For people that respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Many people do not know but truth is that, Turkey even though is associated with Ottomans and claims history of Ottoman as their history, in reality, present day Turkey is a new country that was founded by Kamal Ataturk.

Ataturk for turkey is similar to Quaid-e-Azam for Pakistan. He is the father, liberator, and founder of a country what we know as Turkey. Without the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam, there would have been no Pakistan and the area we call Pakistan would have been part of India. Without Kamal Ataturk, there would have been no present day Turkey and the area we call Turkey, most of that would have been part of Greece.

After Ottoman Empire (or call it Khalafat) lost the war and Khalifa surrendered to allied, all areas of Ottoman Empire came under the control of Allied.

** It was Kamal Ataturk that liberated the area and founded a country, we now know as Turkey. **The area we now know as Turkey never existed as a country nor ever existed in any form as one unit. What Ataturk managed to capture out of surrendered Ottoman Empire became present day Turkey.

Why Ataturk hated anything arabic and religion at state level is obvious, as it was religion Ottoman Turks trusted most, and it was so-called Arab Muslims that stabbed them on the back. Same Muslims that were part of their Khalafat and co-citizen became partners of their Kuffar enemies and tool in Ottoman defeat.

One of the major roles played in the defeat of Ottomans and bringing down their empire were Wahabis (of Arabia). Wahabis under the command of Abdul Aziz bin Saud and help of British, started revolt against Turks and were attacking Turks all over the Ottoman Empire in Arabia and other part of Arab world. The gift of treachery given to Abdul Aziz by British is part of Jazerah-tul-Arabia (Nejd and Hejez) that belonged to Ottomans. This was done in 1927, when British gave independence to the occupied land and Abdul Aziz was made King of Nejd and Hejaz.

Just imagine the character and mentality of Abdul Aziz. Jazeerah-tul-Arabia is the name given to this land by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and no Muslim ever called this land by any name other then Arabia. But after getting this land as gift from British, Abdul Aziz bin Saud named this land on the name of his ancestor (saud), and thus now it is called Saudi Arabia (or Arabia of Saud). Before naming Arabia as Saudi Arabia, never a country was named on the name of a person, as if the country belongs to that person.

Arabs other then Wahabis also played their role in bringing down Ottoman Empire at different places. It was complete revolt amongst Arabs against Ottomans in support of British. Lawrence of Arabia was one of many British agents that helped the cause of British amongst Arabs. Muslims from subcontinent in British armed forces also fought Turk forces.

[Note: Egypt, Oman, Yemen, and all Arab countries in North Africa, none were part of Ottoman Empire when war started. Arab revolts were in areas that were under Ottomans, and they were Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan].

The result of Wahabis and role of other Arabs in bringing down Ottoman Khalafat was such that even now Turks hate Wahabis in particular and Arabs in general. Even though Israel was established on land occupied from Turks (Ottoman Empire), hate of Arabs amongst Turks developed so much that Turkey was the first Muslim country that recognised Israel.

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk made his name in Ottoman Turkey as he was the commander and architect of surprise ambush, massacre, and defeat of Allied forces when they landed in Gallipoli. Ottoman forces under Ataturk inflicting huge losses on Allied forces, mostly from NZ and Australia, and thus saving Turkish mainland from invasion. Ambush in Gallipoli, where Allied casualties were around 200 thousand, made Allied realize that it would be difficult and expensive in casualties to capture mainland Turkey, hence they gave up.

What happened in Gallipoli was that Allied choose a suitable surprise place on mainland turkey to land their troops, to capture mainland turkey. Turks, after loosing the war were waiting for such landing but could not tell where Allied would land. It is claimed that it was Ataturk sixth sense that made him realise that Allied might land at Gallipoli and thus, he put his army there waiting for the landing. When Allied landed, they found Turks waiting for them. Result was ambush by Turks on landing Allied forces and massacre of Allied forces at Gallipoli.

Nevertheless, once Istanbul was captured along with Khalifa, allied made the Khalifa (imprisoned in European part of Istanbul) announces ceasefire with order to Turk forces to surrender. Once Turk forces surrendered, allied gave green signal to Greece to occupy as much as they can of Turkey mainland. Greece started occupying Turkey mainland.

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk (titled Pasha after his Gallipoli success) declared independence from the Ottomans and disobeyed the Khalifa acceptance of ceasefire and surrender, and thus started his own campaign to rebuild Turkish army and gave a fight to Greeks, recapturing all of mainland Turkey.

Later, Allied forces gave the European part of Istanbul to New country ‘Turkey’ that was now under the rule of Kamal Ataturk. Nevertheless, all islands belonging to Ottoman Empire, near and around Turkey mainland that Greece occupied but Ataturk could not liberate, as he did not had any navy, still belongs to Greece (even now, many Islands stone throw from Turkey and far away from Greece belongs to Greece).

Thus, one can say that existence of today’s Turkey is gift of Ataturk and obviously the personality of Ataturk is worth all respect, because of whom, Turkey is still independent country, not part of greater Greece.

As Pakistanis love M A Jinnah who worked to get Pakistanis a country and Pakistanis would like all their friends to respect Quiad-e-Azam, similarly Ataturk is the person that fought and won a country for Turks and thus it is duty of all who consider Turks their friend to respect Ataturk.

[Obviously, all happens what Allah wishes. Nevertheless, it is Allah that gives love and respect to particular person amongst Nations and makes that person father of that nation. Similar to Quaid-e-Azam, Ataturk was one such personality]

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Point of Partition would have been to create a country where Muslims are in the majority... Mission accomplished!

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Probably we will start developing our country instead of dividing and destroying. Mind you I don't mean abolish everything Islamic, all I hope is to separate state from religion.

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Exactly!

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

I am not sure whether Pakistan will have a dreadful society without Islam or not. But you are making a “dreadful” mistake by confusing the idea of creation of Pakistan and the role of religion in a modern nation state. Basically we are all humans and our needs, desires, aspirations, woes and sufferings are the same. But it is also a fact that more than 200 nation states exist today in the world. This implies that people are different from each other in some respects. These differences can broadly be classified into ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious. There is no agreed upon definition of a nation except that people who identify themselves as a nation are a nation and those who distinguish themselves from others are a separate nation. The reasons for this differentiation could be ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious. It is a matter of identities that how you would like to identify yourself.

Aside from Islamic freedom struggles like Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya there are also some other freedom struggles going on in the world like Tamils, Irish, Basques. Do they want to establish theocratic states if they gained independence? The answer is no. They simply want independence because they think that they are different from Sri Lankans, British and French respectively. As I said it is a matter of identities and certain real or perceived social, political and economic injustices as a group or a class.

Now when people demand independence on the basis of different ethnicity, language and culture their demands are perceived positively and acknowledged internationally. But when a freedom struggle is associated with religion and especially Islam the international community thinks that these freedom fighters probably want to establish a theocratic state where they will enforce strict Islamic laws and persecute their minorities. This general perception is a big set back to the freedom struggles associated with Islam. If East Timor can gain independence from Indonesia in 1999 because they are Christians while Indonesia is predominantly Muslim then why can’t Kashmiris, Palestinians and Chechans have their right of self-determination?

As to your questions “What would Pakistan be without Islam? How would its people behave? What would be the goals of its citizenry?” Secularism is a political concept. The essence of secularism lies in the fact that citizens of a state should have equal rights and opportunities irrespective of their caste, creed and religion. And also that all religious denominations are free to profess and practice their religion. And also that they are free to propagate and persuade others but they cannot force others to adopt the religion of the majority. And they cannot impose a strict moral and religious code on its population which derives its authority from dogma and not from reason.

As I said that secularism is a political concept but no society in the entire world is truly secular where there is a complete separation of religion and state and where all religions are completely equal. Society is an assemblage of individuals and individuals have religions thus every society believes in something and derives its inspiration from somewhere. It’s a circular process where individuals contribute towards the general trends of the society and the society in turn shapes the ideas of individuals.

The “behavior” and “goals” of the citizenry of Pakistan should be a mix of traditionalism and modernism. Traditionalism is not all bad and modernism is not all good. Religion is a “reformed tradition”. We should retain what is best in Islam and at the same time embrace the spirit of modernism. Islam teaches us to respect our elders, be affectionate to children, help the poor, protect the weaker and avoid indulging into promiscuity and licentiousness. Modernism teaches us to be forward looking, refrain from blind obedience, use our reasoning faculties and understand the nature of life, society and the Universe.

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

To date none of the religious parties have all been able to sit togther, and agree ONE model they all agree that would constitute an "Islamic state".

Re: For people that respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Hilarious...as if Attaturk was a devout and pious muslim who like the heretical qadri mullahs performed 20 hajs and 40 umras, wrote qasidas in praise of the prophet and held bi-annual milads in his honor...This is akin to the desciples of mush who take all of his word as holy gospel, especially those made by mush regarding him being the best of muslim...

Attaturk was a known atheist and the quote attributed to him by HC Armstrong is a lot more plausible then some patriotic propanganda written by a nationalist turk in the 90s...

Re: For people that respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

If you think secularism is superior to ruling by Islam then you will appreciate Ataturk...

Jinnah, Musharaff etc all espoused secularism and therefore were fans of Ataturk...Ataturk hated Islam and what it represented...thats not something that is really disputed...he is credited with having destroyed the last known Islamic state...

The thing that is disputed is whether one approves of this standpoint...

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Isn't Musharraf also admirer of kamal Ataturk

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Yes, but more as a military commander than a secular politician. It is often looked that Ataturk was a hugely successful military leader who saved Turkey from being torn apart by it's neighbours and the great powers of the day.

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

It would have to be a very poor example of someone who follows the Quran and the Messenger :saw: and yet appreciate this man…

Some more about him including your quoted text…

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Do you know why Salahuddin Ayubi was called Saladin the just? It was because of a crusader named Guillaume de Tyre...

If western historians had their way, they would have painted Salahuddin as they paint the Taliban today: Barbaric...

However, Guillaume de Tyre wrote a biography of Salahuddin Ayubi and published it in France whereby he got the title of 'Saladin the Just'...

But no one from any other nation wrote anything good about Aurangzeb except the Muslims themselves, so Aurangzeb can be painted with a broad brush of being an Islamist just like the Taliban...

Re: For people that respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Where Muslims are in majority and can live by their own laws, customs, beliefs and social mores. Not so a minority group of western minded secularists can impose their beliefs on the majority, which is undemocratic.

Islam is unseperable from the state!

It is undeniable in the Pakistani context this identity was forged with religion as its main architect.

[quote]
Aside from Islamic freedom struggles like Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya there are also some other freedom struggles going on in the world like Tamils, Irish, Basques. Do they want to establish theocratic states if they gained independence? The answer is no. They simply want independence because they think that they are different from Sri Lankans, British and French respectively. As I said it is a matter of identities and certain real or perceived social, political and economic injustices as a group or a class.
[/quote]

Its unfair to compare freedom struggles of different communites, those too with different histories, cultures and methods of government. Its like comparing apples to oranges. To paint all these with one brush, such as their motivations and their goals, is beyond preposterous.

[quote]
Now when people demand independence on the basis of different ethnicity, language and culture their demands are perceived positively and acknowledged internationally. But when a freedom struggle is associated with religion and especially Islam the international community thinks that these freedom fighters probably want to establish a theocratic state where they will enforce strict Islamic laws and persecute their minorities. This general perception is a big set back to the freedom struggles associated with Islam. If East Timor can gain independence from Indonesia in 1999 because they are Christians while Indonesia is predominantly Muslim then why can’t Kashmiris, Palestinians and Chechans have their right of self-determination?
[/quote]

I ask in all honesty how it is the fault of Muslims that non-Muslims will never support us unless we become 'moderate' Muslims and 'moderate' Islam.

[quote]
As to your questions “What would Pakistan be without Islam? How would its people behave? What would be the goals of its citizenry?” Secularism is a political concept. The essence of secularism lies in the fact that citizens of a state should have equal rights and opportunities irrespective of their caste, creed and religion. And also that all religious denominations are free to profess and practice their religion. And also that they are free to propagate and persuade others but they cannot force others to adopt the religion of the majority. And they cannot impose a strict moral and religious code on its population which derives its authority from dogma and not from reason.
[/quote]

Thats a non-sequitur. Laws are based on axioms, self-evident truths, not reasoned thoughts. In the Pakistani context these maxims are found in the Koran, a book that contains truth for muslims, who consitute the majority of Pakistans population. Therfore, the laws of Pakistan should be based on the Koran.

[quote]
As I said that secularism is a political concept but no society in the entire world is truly secular where there is a complete separation of religion and state and where all religions are completely equal. Society is an assemblage of individuals and individuals have religions thus every society believes in something and derives its inspiration from somewhere. It’s a circular process where individuals contribute towards the general trends of the society and the society in turn shapes the ideas of individuals.
[/quote]

That is true and shows the self contradictory nature of secularism and ergo is invalid.

[quote]
The “behavior” and “goals” of the citizenry of Pakistan should be a mix of traditionalism and modernism. Traditionalism is not all bad and modernism is not all good. Religion is a “reformed tradition”. We should retain what is best in Islam and at the same time embrace the spirit of modernism. Islam teaches us to respect our elders, be affectionate to children, help the poor, protect the weaker and avoid indulging into promiscuity and licentiousness. Modernism teaches us to be forward looking, refrain from blind obedience, use our reasoning faculties and understand the nature of life, society and the Universe.
[/quote]

This I cannot accept. Modernism is a Catholic idea, and as such should have no bearing on the thoughts of Muslims. If anything, Muslims should embrace By-Gone-ism, as the time of Muhammed(pbuh) is the most perfect of times in Islamic belief.

I'm sorry if my post came off as confrontational.

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

okay then so the western historian in this case had his way and thus his works have to be taken with sme skepticism...right?

thats what I said. :)

Re: For people that respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

I agree that Muslims can live by their own customs, beliefs and social mores but not by 1500 years old Sharia and Hudood laws. If you implement Islamic laws on today’s modern society you are taking a retrogressive stance. In such a case all the minorities will automatically become second class citizens. The basic principle of democracy is “equality”. By equality we mean that every citizen of the state has equal rights and nobody is discriminated against on the basis of caste, creed and religion. The population of Pakistan is 95% Muslims and 5% minorities. Then among Muslims we have 80% Sunnis and 20% Shias. Those 80% Sunnis are again divided into Hanafis, Malikis, Shafais, Hanbalis and Wahabis. All of them have theological and historical differences. Their interpretation of Islam is different. Most fundamentalists regard others sects as heretics and apostates. Some even go to the extent of issuing “Fatwas” (edicts) that all other denominations are “Wajib-ul-Qatal” (liable to death). My point is that Islam is not a monolithic structure and different sects interpret Islam differently. Looking at the abovementioned stats you are categorizing one-third population of Pakistan as a minority and if Islamic laws are imposed in Pakistan they will automatically become second class citizens.

True democracy is not majoritarianism. True democracy is a government by consensus. Democracy believes in equality. Secularism means nothing more than separation of religion and state. It ensures that people are not discriminated against on the basis of caste, creed and religion. Secularism doesnot imposes its “beliefs” on anyone. Be it a majority or minority. Secularism is not a belief its a principle. That you are free to live as you choose to live. That you are free to profess and propagate your religion. That you can persuade others to join your religion. But you cannot force your beliefs or your interpretation of religion on others.

By your logic if Islamic laws should be enforced in Pakistan then you have no right to object if Christians enforce their canonical laws in their states and Hindus declare their religious precepts to be the law of the land in India. What will then happen to the millions of Muslims living in the Western countries and in India? They will automatically become second class citizens. Those old concepts of “Dar-ul-Islam” (Land of Islam) and “Dar-ul-Harb” (Land of War) are not applicable in today’s society. This is not a tolerant and peace-loving stance. This is a confrontational approach. I can understand that in practice Muslims living in the West and other countries are still discriminated against. Secularism as a political principle is easy to maintain but to create a truly secular society where there is a complete equality of all religious denominations is a difficult job. But practice follows the theory. If you are adhering to a wrong theory then it will inevitably lead us to wrong practice. At least accept the right principle and in the long run it may take us to the right practice. The golden rule states “Do unto others as you have them do unto you”. If you want to change the status of one-third Pakistanis into second class citizens then don’t expect the Muslims living in countries where they are in a minority to be equal citizens of those states.

[QUOTE]
Islam is unseperable from the state!
[/QUOTE]

Religion is a personal faith. You can seek spiritual, ritualistic and devotional guidance from religion. You can feely profess and propagate your religion. You can preach and persuade others to join your religion. But you cannot force your religion on others. The matters of state have to be conducted by statesmen. The people should be governed by their consent. The government should be conducted by consensus. The laws should be derived from reason and not dogma. We must adhere to the basic principles of democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, secularism, liberty, civil rights, civic duties and we must take a modern, enlightened and progressive stance.

[QUOTE]
Its unfair to compare freedom struggles of different communites, those too with different histories, cultures and methods of government. Its like comparing apples to oranges. To paint all these with one brush, such as their motivations and their goals, is beyond preposterous.
[/QUOTE]

“Apples and Oranges”. Are you suggesting that there are different species within Homo Sapiens? There are different varieties of Apples and Oranges but they are different fruits. All humans are apples “or” oranges though of different varieties. The basic needs, desires, aspirations and sufferings of all mankind are the same. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and to seek the truth and understand nature are our goals. Aside from these universal goals there can also be some personal goals and we should respect and tolerate those personal goals as long as they don’t collide with the universal goals and don’t become militant.

[QUOTE]
Thats a non-sequitur. Laws are based on axioms, self-evident truths, not reasoned thoughts. In the Pakistani context these maxims are found in the Koran, a book that contains truth for muslims, who consitute the majority of Pakistans population. Therfore, the laws of Pakistan should be based on the Koran.
[/QUOTE]

There is no such thing as self-evident truth. Laws are the “moral expectations” of a society. They are time bound. There is always an amendment procedure even in the organic law. We cannot make laws for all times and ages. Conditions, perceptions and expectations change with time. As I said earlier Muslims may seek spiritual, ritualistic and devotional guidance from Quran and Sunnah but involving religion and dogma into the matters of state and society is prejudicial and detrimental to both religion and the state and society.

[QUOTE]
This I cannot accept. Modernism is a Catholic idea, and as such should have no bearing on the thoughts of Muslims. If anything, Muslims should embrace By-Gone-ism, as the time of Muhammed(pbuh) is the most perfect of times in Islamic belief.

I'm sorry if my post came off as confrontational.
[/QUOTE]

Modernism is not a Catholic idea. If you leave it to Catholic priests they would also like to apply their canonical laws in the states where they are in a majority. And they would also like to take us back to the medieval times. But in a sense you may be right that the majority of Christians after witnessing so much persecution, bloodshed and inter-sectarian violence and strife, arrived at a conclusion that involving religion into politics and society has disastrous consequences. The same kind of inter-sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict and massacre that we are witnessing today in Iraq and also in some parts of Pakistan.

Modernism is a natural outcome of psychological and social evolution. Like biological evolution only those traits and ideas survive which are favorable and advantageous to an individual and the society. Individuals, nations and societies who are flexible adapt themselves to the changing needs of times and circumstances. Others who are rigid breakdown and perish. But I agree that sometimes the ideas and practices which though not favorable but are more easily replicable tend to spread in a society. That’s why I am not advocating that we should blindly follow the West. I am advocating a mix of “deliberate traditionalism” and “enlightened modernism”. Where we can retain the best values of religion as a “reformed tradition” and also the modern notions of equality, non-discrimination, tolerance, progress and quest for happiness, knowledge, wisdom and truth.

Finally being a Pakistani and having lived in an Islamic society all my life I am aware of the sensitivity of this issue and I would like to apologize if I’ve hurt your feelings in anyway. But my intentions are good and my criticism is relevant and constructive.

Re: For people the respect Mustafa Kamal Attaturk

Of course Fraudia...Hell would freeze over if you are ever wrong...