There exists a harmless good that starts with the claim that everyone can share in it, and then everyone begins to believe in this good. It’s a kind of goodness that leaves people too vulnerable to desire a justification, like intoxication, like leaves fluttering in the air. A German philologist once said that when a person has a reason, they can endure all hows. It seems he was mistaken. If a person has a how, they might not care about the reasons. Also, only the guilty defend themselves. This is true because those who blindly do good resemble defendants and cannot solve their crimes.
Observe the forms of goodness. How elitist it is. Now, do you think they will place good in front of God, and God in front of good—but a goodness stolen from God? Thankfully, if there is no God, everything is permissible. So, goodness cannot be stolen like fire. Many things can be faked. But there is no fake meaning. Meaning cannot be stolen from God. There cannot be goodness without Islam. Moreover, there is no true virtue without an enemy. Goodness doesn’t interfere much because it is selfish, because it only wants to fulfill its own needs and not pay the price, because it is weak. But in this way, that goodness cannot even receive the atonement it truly desires, because the possible meaning a person can attach to themselves in the world is tied only to the relationship they establish with another person. I look at the fights the Quran always tells us about with repetitions. A power—the owner of goodness—then supplication and conflict. Always a distinction, faith and disbelief. A burning torment or peace. And the sufferings of those who join the fight on the side of the believers, then the peace they find. Because they do not calm themselves. They are angry and warriors. Therefore, I do not know a goodness without an enemy.
In the end, if there is oppression, there is also an oppressor. Those who have fashioned goodness as a light feeling and area of need for themselves were revealing themselves by not considering anything that could put them at risk. On one hand, they could only talk about a civilization that has now taken the reins of goodness for themselves, with regret for it, by stating that the West was already good and therefore did not need religion. That is, about power. A hundred years ago, people were in despair because of technology and nationalism. Perhaps they were expecting a break in the course of the idea of development. But the ignorance of today’s people about what happened just a century ago prevented this. Perhaps in this century, after all its history, the Middle East has become a difficult place to live, and the events here have “strangely” increased people’s positive ideas about the West. Or at least among the millions who believe that what is happening in the Middle East is a religious war. This probably exposed those who establish calculated relationships with their faith, that is, those who think they are already good and do not need religion, and who implicitly express that they have various expectations from God to send down because of this thought. This showed that the fight has not changed. That is, the power struggle: The fight between those who believe in power and those who believe in Allah. In the end, they were right about one thing: All of human history was a war of religions.
Now the optimistic good, like a taqiyya practitioner, presented its ugliness through carefully prepared images. Our century evoked images. But I loved my century. Because the people I loved lived in my century. The power to fight was fortified with the instinct to protect the loved ones. Because love was saving meaning, my precedence—my need to win the view within my own limits—could be with another. I had exercised my right to choose in the Euthyphro dilemma in favor of Allah. The so-called good power always presented itself through a formal aesthetic that served to cover an ugliness. For example, what you do, if you really care about yourself, not just yourself, had to be political. To be sincere, even if it was futile.
I am searching for what is imposed on me. Josef K. felt this as a crime. True, this world was not created for entertainment. Since I accepted the purpose of creation, I felt it as a duty. Therefore, I knew that goodness was not something fun, it was something problematic.
