Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Enemy of Islam?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dahir
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 240
  • Views Views 37K
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
 
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
 
Dawud_uk said:
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
Click to expand...

Do you have links to any website depicting his despicable acts?
 
north_malaysian said:
Do you have links to any website depicting his despicable acts?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
Dawud_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Dawud_uk said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
: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?ref=974&ln=eng&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.​

    [*]
    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.​

    [*]
    Confining the role of sharee‘ah courts to so-called “civil” matters, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.​

    [*]
    Setting up non-sharee‘ah courts.​

    [*]
    Discussing sharee‘ah in parliament and voting on it; this indicates that implementing sharee‘ah is conditional upon a majority vote.​

    [*]
    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.​

    [*]
    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.​

    [*]
    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.​


​
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.


................:-\
 
Dahir said:
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.


................:-\
Click to expand...

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..
 
north_malaysian said:
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..
Click to expand...

Sunni oppression in Iran? Nah, just some local heckling at best. If that were the case, Iran would be ripe for propaganda slinging!
 
Grace Seeker said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
north_malaysian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
north_malaysian said:
If I'm forced to migrate to other countries ... I'll choose Turkey...
Click to expand...
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:
 
Dawud_uk said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top