From: emremsia@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Emre Erkut)
Subject: Re: Ata-Turk - Trator or Ok dude?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:14:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.142643.6344@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> frasyid@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Fuadi Rasyid) writes:
>> Is there a resurgence of Islamic identity amongst Turks
>> young/old?
>
>Yes, most of the honest young Turks have been trying to find their
>original identity again, though there is an intensive discouraging
>campaigns against it.

I guess you do not know much about the origins of Turks. Our origin is not
Islam but the Turkic identity itself. What makes some Turks resort to Islamic
life 100% is not necessarily honesty but desparation in other areas of life.
           
>He has destroyed not only his nation but also islamic world.

If he has destroyed the nation, who do you think lives throughout 
Turkey now?

>Some of his believers probably will tell that he saved the country
>but it is questionable. There was so many capable people to do that

There are no 'believers' of Ataturk because he is not a religious
figure.

>How? Let's elaborate what he had done;
>
>1- He abolished the khilafe.

By that time the khilafe had lost almost all his function and was
just a formal title.

>2- He disconnected all the relationships between muslims around the
>   world and Turkey.

We are still in connection w/the rest of the Muslims.

>3- He advocated corrupted western culture to settle in Turkey.

It is true that he made some aspects of the Western culture settle
in Turkey, but from an absolutely objective viewpoint one cannot say
the Western culture is corrupt, one can only say it is different.

>4- He nullified the islamic script and brought latin alphabet.
>   Indeed it was a stupid mistake that he did which made all of the
>   people illitera in one night. No one honest people can deny this
>   fact.

What he eliminated at that time is not the Islamic script but the Arabic
script. It happens to be the script of Quran because Mohammed was an
Arab. If the Islamic prophet were , say, in Africa, the Quran would be
in Swahili. Is that enough reason to use that language or script in all
Islamic countries?

In addition, one can learn the Roman alphabet in a fairly short amount of
time. On the other hand, it would literally take years to become
proficient in the Arabic script or language. Now if such a transformation

was needed, one had to do it.
 
>5- Most of the children raised in Turkish schools have been
>   brainwashed against their islamic identity but pro-western.
>   Also, most of the Turks who are ignorant knows him as a hero
>   since they were thaught official history in the schools. They
>   believe that Turkish history started just 70 years ago, as if
>   they were dropped from moon!

Currently Religion is a compulsory course in Turkish schools at grades 2
thru 11. Almost all the books contain 95% Islamic principles and beliefs,
which is natural since approximately the same percent of the country is
Islamic. However, if there is a brainwashing going on, it can only be
against other religions because they are not portrayed well enough in
the Religion books of the Ministry of Education.

Starting from grade 4 Turkish pupils study Turkish history starting from
the times when we were in Middle Asia to the 1930's. This continues until
the 11th grade, and by that time the typical Turkish student has been   
taught Turkish history three times, each time in increasing detail. This
includes , of course, the history of the Turkish nation under Islam,
starting from the 10th century. After having thoroughly seen what the 
Ottoman empire has turned to after centuries of misery by 1900, the 
free-minded Turkish student can only be grateful to Ataturk who abolished
the Islamic rule in Turkey, not exactly because Islam is detrimental to
national health in itself, but because it has been consistently used as
a tool for political means. And since Islam has rules for almost every
area of life, it is a very powerful tool for this reason indeed.
 
>6- He abolished all of the islamic school system, no one was able
>   to teach Kur'an even openly read it.

Correct, but this severe cut was necessary to rescue a nation from the
miserable state of affairs prevailing then. 

>7- He murdered thousands of muslim people for just not wearing a
>   western hat.


Now all I can tell is why don't you ask some Turkish guys at Ohio State
about that?


>8- After getting the power, he always tried to discredit islam
>   although he had known a good muslim during the independence war.
>   (This helps to explain some claims made against him)

There are no samples of his actions or words proving, or even suggesting,
a discrediting attitude towards Islam. He might not be totally Islamic
in his behaviour and attitudes ( for instance everyone knows he never
bent down and prayed ) but there is no record showing his dissent
against Islam. On the contrary, he recommended Islam for the Turkish
people. 

>9- He left the turkish and other muslims helpless who lived outside
>   of the borders saying peace in nation- peace in the world. Does not
>matter they assault, humiliate or kill you, just peace cowardly.

The principle of 'Peace in the country, peace on earth' suggests a 
completely different meaning: I will not attack my neighbour unless
it attacks me, and peace on earth can only be achieved by peace within
nations. Apart from that, please recall another principle by him:
I won't give a feet-square of my country's territory to someone else,
AND I will not require any other country to give a feet-square to me 
from its own territory.

>Currently, it is against the law to talk against him or his
>principles. If somebody says that there is democracy in Turkey, I
>could say, if so why there is a restriction to question his deeds.

Currently, it is against the tradition to talk against Islam or Mohammed
or Allah in the Turkish public. Try to say Mohammed was a traitor on the
street in Istanbul, and if the police doesn't get you and put a coke
bottle in a delicate part of your body, a grocery store owner will most
probably try to beat you

.
>There is a claim that he was a british spy and
>trained for this special purpose. Not true muslim or honest turk 
>would say that what he did was right.

One cannot rely on claims when trying to evaluate great historical 
figures. One should take a sample of the facts and then do the 
reasoning, not put forward some ideas and then try to adapt the facts to
that certain reasoning. Today lots of people claim Mohammed is not a
prophet at all but was a rich and clever Arabic trader. However, this does
not change the fact that he was one.
>F.R.

A last reminder: what Ataturk did to Turkey should be judged looking at the
situation of the country before the Republic and after the Republic. No 
one can deny the FACT that today Turkey is in a state of stability and
coherence incomparable to the caos in the 1910's. He did not do his
revolutions to rescue Islam, he did them to rescue the Turkish state.
Therefore, whether Islam still rules the country or not is an irrelevant
question.


Emre Erkut
Krannert School, Purdue
Turkish Education Foundation 1992 Overseas Scholar
.
   
Xref: sparky soc.culture.turkish:11577 talk.politics.mideast:22153 talk.politics.soviet:8909 soc.culture.greek:10569 soc.culture.europe:9537 soc.history:9419