Mustafa Kamal Ataturk!

[PakPrince]

What are your views on Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. In turkey and to many people he is a hero and is their Quaid-e-Azam. He is also hailed as the man who got the British out of a Muslim land after WW1 ad gained Turkey's independence.

However, Ive read articles/website claiming that he is the enemy of Islam. he banned the hijab in turkey, changed turkish into a latin script from arabic etc

What opinion do you guys have of him

 

[nabeel_1990]

he was an open enemy to islam

 

[akheR]

One of the biggest personalities of the 20th century, and if Pakistan had just one leader like him nowadays, the great part of our problems would have been resolved.

 

[PakPrince]

^^
but he is hailed as a hero by normal muslims even back in pakistan.. i came accross this enemy to islam thing yesterday on a blog and they ofcourse are not reliable sourcces.

many ppl compare him to Quaid-e Azam and say that its becaise of him that turkey is the strongest and most prosperous muslim country today

 

[ElRaja]

its silly to call him an enemy of islam in my opinion, he never did anything to hurt muslims or force them into changing there beliefs, he just saw how religion was then, much like today, being manipulated by certain people in political classes for personal gain and he wasnt in favour of it.

what he did do is make turkey more euro centric, the benefit of which they are still reaping today whilst a sizable majority of turks are still muslim, so i dont see how he has harmed islam in anyway. unlike many weaker leaders he had the conviciton of his beliefs and did not modify them for politcal gain.

although he was a dictator many of the reforms he introduced were key in making turkey a functioning democracy. had he not been a dictator i may have held him on a similar standing as jinnah, however at the same time i concede had he not been a dictator he would nt have been able to get half the things he wanted done.

p.s. i agree with your last comment, he modernised the turkish economy in a balance of state and private ventures which lead to turkey being what it is today. a progressive, strong and mixed industry economy.

 

[akheR]

He was perhaps 'anti-Islam', but Turkish peoples aren't for the most part, as I know.
On the other way, you've got Mullahs as the supreme chiefs in Iran, and the 'average' Iranian is less and less Muslim, especially in the urban, middle-class youth.

You don't judge leaders on the length of their beard or how many hajj they've done in their life, but their practical legacy, what they've made for their country in terms of socio-economic progress.

 

[nabeel_1990]

He was perhaps 'anti-Islam', but Turkish peoples aren't for the most part, as I know.
On the other way, you've got Mullahs as the supreme chiefs in Iran, and the 'average' Iranian is less and less Muslim, especially in the urban, middle-class youth.

You don't judge leaders on the length of their beard or how many hajj they've done in their life, but their practical legacy, what they've made for their country in terms of socio-economic progress.

islam is a way of life not just about beard and hajj.

 

[akheR]

islam is a personal, individual, subjective way of life not just about beard and hajj.

Fixed & agreed.

 

[ElRaja]

He was perhaps 'anti-Islam', but Turkish peoples aren't for the most part, as I know.
On the other way, you've got Mullahs as the supreme chiefs in Iran, and the 'average' Iranian is less and less Muslim, especially in the urban, middle-class youth.

You don't judge leaders on the length of their beard or how many hajj they've done in their life, but their practical legacy, what they've made for their country in terms of socio-economic progress.

i can understand your point, however i dont see how you can say he was anti islam, i dont think i have ever heard him say, or heard anecdotally, of him saying anything which was an attack on islam.

as far as i know, he was against what in modern parlance is known as the "mullah class", who he felt were using religion to guilt people into keeping them in power, whilst doing nothing in return.

 

[akheR]

i can understand your point, however i dont see how you can say he was anti islam, i dont think i have ever heard him say, or heard anecdotally, of him saying anything which was an attack on islam.

as far as i know, he was against what in modern parlance is known as the "mullah class", who he felt were using religion to guilt people into keeping them in power, whilst doing nothing in return.

In fact I meant 'even if he was anti-Islam', I know that it wasn't the case from what I've read, but I meant that his relation with religion shouldn't influence how we see him as a political leader.
Agree with you otherwise.

 

[nabeel_1990]

Fixed & agreed.

so you believe that muslims should be ruled by democracy and not by shariah? do you agree with the concept of an islamic state?

 

[akheR]

so you believe that muslims should be ruled by democracy and not by shariah? do you agree with the concept of an islamic state?

For me, shariah doesn't mean anything: it's the legal interpretation, by some centuries-old 'scholars', of the Qur'an and the hadîths. It's not meant to rule a society, as it's just about law; the religious scriptures can give a general paradigm about a society, but can't 'rule' a society, because modern societies are characterized by ethnic, political but also religious pluralism.
Don't know where you live, but would you agree that Muslims in the West live under a 'Christian law' ?

 

[nabeel_1990]

For me, shariah doesn't mean anything: it's the legal interpretation, by some centuries-old 'scholars', of the Qur'an and the hadîths. It's not meant to rule a society, as it's just about law; the religious scriptures can give a general paradigm about a society, but can't 'rule' a society, because modern societies are characterized by ethnic, political but also religious pluralism.
Don't know where you live, but would you agree that Muslims in the West live under a 'Christian law' ?

the prophet pbuh ruled by shariah, the companions conquered many lands and the non muslims in this those lands paid jizyah, so that was an islamic state. The caliphate will return inshallah.

 

[akhrot]

the prophet pbuh ruled by shariah, the companions conquered many lands and the non muslims in this those lands paid jizyah, so that was an islamic state. The caliphate will return inshallah.

A micro caliphate exists today; Iran, and it sucks. Iranians are frustrated, it's pushing them away from Islam, mullahs don't care, they are loving the power. Keep the mullahs in the masjids, no place for them in the government.

 

[GOAT]

As for Ataturk, he's an okay guy if you get to know him.

 

[Amoeba]

He was Slav, who banned all symbols of Islam in Government buildings.....women weren't allowed to wear hijab in University for example. He destroyed the Caliphate. He changed the alphabet from arabic to turkish and removed Qurans written in Arabic. Isn't this against the teachings of Islam?

 

[akhrot]

He was Slav, who banned all symbols of Islam in Government buildings.....women weren't allowed to wear hijab in University for example. He destroyed the Caliphate. He changed the alphabet from arabic to turkish and removed Qurans written in Arabic. Isn't this against the teachings of Islam?

a 'moderate' muslim

 

[Amoeba]

a 'moderate' muslim

Moderate as in non-existant. I doubt he ever thought of himself as Muslim.....

 

[Looney]

Baaad maaan for extremists

 

[Amoeba]

Baaad maaan for extremists

Even for true moderates.....

 

[akhrot]

the prophet pbuh ruled by shariah, the companions conquered many lands and the non muslims in this those lands paid jizyah, so that was an islamic state. The caliphate will return inshallah.

last time I saw someone pay this tax was a muslim shopkeeper to thugs of a political party in Pak, it was jiz'yah under the name of 'gunda tax', and the thugs promised protection from other thugs entering the neighbourhood.

 

[nabeel_1990]

last time I saw someone pay this tax was a muslim shopkeeper to thugs of a political party in Pak, it was jiz'yah under the name of 'gunda tax', and the thugs promised protection from other thugs entering the neighbourhood.

Then blame the muslims doing that, don't blame the shariah

 

[Areesh1]

There is no simple answer to your question and it has to be researched from a lot of point of views. Here is excellent lecture that might help a little bit.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E2v3xNM-54U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[nabeel_1990]

A micro caliphate exists today; Iran, and it sucks. Iranians are frustrated, it's pushing them away from Islam, mullahs don't care, they are loving the power. Keep the mullahs in the masjids, no place for them in the government.

First of all that is not a caliphate, most of the them curse the companions so you cannot use that example, there is a hadeeth stating that the caliphate will return so for that to happen the muslims will need to change.

 

[asifp]

the prophet pbuh ruled by shariah, the companions conquered many lands and the non muslims in this those lands paid jizyah, so that was an islamic state. The caliphate will return inshallah.

Not enjoying the Khilafat by Zardari?

On a serious note, how would you define a Caliphate in today's day and age and please be practical

 

[nabeel_1990]

Not enjoying the Khilafat by Zardari?

On a serious note, how would you define a Caliphate in today's day and age and please be practical

for a caliphate to be formed, the muslims need to stop complaining and start following the quran and sunnah, get educated etc. I don't see it happening until the muslims wake up, it will happen inshallah but a lot needs to be done before it.

 

[Mohsin]

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk was a magnificent figure...not a 'enemy of Islam' lmao

 

[nabeel_1990]

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk was a magnificent figure...not a 'enemy of Islam' lmao

by that time the caliphate was very weak and he then completely destroyed it, he banned the hijab etc like poster ameoba said so how is he not an enemy?????

 

[Markhor]

About language

In the spring of 1928, Mustafa Kemal met in Anakara with several linguists and professors from all over Turkey where he unveiled to them a plan of his to implement a new alphabet for the written Turkish language based on a modified Latin alphabet. The new Turkish alphabet would serve as a replacement for the old Arabic script and as a solution to the literacy problem in Turkey. When he asked how long it would take to implement the new alphabet into the Turkish language, most of the professors and linguists said between three to five years. Kemal was said to have scoffed and openly stated, "we shall do it in three to five months".
Over the next several months, Mustafa Kemal pressed for the introduction of the new Turkish alphabet as well as made public announcements to the upcoming overhaul of the new alphabet. On 1 November 1928, Mustafa Kemal introduced the new Turkish alphabet and abolished the use of Arabic script. At the time, literate citizens of the country comprised as little as 10% of the population. Dewey noted to Kemal that learning how to read and write in Turkish with the Arabic script took roughly three years with rather strenuous methods at the elementary level. They used the Ottoman Language written in the Arabic script with Arabic and Persian loan vocabulary.The creation of the new Turkish alphabet as a variant of the Latin alphabet was undertaken by the Language Commission (Turkish: Dil Encümeni) with the initiative of Mustafa Kemal. The tutelage was received from an Ottoman-Armenian calligrapher. The first Turkish newspaper using the new alphabet was published on 15 December 1928. Kemal himself travelled the countryside in order to teach citizens the new alphabet. The country's adaptation to the new alphabet was very quick, and literacy in Turkey jumped from 10% to over 70% within two years.

 

[ZenBowman]

One of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, the level of advancement and decency shown by Turkey is amazing, and it is all his legacy.

 

[the Great Khan]

interesting how the followers of attaturk have now been sidelined by the followers of Islam..

on a serious note, I can undertsand why the turks respect him, he did save their country from disintegration. However I disagree with some of his reforms. Sidelining Islam just meant turkey could not fulfil its true potential until now..

I still remember going to turkey and meeting a Hafez-e-Quraan who lamented the fact that many people couldnt read the Quraan in its original form..perhaps he was necessary for the time but his ideologies time is up and we should not try and emulate it in Pakistan!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

interesting how the followers of attaturk have now been sidelined by the followers of Islam..

on a serious note, I can undertsand why the turks respect him, he did save their country from disintegration. However I disagree with some of his reforms. Sidelining Islam just meant turkey could not fulfil its true potential until now..

I still remember going to turkey and meeting a Hafez-e-Quraan who lamented the fact that many people couldnt read the Quraan in its original form..perhaps he was necessary for the time but his ideologies time is up and we should not try and emulate it in Pakistan!

While he may have sidelined Islam you can't argue that the country wasn't reformed for the better. Pakistan isn't exactly a shining example to compare with Turkey to make the point.

 

[asifp]

for a caliphate to be formed, the muslims need to stop complaining and start following the quran and sunnah, get educated etc. I don't see it happening until the muslims wake up, it will happen inshallah but a lot needs to be done before it.

and how is it decided who runs the government. Who are the policy makers, who are the judges etc.

 

[ElRaja]

About language

excellent post markhor.

 

[PakPrince]

We do need a leader like him.. Maybe go easy on some aspects like banning of hijab etc but we need someone like him who can whip te mullahs into a disciplined line.

whether he is an enemy or not no disputing the fact That he looks like a BOSS

 

[zimmz]

In Turkey he is hero for elite/libral class for turning people away from Islam and making them wannabes europeans. Too bad with all the shameless efforts in years had not bring them any success to be recognised as part of europe. For ordinary muslims he is only remembered for apparent heroics efforts in defending Turkey during war times (although it was all because of west help which was against Islamic Khilafat anyway). Some say he was kind of installed agent of west to get rid of khilafat system. The change of language script was one of efforts to join european league.

Having seen the society in Turkey (direct result of his policies) I don't wish such a guy for any other Islamic state. However Pakistan is heading in the same direction because of similar policies by Mushy - a proud fan of Ataturk & Turkey.

 

[Black Zero]

He was Slav, who banned all symbols of Islam in Government buildings.....women weren't allowed to wear hijab in University for example. He destroyed the Caliphate. He changed the alphabet from arabic to turkish and removed Qurans written in Arabic. Isn't this against the teachings of Islam?

there was nothing left to be destroyed at that time.

 

[humBhiHain]

Post by A new memeber
______________
The Worst thing which did He Disunited Islamic Khilafat by Inducing regional feelings above Islam.
He tried impressing the masses with Language change. and then stopped teaching of quran .. and so on removed any appearance Islam in his time.

I remember one saying , if you want to change a Culture change its language and all will be changed.
you can see the English Speaking muslim's( not in England but in subcontinent.)

In History It appears to be a part of conspiracy if we Include the character of so called 'Lawrence of Islam" who provoked Arabs against Turks.

It hurts after seeing some Comments of PPers who dont see what has lost in the name of modernisation.

 

[akheR]

lol @ Ataturk disuniting the Caliphate. When Ataturk came, the Caliphate was a sick old man, as they called it in Europe; in fact, peoples say that it was because of the Caliphate's nearly death that Turks needed a good leader at the right time.
And the only peoples who fought the Caliphate for nationalistic reasons, in all Muslim world, were the Arabs, manipulated by the British here, by the French there.

 

[humBhiHain]

@akheR,
I am not sure Which Place you belong, from Indian perspective(before partition) we tried helping Turk caliphate when its asked for.
Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

I dont take your LOL seriously, but My support is based on my values.

People who believes Modernization/nationalism as their value against Islamic life, feel free to support Ataturk -"father of Turks".

The Truth is Arab fought the weak Turk caliphate but 'young turks" weekened the Turk caliphate.
If we see the end result, Turkey lost the Islamic appearance and Arab still has Islamic appearance. this might be a gain of turkish values against Islamic values.

 

[Saqs]

He was Slav, who banned all symbols of Islam in Government buildings.....women weren't allowed to wear hijab in University for example. He destroyed the Caliphate. He changed the alphabet from arabic to turkish and removed Qurans written in Arabic. Isn't this against the teachings of Islam?

Pretty much sums this man up.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Other than, massive human rights violations, false pride, liberal extremism and a power military junta.... what did Turkey have up till the mid 1990s?

Since then, much to the consternation of the military and liberal extremists, Turkey is going in the opposition direction to the vision of Attaturk and becoming more successful along the way....... ironic isnt it?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

@akheR,
I am not sure Which Place you belong, from Indian perspective(before partition) we tried helping Turk caliphate when its asked for.
Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

I dont take your LOL seriously, but My support is based on my values.

People who believes Modernization/nationalism as their value against Islamic life, feel free to support Ataturk -"father of Turks".

The Truth is Arab fought the weak Turk caliphate but 'young turks" weekened the Turk caliphate.
If we see the end result, Turkey lost the Islamic appearance and Arab still has Islamic appearance. this might be a gain of turkish values against Islamic values.

There's nothing wrong with modernisation if it brings progress. Otherwise you should still be sitting on a camel or donkey rather than driving a car.

 

[Amoeba]

Other than, massive human rights violations, false pride, liberal extremism and a power military junta.... what did Turkey have up till the mid 1990s?

Since then, much to the consternation of the military and liberal extremists, Turkey is going in the opposition direction to the vision of Attaturk and becoming more successful along the way....... ironic isnt it?

Very true that, despite over 60 years of anti Islamic policies the public still had a hunger for the more religious party....and it is them who is taking them closer to Europe economically

 

[akheR]

@akheR,
I am not sure Which Place you belong, from Indian perspective(before partition) we tried helping Turk caliphate when its asked for.
Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

I dont take your LOL seriously, but My support is based on my values.

People who believes Modernization/nationalism as their value against Islamic life, feel free to support Ataturk -"father of Turks".

The Truth is Arab fought the weak Turk caliphate but 'young turks" weekened the Turk caliphate.
If we see the end result, Turkey lost the Islamic appearance and Arab still has Islamic appearance. this might be a gain of turkish values against Islamic values.

The Young Turks were just a product of this decadence, not the cause, the Arab were, already before, against the Ottoman caliphate : how can 'non Arabs' rule over them and the Sunni world ? Like, seriously ?
And don't know why you talk from an 'Indian perspective', the Khilafat movement was common to Muslims from British India, not post-48 Independent India, which includes Pakistan and Bangladesh too, so your 'we' encompasses me and Bangladeshis too.

 

[Slog]

He was Slav, who banned all symbols of Islam in Government buildings.....women weren't allowed to wear hijab in University for example. He destroyed the Caliphate. He changed the alphabet from arabic to turkish and removed Qurans written in Arabic. Isn't this against the teachings of Islam?

He brought in Greek and other muslims into his country

 

[yasir]

Problem with today’s Muslim culture is that it is centered too far right. Religious literalism is very high among most Muslims pockets...

Islam is probably only religion where followers see too much into holly text. By followers I mean, vast majority of intellectuals, scholars, not just religious leaders. There is too much fascination with 7th century Arab Trible culture and too much faith in a book written 14 centuries, from economy to social to governance and to every day life detail problems are rest on right interpretation and understanding on this one book...

No other culture is that delusional and put all their eggs in one basket. If poor and illiterate to that, one can understand. But such a high number of intellectual, are emotional about those midevil beliefs with same ferocity as a layman...

Culture is dead for centuries, nothing is moving forward, everybody is hoping to change things, on every failure, they go back to the book, oh maybe we are not following those versus properly...

They go back to endless comparisons to midevil life, which has no relevance in modern times. Dynamics are completely different, tool chain is different, you need to build culture on completely different norms and platform. Anybody who talk about changing the core, is outcasted and made to leave the culture and community. As a result Islam has not faced serious resistance from within, despite been failure to produce anything meaningful or have an serious impact in the world for centuries...It is not good for Muslims that Islam is left unchallenged

Attaturk wanted to do some of that, divorce away from religion, inject modern and secular values in new Turkey. Problem was his methods were less democratic. Unfortunately they were based on military model, probably Man of Army force things rather than inspire free thinking culture... Turkey divorces itself from Islam but adopted military cultural of nationalism, rather than liberal, progressive cultural. Those values did not go too far...

 

[Robert]

As I understand history, the Ottoman Caliphate was busted up by the British and French Empires after WW1.

Ataturk was a great soldier who successfully defended his homeland against invasion by British Empire forces.

He went in to reform and modernise his society, removing regressive policies such as women civil servants having to take the veil. [MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION]’s point about military not liberal models is interesting to me though.

 

[PakistanMeriJaan]

I came across a most interesting baiyaan on turkey and this guy. very interesting views from the speaker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s708wQVAJYs

 

[PakistanMeriJaan]

Problem with today’s Muslim culture is that it is centered too far right. Religious literalism is very high among most Muslims pockets...

Islam is probably only religion where followers see too much into holly text. By followers I mean, vast majority of intellectuals, scholars, not just religious leaders. There is too much fascination with 7th century Arab Trible culture and too much faith in a book written 14 centuries, from economy to social to governance and to every day life detail problems are rest on right interpretation and understanding on this one book...

No other culture is that delusional and put all their eggs in one basket. If poor and illiterate to that, one can understand. But such a high number of intellectual, are emotional about those midevil beliefs with same ferocity as a layman...

Culture is dead for centuries, nothing is moving forward, everybody is hoping to change things, on every failure, they go back to the book, oh maybe we are not following those versus properly...

They go back to endless comparisons to midevil life, which has no relevance in modern times. Dynamics are completely different, tool chain is different, you need to build culture on completely different norms and platform. Anybody who talk about changing the core, is outcasted and made to leave the culture and community. As a result Islam has not faced serious resistance from within, despite been failure to produce anything meaningful or have an serious impact in the world for centuries...It is not good for Muslims that Islam is left unchallenged

Attaturk wanted to do some of that, divorce away from religion, inject modern and secular values in new Turkey. Problem was his methods were less democratic. Unfortunately they were based on military model, probably Man of Army force things rather than inspire free thinking culture... Turkey divorces itself from Islam but adopted military cultural of nationalism, rather than liberal, progressive cultural. Those values did not go too far...

I lost you when you said too much faith in a book written 14 centuries.

Come on bhai this isn't any book. its the word of our Allah SWT, this book is the rope of our Allah that we need to firmly hold on to, it will be the nur of our kabr.

 

[Greenstorm]

He was a great leader who founded modern Turkey through utmost determination and bravery thus providing Turks the luxury of charting their own course, free from foreign restraints, by providing a solid foundation. Even religious Turks have enormous respect for him just like Pakistanis have for secular Quaid-e-Azam.

 

[PetroDollars]

There are two thoughts to this, one good, one bad:

1. He was a great leader, who saw the British heavily infiltrating islam to destory the Ottoman by creating extremism and a number of different sects, to stop and put an end to this and save turkey, he went to war to destory all the islamic elements the british had created.

2. He was a donmeh jew, came from the young Turks, hence he was a zionist.

 

[Kroll]

Rather than banning the hijab outright, it would have been better if he had given women the choice to wear it or not wear it. Great leader nonetheless.

 

[yasir]

I lost you when you said too much faith in a book written 14 centuries.

Come on bhai this isn't any book. its the word of our Allah SWT, this book is the rope of our Allah that we need to firmly hold on to, it will be the nur of our kabr.

I don’t want to start another discussion on Quran in this thread, we have plenty of other threads dedicated to that. it is just a book written 14 centuries ago...

Complex problems we face today are not going to be solved by that book, which does not have much detail on today’s world view or society... My point is most societies are not that delusional to focus on holybooks, there is democracy, other institutions that are focus on solving problems by reason, debate and evidence. Nobody is fixated on Holly material, like Muslim cultures do. They have separated church from state long time ago... If you want to live your life by holly book, be my guest, but don’t make entire society hostage of 14 centuries old book, that was the point!!