What is your opinion of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?

What is your opinion of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?


  • Total voters
    96
Mar 2016
758
Antalya
Sorry, I meant Judaism. I think tolerant interpretation of Islam, pacifism and "love" phenomenon is based on Orthodox christianity, "deep" theology of Sufism is based on Judaism and Kabala. There are some academic papers on them, I will share when I have time.
So Anatolian Islamic interpretation, inspired from Christianity, was different than early Turk's Islamic interpretation? Is there such a comparison?
 
Feb 2017
48
Manisa
Not really, we are not. Current Turks in Turkey are genetically diverse, coming from Balkans, Caucasus, Levant so on and so forth with recent Altaic contribution (for Anatolians). The genetic stock of pure Anatolians is long lost.

I am not sure why Ataturk made connections to ancient Anatolian civilizations. The genetic knowledge was absent in his age as far as I know. Perhaps he read some scholarly work and drew some parallels. All in all, however, I think all the effort was, sadly, a product of an inferiority complex back then considering Central Asian peoples/cultures were considered at the lowest level together with Africans.
To give some different identity other than just muslim. Islamic fundementalism was the exact reason ottoman empire was underdeveloped, muslims were so poor and women were confined to houses. They lived entirely for the afterworld and did not care much about developing. It is still being told as if it was such a good thing.
 
Last edited:

antocya

Ad Honorem
May 2012
5,755
Iraq
In Sulaymaniyah in the Kurdish area of Iraq they have often have a ceremony outside the main mosque and the dervishes get in a sort of trance. They do a heavy swaying motion and they have really long hair. It's not like the whirling dervishes, they just do an up and down motion.

Then there are some who take skewers and pierce their cheeks and tongues and even take knives and cut themselves. They don't seem to have any pain. I've seen it before, it's very strange.

Anyway, in the Ottoman Empire and during the Abassid Caliphate the Middle East was arguably more advanced than Europe. Some people might exaggerate this but I wonder if Islam is really the contributor here against advances.

I mean, people might argue that Christianity was really fundamentalist during the Dark Ages but during the Renaissance people were still deeply religious and that's when the Inquisition occurred in Spain, while Spain was the most powerful and wealthy.

Also Italy was politically in shambles and there was a lot of violence but it still managed to go through a lot of development in art and science.

Some people say that Islam took a turn toward a more rigid point of view in favor of people who believed the Quran had always existed since the beginning of time and this eventually led to a backwardness in thought. I have a book about it but it's not with me now and I don't remember a lot about it.
 
Mar 2016
758
Antalya
To give some different identity other than just muslim. Islamic fundementalism was the exact reason ottoman empire was underdeveloped, muslims were so poor and women were confined to houses. They lived entirely for the afterworld and did not care much about developing. It is still being told as if it was such a good thing.
Ataturk was a Turkish Nationalist, more than most Kemalists/Ataturkcu today. As far as I know, he wanted a different flag with Turquoise background and the Graywolf in it. He also promoted Graywolf (Asena?) figure. I really doubt the kind of history in his mind was Turks being descendants of Anatolian civilizations. He probably wanted something bigger, like Turks moving into Anatolia earlier and founding the ancient Anatolian civilizations.

And I have to say, this whole "we are the same people who lived here" thing is getting boring. No, we are not. Neither culturally, nor genetically we are the same people. Turkish culture was always open to assimilation, because let's face it, nomadic culture isn't the most advanced one around, save for warfare. When Turks had met with rich Byzantine culture, it was normal for them to adopt various elements, add that to being open to accepting assimilated people/converts, yes the new culture is bound to be assimilated and be hybrid. I think this is a good thing, not a bad one, but that doesn't make us Byzantines. This makes us precisely Turks, because that's how Turks have always been.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
758
Antalya
Anyway, in the Ottoman Empire and during the Abassid Caliphate the Middle East was arguably more advanced than Europe. Some people might exaggerate this but I wonder if Islam is really the contributor here against advances.
In an absolute monarchy, Islam can not be a problem. Monarchy is bigger than the "rules of Allah". That's how things work and that's how you can slaughter innocent (in middle ages) and fight with Muslims, instead of infidels. It's just a political tool, an ideology for empire to conquer and grow.

The actual problem with Ottoman Empire was also not human resources. They had the best blacksmith/crafters in West Asia/Europe. The problem was establishing institutions to carry on that knowledge and capitalize on those human resources to educate next generations. Ottoman Empire never cared for other parts of the empire, save for Constantinople. I think this is the main problem.

With that being said, political Islam is a big problem today. It's the most dangerous threat for Turkey, much bigger than PKK.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2014
1,429
Asia
Nice discussion on Sufism.

In traditional Turkish view of Islam, most of the parts which include violence/killing etc etc is repeatedly ignored. Turkish view takes(or used to) take the good and positive sides, which was mostly due to the effect of Sufis such as Rumi and Bekthasi which were based on Anatolia.
I like to quote ThePharaoh's post as well. Islamism that saw its rise from the late 19th century and gained the real acceleration in 1970s and 80s because of Petro-Dollars and US support to use it as a tool against communism.

I am not saying that violent Islam never existed before the rise of Islamism, but it was always diluted by Sufism, rather Sufism always had an upper hand over the violent Islam. In my oinion, Islam, when came out of Arabia, was a kind of raw material that was refined by Sufism. Even today many experts see the elixir of Sufism as a treatment for the poison of Islamism.

But Turks meeting with Islam is older than Turks moving into Anatolia. Turks were already had their Islamic culture up and going back then.
Regarding the origins of Sufism, I agree with turing's post. Sufism that came to Turkey has its origins in the Turco-Persian tradition that developed in the modern Iran and Central Asia.

And this Turco-Persian Sufism may have its roots in the Perso-Islamic ethnogenesis inspired from Greek Philosophy that happened in Iraq initiated by Sufis like Hasan of Basra, Rabia, Mansur etc. Persia and Central Asia were like the hub of Sufism and Sufism also flourished in the regions where Islam was introduced from these regions like modern Turkey and Pakistan.

Strangely Sufism doesn't hold much ground in the Arab world and places where Islam got introduced from the Arab World, like the parts of Africa and East Indies.
 
Jul 2018
22
Istanbul
1-Ottoman Alphabet had been a total failure in Turkish history. Historians are still on debate on a lot of things because it lacks vowels that Turkish has. So a word can mean multiple things.Ottoman historians often debate on the meanings of the words and they try to understand it from what the whole text is about. Long story short: an excuse of an alphabet. Definitely the least fit for a language like Turkish which is very rich in terms of vowels. All these said Ataturk was trying to create a European Turkey image. The public opinion towards the country and the sympathy of the Europeans were important. This is also the reason for the European dressage reform.


2-Some said Orkhun alphabet.
Those who know Orhun alphabet know it is designed for a language which obeys vowel harmony 100%. It is not fit for modern Turkish. Even Turks themselves quickly adapted a Sogdian originated alphabet quickly.

3-
+Matdes
Sorry to break your dreams but the name of the Istanbul derives from Greek "to the city".

This "islambol" nonsense was created by Evliya Çelebi in 17th century. If you take him as a serious source, you might as well believe in vampires and shamanistic magics since he mentions such fantastic things in his diaries as if they are real often.

4-
+Matdes
Speaking of Ataturk as if he was a Young Turk may only be done with the intention of discrediting him.
He supported ittihat terraki for a short period of time only because he was against monarchy. He seperated his ways and actually was against them most of the time.
He was always against Enver Pasha, he found Ottoman Empire entering to WW1 stupid, he ferociously criticized young Turks leaving everything to German personnel and so on. His only common point with them was his attitude towards monarchy.
5-
+Damavand

Like it or not Europeans were the architectures of the modern World. Public opinion was their people's opinion.
Foundation of Turkey was not just a military success, it was also a diplomatic success. New Turkey had to be accepted by the modern world and public opinion. East symbolised dogmas, ignorance, sharia and so on.
Also Arabs betrayed us in WW1 and the culture we abondoned wasnt ours anyways so what is the deal ?
The reason Turks converted to middle east culture was to be accepted by other middle eastern people. Now same thing goes with this too.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions