Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

[Zulkarneyn]

I found an academic article concerning my point:
Indeed, the 16 Arab countries form the largest single readily identifiable group among
all those states that “underachieve” (relative to what one would expect
from their levels of Gross Domestic Product per capita [GDPpc]) when it
comes to the holding of competitive elections. In sharp contrast to this
stands the scarcely less striking—yet undernoticed—situation among the
world’s 31 Muslim-majority but non-Arab countries, which in fact form
the single largest bloc of all those countries that “greatly overachieve”
relative to their GDPpc levels when competitive elections are in question.
http://as-houston.ad.uky.edu/archiv...ES/Faculty/WonbinCho/Documents/14.3stepan.pdf

Edit: Now i gotta go. Will continue the discussion later.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

To be honest, you are contradicting yourself very much. On the one hand you try and defend islamic principles, next, you say if Islamic state does not grand these rights it should be abolished and secularism should be introduced.

I am not contradicting my self. Doesn't God say the oppression is worse than slaughter? If a secular state is able to stop injustice in case an Islamic state fails to do so, why then should anyone be opposed to it? All of us desire that our nations progress. I simply presented my opinion regarding why the idea of a secular state shouldn't be blatantly rejected. The first priority of course should be to base a state according to the principals of God. There is no contradiction in that, it is simply an alternative to ensure our progress.

and you have a very condescending language

No I don't, it's you that misinterpreted & misrepresented my views, why shouldn't I be angry about that? At least read all of my posts on the subject before commenting. My view would have only been contradictory if I presented 2 different solutions that were to be adopted simultaneously. However, my view is that we shouldn't completely reject the idea of a secular stated either, think of it as a contingency plan that Muslim majority nations should consider. The entire point of an analysis is to present views for & against the subject of discussion.

We made an analysis in university about why Muslim countries are under achievers when talking about human rights and economy. The result after a thorough analysis was very clear: Muslim countries were in fact better achievers than non-muslim countries in the area of granting human rights. Of course we came to this result after looking at different variables. Muslim countries that are not Arabic were actually better off than non-muslim countries in the same economic level. So as you can clearly observe the problem had absolutely nothing to do with religion or being governed by islamic principles. But the Muslim countries that scored very low were the ones who were Arabic. When you excluded Arabic countries from the group, Muslim countries were doing much better than non-Muslim countries that were in same economic size (in GDP per capita basis).

Hence, this clearly indicates that being governed by islamic principles did not play any significant part in human rights nor in economic terms. Therefore as i indicated previously, you are looking for the culprit in the wrong place. Islamic principles in the state affairs does under no circumstances prevent economic growth or human rights. This is very clear when analysing non-arab Muslim countries.
The next phase you could look at of course is why Arabic countries are extremely under achievers.

In this part of your post, you have simply stated the results of your research. I can't make any comments on that unless I read your entire research. I never claimed that economic progress depended on either Islamic or secular principles. Economic progress depends on the policies of the state. For example, if a secular state has a horrible crime rate, it will not be possible to encourage investment by simply reducing interest rates. Investors require political stability, law & order, & they take many other factors in to consideration when deciding to invest in a country.

As for human rights, once again I never claimed that Islam oppresses people. It is the people that oppress other people. A lack of understanding of religion may result in religious oppression. Some countries like my own, consist of people that oppress others on the basis of religion. Is it the government that oppresses minorities in my country? Of course not, it is the people that misuse religion to oppress followers of different faiths under the guise of religion. To put it simply, if Islam isn't misinterpreted, there should be no violation of human rights at all. The issue to resolve here is to get religious laws to be understood & most importantly implemented properly. The burden & responsibility for that rests on the government's shoulders.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

If you can enter project muse, read this article: Project MUSE - An "Arab" More Than a "Muslim" Democracy Gap
It illuminates my point

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

If you can enter project muse, read this article: Project MUSE - An "Arab" More Than a "Muslim" Democracy Gap
It illuminates my point

I can't enter Project MUSE. I had an account on Athens when I was in university, but it has been discontinued now. The problem is that you based your earlier arguments assuming that I don't care about the formation of an Islamic state, & that I simply desire the formation of a secular state. Anyone that read my earlier posts would realize that that is obviously not true, my first preference is naturally going to be an Islamic state. I am not extremely religious or conservative, but that does not imply that I reject all religious values or laws. My earlier posts were an analysis of both Islamic & secular states, & it's best to not rule out the benefits of a secular state completely either.

By the way, Arab countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE are doing quite well these days. The problem with them in the past was that they relied heavily on foreign expertise for many things. In fact they still rely on immigrants for a number of things. However, that is slowly changing, & I expect them to be doing quite well in the near future.

There is one more thing that I want to add. I am fond of nationalism, so just because a state happens to be Islamic, it does not mean that it shouldn't be nationalistic. Focusing on pan-Islamism alone is foolish in my opinion. Nationalism in my opinion should be a mixture between racial or ethnic & religious nationalism. The point is that Islamic states neglect ethnic nationalism sometimes, & I am completely against that. Besides, I have never found any religious ruling against being proud of things like race, heritage, culture, or language. I can elucidate this paragraph further if required.

 

[Redbull]

Hi Pheonix

I agree with your analysis. I think it just goes to show the mentality of Pakistanis that even though 90% agree to Sharia in the polls, only 2% actually vote for Islamist parties. They are complete disasters of what a true Islamic states should be.

I think most would agree that Secularism is better than any Islamic state we have, I would favour such governance for Pakistan. The problem is that we have not been able to get a western style democracy in Pakistan after 65 years, it might even take another 65 years to do so.

Any stiriving towards the utopian Islamic societies of the past will perhaps take 100 years to implement and for our socities to completely change and for true principles of Islam to be established. It is or this reason that such a swift solution is unpalatable for any realist.

We need education, not just western but Islamic and to study the ancient writings of Muslim scholars of the past, only after good years of research can we come to any such conclusion. For now, secularism and democracy has been proven to work, and we should stick to that.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Because of Ataturk, advancement of christianity into the Muslim soil was halted. Armenians, French, Russians, Greek, British were beaten back. That so called freemason generals of Ottoman army fought and died for The independence of Turkish nation and Muslim nations.

Because of British weakness you had your independence. when Arabs and Kurds attacking Turkish troops siding with Christians and Jews, Ataturk and Ittihat Terakki members were fighting against them.

Read: Jewish Legion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are so blinded with ataturk fantasy.

Listen very carefully, the allies were against OTOMAN empire because it was a symbol that challenged west for many centuries and in order to make sure that such empire devoted to Islam does not rise again they established a secular state with help of their planted agents such as ataturk. If Ataturk was ever against western interest, he would have been eliminated long time ago not praised and pampered by the west!
Attaturk who was among many recruited traitors in ottoman empire was part of brtisih empire ploy to abolish ottoman empire. British empire had anticipated that ottoman empire was bound to have a war with west and would inflict some casualties and they were smart enough to use their casualties to their own advantage. Today Turkish suppose since ataturk challenged british empire in the war, what ever actions he later took even implementation of secular system serves no British interest to it.
You are quite mistaken, British empire was never ever defeated instead they settled back to their home when after making sure their colony serves their interest.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Myth Buster,

1) Ottomans collapsed because of nationalism. It was not Mustafa Kemal who created nationalism.

2) Lets accept Mustafa Kemal was freemason, so was the Ottoman Sultan Murad V. And many other Ottoman princes.

3) Ottoman rule was not ideal, you dont see its flaws. Ottomans exploited Turks, gave statues to Armenians, Greeks and Jews. Turks were sheeps in the Ottoman Empire. Lets face it.

4) On the other side, Zulkarneyn tells the truth: Muslims faced oppression. I am a witness. Freemasons and westernists created divisions in the society. Muslims became radicalized, lost their pure Islamic values, turned into materialism and hungered for power.

Turkish Secularism is no more. What you see today is Capitalist Islamism, which I find horrible. "Our" Islam is being shaped by global corporatist elite. I have no hope for a better rule.

Actually it is not that simple. Ataturk and his generation created a nation called "Turks". Linguistically and historically shaped the minds of Turkish speakinf Anatolian people. You cannot erase something which had so strong effect on the society.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Myth Buster,

1) Ottomans collapsed because of nationalism. It was not Mustafa Kemal who created nationalism.

2) Lets accept Mustafa Kemal was freemason, so was the Ottoman Sultan Murad V. And many other Ottoman princes.

3) Ottoman rule was not ideal, you dont see its flaws. Ottomans exploited Turks, gave statues to Armenians, Greeks and Jews. Turks were sheeps in the Ottoman Empire. Lets face it.

4) On the other side, Zulkarneyn tells the truth: Muslims faced oppression. I am a witness. Freemasons and westernists created divisions in the society. Muslims became radicalized, lost their pure Islamic values, turned into materialism and hungered for power.

Turkish Secularism is no more. What you see today is Capitalist Islamism, which I find horrible. "Our" Islam is being shaped by global corporatist elite. I have no hope for a better rule.

Actually it is not that simple. Ataturk and his generation created a nation called "Turks". Linguistically and historically shaped the minds of Turkish speakinf Anatolian people. You cannot erase something which had so strong effect on the society.

I agree with all your points except the last part of your third point. Yes Ottoman was full of flaws and corruption, and yes they started tanzimat and gave special rights to minorities. But i won't say Turks were sheep in the empire. We still had all the most important positions and we were regarded as the founders of Ottoman.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Hi Pheonix

I agree with your analysis. I think it just goes to show the mentality of Pakistanis that even though 90% agree to Sharia in the polls, only 2% actually vote for Islamist parties. They are complete disasters of what a true Islamic states should be.

As I understand it, most Pakistanis are aware of the fact that political parties in our country can not be fully trusted. It's only recently that political parties like the PTI have gained such massive support.

I think most would agree that Secularism is better than any Islamic state we have, I would favour such governance for Pakistan. The problem is that we have not been able to get a western style democracy in Pakistan after 65 years, it might even take another 65 years to do so.

As per my understanding of the Islamic law, when Muslims form a state for themselves, the sovereignty of God has got to be honored. When a Muslim resides or becomes a citizen of a secular state, then he or she must abide by the laws of the land. While I give first priority to ensuring God's sovereignty, I do not neglect the benefits & good attributes of a secular state, neither do I neglect the good attributes of the Islamic state. It is my own opinion that if religion becomes a source of oppression in the "Islamic" state due to its misuse by the government, then we must consider the possibility of a secular state, that is; if it is able to solve the nation's ills. The Quran clearly states that oppression is worse than slaughter, & the point here would be to focus on the greater good. Ideally though, the Islamic state should be void of religious oppression or any other form of oppression. You read the earlier posts on this thread right? You must have noticed the grave mistake another member made by assuming that I idolize or admire Turkey's secularism. The truth is that there are way better examples of secular states than Turkey. Things like banning women from wearing the scarf in universities, which happens to a be a religious requirement is against the principles of secularism. Besides, we shouldn't idolize anyone, we are more than capable of making our own decisions & doing whatever is best for our country.

Any stiriving towards the utopian Islamic societies of the past will perhaps take 100 years to implement and for our socities to completely change and for true principles of Islam to be established. It is or this reason that such a swift solution is unpalatable for any realist.

The problem that arises here is that even if people were to form a secular state, the extremist nature of some idiotic members of our society isn't going to be affected. For example; Islam encourages religious tolerance, but if some people despise non-Muslims in an Islamic state, they are likely to continue despising non-Muslims in a secular state too. The difference is that those people will not be able to rationalize their hatred on the basis of the state's ideology, neither will they be able to misuse Islamic laws legislated by the state because a secular state does not enact laws on religious basis.

We need education, not just western but Islamic and to study the ancient writings of Muslim scholars of the past, only after good years of research can we come to any such conclusion. For now, secularism and democracy has been proven to work, and we should stick to that.

Education is exactly what our country requires, the people need to change their mindset. The Islamic state can only be successful if both its government & people adhere to religious principles without misunderstandings. A secular state may only act as a solution to governmental discrimination & bias. It does nothing to correct the society. That is exactly why our society needs a renaissance of its own.

In conclusion, I think that we must strive to form an Islamic state, & consider secularism as a last resort.

 

[Gurmani]

Hmm. Caliphate is best system.

 

[FatihSultanMehmet]

I just read it all and found a couple of very big flaws in your assesments.
1: That you present an idea wherein you make islam and modernity/progressive thinking mutually exclusive is your biggest flaw. You wrote yourself that islamic empires lead the world in science and progress in all the fields. But once we shackled ourselves from these things we started going backwards. Result: It is not islam but those in power that prevents progress. Which i will elloborate in a minute.

2: You want to take Turkey as an example obviously. I can't be angered at you because obviously you don't have the same amount of knowledge about Turkey and its history as i do. But let me shortly present to you the hard facts about the failure of secularism in Turkey, since you seem to hold it up repeatedly. After Kemal forced secularism in Turkey we have had a history full of opression and an open war against islam. It was not like how you present it. Women with hijab were banned from attending Universities for decades, they were banned from working in many places. Men couldn't gain ranks in the military if their parents were practicing muslims.
You talked about secularism resulting in religious freedom and the right to exercise your religion? Well buddy, i'm sorry to spell it out to you like this. But the exact opposite took place in Turkey for decades.

3: The Turkish example that you want to present here is void of truth. You want to show Turkey as the "shining" example of a Muslim majority country? Why don't you tell people that people during the times of secularists were poorer than African countries? Or why during their times, millions of Muslim women were denied education and work just because a piece of scarf on their heads?

You want justice and progress? Then you answered your own question.

And if people want to see how it really was like and what the problem with today's Muslim world is i urge you to read this piece by me. http://www.defence.pk/forums/turkey...rn-thought-turkey-problem-yet-not-solved.html

Turkey is happy now and if you want you can go to a non secular country to live in . Just like fethullan who lives in america those are not wanted in our country we dont need people who hide behind islam who are not even muslims.

Myth Buster,

1) Ottomans collapsed because of nationalism. It was not Mustafa Kemal who created nationalism.

2) Lets accept Mustafa Kemal was freemason, so was the Ottoman Sultan Murad V. And many other Ottoman princes.

3) Ottoman rule was not ideal, you dont see its flaws. Ottomans exploited Turks, gave statues to Armenians, Greeks and Jews. Turks were sheeps in the Ottoman Empire. Lets face it.

4) On the other side, Zulkarneyn tells the truth: Muslims faced oppression. I am a witness. Freemasons and westernists created divisions in the society. Muslims became radicalized, lost their pure Islamic values, turned into materialism and hungered for power.

Turkish Secularism is no more. What you see today is Capitalist Islamism, which I find horrible. "Our" Islam is being shaped by global corporatist elite. I have no hope for a better rule.

Actually it is not that simple. Ataturk and his generation created a nation called "Turks". Linguistically and historically shaped the minds of Turkish speakinf Anatolian people. You cannot erase something which had so strong effect on the society.

some guy from an unknown ethnicity talking about turks and ottomans . Osman I was kenyan and Fatih sultan mehmet was ethipioan

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Turkey is happy now and if you want you can go to a non secular country to live in . Just like fethullan who lives in america those are not wanted in our country we dont need people who hide behind islam who are not even muslims.



some guy from an unknown ethnicity talking about turks and ottomans . Osman I was kenyan and Fatih sultan mehmet was ethipioan

I already live in a non-secular country that doesn't restrict women with hijab entering universities etc.

 

[FatihSultanMehmet]

Ok thats good , i suggest you stay their and change your flag to another.

 

[Abdi-Karim Elmi]

I already live in a non-secular country that doesn't restrict women with hijab entering universities etc.

Its the likes of you that create Populist like this

 

[Alienoz_TR]

some guy from an unknown ethnicity talking about turks and ottomans . Osman I was kenyan and Fatih sultan mehmet was ethipioan

Mehmed II was half Greek, wasnt he? Do research about his sexual preferences.