Continued... Abolition of Ottoman Caliphate

Originally posted by OSMANLI Not only was the Azan turned to Turkish (which is not allowed in Islam), but the public Azan (from the minarets) was also banned.

What is the point of Ezan, when people do not understand it? I think having it in Turkish would have been a good idea.   

Excellent post Bulldog. I think a lot of people in turkey and vise versa dont understand that the ottoman state was in no position to extend help to anyone else and neither were others to it.

This topic seems to have jumped form the abolition of the Caliphate to the virtues and criticisms of AtaTurk.

I think we could summarize quickly a few items of interest. Mainly that the ineptness of later day Caliphs led to a strong reaction by the people and opened the door for the revolutionairies.

The Caliph is not a Quranic dictate.

AtaTurk was a reformist who today is a polarizing figure.

I'll focus a bit on the latter since most of the previous issues have been discussed in detail.

Ataturk first believed in individual responsibility. He shook old establishments to the core. The windfall is still being felt today. He believed in God. He has many saying s that attest to his faith (as provided by Bulldogs quotes). He did not want his people to be taken advantage of politically or spiritually by those from afar or those within. That meant the people had to become educated. He was a strong proponent of 'Ilm", science. From the change in script to the increased attention on teachers (women especially), an illiterate nation turned into one that regularly produced doctors, scientists, lawyers, and schools of higher learning. During this time he attempted to tangle with ultra nationalistic theories. This was his experiment. Some were absurd, like the proto Turk Mu and Sun theories. Others profound. Eliminating the fez and changing the Ezan. By the way, he did change the ezan from Arabic to Turkish and it was never eliminated as some have contested. During the 1930's the ezan was spoken in an audible voice that was not to be heard beyond the confines of the mosque (meaning loudspeakers were not allowed). In hindsight we may find this strange and some even find it repulsive. Some adore his reforms. Others end their prayers by cursing the man.

The religion of Islam is not static. Reformers will come and go. Intelligence will always be the arbiter. A discerning voice of reason will always challenge traditional religious dogma and one party systems. This is not something to be offended by but something to learn from. We are our own destiny. Everyday responsible choices are made on the personal and interpersonal levels. Objective analysis will always be in fashion. Lets keep it that way.




    
    

Edited by Seko - 09-Nov-2006 at 08:28

Of course he is not Mortaza. He was no prophet either. But he slammed the door on our own absurdities. By his extreme measures we are now able to appreciate our own bias and beliefs. We are no longer sheep to be intimidated by Hocas, Mullahs and the like. Nor are we susceptible to stoop to his mistakes by ignoring all forms of religion. Because of him we are encouraged to evaluate science and question religious authority. While making his reforms the one party system left little room for dissention. However we now have the ability to openly debate traditions and legislature.
    

Edited by Seko - 09-Nov-2006 at 09:57

Ok. You dont like the path he provided. Yet all roads still led to Rome (or in this case Ankara).

Would there still be secularization that you seem to appreciate? I am not so sure had he not come along. Just ask yourself to trade places with a citizen of another middle eastern country to exchange your freedoms.

I also agree with you that 'stupidity' is a commodity that is hard to devalue. A good education process is always precious.
    

Edited by Seko - 09-Nov-2006 at 10:03

Yes, the Ottoman tanzimat period was a step for modernity prior to Ataturk. He certainly was a politician. Maybe you forgot to read the Nutuk of 1927.

Close mindedness can lay within the individual or the group. And the way to become openminded is the same.

All of those atheists, religious minded, secularists, and ethnic peoples you mention live in a large melting pot of ideas. Its a work in progress as you know. A work nonetheless.
    
    

Edited by Seko - 09-Nov-2006 at 10:42

Look what happened to Homms as a result of their pro-Ottoman stance, look at the state of it today

So you do admit some Arabs at least didn't stab the Ottoman State in the back? So what happened to them? Did they die as martyrs? Whilst the coward Kemal ran away and abandoned them? The great military leader you speak of?

ts not based upon "Fear of Allah" and puritanical values.

The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: Itaq Allah haythuma kunt! (Fear Allah whereever you were!).

I'm sorry, but I prefer his words and commands over yours or Kemal's. And this is really the clear example of our disagreement over deen. You believe in a secularised and twisted version of Islam, which is completely detached from and alien to our 1400 year history (including that of the Sahabah, the best generation of human beings ever to live) and this is what you debate with as your basis. You bring ideas from your own mind and present them as Islam, but the reality is they are far removed from what Islam clearly states. On the other hand I present to you what Islam actually says, and invite you to reject your false leaders and embrace the system commanded by your creator.

So you think Sevres would have been better?

You've completely lost any credibility in this argument now. I challenge you to bring forth any quote from me where I said Sevres is better or even that it has any validity at all????

You're debating what you want to debate without even reading my words. Why I'm wasting my time with such an amateur I really don't know.

I thought you would have liked its name "Islambol" more, it was also used and really represents the city more.

Islambol is nice but it was only an affectionate nickname, not the official name of the city. The fact is the Khulafa of the Osmanlar always kept it as Qustantaniya.

Yes, the Holy Qur'an, Sunnah and belief in Allah which is between Mumin and Allah are the essentials of Islam

Islam defines 3 clear relationships.
1) That of man with his creator (the only one you seem to accept).
2) That of man with himself (perhaps you accept some of this too).
3) That of man with his fellow man.

Please go and read the Qur'an, and some of the unanimously agreed authentic books of Hadith, and you'll find that 90% of Islam's texts define the 3rd. category of relationships I mentioned above. Even if you only accepted the Qur'an alone, you'll still find the vast majority of Islam's injunctions refer to the mu'alamaat (societal transactions) and that a very small part of islam is about you and Allah alone.

So what this really means is that you reject large chunks of islam, in order to twist it to fit into your secular framework.

Would you care to proove your ridiculous accusations, do I have to explain again that he wasn't the leader of the Ottoman State, he was not a ruler, he did not have power to make decisions, he was an Officer in the Army, go read your history

You actually proved this for me above. His decision to evacuate ash-Sham was not from the government in Qustantaniya, it was from himself. He claimed he had no way to hold it, and he therefore placed the defense of Anatolia-Proper above the defense of ash-Sham. But as you admitted above many of the cities and towns of ash-Sham were supporting the Ottomans and were willing to fight for them. So instead of even attempting to fight to defend the Ottoman citizens, he chose to abandon them like the coward he was, and to hand the land of ash-Sham over to the invading kafir forces. He backstabbed the Arabs, just as some other Arabs (not the ones he backstabbed and abandoned) had backstabbed the Ottomans.

The Ezan isn't mentioned in the Holy Book, how it should be read what should be said isn't mentioned either. There are some people who think that the Ezan is holy and a prayer just because its in Arabic and they can't understand it.

The Ezan isn't in the Qur'an correct, it's from the Hadith. So I guess you don't even believe in it anyway then, so no point us arguing if it should be Turkish or Arabic, it shouldn't even be at all.. I guess. Perhaps Kemal was right to ban it then, as it's probably just something those hodcas and Mullahs have forced upon us anyway... right?

If its read in English, Turkish or any other languages it isn't against Islam, its just letting people understand what's being said in the call to prayer

You don't understand "Allah Ekbar"??? or "Ashadu an la ilaha ila'Allah"??? Come on, I'm sure every single Muslim in the world understands the Ezan. As Omar pointed out, there's probably only 1 or 2 lines you might not understand, and according to Mortaza these are the lines you kept in (is this correct or no???).

There were no parties, the multi-party era began later and today a religous party controlls Turkey

Ahh.... the lovely freedom Kemal brought to you.. he didn't even allow other parties to exist.

If you believe the party that controls Turkey today is "islamic" then I think you've got serious problems. Is this the same Tayyip Erdogan who said "I respect the hijab ban, if I goto a state function I don't let me wife come" (paraphrased)??? Yes very religious.... Well actually perhaps it is religious, if your defintion of deen is used.

All Islamic holidays are officially celebrated

I read that he replaced them with the European holidays... is this not true?

No, they were in Kemal the cowards army and fighting in the Urfa, Antep, Marash provinces

Yeh, fighting for the sake of Allah (swt) wherever they were, not only to defend Anatolia or any other future nationalist entity. They were fighting for the Ottoman Caliphate, too bad their commander was not.

Also most important and the biggest blow to your arguments, Djamel Pasha was in charge in these wars. Mustafa Kemal Pasha took command of the army in Syria in 1917

And not long after he took command, he withdraw the army. So my argument stands.

Do you fear your mother? or is this a fear based upon love, the fear to dissapoint, the fear to cause a problem to the mother you love so much

Ok, i will leave the hadith from this particular point and just bring the Qur'an alone to show how unIslamic your claims are, and that they completely contradict what the Qur'an says. Which is this:

O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me.  (  سورة البقرة  , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #40)

And We made it an example to their own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the Allah-fearing.  (  سورة البقرة  , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #66)

Whencesoever thou comest forth turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship; and wheresoever ye may be (O Muslims) turn your faces toward it (when ye pray) so that men may have no argument against you, save such of them as do injustice - fear them not, but fear Me! - and so that I may complete My grace upon you, and that ye may be guided.  (  سورة البقرة  , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #150)

Shall I continue??? My search of the Qur'an for the word "fear" brought up over 18 pages worth, this is only half of one page. If you like I can continue? Or you can return back to the book of allah (swt) yourself and begin to understand Islam in its entirety, not just the limited subset of ideas Kemalism permits you to follow.

Also note in most of these verses, Allah (swt) uses the command form of the word "fear" and in some cases the word is actually "irhabu" which literally means "be terrified" of me (the word for "terrorist" in Arabic comes from this word also "irhabi"). Your mind has been infected with unislamic ideas about Allah (swt) and religion which paint god-fearing-ness as something negative, when in fact it is a beautiful example of a pure heart which fears nothing but it's creator, and modifies all of it's desires to be in accordance with him, this is the most positive form of belief there is.

It has been used as an official name, I can post Coins to show this aswell if you wish

Please do, perhaps you can start a new thread about Ottoman artefacts, I have a few of them myself. I have coins from the Sultanate of Abdul Hamid II (rh) and they still say Qustantaniya.

Ofcourse there should be Ezan as there has always been since the beatitul voice of Bilal started calling to prayer

How do you know he ever called the Ezan? How do you know Bilal (ra) even existed? He's not mentioned in the Qur'an.... so perhaps the Hodcas just invented him to stop you thinking freely.

Maybe they invented him, to prevent you from thinking freely about putting pianos in mosques instead of an Ezan :)

The Holy Qur'an does teach us that the message of Allah should be translated into all languges so all people of the world can understand

Yes, the message of Islam most definitely should. But things like the Prayer and Ezan should not. Do you support also praying in Turkish too?

I wish all people's can understand Islam fully

I think you should take your own advice. Because it seems you just pick and choose suitable verses from the Qur'an to suit your agenda, but you reject the overwhelming majority of verses which state something more.

Can the people of Turkey today vote in a Religous based party, yes or no?

It's a well known fact that Erdogan and those before him who claimed to be "Islamic leaning" had to modify themselves heavily before the military would ever allow them in office. Also Erdogan at first wasn't even allowed to take office, as he'd been convicted of reading an Islamic poem one time (love that freedom). He also had denounce the idea of repelling the Hijab ban law (another fine example of secular-Turkish freedoms).

Lastly I want to leave you with this verse from Surah al-Baqarah:

"What, do you believe in part of the Book, and disbelieve in part? What shall be the recompense of those of you who do that, but degradation in the present life, and on the Day of Resurrection to be returned unto the most terrible of chastisement?"

He was a dictator, a benevolent one, how many dictator's change a law of the country not to fill their pocket but to help their country. He wanted to give all his assets and wealth to the country and people, this wasn't allowed by law, however, in parliment a law was passed for him to do this.

Originally posted by Qutuz His decision to evacuate ash-Sham was not from the government in Qustantaniya, it was from himself. He claimed he had no way to hold it, and he therefore placed the defense of Anatolia-Proper above the defense of ash-Sham. But as you admitted above many of the cities and towns of ash-Sham were supporting the Ottomans and were willing to fight for them. So instead of even attempting to fight to defend the Ottoman citizens, he chose to abandon them like the coward he was, and to hand the land of ash-Sham over to the invading kafir forces. He backstabbed the Arabs, just as some other Arabs (not the ones he backstabbed and abandoned) had backstabbed the Ottomans.

If he claimed he had no way to hold it, he probably had no way to hold it. Thats not a decision that we as arm-chair generals should dispute. If he fought a futile battle to protect a region he couldn't, he would be wasting his forces.

including that of the Sahabah, the best generation of human beings ever to live

The Sahabah fought a bloody civil war between themselves.

Originally posted by Bulldog Do you fear your mother? or is this a fear based upon love, the fear to dissapoint, the fear to cause a problem to the mother you love so much Ok, i will leave the hadith from this particular point and just bring the Qur'an alone to show how unIslamic your claims are, and that they completely contradict what the Qur'an says. Which is this

Guys please, thats like blind men feeling an elephant, one man touches the ear and says 'its a large flappy creature' the other touches the leg and says 'nay its a strong tree like trunk'. Clearly its both. Fear and love, both from the other. Two sides to the same coin.

Originally posted by Cok Actually I know that in Iraq before the invasion (especially 70's and 80's), a Kurd leaving to Baghdad will depart with the following phrase "Keep an eye on your faith". Going to Baghdad (an Arab city) meant going to a totally different place that have less conservative religious values and restrictions. Mini-skirts, music, dancing, communist ideas, bars all existed in Baghdad and a person from a conservative area will be reminded to keep his values when he goes to Baghdad, the sin city of Iraq despite it is an Arab city no doubt.

Aye, this is what my Iraqi aunt said too.
I don't think Arabs are more relgious than anybody else, people just think they are. Its like the famous race, the Indonesians look at the Arabs & Pakis and think they are really religous and try to catch up. The Arabs and Pakis look at the Indonesians playing catch up and think that they are really religous and in turn try to catch up to the indonesians

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 10-Nov-2006 at 04:28