#attaturk

[literary-illuminati]

Okay look I know you know who Attaturk was. You mentioned him like half a chapter ago.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Pahlavi Regime

The coup of February 1921 that brought General Reza Khan to power set into motion the creation of the modern centralized Iranian nation-state. The Pahlavi state should be seen alongside the other right-wing nationalist regimes that arose around this time in response to both the dissolutions brought about by WWI and the threat of the October Revolution. Reza Shah may be fruitfully compared to his contemporary in Turkey, Atatürk, as well as the models of authoritarian nationalist development seen in Germany, Italy, and Japan. As with these latter cases, the Pahlavi regime was “the product of a counter-attack by a weak capitalist class against a revolutionary movement, in a country that has slipped behind in the process of capitalist development. This class could only redress this position by repression and state-directed economic growth.”[10]

The political logic of this period can be summarized as state-building. Once the new government negotiated the withdrawal of Soviet and British troops, it moved to crush all remaining forms of opposition and centers of power. The powerful tribal armies were brought to heel, while autonomous and local powers, as well as rival officers in pursuit of power, were all crushed. A modern army capable of effectively asserting state power was assembled, followed soon after by nationwide conscription, government ID cards, the abolition of aristocratic titles, and the imposition of formal sur-names. Since the central pillars of the “new order” were a modern army and bureaucracy, the regime sought to extend the power of the state to all realms of society. Local languages were banned, and Persian was made the official language of the country. A modern educational system operating beyond the control of the clergy was established, and something similar was done with the courts, ushering in a modern legal system independent of the religious orders. Perhaps the most symbolic of these changes was the ban on the chador, which, alongside the rest of such reforms, provoked the ongoing ire of the clergy.[11]

Many reformists, and even some to their left, initially supported Reza Khan. Like the Lasalleans in support of Bismark, they thought that by supporting Reza Khan they could push through many of the reforms that ran into dead ends when employing exclusively democratic channels. In 1925, the Qajar Dynasty was abolished, but unlike Attaturk, who founded a republic, the following year he crowned himself Reza Shah Pahlavi and founded a new dynasty.[12] Reza Shah continued solidifying his rule with an iron fist. The regime promoted a chauvinistic nationalist ideology that appealed to the imperial glories of pre-Islamic Persia. The state in this period can be best summarized as a monarchical-military dictatorship.

While the environment was repressive, the industrialisation projects of this era increased the size and importance of the working class, within which communists organized successful union drives. This culminated in 1929, when a massive strike broke out at the Abadan oil refinery complex, which was under the ownership and control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The strike shook the ruling classes in both Iran and Britain, and served not only as a key event in the history of the working class movement in Iran, but also as a test for the state’s ability to maintain social order. The government responded with a great show of force, ratcheting up repression against communists. In 1931, a new law was enacted that criminalized the teaching and promotion of “communist” ideologies, banned trade unions, made striking illegal, and initiated a new wave of repression of socialist activists and intellectuals were imprisoned.[13]

Although the Pahlavi state enjoyed a degree of independence from the dominant classes, this also tended indirectly to facilitate the latter’s rule. Under both Pahlavi Shahs, it was through the state that capitalist development and industrialization took place. It was through the state that the modern capitalist class was consolidated and expanded, a fact that would remain no less true under the current day Islamic Republic. In many respects, it could be argued that both the Pahlavi regime and the Islamic Republic share features with the imperial state of Napoleon III after the coup of 1852: the latter built a state that was relatively autonomous from the ruling classes, yet which was in the end to the benefit of those classes as a whole, having “destroyed the political domination of the bourgeoisie only to preserve its social domination.”[14]

The reign of Reza Shah came to an end with World War Two. In the intervening years, the Iranian regime grew closer to the axis powers, particularly Germany, with whom it had affinities both political and ideological. The number of German advisors, engineers, and workers had increased greatly. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Allies wanted to use Iran to send weapons from the Persian Gulf to the Russian front. When Reza Shah refused, the Allies promptly invaded and occupied the country. Reza Shah abdicated in favor of his young son, Muhammad Reza, and lived the rest of his life in exile.

The Allied invasion of 1941, which caused the fall of Reza Shah’s dictatorship, opened up a period of popular political mobilization and activity. Political prisoners were released, trade unions reconstituted themselves, and political parties began to come into shape. While the invasion caused the fall of Reza Shah, the Allies still maintained the state, particularly the monarchy and the military. The Allies would occupy Iran until after the end of the war, with once again the Soviets occupying the north and the British occupying the south. This is also the beginning of the American involvement in Iran, with a military mission sent to Iran to rebuild the army.

When the communist prisoners were released a core of them founded the Tudeh [masses] Party, which would be the official pro-Moscow communist party in Iran. The party had a democratic-populist platform and attracted many intellectuals and middle-class elements. It was also a major presence among the industrial working class, organizing what would be by the end of the decade the largest trade union confederation in the Middle East.

After the war, Iran would be the stage for the confrontation of many social struggles, as well as the first conflict of the cold war. In 1946, the Soviets continued to occupy the north after the agreed upon allied withdrawal. Two autonomous republics were founded in Mahabad and Azerbaijan under the protection of the Red Army. At the same time, a number of communists were included in the post-war coalition government. The Soviets withdrew their forces, and the imperial army moved in with great repression. The communists were also pushed from government, as would be the case with the fall of the coalition governments of France and Italy in 1947. This was the first victory of the new US-Iran military alliance that had begun during the war.

Following the Second World War, the movement for Iranian national independence experienced an upsurge, focused on the demand to nationalize Iranian oil. At the center of this surge was the National Front, led by Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh, who soon gained a mass following and was made Prime Minister in 1951. The National Front was not a party with a single ideology, but an alliance of various parties united around national independence through the oil question. When parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, the British reacted immediately by imposing an economic blockade on Iran. The result was a great strain on the economy and a major increase in social tensions. The Tudeh Party was increasingly showing their strength. The United States feared that the uncertain situation would create an opportunity for Tudeh to seize power. This was the beginning of the successful coup by pro-Shah rightist military generals in 1953.[15]

The 1953 coup closed the door on the social movements that had opened up with WW2. The period that followed was one of severe repression. The coup would solidify the position of the Shah and the military against all rivals and competing sources of power. It also established the United States as the dominant imperialist power, supplanting the British. The main weight of the repression came against the communists in the Tudeh Party. The party’s network was rooted out and the trade union confederation destroyed. Many militants were imprisoned, executed, or went into exile. It was in order to facilitate this new order that the US helped the regime set up a new secret police force, the Organization for Information and Security of the Country, known commonly by its Persian acronym, SAVAK. Its name would come to be synonymous with repression and torture under the Shah’s dictatorship.

[herricahyadi]

Assalamualaikum bang herri. Bang, bgmn sih pandangan ttg Utsmani bagi masyarakat turki sendiri? Lalu sebagai orang yg tinggal di turki, menurut bang herri apa perubahan yg paling dirasakan di kehidupan sehari-hari sebelum & sesudah erdogan memimpin?

Waalaikumsalam wrwb.

Pertanyaan Dini tanggal 6 November 2016, Pkl. 06.09 pagi. Baru sempat dibalas, maaf ya. Semoga masih berlaku.

Begini, secara umum masyarakat Turkiye itu terbagi ke dalam beberapa kelompok:

Islamis dan konservatif. Mereka soal Ottoman mutlak dan benci Attaturk.

Islamis dan modernis. Mereka menghargai Ottoman dan juga Attaturk.

Nasionalis dan konservatif. Mereka sangat menjunjung tinggi etnisitas dan Turk segala-galanya.

Sekularis-liberalis. Biasanya mereka benci Ottoman dan menggilai Attaturk.

Mereka biasanya akan terpecah menjadi jamaat dan afiliasinya ke parpol. Jadi, secara sederhana bisa dilihat seperti itu. Sampai sekarang polanya sama dan sepertiya tidak akan pernah berubah. Jadi, mengetahui karakter seperti ini akan mudah mengamati perpolitikan Turki.

Dulu ya, perubahan terasa di ekonomi dan kemajuan fasilitas. Ekonomi Turki tahun 2016 itu masih sangat baik. Meski setelah tahun itu baru mulai terasa inflasi, terutama setelah Turki berantem dengan US soal ekspor baja. Sampai sekarang inflasi dan ekonomi Turki belum pulih. Tapi, waktu saya datang ke Turki tahun 2014, terasa sekali apa-apa sangat mahal. Rupiah tidak ada artinya. Namun, sekarang situasi berubah. Secara nilai tukar Rupiah sangat bagus. Tapi harga-harga juga naik.

[jeannereames]

Hello Professor Reames! How has the Macedonian Question influenced the historiography around Alexander?

The Macedonian Question & Ancient Macedonian Studies

(or, Come study ancient Macedonia! We cause riots!)

I’ll begin by explaining, for those unfamiliar, the “Macedonian Question” centers on who gets to lay claim to the name “Macedonia” and (originally) the geographical region, which is ethnically diverse but majority Slavic. It arose during the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912-13, then returned after the breakup of Yugoslavia, from 1989 on.

I’ve been a bit chary about replying to this simply because it is (still) a hot topic, if not what it used to be even 10 years ago. Also…expect maps. Let me lead with three points:

1) The ancient Macedonians certainly weren’t Slavic. Slavs didn’t arrive in the area until the 6th century CE (AD), a millennia after Alexander lived. No ancient historian claimed they were Slavs, although some Slavic Nationalists used carefully edited quotes from ancient historians to support their own claims to the ancient Macedonians.

2) A lot of different peoples have passed through the Balkans and northern Greece (and even southern Greece) between now and 2300+ years ago. The Balkans have continued to be an ethnically contested area from antiquity to modernity, and who was “in charge” depended on what century it was.

3) Ancient concepts of Greek ethnicity didn’t ossify until around the Greco-Persian Wars. Prior to that, Greeks were more aware of/concerned with their citizenship/ethnicity in specific city-states (poleis) and/or language family groupings (Ionic-Attic, Doric, Aeolic).

Furthermore, these views were based on MYTH. To be Greek (Hellenic) meant to be descended from the mythical forerunner, Hellen, son of the equally mythical Dukalion (who survived the Flood…e.g., Greek Noah). There were other children of Dukalion, including a daughter Thyia. Thyia became the mother of Makedon, the mythical progenitor of the Macedonians.

So, by ancient criteria, Macedonians weren’t Hellenes (Greek). But they were kissing cousins. The ancients took these things seriously. That’s why I wanted to explain, so when the ancient Greeks said Macedonians weren’t Greeks, it didn’t mean what we’d consider it to mean today.

Back to the Macedonian Question … the issue of the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians got tied up in modern politics when Yugoslavia fell apart. During the First Balkan War and the division of Macedonia in 1913, “Macedonian Studies” didn’t exist yet. By the Third Balkan War (collapse of Yugoslavia), they did. And history was suddenly being pressed into the service of modern political agendas.

Now, let me back up and explain—as briefly as I can (so expect some judicious epitomizing)—the emergence of modern Greece and the First and Second Balkan Wars.

The Ottoman Empire began to collapse (not just decline) in the 1800s, and was essentially kicked out of Europe entirely by the First Balkan War and World War I. The last of it fell apart with the rise of Attaturk and the Young Turk Revolution, so Modern Turkey emerged in 1923.

Greece was part of that. The Greek War of Independence started in 1821, and Greece secured statehood in 1829/30, then became the Kingdom of Greece in 1832/3, which lasted until the military junta abolished it in 1973, after which it became the [Third] Hellenic Republic. From independence until the end of WWII, Greek borders expanded (see map below). Fun detail, the late Prince Philip, Elizabeth II’s husband, was a Greek (and Danish) prince.

The First Balkan War began in 1912, which was the Ottoman’s last gasp in Europe. The Austro-Hungarians wanted to make the Balkans a subject state, Russia wanted more control over the Black Sea, and Greece wanted to push north towards Thessaloniki and “Constantinople” (Istanbul). Ignoring Austro-Hungary, Serbia wanted to reconstitute “Greater Serbia” (14th Century Serbian empire)—which included a good chunk of Greece. And Bulgaria, with the strongest regional army, was eying the whole area south to the sea.

Oh, and let’s add in a dose of religious difference (Muslim vs. Orthodox Christian) just for snorts and giggles.

But this was basically about SEA TRADE access. So, for the three allies against the Ottomans, e.g., Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia, Thessaloniki, Jewel of the Aegean, was the prize.

The war began October 8th, and by November 8th (1912), the three Balkan allies all hurried their armies to converge on Thessaloniki as the Ottomans withdrew. The Greeks got there mere hours ahead of the Bulgarians.

"Θεσσαλονίκη με κάθε κόστος!" (Thessaloniki, at all costs!) E. Venizelos

The war itself ended the next year (in part thanks to the Greek fleet in Thessaloniki), and Greece kept the city, and with it, still controls a lot of shipping in the Eastern Mediterranean. Shipping remains Greece’s second most profitable industry (after tourism).

Following the war’s conclusion, several issues arose, including how to partition the land—particularly the geographical region of Macedonia. The 1913 Treaty of London split it up between Bulgaria (smallest part), Greece, and Serbia (biggest part). Again, Greece and Serbia wanted to keep Bulgaria, with the most powerful army, from gaining substantially more land.

World War I intervened, and then the rise of Attaturk in Turkey and the “Megali Idea” in Greece. The Megali Idea, proposed at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI (map below), got Greece in trouble. It would have involved retaking not just the islands off Turkey’s coast, but chunks of the Turkish mainland, to match ancient Greek land claims. All THAT led to showdowns, with ongoing human rights abuses on both sides (including the Armenian Genocide earlier, which wasn’t related to Greece).

In 1923, Greece/Hellas and the new Republic of Türkiye agreed to an exchange of populations. So, Ottoman Turks/Muslims in Greece retreated to Turkey (were kicked out), and Greeks in Turkey retreated into Greece (were kicked out). About half those Greek refugees landed in Athens, whose population exploded overnight, creating an economic crisis. Many of the rest ended up in areas of northern Greece, where land from fleeing Muslims was to be had. Ergo, many new immigrants had very strong pro-Hellenic, anti-Muslim/anyone else feeling, and hadn’t been living for ages next to their (Macedonian) Slavic neighbors, who began to feel unwelcome. It also had negative effects on their Jewish neighbors, too. (The loss of Jewish life in WWII in northern Greece, especially Thessaloniki, is both shocking and heartbreaking.)

Keep in mind that the refugees on both sides had been living in their original countries not for a few decades, but for a couple centuries, or even longer in the case of the Greeks in Anatolia/Turkey. The first Greek colonies there date to the 700s/600s… BCE. There’s a good reason the Greeks and Turks hate each other, and it’s not just Cyprus. The atrocities at the beginning of the 20th Century were awful. Neither side has clean hands.

Anyway, there was a second Balkan War in 1913, which I’m ignoring, except for the map below. It amounts to Bulgaria getting pissy about their short shrift in the earlier Macedonian land division.

Then came fallout from World War II, when Greece got the Dodecanese from Italy, et al. But I want to fast forward to the collapse of The Berlin Wall in Eastern Europe, November 9, 1989, and Yugoslavia’s dissolution shortly after. That ushered in the Third Balkan War, or Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s.

Compared to the Bosnian Genocide and other shit going down with Milosevic, the return of the Macedonian Question seems minor. It involved the Yugoslavian province of Macedonia asking to be called “Macedonia” and Greece having a very public, international melt-down.

The entire dust-up confused much of the rest of the world. The number of times I’ve had to explain it to (non-Greek, non-Slavic) people, who just boggled…. I’ve also seen tourists stand in polite perplexity while Greeks went on a hand-waving tear about how Macedonia has been Greek for 4000 years!!! [I’ve got a t-shirt with that on it.] Btw, 4000 years dates before the first Helladic peoples even migrated into the peninsula. Anyway….

Greeks consider the name Macedonia theirs, on historical grounds. They didn’t object to the new country, but wanted it called Skopje, after the capital, or something, anything not “Macedonia.” Meanwhile, the (Slavic) Macedonians were enormously insulted and pointed to the fact they lived in a region called Macedonia, and their ancestors had been living there for centuries, so why couldn’t they call their new country by the name of the region it occupied? Stated fears of actual territorial expansion by either side were largely scare tactics and fringe rhetoric. It really was all about the name. But increasingly, that began to include claims on the ancient Macedonians, or cultural appropriation. The new Macedonian state (FYROM, then) didn’t do itself any favors with their choice of the (ancient) Macedonian sunburst for their flag and naming their airport after Alexander, et al.

That’s how ancient history got sucked into all of this in a way it didn’t the first time.

Now, let me repeat. The ancient Macedonians were not Slavs. The Thracians were not Slavs either, nor the Paionians, nor the Illyrians, nor the Celts north of them. You won’t find the Thracians called “Slavic” in Bulgarian Museums, even while they take very good care of their regional history.

By the 1990s, Macedonian history had emerged as something more than just “Alexander the Great and Philip,” and questions arose about who these people may have been. Were they Greeks like the Thessalians and Epirotes to their south and west? Or were they non-Greeks like the Thracians, Paionians, and Illyrians to their north? This was an academic (not modern political) question, and involved: 1) what did Makedoniste (“to speak in the Macedonian manner”) mean? Was that a dialect or a different language?; and 2) to what degree did ancient Greeks really consider them non-Greeks (e.g., barbarians)? The fact we had so little epigraphy from the area complicated the language question. And ancient Greek politics complicated the second question. Were the angry repudiations by Demosthenes & Friends a real, widely held sentiment…or just ancient Athenian nationalism and anti-Philip propaganda?

This was mostly nerdy stuff that should have remained safely ensconced at dull specialist panels at academic conferences.

Except …. Manolis Andronikos had found the Royal Tombs at Vergina in 1978, and Greece was bursting with pride (as they should have been). Macedonia was back on the map! Tourists still largely stuck to the Greek south, but The Greek Ministry of Culture and Sport saw an opportunity, even back then, to capitalize on tourism, so you can begin to see why it was important for “Macedonia” to remain Greek. Can’t have a country calling itself Macedonia and maybe confusing people about who Alexander and Philip had been, and where they’d lived (and syphoning off possible tourism dollars).

That may sound unduly cynical, but I’m actually with the Greeks on this, even if I’ve always rolled my eyes over the name thing. And, as noted above “Macedonia” was laying active claim to Philip and Alexander as if there was direct continuity between the ancient Macedonians and the modern ones. See below, the giant Alexander statue erected in Skopje (2011), the biggest in the whole city. It’s formal name these days is “Great Warrior,” by agreement with Greece in order to get to call themselves “Northern Macedonia” in NATO. But it’s Alexander.

Like I said, they weren’t doing themselves any favors, although those arguing in their defense liked to point out that Greece had started it, over the name.

Of course the increasingly heated rhetoric around the name, and ownership of Alexander and Philip, enveloped ancient history like the ash cloud from Vesuvius smothered Pompeii and Herculaneum. By the mid-1990s, “middle ground” wasn’t allowed. If one expressed any doubt about the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, that was heard as, “You’re siding with the Skopjans!” This dispute was still going strong to the point there were riots and protests at the Balkan Studies’ 7th International Symposium on Ancient Macedon in Thessaloniki on October 16, 2002. These protests erupted over the presence of Kate Mortensen, Ernst Badian, and Daniel Ogden, albeit the protests involved different objections for each scholar. Badian, along with Peter Green and Gene Borza (not present), had long been in the crosshairs of the vehement “Macedonia was Greek!” crowd. But poor Kate got targeted because of her paper, “Homosexuality at the Macedonian Court,” and Daniel had the temerity to present about witchcraft at Philip’s court (UnChristian things!). There were some 40 police called in to protect the presenters. You cannot make up this shit.

Btw, by no means were all Greeks, especially not all Greek scholars, hostile to the (largely Anglophone) Macedoniasts who questioned the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians. Olga Palagia and Gene Borza remained friends and even wrote articles together, but Olga was retired and had a certain freedom from pressure. Manolis Andronikos and Gene also remained friends until Manolis’s death in 1992. But there was an Official Party Line that had to be maintained, or risk losing an academic job or other position in the Ministry. This also got tied into the identity of the occupants of Royal Tombs I and II at Vergina. Greece’s official position is that these are Amyntas III and Philip II, respectively. This is far from a settled matter, however, especially outside Greece.

For more detail from somebody right in the middle of especially the early parts of the quarrel over who’s buried in “Philip’s Tomb” and the ethnicity of the Macedonians, check out Peter Green’s chapter 10, “The Macedonian Connection,” in Classical Bearings.

To return to the question about how it’s affected historiography, other than resulting in hostility towards non-compliant ancient historians (having their work essentially banned in Greece) and the occasional riot at an academic conference (!!), it also resulted in the production of TWO quasi-competing “Companions” to ancient Macedonia at the end of the first decade of the 2000s.

The original proposal (A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Roisman and Worthington, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) had meant to include a number of high-profile scholars of both Greek and non-Greek background. But one of those was Loring Danforth (The Macedonian Conflict). When it came out that he was writing the chapter on modern Macedonia, the Greek contributors revolted en masse. (Some were genuinely furious, others had to, to keep their jobs.) Another Companion was put together with Robin Lane Fox at the editorial helm (Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon, Brill, 2011), and the Greeks (and a few others) jumped ship. That was a nice break for some younger Macedonian scholars, incidentally, who were then tapped to write chapters for the Roisman/Worthington volume��and very good chapters, I might add. But the end result is one heavily archaeological Companion (Lane Fox) and one heavily historical one (Roisman/Worthington), and which still has Danforth.

Between the arguments of the 1990s and now, however, one important shift has occurred: enough epigraphical data has emerged, and not just later [Hellenistic], to argue the ancient Macedonians did speak a form of Doric Greek. Many/most of us are now a lot more comfortable agreeing that the ancient Macedonians can be called “Greek” without feeling as if we’re selling our academic souls--even if we may still argue that’s not Philip in Royal Tomb II...an identification that some of the younger Greeks also aren’t sold on. And Philip in Tomb II was never the highly charged political issue that the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians was. It just got tied up in it for coming up around the same time. One Greek friend put it succinctly (paraphrased), “It felt like the non-Greeks, especially the Americans and Aussies, were trying to take away Philip and Alexander from us. Tomb II wasn’t Philip, and the Macedonians weren’t even Greeks.”

That may be a bit hyperbolic, but feelings don’t necessarily respond to logic, and Greece would like to have their bona fides.

So, a chunk of the tension from the 1990s has subsided. The Greekness of the ancient Macedonians is largely a non-topic in Macedonian studies today. We’re more interested in new and exciting things like revelations from recent archaeology regarding the sophistication of the Macedonian kingdom well back into the Archaic Age, the real impact of Persia and how early, and what exactly was going on up there before (and after) the Greco-Persian Wars. Or at least, those are certainly my burning questions about the Argead Kingdom up to Philip and Alexander.

[pewartanusantara]

Ini Dia! Nonton Live Streaming Final Liga Champions 2023 Manchester City Vs Inter Milan (Gratis)

Ini Dia! Nonton Live Streaming Final Liga Champions 2023 Manchester City Vs Inter Milan (Gratis)

Pewarta Nusantara, Jakarta – Pertandingan final Liga Champions 2023 antara Manchester City vs Inter Milan dapat ditonton secara gratis melalui streaming di BT Sport.

Bagi penggemar di luar negeri, ada beberapa alternatif lain untuk menonton pertandingan ini. Salah satunya adalah melalui Paramount Plus, yang menyediakan siaran langsung bagi para penggemar di seluruh dunia.

Di Australia, 9Now juga menawarkan streaming gratis untuk pertandingan ini. Jika kamu berada di luar negeri, kamu dapat menggunakan VPN untuk menonton streaming dari mana saja.

Bagi penggemar sepakbola Indonesia, link streaming vidio dapat menjadi pilihan untuk menonton final Liga Champions 2023 antara Manchester City vs Inter Milan.

Pertandingan ini akan disiarkan langsung pada Minggu, 11 Juni 2023, pukul 02.00 WIB. Adapun lokasi pertandingan sesungguhnya adalah Stadion Attaturk Olympic, Turki, dan pertandingan ini dianggap sangat penting bagi kedua tim, karena mereka memperebutkan gelar treble winner di musim ini.

Manchester City telah memilih 23 pemain terbaiknya untuk menghadapi Inter Milan dalam pertandingan ini. Pelatih Pep Guardiola telah melakukan seleksi dengan hati-hati untuk memastikan timnya dapat mengalahkan lawan mereka.

Di sisi lain, Inter Milan memiliki strategi khusus untuk membatasi pergerakan Manchester City dan mengurangi peluang mereka mencetak gol. Tim tersebut ingin meminimalisir ancaman dari The Citizens.

Berikut adalah prediksi daftar pemain yang akan diturunkan oleh kedua tim dalam pertandingan final ini. Manchester City diperkirakan akan memainkan pemain-pemain seperti Ederson Moraes, Kyle Walker, Ruben Dias, Kevin de Bruyne, dan Erling Haaland, di bawah kendali pelatih Pep Guardiola.

Sementara itu, Inter Milan kemungkinan akan mengandalkan pemain-pemain seperti Marcelo Brozovic, Nicolo Barella, dan Lautaro Martinez di bawah asuhan pelatih Simone Inzaghi.

Untuk menonton pertandingan ini, kamu dapat mengikuti langkah-langkah berikut. Pertama, buka laman website vidio.com dan pilih menu “Sports”. Kemudian, cari logo “UEFA Champions League�� yang bersebelahan dengan logo “FIFA World Cup U20” dan klik pertandingan Manchester City vs Inter Milan. Jika belum berlangganan, aktifkan paket berlangganan yang tersedia.

Baca juga: Lautaro Martinez, Siap Melawan Manchester City di Final Liga Champions Setelah Pulih dari Cedera!

Demikianlah informasi mengenai link streaming untuk menonton final Liga Champions 2023 antara Manchester City dan Inter Milan.

New Post has been published on https://www.pewartanusantara.com/ini-dia-nonton-live-streaming-final-liga-champions-2023-manchester-city-vs-inter-milan-gratis/

[sahriannisa]

ERDOGAN DAN CITA-CITA KEDAULATAN

Turkiye menjadi salah satu negara yang menyita banyak perhatian dunia. Tidak hanya sejarahnya yang melegenda dan beberapa wisata popular, Turkiye juga sangat diperbincangkan dalam percaturan politik dunia. Sejak 1928, Turkiye secara resmi mendeklarasikan diri sebagai negara sekuler yang diprakarsai oleh Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. Sekulerisme tersebut bertahan lama dan mengakar dalam masyarakat.…

[narasisadardiri]

Hari ini 99 Tahun yang lalu, tepatnya 3 Maret 1924. Terjadi tragedi besar yang membuat kaum muslimin bak buih di lautan. Sejak saat itu umat Islam bagaikan anak ayam yang kehilangan induknya.

Pada tanggal tersebut, Khilafah yang terakhir, yaitu Kekhilafahan Turki Utsmani dihapus oleh Kemal Attaturk yang bersekongkol dengan negara-negara kafir penjajah. Kemal Attaturk merupakan dalang dan pengkhianat di balik Jatuhnya Khilafah Islamiyyah.

[ukdamo]

Today’s Flickr photo - this interior shot of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, from the gallery. Now, of course, scheduled to return to use as a mosque to the diminishment of everyone. 

[zongoh]

[atincisi21blogfree]

The father of turks

[redrcs]

Zübeyde Hanim

Retrospective, Turkey 2010, The Bosphorus

[europerate-blog]

Erdogan vs. Netherlands and the contextual consequences. https://europerate.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/erdogan-vs-netherlands-and-the-contextual-consequences

[justplanes]

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Hm-gnSIY8)

[beritarayaidn]

Pernyataannya Dipelintir Reqnews, Mahfud MD: Itu Berita Bohong

Pernyataannya Dipelintir Reqnews, Mahfud MD: Itu Berita Bohong

JAKARTA, BERITARAYA.ID – Menteri Koordinator Politik Hukum dam Keamanan (Menko Polhukam) Mahfud MD membantah pemberitaan dirinya di media Reqnews dengan judul berita “Tak Sudi Nama Jalan di Jakarta Gunakan Nama Ataturk, Mahfud Md: Dia Itu penjahat” yang tayang pada 25/10/2021. Dipelintir statement-nya dalam pemberitaan teraebut dengan tegas Mahfud menyatakan berita Reqnews bohong. “Berita Reqnews…

[sharekajianilmu]

Part 3 : Misi Syekh Badiuzzaman Said Nursi untuk menyelamatkan Iman.

Tahun 1921 terjadi kemenangan Pasukan Kesultanan Utsmaniyah melawan pasukan penjajah yang saat itu menjajah Anatolia (Turki sekarang). Hal ini terjadi setelah dikumandangkannya Jihad melawan pasukan penjajah.

Namun Syekh Badiuzzaman Said Nursi melihat bahwa ada paham atheis yang merayap di tengah tengah euforia kemenangan.

Beliau pun diundang ke Parlemen untuk memberikan sambutan kemenangan Pasukan Utsmaniyah. Beliau melihat disana banyak pejabat yang sudah melalaikan sholat. Maka Beliau pun berpidato untuk menyerukan kembali agar ditunaikannya sholat. Akhirnya karena keikhlasan Beliau maka ada sekitar 70 orang kembali menunaikan sholat. Oleh Musthafa Kemal Attaturk yang tidak senang terhadap Islam Beliau ditawari jabatan untuk menjadi tokoh agama di wilayah Kurdistan namun Beliau menolak.

Tahun 1922 Kesultanan Utsmaniyah dihapus dan menjadi republik Turki namun dengan tetap mempertahankan simbol Khalifah. Tahun 1924 Kekhalifahan dihapuskan. Tahun 1925 Syekh Said Biran memberontak namun gagal. Efeknya para Ulama' dipenjara dan diasingkan termasuk Syekh Badiuzzaman Said Nursi.

Saat itu pemerintah ingin menyebarkan atheisme dan paham anti agama serta secara bertahap melarang simbol simbol Islam. Mereka bahkan sudah menyiapkan kurikulum yang ingin menjauhkan generasi dari Islam dan menyebarkan paham mengingkari hari akhirat dan agama.

Syekh Badiuzzaman Said Nursi melihat kebakaran Iman yang hebat mengancam Turki. Sehingga Beliau pun menjauhi perpolitikan dan fokus untuk menyelamatkan Iman umat Islam. Karena mesin cetak saat itu dikuasai oleh pemerintah maka penyebaran Risalah Nur dari tulisan tangan ke tangan. Terkadang murid murid Syekh Badiuzzaman Said Nursi pun dipenjara karena kedapatan ada membawa Risalah Nur pada diri mereka.

Syekh Badiuzzaman Said Nursi rela hidup menderita dan diasingkan serta tidak dihargai oleh rezim demi hanya untuk menyelamatkan Iman. Dengan tersebarnya Risalah Nur maka dengan izin Allah SWT maka Iman di Turki pun terjaga hingga hari ini bahkan menguat sedikit demi sedikit. Misi Beliau yang utama dan menjadi perhatian adalah menyelamatkan Iman sebanyak banyaknya umat manusia agar bisa masuk surga di akhirat.

Risalah Nur dengan mengambil cahaya Alquran dan menyimpan argumen argumen yang kuat tidak terbantahkan tentang keimanan. Serta untuk memperlihatkan mukjizat Alquran yang tidak terkalahkan. Serta bahwa cahaya Alquran yang tidak akan padam. Beliau banyak bermunajat dan menangis kepada Allah SWT dan banyak berdzikir serta beribadah kepadaNya. Hal tersebut menjadi rahasia suksesnya misi dan dakwah Beliau menurut Syekh Said Ramadhan Al-Buthi