PDA

View Full Version : Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Enemy of Islam?



Dahir
11-16-2006, 04:59 AM
I've come to talk to you guys about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the man who single-handedly broke up the Caliphate and threw Turkey head-first into future apostasy. Ataturk took pride in breaking up the Caliphate and has a legacy for it - a shameful legacy that too many Turks, sadly, take pride in.

For those who do not know Ataturk, its best to start with his disgusting, anti-Islamic Reforms:

Political Reforms

  • Abolition of the office of the Ottoman Sultan ruling since 1218, sending the last members of the House of Osman out of the country, and therefore giving the Turkish nation the right to exercise popular sovereignty via representative democracy
  • Proclamation of the new Turkish state as a republic - Republic of Turkey
  • Abolition of the office of caliphate held by the Ottomans since 1517


Social Reforms

  • Reform of headgear and dress
  • Adoption of international calendar, hours and measurements (As opposed to the Islamic calendar)


Legal Reforms

  • Closure of Islamic courts and the abolition of Islamic canon law (Death of Sharia in Turkey)
  • Transfer to a secular law structure by adoption from Swiss Civil Code and other laws (As opposed to Sharia)
  • Introduction of the new penal law modeled after Italian Penal Code (As opposed to Sharia)
  • Complete separation of government and religious affairs and the inclusion of the principle of laïcité in the constitution


Educational/Cultural Reforms

  • Abolishing of religious education system and the introduction of a national education system as the uniform standard (Unification of education)
  • Adoption of the new Turkish alphabet, derived from the Latin Alphabet (Ataturk opposed Arabic alphabets used in the Holy Quran)
  • Regulation of the university education


Economic Reforms

  • Abolition of capitulations of the Ottoman Empire in effect since the 15th century
  • Abolition of tithes (Ataturk opposed giving money to MOSQUES)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Trumble
11-16-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
. Ataturk took pride in breaking up the Caliphate and has a legacy for it - a shameful legacy that too many Turks, sadly, take pride in.
Turks, I suspect, who know a little more history than you do.

It's pointless talking about the "office of the Ottoman sultan" or the Caliphate as that office had, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist in any meaningful way following the defeat of (the already terminally declining) Ottoman Empire in WW1. The Empire was being cut up into little pieces by the British, Greeks, Italians and French; it was only Ataturk that prevented that happening to the territory of modern day Turkey.

As to the "anti-Islamic" stuff, you have to consider the mood of the time. Ataturk did what he considered necessary to turn Turkey into an industrialised, forward looking modern state and not a historic relic. His policies had far more support than opposition. And times were different; its easy to forget that while Islam may be resurgent to some extent now, then it was declining in influence and most (or at least those with any clout) believed that increasing secularism was necessary for the changes that were needed. That opinion has prevailed until relatively recently, indeed in Egypt and Syria, for example, it still does... despite the odd concession to Islam to keep the people 'happy and content'.

Turks take pride in Ataturk's legacy simply because without him there would be no Turkey to be Turks in.
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2006, 09:25 PM
This is actually the first time I've heard that Muslims don't like Ataturk. The Turkish praise him for what he did to bring them into the modern era and create a stable and prosperous Turkish state. What Trumble mentioned about the decline of the Ottamon Empire and WWI is very important, because without Ataturk I don't think Turkey would be anything remotely like what it is today.
Reply

Skillganon
11-16-2006, 09:28 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
I've come to talk to you guys about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the man who single-handedly broke up the Caliphate and threw Turkey head-first into future apostasy. Ataturk took pride in breaking up the Caliphate and has a legacy for it - a shameful legacy that too many Turks, sadly, take pride in.
Although I do agree on the what went on turkey, however I will not say Ataturk is the sole basis of breaking up the caliphate.
Other middle-eastern countries share some responsibility, in some ways.
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
slaphappy
11-16-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
... Ataturk took pride in breaking up the Caliphate and has a legacy for it - a shameful legacy ...


Saying that can get you some prison time in Turkey. And we all know about Turkish prisons...
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
11-16-2006, 09:39 PM
The Young Turk movement built a rich tradition of dissent that shaped the intellectual and political life of the late Ottoman period and laid the foundation for Atatürk's revolution

The Young Turks
Reply

Skillganon
11-16-2006, 09:43 PM
Is their any turkish brother's who can comment?
Reply

Dahir
11-16-2006, 10:00 PM
Trumble,

I hear you, and I understand that the Ottoman Empire was crumbling on its own at the time, but Ataturk, instead of improving the Caliphate, decided to break it apart. That's like destroying a hospital instead of renovating it.

The Caliphate needed reform, not termination!

As for how Turks would react -- I've spoke to many, and most are in a state of confusion. They feel distanced from the mainstream Muslim community, but also like alien beings in the European community -- its a sense of confusion that could've and should've been avoided when Ataturk was screwing about with Turkish pride!

What pride does the Turkish nation have today that it didn't in 1923? Europe's forgotten member? Islam's lost flock?

NOTHING has changed for Turkey -- its economy remains the same, its people remain Turkish, NOTHING has really changed -- only that respect from the Muslim world has hit record lows.

Turkey had to paths -- Lead the Muslim world; or become Europe's caboose...and sadly, Turkey chose the long road..imsad

Who knows, maybe Turkey naturally enjoys being a follower and not a leader...
Reply

snakelegs
11-16-2006, 10:34 PM
wasn't turkey already moving in a secular direction before ataturk?
Reply

Dahir
11-16-2006, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
wasn't turkey already moving in a secular direction before ataturk?
Nope. And if it was, Ataturk sped the process by light years.
Reply

KAding
11-16-2006, 11:30 PM
Actually, the Ottoman Empire was going through the process of Westernization for over a century before Ataturk. They did this mostly based on pragmatism, their old institutions failed them and they were getting increasingly more behind the European powers with which they had to compete.

At first it was only Western military traditions that they tried to copy (like uniforms, army structure, officer corps), but in the late 18th and early 19th century they also embraced cultural traditions, by for example setting up their own royal symphony orchestra's, building palaces to compete with places like Versailles. Ataturk was merely the icing on the cake, so to speak.

The political, social and economic systems of the Turks were failing and they were looking for alternatives. It's not much different from what many other Middle Eastern countries did later in the 20th century, they embraced socialism in an attempt to regain their former glory and halt the decline. Unfortunately, these Arab countries have not been very successful. So now Islam gets another chance. My expectation is that in a few decades Islamic political institutions will have been tried and found unsatisfactory. At that point the search for alternatives will once again begin.

Btw, isn't Turkey one of the more successful Muslim countries in the region, or heck, even the world? Economically speaking at least. Are there non-petro Muslim countries that have a similar GDP? All I can think of is Malaysia?
Reply

Dahir
11-16-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Btw, isn't Turkey one of the more successful Muslim countries in the region, or heck, even the world? Economically speaking at least. Are there non-petro Muslim countries that have a similar GDP? All I can think of is Malaysia?
You are correct. Turkey is the most successful non-Petro Muslim country, but the success was not on its own -- Turkey got a helping hand from the USA and European Community -- and its a NATO nation, which really helps it.

Its not Turkey's success that we should look at, its Turkey's status. Turkey, alongside Poland, serves as Europe's caboose, instead of regional leader. Turkey could've been Persia's prized power, but instead chose to be a European tag-along. Poland could've served as Eastern Europe's regional powerhouse and leader, but isntead chose to be Western Europe's rubber factory.

Its about status and respect, something Turkey is not gaining, but losing.
Reply

KAding
11-17-2006, 12:11 AM
I'm confused. Are you implying the Turkish economy is one of the most successful in the Muslim world because it is being subsidized by the US and Europe? Or do you merely mean Turkey has more opportunities for trade? If so, why do you believe this?

Btw, if you prefer glory and prestige over welfare and prosperity, thats your choice ;). Besides, I think it's a myth. It's virtually impossible to be truly powerful and poor at the same time.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-17-2006, 12:29 AM
I don't like him. You can help your country progress, but why ban key elements of Islam? Thats not helping.
Reply

Dahir
11-17-2006, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by KAding
I'm confused. Are you implying the Turkish economy is one of the most successful in the Muslim world because it is being subsidized by the US and Europe? Or do you merely mean Turkey has more opportunities for trade? If so, why do you believe this?

Btw, if you prefer glory and prestige over welfare and prosperity, thats your choice ;). Besides, I think it's a myth. It's virtually impossible to be truly powerful and poor at the same time.
To be honest, Turkey isn't a poweful country at all, and if anything, their economy is par with other MIDDLE-class nations, but very powerful, I guess, compared to other Muslim nations. Turkey's success, as I've said, comes from opportunity. They haven't been sanctioned or embargoed by the US (like Iran), and Turkey has accepted Europe as a cousin and just a neighbor -- thus bridging a gap that Iran and other nations couldn't or shouldn't have.

Turkey also gets a lot of help from NATO, so its not self-sufficient in many arenas.

I never said Turkey was powerful and I never said Turkey was poor. And I never implied they should trade prosperity for prestige. Turkey had both at a certain time in its history, and it began to lose both at a certain time in its history -- but Ataturk took the wrong approach to correct both.

Originally Posted by Tayyaba
I don't like him. You can help your country progress, but why ban key elements of Islam? Thats not helping.
That's what I'm wondering. It seems Iran is MUCH more successful and independent, and also respected, AFTER the Islamic revolution -- why can't Turkey see that shining example?
Reply

Muezzin
11-17-2006, 01:31 AM
There's only one thing on Dahir's list that really irritates me, and it's the 'headgear' provisions, which are essentially the same as those in France. I don't understand why nations think it's good and modern to curtail people's religious freedom, and in effect, their freedom of expression.

But that's a rant for another day...
Reply

Malaikah
11-17-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Is their any turkish brother's who can comment?
:sl:

My turkish friend hates him.
Reply

Skillganon
11-17-2006, 02:23 AM
Originally Posted by cheese
:sl:

My turkish friend hates him.
I aint suprised. I met Turkey's in general. Some of them have little knowledge about Islam, but they claim they are muslim. One of girl claimed she is a sunni but read's the bible, her mum is a Jehova witness and her dad is a Muslim (I am guessing by name only).

In turkey they are so proud if one can speak English for some reason. As Dahir said, they are more like English/American followers.
Reply

Dahir
11-17-2006, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
In turkey they are so proud if one can speak English for some reason. As Dahir said, they are more like English/American followers.
So in turn, the 'national identity' that Ataturk was aiming for -- was actually lost due to his moves.

Turkey can, however, still turn around and become a leader again, for the Muslim world, but only time will tell when a rightly-guided Turkish/Muslim patriot rises.
Reply

Keltoi
11-17-2006, 04:02 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
So in turn, the 'national identity' that Ataturk was aiming for -- was actually lost due to his moves.

Turkey can, however, still turn around and become a leader again, for the Muslim world, but only time will tell when a rightly-guided Turkish/Muslim patriot rises.
Just out of curiousity, what criteria does this "Muslim patriot" need to meet to be considered "rightly-guided"?
Reply

Malaikah
11-17-2006, 04:04 AM
^Someone who follows the teachings of the prophets and the Quran.
Reply

Keltoi
11-17-2006, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by cheese
^Someone who follows the teachings of the prophets and the Quran.
I take it Ataturk didn't meet this criteria. What did he do that went against the prophets and the Quran?
Reply

north_malaysian
11-17-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
wasn't turkey already moving in a secular direction before ataturk?
Indeed.... they adapted Swiss Penal Code before Attaturk overthrown Ottoman Caliphate...

Furthermore, regardless of his Turkicisation of Muslim Turks efforts, the "Young Turks" inspired Malays to form "Young Malays" to gain independence from British.

With reference to our history textbooks read by Malaysian students nationwide... Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is depicted as someone good.
Reply

Dahir
11-17-2006, 04:15 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I take it Ataturk didn't meet this criteria. What did he do that went against the prophets and the Quran?
ALL of his reforms -- not one or two, but ALL. He discouraged, and even denied women to have headscarfs in public. He dropped use of the ISLAMIC calendar, by which our religion was given birth! He tossed Sharia law -- HOW can a man refuse the laws set by God?! Ataturk adopted Italian and Swiss penal and civil codes -- over God's codes!!

Is that enough, Keltoi?
Reply

Dahir
11-17-2006, 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is depicted as someone good.
WHAT?!?!

And as for the Turkisation of Turkey, that's wrong. It has and will continue to fail the same way as pan-Arabism failed. Go to God for help, not a flag!
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-17-2006, 04:53 AM
He also canceled the adhaan...
Reply

north_malaysian
11-17-2006, 06:10 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
WHAT?!?!

And as for the Turkisation of Turkey, that's wrong. It has and will continue to fail the same way as pan-Arabism failed. Go to God for help, not a flag!
Go to the Nationalists and say this then..... they're controlling our nations, not us forummers...
Reply

north_malaysian
11-17-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
He also canceled the adhaan...
He did not cancel the adhaan.... he just asking muezzins to do the adhaan in Turkish.
Reply

KAding
11-17-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
I aint suprised. I met Turkey's in general. Some of them have little knowledge about Islam, but they claim they are muslim. One of girl claimed she is a sunni but read's the bible, her mum is a Jehova witness and her dad is a Muslim (I am guessing by name only).

In turkey they are so proud if one can speak English for some reason. As Dahir said, they are more like English/American followers.
Thats a bizarre statement. The US is not popular at all in Turkey. In fact, the US is no more popular than in most other Muslim countries:


http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=801

Rather than Turks not having an identity, they are fiercely nationalistic. Criticizing the own country is a horrible taboo, which sometimes even carries a jail sentence.
Reply

Nablus
11-17-2006, 11:07 AM
the modern era and create a stable and prosperous Turkish state.
Do u think Islam stands against modernization ?!!!!
Islam is a source of modernization and civilizations
Reply

Trumble
11-17-2006, 11:17 AM
What exactly do those stats actually show "favorability" towards? It can't just be a general like/dislike, otherwise they say that 14% more Germans like the French than they do their fellow Germans!

Way OT I know, but its interesting to see how much the Chinese still loathe the Japanese, even 60 years after WW2 ended.
Reply

Mr. Baldy
11-17-2006, 11:20 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
This is actually the first time I've heard that Muslims don't like Ataturk. The Turkish praise him for what he did to bring them into the modern era and create a stable and prosperous Turkish state. What Trumble mentioned about the decline of the Ottamon Empire and WWI is very important, because without Ataturk I don't think Turkey would be anything remotely like what it is today.
without islam the WORLD would not be 'anything remotley like what it is today'. islam modernised the world, islamic law was the first law that gave women rights, this was when in the west the women was still regarded as property (and still is), women were only given the right to vote 100 years ago, and only after one sufferagette threw herself infront of the kings horse and killed herself, muslims were figuring out orbits of other stars when the west still thought the world was flat, islam gave us algebra and cannons. so how can you say islam 'backwards'?
Reply

KAding
11-17-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
What exactly do those stats actually show "favorability" towards? It can't just be a general like/dislike, otherwise they say that 14% more Germans like the French than they do their fellow Germans!
My apologies, I forgot to add a link to the original pew study. I have edited my post. It appears the question they asked in the questionnaire was: "Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable opinion of (insert)?"

I don't think the German result is odd at all. Germans have a very low opinion of their own country somehow. I have seen other studies that confirm this, especially now that the German economy is doing so badly. Pride in their own country is not something Germans are taught, unlike Americans, who pretty much always think the US is the "greatest country on earth" ;).

Way OT I know, but its interesting to see how much the Chinese still loathe the Japanese, even 60 years after WW2 ended.
It has become part of the national culture and heritage no doubt.
Reply

Keltoi
11-17-2006, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
without islam the WORLD would not be 'anything remotley like what it is today'. islam modernised the world, islamic law was the first law that gave women rights, this was when in the west the women was still regarded as property (and still is), women were only given the right to vote 100 years ago, and only after one sufferagette threw herself infront of the kings horse and killed herself, muslims were figuring out orbits of other stars when the west still thought the world was flat, islam gave us algebra and cannons. so how can you say islam 'backwards'?
Women in the West are still considered "property" huh? That is interesting, I will be sure and tell my wife that. As for Islam "modernizing" the world, I think you should look at the countries with a majority Muslim population and compare them to other more secular countries. Granted, progress and modernization or matters of perception, but compared to Turkey, countries like Syria, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistian, etc have a long way to go to catch up with the Turkish in terms of economic stability, law, and world influence. I'm not saying Muslim equals bad country, but if one looks honestly at these countries they have a long way to go.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-17-2006, 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
He did not cancel the adhaan.... he just asking muezzins to do the adhaan in Turkish.
What are you talking about? I'm not talkin about Muezzin or whomever.
Reply

Muezzin
11-17-2006, 07:48 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
What are you talking about? I'm not talkin about Muezzin or whomever.
He wasn't talking about me :p

The muezzin is the person who makes the call to prayer. What north malaysian is saying is that Ataturk did not cancel the adhan - instead he required the muezzins to say it in Turkish rather than Arabic.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-17-2006, 08:26 PM
lol i know...omg, but i still mistook it for u :hiding:
I forgot to add he canceled the adhaan in Arabic
Reply

Dahir
11-18-2006, 01:32 AM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
lol i know...omg, but i still mistook it for u :hiding:
I forgot to add he canceled the adhaan in Arabic
Soe he even Turkicized our religion? Ataturk was another rabid nationalist like the fathers of pan-Arabism, Lenin, and Mao -- they all have failed and will continue, unless they straighten their ways!

I still can't believe Ataturk thought Islam was standing in the way of Turkey's progress. Well, lets see how far Turkey gets with Ataturk's screw-ups, I mean, reforms.


.............
Reply

`Abd al-Azeez
11-19-2006, 12:05 AM
:sl:

Ataturk did EXACTLY what the West is trying to do to the rest of the Muslim countries in the world, cut them off from Islam and secularize them.

:ws:
Reply

Dahir
11-19-2006, 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by `Abd al-Azeez
:sl:

Ataturk did EXACTLY what the West is trying to do to the rest of the Muslim countries in the world, cut them off from Islam and secularize them.

:ws:
And what a wonderful job Ataturk did! Now, in a hundred years, will Turkey be Atheist or Catholic?

...
Reply

Keltoi
11-19-2006, 04:19 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
And what a wonderful job Ataturk did! Now, in a hundred years, will Turkey be Atheist or Catholic?

...
How about a country where one can worship how they see fit, regardless of the religion? Is that concept so horrible? Must everyone be forced to create and live in an Islamic state or be deemed "enemies of Islam"?
Reply

Muslim Knight
11-19-2006, 07:36 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
How about a country where one can worship how they see fit, regardless of the religion? Is that concept so horrible? Must everyone be forced to create and live in an Islamic state or be deemed "enemies of Islam"?
People can worship as they fit, regardless of the religion. But Christians must worship as Christians, Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims and so forth. Only those who sought to pervert the teachings of Islam will be deemed "enemies of Islam" as are those who lambast Islam head-on. In this case, Attaturk sought to change the Muslim Turkey into a secularist state. He perverted the fundamentals of Islam that the Turks have been following.
Reply

Dahir
11-19-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
People can worship as they fit, regardless of the religion. But Christians must worship as Christians, Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims and so forth. Only those who sought to pervert the teachings of Islam will be deemed "enemies of Islam" as are those who lambast Islam head-on. In this case, Attaturk sought to change the Muslim Turkey into a secularist state. He perverted the fundamentals of Islam that the Turks have been following.
Exactly my point to Keltoi. And in a TOTAL secular state, not the US, but FRANCE, you can't practice Christianity or Judaism in public!

In an Islamic state, you can practice any religion, even build places of worship.

I deem him an enemy because he vowed to minimalize ALL religions in society.

Now, I NEVER say bad things about America on the religious front, America is a very religiously-free nation, and I'm very happy about that. But the countries that are on my BAD list are several nations in Europe like France, Holland, and Communist nations like China, Vietnam, DPRK, and Russia.

Now, Keltoi, do you still believe I'm against non-Muslims? Because this has NOTHING to do with non-Muslim religions. Secularism (absolute) seeks to halt ALL religions.
Reply

KAding
11-19-2006, 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
Exactly my point to Keltoi. And in a TOTAL secular state, not the US, but FRANCE, you can't practice Christianity or Judaism in public!

<snip>

Now, I NEVER say bad things about America on the religious front, America is a very religiously-free nation, and I'm very happy about that. But the countries that are on my BAD list are several nations in Europe like France, Holland, and Communist nations like China, Vietnam, DPRK, and Russia.
You keep repeating that about Holland. But it is nonsense! You can certainly practise religion in public. In fact, holland has a very liberal history regarding religious freedom. In the 17th and 18th century people from all over Europe fled to Holland because it did not prosecute its religious minorities. Let me repeat this statistic again, there are more Islamic schools in Holland than in the rest of Western Europe combined. These schools are actually subsidized by the state! To say Holland is highly secular is nonsense. To say religious minorities here would have fewer rights that Dhimmis or polytheists in an Islamic state is even more nonsense! Muslims are free to preach and convert all they want, the same could not be said for non-Muslims in an islamic state.

Could you give me one example of something that would be allowed in the US and not in Holland? And don't say 'wear a burqa', because that isn't actually law yet!

Now, Keltoi, do you still believe I'm against non-Muslims? Because this has NOTHING to do with non-Muslim religions. Secularism (absolute) seeks to halt ALL religions.
Again, nonsense. France has plenty of Mosques and plenty of Churches. There also no issue with religion in the public space. The only restrictions are in government institutions, like schools, court rooms and hospitals. You can build a mosque in France, you can proselytize all you want. Secularism does not attempt to kill religion in society, it merely tries to keep religion out of government.
Reply

Dahir
11-19-2006, 11:53 PM
KAding,

If you saw my post, I was speaking mainly of ABSOLUTE secularism. I only used several European nations as examples because all of these secular bills are popping up all at the same time.

10 years I say, before Europe becomes Soviet-style.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
11-20-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
How about a country where one can worship how they see fit, regardless of the religion? Is that concept so horrible? Must everyone be forced to create and live in an Islamic state or be deemed "enemies of Islam"?
Ataturk did more then only secularise Turkey he also forbade a lot of stuff, guys wearing a beard where arrested woman were not allowed to wear hijab in schools or when working in govermental offices. This isn't taking a neutral secular stand but is contra-religion. It's a degenerate oppression from atheism that is no beginning in difrent European countries to.

the reason many Turks worship him is because of his military success in the battle of canackle where he defended Turkey against The European alliance. I think that's stupid, it wasn't ataturk who won the battle, but the thousands of man and woman who fought and risked their live there that won the battle. However I keep being amazed by the irony of how a man can be admired for defending it's country against the western world and then despised for opening the gates wide open to western corruption at the same time.
Reply

KAding
11-20-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
KAding,

If you saw my post, I was speaking mainly of ABSOLUTE secularism. I only used several European nations as examples because all of these secular bills are popping up all at the same time.

10 years I say, before Europe becomes Soviet-style.
I actually believe a movement in the opposite direction is possible. Not towards tolerance per se, but I believe Europeans will start to embrace their Christian roots. Not as believers, but as a source of identity.
Reply

Dahir
11-20-2006, 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by KAding
I actually believe a movement in the opposite direction is possible. Not towards tolerance per se, but I believe Europeans will start to embrace their Christian roots. Not as believers, but as a source of identity.
I too agree on that front. I've been seeing major uprisings of rightwing religious groups, but mainly from the Mediterrannean; in France, Italy, and Spain.

It seems both worlds will collide in the next decade.
Reply

Muslim Knight
11-20-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by steve
Ataturk did more then only secularise Turkey he also forbade a lot of stuff, guys wearing a beard where arrested woman were not allowed to wear hijab in schools or when working in govermental offices. This isn't taking a neutral secular stand but is contra-religion. It's a degenerate oppression from atheism that is no beginning in difrent European countries to.

the reason many Turks worship him is because of his military success in the battle of canackle where he defended Turkey against The European alliance. I think that's stupid, it wasn't ataturk who won the battle, but the thousands of man and woman who fought and risked their live there that won the battle. However I keep being amazed by the irony of how a man can be admired for defending it's country against the western world and then despised for opening the gates wide open to western corruption at the same time.

Secularism is the next extremism
Reply

Bittersteel
11-20-2006, 02:12 AM
^true.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-20-2006, 06:07 AM
Do you know that Ataturk consulted religious scholars before he prohibited polygamy?

In the Koran, it requires for guys who want to marry more than one wife to be 'just'. But because it's hard to prove that a guy could be 'just' in the modern days, thus he prohibited polygamy (he acted upon the advise of the religious scholars he referred)

Thus, he didnt prohibit polygamous marriage because he hate Islam...
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-20-2006, 06:47 AM
Originally Posted by cheese
:sl:

My turkish friend hates him.
My Turkish daughter loves him.

Now, what have our contrasting anecdotal stories proved?
Reply

Mr. Baldy
11-20-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Women in the West are still considered "property" huh? That is interesting, I will be sure and tell my wife that. As for Islam "modernizing" the world, I think you should look at the countries with a majority Muslim population and compare them to other more secular countries. Granted, progress and modernization or matters of perception, but compared to Turkey, countries like Syria, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistian, etc have a long way to go to catch up with the Turkish in terms of economic stability, law, and world influence. I'm not saying Muslim equals bad country, but if one looks honestly at these countries they have a long way to go.
1400 years ago, the caliph tried to set a limit on the dowry, a woman stood up and said, 'islam did not set a limit, so how can you?' the caliph conceeded the point.
1400 years ago, in britain, women were thought to be devils, and burnt as witches, or drowned, and if she floated she was then burnt, if she sunk she was innocent but she still died.

yes muslim countries are backwards, but thats not because of islamic economic policy, thats becasue of western econonomic policy, namley take money money, make money money. under shariah countries flourished.

and really if you think that 'muslim' countries are ruled by shariah then you are sadly mistaken my friend
Reply

Skillganon
11-20-2006, 05:53 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Do you know that Ataturk consulted religious scholars before he prohibited polygamy?

In the Koran, it requires for guys who want to marry more than one wife to be 'just'. But because it's hard to prove that a guy could be 'just' in the modern days, thus he prohibited polygamy (he acted upon the advise of the religious scholars he referred)

Thus, he didnt prohibit polygamous marriage because he hate Islam...
Brother, you know you can't forbid it, wheter you love it or hate it.
It can be said he done what exactly that.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-20-2006, 09:32 PM
Whether that person was just or not with his wives, he still would have been delt with under Islamic Law. To prohibit somethin is STILL making a change. You do NOT allow or prohibit what
Allah has decreed already. Simple as that.
Reply

Dahir
11-20-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Whether that person was just or not with his wives, he still would have been delt with under Islamic Law. To prohibit somethin is STILL making a change. You do NOT allow or prohibit what
Allah has decreed already. Simple as that.
Correctomundo!

Ataturk is sick. +o(

...my only question now is, will Turkey ever recover? And if so, how?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-20-2006, 09:48 PM
InshAllah, lets hope. You wana know something interesting. You remember the story of when the Prophet(pbuh) sent his followers to the Christian king for shelter. I think its now Abyssinia? The Prophet(pbuh) sent them towards the West, rather than the East. If you look now, Muslims are coming to the West for the same kind of thing cuz their dying and unsafe in their own lands. I dunno if that makes sense. Anways sorry getting off topic, it just popped up in my head lol.
Reply

Dahir
11-20-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
InshAllah, lets hope. You wana know something interesting. You remember the story of when the Prophet(pbuh) sent his followers to the Christian king for shelter. I think its now Abyssinia? The Prophet(pbuh) sent them towards the West, rather than the East. If you look now, Muslims are coming to the West for the same kind of thing cuz their dying and unsafe in their own lands. I dunno if that makes sense. Anways sorry getting off topic, it just popped up in my head lol.
I understand. But soon after, the Muslim world cleaned up and the need for refuge was obsolete. Maybe we need to clean up our backyards.


:embarrass
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-20-2006, 09:55 PM
Exactly! It will be InshAllah. Be whatever the state of the Ummah, Islam will always prevail InshAllah. Allah wont change the state of the Ummah, until the Ummah changes the state in which their in. Thats what we need to work on. Before we go picking on others, we need to fix ourselves. Will then it make sense to fight back :D I think that makes sense lol. So whatever Kamal did, he'll get what is deserving of his actions.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-21-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir

...my only question now is, will Turkey ever recover? And if so, how?
If I'm forced to migrate to other countries ... I'll choose Turkey...
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-21-2006, 08:32 AM
you want my opinion of mustafa kamal?

he is a dirty murteed who will be punished for his kuffar and apostasy, there is no one i am as convinced of his kuffar as i am this man.

i hate this man purely for the sake of Allah. also do not call him ataturk, it means father of the turk and any practicing muslim from turkey will find such a claim to be disgusting and very insulting.

may Allah swt protect us from all the little mustafa kamals of this day and age also and help them to repent or gather them all together in the worst pits of hell, ameen.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-21-2006, 08:35 AM
what we must also realise is how much the turks are forced to idiolise this man in schools and other public institutions, yet the man was a dispicable fornicator and his cronies used to hire prostitutes to take with them when meeting him rather than take their wives and daughters for him to make a play at.

he was evil, and should be reviled for the sake of islam.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

north_malaysian
11-21-2006, 08:38 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
what we must also realise is how much the turks are forced to idiolise this man in schools and other public institutions, yet the man was a dispicable fornicator and his cronies used to hire prostitutes to take with them when meeting him rather than take their wives and daughters for him to make a play at.

he was evil, and should be reviled for the sake of islam.

Abu Abdullah
Do you have links to any website depicting his despicable acts?
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-21-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Do you have links to any website depicting his despicable acts?
i think you mean detailing?
a website depicting his acts would be blocked by many servers as inappropiate content haha.

sorry no, i only read it a while ago in a book but if i come across anything again i will post it here.

this is of-course nothing compared to his kufr though which was open and transparent, he was a kaffir who aposticated from islam and ruled by other than Allah has revealed.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

Muslim Knight
11-21-2006, 02:32 PM
I remember reading about how people came to his residence the day he died and they urinated & defaced the entrance gates as protest over his radical transformation of Turkey into a secular state. His wife just looked over, perplexed as to why people were venting their anger when she thought they were all this while happy during his tenure. But I can't remember where I've read this.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-21-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
you want my opinion of mustafa kamal?

i hate this man purely for the sake of Allah. also do not call him ataturk, it means father of the turk and any practicing muslim from turkey will find such a claim to be disgusting and very insulting.
My guess is that you are not from Turkey.

My daughter is. She is a practicing Muslim. The same is true of my "niece". As is another friend of mine. And they each revere Ataturk as the father of their country. In fact until this thread I never heard of any Turk who had anything but the greatest respect for Ataturk and I know dozens of Turks, but I did not count them all, because for some of them I do not know the degree to which they are practicing Muslims. So, I named only the three I am surest about.

Having read this thread, I can see why some within the Ummah may not value what Ataturk has done. But that is very different from your statement that "any practicing muslim from Turkey will find such a claim [that Mustafa Kemal is the 'father of the Turk'] to be disgusing". As I said, I am aware of the opinion of practicing Muslims from Turkey, and among those I know, their opinion is unanimous and it is different from yours.
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-21-2006, 03:32 PM
what is a practicing muslim to you?

1. someone who prays and does the five pillars?

2. or what about believing in islam as a complete system divinely given by Allah as well as those five pillars?

if the former then yes such practicing muslims could well revere this man within their own belief frame work, but if you see the later as a practicing muslim then they could not revere a man who destroyed islam as a system in turkey.

and yes i know and speak to a few practicing turks over the net, they curse this man and hate him for the sake of Allah also despite the brainwashing they recieve at school.

may Allah swt punish this man with the worse of hell, may Allah swt destroy his legacy - a secular turkey, may Allah swt raise up pious muslims in their place who will live islam as a true whole system of life, ameen!

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-21-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
what is a practicing muslim to you?

1. someone who prays and does the five pillars?

2. or what about believing in islam as a complete system divinely given by Allah as well as those five pillars?

if the former then yes such practicing muslims could well revere this man within their own belief frame work, but if you see the later as a practicing muslim then they could not revere a man who destroyed islam as a system in turkey.

and yes i know and speak to a few practicing turks over the net, they curse this man and hate him for the sake of Allah also despite the brainwashing they recieve at school.

may Allah swt punish this man with the worse of hell, may Allah swt destroy his legacy - a secular turkey, may Allah swt raise up pious muslims in their place who will live islam as a true whole system of life, ameen!

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
As I said, I can see where it is that you are coming from, but that I had not heard these views regarding Ataturk before.

May I ask two follow-up questions?
Given that you desire to see pious Muslims rise up in Turkey who will live Islam as a true whole system of life....
1) Is it your desire then that in doing so they would overthrow the current political establishment in Turkey to recreate a more Islamic Turkey complete with Shari'ah laws?
2) Given that you live in the UK, also a secular country, but unlike Turkey never a historically Muslim country, would you seek to establish Islam as the dominant culture of the UK, or would you be content to live a pious Muslim life within the already existing secular culture?
Reply

- Qatada -
11-21-2006, 04:12 PM
:wasalamex


Ameen.. islaam is a whole way of life, and if anyone prefers any other law over the law of Allaah Almighty, and His messenger - then their going down a dangerous path. Therefore if he tried implementing a law other than the law of Allaah, then Allaah will take him account for that on the day of resurrection, the day of judgement.



This has been explained here:


The kufr [disbelief] of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?re...ng&txt=ataturk



IslamQA says:
(6) Refusing to rule by what Allaah has revealed.


By examining this topic from different angles, it becomes clear that what is counted as kufr akbar is the following:
  1. Abolishing sharee‘ah as the law governing a country, as Mustafa Kemal (“Ataturk”) did in Turkey, as he abolished the book Majallah al-Ahkaam al-‘Adliyyahmadhhab, and replaced it with man-made laws. which was based on the Hanafi madhhab, and replaced it with man-made laws.
  2. Abolishing sharee‘ah courts.
  3. Imposing man-made laws, such as Italian, French, German law, etc., to judge between the people, or mixing these laws and Sharee‘ah, as Genghis Khan did in his book al-Yaasiq, which combined laws from different sources; the ‘ulamaa’ (scholars) ruled that he was a kaafir.
  4. Confining the role of sharee‘ah courts to so-called “civil” matters, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.
  5. Setting up non-sharee‘ah courts.
  6. Discussing sharee‘ah in parliament and voting on it; this indicates that implementing sharee‘ah is conditional upon a majority vote.
  7. Making sharee‘ah a secondary or main source, along with other sources of law. Even when they say that sharee‘ah is the primary source of legislation, this is still kufr akbar, because it means that they are allowing the adoption of laws from other sources too.
  8. Stating in the clauses of legislation that reference may be made to international law, or stating in treaties that in the case of dispute, the matter may be referred to such-and-such non-Islamic court.
  9. Criticizing sharee‘ah in public or in private, such as saying that it is rigid, incomplete or backward, or suggesting that it is incompatible with our times, or expressing admiration for non-Islamic laws.

Reply

north_malaysian
11-22-2006, 02:33 AM
Can you gimme the book titles that saying bad things about him?
Reply

north_malaysian
11-22-2006, 05:14 AM
About Ataturk, here are some facts you've probably never heard of:

1) According to ataturk, the reason for the collapse of the Ottomans, was due to it leaving the true teaching and fold of Islam and resorting to being ruled by a corrupt elite who USED religion for their personal gain.

2) "The Turks, dont know their religion because they cant understand Arabic, let alone classical arabic, therefore the Holy Koran must be translated into Turkish and explained to the society. they must understand their religion, not believe blindly in something they cannot comprehend" (the translated Holy Koran, with its original Arabic source was handed out for free to the public)

3) Ataturk called the Holy Koran, the Most Beautiful Book. In Dolmahbahce Palace and Cankanya House, Mustafa Kemal along with prominent Huffaz would read the Koran, study the Surahs and debate over the meaning and have deep conversations and meeting in order to make decisions and these also gave him many ideas and knowledge.

4) "Islam is the religion of logic, knowledge and benefits the society, it teaches to learn, to further studies and technology and therefore is the driving factor for modernisation of this country"

5) "Our nation has a strong love and devotion to Islam, there is no power which can remove this from their hearts and souls."

Furthermore you can read at:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/40913

I dont know whether he quoted those words or not, but it seems that he ... at least respect Islam.
Reply

Dahir
11-22-2006, 05:27 AM
Northern_Malaysian,

I see you are trying to prove the good Ataturk has done for his nation. Despite all the 'good' he has done for Turkey (none), it is greatly outweighed by the scar he has left on his nation.

I continue going back to this example; what is the difference between Turkey and Iran? The obvious similarities are that they're both Muslim, both around 70 Million in population, both have the same GDP, close relative size, and both have progressive goals.

But Turkey, in the Islamic world today, is looked at as the caboose of Europe, a country literally forgotten by most Muslims - mainly because of its lack of participation in Muslim gatherings and goings-on.

Iran, on the other end, practices Sharia to a level most Muslims see fit and can easily respect. Iran plays a vocal part in the Muslim world and holds its own pride (not European 'caboose' pride). Iran is in full support of furthering the reaches of Islam through vocal and monetary support to Muslim groups worldwide and openly publicizes such goings-on.

See, folks, two nations too much alike and the chief differences ly only in their level of faith.

Turkey - once again - has two choices - play the role of Leader in the Middle East/Eurasia (or further in the Islamic World) or continue, like Poland, to be Europe's caboose - and Europe has enough already.


................:-\
Reply

north_malaysian
11-22-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
Northern_Malaysian,

I see you are trying to prove the good Ataturk has done for his nation. Despite all the 'good' he has done for Turkey (none), it is greatly outweighed by the scar he has left on his nation.

I continue going back to this example; what is the difference between Turkey and Iran? The obvious similarities are that they're both Muslim, both around 70 Million in population, both have the same GDP, close relative size, and both have progressive goals.

But Turkey, in the Islamic world today, is looked at as the caboose of Europe, a country literally forgotten by most Muslims - mainly because of its lack of participation in Muslim gatherings and goings-on.

Iran, on the other end, practices Sharia to a level most Muslims see fit and can easily respect. Iran plays a vocal part in the Muslim world and holds its own pride (not European 'caboose' pride). Iran is in full support of furthering the reaches of Islam through vocal and monetary support to Muslim groups worldwide and openly publicizes such goings-on.

See, folks, two nations too much alike and the chief differences ly only in their level of faith.

Turkey - once again - has two choices - play the role of Leader in the Middle East/Eurasia (or further in the Islamic World) or continue, like Poland, to be Europe's caboose - and Europe has enough already.


................:-\
I'm not saying that I'm supporting Ataturk... but I also not hating him too.

I've heard many bad things about him, thus I think we should know the good side of him too.

Whether he is a Muslim or not... it's upon God to decide. But I think he's a Muslim, because his tomb facing Mecca.

Like, Iran... it might be a model Islamic nation ... yet I've heard Sunnis are oppressed there..
Reply

Dahir
11-22-2006, 05:59 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I'm not saying that I'm supporting Ataturk... but I also not hating him too.

I've heard many bad things about him, thus I think we should know the good side of him too.

Whether he is a Muslim or not... it's upon God to decide. But I think he's a Muslim, because his tomb facing Mecca.

Like, Iran... it might be a model Islamic nation ... yet I've heard Sunnis are oppressed there..
Sunni oppression in Iran? Nah, just some local heckling at best. If that were the case, Iran would be ripe for propaganda slinging!
Reply

north_malaysian
11-22-2006, 07:12 AM
Why you hate him so much?

I mean, if he's indeed a very bad person ... is he still the ultimate enemy of Islam?
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-22-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As I said, I can see where it is that you are coming from, but that I had not heard these views regarding Ataturk before.

May I ask two follow-up questions?
Given that you desire to see pious Muslims rise up in Turkey who will live Islam as a true whole system of life....
1) Is it your desire then that in doing so they would overthrow the current political establishment in Turkey to recreate a more Islamic Turkey complete with Shari'ah laws?
2) Given that you live in the UK, also a secular country, but unlike Turkey never a historically Muslim country, would you seek to establish Islam as the dominant culture of the UK, or would you be content to live a pious Muslim life within the already existing secular culture?
1. the current political party in charge of turkey are doing some good things and some bad and perhaps need to be given time to bring the military and other turkish elites into line as everytime they propose even a remotely islamic law they threaten a cout.

2. no, there is not anywhere near a muslim majority here yet, given present rates of birth and reversion to islam that will not happen for another 70 - 100 years.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-22-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
About Ataturk, here are some facts you've probably never heard of:

1) According to ataturk, the reason for the collapse of the Ottomans, was due to it leaving the true teaching and fold of Islam and resorting to being ruled by a corrupt elite who USED religion for their personal gain.

2) "The Turks, dont know their religion because they cant understand Arabic, let alone classical arabic, therefore the Holy Koran must be translated into Turkish and explained to the society. they must understand their religion, not believe blindly in something they cannot comprehend" (the translated Holy Koran, with its original Arabic source was handed out for free to the public)

3) Ataturk called the Holy Koran, the Most Beautiful Book. In Dolmahbahce Palace and Cankanya House, Mustafa Kemal along with prominent Huffaz would read the Koran, study the Surahs and debate over the meaning and have deep conversations and meeting in order to make decisions and these also gave him many ideas and knowledge.

4) "Islam is the religion of logic, knowledge and benefits the society, it teaches to learn, to further studies and technology and therefore is the driving factor for modernisation of this country"

5) "Our nation has a strong love and devotion to Islam, there is no power which can remove this from their hearts and souls."

Furthermore you can read at:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/40913

I dont know whether he quoted those words or not, but it seems that he ... at least respect Islam.
your qouting daniel pipes, you know who this man is?

he is the number one neo-con commentator and proponent of castrating islam and bringing in 'moderate islam'

he qualification of moderate islam is one who will deny ayats of the Quran he sees as unfair but such a person would be a kaffir but yet this is his qualification of moderate islam.

subhanallah might as well take my islam from george bush as from this man you are asking to take from.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

zanjabeela
11-22-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
If I'm forced to migrate to other countries ... I'll choose Turkey...
Huh. Thats interesting. I don't really care for Ataturk, I will not curse him to eternal Hell, because when I make a duaa for somebody else, the angels say "Ameen, for you first." But I will say that as a Muslim woman, it would be incredibly difficult to get around as a functioning member of greater society with my hijab firmly fixed to my head. That was a grave injustice to Islam and Muslim women...in my opinion. And for that reason alone, it would be an impossible country to migrate to, as a Muslim women, wanting to abide by Islamic fundamentals.

May Allah forgive him and make the wrongs committed by all our Muslim leaders good for us as an ummah, because for Allah all things are possible. Only He can turn bad into good and good into bad.

Peace to all
:w:
Reply

Dahir
11-22-2006, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
your qouting daniel pipes, you know who this man is?

he is the number one neo-con commentator and proponent of castrating islam and bringing in 'moderate islam'

he qualification of moderate islam is one who will deny ayats of the Quran he sees as unfair but such a person would be a kaffir but yet this is his qualification of moderate islam.

subhanallah might as well take my islam from george bush as from this man you are asking to take from.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Whoa! Brother, good job at pointing out that NM's link was to Daniel Pipes - one of Islam's chief haters! I cannot stand the guy, what a xenophobic hatemonger!

NM, the source you quoted was from what easily qualifies as the single-most anti-Islamic and Islamic-centered hate site on the web.

And take hints from what bro Dawud said - because in turn - there is not an OUNCE of good in Ataturk - because his bad outweighs it at least ten-fold.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-22-2006, 08:58 PM
Yea, I read some of his stuff. He talks like he's the leet figure :p lol
Reply

Skillganon
11-22-2006, 09:33 PM
I agree with much what brother Dawud said.

I do know that Turkey is trying so much to please their patriots (Europeon) to get into the E.U. Their was this TV programme on BBC and a turkish was asking why do they hold back in admitting them in, he said something like this "You told us to give liberty to fornification, and to see it as normal part of society" now we did you still don't let us in.

To me he sounded as if he was begging (my word) "what more do you wan't, have we not done enough" (
Reply

abdil han
11-22-2006, 10:25 PM
assalamu aleykum all,
im a turk n living in istanbul in turkiye,and practising alhamdulillah...


firstly i dont hate atat&#252;rk,be cause, at least, he fought for this country against all the western world,,

but i dont like him anyway,be cause,he changed everything,,alphabet,clothing ,law system,,abolished the caliphate,etc..you know already...

as some friends wrote here,we are not only muslim in speech,,alhamdulillah,a little information; there are 70 000 mosques are here in turkey and nearly the same in iran,,and the percentage of going to Cum'a prayer is higher than iran here...

but unfortunately,nearly half of the population is not good in islam,,not praying properly,not thinking islamic rules so much,,some drinks alcohol,etc...

but also especially among the youngs,islam is rising up alhamdulillah,,,and inshaAllah we ll fix some problems soon (concerned hijab n so)..


about atat&#252;rk,
here in turkey,he is a taboo,we can not discus him,,it s not allowed,and i hate this actually,,,i want freedom about this too,,
he made good things,but in my opinion he did bad things more than good deeds...especially caliphate and alphabet are very important here,,

my grandpa fought with him in WW1 n war of independance ,and when he was talking about atat&#252;rk,he always began to cry and pray for him,,,and my grandfather was a good muslim as i saw,he could speak arabic,read Kur'an,praying properly and caring halal,haram vereytime...

and about being muslim and being a part of europe,,,i think this is impossible,not coz of us,,be coz of europe,,,they never want this and they dont behave honestly to turkey....and i dont wanna be a member of EU...we must be everywhere,middle asia,eurasia,,but in a muslim way,,proud ,independent,powerful,,,the muslim world needs this,,we need to be united again like in the past and stand against imperialism,,,

atat&#252;rk chose the wrong way i think,thats why we muslims are paining alot now,he effected every of us..after the ottomans, middle east never enjoyed anything,in palestine,irak,lebanon,syria,and northern part of africa,and so,,

brothers and sisters,the only way to be united again is;accepting islam as our nationality,,and inshaAllah it would happen again...

we need to prove that islam is the religion of peace,equalty and development...not terrorism,,

enough for now...

take care all n stay in health inshaAllah,
salam
Reply

Dahir
11-22-2006, 10:30 PM
Bro. Abdil Han,

Its good to hear from a Turk and its eye-opening to see from a Turkish perspective on this current topic. The experiences I've had with Turks were a bit displeasing. Mainly because of what you said about only half the country practicing properly and such.

And again like you've said, Turkey is much-wrapped up in nationalism. Much like the state of the Arab world in the 70's. But today, much of the Arab world has reformed and religious uprisings are prevelant in many of those former nationalist nations. Maybe Turkey will go back to its religious roots. Hopefully.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-22-2006, 10:37 PM
Abdil Han,

Thank you for posting. We needed to hear from Muslims in Turkey on this thread. I appreciate reading your perspective on this.

Peace.
Reply

Skillganon
11-22-2006, 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
assalamu aleykum all,
im a turk n living in istanbul in turkiye,and practising alhamdulillah...


firstly i dont hate atat&#252;rk,be cause, at least, he fought for this country against all the western world,,

but i dont like him anyway,be cause,he changed everything,,alphabet,clothing ,law system,,abolished the caliphate,etc..you know already...

......
Nice to hear from a brother from Turkey, I was looking for one for a long time, so they can give their view on the EU.

Sorry brother for cutting your post short. I realise some brother's came to strong on ataturk, maybe because of our strong love of Islam, and seeing that he(ataturk) basicly cut the lifeline of Islam out of turkey, I am sure he did not do it out of his own intitiative, but has much eauropean influence behind it.
He is not anyway unique in history.

If I was trying to demolish Islam in some way, I will do it similar to the way he did it.

1. Cut the Islamic education away in in some level,
2. prohibit Islamic Identity on certain level, change the Alphabet, and
3. remove trace of arabic language.
4. Introduce slowly other governing Law (man-made), and
5. introduce entertainment (all sort) to distract them and lead them astray.
6. Let anyone interpret the Quran anyway they feel like.

By doing this you push Islam into the back closest.

The point is he is dead, and their is no point in beating him about it to much.

I am glad that their is some awakening in Turkey, since two Turkish I met in my UNi here in UK claimed to be muslim, but did not know anything about it.
Reply

abdil han
11-22-2006, 10:59 PM
salam again,
thanks for ur replies

dear skillganon,neither i am a representative of all turks and nor those 2 turks u met at uni,,but it made me very sad that some bros n sisters think that turkiye is a toy of western world,and we are only muslim in words,,,

it is looking from out side but we are enough strong to stand against them still,and inshaAllah we ll take islam more to our lifes,like in the past...

as you said,i dont like the deeds of atat&#252;rk,he changed the whole life of us and he saw the glory in the way of europe, not in islam...but we still have hope alhamdulillah...


bro dahir n grace seeker,thanks for your replies,

peace all
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-22-2006, 11:01 PM
I know of one turkish brother who loves his faith but drinks and stuff, just like you guys mentioned. May Allah guide every Muslim, InshAllah.
Reply

Skillganon
11-22-2006, 11:07 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
salam again,
thanks for ur replies

dear skillganon,neither i am a representative of all turks and nor those 2 turks u met at uni,,but it made me very sad that some bros n sisters think that turkiye is a toy of western world,and we are only muslim in words,,,

it is looking from out side but we are enough strong to stand against them still,and inshaAllah we ll take islam more to our lifes,like in the past...

as you said,i dont like the deeds of atat&#252;rk,he changed the whole life of us and he saw the glory in the way of europe, not in islam...but we still have hope alhamdulillah...


bro dahir n grace seeker,thanks for your replies,

peace all
Asslamu alaikum ( forgot to greet you)

I am not saying all turkish people are toys of west and that 2 turkish is representive of all turk's (probably I had high expectation),

I mean I have freinds that are muslim but hardly don't know much about it. So don't get me wrong.

I hope you stay in this forum brother and contribute more of your post, it is good to hear from you and see other views.

I alway's thought we should have more turkish brother's & sisters here in this forum.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
11-22-2006, 11:09 PM
We should have them from everywhere actually...:)
Reply

abdil han
11-22-2006, 11:14 PM
salam,

no worry bro,i got what u meant,,n pls dont get me wrong either,
im just trying to tell us to you,,

i ll be more active here inshaAllah,i have manythings tht i wanna tell you,,and i need to know from you,,,

but i think its better go now,coz its too late here and i ll go to work tomorrow early in the morning...so take care all,

may Allah protect you ll inshaAllah and helps us to bring our glory again,,amin..

salam aleykum
Reply

north_malaysian
11-23-2006, 05:01 AM
Abdil han, was the Ottoman Caliphate 100% Islamic before Ataturk overthrown them?
Reply

abdil han
11-23-2006, 06:29 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Abdil han, was the Ottoman Caliphate 100% Islamic before Ataturk overthrown them?
salam malaysian brother
of course they were %100 islamic,especially till 1908,till Abdulhamid Han abdicated,,.

after this time some generals of the army got much power and influenced the caliph(and the sultan at the same time) very much....
in 1915,Sultan Muhammed Reshad declared Holy war(jihad) against all westerns and in every side of the islamic lands,muslims began to fight ,even in india,in southeast asia,in china,muslims revolted against their christian(non muslim i mean) kings n leaders..

did i get you correct? if not ,pls ask again more clear,,

now take care

wassalam
Reply

north_malaysian
11-23-2006, 07:08 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
B]
in 1915,Sultan Muhammed Reshad declared Holy war(jihad) against all westerns and in every side of the islamic lands,muslims began to fight ,even in india,in southeast asia,in china,muslims revolted against their christian(non muslim i mean) kings n leaders..
I dont know about this, but in our textbooks, it's mentioned that "Kesatuan Melayu Muda" (Young Malays Association) fighted the British because they are inspired by Young Turks led by Mustafa Kemal, not by Ottoman Caliph.
Reply

Muslim Knight
11-23-2006, 07:13 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I dont know about this, but in our textbooks, it's mentioned that "Kesatuan Melayu Muda" (Young Malays Association) [FOUGHT] the British because they [WERE] inspired by Young Turks led by Mustafa Kemal, not by Ottoman Caliph.
There you go... fixed some typos.

However, I disagree. They (KMM) did not fight as in physically, but they adopted a stance against the British. But they weren't only the ones who were against British occupation of Malaya.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-23-2006, 07:18 AM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
There you go... fixed some typos.

However, I disagree. They (KMM) did not fight as in physically, but they adopted a stance against the British. But they weren't only the ones who were against British occupation of Malaya.
Thanks for the grammatical corrections.:happy:

I thought KMM and PKM (Communist Party of MAlaya) were the only groups fighting British physically.
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-23-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Abdil han, was the Ottoman Caliphate 100% Islamic before Ataturk overthrown them?
assalaamu alaykum,

no i must disagree with what others have stated here and say no it wasnt but it was better than nothing. in the same way the some muslim states claim to rule by shariah but it is not, but still it better than secularism or some other ism that might replace it.

the turkish kilaphate had abolished huddud punishment and introduced fines for these instead and also introduced paper currency over gold that allowed the gold standard to be abolished later that allowed riba to creep into the ummah on a large scale.

more importantly they were not strict against those 'muslims' who worshipped the dead and built shines to them and some of the kalifs actually went into this grave worship as well but i understand it wasnt all of them.

there were problems with the turkish kilaphate yes, but still i would fight for it today if it existed as our loyalty is to the concept of the kilaphate whether it is perfect or not.

alhamdulillah there is an amir ul mumineen again today and soon insha'allah one of the lands fighting for islam will establish the full kilaphate again.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

north_malaysian
11-23-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
the turkish kilaphate had abolished huddud punishment
that's what I've learnt in the university...
Reply

abdil han
11-23-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
assalaamu alaykum,

the turkish kilaphate had abolished huddud punishment and introduced fines for these instead and also introduced paper currency over gold that allowed the gold standard to be abolished later that allowed riba to creep into the ummah on a large scale.

more importantly they were not strict against those 'muslims' who worshipped the dead and built shines to them and some of the kalifs actually went into this grave worship as well but i understand it wasnt all of them.
wa aleykum assalam bro,
hudd punishment hasnt been abolished by turkish caliphate,and they practiced this in history,but as you know hudd punishment needs very strong evidences n provements,,so thats why the ottomans didnt practised this oftenly...

about the grave worship,i didnt get what you meant exactly,,can you pls explain it more?

wassalam
Reply

abdil han
11-23-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I dont know about this, but in our textbooks, it's mentioned that "Kesatuan Melayu Muda" (Young Malays Association) fighted the British because they are inspired by Young Turks led by Mustafa Kemal, not by Ottoman Caliph.
salam
the young turks were the generals n commanders of the ottoman army and till the independance war in 1919,they all fought in the leadreship of ottoman sultan(the caliph aswell),

and yes,mustafa kemal was one of them,and he went to samsun( the first city of gathering against invaders)to start the independance war,by the sultan's ship and with his permision..

wassalam
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-23-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
wa aleykum assalam bro,
hudd punishment hasnt been abolished by turkish caliphate,and they practiced this in history,but as you know hudd punishment needs very strong evidences n provements,,so thats why the ottomans didnt practised this oftenly...

about the grave worship,i didnt get what you meant exactly,,can you pls explain it more?

wassalam

what i am referring to brother is when huddud punishments were suspended and fines brought in their place, this is ruling by other than Allah has revealed as someone is either innocent or guilty and therefore punished.

as for grave worship, i am referring to those who ask the dead for help and aid instead of asking Allah directly.

wa alaykumus salaam,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

abdil han
11-23-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
as for grave worship, i am referring to those who ask the dead for help and aid instead of asking Allah directly.

wa alaykumus salaam,
Abu Abdullah
salam aleykum dear bro,

wallahi i am shocked that you think that a caliph asked aid from a dead or else instead of Allah,,,this bever happened by turkish caliphs brother,and this is impossible,they were the calips of islam,means the shadow of Allah in the world,,some of them can be not enough good but they never did what you said...
and some of them led that islam country in a good way indeed,,they worked to protect the muslims from all enemies of islam and they succeeded this till the end of them,,,,

i dont know how you got this image in ur mind about them but i m really sad about this..

salam n du'a
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-24-2006, 07:19 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
salam aleykum dear bro,

wallahi i am shocked that you think that a caliph asked aid from a dead or else instead of Allah,,,this bever happened by turkish caliphs brother,and this is impossible,they were the calips of islam,means the shadow of Allah in the world,,some of them can be not enough good but they never did what you said...
and some of them led that islam country in a good way indeed,,they worked to protect the muslims from all enemies of islam and they succeeded this till the end of them,,,,

i dont know how you got this image in ur mind about them but i m really sad about this..

salam n du'a
assalaamu alaykum brother,

please try reading some non turkish books on islamic history.

try reading about the wars against the movement of Sh. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab who fought against the arab allies of the turks because they allowed such grave worship, then look at how the turks sent in their armies to wipe them out and not only that but declared them non muslims for their actions of destroying the shines over the graves of the dead as is the confirmed sunnah of the salaf.

the kalifs were men, they were as capable of mistakes as all of us are and were not infallable. such a belief of men being infallable belongs to the rafadiyyah and the catholic christians.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

abdil han
11-24-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
assalaamu alaykum brother,

please try reading some non turkish books on islamic history.

try reading about the wars against the movement of Sh. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab who fought against the arab allies of the turks because they allowed such grave worship, then look at how the turks sent in their armies to wipe them out and not only that but declared them non muslims for their actions of destroying the shines over the graves of the dead as is the confirmed sunnah of the salaf.

the kalifs were men, they were as capable of mistakes as all of us are and were not infallable. such a belief of men being infallable belongs to the rafadiyyah and the catholic christians.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
wa alaykum salam dear bro,

i ll read about it but i still can t believe that they did such things,,,

of course they were human and they could make mistakes,and they did already..but this is little hard to believe brother..this sin never acceptable ,especially for a caliph...

take care bro,
salam aleykum
Reply

Skillganon
11-24-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
wa alaykum salam dear bro,

i ll read about it but i still can t believe that they did such things,,,

of course they were human and they could make mistakes,and they did already..but this is little hard to believe brother..this sin never acceptable ,especially for a caliph...

take care bro,
salam aleykum
Asslamu Alaikum brother

You do not have to hang around this thread to much, explore the site, and Apply for the "brother" section. :happy:
Reply

abdil han
11-24-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Asslamu Alaikum brother

You do not have to hang around this thread to much, explore the site, and Apply for the "brother" section. :happy:
alaykum salam bro,

you are right:) i am really interested in history and you know,there are many things here needs to be learnt...

so,see u brother,stay in health inshaAllah,,


wassalam
Reply

Skillganon
11-24-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
alaykum salam bro,

you are right:) i am really interested in history and you know,there are many things here needs to be learnt...

so,see u brother,stay in health inshaAllah,,


wassalam
Inshallah, but do apply for the "Brothers" only section. Invite other Brother's and Sisters from Turkey. It will be good to hear from them too, inshallah :D
Reply

abdil han
11-26-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
try reading about the wars against the movement of Sh. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab who fought against the arab allies of the turks because they allowed such grave worship, then look at how the turks sent in their armies to wipe them out and not only that but declared them non muslims for their actions of destroying the shines over the graves of the dead as is the confirmed sunnah of the salaf.

salam aleykum dear brother,

The ottomans fought against wahabe movement in Arabia ,but this wahabees destroyed some graves of sahabes,,

i go to graveyard sometimes but not to ask help from them,i go there just to pray for them,pray for mercy from Allah for their sins...

visiting graveyards is not a bad thing ,,also we remember to death,we remember there ,this life is so short...wahabes totaly forbade this visits as i know,didnt they?

take care bro,stay in health inshaAllah...
wassalam
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
salam aleykum dear brother,

The ottomans fought against wahabe movement in Arabia ,but this wahabees destroyed some graves of sahabes,,

i go to graveyard sometimes but not to ask help from them,i go there just to pray for them,pray for mercy from Allah for their sins...

visiting graveyards is not a bad thing ,,also we remember to death,we remember there ,this life is so short...wahabes totaly forbade this visits as i know,didnt they?

take care bro,stay in health inshaAllah...
wassalam

assalaamu alaykum brother,

the sahabah themselves destroyed all high graves as they destroyed idols,

later on ignorant muslims built such high graves over the sahabahs graves but it was only these stone structures that were destroyed as was the confirmed sunnah.

Sahih Muslim Book 4, Hadith # 2116
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah (RAA) Rasulullah (SAW) forbade that the graves should be plastered, or they be used as sitting places (for the people), or a building should be built over them.
Abu'l-Hayyaj al-Asadi told that 'Ali (b. Abu Talib) said to him: “Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent me? Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without levelling It.” This hadith has been reported by Habib with the same chain of transmitters and he said: “(Do not leave) a picture without obliterating it.” (Sahih Muslim Book 4, 2115)
the scholars who justified the turks going to war with Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahab did so out of ignorance as the movement were only following the sunnah in destroying these structures built over the graves.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

north_malaysian
11-28-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
salam aleykum dear brother,

The ottomans fought against wahabe movement in Arabia ,but this wahabees destroyed some graves of sahabes,,

i go to graveyard sometimes but not to ask help from them,i go there just to pray for them,pray for mercy from Allah for their sins...

visiting graveyards is not a bad thing ,,also we remember to death,we remember there ,this life is so short...wahabes totaly forbade this visits as i know,didnt they?

take care bro,stay in health inshaAllah...
wassalam

I always have my breakfast in a saint's tomb building in Penang. Because people ceased to visit his tomb. Some hawkers put tables and chairs for customers to eat in the tomb's area. And customers include non Muslims.

Is it sinful?:rollseyes
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-28-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I always have my breakfast in a saint's tomb building in Penang. Because people ceased to visit his tomb. Some hawkers put tables and chairs for customers to eat in the tomb's area. And customers include non Muslims.

Is it sinful?:rollseyes
assalaamu alaykum,

brother i am not a scholar, but there are others on here who have greater knowledge than me and have better access to the ulema and could answer your question.

it is good however that people have stopped visiting this place, but it should be flattened down and turned to a normal grave, as to your visiting there perhaps one of the other brothers or sisters can answer it?

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

north_malaysian
11-29-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
assalaamu alaykum,

brother i am not a scholar, but there are others on here who have greater knowledge than me and have better access to the ulema and could answer your question.

it is good however that people have stopped visiting this place, but it should be flattened down and turned to a normal grave, as to your visiting there perhaps one of the other brothers or sisters can answer it?

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
I just eat there, I dont visit the tomb.
Reply

Skillganon
12-21-2006, 07:23 PM
Hijab and Turkey Watch Video

>>>>>>hijab in turkey<<<<<<<<

I don't know how old is the video. It's more like a documentary.
Reply

Hijrah
12-21-2006, 11:42 PM
very good though lol
Reply

Deja_Vu
12-22-2006, 12:03 AM
One thing I know about Islam is that you should never be forced into believing anything. If you have faith, it should come naturally. Yet in the days of the Ottomans, women were forced, even beaten into covering up & wearing headscarfs - until Ataturk came along and put a stop to this disgusting behavior. How does this make him an enemy of Islam? He was a man with good intentions, he stood up for womens rights and saved many lives.
Reply

Hijrah
12-22-2006, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
One thing I know about Islam is that you should never be forced into believing anything. If you have faith, it should come naturally. Yet in the days of the Ottomans, women were forced, even beaten into covering up & wearing headscarfs - until Ataturk came along and put a stop to this disgusting behavior. How does this make him an enemy of Islam? He was a man with good intentions, he stood up for womens rights and saved many lives.
When you are a Muslim under Islamic rule, you are forced to follow orders and anything haraam u do is subject to punishment, while the dhimmis are allowed such things as alcohol and pork, as for the ottomans what they did im not so sure but i am not in support of them in the least.
Reply

Dahir
12-22-2006, 12:52 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
One thing I know about Islam is that you should never be forced into believing anything. If you have faith, it should come naturally. Yet in the days of the Ottomans, women were forced, even beaten into covering up & wearing headscarfs - until Ataturk came along and put a stop to this disgusting behavior. How does this make him an enemy of Islam? He was a man with good intentions, he stood up for womens rights and saved many lives.
He was a pawn to the devil, without knowledge of his wrong-doings. Simple as that.

And plus, he did one thing that ABOVE ANYTHING makes him the most vile enemy of Islam:

He replaced ISLAMIC SHARIA CANON LAW with SWISS PENAL CODES!

He preferred Swiss laws over the laws of Allah, that doesn't sicken you?

That should be enough, seriously, that alone makes this guy the lowest of the low.

End of story.
Reply

Hijrah
12-22-2006, 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
One thing I know about Islam is that you should never be forced into believing anything. If you have faith, it should come naturally. Yet in the days of the Ottomans, women were forced, even beaten into covering up & wearing headscarfs - until Ataturk came along and put a stop to this disgusting behavior. How does this make him an enemy of Islam? He was a man with good intentions, he stood up for womens rights and saved many lives.
let me also point out that he SUPPRESSED Islaam, his intentions weren't for women, the Ottoman caliphate was far from the best but he intentionally suppressed Allah's laws and has brought what you have today with hijaab problems and it's not just hijaab problems, when his rule came the masaajid were EMPTY on Fridays

Also, another thing to take note is he has a STATUE of himself
Reply

Deja_Vu
12-22-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
He preferred Swiss laws over the laws of Allah, that doesn't sicken you?

That should be enough, seriously, that alone makes this guy the lowest of the low.

End of story.
Allah also set rules to say that you do not force anyone into belief. Forced belief will be false and pretence, now does the idea of THAT not sicken YOU?
Reply

Deja_Vu
12-22-2006, 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by Hijrah
when his rule came the masaajid were EMPTY on Fridays
Why is that Ataturk's fault? That just goes to show how many of the Ottomans were true muslims.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-22-2006, 01:09 AM
Why is that not his fault?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-22-2006, 01:10 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
Allah also set rules to say that you do not force anyone into belief. Forced belief will be false and pretence, now does the idea of THAT not sicken YOU?
Of course you cant force, but u dont completely ban it so people cant do any of it PERIOD.
Reply

Deja_Vu
12-22-2006, 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Why is that not his fault?
Because Tayyaba, if you are a true muslim, it doesn't matter who sets what rules, you will still keep your faith.
Reply

Deja_Vu
12-22-2006, 01:15 AM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Of course you cant force, but u dont completely ban it so people cant do any of it PERIOD.
He didn't ban it.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-22-2006, 01:17 AM
Of course people kept their faith, but your stopping them from doing half it or even the Sunnah for some things. He changed the Adhaan from Arabic, denied Muslim women to wear the hijab. We all know the hijab is an essential part of a Muslim women, what makes her stand out, so why deny that? Thats my whole point of saying, why it is not his fault?
Actually, i wont even say whats is fault and whats not, but seeing as some of the things he's done, then i could say it.
Reply

Skillganon
12-22-2006, 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
Allah also set rules to say that you do not force anyone into belief. Forced belief will be false and pretence, now does the idea of THAT not sicken YOU?
Sis, I think you are missing the point. Replacing Allah's rule with a man-made rule. Well you can see what Islam all the scholars of Islam say's concerning that.
I think it is best for us to study and learn about Islam correctly adn live by this in practically first.

The main point is to learn from history. Atuturk is history, stop living in the pass. If you wanna have love for that man go ahead but rest of the muslim ummah does not. He is a no body to us.

I do not mean to offend our turkish brother's but that is the truth.
Reply

Deja_Vu
12-22-2006, 01:23 AM
That's what I'm saying, he didn't deny anyone of anything - he just allowed their freedom.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-22-2006, 01:27 AM
Omg, did u just roll over my post? Or even the start of the thread. Have u done research sis? He denied women from the Hijab, changed the Adhaan from Arabic and some others that have been mentioned, how are u going by that logic....
A Muslims freedom is his/her deen. When u deny the hijab, thats not freedom. When you replace Allah's laws for those who want to keep firm with the deen, thats not freedom.
Reply

Skillganon
12-22-2006, 01:42 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
That's what I'm saying, he didn't deny anyone of anything - he just allowed their freedom.
Don't worry sis, one day inshallah islamic rules and law will be back in turkey, and the ataturk's horrible legacy will be buried deep under.

Just pray to Allah(s.w.t) to make his will happen.
Reply

Hijrah
12-22-2006, 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by Deja_Vu
Allah also set rules to say that you do not force anyone into belief. Forced belief will be false and pretence, now does the idea of THAT not sicken YOU?
How are these people being forced into belief when they are already in belief when you are already in belief anything you do that is HARAAM is punishable, and yes that includes not wearing Hijaab, not to the extent the Taalibaan went to, you must realize that this is an established thing in Islaam, not soem strange fanatical thing I'm introducing.
Reply

Dahir
12-22-2006, 04:17 AM
Sharia law isn't a force of oppression, its a sign of absolute liberty, so long as you are a righteous person.

Sharia bans drugs, alcohol, public ludeness, murder, rape, etc.

Are any Sharia bannings offensive to you?

And what liberty are you speaking of?

Nations that apply Sharia law always prosper thereof, just look at Mogadishu pre and post Sharia law.

And one thing sickened me a few years back, and is the reason behind this thread:

Elton John, a homosexual musician, was holding a tour throughout Turkey; so what, right; but his promotional poster was of him standing next to the Turkish flag. Now I don't care what Turkey does with its flag, but Turkey's flag consists of the CRESCENT MOON!! That is offensive and just plain DISGUSTING!!
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-22-2006, 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
Elton John, a homosexual musician, was holding a tour throughout Turkey; so what, right; but his promotional poster was of him standing next to the Turkish flag. Now I don't care what Turkey does with its flag, but Turkey's flag consists of the CRESCENT MOON!! That is offensive and just plain DISGUSTING!!
OK. I can understand why that might be offensive to you. But the use of the crescent moon in the land now known as Turkey pre-dates Islam. It was only after the Ottomon's adatped it as their symbol and ruled over much of Islamic territory that it became the main symbol of Islam. So, when you see that picture, don't think of it in terms of its connection with Islam, because that is not why Turkey has it on their flag.
Reply

north_malaysian
12-22-2006, 07:13 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
CRESCENT MOON!!
I dont think it's offensive as crescent moon has nothing to do with Islam.... but if Elton John posing by a Saudi flag... that'll be offensive..
Reply

abdil han
12-22-2006, 08:46 AM
salam aleykum all
dear brothers n sisters,i watch these posts in sadness,,
coz some of you think that we turks,is a nation who is not surely islam,some of you said even ottoman turks were not sure...i can not understand this..turkey may be a secular country now,but i want you to know there are millions of muslims here who lives in islamic way...

and ottomans, my ancestors,fought for islam,even my grand father fought for 14 years ,for what!! to protect islam lands ,,to stop our enemies,frenchs,british,italian,russian,greek enemies,,more than 1 million turkish(ottoman) soldiers died in only 1st world war in arabia,yemen,irak,palestine,libya,algeria,and in turkey in the end...this is just in 1st world war,before it,we carried islam flag for 400 years,and stopped crusaders before arabic lands,,,but arab sherif huseyin(grand grand father of king huseyin in jordan) betrayed us and fought against us with british troops...

now we lost our glory,our calipha(even some of you dont like ottoman caliph,he was the only leader of islamic world),,but we dont deserve what you said...

look at the islamic liands now,after ottomans which of you is in peace? irak?palestine?caucasia? balcania?algeria?sudan?unfortunately we all paining,,i pray to Allah to stop all these,,,

wallahi i like all my muslim brothers,especially you arabs,,,ottomans called arabs ''the holy nation'',but they didnt see support from all arabs during the 1st war...

and about the turkish flag;that crescend symbolize islam,and the red color symbolize the blood which bled to protect islam for many years...
i dont like the ruling system of my country now but please dont forget the past and try to understand us,,i dont want respect from you,but dont say bad things to them,,

we need to be united again to stop all of our pains,like in the past...

may Allah protect you all inshaAllah,amin..
wassalam
abdil from turkiye
Reply

north_malaysian
12-22-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
and about the turkish flag;that crescend symbolize islam,and the red color symbolize the blood which bled to protect islam for many years...
uzgunum!!! (sorry!!!) ... if in case I've offended you... I'm sorry... I dont know that the red color symbolise the blood of Ottoman army defending Islam..... uzgunum!!!:cry:
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-22-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
and about the turkish flag;that crescend symbolize islam,and the red color symbolize the blood which bled to protect islam for many years...

Abdil, I meant no disrespect to you nor certainly to Turkey, native land to my daughter. The information I shared regarding the flag came from Turkish websites. Here are some of the things they said, which I put together. Sorry, if I put them together wrong.

The star and crescent are Muslim symbols, but also have a long pre-Islamic past in Asia Minor.
Many traditions explain the star and crescent symbol. It is known that Diana (Artemis) was the patron goddess of Byzantium and that her symbol was a moon. In 330, the Emperor Constantine rededicated the city - which he called Constantinople (today's Istanbul) - to the Virgin Mary, whose star symbol was superimposed over the crescent. In 1453 Constantinople (Istanbul) was captured by the Ottoman Turks and renamed Istanbul, but its new rulers may have adopted the existing emblem for their own use.
Some Legends:
A reflection of the moon occulting a star, appearing in pools of blood after the battle of Kosovo in 1448, the battle during which the Ottomans defeated the Christian forces and established the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe until the end of the 19th century, led to the adoption of the Turkish flag by Sultan Murad II according to one legend.

Others refer to a dream of the first Ottoman Sultan in which a crescent and star appeared from his chest and expanded, presaging the dynasty's seizure of Constantinople (Istanbul). There are other legends explaining the flag.
Also from Wikipedia regarding Flag of Turkey there is this:
The crescent and star, while generally regarded as Islamic symbols today, have for long been used in Asia Minor and by the old Turks, quite before the advent of Islam. According to one theory, the figure of crescent has its roots in tamghas, markings used as livestock brand or stamp, used by nomadic Turkic clans of Central Asia.
The origin of the crescent and star as a symbol dates back to the times of ancient Babylon and ancient Egypt. It has been claimed that the Turkic tribes, during their migrations from the Central Asia to modern Turkey circa 800 AD, had adopted this symbol from local tribes and states in the area that is present day Middle East that had in turn adopted these from the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Untill I read these articles I always assumed that Turkey derived it's flag from the common use of the crescent moon as an Islamic symbol. After reading these it seemed to me that the derivation might have gone the other way. That the common use of them as Islamic symbols came about becuase they were on the flags used by the caliphate.
Reply

abdil han
12-22-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Abdil, I meant no disrespect to you nor certainly to Turkey, native land to my daughter. The information I shared regarding the flag came from Turkish websites. Here are some of the things they said, which I put together. Sorry, if I put them together wrong.



Untill I read these articles I always assumed that Turkey derived it's flag from the common use of the crescent moon as an Islamic symbol. After reading these it seemed to me that the derivation might have gone the other way. That the common use of them as Islamic symbols came about becuase they were on the flags used by the caliphate.
dear grace seeker,
i didnt mean you, in my message,,

but you have right to think in that way after you saw all these from turkish websites..unfortunately,there are many bad people n books ,especially about ottomans,,,its better to read old books about history,(i mean,older than this republic of turkey)..

about the flag; ottomans began to use this flag in 15th century,especially after they began to be the leader of islamic world,,and this happened especially after the conquest of istanbul...

the crescend of star maybe some old symbols,but ottomans didnt use them for these pagan or ancient meanings,,in their emblem;there are 2 flags,once is this crescend n star on red base,and the other is 3 crescend on green base,,and right under the red flag,there is the Kur'an,,,maybe you saw it already,,,

anyway,take care ,,peace be upon you brother


north malaysian brother,thanks for ur good intention,,,im happy if you got my point,,stay in health inshaAllah,,

may Allah bless you inshaAllah,,

wassalam,,
Reply

Dawud_uk
12-22-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Abdil, I meant no disrespect to you nor certainly to Turkey, native land to my daughter. The information I shared regarding the flag came from Turkish websites. Here are some of the things they said, which I put together. Sorry, if I put them together wrong.







Also from Wikipedia regarding Flag of Turkey there is this:





Untill I read these articles I always assumed that Turkey derived it's flag from the common use of the crescent moon as an Islamic symbol. After reading these it seemed to me that the derivation might have gone the other way. That the common use of them as Islamic symbols came about becuase they were on the flags used by the caliphate.
assalaamu alaykum,

the turkish kalifate was misguided but that still doesnt stop us owing loyalty to it if it still existed but it does not anymore.

therefore it is useful to avoid future mistakes of the same variety when the kalifate is re-established to examine these mistakes and document them so that we dont repeat the mistakes of history.

as for the moon and star... i avoid it personally for the reasons posted. i have a black shahadah flag with white writing instead and this or the white flag with black writing is the flag of the ummah.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-22-2006, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han

the crescend of star maybe some old symbols,but ottomans didnt use them for these pagan or ancient meanings,,in their emblem;there are 2 flags,once is this crescend n star on red base,and the other is 3 crescend on green base,,and right under the red flag,there is the Kur'an,,,maybe you saw it already,,,
Thank-you for your kind words, Abdil. I'm glad I did not offend you, and glad to learn more about Turkey and the history of its symbols.

I don't know why anyone would think that the star and crescent would be a pagan symbol. I know some people who say that about the moon and stars used as a trade mark by Proctor and Gamble. To me, those ideas are ridiculous. Symbols are just shapes, lines on a piece of paper without any meaning until we in our own minds give meaning to them. The nation of Turkey rightly looks to these symbols with pride in the Ottoman heritage and is glad to share these symbols with the whole Islamic world. There is nothing pagan in that. It matters not if at some time in the past a pagan drew a picture of a crescent moon, even if they worshipped that image, Muslim Turks do not, they worship Allah and wave their flag as a national symbol nothing more, so it is not pagan.

Of course there are some (misguided and easily led) people who look to at everything and if there is any connection with paganism in it ever in history, they declare it is still there today, though those who use the symbols are completely unaware of it and those thought never enter their minds. To label such beliefs pagan because of some such connection is in my opinion libelous. In their minds it means that because once some pagans used trees in such away, even though Christians do not, that Christmas trees must be a pagan symbol. And some would do the same with the star and crescent, but not me. My goodness, look at the things that were used by pagans before they were converted to God's use. The mount on which the Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem is built was once a place used for canaanite (i.e. pagan) worship. But no one would claim it to be a pagan site today. If the star and crescent were to be considered pagan symbols because pagan had once used them for their purposes in the past, then even the Kaaba would have to be considered as such, for the Black Stone in one corner predates Islam and was itself once an object of pagan veneration. But, as Umar bin Al-Khattab is reported to have said, it is just a stone. It is not an object of worship, the worship done there is directed to Allah. The whole idea that something directed to Allah should be considered pagan whether it be the black stone, the location of the Dome of the Rock, or the symbols on Turkey's flag is contemptable.
Reply

lapseki
03-21-2007, 12:54 AM
As a Turkish girl , living in İstanbul ..i am glad that we are not living islam like iran or other islamic countries which are having shari law... and be sure that most of the Turks thinking same .. People in Turkey really really loves Ataturk .. And sees him as the father of Turks.

at this topic some of you say that Turkey is not respected by other islamic countries... in Turkey lost of people even dont care what other islamic countries thinking about.. Unfortunately the general view of people here, about the islamic countries especially which are ruled by shari law, is seem to be backward. And who is saying that islamic rules and law would be back in Turkey and Ataturk's "horrible" legacy would be buried deep under, you will be disappointed because people living in Turkey wont let this happen.
Turks belong neither europe nor middle east.

About crescent moon flag; Before islam at central asia Turk's religion was samanizm. and according to samanizm the most powerfull god was "goktanrı" , it s symbols were moon, star and sun.. the root of crescent moon before Turks were islam. And the red color is symbolizing blood of Turkish soldier died at wars.
Reply

north_malaysian
03-21-2007, 02:39 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
Unfortunately the general view of people here, about the islamic countries especially which are ruled by shari law, is seem to be backward. And who is saying that islamic rules and law would be back in Turkey and Ataturk's "horrible" legacy would be buried deep under, you will be disappointed because people living in Turkey wont let this happen.
Turks belong neither europe nor middle east..
I think you should be prepared... for other sisters and brothers' comments on your remarks.....:D
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-21-2007, 05:52 AM
Is Ataturk and apostate of Islam?
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-21-2007, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by Tiger_Stripes
Is Ataturk and apostate of Islam?

This was shared with me in another thread when I asked a question about a specific person:

...in islam its one of our principles to not judge on a specified person with either hell nor paradise.

because ALLAH alone is the one who will deside who goes to heaven and who goes to hell ,and ALLAH alone knows who deserves what ..

and i have a funny real story i heard from one of our schoolars he said :

there was some old women dying in a hospital here in my country so two muslim brothers gone to her and made her say the shahada and then she died
so her son came after that and he was so sad on his mother so the two muslims said to him don't be worry ,she said the shahada before she died

so her son screamed "you made her disbelieve on christianity"

and so she was a christian but ALLAH made her fate that she bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and that she bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger

so we can't say if this woman is in hell or heaven ,we just can't its out of our jurisdiction to judge in this matters ...

I would assume the same respect should be given to Ataturk in this regard as to the real-life murdering adulterer that I asked about, or for the fictitious woman in the story.
Reply

abdil han
03-21-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki
As a Turkish girl , living in İstanbul ..i am glad that we are not living islam like iran or other islamic countries which are having shari law... and be sure that most of the Turks thinking same .. People in Turkey really really loves Ataturk .. And sees him as the father of Turks.
as a Turkish guy,lives in istanbul,i m not that glad about the ''secular'' country,,be coz ours is not secularism,we understand it wrong...secularism must cover our religious rights too...but now,girls with hijab can nt study with it...

about atatürk,,u know he is a kind of taboo here,,but i can say briefly that i dont regard him as the father of turks...

vassalam
Reply

lapseki
03-21-2007, 04:54 PM
you know hijab is not seem only a religion thing in Turkey.. unfortunately it has became a symbol of a political view with erbakan. of course it is not good girls with hijab cant study for freedom and democracy.. but islamic part(who wants change secular regime) must feel guilty for bringing the things this condition.it is clear that Turkey is a secular country. and it wont be change.. so accept it or left
Reply

abdil han
03-21-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki
so accept it or left

this is not kind...!

do i have to leave my own country if i dont like a rediculus rule?!

u are very aggressive...

by the way,
u must know this essay; ''kurunun yanında yaşıda yakmak'',,

its not acceptable to punish all the religious people just for a politic deed...

and do not forget that the people,who fought n died for this country,were all deep islam believers...even atat&#252;rk related about this after Gallipoli wars...

anyway,,whatever u believe in,dont be that disrespectful to muslims especially in a muslim country...
Reply

lapseki
03-22-2007, 03:03 AM
HTML Code:
this is not kind...!

do i have to leave my own country if i dont like a rediculus rule?!
your country is a secular country.. you have to accept this.. if you want to live with shari law,or a country ruled by islamic way , yes you should leave..

HTML Code:
and do not forget that the people,who fought n died for this country,were all deep islam believers...even atatürk related about this after Gallipoli wars...
how could this be forgotten.. "kemalist" people muslim too.. i really fed up to be seen as antimuslim by the "conservative" part of the people living in Turkey. i want to make you remember something, in 1999, front of the İstanbul University a group of student protested YOK and forbidden of hijab at universities. And on their placard it was writing "wasnt 7.4 enough".. how dare!! unfortunately today people with this mind seen as deep islam believers ..
you are talking about respect.. but "radical" islamic people in Turkey have less respect than others... on street have you ever seen a person insulting a woman because of wearing hijab... i have never see that kind thing. but i witnessed men at beyoglu front of galatasaray lisesi were throwing little stones to girls' legs who were wearing skirt. this is just an example which i witnessed properly. i always read on news or internet such things like that

in Turkey everybody can live their life, what the way they want, without insulting the others. and this is what should be! to provide this, a secular regime is needed. i m still thinking it is an antidemocratic way to forbidden hijab at universities. but i m again saying that, radicals must feel much more guilty for this to make hijab a political view. i m 21 years old, and for ten years i m aware of what is going on. 30 years ago were there such a problem like hijab. at 1996 it was forbidden. even turban style wasnt used. traditional yemeni or başortüsü were used. then what changed and why changed. isnt turban arabic way! are we arab..
Reply

abdil han
03-22-2007, 07:33 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
your country is a secular country.. you have to accept this.. if you want to live with shari law,or a country ruled by islamic way , yes you should leave..

how could this be forgotten.. "kemalist" people muslim too.. i really fed up to be seen as antimuslim by the "conservative" part of the people living in Turkey. i want to make you remember something, in 1999, front of the İstanbul University a group of student protested YOK and forbidden of hijab at universities. And on their placard it was writing "wasnt 7.4 enough".. how dare!! unfortunately today people with this mind seen as deep islam believers ..
you are talking about respect.. but "radical" islamic people in Turkey have less respect than others... on street have you ever seen a person insulting a woman because of wearing hijab... i have never see that kind thing. but i witnessed men at beyoglu front of galatasaray lisesi were throwing little stones to girls' legs who were wearing skirt. this is just an example which i witnessed properly. i always read on news or internet such things like that

in Turkey everybody can live their life, what the way they want, without insulting the others. and this is what should be! to provide this, a secular regime is needed. i m still thinking it is an antidemocratic way to forbidden hijab at universities. but i m again saying that, radicals must feel much more guilty for this to make hijab a political view. i m 21 years old, and for ten years i m aware of what is going on. 30 years ago were there such a problem like hijab. at 1996 it was forbidden. even turban style wasnt used. traditional yemeni or başortüsü were used. then what changed and why changed. isnt turban arabic way! are we arab..

u are kemalist as u said,but atatürk had more respect than you to islam,whatever happenes,u can not generalize all the muslims ,by the way,i also heard many bad people, who is also ''kemalist'' ,when saying'' we need to send these ''kara çarşaflıları'' to arabia,,is this respectful?

yemeni or hijab or başörtüsü, all of them are just to cover ur head,nothing else,,you think in a nationalist way,which is not good at all...

by the way u are too young to know about 1960s,but u can read about it..army closed all 'imam hatip n other islamic schools',but after a couple years ,a new generation grew up,without any islamic information,and they were using drugs,drinking alcohol,fighting,stealing,,,they were doing every bad things,,and army understood that they made a mistake n they reopened the imam hatip schools again...islam is the way of correcting people,if a muslim throw stones to girls,this is not be coz of islam,this is be coz of his incomplete islamic belief n knowledge,,

im not a radical,i just want freedom for my religion,,thats all,and i never accept to go somewhere else,,.this is my country,my granddad fought in ww1 n in war of independance,he fought with atatürk n he told my dad that ataturk was praying on fridays,but now, most of our ''kemalists'' are just insulting islam! instead of understanding islam,,

you gotta see that why we lost our glorious days,be coz we became far away from islam,,

(dont say me to leave again sister ,u are nt the owner of this country nor i..but my Sultan Muhammed Fatih conquered this city n he was a good muslim not secular!)
Reply

lapseki
03-22-2007, 04:13 PM
so you have to accept this secular system.. it wont be changed:))
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-22-2007, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
im not a radical,i just want freedom for my religion,,thats all,and i never accept to go somewhere else,,.this is my country,my granddad fought in ww1 n in war of independance,he fought with atat&#252;rk n he told my dad that ataturk was praying on fridays,but now, most of our ''kemalists'' are just insulting islam! instead of understanding islam,,

(dont say me to leave again sister ,u are nt the owner of this country nor i..but my Sultan Muhammed Fatih conquered this city n he was a good muslim not secular!)
Well, if you ever do desire to go someplace else, I hope you would feel welcomed in the USA. Yes, we are a secular country. But you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want. (Unless you are Janet Jackson taking your clothes off during a national TV broadcast from the SuperBowl.) You can also pray pretty much whenever and wherever you want. (Unless it involves forcing that prayer on others in a government sponsored venue.) No doubt you'll hear insults against Islam (and all other religions for that matter) in the media and in person and from many other parts of society, but it won't be the government doing it. It is far from a perfect world, but people are pretty much free to make their own choices on matters of belief, even if they are not popular with everyone around them. That's what being secular means here.

(Though we still are trying to figure out whether Muslim cab driver's have the right to say they won't transport peoples bags that have alcohol in them. Or if the non-Muslim rider has the right to say if you are willing to take me, then you have to take my bags too.)
Reply

lapseki
03-22-2007, 06:55 PM
ha haaa what a bright idea grace seeker's.. listen him
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-22-2007, 07:24 PM
Ah, but I also know what Abdil speaks of.

My daughter and my "niece" are Muslims living in Turkey. Both love Ataturk. My niece is pretty much a secular muslim, even intends to marry a Christian, but my daughter is practicing. She doesn't often wear the Hajib, but would like the freedom to where it to class if she so chose, but that choice has been taken away from her. She could wear it here in the USA, where she was the only Muslim in the entire school. But in Turkey, where 98% of people are Muslim, she cannot. But, yet, I am allowed to wear my cross -- which is not a religious obligation, just a personal preference -- when visiting her. Some of that just doesn't make sense.

Beyond that, I don't see many differences, but I'm don't live in Turkey so, maybe I don't notice them as clearly as one who lives there would.
Reply

abdil han
03-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki
ha haaa what a bright idea grace seeker's.. listen him
i dont need any idea about this matter...

i ll go nowhere!! at least not to usa,,maybe malaysia,or dubai,,,where i can find more respectful people to my blessed religion...

u ll understand what i mean sister,,here in this world maybe,,maybe in ur far future in ahiret...





...by the way,,
thanks grace seeker,,
im not planning to move somewhere else from my own country...i belong here..we are the owner,,renters will move one day...

peace on you n ur family..
Reply

lapseki
03-22-2007, 07:50 PM
we ll see who are the renters or who are the owners!!!! but be sure yobaz tayfası is not owners even not renters ..
Reply

abdil han
03-22-2007, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki
we ll see who are the renters or who are the owners!!!! but be sure yobaz tayfası is not owners even not renters ..
we are what we feel,what we believe in...

i feel myself as the owner,,if u feel somethng else,this is ur problem,,,

''yarası olan gocunur'' right?! u also know this...
i dont understand why u took this on?

u are pretty far from ur history,,if u knew a little,you would have understood who is who...n who is the enemy of this country...n what is the reason of its greatness...

try to see all sides sister,,
u can not see everywhere from one window....
Reply

lapseki
03-22-2007, 09:05 PM
aferin sana 1 şey söylüyosun bari arkasında dur... yarası olan gocunur şeklinde döndürme.. ne demek istediğini anlamayacak kadar salak deilim... ayrıca tek pencereden bakma diyen insana bak..!! komiksin
Reply

abdil han
03-22-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki
aferin sana 1 şey söylüyosun bari arkasında dur... yarası olan gocunur şeklinde döndürme.. ne demek istediğini anlamayacak kadar salak deilim... ayrıca tek pencereden bakma diyen insana bak..!! komiksin
ben sözlerimin arkasındayım,

benim kimseyle,kemalistlerle,sağcılarla,solcularla bir problemim yok,herkes istediği gibi,istediği ülkede yaşasın...


önce saldırıp sonra laf işitince agresif olmanada gerek yok,

bu arada,öncede dediğim gibi,nasıl hissediyorsak oyuz,
ben bu ülkeden gidecek biri olarak görmüyorum kendimi,ama sen ikide bir git deyip saldırıyosun,,,ben buranın yerlisiyim,,misafir gelmedik bu vatana...kimsede bize git deme hakkına sahip değildir...

bizi dinci,solcu,komünist,sağcı,ateist ,kürt,laz,çerkez diye sınıflandırıp bölenlere de itibar etmemek gerekir...bir arada huzur içinde,özgürce yaşayalım..

ne içkisini içene birşey densin,ne başını örtene,ne namaz kılana,ne de mini etek giyene...özgürlük herkese eşit bir şekilde verildiğinde anlam kazanır...

diyeceklerim bukadar,artık bu mevzu hakkında tartışmak istemiyorum...
kib

( sorry we wrote in turkish,but it was needed)
Reply

lapseki
03-22-2007, 09:45 PM
bu ülkenin rejimini kabul etmiyenler.. ya bunu kabul edecekler ya da defolup gidecekler.. Türkiyenin ne iran ne de diğer arap ülkeleri gibi olması söz konusu bile değildir. demokrasideki eksiklikler elbette düzeltilir.. senin laik demokratik bir Türkiye Cumhuriyetiyle sorunun yoksa bu yazdıklarımı üstüne alınman abest. ama burda bana muhalefet olduğuna göre bi hayli takıksın.
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:40 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
on street have you ever seen a person insulting a woman because of wearing hijab...
I've seen Turkish MPs were insulting Merve Kavakci for wearing hijab.

Originally Posted by lapseki
isnt turban arabic way! are we arab..
How about jeans, mini skirts, blouses ... are those Turkish?

If non Arabs want to dress as Arab ... it shouldn't be a problem... in a democratic country people can dress in any national/religious/cultural dress their wanted....
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:42 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
he fought with atatürk n he told my dad that ataturk was praying on fridays
Another example pointing out that Ataturk is not a non-believer.
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:46 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, if you ever do desire to go someplace else, I hope you would feel welcomed in the USA. Yes, we are a secular country. But you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want. (Unless you are Janet Jackson taking your clothes off during a national TV broadcast from the SuperBowl.) You can also pray pretty much whenever and wherever you want. (Unless it involves forcing that prayer on others in a government sponsored venue.) No doubt you'll hear insults against Islam (and all other religions for that matter) in the media and in person and from many other parts of society, but it won't be the government doing it. It is far from a perfect world, but people are pretty much free to make their own choices on matters of belief, even if they are not popular with everyone around them. That's what being secular means here.

(Though we still are trying to figure out whether Muslim cab driver's have the right to say they won't transport peoples bags that have alcohol in them. Or if the non-Muslim rider has the right to say if you are willing to take me, then you have to take my bags too.)

For me USA is more Islamic than Turkey. How can they force the Kurds, Circassians, Tatars, Bosniaks, Albanians, Arabs, Assyrians, Pontics, Cretans, Greeks and Armenians to be Turks.

Minorities should be allowed to retain their unique identity....


P/S: LOL to Janet Jackson....:D
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
i dont need any idea about this matter...

i ll go nowhere!! at least not to usa,,maybe malaysia,or dubai,,,where i can find more respectful people to my blessed religion...
You're welcomed here.......:D
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
aferin sana 1 şey söylüyosun bari arkasında dur... yarası olan gocunur şeklinde döndürme.. ne demek istediğini anlamayacak kadar salak deilim... ayrıca tek pencereden bakma diyen insana bak..!! komiksin
Translation Please!!!!!
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:50 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
ben sözlerimin arkasındayım,

benim kimseyle,kemalistlerle,sağcılarla,solcularla bir problemim yok,herkes istediği gibi,istediği ülkede yaşasın...


önce saldırıp sonra laf işitince agresif olmanada gerek yok,

bu arada,öncede dediğim gibi,nasıl hissediyorsak oyuz,
ben bu ülkeden gidecek biri olarak görmüyorum kendimi,ama sen ikide bir git deyip saldırıyosun,,,ben buranın yerlisiyim,,misafir gelmedik bu vatana...kimsede bize git deme hakkına sahip değildir...

bizi dinci,solcu,komünist,sağcı,ateist ,kürt,laz,çerkez diye sınıflandırıp bölenlere de itibar etmemek gerekir...bir arada huzur içinde,özgürce yaşayalım..

ne içkisini içene birşey densin,ne başını örtene,ne namaz kılana,ne de mini etek giyene...özgürlük herkese eşit bir şekilde verildiğinde anlam kazanır...

diyeceklerim bukadar,artık bu mevzu hakkında tartışmak istemiyorum...
kib

( sorry we wrote in turkish,but it was needed)

Translations Please!!!
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2007, 01:50 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
bu ülkenin rejimini kabul etmiyenler.. ya bunu kabul edecekler ya da defolup gidecekler.. Türkiyenin ne iran ne de diğer arap ülkeleri gibi olması söz konusu bile değildir. demokrasideki eksiklikler elbette düzeltilir.. senin laik demokratik bir Türkiye Cumhuriyetiyle sorunun yoksa bu yazdıklarımı üstüne alınman abest. ama burda bana muhalefet olduğuna göre bi hayli takıksın.
translation please!!!!:blind:
Reply

abdil han
03-23-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki
bu ülkenin rejimini kabul etmiyenler.. ya bunu kabul edecekler ya da defolup gidecekler.. Türkiyenin ne iran ne de diğer arap ülkeleri gibi olması söz konusu bile değildir. demokrasideki eksiklikler elbette düzeltilir.. senin laik demokratik bir Türkiye Cumhuriyetiyle sorunun yoksa bu yazdıklarımı üstüne alınman abest. ama burda bana muhalefet olduğuna göre bi hayli takıksın.
bu seviyede tartışamam...
Reply

abdil han
03-23-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
For me USA is more Islamic than Turkey. How can they force the Kurds, Circassians, Tatars, Bosniaks, Albanians, Arabs, Assyrians, Pontics, Cretans, Greeks and Armenians to be Turks.

Minorities should be allowed to retain their unique identity....
no one forces them to be turks or somethng else bro,,
u dont know the situation here i guess...

we are all living in equal conditions, n they are our brothers,,,except some extremes no one care about nationalities here,,,




n about the turkish posts..not that important,actually she was little aggressive n wrote those things...so i thought it s better to reply in turkish too..

take care...

salam
Reply

lapseki
03-24-2007, 11:14 PM
Code:
For me USA is more Islamic than Turkey. How can they force the Kurds, Circassians, Tatars, Bosniaks, Albanians, Arabs, Assyrians, Pontics, Cretans, Greeks and Armenians to be Turks. 

Minorities should be allowed to retain their unique identity....
who is forcing whom????!!!!! learn enough and then write your conclusion..




seviyemden dolayı benimle tartışamayacağınız için yas tutmaktayım ..ah nasıl bir keder içine girdim.. yurdumun muhteşem, ahlaklı, üstün, aristokrat "muhafazakar" beyi
Reply

Darkseid
03-25-2007, 02:27 AM
Political Reforms

Abolition of the office of the Ottoman Sultan ruling since 1218, sending the last members of the House of Osman out of the country, and therefore giving the Turkish nation the right to exercise popular sovereignty via representative democracy
Representative democracies are better than monarchies.

And besides, you got to keep up with the times. As humanity progresses so must its society as changes come and so does administration.

Proclamation of the new Turkish state as a republic - Republic of Turkey
Abolition of the office of caliphate held by the Ottomans since 1517
I find nothing wrong with a republic as long as it is a democratic republic.

Social Reforms

Reform of headgear and dress
Adoption of international calendar, hours and measurements (As opposed to the Islamic calendar)
I don't concure with the international calender, but I do with using the metric system of measurements.

I think Spring should be the beginning of the the Year and Winter should be the end.

Legal Reforms

Closure of Islamic courts and the abolition of Islamic canon law (Death of Sharia in Turkey) Transfer to a secular law structure by adoption from Swiss Civil Code and other laws (As opposed to Sharia) Introduction of the new penal law modeled after Italian Penal Code (As opposed to Sharia) Complete separation of government and religious affairs and the inclusion of the principle of laïcité in the constitution
I can agree that Turkey could have established a better republic, but there is nothing wrong with seperating the church (mosque) from the state. As a matter of fact it is a must. You can't have the state controlled by a religious institution, because it would limit the freedom of other religious institutions. It would destroy peace rather than establish it.

Since religious takes an important role in establishing laws. You could very well have a muslim version to the international christian ones used world wide.

Educational/Cultural Reforms

Abolishing of religious education system and the introduction of a national education system as the uniform standard (Unification of education)
Adoption of the new Turkish alphabet, derived from the Latin Alphabet (Ataturk opposed Arabic alphabets used in the Holy Quran)
Regulation of the university education
Arabic is used in the Koran because Muhammad was born in the Arabian Peninsula and therefore was mostly influenced by Arabic. If Muhammad was born in Iran (Persia) he would have had the Koran written in Iranian (Persian) rather than in Arabic. Same if Muhammad was born in an Aztec community rather than in a Middle-Eastern Community.

But nevertheless Latin letters do serve their purpose and Arabic serves its own as well.

Economic Reforms

Abolition of capitulations of the Ottoman Empire in effect since the 15th century Abolition of tithes (Ataturk opposed giving money to MOSQUES)
Trust me. THAT is a good thing. By opposing giving money to mosques, Ataturk was insuring the properity of his own country and the seperation of the state from the church.

Trust me about this. If the government had the right to give money to mosques then the government could just take over religion it self. Hey they are giving money to these religious institutions. If the religious institutions were saying or teaching something that was against the state, then the state could just take over, appoint its own clergy, and then excersize the religious institutions its own way. Even if those means were against the koran.

Trust me, things could have been A LOT worse. You could be having a Stalinistic Turkey where Islam is forbidden entirely like how religious was forbidden entirely in the Soviet Union.
Reply

abdil han
03-25-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally Posted by lapseki


seviyemden dolayı benimle tartışamayacağınız için yas tutmaktayım ..ah nasıl bir keder içine girdim.. yurdumun muhteşem, ahlaklı, üstün, aristokrat "muhafazakar" beyi
iltifatlarınız için teşekkürler,muhafazakar olduğum için de nasıl mesudum bilemezsiniz...
bukadar üzüleceğinizi bilseydim öyle bir izansızlık yapıp, kalbinizi derin acılara garketmezdim....
Reply

lapseki
03-25-2007, 05:00 PM
aaa estagfurullah beyfendiciğimmmm... canınız sağ olsun... sayenizde vücudumun muhtelif 1 yeriyle gülmeyi öğrendim.. yazdığınız 1 çok cevaba
Reply

çanakkale
03-25-2007, 08:40 PM
Atatürk'ün kemiklerini sızlatan insanlar artık defolsun...Adam bu milleti gençlere bıraktı ama ne yazık ki yattığı yerde bazıları yüzünden rahat uyuyamıyor
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-25-2007, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Darkseid
Economic Reforms

Abolition of capitulations of the Ottoman Empire in effect since the 15th century Abolition of tithes (Ataturk opposed giving money to MOSQUES)
Trust me. THAT is a good thing. By opposing giving money to mosques, Ataturk was insuring the properity of his own country and the seperation of the state from the church.

Trust me about this. If the government had the right to give money to mosques then the government could just take over religion it self. Hey they are giving money to these religious institutions. If the religious institutions were saying or teaching something that was against the state, then the state could just take over, appoint its own clergy, and then excersize the religious institutions its own way. Even if those means were against the koran.

Trust me, things could have been A LOT worse. You could be having a Stalinistic Turkey where Islam is forbidden entirely like how religious was forbidden entirely in the Soviet Union.
I hadn't thought about this before, but Darkseid has a good point here. In 1930s Germany, the church was run by the state, so when Hitler came to power, he also had the power to appoint whoever he wanted to be head of the church and thus controlled what was preached in the pulpits of Germany. One of the most terrible things about what took place was that the church never spoke up against what Hitler was doing, not because Christians thought it was all good (nearly as many Christians died resisting Hitler as did Jews), but because the governement controlled what the church could say publicly.

At least under the present system, the PM of Turkey cannot tell any Imam what to say or not say.
Reply

Darkseid
03-26-2007, 01:06 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I hadn't thought about this before, but Darkseid has a good point here. In 1930s Germany, the church was run by the state, so when Hitler came to power, he also had the power to appoint whoever he wanted to be head of the church and thus controlled what was preached in the pulpits of Germany. One of the most terrible things about what took place was that the church never spoke up against what Hitler was doing, not because Christians thought it was all good (nearly as many Christians died resisting Hitler as did Jews), but because the governement controlled what the church could say publicly.

At least under the present system, the PM of Turkey cannot tell any Imam what to say or not say.
That is absolutely correct. The manner of which people think and believe should be seperate from the state.
Reply

snakelegs
03-26-2007, 01:15 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
(nearly as many Christians died resisting Hitler as did Jews), but because the governement controlled what the church could say publicly.
are you saying almost as many german christians died resisting hitler as jews?
do you have a source for this?
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
03-26-2007, 01:34 AM
The separation of state and church concept doesn't exist in Islam.

Trying to apply concepts relevant to christianity could be a complete nonsence if applied to Islam, as is in this case. Islam is a COMPLETE way of life, means political, economical and in every way possible, Islam governs lives of muslims.
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
03-26-2007, 01:38 AM
Since religious takes an important role in establishing laws. You could very well have a muslim version to the international christian ones used world wide.
LOL, sorry had to say that, could you cite me a couple of "christian laws" used worldwide?
Reply

Darkseid
03-26-2007, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
are you saying almost as many german christians died resisting hitler as jews?
do you have a source for this?
Grace is not saying that. Grace is saying that anyone that criticized the Nazi regime is as likely to die as that of the Jews. Heck Hitler had his former superior killed, just because he thought he might be a threat.

Like with all insane people in power, anyone who might become a threat or is a threat will be instantly killed or erased. Stalin did this with his competitors and so did all other fascist like governments.

The fact that Nazism is a fascist like government should be proof enough to support the same outcome. Plus there is plenty of evidence if you just look it up on the web. Come on, are you afraid of searching up on the web? Google is a friendly search provider, come on give it a try? It won't bite back, I promise.

Originally Posted by Khan-Ghalgha
The separation of state and church concept doesn't exist in Islam.
Well that's because you go to a mosque rather than a church. It would be the same if I said it to a Jew. They don't go to church either. They go their own community building of religious conduct. Anyways, all religions are suppose to be seperate from the state, as that is what god and my muslim friend had told me. If the two aren't seperate, then either the state will control the church like in Nazi Germany or the church will control the state like in the middle ages. And what happen because of that? What happen when the church became corrupt by politics? It broke apart creating the protestant branch of christianity. Politics can corrupt anything and if you want to keep your faith free from political corruption then don't associate it with politics. It is no more simple than that and that's why the religious institutions are suppose to be seperate from the state. Now I'm not saying they can't influence the state with making laws, which is a part of Islam. But it shouldn't say who can and who can't be elected. And it can't directly say what kind of progress people should make in society. It shouldn't be the one that regulates trade or tells business people to what the minimum wage should be. That's for independent politicians to decide on an unbias status.

[quote]
Trying to apply concepts relevant to christianity could be a complete nonsence if applied to Islam, as is in this case. [/qyite[

Well you said could rather than is. So I'll take your word on that. But Islam isn't that much different from certain forms of christianity.

In certain forms of christianity, people have to pilgrim to sacred parts of the world that pertain to christianity. In certain forms of christianity, women have to wear special clothing to conceal parts of their body from being noticed in society. In certain forms of christianity like in Mormonism, men are allow to have more than one wife. In certain forms of christianity, people pray many times during the day and not just before eating. In certain forms of christianity, people have to recite their holy book many times during the day.

Islam also has many sects and different schools, so it isn't that much different from christianity.

Islam is a COMPLETE way of life, means political, economical and in every way possible, Islam governs lives of muslims.
Islam is a culture that is presented in many different ways of life, but hardly a way of life on its own. No faith made by Allah is a way of life. Where do I get that from? Allah. All faiths are a part of many different ways of life. Because faith is a seperate issue, but can become a part of someone's life. I believe my Malaysian associate will agree. Islam is a part of your life and it is a part of many other people's lives. But their lives are completely different. Like the difference between an Iranian and a Saudi Arabian. The life difference between a Syrian and a Jordanian. The life difference between a Hui and a Palestinian. A grand majority of them follow the same faith, but they do not have the same lives. Rich muslims don't share the same lives as that of poor muslims. So Islam not a way of life. It is a belief system that is associated into a lot of people's lives, because it is their faith. It is their religion, but nothing more than that or you aren't simply following that faith. When you start speaking of a religion more than it is, then you are establishing an unstable environment. This was done many times in the past and all leads to disaster. Why do you think so many muslims have become pro-democratic rather than pro-authoritarian? Because they want to live their own life, but still as a muslim. They want to pray six times a day. But they don't want someone else telling them about it. They believe they have the right as fellow human beings to say how they should follow their religious practices so that they can be true muslims and truly follow god's grace as god would want them to individually serve him. Now did you got all of that?
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
03-26-2007, 04:18 AM
Well that's because you go to a mosque rather than a church. It would be the same if I said it to a Jew. They don't go to church either.
I wrote - "concept", pay attention please.

Elaborate on "institution of church" please.

Anyways, all religions are suppose to be seperate from the state, as that is what god and my muslim friend had told me. If the two aren't seperate, then either the state will control the church like in Nazi Germany or the church will control the state like in the middle ages
The point being? Someone has to control the state, don't you think? Right now in the west state controls the church, is it bad?

And what happen because of that? What happen when the church became corrupt by politics? It broke apart creating the protestant branch of christianity.
That happened to catholic church, it became a corrupted institution overall, not only politically, there were other reasons even more important, dogmatic reasons. How does that relate to non-existant "mosque institution", if you will, in Islam?

Politics can corrupt anything and if you want to keep your faith free from political corruption then don't associate it with politics. It is no more simple than that and that's why the religious institutions are suppose to be seperate from the state.
Well if politics can corrupt anything, then what the difference between having a religion in control of the state or not - it could be corrupted anyway, right? Or religion makes it somehow worse? The worst crimes against humanity were commited while religion was completely out of the way, so I dont see a reason to keep them apart.

ow I'm not saying they can't influence the state with making laws, which is a part of Islam. But it shouldn't say who can and who can't be elected.
Why not?

And it can't directly say what kind of progress people should make in society.
Hmmm, I think I missed your point here.

That's for independent politicians to decide on an unbias status.
Unbiased status, interesting choice of words and what would that be?

Well you said could rather than is. So I'll take your word on that. But Islam isn't that much different from certain forms of christianity.
Have to disagree, judging by your reasoning I can tell you simply lack some basic understanding of Islam. It is in fact very much different from all forms of christianity and especially when it comes to the whole separation of "church" and state thing. But if you insist, bring up evidences from islamic teachings and concepts that prove such separation is even conceivable in Islam.

n certain forms of christianity, people have to pilgrim to sacred parts of the world that pertain to christianity. In certain forms of christianity, women have to wear special clothing to conceal parts of their body from being noticed in society. In certain forms of christianity like in Mormonism, men are allow to have more than one wife. In certain forms of christianity, people pray many times during the day and not just before eating. In certain forms of christianity, people have to recite their holy book many times during the day.

Islam also has many sects and different schools, so it isn't that much different from christianity.
You think that's enough to say that 2 religions are so alike?

Islam is a culture that is presented in many different ways of life, but hardly a way of life on its own.
Wrong. I think you need more knowledge of Islam to prove me that.

Islam is a culture that is presented in many different ways of life, but hardly a way of life on its own. No faith made by Allah is a way of life. Where do I get that from? Allah. All faiths are a part of many different ways of life. Because faith is a seperate issue, but can become a part of someone's life. I believe my Malaysian associate will agree. Islam is a part of your life and it is a part of many other people's lives. But their lives are completely different. Like the difference between an Iranian and a Saudi Arabian. The life difference between a Syrian and a Jordanian. The life difference between a Hui and a Palestinian. A grand majority of them follow the same faith, but they do not have the same lives. Rich muslims don't share the same lives as that of poor muslims. So Islam not a way of life. It is a belief system that is associated into a lot of people's lives, because it is their faith. It is their religion, but nothing more than that or you aren't simply following that faith. When you start speaking of a religion more than it is, then you are establishing an unstable environment. This was done many times in the past and all leads to disaster. Why do you think so many muslims have become pro-democratic rather than pro-authoritarian? Because they want to live their own life, but still as a muslim. They want to pray six times a day. But they don't want someone else telling them about it. They believe they have the right as fellow human beings to say how they should follow their religious practices so that they can be true muslims and truly follow god's grace as god would want them to individually serve him. Now did you got all of that?
I think you confuse the concept "way of life" and actual induvidual life. And again you compare islam to christianity when it's very different from it. I suggest you read more about early islamic history, especially about 4 righteous Khalfa's(r.a.)

Why do you think so many muslims have become pro-democratic rather than pro-authoritarian?
Ehm, why would we be pro-authoritarian?

Because they want to live their own life, but still as a muslim. They want to pray six times a day. But they don't want someone else telling them about it.
I'm sorry but it didn't make any sence to me at all.

They want to pray six times a day. But they don't want someone else telling them about it. They believe they have the right as fellow human beings to say how they should follow their religious practices so that they can be true muslims and truly follow god's grace as god would want them to individually serve him. Now did you got all of that?
No, not really, unless you mean that muslims couldnt do all that when under islamic rule? I think if muslim wants to pray 6 times a day rather than 5 as prophet Muhammad have established, I think he's free to do so
Reply

abdil han
03-26-2007, 07:49 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

At least under the present system, the PM of Turkey cannot tell any Imam what to say or not say.
i dont agree with this,coz the ministery of religion says what imams will tell in friday prayer's preeches in Turkey,,,
Reply

north_malaysian
03-26-2007, 08:02 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
who is forcing whom????!!!!! learn enough and then write your conclusion..
According to the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) October 2006.

Since the early 20th Century, Turkey has practiced a policy of "Turkification", a form of cultural assimilation that FAILS to recognize individuals' right to ethnic, national and religious identification and that aims at forced assimilation with a Turkish identity. It encompasses several strategies whose rationale violates, in one way or another, internationally guaranteed standard for minority rights. These strategies still include:

* DENYING FORMAL RECOGNITION OF MINORITY GROUPS;
* HINDERING THEIR ACCESS TO THE MEDIA;
* LIMITING THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION;
* VIOLATING THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (ESPECIALLY IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE);
* IMPEDING THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION;
* REFRAINING FROM FACILITATING THEIR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND TO CHOOSE THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE; AND
* PRACTICING OR TOLERATING VARIOUS OTHER FORM OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION.


Source:- http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/vie...hp?doc_id=7081

At least the Islamists in Iran allows the Jews and Christians to retain their religious and cultural identity....
Reply

snakelegs
03-26-2007, 08:14 AM
Edit
Reply

abdil han
03-26-2007, 08:24 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
According to the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) October 2006.

[B][I]Since the early 20th Century, Turkey has practiced a policy of "Turkification", a form of cultural assimilation that FAILS to recognize individuals' right to ethnic, national and religious identification and that aims at forced assimilation with a Turkish identity.
salam bro,,
as it said since early in 20th century,,in those times ,armenians,greeks,bulgarians and all ather nonmuslim minorities fought against us,thats why nationality became more important more than ever,,but we had nothing bad with kurds,arabs or with the others,,,we fought together against enemies and we found this country together,,,

now some countries want us to be seperated,,dont believe them bro,,you are muslim too,,you know also we cant be nationalist....

wassalam
Reply

north_malaysian
03-26-2007, 08:37 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
you know also we cant be nationalist..
First of all I'm a non-Nationalist living in a country ruled by the Nationalists. But the government encourage the minorities to retain their cultural, religious identity. So, our version of "Nationalism" is very DIFFERENT than Nationalism in other countries....

I just want my country to welcome nationalities worldwide... giving them opportunities to live here and retain their cultures... I want the government to give them Malaysian nationality...

I just want my country to be more colourful..... but reading that report about Turkification... I'm really annoyed and upset.:X
Reply

abdil han
03-26-2007, 09:04 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I just want my country to be more colourful..... but reading that report about Turkification... I'm really annoyed and upset.:X
i understand bro,,but believe me the situation is pretty different than the UN reports,,we dont have problem between us n we r living in peace,,but as i said before;especially some western countries are very eager to seperate us...

take care,,,
n maybe u can see me there in malaysia oneday:) i like ur country...
Reply

lapseki
03-26-2007, 06:16 PM
* DENYING FORMAL RECOGNITION OF MINORITY GROUPS;
* HINDERING THEIR ACCESS TO THE MEDIA;
* LIMITING THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION;
* VIOLATING THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (ESPECIALLY IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE);
* IMPEDING THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION;
* REFRAINING FROM FACILITATING THEIR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND TO CHOOSE THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE; AND
* PRACTICING OR TOLERATING VARIOUS OTHER FORM OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION.
Turkey has 2 huge reformist wave, in 1920-30's by Ataturk.. and in 2000's aiming the EU.

according to Lozan minority's rights(1923):

1)GROUP A/to non moslem T.C. citizens:

(A) "Müslüman-olmayan (Gayrimüslim)Türk uyruklar›": Dolafl›m ve göç etme
konusunda bütün Türk uyruklarına uygulanan özgürlük (Md.38/3);
Müslümanların yararlandığı aynı medenî ve siyasal haklardan yararlanma
hakkı (Md.39/1); giderlerini ödeyerek her türlü kurum (vak›f, okul vb.)
kurmak, yönetmek ve denetlemek ve buralarda kendi dillerini kullanmak
ve ayinlerini yapmak konular›nda eflit haklar (Md. 40); önemli bir oranda
oturduklar› il ve ilçelerde, anadillerinde ö¤retim yapabilmeleri için, çeflitli
bütçelerden (devlet, belediye vd.) hakkaniyete uygun pay alma hakk› (Md.
41/ 1 ve 2); aile ve kişi statüleri konusunda gelenek ve göreneklerine saygı
(Md.42/1); inançlarına aykırı davranışta bulunmaya zorlanamama(Md. 43). Bu grubun haklar›, do¤al olarak, ayr›ca
di¤er üç grubunkileri de içermektedir.

the same freedom for migration as the Turkish nation.(md.39/1) to have the same political and civil rights as the muslims. (md.40) with paying all expense to establish, manage and control any kind of institution (like school, faundation...) and rights about to have their ceremony with their own languages in these institution. (md.41/1 ,2) at the cities or districts where they are living with high ratio to enable the education with their mother language having the right to receive payment from various budgets (like government, municipalities...). (md.42/1) respect to their traditions and customs.(md.43) not to force them to do things which are contrary to their beliefs. and includes the other groups' rights.

2)GROUP B/ to another Turkish nations who are speaking different language from Turkish:

(B) "Türkçeden başka bir dil konuşan Türk uyrukları": Mahkemelerde kendi
dillerini sözlü olarak kullanma hakkı (Md. 39/5). Bu grubun haklar›, doğal
olarak, C ve D gruplar›n›nkini de içermektedir.

to use their own language at court. and also includes the rights for group c and d.

3)GROUP C/ All Turkish nations:

(C) "Tüm Türk uyruklar›": Din, inanç veya mezhep farkının ayrımcılığa yol
açmamas› (Md. 39/3); gerek özel gerekse ticaret iliflkilerinde istediği bir dili
kullanma hakk› (Md. 39/4). Bu grubun haklar›, do¤al olarak, D
grubununkileri de içermektedir.

(md.39/3) not to give a rise to distinctions because of the difference of religion, belief or sect. and icludes the rights of group d.

4)GROUP D/ Everyone living in Turkey:

(D) "Türkiye'de oturan herkes": Milliyet, dil, soy ya da din ayırımı olmaksızın
yaşam ve özgürlük hakkı (Md. 38/1); inancına, dinine ya da mezhebine
karışılmaması (Md. 38/2); din ayrımı gözetilmeksizin yasa önünde eşitlik
hakkı (Md. 39/2).

(md.38/1) without any distinction according to nation, religion, language, race life and freedom rights. (md.38/2) not to interfere to anyone's belief,religion or sect. (md.39/2) to be equal in front of law.

these are accepted at 1923 ..

and till 2000s lots of things added.. to improve democracy and freedom. i tried to translate these with my insufficient english.. i hope they are clear to understand.
and in our daily life no one cares anyone's nation or religion. an exclusion because of being from a different nation or religion is not even in question. making your conclusion only with a source is not objective.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-26-2007, 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
are you saying almost as many german christians died resisting hitler as jews?
do you have a source for this?
I said "nearly", you said "almost", both are relative terms. If I remember some prior stats, about (another indefinite term) 11 million people lost their lives under Hitler, about 6 million of those were Jews. Jews certainly shared a disporotional share of the holocaust, but it was not isolated to jews. On a proportional basis, relative to their population, Europe's gypsies faired even worse than the Jews. Christians suffered for a variety of reasons. Some simply because they were enemies of Hitler or threats to his ascendcy to power. Others because they actually resisted the work of the Nazis and tried to prevent them from accomplishing their goals. Still others were those who were simply caught up in one of the many purges Hitler brought against his own people. And then lastly were those of conquered territories who continued to resist even after Germany had defeated them and placed them under German rule.

Also, not all the Jews that were murdered by Hitler were Germans. Indeed the Polish Jews suffered worse than the German Jews. Russian, Chezoslovakian, Austrian, Italian, Hungarian, Bulgurian, Greek, Dutch and French Jews were also targeted for extermination.

from Wikipedia
Recently declassified British and Soviet documents have indicated the total may be somewhat higher than previously believed. The following estimates provide a range of the number of victims:

An estimated 5 to 6 million Jews, including 3 million Polish Jews
1.8 – 1.9 million Christian Poles and other (non-Jewish) Poles (estimate includes civilians killed as a result of Nazi aggression and occupation but does not include the military casualties of Nazi aggression or the victims of the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland and of deportations to Central Asia and Siberia)
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti (Gypsies)
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
80,000-200,000 European Freemasons
100,000 communists
10,000–25,000 homosexual men
2,500–5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
The following groups of people were also killed by the Nazi regime, but there is little evidence that the Nazis planned to systematically target them for genocide as was the case for the groups above.
3.5–6 million other Slavic civilians
2.5–4 million Soviet POWs
1–1.5 million political dissidents
Additionally, the Ustaša regime, the Nazis' allies in Croatia, conducted its own campaign of mass extermination against the Serbs in the areas which it controlled, resulting in the deaths of 500,000–1.2 million Serbs.


Here are some noted individual Christians that died under Hitler specifically because they resisted him:
Kai Munk, d. 1944, murdered by an SS-Sonderkommando, Danish theologian, playwright
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, d. 1945, hanged in concentration camp, German Lutheran pastor, theologian
Jochen Klepper, d. 1942, suicide shortly before deportation, Berlin German theologian, journalist
Friedrich Lorenz, d. 1944, executed, Halle an der Saale German priest, member of Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
Rupert Mayer, d. 1945, German Jesuit priest
Paul Schneider, d. 1939, died in Buchenwald, German clergyman
Edith Stein, d. 1942, German nun, Catholic saint (born Jewish)
Maximilian Kolbe, d. 1941, died in Auschwitz, Polish friar, Catholic saint
Stefan Wincenty Frelichowski, d. 1945, died in Dachau, Polish priest




And here is a bibliography to pursue further on your own:

Victoria Barnet, FOR THE SOUL OF THE PEOPLE: Protestant Protest Against Hitler, Oxford University Press: New York, 1998.

Victoria Barnett,. "Dietrich Bonhoeffer " in U.S Holocaust Memorial Museum
Web Site , http://www.ushmm.org/bonhoeffer/index.html

Shareen B. Brysac, Resisting Hitler: Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra
(New York, 2000).

J.S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches: 1933-45 , BASIC BOOKS, Inc.: New York, 1968.

Joachim Fest, Plotting Hitler’s Death: The Story of the German Resistance,
tr. Bruce Little (New York, 1994).

Michael Geyer and John Boyer, eds., Resistance against the Third Reich, 1933 – 1990 (Chicago, 1994).

Anton Gill, An Honorable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler,
1933 – 1945 (New York, 1994).

Herman Graml et al., The German Resistance to Hitler (Berkeley, 1970).

Theodore Hamerow, On the Road to the Wolf’s Lair: German Resistance to Hitler (London, 1997).

Peter Hoffmann, The History of The German Resistance 1933 - 1945, tr. Richard Barry (Cambridge, 1977).

Blaire Holmes and Alan Keele, eds., When Truth was Treason: German Youth
against Hitler (Chicago, 1995).

Daniel Horn, “Youth Resistance in the Third Reich,” Journal of Social History
7 (1973): 26 – 50.

Martyh Housden, Resistance and conformity in the Third Reich, Routledge Publishers: London, 1997.

Karl Heinz Jahnke and Michael Buddrus comps., Deutsche Jugend 1933 – 1945: Eine Dokumenatation ( Hamburg, 1989).

Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Barvaria, 1933 - 1945 (Oxford, 1984).

David Clay Large, ed., Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich (Cambridge, 1991).

Richard L&#246;wenthal, Die Widerstandsgruppe “Neu beginnen” (Berlin, 1982).

Tim Mason, “The Worker’s Opposition in Nazi Germany”, History Workshop
Journal 11 (1981): 120 – 137.

Detlev Peukert. Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in
Everyday Life, tr. Richard Deveson (New Haven, 1987).

Theodore N. Thomas, WOMEN AGAINST HITLER: Christian Resistance in the Third Reich PRAEGER Publishers: Westport, CT, 1995.
Reply

snakelegs
03-26-2007, 11:21 PM
thanks, grace seeker. i know that many, many more non-jews were killed than jews. it was just the way you put it and the hour that had me confused.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-26-2007, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

At least under the present system, the PM of Turkey cannot tell any Imam what to say or not say.

i dont agree with this,coz the ministery of religion says what imams will tell in friday prayer's preeches in Turkey,,,
Then I humbly stand corrected. I knew that the minister of religion had significant power, I did not realize it was to that extent.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-26-2007, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
thanks, grace seeker. i know that many, many more non-jews were killed than jews. it was just the way you put it and the hour that had me confused.

Well, if you count deaths as a result of military conflict that is most certainly true. However, if you count only deaths that occur in as a result of non-military action then slightly more than half of all deaths from the direct action of the Nazis were perpetrated against the Jews. And as I said originally, this still means that nearly as many Christians as Jews died under Hitler's regime.
Reply

snakelegs
03-26-2007, 11:41 PM
graceseeker,
yes, i agree. it was a misunderstanding on my part.
we can agree that way too many people, of all kinds, got killed.
Reply

Keltoi
03-27-2007, 12:23 AM
The death toll from all sides in WWII was beyond comprehension.
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
03-27-2007, 07:16 PM
Mustafa kemal's mission was not only to break up Khalifat, more like help along cos it was already factually broken, but ensure Turkey would be isolated from the rest of the islamic world, ideologically isolated. Nationalism was introduced to replace idea of muslim unity by idea of turkish unity, and to hinder any attempts or ideas from of Khalifats ressurection from gaining power in Turkey.

In this case unlike in Bush's failed adventure mission was indeed accomplished, it is a complete success for europeans. Before they were shaking in fear when Ottomans were advancing on them, besieging Vienna, now they are begging Europeans to let them in, I'm sure europeans enjoy every single moment of turkish humiliation, former world power transformed into local beggar...+o(
Reply

lapseki
04-10-2007, 02:19 PM
ottoman empire was sick man of europe in 18 century. Turkey take a wreck over from ottoman. but Turkey still the most forward country between the all islamic countries. so you better worry about your own country's future rather than Turkey's europe advanture
Reply

north_malaysian
04-11-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
but Turkey still the most forward country between the all islamic countries.
is it? I hate the current Malaysian government .... but remember we Malaysians will make sure that the revival of Islamic civilisation will start from our country. Inshallah..
Reply

lapseki
04-11-2007, 12:56 PM
i really dont know much about malaysia. but by your comment i have a little research about it. i would really want an islamic country to become super power of world. but this is impossible by prohibitions, or to limit freedom... to be govern by an antidemocratic way. your dream is good but in reality it seems to be stayed as just a dream.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-11-2007, 09:30 PM
Wherever it starts from, InshaAllah it will. Thats all that matters...:D
Reply

wizra
04-11-2007, 09:50 PM
Ataturk is a kaafir

5:44. ...And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn

72:23. ...and whosoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the Fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever.
Reply

north_malaysian
04-12-2007, 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
i really dont know much about malaysia. but by your comment i have a little research about it. i would really want an islamic country to become super power of world. but this is impossible by prohibitions, or to limit freedom... to be govern by an antidemocratic way. your dream is good but in reality it seems to be stayed as just a dream.
We dont want to be super power of the world..... we just want to be civilised. the most civilised muslims in the world.
Reply

Dahir
04-14-2007, 11:30 PM
Lapseki,

Democracy is a form of government in which the people create the rules. A complete Islamic society rules the opposite way, by Theocracy.

Anti-democratic is exactly what Theocracy is, not exactly a bad thing though, as people aren't perfect.
Reply

Skillganon
04-15-2007, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by lapseki
so you have to accept this secular system.. it wont be changed:))
:sl:

Just like Allah(Swt) and his messenger brought the arabs out of paganism into Worshiping Allah(swt), from darkness to light.

Inshallah Turkey will be brought out of from this worship of false gods to Worship of Allah(swt), from darkness to light. Wheter you like it or not just like some of the pagans of the arabs did not.

If you think anythink other than Islam will be accepted of you than you are being foolish.

Wassalam
Reply

Dahir
04-15-2007, 02:38 AM
Bro Skillgannon,

Something odd about Turkey is that they don't worship false gods or anything, the grand majority at least. The nation is nearly 99% Muslim, one of the highest concentrations in the world.

Its just the general public has little understanding.

To add the least, the military of Turkey is pro-secular, and they're the power machines in Turkey, not the parliament or people.

However, I agree with you that Turkey will be brought to light one day.
Reply

Skillganon
04-15-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
Bro Skillgannon,

Something odd about Turkey is that they don't worship false gods or anything, the grand majority at least. The nation is nearly 99% Muslim, one of the highest concentrations in the world.

Its just the general public has little understanding.

To add the least, the military of Turkey is pro-secular, and they're the power machines in Turkey, not the parliament or people.

However, I agree with you that Turkey will be brought to light one day.
I was using false god to refer their worship of secularism, nationalism, their own desires e.t.c beside Allah(swt).

Here: That verse shoud clear it up for you.

Allah says: “Have you seen such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, left him astray upon knowledge and sealed his hearing and his heart, and set a covering upon his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah? Will you not then receive admonition?” [ S&#251;rah al-J&#226;thiyah : 23]

Here Is a good article:

“Indeed polytheism is a mighty oppression”
Reply

Talha777
04-15-2007, 03:18 AM
The reason why I hate Kemal was because he made the Turks feel "Turkish" before being "Muslim", he infected Turkey with the disease of nationalism. Nationalism is anathema to spirituality, because people feel loyal to a state or ethnic identity before they feel loyal to Allah and the community of believers. Kemal believed Islam was backwards and was impeding Turkey's progress. But actually, Islam is progress, and secularism and nationalism is nothing but tribal regression. Now Islam in Turkey has lost any real meaning to change people's lives. It has been tamed and is not the dynamic Faith that it is intended to be, uplifting humanity, cultivating spiritual and moral values in people, and spreading social justice. This is not the kind of Islam which was brought by Ahazrat (Sallallaho alaihi wa salaam), in his life we see Islam as an active religion, and in the time of his Companions we see how much importance it played in day to day public life.

The disease is Christianity, which views faith as a strictly personal/individual affair, with no relevance to society at all. But if you read the Bible, God is presented as a God for the nation, punishing whole nations, not just individuals, and blessing whole nations for their righteousness or wickedness.

Similarly in the Holy Quran, Allah says:

Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations (2:143)

But what kind of ummah do we have in Turkey that they seek to limit the influence of our Religion, rather than enjoin good and forbid evil, and be witness for their own Faith for the rest of the world which is a religious obligation?
Reply

KAding
04-15-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
Bro Skillgannon,

Something odd about Turkey is that they don't worship false gods or anything, the grand majority at least. The nation is nearly 99% Muslim, one of the highest concentrations in the world.

Its just the general public has little understanding.

To add the least, the military of Turkey is pro-secular, and they're the power machines in Turkey, not the parliament or people.

However, I agree with you that Turkey will be brought to light one day.
Sure, it will be brought to the 'light' one day. It will try it a bit. It might flourish for a while, it might not. It will try something different after a while, going back to secularism for example, or trying an despotic system of government. Political and social change are a given throughout history. In the 1400 or so years of Islam there has not been one country that tried the Islamic system of government and actually stuck with it.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-16-2007, 02:48 AM
The time of the Prophet(saw) and the Islamic Empire was Shariah based. And yes it was stuck with for a very long time. It's the fault of the Muslims that we are in such a predicament.
Reply

north_malaysian
04-16-2007, 08:12 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
However, I agree with you that Turkey will be brought to light one day.
Is it? After watching the 200,000 pro-seculars protesting Erdogan to be president in Ankara several days ago..... I think the "light" would be like centuries to come.

Muslim seculars seem more "PRO-SECULAR" than the Christian ones...
Reply

abdil han
04-18-2007, 05:09 AM
ottoman empire was sick man of europe in 18 century. Turkey take a wreck over from ottoman. but Turkey still the most forward country between the all islamic countries. so you better worry about your own country's future rather than Turkey's europe advanture
Ottomans were not the sick man of europe in 1700's,,in those years,all of the european countries were ruling their own people with pretty high taxes,but ottomans never did this,even they needed money more than before...and they never followed the way of imperialism like the others(like british or french etc),they enslaved other poor n weak countries,but ottomans didnt,thats why the ottomans couldnt industrialized enough,while europeans were using naturel resources of other countries for their own benefits,ottomans tried to keep justice,,,

and if they were pretty weak,how can they won Gallipoli n the other wars wars?they fought against nearly all the europeans...

in our history books,everythng is being tought different than truth...to make us nationalists,or to make us dont like the other muslim communities...
Reply

abdil han
04-18-2007, 05:17 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Is it? After watching the 200,000 pro-seculars protesting Erdogan to be president in Ankara several days ago..... I think the "light" would be like centuries to come.

Muslim seculars seem more "PRO-SECULAR" than the Christian ones...
salam bros,

i believe what has written above n pray for this...

about the protest,
they called people, for this protest, many weeks ago,and even in universities,they forced or at least 'adviced' the students to attend,they used media channels,news papers etc..but only 120 000 people participated in...and this is not a big number at all...we are 75 million people bro,,Turkiye has some extremes,thats true,many people doesnt want Tayyip to be president,but also many people wants to see him as president...

so dont think that pessimistic,we are hopefull:)

wassalam
Reply

north_malaysian
04-18-2007, 06:30 AM
Originally Posted by abdil han
they forced or at least 'adviced' the students to attend
I was a uni. student once... I do know the consequence of not following the "ADVICE"... even Turkish students have the same problem like Malaysian students too. So sad.


Do you think Erdogan would make a better President for Turkey?
Reply

abdil han
04-18-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Do you think Erdogan would make a better President for Turkey?
actually president doesnt have so much power here,

for me ,i want him to be president,be coz he is not that good as prime minister...
Reply

lapseki
04-18-2007, 05:30 PM
lets look to concrete realities rather than looking abstract numbers

http://img267.imageshack.us/...267/3382/mitingun4.jpg

it was executed at the remarked area in link. the places remarked with blue are where you saw on the photoghraphs. below, where the red point finishes is Anıtkabir (square little white building) the red strips are roads with 6 each lanes with huge pavement. between the red point start and finish it is 2km. to walk the short red place remarked at left is about 15 minutes....

official numbers: number of people who visit Anıtkabir is 370 000. all people coundnt visit Anıtkabir because of crowd. and the rest who didnt join the meeting doesnt mean against secularism. my family , friends all are "secular" people but only a friend of my joined living in Ankara. this is not mean we are not supporting. it is the one of the biggest meeting which's participation is high that much in the history of Turkey Republic. even in the public surveys ratios are showing that majority dont want erdoğan to become president.
and i really curious about that where did you get the information that students were forced. as a university student i didnt witnessed such a thing even i didnt heard from my friends even from the friends from other universities. if such a thing happened i really want to learn that to protest. you know we want "sözde değil özde cumhuriyet savunucuları!!!! "
Reply

lapseki
04-18-2007, 05:33 PM
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3382/mitingun4.jpg

the link previous comment is not showing so i m again writing the link above .. i hope you can access from.. if not copy paste your address bar
Reply

abdil han
04-18-2007, 05:46 PM
and i really curious about that where did you get the information that students were forced. as a university student i didnt witnessed such a thing even i didnt heard from my friends even from the friends from other universities. if such a thing happened i really want to learn that to protest. you know we want "sözde değil özde cumhuriyet savunucuları!!!! "


Inonu Uni. rector called every student to attend this meeting,and they postponed all the exams on that meeting day,and in some universities(like ODTU) ,they wanted students to make some researces about ''sarıkız'' (i thnk u know about it),,(the disposing plans of the government by some generals)...

these are happening here,,,unfortunately...

many people may think that Tayyip must nt be the president...but many people also wants this...

and Tayyip will nt harm 'secular system' ,,no need to worry about this...
Reply

yigiter187
04-20-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally Posted by abdil han
Inonu Uni. rector called every student to attend this meeting,and they postponed all the exams on that meeting day,and in some universities(like ODTU) ,they wanted students to make some researces about ''sarıkız'' (i thnk u know about it),,(the disposing plans of the government by some generals)...

these are happening here,,,unfortunately...

many people may think that Tayyip must nt be the president...but many people also wants this...

and Tayyip will nt harm 'secular system' ,,no need to worry about this...
70% of turk want tayyip erdogan to be president....minority and military dont want this...no danger for secularızm no danger for republic ...
Reply

dostpost
01-04-2009, 09:13 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
-Turkey got a helping hand from the USA and European Community -- and its a NATO nation, which really helps it.


USA and EC helped to Turkey??????? you are funny! do you have any evidence about it.

in fact USA and Europe has never helped to us! Moreover USA and Europe maked embargo on Turkey in 70s because we saved Turks in cyprus who were under attact of Greek. IS THIS YOUR HELP? IF SO WE DONT WANT YOUR HELP!!!
Reply

Fishman
01-06-2009, 06:28 PM
I've come to talk to you guys about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the man who single-handedly broke up the Caliphate and threw Turkey head-first into future apostasy. Ataturk took pride in breaking up the Caliphate and has a legacy for it - a shameful legacy that too many Turks, sadly, take pride in.
:sl:
Whilst he did do a lot to demolish Islamic culture in Turkey, Ataturk did not exactly get rid of the Caliphate single-handedly, he had lots of help from other organisations and states.
  • The Caliphate was already pretty rotten. The Ottomans had been on the decline for a long time before WWI, Ataturk just finished off a dying beast.
  • Western countries didn't want there to be another Caliphate, probably because of the way the Ottomans and others had tried to conquer Europe for centuries, or because it might have been a threat to their power.
  • The Sharif of Makkah proclaimed himself both the new Caliph and king of the Hijaz after the end of the Ottomans. Then the Saudis invaded and finished them off, exiling the Caliph to Cyprus. His claim was pretty much ignored anyway.
  • The last Ottoman Caliph also tried to make a comeback in Makkah, but failed too.
  • The King of Morrocco is known as 'Amir-al-Mumineen' to this day. So was the former head of the Taliban. Both of these claims are not really recognised though.
  • The Mureeds of many Sufis consider their Mushrids 'Amir Ahle-Sunnat'. Despite the conflicting claims they don't really argue with eachother about it though.
  • The Ahmadiyya consider their leader a Caliph, but not in a political sense.
  • :w:
Reply

doorster
01-06-2009, 06:52 PM
Arabs and the English helped a great deal, had it not been for ata Turk, Arabs would have swapped Turkey with penthouse subscription + a bevy of white girls + a room in a Mayfair apartment block, a table at a gambling house and a name plaque in some foreign university
Reply

Whatsthepoint
01-08-2009, 07:03 PM
Could a Turkish speaking member translate what the woman is saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCLwLbyP3Q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNx6ywvNRyo
Reply

dostpost
01-08-2009, 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Could a Turkish speaking member translate what the woman is saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCLwLbyP3Q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNx6ywvNRyo
first video:

Nur serter is a senator in the parliamentary of Turkey. It is a news about her.

She is very disturbed of sayings of Minister of education like "Allah, prophet" :D She hates Fethullah Gülen's Schools in the world.

Minister of National Education (Hüseyin Celik) replies her:

"Should I think like you? Should I be like you!?? "

the rest of video is like this arguments.

second video:

Ufuk uras a political party leader. His party has a communist sight. Nur Serter insultes his party but Uras defendes his party.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
01-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Originally Posted by mustklc
first video:

Nur serter is a senator in the parliamentary of Turkey. It is a news about her.

She is very disturbed of sayings of Minister of education like "Allah, prophet" :D She hates Fethullah Gülen's Schools in the world.

Minister of National Education (Hüseyin Celik) replies her:

"Should I think like you? Should I be like you!?? "

the rest of video is like this arguments.

second video:

Ufuk uras a political party leader. His party has a communist sight. Nur Serter insultes his party but Uras defendes his party.
Yeah, she's a secularist. She was also the vice rector of the Istanbul university. Did she in any way contribute to the headscarf ban?
Reply

Amadeus85
01-08-2009, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by mustklc
USA and EC helped to Turkey??????? you are funny! do you have any evidence about it.

in fact USA and Europe has never helped to us! Moreover USA and Europe maked embargo on Turkey in 70s because we saved Turks in cyprus who were under attact of Greek. IS THIS YOUR HELP? IF SO WE DONT WANT YOUR HELP!!!
I have a Cyprus Greek in my family. We have been talking last summer. He said that before the turkish invasion, Greeks and Turks in Cyprus lived in peace and friendship. But after this, it changed.
Before turkish invasion on Cyprus, this country had english aircraft base. The Americans wanted to have there own aircraft base in the North(to scare the soviets), but the Cypriot president in that time didnt agree. By coincidence very soon the turkish army(one of teh best USA ally) attacked Cyprus. In very short time american military base was built in northern Cyprus.
Reply

yasin ibn Ahmad
01-09-2009, 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Is their any turkish brother's who can comment?
He is one of the sufians or dajjals of last times.A Muslim shouldnT praise him and his doings.Need proof?Only one thing I will say.The script and the language of Turkish language.Today's Turkish youth can't understand any given article or a piece of text, poem,etc. from only 80 years ago.And the worse is they cant even read the text.Because it was arabic script.They also systematically took out several arabic rooted words from the language.This is important because all of these things are directly related to Islam and Islamic life.If one sees arabic script, it would remind him Islam, Quran.They forced people to say the Turkish translation of Quran during salah.They did change the adhan from arabic to turkish translation.Nearly for ten years it was in turkish in 1940ies.Then ,Adnan Menderes,PM, changed it to arabic again.He was executed for some other reasons.
Reply

dostpost
01-09-2009, 06:59 AM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I have a Cyprus Greek in my family. We have been talking last summer. He said that before the turkish invasion, Greeks and Turks in Cyprus lived in peace and friendship. But after this, it changed.
Before turkish invasion on Cyprus, this country had english aircraft base. The Americans wanted to have there own aircraft base in the North(to scare the soviets), but the Cypriot president in that time didnt agree. By coincidence very soon the turkish army(one of teh best USA ally) attacked Cyprus. In very short time american military base was built in northern Cyprus.
is these photos peace?











how did I found them?


1) Open Internet Explorer
2) Write "www.google.com" press ENTER
3) write "slaughter against turks in cyprus" in google and press ENTER
4) Click the images.



AND..

THERE IS NO aircraft base of USA IN NORTHERN CYPRUS. CAN YOU HAVE ANY EVIDANCE ABOUT IT?

You are really funny!
Reply

Amadeus85
01-09-2009, 01:17 PM
I have just said what I heard from my relative. He is Cypriot, why would he lie. Anyway, Cyprus was oppucpied by Turkey and still is.
Reply

dostpost
01-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I have just said what I heard from my relative. He is Cypriot, why would he lie. Anyway, Cyprus was oppucpied by Turkey and still is.
he lies because probably his father killed many Turks in 1970s. :zip:
Reply

Bittersteel
01-09-2009, 06:49 PM
Muslim seculars seem more "PRO-SECULAR" than the Christian ones...
that maybe because Christian practices in general have been secularized to a certain extent.

If i remember correctly it wasn't only the secularists but also the religious ones who demonstrated and the latter showed massive support for the government(the pro-Islamic one) in Turkey.

I got a question:If the Turks hated Islam/anything to do with the religion why did they vote this pro-Islamic party into power?Turkey is a democracy right?
Reply

north_malaysian
01-12-2009, 06:13 AM
Originally Posted by Aziz
that maybe because Christian practices in general have been secularized to a certain extent.

If i remember correctly it wasn't only the secularists but also the religious ones who demonstrated and the latter showed massive support for the government(the pro-Islamic one) in Turkey.

I got a question:If the Turks hated Islam/anything to do with the religion why did they vote this pro-Islamic party into power?Turkey is a democracy right?
I think majority of the Turks are as pious and observant as Muslims in other nations too...
Reply

north_malaysian
01-12-2009, 06:25 AM
I have one question to the Turks here.... and I have asked the same question to some secular Turks on facebook...

"What do you think about the Arabs good relationship with the Greeks and Armenians?"
Reply

dostpost
01-12-2009, 07:16 AM
most of arabs hates Turks. I dont know why? there are some reasons. The governers who was appointed by Ottoman Empire to arabs land behaved cruelly . The ottoman empire couldnt stop them because empire had lots of wars in many fronts. So british goverment used this situation and provoked arabs against Ottoman Empire. Arabs were so illiterate and could turn their side easly. Even they destroyed train rails that were built by Ottoman Empire. Finally they surrendered their land to British.


Opposite of this situation, we (Turks) love arabs. We always want a islamic union.

So if you say "arabs like greeks and armenians more than Turks", I believe it. Nothing to do. One or two years ago Saudi destroyed a ottoman castle near the Kaaba. The castle defensed the Kaaba against Crusaders (christian army) . I have said before, arabs are so illiterate.
Reply

Al-Zaara
01-12-2009, 10:59 AM
I'm just one fourth Turkish.
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
"What do you think about the Arabs good relationship with the Greeks and Armenians?"
What is there to think? Whatever. As long as they don't go and try to mobilize and then attack Turkey or Turks together, haha.
Reply

Zico
01-12-2009, 06:12 PM
:sl:


Originally Posted by mustklc
most of arabs hates Turks. I dont know why? there are some reasons. The governers who was appointed by Ottoman Empire to arabs land behaved cruelly . The ottoman empire couldnt stop them because empire had lots of wars in many fronts. So british goverment used this situation and provoked arabs against Ottoman Empire. Arabs were so illiterate and could turn their side easly. Even they destroyed train rails that were built by Ottoman Empire. Finally they surrendered their land to British.
What!?! I don't hate Turks nor most Arabs...Believe me when I tell you some times we look up to you guys for moral "Islamic" support. Despite what other fellow Arabs say, I think Turkey made the best decision with uniting with Europeans.

That said I truly don't know why ppl hate us so much? imsad

Btw if it weren't for Britain then Saudi Arabia would've devoured us like water...We had a battle with them once. And above all that Britain discovered Oil for us :)

Originally Posted by Al-Zaara
I'm just one fourth Turkish.

What is there to think? Whatever. As long as they don't go and try to mobilize and then attack Turkey or Turks together, haha.
Not funny.:ermm:

:w:
Reply

Al-Zaara
01-12-2009, 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Zico
Not funny.:ermm:
Sorry.
Reply

dostpost
01-12-2009, 08:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zico
:sl:




What!?! I don't hate Turks nor most Arabs...Believe me when I tell you some times we look up to you guys for moral "Islamic" support. Despite what other fellow Arabs say, I think Turkey made the best decision with uniting with Europeans.

That said I truly don't know why ppl hate us so much? imsad

Btw if it weren't for Britain then Saudi Arabia would've devoured us like water...We had a battle with them once. And above all that Britain discovered Oil for us :)



Not funny.:ermm:

:w:

where are u from? :D
Reply

north_malaysian
01-13-2009, 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by mustklc
most of arabs hates Turks. I dont know why? there are some reasons. The governers who was appointed by Ottoman Empire to arabs land behaved cruelly . The ottoman empire couldnt stop them because empire had lots of wars in many fronts. So british goverment used this situation and provoked arabs against Ottoman Empire. Arabs were so illiterate and could turn their side easly. Even they destroyed train rails that were built by Ottoman Empire. Finally they surrendered their land to British.


Opposite of this situation, we (Turks) love arabs. We always want a islamic union.

So if you say "arabs like greeks and armenians more than Turks", I believe it. Nothing to do. One or two years ago Saudi destroyed a ottoman castle near the Kaaba. The castle defensed the Kaaba against Crusaders (christian army) . I have said before, arabs are so illiterate.
Masha Allah!!! Your answer is just the same with my secularist Turk friends...

They said that Arabs might have good relationship with Greeks and Armenians because they "think" they were opressed by the Ottoman Turks...

But still, the Turks would love the Arabs and would protect the Arabs... even if the Arabs hate them so much...

wow

One of the answer i've got from a Turk on Facebook:

Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Persia have a very good relationship in each other. They don't like us, but we care them.

People talking about US pressure to Iran, about Iraq's uniter system, supporting Syria for US pressure, Palestine.

We care but they supported PKK terrorist many times. For Example Yasser Arafat(Abu Ammar) gave place ... to this terrorist in their camps, but many turks like him.

Khafız Assad supported PKK. Minority controlled Iraq(Terrorist government supporting PKK terrorism).

And Iran.... Iran has a Azeri Turkish minority, so they are far away Azerbaijani politics. Armenia occuped nagorno - karabakh in Azerbaijan. And we put an embargo to Armenia for our brothers. Now Iran supporting Armenia with Russia (arms, money, trade).

In 1974 Cyprus Crisis only we got supported by pakistan. So i love pakistan for this reason.

(i used poor word for this meaning-miserable,unhappy etc-) :-)
So this piece of world don't know about calmness.
Reply

Zico
01-13-2009, 10:44 AM
Originally Posted by mustklc
where are u from? :D
Kuwait bro :)
Reply

Bittersteel
01-13-2009, 07:11 PM
from what I hear a lot,the Persian Gulf Arabs prefer Indian Hindus to us South Asian Muslims when it comes to work and other things.I am not saying we don't have our faults.But it seems like no one is eager anymore for Islamic unity.

coming back to Ataturk he was anti-Islamic.Yes he was.Too much.Way too much against religion, that is where my problem lies.Some of his reforms weren't against religion but I found his far left secular stance an extremist one.as extremists as as any Islamic extremist.
Reply

Zico
01-13-2009, 07:56 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by Aziz
from what I hear a lot,the Persian Gulf Arabs prefer Indian Hindus to us South Asian Muslims when it comes to work and other things.I am not saying we don't have our faults.But it seems like no one is eager anymore for Islamic unity.
Says who?

Originally Posted by Aziz
coming back to Ataturk he was anti-Islamic.Yes he was.Too much.Way too much against religion, that is where my problem lies.Some of his reforms weren't against religion but I found his far left secular stance an extremist one.as extremists as as any Islamic extremist.
Agreed :D
:w:
Reply

alcurad
01-13-2009, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by Zico
:sl:
Btw if it weren't for Britain then Saudi Arabia would've devoured us like water...We had a battle with them once. And above all that Britain discovered Oil for us :)

:w:
the battle was a stalemate because the Brits intervened, but back then only Ibn saud could defy them and get away with it.

generally, I don't think something called khilafa will come back soon, not to mention it won't be anything like the simplistic almost childish idea some have about it.
if it ever happens though, it'll probably be like a crossbreed of US & European union.
and people rarely 'unite' politically for religion alone, geopolitics play a greater role.
Reply

Zico
01-13-2009, 08:22 PM
Originally Posted by alcurad
the battle was a stalemate because the Brits intervened, but back then only Ibn saud could defy them and get away with it.
Sorry but you got it all wrong, in fact we had a couple of battle with them and mostly won without Britain intervening. And Sheikh Mubarak Al-Subah helped AbdulAziz Bin Saud to capture what is now Saudi Arabia when fighting against Bin Rashid then Britain intervened to help out because Shiekh Mubarak of Kuwait helped out. Btw Both Al-Sabah and Al-Saud are cuzins.

Originally Posted by alcurad
generally, I don't think something called khilafa will come back soon, not to mention it won't be anything like the simplistic almost childish some have about it.
if it ever happens though, it'll probably be like a crossbreed of US & European union.
and people rarely 'unite' politically for religion alone, geopolitics play a greater role.
True that.:D But I think that something really disturbing or shocking MUST happen to the Muslim world to "Shake it" or "Awake it" from its love of this life. Then and only then will they become one. Inshalla :)
Reply

Bittersteel
01-14-2009, 05:49 PM
Says who?
well more like see than hear.Okay I visited Dubai and UAE forums once and twice and got the idea from there.
Reply

alcurad
01-16-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Zico
Sorry but you got it all wrong, in fact we had a couple of battle with them and mostly won without Britain intervening. And Sheikh Mubarak Al-Subah helped AbdulAziz Bin Saud to capture what is now Saudi Arabia when fighting against Bin Rashid then Britain intervened to help out because Shiekh Mubarak of Kuwait helped out. Btw Both Al-Sabah and Al-Saud are cuzins.
hmm, I lived in KSA for most of my life, so perhaps the versions we have are a tad bit different, from what I 'know' Al Sabah wanted to eliminate Bin Rashid, and supported Ibn Saud for that end, and there was only one battle. not that it matters:)
Jalal Kushk has an interesting historical book called السعوديون و الحل الإسلامي, which could be considered neutral but leaning pro Ibn Saud at times,
http://www.4shared.com/file/65342355/13eb0623/____.html (Arabic)
he discusses the battle briefly from 493-499 if I'm not mistaken, it's a very good book otherwise for Saudi Arabia's history told by someone who doesn't hate them:).
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: 112
    Last Post: 01-15-2017, 06:13 PM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-28-2010, 04:25 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-02-2010, 05:39 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-19-2006, 05:35 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!