Only a few weeks ago, a sporting goods retailer’s launch of a sports hijab stirred great controversy among key politicians of all spectrums in France, including the president’s spokesperson. Through the hijab, all Muslim women wearing hijab, actually all Muslim people, were demonized – just like the time when the French police arrested women wearing hijab on French beaches. Just like the time when philosopher Elizabeth Badinter said that those designing clothes for Muslim women are not French and called to boycott a number of British, Italian and American brands, saying shamelessly in an interview, “don’t be afraid to be called Islamophobic.”

Just like the time when then Prime Minister praised these views of Badinter. Just like the time when Plantu, a renowned caricaturist from the left ethics, drew a caricature for Le Monde that portrays a Muslim woman wearing hijab with dynamites on her body, representing Muslim women as potential suicide bombers. Just like the time when the writer and journalist Eric Zemmour wrote two books entitled “Le suicide français” (The French Suicide) and “Destin français” (French Destiny), and blamed Muslims for occupying France for the past 30-40 years, pointing them as a target.

As a journalist who returned to Turkey in 2009 after spending 17 years in France during the time when the idea of a multi-cultural Europe reached a peak, I am scared of the atmosphere currently prevailing in the country.

Muslims are not only demonized but also explicitly targeted today, as can be seen in many instances including the writer Micheal Houellebecq’s book Soumission (Submission) and his numerous controversial statements such as Islam is the dumbest religion of the world, reading Koran is despicable, and his wish to invite the French to a civil war to cleanse Muslims. In a country like France, which has a large Muslim population due to people coming from former colonies that were exploited by Europe for years, President Emmanuel Macron this year awarded Houellebecq the Légion d’Honneur, France’s highest distinction medal (Zemmour was also previously awarded). If such awards are really given for the sake of literature and style, then Goebbels was a master of propaganda. He made a perfect propaganda and convinced Germans to adopt Nazism, leading to the Holocaust.  

As a journalist who returned to Turkey in 2009 after spending 17 years in France during the time when the idea of a multi-cultural Europe reached a peak, I am scared of the atmosphere currently prevailing in the country. In the 19th century, could it be imagined in Emile Zola’s country that people would be sent to gas chambers and murdered in genocide for being “Jewish” 50 years later? Unfortunately, it happened. And lately, it turned out that one of the perpetrators of the recent massacre in two mosques in New Zealand, the country which boasts diversity and peaceful coexistence of different cultures, was inspired by a French, namely Renaud Camus, as can be inferred from his 75-page manifesto.

Camus’ book Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement), which introduces a theory based on the view that immigrants will occupy Europe and displace Europeans, is a famous book since 2011. As journalist Edvy Plenel wrote 4 years ago, “Le Grand Remplacement was theorized by Camus, fictionalized by far-right writer Michel Houellebecq and sensationalized by far-right writer Eric Zemmour.” We also need to remember the contributions of renowned philosopher Alain Finkelkraut in spreading these ideas! While cultural racism and Islamophobia that are spearheaded by France and followed by the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium invades all corners of Europe, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s tone in the face of the odious massacre touched the hearts of Muslims. 

For the first time in years, a prime minister turned to Muslims and said “we are you”

For the first time in years, a prime minister who can categorically be classified as Western albeit not geographically, turned to Muslims and said “we are you.” She wore a hijab, an object of hatred and grudge for the West, and paid visits to the Muslim community. Following the terror attacks on two mosques on March 15, she announced that the Friday azan would be broadcast live on state radio and television across the country, and there would be two minutes of silence to commemorate the victims while all women in the country were invited to wear the headscarf to display solidarity. She opened her parliamentary speech by using the Arabic greeting “Al-Salaam Alaikum,” and said “He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless. […] He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety – that is why you will never hear me mention his name.” She also implored people to “speak the names of those who were lost, rather than name of the man who took them.”

In defense of the targeted Muslims and other immigrant communities, Ardern said: “We are a proud nation of more than 200 ethnicities, 160 languages […] You may have chosen us — but we utterly reject and condemn you.”

The terrorist attack on two mosques in New Zealand’s Christchurch last Friday caused a global shock wave. At least 50 people, who gathered for Friday congregational prayers, were murdered. 50 others were also injured during the mass shootings. Subsequent to the massacre, several world leaders showed solidarity with the victims. Besides the global reactions, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who became PM at the age of 37, has been particularly applauded for her approach to the Muslim community in the country. Her appearance in Christchurch subsequent to the terrorist attack sent a clear message against both terrorism and anti-Muslim hatred across the world.

Describing the worse peacetime mass killing in her country as terrorism was an important step, which unfortunately lacked in other Western countries. Ardern’s wearing a black headscarf and hugging relatives of the victims was a symbolic act by her that has been received with much emotions, not only by the Muslim community in New Zealand, but the global Islamic world. Such a warm and simple act is still lacking in some Western countries. For instance, Germany’ Interior Minister still insists that Islam does not “belong” to Germany and that there is no tense mood against Muslims despite regular Islamophobic attacks. There are approximately 4-5 million Muslims living in Germany.

President Trump did not name the incident as a terrorist attack on Muslims but as a massacre on the citizens of New Zealand. These people were not murdered because they were citizens of a country, but just because they were Muslims.

In this sense, it was also not a big surprise that some world leaders did not prefer to use the term terrorism and deliberately circumvented this description, while others such as Chancellor Merkel and her Social Democrat coalition partners (e.g., SPD chairperson Andrea Nahles or German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas) described the massacre as a terrorist attack and stressed their solidarity with Muslims. On the other hand, leaders such as President Trump did not name the incident as a terrorist attack on Muslims but rather as a massacre on the citizens of New Zealand. However, one has to stress that these people were not murdered because they were citizens of a specific country. Rather, they were targeted because of their religion – Islam. If one does not address the problem by its name, we will not be able to overcome future challenges.

Why doesn’t the CDU chair Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer question the roots of anti-Muslim hatred? Where do such racist stances flourish? How can the Western world, policy makers, and the media, prevent any future attacks similar to the recent one?

But what might be behind the preference of such careful words contrary to openly naming the mass shooting as a terrorist attack against Muslims? Elaborating a recent statement made by chairperson of the German Christian Democrat Union (CDU), Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, might be an appropriate opportunity to notice the lack of empathy regarding the recent massacre. In her recent tweet the CDU leader explicitly said “No matter against whom hate, violence and terror is directed, at the end people die, children lose their parents and parents lose their children. There can be no explanation for that and no apologize.  In memory of the victims in #christchurch never doubt this.”

The statement sounds very political and as if in solidarity. But actually, it’s just an expression to circumvent the actual roots of the problem. To state that there is “no explanation,” by preferring words like “no matter against whom it is directed,” the reader needs to ask why there is an attempt to blur some specific reasons. Why doesn’t CDU chair question the roots of such anti-Muslim hatred? Where do such racist stances flourish? How can the Western world, policy makers, and the media, prevent any future attacks similar to the recent one? These are all issues that AKK deliberately fails to address. Why? All in all, such statements by “conservative” leaders across the Western world do not show any sincerity. A likely reason of this is not to scare off potential far-right voters. But this type of a perception cannot facilitate solving this immediate problem.

Statements by “conservative” leaders across the Western world do not show any sincerity. A likely reason of this is not to scare off potential far-right voters. But this type of perception cannot facilitate solving this immediate problem. 

Nevertheless, in addition to some symbolic solidarity acts by leading political figures, there have been many positive reactions from the global non-Muslim community. These can be interpreted as signs for peace in a global context. These include a woman from New Zealand who tried to hide a Muslim from the mass shooting, or people who showed their subsequent solidarity by visiting Muslim communities in their own countries’ neighborhood, or Jews showing solidarity with Muslims in Manhattan.

Of course, these acts of solidarity are more than welcome and carry immense significance. However, one should also appreciate that these gestures should not dominate the main problem, namely the killing of people who have been murdered only due to their religion. Therefore, global policy makers have to reconsider their main position and stop demonizing Muslims because of their rightly struggle against some marginal violent groups. The same goes for global and in particular, irresponsible Western media outlets, which, sometimes, deliberately spur global anti-Islamic hatred.

The Western world should be aware of an increasing danger caused by a new wave of racism and anti-Islamic movements that glorify and that are inspired from various historical incidents, including the Crusaders and Nazis.

Lately, the European Parliament went back to the Medieval Age! In the vote to suspend Turkey’s EU membership negotiations, members of the European Parliament, who secure the far-right and far-left seats in the upcoming parliamentary elections in May 2019 demanded a peculiar amendment regarding Hagia Sophia. The issue of Hagia Sophia, which was also included in the U.S. International Religious Freedom Report for the past couple of years, was one of the highlights of the amendments that were voted on Thursday last week. Both the U.S. and Europe adopted motifs that can be seen only in far-right political rhetoric. If the leading figures of modern politics – both in the new and old continents – could turn back to the Medieval Age, then as a journalist, I can remind the reader a set of things from the 1200s. 

The Fourth Crusade, which was called by Pope Innocent III and led by Boniface of Montferrat and Balduin of Flanders in the early 1200s, ostensibly aimed to capture Egypt. But according to historians, the Franks captured Istanbul in April 1204 instead, and entered Hagia Sophia, the greatest sanctuary of the time, with mules. They started plundering the church from the wall coverings; they loaded the artifacts, golden and silver crosses and other valuable things that were believed to belong to the disciples of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary, onto mules. They killed the priests in the church, attacked the nuns. They placed in the chair of the Orthodox Patriarch a prostitute, who sang and danced, sitting on the rostrum where the Orthodox patriarch normally delivered his sermon. After that plundering, Istanbul became the capital city of the Latin Empire that replaced the Byzantine and the nightmare looming over the city continued for 57 years. It is also said that the famous expression attributed to the Byzantine, “We would rather see the turban of the Turk than the hat of a cardinal in the streets of Constantinople” was said because of this. The plundered and stolen artifacts are today showcased in European museums, particularly in Italy.

The late historian Halil İnalcık’s article entitled “The Re-Building of Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror” reads: “Before the Conquest, Istanbul was but a dead city. […] A. M. Schneider, on the strength of testimonies from a number of sources, shows how Istanbul, after its occupation by the Latins in 1204, entered on a long period of decay, in the course of which it became ruralized, vineyards and fields coming to spread over vast areas within the city walls.”

One of the development works initiated after the conquest of Istanbul was for Hagia Sophia: “Before Istanbul’s conquest by the Ottoman Turks, contemporary writers (e.g. Clavijo) pointed out the ruinous state of Ayasofya. The very first act of the Conqueror was to have the famous temple restored. To its repair and to the salaries of those employed in it he allocated extensive pious foundations. In Istanbul proper, Galata and Üsküdar (Skutari) there were 2,350 shops, 4 caravanserais, 51 baths, 987 houses, 32 bozahane and 22 aşhane all allocated to Ayasofya, the total annual income from which amounted to 718.421 akçe (about 13.000 Venitian ducats).”

Mehmed the Conqueror also made a madrasa built on the north side of Hagia Sophia, which was turned into a mosque after he conquered Istanbul. Hagia Sophia went through restoration and maintenance works in every period of Ottoman history, the minarets built by Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan at the end of the building function as structural support as the building suffered damages due to earthquakes. The most extensive renovation works of the building were conducted in the 19th century during the reign of Sultan Abdulmecid. During the reign of Sultan Abdulaziz, the madrasa was demolished and rebuilt due to new rearrangements around Hagia Sophia.

Within this period, eight gigantic circular-framed disks were hung on columns. These were inscribed with the names of Allah, Muhammad, the first four caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, and the two grandchildren of Muhammad: Hassan and Hussain, by the calligrapher Kazasker Mustafa Izzed Effendi. They are known as the biggest calligraphy medallions of Islamic culture. During the 16th and 17th centuries, mihrabs, minbar, muezzin’s loge, pulpit and maksures were added in Hagia Sophia. The bronze candlesticks located on both sides of the mihrab were presented as a gift to the mosque by Suleiman the Magnificent after his return from the Siege of Buda. The two pieces of marble cubes belonging to the Hellenistic period, which are placed on the right and left corners of the entrance to the main building, were brought from Bergama antique city and presented to Hagia Sophia by Sultan Murad III in the 16th century.

It is obvious that some groups have always been very curious about the future of Hagia Sophia, particularly after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. We learned about one of the most original manifestations of this curiosity from historian and writer Murat Bardakçı a while ago: “American Jazz Orchestras Association applied to Turkey in December 1926 and offered to turn Hagia Sophia, which was serving as a mosque at the time, into the world’s largest jazz club and promised to bring the world’s greatest jazz orchestras and strongest saxophones to Hagia Sophia. This offer, made to both Istanbul Municipality and the government through the U.S. Embassy, asked the allocation of Hagia Sophia to American Jazz Orchestras Association.” New York Times announced this development in its issue dated 16 December, 1925, with a piece titled “Dance in Hagia Sophia,” which read that an offer was made to turn Istanbul’s renowned Hagia Sophia Mosque into a dance hall, and a group of businessmen applied to the Istanbul Governor’s Office to turn Hagia Sophia into a dance hall by arguing that this giant structure is not fit for religious service.

Fortunately, this initiative did not come true. Nevertheless, serving as a mosque for almost 500 years in Istanbul, Hagia Sophia was closed to religious service and turned into a museum in 1934 as a result of the political and international conditions 85 years ago.

For Europeans, who classify the history of humanity into certain eras (a paradigm that is widely accepted in the world), Sultan Mehmed II’s conquest of Istanbul, or to put otherwise, “the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire,” marks the end of the medieval period and the start of modern history. Hagia Sophia, on the other hand, is one of the most prominent symbols of the conquest. As can be inferred from the various initiatives aiming to transform Hagia Sophia by different institutions of the U.S. and Europe, Hagia Sophia is an important symbol of the Conquest also for the West. Nevertheless, it should be reminded that it has been 566 years since Istanbul was conquered. Despite that, Western states seemingly find it very hard to accept Hagia Sophia as a mosque. But this is what the far-right is all about – its most distinct feature is denying the truth with bigotry and living in dreams.

Despite it being 566 years since the conquer of Istanbul, Western states find it difficult to accept Hagia Sophia as a mosque. But this is what the far-right is all about – its most distinct feature is denying the truth with bigotry and living in dreams.

The article that was proposed and accepted during the European Parliament’s voting of the 2018 report reads: “Calls on the Turkish government to respect and fully implement the legal obligations which it has entered into concerning the protection of cultural heritage, and, in particular, to draw up in good faith an integrated inventory of Greek, Armenian, Assyrian and other cultural heritage that was destroyed or ruined in the course of the last century; opposes, in this context, any extreme view that promotes alterations to the physiognomy of the Hagia Sophia historical-religious monument and its conversion into a mosque; calls on Turkey to ratify the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; calls on Turkey to cooperate with the relevant international organisations, especially the Council of Europe, in preventing and combating illicit trafficking in and the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage…”

The European Parliament indirectly defines Hagia Sophia as a historical-religious monument and cultural heritage belonging to the Greeks and claims that it is Turkey’s legal responsibility to sustain it as it is. As if an authorized body on the issue, the Parliament considers defending Hagia Sophia’s conversion into a mosque an extremism and underlines its opposition to that. However, the decision to open Hagia Sophia to the religious service of Muslims or keeping it as a museum is fully owned by the Turkish state. If an outcome of Istanbul’s conquest affects the voting of the annual report written for Turkey’s EU membership negotiations, this means that far-right ideas gain prominence in the entire political spectrum (If the Parliament really cared about the originality of monuments, then they would have warned against church masses in Cordoba Mosque, the greatest monument of Andalus Islamic civilization, during Spain’s negotiations.) As experienced numerous times in the past, far-right ideology realizes itself with a top-down method, beginning with elites and intellectuals in secure social positions. This has always been the case in Europe, during the two great wars and genocides.

Far-right ideology realizes itself with a top-down method, beginning with elites and intellectuals in secure social positions. This has always been the case in Europe, during the two great wars and genocides.

It would not be a surprise if the Hagia Sophia issue would be included in a terrorist agenda, just as the issue of refugees who migrated to Europe to save themselves from war started in their countries by imperialist powers. After the latest massacre in two mosques in New Zealand that killed 50 people, a 74-page ideological manifesto written by the perpetrator was released. This text, published in three social media accounts belonging to a 28-year-old Australian named Brenton Tarrant, is built on racism and anti-immigrant sentiment. The perpetrator tries to legitimize the terror attacks by referring to historical events and demographic statistics. In the manifesto titled “The Great Replacement,” it reads, addressing Turks: “If you attempt to live in European lands, anywhere west of the Bosphorus. We will kill you and drive you roaches from our lands. We are coming for Constantinople and we will destroy every mosque and minaret in the city. The Hagia Sophia will be free of minarets and Constantinople will be rightfully Christian owned once more.” If the course of events continue like this, new terror attacks might follow as Tarrant followed the steps of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011.

The twin terror attacks on two mosques during Friday prayer at Christchurch, New Zealand, caused the deaths of 50 people. The attacker, Brenton Tarrant, made visits to a number of countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria. The areas the terrorist visited are pretty much former lands of the Ottoman Empire.

The attacker gave strong hate messages. Not only his written statement, but also his assault weapons were full of symbolic names, places, and dates. Amongst such names, one can count an assassin of Ottoman Sultan Murad I in 1389, two military commanders who fought against the Ottoman Empire respectively in 1571 in Cyprus and in 1683 in Vienna, an Albanian rebel leader against the Ottomans in the 15th century, and so on. Both the statement and the weapon are full of Islamophobic, and naturally, Turkophobic messages. The terrorist’s hate messages were not just about history but also glorified recent killings of Muslims.

While critical news outlets and popular TV shows like Family Guy pointed out the hypocrisy, mainstream media has continued its double standards. After all, terrorism was destined to be a Muslim problem.

It seems like the attacker was well aware of the nature of such recent attacks against Muslims living in the West, much more aware than the mainstream coverage of such attacks in the West. For so long, the terrorism narrative has been tied to Muslims. The religion of the attacker has almost become a definitive attribute of the act. If the attacker is Muslim, it is called an act of terrorism with quick conclusions whereas if the attacker is not Muslim, it is often described as an act of a weakened person due to mental issues. While critical news outlets and popular TV shows like Family Guy pointed out this hypocrisy, mainstream media has continued its double standards. After all, terrorism was destined to be a Muslim problem as all the atrocities committed by the U.S., Israel, and many other parties have been whitewashed under the umbrella of the fight against terror.

As Muslims have been the usual suspects of terrorism, the real danger has silently grown. First, right-wing populism defined Muslims living in the West as dangerous aliens. And then the white man decided to carry his burden by fighting against the brown man. A series of hate crimes and terror acts have been carried out in the West, sometimes with quite sophisticated organizational networks. Nevertheless, they were neither called terrorists nor did their actions face strong preventive and deterring counter-measures. This bias against Muslims and this permissive environment enabled the Islamophobic and/or supremacist terrorists to carry out their acts. In certain cases, they could carry out a terror campaign for long years without serious media coverage and state counterterrorism policies against them.

The lesson of the New Zealand attack is that the West got it all wrong. If there is one solution to this problem, it starts with recognizing terrorism not as an exclusively Muslim crime.

The National Socialist Underground, for example, killed ten people over 8 years in such a permissive environment in Germany. The lesson of the New Zealand attack is that the West got it all wrong. On the one hand, the counterterrorism measures of the West have often easily tolerated violations against Muslims, in many instances, even the killing of Muslims as collateral damage. Further, the rhetoric that equates terrorism with and only with Muslims justified killing Muslims in the eyes of so-called troubled minds.

If one lesson is to be taken from the New Zealand attacks, it is that the West should take responsibility for today’s terrorism. It is not Islamic terrorism that threatens the world today, it is the Western policies that terrorize the entire Muslim geography. And now, random people have begun to organize to continue the mission of killing Muslims as it has proven time after time that the Muslim life does not cost much to the killers. If there is one solution to this problem, it starts with recognizing terrorism not as an exclusively Muslim crime.