PDA

View Full Version : Turkish nationalism and Article 301 of the penal code



sevgi
02-08-2009, 06:25 AM
Hello all, Salams and Greetings,

My fellow forumers who are also my friends on facebook will know that I am currently conducting a study on Turkish nationalism and the Armenian genocide.

You guys don't have 'honours' in the UK (according to a brother who is on exchange from Manchester at my university). It is a research year designed as a pathway into a Phd. It is really hard to get into and is serious stuff.

I would like to post a link here regarding Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. Some of you may know what that is...others wont have a clue, so have a look.

I will only be active in this thread as a facilitator to urge your opinions into new directions. That is, I will be manipulating you guys to say things I want you to say :P Why? Well, I may be able to use some of your comments in my research. I won't be quoting anyone, don't you worry. In order to do that, I will have to go through my university's ethics board etc etc. I have better things to do.

So basically, I want those who are interested to just read the actual article which consists of four rules or the whole thing I have posted and just say what comes to your mind.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/...enal-code.html

Thank you :)

Sev.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Dawud_uk
02-08-2009, 06:59 AM
:sl:

the whole turkish constitution is kufr, written by secularist murtideen, why would it suprise me to find one part of it going against the teachings of islam when the whole concept of it sickens me, that people would abandon the teachings of the shariah in favour of man made law?

:sl:
Reply

sevgi
02-08-2009, 08:42 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl:

the whole turkish constitution is kufr, written by secularist murtideen, why would it suprise me to find one part of it going against the teachings of islam when the whole concept of it sickens me, that people would abandon the teachings of the shariah in favour of man made law?

:sl:
Let's stay on topic please. I don't want my thread to turn into a discussion about your hate mongering and about secularism.

This is about nationalism regarding ARTICLE 301.

Please refrain from quoting and replying to off-topic posts.

If you would like issues like this covered, please start your own threads.

Jazakallah Khyar, Thank you.
Reply

The_Prince
02-08-2009, 04:01 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Let's stay on topic please. I don't want my thread to turn into a discussion about your hate mongering and about secularism.

This is about nationalism regarding ARTICLE 301.

Please refrain from quoting and replying to off-topic posts.

If you would like issues like this covered, please start your own threads.

Jazakallah Khyar, Thank you.
where did the brother say any thing which was 'hate mongering'?????? i think it would be better if you didnt make false accusations against people.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
The_Prince
02-08-2009, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
So basically, I want those who are interested to just read the actual article which consists of four rules or the whole thing I have posted and just say what comes to your mind. Share your opinions on anything that may be related to the topic...etc.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/...enal-code.html


Sev.
lol lol you want peoples opinion, a brother gives his opinion, and you accuse him of 'hate mongering', as they say, get out of here and what you playing at? asking for an opinion, gets one, then makes a false accusation, quote this for your paper so your teacher can see you need an F.
Reply

sevgi
02-08-2009, 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
lol lol you want peoples opinion, a brother gives his opinion, and you accuse him of 'hate mongering', as they say, get out of here and what you playing at? asking for an opinion, gets one, then makes a false accusation, quote this for your paper so your teacher can see you need an F.
I will keep my composure...

Do you know what hate mongering is? Silly question, coz if you did, you wouldn't be saying this.

When an individual goes on a rant about how a certain populous, their beliefs, their laws etc is kufr, disgusting, sickening etc, when an indicidual expresses their hatred towards the likes of such in an attempt to conjure reactions amongst people (notably evident from the '?' at the end of his rant), this is hate mongering.

Now, as for me wanting opinions. I want opinions on the topic. There is a topic, you know. That's how these threads work...People post threads with a topic and respondees must stay on topic.

His response has absolutely NO indication of having read the article in question. His response has no significance in this thread. His opinions and hate mongering are hence unwanted here.

Your responses mirror the likes of his.

This is a serious thread. There is a thread title for a reason. If you have no idea what is going on, just be fair and refrain from sharing your two cents on a vague topic, especially if it is hateful and especially if it indicates the warrant for further discussion on the invasive topic.
Reply

sevgi
02-08-2009, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
where did the brother say any thing which was 'hate mongering'?????? i think it would be better if you didnt make false accusations against people.
Oh, and I love your naivity. Yes, hate mongers execute their hate mongering whilst carrying the banner of hate mongering all the time. All the time.

Urgh.
Reply

zanjabeela
02-08-2009, 09:40 PM
:sl:
I came into this topic because anything Turkish is of profound interest to me. And, so, the link you provided was interesting. The first part:
“1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.

2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.

3 - In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.

4 - Expression of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute crime.”
sounds like it's aimed at preventing the exact kind of dialogue that has taken place in the first part of the thread. I understand the sentiments of the government in wanting to maintain complete sovereignty over how people (especially inside Turkey) view the country. After all, if you can push down dialogue, you don't have to hear the criticisms that the fourth proviso seems to encourage. How does the state determine which statement is a denigration and which is a criticism?

I understand that the second part:

A person who says “All the Turkish people are thieves and half of them are stupid.”

A person who says “The Turkish government is exploiting some weak ethnic groups, these groups are treated inhumanely.”

A person who says “The Turkish army is exploiting the people who lives eastern Turkey. This army is treating them as if they are all terrorists.”

A person who says “Turkish judiciary is untrustworthy, it is not independent.”
attempts to provide this clarification...but while I see that the first example is clearly derogatory and need not be allowed, the other three are a bit surprising. Should not the government be concerned when allegations of it being inhumane or untrustworthy are raised? Those sound like criticisms that are aimed at helping improve a nation...not denigration. It seems like a nation that does not want to be questioned is aiming for one of two things: 1) prevent disorderliness and promote a sense of homogeneous thought; or 2) does not want to evolve based on the whims of its citizens.

This was interesting:
Turkish politicians have different ideas about this controversial issue. For instance, the Republican People’s Party Leader Deniz Baykal has said “The prime minister is looking for an accomplice to the shameful act of making it free to insult the Turkish identity in Turkey. He almost expects us to apologize for being Turkish. We will not apologize” He is also against revising this article.
I'm not sure why this politician says that it is the Turkish identity that people want anyone to be apologetic over. A national identity is composed of more than just what people inside Turkey take objection to. Allowing people to point to flaws encourages the growth of the identity, not an apology for the identity.

I haven't been able to get to the end of the article just yet, but will do so later, inshaAllah. Hope this helps for now...it could be that I'm analyzing everything upside down, though. I hope people contribute to a further reading of your link. It is quite interesting.

:w:
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-08-2009, 10:11 PM
:sl:

in fairness i do hate nationists of all varieties, i have total bara towards it as our religion teaches us. if that makes me a hate monger so be it.

i have however wala towards all practicing muslims, whether they be turks, arabs, chinese, somali, nigerian, or green martians, those muslims who love the deen of Allah, love what Allah loves, hate what he hates, which includes nationalism.

the code mentioned is nationalistic, the whole constitution is nationalistic, i was trying to point out one will inevitably spring from the other.

nationalism is called asabiyyah in arabic and the ahaddith regarding use particularly strong words.

:sl:
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by zAnjabeela
:sl:

Should not the government be concerned when allegations of it being inhumane or untrustworthy are raised? Those sound like criticisms that are aimed at helping improve a nation...not denigration. It seems like a nation that does not want to be questioned is aiming for one of two things: 1) prevent disorderliness and promote a sense of homogeneous thought; or 2) does not want to evolve based on the whims of its citizens.

I hear what you are saying. I'd like to urge your thoughts into considering Turkey as two things.

1. The nation Turkey

2. The image of Turkey

What might be good for the nation is not always good for the nation's image.




This was interesting:

I'm not sure why this politician says that it is the Turkish identity that people want anyone to be apologetic over. A national identity is composed of more than just what people inside Turkey take objection to. Allowing people to point to flaws encourages the growth of the identity, not an apology for the identity.

You think that pointing to flaws will allow the growth of identity? How does identity grow?
:w:
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl:

in fairness i do hate nationists of all varieties, i have total bara towards it as our religion teaches us. if that makes me a hate monger so be it.

i have however wala towards all practicing muslims, whether they be turks, arabs, chinese, somali, nigerian, or green martians, those muslims who love the deen of Allah, love what Allah loves, hate what he hates, which includes nationalism.

Hating 'nationalism' is fine. Hating nationalists is fine. Hating a particular type or form or group of nationalism and nationalists is also fine. Just not on this forum and not on this thread.


the code mentioned is nationalistic, the whole constitution is nationalistic, i was trying to point out one will inevitably spring from the other.

Well, constitutions are writting in the context of nationalism. Thats what they are for...

Perhaps what you do not like is that this constitution seems to uphold justice for the nation above justice for the citizen?


:sl:
Thank you for your input guys. As I stated in my first post..Im not here to debate...I am merely here to pick on your thoughts and make you think of new things etc etc etc.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-09-2009, 07:33 AM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Thank you for your input guys. As I stated in my first post..Im not here to debate...I am merely here to pick on your thoughts and make you think of new things etc etc etc.
:sl: sevgi,

well in contexts of the law in question, it should be removed as asabiyyah which i think is the answer you are wanting as it is upholding something contradictory to the teachings of Allah and his Rasool (saws).

:sl:
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 07:42 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl: sevgi,

well in contexts of the law in question, it should be removed as asabiyyah which i think is the answer you are wanting as it is upholding something contradictory to the teachings of Allah and his Rasool (saws).

:sl:
Do you imagine there would be any Turkish civilians and/ or parties which share your sentiments?
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-09-2009, 08:34 AM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Do you imagine there would be any Turkish civilians and/ or parties which share your sentiments?
i know from my conversations with brothers online who live there that there are many people living in turkey who share these ideas against secularism, but within the framework of secularism in turkey it is impossible to voice them publicly in full without being attacked and arrested under these codes.

so people have taken different routes, i.e some have taken the compromise route and tried to appease the secularist murteed generals and figures of authority and so change things one tiny bit at a time.

others believe jihad is the only solution,

others again do not know enough to decide which they feel is the right solution.
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 10:53 AM
Okies i read that.

I think changing it because other countries are more tolerant of dissent is a bad idea, psychologically.

I don't pretend to be an expert on "Turkishness" but seems like it came about from an era where the Turkish govt was worried that foreign powers were willing to use the ethnic divisions/Armenian genocide + Kurdish human rights to break up the country.

I would argue that the law as it stands and is understood by the more nationalist judges, in fact harms Turkish national image.
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 10:57 AM
Originally Posted by Pomak


I would argue that the law as it stands and is understood by the more nationalist judges, in fact harms Turkish national image.
External or internal image?
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 11:20 AM
Originally Posted by sevgi
External or internal image?
Both. I doubt that Kurds being effectively barred from being able to critique the state, makes them particularly patriotic.
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by Pomak
Both. I doubt that Kurds being effectively barred from being able to critique the state, makes them particularly patriotic.
To what extent do you think the Kurds represent the Turkish national image?

You don't have to answer this by the way. I just think you are onto something...
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
To what extent do you think the Kurds represent the Turkish national image?

You don't have to answer this by the way. I just think you are onto something...
[disclaimer: this is kinda stretching my knowledge about Turkey/Turks, so if i say anything incorrect feel free to correct it]

I doubt they do very much. This is an issue of identity politics isn't it? Who is a "Turk" and the whole "mountain turk" issue.
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 12:25 PM
Originally Posted by Pomak
[disclaimer: this is kinda stretching my knowledge about Turkey/Turks, so if i say anything incorrect feel free to correct it]

I doubt they do very much. This is an issue of identity politics isn't it? Who is a "Turk" and the whole "mountain turk" issue.
Hehehe...I'll leave you alone.

I think I'm trying to define 'turkishness' objectively.

It is never possible.
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Hehehe...I'll leave you alone.

I think I'm trying to define 'turkishness' objectively.

It is never possible.
Ok i take it your trying to define that so that you can understand what Turks currently can't insult, right? As in the article 301.

Shouldn't it be more important to get what "turks" understand "turkishness" to mean? Rather than being objective? Or is that what you mean by objective?
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by Pomak
Ok i take it your trying to define that so that you can understand what Turks currently can't insult, right? As in the article 301.

Shouldn't it be more important to get what "turks" understand "turkishness" to mean? Rather than being objective? Or is that what you mean by objective?
I already know the answers to all of these. I'll give you a copy of my thesis when I'm done :P

I'm trying to get outisder opinion. That's all.
Reply

KAding
02-09-2009, 02:10 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Hello all, Salams and Greetings,

My fellow forumers who are also my friends on facebook will know that I am currently conducting a study on Turkish nationalism and the Armenian genocide.

You guys don't have 'honours' in the UK (according to a brother who is on exchange from Manchester at my university). It is a research year designed as a pathway into a Phd. It is really hard to get into and is serious stuff.

I would like to post a link here regarding Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. Some of you may know what that is...others wont have a clue, so have a look.

I will only be active in this thread as a facilitator to urge your opinions into new directions. That is, I will be manipulating you guys to say things I want you to say :P Why? Well, I may be able to use some of your comments in my research. I won't be quoting anyone, don't you worry. In order to do that, I will have to go through my university's ethics board etc etc. I have better things to do.

So basically, I want those who are interested to just read the actual article which consists of four rules or the whole thing I have posted and just say what comes to your mind.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/...enal-code.html

Thank you :)

Sev.
Well, there are several things that come to mind.

For example:
1. Turkey most definitely is not unique with these laws, not even among democratic countries
2. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that a country has these laws
3. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that these laws (if they even exist) actually get enforced

I think overall Anglo-Saxon countries have the most liberal approach, with continental European countries following closely behind. I think many Asian countries that are nominally democracies, such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and India have a lot fewer qualms actually making and enforcing similar laws.

IMHO, another important factor (next to the factor already mentioned in point 2.) is the cultural and political traditions in a country. For example, the United States has a very strong liberal and anti-state tradition, which no doubt can be traced back to its colonial history. Other countries, think of Thailand, but also Turkey, have a political history that is more authoritarian and which puts higher value on social stability rather than individual rights.
Reply

KAding
02-09-2009, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl:
in fairness i do hate nationists of all varieties, i have total bara towards it as our religion teaches us. if that makes me a hate monger so be it.
:sl:
In all fairness, I don't think Islam hates nationalism as such, it only hates nationalism when it isn't of the religious kind.

After all, what else is all this talk of an Ummah, Caliphate, Islamic State, Shura, etc? I mean, Muhammed himself founded a nation, didn't he?

But I suppose this is off-topic :).
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Well, there are several things that come to mind.

For example:
1. Turkey most definitely is not unique with these laws, not even among democratic countries
2. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that a country has these laws
3. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that these laws (if they even exist) actually get enforced

I think overall Anglo-Saxon countries have the most liberal approach, with continental European countries following closely behind. I think many Asian countries that are nominally democracies, such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and India have a lot fewer qualms actually making and enforcing similar laws.

IMHO, another important factor (next to the factor already mentioned in point 2.) is the cultural and political traditions in a country. For example, the United States has a very strong liberal and anti-state tradition, which no doubt can be traced back to its colonial history. Other countries, think of Thailand, but also Turkey, have a political history that is more authoritarian and which puts higher value on social stability rather than individual rights.
I love your post...but just referring to your final sentence, how related do you think Turkey's current enforcement of Article 301 is to its history? In what ways? Or do you think Article 301 is set in order to focus on the current populous and situations?
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 02:15 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
In all fairness, I don't think Islam hates nationalism as such, it only hates nationalism when it isn't of the religious kind.

After what else is all this talk of an Ummah, Caliphate, Islamic State, Caliph? I mean, Muhammed himself founded a nation, didn't he?

But I suppose this is off-topic :).
I think that as long as nationalism is devoid of racism, it is not against islam..but that is a personal opinion.
Reply

KAding
02-09-2009, 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
I love your post...but just referring to your final sentence, how related do you think Turkey's current enforcement of Article 301 is to its history? In what ways? Or do you think Article 301 is set in order to focus on the current populous and situations?
Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).
Reply

KAding
02-09-2009, 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
I think that as long as nationalism is devoid of racism, it is not against islam..but that is a personal opinion.
Well, even just from a practical point of view: you need to draw the borders of states somehow, no? If it isn't based on culture, then how do you do it?
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).
You are thinking out loud..so I'm gna take your questions as being rhetorical.

But I will push you deeper into the deep end.



Turkishness = Ottomanness?

Did free speech exist back in the days? Was it necessary?

Yes, there is a continuity...but what exactly is continuing? Selective continuation perhaps? Just ask yourself....does history = accuracy of events that occurred? Who is writing Turkey's history? If Turkishness stems from ottomanness, why do Turks deny that they are accountable for some of the 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire?

You dont have to answer these...or even reply...perhaps the next poster will :)
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).
IMO it was partly because of the Kurdish issue. The need was for something to could keep social harmony in those early days.
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Well, even just from a practical point of view: you need to draw the borders of states somehow, no? If it isn't based on culture, then how do you do it?
Drawing imaginary lines is always hard and usually superfluous :)
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 03:02 PM

Yes, there is a continuity...but what exactly is continuing? Selective continuation perhaps? Just ask yourself....does history = accuracy of events that occurred? Who is writing Turkey's history? If Turkishness stems from ottomanness, why do Turks deny that they are accountable for some of the 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire?
Well from an outsider's perspective. The same word is used in Bulgarian to describe the republic and the Ottomans. (Turci aka Turks)

And IMO it takes courage to confront the skeletons in the closet. Thats why Turks want to deny they had anything to do with 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire.

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away?
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-09-2009, 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
In all fairness, I don't think Islam hates nationalism as such, it only hates nationalism when it isn't of the religious kind.

After all, what else is all this talk of an Ummah, Caliphate, Islamic State, Shura, etc? I mean, Muhammed himself founded a nation, didn't he?

But I suppose this is off-topic :).
let me qualify my remarks, yes we are in favour of an ummah of muslims, a community stretching from the atlantic to pacific, from the shores of africa to the shores of indonesia.

but that 'nation' would include many different peoples and tribes, colours and languages.

as such we are a nation that is divined by idealogy and shared belief, not borders, or race, or speech, or where born, or other narrow ideas.

simularly, the west has its shared ideas which it too uses to define whether someone is with them or against them, whether they mean this to be physically fighting or just idealogically opposed.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).
KAding, the islamic republic or iran is about as islamic as the democratic republic of china is democratic.
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Originally Posted by Pomak
Well from an outsider's perspective. The same word is used in Bulgarian to describe the republic and the Ottomans. (Turci aka Turks)

And IMO it takes courage to confront the skeletons in the closet. Thats why Turks want to deny they had anything to do with 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire.

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away?
Do you believe the Turks are denying the 'accurate events' or do you think they truly believe in their innocence?

Your question..what do you mean by slipping away?
Reply

KAding
02-09-2009, 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Drawing imaginary lines is always hard and usually superfluous :)
It could also work like this on a world-wide scale :D:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...-departements/

That was the idea of some of the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, who wanted to break the age-old traditional borders of the departments. Just make all states rectangular, lol. Maybe that is what Dawud has in mind for the Islamic world as well ;).
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 03:19 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
It could also work like this on a world-wide scale :D:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...-departements/

That was the idea of some of the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, who wanted to break the age-old traditional borders of the departments. Just make all states rectangular, lol. Maybe that is what Dawud has in mind as well ;).
Hehehe...I snickered under my breath.

My next book:

'Nationalism: De-tangle your national identity in a rec-tangle'
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Do you believe the Turks are denying the 'accurate events' or do you think they truly believe in their innocence?

Your question..what do you mean by slipping away?
Deep down i think they know.

as for slipping away, i mean rebelling. (Think of how the Balkans slipped away)
Reply

KAding
02-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
let me qualify my remarks, yes we are in favour of an ummah of muslims, a community stretching from the atlantic to pacific, from the shores of africa to the shores of indonesia.

but that 'nation' would include many different peoples and tribes, colours and languages.

as such we are a nation that is divined by idealogy and shared belief, not borders, or race, or speech, or where born, or other narrow ideas.

simularly, the west has its shared ideas which it too uses to define whether someone is with them or against them, whether they mean this to be physically fighting or just idealogically opposed.
Absolutely. So it is also a form of nationalism, different only in the sense that religion is the binding element, rather than ethnicity or some ideology like the 'American Dream' in other countries.
Reply

sevgi
02-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by Pomak
Deep down i think they know.

as for slipping away, i mean rebelling. (Think of how the Balkans slipped away)
I'd like to state here that I only know stuff about the Armenian genocide. Nothing on Kurds.

Deep down, I assure you, you are wrong. Very very wrong.

Ok..your question was:

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away? (edit: rebelling)

I'm gna give you an annoying answer, Pomak.

The Kurds are still rebelling...and the Turks are fighting back...so yes, I think they would do everything they did, deed for deed.

KEEP IN MIND, I DONT KNOW ABOUT THE KURDS....not enough to make whole-hearted, opinionated comments...
Reply

Pomak
02-09-2009, 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
I'd like to state here that I only know stuff about the Armenian genocide. Nothing on Kurds.

Deep down, I assure you, you are wrong. Very very wrong.

Ok..your question was:

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away? (edit: rebelling)

I'm gna give you an annoying answer, Pomak.

The Kurds are still rebelling...and the Turks are fighting back...so yes, I think they would do everything they did, deed for deed.

KEEP IN MIND, I DONT KNOW ABOUT THE KURDS....not enough to make whole-hearted, opinionated comments...
Yeah we rebelled for 500 years lol, but i mean like the Kurds getting close to setting up their own "Kurdistan" on current Turkish land.

anyways i am happy to be wrong about the "accurate events" issue
Reply

north_malaysian
02-10-2009, 01:22 AM
can anybody define "Turkishness"?
Reply

zanjabeela
02-10-2009, 04:29 AM
Originally Posted by sevgi
I hear what you are saying. I'd like to urge your thoughts into considering Turkey as two things.

1. The nation Turkey

2. The image of Turkey

What might be good for the nation is not always good for the nation's image.



You think that pointing to flaws will allow the growth of identity? How does identity grow?

Thank you for your input guys. As I stated in my first post..Im not here to debate...I am merely here to pick on your thoughts and make you think of new things etc etc etc.
:sl:
Yes, you are so right when you say that what might be good for Turkey as a nation may not be good for it's image. However, I also think that a nation needs to concern itself with how it's own people, those within it's borders, perceive it...to an extent. Can the nation of Turkey be truly healthy if a significant portion of it's population perceive it negatively? I don't know, perhaps. But, certainly, an internal tug of war will persist until those self-images are resolved. As far as external image, I don't think Turkey needs to give two hoots for how other nations perceive it. That would not be in the best interest of itself as a nation.

No, simply pointing to flaws of any nation's identity is not something that will encourage growth of the nation. It might perpetuate a very doom-and-gloom self-image. Identity grows by allowing questions to flourish, and also pointing out the strong points of a nation's existence. I mean (and I'll just point to one example of a tension within Turkey), there is very little value to Turks or to Kurdish Turks to solely focus on how Kurds are treated as second-class citizens (if they are, in fact...I don't know) when perhaps they could take certain steps to integrate into Turkey and discover what it feels like to be a real Turk. On the other hand, how long will Turkey continue to patrol Kurdish-dominant Turkey, and are the cost, whatever they may be, worth it? Is there something simple Turkey could do in helping Kurds feel more or a Turkish identity? Condemnation is very different from constructive criticism, and all those wanting a reform, whether they be Armenians or Kurds or Turks themselves, will have to discover the fine line separating the two.
Reply

zanjabeela
02-10-2009, 04:48 AM
Originally Posted by sevgi
To what extent do you think the Kurds represent the Turkish national image?

You don't have to answer this by the way. I just think you are onto something...
:sl:
I know this was a question for Pomak, but I was wondering: if a people are part of a nation, ought not they to be representing the national image? Do they have to be exclusively Kurdish? I ask this because, while far from perfect, the United States has been merging identities and ethnicities in a way that seems to be working. Hence, we have African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. And didn't the Jews who came to the Ottoman Empire acquire a bit of a Turkish national image, while retaining their Sephardic Jewishness? I'm just having a hard time understanding why Kurds can't (or won't?) do the same? This will have much to do with a Turkish-Kurdish resolution, I'm sure.

Are we focussing too much on the Kurd issue? Did you want us to think exclusively in terms of the Armenian genocide? I am conflating the two, because while one is over and done with, a similar situation could result from the Kurdish conflict...I'm saying that due to the statement of:
A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away? (edit: rebelling)

I'm gna give you an annoying answer, Pomak.

The Kurds are still rebelling...and the Turks are fighting back...so yes, I think they would do everything they did, deed for deed.
So, I'm talking current events, because it just is on the radar right now.

:w:
Reply

Pomak
02-10-2009, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by zAnjabeela
:sl:
I know this was a question for Pomak, but I was wondering: if a people are part of a nation, ought not they to be representing the national image? Do they have to be exclusively Kurdish? I ask this because, while far from perfect, the United States has been merging identities and ethnicities in a way that seems to be working. Hence, we have African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. And didn't the Jews who came to the Ottoman Empire acquire a bit of a Turkish national image, while retaining their Sephardic Jewishness? I'm just having a hard time understanding why Kurds can't (or won't?) do the same? This will have much to do with a Turkish-Kurdish resolution, I'm sure.

Are we focussing too much on the Kurd issue? Did you want us to think exclusively in terms of the Armenian genocide? I am conflating the two, because while one is over and done with, a similar situation could result from the Kurdish conflict...I'm saying that due to the statement of:


So, I'm talking current events, because it just is on the radar right now.

:w:
Yeah i second that, sevgi do you want us to ignore the Kurd issue and just focus on the Armenian one?

Also for the the Turkey-USA comparison, the countries were created in slightly different ways. Turkey came about from the ruins of the Ottoman Khalifa/Sultanate. In WW1 the US prez was very high on his idea that all ethnic groups deserve "self determination" and basically (correctly me if im wrong sevgi) Turkey was created for "Turks". But in order to keep the south east, they had to come up with the terminology of "mountain Turks" to describe the Kurds. Otherwise the Americans would of pushed for their independence.
Reply

zanjabeela
02-10-2009, 05:33 AM
Originally Posted by Pomak
Yeah i second that, sevgi do you want us to ignore the Kurd issue and just focus on the Armenian one?

Also for the the Turkey-USA comparison, the countries were created in slightly different ways. Turkey came about from the ruins of the Ottoman Khalifa/Sultanate. In WW1 the US prez was very high on his idea that all ethnic groups deserve "self determination" and basically (correctly me if im wrong sevgi) Turkey was created for "Turks". But in order to keep the south east, they had to come up with the terminology of "mountain Turks" to describe the Kurds. Otherwise the Americans would of pushed for their independence.
Very true, the historical comparison can never be completely accurate, only in very small bits and pieces. I say that mainly because I have known of Turks of Bulgarian descent (expelled from Bulgaria in the 80s) who identify completely as Turks...yet do refer to their Bulgarian heritage. Can Kurds not do something similar? If the Turks will accept them (and that's a genuine if...I don't know that they will or not) as Turks of Kurdish extraction, is holding onto an exclusively Kurdish identity necessary?

And of course, everything you said there, I do agree with. I'm totally thinking out loud.
Reply

Pomak
02-10-2009, 05:50 AM
Originally Posted by zAnjabeela
Very true, the historical comparison can never be completely accurate, only in very small bits and pieces. I say that mainly because I have known of Turks of Bulgarian descent (expelled from Bulgaria in the 80s) who identify completely as Turks...yet do refer to their Bulgarian heritage. Can Kurds not do something similar? If the Turks will accept them (and that's a genuine if...I don't know that they will or not) as Turks of Kurdish extraction, is holding onto an exclusively Kurdish identity necessary?

And of course, everything you said there, I do agree with. I'm totally thinking out loud.
hmm thats interesting. I would really like to know the particulars of their history.
In Bulgaria a Turk of Bulgarian decent can actually mean a ethnic Bulgarian muslim. And since they don't have any "Bulgarian" muslim community that they belong to, they just might identify with the Turks.

But it is a good question. The most obvious thing that strikes me, is that the one difference between Turks in Bulgaria and Kurds in Turkey is that Kurds don't have a Kurdish state.
Reply

sevgi
02-10-2009, 05:55 AM
Originally Posted by Pomak
Yeah we rebelled for 500 years lol, but i mean like the Kurds getting close to setting up their own "Kurdistan" on current Turkish land.

anyways i am happy to be wrong about the "accurate events" issue
Turkey will do anything in their power to make sure this does not happen.



Originally Posted by north_malaysian
can anybody define "Turkishness"?
Never. Sot objectively anyway. Turkishness is imaginary. That's the point.

Originally Posted by zAnjabeela
:sl:
Yes, you are so right when you say that what might be good for Turkey as a nation may not be good for it's image. However, I also think that a nation needs to concern itself with how it's own people, those within it's borders, perceive it...to an extent. Can the nation of Turkey be truly healthy if a significant portion of it's population perceive it negatively? I don't know, perhaps. But, certainly, an internal tug of war will persist until those self-images are resolved. As far as external image, I don't think Turkey needs to give two hoots for how other nations perceive it. That would not be in the best interest of itself as a nation.



No, simply pointing to flaws of any nation's identity is not something that will encourage growth of the nation. It might perpetuate a very doom-and-gloom self-image. Identity grows by allowing questions to flourish, and also pointing out the strong points of a nation's existence. I mean (and I'll just point to one example of a tension within Turkey), there is very little value to Turks or to Kurdish Turks to solely focus on how Kurds are treated as second-class citizens (if they are, in fact...I don't know) when perhaps they could take certain steps to integrate into Turkey and discover what it feels like to be a real Turk. On the other hand, how long will Turkey continue to patrol Kurdish-dominant Turkey, and are the cost, whatever they may be, worth it? Is there something simple Turkey could do in helping Kurds feel more or a Turkish identity? Condemnation is very different from constructive criticism, and all those wanting a reform, whether they be Armenians or Kurds or Turks themselves, will have to discover the fine line separating the two.
This is the issue anyway. This is what we are talking about. This is what is happening in Turkey right now. Internal image is what I meant.

I only asked the second question coz that is what you said in your previous post.
Reply

zanjabeela
02-10-2009, 05:57 AM
Originally Posted by Pomak
hmm thats interesting. I would really like to know the particulars of their history.
In Bulgaria a Turk of Bulgarian decent can actually mean a ethnic Bulgarian muslim. And since they don't have any "Bulgarian" muslim community that they belong to, they just might identify with the Turks.

But it is a good question. The most obvious thing that strikes me, is that the one difference between Turks in Bulgaria and Kurds in Turkey is that Kurds don't have a Kurdish state.
Ahhh...I see...so it could the couple folks I know had been Turkishly inclined, regardless. That totally makes sense. Thanks!

And yes, that difference would be key to a lot of issues as far as wanting to retain the Kurdishness.

Sorry, sevgi, for the domination of the Kurdish orientation this topic took. You can steer us back anytime :)
Reply

Pomak
02-10-2009, 01:03 PM
Turkey will do anything in their power to make sure this does not happen.
I would expect nothing less. :)

Never. Sot objectively anyway. Turkishness is imaginary. That's the point.
If its imaginary what do the judges base their decision on?
Reply

sevgi
02-10-2009, 01:15 PM
Originally Posted by Pomak


If its imaginary what do the judges base their decision on?
Judges onlu decide what is derogatory towards Turkishness. The article I attached should give you an idea.

Turkishness is imaginary as every turk has his/ her own ideas of what Turkishness is.

For example...to a Turk living in Istanbul, turkishness may mean trying to express all that is western...their main concern for turkeys image might be to join the EU.

For another Turk, turkishness may mean goin off and killing Armenian journalists and shooting at kurds...this may be their understanding of upholding their turkishness and turkish rights.

The former Turk in my example would dispise the latter turk..and vice versa.
Reply

KAding
02-10-2009, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by sevgi
Turkey will do anything in their power to make sure this does not happen. [me: Talking about splitting off from Turkey]
But why is this? If "Turkishness" is so important, why do they even want to keep non-Turks as part of their nation!? Is it the trauma of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Are Turks afraid of a slippery slope, whereby other ethnicities will also demand independence (are there even such other ethnicities nowadays?)?

I know Canadians who would be dancing in the streets if the Quebecois would finally decide to split off :).
Reply

sevgi
02-10-2009, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
But why is this? If "Turkishness" is so important, why do they even want to keep non-Turks as part of your nation!? Is it the trauma of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Are Turks afraid of a slippery slope, whereby other ethnicities will also demand independence (are there even such other ethnicities nowadays?)?

I know Canadians who would be dancing in the streets if the Quebecois would finally decide to split off :).
Its about losing land to a minority.
Reply

Pomak
02-15-2009, 02:43 AM
This is a refutation for the bloke who called AKP "islamists"

http://en.fgulen.com/press-room/colu...-danger-l.html
Reply

theguest
02-15-2009, 01:39 PM
These codes are drafted by secular people with secular mindset, so what did you expect? Ofcourse they want to silence dissent and opposition. All taghout Governments want to do that, are the Arab regimes any better? No.

As far as the Armenians are concerned, they were massacred not by Ottomon troops, but by "Young Turk" nationalists, and the Armenians were not angels either, they were killing and massacring Muslim villagers and helping the invading Russians, so they got a bit more then they bargained for.

Also i think some nationalist Kurds are trying to cause division within Turkey by asking for their separate homeland.

If they were calling for a Islamic State they would get much more support, but instead they are working with the Americans and Israelis to try and win a homeland for themselves which is a gross type of nationalism, totally contrary to Islam.

The Ottomon Khilafah gave Kurds, Turks and Arabs equal rights as Muslims, they all lived and worked peacefully together for hundreds of years.

When Arab nationalism in WW1 led to rebellion against the Khilafah, then Turks developed their own nationalism to carve out a identity for themselves (even though ethnically not all Anataolians are "Turks", they were given the title under the new Republic). This left the ethnic "Kurds" isolated.

So the solution to the problems of Turkey lies in Islam, we need to remove nationalism from our hearts and see the world as "Muslim and non-Muslim" as Islam commands us to do.

All Muslims are our brothers, and all Kafirs are brothers of each other.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 07:45 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 10:03 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-09-2010, 01:17 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-02-2009, 05:39 AM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 12:20 PM
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | International Institute of Entrepreneurship and Professional Development - IIEPD | Truly Halal Humour

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!