Open support for Numan Kurtulmuş from Ahmet Hakan: What is going on? Is this a holy text? Is it divine revelation?

Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş has targeted Article 3 of the Constitution, which is among the first four articles that cannot be amended or proposed for amendment.

After stating that the phrase 'the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation' should be changed, saying, "The state does not have a territory. The state does not have a nation. This text should be expressed as 'the indivisible integrity of the nation with its state and territory'," Numan Kurtulmuş later backtracked, saying, "There is no discussion regarding the first 4 articles of the Constitution. To make it seem as if there is a debate regarding Article 3 is, to put it mildly, an injustice and a perception operation."

Hürriyet Editor-in-Chief Ahmet Hakan, who covered these statements in his column today, assessed the situation by saying, "Why is he doing this? He is doing it for the benefit of the nation."

"Looking at the reactions, the approaches, and the noise being made... I thought Numan Kurtulmuş had officially and openly declared war on the first four articles of the Constitution. I immediately opened and looked at Numan Kurtulmuş's words. There is nothing. No declaration of war or anything of the sort. There is no targeting either. So what is there? This: There is a proposal to express the same phrase in a different way." 

Ahmet Hakan wrote, "Kurtulmuş also grounds why he is doing this quite clearly. In Article 3 of the Constitution, it says, 'The state is an indivisible whole with its territory and nation.' Numan Kurtulmuş is proposing the phrase 'The nation is a whole with its state and territory' instead of this," and continued as follows:

"First, let's state the following: Numan Kurtulmuş has no objection to indivisibility. He has no objection to integrity. He has no objection to the 'state / nation / territory' triad. In other words, Kurtulmuş is not proposing anything that would disrupt or change the purpose or function of the third article of the Constitution, which 'cannot be proposed for amendment.' He is protecting indivisibility; he is protecting integrity." 

He is merely attempting a change in phrasing that focuses on the 'nation' rather than just the 'state.' Why is he doing this? He is doing it for the benefit of the nation. He says: 'The state is a mechanism that should exist for the nation. The state does not have a nation. The nation has a state. If the third article of the Constitution were expressed as 'The nation is an indivisible whole with its state and territory'... the Constitution would turn into a slightly more nation-oriented constitution.'"

"WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? IS THIS A SACRED TEXT? IS IT DIVINE REVELATION?"

Arguing that the reactions were unwarranted by saying, 'Well, isn't he right, my brother?', Ahmet Hakan concluded his article, in which he used the expressions, 'Should we not have a constitution with a nation-oriented perspective rather than a state-oriented one? Should such a thought not even be expressed? Is this not a subject worth discussing? What is this lynching? What is this attack?', as follows:

'Okay. The first four articles of the Constitution, of course, should not be changed, must not be changed. But can there not even be a tiny change in wording in the first four articles that does not create any deviation from the purpose and function? What is going on here? Is this a sacred text? Is it divine revelation? Is the door of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) tightly shut?'