Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Atatürk's religion? - big question

Hi there I would like to discuss Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's religion, because as we all know all Turks are Muslims, but there have been aqusations of Ataturk being a Jew as from the articles espicailly the recitation of the Jewish prayer - Shema Yisrael he said - 'It's my secret prayer too'. I have also heard he comes from a Jewish background (doenmeh), all of these aqusations seem to mean very well when he turned Turkey into a completely secular state, please read more. Thanks. Moshino31 (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moshino31. I recall discussing this rumor with you a month or so ago. The source you are citing, Radio Islam, is not considered scholarly or reliable - please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which explains the guidelines in detail. Certainly a site identified as an anti-semitic hate site by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights does not qualify as a reliable source.

On another point, the term "accusation" generally has negative connotations and is used in reference to crime or wrong-doing. It is not appropriate in a discussion regarding a person's religion. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal, son of Ali Rıza and Zübeyde, was as Muslim as I am (perhaps even more than me):

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_newsimages/2298638.jpg

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_newsimages/2298659.jpg

http://www.bleublancturc.com/Ataturk/images%20Ata/Hasan_fe.jpg

He even briefly went to an Islamic elementary school upon the wishes of his conservative mother, Zübeyde Hanım (his father died when he was very young), but he later decided to go to the military school.

You don't necessarily have to be an ultraconservative to be qualified as Muslim.

Atatürk belonged to a generation of Turkish thinkers who sought to find the answer to the question of "why did the Ottoman Empire become so backward?" and later "why did the Ottoman Empire collapse?" One of the most commonly accepted culprits was the "backwardness of Islamic ultraconservatism and the related skepticism regarding the new inventions and developments in the West, such as the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution." Atatürk dedicated most of his reforms to make sure that such an ultraconservatism would never be able to block the future development of the new Turkish state (unfortunately, it seems that Islamic ultraconservatism is on the rise again in Turkey.) This doesn't mean that he was not a Muslim; if that was the case, I wouldn't be a Muslim either, because I wholeheartedly agree with his point of view. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK so now I understand, he didnt think religion was very important so he seperated the mosque and state, with all the Ataturk reforms and the Kemalist ideology, and the army all packed in in Turkey for the secular system, which doesnt make him a non-Muslim still but so so strict secularism than any other western man espicially for a Muslim, plus I believe that his wife wears the headscarf throughout her life with him, I thought Ataturk was a very secular guy, but he lets his wife wear the scarf which shows he is a Muslim. If Ataturk's wife wore the scarf through public life and everything, why is the scarf banned then in Turkey - it was not part of Ataturk's reforms. OK then, so please view these videos of Ataturk being called very harsh words with so much proof of writings throughout the videos please view them, thanks. *http://youtube.com/watch?v=9lOZMvzq4_k

• http://youtube.com/watch?v=jVcy7zUmZqE&feature=related
• http://m-kemal.blogspot.com/

There are some concepts, which may help to these exchanges. 1) Are all the Muslims also Islamists (a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system)? Can I belıve the greatness but not live with the set of social rules established ın 7 century. 2) Do all Muslims have to extend their social life along the forms of Islamic society. 3) Is the Sharia only law for a Muslim. I guess if your answer to these questions are YES than Moshino31's position is correct and Res Gestæ Divi Augusti is not a Muslim but at best a Mu'min or most probably Fasiq. Can we deny the title beliver to Mu'min and Fasiq. If we deny the title believer to Res Gestæ Divi Augusti than what will be the position of a Kafir?

WHO has the right to assign these titles? People who try to assign titles (Moshino31: "Ataturk" is not a Muslim, or he is ...) are they using the powers of the creater? What will happen to the meaning of judgment day, if we assign these labels before the judgment day?

There are people who claim that they are Muslims. They obey the five rules of Islam. They do not believe in 1 (instead civic rule) 2 (instead civic organizations) and 3 (instead civic law). Does the people obey 1 2 3 have the right to deny the title Muslim to Res Gestæ Divi Augusti? Who is ultra conservative in Islam? Is there a point more than being a Muslim? A Muslim is an ultra conservative for a Mu'min? What about the argument that Islam is a "Deen" which means it is not only a "religion" as the English word signifies, but it is a complete way of life. Can we claim that there is only one Deen which was practice by profit. Why Ataturk's way can not be another Deen? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti may be living in another Deen than the Moshino31. Can we compare the Deens as we compare the cultures? Can we claim one culture (western - Moshino31) better tan the other (eastern - Res Gestæ Divi Augusti )? --Rateslines (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument sounds like an Orthodox Jew who says "if you don't wear the kippah, then you can't be Jewish." Islam is an ultraconservative religion in nature, which can easily be exploited by a "clergy class" and transformed into a social cancer of backwardness, as in the case of present-day Iran under the rule of the Mullahs, or the pre-2001 Afghanistan under Taleban rule. Atatürk wanted to make sure that he eliminated or neutralised these mechanisms so that Turkey will never again be pulled back to the medieval mentality of the Islamic fundamentalists, who seem to have a world vision and lifestyle that's essentially stuck in the 7th century AD. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From your response, I assume, you claim to be a Muslim, and you assign Erdogan as a ultraconservative. How does your "Deen" (drive to live as a true believer) make peace with the removal of "social" rules stated in Quran? Remember, you are not living under the guidance of Sharia because of Ataturk. He removed the social conditions of Islam (removal of mechanisms of achieving the "Deen"). That is the root of the argument against the Ataturk. When Erdogan says "He happaned," he refers to removal of Islamic society. By the way Erdogan does not think he is an ultraconservative. He may not label Ataturk as a Muslim either. --Rateslines (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself a "Protestant Muslim" :) In my opinion, Atatürk brought the Reformation to Islam by removing the Caliphate (i.e. Islamic Papacy) and the clergy class, and translating the Koran and Ezan into Turkish. However, since the DP government of the 1950s, Turkey started to restore "Catholic Islam" again. I won't be surprised if we re-instate the Caliphate (Islamic Papacy) in the end. God's first order to Mohammed was "Read!" Everyone must read the Koran and reach his/her own conclusions. I don't care about how you interpreted it, as long as you don't meddle into how "I" interpret it. This "liberty" is also safeguarded by the secular system, and I'm happy that Turkey is not a Sunni version of Iran, thanks to Atatürk. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Testament's are inspired from God's words so... We can have "Protestants" in Christianity. The problem is that Islam's book is God's book, without inspiration by people (including you). If God say's "Eye to Eye," it is "Eye to Eye." People interpret thinhgs which are not in the book. Abu Ala Maududi (Four Basic Qur'anic Terms Translated by Abu Asad, Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1979) quotes from the Qur'an 64:65, 39:2,3,11,14,17, 16:52, 3:83, 98:5 to assert that "the true beliver Deen has been employed to signify the vesting of the Supreme authority in Allah alone,... that there should not be even the slightest element of association and treatment of anyone else have(ing) sovereignty or authority and being entitled to obedience and submission of independent right." Here I want to point to "anyone else have(ing) sovereignty or authority." You can not be a "Muslim", if you assign "anyone else have(ing) sovereignty or authority." It is more probable that you are a Munafiq, as you claim to be a "Protestant Muslim." Erdogan could also claim the same to Ataturk. Rateslines (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Expert of Islam, as I said before: I don't care about how you interpreted it (the Koran) as long as you don't meddle into how "I" interpret it. This "liberty" is safeguarded by the secular system, thanks to Atatürk. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to insult me with "Mr. Expert of Islam." I'm far far away from it. But may be should stop claiming to be a Muslim, if not obeying the minimum (ayets in Quran, such as "eye to eye") related to Islamic social life. There is nothing wrong to claim less than %99 of Turkey is Muslim. --Rateslines (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a compliment, not an insult. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I just like to say are all Turks aware of the Five Pillars of Islam, I mean you cannot just say 'I'm a Muslim' but then not following the right path of Islam by praying, or thinking of Allah. I bet most Turkish people have not said the Shahadah in their lifetime - the proclamation of faith of a Muslim. As we see in Turkey today, they want to even drink alcohol in public cafes (which is banned under the AK party), they now demonstrate to not to have headscarves in thier public life - basic religious rights are not wanted in a predominantly Muslim country - insane. Here in the UK and US, headscarfes are allowed to be worn in schools, libraries, universities, shops, government buildings - even though they are a secular society, these rights are given in a Christian country, but not in a Muslim country - I ask why???. Separating religion from society is a big question for a Muslim? The Qur'an strongly says the whole true meaning of this lifetime - rather than asking 'do you believe in God' they should've asked 'Do you believe God will raise you up and judge you at judgement day (the resurrection?)'

All of these problems and controversies are all done by one man named Ataturk. Who has left Turkey in a strong secular society than any other in the world, who has left his reforms and the Kemalist ideology to stop anyone from breaking this secular system - that is the main problem of Turkey: the people do not want to move on from the history of Ataturk. The secular system is not entirely fair amongst the majority of Turkish people - nearly 70% of people believe religion is important and wear the headscarves (women) - it is a illegal barrier for the people of Turkey (excluding the secularists). All of this in a Muslim society? That is why I question Ataturk's religion - is he really a Muslim? Moshino31 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Moshino31, are U a real Muslim? There is no question that only the creator have the power (right) to judge the level of belief Ataturk had. If so, you are a Munafiq by even tinkering on a subject that you do not have the right. In this respect, User:Moshino31's politics and Res Gestæ Divi Augusti's politics are same. It is like a footboll field. one side using a religious rethoric, and other side takes the civic rethoric. The ball is the resources. It is like 50 years ago; the kommunism-kapitalism arguments. 50 years later it is replaced by civic-religious arguments. We learned 50 years ago that neither side did know what they were talking. Erdogan's wife would be the first woman to resist to obey the full conditions of Islam. (we have the news about her USA trip) Turkey was neither a communist nor a capitalistic country. 50 years later we see the field have people whose words are also questionable. --Rateslines (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Well obviously I am, but I do not show myself as a devout type of Muslim, espicially living in the western world. I just believe that Islam is a way of life which Muslims should adapt it with in the government and society around us. Secularism is not the right choice - espicially for Muslims. The Sharia law has been given in the Qur'an and the Hadith, which Muslims must live upon. I think the only reason why Turkey opposes the fall of the secular system is because, they are scared for the Sharia system to come to Turkey. But I can assure that I think, Sharia law will never come to Turkey, because it has a strong European-Asian culture within the people.

I believe we shouldn't have Sharia law in Turkey, but make Islam the state religion. One thing I would like to point out is that, what is the whole point of allowing 'freedom of religion' in a country where 99% of the people are Muslims, what is the whole damn point of that, and when someone converts to Christianity - they get arrested or even killed - in that case make Islam as the state religion. Moshino31 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Moshino31, according to your view "shouldn't have Sharia law in Turkey, but make Islam the state religion." The word "Islam the state religion" means state decisions on day-to-day life (politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues) based on "what takes us (state)" to the "water source(God)". I guess it is important to remember that the word Sharia in Arabic is "path (sharia) to the water source (the God)." Your statement is circular in nature. You use two words that has the same (or very close) meaning in a sentence which implies they are different.

So... Let's see you are not a a devout type of Muslim. You do try to create a new form of living ("Deen"). At this moment your ideology is in conflict to itself (No to sharia but Islam being the state religion!). You do not want to live with sharia as you recognize that you have a "European-Asian culture." It means that you have evolved from whatever your initial state (European or Asian) to an hybrid state (European-Asian). You can't go to your source (drop Europe or Asian). You do not want to break away from the "glass ceiling." Glass ceiling meaning becoming something less in Political Islam (European socially but Muslim in your personal life). YOU ARE NOT ALONE in the eye of the history. 100 years ago elites of the Ottoman Empire had the same dilemma.

Ataturk presented a solution to the people like you. He pushed the glass ceiling for everyone. He said "Stop trying to solve this paradox". Your religion will belong to your personal life. Do Erdogan or you have the right to hate Ataturk? I do not think so. Why? Neither you nor Erdogan is really a devote Muslim. Erdogan did not send his kids to the source of belief to be educated. Universities in the Mekke and Medine are open to all devoted people. They teach the source of religion. Erdogan claims his kids are devoted (like him). What are doing in USA which has the highest teenage pregnancy? He has the responsibility to protect them as a Muslim! These positions are not about Islam anymore. If it is not about living a devoted life, what it is about? It is about how much you and your team get access to the resources. It is about having your team colors dominate the field. The political party (AKP) is not different than any other party, (if it is not promoting sharia). The headscarf becomes a color of your uniform, if your goal is not sharia. AKP is using the resources created by the state which ATATURK have established. To keep the people behind (religious arguments) AKP deforms the rules set by Ataturk. It is a delicate balance which AKP is playing. If the balance trips over sharia, the headscarf becomes a kara carsaf. --Rateslines (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkey can be defined as the Germany of the Middle East, thanks to Atatürk. I wish we could be a bit more "Germany" but unfortunately the "Arabia/Iran" wannabes are in power :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arabs and Iranians can pray 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 or 2500 times a day, since they have loads of petroleum and natural gas to feed themselves. Turkey has neither petroleum nor natural gas, therefore we don't have the "luxury" for such an overdose of afterworldly concerns. Either we'll invest in high quality education and become scientifically developed and industrious like Germany, or we'll fail. Simple as that. Atatürk knew this very well. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Among all those recent vandalisms, one edit has stayed. Ataturk did not die in "Salonika, Greece", and when he was born, there was a Greece, but Thessaloniki wasn't part of it. Please remove it. The claims that he was Jewish/donmeh just base on the fact he was from Thesseloniki, half of which was Jewish (rest was Muslims and some Christians), where he would not need to hide his religious identity. All the claims that he is SOB base on the fact that his father died when he was young, and he abolished Caliphate (Islamists call him SOB, deccal, etc, most 'important' prophets did not have a living father when they were about 10 years old, but let's forget about that). All the claims that he was homosexual base on the fact that he was rather handsome, and more importantly Greeks were beaten unexpectedly by Turkish forces under his command (hardly any non-Greek calls him homosexual). About his parents, they were certainly Muslim, and his mother was certainly a very devout Muslim till her death, and she was Ataturk's main influence. Both of his parents have separate wiki articles, Zübeyde Hanım and Ali Rıza Efendi. I see why his mother should have a wiki article, but I don't see the same for his father. His first given name is "Mustafa", referring to Prophet Mohammad. Just because you are Greek, you would not need to call him Kmahl, the gay. Just because you are Muslim, you do not need to shun all Christian or Jewish practices. He was certainly aware of Jewish practices and probably had an opinion on them. Muslims have more than 120,000 propheths (Mohammad being the seal of them), 4 of them are "rasuls", Mohammad, Jesus, Moses, and David, and for instance Moslems need to follow Injil, as well, which may or may not be the same with the current Bible. The main discrepancies seem to be trinity (which is also the main discrepancy between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity afaik), and baptism (transfering sins and good deeds to/from your descendants/ancestors), imo. Christians had to pick four among many for the Bible, about three centuries after Jesus' death. Maybe similarly, Moslems picked a few Hadith collections from many, about three centuries after Mohammad's death. Mohammad had asked his contemporaries not to record what he said, similar thing might have happened with Jesus. In practice, the differences between Islam and Christianity in our day are less, but we are not aware of it, for instance there is baptism in Islam as well, in practice. Let me end my addition to this forum. Mushrooms are nice. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pebblicious and others, should we get a peer review for ths article? Is it improved enough now? The references seem fine. The format seems fine. I haven't checked all the pictures. One video has this comment: "Kemal teaching the new Turkish alphabet to Ülkü", we need to mention who Ulku is. What ulku means as a word might be too trivial to put here. That Sabiha Gokcen was the first female combat pilot seems to be another trivial info here. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem seems to be having punctuation after the reference. It should be before the reference, afaik. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he engaged in numerous homosexual activities as a youth, I would probably think that he wasn't a strict follower of the Quar'an. I don't mean that negatively! I love the guy; big fan of Ataturk. But he was a bisexual apostate. And I think that's awesome! And I'm not Greek, by the way. I am just a Westerner who thinks that any man who wants to civilise their country and Westernise it is awesome, regardless of whether he was a Muslim or Jew, or had sex with men on occasion.

CP - April 7, 2008 15: 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were a witness there, I didn't know. By the way, I am not Greek, and I am currently living in the "West" (11 months a year), so at least 91% of my assertions must be correct. Ataturk was most likely heterosexual, even when he was in Macedonia, I don't mean that negatively. I love the guy; big fan of Ataturk. The only thing about homosexuality in Quran is the Lut story, one of the stories also in the Bible, where (the people were punished either for being homosexual or bisexual, or "sodom"s/child rapers, or people who refused to listen to what a prophet had to say, or just the God/el-ilah/Elah/El/Jehovah wanted to punish them). Since it is in the Bible, any leader of a mostly Christian nation must be homo/bi sexual or not Christian him/herself, as Pi is three. We should stop turning this talk page into a forum. I should listen to that myself. That was the 12th assertion.

One strange thing is people sometimes claim that he was not a Muslim, since he supposedly did not follow Islamic rituals (like not avoiding alcoholic drinks), but they at the same time call him a Jew, forgetting that he most likely did not follow uniquely Jewish rituals, either.

On the subject:

"Bizim dinimiz akla en uygun ve en tabii bir dindir. Ve ancak bundan dolayıdır ki son din olmuştur. Bir dinin tabii olması için akla, fenne, ilime ve mantığa uygun olması lazımdır. Bizim dinimiz bunlara tamamen uygundur. Müslümanların toplumsal hayatında, hiç kimsenin özel bir sınıf olarak varlığını korumaya hakkı yoktur. Kendilerinde böyle bir hak görenler dini hükümlere uygun hareket etmiş olmazlar. Bizde ruhbanlık yoktur, hepimiz eşitiz ve dinimizin hükümlerini eşit olarak öğrenmeye mecburuz. Her kişi dinini, din işlerini, imanını öğrenmek için bir yere muhtaçtır. Orası da okuldur."

"Herşeyden önce şunu en basit bir dini gerçek olarak bilelim ki, bizim dinimizde özel bir sınıf yoktur. Ruhbanlığı reddeden bu din, dinde tekelciliği kabul etmez. Mesela din bilginleri, mutlaka aydınlatma vazifesi din bilginlerine ait olmadıktan başka, dinimiz de bunu kesinlikle yasaklar. O halde biz diyemeyiz ki, bizde özel bir sınıf vardır. Diğerleri dinî yönden aydınlatma hakkından yoksundur. Böyle düşünecek olursak kabahat bizde, bizim cahilliğimizdedir. Hoca olmak için yani dinî gerçekleri halka telkin etmek için, mutlaka hoca elbisesi şart değildir. Bizim yüce dinimiz her erkek ve kadın müslümana genel olarak araştırmayı farz kılar ve her erkek ve kadın müslüman, toplumu aydınlatmakla yükümlüdür.

Efendiler, bir fikri daha düzeltmek isterim. Milletimizin içinde gerçek din adamları, din adamlarımız içinde de milletimizin hakkıyla iftihar edebileceği bilginlerimiz vardır. Fakat bunlara karşı hoca elbisesi altında gerçek ilimden uzak, gereği kadar öğrenmemiş, ilim yolunda gereği kadar ilerleyememiş hoca görünüşlü cahiller de vardır. Bunların ikisini birbirine karıştırmamalıyız.

Efendiler! Gerçek bilginler ile dine zararlı olan bilginlerin birbirine karıştırılması Emeviler zamanında başlamıştır. Hazreti Peygamberin yaşadığı mutlu zamanlarında..."[1]

do you need translations, or do you want to trust the man when he says his religion is Islam? 128.211.202.45 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the fact that Ataturk was a Muslim, with cites to Kinross's biography. Unless there is some source with some degree of reliability that he wasn't, I fail to see any basis for removing this fact. I don't understand Moshino31's comment at all, so I am reverting. Here is what I wrote on Supertask's page when he asked me for an explanation:

On page 4: "He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock." On p. 216-7: After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of deference he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations." Later, p.386 Kinross mentions how "an emissary, claiming to represent Indian and Egyptian Moslems" "suggested to Kemal that he himself should become the Caliph."John Z (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. There is a picture showing him preying in that section. The question of ones religious beliefs is somewhat funny! Do we ask how much "Christian" one should be to be a Christian man. If one does not accept the Pope's authority, (like Caliphate) do he become non Christian? I guess in the eyes of Pope that person will be deemed for the Hell. Besides if these people who question is religious beliefs were Muslims, they would know that if one accepts God's existance, become Muslim for life. If one deny the God later, that person do not become Non-Muslim, but Fajir. --Rateslines (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, the Wikipedia article on Fajir descibes it as meaning "wicked evil doer" in an Islamic context. What you have described as Fajir fits the Wikipedia definition of Kafir much better, which it descibes as meaning "sinner by disbelif in Allah". This comes back to my last point. This comes back to my last point - if this is in relation to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk then there is no evidence that he ever accepted Islam or that he never accepted Islam. Wikipedia's religion section on individuals is about the individuals belief, not about how a particular religion sees that individual because the article is on the individual.--Supertask 02:21, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

I did not said he denied God (Kafir). I just opposed the idea which claims "not-Muslim." My position is that there is a picture showing him in a religious ceremony. That evidance places him in the sects of Islam. The rest is "fictitious argument" to point that he can not be claimed indeterminiate ("belief=Indeterminite"), like some claims. "About the individuals belief" He was a Muslim. There is a phtographic evidance. That is the end of "belief=Islam" tag at the infobox. --Rateslines (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not stating he wasn't a Muslim, just that it is not known with certainty what his religious beliefs were. --Supertask 02:21, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

Why the information of his religious belief is important? Was he a Muslim? Yes he was. It is important because he abolished the Caliphate. (removed the Political Islam from political arena) Did he liked green apples? That question is irrelevant. Hovever if he had an allergy to green apples, in that case this question would be significant. We ask questions, because they give us important clues about historically significant events. He never claimed he was a "Hoja" or compete for the position of Calip. He did not develop a theological theory. His position regarding angles or devil is irrelevant. His "political theories" are relevant. His ideas of moving underdeveloped nations to developed nations are important. But you are not interested in them. It is not clear what your are trying to say or what is the significance on "Ataturk's detailed beliefs in Islam". Do not take it too personal, when people question your motives. Because they are not clear. Do you also question the Einstein's position on trinity. --Rateslines (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) The objections are getting a bit strained. At Wikipedia, we are not looking for truth beyond all doubt, we are looking for truth according to good sources. Jimbo does not claim to be a prophet of Allah, Jesus or Buddha, and Wikipedia is not a holy book. All good sources agree that Ataturk was a muslim. No dispute at all. So that's what we say. Maybe in reality he was a time traveling robot from Mars. But we don't have evidence of that. Maybe, although everybody including him said he was a muslim, in his mind he had converted to Hinduism. But we don't have evidence for that, so we don't say it, we don't contradict our sources.

Here's some more from Kinross's book: Below are Ataturk's own words - a later recollection quoted on p.6 describing the occasion of his introduction "with the usual religious ceremony into the school of Fatima Mollah Kadin" clearly it goes along with the image discussed (which I can't find - I guess I am blind) :

"Then the teacher - a hoja - arrived before the green bedecked door of our house, accompanied by all his scholars. After a prayer had been offered, I made an obeisance to my mother, my father and the teacher, lifting my fingertips to my breast and forehead and kissing their hands. Then, amid the cheering of my new companions, I went in joyous procession through the streets of the city to the school, which adjoined the mosque. On our arrival there another prayer was repeated in chorus; then the teacher, taking me by the hand, led me into a bare, vaulted chamber, where the sacred word of the Koran was unfolded to me."

I don't know Turkish, so I don't understand what the quotes above in Turkish say, but apparently they are also statements from Ataturk that he is a Muslim. Is further doubt very reasonable? John Z (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bizim dinimiz akla en uygun ve en tabii bir dindir. Ve ancak bundan dolayıdır ki son din olmuştur. Bir dinin tabii olması için akla, fenne, ilime ve mantığa uygun olması lazımdır. Bizim dinimiz bunlara tamamen uygundur. Müslümanların toplumsal hayatında, hiç kimsenin özel bir sınıf olarak varlığını korumaya hakkı yoktur. Kendilerinde böyle bir hak görenler dini hükümlere uygun hareket etmiş olmazlar. Bizde ruhbanlık yoktur, hepimiz eşitiz ve dinimizin hükümlerini eşit olarak öğrenmeye mecburuz. Her kişi dinini, din işlerini, imanını öğrenmek için bir yere muhtaçtır. Orası da okuldur." "Herşeyden önce şunu en basit bir dini gerçek olarak bilelim ki, bizim dinimizde özel bir sınıf yoktur. Ruhbanlığı reddeden bu din, dinde tekelciliği kabul etmez. Mesela din bilginleri, mutlaka aydınlatma vazifesi din bilginlerine ait olmadıktan başka, dinimiz de bunu kesinlikle yasaklar. O halde biz diyemeyiz ki, bizde özel bir sınıf vardır. Diğerleri dinî yönden aydınlatma hakkından yoksundur. Böyle düşünecek olursak kabahat bizde, bizim cahilliğimizdedir. Hoca olmak için yani dinî gerçekleri halka telkin etmek için, mutlaka hoca elbisesi şart değildir. Bizim yüce dinimiz her erkek ve kadın müslümana genel olarak araştırmayı farz kılar ve her erkek ve kadın müslüman, toplumu aydınlatmakla yükümlüdür. Efendiler, bir fikri daha düzeltmek isterim. Milletimizin içinde gerçek din adamları, din adamlarımız içinde de milletimizin hakkıyla iftihar edebileceği bilginlerimiz vardır. Fakat bunlara karşı hoca elbisesi altında gerçek ilimden uzak, gereği kadar öğrenmemiş, ilim yolunda gereği kadar ilerleyememiş hoca görünüşlü cahiller de vardır. Bunların ikisini birbirine karıştırmamalıyız. Efendiler! Gerçek bilginler ile dine zararlı olan bilginlerin birbirine karıştırılması Emeviler zamanında başlamıştır. Hazreti Peygamberin yaşadığı mutlu zamanlarında..."

I don't know what this says but I do know it is not in the citation given to support it. I put it and chunks of it into the find tool (ctrl + f) and it didn't find them. Try it yourself if you want.

"All good sources agree that Ataturk was a muslim"

This certainly isn't true - most don't mention it. Even the section Religious beliefs on the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life didn't state it until recently and even now states it without a cite (you may think cite 21 is directed to it but the two sentences that makes the statement "Ataturk's believed in a form of reformed Islam when compared to Ottoman practice. Islam was personal between an individual and God for him." are not cited) though the infobox did state it. Though looking into it I do now think there is good evidence that he was a Muslim, this information isn't mainstream and it amazed me how much inconclusive information people thought showed he was a Muslim. --Supertask 02:35, 17 April 2008 (GMT)

You're right, that isn't the right url. If you google on the first sentence in quotes, you get some other turkish government sites with that passage, though, like [2] and [3]. Somebody should mention what it says. Maybe not too important now that TarikAkin has provided that url to Fığlalı's paper. Maybe the fact is a little hard to find because he is famous as a secularizer. Well, I'm glad we've agreed and that you prodded people to do their homework. That's the way wikipedia is supposed to work. My apologies if I was at all snarky. Cheers,John Z (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you need it now, but let me make an attempt of translation. My translation really needs work.

"Bizim dinimiz akla en uygun ve en tabii bir dindir. Ve ancak bundan dolayıdır ki son din olmuştur. Bir dinin tabii olması için akla, fenne, ilime ve mantığa uygun olması lazımdır. Bizim dinimiz bunlara tamamen uygundur. Müslümanların toplumsal hayatında, hiç kimsenin özel bir sınıf olarak varlığını korumaya hakkı yoktur. Kendilerinde böyle bir hak görenler dini hükümlere uygun hareket etmiş olmazlar. Bizde ruhbanlık yoktur, hepimiz eşitiz ve dinimizin hükümlerini eşit olarak öğrenmeye mecburuz. Her kişi dinini, din işlerini, imanını öğrenmek için bir yere muhtaçtır. Orası da okuldur."

Our religion is the most natural and the one most in accordance with wisdom. Hence it became the last religion. For a religion to be natural, it needs to be in accordance with wisdom, natural sciences, sciences, and logic. Our religion is completely in accordance with them. In the daily lifes of Moslems, no one has the right to be of special class. The one's who think they have such a right do not behave in accordance with our religion's principles. We don't have priesthood, we are all equal, and we all need to learn our religions principles equally. Everyone needs a place to learn about his/her religion and belief. And that is school

"Herşeyden önce şunu en basit bir dini gerçek olarak bilelim ki, bizim dinimizde özel bir sınıf yoktur. Ruhbanlığı reddeden bu din, dinde tekelciliği kabul etmez. Mesela din bilginleri, mutlaka aydınlatma vazifesi din bilginlerine ait olmadıktan başka, dinimiz de bunu kesinlikle yasaklar. O halde biz diyemeyiz ki, bizde özel bir sınıf vardır. Diğerleri dinî yönden aydınlatma hakkından yoksundur. Böyle düşünecek olursak kabahat bizde, bizim cahilliğimizdedir. Hoca olmak için yani dinî gerçekleri halka telkin etmek için, mutlaka hoca elbisesi şart değildir. Bizim yüce dinimiz her erkek ve kadın müslümana genel olarak araştırmayı farz kılar ve her erkek ve kadın müslüman, toplumu aydınlatmakla yükümlüdür.

We all need to know the fact that there is no special class in our religion as a basic religious fact. Our religion which rejects priesthood, won't accept religious monopolies. ----I don't know how to translate next sentence-----. Hence we cannot say that we have a special class, the ones not in this class are not capable of enlightening us about our religion. If we thought like that, it would be our fault, our ignorance. To be a hodja, ie. to educate the public abour religious issues, one does need to wear a hodga's robe. Our great religion orders every male and female Moslem to research; and every male and female is responsible in enlightening the public.

Efendiler, bir fikri daha düzeltmek isterim. Milletimizin içinde gerçek din adamları, din adamlarımız içinde de milletimizin hakkıyla iftihar edebileceği bilginlerimiz vardır. Fakat bunlara karşı hoca elbisesi altında gerçek ilimden uzak, gereği kadar öğrenmemiş, ilim yolunda gereği kadar ilerleyememiş hoca görünüşlü cahiller de vardır. Bunların ikisini birbirine karıştırmamalıyız.

Gentlemen, I want to straighten out one thing. In our nation, there are real people of religion, and among them, there are scholars which we can be really be proud of. But there are also ignorant people wearing the robe of a hodja, who are but far away from the truth, who have not advanced enough in the religious sciences. We should not mix both.

Efendiler! Gerçek bilginler ile dine zararlı olan bilginlerin birbirine karıştırılması Emeviler zamanında başlamıştır. Hazreti Peygamberin yaşadığı mutlu zamanlarında..."

Gentlemen. The jumbling of of real scientists and the ones damaging the religion started during the reign of Umayyads. In the merry times of our "Hazreti" Prophet...

128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph (at least first sentences) are known well enough, I believe there are many good sources. The other paragraphs are from an article of Ataturk in "Hakimiyet'i Milliye", a newspaper of the Turkish revolutionists around 1920. We might just erase the religion part from the infobox, especially if most other political leaders don't have their religion listed. So, I don't mind erasing it, but i don't like the attitude of some people that while declaring he cannot be Muslim. I wouldn't mind him being a Jew (I don't how reliable the sources are who use 'Jew' as a swearword), but normal way of being a Jew is through a Jewish mother, as far as I know. His mother is certainly Moslem. I am not aware of any signs of him being a convert. I wonder why nobody calls him Christian or Buddhist. He was certainly not Wahhabi, well even Wahhabi's are not Wahhabi, they are Salafi. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Juma prayers performed by Mustafa Kemal

There are records of many Juma prayers performed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk during the Turkish War of Independence at many locations in Turkey as an Imam, you can just search and find them. This will give you good idea about his religious beliefs, i.e., he was a good imam as well. 128.164.157.184 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)