Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

[rsaeed]

Closing the eyes for realities is your weaknes Mark.

Let us summon the Muslim countries:
- Pakistan (plagued by civil unrest, taliban)
- Turkey (plagued by Kurd terorism)
- Iran (plagued by international isolism US policy)
- Egypt (plagued by radicalists teror)
and the list goes on!!!!

The few Arab countries who are not plagued by something are fully in control of the US

Now what does that tell you? You never heard of divide and rule tactics that has been played on you for century by the Britis, now taken over by the US?

Face it, there is no single Muslim country on the whole world strong enough to fight of the outside influences (plain said read USA) that plague our countries, none of us could defend and keep the Caliphate free of being influenced / controlled by outside powers.

I couldn't agree more!!!

 

[The Patriot]

Just want to add one thing. When Ataturk rose to the scene there was hardly any school in turkey but madrassah in every street. Caliph had surrendered and had become a stooge. Ataturk gathered the whole nation, with his vision and leadership, rose against the allies and forced them to withdraw and scrapped the insulting agreement with them. if there was no Ataturk there would be no turkey today.

 

[MastanKhan]

That may have been the case for some of the Ummayads and Abbasids, but we do not use them as our examples. The example of what the Caliphate should model itself on is the Khulafah Rashidun - under the Sahabbas. They were far from the "incompetent drunkard, womanizing mass-murderers". Secondly, the "Caliph" - i.e. leader - is only part of the actual issue, Islam is an entire system. Yes, the Caliph may be corrupt, but as long as the governing institutions - such as military, judiciary, etc - are following Shariah, then the overall system is legitimate.

As bad as the previous Caliphs were, there is no doubt that Muslims were generally not backward fools. In fact, it was in the period of the Caliphate that the Muslim world gave birth to its finest scholars and judges (men and women alike). It was when the intellectual understanding of Islam decreased, that the ability to do proper Ijtehad failed and thus the lag of rulings vis-a-vis the ever-changing reality.

That doesn't make sense. Shariah law conflicted with many of the Arabian tribal customs and beliefs, so how can it be from it? Shariah clearly has a different precedence.

Hi,

Convenient inclusions and convenient exclusion---is it pakistan's cricket team that we are talking about---what do you mean---'we donot use them as---' what hipocrisy is that

---so basically over 1400 years all the musliom world has to show is the period of the first four caliphs---and after that nothing---because others conveniently fail to reach their mark---so they are not counted---

So---it is heads I win---tails---you loose---wonderful---isn't it.

your quote " Yes, the Caliph may be corrupt, but as long as the governing institutions - such as military, judiciary, etc - are following Shariah, then the overall system is legitimate "----the legitimacy of a caliph---could it get more perverse---.

The rest of the institutions are not living in a vacuum---what is good for the goose---is good for the gander---

You think if the caliph is dipping his tool in every sink hole that he may want to----the others won't follow the example of the leader---where do young pakistanis get these unnurturing ideas and thoughts from!!!

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Closing the eyes for realities is your weaknes Mark.

Let us summon the Muslim countries:
- Pakistan (plagued by civil unrest, taliban)
- Turkey (plagued by Kurd terorism)
- Iran (plagued by international isolism US policy)
- Egypt (plagued by radicalists teror)
and the list goes on!!!!

The few Arab countries who are not plagued by something are fully in control of the US

Now what does that tell you? You never heard of divide and rule tactics that has been played on you for century by the Britis, now taken over by the US?

Face it, there is no single Muslim country on the whole world strong enough to fight of the outside influences (plain said read USA) that plague our countries, none of us could defend and keep the Caliphate free of being influenced / controlled by outside powers.

Well the reason for turmoil in the Muslim territories is simply because, the Europeans have adapted what Muslims tried to use for their self

i.e unity and union (European Union) free trade zones etc.



Muslim countries need to embrace democracy , and also improve their own societies. Sure divide and rule works but if the population is eductaed , then it becomes grea concept

 

[Quwa]

Closing the eyes for realities is your weaknes Mark.

Let us summon the Muslim countries:
- Pakistan (plagued by civil unrest, taliban)
- Turkey (plagued by Kurd terorism)
- Iran (plagued by international isolism US policy)
- Egypt (plagued by radicalists teror)
and the list goes on!!!!

The few Arab countries who are not plagued by something are fully in control of the US

Now what does that tell you? You never heard of divide and rule tactics that has been played on you for century by the Britis, now taken over by the US?

Face it, there is no single Muslim country on the whole world strong enough to fight of the outside influences (plain said read USA) that plague our countries, none of us could defend and keep the Caliphate free of being influenced / controlled by outside powers.

All of those problems relate to one root issue, lack of Islamic knowledge and understanding. That is why I specifically stated that the Caliphate can only be revived through intellectualism -- because the bigger issues are in the minds, which in turn will dictate actions.

However, this still doesn't absolve Attaturk from dismantling the Caliphate-system in the first place.

 

[Quwa]

Hi,

---so basically over 1400 years all the musliom world has to show is the period of the first four caliphs---and after that nothing---because others conveniently fail to reach their mark---so they are not counted---

We do not judge an entire system based purely on its leaders, but also measure whether its political, economic and judicial systems are also Islamic. As problematic as the Ummayads, Abbasids and Ottomans were, they still established and maintained the system - even though the seat of leadership/Caliph was their own entitlement. As long as the Shariah is being maintained between Muslims, one cannot physically rebel against the Caliph -- unless he begins to implement Kufr. However, this doesn't absolve us from using the Khulafah Rashidun as our guideline, especially since we've been able to understand the faults of monarchic rule.

your quote " Yes, the Caliph may be corrupt, but as long as the governing institutions - such as military, judiciary, etc - are following Shariah, then the overall system is legitimate "----the legitimacy of a caliph---could it get more perverse---.

The rest of the institutions are not living in a vacuum---what is good for the goose---is good for the gander---

You think if the caliph is dipping his tool in every sink hole that he may want to----the others won't follow the example of the leader---where do young pakistanis get these unnurturing ideas and thoughts from!!!

There is a lot of sarcasm and not a whole lot of content. If you want to discuss ideas, I'm fine...Nutuk is doing a great job discussing this in a coherent manner, why don't you start as well?

 

[Nutuk]

Dear Mark, you are looking at things from emotional perspective. I am more a pragmatic person and like to classify in black, white and gray tones.

IMO religion is a very powerfull thing, can be used as a weapon in wrong hands. And as long as you don't have the power to safeguard the leadership (caliphate) the only alternative that remains is to abolish it. IMO Ataturk handled absolutely correct and realistic to the circumstances in which Turkey was after WW1.

You state there is a lack of Islamic knowledge and understanding, now my return question is: would it be different if the Caliphate existed today??? Ain't it over simplistic to accuse one man -> Ataturk? In my vocabulary that is ignorance.

 

[Super Falcon]

i dont know when all these countries will get out of jail from USA

 

[The Patriot]

This whole theory of Caliphate for Muslims is a flawed theory. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had not left or advised any system behind, which means he left that for Muslims to decide which kind of govt they want. of course, there were guideline. The four caliphs did not follow any system either. Hazrat Abu Bakar was selected by Hazrat Umar, and then Hazrat Abu Bakar nominated Hazrat Umar. Hazrat Usman was selected by a selected council and so was Hazrat Ali. Ummayads was a monarchy and so was Abbasids and Ottomans.
Muslims are not bound to follow any specific system. they can choose whatever best serves them. and in this case they can also evolve and i think that is why Prophet (pbuh) did not leave any strict system.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

religion and politics don't mix.....

Especially in developing countries, where state's focus should be on hiring people who will promote strong economy and social development.....not hiring people just because they can recite verses from the Quran

 

[Quwa]

IMO religion is a very powerfull thing, can be used as a weapon in wrong hands. And as long as you don't have the power to safeguard the leadership (caliphate) the only alternative that remains is to abolish it. IMO Ataturk handled absolutely correct and realistic to the circumstances in which Turkey was after WW1.

'Religion' is part of Islam, but only part among many. I don't even need to start posting the verses and hadiths that establish that the Caliphate-system is an obligation, let's just see it simply:

Was there an Islamic system in place for 1300+ years or no?

You state there is a lack of Islamic knowledge and understanding, now my return question is: would it be different if the Caliphate existed today??? Ain't it over simplistic to accuse one man -> Ataturk? In my vocabulary that is ignorance.

When Ataturk abolished a system he was obliged to preserve, he removed the system that produced scholars of better understanding, many of whom wrote the revivalist works that allows us to clearly differentiate between the ignorant Mullahs and scholars of value. There is no way Ataturk will be absolved - Islamically speaking - for dismantling the Caliphate-system. He had every right to remove the Ottoman dynasty, but not the laws and systems of Allah SWT. Not recognizing this is ignorant of many verses in Quran, many hadith, many classical scholarly works and Islamic history.

 

[Quwa]

This whole theory of Caliphate for Muslims is a flawed theory. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had not left or advised any system behind, which means he left that for Muslims to decide which kind of govt they want. of course, there were guideline. The four caliphs did not follow any system either. Hazrat Abu Bakar was selected by Hazrat Umar, and then Hazrat Abu Bakar nominated Hazrat Umar. Hazrat Usman was selected by a selected council and so was Hazrat Ali. Ummayads was a monarchy and so was Abbasids and Ottomans.
Muslims are not bound to follow any specific system. they can choose whatever best serves them. and in this case they can also evolve and i think that is why Prophet (pbuh) did not leave any strict system.

The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: "There will be Nabuwa with Rehma (Prophethood with Mercy). Then there will be Khilafah with Ba’yah(Pledge). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Mulkan ‘Adoodan (Rule by force). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Mulkan Jabriya (against people’s will). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Khilafah Rashidah Minhaj An Nabuwa (Khilafah on the method of Prophethood). The earth and the sky will bestow their treasures." [Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal]

The Prophet (saw) said, “The knots of Islam will be untied one by one until everyone of them is undone, the first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah” [Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal]

 

[The Patriot]

The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: "There will be Nabuwa with Rehma (Prophethood with Mercy). Then there will be Khilafah with Ba’yah(Pledge). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Mulkan ‘Adoodan (Rule by force). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Mulkan Jabriya (against people’s will). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Khilafah Rashidah Minhaj An Nabuwa (Khilafah on the method of Prophethood). The earth and the sky will bestow their treasures." [Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal]

The Prophet (saw) said, “The knots of Islam will be untied one by one until everyone of them is undone, the first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah” [Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal]

now where does this hadith tells that Khilafah is the right form out of all these. its just classification or rather foretelling the systems.Pl also tell us if this hadith is related by other books of hadiths too.
according to this hadith if God wishes he would change the system. i think you should not blame Ataturk then.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Lets judge by RESULTS and set aside this other crap talk.


Ataturk was WAYYYYYY ahead of his time. Now lets look at Turkiye. They have no oil, no gas. Yet politically and economically, they are resilient and very strong.


74 million Turks imitate their great leader and recognize the great ideals that he bequeathed upon his great nation.

Do 164 millions abide by the principles of our Quaid e Azam? Our politicians (demons, crooks and lizard-eaters) don't seem to. So why would the masses then.

 

[jamal18]

Lets judge by RESULTS and set aside this other crap talk.


Ataturk was WAYYYYYY ahead of his time. Now lets look at Turkiye. They have no oil, no gas. Yet politically and economically, they are resilient and very strong.


74 million Turks imitate their great leader and recognize the great ideals that he bequeathed upon his great nation.

Do 164 millions abide by the principles of our Quaid e Azam? Our politicians (demons, crooks and lizard-eaters) don't seem to. So why would the masses then.

Results?

The mustapha kemal died 1938, having ruled from around the mid-1920's.

There was an article in the Pakistan army magazine from an officer who was the Pakistani military attache in the 1950's. He stated that as part of his job, he travelled all over Turkey via road and rail. His view was that at that time Pakistan was ahead of Turkey in all fields . Turkeys economic resurgence took place as a result of economic plans in the sixties and 70's, not before.

74 million Turks follow him? This is a result of the educational policy that virtually deifies him in all schools, and training institutes; and makes him synonymous with Turkish nationalism. One of the reasons for moving the capital to Ankara from Istanbul was the animosity that the people of Istanbul had for him at the time.

You don't seem to realise that there are two sides to this.