Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

[Contrarian]

Abu, I understand that you love to troll. But if you cannot even READ what i posted above, then atleast donot try and show that while trolling. Or maybe you did not comprehend?

I have stated in no uncertain terms, that there is a thing called 'top induced change'. When the State wants to achieve something which even if the population is not ready to accept, it comes down to accepting it slowly.

India is a secular state, the People of India are not. So that becomes a stated objective. And it induces change in the population slowly. Fortunately or unfortunately for you, the Population of India today is truly a LOT more secular than they were at the time of independence. 3 decades from now, the population of India will be more secular and tolerant than they are today..Inching slowly towards achieving what the Constitution has laid out to be for us. It is a very slow but very sure and steady change.

Just like how the African Americans started getting treated equally in practice long after the Constitution of US declared all as equal.

This will happen as long as the declared objectives stay the same. If the constitution changes, then the social progress stops or even reverses.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

I like democracy because IMO it is the best system for a country. There is an on-going debate in Pakistan whether parliament is supreme or the Constitution is supreme. In a democracy, neither is supreme.

What is constitution? It is nothing but a framework of laws agreed among the elected representatives of the people as to how they like to be governed. That is why elected representatives have the power to change/amend the constitution as is the case in all democracies prime example being the United States. Therefore in a democracy; it is the people who are supreme. Democracy is therefore essentially secular.

In Pakistan’ Objectives resolution, supreme power lies with Allah and any law considered to be against Islamic principles will be struck down. The same is the case with almost all Islamic countries.

Therefore no country that is essentially religion based, be it Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan can be truly democratic. This would also be true in a deeply Catholic Country. In my humble opinion, a country has to be secular to be truly democratic.

This is easier said than done. US declared that all people were equal, but it took a couple of hundred years and Martin Luther King for blacks to get equal rights.

I personally wouldn’t want Pakistan to be secular either. However, I would want Pakistan to have a liberal progressive state. I have lived in UAE for about 6 years. I think despite being an Islamic kingdom, Dubai sets an example of tolerance and liberalism that other Muslim countries such as Pakistan can copy.

No one forces anyone to offer prayers or fast. However, during Ramdan, all night clubs are closed, sale of alcohol in the hotels is forbidden and no one is allowed to drink or even smoke in public. Other than Ramadan, there is a mosque at every corner as well as huge number of night clubs, and it is up to the individual whether he wants to pray or drink in a bar.
Despite the wine sold in the hotels and night clubs, no one bothers any female walking alone even in the middle of the night. I would be happy with current constitution of Pakistan and happy with the imperfect democracy, if the Quaid’s vision as described in his 11th August 1947 speech is followed.

However, there are members here who rubbish Pakistan and founding fathers as well as Ata Turk on ‘Alleged’ membership of a masonic lodge. As if being a Freemason overshadows all the good deed that the person has done.

There are many such bigots in Pakistan who provide succour and support terrorists to kill other Muslims in the name of Islam. And call even cold blooded killers such as Mumtaz Qadri, who shot the man he was supposed to protect on the mere suggestion that he was against blasphemy laws; a hero of Islam.

As long as such enemies of Pakistan remain part of the society Pakistan will continue to remain breeding ground of suicide bombers and a terrorist haven.

I am a human being first, then a Pakistani and lastly a Muslim. If I am not following the right path, I shall answer to Allah on the day of judgement. My family has been Muslims for countless generations. I have no need to for Wahhabi bigots to teach me to be a good Muslim

In my humble opinion, any national hero who defies colonial powers such as Ata -Turk is a true hero and worthy of all the honour and fame that his nation can give him.

Any national hero that defies colonial powers? You have it wrong. Ataturk did not defy colonial powers, he was the biggest supporter of importing Westernization into Turkey and abolishing anything that had to do with Islam and our origins. I don't give a dime if you characterize yourself as a Muslim or a Pakistani first. But let me tell you this: Even if you try and adapt yourself to the West and copycat their lifestyle in your daily life, you will not be accepted on the ground of either your skin color or because of your linguistic/cultural difference. Especially if you have darker skin which Pakistanis tend to have.

People who think that everything the West stands for is correct while playing down Islam and Islamic values are in my opinion weak. Adaptation as a result of oppression, nothing else. The oppressed, who have adapted to the dominant structure.

 

[revojam]

Any national hero that defies colonial powers? You have it wrong. Ataturk did not defy colonial powers, he was the biggest supporter of importing Westernization into Turkey and abolishing anything that had to do with Islam and our origins. I don't give a dime if you characterize yourself as a Muslim or a Pakistani first. But let me tell you this: Even if you try and adapt yourself to the West and copycat their lifestyle in your daily life, you will not be accepted on the ground of either your skin color or because of your linguistic/cultural difference. Especially if you have darker skin which Pakistanis tend to have.

People who think that everything the West stands for is correct while playing down Islam and Islamic values are in my opinion weak. Adaptation as a result of oppression, nothing else. The oppressed, who have adapted to the dominant structure.

Just because West is the silent enemy of muslim countries so we should not use their systems? Lets say your enemy's weapon is superior to yours in every aspect so should we not acquire enemy's weapon and use it againts enemy? or should we unnecessarly be stubborn , use our own downgraded weapon and beaten by enemy every single time? Because this is what your stupid logic tells us , remember the reason Ottoman Empire weakened in first place because they refuse everything belong to west and not industrializated.

But of course for you as long as we turn back to our roots , pray 7/24 and leave everything to allah and bearded mullahs everything will be fine right? Collective faith of the society will protect us from enemy's superior weapons right? Well i am sure Sultans thought same way too before their allmighty Ottoman Empire became another subject for our history books.

 

[FatihSultanMehmet]

Any national hero that defies colonial powers? You have it wrong. Ataturk did not defy colonial powers, he was the biggest supporter of importing Westernization into Turkey and abolishing anything that had to do with Islam and our origins. I don't give a dime if you characterize yourself as a Muslim or a Pakistani first. But let me tell you this: Even if you try and adapt yourself to the West and copycat their lifestyle in your daily life, you will not be accepted on the ground of either your skin color or because of your linguistic/cultural difference. Especially if you have darker skin which Pakistanis tend to have.

People who think that everything the West stands for is correct while playing down Islam and Islamic values are in my opinion weak. Adaptation as a result of oppression, nothing else. The oppressed, who have adapted to the dominant structure.

hey go to my thread , 30th august victory day and see ataturk posters People like you , Ataturk haters will never be accepted in our country.

Just because West is the silent enemy of muslim countries so we should not use their systems? Lets say your enemy's weapon is superior to yours in every aspect so should we not acquire enemy's weapon and use it againts enemy? or should we unnecessarly be stubborn , use our own downgraded weapon and beaten by enemy every single time? Because this is what your stupid logic tells us , remember the reason Ottoman Empire weakened in first place because they refuse everything belong to west and not industrializated.

But of course for you as long as we turn back to our roots , pray 7/24 and leave everything to allah and bearded mullahs everything will be fine right? Collective faith of the society will protect us from enemy's superior weapons right? Well i am sure Sultans thought same way too before their allmighty Ottoman Empire became another subject for our history books.

sende herseye osmanli , osmanli deyip durma , osmanli bizim sanli tarihimiz nasil ataturk ve diger buyuk liderler buyuk tarihimiz ise .

ayrica 'their' ne oluyor? sen turk degilmisin? fatih sultan mehmet kenyalimiydi?

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Just because West is the silent enemy of muslim countries so we should not use their systems? Lets say your enemy's weapon is superior to yours in every aspect so should we not acquire enemy's weapon and use it againts enemy? or should we unnecessarly be stubborn , use our own downgraded weapon and beaten by enemy every single time? Because this is what your stupid logic tells us , remember the reason Ottoman Empire weakened in first place because they refuse everything belong to west and not industrializated.

But of course for you as long as we turn back to our roots , pray 7/24 and leave everything to allah and bearded mullahs everything will be fine right? Collective faith of the society will protect us from enemy's superior weapons right? Well i am sure Sultans thought same way too before their allmighty Ottoman Empire became another subject for our history books.

The problem with the way you think is very obvious. Have i come here and praised Ottoman or the "mullahs" you talk about? Ottoman empire was a successful empire until a certain period. I won't repeat what i said about Ottoman again, you can read my other posts if you want to see my perspective on Ottoman.
Muslims should always strive for progress in science and technology. Sadly, the West is leading these things today, which is a reality. If knowledge is in West, of course we should acquire these from the place of origin, learn their languages, system of measurement etc. But that doesn't mean we have to completely adapt to their lifestyle and cast away our own, that is the mark of the weak man.
The problem with you guys is that Muslims in your minds are "backwards, ignorant, poor" etc. I don't know if it is because you haven't seen progressive, cultured, educated Muslims or if it is because of how the media have propogated Muslims in a certain way for decades. The sad reality in Turkey is though the real backward and ignorant and the ones who have halted the country for decades were the kemalists and secularits. I guess you guys need another couple of decades to comprehend this fact.

 

[Killuminati]

Any national hero that defies colonial powers? You have it wrong. Ataturk did not defy colonial powers, he was the biggest supporter of importing Westernization into Turkey and abolishing anything that had to do with Islam and our origins. I don't give a dime if you characterize yourself as a Muslim or a Pakistani first. But let me tell you this: Even if you try and adapt yourself to the West and copycat their lifestyle in your daily life, you will not be accepted on the ground of either your skin color or because of your linguistic/cultural difference. Especially if you have darker skin which Pakistanis tend to have.

People who think that everything the West stands for is correct while playing down Islam and Islamic values are in my opinion weak. Adaptation as a result of oppression, nothing else. The oppressed, who have adapted to the dominant structure.

Its not correct to use Islam argument whole time for the benefits of your sects. Still today, muslims are struggling and killing eachother because of these sect problems but never ask whos letting doing this. To block this problem in Turkey, Ataturk came with a system that separate goverment cases with religion cases. In my opinion, it would be better if Turkey was ruled by a sharia law but the corruption was so high that a fresh cut was needed. Today, still if we had Ottoman mentality, Turkey was already in a civil war and possible devided. The rage is because of the fact that the politics of last sultan and caliph causes almost for a whole destroying of Turkish nation. If we accepted Serv, today there where no 1 Turk left on Anatolian ground .

 

[mehmeTcc]

Its not correct to use Islam argument whole time for the benefits of your sects. Still today, muslims are struggling and killing eachother because of these sect problems but never ask whos letting doing this. To block this problem in Turkey, Ataturk came with a system that separate goverment cases with religion cases. In my opinion, it would be better if Turkey was ruled by a sharia law but the corruption was so high that a fresh cut was needed. Today, still if we had Ottoman mentality, Turkey was already in a civil war and possible devided. The rage is because of the fact that the politics of last sultan and caliph causes almost for a whole destroying of Turkish nation. If we accepted Serv, today there where no 1 Turk left on Anatolian ground .

This is the point. No one thinks about Alevis and how they will act in case of Iranian-like system.

The problem with the way you think is very obvious. Have i come here and praised Ottoman or the "mullahs" you talk about? Ottoman empire was a successful empire until a certain period. I won't repeat what i said about Ottoman again, you can read my other posts if you want to see my perspective on Ottoman.
Muslims should always strive for progress in science and technology. Sadly, the West is leading these things today, which is a reality. If knowledge is in West, of course we should acquire these from the place of origin, learn their languages, system of measurement etc. But that doesn't mean we have to completely adapt to their lifestyle and cast away our own, that is the mark of the weak man.
The problem with you guys is that Muslims in your minds are "backwards, ignorant, poor" etc. I don't know if it is because you haven't seen progressive, cultured, educated Muslims or if it is because of how the media have propogated Muslims in a certain way for decades. The sad reality in Turkey is though the real backward and ignorant and the ones who have halted the country for decades were the kemalists and secularits. I guess you guys need another couple of decades to comprehend this fact.

I really can't understand what is your point then? Science and politics must stay away from religion, this is what Turkish secularism is.
For the bold part, Meiji restoration is a great example about that. But unlike our people, Japanese didn't prejudge new thought and ideologies. We are talking about a country where some Sheiks were talking about how big sin learning a kafir language is.(I am talking about 1940s)

 

[Killuminati]

This is the point. No one thinks about Alevis and how they will act in case of Iranian-like system.

Yes but Alevism a sect of Shiism, is a internal deviding inside a huge community (Ummah) to. The prophet Sallallaahu aleyhe wa sallam didnt draw more then one way.. He showed us the correct way of belief and practice of it to reach Allah. But this is another point but also a important case for the Ummah. You can not say, there are states and no community like the Ummah. But i accept that we live in a different time and imperialism using different tactics so we need to adjust our system to it and most important thing must be to prevent a internal conflict between sects and i think that Ataturks intention was this.

When we are powerfull enough and leading the world, then we can look forward what the possibilites can be for the Ummah like a Islamic Union with one leader that always keeps the benefits for the muslims at front. But its just hard to select the correct one. Hard to prevent corruption.

You cant even block this corruption with a seculair/democratic system as we see now how AKP running their deviding politics..

Its just difficult and especially when we are a targeted nation. Dont forget, Jews want their holy grounds, christians want all the sources in middle-east, and at last they want Anatolia back and destroy the Turkish nation. But to make sure this will happen, they must first secure Israel's place and you can only reach this be deviding all the countries around you and putting a puppet goverment in it. Today, they want devide Syria so their ties with Iran will be lost. Without this they cant attack Iran.

Sorry for long text.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Alevis do not consider themselves Muslim. Alevi Turkmens are quasi-shamanist. Alevi Kurds are quasi-yazidi. Considering them as a sect of Islam, leads you nowhere.

Nobody wonders why an Alevi Turkmen strongly rejects State doctrine. Thats why.

 

[FatihSultanMehmet]

 

[mehmeTcc]

Alevis do not consider themselves Muslim. Alevi Turkmens are quasi-shamanist. Alevi Kurds are quasi-yazidi. Considering them as a sect of Islam, leads you nowhere.

Nobody wonders why an Alevi Turkmen strongly rejects State doctrine. Thats why.

Some Alevis do not consider themselves as Muslims. Some Alevis consider themselves as Muslims, but their praying "style" is far away to Islamic ways. Many of them don't give a damn about religion and this kind of things.

PKK's Turkish supporters are mainly Kurdish Alevis btw.

 

[niaz]

I almost completely agree with you Niaz.

My difference of opinion is on one thing. Ofcourse i recognize that Pakistani's alone have the right to decide the future of Pakistan.

My question: Why do you not want Pakistan to be completely secular?
Let alone the question that many say that if Pakistan had to be secular, why the need to separate from India at all. Those are stupid things.

My question is on the present perspective - today- why do you think Pakistan should not be secular? You want a liberal progressive Islamist state. Why? Why does the state have to have any religion? People can be perfect Muslims without living in an Islamic state.
There are two views of secularism:
1. Western version: Where the state shuns religion and all religious symbols and thus treating them equally.
2. Indian version: Where state state embraces all religions and works towards betterment of each equally.

This is the theoretical part. So what prevents Pakistan from following a perfect implementation of the Indian concept of secularism? Note: India is not able to implement the constitutional idea. However like you said in your post, it is always a work in progress. This is called top induced change. The people of a country may not be secular, but since the state is, they slowly and slowly take to it. Like US took X number of years in giving some semblance of equality to the Black population even after constitutionally declaring it.
It may take another 300 years for India or any other nation to achieve what we declare as the idea. But why not work towards it.

Why should the 2 or 3% of Pakistani minority be treated any differently at all. Whether for good or bad, they should be equal in the eyes of the state?

You give an example of US, but my point is, US is not the ultimate democracy, you can make a better one. Holding the US(or any other country) as the best a nation can achieve is a huge fallacy.
Why should Pakistan not strive to achieve that perfect secularism of state, where each religion is treated equally and embraced equally? Where it is the ultimate choice of any human to choose any religion or no religion and the State has no role in that apart from facilitating whatever he wants for his personal life.

Some Muslim scholars such as Mualana Abul Kalaam Azad; who was a giant among them; correctly guessed the problems that could develop in a state created on the basis of religion. This was probably foreseen by the Quaid as well; therefore he clearly spelled out his vision for Pakistan in his famous 11th August 1947 address. However the Quaid did not last long and now the forces that detested Muslim League and the Quaid e Azam are in ascendance. You would have noticed the posts that rubbish the Quaid, Sir Syed & Agha Khan on the allegation Quaid married a Zoroastrian and the other two were allegedly members of a masonic lodge. How can such elements have respect for the ideas of the founding fathers of Pakistan? That is why Pakistan is slowly turning into a dark age Emirate.

You have asked me a valid question. My comment is that despite all of the above; I was born in a Muslim household and Islam is in my blood. Salafis/Taliban and Takfiris may not consider me a Muslim because of my tilt towards Sufi Islam, but I consider myself a believer. If I was an Agnostic, I would want Pakistan to be secular.

In a secular country laws are formulated because ‘Will of the people’ is supreme. My bone of contention with a secular society is that the laws such as same sex marriage, permissiveness of incest etc. can be promulgated if the majority so decrees. With all my liberal and progressive ideas, I still believe that the laws of the Almighty are supreme. I would therefore not want Pakistan to turn secular.

No matter how secular a state is, it is ultimately the will of majority that prevails. Ayudhia mosque was demolished by a mob and the State Police remained inactive; which Hindu policeman would dare to beat up a Saffron clad Pundit?

Same sort of thing happened in the anti Sikh riots in Delhi and anti Mulsim riots in Gujrat. US constitution is secular but people get away with attacks of a Gurduwara because they mistook bearded Sikhs for Muslims. IMO turning Pakistan into secular state would not have stopped anti Ahmadi riots or target killing of Shias or the exploitation of Christians and Hindus.

Pakistan up to 1965 was a good country to live in. I am hoping against hope that sanity will eventually prevail and we will revert to that progressive and liberal period even though Pakistan was not secular.

It was only after climb down of ZA Bhutto to save his skin by promulagtion of Islamization laws and subsequent rise of anti Pakistan religious forces during the long period of the bigot Zia that made things take a turn for the worse for all but the Deobandi/Salafi/Takfiri alliance and we come across Lashkars and Sepahs and start of killing of Shias by Riaz Basra.

In my personal view all men were created equal, even in an Islamic Republic such as Pakistan, there should be no discrimination regarding religion, race, ethnicity or language. The determination of a person worth should strictly be on merit alone. This is possible to some extent in an Islamic country, Dubai being a living example.

I am an ordinary human, with the biases and prejudices built in and ask your indulgence if I turn out to be below expectations.

 

[Selim I]

This is the point. No one thinks about Alevis and how they will act in case of Iranian-like system.



I really can't understand what is your point then? Science and politics must stay away from religion, this is what Turkish secularism is.
For the bold part, Meiji restoration is a great example about that. But unlike our people, Japanese didn't prejudge new thought and ideologies. We are talking about a country where some Sheiks were talking about how big sin learning a kafir language is.(I am talking about 1940s)

Science and politics are entities which have their own sphere, no doubt about that. I don't think he meant that you should intermingle/mix science, religion and politics. His point seems to be that we should not give up our own religion, culture, lifestyle and adapt the Western just because they currently lead the world in science and technology. It seems that was his point too: don't mix religion with science and technology, we can keep our way of life even if we strive for technological and scientific progress, just like Japan.

And by the way, Turkish secularism has resulted in the opression of Muslims instead of freedom of religion. We haven't experienced any form for growth or development as a result of secularism: only religious segregation.

 

[mehmeTcc]

Science and politics are entities which have their own sphere, no doubt about that. I don't think he meant that you should intermingle/mix science, religion and politics. His point seems to be that we should not give up our own religion, culture, lifestyle and adapt the Western just because they currently lead the world in science and technology. It seems that was his point too: don't mix religion with science and technology, we can keep our way of life even if we strive for technological and scientific progress, just like Japan.

And by the way, Turkish secularism has resulted in the opression of Muslims instead of freedom of religion. We haven't experienced any form for growth or development as a result of secularism: only religious segregation.

Yes exactly. This is why we must have secularism in Turkey. There is also a state religion in England but nobody gives a damn about it. But in Turkey (even in the secular way of governance) some people are oppressing the others to live like Islamic ways.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Myth Buster,

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

This statement proves you suffer from delusional syndrome.

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

So you think its justified? Look the sooner you understand that I am not supportive of 1800s khalifat the better it is going to be for the discussion. I support restoration of Khalifat.

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.

So you are against the idea of giving minorities their due rights? Ottoman rule was ideal for many many centuries and would still be ideal if traitors and corrupters had not destroyed 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.

This is where the need arise for restoration not extermination! If you have weak faith in Islam the problem is with you NOT Islam.

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.

Nice joke.

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.

Of course i cant but the time will when people will realize how much of a sc-um ataturk was.

Its not correct to use Islam argument whole time for the benefits of your sects. Still today, muslims are struggling and killing eachother because of these sect problems but never ask whos letting doing this. To block this problem in Turkey, Ataturk came with a system that separate goverment cases with religion cases.

Nice manipulation of history. Secularism has practiced more extremism then any other system in the world. The Muslims of 1800s were caught off guard because they became lazy and dumb.