The social adaptation of people who migrated to cities after the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries was not easy, and the West saw deep-running crises. In time and partially thanks to the resources of wealth transferred from colonies to the mainland, the working class could be integrated with the system. The constitutional movements and multi-party political regimes imply that a consensus was able to be reached at the end of the class-based conflicts.For Sait Halim Pasha, one of the Ottoman chief viziers in the late years of the empire, in our society, social grouping occurred not along "class" lines (socioeconomic criteria) but according to "religion" (socio-cultural criteria). This further implies that in our history, religious, ethnic and cultural identities as well as lifestyles have always served as major criteria. In a nutshell, since our society does not have classes, it does not have a historical class (bourgeoisie-proletariat) ideology. And political parties that have such designations as liberal, conservative, socialist, social democratic and nationalist are in the final analysis the parties of the center that are dominated by city elites, and they fail to appeal to the masses that are cultural and economic victims of the political system. Thus, those who have migrated to cities not only perceive threats against their identity but also observe that their situation grows worse each day due to unfair growth policies and to the increasing gap between themselves and city elites. In this combination, Islam emerges as a form of expression, solidarity-oriented opposition and guiding politics. There is no identical similarity among contemporary Islamic opposition and historical cases, for instance the Khawarij, other than the use of religion as a means of expression to accompany the influential factors of known resources of religion. Reducing the contemporary Islamic opposition to Khawarij reflexes is the same as a historic analogy that is always the same and unchanging. For this reason, some tend to reduce a universal phenomenon to a historical category through an analogy.
What we must question is not the natural difficulty one encounters in passing from one society or one lifestyle to another society or lifestyle but the deep-running crisis that results when one is forced to do so or to live in an unjust social order. Problems arose during the transition to settled life in the early years of Islam, but Bedouins were not forced to quit their migratory lifestyles and adopt a settled lifestyle. They were just encouraged to do it. The first attempts were successful, but when the unjust social status and income distribution started to take root after the time of Uthman, the third caliph of Islam, great social reactions emerged. Bedouins started to lose their hope and carried their migration culture to politics and engaged in bloody acts of violence. The problem with Bedouins was not their inability to integrate with urban life. Of course, some difficulties were expected with the adoption of city culture. The real problem was the isolationist or prohibitionist attitude adopted by city elites who did not want Bedouins to join the political or social system.
In the current case, we face a similar situation. Those who migrate to cities do not have access to a fair share in income distribution and are not able to express their problems in a political environment as it lacks sufficient venues for political participation. If income distribution were fair and if means of education were provided to everyone -- that girls who wear the headscarf want to attend universities is a clear indication of their intention to be a part of urban (or modern) life -- and if every issue could be expressed on a legitimate civilian political platform, would there be such problems?
Anomie (lack of norms), lack of identity, crime rates and cases of violence and vandalism that increase during certain periods imply that the (modern) city is an ill body. The system itself is a conglomerate of problematic relations, and there is a pathological condition in every area. It is religion which ensures that this society survives despite the continuous, unfair and irrational attacks against it, which allows for the adaptation of those who migrate to cities and which prevents further crises or conflicts. Religion serves as a fuse for political unity and social peace. The impulse of the majority is to enjoy religious life without losing themselves and expressing their problems through legitimate politics. But the anomie and pathological process stemming from modernity and the nature of the modern city is taking its toll on devout people, and even some groups become part of this anomie and pathology with their religious identities.
