Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

[SekrutYakhni]

Be carefull to read it

We cannot impose our agenda on them. I do not know Ataturk very well but if we assume that he was very liberal than it does not mean he had enough power to make Turkey a liberal state. Many Turkish people also wanted the same as Ataturk...
Musharaf was also a liberal leader but he could not change the views of many Pakistanis because society did not accept but there the society accepted because they liked it.

Now I will tell you guys something….Think about it…
It is a big thing…..lol

Muslims say that God made human beings and he specified the age of everyone..
People who are killed in Palestine or anywhere else…their age is also specified…

There is an example..

Soul asked God that people will abuse me because they know people die when soul goes away….God said don’t worry…I will create diseases like hear attack, sugar, cancer, aids etc so people do not blame you….

So Israel is just a pawn in a chess game….it is being played by someone else…So people who are being killed in Palestine…had their age specified and after that they got killed or died or murdered or shaheed anything

The thing I told is a big thing….be careful

 

[aakalim]

If the turkish people admire ataturk and consider him as the father of their nation, than who are we to critisize and disrespect him.

We may not agree with some of the things that he did, but we must give him respect as a great leader of a great muslim nation.

 

[niaz]

In most cases traditionalists; those follow literal interpretation blindly, such as if it is stated that Allah is sitting the chair of Heaven and earth, Allah is literally sitting there; have managed to ramrod their views on the joe public because people are afraid of contradicting these for the fear of being dubbed as ‘Kafirs’. It is tragic that rational thought has been snuffed out by many of the traditionalist scholars.

As already mentioned in one the threads, Maulana Maudoodi has implied in his writings that Khilafat changed into hereditary kingship (Malukiet) after the Rashideen; only Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz deserved the rank of Khalifa after the Rashideen. Umayyad, Abbasids and Ottoman Khalifas were kings in all but name. Simply adopting the title of Kahilfa does not make one a Khalifa. Regardless of the fact that majority of the Turkish Sultans were not even pious, drank and womanized to excess; many in the subcontinent were willing to sacrifice their life for this kind of Khilafat.

I have seen from some posts in this thread the people are not aware of modern Turkish History. October 30, 1918 Treaty of Mondros gave the Allies (France & UK) powers to control the Bosphorus and intervene in the Turkish State. French forces entered Istanbul on Nov 12, 1918.

Mustafa Kamal Pasha was a real life military hero. He was one of the leaders responsible for liberating Turkey from the British. After decisive Turkish Military victory, Modern Turkey came into being thru Treaty of Mudanya signed on 11th October, 1922.

Members of this forum who call Mustafa Kemal by bad names and hanker after the degenerate Ottoman Khalifas, have every right to hold their view. IMO these people are naïve in the extreme; it is like calling Quaid e Azam a kafir but the bigot Zia a hero of Islam; as some in Pakistan still do. In my book the Ghazi such as Ata Turk, who delivers Muslims from slavery is thousand times better than the later Ottoman Khalifas.

 

[Agito]

Even though I might not agree with all of Ataturk's super-secular ideas but I must admit that he saved Turkey from disaster and many enemies. As much as the Ottomans were great at one point in time, they became more of a burden than blessing towards the last 100 years. The Ottoman empire lagged behind in everything and tired hard to adapt yet failed at nearly every single point. In fact, if it weren't for the British propping up the Ottoman empire, it would have probably died around the 1840s or even earlier. The Brits feared that with the collapse of the Ottomans, Russia would move in to take the former Ottoman lands (which they tried so hard to do with mixed success).

My point is, Turkey (and all of its former territories) needed serious updating to adapt to the situation back then or else face occupation (which most of them did). The Ottomans were powerless to stop these invasions in the 19th/20th century due to a sever lag in technology. Ataturk saved Turkey from a horrible fate so his people( and muslims) deserve to respect him even if they don't agree with everything he did.

 

[Quwa]

In most cases traditionalists; those follow literal interpretation blindly, such as if it is stated that Allah is sitting the chair of Heaven and earth, Allah is literally sitting there; have managed to ramrod their views on the joe public because people are afraid of contradicting these for the fear of being dubbed as ‘Kafirs’. It is tragic that rational thought has been snuffed out by many of the traditionalist scholars.

As already mentioned in one the threads, Maulana Maudoodi has implied in his writings that Khilafat changed into hereditary kingship (Malukiet) after the Rashideen; only Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz deserved the rank of Khalifa after the Rashideen. Umayyad, Abbasids and Ottoman Khalifas were kings in all but name. Simply adopting the title of Kahilfa does not make one a Khalifa. Regardless of the fact that majority of the Turkish Sultans were not even pious, drank and womanized to excess; many in the subcontinent were willing to sacrifice their life for this kind of Khilafat.

I have seen from some posts in this thread the people are not aware of modern Turkish History. October 30, 1918 Treaty of Mondros gave the Allies (France & UK) powers to control the Bosphorus and intervene in the Turkish State. French forces entered Istanbul on Nov 12, 1918.

Mustafa Kamal Pasha was a real life military hero. He was one of the leaders responsible for liberating Turkey from the British. After decisive Turkish Military victory, Modern Turkey came into being thru Treaty of Mudanya signed on 11th October, 1922.

Members of this forum who call Mustafa Kemal by bad names and hanker after the degenerate Ottoman Khalifas, have every right to hold their view. IMO these people are naïve in the extreme; it is like calling Quaid e Azam a kafir but the bigot Zia a hero of Islam; as some in Pakistan still do. In my book the Ghazi such as Ata Turk, who delivers Muslims from slavery is thousand times better than the later Ottoman Khalifas.

Does all that change the fact that establishing Shariah and Khilafat are obligations upon the Ummah? If the Ottomans sold out, then you remove the Ottomans, not the Islamic System in place. You strive to make the system just, but you still cannot remove that actual system. The behaviour of the Caliphs (humans) has no bearing on what Quran and Sunnah requires upon us; and if their actions went unquestioned - which didn't - then the Ummah will be held accountable as accounting the ruler too was an obligation.

 

[Quwa]

If the turkish people admire ataturk and consider him as the father of their nation, than who are we to critisize and disrespect him.

We may not agree with some of the things that he did, but we must give him respect as a great leader of a great muslim nation.

Who told you having a nation-state was halal or permissible to begin with?

 

[aakalim]

Who told you having a nation-state was halal or permissible to begin with?

Who told you it is haram...?

According to me Islam does not restricts its followers to follow only one form of government i.e Caliphate. Nations states were the need of the time. Ottoman kaliphate, as i have already said, had become very weak and no more sustainable. If any one is to blame than it is the arab nasionalisn and pan Arabism, who revolted and sought independence from the Ottoman Empire, and in the process contributed to the weakening of the ottoman empire.

 

[Quwa]

Who told you it is haram...?

In Arabic, nationalism, tribalism, patriotism and racism are referred to as "assabiyah", and in Islam, the role of "assabiyah" is clearly defined:

"Leave it. It is Rotten " [Bukhari & Muslim] refers to all forms of Asabiyah: nationalism, racism, and patriotism, tribalism.​

It is narrated by Abu Daud that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism/racism) or who fights for `Asabiyah or who dies for `Asabiyah."​

Also, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahilliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of Hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through Khara (dung)." [Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi]​

According to me Islam does not restricts its followers to follow only one form of government i.e Caliphate. Nations states were the need of the time. Ottoman kaliphate, as i have already said, had become very weak and no more sustainable. If any one is to blame than it is the arab nasionalisn and pan Arabism, who revolted and sought independence from the Ottoman Empire, and in the process contributed to the weakening of the ottoman empire.

Okay good, so what does Islam say - i.e. Quran and Sunnah - say on the matter? Please show evidences.

Secondly, nation-states are social constructs - i.e. produced by man - and therefore not objective or observable facts, like water. Therefore, this man-made concept must be pit against what Islam says, and deemed whether permissible or forbidden. Based on the above hadith, conditions where we treat our fellow brothers and sisters differently based on a matter Allah SWT forbidden is clearly forbidden.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

if it takes weeks to debate and argue over KL bills and NROs, then how the hell long it would take to debate what is real "shariah"


387 years? More?


religion and state should not be inter-twined. Religion is a private matter between man and God. Best to focus on ourselves and our nation. We spend so much time worrying about others.


set aside your prides and your arguments and just look at Turkiye where they are today. They invested in their population, and the population invested in the nation. They respect the father of their nation. We should jointly learn to do the same with ours.

 

[Quwa]

if it takes weeks to debate and argue over KL bills and NROs, then how the hell long it would take to debate what is real "shariah"

Bills such as NRO are derived from human legislation, so without an objective basis of thought, it is obvious such things will be debated. Shariah is an obligation from Allah SWT, and that obligation will be on our necks on the Day of Judgement. Two entirely different matters.

religion and state should not be inter-twined. Religion is a private matter between man and God. Best to focus on ourselves and our nation. We spend so much time worrying about others.

You're making an assumption that Islam is just a religion. Islam is a way of thought - i.e. submission - in which all matters, whether secular, religious, instinctual, etc, are governed by the Creator. It is from the Creator's orders that we pray in manner of Salah and do Hajj. It is from the Creator's orders that we abstain from swines. There is no doubt that if the Creator - the one who created every single thing - sets a way of governance upon us, then we must follow it. The Creator establishes the relationship with creation, not the other way around. So if the Creator told you that nation-states and secularism are allowed, then show us evidence.

set aside your prides and your arguments and just look at Turkiye where they are today. They invested in their population, and the population invested in the nation. They respect the father of their nation. We should jointly learn to do the same with ours.

That's irrelevant. We do not judge based on what is profitable or beneficial, but based on what is right and wrong. The nations of 'Aad and Thamud were also prosperous.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Shariah is an obligation from Allah SWT, and that obligation will be on our necks on the Day of Judgement. Two entirely different matters.

Good. So let people decide whether they want to go to heaven or go to hell. That isnt the government's job.

You're making an assumption that Islam is just a religion. Islam is a way of thought - i.e. submission - in which all matters, whether secular, religious, instinctual, etc, are governed by the Creator. It is from the Creator's orders that we pray in manner of Salah and do Hajj. It is from the Creator's orders that we abstain from swines. There is no doubt that if the Creator - the one who created every single thing - sets a way of governance upon us, then we must follow it. The Creator establishes the relationship with creation, not the other way around. So if the Creator told you that nation-states and secularism are allowed, then show us evidence.

What are you trying to say? Allah SWT is a divine entity and creator of humankind and the universe. Allah SWT does not run countries. He SWT gave us "aqil" and the means to effectively run the affairs of the Federation.

It is a religion based on consensus. At least ideally speaking. But humans are also not perfect, and reaching consensus on matters (especially religious ones) can be troublesome.

Need proof of that? Look at the Ulema when they debate over the sighting of Shawwal moon. Pakistan is the only country where Eid takes place at different times depending on the Province.

That's irrelevant. We do not judge based on what is profitable or beneficial, but based on what is right and wrong.

and you don't always need religion to differentiate between right and wrong.

 

[Quwa]

Good. So let people decide whether they want to go to heaven or go to hell. That isnt the government's job.

As long as we call ourselves Muslim, it still doesn't change the fact that is a fardh upon us to estbalish Shariah between us, and Khilafah to lead us.

What are you trying to say? Allah SWT is a divine entity and creator of humankind and the universe. Allah SWT does not run countries. He SWT gave us "aqil" and the means to effectively run the affairs of the Federation.

Legislating policies, laws, etc, pertaining to the interaction of people with this world and one another is not the right of humans:

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48]

"..Verily the 'Hukm' (command, Judgment) is for none but Allah.." [TMQ 12:40]

“…And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the zaalimun (unjust, oppressors).” [TMQ 5:45]

“…And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Faasiqun (transgressors)” [TMQ 5:47]

“…And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kaafirun (disbelievers).” [TMQ 5:44]

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Imaan, until they make you (O Muhammad) the judge in all disputes between them…” [TMQ 4:65]

“And so judge between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires...” [TMQ 5:49]

“Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm belief.” [TMQ 5:50]

We are allowed to apply this in the manner we wish, so adopt new technology, organization skills, administrative skills, etc, is all fine. However, the actual ideas, concepts, laws, principles, etc, stay the same.

It is a religion based on consensus. At least ideally speaking. But humans are also not perfect, and reaching consensus on matters (especially religious ones) can be troublesome.

This is very vague. You can decide a wrong based on consensus, it doesn't make that wrong a right. Yes, we have the right of consensus to decide leadership and to decide between two permissible/halal options.

and you don't always need religion to differentiate between right and wrong.

Yes, we can certainly decide right and wrong based on criteria other than that of The Creator, but do we have this right? Everything must be directed back to Quran and Sunnah, and this includes the religion itself. The basic idea is not religion, but the fact that we must obey the Creator in all matters at all times.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

first and foremost -- and i reiterate -- forget about Khilafaat. It doesnt exist. Those days are long over. On paper it sounds nice, but it aint gonna happen.

As a Pakistani, i humbly say lets focus on ourselves. Our society is already for the most part practicing Muslims. We have Islamic banking and we have non-Islamic banking. We have fundamentalists and we have non-religious. So what more do we need???


people should have a right to choose their beliefs and their views on matters....there is no compulsion in religion. Of course those that follow the path of Islam (as we believe) will reap the benefits later on in life.

But I am focused on governance of the State. And no matter how many people argue about it, I assert that religion and state do not mix.

I judge people based on merit, based on credentials, based on character and morals, based on accomplishments.....not based on how much "iman" they have.

 

[Quwa]

first and foremost -- and i reiterate -- forget about Khilafaat. It doesnt exist. Those days are long over. On paper it sounds nice, but it aint gonna happen.

What is this assumption based on? There are hadiths upon hadiths stating otherwise.

As a Pakistani, i humbly say lets focus on ourselves. Our society is already for the most part practicing Muslims. We have Islamic banking and we have non-Islamic banking. We have fundamentalists and we have non-religious. So what more do we need???

You don't decide what's right and wrong based on your whims and desires, and especially not on your Pakistani identity. This goes against what Quran and Sunnah clearly stipulates (above). If you have an issue with it, then you need to disprove Quran and Sunnah itself. Otherwise we have no place in arguing with The Creator, it's irrational.

people should have a right to choose their beliefs and their views on matters....there is no compulsion in religion. Of course those that follow the path of Islam (as we believe) will reap the benefits later on in life.

Personal beliefs pertaining to spiritual worship are different than Muslims fulfilling their Islamic obligations. BTW, this right of Christians and Jews to retain their religions was bestowed to them by Allah SWT, and protected by the Khilafah for over 1300 years. So if you believe this, then you need to have the legitimate institutions - i.e. Khilafah - to ensure its survival.

But I am focused on governance of the State. And no matter how many people argue about it, I assert that religion and state do not mix.

I judge people based on merit, based on credentials, based on character and morals, based on accomplishments.....not based on how much "iman" they have.

Islam is broader than just a religion, it applies to our practical lives just as much as the private and spiritual lives. Yes, we choose leaders based on their merit and qualifications in a particular field. However, this right and obligation was bestowed to us by Allah SWT. The key concept here is that referring to Allah SWT as your Sovereign in all affairs at all times.

Islam means "Surrender"...it is an ideological concept, a matter that begins with one's thoughts and emotions, and then streams down to an individual's public, private and spiritual affairs.

And I have not created Jinn and Men, except that they should worship Me [TMQ: 51: 56]

“Did you see the one who takes as his own ilaah his own whims and desires? Could you be a disposer of affairs for him? Or do you think that most of them listen or understand? They are only like cattle; nay, they are worse astray in Path.” [TMQ 25:43-44]

The Arabic word for "worship" is "ya'badoon", and it is based on the root "abd" - which means slave. If you look through the Lisaan al-Arab - the prominent Classical Arabic dictionary - it usually refers to obedience to Allah SWT, especially in Quran.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

What is this assumption based on?

based on the fact that Muslim countries are dis-united and in a period of dissaray.

2 influential Islamic countries are at eachother's throats and using Yemen, Lebanon, Falasteen and even to some extent our own country --to settle their stupid scores.

Personal beliefs pertaining to spiritual worship are different than Muslims fulfilling their Islamic obligations. BTW, this right of Christians and Jews to retain their religions was bestowed to them by the Khilafah, and protected by the Khilafah. So if you believe this, then you need to have the legitimate institutions - i.e. Khilafah - to ensure its survival.

so --assuming you are correct, how do we go about bringing about this khilafah. What are the steps?

Islam is broader than just a religion, it applies to our practical lives just as much as the private and spiritual lives.

not everybody is the same, or shares the same beliefs

Yes, we choose leaders based on their merit and qualifications in a particular field. However, this right and obligation was bestowed to us by Allah SWT. The key concept here is that referring to Allah SWT as your Sovereign in all affairs at all times. Islam means "surrender", not "Masjid".

How does that answer what I said?