"No one from the Islamist faction in Turkey would say 'Let's establish a caliphate again'. I would very much like to discuss this issue among Islamists. I am very curious about what Islamists would think if the caliphate were restored. Even those who most desire a caliphate know there would be no response to such a call."

In a video published on the media platform Medyascope, these views were expressed by Nuray Mert, a member of the fake "liberal" faction. It's interesting because, with these words, she seems to be guessing intentions.

In her article published in Diken on 01.09.2014, she wrote, "We used to define the AKP as 'conservative democrat' and then just as 'the party of conservatives'. This was because that’s how they defined themselves and their politics. Even the term 'Islamist' was deliberately avoided. So, were we deceived? 'Yes and no', or more accurately, 'No and yes.'

'No', because many democrats, including myself, with different perspectives, rejected the 'intent reading' imposed by Kemalists. This was the right approach to the end. Remember, reading intent is an expression of an authoritarian political approach."

***

It seems that Kemalists, taking into account various clear signs, for instance, R.T. Erdogan's statements like "Democracy is not a goal but a tool" or "One cannot be both secular and Muslim", or his remarks on the headscarf issue, "The right to speak on this matter belongs not to the judiciary but to the ulema," or the Constitutional Court's agreement on 10 out of 11 members that the AKP is an anti-secular focus, are labeled as "reading intent" and "authoritarian" when they say the AKP is politically Islamist. But Mert, by stating that even those who raise the flag of unity and call for a caliphate in rallies would not say "Let's establish a caliphate," is herself reading intentions!

She must argue ready to defend this contradiction. In the same article from 2014, she stated, "Unlike many other democrats, I was, and still am, someone who supported the idea that religion can comfortably occupy not just the public space but also the political arena," and identified herself as having issues with the "secularist" faction.

In her article in Hürriyet on 12 September 2010, six days before the referendum that delivered the judiciary to FETÖ through the power of the government, she defended the view, "The reason for my years of conflict with the secularist circles is this attempt at reading intentions, this obsession with reactionism," and wrote, "In the end, what is endangered is not secularism but democracy!" People like Nuray Mert, who failed to grasp that democracy cannot be established without secularism, wrote this.

***

Just as they normalized every move of the AKP against secularism in the past, today, under the guise of supporting Palestine, they are normalizing calls for a caliphate ("Word of Unity") with the longing for an ummah. In an environment where reactionism is rampant, they are trying to create a ground for discussing a view completely contrary to democracy, to the founding principles of the secular Republic, thus indirectly supporting HÜDA PAR.

When Erdogan said "I am a Shariaist," they said secularism was not in danger; today, political Islamists, despite openly wanting a caliphate, say "They would not want a caliphate," thinking they are deceiving the people. But the only ones they are deceiving are themselves and the "useful fools"!

Those who have caused as much harm to Turkey as the political Islamists are the 2nd Republican fake "liberals," who, despite all their forecasts being wrong, support the establishment of a religious reactionary hegemony represented by the AKP with the subtexts of their so-called analyses. Both are supported by imperialism, and that is their role.