Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

[Myth_buster_1]

What I understand from your posts; which possibly mirror your feelings about Pakistan and Muslim League is:

- All India Mohammedan Educational Conference was founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who was a Freemason.
- Muslim founding member and first President Agha Khan was also a Freemason.
- Quaid e Azam had many close friends who Freemasons. Quaid was in love with Zoroastrians and his wife Rattie Jinnah practiced black magic.

I guess accepting facts is just not in your books because denial is on every page of your book.

In fact you are insinuating that Aligarh; the institution that did great service to Muslims of India; the Muslim League, Quaid as well as Pakistan are all product of Freemasons; indirectly implying all was part of a Jewish/Western conspiracy!!!

It actually revolves around the idea of what British imperialists desired, after all Syed ahmed khan received numerous rewards from the "GLORIOUS" empire for his great service to the empire and same can be said about aga khan.

Free masonry is a secret society and no member is going to tell on the other member; therefore there is no way of confirming whether any one is really a member of the Lodge or not. I am not prepared to accept your word that Sir Syed and Agha Khan were Freemasons. It could well be part of your scheme to malign Muslim League.

You also forget that in order to become freemason one must join a lodge and have him/herself registered. Today we know MANY celebrities, politicians etc who have openly admitted of being freemason or have simply left enough evidence for us to conclude their links with freemasonry.
In case of aga khan and syed ahmed khan, all what grand lodge of AF & AM India is doing is revealing facts and figures of prominent members and their is no secret about it. Heck, even the first Indian Muslim president was a freemason.

This kind of thing is quite common among bigots of Pakistan. A personal friend who was General Manager of Attock Oil Refinery during Zia’ time, became victim of a whispering campaign that he was a Qadiani. I have known that guy from childhood, his father was from Sunni Kashmiri family settled in Delhi and his mother was a Pashtun. But once a slander like that starts, there is no stopping; he eventually resigned.

I would like to comment that it is hard to believe that you are indeed a Pakistani as you have always referred to the Quaid as ‘Jinnah’. Anyone who is brought up in Pakistan would call him the Quaid or Jinnah Sahib or Mohammed Ali Jinnah. For all I know you, could be Zionist in disguise out to spread baseless rumours about Pakistan and her founding fathers.

First you accused me of some mullah party member and now a Zionists. bravo sir, you are a great entertainer. Btw, its quite common in a debate for a "loser " to resort to such absurd allegations.

Additionally, if you are indeed “Aulad –e – na khalaf” of Pakistan, and really believe what you have posted, you should not call yourself a Pakistani. A pure Muslim such as your good self should have nothing to do with a country that is product of Freemasons and Zoroastrian lovers with black magic thrown in.

Like i said before which is not hard to understand that disliking jinnah does not equates to being against the creation of Pakistan simply because I DO NOT want to be part of Hindustan.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You tool of the Allmighty - What are you up-to in the land of infidels? Why not migrate to THE GREAT motherland of floating dish-dashas in the middle of nowhere East?

Oh wait. You can't. They won't accept your pathetic kind there, either - would they?

Best option for you would be to have a fake encounter with a true Pakistani soldier and take one bullet for your team. Wouldn't that be the best? We will be MINUS ONE ******, and you MIGHT be granted the 170 donkeys in heaven-land!

Which part of farooq's comment "I was born in states" do you not understand? And which part of quran is against living in nonMuslim land which unfortunately provides more peace, and security compared to the current state of so called "Islamic republic" nations. And I think you should drown in your stupidity that you have displayed here.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Hilarious that you can support a man who was able to defend his country yet submitted to the opponents rule and way of live while rejecting his own as inferior

All "Ataturk" defenders believe that their own culture is inferior to the euro culture and way of life. They accept defeat like Ataturk did.

The real Ataturk is Muhammad al Fateh or Osman Ghazi

He created Turkish history and modern Turkish language. The base to build a modern Nation- state. Muhammed Iqbal and Jinnah have also seen the importance of nationstate, implemented similar reforms.

Muhammed the conqueror or Osman Ghazi did not build a nationstate. Osman Ghazi/Ataman Ghazi conquered land for Turks. Muhammed conquered lands for "Muslim Roman Empire"

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Ataturk was a murtadd kaffir who fought for the Ottoman empire only to destroy it and submit to the ******, repugnant euro christian way of life

He then brainwashed an entire nation into loving him

Mustafa Kemal has Been rejected by a girl whom he wanted to marry. Then he experienced psychological trauma and started drinking. As a human, i may understand what he has Been through. he gave little value to religion, but has reasons. War, stress, occupation of his homeland etc...

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I don't understand why some people demonize Ataturk. The reforms he introduced to Turkey were exactly those required to solve the problems created towards the end of the Ottoman caliphate. The caliphate was corrupt & backwards, religious fundamentalism was on the rise, the freedom of thought, expression, & speech were repressed. Nepotism & corruption was rampant, & the empire had failed to keep up with the developments in western Europe. Ataturk fought to prevent Turkish lands from getting colonized, had he lost his battles, Turkey's map may not be the same as it is today.

The abolishment of the caliphate was necessary to keep in line with reforms. Besides, the caliphate no longer held any value whatsoever, especially since the holy lands had been lost by the empire due to the rise in Arab nationalism. Some Muslims view that as the destruction of the Kingdom of God on Earth. However, I don't view it that way. The Kingdom of God on Earth survives spiritually & is represented by all the Muslims on Earth. Anyone that converts to Islam is a part of this kingdom.

Now, lets discuss the reforms Ataturk introduced. There is no harm in adopting western clothing, since western clothing & religion aren't mutually exclusive. The adoption of the Latin script isn't wrong either. The Latin script is arguably easier to learn & write than the Arabic script. This was essential to improve the literacy rate of the country. Keep in mind that eliminating illiteracy is important for the establishment of a functional democracy. The reason being that improved literacy will get people to read & educate themselves further resulting in the increase of productive individuals in a society. It's also crucial because educated people are in a better position to vote for a good leader in contrast to an uneducated individual who is likely to be influenced by propaganda & campaign speeches. The Latin script is also beneficial because of greater compatibility with type writers. That's because it does not modify the shape of a letter in different portions of a word. The logical result of this move would be that the publishing of books & flow of knowledge was more efficient & effective.

Another member already spoke about the acceptability of the ban on polygamy. However, I would like to add that the Islamic law is subject to change depending upon the needs of society. Keep in mind that the Quran does not encourage polygamy, thus if the society disagrees with it, it may be forbidden. This is similar to how a needy individual's hand isn't chopped off for theft. The logic behind it is that since economic conditions or starvation forced the individual to steal, it would be unjust to cut off his or her hand & God makes provisions for those rulings. Ataturk's promotion of nationalism among Turks was by far the best method of establishing unity. Nationalism & pride in one's heritage creates a bond like no other, & the pride prevents people from putting other races on a pedestal. Without nationalism, a race or ethnicity may end up feeling inferior & adopt other races' cultures & traditions or desire to assimilate with others resulting in their own loss. Thus, it's safe to say that nationalism is good. Islamic nationalism in my opinion should be integrated in to ethnic nationalism to enjoy both racial unity & achieve a sense of religious unity.

As for secularism, I personally have no issues with a secular state, but I believe that a Muslim majority nation shouldn't be secular. The reason for this is that while a secular state consists of many great concepts similar to Islam, the source of law isn't the law of God. This violates the sovereignty of God on Earth since man being His vicegerent is commanded to establish His laws. Do keep in mind that the Shariah law may only be established in countries founded by Muslims, it's forbidden to force its implementation in western or non-Muslim nations through "fitna" (mischief). Even if a Muslim becomes the leader of a non-Muslim state, he or she must abide by the established system of governance on that land provided the people are content with it. However, Ataturk did what he believed to be right. As I understand it, he wasn't extremely religious, so it's natural that from his point of view Islamic fundamentalism was the source of the poor state of the Ottoman empire. He was correct to an extent.

Had I been in his place at that time, I would have implemented similar reforms. The reason is that those reforms provided expeditious results, whereas fighting fundamentalism to teach people "genuine" Islam is a tedious task with uncertainty of success. I am certain that all the changes he brought about were well-intentioned. Turkey's modern prosperity is a result of these reforms, other Islamic states have unfortunately failed in creating a tolerant & progressive society. The only exception to this in my opinion is Saudi Arabia to an extent, even though an overwhelming segment of Arabia's populace is extremely conservative. In any case, these were my views on the subject.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Which part of farooq's comment "I was born in states" do you not understand? And which part of quran is against living in nonMuslim land which unfortunately provides more peace, and security compared to the current state of so called "Islamic republic" nations. And I think you should drown in your stupidity that you have displayed here.

I firmly believe that secularism is not inimical to Islam. From this you can conclude that I don't think there is anything wrong in a Muslim living in the secular West.

This train of thought leads to me to believe that it would be perfectly acceptable for Pakistan to become a secular state.

If secularism is not harmful to Pakistani's living in the secular West than why should secularism be harmful to Pakistani's living in Pakistan? In other words if it [secularism] is benign to a Muslim living in the West why should it [secularism] become toxic to Muslim living in Pakistan?

I can further conclude that if living in the secular West, wearing western clothes, speaking western languages, writing in Roman characters, living within a secular society where alcohol is legal, living under a secular legal code, where the state applies no religious strictures [ free to drink, engage in sex, dress in a provocative manner, lead a licentious lifestyle, live in capitalist interest driven society, paying taxes to a state possibly involved in crimes against the Ummah, etc ] is benign than surely it follows that Pakistan could easily be a secular state and that it would have no negative effects on the moral health of it's Muslim citizens.

And therefore I further conclude that the we ought to congratulate Ataturk for having given Turkey a system of government heavily influenced by the Western countries in which many of us Muslims now reside in. I guess me and you had to go to UK and USA to take a taste of something that Ataturk instead brought to the Turks at home.

* And please let us not be disengenous by saying "I was born here" because if living in the West is indeed deleterious to your health you could like your parent did, decide to move back to your ancesteral habitat.

May I take this opportunity to salute Kemal Ataturk.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

He created Turkish history and modern Turkish language. The base to build a modern Nation- state. Muhammed Iqbal and Jinnah have also seen the importance of nationstate, implemented similar reforms.

Muhammed the conqueror or Osman Ghazi did not build a nationstate. Osman Ghazi/Ataman Ghazi conquered land for Turks. Muhammed conquered lands for "Muslim Roman Empire"

The question is, why would west support Ataturk's desire to create a secular state? He Ataturd simply pursued his masters agenda of converting Muslim Empire into what is now a part of European Empire. No dough 1800-1900 century witnessed worst state of Khalifat however their is no justification in abolishing a system that is suppose to represent us, Ataturk would have indeed done a great service had he "RESTORED" Khalifa instead of "OBLISHING" it!

 

[Targon]

Foreign fanatics more concerned about Ataturk then us.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

The question is, why would west support Ataturk's desire to create a secular state? He Ataturd simply pursued his masters agenda of converting Muslim Empire into what is now a part of European Empire. No dough 1800-1900 century witnessed worst state of Khalifat however their is no justification in abolishing a system that is suppose to represent us, Ataturk would have indeed done a great service had he "RESTORED" Khalifa instead of "OBLISHING" it!

You are blaming him for not being Muslim, pro-Islam enough. Do you also blame him for turning Muslim Ottoman Empire into Turkish nation-state?

He said: "I am a Turkish nationalist foremost. I was born as that, I will die as that. I believe Turkic Union will become a reality one day. Even if I dont see it in my lifetime, I will close my eyes dreaming about that." Etc. eTc... (*)

Turkish nationalists are never ever European nor Middleastern. They are being educated/trained to work for Turkic unity.

Roots of Turkish nationalism goes back to late Ottoman period. Mustafa Kemal was one of those influenced similar to Enver Paşa the de-facto leader of Ottoman Empire between years 1909-1918.

Actually it was Crimean Tatars who brought the idea of nationalism to Ottoman soil. Deported Crimean+Nogai Tatars formed large diaspora in Ottoman lands and started to publish their ideas. People like Namık Kemal (who was 1/4 Albanian, 3/4 Turk, not Tatar) mentioned social problems and called for change or maybe revolution.

For Abolishing Sultanate and Khilafat, Ataturk was ambitious in nature.
-He lost his father at early age.
-his mother married another man. He had not visit his mother for years.
-He had unlucky private life affairs.
-He was outcasted by their comrade Ittihat ve Terakki party members for having non-suitable lifestyle.
-He was sent to Libya to fight against Italy as a punishmnet for his opposition to Enver Pasha.
-He was through most fierce battles while Ittihat Terakki commanders were in Istanbul. He won victories, proved himself as good soldier.

Then he started to eliminate any opposition against him. He was a furious man, quickly losing his temper when confronted. He could not have shown mercy to weak figures like Sultan and Caliph. Thats my opinion.

---------------------------
(*) Original words: "Ben her şeyden önce bir Türk milliyetçisiyim. Böyle doğdum. Böyle öleceğim. Türk birliğinin, bir gün hakikat olacağına inancım vardır. Ben görmesem bile, gözlerimi dünyaya onun rüyaları içinde kapayacağım. Türk birliğine inanıyorum, onu görüyorum. Yarının tarihi, yeni fasıllarını Türk birliğiyle açacaktır. Dünya sükununu bu fasıllar içinde bulacaktır. Türk'ün varlığı bu köhne aleme yeni ufuklar açacak, güneş ne demek, ufuk ne demek, o zaman görülecek."

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I firmly believe that secularism is not inimical to Islam. From this you can conclude that I don't think there is anything wrong in a Muslim living in the secular West.

“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you in authority.” [TMQ An-
Nisa: 59]

“If they had only referred it to the Messenger and those among them with authority.”
[TMQ An-Nisa’: 83]

“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you in authority.” [TMQ An-
Nisa: 59]

“So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their
desires away from the truth that has come to you.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 48]

“Judge between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their desires
and beware of them lest they seduce you from some part of that which Allah has
revealed to you.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 49]

“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are disbelievers.”
[TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 44]

“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are oppressors.”
[TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 45]

“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are transgressors.”
[TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 47]


The above verses do not just applies to those in government but also to every Muslim. In Secularism, religion is excluded from government meaning what ever allah has revealed will be rejected. furthermore, it is obligatory on Muslims to build a strong society based on the principles of Islam. Secularism also deprives Muslims from exercising their religion to its full potential

This train of thought leads to me to believe that it would be perfectly acceptable for Pakistan to become a secular state.

If secularism is not harmful to Pakistani's living in the secular West than why should secularism be harmful to Pakistani's living in Pakistan? In other words if it [secularism] is benign to a Muslim living in the West why should it [secularism] become toxic to Muslim living in Pakistan?

Then this belief ends the purpose of the creation of Pakistan. Wasnt the purpose for the creation of Pakistan so we could live according to the principle of our religion rather then pursuing same plans as Hindustan.

I can further conclude that if living in the secular West, wearing western clothes, speaking western languages, writing in Roman characters, living within a secular society where alcohol is legal, living under a secular legal code, where the state applies no religious strictures [ free to drink, engage in sex, dress in a provocative manner, lead a licentious lifestyle, live in capitalist interest driven society, paying taxes to a state possibly involved in crimes against the Ummah, etc ] is benign than surely it follows that Pakistan could easily be a secular state and that it would have no negative effects on the moral health of it's Muslim citizens.

Prophet Mohammed PBUH has given us the permission to study in nonMuslim land, as well as the permission to do business with nonMuslims. So it is not forbidden for Muslims to live overseas however it is forbidden to exclude Islam from the governance of Muslim land.
Btw their is nothing wrong with wearing western cloths as long as it covers ur body.

And therefore I further conclude that the we ought to congratulate Ataturk for having given Turkey a system of government heavily influenced by the Western countries in which many of us Muslims now reside in. I guess me and you had to go to UK and USA to take a taste of something that Ataturk instead brought to the Turks at home.

Yes meaning, Ataturk was a agent of West who implemented western system with their guidance.

* And please let us not be disengenous by saying "I was born here" because if living in the West is indeed deleterious to your health you could like your parent did, decide to move back to your ancesteral habitat.

never was against living in west as long as your do not compromise on your religious moral values and whats the point of going back to a secular state with less opportunities?

 

[Targon]

Ataturk was an ordinary intellectual of 19th-20th century, imitating the west to save country from backwardness was a general view in those times, it was looking attractive and more logical compared to backwardness of these countries, he take over a empty country with a bunch of illiterate people and he saw the situation of Europe, just take a moment and think, you will see how stupid those agent etc. claims about him.

 

[AtillaHun]

He created Turkish history and modern Turkish language. The base to build a modern Nation- state. Muhammed Iqbal and Jinnah have also seen the importance of nationstate, implemented similar reforms.

Muhammed the conqueror or Osman Ghazi did not build a nationstate. Osman Ghazi/Ataman Ghazi conquered land for Turks. Muhammed conquered lands for "Muslim Roman Empire"

Where did you read your history? The ''Rum'' he claimed was not an empire but just a title as he destroyed the Byzantium .

Osman Gazi didnt build a empire/nation? So Ottomans came from the moon? Osman Gazi started the Ottoman Empire officialy in 1299 , especially after he went Bursa , it became a proper Empire.

Yashasin Ataturk , Ottomans , AtillaHun , Timur and all the other Turkish empires , leaders . We shoudlnt see any different , all has a lifetime and becomes a regime change . In the west there Turkish Republic is a sucessor the the Great Seljuk Empire and the Ottoman Empire. This is Official

These fanatics are fed up on these stupid and fake news fed by fanatics , against Ataturk .

Ataturk was 100% Muslim . I think myth buster would have rather seen quarter of Turkish Republic occupied.

Ataturk was an ordinary intellectual of 19th-20th century, imitating the west to save country from backwardness was a general view in those times, it was looking attractive and more logical compared to backwardness of these countries, he take over a empty country with a bunch of illiterate people and he saw the situation of Europe, just take a moment and think, you will see how stupid those agent etc. claims about him.

Ataturk took a long time to think about all the actions for the Republic , he was not an enemy or against Ottoman empire or anything . The last few traitors were deported and are hated among everyone thats all.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Where did you read your history? The ''Rum'' he claimed was not an empire but just a title as he destroyed the Byzantium .

Osman Gazi didnt build a empire/nation? So Ottomans came from the moon? Osman Gazi started the Ottoman Empire officialy in 1299 , especially after he went Bursa , it became a proper Empire.

Yashasin Ataturk , Ottomans , AtillaHun , Timur and all the other Turkish empires , leaders . We shoudlnt see any different , all has a lifetime and becomes a regime change . In the west there Turkish Republic is a sucessor the the Great Seljuk Empire and the Ottoman Empire. This is Official

Muhammed the Conqueror the one who conquered Istanbul was obssessed with being Caesar of Muslims. He wanted even to conquer Rome. And in 1480, he started invasion of Italy. Otranto was taken. But due to his death next year in 1481, invasion of Italy was cancelled. Successor to throne, Bayezid II was a peaceful Sultan, and devoted Muslim. He has no such obssession with Romans. Muhammed was the first Sultan who brought Italian painter to paint his portrait which was uncommon at that time.

Soldiers of Muhammed the conqueror were crying: "please do not bring us into another war, that is enough." He earned his name conqueror.

Ottomans were not a nation-state. What Osman/Ataman founded, was a beylik. Thats all. He did not make reforms to form history, language, dress code, civil code etc...

 

[AtillaHun]

Muhammed the Conqueror the one who conquered Istanbul was obssessed with being Caesar of Muslims. He wanted even to conquer Rome. And in 1480, he started invasion of Italy. Otranto was taken. But due to his death next year in 1481, invasion of Italy was cancelled. Successor to throne, Bayezid II was a peaceful Sultan, and devoted Muslim. He has no such obssession with Romans. Muhammed was the first Sultan who brought Italian painter to paint his portrait which was uncommon at that time.

Soldiers of Muhammed the conqueror were crying: "please do not bring us into another war, that is enough." He earned his name conqueror.

Ottomans were not a nation-state. What Osman/Ataman founded, was a beylik. Thats all. He did not make reforms to form history, language, dress code, civil code etc...

Oh your making me laugh so much. It was a beylik at first . Ottoman Turkish , Ottoman Architecture , Ottoman Law and a great system. Ottoman is a great part of Turkish history along with all the others.

You said you are tatar , ottomans helped crimean khanate so much which was a Turkic khanate helped by another Turkish Empire.

 

[FaujHistorian]

“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you in authority.” [TMQ An-
Nisa: 59]

“If they had only referred it to the Messenger and those among them with authority.”
[TMQ An-Nisa’: 83]

“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you in authority.” [TMQ An-
Nisa: 59]

“So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their
desires away from the truth that has come to you.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 48]

“Judge between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their desires
and beware of them lest they seduce you from some part of that which Allah has
revealed to you.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 49]

“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are disbelievers.”
[TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 44]

“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are oppressors.”
[TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 45]

“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are transgressors.”
[TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 47]


The above verses do not just applies to those in government but also to every Muslim. In Secularism, religion is excluded from government meaning what ever allah has revealed will be rejected. furthermore, it is obligatory on Muslims to build a strong society based on the principles of Islam. Secularism also deprives Muslims from exercising their religion to its full potential


Then this belief ends the purpose of the creation of Pakistan. Wasnt the purpose for the creation of Pakistan so we could live according to the principle of our religion rather then pursuing same plans as Hindustan. .....

Oh Brother,

You call yourself a myth buster, and still believe in all the myths. How ironic.

1. You create Islamist myth by quoting single ayah totally out of context. This is what munafiqs used to do, and therefore strictly forbidden under any rational system of thinking including the one being discussed in Quran for the specific instances under specific context / circumstances. But Mullahs in pakistan pick and choose single Ayahs for their nefarious and munfiqana purposes.

2. If Pakistan was supposed to be a land of Mullees and Ayatullees, then care to explain the following?

A - All the Mullahs including black-faced Mullah Mawdoodi were dead AGAINST the independence of Pakistan.
B- Pakistan's founder was Jinnah, a cigar smoking, wine drinking, rolls royce traveling, 3-piece wearing, westerner to the core.


So many Mullahs had already declared Jinnah a Kafir and Pakistan as forbidden land when we the humane Pakistanis got independence.

We were supported by humane Sikhs like Diyal Singh, Hindus like Sir Schotoo Raam, Ahmadis like Sir Zafrullah, countless Shias and so many other minorities.

Why? Jinnah the humane leader had promised them all that in Pakistan everyone will be safe regardless of their religion and ethnicity, everyone will be free.

And you my Pakistani brother are here, spreading lies in the name of black faced Mullees.


What a shame. Just open your eyes brother and think from your own brain and not form something injected by petty 2-ana 4-paisa rishwat knor burqa posh Mullahs.


thank you.



Disclaimer: No person or religion or nationality was intentionally or unintentionally harmed in this post. (PITA approved!)