Friday 22 July 2016

Turkey – Murky History but Clear Future (1/2)

For those who have some kind of confidence in me, I fear that I shall disappoint you if you seek clear direction on recent events in Turkey, i.e. the “attempted coup” of Shawwāl 1437 [July 2016]. Nevertheless, I shall share some knowledge Allāh may have given me, and some thoughts. Allāh may use it for some benefit. Yet I would declare at the outset, that there will be people who will not be pleased with what I say.

The Anti-Christ Murkiness in Turkey goes back four centuries


 

To me the cause of the murkiness, confusion and lack of direction in Turkey is ultimately due it being a known future stage of the Anti-Christ’s operations. This we know from the teachings of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ which I shall discuss later, if Allāh so wills. However, the historical seeds were already planted four centuries ago.

 

The ‘Uthmānīyah Khilāfah (Ottoman Empire – the predecessor to the current Turkish Republic), had been a haven to Jews seeking protection from Christian Europe. Even some oppressed Christian sects would prefer sanctuary in Turkey, rather than face the not so tender love of their Christian brethren who sought their eradication. (“Turkey” here, may be technically incorrect, but some might find the Arabic too cumbersome, whilst I dislike the distortion of a beautiful Arabic name).

 

Jews and Christians who are true to their faith are welcome in the Islāmic State, which is obliged to protect their lives and property. (I shall not allow “ISIS” to hijack the term “Islāmic State.”) Those who are guided to Islām, become our brothers. The problem that arose in Turkey, and which I believe continues to permeate Turkey to this day, was the birth of a third group – hypocrites pretending to embrace Islām, whilst remaining false to Islām and working tirelessly towards the destruction of the faith which had provided them with sanctuary.

Sabbatai Zevi


 

Rabbi Sabbatai Zevi was born in Izmir, Turkey, in 1626. In 1648 he proclaimed himself the Messiah. The tumult he caused was not limited to the Empire, but spread through Europe. Three years later the rabbis expelled him and his followers from Izmīr. Eventually he was sentenced to death for sedition, with the option of redemption through conversion to Islām. He chose conversion and 300 families of his followers thereupon followed suit.

 

Yet this was the beginning of a disease most vile which penetrated the soul of Turkish Islām. A cancer which ultimately overthrew the Empire, abolished the Khilāfah from the memories of the Muslims, paved the way for the loss of Palestine, and Allāh alone knows best what is its true extent and activity today.

 

Zevi never embraced Islām in his heart. He continued preaching amongst the Jews and claimed to receive revelation. He thus assumed the lead of those who then outwardly converted, but simply used their new position as ostensible Muslims to act in secret against the state and the faith.

The Donmeh


 

These hypocrites were called Donmeh (converts) in Turkish. The full record of their secret conspirative deeds may never be fully known amongst men, except themselves. I suspect that a researcher, fluent in Turkish, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic; having full access to all public records for the past four centuries, would not learn one part of a hundred of the full story.

 

On the other hand, it would be foolish to blame every cause of the rotting of the Empire on them. Every people in history reached a peak and then declined. Yet where the rot manifested as the Turks becoming confused and rudderless as many appear today, where the issue is loss of identity and mental incapacitation, rather than simple military, political and economic collapse, I smell a whiff of Donmeh stench in the air.

 

Headgear – an example of how easily Muslims are confused


 

I do not point the example I am about to discuss as the direct handiwork of the Donmeh, but I do use the example of the confusion and ignorance Muslims so often display as amongst the general achievements of the Donmeh.

 

The primary and distinctive headgear of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ was the turban. The Turks wore their turbans as the Sunnah [way] of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  and as a display of their Islāmic identity.

 

In 1839 Sultan Mahmūd II imposed the Tanzīmāt reforms. Whatever the merits and demerits of the details of his reforms might be, and which we can debate about at length, what I cannot abide of this man, is the mentality that everything European was superior to the Turkish and Islāmic heritage. His supporters lie when they claim that Tanzīmāt was mere modernisation. How is actively making alcohol fashionable modernisation? And then returning to the original example, how is banning the Sunnah Turban and replacing it with the “more European looking” Fez modernisation? Yet it is not his “reforms” I wish to highlight, but rather the fact that less than two centuries after Zevi, the Turks had somehow come to accept that aping Europe, up to and including what they wore on their heads, would restore them to greatness.

 

Now I do not know whether to call it ironic, sad or funny, but when Ataturk banned the Fez in 1925, the outcry was made to defend the “symbol of Islām” whereas the Fez was originally intended to make Turkey look less Islāmic.

 

This is comparable to the story of the ‘Iqāl (camel-string) of America’s agents, the Sa‘ūd. They did not wear turbans. Instead, they would wear a cloth over the head for protection against the hot Najd sun. When stopping on a journey, a string was used to tie a camel’s legs, or park it, as we might think of it. Somehow the idea arose that it would be convenient when not “parking” the camel, to use the same camel-string to tie the cloth to their heads. This eventually became their cultural attire. When the Sa‘ūd conquered and pillaged Makkah, Muslims began aping their costumes as the symbols of Islām, just as the turban replacing Fez had had its century of glory. We now witness Muslims proudly tying their camel-strings on their heads, especially on Eid days.

The Last Great Sultān


 

Sultān Abdul Hamīd II was overthrown in 1908 and then finally removed in 1909. He had to be punished for being the last true Turkish Khalīfah and Sultān with backbone and a zeal for Islām. In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders had come to visit Sultan Abdul Hamid II. They offered to:
1) Pay the entire debt of the Empire.
2) Build the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Liras without interest

In exchange for:
1) Allowing Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay as long as they want “to visit the holy sites.”
2) Allowing the Jews to build settlements where they live, and they wanted them to be located near Jerusalem.

Sultān Abdul Hamīd II refused to even meet them, he sent his answer to them through Tahsin Pasha, and the answer was, “Tell those impolite Jews that the debts of the Uthmāni state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn’t affect it. Jerusalem became a part of the Islamic land when Khalīfah Umar bin al-Khattāb took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Uthmānis will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam.”

He also told them to leave and never come back to meet him again.

The Jews did not give up on Abdul Hamīd, later in the same year, 1901, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Hertzl, visited Istanbul and tried to meet the Sultan. Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused to meet him and he told his Head of the Ministers Council, “Advise Dr Hertzl not to take any further steps in his project. I cannot give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Ummah. The Islamic Ummah that fought Jihād for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive.”

The Masonic Young Turks


 

Freemasonry provided a convenient vehicle for the Donmeh to achieve their aims and thus İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti or The Committee of Union and Progress or the Young Turks was born in 1889. In 1909 the Young Turks removed Sultan Abdul Hamīd. From that day on, Turkey was a Masonic state with a figurehead Sultān. Here is a who’s who of the Turkish Masons:

Talaat Pasha: A Donmeh. Interior Minister of Turkey during WW I. Chief architect of the Armenian Genocide.

Djavid Bey: Donmeh. Talaat’s Finance Minister.

Messim Russo: Assistant to Djavid Bey.

Refik Bey: Editor of Young Turk newspaper Revolutionary Press; Prime Minister of Turkey in 1939.

Emanuel Qrasow: Jewish propagandist for The Young Turks.

Vladimir Jabotinsky: Russian Bolshevik who moved to Turkey in 1908. Editor of the newspaper Young Turk.

Alexander Helphand: Liaison of the Rothschilds. Editor of The Turkish Homeland.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: A Jew of Sephardic origin. Ataturk attended the Jewish Elementary school known as the Semsi Effendi School run by the Jew Simon Zvi. This Satanic entity basically banned Islām from Turkey. I’d rather not mention him further. Please read up yourself. Here is a simple but good starting point http://lostislamichistory.com/how-ataturk-made-turkey-secular/

 

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

6 comments:

  1. Dear Brother

    I am not intelligent enough to comprehend/respond to your one word comment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Assalamualikum

    In your post from few years back regarding the new "khilaafah" you stated that you didn't have any clear convictions regards their validity.

    However based on a section of in this post you seem to be disagreeing and maybe even sternly opposed to the "Islamic state".

    What changed your position from one of being on the borders to one being in opposition? Would you mind writing another blog with regards to this topic given there is a lot more information available now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. wa alaykum salaam

    You are correct in the differences you have noted. I do not believe in jumping on bandwagons without due process of evaluation of facts, hence my initial neutrality.

    Then information became available from the general media, visitors to Syria and IS themselves, in regards their activities and beliefs. It became clear that should I say anything kinder than, "they are zealous but have lost the moderation of the Sunnah", then I am the one who is astray.

    This I say without taking into account the conspiracy theories about them, which might indeed have substance.

    I have undertaken a project which limits my writing time for some time to come. Please forgive me for not being able to comply with your advice for a full article at this point in time.

    was salaam
    Sulayman al-Kindi

    ReplyDelete