Secularism: Another face of Masonic Lodges? PART I

[justanobserver]

Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities

Words of wisdom

 

[Awesome]

Secularism is simple. Grow a pair and be fair.

Everybody is equal regardless of faith

No religion has any say into the state of affairs. Please let Pakistan break free of clutches of conspiracy theories.

"10 carore yeh gadhay, jinka naam hai avaam"
-- Habib Jalib

 

[DaRk WaVe]

This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities -Ataturk

Ouch!!! that must've hurt a lot of people, tsk tsk

that will be my signature...

 

[Kompromat]

Ataturk's comments are his personal views not a Gospel Truth.

BTW just for the record there is NO such thing called "Muhammadanism"

Response: This is an unfounded objection, because the term, Muhammadanism, does not imply that Muslims worship Muhammad. To insist this must be the meaning indicates a poor understanding of the English language.

An -ism refers to a doctrine, conduct, or system of thought; it does not imply divine worship. Muhammadanism simply refers to the doctrine, conduct, and system of thought that were taught by Muhammad.

PS: I have utmost Respect for Ataturk and his leadership for Turks but this clearly shows his level of Understanding on this matter and after all he was a Great Political and Military leader but not an Authority on Religious affairs which makes this statement Invalid.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Ataturk's comments are his personal views not a Gospel Truth.

that's what you could come up at best? His words & actions have made Turkey a nation free of Arab Boot licking & delusional identity where as the system labeled to be the force of cohesion & progression, the real Gospel Truth, has failed to make a country a progressive developed nation, In which country are you living right now? Australia a secular country with a Female Atheist Prime Minister, Kinda ironic isn't it...

 

[Peregrine]

The wisdom in the words of the author can be traced by the simple analysis of the Turkish history. Starting from the inception of secularism in Turkey, the efforts of the political elites along with ethnic minorities & young turks to stand by the Kemalist ideology & now the the 21st century secular Turkey, all have co-existed with an undeniable fact that throughout these processes of Turkish transition to secularism, Religion always remained there at the popular level though it remained dormant at the official level.
A predilection for religion never subsided under the banner head of secularism and that lead to the polarization of Turkish society, the effects of which are far more evident now.

 

[sur]

 

[Kompromat]

^ Iqbal has no credibility to our Secularist elements , he must have been Crazy while writing this all.

Kheera na Kar saka Mujhe Jalwa-e- danish e Farang.

Surma hai Meri aankh ka Khaak e Madina o Najaf.

Allama Muhammad Iqbal.

 

[ای ایران]

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men."-Ataturk 1928


"It is claimed that religious unity is also a factor in the formation of nations. Whereas, we see the contrary in the Turkish nation. Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities. " -Ataturk

Ataturk was indeed, a smart man, altho i dont agree with the very extreme-end of secularism that exists in Turkey. The theocracy in Iran however, is far worse. I do believe that religion has its place in peoples private lives, and can play a role in their social-lives too if they wish. So that means people should be allowed to express-faith as part of their identity, such as through religious attire so long as it isnt something incompatible with social cohesion. But in public and state life, religion definitely has no place. And while Islam, its basics, has its merits to offer believers, political-Islam is definitely something toxic and as Ataturk rightly said is indeed, based on Arab nationalism. There is no doubt about it and is something Iranians, Kurds and Turks know all too well and is precisely one of the reasons why the Arabs are so opposed to Iran's post-revolutionary regime, which has less to do with sectarianism than it does to do with Arab nationalism and bigotry.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

The wisdom in the words of the author can be traced by the simple analysis of the Turkish history. Starting from the inception of secularism in Turkey, the efforts of the political elites along with ethnic minorities & young turks to stand by the Kemalist ideology & now the the 21st century secular Turkey, all have co-existed with an undeniable fact that throughout these processes of Turkish transition to secularism, Religion always remained there at the popular level though it remained dormant at the official level.
A predilection for religion never subsided under the banner head of secularism and that lead to the polarization of Turkish society, the effects of which are far more evident now.

Only if your knowledge of history goes back eight hundred years. As analogy no Chinese would claim knowledge of history going back only eight hundred years; such an "analysis" would be considered ridiculously incomplete and biased. He would go back thousands.

The Byzantine Empire and Eastern Roman Empire before that while not secular states in the modern sense clearly derived their identity from nationalism and not Islam or other religion. Even the Ottomans tolerated Catholicism and Christianity far more than an Arab style Islamic Republic would and nationalism drove the Ottomans. So it is clear that the "national identity" of Turkey whatever it is, is not synonymous with Islam. The fact that for a miniscule fraction of time 99% of the population is registered Muslim is near meaningless compared to hundreds and even thousands of years of history before it. I fully expect in one hundred years Turkey to be only 50% Muslim and people of all faiths to emigrate to Turkey.

 

[Jigs]

Ataturk was indeed, a smart man, altho i dont agree with the very extreme-end of secularism that exists in Turkey. The theocracy in Iran however, is far worse. I do believe that religion has its place in peoples private lives, and can play a role in their social-lives too if they wish. So that means people should be allowed to express-faith as part of their identity, such as through religious attire so long as it isnt something incompatible with social cohesion. But in public and state life, religion definitely has no place. And while Islam, its basics, has its merits to offer believers, political-Islam is definitely something toxic and as Ataturk rightly said is indeed, based on Arab nationalism. There is no doubt about it and is something Iranians, Kurds and Turks know all too well and is precisely one of the reasons why the Arabs are so opposed to Iran's post-revolutionary regime, which has less to do with sectarianism than it does to do with Arab nationalism and bigotry.

I agree with the majority of that post I think you would agree with this quote-

"Religion is an important institution. A nation without religion cannot survive. Yet it is also very important to note that religion is a link between Allah and the individual believer. The brokerage of the pious cannot be permitted. Those who use religion for their own benefit are detestable. We are against such a situation and will not allow it. Those who use religion in such a manner have fooled our people; it is against just such people that we have fought and will continue to fight. Know that whatever conforms to reason, logic, and the advantages and needs of our people conforms equally to Islam. If our religion did not conform to reason and logic, it would not be the perfect religion, the final religion." -Ataturk

 

[Hutchroy]

Secularism: Another face of Masonic Lodges?

PART I

By:Naveed Tajammal

To understand the implications of secularism, if ever implemented in Pakistan and it’s results, the best analogy can be of the Turkish Ottoman empire (Osmanli). As presently, most of our modern intellectuals are influenced by secularist thoughts. The result, no doubt of studies and findings written by a western mind, which has absolutely no grasp of issue at hand. By this, I also mean our own people, who think as per the perceptions of the alien, yet remain Pakistanis, by virtue of a citizenship. It is their schooling and lack of in depth study which leads them astray, as I have repeatedly written, that, the change of educational pattern has been the root cause of our intellectual decline. An almost similar phenomenon was found in the Turkish Empire too.

A study of history or a past, lays bare the mistake of others, a rational mind must study and analyze these faults, and try and steer himself of similar problems and, voice them for an inbuilt dangers, it brings, to an old historically established entity, with it’s culture, custom, traditions and language. All, totally battered, yet the spark still remaining which can be rekindled. Hence this discourse, or article.

To give an insight on the Turkish dichotomy, in all aspects especially after the, “Tanzimat “edicts of 1839 and 1856, I will extensively quote from the little remaining works of ,”ZIYA GOKLAP”, also known as Zia Keuk Alp, a Turkish writer(1876-1924),the recurrent theme in his writings, was the question of how, the Turks should adopt the western civilization, and how this effort should be harmonized with the Turks. That is, the two historic traditions, their Turkish, and Islamic backgrounds, or in other words, what the Turk as a nation and Islam as their religion would look under the condition of contemporary civilization. Goklap, was not the only one, who had raised this issue, others too had anticipated or influenced him. Although, he had died in the early phase of Mustafa Kamal’s drastic reforms, from which the Turk is still reeling from and slowly, reverting back to his roots(Islamic).Which shows, that in the end, you cannot impose, “ideas” which have no bearing on a nation which has old foundations/roots and a past history, infusion of new races is, but, a process, but as long as the base of the pyramid remains and retains a dim memory and still retains it’s old language, a revival can always take place.

A nation devoid of roots, is like a ship without a rudder, to steer it in the high seas, which being uncharted too. It is thus, the job of a writer, to show his reader a path or give some directions and then, leave it to them, to decide to adopt it, or not, as they deem it proper.

Mustafa Kamal’s extreme and drastic secularism cost the Turk his true identity ,and he lost his roots, his dress and insignia, but the laws of Allah are eternal, you always revert to the original at one epoch of time or the other, under a new leadership and for the better.

Though Ziya, was guilty of adding in the new Constitution, the clause of secularism, as he was the member of a committee which had prepared the new Constitution in 1924. He, for this is held and blamed by the critics for Turkey’s political misfortunes. The bulk of Zia’s work suffered and were lost as, the root was a change of script to the Roman mode of alphabet, a process started later, after the death of Zia by Mustafa Kamal and Ismet Pasha.

We too, today find ourselves on the crossroads, our intellectual harps and argues for the western mode of education, the funds are unlimited and by now, we have people trained to implement these policies, a major effort and implementation has already been done in guise of modernization and rooting out the mode of Urdu medium education is on the anvil to be hammered into oblivion. By assent of powerful people, clueless of our past.

In the Turkish history, in the mid 19Th century when Freemasons were taking roots, our lands were being annexed by the British and, we were to face a despotic English Rule for another 100 years. Freemasons cultivated and launched Mustafa Kamal Pasha to secularise Turkey. A rule which ransacked and destroyed our society and has made and left us with many a breaches or divides in our nation. By leaving open the Pandora’s box filled with creations of the British Policies which unfortunately, we still, unwittingly adhere to.

The Turkish intelligentsia, was beset with European ideas as they strove for a change, for the sake of change, hence developed various pressure groups with vested interests as will be explained in the subsequent articles, which forced, “The Sultans”, to bring changes but here it should be borne in mind that it was not the actual Turk, who was actually clamoring for the change, but various alien races which then composed more than half the population of the Turkish Empire ,led by various schools of thoughts with different ethnic backgrounds and religions too. So attempts with the help of the then super powers were started, to reorganize the political, legal and administrative structure of the Turkish Empire.

To understand the background of this agitation, termed as “Tanzeemats”, or reforms, one must first understand the composition of the Turkish Empire. At the start of the 1900s, the Osmanli Turks numbered only ten million out of which one and a half million lived in the western lands i.e. the Balkans, the Arabs numbered seven million and three hundred thousand were Jews.

The rest of the population was composed of various Aryan races, the Slavs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Pomaks and Cossacks, Greeks, Albanians and the Kurd who were Muslims. Muslims in the Empire in the above mentioned time were just 50% and the rest 41% were Greek Orthodox Christians, 6% were Catholic Christians and the rest 3% were jews, Druses, Nestorians etc. In the European provinces, two third of population were Christians, and only one third were Muslims. The total population of the Turkish Empire in 1910,including Egypt and other regions nominally under the Sultan’s sovereignty was 36,323,539.Averaging 25 to the square mile in the Wilayats (Provinces), however, directly under the Turkish Government were only almost 26 million people.

In view of the above, to understand the secular movement as stated earlier, one has to understand the pressure groups, by virtue of which, the population of various cities then was, Istambul (1,150,000),Izmir (250,000),Baghdad (145,000),Damascus (145,000), Alleppo (122,000),Beirut (118,000), Adrianople (81,000), Brusa (76,000), Jerusalem (56,000), Kaisarieh (72,000), Karbala (65,000), Monastir (53000), Mosul (61000), Macca (60000), Homs (60000), Sana(58000). These were the cities with above 50000 population. In the first decade of the 20th century the possessions of the Sultan in Europe were stretching continously across the Balkan Peninsula from the Bosphorus to the Adriaticc lying on the East mainly between 40 degree and 42 degree and in the West between 39 degree and 43 degree north. It corrosponded roughly to the ancient, Thrace, Macedonia with Chalcidice, Epirus and a large part of Illyria which construed the administrative divisions of Istambul or the previous HeadQuarters of the Eastern Byzantine Empire of the Romans.


However, in December 1898,Crete was granted independence under the protection of none other but Britian,France,Italy and not to miss Russia the old foe of the Turks.In fact these were the outer pressure groups which were instigating and had also instigated and forced the then Sultan fifty years back when the reforms were first announced. Egypt,though still, nominally,under the Turkish Empire was almost independent since 1841 and the British had become it’s big brother since 1881. Hence the independence of the egyptians from the Turkish Empire was no independence at all as they had gone from a muslim rule,under the Sultan, to the Christians,under the British. In Africa,the two remaining main cities were Tripoli and Ben Ghazi. So we see the reforms which were the forerunner of the eventual secularism had started almost 75 years before the clause of secularism as it was, inserted in the Constitution of the Turks. The bulk of the cities above quoted had the population of various sects of Christians which were the standard bearers of the eventual turn of the events.

(The author is a historian. He is researching in history for over 26 years.His area of focus is Indus Basin and the Muslim History ).

Secularism: Another face of Masonic Lodges? PART I | Farzana Shah

It is said theat Mr. Jinnah was a Secular Leaders - much better and greater than Gandhi.

Does this mean that Mr. Jinnah was also a Mason?

 

[Spring Onion]

The wisdom in the words of the author can be traced by the simple analysis of the Turkish history. Starting from the inception of secularism in Turkey, the efforts of the political elites along with ethnic minorities & young turks to stand by the Kemalist ideology & now the the 21st century secular Turkey, all have co-existed with an undeniable fact that throughout these processes of Turkish transition to secularism, Religion always remained there at the popular level though it remained dormant at the official level.
A predilection for religion never subsided under the banner head of secularism and that lead to the polarization of Turkish society, the effects of which are far more evident now.

The author here is simply giving Turkish history as well as reasons for secular tendency. I dont know why some masons are worked up here and getting sensitive just by reading the headline lolzz


Anyway a good read. Gives some history. And the author is Not a mullah neither he harbours any Islamic sentiments.

He has a good family background struggling against Zia

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

GOTTA Have Faith ... !!!

 

[Patriot]

Let me guess Muslims are gonna come with another consipiracy that secularism was invented to put the pious good muslims (who lynch people in public, who blow themselves up, who spread hatred against minorities, who want to spread terrorism all over the world) in the clutches of jews/zionist.Am i right?