How would a Muslim think?

How would a Muslim think?

I review readers’ messages as a sociological study to understand how different segments of society think.

 After my April 10 column titled “The Islamic World,” I received many comments and messages. I would like to “analyze” what was written by two esteemed readers. 

One reader said: “An election was held in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood came to power. Egypt was going to leap into a new age. The West stopped the ‘Egyptian Spring’ to prevent it from becoming a second Turkey.” 

The other reader wrote: “The problems of the Islamic world are generated by the imperialists. As in the example of Turkey, when sovereignty passes onto true Muslims, the country rapidly develops and grows…” 

First of all, shouldn’t we look into the economic program of the Muslim Brotherhood, what kind of constitution they wrote and why only 33 percent of voters participated in the referendum? Their constitution was approved by 62 percent of one third of the Egyptian electorate. 

In Tunisia, on the other hand, Islamists and secularists agreed on fundamental freedoms and that “politics should be left outside the mosque;” then they wrote a joint constitution. They were successful. 

Why didn’t the West sabotage Tunisia? 

Moreover, it was the Muslim Saudis and Qatar that supported coup leader Abdel Fettah el-Sisi by giving him the $5 billion that Muslim Brotherhood PM Mohamed Morsi wanted to take from the IMF. 

It is a shame that the West supported the coup for the sake of stability. But shouldn’t it be studied why Egypt failed and Tunisia succeeded? 

The magical concept is “culture of compromise.” Tunisia had it; Egypt did not. In short, the policy of polarization is bad, no matter who practices it. 

While searching for answers to the question “How would a Muslim think?” one should compare the constitutions of Egypt and Tunisia. Are Egyptian Islamists or Tunisian Islamists the “true Muslims?” 
No, the issue is not this; the issue is political, social and economic. 

At this point, let us look into the view that says, “As in the Turkey example, when sovereignty passes onto true Muslims, the country rapidly develops and grows.” 

Then-PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan read the second government program in parliament, saying: “The European Union target is assisting our country in approaching universal standards in topics such as democracy, fundamental rights and freedoms and rule of law. Also, several matters such as institutional structuring and sector policies will guide what Turkey will be achieving in the coming term,” (Aug. 31, 2007).

Well, at the roots of the true success in the first two terms of the government is this policy. More than 70 percent of the $600 billion that poured into the country came from the West, counting on this assurance. Do we hear any of these concepts and policies now? This has an important role in the escalating problems. 

Seeing the mistakes of the West and of course criticizing it should not blind us to political, economic and legal developments that we can benefit from in our relations with the West. 

Only God knows who is a “true Muslim.” We should also be able to see how polarizing such a concept can be. Are part of Turkey’s 80 million people “true Muslims” and the other part “estranged dhimmis?” 

On the other hand, Muslims regressed in history when they abandoned the scientific mindset of their times. We are still lagging behind. You may want to take a look at the science, human development, law and production indexes.  

The prerequisite of being out of the woods is to have a mentality that champions research and analysis.

 When we ask, “How should we think?” the correct answer for all of us is “We should think in a scrutinizing and analytical fashion.”