What's new

How ‘Islamist’ is the AKP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Killuminati

Get a grip of reality mate. Your conspiracy theories do not have any factuality. Firstly, you have to understand that we live in the 21. century, that kemalist mentality cannot be incorporated to a modern developed democratic society. There are countless of reasons i say this, if you support such a view you would support a single party solution to "democracy". Civil societies are ever evolving, you can't get stuck at a particular time and person in history. Sure you can get some influence from personalities like M. Kemal, but you can't fully incorporate his ideas in contemporary societies.

Secondly i can see you mentioning a Hadith. If you truly support islamic ideas, you would never support a secular system like Turkey. Since, in Sharia living in a not-islamic country is considered a sin as long as your objective/mission isn't tabligh (invitation to truth).

So mate before you present your views about Islam, AKP and M. Kemal. You ought to build your foundations thoroughly, and basd on factual knowledge.

Big difference between Ataturk and Nurcular (akp) is that nurcular using the islam to fool people and rip their votes and money. Like kombassan did.. And what did Ataturk?? He refreshed the system and put all the devsirme people and people that use the islam to fool people out of goverments executive because they where the reason why ottoman empire and almost our nation was destroyed. When the khalifah called all muslim countries for jihad nobody helped us.. And Ataturk knew that emperial powers can rule easy a country with sharia so this was one of the big reasons why he splitted up. The fact for this is that countries with a sharia makes their own dictatorship and ideology of it. And thats hurt the islam more and give foreign powers the possibility to do what they want. But thanksfull to our ''üst kimlik'' its hard to create madhab conflicts. Thats why they are now trying to organize a ethnic conflict and for this they must destroy the Ataturk principles.

I am a ahlu sunnah follower and i love Ataturk to and i am a nationalist. Turkish nationalism is not agains the rules of Islam contrary we are the people that hold the Islam tight. Ataturk had two big ideals. 1: Turkish Union, 2: Islamic Union(even they betrayed us). The reasons why they couldt establish israel after first world war was Ataturk. He was always agains that and told that the grounds of jeruzalem must be under control by muslims.

Ps pff bu ingilizce beni sinir ediyor :mad:
 
@Zulkarneyn

You(and overal) are classic Ataturk hater and Islam user like your holy leaders Gul and Erdogan !!

Yes we are living in the 21. century but it doesn't mean Ataturk's ideology is nonexistent anymore !! In fact, Ataturk had an ideology beyond centuries. I am a person who is not supporting Kemalism but i love my country's founder Ataturk. Before understanding his mentality, talking about his ideology is not acceptable !!!

I hate users of Islam and Kemalism .... Many of people around the world understood Mustafa Kemal's mentality but only my people couldn't understand .. Actullay not all but still a lot !!! This is a proof, how successful are Islam users?

First, you must understand meaning of secularism of Turkiye !! Turkish people(not only Turkish. every single person) cant be secular coz every single person has a religion !! Only societies can be secular ... My country is not Islamic country coz we have citizens that they believe in different religions !! a state must support all of its own citizens as religious and cultural. not only some of !!! This is real democracy and human rights which all of Islamist countries do not have !! You live in Denmark. Why don't you try to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia ?? Do not say me coz we are working here or something else !! If your aim is spending your life under Allah's laws (i mean the Sheri'a) you must leave that country immediately !! doesn't it bother you? i mean living under secular and christian country's laws ??

Ther are many thing that i can say but i know your kind very well.so its useless. this is my response against your claims !!! And this topic is over for me ...

Edit: Do not call me as secular, anti-Islamist, Kemalist or something else !! I believe in Allah and i want to live under Allah's laws ..
 
Last edited:
Turkish people(not only Turkish. every single person) cant be secular coz every single person has a religion !! Only societies can be secular ... My country is not Islamic country coz we have citizens that they believe in different religions !! a state must support all of its own citizens as religious and cultural. not only some of !!!..
This is the thing that most people don't get. Secularism is not a tool to control religion under a threat of whip, it's a protection of individual rights on their beliefs. Probably another problem is some people just can't distinguish the fact that you can not be a secular, but you can support secularism. I know you can label someone who supports secularism as "secular", but nowadays when you do that it feels like that "secular" person labelled as anti-religious. It's a double edged sword...
 
@Cerian

Yes hole problems begin from this point !! They can not understand the meaning of secular between a person and society.. I always say people cant be secular but they can think as a secular !!! It doesn't mean you are an atheist .. if you are atheist, you are not secular also coz atheism is a religion as well.

By the way. I hate so much when they say " we are living in the 21. century, that kemalist mentality cannot be incorporated to a modern developed democratic society." its proof of your ignorance !!
 
Last edited:
Brothers please... I do not intend to give any disrespect to my Turkish posters here... but all analysis of history points out that Mustafa Kemal made a big mistake by finishing the Caliphate... The day when a man loses his father is a tragedy... The Sultans despite their follies were the best leaders we have ever had... The hell with the treason of the Arabs, we should not become like our enemies at any point in time... This was what the Sultans wanted... believe me some of the things that the Sultans have done in their lives... I cannot imagine the amazing leadership we had, how much they loved all Muslims and cared for their affairs and protected all Muslims...

I would like to share a hadith with you which is written in Sahih Muslim's collection of authentic narrations... This is a small part of a bigger narration... Translation follows...

"Verily, the Imam is a Shield"

We lost our Shield on 3/3/1924... Since then we are easy prey for our enemies...
 
@Muhammad-Bin-Qasim
"all analysis of history points out that Mustafa Kemal made a big mistake by finishing the Caliphate..."

I agree with you on this point bro. this was really big mistake but if you were mustafa kemal what would you do? you call your muslims to fight against enemy of Islam and calif but they do not fallow your calls. They back-stab you with imperialists...

Maybe this situation made Ataturk so angry and he thought "if you don't fallow your calif's calls. I will finish it forever !! yes this is my opinion !!

i really know this is big a mistake !! but every humankind able to make mistakes !! so Ataturk was a human also ...
 
Last edited:
@Muhammad-Bin-Qasim
"all analysis of history points out that Mustafa Kemal made a big mistake by finishing the Caliphate..."

I agree with you on this point bro. this was really big mistake but if you were mustafa kemal what would you do? you call your muslims to fight against enemy of Islam and calif but they do not fallow your calls. They back-stab you with imperialists...

Maybe this situation made Ataturk so angry and he thought "if you don't fallow your calif's calls. I will finish it forever !! yes this is my opinion !!

But i really know this is big a mistake !! but every humankind able to make mistakes !! so Ataturk was a human also ...

Yes...

I have read that a delegation from India met Mustafa Kemal and even offered him that he should himself become the Caliph... But he refused to do so...

It has been a long time so we can only speculate as to what he could have done in that situation... but keeping the Caliphate, he could have treated all the Arabs who had rebelled against Turkey with the help of the British and French... as Kharaji states... One does not simply cut off one's body part as long as there is hope of regaining some function... In the long run, both Turks and Arabs suffered (and Muslims as a whole)... Arabs got under control of evil monarchies and stooges of the west... Turkey lost its position as a mighty pan Islamic state that spanned three continents... the Young Turks did not let the Sultan do anything at that time even though he was actively seeking the removal of British and French warships from Turkish waters... I think today we must acknowledge that we paid a heavy price overall and after destroying the sultanate and caliphate, the colonialists were happy to move on and feed on the less protected regions of the Muslim world...

I think I have quoted some of this before, but it is still relevant...

Lord Curzon,

After the termination of Khilafat, the secretary expressed his views, in the following words:

"The point at issue is that Turkey has been destroyed and shall never rise again, because we have destroyed her spiritual power: the Caliphate and Islam."

Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister at the time of the Caliphate's end, appear to have best caught the Caliphate's significance when he announced to the House of Commons:

"The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam".

"We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity"


Sir Campbell Bannerman, [Prime Minister of Britain (1905-08)]

“ There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.” - 1902

Lord Zetland [March 24, 1940, British Secretary of State for the colonial India]
“The call of Islam is one which transcends the bounds of country. It may have lost some force as a result of the abolition of Caliphate by Mustafa Kamal Pasha, but it still has a very considerable appeal as witness for example Jinnah’s insistence on our giving undertaking that Indian troops should never be employed against any Muslim state, and the solicitude which he has constantly expressed for the Arabs of Palestine.”
 
Brothers please... I do not intend to give any disrespect to my Turkish posters here... but all analysis of history points out that Mustafa Kemal made a big mistake by finishing the Caliphate... The day when a man loses his father is a tragedy... The Sultans despite their follies were the best leaders we have ever had... The hell with the treason of the Arabs, we should not become like our enemies at any point in time... This was what the Sultans wanted... believe me some of the things that the Sultans have done in their lives... I cannot imagine the amazing leadership we had, how much they loved all Muslims and cared for their affairs and protected all Muslims...

I would like to share a hadith with you which is written in Sahih Muslim's collection of authentic narrations... This is a small part of a bigger narration... Translation follows...

"Verily, the Imam is a Shield"

We lost our Shield on 3/3/1924... Since then we are easy prey for our enemies...

My dear brother Muhammad-Bin-Qasim,
First of all there were no calipha because something that goes from father to son is not the way to choose a calipha. Calipha is a leadership that choosen by the 3ulamaa. So this show us that there was no really a calipha but because the ottomans fighted also in name of allah they got this title. Second point is what is the reason of a calipha that cant call the ummah to jihad?? Or what is the reason of a calipha if the ummah dont listen to him and fight agains islam for their own worlds benefits? When the sultan, also the calipha tought they were defeated they planned to accept the conditions that de kuffaar gave(sevr) otherwise they warned us to destroy our nation. Ataturk was extremly agains this and with full imaan(or independency or death) we fought, we fought and we won.

But the problem is the ummah brother. Even de prohpet said, my ummah will love this world so much they will be afraid to die. So even today when there is a calipha he cant do anything.. But if the ummah want a calipha nobody holds them.. Why they dont choose one?

Allahu a3lem.
 
Yes...

I have read that a delegation from India met Mustafa Kemal and even offered him that he should himself become the Caliph... But he refused to do so...

Most anti-mustafa kemal writings are made by foreign powers.
I call this a lie because India joined the ranks of the British and fought agains us. And than u think that India will send after that a message to Kemal with request to become the calipha? I dont think so lol..
 
but remember that Kemal kept Turkey alive by doing what he did...

The Caliphate could not have continued and perhaps Kemal was a man that smothered the flames until they could light again.

Turkey would be a model country for Muslims if it were not so secular, but still, atleast Turkey has respect and power
 
but remember that Kemal kept Turkey alive by doing what he did...

The Caliphate could not have continued and perhaps Kemal was a man that smothered the flames until they could light again.

Turkey would be a model country for Muslims if it were not so secular, but still, atleast Turkey has respect and power

Yeah.. If today the ideology of Ataturk would be practiced we had a big weapon industry and economy and we would protect our muslim brothers again but unfortunately foreign powers are deep in our systems thanksfull to person like Tayyip Erdogan.
 
The issue is not Ataturk.Actually i dont care about a dead man.I care about the present and the future.M.Kemal made mistakes such as caliphate issue because he wasnt good with religions,he thought religions prevent nations to develop.But as i said it is past,i care about the future, and his pseudo-ideology is out of date.And saying "his ideology is beyond centuries" is a bit out of objectivity.The biggest follower of his ideology is Kenan Evren.Now everyone blames him.Why?Kenan Evren followed Ataturks principles.He thought he was doing a good thing.

@trmhmt
look what i said about odatv :"their capacity only allows them to analyse things as fetullahçı vs We(goodies)."
 
@Ovarel

Here are Ataturk's principles
1 Temel İlkeler
1.1 Cumhuriyetçilik
1.2 Milliyetçilik
1.3 Halkçılık
1.4 Laiklik
1.5 Devletçilik
1.6 İnkılapçılık (Devrimcilik)
2 Bütünleyici ilkeler
2.1 Ulusal bağımsızlık
2.2 Ulusal birlik, beraberlik ve ülke bütünlüğü
2.3 Çağdaşlık
2.4 İnsan ve İnsanlık sevgisi
2.5 Akılcılık, bilimcilik, gerçekçilik
2.6 Ulusal egemenlik

Tell me now, which one is out of date?? Yes i really wonder ...
 
Here are Ataturk's principles for all users of forum ...

Republicanism:
The Kemalist reforms represent a political revolution; a change from the multinational Ottoman Empire to the establishment of the nation state of Turkey and the realisation of national identity of modern Turkey. Kemalism only recognises a Republican regime for Turkey. Kemalism believes that it is only the republican regime which can best represent the wishes of the people.

Populism:
The Kemalist revolution was also a social revolution in term of its content and goals. This was a revolution led by an elite with an orientation towards the people in general. The Kemalist reforms brought about a revolutionary change in the status of women through the adoption of Western codes of law in Turkey, in particular the Swiss Civil Code.
Moreover, women received the right to vote in 1934. Atatürk stated on a number of occasions that the true rulers of Turkey were the peasants. This was actually a goal rather than a reality in Turkey. In fact, in the official explanation given to the principle of populism it was stated that Kemalism was against class privileges and class distinctions and it recognized no individual, no family, no class and no organization as being above others. Kemalist ideology was, in fact, based on supreme value of Turkish citizenship. A sense of pride associated with this citizenship would give the needed psychological spur to the people to make them work harder and to achieve a sense of unity and national identity.
Secularism:
Kemalist secularism did not merely mean separation of state and religion, but also the separation of religion from educational, cultural and legal affairs. It meant independence of thought and independence of institutions from the dominance of religious thinking and religious institutions. Thus, the Kemalist revolution was also a secularist revolution. Many Kemalist reforms were made to bring about secularism, and others were realised because secularism had been achieved.
The Kemalist principle of secularism did not advocate atheism. It was not an anti-God principle. It was a rationalist, anti-clerical secularism. The Kemalist principle of secularism was not against an enlightened Islam, but against an Islam which was opposed to modernisation.
Reformism:
One of the most important principles that Atatürk formulated was the principle of reformism or revolutionism. This principle meant that Turkey made reforms and that the country replaced traditional institutions with modern institutions. It meant that traditional concepts were eliminated and modern concepts were adopted. The principle of reformism went beyond the recognition of the reforms which were made.

Nationalism:
The Kemalist revolution was also a nationalist revolution. Kemalist nationalism was not racist. It was meant to preserve the independence of the Republic of Turkey and also to help the Republic's political development. It was a nationalism which respected the right to independence of all other nations. It was a nationalism with a social content. It was not only anti-imperialist, but it was also against the rule of a dynasty or of any particular social class over Turkish society. Kemalist nationalism believes in the principle that the Turkish state is an indivisible whole comprising its territory and people.

Statism:
Kemal Atatürk made clear in his statements and policies that Turkey's complete modernisation was very much dependent on economic and technological development. The principle of statism was interpreted to mean that the state was to regulate the country's general economic activity and the state was to engage in areas where private enterprise was not willing to do so, or where private enterprise had proved to be inadequate, or if national interest required it. In the application of the principle of statism, however, the state emerged not only as the principle source of economic activity but also as the owner of the major industries of the country.

THE VIEWS OF ATATÜRK
On the economy
As a result of Atatürk's reforms, Turkey's economic structure was completely changed for the better. With the annulment of capitulations, fundamentals needed to secure a national and liberal economy were achieved. Atatürk's view of the economy of country lies in this saying: "The real master of the country is the villager".

On foreign policy
Atatürk's motto of "Peace at Home, Peace in the World" was rigorously adhered to, despite the fact that many national leaders at that time slipped into the politics of internal subversion, police state tactics and then into international conflict. Turkey managed to avoid both subversion at home and involvement in war.

Now please tell me. Which one is out of date ? I ask all of users ... which one is out of date???
 
LOL the important thing is practise my friend.If you say secularism,its ok for me but if you talk about ataturks secularism(which is not secularism,he used secularism as a tool to take the power from religious people) hell no.So i have no problem with the concepts of course,the issue is how you understand them.if you understand them just like ataturk did,then sorry to say that dude but its out of date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom