Turkey's Membership of The European Union
Source: www.khilafah.org 1) Introduction: On the 11th of January 1999 Turkey was accepted as a candidate for the membership of the European Union (EU), 40 years have elapsed since its request for membership in Helsinki, the capital of Finland. So can Turkey become a member of the Union? In this article we wish to discuss certain topics which are chanted by leaders, politicians and those who call themselves enlightened. Topics such as; the war of independence, national borders, national sovereignty, fatherland/homeland, the people and the sanctity of the flag. We want to contrast these topics with the objectives which they strive to achieve such as westernisation, European identity and European integration. Likewise, we wish to explain to the people the obvious contradiction and disastrous situation the society will be led to as a result of these plans and tricks.
2) Is the Turkish Muslim people’s union with the Greeks, English, French, Italians and Germans more easy, natural, and reasonable? Or is the union with the Iraqi, Syrian and the other Muslim peoples? Most European peoples are non-Muslim, they are Christian disbelievers. And these peoples still harbour hatred and enmity for the Muslim Turks. The Europeans will never accept the Muslim Turkish people until the Turks cut their link with Islam.
Allah (swt) says: " Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you until you follow their religion " [Al-Baqarah:120] The European people completely differ with the Muslim Turkish people in their viewpoint in life and culture. The Greeks, English, French, Italians have all at one time occupied Turkey. In the eyes of the Turkish people they are enemies. Not a single people in Europe displays any love, friendship or fraternity for the Muslim Turkish people.
Allah says: "The disbelievers are ever unto your open enemies" [4:101] Allah says: "Many of the people of the Book wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even, after the truth has become manifest unto them" [2:109]
There are no bridges that link the Muslim Turkish people with the European peoples. There is nothing common between the two sides, which allows them to integrate. What does exist are statements that are not true, and the false behaviour displayed by governments. Even if Turkey is accepted into the EU, that will be by means of pressure and compulsion, it will not be natural. It will not be in any way whatsoever like the union with Iraq or Syria for example. So what is this relationship or friendship that is supposed to unite the Turkish and Greek peoples? Either the Turks abandon Islam or the Greeks become Muslims. Which of the two options do the rulers of Turkey want?
Islam is the common identity for the peoples of the region. Every day the Azan is heard five times in every country and the people are humbled by its sound. When ‘assalamu ‘alaykum’ (peace be upon you) is said in Ankara, voices, full of brotherhood and friendship, answer it in Iraq and Ash-Sham by saying: ‘wa ‘alaykum as-salam’ (and peace be upon you too). Thus the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and the Islamic culture and the common Islamic values and emotions and all the requisites of unity like emotions of love and friendship, have been present at all times between the Muslim people.
The Kafir colonialist has put in place a group of traitorous rulers at the head of these peoples to guard the artificial borders it placed between them to prevent them from uniting. When these rulers are removed together with the centres of discord and disagreement then the question of uniting the Ummah will take place faster than the twinkling of an eye. If the Turkish people unite with their brothers from the other Islamic peoples, then they will be transformed from a state of obscurity to a state of partnership and leadership.
Which is better? That the Turkish people should be disgraced in the European Union in return for obtaining some material assistance or should they establish the Islamic unity, which will protect their honour and dignity and place them in leadership among Muslims? Those who reject the possibility of Turkey uniting with other Islamic countries claim that the Arabs betrayed the Turks and backstabbed them. They as well say that the Arabs are still hostile towards the Turks, hence, they support the PPK. In fact these are invalid excuses, have the Arabs ever been greater enemies than the Greeks? And just now you have befriended Greece, so why does the hostility against the Arabs still continue?! Does not Greece, Italy, France, Germany and Britain assist the PPK? Let alone the fact that the Arab peoples are not the ones who are hostile to the Turkish people but a clique of rulers who control them. They do not represent their people at all. Just as the rulers in Turkey do not represent the Muslim Turkish people. Both (the Arab and Turkish people) are Muslim peoples, their brotherhood still brings them together whatever the rulers may have done and whatever the circumstances. When the Islamic way of life is resumed and the Muslims are liberated from the Kufr regimes, then this brotherhood will unite them again under the Islamic identity. Just as Islam had united these peoples in the past for centuries, it will unite them again. Thus, unity is expected and its emotions are present.
Despite these facts; the honour, dignity, common Islamic identity, the ease in uniting the Muslim
Turks and the rest of the Islamic people, they are still waging a war on
this identity and insisting on integrating with the Greeks, English, Italians,
French and Germans under the European identity.They are exchanging might,
honour and dignity for humiliation, disgrace and contempt. Which is better
for the Turkish people? Can anyone reasonably say that those who accept
the humiliation and disgrace of the Muslim Turkish people are Muslims themselves?
Allah (swt) says: " O you who believe! Take not for Awliya (friends and protectors) disbelievers instead of the believers. Do you want to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves? " [An-Nisa:144]
Allah says: " O you who believe! Take not for Awliya (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture before you, nor from among the disbelievers, and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers " [5:57]
Allah says: "Only the believers are brothers. So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy" [49:10]
3) Has the war of independence actually taken place? And from who has the country been liberated? It is said about the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kamal, that he is a hero and a saviour. It is also claimed that he was the one who rescued the Turkish people and fatherland from the foreign enemy. They claim that if this did not take place there would have been no Turkish people. So who is this foreign enemy?
They say the enemy is the occupier, from the Greeks, English, Italians, French; and that the war of independence was against these enemies and it was through this war that the Turkish people were freed from occupation. So what were the Turkish people and the country freed from? Why did the enemy occupy this country? And what does the occupier normally do?
a) The occupier plunders the country and its resources whether over or underground.
b) The occupier controls the labour force and economy in the occupied country and works to produce his own commodities with the efforts of the sons of the occupied country for the cheapest of costs.
c) The colonialist works to make his thought the judge and entrench this in the minds of the occupied people. He pollutes the creed and culture of the people. He makes the people lose their character and reduces them to blind followers that are subservient to him.
d) The colonialist divests them of their values and corrupts their morals, he thrusts into them the knife of indecency and makes them forget their noble past.
e) The colonialist strives to destroy any credal or intellectual patronage, that may threaten his existence in the colonised country, or oppose him or attempt to free itself from him.
f) The colonialist focuses his efforts to create puppet regimes that will succeed him and protect his strategic interests. Thus, the regime does not overstep the line drawn for it by the colonialist. The regime remains under constant scrutiny. If it goes beyond the line that has been drawn, it will be destroyed via the military bases, the agents of the colonialist in the army and power centres within the country. This is the nature of colonialism, and this is what the colonialist does when he occupies a particular country.
4) Now we wish to compare the situation of Turkey with the situation before and after the 1st World War. Before the 1st World War the European nations instigated the concept of nationalism in the Balkans and helped them to separate from the ‘Uthmani state. They established statelets which were separate from the Khilafah in Istanbul. The Europeans supported Arab and Turkish nationalisms. And during the war, areas of land of the Ottoman state in Turkey, Middle East, and North Africa were occupied. After that the colonialist established weak statelets in these countries. And after ensuring the subservience of the regimes which it had established in these statelets, it (formally) withdrew from them militarily but still subjugated them in actuality. Its companies exploited the raw materials from under and above the ground in the occupied countries, while the people of these countries lived a life of backwardness and poverty despite the abundant resources. The best example for this is that of Saudi Arabia whose foreign debt has reached more than 80 billion dollars while the country abounds in petrol and its mountains are awash in gold. The situation in Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Syria and others is not much better than the situation of Saudiyya.
Now we come to Anatolia which the colonialist with the assistance of local rulers called "Turkey". The Kafir colonialist occupied this land after the 1st World War after Mustafa Kamal and his accomplices had established a government in Ankara independent of the government of Istanbul. The colonialist forces; the English, Greeks and French staged without a war, a false withdrawal from certain areas in Anatolia which they had occupied as part of the plan devised by them to make Mustafa Kamal a national hero and a saviour of the Turks. In the international arena they considered his government in Ankara the official channel that was addressed in Turkey. With this they pushed the Istanbul government outside and terminated its role. In 1924 the European countries recognised Mustafa Kamal’s phoney government according to the treaty of Lausanne. After the treaty, this government began to execute tasks dictated to it by the West, one task after another under the slogans of freedom and independence. Before you are some of the actions they undertook:
a) They abolished the Islamic Khilafah and declared a comprehensive war against it and worked to distort its concept and erase it from the minds of the Muslims.
b) They declared war on Islam, its thoughts and concepts. They abolished many rules and concepts. They suspended the Shari’ah, prevented the obligatory duties and permitted the forbidden things. Even some Masjids were closed, the Azan banned and the people forced to give the Azan in the Turkish language.
c) They forbade the learning and teaching of the Qur’an. This hostility towards Islam still continues. And with the issuance of the law of compulsory education for 8 years the teaching of the Qur’an was banned for those below 14 years of age. They cut the links between the Turkish people and the Qur’an. Due to the prohibition of the Arab language the reciter of the Qur’an became unable to understand what he read. Not to mention the fact that people became subject to the widely circulated erroneously interpreted books. They worked with all their energies to widen the gap between the people and its Islamic culture, Sunnah and Qur’an. They called this ‘the strategy of security’ and this is what the prime minister of England Lord Curzon expressed before the 1st World War saying: " The only way to weaken the Turks is to distance them from their book which is the source of their strength (alluding to the Qur’an)." From all of this it becomes very obvious to us the nature of those who claimed to have liberated the country. So, did they really liberate the country?
d) The founders of the Republic were able to realise, what colonialism with all its power failed to achieve:
Under the banner of a revolution in attire they forced people to wear a top hat and western clothes. And they forbade women from wearing the Shari’ah prescribed Hijab.
They became accustomed to humiliating Muslims and belittling their emotions, even in their festivals and Eids.
They made the drinking of alcohol and gambling widespread to the point that wine factories were the first factories established by the state.
They forced students in the schools to freemix. They made males sit with females on school chairs next to each other. They forced students to participate in parties and trips so as to obliterate all aspects of shame and respect for honour. They spread indecency and corrupted the morals.
The press and media under the direction of the state waged a war against the values, morals, and Islamic concepts and accused those who opposed, of backwardness.
Aya Sophiya the symbol of the conquest of Istanbul and other such churches which became Masjids after the conquest, were turned back into museums or churches once again. They transformed Istanbul the capital of Islam into a capital for fighting Islam. It became a centre of crime and indecency. With this they drew closer to achieving their aim.
e) They stopped acting upon the Islamic Shari’ah and they put in its place kufr man made laws of secularism, republicanism, nationalism, and the roman judicial system.
f) With what they called the ‘alphabet revolution’ they made Latin and Greek the state language. Scientific terms were on a whole Western and the Arabic language was forbidden so as to complete the detachment of this people from its culture and source of knowledge. Thus the West became the source from which knowledge and information were received.
g) They made westernisation the measure of progress in everything. Thus the West became their Qibla (direction to which they turn) and example which they follow in thought and action.
h) They passionately loved integration and unification with Europe. They consider Turkey a part of Europe. They exaggerated in their passion for the West to the point that they did not object to the opening of western army bases in their country. The West came to set the wages of employees in their country, and even the price of services, without the feeling of hurt to their emotions. So the West knows best and knows what to do best. Under the pretext of the NATO alliance they made the presence of American, English, French and Italian soldiers an acceptable matter. Even some military operations were launched from their land, as happened in northern Iraq for example. Is this not occupation?! Is not the IMF’s fixing of their budget and policies an occupation?!
i) They approved of the control exercised by the enemies over the straights of the Bosporous and Dardannelles and other strategic areas. Thus they wasted the interests of the Ummah. Is this not an occupation?!
j) Despite the fact that Turkey is one of the richest countries in the world which contains abundant natural resources, the Turkish people live in a state of backwardness, abasing poverty and lamenting from the enormity of the foreign debt which has reached 110 billion dollars.
Is it reasonable to assume that any sensible Turkish Muslim will approve of this reality? This indeed is colonialism itself. The kafir colonialist has achieved all he wanted of aims and goals in Turkey. The rulers of this country are nothing but guardians of the interests of kufr in this country.
5) Conclusion:
While everyone is busy talking about integration with Europe the following facts have become clear:
a) The independence that they claimed did not liberate the country from the occupying enemies. Rather it separated Turkey from the rest of the Islamic countries, destroyed the Khilafah, and cleared the way for the enemies of Allah, for the Jews, etc. They cleared the way for these Kuffar from the threat of the Islamic State which disturbed the order of their lives for centuries.
b) While they are discussing Turkey’s entrance into the EU we find that Europe has actually already entered Turkey. Society’s culture, laws, systems, consumer goods, and large institutions which control the course of the economy, together with the NATO alliance, and the Council of European security and co-operation, in Turkey are all European. In conclusion, it is obligatory upon us to rid ourselves of the West, its institutions and its culture which is firmly rooted within us. And we must return to the Islamic way of life to carry the Light and guidance to the world by re-establishing the righteous Khilafah without which there is no power for the Muslims. It is the only path that can save the Muslims from the despicable situation in which they live. And that will only happen according to the divine law:
until they change what is within themselves " [Ar-Ra’d:11]
