Voting not out of love for Ali, but out of hatred for Muawiyah! How should Hüseyin Çelik's words be evaluated?

Ali's caliphate had not yet completed its first year when a great war began on the Plain of Siffin between the fronts of Ali and Muawiyah. The earth and sky were shaking from the sound of swords; the plain was filled not with cool waters, but with the flowing blood of Muslims. According to what we learn from historical records, seventy thousand people lost their lives in those days; the peace the Ummah awaited never arrived.

Since those days, neither Ali nor Muawiyah has been forgotten. How one is remembered or claimed is also somewhat related to the life, perspective, and religious understanding of the person remembering. While the information regarding historical facts may be open to debate, who looks at history with which eyes, who they are in alliance with, and what kind of class-based life they lead is not open to debate. For we know the ink that fills the pen before the words that fall on the paper.

Hüseyin Çelik, one of the former ministers and spokespersons of the AKP, is also among those who have not forgotten Ali and Muawiyah. Because in a recent interview, while interpreting the elections and criticizing the point his party has reached and its policies, he said: “People did not vote out of love for Ali, but out of hatred for Muawiyah.”

The former minister was implicitly saying that his party had become Muawiyah-like in some respects, and that the public showed their reaction to this situation by voting for the CHP. “A voter base has emerged that is angry at the AK Party, wants to punish the AK Party in one way or another, wants to teach the AK Party a lesson, and wants to show the AK Party a yellow card, and such a result was obtained,” said Çelik; the target of his words was quite clear.

What was the love for Ali, what did it mean, had there been those who acted out of love for Ali historically, and what was their end? These questions will also open the door to important discussions in their own right. Where does Çelik stand here, for example; what does he say about Muawiyah, how does he view Ali? As I stated above, the answer to these questions cannot be given independently of the ideological or faith-based groups one belongs to. You cannot walk hand in hand with the tyrants of the day and defend the rights of the oppressed, nor can you take a place on the side of capital and protect the rights of labor. Therefore, leaving aside Çelik's statement regarding Ali, the political line he occupies will constitute an answer to the questions we asked above.

Let us continue with Hüseyin Çelik, if you wish.

You may remember that in the days when the sect was openly terrorizing the public as a “parallel state,” Çelik was giving responses to the effect of, “Only crows would laugh at this talk of staffing.” Yet, the dangerous position the aforementioned sect was trying to acquire within the state was confirmed by the National Security Council (MGK) decisions, which his own government had also signed. It was confirmed by the indictment signed by Nurettin Soyer back in the eighties. It was confirmed by so many publications, most notably the book titled *The Mole* (Köstebek) written by Necip Hablemitoğlu. However, he made not these facts, but the chorus of laughter that included the crows, speak.

“The Service Movement (Hizmet Cemaati) under the spiritual leadership of the Hodja Efendi,” Çelik was saying, “is a movement of faith, morality, and education.” Therefore, it was not the sect's desire to seize institutions, to staff the army and police, to make dozens of people suffer, and even to attempt a coup in the middle of the night. In Çelik's words, these were not things to be expected from a “moral movement.” Yet they did all of it; they presented news like war bulletins, slandered in their newspapers with front-page headlines, sent innocent and oppressed people to dungeons like concentration camps, slaughtered the law, and used their pens like guillotines.

As can be seen, the sect that Çelik showered with praise was not acting like a “moral movement” at all in those days; the facts were as clear as day for those who wanted to see. However, Çelik had chosen not to see. What did he think after July 15? Çelik was also asked about his statement that was etched in memories with the “crows.” He first said, “I said that based on the data of that day.” Then he continued his words by saying, “I believe today that some officials who were members or sympathizers of the Fethullah Gülen sect experienced a power intoxication after reaching certain levels, and they attempted to design politics and the state by taking the power of the community they were in behind them.” Well, despite all the information, documents, and evidence, why had he not been able to see these facts in the past? If we say it in his own words, we do not know if he supported the sect out of love for Ali or if hatred for Muawiyah made him do it. However, even today, Çelik must answer this question. Because there must be a separate answer for not seeing the truth when the light of reality is so blinding.

Since we started with Muawiyah and Ali, let us end with their sons. As is known, Hussein and his companions were massacred by Yazid's forces in the desert of Karbala. But just before this, while advancing towards Kufa, they encountered the poet Farazdaq. The poet warned Hussein there and said to him: “Do not trust the people of Kufa! Their tongues speak of Ali, but their eyes look to Muawiyah.” Upon hearing Hüseyin Çelik's words regarding the current agenda, one could not help but recall what the poet said. Because I think Farazdaq's words are a call not only to that day but to the years ahead. One should not be deceived by those tongues and eyes, most of all.