Misc Thoughts


Claiming to be the first attempt of its kind, The 500 Most Influential Muslims starts off on a wrong foot. Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Amman and Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding list, lo and behold, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the top of 1.5-2 billion Muslims. Perhaps coming to the late realization that money cannot buy hearts, it seems that a certain interest group is on an intellectual campaign to win minds.

It is also no surprise that in these End Times of a power vacuum, H.M. King Mohammed IV of Morocco at No. 3 is also a

Contender for the Caliphate
King Mohammad VI’s lineage makes him the only legitimate contender for the Islamic Caliphate, as successor to a 350 year-old dynasty. The Alaouite Dynasty links back to the Prophet Muhammad. He possesses the only authentic claim to an Islamic Caliphate, if one were to be established. Indeed, the Moroccans never recognized the Ottoman Caliphate on the grounds that the Ottomans were not descended from the Prophet Muhammad.

According to Adil James of the Muslim Media Network Staff,

In total 72 Americans are among the 500 most influential Muslims, a disproportionately strong showing, but only one among the top 50.  Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson of Zaytuna Institute is listed surprisingly at number 38.  The world leader of the Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi order, however, Sheikh Nazim al Haqqani, with millions of followers worldwide, spiritual adviser to kings, presidents, doctors, lawyers, professors and others across the spectrum of profession, race, and ethnicity on seven continents, is listed at number 49.  While Sheikh Hamza Yusuf has successfully built the Zaytuna Institute, his influence is confined mostly to American academia, scholars and students.  Surprisingly, Khaled Mashaal, leader of Hamas, (at number 34) is listed before any American Muslim.

Muslim 500 – A Listing of the 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World

The entire book is available at www.rissc.jo/muslim500v-1L.pdf




A merchant kept a bird in a cage. He was going to India, the land from which the bird came, and asked it whether he could bring anything back for it. The bird asked for its freedom, but was refused. So he asked the merchant to visit a jungle in India and announce his captivity to the free birds who were there. The merchant did so, and no sooner had he spoken when a wild bird, just like his own, fell senseless out of a tree on to the ground.

The merchant thought that this must be a relative of his own bird, and felt sad that he should have caused this death.  When he got home, the bird asked him whether he had brought good news from India. “No,” said the merchant, “I fear that my news is bad. One of your relations collapsed and fell at my feet when I mentioned your captivity.” As soon as these words were spoken the merchant’s bird collapsed and fell to the bottom of the cage. “The news of his kinsman’s death has killed him too,” thought the merchant.

Sorrowfully he picked up the bird and put it on the windowsill. At once the bird revived and flew to a nearby tree. “Now you know, ” the bird said, “that what you thought disaster was in fact good news for me. And how the message, the suggestion of how to behave in order to free myself, was transmitted to me through you, my captor.” And he flew away free at last.


tales of the dervishes



Charles Bridge is a famous historical bridge that crosses the Vltava river in Prague, Czech Republic. Its construction started in 1357 under the auspices of King Charles IV, and finished in the beginning of 15th century. There are 30 statues mounted to the balustrade of this bridge.


Statues of Saints of John of Malta, Felix of Valois, and Ivan are the most spacious and expensive sculptures on the bridge. This was designed in 1714  by Ferdinand Brokoff and sponsored by František Josef Thun, the lord of Klášterec nad Ohří. The sculpture was intended to honour the two founders of the Trinitarians, the order that supervised buying back and redeeming of Christians in captivity under Turks. St. Ivan, the saint patron of Slavs was added to the group for unknown reasons. The base depicts a cave in which three chained Christians are praying to the Lord for salvation.

[source: wikipedia.com]


It seems that every time I mention to people who are not in this Tarikat, whether in another tarikat or not, about the immanent approaching nuclear war, they shrug it off with disbelief. “No way,” they think. It’s comforting to think so. Yet, upon a little introspection, it is easy to deduce that unfortunately we are heading that way. Both Prophetic knowledge and academic History tells us so.

The following is a popular article that’s currently circulating in the news.

The former defense secretary on the U.S. deterrent and the terrorist threat.


Maclean, Va.

‘Nuclear weapons are used every day.” So says former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, speaking last month at his office in a wooded enclave of Maclean, Va. It’s a serene setting for Doomsday talk, and Mr. Schlesinger’s matter-of-fact tone belies the enormity of the concepts he’s explaining — concepts that were seemingly ignored in this week’s Moscow summit between Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev.

[The Weekend Interview] Terry Shoffner

We use nuclear weapons every day, Mr. Schlesinger goes on to explain, “to deter our potential foes and provide reassurance to the allies to whom we offer protection.”

Mr. Obama likes to talk about his vision of a nuclear-free world, and in Moscow he and Mr. Medvedev signed an agreement setting targets for sweeping reductions in the world’s largest nuclear arsenals. Reflecting on the hour I spent with Mr. Schlesinger, I can’t help but think: Do we really want to do this?

For nuclear strategists, Mr. Schlesinger is Yoda, the master of their universe. In addition to being a former defense secretary (Nixon and Ford), he is a former energy secretary (Carter) and former director of central intelligence (Nixon). He has been studying the U.S. nuclear posture since the early 1960s, when he was at the RAND Corporation, a California think tank that often does research for the U.S. government. He’s the expert whom Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on last year to lead an investigation into the Air Force’s mishandling of nuclear weapons after nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly flown across the country on a B-52 and nuclear fuses were accidently shipped to Taiwan. Most recently, he’s vice chairman of a bipartisan congressional commission that in May issued an urgent warning about the need to maintain a strong U.S. deterrent.

But above all, Mr. Schlesinger is a nuclear realist. Are we heading toward a nuclear-free world anytime soon? He shoots back a one-word answer: “No.” I keep silent, hoping he will go on. “We will need a strong deterrent,” he finally says, “and that is measured at least in decades — in my judgment, in fact, more or less in perpetuity. The notion that we can abolish nuclear weapons reflects on a combination of American utopianism and American parochialism. . . . It’s like the [1929] Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy . . . . It’s not based upon an understanding of reality.”

In other words: Go ahead and wish for a nuclear-free world, but pray that you don’t get what you wish for. A world without nukes would be even more dangerous than a world with them, Mr. Schlesinger argues.

“If, by some miracle, we were able to eliminate nuclear weapons,” he says, “what we would have is a number of countries sitting around with breakout capabilities or rumors of breakout capabilities — for intimidation purposes. . . . and finally, probably, a number of small clandestine stockpiles.” This would make the U.S. more vulnerable.

Mr. Schlesinger makes the case for a strong U.S. deterrent. Yes, the Cold War has ended and, yes, while “we worry about Russia’s nuclear posture to some degree, it is not just as prominent as it once was.” The U.S. still needs to deter Russia, which has the largest nuclear capability of any potential adversary, and the Chinese, who have a modest (and growing) capability. The U.S. nuclear deterrent has no influence on North Korea or Iran, he says, or on nonstate actors. “They’re not going to be deterred by the possibility of a nuclear response to actions that they might take,” he says.

Mr. Schlesinger refers to the unanimous conclusion of the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which he co-led with Chairman William Perry. The commission “strongly” recommended that further discussions with the Russians on arms control are “desirable,” he says, and that “we should proceed with negotiations on an extension of the START Treaty.” That’s what Mr. Obama set in motion in Moscow this week. The pact — whose full name is the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty — expires in December. But what’s the hurry? Mr. Schlesinger warns about rushing to agree on cuts. “The treaty . . . can be extended for five years. And, if need be, I would extend it for five years.”

There’s another compelling reason for a strong U.S. deterrent: the U.S. nuclear umbrella, which protects more than 30 allies world-wide. “If we were only protecting the North American continent,” he says, “we could do so with far fewer weapons than we have at present in the stockpile.” But a principal aim of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is “to provide the necessary reassurance to our allies, both in Asia and in Europe.” That includes “our new NATO allies such as Poland and the Baltic States,” which, he notes dryly, continue to be concerned about their Russian neighbor. “Indeed, they inform us regularly that they understand the Russians far better than do we.”

The congressional commission warned of a coming “tipping point” in proliferation, when more nations might decide to go nuclear if they were to lose confidence in the U.S. deterrent, or in Washington’s will to use it. If U.S. allies lose confidence in Washington’s ability to protect them, they’ll kick off a new nuclear arms race.

That’s a reason Mr. Schlesinger wants to bring Japan into the nuclear conversation. “One of the recommendations of the commission is that we start to have a dialogue with the Japanese about strategic capabilities in order both to help enlighten them and to provide reassurance that they will be protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In the past, that has not been the case. Japan never was seriously threatened by Soviet capabilities and that the Soviets looked westward largely is a threat against Western Europe. But now that the Chinese forces have been growing into the many hundreds of weapons, we think that it’s necessary to talk to the Japanese in the same way that we have talked to the Europeans over the years.”

He reminds me of the comment of Japanese political leader Ichiro Ozawa, who said in 2002 that it would be “easy” for Japan to make nuclear warheads and that it had enough plutonium to make several thousand weapons. “When one contemplates a number like that,” Mr. Schlesinger says, “one sees that a substantial role in nonproliferation has been the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Without that, some and perhaps a fair number of our allies would feel the necessity of having their own nuclear capabilities.”

He worries about “contagion” in the Middle East, whereby countries will decide to go nuclear if Iran does. “We’ve long talked about Iran as a tipping point,” he says, “in that it might induce Turkey, which has long been protected under NATO, Egypt [and] Saudi Arabia to respond in kind . . . There has been talk about extending the nuclear umbrella to the Middle East in the event that the Iranians are successful in developing that capacity.”

Mr. Schlesinger expresses concerns, too, about the safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons, all of which are more than 20 years old. “I am worried about the reliability of the weapons . . . as time passes. Not this year, not next year, but as time passes and the stockpile ages.” There is a worry, too, about the “intellectual infrastructure,” he says, as Americans who know how to make nuclear weapons either retire or die. And he notes that the “physical infrastructure” is now “well over 60 years” old. Some of it “comes out of the Manhattan Project.”

The U.S. is the only major nuclear power that is not modernizing its weapons. “The Russians have a shelf life for their weapons of about 10 years so they are continually replacing” them. The British and the French “stay up to date.” And the Chinese and the Indians “continue to add to their stockpiles.” But in the U.S., Congress won’t even so much as fund R&D for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. “The RRW has become a toxic term on Capitol Hill,” Mr. Schlesinger says. Give it a new name, he seems to be suggesting, and try again to get Congress to fund it. “We need to be much more vigorous about life-extension programs” for the weapons.

Finally, we chat about Mr. Schlesinger’s nearly half-century as a nuclear strategist. Are we living in a world where the use of nuclear weapons is more likely than it was back then? “The likelihood of a nuclear exchange has substantially gone away,” he says. That’s the good news. “However, the likelihood of a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States” is greater.

During his RAND years, in the 1960s, Mr. Schlesinger recalls that “we were working on mitigating the possible effects [of a nuclear attack] through civil defense, which, may I say parenthetically, we should be working on now with respect, certainly, to the possibility of a terrorist weapon used against the United States. . . . We should have a much more rapid response capability. . . . We’re not as well organized as we should be to respond.”

Mr. Schlesinger sees another difference between now and when he started in this business: “Public interest in our strategic posture has faded over the decades,” he says. “In the Cold War, it was a most prominent subject. Now, much of the public is barely interested in it. And that has been true of the Congress as well,” creating what he delicately refers to as “something of a stalemate in expenditures.”

He’s raising the alarm. Congress, the administration and Americans ignore it at their peril.

Ms. Kirkpatrick is a deputy editor of the Journal’s editorial page.


If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.

Lord Louis Mountbatten

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones

Albert Einstein



From Times Online – July 6, 2009

As a people, the Uighurs [pronounced ooy-gur, not wee-gur] look more like Afghans than ethnic Chinese. Ethnically, they are a Turkic race whose homeland is at the meeting point of Asia and Europe. The area now called Xinjiang was annexed by the Chinese Empire in the 19th century, although it briefly achieved independence before the Communist victory in China in 1949.

Separatist sentiment has always been present, but the stern censorship and political repression of the Chinese Government have prevented it from forming a large-scale organisation. Small groups operated in secret but only began to make their presence felt in the 1990s, when the liberation of the former Soviet republics and the increasing dominance of ethnic Chinese stirred a new sense of aspiration among many Uighurs.

In 1949 the Han Chinese had made up six per cent of Xinjiang’s people; today they represent 41 per cent in a population of 19 million, compared to 45 per cent Uighur. Many of them believe that the goal of the Chinese Communist Party, barely concealed, is the complete cultural, religious and linguistic assimilation of the Uighur people.


After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, China identified itself as a victim of international terrorism and the Uighur separatist movement as its own al-Qaeda. Uighurs were captured in Afghanistan — four of them were released last month to Bermuda. The Chinese authorities, fearful of violence before the Olympics, announced a raid on a training camp run by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement in January last year. Human rights organisations say that the Chinese anti-terror campaign has blurred the lines between genuine men of violence and those who peacefully support independence.

China pays lip service to freedom of religion for Uighurs, but only under its own terms. Imams must be licensed by the state. Public servants, including teachers, are barred from worshipping at mosques on pain of dismissal. Most resented of all, no one under 18 is allowed to worship or to receive religious instruction.

This goes further even than the control exerted over Tibetan Buddhism — to many Uighurs it represents a deliberate attempt to snuff out their religion over the course of a few generations by ensuring that young people grow up fully secularised. There is a small overseas diaspora, but compared to the Tibetan cause the Uighurs have few influential international friends. The chances of realising the dream of an independent “Uighurstan” are slight to non-existent. But, as the latest events have showed, it is a dream that will not die peacefully.



As with many discoveries that we make, my introduction to Kefir came from overseas. A friend told me about the benefits he gets from drinking half a cup of this beverage every day. He even produces his own at home.

What they say about Kefir:

Kefir is pronounced (kef e-er). It is a refreshing cultured-milk beverage that is loaded with nutritional benefits. It is made by culturing fresh milk with kefir grains. Kefir grains are not to be mistaken for cereal grains; they are a soft, gelatinous white biological mass of proteins, lipids (fats), and a soluble-polysaccharide kefiran complex. They are famous for there vast mixture of specific friendly (LAB) Lactic-acid Bacteria and yeasts.

This is the most potent source of probiotics (friendly bacteria) you can find. In most probiotic pills found in stores you will find about 15 different strains of friendly bacteria, for example (Lactobacillus bugaricus and Streptoccocus  hermophilus) are just 2 of the more well known strains.


Kefir History

Kefir is the cousin of yogurt and its roots can trace back more than 2000 years. Originating in the Caucasus Mountains of Europe [Europe?] where people live well past 100 years, the word kefir is thought to have been derived from the Turkish word “keif” for “good feeling,” probably due to the sense of well-being experienced after drinking it.



Nutritional and Health Aspects

Kefir is considered a nutritious drink suitable for inclusion in special diets and in the therapy of gastrointestinal disorders. Kefir is very similar to cultured buttermilk, yogurt and any other fermented milk. The gross composition and caloric value are very similar to that of milk, except that about one-quarter of the 5 percent lactose will have been converted to lactic acid. This will be of benefit to lactose-intolerant persons. Furthermore, the bacteria contained in the kefir will provide lactase, the enzyme in short supply in lactose-intolerant individuals. In addition, kefir contains 0.01 to 0.1 percent ethanol and 1 percent titratable acidity.


Nowadays, you can find it in the milk/yogurt isle of most supermarkets.


Kızıl Elma, Türkler özellikle Oğuz Türkleri için Kızılelma, üzerinde düşünüldükçe uzaklaşan ancak uzaklaştığı oranda cazibesi artan ülküler veya düşlerdir.

Kelimenin tam olarak ne zaman, nerede ve nasıl geçtiği bilinmemekle birlikte tarihi akış içerisinde hep batı yönünde ilerlemenin bir sembolü olmuştur.

İstanbul’un Fethi‘nden sonra, Kızılelma’nın, Roma‘da bulunan Saint-Pierre Kilisesinin mihrabındaki altın top olduğu ileri sürülmüştür.

Bir milletin yürütücü kuvvetine ‘ülkü’ denir. Toplumlardaki kişileri birbirine bağlayan nesne, sadece kök birliği, çıkar ve ihtiyaç değil, bunlarla birlikte ve aynı zamanda ülküdür. ülküsüz topluluk yerinde sayan, ülkülü topluluk yürüyen bir yığındır. Sözlük anlamı ‘and’ ve ‘uzak hedef’ demek olan ‘ülkü’, topluluğu aynı yolda yürüten bir kuvvettir ki, bu uğurda insanlar birbirlerine karşı içten sözleşmiş gibidirler.

ülkü, ilkönce, insanların gönüllerinde, gönüllerinin derinliğinde, şuuraltında, hayallerinde doğar ve kendini önce destanlarda gösterir. Sonra şuura geçer, büyük kılavuzlar tarafından açıklanır. Daha sonra da büyük kahramanlar, onu gerçekleştirmek için büyük hamleler yapar. Bu hamle sırasında da ülkülü millet, kahramanlar ardından gönül isteği ile koşar. Bütün bu uğraşmalar arasında da millet yürür; önce manen, sonra maddeten ilerler, olgunlaşır, erginleşir.

Türk destanlarından çıkan anlama göre, Türklerin ülküsü, fetihler sonunda büyük ve üstün bir devlet kurarak bu devletin içinde bolluğa ve mutluluğa kavuşmaktır. Aşağı yukarı, her millet, aynı şekildeki milli gayelerin ardındadır. Milletlerin çapına, kaabiliyetine göre milli ülkülerin ayrıntılarında farklar olmakla beraber, ana çizgiler bakımından hepsi birbirine benzer: Büyümek ve rahatlığa kavuşmak!

Türkler, kendi ülkülerine niçin ‘kızılelma’ demiştir, bunun sebebini bilmiyoruz. Yalnız bu addaki saflık ve tabiilik, Türk ülküsünün çok eski olduğunu göstermek bakımından manalıdır. Kızılelma adı, ülkünün aydınlardan önce halk arasında doğduğunu gösterse gerektir.

Kızılelma ülküsü, Osmanlıların parlak çağlarında iyice belirip şekillenmiş ve konak konak, Türk büyüklüğünün, yükseklik fikrinin, ilahi bir gayenin timsali haline gelmiştir. Bu büyük düşünce olmasaydı, XI. Yüzyılda Anadolu’ya gelen, ençok bir milyon Türk, Bizans’ın Asya ve Avrupa’daki topraklarında rastladıkları diğer Türklerin birkaç tümenlik hrıstiyanlaşmış döküntülerinin yardımı ile de olsa, bu dünya çapında devleti kurup dört kıta ‘dördüncüsü Okyanusya’dır’ üzerindeki teşkilat ve medeniyet şaheserini yaratamazdı.

Milletlere milli inanç ve güvenç veren ülkünün ne büyük bir kuvvet olduğunu anlamak için bugünkü olaylara bakmak yeter:

60 milyonluk bir millet olmalarına rağmen dağınık, teşkilatsız ve geri olan Araplar, milli ülküleri olan Arap Birliği düşüncesi sayesinde toparlanma yoluna girmişlerdir. ülkülerinden aldıkları güçle, Filistin işinde İngiltere ve Amerika’ya kafa tutmaktadırlar. ülkü sahibi millet oldukları için de dünyada itibarları ve değerleri artmıştır. Bizim için çok büyük isret ve ders olan şu olay, Arapların itibarını göstermesi bakımından manalıdır: Birleşmiş Milletler teşkilatının 11 üyeli Güvenlik Konseyi’nin beşi ‘Amerika, İngiltere, Fransa, Rusya ve Çin’ daimi, altısı geçicidir. 1945 yılında, bu altı üyelik için seçim yapıldı. 900 yıllık büyük bir geçmişi ve tarihi olan, askeri devlet olarak nam kazanmış bulunan Türkiye bu seçimde ancak bir tek oy alarak Konsey’e giremediği halde, İngiliz işgalinden henüz kurtulamamış olan ordusuz, donanmasız Mısır, 45 oy alarak bu üyeliğe seçildi. Demek ki, o zamanki Birleşmiş Milletler teşkilatına dahil bulunan 50 devletten 45’i, Mısır’ı bizden daha itibarlı ve üstün görmüştü.

1946’da geçici üyelik için yapılan seçimde de, Türkiye’ye kimse oy vermediği halde, Suriye 45 oy aldı. Bir iki yıllık bir devlet olan o zamanki üç milyon nüfuslu Suriye’nin Türkiye`ye tercih edilmesinin sebebi açıktır: Suriye, bir ülkünün ardındadır. Yani prensip sahibidir. Bundan dolayı da, düşmanlarının bile saygısını kazanmıştır.

Yahudiler de, ülkü sahibi olmanın ikinci bir ibret verici örneğidir. Korkaklığı atasözü haline gelen bu millet, bugün, bir milli ülkünün ardında, herhangi bir millet kadar cesaretle çarpışıyor. Milli kahramanlar ve bu milli kahramanlar, idama mahkum edildikleri ve bağışlanma dileğinde bulunurlarsa ölümden kurtulacakları halde, İngiltere’den af dilemeyerek milletlerine şeref vermek suretiyle ölüyorlar. Bu milli ülkü sayesinde, Filistin’deki yarım milyon yahudi (O zaman Filistin’de yarım milyon Yahudi vardı), yalnız Araplarla değil, koca İngiltere ile savaşı göze alıyor, Amerika’ya meydan okuyor. Milli ülküye yapışmak sayesinde Yahudiler o kadar kuvvetlenmişledir ki, bugün İngiltere imparatorluğu onlara karşı bir şey yapamıyor. Tebaasında bir tek kişinin hapse atılmasını savaş sebebi saban İngiltere, bugün, İngiliz askerlerinin öldürülmesine, İngiliz subaylarının kaçırılıp dayak atılarak horlanmasına, masum İngiliz çavuşlarının Yahudiler tarafından canice asılmasına ses çıkaramıyor.

Bütün bunların en önemli sebebi Arapların ve Yahudilerin olağanüstü kuvvetli olmasıdır. Bu kuvvet maddi değil, manevidir, Yani ülkü kuvvetidir.

Kızılelma ülküsüne ‘tehlikeli maceracılık’ diyenler, bugünkü Araplar ile Yahudilere bakıp düşünmelidirler. Hele Yahudiler 2000 yıl önce kaybettikleri vatanlarını yeniden ele geçirmek ve yalnız kitaplarda kalmış olan İbrani dilini diriltip bir konuşma dili haline getirmek uğrundaki çalışmaları ile dünyaya örnek olmuşlardır.

Biz ise bir yandan ‘bir Türk dünyaya bedeldir’ vecizesine inanmış görünürken, bir yandan da kendimizi baltalayıp inkar ettik. Büyüklükten korktuk. Küçüklüğü benimsedik ve milli ülkü ile delilik diye alay ettik. Güvenlik Konseyindeki seçimler göstermiştir ki, kimseden bir şey istememek, herkesle hoş geçinmek, ittifaklar yapmak bir millete itibar sağlamıyor. Kızılelma ülküsünü bir delilik sayacaksak, büyüklükten değil, yaşamaktan da vazgeçmeliyiz. ‘Tarihi görevini yapmış ve artık ölmeye yüz tutmuş bir topluluk’ olmayı kabul etmeliyiz. Eski Asurlular, Hititler, Romalılar gibi haritadan silinmeye razı olmalıyız. Buna razı değilsek milli ülkünün peşine düşmeliyiz ve demiryolu yapmakla birkaç fabrika kurmayı ülkü diye göstermek gafletinden çekinmeliyiz.

ülküler için ‘maddi faydası nedir?’, ‘uygulanabilir mi?’ diye düşünmek doğru değildir. Hiçbir inanç riyazi mantığa vurulmaz. Tanrı’nın varlığı da riyazi metod ile isbat edilememiştir. Fakat yüz milyonlarca insan ona inanmakta ve bu inançtan güç almaktadır. ülküler de böyledir.

Kızılelma ülküsünün gerisinde savaşlar ve büyük sıkıntılar görüp de korkanlar bulunabilir. Kendi rahatı ve keyfi kaçmasın diye insanlık davası (!) güdenler, ülküyü inkar edenler her zaman, her yerde çıkabilir. Fakat bir milletin içinde büyük bir çoğunluk milli ülküye inandıktan sonra, geri kalanlar da ister istemez bu milli akıntıya uymaya mecburdurlar. Bizim için önemli olan, dost kılıklı yabancıların milli ülküyü güya milli çıkar adına baltalamasının önüne geçmektir.

Bir topluluktan ortak ülküyü kaldırın, insanların hayvanlaştığını görürsünüz. Ortak düşüncesi olmayan toplulukta, herkes, yalnız kendi çıkar ve zevkini düşünür. Böyle bir toplulukta fedakarlık, saygı, nezaket kalmaz. Bencillik, kabalık, rüşvet, iltimas ve namussuzluğun türküsü alır yürür. Maddileşmiş bir insan vatan için ölür mü? Bencil bir insan muhtaçlara yardım eder mi? Milletine inanmayan bir adam yabancı ile işbirliği yapmaz mı? Erdemi gülünç bulan birisi çalıp çırpmaz mı? Kızılelma, Türk milletinin manevi besinidir. Açlar yiyecek bulamadıkları zaman nasıl faydasız, zararlı, hatta zehirli nesneleri yerlerse; Türk milleti de ‘Kızılelma’ kendisine yasak edildiği için marksizm ve kozmopolitizm gibi zararlı ve zehirli fikirlere el uzatıyor.

Fakat artık bu devir kapanmıştır. Gittikçe uyanan milli şuur karşısında gafiller ve hainler, Türk milletini daha çok aldatamayacaklardır. Kızılelmanın yolunu kapatamayacaklardır.

Ziya Gökalp’ın mısraları düsturumuz olacaktır:

Demez taş, kaya Yürürüz yaya… Türküz, gideriz Kızılelmaya.
Kızılelma, 1.sayı, 31 Ekim 1947


« Previous PageNext Page »