Is It Necessary to Be Left-Wing and Atheist to Be an Environmentalist?

 

     We've all witnessed, at one point or another, a protest staged by one or more members of that environmental outfit known as "Greenpeace." Chaining themselves to some bridge as part of a campaign, crashing high-profile gatherings and turning them into a circus, even getting verbally and physically confrontational with whoever or whatever they've decided to protest — these are just a few examples of what can only be described as pretty aggressive behavior. So what's the point? The point is perfectly innocent and pure: protect the environment!

     "Environmentalism," in its modern sense, is one of the products — natural or manufactured, you decide — of the Industrial Revolution and the age of industrialization that followed. In the Western world of the 1970s, reeling from what was then the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, environmentalism was one of several rising currents that surfaced through various channels: anti-Vietnam War sentiment, the wave of dissident youth movements sweeping the globe, and so on. The movement took on many different forms and grew increasingly political over time. The issues environmentalists made their bread and butter were: the rapid pollution of nature, the steady depletion of resources, the brutal slaughter of certain animals — particularly endangered ones — for their fur or body parts, population growth, nuclear proliferation fueled by the Cold War, and ostensibly, raising public awareness about all of the above. Also in the '70s, a group of volunteers who would come to be known as Greenpeace started making a name for themselves and setting the agenda through their protest activities. Then in the '80s, the phrases "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" began sprouting up — phrases we now can't seem to escape no matter where we turn.

     The environmentalist wave kept growing, and the capitalist West wasted no time exporting it to the rest of the world. Sentences dripping with doom-and-gloom prophecy and cranked-up agitation — "after the year 2000 we're toast," "there'll be water wars by such-and-such year," "we need to get the pandas to mate," "hurry up I can't breathe" — seeped into everyday life. Everyone was being called to step up, everyone had to do their part! Sure, fine — but who exactly stripped nature bare and left it in this state in the first place? The Africans hacking away at each other with machetes and dying of starvation? The Middle East, effectively writing a dissertation on how not to develop under the thumb of Western puppet regimes? The rest of the world just barely beginning to see the light of day? No! The culprit is none other than the Postmodern West — which holds a professorship in ruthless exploitation of human labor, plundering anyone outside its club, consuming at a breakneck pace, and generally knocking the world off its axis. Could it be any other way? But credit where credit is due: these people have a slick operation that keeps the whole world watching, slack-jawed, like a crowd gaping at a tightrope walker. Trash the planet, drain the water, turn the earth inside out — then stir up the left-wing and atheist groups who are so strung out they can barely see straight, market them to the world with a fresh coat of paint that says "look, these are our critics, they're not working for our interests, they're cursing us out — you should stand behind them," launder your sins by setting up massive research institutions studying global warming and climate change, deploy Greenpeace across the developing world, keep those countries' public opinion tied up with these and similar "not-in-my-backyard" type organizations, have them protest nonstop, make sure those countries regret even thinking about building a nuclear plant, work the idealistic youth as unpaid volunteers who think they're fighting for a noble cause.

     There are a few things about environmentalist groups that really stand out. For instance: solutions that are anything but rational — utopian, theoretical, detached from reality. Endless disaster scenarios. An organizational style that leans hard left and seems less concerned with getting to the root of the problem than with chasing surface-level fixes. And a membership that looks less like a cross-section of working, functional adults and more like a crew stacked with girls — though apparently well-equipped to squeeze a few dollars out of the next naive young man who wanders by. That said, there are also the genuine environmentalists — the ones who've retreated to a mountain or a village, who do organic farming and ride bikes, who get by on a single pair of clothes and shoes, who've sworn off money, who never set foot in a city or a crowded settlement again. In short, the ones who've actually minimized their carbon footprint. But they're the exception, not the rule. The environmentalist friends out there burning gas to "raise awareness" and attend rallies, blasting the AC in the summer heat, rocking their Nikes and clutching their iPhones while calling themselves humanists — or better yet, "animalists" — don't exactly come across as the most sincere.

     So, does being an environmentalist — that is, being someone who genuinely cares about nature more than most — require fitting the profile described above? Of course not. Being a conscious Muslim is more than enough to qualify as an "environmentalist" (granted, the examples we see in practice aren't particularly inspiring — but that's a separate conversation). A Muslim, first and foremost, does not waste. And without wasting, they and everything around them stays clean. Not wasting — being frugal, economical, and using only what one needs — is a cornerstone for anyone who claims to care about nature and the future. Study after study, year after year, confirms this. Waste and extravagance in the Western world (and unfortunately, among those of us with an eager habit of imitation) are at staggering levels. If we tackled just this one issue alone, the fight would come cheap and the gains would be enormous. Greening spaces, planting and tending trees, using resources wisely and fairly, showing compassion to animals both used and untouched, protecting the ecosystem around us — these are principles that count squarely as "environmentalism" and "protecting the environment," and they are praised across countless hadith and narrations. A Muslim who takes their faith seriously does not disrupt the delicate balances of nature, takes only what they need, and does their best to repair whatever damage has been done.

So — no need for doom-mongering, no need to join some foreign-backed organization or funnel money into it. Being a frugal, faith-conscious Muslim with a low carbon footprint is quite enough!

The Difficulties Muslims Face in the West: Clothing and Loudspeakers

 

     The 20th and 21st-century wave of Islam penetrating Europe—perhaps the third major wave—differs in many respects from the Andalusian and Ottoman waves. The most significant difference is that during the first two waves, Islamic civilization was far superior to the West in science, morality, prosperity, and every indicator of development. The third wave, however, is far removed from its predecessors; it is self-conscious, needy, and bowed, for it is no longer dominant, superior, or a guide. While the first two waves were, so to speak, the "giving hand," the last wave is the "receiving hand"—the one that stoops. There are, of course, many reasons for this.

     Firstly, the Industrial Revolution and the preceding Enlightenment in the West caused almost all of science, technology, and their subsequent discoveries to shift from the East (or more accurately, from Islamic Civilization) to Europe (or rather, to the Secular West, which cast the "burden of Christianity" off its back and confined religion to specific days and rituals, thereby allowing itself to breathe and progress). While Europe industrialized rapidly, it simultaneously pushed back the once-legendary Islamic Civilization—both materially and spiritually—turning it into a "bird with broken wings." As a long-term result, the hope of escaping the suffocating and soul-crushing tyranny of oppressive dictatorial regimes, finding better job opportunities, or living in a country that respects human rights pushed millions of people from the Middle East, Anatolia, and North Africa toward Europe and North America.

The Evolution of Appearance and the "Sunnah al-Zawaid"

     The developing industry and the resulting working and managerial classes in Europe and North America brought about serious changes in attire, as they did in everything else. From the early 20th century, men took on a brand-new look, combining jackets, trousers, shirts, and ties with the practice of shaving—or at least shortening and neatening—the mustache and beard. Over time, the mustache-beard duo became even shorter, and today, it has predominantly shifted toward a clean-shaven look.

     In contrast, the attire of Muslims coming to the West from the Middle East and North Africa was very different. Besides the influence of climate and living conditions, the fundamental criterion for Muslims was, of course, the dress style of our beloved Prophet. The elements used to describe clothing during the Asr al-Saadah (The Age of Bliss) for men were generally: the turban, the cloak (jubbah), the long robe (antari), and the beard. However, this style of dress was not unique to Muslims; it was part of the ongoing customs of the Arabs. Based on these principles, the vast majority of Sunni sources categorize objects related to clothing not as Sunnah al-Huda (essential practices that characterize Islam as a religion), but as Sunnat-i Zevaid—practices that take shape according to the customs and location one lives in. In other words, while emphasizing that following the Prophet’s habits regarding his time and place is highly rewarding and beneficial, it is stated that not performing them due to legitimate excuses permitted by Islam does not result in sin or even a "makruh" (disliked) status.

The Rise of Salafism and the "Clash of Forms"

     There have, of course, been different views on this. Specifically, Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwa on the prohibition of shaving the beard separated his Wahhabi and Salafi followers from the general Sunni consensus regarding attire. For Salafis, the beard (even if only a millimeter long) is indispensable. If the opportunity arises, the turban (or at least a skullcap) and, if possible, the cloak (or long robe) follow.

     Regrettably, the "third wave" flocking to the West grew in parallel with the invasion of the Islamic world by Salafism. Muslim youths attempting to "land a spot" in Europe and North America were enamored with Salafism due to many factors (especially the ailment of accusing Sufi-infused Sunni Islam of "passivity"). More interestingly, Western youths who connected with Islam—particularly through contact with these groups —adopted these zawaid sunnahs (which are not even hallmarks of the faith) as "must-haves." They began practicing Islam in this way, driven by both the sharpness of new-found zeal and the influence of the Salafi-leaning Muslims they encountered. Consequently, a mass of bearded, turbaned, and cloaked individuals suddenly stood before the shaven, shirted, and tied Westerners.

     It did not take long for Westerners to notice the resemblance between this bearded, turbaned community and those on the other side of the world who spread terror, killed innocents without blinking, and became suicide bombers without hesitation. When these individuals entered their own lands on a sunny September morning, things spiraled out of control. This group, which Westerners initially met with some hesitation and prejudice, became synonymous in their eyes with those who disregard human rights, or more painfully, with the concept of "terrorist."

Modern Tensions and the Issue of Sound

     The tension, which has increased daily since the early 2000s, has led both sides to sharpen their stances and grow more rigid. Nowadays, Muslims must live together under great difficulties, sanctions, and a simmering, internal anger.

     Turkey, too, is essentially considered "Western" in this regard. During the final years of the Ottoman Empire and especially the early years of the Republic, the concept of "Westernization" was imposed on society from the top down as a "formality" rather than content. Over time, especially with rapid urbanization and industrialization, these impositions turned into "neighborhood pressure" (social policing), reaching levels almost identical to the West today.

     Another issue in the West is the sound and loudspeaker systems in the increasingly numerous mosques. With the advancement of technology after the second half of the 20th century, the Adhan (call to prayer) began to be announced via loudspeakers—devices that turn the voice metallic and amplify it—whether in Islamic lands or elsewhere. It has reached a point where, if a muezzin were to recite the Adhan with a natural voice (true to its original form) or an imam were to lead prayer without a loudspeaker, they would face everything from complaints to exile. While no one (at least outwardly) objects to this in Islamic lands, attempting it on Western soil ignites a fuse of anger and hatred similar to the aforementioned issues. For instance, the tragic events in Sofia were rooted in the sound projected outside from mosques via loudspeakers.

Conclusion

     Look at the issues caused by so much tension, hatred, anger, and loss of energy (though it would be wrong to attribute everything to these factors alone)? It stems from an obsession with performing zawaid sunnahs—which carry no accountability if omitted—and the "mukabbir al-sawt" (loudspeakers), which are not part of worship but were integrated into it later. If young people gave up the fitna (which literally means "putting Muslims in a difficult position") of shoving turbans, beards, and cloaks in people's faces, and if the Adhan were recited with a natural voice in mosques, a large portion of the friction and tension tied to "formalism" would vanish—or at least diminish until another reason is found.

     Of course, at this stage, hoping for the implementation of these changes and a turn for the better would be more of a utopian naivety than realism!

A Nation That Resigned from High Values; THE TURKS

 

     Once upon a time, there was a nation possessed of lofty virtue, high morality, and exalted values! A nation that embraced Islam—the final religion—with its entire being; that willingly gave its life so that the faith might spread everywhere and that even one more soul might be saved; that, while it could have lain in a warm bed, voluntarily renounced its comfort and, sword in hand, challenged cruel, blood-thirsty dictators; a nation that made the West tremble! The other name for nobility, mercy, justice, compassion, and protecting the oppressed—those who smiled at death without hesitation for the sake of their values—was the Turk! The other name for raising one’s voice against injustice at the far end of the world, for striving to eliminate darkness and corruption, was the Turk! For a thousand years, when “jihad” was mentioned, the first thing that came to mind was the Turk!

     So, what happened? How did these Turks—who for years marched on campaigns across Europe, Africa, and Asia under the command of their khan and generals for the exaltation of the word of Allah, and who in times of peace thought not only of humans but even of the animals on the mountains, showing them mercy and feeding them—become corrupted, eroded, unrecognizable? How did the Turks, once the hope and savior of the oppressed, fall into a state devoid of self-confidence, abased and humiliated? How did the most base individuals come to rule over this nation?

     Yes, Kadir Mısıroğlu was right from head to toe; regarding our recent history, what he said lacked nothing and contained no excess. Yet there is a major detail that deserves greater emphasis: this nation accepted Islam of its own free will and planted its banner on the farthest bastions without ever letting it fall—but unfortunately, again of its own free will, it abandoned Islam and turned its back on this blessing.

     If we are to explain, very simply—even as a formula—why the Turks (of course, it would be wrong to understand this word strictly as a race; it is rather the general name of a shared geography and history) became corrupted, it suffices to cite one verse: the 7th verse of Surah Ibrahim. Its meaning is roughly this: “If you are grateful for My blessings, I will increase them; but if you fail to appreciate them and disdain them, I will take them away from you and inflict a severe punishment.” And related to this is the hadith recorded by al-Bazzar: “When sins are committed and the righteous remain silent, all of them are destroyed.”

     Now, from this perspective, let us look at the final periods of the Ottoman State. Having experienced its era of rise, having become the most magnificent power of its time and made the world tremble, this superpower began—by the rule that “every perfection has its decline”—to grow heavy, sluggish, and to stumble. It was no easy matter: we are speaking of a vast structure ruling from the deserts of Africa to the heart of Europe. If one of the gears that kept this structure functioning failed, if one became lazy, if one fell into incompetent hands, decay would inevitably begin somewhere. And when one considers that European states—founded on plunder, exploitation, enslavement, and imperialism—made advances in science and technology after confining Christianity, which they saw as a shackle, to certain days and events, matters became even more difficult.

     Here, the factors that essentially brought the once-standard-bearer of Islam, the Ottoman State, to its knees began to emerge: irreligion among the educated, ignorance among the uneducated, and consequently a dearth of capable men. Our young people who went to the West for education, seeing that technical progress developed in parallel with the near-complete removal of religion from personal and social life, began to grow up deprived of faith and spirituality—indeed, unfortunately, even hostile to it. Those who returned home with higher education entered into a race to belittle their own lands and to claim that religion hindered science and knowledge. Through various movements, they launched attacks on every institution related to religion—even the Caliph.

     In these lands, within the state they established with their own hands and labor, there have been khagans who were martyred, deposed, and exiled. Sultan Abdulaziz was martyred by those whose hands were stained by the suicide scenario they orchestrated, and there was no reaction from the public. Abdulhamid II was dethroned by the Unionists, and not a sound was heard from the people who had lived a prosperous life for 30 years. Sultan Vahideddin, due to the ugly pressures from Ankara, left the homeland his ancestors had founded, and no opposing voice came from anyone!

     The situation grew even more grave when foreign powers, seizing the opportunity of Ottoman weakness, easily manipulated these young minds—programmed to despise the shell from which they had emerged—for their own aims. Turkish youths who proudly registered in Masonic lodges with pomp and ceremony attempted, with washed brains, to become the new arrogant shapers of the Ottoman state. As a result, hostility toward Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah—the foundational creed of the empire—gained popularity. Those who strayed from the “middle path” found themselves in the hopeless pits of heterodoxy. Sadly, among this group were even those called “religious scholars.”

     When the irreligion and deviance among the educated were combined with the ignorance and inability of the uneducated to properly analyze events, it was inevitable that the turbulent period would not last long. In short, not only did a faction turn its back on the blessing of Islam and regard the Ottoman sultans as enemies, but endless attacks from external forces as well ultimately brought down the last guardian of Islam and the final refuge of Muslims. As the late Islamic scholar Abd al-Hakim Arwasi put it: “The Turks accepted Islam of their own free will and carried its banner; and of their own free will, they distanced themselves from Islam.”

     Thus the first promise of the second part of the aforementioned verse was fulfilled: Allah took away His blessing from those who did not appreciate it. Now the harsher, more admonitory, more painful second promise would be realized: “…I will inflict a severe punishment.” The period following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was precisely the manifestation of this. Feet became heads, and heads became feet. The dearth of capable men took full control.

     First, everything associated with the Ottomans and their legacy was vilified and rejected. The noble and praised descendants of a lineage that had served Islam for 600 years—who for its sake could even sacrifice their own brothers—were exiled. Many died in exile, penniless. Ottoman sultans were portrayed as evil, sexually perverse, self-interested, immoral, blood-sucking figures.

     The next stage was even more painful. All ties between the Turks and Islam were systematically severed. Allah's religion, His Book, and His Prophet were openly mocked. Even the institution established under the name “Directorate of Religious Affairs” strove to distort Islam. With slogans such as “Perform your worship in pure Turkish,” translations and invented equivalents were introduced to make people forget the Qur’an and the adhan. The Islamic script was abolished under various pretexts, and a unique civilization, culture, and heritage formed over centuries was confined to the shallowness of what was called the Latin alphabet. Those accustomed to the Majallah were confined to an adapted “civil” code borrowed from a Swiss canton. Those who had once rallied with the hope of waging jihad against “hatted” non-Muslims forced that same hat upon their own people. Those who refused to wear it and who protested were subjected to the harshest punishments. Not only men—note this—even women who opposed the Hat Law suffered its consequences. Cinema, theater, music, and all instruments of propaganda mocked Muslims, portraying them as “low,” “spider-like and backward,” “primitive.”

     A single-party regime was established—adorned with the splendid makeup called “democracy,” yet as oppressive as Soviet communism and as racist as Hitler’s Germany. In the name of reviving the Turkish language, absurd words were invented. Over 60,000 graves were opened and skulls measured, to see whether the person buried there was truly "Turkish.” Through mobile tribunals known as the Independence Courts, which hanged first and judged later, thousands of innocents were executed. Not Joseph, Adolf, or Mao—but men named “Ali”—assumed the role of executioners on the basis of baseless and trivial pretexts.

     It is almost unbelievable… Can you see the developments that occurred within just ten or fifteen years? How could such a deep-rooted transformation happen in such a short time within a given geography? How did it become forbidden, in a land once synonymous with Islam, to provide religious education, to uphold sacred values, or to display any action or outward sign associated with Islam? The answer is simple. Let us recall the formula:

     Surah Ibrahim, verse 7: “If you are grateful for My blessings and use them as I have commanded, I will increase them. But if you do not appreciate them and disdain them, I will take them away and inflict a severe punishment.”