Who is your fave.

Mine is Erdogan. He has certanly brought around a lot of improvement in Turkey.

Above: Erdogan is not willing to accept any other rulings from the EU

Mahathir Mohamad is no-longer leader of Malaysia, he had many many flaws but is probably the best leader any muslim country has ever had, not just present day but historically. 

He was racially prejudiced, had a selective memory for history, didn't respect political freedoms, would lie and cheat with the best. However he put secularism before religion, socialist policies before everything, never lost touch with the people, and never became personally corrupt.

There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator, but very nearly in his case. In a different class to any of the others on the list.

I know Barish. And i know Erdogan's religious point of view, but right now he acts as a secular, and this is a right thing for Turkey's interest.

Originally posted by barish Erdogan is the best Muslim leader? He should consider himself lucky, since there was no military coup to overthrow his government. Republic of Turkey is secular and it will remain so, I think you and Erdogan should understand that.

wasn't he elected?

if yes then he is representing the country in general and the people who voted for him in particular.

if the majority of Turkish peopl dont want Turkey to be secular then it shouldn't, thats Democracy or not?

well depends what you mean by non-democratic system and what you think democratic means.

democracy does not mean secular.

Erdogan is the only leader in a long time to not have a need for a coalition government since the number of votes he had was sufficiant.

"Republic of Turkey is secular and it will remain so, I think you and Erdogan should understand that. "

Barish, firsltly i woud like to welcome you to AE. Selamun Aleykum

Why mention this at all. Since Erdogan came into power he changed his stance from Islamist to conservative. He even has shown respect for these 'secular' views at the expence of his wife. He does not bring his wife to government gatherings in public buildings since it is illegal for his wife to wear the hijab in such  places.

Why would the there be a military coup on him. I did not realise that being a Muslim was an offence

I dont know about you but i prefer my leader NOT to be corrupt like other Turkish politicions.

What exactly isit that you dont like about him, does his moustache offend you?

Maju your right, i missed out the Black Muslim leaders, there is no offence intended in that. Its just that there was limited space and to be honest i forgot

 "wrote this, because I clearly remember you saying that we should have a practising Muslim government, isn't it true? "

That is my personal opinion, yes. I mentioned this in a diffrent post. If you have read up on my previous post then you would also have seen that i have clearly stated that there is not a single Muslim leader that fits this criteria as well.

- He said that our main identity is our religion.
That his opinion, he has never tried to impose or in any way force his beliefs on others.

- His party tried to criminalize adultery.

Because its immoral and causes the breakdown of families. Remember fornication is Haram (forbiddin), however Erdogan or his party have not mentioned this in any proposed legislation. Even some secular Turks were up for this.

- I think you are aware of the religious schools problem.

This is one of the most stupid restrictions in Turkey. I believe that Jews, Christians, Muslims etc should have full rights to be tought their religios doctrine in schools. This freedom is allowed in many western/secular countries.

Remember in Erdogans early days in power where he made a law that the Turkish government should pay for the electricity and water bills. Prior to him the government would only pay for Sunni Muslim organisations.

Whoever voted bashar was obviously smoking something...

King Abdullah sounds good, as he made a whole load of improvements in saudia, in particular improving the citizens life.

But the best of all times is obviously Sheikh Zayed. He passed away though

Originally posted by barish Azimuth, it is not that simple. Erdogan was elected by the %30 of the country. That's hardly the majority! And he get the votes from all the right-wingers, not just Islamists. Many free-market supporters, who voted for AKP just for economic reasons, would oppose anti-secularism. And what if the majority of the country wants to be ruled by a non-democratic system? Can we call that democracy too?

60% of turks wear a head covering and most dont want a secular state, that is why the muslim parties keep winning.

and the last military coup was in 1996.

but i hope that turkey stays secular although i dont believe its a democracy by western standards.

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Fizzil Whoever voted bashar was obviously smoking something... King Abdullah sounds good, as he made a whole load of improvements in saudia, in particular improving the citizens life. But the best of all times is obviously Sheikh Zayed. He passed away though Whoever voted for Abdullah was obviously very high!

I didn't vote, but hes pretty good, despite saudias eh human rights records.

Azimuth, it is not that simple.

Erdogan was elected by the %30 of the country. That's hardly the majority!

Yes true, but what get CHP  is less less than  others,  and army get zero vote. 

And he get the votes from all the right-wingers, not just Islamists.

yeah true, also remeaning 50% vote(votes except AKP and CHP)   is also mainly right-winger. They are more close to Erdoðan than CHP and Militarist guys. 

Many free-market supporters, who voted for AKP just for economic reasons, would oppose anti-secularism.

There are not many free-market supporter, and they mainly voted CHP, not AKP.

And what if the majority of the country wants to be ruled by a non-democratic system? Can we call that democracy too?

If anyone(this one is you) want to rule by military, can we call his a democrat.

Democracy is complately accepted by turkish. what other choice we have? 

we are not shiah and Ottomans family will not rule turkey again. Democracy  is not dangered by Erdogan, but by Army.(as you supported and chered this coup idea.)

- He said that our main identity is our religion.

As  you   know this is also said by  Ataturk  I dont think he is anti-secular. He said our religion is our main common thing, and thing who hold us together. Any wrong?

what is common thing between a kurd(largest minority) and turk, except becoming a citizen of Turkey?

- His party tried to criminalize adultery.

Infact It was also a crime  before, but court canceled it, because It is only a crime for woman. So this crime is not complately new thing at Turkey  history. Ataturk didnt abolish it, how can you talk against Ataturk doings? It looks like you only support Ataturk view, when it is same with your ones.

For pool, We are realy a  bad situation, all of this leaders are bad.

Mine wouldn't have been seen dead in the street without a hat. And she was Anglican.

In fact up to about 25 years ago I don't think any Englishwoman would have gone into a church without her head covered. (Almost as bad as going to Ascot races without one. )

At a rough guess, when I was a child about 95% of the population, male and female, wouldn't be seen out without a hat.

Back on topic: I like Abdullah of Jordan who's not on the list.

Is this a joke? Capitalists voting for a left-wing party! 

are you joking?  CHP  is  a  left-wing party. Oh you should spread this news to Turkey. So we can learn, now we have a left-wing  party. CHP.

Even AKP is more left-wing party than CHP.

Sorry but If you give the two option,CHP and AKP(this was what happened at Turkey), they  would choose CHP, remember most place which rich people lived, choose CHP. like  þiþli.

Did I say that? No, of course not.

No, Infact you didnt, but what you said is only goes this way.

People are/should be free to choose their type of education, but remember they wouldn't be educated as regular students.

why not, do you prefer Tarikats give this regular education? would it be better? This high schools are goverment ruled, so there are not any reason to afraid them. If they waste their time to religion class, instead of other classes, that is their choice, and result will effect their knowledge.

Remember we were making an exam for entering univercities, If their knowledge is not enough (because of religious education),  they would fail this exams, If their knowledge is  enough,I dont see any bad part of religious education.

So they are not allowed to enter universities as they wish.

Because they want to learn their religion much, so they should not go universities, what benefit do you wait something like this? how will  they find good  jobs without going universities?

what type of freedom is this,

yeah you  can go religious  school, you are free for this, but  you should also suffer at  all of  your life.

Originally posted by barish Originally posted by prsn41ife 60% of turks wear a head covering and most dont want a secular state, that is why the muslim parties keep winning. and the last military coup was in 1996. but i hope that turkey stays secular although i dont believe its a democracy by western standards. 60% of the Turks wear head covering? I hope you excluded males. That number is a joke. Head covering does not always mean head covering in an Islamic way. My grandmother also covers her head sometimes, but it has nothing to do with Islam.

i meant 60% of women cover their hair (in the islamic way).

"I don't care if all religions consider adultery as a sin. "

I not really bothered if you care or not either. The point i was making is that Erdogan has not mentioned any plans for any legislations for fornication (even though Islam forbids it). However he has made it clear about the illegal status of the adulteror, which not only is a religious bond but also a LEGAL contract.

Thus my point being that he has not made Turkey less secular then what Mustafa Kemal, your role model did.

Your grandmother wears the hijab sometimes, and you say that it has nothing to do with Islam . How do you think it entered into the Turkish secular culture, thanks to the Gokturks???

well,if someone doesnt want to call himself a Turk,then let it be...

Some people cannot be "Turk",they are only "Turkish".And there isnt any problem for me unless they pose a danger.And it is also better for the ethnicity of the people of Turkey;it prevents "uniformization",if u got what I mean  

then why turkey is a member of The Organization of the Islamic Conference ?

well,the human nature makes the humans to seek the best host for their children,and nationalism and cultural uniformism come from this point,coz instinctively the humans want to have a partner that shares the same origin with them thus knowing the habits/behaviours of their partners and serving as the fittest host for their breed...

IT is one of someone's major rights to determine and guarantee the lives of his/her children... and it is not racism(maybe to a point but not more,but obviously not FASCISM!) and posing it as a danger is a "biiiig silly" unless that behaviour poses a threat

For example,I dont want to have sex with a darker skinned girl or someone other than a Turk,and it is not something wrong or offending, it is just sexual selection

I think it is over

Thanks

well,but everyone should respect the other's choices ....

And what is it to me if some crazy guys came and killed lots of innocent people for racial purity...Did I kill them?

its my opinion,and I can like/love or dislike ANYONE whom I want,and forcing someone to change his views on people is just like taking them to "the death camp of tolerance"

The elected Iraqi Prime minister Dr.Ibrahim Al-Jaafri.

he is very decent and calm man.

Thank you Maju and Barish for your responses.  I believe you both have missed my point.  I was only commenting on Barish's personal interpretation of what PM Erdogan might have meant by labeling religion as the main source of identity.  My point was:  If we were to unerstand Erdogan's remark the way it was interpreted by Barish - i.e. "A non-muslim citizen of Turkey is a threat to our identity" - then we might as well take into consideration the fact that this is anyway a widely accepted view in the Western academia.  Needless to say, one of the main arguments against Turkey's joining the EU has to do with Turkey's identity, which - according to the West - is strictly Islamic.

Nevertheless, I agree with Attila2's point:  Turkey is not an Islamic country.  Islamic aspects in Turkish culture and law, however, are quite visible. 

It is a shame though that people are arguing here to dissociate Turkey from Islam, while the West is trying to reconcile with the Church. Regardless of political and ideological conflicts, I truly respect Israel for identifying itself not just on ethnic terms, but on religious ones, too.

Not just a member.  The Head of the organization is a Turk, too!

 can't believe this! How old are you? Five?

"Çoðulcu ve katýlýmcý demokrasi deðerlerine ve insan haklarýna dayanan, gücünü halktan alan, çaðdaþ demokratik sol bir siyasal kuruluþtur."

From http://www.chp.org.tr/index.php?module=chpmain&page=list_party_info&info_id=31&pid=147 - The Constitution of CHP

Yeah, sure, do you only read all empires,  action talk not words. Yes he was calling himself as left-winger party, but  reality is that it is a hard- kemalist party, and its main voters are not workers. It get votes mainly  by  richest  parts of Turkey.

By the way, I loved your logic: rich people are right-wingers, poor people are leftist!

Generally, leftist goverments benefit  poors, and rightist ones  are richs.  so?

Nevertheless, I agree with Attila2's point:  Turkey is not an Islamic country.  Islamic aspects in Turkish culture and law, however, are quite visible. 

what  is  islamic country? If It only means seriah, no it  is not. So there are a  lot  country who is not  islamic.

by the way, topic is related with muslim country, and Turkey is absolutely a muslim countr, and islam play a  big role at turkish politics, secular or not.

Salaamz Mortaza,

Yes, I was referring to "Islamic country," as in ruled by Shariah law.  You are right; most countries are not Islamic.  Also, some countries are self-declared Islamic republics, such as Iran and (former) Afghanistan.  Whether they are or not is debatable.

Also, I agree with your statement: Islam does play a role not only in Turkish politics, but in every day culture and life.

Thank you for your response.

Mortaza, Kemalism is a left-wing ideology.

So you thing  so, Infact It is complately  right winged ideology, It resist every type of changing, It limits a lot freedom.(not only  talking  minority rights but also majority rights)It  is a world-closed(If there is such word) ideology.

Infact It is not even an ideology but It is something like a religion.

you can tell anyone "Ataturk said this!!!", and discussion is closed. What  Ataturk said is holy, and even after 100 year, you cannot change this.

I know this is not what Ataturk want, but what kemalism becomed is this.

for economical point, kemalism is something between capitalism and socialism. I think Ataturk didnt follow any -ism- but only opportunism.(like a good leader)

Kemalism in its present form has become very restrictive for Turkish citizens. Which puts Erdogan into a better light since he has made significant progress in many a field, without breaching or offending the army (enforcer of Kemalism).

However more to the point, i have heard that some have said that they dont like Erdogan (He sucks...etc) but all you have to fall back on is his PERSONAL belief in Islam. You have ignored the service he has done for his people. Age old grudges with nations such as Syria are a thing of the past thanks to Erdogan.

Please state your reasons for any negative factors that he has created whilst being in his post.

I voted for Talat. He used to be a Communist in university, maybe he still is. And along with Erdoðan, he is actually elected, unlike the others up there. 

I think Kemalism is not an ideology, but a modernisation program, based on full Westernisation (not just modernisation) and nation building and aims at a European style social-liberal democratic state. Socialism is internationalist, not nationalist, and aims at a socialist economy where Capitalism is abolished (Social Democrats believe that this can be achieved step by step, radical leftists believe in revolution). Kemalism doesn't share these aims. Economically it is to the left of an imaginary centre, but this is not enough to make its program socialist. So I don't consider CHP a leftist party, not even Social Democrat. It is way too Nationalistic and Authoritarian, but not very Socialist. Also, as Murtaza writes its support does not come from, and its politics are not based on, the working class.

He has serious problems in managing the country. His party is very inexperienced, and way too friendly with the foreign capital. His misdeeds include attempting to let the Americans to station troops in Turkey (failed to clear the parliament). Attempting to send Turkish troops to be stationed in the Sunni triangle in Iraq after the invasion (offer rejected by Americans). Privatising profitable state industries because 'even the ex-communists have privatised everything'. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Attempting to introduce Islamic laws and practices now and then. Attempting to turn religious schools (which are not for teaching Islam, but for training priests) into an alternative education system parallel to the secular one. Filling positions in state institutions with Islamists.

Grossly mismanaging the Ministry of Health: Coming up with a law which united  two separate hospital commands in Turkey (SSK and Ministry of Health) literally overnight. Insider sources (Medical trade associations) estimate that 8000 to 10000 patients died because of the chaos that ensued. Patients couldn't get the medicine they needed, there were long queues, failures in management etc... Which were not reported in the media, most of which is owned by the Liberal capital which loves Erdoðan as long as he doesn't try to ban alcohol or adultery. And just as I am typing, and additional 1000 patients are estimated to be dying, because AKP changed the system in employing nurses in hospitals (probably to get their people in), and there was a one month gap between the coming of the new nurses and the leaving of the old ones because they are idiots who can't manage anything. I know for a fact that one of the biggest hospitals in Ýstanbul (and thus in Turkey), and possibly many others, are not accepting any non-urgent patients due to a lack of nurses... 

AKP is a lot like American neo-cons. A completely capital friendly, socially conservative bunch of losers who can't manage sh*t to save their own lives. Erdoðan is a big enemy of the poor people.

There are no Islamic aspects in Turkish law that I am aware of. Turkish law is based on European systems since the Republic. 

I think Kemalism is a program, so there can be right and left wing variants of it. But overall package is not necessarily left-wing.

Of course, Atatürk (and other Turkish nationalists) were anti-imperialist, since the imperialist hyenas were invading their country. But they had no intention to oppose Western imperialism once Turkey was free. They preferred to make peace with the West, and had no problems with the Arabs living under Western rule. I am not saying that they should have attacked the West, but they didn't even critisise the situation, except for Mosul, Kirkuk and Hatay, which they wanted to add to Turkey. Which anti-imperialist movement did they support outside of Turkey? 

Correct. Whereas ALL Socialists want (at least in theory) to achieve an economic system where there is NO private ownership of means of production. As I wrote above, the half-way system is left of an imaginary centre line, but not enough to make Kemalism left wing by itself.

Besides, Statism was adopted after the Liberal approach to economy failed, and state involvement in the economy became fashionable around the world after the Great Depression, due to the Soviet economic success. First choice of Atatürk was Liberal Capitalism, like that of the West, not Statism. Even when Statism was adopted, it was not aimed at complete abolishment of private ownership even in theory, as you wrote.  

Quote 10th year anniversary march:

'Türk'üz bütün baþlardan üstün olan baþlarýz.

Tarihten önce vardýk, tarihten sonra varýz!'

AKP is a lot like American neo-cons. A completely capital friendly, socially conservative bunch of losers who can't manage sh*t to save their own lives. Erdoðan is a big enemy of the poor people

Well I agree, AKP is inexperienced, and Erdogan should learn much much, but saying AKP is like neo-cons are false(I think) Their politics are mainly friendly to other countries, unlike neocons.

calling him as enemy of poor people is also wrong, his economic aim is a long-termed one and I also support his politics. Demirel helped farmers and workers(super emeklilik) much, but It didnt help Turkey.

He is excatly capital friendly that is true, so almost all advanced countries are capital friendly.

I wont call Erdogan good leader, but unfortunately he is only one we have. Prefer Baykar, Agar or others?we have not much alternatives.

 Anti-imperialism was one of the most important principles of Atatürk. This contradict with your claims Beylerbeyi, because the civilized, Western countries were generally capitalist and imperialist

Not excatly true, If you look Ataturk past,you will see he is also supporter of young turk politics. His help to young turks against Abdulhamit 2 is much. He  is anti-imperialist only for his country. Infact Turkey borders at east is enlarged after ww1 and independence war.

 Statism, the economic principle of Atatürk, does not avoid individual investors, but according to statism, the major and strategic industries must be in the state's possessions.

do he have other choice? there were not enough individual capital at Turkey.

Infact This is complately wrong, Ataturk nationalism made a lot asimilation.  If calling everyone(in Turkey) as Turk is a humanist nationalism, I dont know what is cruel nationalism.

Privatising profitable state industries because

Yes there are profitable state industries, but be sure there have not enough profitable.(or whatevet it   is) You should compare them with same industries.  Important thing is not profit, but efficent working.

If you put this money(who comes privatization) to bank, you will have much profit

Also becoming a monopol, does not mean becoming efficient or profitable.  I dont know, If you worked ever a  state ruled place, but they  are mainly wasting a lot source(thing we need much).

Mira,

I doubt such a law (only for women) exists, never heard of it. Even if it does, it is more likely to be a remnant of the Swiss civil code Turkey adopted with the Republic, rather than the Sharia. One funny thing is that most of the laws Europeans are critisising in Turkey as non-European are in fact European laws adopted durign the 1920s and 1930s.

Murtaza,

Well, Turkey is in Afghanistan and they tried hard to join the USA in Iraq. I hardly call it friendly.

If you look at the economic policy of AKP, you'll see that they are always on the side of the capital, and never on the side of labour and the poor. Since AKP got in the power, the rich got richer Turkey and the poor got poorer. AKP's best friends are the IMF and TUSIAD-MUSIAD.  

Wealth distribution in Turkey used to be like Europe. The gap between the rich and the poor was not that much. Today we are like the USA. Tomorrow we will be like Brazil. The few rich people will live in protected luxury villages and the poor will be shot in the streets by the police.

I voted for one of the left wing parties. They are the real alternative.  Or we can always make a revolution.

My parents are both officials (memur) and yesterday I was at a state university talking to the professors, so I know that I am talking about. If you fill the state institutions with your people (i.e. Islamists, your second cousins, etc.) instead of qualified people, of course they won't work efficiently. This is a failure of management, and can be solved by managing the place better. Of course, AKP doesn't want to improve the situation, but wants to sell what belongs to the Turkish people to rich investors. Erdoðan even said 'these institutions are not in a good shape' etc. He made the price go down. He is obviously desperate to sell them as fast as possible like the ex-communists did. Those ex-communists which sold everything quickly are still in economic crisis after 15 years, but it is good for Erdoðan. Adam zaten diyor 'Ben ülkeyi adeta pazarlamakla mükellefim.'

Hi guys,

I think i misout many things here already... trying to catch up with u guys...

Well.. never realise tht Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is on the list... so my choice obviously is him...

He had tried to improve malaysians especially malays (in other words, the muslims) to be more competitive and more critical thinking in various fields. His idea is practicable and well manage. I dont accept him as a dictator coz.. he had been our leader based on public election where we have the power to select our own leader. He is the best prime minister of Malaysia so far and I will be glad if he still continue his job till now.

Wealth distribution in Turkey used to be like Europe. The gap between the rich and the poor was not that much. Today we are like the USA. Tomorrow we will be like Brazil. The few rich people will live in protected luxury villages and the poor will be shot in the streets by the police.

I think before wealth distribution problem, we should have some wealth, unfortunately again, we have  not much resource for social politics.

If you look at the economic policy of AKP, you'll see that they are always on the side of the capital, and never on the side of labour and the poor. Since AKP got in the power, the rich got richer Turkey and the poor got poorer. AKP's best friends are the IMF and TUSIAD-MUSIAD.  

Do he have much  alternatives?   we cannot stand alone  without IMF.

Well, Turkey is in Afghanistan and they tried hard to join the USA in Iraq. I hardly call it friendly.

I hardy call afhanistan politics as agressive one, for iraq It is true,  but again it is not an expansionist move, but they tried to persuade USA against PKK.

My parents are both officials (memur) and yesterday I was at a state university talking to the professors, so I know that I am talking about. If you fill the state institutions with your people (i.e. Islamists, your second cousins, etc.) instead of qualified people, of course they won't work efficiently. This is a failure of management, and can be solved by managing the place better. Of course, AKP doesn't want to improve the situation, but wants to sell what belongs to the Turkish people to rich investors. Erdoðan even said 'these institutions are not in a good shape' etc. He made the price go down. He is obviously desperate to sell them as fast as possible like the ex-communists did. Those ex-communists which sold everything quickly are still in economic crisis after 15 years, but it is good for Erdoðan.

Infact It was not erdogan who filled this institution with his people, every goverment  did this.Yeah If they are managed well, they would be efficent.

But problem is that, this institution cannot be managed well until  this time, and they wont  be managed too.So It is best alternative.

Adam zaten diyor 'Ben ülkeyi adeta pazarlamakla mükellefim.'

Well said, unfortunately our  local capital is not enough, we need foreign capital.

we should be realist not idealist.

 voted for one of the left wing parties. They are the real alternative.  Or we can always make a revolution.

well no comment, I have not much good feeling against left or revolution.

Well maybe the only wrong thing that Atatürk had ever made was not to seperate the people and totalised them in a single Turkish identity (for me)

Now dont say "pal! it is cruel to say that!",No its not! seperating different peoples of ethnics and imposing their own natonalities on them what the minorities in TR want...

If that had been done instead of following a "humanist left wing ideology" maybe there would be no terror in Turkey and everyone of any ethnicity would be extremely happy

BTW AKP is not neocon blah blah they are just integrationist assimilators,thats all..

And neocons sucks BTW

I hope u dont understand me wrong...

i dont understand some turks, its as if when they see a there leader practising his beleif its a complete insult to them. is it becouse it feels embarrising to see ur leader practise islam? are you's worried about what non-muslim countries would think of turkey? coz many americans are proud to see president bush going to church or giving religious talk just lik i feel proud to see Erdogan embracing his (our) religion islam. its not that bad people, really. get over this islamophebia that some have. its starting to get really rediculous coz like it or not, MUSLIM OR NOT if ur a turk islam will always be ur history and history is ur identity.

Lol!! Interesting poll.

Well, I decided to go against the flow, and voted Musharaff, mainly because he's probably the best president Pakistan has had for a long time, perhaps the best in my opinion. It's based on the handling of the economy and the long term outlook, the self reliance aspect he's put through. He's a dictator, but luckily a good one. Anyhow the Pakistani media do bash him quite frequently when he doesnt deserve it, so he's not a domineering dictator. Still under him, Pakistan has made great leaps in the economy (primarily Shaukat Aziz), as well as the development of the cruise missile which was a good achievement.

Erdogan has also done well, though I dont agree with the Hijab ban in Turkey, it's up to those to choose who wants to wear it, Erdogan is also of this opinion I think? I think Erdogan inherited a good economy though, and I'm not sure what he's done to improve it, as I havent reasearched it  

Mahathir Mohamed also was a good prime minister. I think Musharaff can emulate it, though I think he'll step aside for 2007 or so, or perhaps get re-elected. Everyone probably disagrees with this  

Mira, thanks for the info. I wonder whether that's a relic from the Ottoman era or later slipped in by an Islamist government. In any case, it is a disgrace and should be abolished. Strange that nobody protested against this law.

Anyway, do you have other examples of Sharia influence in Turkish Law?

Well maybe the only wrong thing that Atatürk had ever made was not to seperate the people and totalised them in a single Turkish identity (for me)

Well Infact at Atatürk time it is half-true, It created some benefit, problem is Ataturk policy about this  topic never changed. If It changed 20-30 years ago,  not our life would be better.

But well, maybe he should say, we are ottomans, instead of we are turks.

Are you joking? That would lead to a civil war!

And the seperatist-terrorist problem would be ten times worse than it is now.

It would be impossible for us to protect our unity of soil without using arms.

do  you see a civil war at iran? or at USA? different ethnics does not mean civil war, but supression of different ethnics means civil war.(like now)

Oh, I see. So the law way useful before. But today it is quite useless and discriminatory. 

This is quite typical in Europe as Maju writes.

funny how some turkish people think that their system is totally secular and European while its NOT.

looks like Kemalists are confused what to follow and what not to follow.

not everything European is Great and perfect, think for yourself for once, Turkey doesn't need to look up for Europe's system and rules to become advanced nation, it should has rules which suits Turkey's people and their CULTURE not France's or swiess' culcutre.

unless they dont like their culture and tradition then yea pretend to be like others and do like they do.

"Kemalists are not "wanna be Europeans". You need to learn about Turkey's social structure. "

And yet Mustafa Kemal looked to the west for 'modernisation', below are various reforms by Mustafa Kemal which are clearly imitation of the West.

• Fez- forcefull ban, replaced with European hat (because the hat that you wear makes you modern)
• Surnames
• Calender- Islamic calender replaced by WESTERN calender
• Legislation- Civil Code, Penal Code, and Business Law, based on the Swiss, Italian and German models
• Army- The army formation was based on the Italians (was this due to the failure of the Ottomans in warfare )
• Language- A reform of the Turkish language which was meant to make the language become a pure form of Turkish with alian words removed. Although in reality alian  Muslim words (Arabic, Persian) were removed and introduction from WESTERN languages such as French were introduced
• Alphabet- Arabic alphabet replaced with WESTERN Latin alphabet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism" title="Catholicism - Roman Catholics , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church" title="Eastern Orthodox Church - Eastern Orthodox Christians , the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox" title="Oriental Orthodox - Oriental Orthodox , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Christians" title="Assyrian Christians - Assyrian Christians , members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican" title="Anglican - Anglican , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist" title="United Methodist - United Methodist , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic" title="Old Catholic - Old Catholic traditions, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Catholic_Churches" title="Independent Catholic Churches - Independent Catholic Churches and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism" title="Lutheranism - Lutherans hold that sacraments are not mere symbols, but rather, "signs or symbols which effect what they signify", that is, the sacraments in and of themselves, rightly administered, are used by God as a means to communicate grace to faithful recipients.

Generally, there are seven sacramental rites used since apostolic times in the Church, though not all of them are accepted by all groups. These are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism" title="Baptism - Baptism , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrismation" title="Chrismation - Chrismation (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation" title="Confirmation - Confirmation ), the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist" title="Eucharist - Eucharist (Communion), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Orders" title="Holy Orders - The Sacrament of Order ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination" title="Ordination - Ordination ), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession#Roman_Catholicism" title="Confession - Reconciliation of a Penitent , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_the_Sick" title="Anointing of the Sick - Anointing of the Sick , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage" title="Marriage - Marriage . Some groups do not consider any of these to be sacraments. Some groups, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican" title="Anglican - Anglicans and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church" title="Old Catholic Church - Old-Catholics , consider the two dominical sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and the Eucharist, to be the "precepted, primary, and principal sacraments ordained for our salvation," and consider the other five sacramentalm rites to be "lesser sacraments" that are derivative of these two. Occasionally, Christains who do not believe in sacramental theology will nevertheless refer to, for example, marriage as a "sacrament" in an effort to underscore their belief in the sanctity of the institution.

question is how much these helped us? fes, langauge changings, legistation changings or others.   I think we are still following Europea 100  years from back,  difference between 1920 and now is that now  we lost  our unique culture, and we are only a shadow of both ottoman and Euopean culture.

It was not about modernity. Atatürk just wanted to underline that the Republic of Turkey was different from the Ottoman Empire.

why all of this changings  comes from europe? ataturk  didnt hide his wish like becoming European,but It looks like his followers are trying to hide it?

At that times,Europea was most powerful part of world, so intelligents of ottomans(this also consists Ataturk) tried to immitiate Europea.

great  discussion.not bad is it? your ancestor were wearing them, respect your ancients child, they build a big empire(like ottomans), and you only build a sarcams style for yourself.

well? what are you trying to gain with posting pictures?  of course If your aim is not to make us laugh?

Did you ever show this much of respect for Ataturk as much as you have for the hat?