*
There is no doubt in my mind that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a great man of his time. His legacy is the modern Turkish Republic. I fail to understand how people call him a Western 'stooge' when he was one of the few Muslim leaders to save his country from being enslaved by he West. I regret that we did not have anybody of his stature in our part of the world - Who might have saved us being slaves of the British for 97 years.
Had Ataturk not been there for Turkey after WW1 Greece would have annexed most of the Bosphorus and the Turkish Aegean Coast. Without doubt today Istanbul would be known as
Constantinople and Izmir would be
Smyrna. Both would be Greek cities. At best Turks would have been left with a poor rump in Eastern Anatolia or worse become a Greek colony.
What I can't understand is that Attaturk saved the Turkish nation from being enslaved like most other Muslims became from Morocco to the Punjab[Pakistan] yet we the grandchildren of the enslaved have the galls to accuse Ataturk of being a Western puppet. So what should he have done? Followed the Punjabi Muslims and let Turks become British slaves?
As far as his annulment of the office of the
Caliphate well that was dead anyway. What is the point of resusitating a dead horse? The so called
Ummah from
Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Gulf Emirates, Punjab [Pakistan], Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Chechnya, Tataristan, Kazakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia,Mauritania, Sudan and Yeman were enslaved and under
European domination.
So what was he going to be, a Caliphate of the enslaved? Did this enslaved Ummah help Turkey in her hour of need. Did the Ummah brothers help Turkey as the Greeks marched towards Istanbul?
No they did not. Instead this is how the Muslim brothers helped out. The Arabs joined the British to attack Ottoman Turkish Army to free Palestine from the Turks so that the British could give it to the Jews.
The Punjabi Muslims, Pashtuns [ Pakistan ] also helped out by joining in droves the British Indian Empire army and fought to
liberate Iraq from the fellow Muslim Turks so that their masters English could grab Iraq. Although to be fair Pashtun and Punjabi's [Pakistan] did also play a hand in the Khilafat Movement to help Turkey.
The unmistable lesson that Ataturk learnt was when the chips are down only your own fellow countrymen will stand by you. Ataturk realized that he would have to work to make Turkey strong. He kickstarted the modernizing process and look where Turkey is today.
Pakistan should be inspired by Ataturks Turkey. We should also note how many Muslim armies joined us to fight against India? Non. It is our fight. How many Muslim countries have sanctioned India for what she is doing in Kashmir? Non. In fact on the contrary some countries like Gulf Emirates and Saudia favour India by choosiong to primarily to recruit workers from India which helps the Indian economy which in turn pays for the Indian military.
So we need to learn from the Turkish experiance, first how not to become slaves of the West [like we were upto 1947] and secondly how to progress in the modern world.
The great
Allama Iqbal from Siakot, Pakistan. Famous
Kashmiri poet and the man who gave birth to the idea of Pakistan supported modern Turkish Republic and saw inspiration in Ataturk's novel Turkish project. His support of Turkey is seen in many ways.
"
One of his [ Allama Iqbal's ] famous poems, namely, Jawab-i-Shikwa was recited in the Badshai Mosque at Lahore [todays Pakistan]. in 1912 in order to raise funds in aid of the Turks wounded in the Balkan war"
"Even on his death bed Iqbal reasoned that each and every reform promulgated in modern Turkey was not repugnant to Islam. He wrote that so long as the Turks believe in Tauhid and the finality of Prophethood, they do not step out of the fold of Islam, whatever may be their interpretation of the Law. The development of pragmatic outlook was in perfect harmony with Islam. Similarly change to European dress or Latin script did not imply renunciation of Islam because Islam as a religion had no territorial attachment and as a culture had neither any specific mode of dress nor any particular script nor language. The reforms such as abolition of polygamy were not anti-Islamic for according to Islamic law the Head of a Muslim State could suspend a legal sanction if the social conditions so demanded. As for the licentiate Ulema, according to Iqbal, only the Head of a Muslim State or those whom he appointed had the right to preach or give a Fatwa -(an opinion on law)".
"
As for the adoption of European civil codes, Iqbal argued that this arose out of the youthful zeal for reform excusable in a people furiously desiring to go ahead. In his view such situation were bound to arise in other Muslim countries also and hence he reaised the question of the revision of old Muslim institutions in the light of modern experience. It was in this background that he insisted on the opening of the gates of Ijtihad and the study of Islamic law in the light of modern jurisprudence so that it can be reinterpreted to suit the needs and the requirements of each and every Muslim generation".
"
It is therefore evident that Iqbal was deeply influenced by the developments in modern Turkey. He evolved the concepts of Islam as a nation building force for Muslim minorities, the carving out of viable independent States in their homelands, giving the power of Ijtihad to an elected legislative assemly and finally the assimilation of Muslim national States as a powerful family of republics, through receiving inspiration from the experiences of the modern Turkish nation.
"He therefore felt the need of evolving modern Islamic theology on the basis of new discoveries in the fields of psychology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc."
Muhammad Iqbal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE IMAGE OF ?TURKEY AND TURKISH DEMOCRACYIN
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Even my fart sound more logical then rhetoric comments by liberal douchebags behind a computer.
