The current of fundamentalism that has spread across the islamic world is in part a reaction to the west. It could also be seen as something to replace nationalism since nationalism did not prove that successful and since then an islamic revival has begun.

This movement, if we focus on fundamentalism (the talibans and al-qaida) it is very anti-western and born out of a fear that western culture will dilute the values of muslims.

One could say that the islamic revolution in Iran occurred partly because the country modernised too fast and devout muslims feared that they would become too western.

So the revolution occurred and the islamists took power. And since then they have tried to purge Iran of every possible western influence.

This is reactionary and backward.

But AKP seem, at this point, to be something else. A benevolent branch of the Islamic revival. They combine the old muslim values with modernity, if they focus on modernisation and their economy while using Islam as a strength their future is very bright. Islam is Turkey's destiny, but not as the fundamentalists intended.

I don't want an Islamic world that look back at past greatness and want to bring those things back. I want a muslim world that looks at the path ahead of them. We live in a globalised world, change or be changed.

But many muslims seem afraid of what lies ahead. They seem to be more comfortable with looking back and wanting those days back. If this mentality persists or grows stronger it will only lead to a catastrophe.

The great thing about AKP is that they appear to not be backward. They are strengthened by their Islamic values while they are looking towards the future instead of the backward fundamentalists who seem more focused on dreading the future and trying to isolate themselves from what is happening around them.

The modern European idea is secular, born of the nlightenment.
Europe's current success is based on secular values. How long before the "moderate Islamists" become the "radical Islamists"? The moderates contain the seeds of extremism and will be supplanted with a new crop of disaster-makers.

Ataturk tried to reform Turkey in a secular but nationalist direction. The new reformers head Turkey in a non-European, potentially fanatical direction. Islam and secularism cannot coexist so close to the fountains of fanaticism to the south of Turkey. If Ataturk were alive, he would deplore the situation but might not have the means to change it.

We saw with Nazi Germany how a modern, secular state, advanced in most ways, could be taken over by a gifted fanatic who knew how to exploit archaic passions. We see this budding fanaticism in remarks above: "Get your hands off my country and keep your dirty minds to yourself'. Ataturk would be appalled.

The raw material is there. All that remains is for the coming fanatic religious leader or mullah to arise and summon the Turks to greatness, purity, sanctity and glory under the banner of Islam. After all, it happened before not long ago in Iran.

The argument made is consistent, well thought out. However, while consistent, the logic is based on a false premise: That Turkey will join the EU. People forget that the last word on Turkey's membership rests with EU members; every single one of them. So, if EU membership is taken out of the picture, then what are we left with? Would Ataturk orient Turkey in a direction to reach a goal that is unrealistic? Did Ataturk pursue reforms in the 1920s and 1930s predicting that an EU would be established later in the century and Turkey would do anything and everything to join it? I doubt it...