Alevis protest plans to name third bridge after Ottoman Sultan
Turkey's Alevis have protested government plans to name the third bridge to be built over the Bosporous in İstanbul as Yavuz Sultan Selim, an Ottoman sultan, who they say is responsible for the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Alevis in the early part of the 16th century.
The deputy head of Alevi-Bektashi Associations, Servet Demir, and the head of the Şahkulu Sultan Foundation, Mehmet Tural, together with former deputy Ercan Karakaş were also present at the press meeting in which some 500 people attended.
President Abdullah Gül announced at the groundbreaking ceremony of the bridge last week that the bridge would be named after Yavuz Sultan Selim.
The total population of Alevis in Turkey is estimated to be around 10 million. The history of Alevis under the Ottoman Empire has yet to be resolved thoroughly, but the relationship between the Sunni and Alevi communities in Anatolia was troubled from the start. In 1511, the Ottoman army brutally suppressed a revolt by the Kızılbaş (crimson head) Turkmens of the Alevi faith on Anatolian soil, and as many as 40,000 were killed. The battle of Çaldıran, fought between the Ottoman Empire under Yavuz Sultan Selim and Safavid ruler Ismail in 1514, resulted in the sultan issuing an edict to kill all the Kızılbaş in the region.
|
||
Gül, Erdoğan confirm AKP a ‘Sunni party' |
||
| My column
last week asked, “Does the Justice and Development Party [AKP]
government favor the Sunnis?” and concluded that, if not in foreign
ones, in domestic policies it does indeed favor the Sunni majority that
constitutes the bulk of its voters. |
||
| Soon after my column was published, a
joint and stark confirmation came from President Abdullah Gül and Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. They sat down with their colleagues and
unanimously decided to name the third bridge to be built over the
Bosporus after Yavuz Sultan Selim. This was the justification, as explained by Mr. Gül. “We discussed the matter with our colleagues and the government and decided to name the third bridge after Yavuz Sultan Selim. We reached this decision unanimously in order to honor, celebrate and express our respect and gratitude for a great sultan who, through great conquests, not only helped enlarge the Ottoman Empire into a world empire but also brought to us the Sacred Trusts [relics from the prophets],” he said. There is no doubt that Mr. Gül and his friends were fully aware of the fact that this name for the bridge would provoke a strong reaction from Alevis, the largest religious minority in Turkey, because they see Ottoman ruler Yavuz as responsible for the massacres of many thousands of Alevis in the 16th century. Since they chose this name knowingly and intentionally, the AKP government appears to have shelved for good its argument of being representative of the entire nation. To defend the government's choice, some go as far as contending, contrary to known history, that it is a mistake to hold Yavuz responsible for the Alevi massacres. It really does not, however, matter a bit whether he in fact was responsible or not since from the point of view and shared knowledge of the Alevis, he definitely was. I find it particularly unfortunate that this divisive and alienating naming also carries the signature of Gül who, unlike Erdoğan, was a leader respected by broad segments of society and not just the followers of the AKP. I suspect this move by Gül will, unfortunately, mean the end of that positive perception of him. Naming the second bridge over the Bosporus Fatih Sultan Mehmet was surely a reasonable choice, and no one really objected to it. Fatih was not only the conqueror of Constantinople for the Ottomans, but he was also the founder of the Ottoman state and its “millet system,” which recognized religious freedom (though not total equality) for all Ottoman subjects irrespective of creed. Remarkably, Prime Minister Erdoğan, speaking on the same day as ground was broken for the construction of the third bridge, said the following: “When Fatih conquered İstanbul, he made sure that the people lived here in security and freedom and he ordered non-intervention in their lifestyles, beliefs and freedoms. … In our civilization, conquest does not only mean the conquest of territory, lands and cities but also of hearts and minds.” One may ask the prime minister that if that is the case, did he, by naming the bridge after Yavuz, do what his “civilization” required of him and conquer the hearts and minds of Alevi citizens? Aren't we citizens entitled to expect at least some degree of coherence between a prime minister's words and actions? There is no doubt that the name Yavuz provokes strong reactions, and not solely among the Alevis. What comes to mind first when the name Yavuz is mentioned is that he was the sultan who conquered Egypt and brought the title of the “caliph of Sunni Muslims” to Ottoman rulers. One may ask, then, that by naming the bridge after him, does the AKP government intend to invoke the memories of the sultanate and caliphate and thus to enrage those who are very happy that we no longer have to live under sultans and caliphs? In the Turkey of the 21st century, what need is there to invoke the memories of warrior sultans who lived five centuries ago and present them as role models for today's generations? I hope the AKP government changes its mind and chooses a name for the bridge that will help to unify the people rather than polarize them. If this government does not do so, future governments should do this, and I trust they will. Catitan Sut: Saya telah membaca tulisan Robert Fisk 'Hezbollah's War In Syria Threatens Lebanon' yang disiarkan dalam akhbar The Sun pada 29 Mei yang lalu. Dia mulakan dengan memetik kenyataan Hassan Nasrullah 13 tahun yang lalu, menegaskan yang Hezbullah tidak akan menyeberangi sempadan Israel, kerana tugas membebaskan Juruselam adalah tugas rakyat Palestine . Hari ini gerombolan beliau telah menyeberangi Sempadan Syria, bahkan beliau telah mengeluar kenyataan yang gerombolannya akan mmepertahankan Regim Bashar sehingga penyudahnya. Gerakan pembebasan rakyat Syria dengan mudah dituduh sebagai agen Israel-Amerika, extremist, takfiri. Ini memberi lesen kepada Hezbollah untuk mempertahankan regim Bashar, yang secara logiknya sekurang-kurangnya dianggap anti Israel, anti Amerika, berhaluan sederhana atau lebik Islamic..... Maka rakyat Syria yang majoritinya adalah ahlu as-Sunnah dimusuhi secara kejam, dibunuh sekan-akan pembunuhan dalam perang antara negara atau lebih dahsyat atau sehampir corak dengan pembunuhan ummat islam di Myanmar. Bagaimana dapat kita bayangkan sebuah kerajaan yang ditulang-belakang oleh golongan minoriti, yang berkuasa secara memaksa disokong oleh Hezbollah dan Iran yang sering dan mahu menjadi juara dalam melaungkan perjuangan rakyat, perjuangan golongan mustad'afin? Kini mereka bersama mustakbirin dengan belbagai alasan. Walaupun golongan Nusayri ini mempunyai kepercayaan n yang berbeza dari kepercayaan Shiah Imamiyyah pegangan Iran dan Hezbollah tetapi yang menyatukan mereka ialah musuh bersama mereka, iaitu ahlu as-sunnah. Mereka boleh berdalih yang perjuangan rakyat Syria mendapat dukungan golongan takfiri/ extreme salafi, tetapi tidak ada sesiapa pun yang boleh menafikan yang aliran utama kefahaman Islam rakyat dan ulama Syria ialah aliranAsya'irah, bermazhab dan menerima tasauf. Bumi Syria dari zaman awal Islam lagi telah melahirkan begitu ramai ulama dari arus utama ahlu as-Sunnah, disebut dalam sebuah hadith yang 40 orang abdal itupun berada di bumi Sham. Golongan salafi tidak pernah menjadi golongan dominan di Syria. Tetapi mereka telah dijadikan hantu untuk menakut-nakutkan orang ramai dari memberi sokongan kepada perjuangan rakyat Syria. Dalam itupun kita mengaku yang sebahagian pihak penentang Basyar mendapat dukungan dari kuasa-kuasa barat dan bantuan kewangan dari pihak-pihak di negara Teluk. Atas apa alasan sekalipun, bagaimana mungkin kita mengharapkan golongan minoriti Nusayri yang secularist ini mengusai majoriti rakyat yang sunnni secara zalimnya?. Bagaimana mungkin kelompok yang mengatakan mereka memperjuangkan keadilan dan kebebasan rakyat di negara masing-masing dapat menyokong regim yang zalim ini?. Kalau kita merujuk kedalam negara kita sendiri, bagaimana mungkin golongan yang menyokong Hezbollah dan Iran dapat terus menyokong kedua kuasa yang berserongkol dalam penindasan sezalim ini? Golongan shiah dalam perspektif sejarah telah menuduh sebahagian besar para sahabat dengan tuduhan zalim dan jahat, Mereka mengaku mereka adalah golongan mustad'afin di muka bumi seawal zaman sahabat. Hal ini juga didakwa berlaku di zaman pemerentahan Uthmaniyyah, kerajaan Safavid Shiah telah memerangi pemerentahan Uthmaniyyah. Lebih daripada itupun shiah telah memberontak melawan pemerentahan Abbasiyyah, Kesultanan Seljuq dan Kesultanan Mughul di Delhi. Di Damshik terdapat kubur Sultan Salahuddin al-Ayyubi, Sultan yang menjaya membebaskan Palestine dengan jihadnya yang gemilang daripada cengkaman tentera sekutu negara-negara kristian Eropah. Sultan Salahuddin terlebih awal membebaskan Masir daripada kerajaan Shiah Fatimiyyah yang ketika itu menguasai Masir. Agaknya kita perlu belajar dari hikmah Sultan Salahuddin, yakni ketika kita berazam mahu memerangi kuasa-kuasa kuffar yang menguasai Palestine, jangan kita terlupa kepada bahayanya ancaman kuasa-kuasa Shiah kepada ummah.. Sekira golongan Alawi (baca Shiah) di Turki beriya-iya benar memprotes penamaan Jambatan sempena nama Sultan Selim, maka penting juga bagi kita memperingati sejarah pembebasan Palestine oleh Sultab Salahuddin al-Ayubi, yang juga tokoh yang membebaskan Masir dari cengkaman Kerajaan Fatimiyyah Shiah. Sebaiknya jangan kita biarkan benih-benih perosak aqidah dan perpaduan ini berakar umbi di tanahair kita yang dari segi sejarahnya adalah rantau ahlu as-Sunnah. Cukuplah sejarah mengajar kita bagaimana perpecahan yang berlaku angkara daripada perbezaan aqidah ini | ||
No comments:
Post a Comment