Best leader of a Muslim country at present?

On making his discovery, the astronomer had presented it to the International Astronomical Congress, in a great demonstration. But he was in Turkish costume, and so nobody would believe what he said.

This remind me "Nasrettin Hocan�n sar���"

Even in the regions considered as most conservative, the amount is way below 60%

"Muslim parties"-which I believe you used for extremist Islamic parties, actually doesn't really keep winning. They had only won twice in total. Once by 20% percent vote in an election in 1990s and 34% in the latest election. But Erdogan had been made so popular(media,election talks,propaganda etc.)that he had been a new possible hope for Turkey.He also got many votes from other groups by characterizing himself as a "changed", liberal,secular person,renouncing his past as an Islamic extremist.

Some say Erdogan is a good leader; no doubt that he is a greedy one, but not actually a good one,at least in my opinion...

By the way,latest military coup in Turkey was in 1980,not in 1996. What you mean is possibly the memorandum given by army to Erbakan in 28 February 1997,and the non-secular prime minister,who was a defender of Islamic laws in the countries, whose ideological role model was Qaddafi had to resign.Well,memorandums are not coups 

I sympathize Hamid Karzai as a leader who is trying hard to adopt Afghanistan into the modern world.

Muslim parties"-which I believe you used for extremist Islamic parties, actually doesn't really keep winning. They had only won twice in total. Once by 20% percent vote in an election in 1990s and 34% in the latest election. But Erdogan had been made so popular(media,election talks,propaganda etc.)that he had been a new possible hope for Turkey.He also got many votes from other groups by characterizing himself as a "changed", liberal,secular person,renouncing his past as an Islamic extremist.

Erdogan is someone like �zal(remember �zal also had a past at Erbakan party), difference is, �zal was more more intelligent than Erdo�an and less radical.

Agreed. Good point...

Though the characteristics of their parties are a little bit different, but still, Erdogan's party has many many similarities with �zal's, together with a few ministers in same posts. �zal's ANAP(Motherland Party) was more like in the liberal side than Erdo�an's AKP's "conservative" approach.

�zal had a more qualified education than Erdo�an, so that intellectual difference is normal.

�zal had actually been the root and source for religious sects to rise in Turkish politics,Erdo�an goes in the same line.This goes for the economics,too. Because of the same bureaucrats or ministers being there again,Erdo�an follows the market liberal systems of �zal. �zal's system had brought many new things to Turkey, but had put the economics in a hard situation in long term. We will see what happens for Erdo�an, I believe he will lead to disaster.

About radicalism, it is continously said in the Turkish media that �zal has died or been killed(speculation,you can never know...) while he was on task of bringing radical changes about different issues. 

But Turks could defeat the Westerners, even 90 years ago. The Arabs still can't. Tough choice, eh?

can we? can we defeat  frenchs, brits now?  I wont count greece, bulgaria or serbia as a superior western power.(Countries we can defeat)

and that turks who defeated westerners were not  product of Modern Turkey, but ottoman empire.(Included Ataturk)

did our tough choice help us much?

surely am not talking about Balkan states as the West. And military strength is one aspect only. The West takes Turkey seriously

Ottomans were taken serious too, even at their worst time.

The West takes Turkey seriously. We are, of course, not as powerful as the French, the British or the Russians (who are not Western but powerful),

Nothing changed.

but they can't dictate us their terms like they used to.

what about  EU? and  alot of  this western power lost   their immense  power.

USA is the closest thing, but even they can't dictate their terms to Turkey like they used to.

Turkey-USA relation is almost same with Ottoman-Brit relation.

In military terms, no one can invade and hold Turkey in a conventional war. Not even the USA.

well,  USA cannot even hold Iraq much.Reason is not Turkey power, but turkey demographic situation.(Large  Turk population) and of  course rise  of nationalism.

Correction: they were the product of Ottoman modernisation/Westernisation, not of Ottoman conservatism. Atat�rk was �ttihat ve Terakki man, they were Westernisers, too.

are we talking about people or elits? Infact what this westerner had is what Abdulhamit 2 gave them. after him, this ittihatists only destroyed what built by him.lost balkains, trablus and all of arabic lands.  I wont count them as resquers of Turkey.

Ataturk was another story, but after all he is only one man.

Well, hard to tell. Compare us to our Muslim neighbours. I'd say we are in a better situation than Syria, Iran or Iraq.

Comparing yourself with muslim neighbours is complately nonsense, they have not inherit a large ottoman ruling class, brits left them later, and they mostly falled under hand of dictators.

ottomans were last muslim empire fallen under western powers.

Turks never  experienced colonization  , and arabs have a short time of colonization times.(compared to others).Thanks to ottoman resistance.

So at ottomans time, ottoman  position is still better than other muslim countries.

By the way, I dont believe Turkey situation  is so much better than Iran, our GNP  is same, both country have a limited  democracy, and limited freedom, both of them have same militaristic position and  I dont thing hat and some good dress make us much better.

by the way, I am  not accusing Ataturk(after his death turkey position was  fine) but kemalist who supported and made 3 military coup for the name of Ataturk. and  still hoping and supporting a forth coup.

First of all, Ottoman Empire was a huge country, unlike Turkey. Its sheer size guaranteed some of its weight. Also, as I mentioned before, Ottoman modernisation efforts allowed them to resist the West. Not their resistance to modernisation.

Not really. British effectively ran the Ottoman economy and finance. US has power over Turkish economy, but not anywhere near.

Nowadays it is more difficult to invade countries etc, but still invading Turkey would be considerably more difficult than invading Iraq. Nationalism you mention is also a sign of modernity. Iraqis care about their tribes, Turks care about their nation.

I don't agree with this. Abdulhamit II. was afraid of the military (he was right, as he was dethroned by the �ttihat ve Terakki). Because of this he kept the military weak. He was good at diplomacy, but when diplomacy failed Hamidiye armies were sundly defeated on the battlefield. Balkan wars are the best example, although they took place during the �T rule, it was before the �T refomed the army. Hamidiye army suffered a humiliating defeat. �T army was the one which performed in the WWI. With German help, it could hold its own against the Western armies. �T were a bunch of losers, I agree with that, but Abdulhamit was the main cause of defeats in the beginning. Read �n�n�'s memoirs about the WWI about these things.

Our Muslim neighbours have become colonies because they were not as modernised as Turks were. And they have dictators because they are still not modern. If they had modern economies and social structures, they would not have been invaded and would have had modern political lives. 

You are right Iran is similar to us. Still, I think Turkey has a better democracy and freedom than Iran. It surely has better education and literacy rates. Better rights for women. Iran's economy is dependent on oil. They have the same GNP as Turkey because of record highoil prices. Iran exports oil, pistachio nuts and carpets. If something happens to oil, Iran is screwed. Turkey, on the other hand, has a diverse economic base. exports include textiles, vehicles and industrial goods. I live in the UK, and my oven is made in Turkey (it was there when I moved in).

Atat�rk was a good leader, but he was one of many. It was not one person who changed Turkey, it was a class of people, Ottoman seculars  which came into existence in the 19th century. Such a class of people dis not exist in other Muslim countries. that's probably why attempts at introducing a secular system never worked in Iran or in Afghanistan.