I guess it kind of freaks me out that you seem to think it's a cool idea to have a state ministry that controls the mosques... Unless I'm misunderstanding things, of course. But I can't believe they have too much of what we know as a democracy if they have a state controlled religion.

"Cool." Interesting word. I don't think it's "cool" in the sense that it's wonderful and we should emulate it. I am perfectly fine with the Turks doing it, however. First and foremost, because it's none of my business how the Turks run their affairs, and second because it's completely normal for democracies to have such close relationships with religious institutions. Democracies do this all the time.

Are you frightened of Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland? These are all officially Christian nations with state-run churches. Do you think that those countries are anti-democratic?

Maybe I'm foolish, but I think the British really believe they are a free and democratic people. I'm pretty sure the Swiss and the Norwegians think they are free. What do you think?

Now, personally, I think the Turks--who do have a democracy--would probably be better off getting the state out of the Mosque. On the other hand, in that part of the world, with the spread of radical Wahhabism and other truly virulent and violent strains of Islam, that might be very dangerous for them to try right now.

In any case, since the state has always controlled the Mosques in Turkey, what I definitely think is cool is that they're now pressuring them to push an anti-terrorist message.

Dean: Turkey's main terrorist problem was not "rabid Islamic extremists," it was a Marxist-Leninist insurgency that found 'Kurdish Nationalism' sold better than communism -- the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party).[Plug 1]

JC: The abstract principles of democracy face one overriding problem in predominately Muslim countries—the state is always one completely free and fair election away from Islamic theocracy and Sharia. A single 51-49 vote can express the "will of the people" to scrap a constitutional democracy in favor of a council of clerics from which there is no easy way back. [Plug 2]

Kemal Attaturk's solution for Republic of Turkey was straightforward, the Constitution prohibited religious political parties and the military were made the guardians of constitutional civilian government for the republic. It was a system that has worked surprisingly well, although it seems undemocratic to many in the West. Three times in the past 80 years, the military has removed the sitting civilian government and then quickly held elections and returned civilian control. The strict prohibition against religious political parties was only recently lifted as part of Turkey's attempts to join the EU -- almost immediately after that, the main Islamic party took the majority of seats in Turkey's parliment; and 80 years of secular government in Turkey may be headed down the tubes because of it.

Lynxx, as you point out, the Turkish Army has deposed Islamist governments before. The current government hasn't veered off into Sharia, because they know they'd be gone in a heartbeat, and most Turks would say "good riddance". The current government wasn't elected on a platform of Sharia, they ran a good, old-fashoned, "throw the bums out" campaign. It worked, because their predecessors were bums.

Secular government is alive and well in Turkey, and may be strengthened by the recent bombings.

Cato: Don't think for a moment that the Islamic parties won't change the constitution however they need to over the next few years.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, or AK) is one of Turkey's most popular politicians.

When his party swept to power in November 2002, he was unable to become prime minister because he was banned from holding political office.

But a speedy change in the law cleared the way for him to run for parliament - and within days of his victory he had been named as prime minister.

[...]

Parliament last year changed the constitution to allow Mr Erdogan to stand for a parliamentary seat.

I would not be surprised to see a change to make the courts, rather than the military, the final arbiter of the constitution being sold as another necessity for eventual EU admission. The Turkish military would oppose such a change, but I don't know if they would win.

Lynxx,

We shall see - the Turkish officer corps, which is very much akin to the German General Staff in pre-Hitler Germany, relentlessly trains their officers in secularism...indeed, from what I understand, too great attachment to religion is considered a bar for higher military rank.

I, too, worry that Turkey's secular nature is under siege - but, just perhaps, with the Turkish military still hanging over their heads plus the plain fact that in poll after poll the mass of Turks don't want an Islamist government will eventually impell the Islamist party to just become a conservative political party (ie, defender of non-violent Islamic social traditions, etc).

Certainly, the Christian Democrats haven't turned Germany into a theocracy when they've held power. There's reason to worry, but there's also reason to hope, I think.

It is believed that recent terrorist attacks in Turkey are the work of an al-Qaeda group. It would appear that al-Qaeda is attempting to pressure Turkey to choose between their western
alliances and their historical and religious relationship to Islam. Turkey is so secular that it is illegal for women to enter public
buildings with the customary Islamic head scarf.

Lynxx:

Clearly, you've thought about Turkey more than I, and are more familiar with it. But it strikes me as odd that you think the tyranny of the majority is a uniquely Muslim problem.

I understand that the rule of law is required for human rights guarantees. But, again, that's the problem everywhere. If, say, Nigeria were to truly enforce their guarantees of human rights, due process, etc., wouldn't that place practical limits on the imposition of sharia in its Muslim states, no matter the vote totals?

I suppose it would also help if these countries would adopt a constitutional system like ours, and not a parliamentary system based on the British one. If amending their constitution were as difficult as amending our constitution, instead of requiring a simple vote of Parliament, I would suspect that civil liberties would be far less vulnerable to the whims of the popular vote.

Jeff: ...wouldn't that place practical limits on the imposition of sharia in its Muslim states, no matter the vote totals?

There is a fundamental flaw in your question, one which is common here in the West. It's something even I did not understand until I read Stephen Schwartz' The Two Faces of Islam.

The fact is that Sharia is in no way a complete set of laws. Furthermore, even if it were, then like any set of laws it needs judicial interpretation to make judgements, fill in the gaps, and establish traditions of interpretation. Thus, saying you wish to "impose Sharia" is like saying you want to "impose the Torah" or "impose the Hammurabic code." This is meaningless absent a discussion of exactly how you're going to interpret it.

As it turns out, there are at least four major schools of judicial interpretation of Sharia, depending on where you go in the world, and there are subschools of each. Some also combine the Sharia tradition with the Code of Hammurabi and with local traditions outside of Sharia, especially in areas where the Koran is simply not very clear.

If you want to look at what the most hard core version of Sharia interpretation looks like, you can look no further than Saudi Arabia or the Taliban. These are the most literalist, unswerving schools of interpetation--and even there, there's wiggle room in places where Sharia simply isn't very clear but they've decided to take the most draconian possible interpretations.

The West is based on a Judeo-Christian philosophy with its roots in the Bible, most especially books like Leviticus. Our entire judicial system here in the U.S. has its roots in the code of Moses and the Christian canon. Even though the Bible quite clearly advocates killing witches, stoning adulterers, whores, and blasphemers , and so on, we don't do that anymore. In fact, the Jews had for the most part stopped doing that all on their own without any Christian or "New Testament" influences, simply through generation after generation of interpretation and re-interpretation of Torah, the oral tradition that went with it, and so on.

My point being that it is not so much "loosening the imposition of Sharia" that we should worry about. We would be better off to encourage the growth of more liberal schools of thought on its interpretation. There are large parts of the Muslim world which are quite tolerant, or have been in the past, before the lunatic fringe became so powerful (mostly because of Saudi-spread Wahhabism, by the way).

Jeff: The US has a federal system, which allows variation in state laws. Most state laws are essentially based on English common law, except that Lousiana laws are based on the Napoleonic code and several southwestern states base their laws on the Spanish civil code. The codes are not so different as to cause major problems. Additionally, some states have capital punishment, and some dont. The "states rights" issue has always been one concerning how much variation in state laws the federal government will allow.

"Due process" is a pretty much a tautology, since it is whatever the government (legislative, executive and judicial branches) defines the process to be. Reading someone their rights when arrested (the "Miranda warning") is part of American due process because of a Supreme Court decision. Prior to that decision, it wasn't part of due process.

Nigeria's 1999 constitution embodies democratic principles including guarantees of generally accepted freedoms such as speech, press, religion, due process, appeals, etc. As a federal republic, Nigerian states have substantial local control. The laws in the southern states are based on English common law and traditional tribal laws. The predominately Muslim states in northern Nigeria elected Muslims to office who then legislated Sharia courts for Muslims. The Sharia courts essentially qualify as due process. Their rulings can, and have been, appealed to the Nigerian federal courts.

The US has had over 200 years working our system out, Nigeria has essentially had four. After independence from Britian in 1960, it has basically been nothing but civil wars and military dictatorships until 1999. Failure to allow the Muslims to enact Sharia in the northern states under the constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion would have lead to civil war. Reigning it in now, will be difficult to do. (And even with the US's 200 years, we still sometimes defer to tribal law.)

Any of you following Turkey would know that the current Prime Minister Erdogan was removed from his post as mayor of Istanbul and sent to prison for 10 months, ostensibly because he had recited a pro-terrorist poem. I'd say the Islamist label for him and his party is fair although they call themselves conservative democrats.

The surprising developments in Turkey have been the push for further democratic reforms so they can join the EU--and the Islamists are leading the way. The reforms include less military control and expansion of rights for minorities. I'm certainly not concered that Turkey's secularism is "under siege." And if that's the case, than it's under siege by a better form of democracy.