Mustafa K. Erdemol wrote: Kıvılcımlı did not write these books

We are experiencing a global malaise. Wars and economic crises have not fallen by our side, but the struggle will continue without despair. In this turmoil, dust and smoke, we ignore many issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to talk about one of them, a scandal that would cause trouble if we were able to live up to our natural agenda.

First; In my youth I was an old man with no organized structure following him. Giant – YoungLet me tell you that I’ve read the books I could find. DR. Hikmet Kıvılcımlıfrom. Kıvılcımlı, whose theses I can understand to the best of my knowledge and whose views I find controversial, is one of the most productive and original theorists, perhaps the first, of the Turkish socialist movement. Kıvılcımlı was a revolutionary who spent 22 years of his life in prisons. The name of this great revolutionary, who made important contributions to our socialist literature, has come to the fore again through two books. In a way that Kıvılcımlı doesn’t deserve at all. There are serious doubts that the two books entitled Commune Power and Allah-Prophet-Kitab published under the title Kıvılcımlı do not really belong to him.

It’s so hard to tell apart

I found out about the incident months ago thanks to my friend Ahmet Kale, who is known for his endless research on Kıvılcımlı and is one of the doctor’s staunchest supporters. We wanted to make it public because there were books that didn’t belong to Kıvılcımlı. But we waited to be sure. I “There are doubts” Even if I say this, Ahmet is sure it is a scam. The situation is of course uncomfortable. Because I think the books in question would have been different if a very original theorist like Kıvılcımlı, whose style and way of evaluating the issues we are familiar with, had written himself. But let’s not be fair, the person who wrote the books and named the doctor did a very successful “job” because it’s almost impossible to separate his style from Kıvılcımlı. But both due to the existence of witnesses that the books were not written by Kıvılcımlı and Ahmet’s own research, it was understood that the books do not belong to the great revolutionary. (Ahmet wrote a long article on this topic in Science and Future magazine. Those interested can read it at the following link: -ve -allah-prophet-book-books-about-a-new-case/ )

Ahmet Kale, who reprinted Kıvılcımlı’s Forgotten Books and published his previously unpublished works, despite his meticulousness, long thought that Kıvılcımlı wrote the books. “I’m one of those guys who took that bait,” he says.

Trust in Kıvılcımlı was used

This is an extremely interesting event. It is said that the person who wrote these two books is Süleyman Şaşmaz. Some eyewitnesses expressed their own views, which were summarized in a book by Süleyman Şaşmaz (who was also the father of moderator Vatan(sever) Şaşmaz, who was killed a few years ago). “From Faith in Kıvılcımlı” He says they know he prints it because of his name. These witnesses know that this was discussed and decided at a meeting organized by Şaşmaz for this purpose. I don’t know if there is another similar case in the history of the Turkish socialist movement. At least I didn’t find it. Whatever the intention (because these books are published for social benefit one cannot look for bad intentions) this should not have been done. The great revolutionary, who had to suffer from his views all his life and was left alone by some socialist structures because he was extremely critical of them, but never gave up, is fundamentally against it. “utilitarian” It really hurts me to be sacrificed to an attitude.

The question in my mind is: Why would someone with a style difficult to distinguish from the great theorist, with a high theoretical background, need it? There is also an attitude of naming the books he wrote after Kıvılcımlı without jealousy, which is rare, I will almost appreciate it. This is not uncommon these days when many people plagiarize what others have written. On the other hand, there is also: Those who say that he may have written these books using the notes that Kıvılcımlı could not complete are also right. If so, what harm could it do for Şaşmaz to explain? Back to the beginning, I’m getting to the point where for whatever reason there is no goodwill here.

Injustice to Kıvılcımlı

I am angry; Ahmet is also sad. I personally think I was tricked. Suleyman Sasmaz Even if it had appeared under his own name, I would have read those books, of course we would have read them. I find it hard to forgive the use of Kıvılcımlı’s name, which I love dearly in each of her books for her approach and intellectual depth. A great injustice to Kıvılcımlı. I have no doubts because his other works are proven to belong to him, but I am haunted by the fear that a similar situation might happen to us tomorrow.

These two books in our library are most likely not from Kıvılcımlı. It’s been a long time, there was no party to complain about when I read it, I would have remembered it. While I accept most of this, I cannot forgive the fact that a book that Kıvılcımlı did not write was read to me as if he had written it.

Süleyman Şaşmaz, who I heard lived a “reclusive” life in a mountain village in Fethiye, with no one to touch him anymore, must be telling the truth. He has to prove that the books are from Kıvılcımlı or, now that it happened, he has to tell the truth by saying “I wrote it”.

This is a very, very serious scandal. Ahmet uses stricter expressions that there is some truth to it.

I hope Süleyman Şaşmaz realizes the shame he has caused.

I hope.

Add Comment