Just some thoughts: if you never had the idea to question the existence of Muhammad, maybe it's because for Alevis the prophet is not Muhammad but his son-in-law Ali who allegedly had another ideology, less islamist? Divisions is islam are so accentuate, that it seems a mess, an absence of unity, a chaos in this religion. For example, shiites and alevis both worship Ali, nethertheless they remain very different from each over.
This is an interesting subject. I mean, the relative position of Muhammad and Ali for Alevis. There are many different ideas on this but as far as I’m aware, a great majority of Alevis in Turkey will, at least nominally, accept Muhammad as the actual prophet of Islam and Ali his best friend and partner. But compared to Muhammad, interestingly, Ali takes much more place in religious, historical and moral understanding of Alevis. But Anatolian Alevism and Syrian Alawism (Nusayrism), which can also be found in some Turkish cities bordering Syria, are somewhat different despite a great common ground. If I’m not mistaken, Nusayris tend to deify Ali more readily. Jafaris (standard Shia, who are also present in Turkey) are another matter. They tend to criticize both Alevis for loose identification with Islam and Nusayris for deification of Ali, although Shia/Jafaris also put Ali to a very special place. Many 'over-devout' Sunnis are at a loss about which of the three they must hate or criticize more!
And if I don't mistake: Alevis are more close to Mevlana (a suffi master) than to islam per se? And this point facilates the fact that an Alevi has the potential to question Ali's existence? Some (from my memories when i was a kid, from what I heard here and there) say that Alevis were not muslims, that they were Christians and had to convert themselves to islam (particularly alevism beetween islamic branches, because it is more moderate and tolerant) in order to prevent their genocid by Sunnites. Still today, in Turkey, there is a fault line beetwen alevi minority and Sunnites; these later don't consider the previous as Muslims. As you said, lots of alevi intellectuals have been murdered because of their more opened religion.
All my apologizes if I mistake, as I haven't studied all this stuff myself, but just what I heard from turkish and armenian acquaintances when I was younger.
Yes, Mevlana is a favorite character for Alevis but they don’t have a special connection to his person, it is just that Mevlana apparently emphasized that ‘love/morality/conscience’ must be at the center of religious life, rather than formalities. This appeals to Alevism. It may be right that for many Alevis, “Muslimhood” is just a social mask for protection and an opportunity of relating to Muslims. There are many Alevis (but they are not the majority) who consider themselves non-Muslim. This is especially widespread among those Alevis who now live in Europe, especially Germany. They are freer after all.
Yunus Emre is another, maybe even more, favorite Sufi character to Alevis. He lived in Anatolia. This is from one of his poems:
“What they call heaven
Is a few houses and houris
Give them to those who want them
I need You, only You”
Some, but not all, Sunni circles, especially those with salafi/wahhabi tendencies, hate him along with many other Sufis because, as can be seen from the quatrain, some of Sufi views clash with mainstream Islamic doctrines. Apparently, some of these Sufi guys, like Yunus Emre, tried to transform Muslim communities into something more positive. Those who accuse certain Sufi characters to be non- or anti-Islamic are somewhat right about this. But despite this, many Sunni people can’t help but are drawn to them, or, at least, can’t accuse them to be non-Islamic. This reminds me the C’s statement to the effect “You can’t survive if you obey the rules.” (I don’t remember the exact statement).
I'll be glad to hear about a Sunnite so as to these recommended books, to the fact that they have been completely manipulated by their Book. Because questionning this is a very courageous act.
Although a great majority of Turkey’s population is Sunni Muslims, I don’t think that more or less “devout” ones are the majority. And the amount of actually “bigot/zealot” ones is much less of course but there have always been a secret Saudi-origined Wahhabi influence/pressure on Turkey’s religious communities, and probably on almost all other Muslim countries. This was even so in Ottoman times. And as you probably know, there are claims that founders of Wahhabism are of Jewish origin. This reminds me the ‘Jewish Zealots’ issue and what the C’s said about Islam in the last session.
One of the interesting things about the Persia/Iran region is that it may be Sufism’s place of origin. Another interesting thing is that, as I encountered this idea accidentally in an article, Mongol invasions were somewhat influential on the strengthening of some Sufi circles in Persia and, gradually, Iran’s conversion from Sunni to Shia Islam. I might be generalizing this idea erroneously though. Today’s Iranian understanding of Islam or Shia might not be so compatible with Sufism, but this might be a necessity for Iran’s ability to appeal to the great (Sunni) majority of the rest of Muslim world. Although many Sunni Muslim governments appear to hate or oppose Iran, a significant part of their public might have a hidden admiration of Iran, just a guess. It is Israel and Wahhabi Saudi dynasty that force Muslim states to oppose Iran.
Same thing for questionning Ataturk: any turkish man/woman will be killed if he/she dares questionning him, his agenda, the armenian genocide.
Just the fact of getting threats when questionning a subject is a sign that there is something very ugly behind it.
No, I don’t think that any Turkish citizen would be killed if he/she questions Ataturk. In fact, hatred towards Ataturk is not so rare in Turkey. And those who hate him have been even more comfortable to express their views since the AKP became the political power. Yes, there is a state/law pressure against insulting Ataturk but it isn’t and can’t be applied in all situations, rather symbolically. What is more interesting is that, Erdogan has faced the fact that Ataturk was not just a detestable dictator but an anti-imperialistic hero from another perspective. He almost envies him now. Previously, he was accusing Ataturk most severely (a drunk fascist!) But over time, he saw that a significant part of the nation’s admiration of Ataturk was not a lie or lip service, it is actual and fair! He now more accuses some certain extremist Kemalist circles of exploting the ‘good Ataturk’ for their nefarious purposes!
I think that in Turkey, the hatred towards recognition of the Armenian genocide is somehat more widespread or stronger than the hatred towards Ataturk, for instance.
Regards, Peter
