What Does Indigenousness Mean?

Many civilizations have come and gone in the history of thought, and an important part of them was shaped in the Mesopotamia-Anatolian cultural basin. There cannot be a civilization that is isolated from each other and has never been affected. It is not possible for a thinker who produces ideas in a civilization not to benefit from other perspectives.

As a matter of fact, Ali Bulaç (Fecre Doğru, year. 6, no. 63) explains this very well in his article titled "The Blessed Tree of Islam". The intellectual transformations of Bulaç, an author from whom I have benefited greatly, are the proof of this determination. Especially since 1980, the intellectual stages he went through and what he said about the types of ulema-intellectuals, whom he made insulting criticisms but after a while praised, in addition to the ones he benefited from, are of a size that will be a separate and separate subject of study.

The important point is that the common feature of all the thinkers mentioned in the article is their dominance over the main sources of Islam and from this point of view, they seek solutions to the problems of the political-cultural and geographical basin in which they grew up. Because an original and specific thinker knows that it is not possible to idealize and universalize the solution proposal produced anywhere as "objective reality". Because of the nature of humanity, every experience will be different. What gives this difference, in our opinion, is that the domestic foundations are different. In other words, these thinkers have one foot on their own country and their problems; the other pillar is on the data of the entire history of thought, the fact that he is sometimes in exile outside his country, either willingly or by necessity, does not change this.

The point to be noted here is that the aforementioned scholars have the premises of their own style/paradigm, and when there are contradictions between these premises and the real-political situation, instead of a shift in consciousness, a paradigm shift, they produce ad hoc/temporary hypotheses, constantly as an attempt to reinterpret their predecessors. I guess we think similarly to Ali Bulaç on this issue, because in his article he talks about the fact that Muhammed Arkun and Hasan Hanefi, one of whom lives in France and the other in Egypt, take their predecessors from Western modernity to a large extent and from this point of view, the disruptions that will be caused by their questioning of our tradition. We agree with the criticism.

However, it should be noted that these people, who are specific and original in their own fields, especially Hasan Hanefi's efforts to find solutions to the troubles of the Egyptian people, based on all the data of the history of thought, make him noteworthy. It is possible to criticize him for the difference in his method, but how consistent is it to say that he is not a "Native"?

The first Muslim thinker whose thoughts were evaluated while he was alive within the framework of the Philosophers Living in America and England Series is S. Huseyin Nasr. Is this philosophical interest due to the fact that the places where he lived and taught were Western countries; Or is it not the cultural codes of Iran in particular and of Islam in general, what makes it different and unique, or rather alienated from its predecessors (Native)? (Moreover, during his radical period, Bulaç made very harsh statements to SHNasr, who was the major source of his criticisms against modernity, as "a supporter of the Shah." Nasr, Traditional Islam in the Modern World, Book Magazine, no.44-45, 1990, pp. 22-24) Is it not possible to say the same observations in Ali Shariati and Abdulkerim Sorus, which are highly criticized by the current Iranian system?

However, how does Bulaç say that “Locality is an illusion”?

• Is the Turkish/Anatolian Muslim thesis also a trap, really?

What about Bulaç's view of the "Turkish Islam" thesis as a trap and as a break from the Islamic world, in the context of locality being an illusion? Is it not possible to think that this thesis can be an interpretation and a lifestyle in the context of the data in our cultural codes of the Anatolian cultural basin and the problems we experience here, based on the basic sources of Islam? Or is the purpose not to discuss the problems but to try to capture the image? If so, in the final analysis, every tendency is doomed to be imprisoned in its own illusion.

What is the difference between the possibility I said and his suggestion that "Turks will once again be among the founding actors of history by firmly standing their feet on the supply of Islam" and where and how will the founding actor be? Or how did Fet-hullah Gülen, whom he calls the name closest to the ulema-intellectual type in modern times, but once insulted the understanding of Islam, capture the originality in his eyes?

Another example is Mevdudi-Fazlurrahman, who grew up in the Modern period and which we benefit greatly from and who grows in the same region but at different poles. Also, considering the differences between them, İ.Raci Faruki, S.Hüseyin Nasr, S.Nakip al-Attas, R. Garaudy, A Sorush is the fruit of the holy tree of Islam, but it does not tell me anything directly about the problems of the political-geographical-cultural basin in which I live, I have to transform their thoughts. But why does what our teachers say, a Nurettin Topcu, an Erol Güngör, a Mehmet Aydın and an Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, find a place in my heart? The fact that I see these last four of my teachers as "native" does not mean that they have alienated the others from the cultural universe of Islam.

• Where does the originality of Elmalılı Muhammed Hamdi Yazır, another name Bulaç cares about, come from?

The deceased performed important duties in the last periods of the Ottoman state; and as a witness of the modernization process in the Modern Turkey period, he was different from other commentators as someone who had different experiences. Because he was closely interested in the socio-economic, philosophical, theological, legal and moral problems of his time and examined them with a systematic and critical perspective.

In short, in our opinion, he got his originality from the fact that he was a "local philosopher and commentator" who sensitively focused on innovation (tajdid) in religion and who believed that this would be achieved not by Europeanization, but by dissolving the European mentality, with our own values.

Now, take and read the exegesis of the late Yazir and the commentaries of Mevdudi and Sayyid Kutup, which were written as a result of the struggles to find solutions to different problems in different cultural environments from the Islamic world, which will provide you with more and more consistent information flow?

This point is very important, because in this thinking, our indigenous values ​​that ensure our cultural continuity are functional, as well as the reinterpretation and internalization of the accumulation of humanity. This means the reproduction of the modern data of humanity in the historical and social process of each Muslim country, which is now original, belongs to it.

To say this does not mean that we ignore the necessity of universalizing our indigenous values ​​in an effort to find solutions to the problems of people living in different historical time periods and different geographies by reading the legal and moral background of the local and local values ​​of a particular historical geography.

• The Term of Indigenousness

I know that some of our writers attach great importance to the term "nativeness", even if it is in different lanes such as Alev Alatlı, Yusuf Kaplan, Ahmet Turan Alkan. But it is quite interesting that an Islamist magazine, which was famous for its radical statements, such as being local as the first step to being universal, came to such a line and ended its publication.
In the farewell special issue of Yeni Dünya magazine (July.1995), Burhan Kavuncu's determination that "In order to be universal in the axis of Islamic thought, one must first be local" is really important in this context. Because although his style, method and goals are quite different from mine, his "Being more Turkish" will only be possible by seeking answers to the concrete problems of the country in which he lives, that is, by being local. I care about his statement that an Islamic formation that can achieve this can only achieve universality on this real ground.

There is also an article in the magazine with the title of "Being More Turkish" by Abdullah Muradoğlu. There is no need to go back too far, in the number of articles by Ali Bulaç, you can also look at the article titled "Finding Yourself in the Kaaba" by Osman Kayaer, who has been my friend since college years and is also the editor of the magazine in your hand.
As a result of the translations of the works of thinkers whose books Bulaç contributed to in the 1980s and whose names he mentioned in his article, some friends are now realizing that "the life lived as Islam is a soulless radicalism that destroys modernism". They take great pleasure in reading Mevlana's Masnavi, whom he once saw as the representative of polytheism, with his serious self-criticism and self-accounting, because he interpreted the basic data of Islam here in Anatolia.

In my opinion, it is the cultural codes that brought Osman Kayarer back to Mevlana years later. The influence of scholars who grew up in the Indian subcontinent, Iran, and Egypt wears off after a while, because what is experienced here does not correspond to the problems. Saying this should not mean disabling them, not reading what they wrote, but simply trying to stay detached from them and not saying "yes" to possible mistakes by identifying what is important and prior to our own. Or to put it simply, to try vacuuming in front of our own house first.

At this point, I would like to concretize the issue by giving an example with the political process.

• “Cultural Nativeness” in Political Discourse

As we reflect on the relationship between Islam and Democracy, it is clear that imitating modern (Western) democracies, which are presented in a ready-made and elegantly packaged package, will not democratize us in the final analysis. When we think of Turkey as the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, we have a nearly 150-year-old democracy/parliamentary tradition and a multi-party democracy experience of more than 40 years.

In this experience, when we look at our basic principles that give the Anatolian people their personality and identity, the pressure of our religion We see that it plays a role. It is a well-known fact that it is impossible for a nation like Turks, which has been identified with Islam for many years, to get rid of this Islamic identity, no matter how much they want it. This has been tried gradually since the Tanzimat, but no result has been achieved, so there is no point in dwelling on it much here. But when we think about the determining principle (Islam), democratic principles, which are considered as a set of rights, will emerge categorically. In other words, we have to make a new interpretation of the basic principles of Islam, taking into account the other accumulations of humanity, in its own historical-social process. “The fragmented structure of Islamic society in the modern world has also revealed the need to adapt the basic principles of Islam to the diversity of local conditions.” (Norman Barry, “Civil Society, Religion and Islam”, Liberal Thought, no.12, Fall.1998, p.89) Although it reminds of Hegel's dialectical method, at the end of this process, the basic principles of Islam; that is, new syntheses that will universalize the local (Anatolian-centered) interpretations of the main principles of indigenousness will be reached.

We can contribute to the accumulation of humanity with this indigenous and local original interpretation. Moreover, the fact that this interpretation/synthesis takes the form of a "thesis" in the final sense and brings the obligation to produce new interpretations will make our thinking process critical and keep the possibility of correcting our mistakes on the agenda. And this renders the explanations/excuses of "what should we do, your general principles are like this, but only this much democracy is enough for my society".

As a matter of fact, Nuray Mert makes similar observations as a way of rethinking Islam and Democracy in Turkey. According to him, instead of defining democracy completely outside the socio-historical context and with a shallow abstraction, abstract democratic principles should be translated into the socio-historical context of Turkey.

Saying that he specifically uses the term "translation" instead of the appropriate term here, Mert wants to avoid the danger of "democracy in our view". The important thing, he says, is that the democratic style must be reproduced within the socio-historical conditions of Turkey, by staying true to its universal claims. According to Mert, in this way, we can leave the priority of giving the appearance of democracy to the development of a truly democratic style. (Nuray Mert, “Islam and Democracy” A Wolf's Tale, Contract, Monthly Journal of Thought and Politics, year.1. p.2. 1997, p.17)

The "universal criterion" of the relativity that will emerge at this point is "communicative rationality". states that it will be determined within its own historicity/locality as the process of becoming a rational being. However, this determination, according to him, should be based on principles that allow interpretation and criticism in terms of rationalization and democratization standards, while accepting that every political and therefore culture-dependent social formation is unique in itself. (Levent Köker, Two Different Politics, (Positivism and Critical Theory in Terms of Information Theory-Political Science Relations), Details Pub. Istanbul.1990., p.81-82)

• “Cultural Indigenousness” Starting Point

Our starting point here is: “Instead of a total understanding that tries to unite all cultures, we seek other perspectives in order to preserve differences and to ensure respect for them without being introverted. At this point, it is necessary to dwell on the intercultural interaction and the resulting transformation. Because cultures do not differ among themselves in the same way and at the same level.

In the twentieth century, positivist/universalist tendencies in social sciences began to be replaced by relativist/relativistic perspectives, and modernity in the Western sense was severely criticized. The locality of cultures means talking about a new sensitivity in this context; that is, to talk about the dominance of cultures produced by local minds instead of a universal Western mind that determines everything. This has brought many changes in the world, especially in political discourse. Political unions, which were thought to have completed their integration within themselves, began to disintegrate. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke up, and many local cultures declared their independence or autonomy as new states. The same situation is seen in Spain, that is, subcultures wanting their autonomy. This demand for fragmentation has been a headache for the UK for years. These examples are presented in a framework that threatens cultural diversity and the political dimension of locality and the integrity of Turkey. It is known that Europe has made constant efforts to try to move the representatives of a lower culture to a higher culture in Turkey.

Although the infrastructure of this developed the Ottoman identity within the cultural composition of the Muslim ummah, the Ottoman bureaucrats had the same success. This was caused by the fact that the Republic of Turkey could not realize it. What we have said so far can be considered as partly out of context. Giving these determinations, it is possible to emphasize that there can be an Anatolian/Ottoman-Turkey centered form of Islam, such as the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid Islamic models, and that it is possible not only for nationalist-conservatives or radical Islamists, but also for those from the left-Kemalist segment who advocate this. it is for mech.

• Atilla İlhan as a local intellectual:

According to Atilla İlhan, who is in the left tradition but who, as a native intellectual, evaluates Turkey's problems, the problem is this:
“While the Republican Turks were going to find and develop their identity within the national (secular and democratic) cultural mix, they were encouraged either to imitate the West or to religious reaction in response to it. However, if he develops a good sense of homeland and history, Turkish intellectuals can get rid of the dilemma of progressive/reactionary, right-wing/leftism, which is a candidate to be our disaster in the final analysis. For this, it is necessary for our intellectuals to create a national and contemporary culture based on our classical Seljuk/Ottoman culture, otherwise transferring cultures will increase our alienation. “ (A. İlhan, National Culture War. Istanbul.1968, p.148-149)

Based on this determination of Atilla İlhan, who thinks about Turkey as someone other than the nationalist-conservative or radical Islamist intellectuals, the indigenousness of cultures and diversity do not actually pose a possible threat to our political and cultural integrity, on the contrary, they reflect the patterns of our unity and solidarity like an original/native rug. It can be said that it constitutes

Conclusion

In that case, considering that cultures have designs/models of universality that compete with each other, we can establish a tradition of thought, a common past and a common future ideal for individuals and groups that make up the society, without turning differences into contradictions, by emphasizing intercultural interaction and the resulting transformation. In the final analysis, we can even reach a threshold that destroys the cultural exchanges that feed the differences without turning the existing difference into anomaly.

Note:

In order not to prolong the talk, it should be noted that it is imperative to be aware of history/tradition in order to find solutions to the "political and cultural problems experienced", that is, to the problems of the present moment. For example, by discussing the place of the Ottoman Experience, or more precisely, the Ottoman Islamic understanding in Developing a New Policy of Cultural Difference, you can look at my following works on a contemporary Anatolian/Turkish Islamism. 1) The Role of Ottoman Culture in Turkey's Nation/New Identity Formation”, Journal of Religious Studies, Special Issue of Ottoman Thought, c.2. p.5. 1999 and 2). Religion-State Relationship in Today's Turkey and Three Styles of Politics, Turkishness, Ottomanism and Islamism Re-reading Trial, Bilgi and Wisdom Journal, No.11, Summer.1995. pp.56-64