Turkish Forum

Author: Media Watch

  • 30 AUGUST 1922: REBIRTH OF A NATION By: Ayhan Ozer

    30 AUGUST 1922: REBIRTH OF A NATION By: Ayhan Ozer

    The month of August has a special meaning for the Turkish nation. When the WW I ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the Allies imposed the notorious Treaty of Sevres on the country. It was signed on August 10, 1920 by the Sultan Vahdettin’s supine Istanbul Government. This Treaty brought to the end once vast and glorious Ottoman Empire that had been in existence for 622 years. The fledgling nationalist government in Ankara under Mustafa Kemal did not recognize this cruel Treaty of Sevres, and the new Grand National Assembly in its session of August 19, 1920 proclaimed the three signatories as “traitors”. This Treaty was never ratified. It was an ominous August.

     

    With the blessing of the British the Greek Army landed in Izmir on 15 May 1919. The country was in a hopeless state; vanquished, exhausted and prostrate. When all those ominous conditions converged at a lowest point, a God-sent savior emerged in the national scene. This hero was Mustafa Kemal. In heart and soul he was devoted to the liberation of the country. For the conventional wisdom prevailing at that time in the country the idea of liberation was “insane”, the morale was very low, the nation had already resigned to its blind fate helplessly. Indeed, the challenges that the country was facing were insurmountable. The odds were overwhelmingly against the nation; it has no army, no money, no equipment, no weapons, and no logistics. Only a miracle, a divine intervention could have saved the country. And surprisingly that miracle was personified in Mustafa Kemal. He was endowed with superb attributes. He was a military genius, a shrewd diplomat with a long vision, and an ultimate statesman imbued with selfless devotion and love for his country. He was the anointed liberator destined to overcome all the adversities.

     

    The Greek Army penetrated deep into the Turkish heartland. It launched a major offensive on July 10, 1921, and pushed the Turkish forces to the East of the Sakarya River. It was poised to capture Ankara, the Capital of the Nationalist government. Speculations ran wild about the Turkish cause as having been lost. At that critical juncture, on August 4, 1921, The National Assembly assigned to Mustafa Kemal the post of Commander-in- chief with absolute power for a duration of only three months! He was charged to check and to defeat the Greek Army. Mustafa Kemal accepted this pivotal post as his calling. Such an absolute mandate could only be given to a noble and tested person. Mustafa Kemal had proven himself repeatedly with his brilliant track records and credentials. He was a rising star, a legendary army general with epic victories in his records. He had been a devoted servant to his Nation and a humble disciple of his country. His respect for the law and order demonstrated  his unparalleled democratic spirit and civility.

     

    This Greek aggression brought the Turkish Nationalists to a fateful August. The Turkish Army, under the command of Mustafa Kemal fought the Greek forces in a pitch-battle called “Sakarya Meydan Muharebesi” along a front of 60 miles. In a life-and-death struggle that lasted 22 days the Greek Army was routed on August 24, 1921, and forced to retreat. The Grand National Assembly, recognizing the extraordinary leadership qualities of Mustafa Kemal conferred upon him the title of Marshal and “Gazi.”

     

    The ultimate goal of Mustafa Kemal was an unconditional liberation of the Nation. He knew that this required a decisive victory. The world public opinion, even some Turkish intellectuals in Istanbul, and some deputies in Ankara were still skeptical of such victory. They believed that the Turkish Army had only defensive capability but no offensive competency. They argued that the liberation of the country was a utopia, and could not have been won by force of arms; it must be secured by negotiation at the table, or accepting the mandate of a powerful country. Mustafa Kemal strongly felt that no favor would be granted to any nation if that nation has neither power nor the ability to take it by force. Only those nations endowed with those qualities can appeal to the standards of humanity and justice. He said, “The world is a field of trial. After endless ordeals the Turkish nation is being tested yet with another trial – the hardest ever! How can we expect an honorable treatment from the world community if we can not prove ourselves worthy of it? Therefore, we will rise to the challenges that this trial imposes upon us.” These words reflected the determinism of the great Leader for a decisive victory. At that time Mustafa Kemal was a very lonely person, a one-man minority, yet he had a strong conviction and a long vision. He decided that an ultimate reckoning with the invading Greek Army was inevitable. After the victory of Sakarya his Army had gained a considerable amount of self-confidence. On the other hand, the Greek High command had become ambivalent about this senseless Turkish campaign. Their troops had lost their enthusiasm, their logistics was poor, and this expedition in the hardscrabble Anatolian heartland seemed to be an endless adventure for them; furthermore, the Turks had proven much tougher than they had been made to believe. A temporary lull had set in the situation during which the Turkish Army prepared feverishly for the ultimate reckoning. Mustafa Kemal set the date of the final reckoning with the Greeks as August 26, 1922!

     

    This was an auspicious August. On August 26, Saturday before dawn the Turkish Army began its offensive. The major Greek defense positions were overrun swiftly, and on August 30 the enemy was routed decisively at Dumlupinar, with half of its troops captured or slain. This decisive victory has come to be known in the Turkish history as “The Great Offensive” or “The Pitched – battle of the Commander-in-chief in Dumlupinar.” The Turkish Army engaged in a long pursuit after the defeated and crashed  Greek Army until The Mediterranean.

     

    The western front was opened by the landing of the Greek Army in Izmir on May 15, 1919. The last Greek troop left the Turkish soil on September 17, 1922. That makes 3 years, 4 months and 2 days, or 1218 days of Greek occupation of the western Anatolia. The Turks won not only a victory, they won their country and their dignity as well.

     

    The victory of August 30th can aptly be characterized as the Rebirth of a Nation. It was a love affair between an ultimate leader who devoted himself selflessly to his country, and a grateful nation. This year the Turkish nation is celebrating the 95th anniversary of this momentous victory. We remember with gratitude, and pray for our fallen heroes who gave their lives generously and selflessly. Thanks to their altruism and heroism the future generations have lived freely, happily and prosperously on this anointed soil of the Turkish land.

    *******

  • FEAST OF SACRIFICE (KURBAN BAYRAMI) AND ITS ORIGIN

    FEAST OF SACRIFICE (KURBAN BAYRAMI) AND ITS ORIGIN

       The origin of this custom is in Judaism; later it was adopted by Islam. Kurban is referred to in both Old Testament and the New Testament. Yet, the Christians and the Jews do not sacrifice animal. Even though this custom did not originate in Islam only the Muslims perpetuate this barbaric ritual of slaughtering animals. And why?

    By: Ayhan Ozer

    Image result for Ayhan Ozer PICTURES

    According to the Islamic Tradition, in this lunar month of Zulhijja the Muslim world performs the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. In Islam the Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam. At the end of the Hajj the devout perform a ritual by sacrificing an animal, usually a sheep or a ram which is called “Kurban”. In English this religious offering is called sacrifice or oblation; it commemorates the Prophet Ibrahim’s readiness to sacrifice his son Ismail (from his wife Hager) at God’s request. Through this action Ibrahim demonstrated an unflinching faith, and unswerving obedience to God. However, the Judaic Tradition gives a different account for this event. It claims that the son of Ibrahim was Isaac (from his wife Sara), not Ismail. Hager was a hand-maid (a servant or an attendant of Sara). Whichever is true is a matter of interpretation. The Muslims re-enact that sacrifice as a commemoration of Ibrahim’s example of belief and submission to God’s will. The four days Feast that follows marks the culmination of the pilgrimage.

     

    “Kurban” literally means “approaching”, “approximation”. In a religious context it implies coming closer to the Divine through faith and piety. Etymologically, the word of “Kurban” is related to Korban, a Hebrew word, which also means “to approach”.

    The origin of this custom is in Judaism; later it was adopted by Islam. Kurban is referred to in both Old Testament and the New Testament. Yet, the Christians and the Jews do not sacrifice animal. Even though this custom did not originate in Islam only the Muslims perpetuate this barbaric ritual of slaughtering animals. And why?

     

    First, wisely, the Christians and the Jews realized that this archaic custom handed down from the time immemorial was wasteful and primitive, and there was no place in their lives for such an extravagant and anachronistic ritual any more. This is the economical and practical aspect. There is also a religious aspect. In the Roman times, the Jews practiced sacrificial ceremonies around Passover in their Temple located at the Moriah Mountain. In A.D. 70, this Temple was destroyed by the Roman Emperor Vespasian. This practice was interrupted until the re-building of the Temple. As the Temple was never re-built this custom lost it zeal and abandoned.

     

    As for the Christian Traditions, in the New Testament Jesus Christ is regarded as the “Lamb of God” who was “sacrificed” for the redemption of his followers. Therefore, no new sacrifice was needed. The Christians replaced this custom with bread and wine symbolizing the body and blood of Christ. Thus, only the Muslims doggedly follow this practice which is not even a teaching of Islam. Furthermore, it is a pervert notion to believe that one gets closer to God by blood-shed, by sacrificing animals! As this custom predates Muhammed, it does not carry an Islamic injunction (Farz) either.

     

    For the Muslims living in the Western world observing the Feast of Sacrifice poses certain challenges. First of all the ritual involved is very graphic; therefore it is offensive, and alien to western sentiment and culture. It also must follow strict health codes, which makes it burdensome. In some communities the Muslim congregations make  arrangements with farms or slaughter houses (abattoirs) for their ritual sacrifices to be  performed out of sight and in compliance with the health regulations.

     

    A few years back, in a mid-size German town a Muslim family was caught in a bizarre controversy. The family members were celebrating the Feast of Sacrifice in their own way. They were gathered in the balcony of their apartment, including children. A sheep was being slaughtered in full view by a man wearing a white apron, and wielding a butcher knife. Blood splattered around. The scene was graphic  and hair-raising. The neighbors were outraged. This caused an uproar. The TV camera focused on this ghastly scene depicting it as an Islamic sacrificial ritual. Several complaints were filed. The Mayor of the city came on TV, and condemned this “barbaric” practice. He accused the family of violating the law and being insensitive to their neighbors’ feelings, and furthermore for being inconsiderate of the customs and the norms of the country.

     

    Some benevolent aspects of the religious rituals may be tolerated by the followers of other religious traditions as well. The people can relate to the observances in other religions, and view them as festive celebrations in a community spirit. Those rituals are also venerated as solemn remembrance and a renewed commitment to a Deity. All those observances are by and large common in all faiths; however, such parochial customs should be practiced in strict  privacy, and the respect to other peoples’ feelings and sensitivities must be paramount.

     

    ******

    ayhan313@verizon.net

     

     

     

     

  • Texas House Resolution HR-191: Anatomy of A Shameful Armenian “Genocide” Resolution

    ferruh demirmen

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

    2105 atexas

    July 18, 2017

     

    Years of Turkish apathy and passivity, combined with Armenian aggressiveness and Western prejudice, took their toll earlier this year when the Texas House of Representatives voted to recognize Armenian “genocide.” It happened on May 19, 2017, and the Turkish side was at a disadvantage all along.

     

    Groundwork by Armenian lobby

     

    Texas, the second largest U.S. state, had long been a coveted target for the Armenian lobby in the U.S. Until 2015, all efforts to have Armenian “genocide” recognized by Texas had failled. In 2015, on the centennial of the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia, the lobby’s California-based Western arm, ANCA-WR (Armenian National Committe of America – Western Region) set its eyes on Texas for the recognition of Armenian “genocide.” Tours involving Armenian activists at town-hall meetings were arranged, State elected officials were individually visited, and the Dallas, Austin and Houston chapters of ANCA-WR were established. Visits to Armenian churches were part of the activities.

     

    Equally significantly, in 2016 the lobby supported State Representative Scott Sanford, who is also the Executive Pastor of a Baptist church in Texas. At a gala organized by ANCA-Dallas in April 2016, Representative Sanford was awarded “Advocate for Justice Award” for his “strong dedication to raising awareness about the Armenian Genocide.” In response, Rep. Sanford outlined his plan of action for official recognition of Armenian “genocide” by the Texas legislature.

     

    It was a quid-pro-quo arrangement, and Christian solidarity no doubt entered the equation.

     

    There were few other Texas politicians supporting Armenians at the gala, and a letter from U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who had previously called for recognition of the “genocide of Armenian, Assyrian and other Christians,” was read. ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian talked as well, advocating “genocide “recognition and briefing the audience on Congressional efforts to isolate Azerbaijan. He condemned the killing of “Christian Armenians” by ISIS. (Notice the adjective “Christian.” Also no mention of other victims!).

     

    One wonders whether the Texas politicians present at the gala knew of the fact that a predecessor of Hamparian, former ANCA president Mourad Topalian, was convicted in 2011 on charges of illegally storing explosives and owning machine guns. Topalian served almost 3 years in federal prison. He was a guest of honor at a gala held in 2015 by ANCA-WR in California.

     

    Promise fulfilled

     

    As soon as the 2017 biennial legislative session for the Texas House of Representatives began, Rep. Sanford fulfilled his promise, and on January 26, 2017, introduced Texas HR-191, a resolution recognizing Armenian “genocide.”

     

    A one-page statement claimed that during World War I the Ottoman Empire had  began a “systematic campaign to eradicate its Armenian population,” that on April 24, 1915, the government had arrested several hundred Armenian intellectuals, who were later “executed,” that the Armenian population had been herded through the “Syrian desert to concentration camps,” that through 1923 as many as “1.5 million Armenians,” had perished, that the event is considered genocide by most historians, and that world must never forget the suffering of the Armenian people. Reference was made to then-American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau.

     

    It was the well-versed Armenian version of history.

     

    Lack of impartiality

     

    For processing, HR-191 was assigned to the Trade & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (TIAC), which called for a public hearing at the State Capitol in Austin on April 24.

     

    The choice of April 24 for the public hearing, a date considered symbolic for the Armenian allegations, was the first sign that TIAC was pro-Armenian in its outlook.

     

    The hearing was closely coordinated with ANCA-WR and Rep. Sanford, and while the Armenian side had long known about the hearing, the Turkish side knew of the meeting less than a week in advance.

     

    With very short notice, only 6 persons from the Turkish side (5 from Houston and one from Dallas) could attend the hearing in Austin. In contrast, a large crowd from the Armenian side was present. Also present, as an “observor,” was Rep. Sanford.

     

    Four persons from the Turkish side (including this author) signed up to give testimony, two of the testimonies being very short. In contrast, 21 persons from the Armenian side signed up to give testimony. Before the hearing started, it was known exactly how many speakers there would be from each side. With the Committee Chairman allowing equal time to each speaker, the Armenian side ended up having 5 times more chance to present its case than the Turkish side.

     

    Thus the Armenian side dominated not only in terms of “presence” in the hearing room, but also in the testimonies given.

     

    During the testimonies the Turkish side objected that it was given a short notice for the hearing, to which the Committee Chairman responded the one-week notice was standard practice. The Turkish side wondered why Rep. Sanford, while not a member of the Committee, was invited to attend. The Committee Chairman responded that he invited Rep. Sanford because the latter was his friend, and he respected him.

     

    The Turkish side also noted that the scheduling of the public hearing on April 24 compromised the impartiality of the committee. There was no response to this comment.

     

    The questions asked by the Committee members during the testimonies left no doubt that they were sympathetic toward the Armenian allegations. When this author tried to show a panel showing the photographs of Turkish diplomats assasinated by Armenian terrorists, he was told his time is over.

     

    Evidentiary input

     

    It is not known what evidence the Armenian side provided to the Texas politicians to buttress their genocide allegations. During the April 24 hearing, however, the Armenian side had plenty of opportunity to give oral arguments to support its case. ANCA-WR had aggresively lobbied for the passage of HR-191, and hundreds of letters were e-mailed to state legislators. Many more phone calls were made by the Armenian community.

     

    The first speaker at the hearing, who identified himself as being affilated with ANCA-WR, began his testimony by citing the infamous – and fictitious – “Hitler quote.” Among those who testified for the Armenian side were representatives from the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission, and Houston’s Holocaust Museum.

     

    The Turkish side, including several grassroots organizations, rebutted the Armenian allegations through e-mails and orally during the testimonies. Evidence provided included, but not limited to, the Armenian uprising, collusion with the invading Russian army, the Muslim sufferings and casualties, the Kachaznuni manifesto, the Malta Tribunal, Ambassador Morgenthau’s extreme bias, the League of Nations report, General J.G. Harbord and Admiral Mark L. Bristol reports, the 1948 UN Convention, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and France’s Constitutional Council, impropriety of Texas legislators to intervene in matters affecting U.S. foreign policy, the damage the bill could do to trade relations between Texas and Turkey, the divisive aspect of the resolution, and not the least, the fact that the resolution is defamatory toward Texas residents of Turkish heritage.

     

    The aftermath

     

    After the public hearing, TIAC approved HR-191 unanimously and sent it to the House floor for voting. By this time there were 46 representatives who had already endorsed the motion. On May 19, the House, having 150 members, voted to adopt the motion, making the Lone Star State the 46th U.S. state to recognize Armenian “genocide.” Eight members were absent, and 5 including the Speaker abstained from voting. (ANCA website called it “unanimous” approval).

     

    It was a feat masterminded by ANCA-WR and endorsed by the Texas House of Representatives. While the resolution has no legal force, for all practical purposes, and for the public at large, it was a declaration finding Ottoman Turks guilty of a heinous crime.

     

    Conclusion

     

    It can safely be concluded that the Texas politicians that voted to adopt HR-191 were either astonishingly ignorant or didn’t care about the historical truth, while being in breach of a UN convention, mindless of European court rulings, and at the same time impinging on the right of the federal govenment on matters related to foreign policy.

     

    The highly detailed documentary evidence provided by the Turkish side, assuming it was read at all, didn’t make any difference for the politicians.

     

    That the party, declared “guilty” by fiat, was denied its due-process rights, did not matter.

     

    On display was an example of what this author has termed the “Armenian Settled History Syndrome”: The proclivity in the West, the media and politicians included, to accept Armenian allegations as facts without entertaining opposing or contervailing arguments. https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2015/02/10/armenian-settled-history-syndrome-an-affliction-that-runs-deep-in-the-media/

     

    Although an objective criterion is missing, there seems little doubt that the Turkish response, at least at the grassroots level, to HR-191 was feeble. It is not the numbers (populations of residents of Turkish and Armenian origin in Texas, roughly 15,000, are similar), but the level of interest. Turks are no match to Armenians on activism on the “genocide” issue – a situation that is deeply rooted in the Turkish educational system, reflecting the “peace at home, peace abroad” dictum of the republic founded by Kemal Atatürk.

     

    Given the unending offensive from the Armenian Diaspora, also supported by Yerevan, the dictum has outlived its usefulness in relation to the Turkish-Armenian relations, and the Turkish side has only itself to blame for its lethargy and passivity.

     

    In this context it is particularly telling that ATA-Houston, an association formed to represent the Turkish-American community in Houston – a city with a population of 2.3 million – didn’t bother to oppose HR-191. The happy-hour-conscious association, founded in 1979, was not interested in the Armenian issue – a posture that transpired within the past 2 years, it must be added.

     

    But the Turkish side also suffered a disadvantage which it could not help: the built-in prejudice, rooted in history and religion. In a sense, the cards were set against the Turkish side on HR-191. What made the Texas outcome particularly distateful for the Turkish side was the lack of impartiality on the part of the committee (TIAC) that handled the proposed bill before it went to the House floor for voting.

     

    On the subject of prejudice, Professor Justin McCarthy’s incisive work, “The Turk in America: The Creation of an Enduring Prejudice,” (2010), comes to mind. Thanks to Christian missionaries, the villification of Ottoman Turks in America in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – and an anti-Muslim sentiment in general – still resonate in the minds of many in our time, amounting to a hidden form of discrimination.

     

    Paranthetically, it should also be added that the Texas voting roughly corresponded with negative media reports in the U.S. about the Turkish government in connection with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Washington D.C. on May 16, 2017. Whether the negative publicity, related to Erdoğan’s security detail, affected the HR-191 voting, is unknown.

    In all, the Texas politicians should now ask: What did Texas gain from this resolution? Any claim that it was about valuing human life, is a farce. Separate from the claim of grotesquely exaggerated 1.5 million Armenian losses during the 1915 relocation, the souls of some 520,000 Muslim civilians that were brutally murdered by armed Armenian bands during those tumultuous times cry out for recognition as well. History cannot be reduced to campaign-driven declarations that cater to religious and ethnic prejudices.

  • WHAT THE WORLD HAS SAID ABOUT ATATURK

    WHAT THE WORLD HAS SAID ABOUT ATATURK

    A T A T U R K

    (1881-1938)

    derleyen : Ayhan Özer <ayhan313@verizon.net>:

    John F. Kennedy, President of the United States                                                                                                Ataturk, with his historic achievements, was one of the greatest leaders of this century (20th). He was a towering figure of human ideals. His extraordinary leadership and his military genius accomplished so much for his country; first in battlefields, and then in building his nation, materially and in spirit.  He created a modern and sovereign state from the ashes of a defeated empire.  He was a great peace-maker, an ultimate reformer and a torch-bearer of freedom. He won not only the heart of his nation but the hearts of the oppressed nations as well. We all miss him.

    Bill Clinton, President of the United States                                                                                                               I have no doubt that Ataturk is the greatest statesman of this millennium as he is the only leader who succeeded to become the leader of the century, not of the year.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States                                                                                                 In my interview with the Foreign Secretary of Russia, I asked him, to his opinion, who was the most remarkable statesman in Europe; without hesitation, he said the most remarkable statesman in Europe was Ataturk, the President of Turkey.

    Following the death of Ataturk:                                                                                                                                My despair today is that I missed the chance of meeting that great man whom history books glorify lavishly. His achievements are mind boggling.

    Claude Farrere, French Author, Member of the Academie Française                                                              When I met Ataturk, I was very impressed by his brilliant personality. It is hard to grasp Ataturk fully; he has many aspects, all profound. When I met him personally I admired his insight to the world affairs, his long vision and his articulation.  I immediately knew that I was in the presence of an extraordinary leader. I deeply cherish my memories of him.

    Winston Churchill, British P.M.                                                                                                                                  If Ataturk had lived today the world would have been a more interesting place. When, in 1915, during our ill-fated Dardanelles campaign fate brought us across in Gallipoli we immediately knew that we were up against a military genius and a formidable strategist. Soon he emerged as a noble warrior.  Later he proved himself as a genuine peace-maker and a consummate statesman as well.

    Sir Charles Townshend: British General                                                                                                                     I conducted interviews with fifteen Kings and Presidents. I cannot remember one single incident in which I was as excited and impressed as when I interviewed Ataturk. He is very intelligent and a polished gentleman, he has a captivating personality with enormous power of spirit.

    Edouard  Herriot, French Statesman                                                                                                                          Before I met Ataturk, I was deeply impressed by his mind-boggling  military successes and his enormous civic achievements that followed. When I met him, I was awe-struck by his personality; in his demeanors the hallmarks of his civility shone through. He is truly a reform-minded leader; in fact, he adopted the Civil Code of Switzerland, and put it in use in Turkey. It takes innovative spirit, civil courage, and a passionate commitment to reforms. That’s statesmanship, and I admire that.

    Albert  Francois LeBrun, The French President                                                                                                         The extraordinary work that Ataturk achieved in the military and the civilian spheres with his sound  rational and foresight are unequaled, and they will leave their imprints in the history of mankind.

    David Ben Gurion, Israeli P.M.                                                                                                                        Without any doubt, Ataturk was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. He left indelible marks in our times as an ultimate statesman and a preeminent reformer. On the military side, he was a peerless strategist and a victorious commander with exemplary foresight, courage and heroism. He emerged in Turkey, and the Turkish nation must be proud of having produced such an exceptional son.

    General De Gaulle,  French Head of State                                                                                                              When De Gaulle visited Ataturk’s Mausoleum in Ankara to pay respects to his memory, he wrote the following in the Visitor Book:                                                                                                                                  Rest in peace great Ataturk! The flame you kindled burns brilliantly and continues to light our world. And your footprints in history are indelible for those who wish to follow them.

     General Douglas MacArthur                                                                                                                                          I don’t know any other person in history who combined military genius and human ideals in his person as brilliantly as Ataturk did.  I was fortunate to meet and interview that extraordinary leader in person. Today, I cherish my memories of him fondly and dearly. At this time I look forward to meet him again.

    Another Entry from General Douglas MacArthur following Ataturk’s passing.                                        Ataturk was one of the greatest leaders of this century. He placed his country in its rightful place it deserved. He imbued his nation with pride, self-reliance and independence – the most important virtues that make a country great. As a devoted friend of Ataturk, I’ll treasure my good fortune of having met him.

    Tarquin Oliver, English actor and producer, “Ataturk: Founder of Modern Turkey” (1999)                                                                                                                                                      Considering his military and civic accomplishments, I can say that there is no one in history other than Ataturk who gave so much to his nation, and accomplished so much for his country. He set shining  examples of leadership and statesmanship for the entire world.

    Lenin, President of Russia                                                                                                                                           M. K. Ataturk is not a socialist; he is an inspiring                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ` leader with a great mental grasp. He combines in his person an unmatched farsightedness and courage…He is a great leader.

    Jorge Blanco Villalta,  Argentine Diplomat                                                                                                                  Ataturk is not only one of the best military leaders, but he is one of the greatest philosophers of the politics  as well.

    Elefterios Venizelos, Greek P.M.                                                                                                                                     The history of the world does not record any other leader who had achieved such a radical transformation in such a short time as Ataturk was able to put through in Turkey. Ataturk, a great statesman, accomplished this feat masterly; therefore, he deserves to be called one of the greatest leaders in history. I do not remember any other leader in any country who gave so much to his people. The Turkish nation has every right to be proud of him.                                                                                                                                                                  Note: Mr. Venizelos and Ataturk fought each other at the Turkish War of Independence; yet after the war they made peace, and became allies, and ultimately, friends. Mr. Venizelos nominated Ataturk for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Haydar Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan                                                                                                                 Ataturk cannot be compared with other statesman in history, because he is so far ahead in every endeavor, and so extraordinary in many aspects. His records are brimming with successes; not a single failure. He is exceptional and peerless.

    General Metaxas, Greece                                                                                                                                            Ataturk is a giant personality. He emerged in the world scene at the most critical time of the global conjuncture. His country was defeated in a grueling war and disintegrating. He successfully liquidated the old empire, and created a new dynamic state. He was also a great peace-maker; he extended his hand generously to his old enemies, and made peace with them. He not only won the war, but he won the hearts as well. His work, the new Republic that he founded, stands tall as a monument.

    Herbert Melzig, German Scholar                                                                                                                              Those who strive to reinstate peace and harmony in this suffering world and to create moral and material well-being should study Ataturk’s legendary achievements. The examples of his sagacity, his immutable sense of direction and his capacity for action will light their path.

    Comte Carlo Sforza, Italian F.M.                                                                                                                            Ataturk is a victorious Marshal who later became a civilian President of his country that he had first liberated and then founded. He gave his country dignity and respectability, and put it successfully on the path to progress. He assured its well-being and its absolute safety and security. His deeds are reflections of an impeccable character.

    Lord Kinross, Scotch Author of Ataturk’s biography

    Ataturk is all at once an ultimate military leader and a man of peace. His military genius saved his country from total destruction, and his statesmanship created a modern nation which he infused with democratic ideals and secularism.

    Ma Shao-Cheng, Chinese Author                                                                                                                          . Ataturk created a dynamic nation, the Turkish Republic, out of a crumbling empire. With his extraordinary deeds that followed he won world-wide respect and admiration.

    Professor Morrf, Switzerland                                                                                                                                       I salute and bow my head before this greatest leader of history; he created a young and vibrant nation, The Turkish Republic, which is a respectable member of the world community.

    Cornelius Bischoff, German Author                                                                                                                             Ataturk is a genius nation builder, he created a democratic, modern state on the ruins of an empire.

    Gyula Kornis, The President of the Hungarian Parliament                                                                     Understandably, the Turks called him, “Ataturk”, meaning Father of the Turks. He was in love with his country, and in a short time he was able to put his nation effectively on a productive and progressive  path.

    Vitali Seremet, Member of the Academy of Sciences of Russia                                                                           The famous dictum of Ataturk, “Peace at home, peace in the world!” is immortal and reflects his peace-loving  character and his shining  civility.  To me, the greatest accomplishments of Ataturk, besides his unmatched military victories, are his civilian achievements in the fields of reforms and nation building . He is a leader who possesses enormous civic culture.

    Arnold Ludwig, German Scholar                                                                                                                                      The prominent German scientist, psychiatrist and academician Arnold Ludwig conducted an 18-year research, which he entitled “The Nature of Leadership”. He studied leaders from around the world who lived in the 1900-2000 time span. He developed a “Political Greatness Scale”. After the first screening the number of the candidates was reduced to 377 prominent statesmen, military heroes and politicians; they all influenced the world in one way or another. Ataturk scored highest among all the candidates.

    Professor Ludwig explains his procedures as follows: “During those 18 years, I reviewed more than 1200 biographies, articles, books, personality profiles, and Doctoral theses. I also reviewed the character descriptions, anecdotes and testimonies about the candidates. Those sources helped me develop my scale. The highest-point accomplishments in this scale were to create a nation, being victorious in the wars, gaining territory, the duration of their stay in power with the will of their people, military successes, social engineering, transforming the people in a progressive way, improvement in the economy, sound ideology, statesmanship, ethics, anti-corruption, political heritage, and population profile of their countries, i.e. has the welfare of the people improved, has the level of education moved up? From this study I excluded the social life, as it is personal and open to speculations; I considered only the concrete and measurable values.

    Based on this scale, Ataturk scored highest. Another group conducted a similar research, and based on their criteria Ataturk came out first in their study also. What are the elements of “Political Greatness?” The first one is to create something out of nothing. In this area, Ataturk was far ahead of the other participants and got the highest point; because, he created a new state, the Turkish Republic, out of the defeated and collapsed empire. Also, he defeated his enemies, and recovered effectively the lost territories under the Treaty of Sevres (1920) by bringing the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) into effect. This was a major factor in my evaluation. Also, Ataturk was able to maintain his position long years without resorting to illegal means, or without any foreign support.  Another strong point for Ataturk was his military achievements. Ataturk was a winner in all the wars he engaged. In Dardanelles during World War I and in the Gallipoli campaign he proved himself as a legendary strategist. He was the mastermind of the Turkish War of Independence, which was the culmination of his epic victories. This is another very important point.   Ataturk’s strongest assets are his accomplishments in the civilian life. He was an ultimate social engineer. The reforms he put through effectively in a short time are mind-boggling. Such as women’s rights, including  the rights to elect and to be elected, Secularism, adoption of a new Civil Code, adoption of the Latin Alphabet, Dress Code, and to free the education and the judiciary from the grips of religion. We can cite other elements of his social engineering, such as an improved economy, statesmanship, a masterly diplomacy, friendly relations with neighboring countries, his political inheritance, and his moral example for his nation. This includes not being corrupt or venal, being principled and upright, not to commit embezzlement, not to act like member of a dynasty, absolute devotion to his people…In all these areas Ataturk scored the highest, and thus he became the “Legendary Leader.”

    Sucheta Kripalani, President of the Indian Parliament                                                                                             Ataturk was not a leader only for the Turkish nation; he was a banner of freedom for all the subjugated nations that strived for their independence. The Turkish nation won its independence through the active leadership of Ataturk, and we won ours by following his example and heeding his spiritual guidance.

    Eyub Khan, President of Pakistan                                                                                                                               M.K. Ataturk is not only the leader of this century. We, in Pakistan, believe that he is one of the greatest leaders of all time. A military genius, a peerless social engineer, and a natural-born leader.

    Emanullah Khan, King of Afghanistan                                                                                                                        After his passing, I personally and all the Afghan nation are in deep sorrow, and I am at a loss to find words to express my grief. Ataturk was the father of the Turkish nation, and also he was the father of many other nations that look to him as a spiritual savior.

    UNESCO                                                                                                                                                                  “Ataturk is a gift of history to his nation as well as to humanity.”  This statement issued by UNESCO in 1963 called Ataturk “A true symbol of honor for the humanity.  Today, many projects that UNESCO is working on are inspired by Ataturk.”

    In the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on November 27, 1978 the following Resolution was adopted:

    “Believing that the work of world leaders who toiled for the understanding, cooperation and peace among the world nations will set an example for the future generations, the General Assembly resolved that the year 1981 which is the 100th anniversary of Ataturk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, be recognized.”

    In 1981, Ataturk’s 100th anniversary, the General Assembly of UNESCO, a body of 156 member states, unanimously issued a Proclamation declaring 1981 as “Ataturk’s Year”. It was unanimously adopted, no abstentions, no dissentions. It  stated, “An extraordinary leader who promoted peace and understanding among the nations, a great reformer, the first statesman who fought imperialism and colonialism in the world, champion of human rights, a pioneer of world peace, a peerless leader who transcends differences in color, in religion and in race, and  the founder of the Turkish Republic.”                                                                                                   ***

  • 6.3-magnitude quake hits Aegean, Turkish citizen among two killed in Greece’s Kos

    6.3-magnitude quake hits Aegean, Turkish citizen among two killed in Greece’s Kos

    A magnitude-6.3 earthquake hit the Aegean Sea near the Turkish coast early on July 21, at least two people, including one Turkish citizen, were killed on the Greek island of Kos after the strong earthquake.

    Several people were also injured in the Aegean province of Muğla.

    Muğla Governor Esengül Civelek told Anadolu Agency initial reports indicated no casualties or structural damage.

    Turkey’s Kandilli Observatory and the Earthquake Research Institute stated that 10 centimeters of tsunami wave was observed in Bodrum in the aftermath of the quake.

    The quake measuring 6.3 hit at 1.31 a.m. local time at a depth of 7.8 kilometers (4.8 miles), according to the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority’s (AFAD) website.

    The region was hit by approximately 40 more aftershocks ranging in strength between magnitude-3.0 to 4.6, according to the AFAD.

    IN PHOTOS: Locals stay outside at night in Bodrum after quake

    Civelek said some residents were spending the night outside because of panic and fear.

    “We have reached all our district as of this moment,” she said.

    There was no structural damage but a small number of residents were slightly injured in the panic, she said.

    “There is no electricity cut, but there have been some electric faults due  to the earthquake. We are working on it,” she added.

    Muğla Mayor Osman Gürün said authorities took immediate measures against grass fires due to breakage of electricity transmission lines.

    Datça District Mayor Gürsel Ucar said that two houses’ walls were damaged in Reşadiye Neighborhood. At least 15 people were taken to hospitals after the earthquake, he said.

    Meanwhile, rising sea level in Bodrum district after the earthquake caused damage to the several boats and vehicles.

    Boat owner Yekta Ongun told he was with his family in a boat during the earthquake.

    “Everything happened in a short time. There is major damage to our boat; it was sunk. Rapid changes in the sea level are ongoing,” he said.

    A holidaymaker Burak Buz said his car moved about 100 meters (330 feet) and was damaged.

    A ferry was also sent from Bodrum to Kos to evacuate around 60 Turkish citizens on the island.

    Last month, the region was rattled by a magnitude-6.2- quake that struck coastal Izmir’s Karaburun district.

    July/21/2017

  • IS SECULARISM IN RETREAT?

    IS SECULARISM IN RETREAT?

    AYHAN OZER 1

    Lately, the issue whether the American government was founded on human reason or on Divine Authority has come back to the public discussion forum, and the perennial argument between the Liberals and the Traditionalists has been revived. The Liberals assert that the Framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any mention of God in the text in order to assign supreme governmental power to “We the People”. No Deity inspired any part of the Constitution.

    The Traditionalists (or the religious rights proponents) counter this argument by saying that “In the 1780s Divine omnipotence was considered a “given”; therefore, the Framers had no need to acknowledge God in the Constitution as His dominion was self-evident in everything”. Obviously, the Framers felt that as government officials they had a constitutionally mandated obligation to devise public policies based not on religious interests, but on a secular concept of public good. Every American citizen must be free to pursue his or her moral vision in the American society.

     

    Admittedly, the European culture and civil progress of our times have grown from Christianity. The Renaissance, Humanism, Age of Discovery, Reformation,  Enlightenment…all have roots in Christian Europe. Art and science have flourished in the service of Christianity.

    However, in addition to the religious roots of Europe there is another equally important dimension in the evolution of the European culture, and it is the humanistic inheritance. It finds expression in the Roman and the Greek civilizations. Therefore, Europe’s identity is a whole, it cannot be separated or divided; it is anchored in its history and in its authentic values – secular and religious.

     

    Actually, secularism is a Christian concept. Some attribute the seeds of Secularism to Jesus Christ. In Matthew 22:21 Christ is quoted as saying, “Render unto to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Thus, separating the divine and the temporal. Secularist notion first emerged in the Protestant countries of northern Europe, and then it was  given legal and constitutional status in the United States. In a letter dated 1689, John Locke, the English philosopher (1632-1704) states that, “Neither pagan, nor Muhammedan, nor a Jew ought to be excluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”  This document, in English and Latin, clearly separates the sacred and the temporal.

     

    The goal of Secularism is not to eradicate religion from public conscience, but to prevent the state from lending its coercive power to any upholder of a specific belief. The following quotation from Professor Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of the Middle East, supports this notion. “Separation of church and state is designed to prevent two things. First, the use of religion by the state to reinforce and extend its authority; and second, the use of state power by the clergy to impose their doctrine and rules on others.” In European history there are reflections from this wisdom. In mid- seventeen century it dawned on Christians thinkers that long and bitter struggles and wars of religion with other faiths as well as the sectarian wars with fellow Christians of other churches were caused by religious intolerance. It dawned on the Christian world that only with the separation of the ecclesiastical affairs and the mundane the adherents of rival churches or different faiths could live side-by-side in peace. In fact, in 1648 the European countries signed the Treaty of Westphalia that brought an end to such wars.

     

    Secularism is an alien concept outside the Judeo-Christian belief. For instance, Islam abhors Secularism. Prophet Muhammad was a soldier and statesman in addition to his mission as a prophet. He combined the state and the religion in his person. Islam is concerned with the “whole”  life. The state is God’s state, the law is God’s law, the Army is God’s army, and the enemy is God’s enemy. As there are no two entities to be separated, religious and political authorities are one and the same; therefore, the word and the concept of Secularism are meaningless to Muslims. Not only that, the following pairs of terms expressing Christian dichotomy are alien to Islam: Lay and Ecclesiastical, Spiritual and Temporal, Secular and Sacred.

     

    In that connection an anecdote from the Turkish history is meaningful. In 1923, when Ataturk founded the new Turkish Republic out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire he held a press conference with several foreign and local journalists and newspapermen. A French journalist asked Ataturk:

    “What is the religion of your new state?” It was a “loaded” question to trick Ataturk into admitting in public that the new state was a theocratic state. But Ataturk was too sophisticated to fall for such a ploy; besides, he was an ultimate secularist. He used the occasion to proclaim to the world that the new state was a secular Republic. He responded:

    “State is not a person, it is a legal entity; so it can not have a religion. People who make up the state do have religion. We are a laic Republic (He used the French term for “secular”). Within our State there are various communities from different faiths, all with the same equal, civil and human rights accorded by the state. So, talking of a state religion does not make any sense; besides, favoring or promoting a certain religion would sow the seeds of alienation among our citizens, which is detrimental to our unity and cohesion. Religion is a private matter, strictly personal. Whereas our state is a communal and societal body. ”  

     

    Islam is still far behind this enlightenment. It desperately needs a Martin Luther, a courageous voice to give Islam an impetus. Until the Muslim nations achieve an Islamic Protestantism that rejuvenates Islam, and rescue it from the clutches of ignorant mullahs, Islam will keep its antiquated status in the foreseeable future.

    By: Ayhan Ozer