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)
Last edited by Dahir; 11-16-2006 at 09:49 PM.
"This world is a blank price tag, and whatever value you put on it, is what its worth to you. I have made this world priceless and worthless, so therefore I have placed my value in the afterlife."
. 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.
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.
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.
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
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..
Who knows, maybe Turkey naturally enjoys being a follower and not a leader...
"This world is a blank price tag, and whatever value you put on it, is what its worth to you. I have made this world priceless and worthless, so therefore I have placed my value in the afterlife."
wasn't turkey already moving in a secular direction before ataturk?
Nope. And if it was, Ataturk sped the process by light years.
"This world is a blank price tag, and whatever value you put on it, is what its worth to you. I have made this world priceless and worthless, so therefore I have placed my value in the afterlife."
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?
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.
"This world is a blank price tag, and whatever value you put on it, is what its worth to you. I have made this world priceless and worthless, so therefore I have placed my value in the afterlife."
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.
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.
format_quote 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?
"This world is a blank price tag, and whatever value you put on it, is what its worth to you. I have made this world priceless and worthless, so therefore I have placed my value in the afterlife."
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.
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.
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.
"This world is a blank price tag, and whatever value you put on it, is what its worth to you. I have made this world priceless and worthless, so therefore I have placed my value in the afterlife."
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"?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Enemy of Islam?
. Besides, I think it's a myth. It's virtually impossible to be truly powerful and poor at the same time.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks