Did our Quaid ever had a chance to meet the founder of new Turkey? Their life spans over lap. In fact some of the most critical political decisions in Turkey were taken during the 1920 and 30’s. Some very controversial ones. Even today.
I would be very interested to know if Quaid ever had a chance to meet Ataturk (pic?) or if he ever commented on the happenings in Turkey during the 20’s and 30’s. Muslims all around the world looked towards Turkey up until the fall of Old Turkey in 1923. Even our own flag was greatly infleunced by Turkey’s. So if anyone of you has any information, especially any comments that might reveal Quaid’s personal opinion of the Atatur’s reforms in Turkey, please do share.
They never met? Neither did Jinnah ever utter a word about Mustafa Kamal? Even when Muslims had such an affiliation with Turkey and were probably disturbed over the sweeping changes taking place in their former Khilafat? Jinnah must've had something to say about it?
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the founder of the secular Turkish state. It is an unfortunate thing that a lot of his policies are still being practiced in Turkey till this day. Women are still not allowed to wear the hijab in Government buildings and schools as it is seen to be a sign of fundamentalism.
"There are no oppressors nor any oppressed. There are only those who allow themselves to be oppressed. The Turks are not among these. The Turks can look after themselves. Let others do the same. We have - but one principle - to see all problems through Turkish eyes and guard Turkish national interests.[1] "
When I read this, I hated him from the depth of my heart!
"For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam - this theology of an immoral Arab - is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God's revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weakling. No weaklings should rule!
Alhamdulilah our Quaid was not like the great traitor in Islam-Ataturk.
I think Jinnah was not at all impressed by Ataturk. In fact Musharraf is very much impressed by him. May Allah guide Musharraf and save Pakistan from the evils of secularism.
I have not found any material that shows that Quaid-e-Azam ever met Ataturk, but it does seem he was quite impressed by some of his modernising policies. Whatver one thinks of Ataturk's extreme secularlism, and some of it went too far, but he did achieve manage to introduce a lot of progressive reforms of Turkish society. That is what Jinnah wanted for Pakistan, and Musharraf is striving for today, and we should not condemn that.
Here are some interesting quotes on the subject from an Indian writer, take it with a pinch of sat tho, this book was criticised for a lot of factual inaccuracies:
Jinnah, we are told, went through newspapers avidly but he rarely read books. During the time when he was in England in the early thirties, he came across an excellent review of H.C. Armstrong’s biography of Kemal Ataturk entitled Grey Wolf: An Intimate Study of a Dictator. “He bought the book. It so impressed him that he never ceased talking about it to his daughter and friends who came to see him. In Ataturk he found his ideal; he was fascinated by what the Turkish dictator did to reform his co-religionists and to overhaul and modernise their outlook. He wanted to do the same for Indian Muslims. He was no less keen to free them from the clutches of the mullahs and rid them of the stranglehold of orthodoxy. He felt that they had to be moulded to live as people in the west did and that unless they shed their obscurantism, their future was doomed. Had he the same power as Ataturk, he told his sister, he would not have hesitated to follow the example of the Turkish leader to westernise his co-religionists in India.” (Pages 60-61). As an aside, has Musharraf that power now?
Dr. Zakaria also refers to Jinnah’s presidential address at the annual session of the League in Patna in December 1938. “At the outset he condoled the death of Kemal Ataturk, describing him as ‘a great hero of the Muslim world’ and asked the delegates, ‘with the example of this great Musslaman in front of them as an inspiration, will the Muslims of India still remain in a quagmire?’” (Page 76). To put this in perspective, the author does add that most Muslims would not share this sentiment and considered Ataturk a renegade and heretic. There is more. Writing about the period immediately after partition, Dr. Zakaria says: “Jinnah did not allow any change in the application of the laws which the British had introduced in India; in fact, he wanted to transform Pakistan into another Turkey on the lines of his hero Kemal Ataturk.” (Page 164). *
Every person has ome good sides and bad aspects. No human is perfect. His remarks which I quoted above prove his hate for Islam. He was so impressed by the cosmetic life and developoment of the West. Ataturk forgot that we Muslims have our own perfect God given way of life, taht is free of errors and problems. It is the way of life and law that will prevail. His idea of extreme nationalism and secularism not only isolated Turkey from the West (because of not being fully non-Muslim) and also from the Muslim world.
"Mohammed Iqbal, the great poet-philosopher of Muslim India and Pakistan, was perhaps the first Muslim scholar to warn the Muslim world of the dangerous consequences of militant secularism and liberalism. He welcomed the liberal movement in modern Islam, but pointed out that liberalism has a tendency to act as a force of disintegration. He was particularly concerned about what he called the ‘race idea,’ which he taught was a necessary part of secular liberalism when politics is divorced from broad universal human concerns of religions. In one of his famous lines he says, “separate politics from religion and you are left with Ghengis Khan.” He was afraid that Muslim religious and political reformers, in their zeal for liberalism, were overstepping the proper limits of reform in the absence of a check on their “youthful fervor.” He wrote, “We are passing through a period similar to that of Protestant revolution in Europe, and the lessons which theorize an outcome of what Luther’s movement teaches should not be lost on us. A careful reading of history shows that the reformation was essentially a political movement, and the net result of it in Europe was a gradual displacement of the universal ethics of Christianity by systems of national ethics. The result of this tendency we have seen with our own eyes in the current European war, which has made the European situation still more intolerable.” He was referring to World War I because he died before World War II took place. At another point he writes, “Humanity needs three things today: a spiritual interpretation of the universe, spiritual emancipation of the individual, and basic principles of universal import directing the evolution of human society on a spiritual basis.” He lauded modern Europe for building idealistic systems on these lines, but added that “Truth revealed to pure reason is incapable of bringing the fire of living conviction which personal revelation alone can bring.”At one point his criticism of Europe’s secularist liberalism becomes more emphatic when he writes, “Believe me, Europe today is the greatest hindrance in the way of man’s ethical advancement.”
Iqbal reminds the Muslim revolutionary secularist leaders of his time, especially in Turkey, who were bent upon dismantling the spiritual moorings of Muslim politics, on the militant anti-clerical French model, that in Islam, the spiritual and the temporal are not two distinct domains. In Islam it is the same reality that appears as the Church looked at from one point of view and the state when looked at from the other point of view. But he was not advocating theocracy, rule by one or group of representatives of God on earth, with a despotic will of their own.http://www.becketfund.org/other/JerusalemBook/Ahmad.pdf
"Mohammed Iqbal, the great poet-philosopher of Muslim India and Pakistan, was perhaps the first Muslim scholar to warn the Muslim world of the dangerous consequences of militant secularism and liberalism. He welcomed the liberal movement in modern Islam, but pointed out that liberalism has a tendency to act as a force of disintegration.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, no doubt that is true.
But we also what know sort of comments Jinnah made about clerics, and their role in the government of the state, and the fact that the so-called clerics on the whole opposed the creation of Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
There’s one thing in common among both. Jinnah was not a Pakistani (or areas that became Pakistan) and Mustafa was not from what is Turkey. Both were egotistic maniacs.
[/QUOTE]
What really did they have in common? That both of them weren't born in the countries they created or both of them were "egoistic maniacs".
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
I think Jinnah was not at all impressed by Ataturk. In fact Musharraf is very much impressed by him. May Allah guide Musharraf and save Pakistan from the evils of secularism.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe later. Currently he's trying to save Pakistan from the evils of religious fanaticism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
Maybe later. Currently he's trying to save Pakistan from the evils of religious fanaticism.
[/QUOTE]
and using scientists as scapegoat. what has he done for what his first "naara" (slogan) was? (to do 'ehtisab') There is no difference in him and previous rulers, just that he is following instructions more openly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
^I've never been a supporter of dictators. He himseld claims it every second day on bbc or cnn that he's waging jihad against jihadis.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
well there are many who are engaged in jihad, jihad al nafs..becomign better people, doign what is right etc too.
But there is a particular group who uses the term jiohad for political gain.. and sadly those ppl are now known as the jihadis.
[/QUOTE]
and who determines which group is doing the right thing?