Military occupations, the wasting of resources, unequal income distribution, the growing young population, widespread unemployment, the identity crisis and feelings of inferiority vis-à-vis the West are all signs that the Muslim world needs to undergo a drastic change. But when it comes to questions of how this change will happen and which actors will ensure change, people become confused. Change is a sociological concept. But just because it is a sociological concept does not mean it is completely “legitimate.” Just as with any concept, change is only legitimate and becomes meaningful in view of the field of science it is being used for and the paradigm that determines its meaning. Today for many people the meaning of change recalls the political and ideological content devised by Western social scientists. The content of the concept of change which has been set out by Westerners has been one of the most important factors that has cast doubt on its legitimacy and necessity in wide segments of society. It is one thing for a society to recognize its own weaknesses and want to get rid of them on its own, and another for someone from the outside to indoctrinate certain values and offer it a transformation project. There is a general sentiment in the Muslim public that “if the West is imposing transformation projects on us, then these projects are more concerned with ensuring the continuation of the West's prosperity and its physical and military superiority than with our own interests.” It is for this reason that reforms and transformation projects in Turkey and in the Muslim world are not generally based on democratic values or civilian negotiations but instead come to the agenda as the ideas and packages of a certain ruling power elite group or bureaucrat. Any transformation project that is not open to democratic negotiations and does not have wide social support is bound to fail. This is one of the reasons why transformation projects in the Muslim world are not successful enough.
In line with the development of capitalism, some European scientists absolutize and even “fetishize” change so much that they forget the main purpose of the change. An Arab poet once said, “The only thing that doesn't change is change itself.” But change must have a meaning. If you substitute its spiritual, cosmic, social and moral dimensions with modernism based on glorifying the absolute material world and concepts such as “growth,” “development,” “advancement” and “improvement,” seeking to shape the international order in a way that will solely benefit the West, then you will deviate from the original and legitimate purpose of change.
With the assumption that history always follows a linear line, these concepts are used against non-Western societies. This shows that under the protective wings of social scientists change is turned into a type of policy and ideology. As long as change is not absolutized, it is historical, social and natural. The phenomenon of change is continuous as long as it is connected to the cosmic order. While change is natural and continuous, if it is being implemented as a coercive factor based on “external reasons” (endogenous) on a society that exists with a certain cultural model, then it will evolve into a mechanical intervention; the society subject to change will be minimized into an ordinary object, made to crumble from within and all defense and reproductive mechanisms will rendered inoperative. The sociological intervention the Muslim world has been subject to is this kind of an external, coercive, oppressive and mechanical procedure.
If a society is allowed to continue its historical journey along its natural course then, it will change using its own internal dynamics. This is a natural change that is based not on external factors but on “internal reasons” (exogenous). According to ideas inculcated by Euro-centrist social scientists, non-Western cultures and societies within these cultures cannot change with their internal dynamics because of their static attributes. Again according to these infused ideas, since the direction of real historical change is the direction of the progressive linear path of the West, mechanical interventions implemented in non-Western societies are ultimately for the benefit of these societies because without intervention these societies would never be able to change. One of the main points of conflict between Islam and the West is that the West wants Islam to change within the frame it has drawn while Islam wants to change using its own dynamics and projections.
Benzer Haberler 
