cannot intervene. For this reason, those places are hell for them, and their own country, where they can freely enjoy lawlessness, is paradise.

What can various Muslim communities, with zero points in democracy, human rights, freedom, and law, promise the world? Far from offering a better alternative to the West they criticize, they are a hundred years behind even that level. Yet, a hundred years ago, the reformist elites of Islam were running neck and neck with the West, leading constitutional and parliamentary movements. Islamists never consider how they can contribute to improving the quality of social life, cultural and intellectual development, or political perfection in the countries they live in. They have no such concern. On the contrary, they are looking for shortcuts to sustain their lives through social welfare without working. There are those who do not hesitate to stoop so low as to have children just to receive financial support from the state.

As of 2023 in Germany, approximately 1.8 million of the 6.4 million people receiving Hartz IV unemployment benefits were foreign nationals. 70% of these were Muslim immigrants. Since aid is provided until a job is found, these are the ones who continue to receive social welfare by rejecting jobs offered by the state with fabricated excuses such as "not suiting their personality" or "physical inadequacy." In a civilized environment, there is law, and human rights are sensitive; they cannot say "then get out of my country." The freeloading immigrants see this strong legal condition as a weakness of the state and society and show no limits in their insolence and impudence.

In Switzerland, in regions like Basel and Geneva, up to 70% of social welfare expenditures go to Muslim immigrants. In Sweden, in some neighborhoods of Malmö and Stockholm, the rate of social welfare received by Muslims is between 60-70%. In Denmark, the labor force participation rate of Muslim immigrants is only 28%. In contrast, the social welfare rate is 60%. This goes on and on. The data is roughly the same in all developed Western democracies.

Muslim immigrants living on social welfare from funds made up of taxpayers' money in Europe, and doing nothing, do not feel ashamed while happily consuming the taxes paid by hardworking Europeans. The concepts of "kul hakkı" (rights of others), "haram" (forbidden), and "halal" (permissible) are not valid when it comes to Western societies. On the contrary, they are proud of cunningly eating the money of "infidels." Working immigrants have also developed a notion that they are entitled to more than they deserve on the grounds that they "serve infidels," and they do not neglect to pursue similar shortcuts. When this personality disorder is not tolerated and taxpayers object to this situation, they immediately pull out the "Islamophobia" banner from their bag.

It has been sufficiently proven and documented with examples that the "Islamophobia" camouflage is the name given to concealing the evils of the world of religious despotism.

Muslims Who See the Earth as Their Own

In Muslim understanding, there is a perverse belief that the earth belongs to them. As a sacred right, they can conquer any place they wish. Because they represent Allah and are authorized to seize, appropriate, invade, and occupy every land, realm, country, and society to implement His Sharia. This is a psycho-pathological state that starts with "Jerusalem is ours" and extends to Andalusia, meaning Spain, and finally claiming the right to conquer the entire world, blaming the current rulers of these lands.

It is believed that Allah, who created the universe and is merciful, compassionate, and benevolent to everything and everyone within it, wants Muslims to invade countries, plunder their wealth, and dominate those living there in the name of conquest. This is such a belief in God.

A renowned mullah shouts: From the river to the sea, Palestine is Islamic, it must be reclaimed. But that's not enough, Spain is also Islamic. Once that is reclaimed, Rome is next, and then Constantinople, to be conquered. This way, Muslims will subjugate the entire world.

"Palestine from the river to the sea" is a blatant antisemitic goal of expulsion, displacement, and annihilation. Historically, it's a plan to cleanse Judea and Samaria of Jews. They openly express their fantasies of completing what Hitler left unfinished. And they do so on the streets of Germany, London, Paris, and other cities where memories of the Nazi invasion are still vivid.

This is the ideological basis for jihadists' eagerness to subjugate the entire world to Islam by all means, including terror. The outcry of "Islamophobia" that erupts the moment developed Western countries say this cannot be allowed is, of course, strange, bizarre, odd, and surprising. Doing evil for the sake of Allah is called jihad.

Finding Compliance with Law Incompatible with Islam

Europeans who are angered by radicals seeking "Sharia" who want to turn Europe into Afghanistan while living prosperous and high-standard lives there are absolutely right. The aim, which the tearful and insidious "Islamophobia" literature does not conceal, is to maximize economic and social benefits in European cities while making daily life resemble their own dystopian, dark, primitive conception. Therefore, anti-immigrant political groups, no matter how inconsistent, criminal, or culpable they may be in their own ideological universe, are not distorting the truth when they propagate that asylum seekers or settlers are not fleeing uninhabitable conditions in their home countries to seek a good life in the West, but are coming as a kind of invasion.

The Islamists' claim that complying with the laws of Western countries is incompatible with Islam has consequences on the ground. According to 2022 data, 15% of Muslim immigrants in Sweden were involved in approximately 30% of violent crimes. According to the German Ministry of Interior's 2023 report, 30% of criminals are foreigners. This rate is even higher for sexual assaults and theft crimes. In Barcelona, Spain, 78.7% of arrests in 2024 were immigrants. Arrest rates for theft were 91%, and for sexual assault, 73%.

According to the 2016 study "Attitudes of Young People of Immigrant Origin Towards Republican Values" published by the French National Institute of Demographic Studies (Institut national d'études démographiques), Muslim immigrants have very low rates of adopting French values such as secularism and equality. This means that the integration of Muslims into society is almost zero.

A report published by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) self-critically stated that the "white" attribute in the EU's definition of "Europeanness" causes feelings of exclusion for Muslim immigrants. This is, of course, a very naive assessment. Before even getting there, there is a rule in Islamic theory: "do not befriend infidels." In Bukhari (hadith 30), the Prophet is attributed with saying, "I have been commanded to fight people until they say 'There is no god but Allah.' If they say it, they have protected their blood and their property from me." This normalizes enemy law against everyone outside of Islam.

So, was the Swedish deputy prime minister wrong when he warned that such beliefs and practices of Muslims are destroying the country and said, "Islam must adapt, those who cannot adapt must leave the country"? When the imam of the Via Jacopo di Paolo mosque in Bologna, Italy, was deported from Italy, where he had lived for 30 years, for supporting Hamas's armed violence and calling Muslims to jihad worldwide, can the West be blamed? If the same treatment were applied to women in ISIS uniforms and their husbands, who, with their horrific records and terrifying lifestyles in Syria and Iraq, make ostentatious displays in the streets of Turkey and harass passersby, would Turkey be violating rights?

Existing Islam Expects Respect for Its Strange Beliefs

Muslims who react to Westerners with accusations of Islamophobia, disrespect for Islam, hatred of Muslims, etc., expect their strange world of thought and beliefs to be respected in the West. They also accuse Westerners, who advocate values such as law, human rights, freedom of criticism-thought-expression, of producing Islamophobia by saying that such things cannot exist.

Existing Islam is a religious universe that claims all people of other religions, beliefs, and thoughts are deviant, and only Islam is true and valid, expecting this certainty to be confirmed by everyone. It is a political religiosity that believes it can achieve the regime of democracy, human rights, and freedoms that Europe reached after three hundred years of intellectual debate, three civil wars (two of which turned into world wars), a revolution, and various minor conflicts, without a critical look at its own history and culture. It is a toxic barrenness that quickly made even the city the Prophet called "Medina" and led to civilization, resemble itself.

Countries where Muslims are in massive majority and where different cultures under oppression cannot become public are socially and politically depressed, unhappy, joyless, claustrophobic places. Immigrants from these places bring this baggage with them to the West and cling tightly to that culture to preserve their identity in the countries they go to. Islamophobia is a tiresome excuse; this is the real issue.

Let's not forget that the Islam reacted to in the West is the Islam that Muslims describe, defend, and believe in. That is, Westerners know Islam as the religion that believes in the superiority of Islam over all other beliefs and Muslims over all other people, that a small girl aged 6 or 9 was married to the Prophet, that Allah gave men the right and authority to discipline their wives by beating them, that they can kill non-believers wherever they find them, that they have the right to kill Muslims who abandon their faith (apostasy), that a religious person who dies fighting non-Muslims will be awaited in paradise by 70 (or even hundreds, thousands) of young girls (houris), etc., and motivates its believers with such strange interpretations. The voices of those who try to explain that it is not so are not heard amidst the commotion. Perhaps it is also not in the interest of extremists in the West to listen to voices that say the truth is different.

While living prosperous and high-standard lives in the developed cities of Western civilization, this Islam, which insults the society, faith, and country that provide these opportunities, both deems this ugly behavior its right and yet expects respect. For example, in Turkey, the sociology representing political Sunnism, under the eyes of the state, either stabs an inflatable Santa Claus on the anniversary of Jesus Christ's birth, or stands guard with weapons to prevent him from coming down the chimney, or propagates hatred of Christmas in the streets. Why should anyone show understanding to radicalism that, when non-Muslims participate in Muslim holidays, publishes headlines boasting about their own religion, and terrorizes participation in their holidays with shouts of "Muslims do not celebrate Christmas"?

We learn from the verses in the Quran about the epithets and descriptions pagan Meccans (polytheists) attributed to the Prophet. Today, there is an Islam ready and waiting to assassinate anyone who says or writes the same epithets. It justifies this by the lie that the Prophet ordered assassinations.

I will explain in an independent article the fabricated narrations that portray the Prophet as a ruthless killer who instigated the insidious and treacherous murder of a blind old Jew, an old woman, and a poet. These narrations, fabricated to tarnish the Prophet's character, are used to whitewash Islam's record of terror, terrorism, and vandalism.

What About When Muslims Commit Christian and Jewish Massacres?

In 2019, a Christian terrorist who believed in white supremacy attacked a mosque and cultural center in Christchurch, New Zealand. In the terrorist act, 51 people lost their lives, and 49 were injured. New Zealand rose up. In fact, it would be more accurate to say the Western world rose up. Israel called it a "brazen act of terror." All leaders of the New Zealand government fully attended the memorial ceremony held for the attack. Thousands of New Zealanders, believers and non-believers, Maoris, everyone, attended the ceremony with great sorrow.

I will come back to the fact that there has not been a single similar example of such sensitivity among Muslims when Muslim terrorists commit Christian massacres in different parts of the world or kill Jews, Arabs, Druze, Circassians, anyone they encounter in Israel.

At the ceremony held in memory of those who died in the Christchurch attack, everyone on stage other than Muslim representatives shared the pain, expressed their sorrow, reaction, and protest, while Muslim representatives did not miss the opportunity to turn the tragedy into an advantage. Even those who survived the attack. While their relatives had died and they themselves were injured, instead of using such an attack for a collective sensitivity against all forms of violence and condemning the killing of Christians and Jews by Muslims in various parts of the world on this occasion, they saw that moment as a unique opportunity to proselytize Islam on live world television. With melodic recitations of verses and so on.

They think that those who came to share the pain or watched on television will be influenced by the verses they read and the speeches they made and collectively convert to Islam. It is clear that they hoped to create such an effect despite their shaved mustaches and long beards, symbols of Salafist terror, and their historical local attire from their home countries. They do not wear those clothes with folkloric joy; on the contrary, it is to avoid resembling the "infidel" society they live in and to distinguish themselves from it. Because they have a hadith about clothing that says, "Whoever imitates a people is one of them" (Abu Dawud 4031). They must dress differently to avoid resembling "infidels." They show that difference with clothes from their own local cultures. This then becomes a requirement of Islam. They are so provincial, ignorant, uninterested in truth, and detached from the real world.

Yet, New Zealand, where they live, owes its status as the freest country in the world to its secular nature. If this country, which ranks at the top in all standards and criteria, were given to these Salafist ignoramuses who have made shaving mustaches and growing beards their religion, they would turn it into the most miserable place in the world in the blink of an eye.

While Christians and Jews reacted so strongly to a lone terrorist act against Muslims in Christchurch, why have Muslims never organized global mass reactions and protests against the systematic massacres and killings by terrorist organizations that originated from within their own ranks? In 2019 alone, the year of the Christchurch attack, Muslim terrorist organizations were reported to have killed 4136 Christians. There are many other attacks confirmed by Open Door and Pew.

According to Vatican News' 2023 report, between 2009 and 2023, Boko Haram and Fulani militias killed over 52,000 Christians. Systematic massacres of Christians by Muslims continue in Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, and currently in Syria. But the Muslim world does not take to the streets in reaction to these tragedies, does not share the pain of Christians, and does not lead a global reaction. On October 7th, far from reacting to Hamas's massacre of 1200 innocents, young and old, including a 10-month-old baby, and taking 250 people hostage in Israeli settlements within a few hours, they did not even make the tragedy a topic of discussion.

Similar reactions to the memorial ceremonies that stirred the world for 51 Muslims in New Zealand are not organized in Muslim countries where massacres against Christians occur. But most importantly, while Muslims scream "Islamophobia" if their foot stubs a stone, Christians do not cry out "Christianophobia" despite such great losses.

Is Islamophobia Bad, But Antisemitism and Anti-Christianity Good?

Islamophobia is actually on the same level as antisemitism and anti-Christianity, but Muslims complaining about Islamophobia are sensitive to neither antisemitism nor anti-Christianity. Islamists enthusiastically and excitedly share videos of antisemitic restaurant owners refusing to serve a Jewish family. The restaurant owner expelled the family from the establishment, holding them responsible for the Netanyahu government's Gaza policy. The family might even be anti-Netanyahu. They might be one of the thousands of Israelis who, in a democratic environment unlike anything seen in Muslim countries, confront Netanyahu's home and call for his resignation. But in the restaurant owner's world, they are just Jews and deserve no other treatment than annihilation. Islamists, of course, love this judgment. That's why Hussein al-Amini, the Mufti of Jerusalem appointed by London during the British Mandate, swore allegiance to Hitler at his feet and formed a Nazi brigade from Palestinians.

Now, what would happen if that restaurant owner, for example, treated a Muslim family from Turkey the way he treated the Jewish family, due to Erdoğan's Syria policy? Of course, we would hear cries of Islamophobia and Turkophobia.

For example, during Ramadan, Islamists get angry when people eat openly if they are not fasting, and if the other party is weak, they immediately resort to violence. They say that one must be respectful to those who are fasting. They have a strange understanding that turns respect into a duty. However, respect is an individual, emotional thing. It's civilized behavior. There is no defined form of respect. No one can be forced into a certain form of respect. But they do not hesitate to show how one should be respectful by using violence against those who eat openly during Ramadan. Every Ramadan, we witness various examples of vandalism. Muslims never respect the sacredness of others, but they constantly expect respect from others. And they force it. They also include being closed to criticism within the scope of respect. When Westerners do not criticize Islam and Muslims, they are respectful; when they criticize, they are disrespectful and Islamophobic.

Closing off primitiveness to criticism by calling it cultural difference is a typical defense line for Muslim communities. When Western civilization, which has reached its current level through countless mental and physical hardships, reacts to this primitiveness, the whining of victimhood and phobia is readily available in their bag.

The accusation of "dismantling" and "orientalism" leveled against criticisms of Islam and Muslims. This is the refined form of the Islamophobia campaign, which has been filtered through social sciences, enabling immunity to criticism.

Muslim Certainty Rejoices in Western Relativist Weakness

In contrast to Western civilization, which discovered that democratic pluralism can only be established by abandoning intolerance and certainty, Islam believes that its survival is possible through dogmatic certainty. Therefore, it can joyfully use Western relativism as its weakness. When the West is embarrassed by accusations of orientalism, it will be easier for Islam, which has made not abandoning certainty a matter of identity, to hide and conceal all its peculiarities. In this way, they can legitimize always appearing as victims and always being right.

There is a strong culture of repentance in the West. Repenting in church every week or more frequently when needed has transformed into self-criticism in political culture and social life. In Islam, there is the name of repentance, but no culture of it. The "nafs al-lawwama" (the self-reproaching soul) praised in the Quran, which blames, condemns, and criticizes itself, practically means nothing to Muslims. They do not look at themselves; they always blame the other. This is undoubtedly closely related to psychic deficiencies, complexes, feelings of inferiority, and inadequacy.

Immigrants and Palestinians, that is, groups whose names automatically evoke victimhood and pity, are perhaps unaware that they are an opportunity for conscience-cleansing for political groups who defend them in the West. Or perhaps they are quite aware and are fully exploiting this opportunity. In such a situation, every evil emanating from immigrants and Palestinians turns into an insignificant detail. They are innocent by default; they can do whatever they want. They have a guarantee that Westerners who pity them will not take into account the evils they commit.

One should not blame Westerners who find the miserable state of a backward, weak, rotten, hollow culture, which has rejected critical thought, sympathetic and tolerate it by beautifying it as "local culture." As long as the Middle Easterner does not confront their own culture, they more than deserve this treatment.

Compared to Western development, the problem of Islam can be summarized as the metaphysicalization of religion, rendering it dysfunctional, and an inability to emerge from romantic stupor. Critical historical readings cannot be done, and theory cannot be constructed. All there is is the glorification and sanctification of an imaginary past. A schizo-cultural pathology.

Why do Muslim societies not change despite generations passing? Because this is a matter of neuroplasticity. The environment they are in and do not change, their education style, social interactions, religious culture, dogmas, and absolute certainty not only reinforce rote learning but also lead to physical changes in the brain. For example, like the development of the spatial center in a taxi driver's brain related to the city they work in. In a brain constantly stimulated by jihad, war, conflict, struggle, caution against the other, hostility, etc., synapses for harmony, peace, reconciliation, and negotiation close. Muslims who do not change their environment, culture, and education style will therefore always be ill-tempered, incompatible, and conflict-prone, and this assessment has nothing to do with racism. Racism is an essentialist view that inherently sees an ethnic group, faith community, and culture as inferior, deficient, or guilty, even if the mentioned factors change.

Translated by Gemini