Mr. Adnan Oktar comments about Mr. Daniel Pipes' response

Excerpt from Mr. Adnan Oktar’s Live Conversation on A9 TV dated May 27th , 2013 


Adnan Oktar: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel Pipes. His name is beautiful, it is a Prophet's name. The name of the Prophet Daniel (pbuh). Mr. Daniel Pipes. He is in the States, right?

Audience: Yes.

Adnan Oktar: Yes.. He responded to my writing. What does he say? [From Daniel Pipes' response:] Mr. Oktar and I agree on wishing to see peace in Syria. I also appreciate his compilation of passages about peace in the Bible and the Koran. Given the reality of two immoral, cruel, and brutal forces contending for power in Syria, one must think strategically, not piously. Mr Oktar's insistence on reducing the clash of forces in Syria to rights and wrongs has little utility when both sides are repugnant. We must think through what a victory by the Assad regime or by the rebels would mean for Syrians and the rest of the world; and then, I suggest, let's compare those scenarios with the prospect of the two sides continuing to decimate the other. I find that last option less awful than the others. For Mr. Oktar to persuade me otherwise, he needs to offer more than scriptural citations. Is Daniel not religious?

Audience: No, he is not.

Adnan Oktar: Well, that is the reason then. Yes..  The matter would end if believers ruled the world. It would end in a moment. There would be no problem with Israel, for example. There would be no problem in Palestine, there will be no problem with America. But with true believers, no radicals. Now here, Mr. Pipes' error is this: he is saying, "Given the reality of two immoral, cruel, and brutal forces…" Now there is some truth to this. I do not deny it. I am not saying the opposition are all virtuous and the other side immoral. There is immorality on both sides. And both sides are partly in the right. But both sides are in a dead-end. Both sides are on the wrong path. I do not support any side. He has misunderstood that. That is not the case. Either I could not explain or he did not understand. I know the opposition consists of radicals. One can see that from their language and methods and everything. I know the other side is also very cruel and brutal. I say the matter will be resolved with the system of the Mahdi, by right-thinking, sensible people coming together. What I say is that a rational leader, a loving leader, needs to be chosen to bring them all to the table on conditions of peace, love and friendship, to bring about agreement on the fine basis of science, art and democracy, to establish peace and improve the environment. I am not saying it will all be milk and honey if the opposition takes over.  America has power, Turkey has power and Iran has power as well. They should choose a lenient, rational person, not a whole team. If you have a team then you get conflict. One person; a reasonable, loving person with no lust for worldly things. Reaching a fine agreement that everyone would be content with, under his arbitration. This is the whole matter.

[From Daniel Pipes' response:] Adnan Oktar [says:] "The AKP espouses democracy and human rights and love… It is wrong to mention the AKP in the same breath as them [referring to radical groups]. … if the AKP mentality were in charge in Damascus the place would have become one of milk and honey." As a lawful Islamist himself, Mr. Oktar naturally dislikes my lumping Turkey's Erdoğan in with and Iran's Khamenei, then calling them two versions of the same radical utopian movement. And while I do not doubt that the AKP in Damascus would do a far better job of governance than the Assads, I also have no doubt about it deploying a satellite Syrian state against the West.

Now, there is a perspective failure here. I am still saying the same thing. I am not saying the AKP would resolve the problem from the roots, I am saying it will be resolved with the system of the Mahdi, with Moshiach. But if the AKP were in charge in Damascus, in Syria, there would clearly be a more pacificatory, reconciliatory and mild air. A person who can comfortably be an addressee to the European people. Mr. Erdogan is someone one can talk to. He is a person one can get along with. He goes to Obama and Obama embraces him. They become friends. He is given a military welcome. If he thought he was abnormal, he would not have met with him obviously. That means he is an acceptable person; that means he is a person who can be easily addressed to; so he shows him that kindness and respect. That is what I am saying. But I am not saying all could be resolved with the AKP. I say all will be resolved with the system of the Mahdi.

[From Daniel Pipes' response:] Adnan Oktar [says:] "Allah commands in Torah to make peace between fighting sides" "a Jewish person … should be obeying the command of Allah". "You should speak as a Jew and as a believer in Allah"; He says that I am saying this to Daniel. "Almighty Allah says in the Torah that Moshiach will triumph, not with force, in other words not with tanks and guns, but with the power of Allah." These eccentric formulations can be read two contrary ways:

Why would these statements be eccentric? You are a Jew. You were taught with the Torah. Ceremonies were performed involving you when you were small, weren't they? You read the Torah. You are a child of the Torah, a man of the Torah. I do not understand why you think I am saying something new, something surprising to you.

[From Daniel Pipes' response:] In keeping with the equivalence of "God" in English and "Allah" in Arabic, Mr. Oktar is just using an Arabic word in Turkish, which his aide keeps in translating to English. His formulations may sound odd but he's not saying anything unusual.

How can what the Torah says be odd, or something the Gospel says, or how can what the Koran says be odd? Why should peace and love be odd? Why should that be surprising? In addition, I do not tell them to translate the word as "Allah." One should say "God", because they call Him "Lord." People may not understand the word Allah. But everyone understands the word "God," Arabs, Circassians, Turks and everyone would understand. They do not use the name of God as Allah. Jews do not say "Allah" either.

[From Daniel Pipes' response:] "By applying the Muslim name for God to Jews and Judaism, he is both reminding Muslim listeners that Islam claims to be the original religion and asserting its superiority."

As clarified by the command of the Koran, Islam is also the religion brought by the Prophet Abraham (pbuh). The distinguishing feature of Islam is that it recognizes that God is One, believes in heaven and hell, believes in the hereafter, believes in the angels and all the prophets. Anyone who does this is a Muslim. Someone who does not is not a Muslim. There is nothing hard to understand in that. The Torah and the Gospel and the Koran all say the same.

I do not say we will force all Christians to become Muslims. Let Christians speak of Christianity, Muslims of Islam and Jews of Judaism. Let everyone follow whatever faith he chooses. If a Christian wishes to remain in his faith, I would be proud of, I'd respect that. If a Jew wants to remain in his faith, I respect that. I would never say; we are superior, you are inferior. I respect their faiths. But I would like them to be Muslims. A Christian may want me to be a Christian. I respect that, too. Muslims therefore have no spirit of disparaging or despising others. After all, I may go to paradise or to hell, I do not know, so how can I make claim to superiority? I am a servant of God. A Christian may say "La ilaha illa Allah Muhammad ar-Rasulullah." He obeys the Gospel at the same time and properly follows the Prophet Jesus and may go to paradise. But you might see a person who says that he is a Muslim and who prays 5 times a day go to hell; as he has gone astray, insincere and is hypocritical.

But I still regard Mr. Pipes' language as positive. Although he is far removed from Judaism, even though he, as a Jew, is far removed from Judaism his proximity to love and good intentions are good. But let me say I do not support anyone who spreads bloodshed and terror in Syria. There is nothing I am saying is good in Syria. I support only those people who want peace and love. I just think that they will be saved through the Mahdi, Moshiach, and Jesus Christ.


2013-05-31 03:20:57

Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. -