As may be recalled, an important notion was coined by renowned sociologist Nilüfer Göle in 1992: "non-Western modernization." This notion led to a question: "Is non-Western modernization possible?" To be quite clear, for the Muslim East, non-Western modernization is possible, while it is almost impossible to argue the same for the West. I had hopes that it could happen in the 1990s. However, at this point, it is hard to hold the same view. The reason is obvious: The West will not abandon its ethnocentric approach. The West views the world other than itself as "the other." Of course, we all have our own "other" and the existence of others is a reality. But when we demonize the others, our relations with them become based on conflict or destruction. In such circumstances, our chances of coexisting with the others become weak and unlikely. Of course there is also an economic, military and hegemonic mindset in which this concept is based. So, will the West abandon this state of hegemony? It looks as if the West's wealth is designed in this format. In other words, the West is able to survive through modernizing the non-Western world. If the non-Western world is modernized in a way that is designed and defined by the West, it will be able to sustain its state of welfare. So, if non-Western nations and societies generate their own modernities, the West's wealth will be significantly affected by this. Therefore, the West is adopting a harsher stance vis-à-vis the East. It even sustains this through Islamophobia now. Is non-Western modernization possible for the East? Yes, it is. Our experience over the last 150 years presents us with two models: I will take the liberty of defining one as "official modernization" and the other as "civilian modernization." The actors of "official modernization" also constitute the core at the center. This core includes the following elements: the military, civilian bureaucrats, the judiciary, universities, intelligentsia, big capital circles relying on public resources and state artists. This demonstrates that modernization did not make a good and healthy start in our country. Since the era of Mahmud II, modernization has been designed as a preference of the state. This process had a strong emphasis on the need to stay away from religion. Westernization was viewed as Europeanization. France was presented as the model for this final goal. Eventually, the image of France was also reduced to the France outlined in its Third Republic. Mahmud II and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk are the two leading symbols of this project. Conversely, civilian modernization emerges as the preference of society. This version of modernization establishes pragmatic and rational relations with the West. It does not clash with the West. It acts selectively and sees the framework of religious legitimacy as an element of motivation. Its basic argument is this: "If I have to modernize, I will do so because my religion allows me to." Abdulhamid II was a leading representative of this approach in recent history, as was Turgut Özal in the last quarter of the 20th century, and the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) may be regarded as its current representative. Civilian modernization's ideology in Turkey and in the Islamic world is promoted by Islamist parties and movements rather than center-right, nationalist, social democrat, socialist or communist parties or political actions. With respect to contact between Islamism and the West, the Abbasid "Beytul Hikme" (House of Wisdom) may be taken as a model. When they maintained contacts with the Greeks, the Indians and the Chinese, the Abbasids did so in a conceptual framework at the level of science and philosophy. They eagerly translated books on Greek sciences, philosophy and wisdom into their own language, while they showed no interest in others on Greek art, mythology, drama and poetry. They translated and reinterpreted Socrates and Aristotle. I think the reason for the excessive interest by the first Islamist generations in this matter in the 19th century was their search for a model. In other words, they wanted to repeat the Abbasids' experience of searching for a model. From this perspective, Islamism is both a modern and modernizing movement. It is both a set of movements stemming from the modern world and a style seeking to modernize Muslim societies.