Turkey's Attaturk

Love him or hate him, he transformed Turkey in ways few Muslim countries can compare, with the possible exception of UAE and Malaysia.

[thumb=D]ataturk.JPG[/thumb]

Oct. 29, 1923
Turkey Forced Westward

By Howard Chua-Eoan

General Mustafa Kemal, who had repelled the British at Gallipoli in 1915 and had just recently done likewise to invading Greeks, now planned a civil takeover of his own country. Just hours before he did it, Kemal was telling a journalist that popular Islam had become a morass of superstitions that would destroy those who professed it. He declared, “We will save them,” according to biographer Andrew Mango. A 101-gun salute greeted the announcement: Turkey had ceased to be an Islamic empire. It was a republic, and its leader, Kemal, became President—not Sultan, not Caliph, the titles that Ottoman monarchs paraded for 600 years, the first as despots who once made Europe cower, the second as “Commanders of the Faithful,” leaders of Sunni Muslims everywhere. Soon Western clothing was enforced and Roman letters replaced the Arabic-based script. The man who would adopt the name Atatürk (“father of the Turks”) inaugurated an era in which nationalism, not Islam, would be seen as the solution to the troubles of Muslim peoples. But by the 1980s, a reaction would set in, and the cause of the caliphate eventually would be taken up by, among others, Osama bin Laden.

link

Nobody is perfect, but I like Ataturk. Although he did not realize what Islam really is (in my opinion) but atleast he gave a new direction to Turkey.

he threw the quran at protestors that demanded shariah

he banned the prayer cap

he banned the scarf

he banned arabic

he made you worship your borders more then you worship your lord (apparently)

he invited the british army to shoot and kill and mame the protestors across the whole of turkey

re "he gave turkey direction"

yes before him, turkey used to charge America to allow america to sail her ships through the Mediterranean.

now with this new direction Turkey begs for blood money so that it can absolve its debt and in return kill its brothers across the border

before ataturk, turkey was the richest in whole of the islamic world due to seat of the empire moving to istanbul,

after the new direction, it is now the poorest, and wishes to forget istanbul and remember ankara instead, so that it can get a seat in the EU

before the kurds were just name for some indigenous people

now the kurds and turks are proud patriotic enemies who kill each, and each believe they are winning while it is both of their enemies (US And UK) who are trully winning

you need to get some logic in your brain, before you just mumble jumble something out of a brainwashing fourth or fifth year urdu book

is it so easy for you to forget your sister who are hurled onto busloads and forbidden from schools because they chose to wear the scarf...

some new direction and transformation you on about,, infact you envy this direction and trasnformation so much, why you on a pakistani discussion board,, why not join the iamawhiteboyspoodle.com forum or something
[thumb=D]turkey1.JPG[/thumb]

whatever he did was against islam so gow can you love & not hate someone like him? unless you too have same agenda as him :)

Cool it brother.

Yes he made grave mistakes. We should also not forget what kind of Sultanate there was when Ataturk took over. The centre of the caliphate was in Turkey but in reality Muslims had become so weak in faith that they were all going after nationalistic agendas. Why did the Ottoman empire become so weak? I am not happy that Ottoman empire broke, but the fact is that Muslims had stopped taking guidance from Quran.

So what alternative do you have in such a situation? If Arabs were forming their own petty states, didn't Turks have a right to form theirs? Although it is unIslamic but there were weaknesses that gave way to such things. Yes I do admire him as a leader!!! He was against many Islamic values and for this I do not like him. He did stand up at a crisis point when even the Turkey we have today was to be eaten up by Allied forces.

He was a great leader who lead his people. Today we still have Turkey and a rising Islamic force inside the country. Many things are wrong in Turkey but what I like about Turkey is that they are not showing hypocrecy like us. We are a declared Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but are we???????

Just think if a Turk brother says that Quaid e azam was not good as many people died during partition, would you like it? Just talk to a Turkish brother like taht and he will tell you how much they love Ataturk.

Its not the time to criticize, it is the time for unity. Unity can only be achieved amongst Muslims if we respect each other and each other's leaders. As I said before no body is perfect, but as we learn more and more about real Islam we will have a reformed Ummah. Criticism even though right will take us no where.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by BabyGulabJaman: *
whatever he did was against islam so gow can you love & not hate someone like him? unless you too have same agenda as him :)
[/QUOTE]

What purpose is hating gonna serve? I do pray that there is an Islamic revolution in Turkey.

*unless you too have same agenda as him *

so Pervaiz Musharraf has the same agenda :)

Ataturk is his Hero!

Exactly! :k: Took the words right out of my mouth. As you folks can see, the so-called Liberator of Turkey was nothing more than a yes-man/puppet of the West. I don’t admire the man very much at all. There are many more figures of Islamic history to be revered. Ataturk doesn’t deserve any mention on that list.

Below is one of his speeches he made after having assumed power. He claimed that only when the authority of Islam was utterly eliminated could Turkey "progress" into a respected, modern nation.

“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!”

Ref: H. C. Armstrong, The Grey Wolf (Capricorn Books, New York, 1961) pp. 199-200

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ibn Sadique: *
Below is one of his speeches he made after having assumed power. He claimed that only when the authority of Islam was utterly eliminated could Turkey "progress" into a respected, modern nation.

“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!”

Ref: H. C. Armstrong, The Grey Wolf (Capricorn Books, New York, 1961) pp. 199-200
[/QUOTE]

I rest my case. Glad things haven't been as bad in Turkey since the time he was alive although with Turkey there never are any guarantees. It'll sell it's soul to the devil for small reassurances.

May he be cursed and humiliated until Aakhira and beyond...Ameen...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ibn Sadique: *
Below is one of his speeches he made after having assumed power. He claimed that only when the authority of Islam was utterly eliminated could Turkey "progress" into a respected, modern nation.

“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!”

Ref: H. C. Armstrong, The Grey Wolf (Capricorn Books, New York, 1961) pp. 199-200
[/QUOTE]

Oops! I didn't know he even said said such things.. Thanks for posting this.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
*unless you too have same agenda as him *

so Pervaiz Musharraf has the same agenda :)
[/QUOTE]

please list a few things that he have done for the people of pakistan to atleast make their lives better if not great. to me, musharaf is nothing but a puppet. he knows if he went against the wishes of the west, he'll join the ranks of zia-ul-haq and i think he is not stupid not to learn from mistakes of others. :)

Quote


……he knows if he went against the wishes of the west, he'll join the ranks of zia-ul-haq and i think he is not stupid not to learn from mistakes of others.


I suppose he doesn’t have Akhirah in mind. Those who fear men never fear Allah (swt).

Very well said Ibn Sadique.

Some more on Ataturk and no more:

In describing his character, H. C. Armstrong writes:

Mustafa Kemal Pasha had always been a lone man, a solitary, playing a lone hand. He had trusted no one. He would not listen to opinions that were contrary to his own. He would insult anyone who dared to disagree with him. He judged all actions by the meanest motives of self-interest. He was insanely jealous. A clever or capable man was a danger to be got rid of. He was bitterly critical of any other man's ability. He took a savage pleasure in tearing up the characters and sneering at the actions even of those who supported him. He rarely said a kind or generous thing and then only with a qualification that was a sneer. He confided in no one. He had no intimates. His friends were the evil little men who drank with him, pandered to his pleasures and fed his vanity. All the men of value, the men who had stood beside him in the black days of the War for Liberation were against him.

H. C. Armstrong, Gray wolf, pp. 213-214

He was drinking heavily. The drink stimulated him, gave him energy, but increased his irritability. Both in private and public he was sarcastic, brutal and abrupt. He flared up at the least criticism. He cut short all attempts to reason with him. He flew into a passion at the least opposition. He would neither confide in nor co-operate with anyone. When one politician gave him some harmless advice, he roughly told him to get out. When a venerable member of the Cabinet suggested that it was unseemly for Turkish ladies to dance in public, he threw a Koran at him and chased him out of his office with a stick.

Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: An Intimate Study of a Dictator H.C. Armstrong, 1934 p. 241

For Kemal, Islam and civilization were a contradiction in terms. "IF ONLY," he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, "WE COULD MAKE THEM CHRISTIANS!" His was not to be the reformed Islamic state for which the Faithful were waiting: it was to be a strictly lay state, with a centralized Government as strong as the Sultan's, backed by the army and run by his own intellectual bureaucracy.

Atatürk, The Rebirth of a Nation Lord Kinross, 1965 p. 437

The cleavage in his musical tastes emerged in Istanbul, where he once had two orchestras, one Turkish and one European, brought to the Park Hotel. He listened with constant interruptions, commanding one to stop and the other to play in turn. Finally, as the raki (the traditional Turkish drink) took effect, he lost patience and rose to leave the restaurant, saying, "Now if you like you can both play together". Another evening, incensed by the sound of the muezzin from a mosque opposite, which clashed with the dance-band, he ordered its minaret to be felled - one of those orders which was countermanded next morning.

Atatürk, The Rebirth of a Nation Lord Kinross, 1965 p. 470:

None welcomed the dictatorship of Kemal Atatürk more than the intellectuals and politicians in America. The Jews among them accorded him the most enthusiastic praise of all. How the traditions of political freedom and democracy America claims to champion can be reconciled with the atrocities committed under this Dictatorship is an unsolved mystery until the reader understands that the democratic West regards these human rights strictly for home-consumption. Under no circumstances can they be exported to any Muslim land. Official publications from the American Information Service did not hesitate to support such authoritarian regimes so long as they were not openly affiliated with the Communist bloc. Dictatorship, according to this view, is justified if it effectively implements the modernization of the country. The peoples of these "under-developed" places are too backward, tradition-bound, ignorant and illiterate to be allowed to choose their fate. Only the all-wise Government can decide what is best for them. Westernization is the supreme virtue and no sacrifice of moral scruples is too great to attain this end. Therefore any means, including the most ruthless tyranny, is sanctioned with the full blessings of America and the other Western democracies if it accelerates the disintegration of the Islamic way of life.

Myron Weiner (ed.), Modernization: the Dynamics of Growth, (Voice of America Forum Lectures, Washington D.C., 1966)

The last paragraph is very relevant even today, as it applies to nearly all of present day muslim 'leaders'!

I don't believe AttaTurk was good man, or a good Muslim. The fact is you can't ignore him when you look at the background of recent Muslim History, the same way you cannot ignore Hitler or Franco of Spain.

From a Nation, in ruins and in constant warfare Turkey is now relatively peaceful and economically better of compared to other Muslim Nations, with again the possible exception of states like UAE and Malaysia as I said. We can dislike him as much as we want (and I don't like him) but he can't be ignored.

yes, i agree, things in the sultanate weren’t going great

but the man whom he replaced was a great man, because he understood something that ataturk and the arab counterparts never can…

that is the unity of the muslims.. he even tried to build to railway for purpose of hajj stretching from Jordon to Mecca.

can you imagine the filthy collection of arab traitors trying to do the same nowadays?

a short history about him

had he not been routed, we would never have had the problem of Israeli-Palestine conflict today, Jews lived happily amidst palestine (but not living but travelling to and from Jerusalem as agreed under Umari treaty written and agreed by both jews and muslim under leadership of the second khaleef Umar (ra) Israel is nothing but for power and war mongering zionist and the british hand)

yes the state had become federalised, and there were greedy officials..

but it was the last sultan who single handed reduced and curbed powers of foreignors as well as his own wali’s (or their equivalent of nazims) as in one encyclopedia put it, reducing them to mere secretaries.

his own qadi (head of shura) refused to agree to a fatwa issued by a nationalist turk movement directly on payroll of the british home office, (and this has been documented) …however the Young Turks movement selected four people including a JEW (yes them zionists)..

As they entered his office, they found him standing calmly, Aref Hikmat read the Fatwa to him, then As’ad Tobatani came forward and said “The nation has removed you from your office.”, Abdul Hameed became angry and said “The nation has removed me from my office, that is okay … but why did you bring the Jew to the Quarters of the Khilafa?” and he pointed to Qrasow (the jew). Obviously that was the point of payback, Abdul Hameed rejected selling Palestine to the Jews, and now they show him that they were a part of his removal.

How is it when all this is documented and read again and again, do people still continue to brainwash their own children

into loving the traitor who sold Palestine and took the seat of khilafah which Prophet of Allah (swt) said “is a shade of Allah on earth” and of whom “the hud (punishment) is better then forty nights of rain” (i.e. rain on barren land) .. how can we like and admire the person who removed the single leadership and the system of leadership whom we are supposed to obey “as long as salah and zakah are established”

On the day of turkish “independance” if you will excuse me, but I will mourn this great hero till my death, and I wish if a single soul is erected the like of such a person…

Excuse me while I curse the Ataturk and his likes and admire the person whom he replaced. Excuse me while I admire the reason for which the America used to pay taxes to allow ships to sail and trade in mediterranean. Excues me while I morn the death of hero and curse the reason why Iraq can be so easily attacked. (and I know this is less important to some of us now then the economy of turkish people right?).

but on that point:

Excuse me while I morn the death of the man who made turkey so rich (and the half africa that it was called the “bread basket of the world”) and I curse the one who allowed subjecting the Islamic empire (which inturn forced all developing nations) to be subjected to the stock market economy… an economy based on paper money which can be printed at will hence has no real value and can go down as well as up. an economy which took gold from our land and bought it to America..

And this might be shocking but this economy ONLY allows rich countries to stay rich and poor countries to stay poor.

And yes there is ample proof of this.. The most recent is what WHO and all economically develped and rich countries shouted and stabbed China for recently…

They told China to stop being rich… Yes that is what they said, otherwise the Earth cannot bear the burden of another rich country competing with America… so they told China, stop spending, stop buying and selling… stop saving money.. stop being clever, and most importantly, stop being rich and continue to stay poor.

This is your economy you wish us all to be slaves of??

Is the blood of afghanis not even worth the shoes you bought in your “american” shop? Is the blood of the poor not even worth clean american corporate water you buy???

Don’t the poor deserve to be even rich enough to have clean water, and sufficient supply of food, a roof over their heads, and security from the war mongering, Dope Incorporated, diamond and gold smuggling, British and American Tobacco growing (BAT, yes that is actually a name of Uk-US company who grow tobacco in uzbek for example, where muslims are murdered mercilessly for opposing the Karimov regime) America and UK and Europe

Then again I ask you, why do even consider wasting time with fellow muslims on a pakistani board?

I hope and pray you change your likes and dislikes.

^ Very nicely put! May Allah unite the Ummah once again!