Secularism is Zionism

Posted on 19. Aug, 2010 by in Opinion

Editor’s Note: Two Zionists scholars Bredlaf and Hollioak of Austrian origin in 1748 were doing brain storming as to how to distance the people from religious faiths so that Zionism could take hold on the world Affairs. They both were of the view that in order to succeed in their mission they must make the people believe that there is no life after death hence they have to live this world to the fullest. Under this pretext, they diverted to the societies to live for lust, pleasure and run after worldly pursuits. This thought gave rise to capitalism and other brutal activities to subjugate the world.

Today this doctrine has destroyed the institutions of marriage, family and raised the people to live gay to pursue their desires. Society in the west, has become atheists in a spiritual vacuum.

By Naveed Tajammal

To understand the implications of secularism, if ever implemented in Pakistan and it's results, the best analogy can be of the Turkish Ottoman empire (Osmanli). As presently, most of our modern intellectuals are influenced by secularist thoughts. The result, no doubt of studies and findings written by a western mind, which has absolutely no grasp of issue at hand. By this, I also mean our own people, who think as per the perceptions of the alien, yet remain Pakistanis, by virtue of a citizenship. It is their schooling and lack of in depth study which leads them astray, as I have repeatedly written, that, the change of educational pattern has been the root cause of our intellectual decline. An almost similar phenomenon was found in the Turkish Empire too.

A study of history or a past, lays bare the mistake of others, a rational mind must study and analyze these faults, and try and steer himself of similar problems and, voice them for an inbuilt dangers, it brings, to an old historically established entity, with it's culture, custom, traditions and language. All, totally battered, yet the spark still remaining which can be rekindled. Hence this discourse, or article.

To give an insight on the Turkish dichotomy, in all aspects especially after the, "Tanzimat "edicts of 1839 and 1856, I will extensively quote from the little remaining works of ,"ZIYA GOKLAP", also known as Zia Keuk Alp, a Turkish writer(1876-1924),the recurrent theme in his writings, was the question of how, the Turks should adopt the western civilization, and how this effort should be harmonized with the Turks. That is, the two historic traditions, their Turkish, and Islamic backgrounds, or in other words, what the Turk as a nation and Islam as their religion would look under the condition of contemporary civilization. Goklap, was not the only one, who had raised this issue, others too had anticipated or influenced him. Although, he had died in the early phase of Mustafa Kamal's drastic reforms, from which the Turk is still reeling from and slowly, reverting back to his roots(Islamic).Which shows, that in the end, you cannot impose, "ideas" which have no bearing on a nation which has old foundations/roots and a past history, infusion of new races is, but, a process, but as long as the base of the pyramid remains and retains a dim memory and still retains it's old language, a revival can always take place.

A nation devoid of roots, is like a ship without a rudder, to steer it in the high seas, which being uncharted too. It is thus, the job of a writer, to show his reader a path or give some directions and then, leave it to them, to decide to adopt it, or not, as they deem it proper.

Mustafa Kamal's extreme and drastic secularism cost the Turk his true identity ,and he lost his roots, his dress and insignia, but the laws of Allah are eternal, you always revert to the original at one epoch of time or the other, under a new leadership and for the better.

Though Ziya, was guilty of adding in the new Constitution, the clause of secularism, as he was the member of a committee which had prepared the new Constitution in 1924. He, for this is held and blamed by the critics for Turkey's political misfortunes. The bulk of Zia's work suffered and were lost as, the root was a change of script to the Roman mode of alphabet, a process started later, after the death of Zia by Mustafa Kamal and Ismet Pasha.

We too, today find ourselves on the crossroads, our intellectual harps and argues for the western mode of education, the funds are unlimited and by now, we have people trained to implement these policies, a major effort and implementation has already been done in guise of modernization and rooting out the mode of Urdu medium education is on the anvil to be hammered into oblivion. By assent of powerful people, clueless of our past.

In the Turkish history, in the mid 19Th century when Freemasons were taking roots, our lands were being annexed by the British and, we were to face a despotic English Rule for another 100 years. Freemasons cultivated and launched Mustafa Kamal Pasha to secularise Turkey. A rule which ransacked and destroyed our society and has made and left us with many a breaches or divides in our nation. By leaving open the Pandora's box filled with creations of the British Policies which unfortunately, we still, unwittingly adhere to.

The Turkish intelligentsia, was beset with European ideas as they strove for a change, for the sake of change, hence developed various pressure groups with vested interests as will be explained in the subsequent articles, which forced, "The Sultans", to bring changes but here it should be borne in mind that it was not the actual Turk, who was actually clamoring for the change, but various alien races which then composed more than half the population of the Turkish Empire ,led by various schools of thoughts with different ethnic backgrounds and religions too. So attempts with the help of the then super powers were started, to reorganize the political, legal and administrative structure of the Turkish Empire. To understand the background of this agitation, termed as "Tanzeemats", or reforms, one must first understand the composition of the Turkish Empire. At the start of the 1900s, the Osmanli Turks numbered only ten million out of which one and a half million lived in the western lands i.e. the Balkans, the Arabs numbered seven million and three hundred thousand were Jews. The rest of the population was composed of various Aryan races, the Slavs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Pomaks and Cossacks, Greeks, Albanians and the Kurd who were Muslims. Muslims in the Empire in the above mentioned time were just 50% and the rest 41% were Greek Orthodox Christians, 6% were Catholic Christians and the rest 3% were jews, Druses, Nestorians etc. In the European provinces, two third of population were Christians, and only one third were Muslims. The total population of the Turkish Empire in 1910,including Egypt and other regions nominally under the Sultan's sovereignty was 36,323,539.Averaging 25 to the square mile in the Wilayats (Provinces), however, directly under the Turkish Government were only almost 26 million people.

In view of the above, to understand the secular movement as stated earlier, one has to understand the pressure groups, by virtue of which, the population of various cities then was, Istambul (1,150,000),Izmir (250,000),Baghdad (145,000),Damascus (145,000), Alleppo (122,000),Beirut (118,000), Adrianople (81,000), Brusa (76,000), Jerusalem (56,000), Kaisarieh (72,000), Karbala (65,000), Monastir (53000), Mosul (61000), Macca (60000), Homs (60000), Sana(58000). These were the cities with above 50000 population. In the first decade of the 20th century the possessions of the Sultan in Europe were stretching continously across the Balkan Peninsula from the Bosphorus to the Adriaticc lying on the East mainly between 40 degree and 42 degree and in the West between 39 degree and 43 degree north. It corrosponded roughly to the ancient, Thrace, Macedonia with Chalcidice, Epirus and a large part of Illyria which construed the administrative divisions of Istambul or the previous HeadQuarters of the Eastern Byzantine Empire of the Romans.However, in December 1898,Crete was granted independence under the protection of none other but Britian,France,Italy and not to miss Russia the old foe of the Turks.In fact these were the outer pressure groups which were instigating and had also instigated and forced the then Sultan fifty years back when the reforms were first announced. Egypt,though still, nominally,under the Turkish Empire was almost independent since 1841 and the British had become it's big brother since 1881. Hence the independence of the egyptians from the Turkish Empire was no independence at all as they had gone from a muslim rule,under the Sultan, to the Christians,under the British. In Africa,the two remaining main cities were Tripoli and Ben Ghazi. So we see the reforms which were the forerunner of the eventual secularism had started almost 75 years before the clause of secularism as it was, inserted in the Constitution of the Turks. The bulk of the cities above quoted had the population of various sects of Christians which were the standard bearers of the eventual turn of the events.

To be continued.


For the best value of your money, advertise in Opinion Maker

GD Star Rating
loading...
Secularism is Zionism, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

10 Responses to “Secularism is Zionism”


  1. 19. Aug, 2010

    The similarity is striking,it is strange how times repeat,what the ottomans faced,we are facing today.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Dr.A.K.Tewari

    19. Aug, 2010

    @ Javed ,You are absolutely correct and if the same thing continued on the advice of some so called historian, the condition is going to be more worst than the present .A person has to have secular thought to accomodate the others in this interdependent world .We can never have a homogenous society even if all its member belong to same religion .Think about your society,how much it is consolidated ?

    Reply to this comment
    • Naveed Tajammal

      20. Aug, 2010

      Tewari, pity you are missing the fun, this article is posted on three other sites,now if you are a good boy i will give a link,however knowing your twisted nature, it will be asking for trouble as your endless needling will continue.
      by the way can you for a change shed some light on,the secular indian government run by the head shaven pig tailed, saffron clad, smeared by cow dung ash,and a thumb print of a human blood on the forehead,brahman ??? the hindutva,who says india,is for hindus alone ??the RSSS,or hedgewar thought process?? my dear you are worse.

      Reply to this comment
  3. Corey Mondello

    21. Aug, 2010

    ‘Imagine If All Atheists Left America’:

    Reply to this comment
  4. [...] To read Part I click HERE [...]

    Reply to this comment
  5. [...] To read Part I click HERE [...]

    Reply to this comment
  6. Roland Ansgar

    26. Aug, 2010

    Editor’s Note: Two Zionist scholars Bredlaf and Hollioak of Austrian origin in 1748 were doing brain storming as to how to distance the people from religious faiths so that Zionism could take hold on the world Affairs. This thought gave rise to capitalism and other brutal activities to subjugate the world.
    ==
    Dear Editor:

    You should learn that popular teeny-bopper song containing the line, “Don’t know much about history… ,” because clearly you don’t.

    Reply to this comment
  7. [...] For Part I click HERE [...]

    Reply to this comment
  8. [...] For Part I click HERE [...]

    Reply to this comment
  9. India_Lover

    31. Aug, 2010

    Dear Naveed Tajammal,

    Interesting article. But I’ve got some doubts.

    You said
    >Mustafa Kamal’s extreme and drastic secularism cost >the Turk his true identity ,and he lost his roots, his dress >and insignia,

    Wasn’t it the resistance from arabs to modernise islam? Kemal Pasha tried to publish a turkish translation of quran and the arabs strongly objected. The riots ensued. The turks claimed that the Allah knows Turkish as well whereas the arabs were adamant. How could clinging to the arabs would’ve restored Turk’s true identity?

    In addition to above, the turks always held a grudge towards arabs when their combined army was defeated in Battle of Vienna (1683AD). The turks had a plan to quickly capture and vassalise Vienna so as to move beyond. The grand objetive was to capture the Rhine basin (modern Germany). However they blame arabs for prolong hanging around Vienna for its riches.

    Lack of vision was main reason behind turk-arab defeat at Vienna. Don’t you see the same story repeating in early 20th century’s Turkey?

    Another blemish on ottoman turks is the armenian genocide. Turks are generally magnanimous. At least they believe so. Considering the loose nature of the ottoman empire, they had to give a lot of autonomy and be tolerant towards various ethnic groups. That’s how big empires operate. But targeting Armenians for decimation sounds very un-Turkish. Was it arab or freemasons influence?

    India Lover

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply