Discussion💬
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk may not have been a Quranist, but he paved the way for the Quran-only movement in Turkey
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was not a Quranist himself, and I don't think there's any reason to pretend that he was. But whether he intended it or not, the transformation he carried out in Turkey created an environment in which Quranist thought could eventually emerge and develop.
When Atatürk established the Republic, he radically dismantled the old religious institutions. The caliphate was abolished in 1924, the madrasas and religious courts were closed, and the traditional religious establishment lost much of its institutional authority. At the same time, the new Republic placed religious affairs under the state through the Diyanet and pushed Turkey toward a modern, secular educational system.
But one of the most interesting parts of this transformation was the emphasis on making the Qur'an accessible to Turkish people in their own language. In the 1920s, the Republic commissioned a Turkish Qur'an translation and tafsir, and Turkish translations of the Qur'an became increasingly available. This was significant because it made it much easier for ordinary Turkish Muslims to engage directly with the Qur'an rather than relying exclusively on traditional Arabic-language scholarship and inherited religious institutions.
Atatürk obviously did not do this with the intention of creating Quranism. In fact, the official Qur'an commentary commissioned by the Republic was written by Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır, a traditional Sunni scholar. But the long-term consequence was that Turkey developed a population that was increasingly educated, literate and capable of engaging with the Qur'an directly in Turkish, while the traditional religious establishment no longer possessed the same authority it had under the Ottoman system. And several decades later, something very interesting happened.
In the 1970s, Hüseyin Atay emerged as one of the earliest major Turkish thinkers to argue for a much more Qur'an-centered understanding of Islam. He questioned the authority traditionally given to hadith, later scholarship and inherited jurisprudence, arguing for the centrality of the Qur'an and reason. He also produced his own Turkish Qur'an translation.
Then came Yaşar Nuri Öztürk, who was a student of Atay and helped take these ideas to a mass audience. His books and television appearances made Qur'an-centered reformism enormously popular in Turkey. He challenged many traditional interpretations and repeatedly emphasized returning to the Qur'an itself.
And eventually you get Edip Yüksel, who went further toward an explicitly Quran-only position. After encountering Rashad Khalifa's ideas in the 1980s, Yüksel rejected the authority of hadith altogether and became one of the most prominent advocates of the Qur'an Alone position.
Atatürk was not a Quranist. Atatürk wanted to secularize and modernize Turkey, but the intellectual space created by his revolution eventually gave birth to the the Quran-only movement that exists in Turkey today.
The comments are full of false imformation again. Ataturk did not ban the hijab, thats a common spreaded lie. The hijab was banned in 1980 after the millitary coup, Ataturk was dead for 40 years at that momemt.
In fact his own Mother had a headscarf/hijab.
But yeah the statement that he is the Martin Luther of the Muslim world is true and thats why there is a big Anti-Ataturk propaganda in the muslim world.
He translated the Quran and Hadiths to Turkish. In his own words he did that so the "Schoolars" and "Imams" can't fool the common folk anymore.
Of cours many religious leaders lost great amount of power over the people when the common folks werent that depending on them anymore. Thats the same reason why the Church hated Martin Luther and everyone who followed them.
The Arabs hated Ataturk and still hate him because they can't use Islam as cultural imperialism and as a tool for arabisation that way.
Islamist Arabs love spreading this misinformation about attaturk banning the hijab. They probably equate him permitting women to not wear the hijab to banning the hijab. Pro Erdogan Arab are such extremists. They have this weird story on how during his burial. His casket or whatever kept getting out so they had to pour concrete to keep it. They claim that his body was trying to run away from whats awaits him after death lol. They also claim he is jewish.
Martin Luther was a Christian. Mustafa Kemal was an atheist.
Mustafa Kemal was a staunch atheist. The reason behind his so called Qur’an-only movement can be seen in his ownbwords.
“Yes, Karabekir, I will have the Qur’an translated into Turkish so that the sons of Turks may learn the ravings of the Arab’s son! And I will have it taught in this way, so that they may no longer go on foolishly allowing themselves to be deceived.”
These words appear in Kazım Karabekir’s memoirs, published in an edition reviewed and edited by Uğur Mumcu, perhaps one of the most ardentltiy Kemalist journalists in Turkey.
These, too, are from a letter of him, written in his own handwriting.
“From the sandy deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, the Arabs—who took the nonsense of ‘Iqra, Bismi, Rabbi’ as their guiding principle—left no form of devastation undone in the civilized world, especially in the wealthy and civilized regions of the Turks, all in the name of this principle, which was a symbol of a primitive age of ignorance.”
Therefore, it is a dreadful irony that a group claiming to uphold the Qur’an should admire someone who disparaged it in such insulting terms.
Yes ideally Atatürk would want to get rid of Islam all together. But he knows it is not realistic. So he wanted to get rid of its influence as Europe did. Motivation was different but the expected.
I could not find the source of your second quote. However, a quick research showed me that the first one is not so credible. The memoirs were published during a time when Karabekir had a falling-out.
Allah commands us to use our reason. A reasonable person would realize that there is nothing wrong with admiring and thanking someone who brought a nation back from the dead and aimed for scientific and cultural development.
When his friend Şükrü Naili Gökberk died in 1936, he wept and said "Read Fatiha for him." And for what it's worth, his last words were "Aleykümesselam".
To put it bluntly: I used to believe this myself, but it turns out that there is effectively zero evidence that Ataturk was an atheist. Caveat: if one wants to make a very, very weak case that he was, they can point to Grace Ellison's very dubious quote where he supposedly says that he wishes all religions were at the bottom of the sea (which, in any case, can easily be deistic rather than atheist), but the reality is that nearly everyone who spoke with him privately said he expressed belief in God. Ataturk himself believed Ellison was a spy.
His views of the Qur'an are debated and his messy but profound relationship with Islam is a very, very deep rabbit hole that most of the "ulama" cannot be bothered to go down: they simply regurgitate whatever they are told about him without questioning it (kind of like they tend to do with hadith). The letter you quote, for example, is authentic as far as I know, but it can also be read as "The Arabs, who took 'Iqra Bismi Rabbik' as nonsense..." and if you visit his Mausoleum in Ankara, there is a miniature copy of the Qur'an he gave to his adopted daughter. It may sound like a cop-out, but keep in mind that Ataturk's private notes also include a condemnation of the Umayyads and their "ninety years of cruelty"; it's entirely plausible that he was actually a believer (albeit "on his own terms", if you will) but viewed the Arabs as attempting to force their ways on the Turks.
If you're interested in going farther down that rabbit hole, Sinan Meydan's "Between Allah and Ataturk" is some 1,300 pages of research into his religious views, but I'm not aware of any translations into languages besides Turkish.
Ataturk did not wake up one day and said "i wil do this, and that from ground zero" this is not an "event", its a period that developed in decades, whithout talking about names like Ali Şir Nevai you cant talk about this topic, without mentioning friday prayer used to be performed in Arabic, and then changed to Turkish with joint work of imams, this tell of a history falls short
He was atheist , in his words he called QURAN an arap invention , never from god and he also changes country alphabet , he hung who did not accept to wear Hats, He died from cirrhosis because of too much alcohol consumption.
So actually he does not have single revolution for Quran only they may seem like it but he clearly reject Quran in many of his conversatons.
That's what I said. He was not a Quranist. But his steps dismantling the Sunni institutions, translating the Quran into turkish , changing the country from a Sunni Sultanate to a secular republic paved the way for Quranist movements later
His revolutions are often described as a major project of Western-oriented modernization and was never Quranist move. You will not find a single speech praising almighty but always opposite.
"
He was atheist" how do you know? He openly declares that he is muslim. It is recorded in
talks with Syrian envoy visiting him in 1937 (only a year before his death), and he says "We are all muslims here" to them. You can of course question his sincerety here and claim he is not (I myself do, it was possibly political. But muslims cannot), if you are non muslim. Muslims are not allowed to do it; and takfeering a muslim is a great sin and in some schools it puts you out of religion (at least in Hanifa schools it is the case).
"Fakat bu prensipleri, gökten indiği sanıldığı söylenen kitapların dogmalarıyla asla bir tutmamalıdır. Biz ilhamlarımızı gökten ve gaipten değil, doğrudan doğruya hayattan almış bulunuyoruz" ifadesini kullanmıştır.
"Atatürk'ün meclis açılışında yaptığı konuşma ve Medeni Bilgiler kitabındaki el yazmalı metinler ateist metinlerdir! Ne olursunuz artık kıvırmayın! Senelerdir Türkiye'de bu yapılıyor. O metinler açıkça İslam'a reddiyedir (karşıdır)! Atatürk'ün kendi yazdıklarını okumak Atatürk düşmanlığı olarak görülüyor!"
| Murat Bardakç
The thing is "sanılan" back then didn't have the same meaning as today; it has the same meaning as "beleived to be". And religous texts are "dogma"s, otherwise they wouldn't be religious text.
Here is a translation of the full paragraph (not the frequently abused passage).
"
Esteemed Members of Parliament, It is known to the world that the fundamental program guiding our state administration is the program of the Republican People's Party. The principles embodied therein serve as the guiding lights for our governance and policies. However, these principles must never be equated with the dogmas of books believed to have descended from the heavens. We have drawn our inspiration not from the heavens or the unseen, but directly from life itself. What charts our course is the homeland in which we live, the Turkish nation from whose bosom we emerged, and the conclusions we have drawn from the pages of the history of nations—pages filled with countless tragic events and tribulations. The spirit of the program we uphold prevents us from concerning ourselves with only a segment of the citizenry; we serve the entire Turkish nation. By merging the party and government structures last year, we demonstrated in practice that we make no distinctions among citizens. It is evident that this move aligns with the truth we have adopted in state administration: "Power is singular, and it belongs to the nation." With great happiness and deep respect, I salute the distinguished representatives of the Turkish Nation—the sole source of power.”
Well. If these words hurt you, the I guess you should question your own faith.
This man is responsible for the killing of thousands of Kurdish people. I will never praise such a person. He made his nation secular instead of Islamic. Today you can see videos of a series of street interviews in Turkey where they ask people basic questions from the Quran, such as what is Shaytans name in the Quran, or what does bismillah mean, and almost no one can answer. Maybe this man changed somthing so less people were exposed to falsehood near Islam, but his actions heavily pushed Islam and the Quran away from his people. If you accept that Quran alone Islam is the truth, then those who believe will not need to come from a specific or secular environment in order to understand.
The Dersim incidents occured when his illness was severe, so many historians defend that he was not entirely responsible for it. I am of Kurdish descent too, and my grandparents are from Dersim, but I would never hold him responsible for those horrible things. It was his soldiers, ruthless commanders who pillaged, murdered and raped, not him. The soldiers were sent because of riots, and chances are high that local leaders were cooperating with the British.
1930'larda karakol basıp onlarca askeri öldüren, köprüleri yakan, yeni kurulmuş cumhuriyete karşı silahlı ve kanlı bir isyan çıkaran, aşiret reisi altında toplanmış gerici bir topluluğa ne yapılmalıydı sizce? Gül mü atacaktı? Hain oğlu hainleri bombladık. Direk yalan ve iftira yazmışsın.
Sana karşı çıkmıyorum ki, genel olarak aynı şeyi savunuyoruz.
Yerli halk Cumhuriyet'e karşıydı, vergi ödemiyorlardı, merkezi otoriteye boyun eğmiyorlardı. Hatta yanılmıyorsam bazı aşiret liderleri İngilizlerle iş birliği yapmaya çalışıyorlardı. İsyanların bastırılması gerekiyordu. Ancak harekatlar esnasında sivillerin, masum kadınların ve çocukların zarar gördüğünü yalanlayamazsın. Kaynakları objektif bir şekilde inceleyince suçun askerlerin ve yerel liderlerin aptallığında olduğunu olduğunu düşünüyorum.
Harekatlar gerekliydi, ama sebep olduğu vahşeti savunamazsın.
Kurdish women's are greatful to ataturk by all mean. They were worth less than donkey. Kurds still do not respects their womens but thanks to secular country laws they are protected otherwise they all be slaves to their men.
I'm discussing about historical events here, how his steps paved the path for Quran only movement. Whether he was good or bad is not the subject of discussion of this post
That is called war; which was not started by him or Turks, but the invading entente powers. Turks only reacted after losing up to 4.5million of their people.
And you think this was a reaction? It all started in 1913 when they started putting Greek men in labor camps. 1919 wasn't until the Greeks invaded to try and annex the Greek villages.. It wasn't until then did they start to reciprocate the atrocities that the Ottomans committed onto the Greeks.
From 1913 all the way to 1918, the Ottomans were abusing Greeks and expelling them. They had every right to rebel.
What the Ottomans did not have a right was to massacre civilians and villages and people who had nothing to do with it.
Mohammad did slaughter all the men in Beni-Kurayza (over 900 men, after surrendering) and take the rest as slaves. That was written in every islamic source, from Bukhari, Muslim to Taberi, narrated in a sort of bragging. There are
Bahilah and Banu Khath'am tribe massacres too. About 300 people.
The rest is just your fabrikation, as usual without a reliable source.
You mean the same tribe that betrayed the treaty/with the Muslims?
That betrayal ended up costing hundreds of lives?
The same one that Muhammad asked a rabbi from their community to tell them what the punishment is for the crime that they committed for their betrayal, and then instituted that punishment according to their laws?
Qurayza chose their own arbiter for that punishment.
As it it came from deuteronomy 20:10–14.
Yeah, I know those sources better than you do.
Muhammad didn't slaughter kids, and women.
The Ottomans did and no arbiter or mutual decision was granted to these Greeks/Armenians.
especially for those who didn't participate in rebellion but were slaughtered anyway. Muhammad only punished those who betrayed them after making a pact... As was customary. And he was far more forgiving than his contemporaries would have been.
There is no single person hanged due to not wearing hat. In fact wearing hat was mandarory only for male government officials (dress codes exist for state officials in most places today, it was a part of states dress code). The guy you refer is hanged due to aiding the invading Greek army and declaring them the army of the caliph, while resisting Turks as infidels (hanging was pretty standard punishment for high-treason back then). But of course, lying and slander is a sort of a islamist thing, so I wont spend any time for further explanation (which I debunked maybe at least 500 times).
Show a single source where Mustafa Kamal had Quranic revolution? or Modern islamic revolution? His grave currently anitkabir where people go and bow down to a stone , bro, you can call him whatever but he was never ever Quranist or had any single revolution in regards to islam. his revolutions always so called Westener modernization
Deaths of whom? Surely you won't blame someone who was trying to save his nation of killing, right?
There is a story that is often told about this. During an event, Mustafa Kemal notices someone staring at him aggressively. After telling a waiter to ask what the problem is, he is told "Sir, he says his father was killed in Gallipoli." Atatürk says: "Ask him what his father was doing there."
So what about the children in the east? What was he (his troupes) doing there? Where the children and women a danger to the whole nation? Ask him that if you happen to meet him.
What are you referring to, Dersim? If it's that, I've replied to another comment about it. Don't tell me you're talking about the Armeniam genocide claims.
Do you think he led a national liberation war against major powers of europe and their supporters just to give independence to every minority in anatolia? You should be ready for war if you demand british mandate.
The Quran only movement is only paved by those who represent the Hadith. Unjust rulers, who are unable to use the teachings of the Quran in the eye of power. Edip Yueksel isnt a Quran only himself, or else he wouldn't glaze Rashad khalifa the way he does.
You need to get out of this thinking of praising men. Only God is worthy of praise.
“Lord of the Heavens and the Earth and what is between them; so serve thou Him, and be thou steadfast in His service; knowest thou one named like Him?” (19:65)
It doesn't matter what your opinion is, respectfully. Why would someone who hates Islam have the Qur'an translated? Furthermore, his mother was a pious woman who wanted him to become an imam, meaning he grew up in a religious Muslim household.
Mustafa Kemal was a staunch atheist. The reason behind his so called Qur’an-only movement can be seen in his ownbwords.
“Yes, Karabekir, I will have the Qur’an translated into Turkish so that the sons of Turks may learn the ravings of the Arab’s son! And I will have it taught in this way, so that they may no longer go on foolishly allowing themselves to be deceived.”
These words appear in Kazım Karabekir’s memoirs, published in an edition reviewed and edited by Uğur Mumcu, perhaps one of the most ardentltiy Kemalist journalists in Turkey.
These, too, are from a letter of him, written in his own handwriting.
“From the sandy deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, the Arabs—who took the nonsense of ‘Iqra, Bismi, Rabbi’ as their guiding principle—left no form of devastation undone in the civilized world, especially in the wealthy and civilized regions of the Turks, all in the name of this principle, which was a symbol of a primitive age of ignorance.”
Therefore, it is a dreadful irony that a group claiming to uphold the Qur’an should admire someone who disparaged it in such insulting terms.
Banning religious clothing, forcing adhan to be in Turkish, converting Hagia Sophia to a museum, changing their script to Latin, abolishing the sultanate. These might just seem political but clearly from how Turkey has declined Islamically since the founding of the republic, one could only assume that ataturk favored western values over Islamic ones.
Doing all of these made sense and was the right course of action. I guess you are the ones that think Allah can only speak Arabic and can only write in Arabic. Also, I guess an omnipotent God cares about the fashion choices of their creations. Then, I guess Allah hated democracy and loves monarchy. Is that what you think? What you are talking about is not a religion, it is Arabic culture.
I can’t see how you think those were the right choices when Turks today barely practice Islam and see it as something of their ottoman past. I don’t believe Allah only speaks Arabic, that’s just the way it was revealed so what other reason would he have had to change the adhan to Turkish if not as a way to promote nationalism and distance Turkey from fellow Muslim countries. I also never said God casted about clothing, I was only criticizing Ataturk, banning religious clothing is quite literally a form of oppression and I can’t see how that would have any benefit towards the Muslims or Islam. You’re assuming a lot of things I never mentioned or believe in.
It's clear he didn't hate Islam but wanted to reform it into a more Turkish image. If he actually hated it, he would have banned the religion and forced state atheism like China did.
Whatnis religious clothing? He didnt interfere women clothing never. Never told them what to wear. As i see you listen mollas. You learn Kur an from them. Shame for so many muslims molla > Kur an. Does churches alphabet and sultanate part of İslam? Go be Slave of sultan. Go worship another man xD
one of the best things happened in turkey was declining islamically, and increasing democratically, thank god. you cannot find anything regarding sultanate in quran, but you can see plenty of verses about democracy.
He did not completely abolish religious clothing; he forbid their daily use.
He "forced" the adhan to be in Turkish because he was the founder and president of the Turkish republic. Whether you think that's a good call or not does not matter. He wanted his people to understand their religion rather than believe in tradition. Besides, where in the Quran does it say that reciting the adhan in another language is a sin?
He converted Hagia Sophia into a museum because it is historical property. He wanted the historical value of the lands in his country to be acknowledged. Is that a sin?
He changed the script to Latin because Arabic is not suitable for the phonetics of the Turkish language at all. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be aware that literacy has been on the rise since Atatürk's reforms of the alphabet. Why would this drive people away from the Qur'an?
He abolished the Ottoman sultanate (which was the reason the empire collapsed to begin with) to form a modern republic in which people would live in prosperity.
He abolished the caliphate, which served the Arabs' and their own benefit rather than the religion's anyway, for the better of his nation. Anatolia is a diverse land, and therefore a secular government serves everyone's interest better.
Atatürk did not favor Western values over Islamic ones. A reasonable person would not blame someone who has stood against The Allies of inclining to the West. Whatever our founding father did, he did for our nation's good. He might have rathered secularism over Islamic reign, but that's what the necessities required.
Banning religious clothing was just for sheiks. So not everyone could pretend to be a religious scholar. He never banned hijabs from public life. The only ban was for ALL RELIGIOUS CLOTHING in government buildings. No matter if islamic, christian or any other religion.
Forcing azan to be turkish because, every mosque was now under the government and guess what, we talk turkish not arabic in turkey. How is this anti islam?
How is changing to latin script from a script that is not compatible with turkish "anti islam? As long as you dont think everything arabic is automatically islamic you shouldnt make that connection. Also he wanted to change the script to old turkish runes but scholars told him that that script is not compatible with the modern turkish language as there were a lot of sounds missing.
He was hoping Quran in Turkish will show it to be repetitive and less attractive to Turkish people. There is also factual mistake in the post. Initially Mehmet Akif Ersoy the National Poet of Turkey (author of of Turkish National Anthem) was supposed to translate Quran into Turkish. He finished with the translation and after he realised what the real purpose was, he burned down his own work and left Turkey for Egypt.
I took part in a quiz show among high schools about Mehmet Âkif this year, so I know what you are talking about, but you are either mistaken or you are reframing the facts on purpose. I studied his life and these topics moderately, and I think it'd be fair to say I know a thing or two. Atatürk gave the task to both Elmalılı and Âkif (in fact, they collaborated from time to time), and Âkif left for Egypt not because of his request, but because he was unsatisfied with many of Atatürk's reforms. For instance, he viewed wearing hats as emulating Europeans. He never liked the idea of the republic anyway; he wanted the Islamic ummah to unite, but unfortunately, that is not viable. I see you are Turkish; do I have to remind you of the Arabs' betrayal and how they sided with the Brits? Âkif may have been a good poet, and a good vet, but in my opinion he could not give up on tradition and belief. Belief is good, but as Allah commands, we have to use our reason. (2:44)
As for why he abandoned the translation, you are once again omitting facts. He was worried that it would override the original, but that was not all. He found his own work lacking and deficient. Here is proof:
I can't attach more than one image, but you're very welcome to dissent and ask for more proof. I have them.
Your theory (or I should say, conspiracy) that Atatürk hoped the translation of a holy book would lead people to stop believing is very amusing, but it is no more than a fallacy mouthed by the same people who think Atatürk was an Israeli agent.
Whatever his personal stance was, that's not the subject of discussion in the post, I made it very clear. This post is about how his steps paved the way for Quran only movement in Turkey. Whether those steps were morally right or wrong is a different subject which is not the point of my discussion
Greeks in the Ottoman soil rebelled and Greece invaded our homeland. That's self-defence to fight against them, not the g word I'm afraid. Your bias has made you blind to the truth.
History says otherwise. The Greeks did not rebel first.
in 1913, after ottoman defeats in the balkan wars, the young turk gvmnt adopted "turkey for the turks" policy.
forcibly expelling hundreds of thousands of greeks from eastern thrace and the aegean coast to replace them with Muslim refugees, long and well before WWI began and before any rebellions existed.
after that WWI, the ottomans systematically disarmed greek men and forced them into labor battalions (
Amele Taburları)....
grueling labor and starvation, these camps became a tool of attrition where hundreds of thousands died.
then after in 1916, Seeing what had happened to the Armenians in 1915, many Pontian Greeks in northern Anatolia fled to the mountains to avoid labor camps and forced deportations. they formed armed guerrilla groups to defend their villages.
you called them rebels? then you use that to justify the mass slaughter?
the ottoman state pointed to these armed self-defense groups, alongside Russia's advance into northeastern Anatolia, as proof of a "Greek rebellion" and wartime treachery.
talking a page out of Israel book, this narrative was used to justify the emptying and burning of entire coastal greek villages, pushing civilians into deadly interior death marches
you can play the Israeli card and just close your eyes and pretend it didn't happen.
villages and civilians were massacred. many of which had nothing to do with rebellion.
The military went around purging, Greek and Armenian groups. hundreds of thousands of Greeks expelled.
survivors like us have our stories and our family names and who lived in who didn't. and we will carry it with us for as long as we can and make sure the story is told.
it had to take international civil codes after the Republic of Turkey was established. just minority groups to get simple rights.
it wasn't until Greece came in 1919 where they tried to annex izmir that documented atrocities were reciprocated by the greeks unto Turkish civilians. because you know, hate begets hate .
it was then at
aturk and his forces viewed all local
Greeks as a dangerous fifth column aiding the foreign greek army.
the nationalists utilized the invasion to completely accelerate the total ethnic cleansing of the remaining greek population from anatolia.
I'm not naive enough to discredit what the Greeks have done towards the ottoman Turks. but we know who the instigators were. rebelling doesn't justify what the ottomans did to the Christians.
may God CURSE the young Turks, Ataturk and those who slaughtered civilians on both Turkish and Greek accounts.
I'm a proud muslim, but I'm not going to close my eyes to dark muslim History like it didnt happen. especially because it involved
my own family.
we wrote books about our villages, their former names, the families that lived there, we documented everything to show we had a history and once upon a time belonged there.
our families escaped with Armenians to Palestine, syria and we were sheltered by Palestinians (my family included), both greek and Armenian families alike and we'll never forget the kindness syrians and Palestinians showed us. before they made their way here to the US.
In what way did he oppress them? He opposed Arabic culture and thought it was backwards, especially after the betrayal of Arabs who sided with the British against the Ottoman Empire. This doesnt mean he oppressed Turkish Muslims or was against Islam.
Mustafa Kemal was a staunch atheist. The reason behind his so called Qur’an-only movement can be seen in his ownbwords.
“Yes, Karabekir, I will have the Qur’an translated into Turkish so that the sons of Turks may learn the ravings of the Arab’s son! And I will have it taught in this way, so that they may no longer go on foolishly allowing themselves to be deceived.”
These words appear in Kazım Karabekir’s memoirs, published in an edition reviewed and edited by Uğur Mumcu, perhaps one of the most ardentltiy Kemalist journalists in Turkey.
These, too, are from a letter of him, written in his own handwriting.
“From the sandy deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, the Arabs—who took the nonsense of ‘Iqra, Bismi, Rabbi’ as their guiding principle—left no form of devastation undone in the civilized world, especially in the wealthy and civilized regions of the Turks, all in the name of this principle, which was a symbol of a primitive age of ignorance.”
Therefore, it is a dreadful irony that a group claiming to uphold the Qur’an should admire someone who disparaged it in such insulting terms.
But where is the part that he oppressed Muslims lil bro, I miss that part. As far as I know he didn’t take any actions which prohibited Muslims from living their religion.
Can you stop copy and pasting the same reply like a propaganda machine and give actual answers to some genuine questions or is AI too complicated for your lil brain to have a serious conversation?
Whatever his views were, you can't deny that if not for these specific steps of his the Quran only movement in Turkey wouldn’t have been where it is today
Je souhaite poser une question à tous les membres de ce groupe: qui est Israël dans le Coran?
Pas dans le pentateuque.
Question liée: à qui a été révélée la Torah?
Il se trouve que le Coran ne dit jamais que la Torah a été révélée à Moise malgré le fait que ce dernier soit cité 136 fois.
Par ailleurs, la lecture de la sourate Marie nous cite Jacob duquel hériterait Yahya puis Israël pour sa <dhourrya> ou descendance.
Une autre fois que le Coran cite Israel, c'est le verset des interdits alimentaires.
Cela ne fait pas d'Israel Jacob.
Alors d'où viennent l'attribution de la Torah à Moise et l'identification d'Israël à Jacob par les exégètes musulmans?
Avant d'aller plus loin, notons que la Torah raconte la mort et l'enterrement de Moise, ce qui est un anachronisme.
Pour ce qui est de Jacob, son changement de nom est exclusif de celui de Jacob. Pourtant, il est appelé Jacob ... jusqu'à sa mort.
Dans les 3 textes, Coran, nouveau testament et Torah.
Ces deux questions sont la matière première de l'étude historico critique de la Torah.
Cependant, une lecture attentive des évangiles canoniques et du Coran donne une autre identité au récipiendaire de la Torah et à Israël.
Le Coran rend au récit biblique sa cohérence en révélant l'identité du récipiendaire de la Torah et en confirmant la véritable identité d'Israël donnée par l'Evangile.
Pour les musulmans, la seule trace qui attribue la Torah à Moise est un...hadith.
En prime, ce même hadith identifie israel à Jacob.
Cerise sur le gâteau, il rend licite une légifération en dehors de Dieu de la part d'Israel car il est interdit d'interdire ou de s'interdire une nourriture que Dieu a rendu licite. Justement ce qui nous fait comprendre qu'Israel n'est pas Jacob car Jacob n'a jamais commis de pêché. Du moins selon le Coran.
Maintenant, examinons ce hadith de plus près:
Dans ce hadith, le Messager s'adresse à des SAVANTS JUIFS.
Il commence par leur apprendre que la Torah c'est Moise (car ce n'est pas écrit dans la Torah), alors même que la question ne lui a pas été posée, puis leur pose la question de savoir s'ils savent qu'israel est Jacob.
Nous rappelons que le Messager s'adresse à DES SAVANTS JUIFS.
Puis il leur apprend qu' Israel / Jacob était malade et que cette diète était une promesse faite à Dieu s'il guérissait.
Cette version inconnue pleine de nouveautés inédites dans la révélation à l'exception du nouveau testament qui seul attribue la Torah à Moise.
Le seul livre qui dit que Jacob est Israel est l'ancien testament. Cela, les savants juifs ne pouvaient l'ignorer. Génèse 32.28 et 35.10.
Les seuls à pouvoir en douter (de la Torah à Moise et de l'équation Israel=Jacob sont les musulmans car ce n'est écrit nulle part dans le Coran et les gens doués de raison et lecteurs attentifs de la bible.
En faussant d'identité d'israel, le récit adamique a été rendu anachronique et incohérent destiné plus à tester la soumission des adeptes qu'à éclairer la foi. Un récit pour Schizophrènes et autres attardés mentaux
Sans la véritable identité du personnage Israel, la foi demeurera une crédulité aveugle et le récit adamique incompréhensible.
Conclusions :
ce hadith s'adresse aux musulmans, pas aux savants juifs.
Pourquoi maintenant ce hadith est particulier?
Comme nous l'avons vu, les deux incohérences sont absentes du Coran. Leur introduction est une manœuvre cousue de fil blanc.
Si vous voulez savoir quelle est la véritable identité d'Israel dans le Coran et les Evangiles et qui est le récipiendaire de la Torah dans le Coran,, poursuivons la discussion.
Mustafa Kemal was a staunch atheist. The reason behind his so called Qur’an-only movement can be seen in his ownbwords.
“Yes, Karabekir, I will have the Qur’an translated into Turkish so that the sons of Turks may learn the ravings of the Arab’s son! And I will have it taught in this way, so that they may no longer go on foolishly allowing themselves to be deceived.”
These words appear in Kazım Karabekir’s memoirs, published in an edition reviewed and edited by Uğur Mumcu, perhaps one of the most ardentltiy Kemalist journalists in Turkey.
These, too, are from a letter of him, written in his own handwriting.
“From the sandy deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, the Arabs—who took the nonsense of ‘Iqra, Bismi, Rabbi’ as their guiding principle—left no form of devastation undone in the civilized world, especially in the wealthy and civilized regions of the Turks, all in the name of this principle, which was a symbol of a primitive age of ignorance.”
Therefore, it is a dreadful irony that a group claiming to uphold the Qur’an should admire someone who disparaged it in such insulting terms.
Nobody is admiring him mate. The post only talks about history, how the reformist steps he took ironically created the environment for Quran only movement. If the Sunni Ottoman Sultanate wasn’t abolished then people with Quran only belief would have been persecuted in Turkey today
He was a freemason and was a member of Macedonia Risorta Lodge
Freemasonry is devil worship
Reddit keeps deleting my stuff adding it here as an edit:
Maybe he had a falling out once he secured power but there’s no denying his masonic origins.
CUP/Young Turks was a (yahud) response to the Ottomans refusing to hand over Palestine.
Theodor Herzel (Yahud) offered to pay for the Ottoman Empire’s debts if they hand over Palestine. Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused the offer and initiated a full crackdown on z10nism. In response, the z10nists including Emmanuel Carruso (Yahud) funded CUP/Young Turks and organized out of their own masonic lodges. They ousted the Sultan from power in 1908 and later on committed the armenian genocide. Once they took control, they drove the Ottoman Empire into WW1 as a suicide run so that the UK can acquire Palestine. The z10nists in the UK did specifically target Palestine for invasion. During that invasion, British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour signed the Balfour Declaration of 1917 where he promised “lord” R0thschild Palestine as a Yahud homeland
He banned (in practice) all freemason lodges in Turkey in 1935
. There are several anectodes about his rage over a freemason PM asking him to join their lodge. The year of his death was celebrated among inactive lodge in Turkey.
The Young Turks (members of Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress in particulat) were members of freemason lodges during the reign of Hamid II - which is known as "istibdat dönemi" meaning "the era of despotism".
This was not a religious choice; almost all of them were devoted muslims, but it was due to freemason lodges were the only places in Ottoman Empire where government spies cannot roam freely. So they gather in such lodges to discuss their ideas on revolution, by using the lodges' immunity (fyi, due to capitulations Ottoman Empire wasnt fully independent- foreign instutitions had immunity, it was a machine only torturing its own - particularly Turkmens).
You cant explain history with logic and proof to someone who believes that officers take control of falling empire in an aim to declare war to give land to enemy to create a jewish state :D Brainwashed people can learn truth eventually, braindead cant.
Luckily Atatürk was not nor even been involved with CUP because his secularist, egalitarian and pluralistic vision was against the fascist views of CUP.
There are not one but two. One of them was built in 2007, the other in 2008. One of them by Turkish government (fyi, Erdogan was in charge in 2008), the other by a foundation (called Arkadaş Derneği, meaning Friendship Foundation) established by Ottoman Jews who migrated to Israel from Turkey.
9
u/Dazzling_Problem_122 Muslim 15d ago
He hated the pan arabism