Başkan diyor ki :"Papa'ya kusur etmeyeceğiz..." O zaman İslâm'a "kusur edeceksiniz" demektir. Bu adam İslam dinine hakaret etti... Etmedi mi ? Siz bir diyanet işleri başkanısınız, adınız Türk tarihine böyle yazıldı. Rahmetli Rıfat Börekçi'den beri Türkiye Cumhuriyeti tarihinde kendi dinine kusur işleyen bir Diyanet İşleri Başkanı görüldü mü ?
Papa'nın iki şapkası varmış : biri devlet reisi, diğeri kilise başı şapkası .. İyi de, hangi kilisenin ? İslam dinine göre kilise diye bir şey yoktur. Devlet başkanı şapkası elbette sizi uzaktan yakından ilgilendirmiyor, kilise şapkası ise hiç ilgilendirmez. Kitabî İslam'a göre kendisinden önce gelen tüm dinler "mülga" dır. Kaldırılmıştır. Silinmiştir. Yoktur. Karanlık geçmişte kalmış, tarihe gömülmüştür, şimdiki değimle gericiliktir. Mülga bir dinin başı, sonu onun da şapkası olur mu ?
Dinler'i din olmaktan çıkarıp "sosyo-politik olaydır" derseniz, belki "varlıkları insanoğlunu terbiye etmeye yarar geçmiş ideolojiler" olarak kabul edilebilir, faydası da olur, ama hiçbir Müslüman için "kaldırılmış" bir dini var saymak mümkün değildir. İman tazelemek gerekir. Hırıstiyan dini vardır ama Vatikan'ın dediği gibi de değil. Kur'anımızda vahyedilen gibi...
İsa Ruhullah Aleyhisselam'a vahyedilen âyetlere dayanan Hırıstiyan dini, 330 İznik konsilinden sonra yüce bir peygambere hâşâ tanrılık sıfatı ekleyerek O'na "Tanrı'nın oğlu" dedi. İş o zaman bozuldu. Hâlâ düzelmedi. Sonra gelenler de İsa Peygamber adına bu fesada devam ettikleri için böyle bir sapkınlığın üzerine kurulan ibâdethane yoklukla mâlul oldu. İşte O'nun adı **"kilise"**dir. "Katolik Kilisesi'dir. Bu kilisenin başı da Papa'dır. Türk Diyanet İşleri Başkanı o Papayla hangi sıfatla, neyi nasıl konuşacak...? O adam İsa dininin değil, kilisenin başıdır.
Bu ülkede Diyanet işleri başkanından mahalle camiinin kayyumuna kadar hiçbir Müslüman din görevlisinin Papa ile resmen konuşması mümkün değildir. Hiçbir Müslüman din görevlisi "ortadan kaldırılmış" bir dinin yetkisiz mensubu ile konuşamaz. Kurumsal ilişki kuramaz, dost ahpap olur o kadar...Sayın Bardakoğlu misafirine bir çay içirsin sonra kapıya kadar uğurlayıp geri göndersin.
Yüzde doksan beş Müslüman'ın yaşadığı bir ülkeye o Müslümanların peygamberine hakaret eden bir adamı devlet misafiri olarak çağırdılar. Bu adam nereye geliyor ? O halkın değil, Devletin misafiridir... Bu halk ile bu Devletin arası bu kadar açık mıdır ? Bir devlet, temsil etmekte olduğu bir halkın duygularına bu kadar yabancı kalabilir mi ? Bu Devlet hangi halkın ? Bu ayrılık ne zaman bitecek ? Bu halk ne zaman demokratik yollardan doğru dürüst temsil edilecek ?
Hindistanda Brahmanların, Tibett'te Lama'ların, Japonya'da Şinto dini güdenlerin, Pasifik adalarında Ramayana ayinleri yapanların, siyah Afrika'da animistlerin, Amerika'da Mormon'ların, Amazon ormanlarında yerlilerin, peygamberlerine söven birinin oralarda dolaştığı görülmüş mudur ? Devlet misafiri olduğu duyulmuş mudur ? Adamı ağaca bağlar derisini yüzerler... Kelle avcıları kafasını kurutup boyunlarına asarlar. Mafya babaları peşine adam takarlar. Eteğini toplayamadan kaçar.
Biz medeniyiz, Papa' ya kusur etmeyeceğiz. Papayı çok seviyoruz... Cici Papa, aman ne güzel Papa... dikkat edin adam incinmesin... İkinci sınıf devlet protokolu, Swiss otelde yemek... İstanbulda Rum Patriği Bartolemeos'un arabasına binecek mi ? Ayasofyada diz çökecek mi ? Patriği sakalından öpecek mi ? -Sen merak etme ben Bush'a söylerim, Heybeliada Papaz Mektebini açtırırım diyecek mi ? Patrik ona ne diyecek ? işin o tarafı da pek karışık çünkü Papa "yeryüzünde hâşâ Tanrı'nın elçisiyim, Primacy'yim" diyor... Patrik Bartolemeos da ona kızıyor... "Yok öyle şey" diyor. Bin yıldır anlaşamıyorlar. Bunlar bu yüzden onbirinci yüz yılda birbirlerini afaroz etmişlerdi. O aforoz 1964 yılında kalktı, Ben de oradaydım. Fener'deki aforoz kaldırma Âyini'ni gazeteci sıfatıyla izlemiştim**.** Sonra -Barışalım... dediler. Kırk yıl daha geçti yine barışamadılar...
Boşverin bu işleri sayın din adamları, şu yaptığınız işlerin dinle, dindarlıkla ilgisi yok. Koca koca külahlar, süslü püslü elbiseler giyip, renkli takılar takıp, sihirli buhurlar yakıp, acaip sırlı kokular sürünüp, tapınakta arka arkaya, yan yana veya sıra sıra dizilip, boyalı tahta parçalarını, soğuk mermerleri öpüp, tabernekal denen pazarcı tezgahında sözde Hazreti İsa'nın etini yiyip kanını içerek yüzlerce yıldır usanmadan Tanrıcılık oynuyorsunuz. İnanca muhtaç saf insanlara Ölümle ş****antaj yapıyorsunuz... Hiç utanmıyorsunuz. Firavun Thoutmôsis'in ümmeti gibi Tanrı'ya inanmaksızın Tanrı'dan geçiniyorsunuz. Tanrı alıp Tanrı satıyorsunuz. Kendi kendinize eğleniyorsunuz, sizi kenardan seyreden insancıklar da din budur diye mutlu oluyor, göz yaşı döküyor...Olsun.. o gözyaşlarının hörmetine yine de yaptığınız soytarılıklara itiraz etmiyorum. Ancak bu Din ise, şu güzelim dünyayı ateş kan ve gaza boğanlarla uğraşın, cehennemin odunu, kömürü, doğal gazı, katalitiği yok, herkes ateşini buradan götürüyor... Allahın elçisi hangisiyseniz konuşun O'nunla... Ola ki frekansınız tutar. İşleri kafanıza göre büsbütün karıştırmayın, hayalî cennetler vaad etmek yerine yeryüzünü onarmaya bakın. Mostranızı yaşarken görelim.
SINGAPOUR (Reuters) - Un Australien de 65 ans a été condamné àune amende de 10.000 dollars australiens (6.423 dollars américains) par un tribunal de Singapour pour avoir prononcé le mot "bombe" dans un vol pour l'Indonésie, rapporte mercredi le Straits Times. Riccardo Paulin a plaidé coupable mardi des charges prononcées contre lui: avoir demandé àune hôtesse "Où met-on la bombe ?" sur un vol de la compagnie aérienne régionale Silk Air àdestination de Surabaya, écrit le journal.
Kütahya'nın Gediz İlçesi'nde çiftçilikle geçimini sağlayan Hikmet ve Saide Altıntaş çifti, yetiştirdikleri kırmızı turpların her geçen yıl devleştiğini görünce şaşırdı.
Youssef Aschkar: What is taking place in Syria and Lebanon is closely linked to what is going on in Iraq. There are two strategies at work in Iraq. There is the official American strategy, which is perhaps an imperial strategy for the domination and control of natural resources. And there is another strategy, which is the strategy of the gang of monsters who are called "neoconservatives", who dictate their plans to the Pentagon and to the State Department. This "gang" (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith, among others) have their own plan; they are the ones who have advocated destroying not only the state of Iraq, but the whole of Iraqi society. The entire network that the neocons control circumvents the generals of the Pentagon, and circumvents American military command. It has infiltrated itself into all the high offices of the United States, and has infiltrated itself also into society, into the American media, and into religious organizations. It is a state within a state.This was shown clearly during the scandal of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The General who was in command of the prisons came out of her office one day and was stunned: "But who are these people going around in the hallways?" Her bodyguard replied to her, "These are the men who carry out the interrogations." This General, in charge of the prisons, knew nothing about any of this.Silvia Cattori: Does that mean that whenever the neo-conservatives consider themselves to have achieved an objective, this success of theirs might in fact represent a defeat for the troops of the American army?Youssef Aschkar: Exactly. That's because there are two plans at work. There is the official plan of an army of occupation that might withdraw, boost its forces, or find itself cornered. And then there is the plan of the neocons, who dictate their own strategy to the American army, who have 45,000 mercenaries at their disposal, and who have more clout than even the American army. These neocons, in fact, are satisfied, and see their mission in Iraq as accomplished, since they judge that they have attained all the goals for the war that they had assigned to their forces: dragging all of Iraqi society into an impasse from which it can never escape, and replacing a centralized dictatorship with a multitude of totalitarian religious communities that will be in permanent conflict among themselves. So they feel ready to move on to the destabilization of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.Silvia Cattori: Yet some analysts believe that America cannot wage two wars at the same time, that the U.S. is unable to venture elsewhere while its army is tied down in Iraq.Youssef Aschkar: The neocons don't care about any of that: their plan was to destroy Iraqi society and nothing was able to stop them. They will take hold of some other formula in order to find fault with Syria or Iran. What is going on is extremely serious. Perhaps someone will say to me, "But that's a nightmare! You're just imagining these things!" I say, let us carry out an investigation to see whether what I am saying about them is true or not.Silvia Cattori: An investigation on what, exactly?Youssef Aschkar: On the neocons who rule the Pentagon and are the cause of so many humanitarian disasters! On what really happened on September 11, 2001! On who is really running the war in Iraq! Is it Mr. Bush, or is it these monsters at the Pentagon who use mercenaries to carry out secret operations in the Middle East?Silvia Cattori: Do you think that the prosecutors who are holding an inquiry on the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri, for instance, will be unable to establish the truth?Youssef Aschkar: It is the resistance that should carry out this inquest. I call for the setting up of a "resistance inquiry". Before September 2001, it was not possible to investigate and stop the neocons because their names were not known. Now, nothing can stop them because their machine is already in motion, but at least we can hold an inquiry on their crimes and indicate them by name.Silvia Cattori: The French government was clearly opposed to the intervention of Bush and Blair in Iraq. Does its recent realignment surprise you?Youssef Aschkar: France's position on Iraq raised great hopes in the Middle East, when it opposed the folly of the American neocons. By dissociating itself from the U.S., France had everything to gain on the domestic level, the European level, and the world level.Unfortunately, its position has changed since June 2004. In that month four decisive events took place: the transatlantic summit between Europe and the U.S., the NATO summit in Istanbul, the G8 at Evian, and the famous meeting at the United Nations. At these four meetings the U.S. succeeded in imposing its logic of war. Mr. Chirac and his team did not present any vision that would be suited to the interests of France, Europe, and the world. France stood aside to give way to the mere search for a "reconciliation" with the United States.It is France that took it upon itself to prepare Resolution 1559. France gave the illusion of having become a "partner" in the plan for the region and a major actor on the Lebanese scene. But in reality, once the resolution had been submitted, France became nothing but a pawn on the chessboard of the neocons, whose plan is clear: to exploit in order to destabilize, and not just Syria and Iran, but first of all Lebanon.The French leaders gave way to the vision of the neocons. They committed an error of judgment. If they hadn't lapsed into opportunism, they would have been able to stand firm and obtain more. In 2003, France was the winner in London when Mr.Dominique de Villepin , in his historic address on the world situation, presented a vision based on true political will and which resisted the monsters of the Pentagon. Whereas, now, France is losing on all levels.In situations that are exceptional, miserly conventional calculations do not pay. Clearly Mr. Chirac agreed, on the moral level, to damage the image of France, and, on the ethical and functional level, to entrust to France the dirty role of destabilizing the region, particularly Lebanon, and of tricking the Lebanese about their future.I would like to pose, here, some questions for Mr. Chirac. What is his plan for this region? What control is he able to exercise over the American project that is already in place? Does he think that France and Europe come out winners by associating themselves with this project of destabilization, or rather of setting the region on fire?Silvia Cattori: So, in your view, France is now completely on board with the anti-Arab policy of Mr. Bush and Blair?Youssef Aschkar: France abandoned its position of strength; it renounced its special role which consisted in opening up a new path with the Third World, both for France and for Europe. The Third World ought to be France's natural partner, in the spirit of a mutually favourable and humane partnership. To be credible, that spirit would have to manifest itself not just in relations within Europe, but also with respect to the outside world, particularly the Third World. Unfortunately, France decided not simply to align itself with the United States, but also to sign on to the war doctrine of the neocons. This positioning won for France nothing but a background role and isolation. This isolation comes out on three levels: that of Jacques Chirac within France, that of France within Europe, and that of Europe in the world. A great hope has evaporated, leaving the world in the hands of the new order of fear and hatred.Silvia Cattori: So are the people of the world in the hands of irresponsible leaders who no longer control anything?Youssef Aschkar: It is not that simple with political leaders, even if usually they do show themselves guilty of irresponsibility, opportunism, and lying. The core of the problem lies elsewhere: finding out who holds true power. In the "new world order", this power is in the process of shifting from the territorial authority of states to the uncontrolled authority of a line of new masters. I am not talking about the multinational corporations, the transnational financial institutions, and the process of economic privatization. The new masters are of a different kind: they are connected to the monstrous team of the neocons, who act in all four corners of the globe by means of their networks and their mercenaries. The economic sphere is in full submission to their project. Privatization is nothing more than a simple economic measure, mainly an ideology which consists in privatizing and monopolizing the public space - especially politics and security - in order to exploit the other sectors. It is nothing less than a monstrous planet-wide coup d'état.The political leaders more and more end up overwhelmed and manipulated. They suffer less from personal incompetence and technical clumsiness than from a lack of vision or moral worth: they are as cowardly as they are ignorant, not seeing, or not wanting to see, the new reality.Our authorities do not want to respond to this challenge, at least as long as they are not subject to public pressure which would force them to change tack. So our mission ought to be to provoke an awakening of the public which would force a change in policy. This public pressure would have to be stronger and more convincing than the pressure that our authorities currently receive from the United States.Silvia Cattori: In Lebanon, does the public suspect that perhaps, since the assassination of Hariri, they are the target of manoeuvring not by Arabs but by Westerners?Youssef Aschkar: The Lebanese are very troubled about their future. But the daily manipulation carried out by the networks of saboteurs acting in secret often prevents them from seeing clearly. I believe a large part of the Lebanese people is conscious of these criminal manoeuvres, but they are neither unified nor prepared to respond to these manipulations in an effective manner, whereas those doing the manoeuvring are able to exploit all the weaknesses of the partisan politics which are traditional in Lebanon, and take advantage of the confessional differences to divide the people. The fact that Lebanon is composed of different communities, which those doing the manoeuvring take advantage of, deprives the citizens of their common and rational landmarks, all the more so because the plans of those who would destabilize the society are meticulously prepared.We have before us a great task of awareness-raising if we want to prevent the situation from worsening and becoming irreversible. Time is short.Silvia Cattori: Is it possible that Western intelligence agencies may have financed those who carried out the assassination of Hariri? But to what end? To make Lebanese society explode?Youssef Aschkar: Without a doubt: infiltration is not just a weapon but an entire strategy. It is the intelligence agencies' stock in trade. These agencies have an unrivalled ability to create unlikely scenarios and exploit them to the full. Making Lebanese society explodes forms part of their principal plan. As for their timetable, that remains unclear. Our immediate task is to act in time in order to thwart their terrifying plan.Silvia Cattori: So you are very anxious about the future?Youssef Aschkar: If events continue along their present course, then it will be terribly serious. All the direct neighbours of Israel, and this entire region that is considered a "vital space" by Israel, are directly menaced by Israel, and are being subjected to destabilization.In the strategic and geopolitical context of the "Greater Middle East and North Africa", the stakes have been set by the Israelis and Americans. Pressure is being exerted on all fronts and in all directions. The pressure is being exerted very openly against Iran and Syria, but in a camouflaged fashion against Lebanon. And that leaves Lebanon hanging in suspense, divided between those who spin for themselves illusions regarding democracy, freedom, and prosperity - the poisoned bait offered by the Israelis and the Americans - and those who have no illusions about their intentions.Lebanon is at one and the same time the country most threatened and the country most vulnerable. The Lebanese Christians, some of whom imagine themselves to represent a safeguard that shelters Lebanon from the Israeli menace, are in fact the prime target of Israel's plans.Silvia Cattori: Does it surprise you to see that in the West - under the influence of the propagandists of the "clash of civilizations", who use the mainstream media as their soapbox - the public has for the most part accepted the idea that believers in Islam are "fanatics" and "terrorists"?Youssef Aschkar: The propaganda agencies of the neocons succeed very well in manipulating the facts and the media, and by this means they are able, unfortunately, to trick most people and to disorient even progressives. They work to discredit Muslims on the one hand by manipulating and financing the mercenaries who carry out terrorist attacks, which subsequently get blamed on the resistance, and on the other hand by triggering a process of fanaticization. The latter method consists in creating situations of conflict by means of provocations of a religious character, conflicts which mix up the reference points, provoke demonstrations, and discredit Islam (This interview took place before the affair of the Danish cartoons broke out).Led into error by these repeated provocations, the progressives end up disoriented: as humanists they cannot defend acts of violence, but as secularists they cannot tolerate fanaticism. So those progressives who are not conscious of the manipulation carried out by the neocons find themselves caught up in pointless disputes.In fact, the attacks that generate numerous civilian victims are remote-controlled by this gang in the Pentagon, who, by means of their networks, create and finance phantom organizations that terrorize each side in the name of the other side.I should point out here that the ideology of the neocons, such as we see it played out on the ground, is the first and only ideology in history that seeks to produce opponents rather than adherents, leaving to its opponents the job of supplying it with its adherents.Let me explain. This ideology works to produce opponents by pushing them towards fanaticism in such a way as to stir up and nourish every fanaticism on earth, including Muslim and Arab fanaticism, and this enables Muslims to be given a very negative image, so that in the end - and this is the goal - hostile reactions are produced towards Muslims. Even staunchly secular people, on both sides, will imperceptibly find themselves led to question their own secularity, and to see in "the Other" someone who cannot be lived with. That is what is going on now, and what is in the process of destabilizing Europe, of causing a cleavage between the two shores of the Mediterranean basin, and of sabotaging and wrecking the Barcelona projects for a Mediterranean partnership.If this cleavage worsens, voices will be heard - even in Europe - calling for people to sign on to the neocons' doctrines of "war against terrorism" and "Muslim fanaticism". Only at that point will the neocon ideology have accomplished its mission: having helped to provoke the growth of fanaticism among Muslims, it will also have stirred up in the West, in return, adherents to its thesis of a "clash of civilizations". And Europe, stubborn up to that point, will finally align itself with the ideology of the neocons. Progressives and politicians in general are unaware of these manoeuvres.Silvia Cattori: What can be done in time in order to change this tragic course of events?Youssef Aschkar: Any effort must begin by creating an awareness of the realities carefully camouflaged by this web of lies which is working to twist the critical faculties of the entire human race. Only a "global inquiry" can respond to this global threat and lay bare the manoeuvrings that sustain it. The awareness must come about on two levels: on the level of states and on the level of individual citizens. This "global inquiry" must be started with all urgency; it ought to become both the highest priority action of the resistance and also the unifying factor of the resistance. All the resisters and militants in the world must unite, and must oppose, in advance of everything else, this global war, whatever may be the particular causes that they are defending or the particular misfortunes they are suffering from and fighting against. That is because this war aggravates all of their particular misfortunes, and renders the struggle of peoples under occupation that much more difficult. "Axis for Peace" came together with that idea in November 2005 for a conference in Brussels. The participants, who are fighting for different causes, realized how the theme of this conference unified them. We must make it our very first priority to do battle against this war that attacks societies, because that will aid the cause common to all of us and serve equally to alert governments as to the significance of this war that will certainly affect them sooner or later. To the extent that this threat is not grasped and considered the highest priority by popular forces, governments will persist in going in directions that are inappropriate for facing this exceptional threat.Silvia Cattori: Isn't that a profoundly depressing picture that you are painting for the peoples of the Middle East, indeed for all of us?Youssef Aschkar: Certainly. If things do not change radically, I would be extremely pessimistic. We are talking about, in the Middle East, an existential threat of which public opinion is not fully aware, but also of a global threat about which the peoples and states of the world - especially the major powers - are not adequately alarmed. But optimism or pessimism will depend on our future action. Everything will depend on whether something gets done in time, and on whether the resistance can unite and focus its efforts on the right target. United forces, of people engaged in action, are humanly superior to the forces of the monsters of the Pentagon, no matter how huge their material and logistical means may be.
Şanlıurfa'nın Siverek ilçesinde "Eşekçalan" olan soyadından utanan kişi, bunu değiştirmek için mahkemeye başvurdu.