Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
One approach within the I slamic camp treats I slam, which emphasizes overarching notions such as the ‘ I slamic brotherhood’ and ‘ ummah ’, as incompatible with ethno‐nationalist ideas and movements. It is, however, striking that in the last decades, several I slamic and conservative groups in T urkey have paid increasing attention to the K urdish issue, supporting their ethnic demands and sentiments. Even more striking, the leftist, secular K urdish ethno‐nationalists have adopted a more welcoming attitude toward I slam. How can we explain such intriguing developments and shifts? Using original data derived from several elite interviews and a public opinion survey, this study shows that the struggle for K urdish popular support and legitimacy has encouraged political elites from both camps to enrich their ideological toolbox by borrowing ideas and discourses from each other. Further, T urkish and K urdish nationalists alike utilize I slamic discourses and ideas to legitimize their competing nationalist claims. Exploring such issues, the study also provides theoretical and policy implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarıgil et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: