Man Is a Wolf to Man

MAN IS A WOLF TO MAN

Thomas Hobbes is the name of a famous English philosopher. In 1651, he wrote a book called Leviathan. In this book, he included a famous saying: "Man is a wolf to man."

This expression means: "Man's enemy is man himself, because of the endless lust for 'power and dominion' he carries within him."

Unfortunately, humanity has been unaware of the 'lust for power and dominion' it carries within, due to the rapid and incessant development of history. Without realizing it, everything it invented has, in fact, incorporated a degree of this "lust for power and dominion." Religions, technologies, and new social orders have always had "power and dominion" as their invisible side.

In philosophy, there is an expression Karl Marx used against Hegel: "To turn upside down! To try to understand something by setting it on its feet." Today, I will start from the reverse and, at the end of my writing, present humanity's true identity, set on its feet, for your attention.

THE UNHAPPINESS OF A FRIEND

Every now and then, I have long phone conversations with a dear friend. As the "house arrest" due to the coronavirus extended, our calls became more frequent. My friend called me yesterday. There was an unusual despair in his voice, and perhaps anger. His anger was not directed at me, but at all humanity. He described the incident where an American Black man named George Floyd was laid on the ground, his throat pressed against the sharp edge of a curbstone, and despite his pleas of "I can't breathe!", he suffocated under a white police officer's knee and lost his life, as sheer savagery. He questioned why such an event was allowed to occur in a country like America, which prides itself on democracy.

THE GREEN STICKER EXCUSE

Having lived in America for about ten years, I wanted to share a bit of the behind-the-scenes of life there, based on my own experiences and observations.

We had set off from Los Angeles (California) towards Salt Lake City, where my ex-wife's family lived. It was the night connecting 1995 to 1996. It was 11 PM. Our aim was to spend New Year's Eve with family. I was driving the car.

We were approaching the Nevada state line. We would be in Nevada in ten minutes.

Suddenly, the flashing lights of a California Highway Patrol car appeared behind us, honking and signaling me to pull over. Since I wasn't driving fast, I wondered what reason they could have had to stop me. Through a megaphone, I was ordered to get out with my hands up. I did so. I was told to walk towards the blinding light. I did so. A fully equipped police officer approached me. He held his gun pointed at me, ready to pull the trigger at any moment, as if he had caught the world's most important terrorist. At that moment, if I had accidentally, say, scratched my leg or lowered my hand to scratch my leg, the police officer would have shot and killed me, defending himself in the video recording by saying: "I thought he was reaching for a weapon when he put his hand in his pants pocket, so I fired!" The police officer would be free, and you would be sent off with a funeral.

The police officer approached me. He asked where I was coming from and where I was going. I said I was on my way to celebrate New Year's Eve with my family. He checked my documents. It was my own car. I had no deficiencies. I was a student in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania). Although everything was in order, when they wouldn't let us go, I raised my voice. I didn't want to miss a significant part of the New Year's celebration.

Here I need to make a note: There are 50 states in America, each state has different laws, and each state issues its own driver's license. When you move from one state to another, you need to change your driver's license.

How dare you defy the police! To get revenge, they ransacked the car. One of the police officers joyfully looked at the sticker on the windshield. "Overdue! Overdue!" he shouted. The purpose of the green stickers on the windshield was this: once a year, you take your car for an emissions inspection, and if there's no problem, a green sticker with the year written on it is affixed to the windshield. According to Pennsylvania state laws, you had a week to get an emissions inspection and the green sticker, but according to California laws, the situation was different. You had to enter the new year with that year's sticker! How was I supposed to know this rule?

I objected to the police. "It's 11:30 PM right now, and we are still in 1995, and the green sticker says 1995. This is in accordance with the law! Let me continue on my way. In ten minutes, we will be in Nevada. They don't make an issue of this there."

Since the police officer had it in for me, he decided to try and prolong the process. He took our IDs. He returned to his car, pretending to run a criminal check. Since the lights were directed at us, we couldn't see what they were doing. Time dragged on and on. As soon as it passed midnight, two police officers came to us and issued a $500 fine because, according to California laws, we did not have a green sticker for 1996. I had no right to make the slightest fuss or objection. Otherwise, like Floyd, they would take you out and roughly either lean you against the car or lay you on the ground, handcuff you from behind, and take you to the station, where you would have to spend the night. I took the fine receipt and set off.

As soon as I arrived in Pennsylvania, I had an emissions inspection and changed the sticker. I hired a lawyer and explained the injustice done by the California police. The lawyer took down the necessary information, pocketed a hefty consultation fee before leaving, and said he would file a lawsuit as soon as possible and was hopeful for a good outcome. No! The court ruled against us.

It didn't end there. Because my car's license plate was entered into Federal Police records with a "potential criminal" note, police officers frequently stopped me on the road, seriously checked my ID, and annoyed me with their questions. Because on their screen, it said, "This man has committed a crime before!" Tired of police checks, I had to change my car.

THE KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD

Now, let's get to George Floyd's situation. According to police records, George Floyd was not so innocent. Floyd was a 46-year-old Black American citizen, two meters tall, and a father of two. His primary residence was in Houston, Texas. In 2007, George Floyd was arrested for armed home robbery in Houston, served five years in prison, and was then released. When his national ID was scanned by the police, they could easily access his prison and theft records.

One day, George Floyd wanted to learn from his past mistakes and start fresh, as a good citizen. Since the Houston police were constantly after him, he changed states, went to Minneapolis, and worked as a truck driver. He changed jobs again. This time, he worked as a security guard in a restaurant. However, when the restaurant closed due to the coronavirus, he lost his job.

On May 25, he entered a convenience store to buy cigarettes. The young owner reported to the police that the $20 George Floyd gave him was counterfeit. The store owner knew Floyd's name because he had known him before. The police took action. The announcement, "There's someone using counterfeit money, let's catch him immediately," went out to the warning systems of all police cars near the convenience store.

Police caught Floyd as he was leaving the store. An ID check was performed. When it was learned that he had previously served five years in prison, he was treated as a "criminal," just as I had been, and the police acted mercilessly. Most people who don't live in America assume that this practice is only directed at Black people. This is a misconception. It is an approach that American police apply indiscriminately to white foreigners like me, American whites, or Blacks.

Since Floyd was over two meters tall and powerfully built, the shorter police officer had difficulty restraining him, trying to control him by pressing his knee on his neck. Is this humanity? No! Especially after thinking about what happened to me, it is an injustice that wounds one's conscience. What is the solution? In America, the solution is the streets. This has always been the case.

Until 1963, Black people in America, for example, could not enter restaurants frequented by whites, and had to stand in the section reserved for Black people on buses. American Black leader Martin Luther King, in 1963, gathered millions of Black Americans behind him with the slogan "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" and delivered his famous speech titled "I Have a Dream!":

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Martin Luther King, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1965, was assassinated on April 4, 1968, by unknown individuals. But thanks to the legacy he left behind, Black people could now ride the same buses and go to the same restaurants as white people. In other words, it is not possible to expand the boundaries of freedom in the USA without paying a price.

Similarly, to end the Vietnam War, dissenting voices first emerged in public opinion, but as the war dragged on, millions of Americans unexpectedly took to the streets, just like today, burning and destroying everything. Two years later, America withdrew unconditionally from Vietnam.

In short, the most fundamental characteristic of American democracy is that when the feeling of "enough is enough" arises, millions of people, regardless of race, and even armed, pour into the streets and shake the country. Many of my readers might consider the events in America "horrific," but I know that this rebellion will further expand the sphere of freedom. So, what is happening is frightening, but the outcome is good news! Isn't that strange?

RELIGION AND HUMANITY

Ah, yes, we were talking about despair with our friend. He described how the Black American was brutally killed according to his own understanding, and then listed the endless evils that humanity carries within: hatred, jealousy, ambition, revenge, exclusion, denial, disregard, slander. "This plague is everywhere! In rich countries and poor countries... In the past and now... What is the reason for this?"

My friend evidently couldn't make sense of what was happening in his mind, contenting himself with painting a pessimistic picture. My friend shifted his thoughts to religious matters:

"Just think, from the first prophet Adam to the last prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), according to one narration, 124,000 prophets lived, and according to another, 224,000 prophets. Leaving aside the narrations, only 25 prophets are named in our Holy Book, the Quran. Despite Allah sending revelations through so many prophets to show humanity the right path, and thousands of years passing, nothing has changed yet. Why?"

Indeed, my friend was right. Even before the Prophet's (PBUH) funeral was buried, among the loyal companions who believed in him, the struggle for "Who will be the Caliph?" began after the Prophet's (PBUH) death. Without informing Ali, Umar and Abu Bakr held a secret meeting with the participation of other companions. Abu Bakr had himself elected Caliph, and in this capacity, he participated in the Prophet's (PBUH) burial. Of course, Ali was offended because he had not been informed. So, in a sense, resentment and distrust began among the companions even before the Prophet's (PBUH) funeral was buried? Why was this necessary? Abu Bakr was the Prophet's father-in-law, but Ali was also his first cousin. Both had the same right to be Caliph. It was clear that Islam had been fragmented and distrust had arisen among the companions even before the Prophet was buried. However, our expectation was that the four loyal companions (Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar, and Ali) would be sitting silently and sadly beside the Prophet (PBUH) on his deathbed and would carry out the burial procedures together. The Caliph could have been chosen later in a council meeting attended by all companions. Because Abu Bakr forced his election as Caliph, discord and gossip, from which there was no turning back, entered Islam. What should have been the appropriate situation for the companions? A fair election! If you ask why they failed to achieve this, we must return to Hobbes's fundamental idea and thesis. Otherwise, it is not possible for us to understand the real reason by blaming one or more of the Caliphs.

Do you know why I brought this example to your attention? As Hobbes claimed, the "lust for power and dominion" within man is stronger than everything, even the words of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). That is why the beautiful words written in the holy book have never come to life and still remain a wish.

All the hadiths attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) are worthless because those hadiths have been altered over centuries as it suited the scholars. Neither Sunnism, nor Shiism, nor Kharijism! All of them trace back to the period of the Four Caliphs. If the Four Caliphs had not initiated the struggle for power and dominion in Islam, these sects would not have emerged, and "Islam," which means "peace," would have shed a different light on humanity.

My friend's question, what is the hidden force that bewilders him and pushes people all over the world to succumb to insatiable ambitions, is actually the most important question in philosophy. Religion has lost its importance. It has been proven insufficient. There must have been another reason that made humanity hostile to each other and started wars? This is what a philosopher named Thomas Hobbes gives us:

WHO IS THOMAS HOBBES?

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who lived between 1588 and 1679.

Thomas Hobbes asked himself the same question my friend asked himself and couldn't find an answer to, exactly 350 years before my friend, and expressed his thoughts in his work Leviathan. (Leviathan means "Giant" in the sacred book of the Old Testament.)

While Hobbes was alive, the Thirty Years' War, a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants that lasted for thirty years and caused millions of deaths, was ongoing in Europe. Moreover, there was a civil war in England, and epidemics were everywhere.

Both warring parties in Europe belonged to the Christian religion. Just as there is conflict and tension between Sunnis and Shias in the Islamic world, there has always been similar tension between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, which escalated into war. Similar to the Battle of Chaldiran that occurred between Sunnis and Shias who believed in the same Prophet and the same Holy Book, thirty years of wars were experienced between Christians who believed in the same Prophet and the same Holy Book (the Bible).

THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR

For days, Hobbes withdrew into seclusion, trying to make sense of the religious wars in Europe. Both were Christians, both adhered to the teachings of Jesus, both believed in the Holy Bible; why were these people mercilessly killing each other?

Suddenly, his mind shifted to other points. He thought: How interesting it is that all French people are Catholic and all Germans are Protestant. Under normal circumstances, there should have been a mixture, for example, in a family, 2 Catholics and 1 Protestant, or one Catholic and one Protestant. Why were all Germans Protestant and all French Catholic?

To help my reader understand this better, I must give the following example:

For example, in a family, all members are either Shia or Sunni. Why can't some members of the family be Shia and some Sunni? Moreover, why can't some family members be Muslim and some Christian? Furthermore, why can't some members of a family be Shafi'i and some Hanafi?

Hobbes pondered this question for days. The conclusion he reached is interesting:

The war in Europe had nothing to do with religion. There was a struggle for power and dominion between Germans and French. One wore the Protestant garment, and the other the Catholic garment. This means that power and dominion have a significance beyond religions. Religion has no importance. The true nature of humanity is to seize "power and dominion" in life. It does not matter whether this is done in the name of religion, race, or color (black/white).

Let's see if a similar situation occurred in the Islamic world.

SAFAVIDS-OTTOMANS

While the religious war between Catholics and Protestants continued in Europe, a similar situation was experienced between the Sunni Ottomans and the Shia Safavid State.

The Safavids were a state that ruled between 1501 and 1736. They are even considered the beginning of modern Iran. They maintained their presence in present-day Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and the eastern part of Turkey, and for the first time in history, they adopted Shiism (Jafari school) as the official sect.

Eventually, the Shia Safavids and the Sunni Ottomans clashed at Chaldiran. Shah Ismail was defeated. Anatolia remained under Sunni rule, but the Alevis, due to their proximity to Shiism, were massacred. Whether we accept it or not, the effects of this war still continue today.

In the Battle of Chaldiran, as in Europe, religion was used as a mask. The real aim was to seize power and dominion, and to expand borders. Otherwise, why would these states, believing in the same Prophet and reading the same Holy Book, mercilessly kill each other on battlefields?

If different interpretations of religious matters emerged in Islam, a religious institution or understanding that addressed such issues should have been established from the time of the four Caliphs. The final decision of this religious institution would have been binding for everyone. Thus, Sunnism, Shiism, and hundreds of sects would not have emerged. But this understanding was contrary to the true nature of man, that is, the passion for "power and dominion" he carries within.

However, this was impossible! Because such an understanding masks the "lust for power and dominion." Humanity cannot tolerate this. Discord and discrimination in Islam emerged even before the Prophet was buried. For centuries, the blame was always sought in this caliph or that caliph. The culprit was neither this caliph nor that caliph. The culprit was the passion for "power and dominion," which is unique to man.

It is at this point that Hobbes comes into play. He argues that Shiism, Kharijism, and Sunnism are merely masks. In the past, the Persians, who established great empires, wore the "Shiism" mask, while the somewhat more primitive Arab tribes preferred the "Sunni" mask. A ruthless struggle for power and dominion began between Arabs and Persians (Iranians). Not only that, but Sunnism also divided into its own sections. Kurds wore the Shafi'i garment, Turks the Hanafi garment. New religions emerged because new centers of power and dominion necessitated it.

In short, according to Hobbes, all religions and sects were a result of humanity's internal struggle for power and dominion.

Believe me, today, those who take to the streets in America, burning and destroying everything, are sending a message to humanity more effectively than any prophet or religion, forcing a change in the balance of power and dominion. This is a paradox, but it's true!

HOBBES'S PROPOSED SOLUTION

As I wrote earlier, Hobbes takes human nature together with man's lust for power and dominion. Hobbes defines terms clearly, leaving no room for sentimentality. In such a period when religious wars ravaged Europe, his discourses and writings are ruthless. He discards confusing definitions and ideologies, treating man "naked." According to Hobbes, ambition and the lust for power are the sole causes of wars. Religion and other ideologies are merely masks.

Hobbes proposes state formation as a solution: Because states are the best way to control the ambition and lust for power that humanity inherently carries. He leaves the choice of what the state should be like to the people. His most important conclusion is this: when people accept living within a state, a social contract is, in a sense, signed between the individual and the state. (In the next century, a French philosopher named Jean Jacques Rousseau would delve deeply into this topic.)

According to Hobbes, the individual accepts the following in relation to the state:

"I relinquish some of my rights to power and dominion and transfer these rights to the state."

Thus, most of the power and authority are concentrated in the state, and people are, to some extent, freed from the oppression created by the lust for power and dominion. This is the reason for the existence of states. Can there be a society without a state? Or can an individual and society exist without a state? More precisely, can it be possible to live in "order" without "chaos" in a stateless society? Of course not! Rational individuals have formed the state to protect their rights and freedoms.

Hobbes then draws attention to another important point:

"The state, which was initially formed to protect the rights and freedoms of us humans, grew over time. The state, which was created to protect the individual, began to establish tyranny over the individual, and despotic state structures began to emerge. The struggle of individuals determines how despotic a state will be."

In the USA, Trump's pushing the boundaries of a "Despotic State" exceeded tolerance at some point, and individuals, finding the actions contrary to the rules of the "social contract," poured into the streets and initiated a rebellion to reclaim some of the "power and dominion" authority they had voluntarily granted to the state.

CONCLUSION:

According to Hobbes, primitive humans lived in anarchy. Every individual had unlimited freedom to do anything. The boundlessness of this freedom brought people into conflict, causing them to attack each other like wolves. Hobbes discarded religion, science, art, everything, and argued that the fundamental reason for humanity's development was the "lust for power and dominion" it carried within, and therefore wrote in his famous work:

"MAN IS A WOLF TO MAN"

A JOKE…. A JOKE… A JOKE…

THE DICTATOR'S NEWSPAPER COMMENTARY

In a certain country, a ruthless dictator reigned. To prevent them from writing against him, he bought all but three newspapers, thus having them publish whatever news he wanted. He sent a threatening letter to the owners of the other three newspapers: "Watch your step! If you write a single word about me or my administration, I will destroy you."

The next day, on the front page of one of the three warned newspapers, there was a news story about a fire. Flames rising to the sky were depicted as a hand-drawn illustration. The headline of the second newspaper featured a hand-drawn, caricatured image of a child. On the front page of the third newspaper, there was also a hand-drawn street of a brothel with prostitutes waiting for customers.

The dictator's first order in the morning was to have the three warned newspapers brought to his desk. He looked at the hand-drawn graphics but couldn't make sense of them. Unable to figure it out, he called his most trusted chief advisor:

"For God's sake, tell me! What do these headlines mean?"

After a moment of thought, the chief advisor arranged the newspapers. He placed the fire news first, the prostitute news second, and the street child news last. The chief advisor pondered the headlines for a while and then, with the joy of suddenly deciphering the secret message, exclaimed:

"I've got it, Sir! These headlines mean: 'You've burned us, you son of a bitch!'"