Ataturk in the modern Islamic world
JayStr
I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
information home page:
"Upon Atatürk's death, a month of mourning was declared in Iran; in
India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
fossilized institutions he destroyed.
I am not overly familiar with the man or his works, or indeed that
entire era of history, but I know enough to get by and I am puzzled by
the utter contradiction. My question is simple: WHAT HAPPENED?
I am posting this query to several newsgroups so that all replies and
opinions may be heard and responded to by one and all.
Peace.
-- Jay Stranahan
Shabati..Äbuishneineh
JayStr wrote:
>
> I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
> information home page:
Too busy to document your article with a URL?
RACER
Hakan Doganer wrote:
>
> In a previous article, jay...@best.com (JayStr) says:
>
> >I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
> >information home page:
> >
> >India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
> >Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
> >India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
> >many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
> >'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
>
>
> >
> >What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
> >his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
> >Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
> >Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
> >thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
> >possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
> >mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
> >have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
> >fossilized institutions he destroyed.
> >
> >I am not overly familiar with the man or his works, or indeed that
> >entire era of history, but I know enough to get by and I am puzzled by
> >the utter contradiction. My question is simple: WHAT HAPPENED?
>
> openly practiced Islam outside their homes, but secretly practiced
> the religion of self-proclaimed Jewish messiah Sabbatai Zevi inside
> their homes...
>
> >
> >I am posting this query to several newsgroups so that all replies and
> >opinions may be heard and responded to by one and all.
> >
> >Peace.
> >
> >-- Jay Stranahan
> >
Yeah yeah yeah... Ataturk was a "donmeh" (a secret jew) and during the
hard times of creating a new nation from the ashes of a burnt down
empire, his opposers and opponents in the power struggle failed to bring
out such a "truth" out in front of the public. He was so secret that
nobody even mentioned about his Jewry even his shameless opponent Riza
Nur.
Now this S.O.B, Doganer or what the fuck his name, comes out and claims
Ataturk was a Jew and his reference is a Jewish writer. There is no
other sources for this baseless claim. Well I do not blame a Jewish
writer trying to credit a genius like Ataturk to his ancestry.
Doganer chooses to hide behind such claims and lies thinking he might
succeed in Ataturk followers from their way.
I ask him to bring more evidence on this claim of his or just get the
fuck out. Put up, or shut up!
Simko
From drugs and porno to Ataturk’s deeds and character!!! Is there a more
bizarre role that you can’t play in order to stir up trouble amongst
Middle Eastern nationalities? For someone who hates the guts of Arabs,
and then turn around and use them to glorify Ataturk, it is a very
daring act of hypocrisy.
I think your style is too easy to be missed though, even by the most
simple-minded Turks like Mowlana and Erol Keskin. In case there are ones
who are naive enough to buy your act of bad faith, I would like to
express to them my advance sympathy.
Shalom
JayStr wrote:
<<<<snip>>>>
> All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
> Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
> Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
> thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
>
> possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread
> (state-sponsored!)
> mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he
> must
> have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
> fossilized institutions he destroyed.
> <<<<more sniping>>>>
>
> Peace.
>
> -- Jay Stranahan
Hakan Doganer
In a previous article, jay...@best.com (JayStr) says:
>I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
>information home page:
>
>"Upon Atatürk's death, a month of mourning was declared in Iran; in
>India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
>Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
>India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
>many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
>'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
For the man who banned adhan (call to prayer) in Arabic in Turkey?...
>
>What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
>his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
>Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
>Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
>thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
>possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
>mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
>have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
>fossilized institutions he destroyed.
>
Michael Franks
JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote:
>I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
>information home page:
>"Upon Atatürk's death, a month of mourning was declared in Iran; in
>India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
>Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
>India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
>many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
>'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
>What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
>his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
>Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
>Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
>thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
>possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
>mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
>have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
>fossilized institutions he destroyed.
>I am not overly familiar with the man or his works, or indeed that
>entire era of history, but I know enough to get by and I am puzzled by
>the utter contradiction. My question is simple: WHAT HAPPENED?
>I am posting this query to several newsgroups so that all replies and
>opinions may be heard and responded to by one and all.
>Peace.
>-- Jay Stranahan
It may be because he believed in the seperation of state and
religion which can be regarded as anti Islam. In his favour
he did stop the Greeks throwing the Turks out of Europe
which would have been seen as a real defeat for Islam . Thyat
is my guess . I would be interested to see other people`s
views
Erol Keskin
Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
....................
>
> Let me give you a hint. You are a British and the states which mourned
> the death of Kemal were British (or western in general) colonies (pro-
> tectorates, etc). Go figure, if you have some investigative abilities,
> the common thread behind these acts, and who built the "political man"
> Kemal. And if you have an even closer and round knowledge of what exactly
> happened, then you will be more than convinced. Old good "balancing enemy
> power" tactics.
>
> Gregory
>
> "Reality Post" newspaper: "No News today! The same old news! The
> big fish eats the small ones!".
Ohhoo, another pile up from our commode side philosopher. :)
Erol
Gregory Dandulakis
-Surensoy,E.
The greatest achievement of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, or Kemalism,
has been that it pulled the Turks out of the deep hostility with
the Christian West, the crusade vs jihad hostility which was
exploited most vigorously by the Christians and Moslems, as well
as by the Ottoman Empire under the yoke of which the Turks
of Anatolia, or of today's Turkiye, had to live for 600 years as
a subjugated nation. That hostility was the pre-requisite of
Islam and Christianity (and Judaism). In other words, one could
not be Moslem without being the enemy of the whole Christian World,
or one could not be Christian without being the enemy of the Whole
Islamic World.
Neither Ataturk nor Kemalism destroyed Islam; it tried its best
to destroy that hostility; and, it was very successful in doing so
in Turkiye as far as Turks are concerned. But, some of the
"co-religionists" countries, as well as Christian countries, still
exploit that hostility for their petty benefits. Ataturk and Kemalism
showed to both Christian and Islamic Worlds that one could beleive
in any religion without being hostile to each other.
Ataturk summarized this principle very eloquently with these words:
"All the citizens of the World need to be educated to be free from
greed, hatred, and jelousy; this is the only way to achieve peace
at home and peace throughout the World."
That message has not been understood fully yet by many individual
persons and countries of both sides.
In article <5qnmrc$1...@cherry.news.easynet.net),
Michael Franks <michae...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
)JayStr <jay...@best.com) wrote:
)
))I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
))information home page:
)
))"Upon Atatürk's death, a month of mourning was declared in Iran; in
))India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
))Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
))India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
))many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
))'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
)
))What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
))his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
))Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
))Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
))thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
))possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
))mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
))have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
))fossilized institutions he destroyed.
)
))I am not overly familiar with the man or his works, or indeed that
))entire era of history, but I know enough to get by and I am puzzled by
))the utter contradiction. My question is simple: WHAT HAPPENED?
)
))I am posting this query to several newsgroups so that all replies and
))opinions may be heard and responded to by one and all.
)
))Peace.
)
))-- Jay Stranahan
)
)It may be because he believed in the seperation of state and
)religion which can be regarded as anti Islam. In his favour
)he did stop the Greeks throwing the Turks out of Europe
)which would have been seen as a real defeat for Islam . Thyat
)is my guess . I would be interested to see other people`s
)views
)
Erol Keskin
Simko wrote:
>
> From drugs and porno to Ataturk’s deeds and character!!! Is there a more
> bizarre role that you can’t play in order to stir up trouble amongst
> Middle Eastern nationalities? For someone who hates the guts of Arabs,
> and then turn around and use them to glorify Ataturk, it is a very
> daring act of hypocrisy.
> I think your style is too easy to be missed though, even by the most
> simple-minded Turks like Mowlana and Erol Keskin. In case there are ones
> who are naive enough to buy your act of bad faith, I would like to
> express to them my advance sympathy.
>
> Shalom
>
Shalom your ass, you paranoid smuggler. To get to my "simple mind's"
level you have to go up about 50 points. How about it?
Freaking racist cockroach!
JayStr
Simko wrote:
>
> From drugs and porno to Ataturk’s deeds and character!!! Is there a more
> bizarre role that you can’t play in order to stir up trouble amongst
> Middle Eastern nationalities? For someone who hates the guts of Arabs,
> and then turn around and use them to glorify Ataturk, it is a very
> daring act of hypocrisy.
> I think your style is too easy to be missed though, even by the most
> simple-minded Turks like Mowlana and Erol Keskin. In case there are ones
> who are naive enough to buy your act of bad faith, I would like to
> express to them my advance sympathy.
>
> Shalom
>
Hah? 'Drugs and porno'....? 'Hates the guts of Arabs.... hypocrisy'?
Who is this guy? Anybody know what the hell his beef is, or what he's
talking about? I've never even seen him before.
-- Jay Stranahan
Erol Keskin
He is one of the assholes on the net who just realized after
5000 years that his people should have their own country or state
or whatever. So every time turns on his box he has to insult
someone.
Erol
JayStr
To opt out of the whole quaint, old-fashioned-yet-bloodthirsty
stereotype of 'East versus West', in other words. Interesting. I will
have to read up on the guy.
As a matter of curiosity, what do you think Ataturk would think of the
whole NATO alliance?
Peace.
-- Jay Stranahan
Mohamad M. Hamzeh
The attached is one of the more interesting posts to this thread (there
wasn't much discussion otherwise, really). However, it does not address
the initial question? What caused this change of heart among Kemal's
co-religious.
To start, the initial post/question indicated that "mavlids" were read in
the mosques of Damascus and other Muslim cities to morn the death of the
man. "Mavlid" is probably the Turkish equivalent of the Arabic "mawlid"
or "the birth of" almost always denoting the birth of the Prophet. Such
a practice is not usually carried out to morn the death of someone but to
celebrate an occasion and thank God for a good event - does this change
the outlook?
As well, the Islamic era was plagued by a decaying Ottoman Empire, the
last commonly acknowledged Islamic Khilafah. The Ottomans refused to
allow a Jewish state in Palestine and joined much of the Islamic world
under the umbrella of a Muslim Turkish leadership. Mustafa Kemal, which
I refuse to call him his self proclaimed name Attaturk (father of Turks),
was pivotal in decapitating the Islamic state which helped France and
England lay claims to Arab and Muslim land. The Turks were generally not
viewed as foreigners by Muslims even thought England through its cunning
politics did manage to convince the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rule
- something the Arabs learned to regret.
Although I am probably not qualified to discuss Turkish politics, I must
point out that Kemal, in his European kiss ass revolution, stripped the
Islamic character from Turkish politics. This was not enough, however, he
attempted to strip the Islamic character of the Turkish people. He
changed the Turkish alphabet from Arabic-like (the language of the Quran)
to Latin. He implemented measures in the educational system aimed
specifically at hindering Islamic teachings and thought. He aligned
himself with the west which he admired so much at the expense of the
Muslim people. He alienated countries and people which, otherwise, would
consider Turkiye an extension of the global Islamic realization. The
list is long. Most importantly, however, is Kemal's vicious attacks on
Islam as a religion and as a culture. His claims of religious neutrality
were the veil under which he, viciously, slayed the Islamic character of
the gullible among Muslim Turks.
Sure, the Turkish politics required reformation following WWI. But
Kemal's reforms were an abortion and mutilation of everything Turkiye
meant to its Muslim people and brothers. And all of this sacrifice would
have been ok if he succeeded in enhancing the Turkish social welfare. In
my opinion, his politics were and still are a failure. Turkiye is still
the weak man of Europe and is no more accepted today by the Europeans
than it was accepted in the era of WWI. It trails all of the nations
that Kemal admired in GNP, technology, social welfare and all other
significant indicators. The Kemali controlled military is still
oppressing democracy, otherwise what would you call three military coups
in the recent history alone. Now, they are implementing stronger
measures to curtail Islamic education (which is almost non-existent) in
schools. They sure seem to have soiled their pants after the election of
a Muslim government which, incidentally, they forced to resign under the
threat of a coup. The entire world should hail the Kamali democracy - if
you can't learn to do it well then enjoy doing it badly!!
As a Muslim Arab, I find the Turkish occupation of the Syrian Iskandaroun
more palatable if Turkish politics had an Islamic character. But, I
denounce The Kemali occupation of Arab land. The recent Kemali-Israeli
arm flexing along the Syrian shoreline is but another indication of how
much the Kamali Turks are willing to go. He transformed Turkiye from a
Muslim country into a country that allies with … whoever. This would
have never occurred if Turkish politics did not have the Kemali stamp.
So do you still ask why Muslims and Arabs detest Mustafa Kemal or if they
ever had any respect for him? He had his day in the sun. My guess is
that he will eventually end up in the landfills of the proud Turkish
history - he is already there in the Arab and Muslim history. Only time
will tell and its is on the side of our proud Turkish brothers.
As far as NATO is concerned, the answer to your question would have been
trivial had you known a bit more about the man. He was a European kiss
ass of the highest caliber.
Mohamad M. Hamzeh
----- Replay Separator -------------------------
In article <33D1F2...@best.com>,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mehmet Gulsen
In article <8694403...@dejanews.com>,
Mohamad M. Hamzeh <mha...@iosphere.net> wrote:
......
>As well, the Islamic era was plagued by a decaying Ottoman Empire, the
>last commonly acknowledged Islamic Khilafah. The Ottomans refused to
>allow a Jewish state in Palestine and joined much of the Islamic world
>under the umbrella of a Muslim Turkish leadership. Mustafa Kemal, which
>I refuse to call him his self proclaimed name Attaturk (father of Turks),
>was pivotal in decapitating the Islamic state which helped France and
>England lay claims to Arab and Muslim land. The Turks were generally not
He has nothing to do with this. At the beginning of WWI he
was 33 years old, mid-ranking Ottoman Army officer. He did not have
any role in overall Ottoman politics.
>viewed as foreigners by Muslims even thought England through its cunning
>politics did manage to convince the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rule
>- something the Arabs learned to regret.
It was not deception either. Arabs consciously chose their
side. Khalifat was also functionally death by that time.
>Although I am probably not qualified to discuss Turkish politics, I must
>point out that Kemal, in his European kiss ass revolution, stripped the
>Islamic character from Turkish politics. This was not enough, however, he
If this is the reason why you really hate him, then you should
hate every single leader in any Islamic country (maybe with the exception
of Iran's mullahs or Saudi kings).
>attempted to strip the Islamic character of the Turkish people. He
>changed the Turkish alphabet from Arabic-like (the language of the Quran)
>to Latin. He implemented measures in the educational system aimed
>specifically at hindering Islamic teachings and thought. He aligned
>himself with the west which he admired so much at the expense of the
>Muslim people. He alienated countries and people which, otherwise, would
>consider Turkiye an extension of the global Islamic realization. The
As a matter of fact he had excellent relations with the Arab
leaders of his time (even with the ones who once fought against him:
King Abdullah, Kind Faisal etc.)
>list is long. Most importantly, however, is Kemal's vicious attacks on
>Islam as a religion and as a culture. His claims of religious neutrality
>were the veil under which he, viciously, slayed the Islamic character of
>the gullible among Muslim Turks.
>Sure, the Turkish politics required reformation following WWI. But
>Kemal's reforms were an abortion and mutilation of everything Turkiye
>meant to its Muslim people and brothers. And all of this sacrifice would
>have been ok if he succeeded in enhancing the Turkish social welfare. In
>my opinion, his politics were and still are a failure. Turkiye is still
>the weak man of Europe and is no more accepted today by the Europeans
>than it was accepted in the era of WWI. It trails all of the nations
>that Kemal admired in GNP, technology, social welfare and all other
>significant indicators. The Kemali controlled military is still
In terms of GNP per capita Turkey comes only after oil-rich
Gulf States (better off than mid-size oil rich countries, such
as Algeria or Iran). Thus, in terms of economic development Republican
Turkey can hardly be considered as a failure (especially with respect
to Islamic countries)
>oppressing democracy, otherwise what would you call three military coups
>in the recent history alone. Now, they are implementing stronger
Keep in mind that there were Franco of Spain, Salazar of
Portugal, generals of Greece within that "recent history". It is
unfortunate but we still have, as of 1997, Saddam Huseyin of Iraq,
Hafiz Esad of Syria, etc..
>measures to curtail Islamic education (which is almost non-existent) in
>schools.
It seems that you are totally confused here.
>They sure seem to have soiled their pants after the election of
>a Muslim government which, incidentally, they forced to resign under the
>threat of a coup. The entire world should hail the Kamali democracy - if
>you can't learn to do it well then enjoy doing it badly!!
>As a Muslim Arab, I find the Turkish occupation of the Syrian Iskandaroun
>more palatable if Turkish politics had an Islamic character. But, I
>denounce The Kemali occupation of Arab land. The recent Kemali-Israeli
What does this mean? Who occupies where?
>arm flexing along the Syrian shoreline is but another indication of how
>much the Kamali Turks are willing to go. He transformed Turkiye from a
>Muslim country into a country that allies with … whoever. This would
>have never occurred if Turkish politics did not have the Kemali stamp.
Whether you accept or not Israel existence is a reality. Arabs
tried to defeat them but failed. Why don't you give a break, and
try to live with it. Israel is a very significant country in the
region. It could be a small country by population or land, but
its overall GNP is bigger than most of the Arab countries.
Israel exports more goods than - not - any of her Arab neigbours,
but all of them COMBINED (namely, Syria+Egypt+Jordan).
>So do you still ask why Muslims and Arabs detest Mustafa Kemal or if they
>ever had any respect for him? He had his day in the sun. My guess is
>that he will eventually end up in the landfills of the proud Turkish
>history - he is already there in the Arab and Muslim history. Only time
>will tell and its is on the side of our proud Turkish brothers.
That will be decided by Turks only. Not by Arabs or
other Muslims. BTW, if you want to learn about him, just read
about him more seriously. Believe me he deserves that.
Mohamad M. Hamzeh
In article <5qumfd$o...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
meg...@pitt.edu (Mehmet Gulsen) wrote:
>
> >As well, the Islamic era was plagued by a decaying Ottoman Empire, the
> >last commonly acknowledged Islamic Khilafah. The Ottomans refused to
> >allow a Jewish state in Palestine and joined much of the Islamic world
> >under the umbrella of a Muslim Turkish leadership. Mustafa Kemal, which
> >I refuse to call him his self proclaimed name Attaturk (father of Turks),
> >was pivotal in decapitating the Islamic state which helped France and
> >England lay claims to Arab and Muslim land. The Turks were generally not
>
> He has nothing to do with this. At the beginning of WWI he
> was 33 years old, mid-ranking Ottoman Army officer. He did not have
> any role in overall Ottoman politics.
He was not a nobody at the end of the war. He was a hero and that what
gave him practically unlimited support.
> >viewed as foreigners by Muslims even thought England through its cunning
> >politics did manage to convince the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rule
> >- something the Arabs learned to regret.
>
> It was not deception either. Arabs consciously chose their
> side. Khalifat was also functionally death by that time.
No deception? what do call a promise for self rule when they were
formulating Seykes-Pico (sp?). The Kilafah needed reform no doubt but it
could have been saved if Kemal elected not to destroy it.
>
> >Although I am probably not qualified to discuss Turkish politics, I must
> >point out that Kemal, in his European kiss ass revolution, stripped the
> >Islamic character from Turkish politics. This was not enough, however, he
>
> If this is the reason why you really hate him, then you should
> hate every single leader in any Islamic country (maybe with the exception
> of Iran's mullahs or Saudi kings).
I do :-}. The Saudi Kings are not excluded either. I'll give the
mullahs of Iran a little more time. So far, their record is not too
impressive.
>
> > He alienated countries and people which, otherwise, would
> >consider Turkiye an extension of the global Islamic realization. The
>
> As a matter of fact he had excellent relations with the Arab
> leaders of his time (even with the ones who once fought against him:
> King Abdullah, Kind Faisal etc.)
And how do you view Turkey's current politics towards its neighbors (and
historical allies)?
> >list is long. Most importantly, however, is Kemal's vicious attacks on
> >Islam as a religion and as a culture. His claims of religious neutrality
> >were the veil under which he, viciously, slayed the Islamic character of
> >the gullible among Muslim Turks.
> >
> >Sure, the Turkish politics required reformation following WWI. But
> >Kemal's reforms were an abortion and mutilation of everything Turkiye
> >meant to its Muslim people and brothers. And all of this sacrifice would
> >have been ok if he succeeded in enhancing the Turkish social welfare. In
> >my opinion, his politics were and still are a failure. Turkiye is still
> >the weak man of Europe and is no more accepted today by the Europeans
> >than it was accepted in the era of WWI. It trails all of the nations
> >that Kemal admired in GNP, technology, social welfare and all other
> >significant indicators. The Kemali controlled military is still
>
> In terms of GNP per capita Turkey comes only after oil-rich
> Gulf States (better off than mid-size oil rich countries, such
> as Algeria or Iran). Thus, in terms of economic development Republican
> Turkey can hardly be considered as a failure (especially with respect
> to Islamic countries)
Turkey is also an oil producer - good for the Turkish people. But this
was not issue. How does it compare to the Western countries that Kemal
wished to copy cat. Had the historical caharcter of Turkey been
preserved, would the GNP have been different?
> >oppressing democracy, otherwise what would you call three military coups
> >in the recent history alone. Now, they are implementing stronger
>
> Keep in mind that there were Franco of Spain, Salazar of
> Portugal, generals of Greece within that "recent history". It is
> unfortunate but we still have, as of 1997, Saddam Huseyin of Iraq,
> Hafiz Esad of Syria, etc..
I understand. But two wrongs do not make a right.
>
> >measures to curtail Islamic education (which is almost non-existent) in
> >schools.
>
> It seems that you are totally confused here.
Am I really, should I cut out the recent article in the Globe and Mail
(Canada) describing the new proposed Turkish policy towards education?
It is still in the works.
> >As a Muslim Arab, I find the Turkish occupation of the Syrian Iskandaroun
> >more palatable if Turkish politics had an Islamic character. But, I
> >denounce The Kemali occupation of Arab land. The recent Kemali-Israeli
>
> What does this mean? Who occupies where?
Are we playing mind puzzles or do you really not know. Never heard of
Iskandaroun in the Northwest portion of the Syrian shoreline?
>
> >arm flexing along the Syrian shoreline is but another indication of how
> >much the Kamali Turks are willing to go. He transformed Turkiye from a
> >Muslim country into a country that allies with … whoever. This would
> >have never occurred if Turkish politics did not have the Kemali stamp.
>
> Whether you accept or not Israel existence is a reality. Arabs
> tried to defeat them but failed. Why don't you give a break, and
> try to live with it. Israel is a very significant country in the
> region. It could be a small country by population or land, but
> its overall GNP is bigger than most of the Arab countries.
> Israel exports more goods than - not - any of her Arab neigbours,
> but all of them COMBINED (namely, Syria+Egypt+Jordan).
I do accept the Israeli reality - you just do not give us enough credit.
GNP or not, do you see fit, as a Turk, to rub it in the nozes of a people
you have shared so much history with and who are so intermixed with the
Turks (I have substantial Turkish blood). Do you honestly think that it
was appropriate. I do not need an answer because I know better. Let's
call a spade a spade.
> >So do you still ask why Muslims and Arabs detest Mustafa Kemal or if they
> >ever had any respect for him? He had his day in the sun. My guess is
> >that he will eventually end up in the landfills of the proud Turkish
> >history - he is already there in the Arab and Muslim history. Only time
> >will tell and its is on the side of our proud Turkish brothers.
>
> That will be decided by Turks only. Not by Arabs or
> other Muslims. BTW, if you want to learn about him, just read
> about him more seriously. Believe me he deserves that.
I know and respect that. I think I tried to be very sensitive about this
in my post. However, the initial request asked for the Arab/Muslim point
of view and that is the only reason why I gave my two cents worth.
Incedentally, I have read up on the man. I respect what he had done for
Turkey during the war and acknowledge his heroisim. However, I hate what
he has done to Turkey in Peace time. To be a good soldier is one thing
and to be a good visionary is another.
Salam Mehmet,
Mehmet M. Hamzeh
OGUZ
I think he'd have supported the idea with all his heart.
As you may or may not know he was fully pro-western (politically
and scientifically) and pro-Turkish culturally. He was anti-communist
and anti-Arab. That's the gist of it.
stay cool,
Abu Zaynah
As-salaamu alaykum,
Ataturk!!
You ask why is his image so bad in the Islamic world today? Tell me this,
what do you think of a Muslim who makes it ILLEGAL for a woman to wear
hijab to work? Hijab is obligatory on Muslim women, so who was he to make
it haram?
He made it ILLEGAL for a Muslim man to wear a beard. Muslim men wear
beards in accordance with the example of the Prophet(SAWS). In fact, look
at any of the "pictures of prophets" that Christians and Jews paint, they
all have beards! Who was Ataturk to make haram a part of the sunnah? Did
you know that after this law was passed, in the masajid in Turkey, they had
fake beards hanging on the wall so that men could put them on?
Astaghfirullah!!
Ataturk made it ILLEGAL for the state to fund schools that taught Shariah.
He also eliminated the study of Qur'an in the other schools. Are these the
actions of a Muslim? If this is what is required for progress, then leave
me in the Dark Ages!
Did you know that under Ataturk, people were arrested for conveying salaams
to each other in public? Because Ataturk didn't want anyone to speak
anything but Turkish? The Prophet(SAWS) said that the conveyance of
salaams is a duty upon Muslims. So who was Ataturk to make haram a wajib
sunnah?
I have only began to scratch the surface....
JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote in article <33CD7A...@best.com>...
> I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
> information home page:
>
> "Upon Atatürk's death, a month of mourning was declared in Iran; in
> India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
> Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
> India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
> many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
> 'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
>
> What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
> his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
> Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
> Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
> thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
> possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
> mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
> have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
> fossilized institutions he destroyed.
>
> I am not overly familiar with the man or his works, or indeed that
> entire era of history, but I know enough to get by and I am puzzled by
> the utter contradiction. My question is simple: WHAT HAPPENED?
>
> I am posting this query to several newsgroups so that all replies and
> opinions may be heard and responded to by one and all.
>
> Peace.
>
> -- Jay Stranahan
>
JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote in article <33CD7A...@best.com>...
> I have just retrieved the following quote from Oguz's Turkish
> information home page:
>
> "Upon Atatürk's death, a month of mourning was declared in Iran; in
> India many shops were closed when the news of his death arrived, and
> Parliament was recessed. In Beirut, Damascus, North Africa and
> India, Mevlids were read in the mosques, sometimes bringing together as
> many as sixty thousand Muslims, and special days were set aside for this
> 'greatest of Turkey, Islam and the world.'"
>
> What has happened since World War 2 to the perception of this man among
> his own co-religionists? All I hear today is that he was a destroyer of
> Islam and a foe of Islamic institutions, etc; practically an Islamic
> Antichrist. The newspapers I read and the newsgroups I frequent are
> thick with condemnations of the secular institutions that Ataturk made
> possible. Obviously, to give rise to such widespread (state-sponsored!)
> mourning at the time of his death throughout the Islamic world, he must
> have been perceived as a great leader, and no less a Muslim for the
> fossilized institutions he destroyed.
>
> I am not overly familiar with the man or his works, or indeed that
> entire era of history, but I know enough to get by and I am puzzled by
> the utter contradiction. My question is simple: WHAT HAPPENED?
>
> I am posting this query to several newsgroups so that all replies and
> opinions may be heard and responded to by one and all.
>
> Peace.
>
> -- Jay Stranahan
>
dervish
Mohamad M. Hamzeh <mha...@iosphere.net> writes: > The attached is one of the more interesting posts to this thread (there
> wasn't much discussion otherwise, really). However, it does not address
> the initial question? What caused this change of heart among Kemal's
> co-religious.
>
>
> last commonly acknowledged Islamic Khilafah. The Ottomans refused to
> allow a Jewish state in Palestine and joined much of the Islamic world
> under the umbrella of a Muslim Turkish leadership. Mustafa Kemal, which
> I refuse to call him his self proclaimed name Attaturk (father of Turks),
> was pivotal in decapitating the Islamic state which helped France and
> England lay claims to Arab and Muslim land. The Turks were generally not
> politics did manage to convince the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rule
> - something the Arabs learned to regret.
>
Who is talking..! Today Araps are still the most anti-Turkish nation.
Living outside this long, I can say that compare to an Arap I may
call an Armenian fanatic more a friend! Not because of their friendliness but
because of their respect to distance, at least..!
You may never hasitate to search gold inside the guts of a wounded Turk
again, if opportunity would be there. We and you know your human quality too
much to be friendly ever..!
> Although I am probably not qualified to discuss Turkish politics, I must
> point out that Kemal, in his European kiss ass revolution, stripped the
> Islamic character from Turkish politics. This was not enough, however, he
> attempted to strip the Islamic character of the Turkish people. He
> changed the Turkish alphabet from Arabic-like (the language of the Quran)
> to Latin.
>
What kind success your people can exhibit for us to say that
the old ways would be more success. In your country, money is
coming from the ground effortlessly, still you are not any
more than what we left!
<... dumped..>
> As a Muslim Arab, I find the Turkish occupation of the Syrian Iskandaroun
> more palatable if Turkish politics had an Islamic character.
There is Turkish saying: "Neither sugar from Damascus nor the
face of Arap".
Civilization worked for everybody except yours!
Go to deepest of the hell!
Dervish.
Tisinli
Mohamad M. Hamzeh <mha...@iosphere.net> wrote:
>the initial question? What caused this change of heart among Kemal's
>co-religious.
>To start, the initial post/question indicated that "mavlids" were read in
>the mosques of Damascus and other Muslim cities to morn the death of the
>man. "Mavlid" is probably the Turkish equivalent of the Arabic "mawlid"
>or "the birth of" almost always denoting the birth of the Prophet.
You people, it seems, get a kik out of pointing out loan Arabic words
in other languages, and even using Arabic names... Sometime ago a certain
"Golani" who was debating with a Turk on the net, could not keep
himself from writing:
"Dear Murat(Murad in arabic): "....
And for no apparent reason, his explaing "in arabic" of the name
Seljuk (Turks) as:
"Seljuks (Selajika in arabic)"........??
<snip>
>As well, the Islamic era was plagued by a decaying Ottoman Empire, the
>last commonly acknowledged Islamic Khilafah.
Continuing the policies of a "Decaying" empire would not revive it, on
the contrary it would lead to the eventual demise of the nation,
because the "germs" which lead to the decay would still be there.
Some drastic changes had to be made. Ataturk did just that.
>The Ottomans refused to
>allow a Jewish state in Palestine and joined much of the Islamic world
>under the umbrella of a Muslim Turkish leadership. Mustafa Kemal, which
>I refuse to call him his self proclaimed name Attaturk (father of Turks),
>
You can call him whatever you want. This is a free county. Some of your
Islamist bretheren here in the US, as revealed in their publications,
are even against democracy (ta`adudiyya! in arabic..) Enjoy it while
you can, because your Arab countries lack "any" form it.
>was pivotal in decapitating the Islamic state which helped France and
>England lay claims to Arab and Muslim land.
Guess who was instrumental in that, as you surprisingly admit it yourself!
The Turks were generally not
>viewed as foreigners by Muslims even thought England through its cunning
>politics did manage to convince the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rule
>- something the Arabs learned to regret.
To the best of my nowledge, you are the first Arab to admit that.
I have many Arabist Arab, and Islamist Arab friends (to tell you the truth
these days it is very hard to tell the difference), and never hered that
from anyone before. On the contray, Mst of the Arabs hold the Ottoman
resposible of their being so backword, compared to your "glorios past!".
I have seen school books from some Arab countries call the Ottomans as
colonialists (Isti'mar in arabic...) No Sir. We cannot be responsible
of England's, and France's occupation of you lands.
They did devise a form of Arabizm for you base on Turkish hatred, (for
vey obvious reason) and unfortunately you still cary that brand of Arab
nationalizm. Unfortunately, most of the Arab Islamists are also presoaked
in that brand of hateful nationalizm.
>Although I am probably not qualified to discuss Turkish politics, I must
>point out that Kemal, in his European kiss ass revolution, stripped the
>Islamic character from Turkish politics. This was not enough, however, he
>attempted to strip the Islamic character of the Turkish people.
Ataturk forced nobody to his or her relegion. And nobody did. Turks are
better muslims today than ever, because they can read Kuran and relegious
literature in their own language. Besides, which Arab country is
nonsecular?
and which has a "Khalifa"? Non! IMHO, Ataturk's secularity actually is the
reason why Turkiye and Arab world are not (if I may) a fourth, fifth world
contries...
>He
>changed the Turkish alphabet from Arabic-like (the language of the Quran)
>to Latin.
What is wrong with that? Which part of that changing makes the
Arabs/Moslems
madder:
Abandoning Arabic letters, or adopting Latin based letters? In other
words if he had changed it to one of the two Turkish natinal alphabets
(Gok Turk and Uygur) which were in use before Adopting Islam, and well
after
thereof?
And I would like to settle this point once and for all: Is there any
verse in Kuran dictating to nonarabs' (A`a:jim in arabic, Acemiler in
Turkish)
to:
1) adopt Arabic script for their own national languages? or
2) abandon their languages in favor of Arabic language? or
3) perhapse, allow Arabic gradually take over the national language in
question? or
4) not to change their alphabet or language to whatever they like?
Do you people allow those things to hapen to your "beloved" language?
No hell, you wouldn't. If you do not know it yet let it be known to
you that everybody in the world feels the same way about their own
languages more or less the same way you do. If Kuran contained any
such stupidity, no Turk woulk be a moslem today!
>He implemented measures in the educational system aimed
>specifically at hindering Islamic teachings and thought.
Islam is many Islams. In your openion, which version should have been
adopted by the Turkish government? Sunni hanafi ? Sunni shafii, Sunni
Maliki? Sunni Hanbali?, Shii Ja`feri, Shii `Alawi, Bektashi, Ismaiili,
Wahabi,.........???
If you chose one of those the rest would be mad as hell, wouldn't
you say so? So the logical choice would be to give freedom to all.
And that is what Ataturk did.
>He aligned
>himself with the west which he admired so much at the expense of the
>Muslim people.
No more than any Arab leaders today. I did not "here" you
criticising any of them!?
>He alienated countries and people which, otherwise, would
>consider Turkiye an extension of the global Islamic realization.
You considaration of Turkiye as "an extensionr (?)" of the Islamic world
would not feed the hungry mouths, nor would it heal the sick. Your world
has many problems waiting to be solved, reviving the hatred between the
Turks and Arabs will not help the Arabs or the Turk. People are ment to be
different, the most suvivable of them are those who find something to
agree upon.
<snip>
Dear Mr. Hamzeh
Aarb nation, thanks to ottoman rule, have the same (written) language,
the same alphabet, good ties with each other (compare yourselves with
the Turks, who do not have a common written language, common alphabet, or
common culture, because they were (and some still are) ruled by
different powers: the Russians, the Chinese, the Persians, the Ottomans,
and the Arabs.
For example, the Russians, for more than a century, using the
divide-and-conquer method, divided the Turks of Central Asia
and Caucases, devised different "nationalities" for them, forced
them to use their dielects as written languages, forced different sets of
Cyrillic-based alphabets on them, encouraged them to use their tribal
names instead of name "Turk", and the list goes on and on.
Ottomans didn't do any of those to you. Our ancestors the Seljuks,
defended your land against the crusaders for over 200 years. If they
didnt, today your name would probably be George!
We didn't here any "Thank You" for those, but you want more and more!
Turkiye, using state's resources to teach Arabic in religeous high
schools,
and I have never hered any Arab country allowing Turkish to be taught in
a high school, leave alone funding it. Iraq has over 2 million Turks
( or Turkmans if you prefer ) who are decimated by the Arab regime there,
leave alone letting them use their national (Turkish) language.
The situation for over 25 million Turks of Iran is not any better.
>Mohamad M. Hamzeh
M. Tisinli
Mohamad M. Hamzeh
In article <5r3hbk$c...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>,
> > viewed as foreigners by Muslims even thought England through its cunning
> > politics did manage to convince the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rule
> > - something the Arabs learned to regret.
>
> Living outside this long, I can say that compare to an Arap I may
> call an Armenian fanatic more a friend! Not because of their friendliness but
> because of their respect to distance, at least..!
You do not have to compare the Araps (aka Arabs) to anyone and you can
compare them to the devil itself. In fact, I doubt that anyone cares.
What you perceive as an Arab setiment towards the Turks is nothing but a
sentiment towards the Kamalis. You do not exist in the heart of an Arab
or a Muslim to claim knowlege of their deepest feelings for those who
they shared history (and family ties in my case) with. If you value your
personal distance, please have it. You obviously do not speak for all
Turks and most certainly not for the Turkish side of my family (and it is
substantial I might add).
> You may never hasitate to search gold inside the guts of a wounded Turk
> again, if opportunity would be there. We and you know your human quality too
> much to be friendly ever..!
Thank you Sir. You certainly seem to know a lot about me.
> > Although I am probably not qualified to discuss Turkish politics, I must
> > point out that Kemal, in his European kiss ass revolution, stripped the
> > Islamic character from Turkish politics. This was not enough, however, he
> > attempted to strip the Islamic character of the Turkish people. He
> > changed the Turkish alphabet from Arabic-like (the language of the Quran)
> > to Latin.
>
> What kind success your people can exhibit for us to say that
> the old ways would be more success. In your country, money is
> coming from the ground effortlessly, still you are not any
> more than what we left!
No money does not flow from ground in my country. And Turkey is not far
from where we left it either. We still have our historic pride, not an
imported mould that does not fit!!
> > As a Muslim Arab, I find the Turkish occupation of the Syrian Iskandaroun
> > more palatable if Turkish politics had an Islamic character.
>
> There is Turkish saying: "Neither sugar from Damascus nor the
> face of Arap".
Thanks again.
>
> Civilization worked for everybody except yours!
> Go to deepest of the hell!
>
> Dervish.
>
And again. Your post was indeed quite informative and civilized. How
Characteristic of a Kamali Turk.
Mohamad (i.e., Mehmet) M. Hamzeh
dervish
"Abu Zaynah" <muj...@gte.net> writes: > As-salaamu alaykum,
>
> Ataturk!!
>
> You ask why is his image so bad in the Islamic world today?
I guess you mean Arap world. There is no Islamic world. If there
is one tell who lives there.
> Tell me this,
> what do you think of a Muslim who makes it ILLEGAL for a woman to wear
> hijab to work? Hijab is obligatory on Muslim women, so who was he to make
> it haram?
My mother covers her hair nobody says anything. My grandma was
doing the same noby bothered any ofthem. But my sister doesnot want
to use it. Now, who will represent Allah to force her to wear one?
>
> He made it ILLEGAL for a Muslim man to wear a beard.
In Afganistan, they hanged 65 people because they shaved their
beards. This is what "Islamic world" you missed!!!
> Muslim men wear
> beards in accordance with the example of the Prophet(SAWS). In fact, look
> at any of the "pictures of prophets" that Christians and Jews paint, they
> all have beards!
Because in their time there was no electric shaver or 50 cent
multi-use razor plates!
> Who was Ataturk to make haram a part of the sunnah? Did
> you know that after this law was passed, in the masajid in Turkey, they had
> fake beards hanging on the wall so that men could put them on?
> Astaghfirullah!!
Isn't there any "muslim" on this palnet who can argue like
anybody else without lying!!! Don't lie, OKAY??????
>
> Ataturk made it ILLEGAL for the state to fund schools that taught Shariah.
> He also eliminated the study of Qur'an in the other schools. Are these the
> actions of a Muslim? If this is what is required for progress, then leave
> me in the Dark Ages!
>
We studied that shariah for 600 years. And, we prove it to be
just a piece of garbage. The same as Russians prove communism
to be an sick idea!
> Did you know that under Ataturk, people were arrested for conveying salaams
> to each other in public?
Here you lied again. Be honest or SHUT UP!!!
> Because Ataturk didn't want anyone to speak
> anything but Turkish?
That is our language, anyways.
> The Prophet(SAWS) said that the conveyance of
> salaams is a duty upon Muslims.
So, what?
> So who was Ataturk to make haram a wajib
> sunnah?
Hey, you are an half muslim; wajib and sunnet are to
diferent things. There is no wajib sunnah.
Now, go and study some more!
>
> I have only began to scratch the surface....
>
Of, what? Your incapacity, maybe!
>
Dervish.
Mowlana
dervish <ma...@po-box.mcgill.ca> skrev i inlägg
<5r663r$9...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>...
> "Abu Zaynah" <muj...@gte.net> writes: > As-salaamu alaykum,
> >
The point is that Mr Ataturk did his very best in saving the Moslem world
from disaster.
So even if he was imperfect as a human being, he was not a traitor.
The traitors in the Arab world who wanted so called "National borders" (
what a joke !!! )
used Brittish arms and the Paedophiliac and dirt-bag Lawrence, to reach
their aims,
AND INSTANTLY THEY TURNED INTO TRAITORS AND KOFAAR !
Whatever prayers they performed, and whatever beards they were wearing, and
whatever
rules they followed, in that very moment they started to attack and kill
Turkish Moslem
brothers, for the sake of Brittain and "borders", they turned instantly
into infidels, and
their works became instantly BATEL ! Their so called Jehad, became BATEL !
Because
Jehad can NOT be fought in the interest of for example "borders", Brittish
ambitions and
Mr Lawrences need of young boys for his twisted sexual dreams !
Mowlana
Cluster User
(repost to originbal newsgroup list)
Mohamed M. Hamzeh:
perhaps as someone who is not turkish, but familiar with turks
and arabs, I might help.
perhaps an analysis of the kemalist movement would help clarify
things. there was nothing specifically anti-arab or anti-islamic
of movement after the armistice of WWI to the late 20's. In fact,
before the declaration of the republic, the ankara government
officially emphasized pan-islamic and populist motifs. as has been
pointed out arab self-determination was recognised and relations
with faisal's regime in syria was good, although individual
"young turks" continued to display ignorance and hatred of the
arab revolt.
subsequent reforms during the early few years of the republic
were not particularly anti-arab or anti-islamic either. the
abolishment of the caliphate was a normal measure in order to get
rid of the vestige of the former dynasty and the "ancien regime"
that went along with it. what was an indication of later policies
was the judgement by a secular body of the institution of the
caliphate itself, rahter than simply not recognising the claims
of the ottoman dynasty to the caliphate. in fact later islamic
bodies did in fact shelve the caliphate issue. during the early
years of the republic, islamic motifs did in fact continue, but with
a lower profile.
secularism itself is not necessarily "anti-islamic", but perhaps
"un-islamic". what attracted attention of the turkish case after
the late 20's is its *blatant* interpretaion as a "nationalisaton
of religion". "nationalised religions" (ethno-centric versions
of traditional religions) are commonplace in "third world" countries
but kemalists have tried to carry it out to its logical conclusion.
this desire to organise every facet of life on a "national basis"
and its particular emphasis on language has its philosophical
roots in 19th century german romantic nationalism, and a particular
favorite has been fichte's "discourses..." (Reden..) and this has
in fact been translated into turkish and arabic.
after the late 20's with the desire to justify politicial alignment
with europe and modernisation on a nationalist basis a particularly
anti-arab tone was adopted. the thesis put forward was this: turks
were european and thus their "national character" (in fichte: Volksgeist)
demanded such a thing. the fault of the previous regime was "xenophilia",
in this case supposedly "arabisation". the revolutionary - democratic
criticism would have been on the basis of the supremacy of the feudal
class and subsequent lack of democracy. however, semi-feudal
elements were still influential and the regime was not a liberal one.
such an ideology would have entailed class struggle. the cultural
policy however, did not affect rural life and led to seperation of
city and countryside that was to the advantage of both the semi-feudal
elements and the emerging compradore bourgeoisie. the semi-feudal
remnants compromised on their role in ruling in order to preserve
their mode of income. nationalism with its lack of class struggle
became the instrument of this compromise. these are in fact
characteristics of many third-world nationalist movements, but the
peculiar blend of modernism and nationalism is most striking in the
turkish case.
the parallels between the anti-latin rhetoric of romantics like
fichte and the anti-arab rhetoric in turkish nationalism is very
striking and both have a similar social purpose that has nothing to
do with romans or arabs. in germany too it was a weak middle class
unwilling to take feudalism head on and in its place a compromise
political solution. it is unfortunate that much of the turkish left
has not seperated the modernising and revolutionary - democratic
aspects of the kemalist movement in the tradition of the enlightenment,
which is not anti-arab at all and should entail solidarity with the
progressive movements in the arab world, from the pseudo-modernising
romantic - nationalist aspects .
many reforms carried out in turkey were carried out in similar
countries without any anti-arab aspects. I mentioned secularism
for one. change of script was also carried out in many other
muslim countries when the script was not adapted in a form
suitable for the language previously, as in somalia and malaya,
without anti-arab rhetoric and this has not raised much
objection. however, in these cases traditional uses of the former
script was tolerated. this was also the case in the muslim areas
under soviet power. for example, officially tolerated religious
pamphlets in local languages (mostly turkic) used the former
arabic based script.
finally, the early arab nationalists after WWI followed the
turkish experiment closely and conciously emulated many
aspects of it. many of these arabs in fact were former comrades
of the young turks.
for the blatant alliance of turkey with israel, the ultimate
reason is the alignment of turkey with imperialism rather than
any ideology. even the regime in the 50's which moderated the
secular aspects and which instituted a partial revival of
islamic motifs was pro-israel and also pro-french in the
algerian war (much in contradiction to 20's kemalism).
it is though, the failure of much of the turkish left, with
its adoption of the nationalist anti-arab motifs, thinking that
they go hand in hand with the revolutionary - democratic
aspects of kemalism, that there is no substantial opposition
to it other than an islamic one.
Cluster User
Surisrafil
Dervish,
It is obvious from your "brilliant assays" that you have all your
historical and geographical facts and figures screwed up.
1- You keep saying, "the wealth of Arabs is coming from under ground".
Maybe you don't know but only the Arab states to the south of the Persian
Gulf are rich in oil. So the poor Egyptians or Lebanese or Jordanians etc.
are not only poor but also looked down upon by the arrogant Saudis or
Kuwaitis and etc. It only shows your ignorance when you mix, for instance,
Egyptians with a bunch of Saudi shit heads.
2- I have read many times in your postings remarks about "cutting the
stomach of the Turks in search of the gold", by which I assume you are
referring to the time of Arab uprising against the Turks during WWI. Well
you are wrong again. Majority of the Turkish army, fighting the in Yemen
against the Arab nationalists, was also consisted of Arabs, from Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan etc. If you read reliable history books (not the ones
taught to you in the your school years) You will find out that more than
half of the divisions fought under the command of Kemal Ataturk, in Syria
against the French were also Arabs. As a matter of the fact one of my
friends grandfather (who is a Lebanese) has fought in Syria under the
command of Ataturk. So when you refer so frequently to "Lawrence" as " the
hero of all Arabs" it is obvious that you don't even know your ass from
the whole on the ground. Or maybe you do, and just are promoting a
"certain agenda".
3- You claim that the Arabs hated Ataturk. Although I am not an Arab, and
can't speak for them, I don't think that, in general, they do. I think you
have again mixed up the Arabs and religious fanatics. Religious fanatics
don't count, because they hate everybody else. Pretty much like yourself,
who hate everybody else too, (maybe except your masters).
4- You have often written that YOUare not going to save "the Arabs sorry
asses". Believe me no body expects you to do so. With a mindset like that,
you would be lucky if you could save YOUR own sorry ass.
5- Last, but not the least, even though I personally don't like the Arabs,
I don't hate all of them either. I think you should realize that there is
a significant difference between, for example, Egypt, which has created
some of the greatest achievements of human history in art, architecture,
literature, etc. and Saudi or Kuwait, which have remained the same shit
throughout the history: a bunch of lizard eater, camel fucker,
un-civilized, wild beasts. The fact that they both speak Arabic doesn't
make them one unified nation.
Mohamad M. Hamzeh
In article <19970722082...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
tis...@aol.com (Tisinli) wrote:
> You people, it seems, get a kik out of pointing out loan Arabic
words
> in other languages [to the end ...]
Dear Mr. Tsilini,
Without spreading this thread too thin, let me point out the following
points.
But first things first; Thank you for the civility of your response.
I know it
is sometimes difficult to control ones emotions when faced with a
perceived
attack on one's culture. I assure you that my intent was none of
that; I hold a
lot of respect and sincerity towards the Turkish people with whom I
have shared
so much culture, history and even blood relations. If my post
offended you
personally, please accept my sincere apologies.
My using the Arab equivalent of the word "mavlid" was an effort to put
the
reported historic event into context (reading mavlids in mosques). I
do not
know what reading a mavlid means to Turks but I do know what it means
to Arabs
(Damascus was mentioned in the original post). If some Arabs
entertain
themselves pointing out similarities in the languages, you should not
judge a
single Arab for the sins of all (if you find the practice annoying).
Your point about choosing a local language for cultural efficiency is
duly
noted. My question is, and please note my ignorance about this, is
the Latin
alphabet local to the Turkish culture? If it is then moving to Latin
would make
a lot of sense. If not, then why Latin in particular was used instead
of a
local alphabet. The point that is to be made here, and this is the
essence of
my post, I perceive Kemal's policy as favoring the west over the
Turkish
heritage. My perception may be wrong from your point of view, but you
will have
to excuse me because many analysts support this conclusion.
What the Turks did or do to further their interests is their business
and their
business alone. There are obviously several political currents in
Turkey one of
which is Pro-Islamic. I am not an Arab-Arabist or an Arab-Islamist;
simply a
Muslim Arab. Therefore, it is logical for me to think in favor of a
movement
that reaches my way and not in favor of a movement that reaches away.
As a
freedom loving person, I was disturbed by the recent coercion used by
the Kemali
military to dissolve the elected government. I was further disturbed,
as a
Muslim, to read about the proposed changes in the education system
which are
only aimed at reducing the Islamic sentiment in the youth. Do I have
any right
to interfere in the political system in Turkey: Not at all. Do I have
a right
to feel saddened by certain events: Damn right - my emotions are my
own.
Anyone who denies the betrayal of Arabs to their Turkish brothers is a
fool at
best and a liar in the worst case. To me, each drop of Turkish blood
spilled by
an Arab is crime of the greatest dimensions. I am extremely concerned
that the
prevailing politics of the ME may result in brother killing brother
again. If
you like me to criticize any of the current political leaders in the
ME
(including the Mullahs of Iran) please let me know and tell me which
one I
should start with. I am not a fundamentalist nor aligned with any
political
current. I am, and many exist like me, just an average Arab who feels
a great
loss because of the Kemali revolution. We lost a historic ally and
the
friendship of a nation we shared so much with. Do not get me wrong, I
do not
seek Turkish protection nor affection. It is just a shame to see so
much lost.
Yes the Seljouks did fight the Crusaders and so did the Arabs and so
did other
Muslims like Salah Eddine. Nationalism was not even defined at the
time. The
people saw a common enemy and they acted as one as they should have; I
know that
this is against the Kemali teachings of reducing East vs. West
hostility. Did
this hostility go away? It is my understanding that Bosnia's Muslims
are
predominantly Turk. What did Kemal and his revolution do for them?
It is my opinion that the political system at the time had to be
changed. There
were too many parties involved to pin the blame on a single person.
But, as a
national hero, Kemal directed the country away from its tradition and
heritage.
My entire original post revolves around the soundness of his decision
and the
wisdom of his vision, given the historic and current circumstances,
and the
prevailing alternatives at the time and today. I was not comparing
Turkey to
other Arab countries but to Western systems that the Kemali revolution
was
aiming/hoping/expecting to reach.
Best Regards,
Mohamad M. Hamzeh
Cluster User
MK wrote:
:In <19970725022...@ladder02.news.aol.com> Surisrafil wrote:
:> ... for example, Egypt, which has created some of the greatest
:> achievements of human history in art, architecture, literature,
:> etc. and Saudi or Kuwait, which have remained the same shit
:> throughout the history: a bunch of lizard eater, camel fucker,
:> un-civilized, wild beasts. The fact that they both speak Arabic
:> doesn't make them one unified nation.
:Bizim Cluster User RK'nin kulaklari cinlasin... :)
:MK
I have not claimed that speaking the same language makes them one
nation. nationality or ethnic identity, whichever you prefer
does not neccessarily follow a common language, nor does it
neccessarily follow citizenship. any group may claim a seperate
national or ethnic identity for whatever reason and may choose
to form a seperate state or not and may decide to unify their
states or not.
dervish
suris...@aol.com (Surisrafil) writes: > Dervish,
>
> It is obvious from your "brilliant assays" that you have all your
> historical and geographical facts and figures screwed up.
>
Let's see.
> 1- You keep saying, "the wealth of Arabs is coming from under ground".
> Maybe you don't know but only the Arab states to the south of the Persian
> Gulf are rich in oil. So the poor Egyptians or Lebanese or Jordanians etc.
> are not only poor but also looked down upon by the arrogant Saudis or
> Kuwaitis and etc. It only shows your ignorance when you mix, for instance,
> Egyptians with a bunch of Saudi shit heads.
My comments was never about the Arap nation. I cannot criticise a nation
who gifted us with Algebra, Astronomy and some other main foundations
of human civilization. The subject is political and the words
imply political bodies. Sure, I know that some Arap nations are
struggling to make a living on a land bare on surface as bare as it
is below the surface. I shall openly write here that: I AM NOT
ANTI-ARAP and I DO NOT HATE ARAP PEOPLE. By the word "ARAP" I always
mean some of the political figures living that region. I do not
think that those who are attacking Ataturk are after his decayed bones.
Okay?
> 2- I have read many times in your postings remarks about "cutting the
> stomach of the Turks in search of the gold", by which I assume you are
> referring to the time of Arab uprising against the Turks during WWI. Well
> you are wrong again. Majority of the Turkish army, fighting the in Yemen
> against the Arab nationalists, was also consisted of Arabs, from Syria,
> Lebanon, Jordan etc. If you read reliable history books (not the ones
> taught to you in the your school years) You will find out that more than
> half of the divisions fought under the command of Kemal Ataturk, in Syria
> against the French were also Arabs. As a matter of the fact one of my
> friends grandfather (who is a Lebanese) has fought in Syria under the
> command of Ataturk. So when you refer so frequently to "Lawrence" as " the
> hero of all Arabs" it is obvious that you don't even know your ass from
> the whole on the ground. Or maybe you do, and just are promoting a
> "certain agenda".
Let me explain it like this:
Those who paid for the bomb dropped in that human shelter in
Baghdat are the ones implied. They still have that lowered animal
morality " to search gold in wounded bodies"; it is not matter
if the body belongs to a Baghdat citizen or to a solder. As long
as they are there there will be feelings of a Lawrence which
will make itself a "hero". Clear enough?
> 3- You claim that the Arabs hated Ataturk. Although I am not an Arab, and
> can't speak for them, I don't think that, in general, they do. I think you
> have again mixed up the Arabs and religious fanatics. Religious fanatics
> don't count, because they hate everybody else. Pretty much like yourself,
> who hate everybody else too, (maybe except your masters).
In this discussion the word "Arap" is not about the nation. It is
about the polical figures. Again, in majority, the Araps (the
polical bodies who govern and their policies) are anti-Ataturk. Right?
> 4- You have often written that YOUare not going to save "the Arabs sorry
> asses". Believe me no body expects you to do so. With a mindset like that,
> you would be lucky if you could save YOUR own sorry ass.
I did not use any satament like this. Someone implied that ousting Israel
from the region must be a part of religion. And my reply to him was:
"go f... yourself". Because, I do not beleive that those who
hintered the struggle of these seven year old boys, standing bare chest
in front of bullets in defending their land, shall have any
face to promote a 3000 year old non-sense war. I hate double faces.
> 5- Last, but not the least, even though I personally don't like the Arabs,
> I don't hate all of them either. I think you should realize that there is
> a significant difference between, for example, Egypt, which has created
> some of the greatest achievements of human history in art, architecture,
> literature, etc. and Saudi or Kuwait, which have remained the same shit
> throughout the history: a bunch of lizard eater, camel fucker,
> un-civilized, wild beasts. The fact that they both speak Arabic doesn't
> make them one unified nation.
>
Ofcourse, it is the Egyptian culture which created most marvels than
any ancient human civilization. I admire to Romans, the original
contributions of Islam to human knowledge, and to the Egyptians
who set the foundations of geometry, and to Chinesee, ...
But I hate those who wanted to make a living on my religion. Today
there are no more "religious fanatics" because the religion is
turned into a political tool and into a source of income. There are
theo-politicians, only. And, the only true beleivers are those
who are determined to keep it as a strentgth of spirit and a
way of communicating to the super creator for self-assurance.
I tried not to read your references to body parts. It has been a while
that I decided to express my anger in more civil ways.
In summary, your anger is baseless. When a discussion has
a political nature words shall be understood in the same sense, too.
We have to use words like Araps, Islam, Syria... and expect those
who are in discussion to give them the implied meaning. Okay?
Now, may I expect you to post my response wherever you post your anger?
I guess you are an Egyptian. If so, your country is suffering
no less than Turks in this era of politization of religions.
By the way I have no masters. Nobody can control my brain.
I allow myself to bombard anything stupid. Long live Internet!!
(There is always confusion associated with listening to neighbor's
door.)
Stay clear,
Dervish.
blade
Dervish <ma...@po-box.mcgill.ca> wrote in article
<5r663r$9...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>...
> "Abu Zaynah" <muj...@gte.net> writes: > As-salaamu alaykum,
> >
> > Ataturk!!
> >
> > You ask why is his image so bad in the Islamic world today?
>
> I guess you mean Arap world. There is no Islamic world. If there
> is one tell who lives there.
Yes, there is a Islamic world. Arabs, Turks, Pakistanis, Indians (some),
Indonesians, Malasians, Turks in CIS, etc live there.
> > Tell me this,
> > what do you think of a Muslim who makes it ILLEGAL for a woman to wear
> > hijab to work? Hijab is obligatory on Muslim women, so who was he to
make
> > it haram?
> My mother covers her hair nobody says anything. My grandma was
> doing the same noby bothered any ofthem. But my sister doesnot want
> to use it. Now, who will represent Allah to force her to wear one?
Muslim women in Turkey can freely wear hijab if they want to do so.
> >
> > He made it ILLEGAL for a Muslim man to wear a beard.
> In Afganistan, they hanged 65 people because they shaved their
> beards. This is what "Islamic world" you missed!!!
I don't think wearing a beard makes you Muslim. You can be very
good Muslim without some hear on your face.
> > Muslim men wear
> > beards in accordance with the example of the Prophet(SAWS). In fact,
look
> > at any of the "pictures of prophets" that Christians and Jews paint,
they
> > all have beards!
> Because in their time there was no electric shaver or 50 cent
> multi-use razor plates!
This is correct. They didn't have these facilities in their time.
> > Who was Ataturk to make haram a part of the sunnah? Did
> > you know that after this law was passed, in the masajid in Turkey, they
had
> > fake beards hanging on the wall so that men could put them on?
> > Astaghfirullah!!
> Isn't there any "muslim" on this palnet who can argue like
> anybody else without lying!!! Don't lie, OKAY??????
This is not correct. Arabs made up these stories.
> > Ataturk made it ILLEGAL for the state to fund schools that taught
Shariah.
> > He also eliminated the study of Qur'an in the other schools. Are these
the
> > actions of a Muslim? If this is what is required for progress, then
leave
> > me in the Dark Ages!
> We studied that shariah for 600 years. And, we prove it to be
> just a piece of garbage. The same as Russians prove communism
> to be an sick idea!
You are again correct.
> > Did you know that under Ataturk, people were arrested for conveying
salaams
> > to each other in public?
> Here you lied again. Be honest or SHUT UP!!!
Please put up or shut up.
> > Because Ataturk didn't want anyone to speak
> > anything but Turkish?
> That is our language, anyways.
What is wrong with this?
> > The Prophet(SAWS) said that the conveyance of
> > salaams is a duty upon Muslims.
> So, what?
> > So who was Ataturk to make haram a wajib
> > sunnah?
> Hey, you are an half muslim; wajib and sunnet are to
> diferent things. There is no wajib sunnah.
> Now, go and study some more!
You are again correct.
Murattti
Muhammed Hamzeh, you have described yourself very well in your angry
words. I'd like to make a point here. First of all, arabic-like language
is not our language, anyways. Because we are not arabs. Second, switching
to western direction in system was the right thing to do. The world
balance was already tipped on that direction by the achievements in
industrial and military science, and Turkey has to adopt to environmental
and global conditions, if can't lead. And today, we see the difference
between Turkey and arabs. Today, Turkey is the sole industrialized nation
where muslims live. Iran is the only follower, still far behind us. Where
is the rest? In its beginnings, Islam had the edge and success in science,
civilization and power. Today, Islamic rule has turned into a losing and
self-destroying system. It's going through the stage christians went
through in the medieval times. I don't think we have to live in this
schizophrenic rule.
Turkey's or Islam's problem has nothing to do with Mustafa Kemal or Quran.
Both are being toyed in politics; very self abusing. This was the end of
Ottoman era, and it is continuing now.
Murattti
Mustafa Kemal's big achievement was to seperate religious law from the
government, thus allowing the people to choose for themselves and take on
full responsibility, at least in the original principle. Kemalism has
nothing to do with Mustafa Kemal, just as Islam and Islamic law has
nothing to do with Kuran in principle (in my opinions). Kemalism is an
ideology just as democrat, communist or theocratic ideologies, created
after his time. To see the difference and comparison, you can look at the
main principles and current applications in both Islam vs Kuran and
Ataturk vs. Kemalism. Ataturk should have never been taken as an icon, or
an idol; the principles should have.. The principles were futuristic and
were meant to work as guidelines or as a mission statement to start with.
They should've been taken for what they are instead of as they are.
(Same goes for all major religions who worship icons, objects and
establishment versus taking the principles as guidelines) Today, Turkey is
still stuck in the past, somewhere around 1920's and 30's... all for
discussing how kemalism and the regime should be...
As far as Nato goes, there is not really an answer to the question. The
times were different, so were the conditions. They were such different
eras.
Murat
OGUZ
Abu Zaynah wrote:
>
> As-salaamu alaykum,
>
> Ataturk!!
>
> what do you think of a Muslim who makes it ILLEGAL for a woman to wear
> hijab to work? Hijab is obligatory on Muslim women, so who was he to make
> it haram?
>
[Oguz]
Ataturk didn't make wearing a 'hijab' haram you dimwit; he made it
illegal
and THANK GOD FOR ATATURK!!! by the way is it not 'haram' for women to
be
working?
> He made it ILLEGAL for a Muslim man to wear a beard. Muslim men wear
> beards in accordance with the example of the Prophet(SAWS). In fact, look
> at any of the "pictures of prophets" that Christians and Jews paint, they
> all have beards! Who was Ataturk to make haram a part of the sunnah? Did
> you know that after this law was passed, in the masajid in Turkey, they had
> fake beards hanging on the wall so that men could put them on?
> Astaghfirullah!!
[Oguz]
Get the hell outta here with your bullshit!
THANK GOD FOR ATATURK! that we don't look like you cockroaches
he brought us back to our Turkish roots.
And what the hell is the importance of having an uncombly beard?
You think that if you look like the prophets that your heart is
like them as well?!!!! what a simple minded low brow neanderthal!
If you were any sort of good muslim you wouldn't be defaming such
an incredible man while he is in his grave! you are a coward and
a simpleton.
>
> Ataturk made it ILLEGAL for the state to fund schools that taught Shariah.
> He also eliminated the study of Qur'an in the other schools. Are these the
> actions of a Muslim? If this is what is required for progress, then leave
> me in the Dark Ages!
>
[Oguz]
who cares about shariah? not the Turks! WE are TURKS! not ARABS!
you can live as you wish but then leave us alone and tell your
rich, fat countrymen not to come to our country to drink, dance,
swim, and smell up our hotels.
> Did you know that under Ataturk, people were arrested for conveying salaams
> to each other in public? Because Ataturk didn't want anyone to speak
> anything but Turkish? The Prophet(SAWS) said that the conveyance of
> salaams is a duty upon Muslims. So who was Ataturk to make haram a wajib
> sunnah?
[Oguz]
you are an imbecile! Thank God your people joined the British and woke
our people up to the reality. i thank God everyday that we are not like
you!
You envy us soooo much; i know it hurts you. We fought for Islam and
brotherhood for 900 years, we were the warriors on the front, but what
happened in WWI? now you can deal with your divided puppet Gulf oil
joke countries (the laughing stock of the world), youcan deal with
Israel on your own, and suck up to the Brits some more
peace i'm otta here
Oguz
http://cord.iupui.edu/~soguz
>
> I have only began to scratch the surface....
>
so...@indyvax.iupui.edu
JayStr
Murattti wrote:
>
> Muhammed Hamzeh, you have described yourself very well in your angry
> words. I'd like to make a point here.
Yes, Hamzeh can speak harshly, and I have butted heads with him a few
times. However, I have also found him to be a thoughtful person one may
talk to once the initial obligatory fireworks are over with. So do not
write him off as a brainless fanatic. I disagree with him a lot --
vehemently -- but he is not that sort of fellow.
>First of all, arabic-like language
> is not our language, anyways. Because we are not arabs. Second, switching
> to western direction in system was the right thing to do. The world
> balance was already tipped on that direction by the achievements in
> industrial and military science, and Turkey has to adopt to environmental
> and global conditions, if can't lead. And today, we see the difference
> between Turkey and arabs.
As the one who initiated this thread, I'm afraid I've got to bring
things back on topic... because I still haven't got the answer I was
looking for. I asked why Ataturk was so highly regarded in Islam fifty
years ago and now is largely reviled outside of Turkey. The Turks told
me why he was great, the Arabs told me why he sucked, but nobody has
told me of any possible reason for this sea-change in attitude.
The only relevant answer was a rather interesting one -- from a Greek,
of all people -- who said that since the rest of the Middle East was
under the thumb of colonialism at that time, Ataturk was admired as a
strong leader who had kept his country free. Could this be an
explanation? Or is the change in Ataturk's image a symptom of a rising
intolerance and fudamentalism in the post-colonial Middle East? and why
would that be? My mind is open on these questions, as I have no ax to
grind and am simply curious. On the face of it, you have to admit it
makes no sense to an outsider.
>Today, Turkey is the sole industrialized nation
> where muslims live. Iran is the only follower, still far behind us. Where
> is the rest? In its beginnings, Islam had the edge and success in science,
> civilization and power. Today, Islamic rule has turned into a losing and
> self-destroying system. It's going through the stage christians went
> through in the medieval times.
This is a pet theory I've been nursing for some time... that Islam
(broadly speaking, as a world institution) is on the cusp of some kind
of Godawful equivelant of the Protestant Reformation. If you read a lot
of history and believe, as I do, that institutions go through different
cycles and stages of development... well.... Islam is now about 1400
years old. Where was European Christianity when IT was 14 centuries old?
Witch burnings, Inquisitions, merciless persecutions that were wholly
out of character for both the religion and the Church up to that time...
and a lot of underground rumblings as people started to get utterly sick
of their own religious hierarchy & political leaders throwing their
weight around and using the narrow literal word of their holy book to
micromanage their lives.
If the historical pattern holds true, it won't be the expected clash
between militants and seculars/moderates. The people who succeed in
reforming Islam on a global scale may well turn out to be -- not
Kemalists or 'westernized' Muslims -- but super-pious scholars who are
simply sick of being told what to do & how to live by some old guy in a
funny hat, and having their religion perverted by people who are telling
them to go out and kill in the name of a merciful God. They may well
also come to the conclusion that religion is too precious to soil it by
association with politics. We went through that mess five centuries ago,
and the modern separation of church & state was the welcome result.
Fortunately, we're in the Information Age now, where ideas may be
broadly circulated and whole wars can be initiated and fought within
mere weeks. The Muslim Reformation will take decades, not centuries. I
wish them luck, a printing press (having people read their own holy book
instead of selective editing by 'learned scholars' is the single best
weapon against brainless fundamentalism -- Muslims can have the Internet
for a printing press), and a lot of ammo. I'm afraid they'll need it.
Peace.
-- Jay Stranahan
-Surensoy,E.
I agree, sort of, "Mustafa Kemal's big achievement was to seperate
religious law from the government, thus allowing the people to
choose for themselves and take on full responsibility."
I do not agree with you that "Kemalism has nothing to do with
Mustafa Kemal"; Kemalism has a lot to do with Mustqafa Kemal;
if Mustafa Kemal did nor exist, Kemalism and Rebublic of Turkiye,
would not even be born, and as a result Turks would not free today;
they would be either still under Ottoman oppression, a post-WWI
puppet of the West, or under direct yoke of Western states such
as Greece, England, France, Italy, Russia, etc.
I agree that "Ataturk should have never been taken as an icon, or
an idol; the principles should have.."
Lastly, it is not true that "Today, Turkey is still stuck in the
past, somewhere around 1920's and 30's." But, the progress of Turkiye
and Turks are inhibitted by the descendents of former Ottomans
who managed to infiltrate back to Turkish society and virtually
took it over. The same Ottoman style curruption and backwardness
is inhibitting the progress in Turkiye.
In article <19970801103...@ladder02.news.aol.com),
Murattti <mura...@aol.com) wrote:
)Mustafa Kemal's big achievement was to seperate religious law from the
)government, thus allowing the people to choose for themselves and take on
)full responsibility, at least in the original principle. Kemalism has
)nothing to do with Mustafa Kemal, just as Islam and Islamic law has
)nothing to do with Kuran in principle (in my opinions). Kemalism is an
)ideology just as democrat, communist or theocratic ideologies, created
)after his time. To see the difference and comparison, you can look at the
)main principles and current applications in both Islam vs Kuran and
)Ataturk vs. Kemalism. Ataturk should have never been taken as an icon, or
)an idol; the principles should have.. The principles were futuristic and
)were meant to work as guidelines or as a mission statement to start with.
)They should've been taken for what they are instead of as they are.
)(Same goes for all major religions who worship icons, objects and
)establishment versus taking the principles as guidelines) Today, Turkey is
)still stuck in the past, somewhere around 1920's and 30's... all for
)discussing how kemalism and the regime should be...
)
)As far as Nato goes, there is not really an answer to the question. The
)times were different, so were the conditions. They were such different
)eras.
)
)Murat
Seyf ferjani
Dear sir
The argument of against ataturk is not whether these religious
activities make sense or not, it is because that human being's should be
free to express themselves, and also should be free to wear what they
perceive as fitting.
Ataturk denied this to many people, I'm not arguing against the theory
of Kamalien state but against the oppression caused by it against
practicing muslims.
I personally believe that just because somebody is a muslim scholar
doesn't make him the best candidate to lead a country- or the piety of a
man is not always the best indicator for a person's ability to lead a
country... A secular state would a good answer, I also believe that to
reinforce this, like all wester countries, we should instutionalise the
main religion of turkey- i.e. give them the freedom to educate and be
funded, what is the problem with that? many western countries, USA,
BRITAIN, Spain, Italy, canada, do this.... so why not turkey?
The denieing of basic rights of worship and expression, only fuels
people against a sensible secularisation of the state- and the parlement
or representetives are inturn are fueled toward and extrimist
secularism... which one day may actually cause an uprising much like
that of the people against the TZAR...
thank you for listining
In article <33E21E...@indyvax.iupui.edu>, OGUZ
<so...@indyvax.iupui.edu> writes
--
Seyf ferjani
Khondakar Golam Mowla
It is a historical fact that last independent Caliph Sultan Abdul Hamid
Khan rejected the idea of a state for
illegal immigrants in the heart land of the 1300 years Caliphate. So only
future Caliph and only future Caliph can decide about those illegal
immigrants who came there without any visa, I repeat without any visa.
So all the conspiracies of crusaders must end without any further delay
for the re-establishment of the Caliphate; Islam’s only one Political
System, I repeat, Islam’s only one political System. A Muslim will only
die as a death of Jahilya/neglected, if he does not take a baya/oath
from a Caliph. We the World Muslims do not make propaganda against any
nation’s political System. So why non-Muslim World and particularly the
Crusaders will direct al their energy against the Caliphate. When those
Anglo Saxons who talk all the history of lies and deception; took India
they took from Muslim Rulers, even Sultan Muhammad bin Tugluq of India
accepted the Caliph installed in Cairo by Byber and Caliph accepted
Tugluq as a Ruler under Caliphate as were many Sultans in central Asia
like Sultan Mahmud. Now when those Anglo Saxon were driven from India by
Hindus and Muslims they were compelled to leave a united India and
Pakistan with so many languages like Urdu, Hindi, Panjabi, Sindhi,
Mararhi, Bengali, Asami and so many.
But when those same Anglo Saxons left Arabia within short time, they
divided that land into Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and so many
though with one language Arabic. Those same liars/Terrorists promised to
Sharif Hussain, the great grandfather of another sub-contractor King
Hussain that those Anglo Saxons will make a United Arabia, once Osmani
Caliphate is defeated. But those Anglo Saxons made a secret treaty with
France and divided that land among themselves. And what a irony that
even two sons of Sharif Hussain Abdullah and Faisal were installed in
Jordan and Syria/Iraq. How sons of one individual can become Rulers of
three states? There must be some limit of deception and lying.
So don’t try to fool the World Muslims as you fooled few million
Muslims in Spain, asking them to come to mosque and then burned those
mosque and killed those Muslims inside those mosques, which is known in
History as April fool. Red Indians were fooled as those Muslims who came
in America long before Columbus were fooled. We know all the history. We
will rewrite World map throwing that map drawn by Ambassador Cox, League
of Nation/United Nation. We will go through our own constitution and
faith. We will never interfere in other’s land and we will never and
never allow others to interfere in our internal affairs.
The price of greatness of Islamic teaching and it’s price is as follows
Ataturk was a Jew, secret Jew and the greatest enemy of Islam.as he
abolished the
Caliphate and suppressed the Muslims.
Here is a quotation from Joachim Prinz's 'The Secret Jews'; page 122:
"The revolt of he Young Turks in 1908 against the authoritarian regime of
Sultan Abdul Hamid Khan began among the intellectuals of Salonika. Among
the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government
in Turkey were Djavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent doenmeh
(secret Jew). Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal
became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of Ataturk.
His opponents tried to use his doenmeh background to unseat him, but
without success. Too many of the Young Turks in the newly formed
revolutionary Cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet
Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna."
Ataturk’s ancestors, who came from Spain after the fall of Islam;
were given shelter under the Caliphate. You can get the above book from
Jewish division
of New York Public Library.
There must be the Caliphate if possible within few days, few months and
in fact we don't bother about those illegal immigrants and it is future
Caliph who can decide about them and not London, Paris, Moscow or
Washington as World Muslims never intend to interfere about policies in
those Capitals.