Religious Commentaries After The Prophet In Islam

In general, the following religious commentaries are made after the Prophet in Islam:

  1. The Religious Commentary of Abbasids: This is the commentary influenced by Maturidies and Asharies.
  2. The Religious Commentary of Shiites: This is generally influenced by the Scholastic commentators of Mutazile.
  3. The Religious Commentary of Andalusian Omayyads: This is influenced by Mutazila and the Religious Sect of Zahiriye.

All the other religious sects are included in these three groups.

Abbasid Religious Commentary is based on the Philosophy of Ashary and Maturidy .This is a commentary between the Seen and the Unseen (Zahir –Batın)

The Religious Precept of Iran is based on the Scholastic theologians of Mutazila concerning mainly the exterior aspects of Religion. The religious sect of İsmailiye of the Shiites is a spiritual commentary.

The Religious Commentaries of Andalusia Umayyads depend on Mutazila on extreme exterior aspects. It strongly opposes Ahl-al Bait (The Family of the Prophet), the Hashimids, Walis (Sufism) and Spirituality. It is a philosophical and exterior religious commentary. They made the Religion completely worldly; they ignored the mysticism of Religion and commented on the worldly aspects of religion.

The following are the fathers of ideas of the Religious commentators of Umayyads: Davud-u Zahiri: (Kufa 818- Baghdad 884)

Ibn Hazm (Kurtuba 994- Manta Lişan 1064): He is the founder of Zahiriye Religious Sect. He comes from the descendants of the Umayyad. He is against to all the sects of Shiites and the People of Sunnat.

Ibn-i Taymiyya (Harran 1263-Damascus 1328), Ibn Haldun (Tunis 1322- Cairo 1406): They are mostly the supporters of Zahiriye.

Ibn Rushd (Kurtuba 1126- Merakesh 1198): He is 100 percent Aristotle Logician. He claims that either spiritual or physical (including the Absolute Truth) all kinds of realities can be known through reason, using partial intellect. He is the most rationalist person in Islam. There is no conflict between the commentaries of Abbasids-The People of Sunnat (Ashary and Maturidy Sect) and Shiites (Jafary and Zaydi Sects) in origin. They are close to each other in belief and in practice.

Nevertheless, the religious commentary of the Umayyad opposes both of them. They are always in conflict. They strongly oppose the religious precepts of Shiites and the People of Sunnat. They are very conservative and traditional.

The religious commentary of the Umayyad objects to Spiritualism, mysticism and Sufism. Their antagonisms towards Ahl -al Bait, Sunnat, Sufism, and Tariqat are obvious. They support the Arabic Umayyad Nationalism. They continue the antagonism towards the Family of the Prophet, Hashimids and Sayyids.

And there is also the Religious Commentary of Ottomans after 1517: The Catechism of the People of Sunnat prepared, written and used in order to form a public opinion by Sheikhulislam (the dignitary responsible for matters connected with the canon law etc..) after 1500 is not 80 percent related to the Koran and the Practice (Sunnat) of the Prophet. It is a philosophical, theoretical and theological doctrine established according to the Rules of Aristotle Logic using Partial Intellect and it is not based on Divine Revelation.

This is not the belief of Selef because Selef does not accept rationalist and scholastic tenets. We have already explained this thoroughly in our book called “Religious Sects in Islam and Ascending (Islam’da Mezhepler ve Yükseliş)”: Selefi Salihin (Holy Men of Old) are spiritualists and they are against Philosophy and Scholastic Theology.

Yet, the doctrine of Ashary and Maturidy based on Scholastic Theology is the nearest philosophical, logical and theological belief to the belief of Selef. I emphasize on this reality. Unfortunately, when the catechism of the People of Sunnat is studied today, it is seen that this doctrine is not in accordance with Maturidiye and Ashariya. It was changed and deviated. It was influenced by the doctrines of the Scholastic Theologians of Andalusia Umayyads and the religious sect of Murjia. They suggest that the cruel kings should be obeyed. They take a contrary stand to Sufism, Tariqat, Spiritual Connection and Remembrance (Ziqr). They also prefer the Companions of the Prophet (Ashab) to the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al Bayt). This is called “Nasibilik (Supporting the Companions of the Prophet but ignoring the Family of the Prophet ‘Ahl al Bayt’)”. God Forbid!

The opposition to the Shiites is on the summit. This is not fair. The strong opposition to the Shiites causes the opposition to Ahla-l Bait.

As a matter of fact, Abu Sufyan and his family Hinde, Muaviye, Yazid, Yahşi, Marwan are tried to be made innocent and shown as the Companions of the Prophet. But, they are not Muslims and believers, they became Muslims on the conquest Day of Mecca reluctantly because of their fear.

“Say: The faith of those who believed on the Conquest Day will not benefit them. I will not take them into consideration so, stay away from them.” (Al-Sajda, 29)

The Family of Sufyan, the Umayyad had faith on the Day of Conquest reluctantly because of their fear. The verse is very clear. God does not accept the faith of the Family of Sufyan. According to the Koran, they are not believers, so how can they be the sacred companions of the Prophet (S.A.W.) then? They are “Muellefetül Kulub (Those whose hearts are hardened)”. (1)

They are called as “Hazrat” (Hz: the title of an exalted personage) and “R.A” (it means: May God be well pleased with him) according to the belief which is a ruse of Catechism of the Ottoman Sheikluslam and made to believe as the belief of the People of Sunnat. It is also forbidden to curse yazid who was a very cruel man and obviously an unbeliever.

Yazid declared his caliphate using his rude force, drinking wine publicly and abandoned the mosque. He was sexually crazy. He also said that he was not a Muslim and drank wine according to the Religion of Jesus. He is the cursed son of the cursed father.

What sort of a faith of the People of Sunnat is this that they call the sinner, cruel, rebellious muaviye as “hazret” whom Shafiis called as “the People of Sinners”; Ashary called as “rebellion” and the Prophet said as the “rapacious, wild king” and “the people of sinner and rebellion”.

Yet, according to the religious sects of Maturidy and Ashary, cruel muaviye and amr ibnül As are rebellious. They are mischief-makers, plotters and intriguers. They rebelled against the true (Haq) Imam: Hz. Shah-ı Walayat Aliyel Murtaza, on account of this against Islam as well, which is infidelity.

On this subject, Taftazani and Hasan al Ashary even said: “Hz. Aisha, Hz. Talha and Hz. Zubayr had made a mistake but they returned back from their mistake, they felt regretful and apologized” but “muaviye and amr ibn as rebelled against the true -Haq Imam Hazrat Ali”. Ashary added saying that “Hz. Ali is such a true Imam that Haq (God) never leaves him.” (2) Imam Shafii also says: “Muaviye is a rebel and cruel”. (3)

(1) Those who do not believe by heart are the ones who have suspicions in their hearts. (hadith)

(2) “Kelâm İlminin Başlıca Meseleleri” by Prof. Dr. Ebulvefa el Taftazani trans. By Şerafettin Gölcük, Kayıhan Publ. İstanbul, p. 86 and so on...

(3) See “Mezhepler Tarihi” by M. Ebu Zehra p.334 Üçdal Publ.

The Most High Prophet (S.A.W) said about Ammar bin Yasir, who is a strong believer from Yasir Family and from one of the first martyrs: “Inne Ammar’en tektüluhu fieti’l bağiye-Certainly Ammar will be killed by the rebels, by the people of Sinners.”(4)

     And Ammar, who was a strong Companion of the Prophet, was killed by Sufyanies (Muaviya’s Family) during the Siffin Battle.

     Said-i Nursi Efendi also approves it saying: “Hz. Ali who is the King of Sanctity made wars in order to protect the Religion and the Caliphate, but Muaviye and his supporters fought for the worldly riches (Sultanate) and Hz. Ammar was killed by Muaviye and his supporters.” (5)

     Shortly, the belief called as Catechism of the People of Sunnat was deviated from Maturidy and Ashary Doctrine. It is such a belief that it was changed and formed by Sheikhulislams after 1517. It is not the belief of the People of Sunnat and it cannot be.

     We should also mention that in the Literature of Islam “Nasibilik or Nasibiyyun” which means to support the Companions of the Prophet but ignoring the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al Bait) whom Allah and His Prophet (A.S.W) loved and praised. This is “infidelity” according to Ghazzali because the opposition of Ahl al Bait  is the opposition of the Prophet.

     The religious belief of the Scholastic Theologians of the Umayyad is against the religious precepts of Iran, the Scholastic theologians of Abbasids and all the other religious sects including the People of Sunnat, Maturidy, Ashary, Hanefi, Shaafi, Maliky, Hanbely, Jafari, Ismaily and Zaydi. It is a sort of precept that depends on exteriority and it opposes and hates all the other precepts. The Umayyads and their continuation Andalusia Umayyads continued the hatred of the Hashimites and they prepared and lasted the religious precepts based on the antagonism towards the Hashimites.

(4) Thirmidhi, Müslim, Tac trans. vol.3, p.688

(5) See “Mektubat” p.112-114 and also “Sözler, Hakikat Nurları” by Saidi Nursi (published in 1953)

But Allah the Most High finally destroyed and put an end to this state that went astray and hated the Family of the Hashimites as well as the Family of the Prophet and that was also against the Abbasid Religious interpreters who were Hashimites. (6)

     Those who sometimes defend these Umayyads and Andulisian Umayyads in our country are the people who are still the enemies of Hashimites and Abbasids (Shiites and Sunnis). Shortly, they are the enemies of Ahl al Bayt, the Hashimites Family and the Friends of Allah and Tariqat because Tariqats generally come from the Family of the Hasimites, the Sayyids, that is: from the Family of the Prophet “Ahl al Bayt” and the Muslim saints (Walis) of Allah. For this reason, they always strongly oppose Ahl al Bayt and The Friends of God (Walis).

     They are completely interested in the exterior aspects of religion. They are neither Sunnis nor Shiites but directly the supporters of the Zahiriye Sect. They are the people who make the religion worldly and replace the caliphate of the Prophet with the kingdom, sultanate and sovereignty. The first person who absurdly started the kingdom, sovereignty in Islam is the King of the Umayyad; Muaviye Ibn Abu Sufyan who was a wild and cruel king. (7)

     However, something happened; After the battle between Sultan Yavuz Selim, some of the Ottoman Theological Scholars that supported Umayyads started a strong opposition to Iran and the Shiites using this political conflict. While doing so, they took the advantage of the works of the Theological Scholars of the Andalusia Umayyads (such as Ibn-i Hazım who was the founder of the Zahiriye Sect). As a result, the Theological Scholars of the Ottoman Empire had been the supporters of the Umayyads. They went too far from the Abbasid Religious Precepts and became a strong opponent of Shiites. The People of Sunnat were confused and harmed by this. They intended to make our people love the Umayyads.

(6) “My beloved, truly We have given you Kawsar “Ahl al Bayt” (Kawsar, 1)

“Better is the Night of Qadir than a thousand month” (Qadir, 3)

     According to the Islamic Literature, depending on these two verses, Umayyads, who reigned between 661-750 for 89 years; which make 1000 months, were beaten by Abbasids who were Hashimites. It was proved that the holy Family of the Prophet were better than Umayyads that ruled for 1000 months.

(7) The Exalted Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) says: “The Caliphate will last 30 years after me. And then, a rapacious king will come”. Thirty years later, muaviye, who was the son of Sufyan, came to rule.

     Abu Davud, Thirmizi, Nesei from Said b. Cumhan, Tac Trans., vol. 3, p. 79, Bekir Sadak, İst.1973 also Sahih-i Bukhari and Tecrid-i Sarih trans. Diy. İşl. Bşk. Publications

     In formality, although the other three sects (8) have not been denied by the Ottoman Theological Scholars until now, the Islamic States have never had “an official (formal) Sect”. The official Religious sect has always been the Hanefi Sect. But, after Selim, the theological scholars of the Ottoman Empire started to support Zahiriye Sect. Only the name of the Hanefi Sect was left.

     Abu Hanife was fond of Ahl al Bayt. He was the disciple-the adherent of Hz. Imam Jafar. He is well-known with his saying: “If I had not had two more years and if I had not met Jafar al Sadiq, I would have been perished”.

     So, the Ottoman Religious Precept consisted of Abbasid Religious Precept that lasted until the problem between Shah Ishmael and Sultan Selim was close to Shiites and it did not have any conflicts with the religious precept of Shiites. However, after Shah Ishmael and Yavuz Sultan Selim, some of the Ottoman Theological Scholars used this advantage and approached the Religious Precepts of the Theological Scholars of Andalusia Umayyads.

Consequently, the Ottoman Religious Commentary after Yavuz Selim became a synthesis of Abbasid-Umayyad Religious Commentary. In the History of the Religious Sects, there was also “Ottoman Religious Commentary” after Yavuz.

     The Theological Scholars of Andulisian Umayyads follow the belief of Mutazila. They have no relation with Ashary and Maturidy Doctrines. They support Zahiriye Sect and they do not support the belief of the People of Sunnat.

The theological Scholars of Umayyads are the opponents of Hashimites. As Abbasids and the Shiites of Iran were Hashimites or the supporter of Hashimids, they strongly opposed to them politically and scientifically and they are still continuing it. Our brothers of the People of Sunnat and Shiites must be aware of these facts and should do some researches on them.

After this date, Muaviye, the son of Sufyan, the first founder of the Umayyad and the Umayyads whose names had never been mentioned until Yavuz, in Anatolia, were started to be defended at the Ottoman Medreses (Theological Schools). Yet, the people of Anatolia, who were the supporters of Ahl al Bayt had never accepted this and they stated and proved their hatred and opposition to cursed muaviye, mervan, abu sufyan, hinde and yazid, who were the foes of Hz. Ali, by not naming their children with their names.

Our people of Sunnat are the strong lovers and supporters of the Family of the Prophet. Fortunately, they are still continuing to salute the Family of Hashimites respectfully:

(8) The religious sects of Maliki, Shafii and Hanbely.


“Allahümme salli ala seyyidina Muhammedininnebiyil ümmiyil Haşimiyyi ve ala âlihi ve sahbihi ve sellim.”

To sum up, there are four kinds of religious commentaries in Islam. All the other fractions are included in these four groups: They are as follows:

1- Hashimites-Abbasid Religious Commentary: They are four sections in action as Ashary, Maturidy, Selefi and Sufis. All of them are called “Ehl-i Sunnat or Sunnis”.

2- The Religious Commentary of Iran Shiites: Jafaries, Zaydis, Ismailis: All of them are the religious commentaries of Shiites.

We call all of them “Shia”. They support the Hashimites, Imam Ali and his sons. Their evidence in Jurisprudence is the Koran and the Sunnat of the Prophet. Their Scholastic (Kelâmi) belief is the belief of Mutazila.

3- The religious commentary of the theological scholars of Andulisian umayyads: They are the opponents of Hashimites-Abbasids, Hz. Ali and his sons. They support the State of the Umayyad founded in Damascus, and their founders. They continue the Arabic Nationalism of the Umayyad. In another word, they are racists and tribal.

Their theological belief is the strong rationalism based on Mutazila and Aristotle Logic. Their evidence in Jurisprudence is depended on the exterior meaning of the Koran. They disregard the Sunnat and do not respect it. They have no respect for the Holy Hadiths either. They support Zahiriye sects.

4- A Religious Commentary of the Ottoman Scholars emerged after the 16th century as it is explained above.

In this way, Ashary and Maturidy Doctrines, which are the precepts of Hashimites and Abbasids, were mispresented with the Precepts of Andalusia Umayyads and a new kind of religious precept was developed by the Scholastic Theologians of Ottomans and it was called as “The Faith of the People of Sunnat”.

Sufis and independent religious scholars were threatened and restrained by this belief. The preachers and muftis (mufti: official expounders of Mohammedans (S.A.W.)) who were connected with the rank of Sheikhulislam (sheikhulislam: specialist on Islamic Law) accused those who opposed to this belief by being astray. They imposed, constituted a belief that confounded truth with falsehood.

Yet Allah the Most High says:

“Velatelbisül hakke bil batıl-Do not confound Truth with Falsehood!” (Baqarah, 42)

After 1517, they harmed both themselves and the Muslim people by means of this. Furthermore, they convinced these confusing beliefs in the name of the founders of the four religious sects. However, they were not like the four expounders of the Islamic Law (Mujtahid), they were the theological scholars of Jurisprudence.

The belief of the Four Mujtahids: Hazrat Hanefi, Shaafi, Maliki and Hanbeli was the belief of the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al Bayt) and the companions of the Prophet... shortly it was the belief of Hazrat Ali and Hz. Abu Baqr.

The founders of four sects had no relation with the Philosophical and Theological Doctrines based on the Logic of Aristotle even they were Ashary or Maturidy. (9)

These theological and philosophical beliefs have not been set up by the founders of the four sects. They are the beliefs formed using Practical Intellect (reason) theoretically and rationally. This is known by all the scholars.

Although the authority to kill or to move those they thought as infidels or perverse using threats, oppression and fatwa (opinion on legal matters) was taken from the Ulama (Theological Scholars) with the Proclamation of the Republic, the belief, which was a combination of Abbasids, Ashary, Maturidy and Andulisian Umayyad precepts, has continued for years and it is still continuing.

Today, only the authority to give fatwa and to oppress people is taken from them. Ulama is the same Ulama, attitudes are the same attitudes, their beliefs are the same beliefs.

Thus, the discomfort of the Mullahs today is due to the loss of authority to give fatwa. Or else, they would want to deceive people by teaching the religious precepts which were altered in many ways as if the belief of Ahl al Sunnat Vel Cemaat (the Muslims) and to fear them by gaining the authority based on the state to rule and to set up a religious dominion on them.They want to continue their personal benefits in this way.

They certainly know that the prophetic, real Islamic Canonical Jurisprudence was abolished when Imam Hasan gave up the duty of being a Caliphate and then a tyrant, dominion kingdom was in charge of it.

(9) See: “Religious Sects in Islam and Ascending (İslâm’da Mezhepler ve Yükseliş)” by Kâzım Yardımcı, İzmir, 1988.


The sovereignty brought out by cruel, wicked Muaviye was completely opposite to Islâm. It was continued with the name as “Sultanate” in Abbasids after Umayyads and “Kingdom” in Ottoman Empire and “Sovereignty of Shah” in Iran. And this false Caliphate was told to the people as it was the real Caliphate.

The real five Caliphs were Hz. Abubaqr, Omar, Osman, Ali and Hasan. (10) The caliphates after Hz. Hasan are not true and they are kings. It is not possible to mention the Shariat of the Prophet where there is no real Prophetic Caliphate. As a matter of fact, when History is studied, it is seen that the Punishment System of Shariat (Ukubat) was not applied but the punishment was asserted with the orders of the Kings. (11) The Punishment Laws of Islam were applied 50 percent in Abbasids. There is no such a concept as Shariat in Umayyads anyway. It is completely depended on human nature and very cruel.

The law system and the Transaction Law of Shariat are actually personal. It is not possible to prevent it. For instance, in Devolution of Inheritance, any family has a right to share the inheritance according to Shariat and have it registered in Land Register because Civil Law accepts the free consent of Partition (Division). Muslims were not forced to do so by nobody and by no law. Divorce is legal unlike in Christianity. Spouses (wife or husband) are not ordered not to divorce. In none of the laws, there is no law such as forbidding the recitation of the Koran, performing worships or similar enforcements. They do not exist in laws in Turkey.

Shortly, there is no such a law that prevents Muslims from living in Islamic way.

The Criminal Law of Islam was applied neither by Umayyad (except Omar b. Abdulaziz) nor by Abbasids or Ottomans. History testifies to it. All the theological scholars of Religion are aware of this fact. Then, what is the problem of these Mullahs? Wine shops (taverns) and brothels were left from the Ottomans to today. Their problem is to gain the authority of fatwa (decision of mufti) supported by the government, as mentioned above; and to force people to respect them and to have prestige by frightening them.

(10) The Caliphate of the Four Caliphs lasted 29 and a half years (29,5). Hz. Hasan served as a caliph for six months and it makes totally 30 years. Our Prophet said: “The Caliphate will last 30 years after me and then a cruel, sinner king will come.”

(11) The law books of Fatih and the Codes of Laws of Kanuni were not related to Shariat, they were the personal orders of Fatih and Kanuni. The Ottoman People had been ruled by these orders and law books.

If it is studied, it will be seen that the Western Criminal Laws agree with the crimes Islam considers as illegal, but their ways of punishment are different.

When the Religions to which the Divine Books were sent are examined, it is seen that, in the systems of 28 Prophets, of our Prophet and of the Five Caliphs, including Hz. Hasan, as well as in the Islamic Shariat Laws, there is no imprisonment. In Islam, the suspect is under arrest until the verdict of the Judge.

The punishment in Islamic Criminal Law is physical and financial such as retaliation, blood money and beating with a stick.The criminal either pays for the penalty or he is beaten by a stick and then he is released. Imprisonment is a way of punishment which came from the ancient Kingdoms in History. The practices such as keeping people in narrow places and imprison them are the practices of Caesars, Pharaohs (Ramses), Chosroes, Omayyads Abbasids, Ottomans and of similar sultans, shahs and kings.

There is no prison in the Law Systems of all the Prophets and the Five Caliphs. History, the Four Books (the Koran, Tawrat (Torah), Zabur, (the Psalms of David) and Injil (Gospel, New Testament) are the witnesses of this.

Another name of the prisons is “The graves of the alive”. It is as if putting them in a narrow place before they die. If a person stays in prison for 10 years, he is withered psychologically and physically, in addition to the great suffering on his family he causes.

His body and spirit are destroyed psychologically and now that he is depressed. In this case, what improvements (rehabilitation) do the prisons, jails enable for people? His family, his wife and his children are faced to all kinds of dangers. He loses his freedom.

How well is a person who is not free? This subject remains to be discussed.

It is also true that even the worst king of the Ottoman Kings is much closer to the Divine Family of the Prophet and the Wise mystical and spiritual teachers of Tariqat than the Theological Scholars (Ulema) of the Ottoman Empire are. They are very affectionate and respectful to them.

The Ottoman Palace have already showed sympathy and respect to the Masters of Sufism and Tariqats and the Family of the Prophets (Sayyids). I deem to tell this truth as a duty of conscience although it is a historical truth. In our opinion, if the Ottoman Kings had not behaved in this way, this conservative Ottoman Theological Scholars would have made it worse. We would not have been able to listen to Turkish Art Music or would have been deprived of music. This was prevented by the Ottoman Kings and the Palace. There were also some great personalities among these theological scholars (Ulama). I consider them free from this subject.

In Islam, there is no hereditary system. Islamic law does not concern the right of heirs but the Sultanate System is based on hereditary, which is the right of the son or brother to receive the title of the King or Emperor in the same family.

In Turkey, the supporters of Radical Secularism are either unaware of these facts or they are influenced by some materialists. Or, most of them do not have a detailed Islamic Knowledge. After 1517, in the religious commentaries and precepts of the theological Scholars of the Ottomans, which were equipped by a thousand kinds of superstitions, legends and silly tales and which was away from the real essence of Islam, the Real Shariat System of the Prophet does not exist and even more, this Ulama class does not wish this system.

However, in the systems of the Prophet and of his five Caliphs together with Imam Hasan, there was not any murdering or punishing with fatwa. For this reason, these mullahs do not have a place in real Islam.

All kinds of religious service was done for the sake of Allah in the Prophetic System. Religious service requiring payment exists in Sultanic Caliphate. They know this reality very well so they do not want the real Islamic system as the real Islamic system is based on Republicanism and freedom. Also, the economical view of the Prophet is social. In the real Islamic System, the rich do not have a power of dominion over the society.

“Beware! This property shall not be the property which is circulated between the rich among you and dominion over you.”(Hash, 7)

Most of the Ulema class and half Mullahs who are their continuation, are actually a kind of materialists. They have made the religion worldly and the Paradise physical. They almost destroyed the divine characteristics of religion. What they want is to be given back their authority of fatwa and to acquire the costume of religion. They also deceive people by adding some Arabic words into their speech in order to influence them. Their only aim is to force people to obey them and to exploit them by means of this.

They also want to be shown respect while walking around the town with their gowns and turbans. For this reason, they desire the forceful sultanate system to come back, which is suitable with their personal benefits and based on a false caliphate instead of a republican system.

These conservative, materialist mullahs, who support the violence, actually want their King but not Shariat. I consider those who support republic and freedom free from this subject and I send them my regards.

The radical secularists in Turkey constantly criticizing the Shariat, as they do not know these facts and do not have detailed Islamic Knowledge and as some of them are influenced by materialists. Therefore, they unintentionally give the advantage to those mullahs who support the Kings and Emperors. This is what those Mullahs already want: They would like the radical secularists to rebuke Shariat aggressively so that they will complain them to people, as they are the enemies of Religion.

If secularists defend for democratic secularism instead of radical secularism, this dangerous, fanatic mullah class, who objects to the Republican System but supports sovereignty, will lose and our Republic will be protected because mullahs are not the supporters of Shariat but they are only the noisy advertisers of it. There is no real religion and real Islam where there is no freedom and democracy.

Monarchism, which is pestered Islam by the Umayyad and which is based on the personal principles of the Kings, Emperors and Sultans, is an extremely cruel, fascist and a despot system. It is a dictatorship. The existence of some of the good kings such as Omar b. Abdulaziz and Murat Hudavendigar do not disprove that the monarchic system is the opposite of Islamic system. The favors of the good Kings are their own goodness, but not because of the favor of the Monarchy. These good kings are very rare in History anyway; they are only a few. The most important thing is the system. The Islamic System is democratic and it is respectful to the human rights and the freedom of people.

The Western Democracy is not Islamic but social democracy is the nearest to Islam. Cordial piety does not exist in a place where there is no democracy.

According to the Prophet’s Hadith, “The Caliphate-Shariat will last 30 years after me. Then, a rapacious, cruel Monarchy will start”. Therefore, if a person who is not like Hz. Ali, Hz. Abu Baqr, Hz. Omar, Hz. Osman, I mean (That is to say), not like the Four Caliphs, he is not able to serve as a caliph and Shariat cannot be applied. It is a fascist regime or a dictatorship then. Cruelty and oppression are practiced in the name of Shariat. Every personal order of the King is shown as the order (command) of the Shariat and Ulema approves it because of their fear. The name of cruelty becomes shariat. God Forbid!

The Four Caliphs were very pious, just and democratic great personalities; and they were loved by their people very much.