Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Continued... Abolition of Ottoman Caliphate

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Continued... Abolition of Ottoman Caliphate
    Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 07:06
This is a continuation of the discussion from the thread "How the Turks became Muslim". I really don't think the topic warranted being locked, as the original discussion was dead anyway, but the powers that be decided so.

Originally posted by cok gec

Topic: Ataturk as a role model


Since I wasn't discussing the issue of Kemal being a role model, the suggested topic to carry over into is really not agreeable to me.

-----

Bulldog,

Rubbish, he fought 7 times for the Ottomans and was deeply loyal to the end.


He was part of the armed forces, he served his duty and carried out the actions of his commanders as any military personell in any army would, doesn't mean he agrees with their system or with their ideology.

What is more important to look at, is what he immediately did once he actually siezed power and was able to make decisions regarding the status of the Ottoman Caliphate, this is what we should use as our criteria to determine his loyalty to the Ottoman state. Not what he did as a military officer unable to effect the running of the state.

And we both know what he did, he moved immediately to abolish the Caliphate, the Islamic institution the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had established himself 1350 years earlier. About which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said "Whosoever dies without a bay'ah (pledge) of allegience (to a Khalifah) on his neck, dies a death of Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic ignorance)".

So his actions are quite clear and his intentions regarding the Ottoman state were quite clear once he had the power to express them. You cannot expect us to judge him based on his actions prior to him having to power, as he would obviously not call for the dismantling of the Caliphate, when he was himself subject to it.

I'm sure you can follow the logic here.

he was an Ottoman general and was ordered to start resistance groups by the Ottoman leadership because they had no other alternative for the survival of a nation other than a restitance war.


As far as I'm aware the Ottoman authorities never asked him to undertake such actions, can you provide some more information on this claim? The British were the only ones who supported him in his rebellious activities, as they were quite aware of his intentions to fulfil their plan of abolishing the Caliphate. Those with a common goal usually pool their resources and work together.

He was no tool of the Brittish, he was a nemesis of the Brittish, defeating them in Gallipoli, stopping their desires in Sakarya, stopping their control of Istanbul


Again, you seem to be mixing his role as a military officer, with that of his role as a political leader of the rebellious entity which he formed in Ankara. The British fought against the Ottoman state at Gallipoli (actually mostly ANZACs did, not British, and were like lambs to the slaughter) not against Mustafa Kemal, this is where your main confusion about this issue seems to arise. Kemal at this time was a subject of the Ottoman state who had no political autonomy. And after such a great victory in the Dardanelles, Kemal returned to Istanbul campaining government officials to withdraw from the war, for which was he exiled to the Qoqaz. After that he was assigned to Syria and handed it over to the British, I'm sorry but his credibility as a great campaigning Ghazi who had a sincere love for the Ottoman state just doesn't hold up.

Even though the Ottoman state was an ally of Germany, the newly formed political entity of Kemal in Ankara was spared the vanquishing domination that Germany suffered... Why? Because Kemal had handed all of the Islamic lands to the British on a platter, and he was a shrewd bargainer with whom they'd keep their promises (unlike Bin Ali who they treated like the lame dog he was). So it becomes quite clear that the work of Kemal was completely in unison with that of the British and that they worked harmoniously to dismember the Ottoman Caliphate, the former internally and the latter externally.

I don't understand your proposals, you condemn AtaTurk yet don't know about him in any detail


You mean I haven't been subjected to growing up in Kemalist Turkey and being spoon fed his heroic stories and qualities? Yeh if that's your criteria for "knowing about him in detail" then sorry, no I don't know about him in detail.

you condemn Turks and other muslims in the area now called Turkey for not bowing to invaders of muslim lands


No I did not. I condemned Kemal and his followers. Other Muslims of Anatolia for instance began their own resistance and rallied around the son of Abdul Hamid II, but it was short lived and ineffective, due to Kemal's frenzy of nationalistic fervour, which had by this time sowed the seeds of poison in the hearts of enough people to detract them from working to preserve the Caliphate.

who had control of the Caliphate and were using him as a puppet to stop any resistance.


The British controlled both the Istanbul government and the Ankara one. The battle was for the hearts and minds of the people, and they won this one too through their agent Kemal. The Muslims abandoned the Caliphate and rallied around Kemalist nationalism, the ultimate outcome for the British. The bad outcome for the British would've been the rejection of Kemalist Nationalism and Secularism and the rallying around the Caliphate and attempt to restore it.

So decide for yourself, who won? Britain certainly feels she did... and as a Muslim don't you think we lost? Or do you consider yourself a Turk rather than a Muslim? do you belong to the same Ummah as me? Or to the Ummah of Kemal? Don't say both, because it doesn't work that way. You've been fooled into believing you as a "Turkish Muslim" won. But this is a charade.

TBC...
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 07:32
Why? Because Kemal had handed all of the Islamic lands to the British on a platter
That is untrue, Atatrk had  not  power to  take  other   lands.   Fighting  against  greece and fighting against  UK is  totally different.
 
Infact compared  with ww1, Turkish  independence war  is only a  play ground.
 
Turkey  had  no  power  to  war  against  UK.
 
Plus Abdulhamit  2 and  Atatrk had no  relation,  Ataturk was  a minor power at the times  of Abdulhamit and his role at Gallipoli is exaggerated.
 
 
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 07:53
Mortaza,

He had given them Bilad ash-Shaam, by abandoning Damascus for Aleppo and then retreating even further into Anatolia abandoning all of the lands of Bilad ash-Shaam to the British without even putting up the slighest resistance. This fact can't be denied, and also as I mentioned, ever since the stunning victory in the Dardanelles, he wanted to withdraw from the war and surrender the Ottoman State. He was clearly assisting the British to sever the non-Turkish lands from the Ottoman State, so he could secure himself as leader of a newly formed entity in Anatolia-only.

Turkey had beaten Britain in Dardanelles and were set to continue their victories, but for some reason all of a sudden she began withdrawing from the non-Turkish lands, under the military leadership of Kemal.... Bit of a co-incidence? I don't think so.

I never said Abdul Hamid II and Kemal had a relation. In fact I argued they were complete opposite ends of the scale. One was a restorer of Islam and the Caliphate, whilst the other was an enemy of Islam and a destroyer of the Caliphate. I was arguing in the other thread against someone who claimed Kemal admired and respected Abdul Hamid II.

Perhaps you should go back and read the last few posts in that thread.



Edited by Qutuz - 06-Nov-2006 at 07:55
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 08:02
He had given then Bilad ash-Shaam, by abandoning Damascus for Aleppo and then retreating even further into Anatolia abandoning all of the lands of Bilad ash-Shaam to the British without even putting up the slighest resistance. This fact can't be denied, and also as I mentioned, even since the stunning victory in the Dardanelles, he wanted to withdraw from the war and surrender the Ottoman State. He was clearly assisting the British to sever the non-Turkish lands from the Ottoman State, so he could secure himself as leader of a newly formed entity in Anatolia-only.
 
Inreality we did gain nothing at dardanellas, we only stoped them.  I wont call It as a victory, but only a good defence.
 
We had no source and power to win over brits.Infact without russia, we would not even have anatolia.
 
our independence war is a playground compared with ww1, but we were even loosing that war.(Thanks to russian help and Brit backstab to greece.) So fighting against british, arabs, greeks, france? and winning war? are you joking?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Jagatai Khan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Jeune Turc

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270
  Quote Jagatai Khan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 09:42

Qutuz What do you expect from Turkey?Turkey did the best she can.Millions of Turks died in Suez, Hejaz and Iraq.What for?While Egyptian press was kidding with the "Jihad" of the Sultan, while Djemal Pasha was scattering gold coins to Arab tribes to just stop their attacks on Turkish soldiers in Syria and Palestine, while Saudis were kissing the hands of Lawrence, and while all declared Allenby as "El-Nebi" how can you wait the "saviour" Turks?

Turkey had beaten Britain in Dardanelles and were set to continue their victories, but for some reason all of a sudden she began withdrawing from the non-Turkish lands, under the military leadership of Kemal.... Bit of a co-incidence? I don't think so.

Turkey beated the British in Gallipoli but Turkish armies were in a full retreat in Iraq, Suez, Hejaz and Caucasus.We were set to continue defeats.

One was a restorer of Islam and the Caliphate, whilst the other was an enemy of Islam and a destroyer of the Caliphate. I was arguing in the other thread against someone who claimed Kemal admired and respected Abdul Hamid II.

Abdulhamid was overthrown by Young Turks.Mustafa Kemal was an ordinary commander at Ottoman Army at these times.



The British controlled both the Istanbul government and the Ankara one. The battle was for the hearts and minds of the people, and they won this one too through their agent Kemal. The Muslims abandoned the Caliphate and rallied around Kemalist nationalism, the ultimate outcome for the British. The bad outcome for the British would've been the rejection of Kemalist Nationalism and Secularism and the rallying around the Caliphate and attempt to restore it.

So decide for yourself, who won? Britain certainly feels she did... and as a Muslim don't you think we lost? Or do you consider yourself a Turk rather than a Muslim? do you belong to the same Ummah as me? Or to the Ummah of Kemal? Don't say both, because it doesn't work that way. You've been fooled into believing you as a "Turkish Muslim" won. But this is a charade.

Well, we have a "Historical Amusement" forum for all these.



Turkish Independence War was a national war to protect the national borders.It is a foolishness to expect its spreading to Middle East; the poor army had defeated Greeks hardly.

Caliph had declared a Jihad and we saw what it costed.You should read more objective sources.


Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 10:20

Turkish Independence War was a national war to protect the national borders.

What do u mean by national borders.

Back to Top
Jagatai Khan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Jeune Turc

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270
  Quote Jagatai Khan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 10:31
I mean the borders stated in "Misak-i Milli" which means "The National Oath".

It is today's Turkish borders, except Mowsul and Batum.


Edited by Jagatai Khan - 06-Nov-2006 at 10:33
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 13:19
Qutuz your slant on history is quite remarkable. You attempt to portray collusion between the Kemal Ataturk and the British. You cannot accept that a Republic was built by the Turkish people and the leadership of the Nationalists. By the way, wasn't it a British ship that took Mehmed VI Vahidettin to exile?

Accepting the Sultanate on July 3, 1918, Vahdettin cooperated with the Allies in suppressing nationalist groups in the wake of surrendering and accepted the armistice of Oct. 30, 1918. Next, the sultan's signing of the Treaty of Sevres on Aug.10 1920, was his death blow. He was succeeded by his cousin Abd al-Majid.

Looks like it wasn't Ataturk who sided with the occupying British at Istanbul but your beloved Caliph himself. A man bent on holding his power at the cost of Turkish sovereignty.

Which leads to my next issue with you. My response to your skimpy answer on my question about the caliph is here:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15982
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 14:00
Abolishing the caliphate was probably the best action of Mustafa Kemal.
Back to Top
bg_turk View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
  Quote bg_turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 14:11
Abolishing that corrupt establishment which was ready to sell the Turkish people at Sevres, was the most natural thing to do.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 15:00
Qutuz
He had given then Bilad ash-Shaam, by abandoning Damascus for Aleppo and then retreating even further into Anatolia abandoning all of the lands of Bilad ash-Shaam to the British without even putting up the slighest resistance. This fact can't be denied, and also as I mentioned, even since the stunning victory in the Dardanelles, he wanted to withdraw from the war and surrender the Ottoman State. He was clearly assisting the British to sever the non-Turkish lands from the Ottoman State, so he could secure himself as leader of a newly formed entity in Anatolia-only.
 
What total and utter nonsense.
 
While certain people had ran off with Lawrence the Fag of Arabia, the guy you call a traitor was in Libya in Yemen fighting for the Ottoman State.
 
Do you know how many songs there are about Yemen? folksongs which tell of the son's who were going to Yemen but never comming home and that wasn't cos they're on holiday its because they were all dying fighting against their own Muslim Brothers!!!
 
AtaTurk made no pact with Brittish or anybody else over Sham, he didn't even recognise it, further more he wasn't even a leader, he was an Ottoman General at the time he had no authority for selling land etc etc
 
So your wildly, wildly mistaken.
 
Assisted the Brittish? really how, by pushing them out of the Dardenels, by not accepting their TREATY OF SEVRES tearing it up and standing up against the bully's including Britain, France and Russia who wanted a land-grab in Turkey.
 
You do realise, 5 million muslims died in and leading up to the War in the Balkans and Caucauses fighting for the UMMAH but there was a whole chunk of the Ummah missing, where were they Qutuz could you please tell me? when Sheyh Shamil, when the Balkan Muslims, Caucaus Muslims were fighting where was Arabia? if they had helped the Ottomans could have been victorious. Even Malaysians from the other side of the world came to help, Algerians were there, sadly some of the closest brothers never came. 6 million refugees had to flee to what is today Turkey from the Balkans and Caucaus. That's 11 million muslims either up-rooted out of their homes or killed.
 
 
Qutuz
As far as I'm aware the Ottoman authorities never asked him to undertake such actions, can you provide some more information on this claim? The British were the only ones who supported him in his rebellious activities, as they were quite aware of his intentions to fulfil their plan of abolishing the Caliphate. Those with a common goal usually pool their resources and work together.
No, Brittish never supported his rebellious activities, they were in Istanbul divided it into quarters and had their puppet the Caliph to play around with and use.
 
AtaTurk was asked to undertake the resistance in secret, these realities are only recently comming out due to research into the Ottoman family in exile. You should watch the documentary or read the book about it.
 
You don't seem to understand, the Caliphate was in the Brittish BEST INTERESTS, a puppet Caliph who would act as their spokes-person to control and pacisy the Muslim world was perfect for them.
 
Look at it logically, Britain ruled half of Arabia and North Africa and India, alltogether over 400-500 million muslims. If they could keep the muslims under the thumb of their puppet Caliph it would be great for them.
 
Abolishing the Caliphate did the muslim world of the era a big favour, there were huge up-rests, muslims didn't want Brittish or French rule and saw in the Turkish Independance war that they could defeat and rise against them.
 
Qutuz
You mean I haven't been subjected to growing up in Kemalist Turkey and being spoon fed his heroic stories and qualities?
 
I never grew up or was educated in Turkey. Also Kemalism has nothing to do with AtaTurk, Kemalism is something that Ismet Inonu and other created using the name of AtaTurk which is supposed to be about his ideals but really has very little to do with Mustafa Kemal Pasha and more to do with those who created this movement.
 
 
Qutuz
The British controlled both the Istanbul government and the Ankara one. The battle was for the hearts and minds of the people, and they won this one too through their agent Kemal. The Muslims abandoned the Caliphate and rallied around Kemalist nationalism, the ultimate outcome for the British. The bad outcome for the British would've been the rejection of Kemalist Nationalism and Secularism and the rallying around the Caliphate and attempt to restore it.

So decide for yourself, who won? Britain certainly feels she did... and as a Muslim don't you think we lost? Or do you consider yourself a Turk rather than a Muslim? do you belong to the same Ummah as me? Or to the Ummah of Kemal? Don't say both, because it doesn't work that way. You've been fooled into believing you as a "Turkish Muslim" won. But this is a charade.

 
1. You can be a Turk and a Muslim
 
2. Nobody can tell anybody else that they're "good" "bad" muslim, that they must do this and that, your not Allah, Allah is great and knows best.
 
3. Everybody has a brain and can think, your view is not the only one existant in the world, we can all make our own decisions without your patronising attitude thanks.
 
4. Your whole nonsense about what happened in Turkey and Istanbul is rubbish, Turkey does not turn its back on its muslim history, it can't its impossible, go to Turkey and see things for yourself instead of comming hear preaching about what you don't know.
 
 
Halide Edib - Muslim activist, supporter of Turkish Independance War, female rights activist.
 
The climax of the protest campaign was a meeting on 6 June in the Atmeydan, before the great mosque of Sultanahmed. Some 200,000 people, by one estimate, were present. Allied planes flew overhead. Muezzin chanted from the minarets. Feeling herself the incarnation of the Turkish nation, Halide Edib spoke before a sea of black flags, red fezzed, white turbans and glistening eyes 'shooting their message and their desire'. Her speech confirms the hold of Constantinople and its monuments on Turkish hearts. Constantinople was seen, not as an alien cosmopolis, but as a stronghold of Islam and the Turkish nation:

Brethren, sons and countrymen! From the tops of the minarets nigh against the heaven, seven hundred years of glory are watching this new tragedy of Ottoman history. I invoke the souls of our great ancestors who had so often passed in procession through this very square. I raise my head before the just wrath of those invincible hearts and say 'I am an unfortunate daughter of Islam and an equally unfortunate mother of the equally heroic but more ill-fated generation of my own day. I bow to the spirits of our ancestors and declare, in the name of the new Turkish nation presented here,, that the disarmed Turkish nation of today still possesses your invincible hearts:we trust in Allah and in our right'...Now swear and repeat with me: 'The sublime emotions which we cherish in our hearts will last till the proclomation of the rights of the people!!!'
 
 
City of the Worlds Desire- Phillip Mansel
 
 
Go and learn about what your trying to comment on.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 16:41
Jagatai,

Qutuz What do you expect from Turkey?Turkey did the best she can.Millions of Turks died in Suez, Hejaz and Iraq.What for?


There was no "Turkey" in existence at the time you speak of. So your statement doesn't even make sense. Millions of Ottoman Muslims died, they could've been of any race, it's irrelevant, they were Muslims and their allegience was to the Ottoman Caliphate, not to what you call Turkey, an entity and a concept which didn't even exist in that time.

Turkey beated the British in Gallipoli but Turkish armies were in a full retreat in Iraq, Suez, Hejaz and Caucasus.We were set to continue defeats.


Yes some losses were incurred, but they were expediated by Kemal. He clearly withdraw from Sham without even putting up the slightest resistance. It is clear he wanted to withdraw from the war even prior to that immediately after the Dardanelles campaign had finished. It's clear he wanted to withdraw the Ottoman armies from all of the non-Anatolian lands and to create a new Anatolian-only entity. He had done exactly as Britain had wanted, and for that they allowed him to remain in power in Anatolia. If Britain were truly against him, they would've fought him until they had crushed him like they did to the Germans. But they knew his anti-Ottoman ideology was more important to prevail.

Turkish Independence War was a national war to protect the national borders.It is a foolishness to expect its spreading to Middle East; the poor army had defeated Greeks hardly.


The Ottoman Caliphate had no borders. This is because a Caliphate is by its very nature a fluid entity which does not accept permanent borders. The Turkish Independance War was a folly to rally the Muslims around Kemal. The British controlled both the Greeks and Kemal.

Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 16:51
Seko,

You cannot accept that a Republic was built by the Turkish people and the leadership of the Nationalists.


I most certainly accept it, it's history, it's done.

What I'm stating is that in Islam it's forbidden, and it was the biggest mistake of the Muslim Ummah to sit and allow it to happen. Turks, Arabs, Balkanites, Indians whatever you like, all Muslims are collectively responsible for allowing it to happen. Stop painting this issue along racial lines, pitting Turks against Arabs etc. Such division is not allowed in Islam, and therefore I won't argue with you on such a basis.

By the way, wasn't it a British ship that took Mehmed VI Vahidettin to exile?


Yes it certainly was. As I've pointed out several times already in the course of this discussion, Sultan Muhammad Wahid'ud-Deen was not really a Sultan, he was a puppet from day one, as was his brother Muhammad Rashad. No Sultan after Abdul Hamid II really had any authority. Wahid'ud-deen was conquered by the British, nobody doubts that. But that's beside the point. That doesn't justify abandoning the Islamic system and rallying around Kemal. The Islamic ruling in such a case is to appoint a new Khalifah. And in fact many Muslims insisted that Kemal become the new Sultan, but he rejected, as he knew his agreement with the British was about the abolition of the Sultanate.

Looks like it wasn't Ataturk who sided with the occupying British at Istanbul but your beloved Caliph himself


Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the two of them were under the control of the British? The difference is Wahid'ud-Deen was under the control of the British unwillingly, whilst Kemal was willingly their servant.

A man bent on holding his power at the cost of Turkish sovereignty


This statement is just ridiculous, he had no power to begin with, what was he holding onto??? He was from day one of his appointment a puppet Sultan, as was his brother before him.

Which leads to my next issue with you. My response to your skimpy answer on my question about the caliph is here


I will check it and get back to you.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 17:09
Qutuz
Yes some losses were incurred, but they were expediated by Kemal. He clearly withdraw from Sham without even putting up the slightest resistance. It is clear he wanted to withdraw from the war even prior to that immediately after the Dardanelles campaign had finished. It's clear he wanted to withdraw the Ottoman armies from all of the non-Anatolian lands and to create a new Anatolian-only entity. He had done exactly as Britain had wanted, and for that they allowed him to remain in power in Anatolia. If Britain were truly against him, they would've fought him until they had crushed him like they did to the Germans.
 
Its clear you have no understanding of warfare or history.
 
Your whole story about "Sham" is unbelievable, you do realise that Arab "brothers" were fighting alongside the Brittish and French against the Ottomans don't you.
 
What exactly was there to fight for huh? who are you fighting to protect, the Arabs there made it pretty obvious that they did not believe in any "Ummah" in any Muslim brotherhood, they were fighting against Ottomans for their states. And today were left with a fragmented Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanan and you have to audacity to blame this all on AtaTurk Confused
 
Also the "Dardanells" was the key, whoever controlls the Dardenells is victorious. Its a matter of "LOGISTICS", if you cannot controll the area you cannot provide the backing, arms, supplies, intellegence etc needed to maintain the campaign, push on further and secure the area.
 
That war was key, the invading forces were defeated and had lost a quarter of a million men, in addition were fighting wars in other parts of the world.
 
Your claim that the Brittish "could" have crushed the Ottomans in Gallipoli is nonsense because the Brittish didn't and were defeated. Its no good saying, "ah but if they had done this or that they would have won just look at Germany". It has nothing to do with reality, your just talking about therories not facts.
 
If you want to through around allegations and claims feel free to do so but untill you can proove your alternate view of history it means nothing.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 17:49
Originally posted by Qutuz

Seko,
You cannot accept that a Republic was built by the Turkish people and the leadership of the Nationalists.
I most certainly accept it, it's history, it's done.What I'm stating is that in Islam it's forbidden, and it was the biggest mistake of the Muslim Ummah to sit and allow it to happen.

There you go again preaching about what is forbidden in Islam. A Republic, Democracy etc, etc. I'll wait for your answer to my Caliphate question before giving you another one here.


Turks, Arabs, Balkanites, Indians whatever you like, all Muslims are collectively responsible for allowing it to happen. Stop painting this issue along racial lines, pitting Turks against Arabs etc. Such division is not allowed in Islam, and therefore I won't argue with you on such a basis.

You are living in an imaginary world. Most of those ethnicities you mention are not responsible for the decisions of another government. The only responsible figures are the Sultan/Caliph and the Nationalists who voted him out of power. If the Ummah is so lost then they should set up a Caliphate somewhere else. I'm sure he would have your vote. If you are even allowed to have one! Who is painting with broad strokes here? Did I mention Turks against Arabs? Even if I did what is wrong with discussing factual events. Turks versus Arabs over the dying days of the Ottoman Empire.[


By the way, wasn't it a British ship that took Mehmed VI Vahidettin to exile?
Yes it certainly was. As I've pointed out several times already in the course of this discussion, Sultan Muhammad Wahid'ud-Deen was not really a Sultan, he was a puppet from day one, as was his brother Muhammad Rashad. No Sultan after Abdul Hamid II really had any authority. Wahid'ud-deen was conquered by the British, nobody doubts that. But that's beside the point.

That is not besides the point. Stay right there a minute or two because it is a pertinent point. Who signed the Treaty of Sevres?


That doesn't justify abandoning the Islamic system and rallying around Kemal. The Islamic ruling in such a case is to appoint a new Khalifah.

Who's Islamic ruling. I am waiting for you clear answer from the Koran, remember.


And in fact many Muslims insisted that Kemal become the new Sultan, but he rejected, as he knew his agreement with the British was about the abolition of the Sultanate.

Proof please. Links, references etc.



Looks like it wasn't Ataturk who sided with the occupying British at Istanbul but your beloved Caliph himself
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the two of them were under the control of the British? The difference is Wahid'ud-Deen was under the control of the British unwillingly, whilst Kemal was willingly their servant.

Same as above!


A man bent on holding his power at the cost of Turkish sovereignty
This statement is just ridiculous, he had no power to begin with, what was he holding onto??? He was from day one of his appointment a puppet Sultan, as was his brother before him.
Which leads to my next issue with you. My response to your skimpy answer on my question about the caliph is here
I will check it and get back to you.


Check it out and do so with a clear verse from the Koran as you stated in a previous post. If you dont then spare us your opinionated twist on history.
    
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 22:10
Bulldog,

Your whole story about "Sham" is unbelievable, you do realise that Arab "brothers" were fighting alongside the Brittish and French against the Ottomans don't you.


I'm quite well aware that some of the Arabs had betrayed the Islamic State and had joined the side of the kuffar against the Muslims. But you can't see this as ALL Arabs. Most of the Arabs of Sham did not join with the kuffar, and defending ash-Sham would've still been a viable option, but Kemal did not intend to from the time he was assigned to the region.

the Arabs there made it pretty obvious that they did not believe in any "Ummah" in any Muslim brotherhood, they were fighting against Ottomans for their states


This is just nonsense. And shows you have little knowledge about the actual history, except for what filters through your kemal-coloured glasses. Even those Arabs who were rebelling against the Khilafah, they were not fighting for their states, they were fighting for the establishment of an Arabic kingdom/khilafah in ALL of the Arab lands. The idea of the fragmented states we see today did not eventuate until much later.

Your claim that the Brittish "could" have crushed the Ottomans in Gallipoli is nonsense because the Brittish didn't and were defeated.


I don't know who you're having this discussion with, but it's not me. I never mentioned anything about the British crushing the Ottomans at Gallipoli... Care to explain this comment?

In fact I mentioned quite clearly that the Ottomans won a stunning victory at Gallipoli, and I was perplexed as to why Kemal was campaigning for the Ottomans to withdraw from the war after it.


Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 22:18
Seko,

There you go again preaching about what is forbidden in Islam. A Republic, Democracy etc, etc. I'll wait for your answer to my Caliphate question before giving you another one here.


What Caliphate question?

That is not besides the point. Stay right there a minute or two because it is a pertinent point. Who signed the Treaty of Sevres?


As I've mentioned several times already that the Sultanate was already compromised (since the time of abdul Hamid's deposition) I really don't think I'm going to waste my time doing it again.

The treaty of sevres and the treaty of Lausanne were not much different. So Kemal signed a similar agreement anyway. The terms might've been a little more favourable, but the result was the same, the complete stripping of power from the Ottoman entity and it's replacement with something else. But as I've mentioned before, I think Muhammad Wahid'ud-deen did it out of desperation and by force. Kemal did it by choice. He plotted and schemed to detroy the Ottoman state, Wahid'ud-deen was cornered into the destruction of the state.

Who's Islamic ruling. I am waiting for you clear answer from the Koran, remember.


The vast majority of the classical Ulema have given the ruling that if a Khalifah comes under the control of a foriegn power then he is deposed and is replaced. This includes all of the 4 Sunni Juristic schools (Hanafis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanbalis), for a reference, please read Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah by the revered Abbasi Alim al-Marwardi. I'm sure it's available in Turkish, if not, you can find it English. Also such a concept is quite logical anyway.


Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 22:53
This Caliphate question:

Originally posted by Qutuz

The Prophet (pbuh) clearly commanded that we live under Caliphate, as did the qur'an..

And where is it clearly written in the Quran?
______________________________________________________
I asked that in 'How the Turks became Muslims' thread.

I ask again. Where is it clearly written that the Caliph is the leader of the Ummah? Give me a verse and the sura. You attempted an answer in another thread by referencing to a system of Allah. Be more precise please.

_______________________________________________________

In your last post above you attempt to draw similarities to the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. I find this a distortion of intent. Sevres was created by the Allied powers to partition Ottoman territories which was signed, sealed and delivered by the Sultan/Caliph. Enough said. And enough for the whole Turkish nation to start a revolutionary war and force her destiny against traitors and invaders.

Lausanne solidified Turkey's territorial integrity. Unlike the Caliph who sided with the Imperialists, Kemal and the National government met face to face with yesterday's enemies and was respected by nations of his time.

Lastly the Caliph was created as a temporal successor after our prophet passed away. As you know this was heavily disputed and lead to civil wars within the Ummah. The Caliph was a creation that seperated the muslims into factions (Sunni/Shia). You obviously stated that the Caliph was specifically mentioned in and sanctioned by the Quran. Please share your confidence as we may be sure as you.

I may sound particular and insistent when I keep harping on a percieved lie. Not only against your view on history but towards your blatant misinformation.
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 01:20
And where is it clearly written in the Quran?


The verse I already quoted for you, "Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are al-Kafiroon"

This verse alone (there's many others as well) make it quite clear that anyone not ruling by the system of laws Allah (swt) revealed is a disbeliever. That system was called by the Prophet (saw) the Caliphate.

In your last post above you attempt to draw similarities to the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. I find this a distortion of intent. Sevres was created by the Allied powers to partition Ottoman territories which was signed, sealed and delivered by the Sultan/Caliph.


Let us just look at what the British said after the Lausanne Treaty...

"The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam."  Lord Curzon, British Foreign Minister, in front of the House of Commons after the Lausanne Treaty of July 24th, 1924.

Britain wanted the destruction of the Caliphate and the removal of Islam from people's lives. From the Lausanne Treaty and from Mustafa Kemal, she secured this. If you still choose to reject the reality, that's up to you.

Lastly the Caliph was created as a temporal successor after our prophet passed away


The role of Khalifah was created in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) as was the Islamic state (Khilafah), it was not something created after his time. He mentioned it in several hadiths, and mentioned many of the laws relating to the appointment of the Khalifah. If you don't believe it's part of Islam, then you don't believe in many aspects of Islam, as so many aspects of Islam they rely upon the Khilafah.

Also your evaluation of the Khilafah as being something which causes division is completely wrong. It's something that causes unity, and if the Khilafah never existed, probably none of us would be Muslims today. It is what solidified the ancestors of the Muslims today into one body, and it's what caused us to be moulded into one Ummah and to be united throughout most of our history. The Shi'a are a very small % of the Muslims, and they are not really that important. And even if they exist because of diagreement over the Khilafah, why did not the Sahabah abolish the Khilafah 1400 years ago? Because they knew it was commanded by Allah (swt) and by the Prophet (pbuh).

You obviously stated that the Caliph was specifically mentioned in and sanctioned by the Quran


There are many verses of the Qur'an which talk about ruling by the Islamic laws. There's also hundreds of hadith which talk about this issue in clear details. There's also hundreds of books written by the trusted classical scholars who all the different groups of Muslims agree upon (perhaps not the shi'a, but they are as I said a small % and an anomaly anyway) about the issue of Khilafah and the rules and systems relating to it. Perhaps Kemal forgot to translate these ones though?

I will give you now just a few evidences from Qur'an, Sunnah and words of Sahabah and classical scholars:

THE FARD (OBLIGATION) OF AL-KHILAFAH

In the Glorious Qur'an:

Allah (SWT) says in the translation of the meaning of the Qur'an ul-Kareem (TMQ):

 1. "But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that which they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction" (TMQ 4:65).

2. "Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you" (TMQ 4:105).

3. "So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 4:49).

These ayaat(versus) of Qur'an, and many others, prove beyond doubt the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed.  The first one in particular refers to the Muslims directly by stating that we have no real Imaan (belief) until we make them judge between us by Allah's revelation.  This is an indication of the obligation for all Muslims to establish Allah's ruling system.

In the Ahadeeth of our beloved Prophet (saw):

1. Imam Muslim narrated from Abu Hazim who said:

I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (SAW) that he said: "The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa' (Khalifahs) and they will number many". They asked: what then do you order us? He said: "fulfil allegiance to them one after the other.  Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with".

This Hadeeth is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (SAW) is the Khilafah, and not an Islamic Republic, Islamic Socialist Republic or Islamic Imarah or Islamic Democracy or Islamic Nationalist Secular State.  This understanding is supported by numerous other Hadeeth that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah.

2. Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin 'Umar who said that the Prophet (saw) said,

"One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah)".

3. Ahmed and Ibn abi 'Asim narrated that the Prophet (saw) said,

"Whosoever dies and he does not have over him an Imaam (Synonymous with Khalifah in Shari'ah texts), he dies the death of Jahilyyah".

Thus the Prophet (SAW) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have over him an Imaam, which is also represented by having a pledge of allegiance (bayah) on his or her neck. The pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalifah.  The Ahadeeth inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khalifahs (some times called Amir ul-Mu'mineen or the Imam). Therefore, this is a command to establish or appoint them.

In the sayings of the Sahabah:

1. Ali ibn abi Taalib (r.a.) said, "The people will not be straightened except by an Imaam (Khaleefah), whether he is good or bad". (Bayhaqi, No. 14286, Kanz ul-ummal)

2. Abdullah ibn 'Umar (r.a.) said "The people in the Ummah will not suffer even if they were oppressors and sinful if the rulers were guided and were guiding.  But the people in the Ummah will suffer and perish even if they were guided and were guiding if the rulers were oppressors and sinful". (Abu Nu'aim narrated in 'Hulayat Awliyyah.)

3. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (r.a.) said,

"There is no Islam without a community, and there is no community without a leadership, and there is no authoruty without hearing and obeying".

In the sayings of the Ulemaa:

1. Imam al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer of the verse, "Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Khaleefah" (TMQ 2:30) that:

"This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleefah, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Khaleefah are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams except what is narrated about al-Asam, the Mu'tazzili (a deviant group)...". (Tafseer ul-Qurtubi 264/1.)

2. Imam al-Qurturbi (rh.a.) also said,

"The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest".

3. Imam an-Nawawi (rh.a.) said,

"(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah". (Sharhu Sahih Muslim page 205 vol 12)

4. Imaam al-Ghazali (rh.a.) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said,

"The judges will be suspeneded, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam".  (al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad page 240.)

5. Imam abu ul-Hasan al-Mawardi (rh.a.) said,

"The contract of the Imamah (leadership) for whoever is standing with it, is an obligation by Ijmaa'a (consensus)". (al-Ahkam us-Sultaniyyah [Arabic] p 56.)

6. Imam Ahmed (rh.a.) said:

"The Fitna (mischief and tribuulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".

7. Abu Hafs Umar al-Nasafi (rh.a.) a noted scholar of the 6th century Hijri states;

"The Muslims simply must have an Imam (Khaleefah), who will execute the rules, establish the Hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect Zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish Jum'ah and the two 'Eids, settle the dispute among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty".

8. Imam Al-Juzayri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams,  "The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought- Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Imamah (Leadership) is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors". ("Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a" [the Fiqh of the four schools of thought], volume 5, page 416.)

9. Imam al-Haythami said,

"It is known that the Sahabah (r.a.h) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib).  Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw)". (al-Haythami in Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah:17.)

-----
So it's all there and clear for you, if you chose to reject it, it would be because you don't like to live according to Islam, but you like Islam to live according to you. How you can come along 1400 years after all this issue was clearly known and claim "it's not really part of Islam" is beyond me. If you want a new deen without this aspect, then you have one in Kemalism, but don't try to claim Islam is like that, because it's clearly NOT.


Edited by Qutuz - 07-Nov-2006 at 01:28
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 01:44

The British fought against the Ottoman state at Gallipoli (actually mostly ANZACs did, not British, and were like lambs to the slaughter)

Actually most of the British forces were Indian sepoys and not ANZACs.

So decide for yourself, who won? Britain certainly feels she did... and as a Muslim don't you think we lost? Or do you consider yourself a Turk rather than a Muslim? do you belong to the same Ummah as me? Or to the Ummah of Kemal? Don't say both, because it doesn't work that way. You've been fooled into believing you as a "Turkish Muslim" won. But this is a charade.

My only source for this is other forummers, but Attaturk, infact had the Quran translated into Turkish and distributed to every household.

The critical thing your glossing over is how corrupt, decadent and unislamic the Ottoman Empire was towards the end. Defending the caliph was not an act of defending the ummah. Attaturk I believe actually saw Islam as a major way of correcting the decadence in the Empire.


The Ottoman Caliphate had no borders. This is because a Caliphate is by its very nature a fluid entity which does not accept permanent borders. The Turkish Independance War was a folly to rally the Muslims around Kemal. The British controlled both the Greeks and Kemal.

I think the Safavids would disagree.
And today were left with a fragmented Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanan and you have to audacity to blame this all on AtaTurk

hear hear.

The verse I already quoted for you, "Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are al-Kafiroon"

This verse alone (there's many others as well) make it quite clear that anyone not ruling by the system of laws Allah (swt) revealed is a disbeliever. That system was called by the Prophet (saw) the Caliphate.

If the Caliph was not (and he wasn't) ruling by what Allah has revealed, should he be overthrown?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.