Why does Greece want to appoint Muftis?

Why does Greece, which cannot appoint its own metropolitans and archbishops, want to appoint Muftis?

Kathimerini newspaper, in its article based on diplomatic sources, touched upon the problem of the mufti issue in Western Thrace.

Kathimerini, in its article stated that muftis in Turkey took office "by appointment" and described Turkey's request for elections regarding the muftis in Western Thrace as "hypocrisy".

In the news, "Diplomatic sources condemn the hypocrisy of criticism against our country and emphasize that muftis who are officials of the Turkiye’s Diyanet have been appointed in Turkiye." statements were noted.

In the news based on Greek diplomatic sources, it was noted that three muftis were appointed, seven muftis places were changed, and one mufti was terminated by the decree of the Presidency of Turkey.

"We are concerned with the fact that muftis in Turkey are civil servants of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, which is a state institution." expression was used.

According to diplomatic sources, it was noted that Turkey had a contradictory attitude towards the mufti.

The following statements were included in the report: “Turkish authorities have repeatedly criticized Greece for allegedly violating the religious rights of the Muslim minority in Thrace and called for the election of muftis, not the appointment of muftis, as has been the case so far. However, as diplomatic sources indicate, the point that the Turkish side hides is that the same practice, namely the appointment of muftis, is being implemented in Turkey. This reveals the hypocrisy of the criticisms directed at our country.”

THE OPINION OF THE TURKISH MINORITY OF WESTERN THRACE AGAINST THE NEWS

Although the problem of the mufti in Western Thrace was not on the agenda, it raised questions why such news was published these days, based on diplomatic sources.

The Turkish Minority raised the question of what was intended by Kathimerini, based on Greek diplomatic sources, and what kind of perception the powers were after.

ONE MORE MANIPULATION

In a statement to Millet on the subject, Çınar Association President Cengiz Ömer said, "In my opinion, this news is one of the manipulative perception operations of the anti-Turkish and anti-minority mechanism that we are witnessing as a society.

However, the arguments and claims they developed have no legal and logical basis.

Because Greek diplomats and the press always reflect the issues related to the Turkish Minority according to the official assimilationist and revisionist point of view of the state.

THEY COVER THE FACTS, THEY DIVERSE THE TRUTH

First of all, we understand that some Greek diplomats and officials deliberately tried to distort the issues regarding the mufti. Because Greek diplomats claim that Turkey appoints its muftis through the Diyanet, but that they are "hypocritical" because they demand that muftis be elected in Western Thrace.

However, the reality is not like that. In my opinion Greek diplomats are covering up the facts and distorting the truth.

THE RETURN OF MUFTUS IS METROPOLITES, NOT MUFTUS IN TURKEY

Why does Greece show the muftis of Turkey as an example in the issue of Mufti in Western Thrace? Turkey's own religious policies and savings are its own internal matter. The counterparts of the muftis in Western Thrace are not the muftis in Turkey, but the non-Muslim clergy and especially the Greek Orthodox Metropolitans.

This was done according to the Lausanne Treaty reciprocity principle. They regulated the legal status and rights of Orthodox Greeks and Muslim Turks, which Turkey and Greece excluded from the exchange of populations, on the basis of reciprocity.

The articles in the section on Minorities of the Treaty of Lausanne say "The rights granted to non-Muslim minorities in Turkey will be granted to the Muslim (Turkish) Minority in Western Thrace".

Therefore, among the rights mentioned here, the issue of religious rights and duties concerns non-Muslims in Turkey and Muslims (Turks) in Western Thrace.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not say that "the rights granted to the Turkish nation in Turkey are also granted to the Muslim Minority in Western Thrace"!
In this respect, Greece's claim regarding the muftis is not only unsound, but also inconvenient for the national interests of the country.

Greek officials argue that it is a contradiction and hypocrisy that Greece appoints muftis in Western Thrace while Turkey appoints its own muftis, with this justification.

Since when did Greece start to regulate its own domestic legislation and policies, taking Turkey as an example?

Or does it only show Turkey as an example in matters that suit it?

If he takes Turkey as an example on the issue of Minorities, then let him take as an example the policy implemented by Turkey and the rights granted to the Orthodox Greek Minority, who were left with the same rights in Istanbul, Bozcaada and Gökçeada in return for the Western Thrace Muslim Turkish Minority. We see that the Greek authorities do not make the slightest reference to this issue. Why?

I wonder why? Or is it because it doesn't work for them?

SHOULD TURKEY APPOINT METROPOLITES DIRECTLY?

What do we see when we look at the practices towards the Greek Orthodox Minority in Turkey?

In addition to the rights granted by Lausanne, we see that extra positive rights are also recognized.

Turkey does not appoint Metropolitans here. The Patriarchate directly determines and appoints them.

Turkey provides convenience even by violating its own constitution in order to facilitate the Patriarchate, which brings Greek metropolitans from abroad.  If this isn't a sign of goodwill, what is? Turkish President Erdogan announced this in Komotini.

According to the logic of the Greek authorities, Turkey should appoint Patriarchs and Metropolitans directly according to itself. Patriarchs and metropolitans should also be salaried personnel as civil servants and should not have their own savings.

In fact, Greek diplomats are shooting themselves in the foot with their wrong approach, but the opposition to the Turkish Minority is so effective that they do not even know what they are doing.

WHY DOES GREECE WHO CANNOT APPOINT ITS OWN METROPOLITANS WANTS TO APPOINT MUFTIS?

It should be noted here that Greece cannot appoint church metropolitans within itself.
It is determined directly by the church.

Metropolitans elect the archbishop. There is not the slightest intervention of the state. Greek diplomats and the Greek press neither announce nor make comment of it.

They do not take this as an example, but they take the appointment of muftis in Turkey.

If there is a contradiction and hypocrisy on this subject, I think it is the Minority policy implemented by the Greek administration and nothing else.