People talking about moderate Islam in Turkey are, in the final analysis, talking about a party that has achieved reconciliation between Islam and democracy; a party that is able to come to power in a democratic mechanism, but at the same time, a party that could possibly be removed from the government by the same rules. These people are not talking about a Turkey purely converted into “moderate Islam” as some are trying hard to make us believe. This is not the case anyway, nor can it be meaningful. What does “moderate Islamic Turkey” mean? Will this be pursued by painting all houses light green?Where could the party I described above possibly exist? If secular lifestyle takes root and turns into a custom, a habit in a society, then the existence of such a party is thinkable. Yet if in a society, religion is of no significance beyond private life for the majority, such a party cannot exist. If religion determines the central pace of life and if its existence is felt everywhere, then for reverse reasons, such a party again cannot have any place to live. I said for “reverse reasons”, because such an environment creates a “radical”, “pro-Shariah” party which reproduces a radical or pro-Shariah order.

A balance of secular and religious:

Therefore, people saying, “The emergence of a ‘moderate Islam' model in Turkey is possible” can say so because they have confidence in the steps Turkey takes toward becoming secular. If you take secular institutions or habits now and blow in certain dose of “moderate Islam” (I wouldn't know how to do this in the first place), you cannot accomplish the mission because a political party with religious references, in such an environment, implements a policy in line with the mainstream and this is guaranteed by those secular institutions and habits remaining secular.The Western world exposed to aggressive Islamic trends, which were nominated as the replacement of the dying communism in the aftermath of the Cold War, wants this to happen for very plausible reasons. At least in a single spot around the world, there should be such a model where a man who cannot decide whether to be pro-Laden or pro-Hamas or pro-Muslim Brotherhood could hear in response, “Look, there is this model. This is possible too.”In the 1950s and 1960s, the Muslim world shaped socialism in a way to suit itself and ruined it. When no hope was left, Muslims became completely introverted and embarked on transforming their own religion into a militant one. The majority of them are former socialist cadres or individuals (like the way we sharpened our own nationalism). Now, a dictatorial spectrum dominates the Arab world in particular, where on one side Baath regimes, similar to that of the late Saddam Hussein, exist, and theocracy as in Saudi Arabia exists on the other. There is no one pointing to or defending “democracy” nor is there anyone who thinks this is likely.

Pumping Islamophobia:

For that reason, an example like Turkey is of importance in the eye of a democratic world. But is this important only for the “democratic world”? Isn't this, in the first place, important for us? Forget about the proper pride of the matter; isn't this an affirmative kick-start for a future and a world that we will and should yearn for?However, some groups are ready to do everything to stop this and they are fiercely hostile toward this, since democratization could put an end to their traditional way of governance. Their number one weapon is to excite Islamophobia in certain circles. And they are doing it, but those circles feel the pleasure of being excited as such.

Source