Reinterpretation of Islam in Turkey

"You simply can not go back in time."

Huh?

If this is the conclusion the author arrives at, he's even more ignorant than I always took him to be.

Surprisingly amateurish article.

Nothing new....Shias have known it for last 15,00 years, Sunis just realized it :). FYI, Shias don't believe in Sahee Bukharee and other crap out there in the Market.

haideri

Well by now everyone in Turkiye must know about it! Vesey i agree Turkey should remain Secular, but i think Islam has to be updated and bought into the modern times, although Islam should be left to the individual however having a modern option to follow personally as opposed to an 'off with his head' style is always a good thing to have, and i think if anything the state should encourage this kind of Islam, but in Turkey people already live a modern life comfortable with Islam, i think this will just frame current life there.

I really hope it is bought to Pakistan at least for discussion and debate and we have real scholars not some tin pot tv mullah reviewing it...

Well done Turks, for once again showing the Jahil Arabs the true way of enlightenment!

Mr. Gill narrated partial story about Kamal Atta Turk. Here is what happened:
1. Arabs under Lawrence of Arabia back stabbed Turks and brought down the calaphate. Hussain Shrief of Mecca fired his gun from the window of Kabba to declare Jihad against Turkey.
2. Jews sided with Turkey and till today they are allay. The first terrorist act was carried out by Jewish insurgents using a hijacked grocery truck which totaly destroyed British David hotel's south side in Palestine. Whereas Arabs fought along Brits against Turks.
3. In Baghdad Hussain Mecca came to know at the conclusion of war that he was merely second in command while the real commander was Gen. Allen headquartered in Cairo. It was too late. Saudi thugs were given pennisula while the real owner of Mecca, Hashmites, were given Jordan. The Arab were partitioned in dozens states to be easily ruled by the Europeans.
4. At this point Kamal Atta Turk, who ambushed British fleet in Balforus and successfuly destroyed it declared:
No one will read Arabic any more as these Arabs have backstabbed us. He pulled down the veils in revenge and cursed them for trading slavery over soverignty. His reaction was justified as we see it today. What is happeing in the middle east is the result of Arabs' own misdeeds and they justifiably deserve it. Non Arab muslims should NOT be sacrified for Arabs historical crimes.

Now Turks have realized that they have future with Muslims not with Europeans so it is time to reconsider their position. Otherwise a secular country does not need any commission to revise religion.

Dear Gill sahib,

"You simply can not go back in time."

If you read Dr. Kalim Siddiqui's "In pursuit of the power of Islam", you'll get a clearer picture of how to move ahead while learning from a successful past.

I couldn't disagree with Mr.Zeemax (re: #1). You must read more of God's Word.

The "ghayril maghdhoob" are now Muslims who follow the perverted ways of those who came before them! In side-lining the primary source, we've given undue attention to the secondary one.

God never said that His religion is incomplete and that Mr. Bukhari (and other non-Arab foreigners) will somehow preserve things for posterity and suppliment the Qur'an..

Neither the controversial 'sahihs' are free of contradictions nor does God promise to guard them against corruption. But for the Qur'an He promises all that! Of course, interpretational differnces will always exist. But even then, the message is unambiguous to those who seek guidance (not mischief).

Please don't put the Freemason Ataturk and his Young Turks on a pedestal. In the Turkish countryside they abuse him!

The British toyed with the sentiments and oil-wet dreams of the Arabs and brought an end to a huge empire. But why am I telling you all this; you would know it better than hydraulic engineering. Right?

Finally, the Hadith literature needs to be scrutinised deeply. If Mr. Bukhari gave himself the right to reject 99% of what he collected, I'd say, a vast number of the sayings still poke fun at God, the Prophet, his family, and go contrary to the Quranic injunctions and spirit.

(Qur'an 4:82) Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur’ān? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction!

At a personal level, I'm working diligently on this; the conclusions are frightening.

(Qur'an 7:185) In what other tiding (hadith), then, will they, after this, believe?"

Peace.
PS:
The Truth is lost in nonsense/ This Nation is lost in tradition—Allama Muhammad Iqbal.

Re: NangaPir# 4

Mustafa Kemel was a colonel in the imperial Ottoman army and fought the allies on the Gallipoli peninsula during the First World War. He did not ambush any allied naval fleet in the Bosporus. The allies never made it upto the Bosporus, as a matter of fact. The allied fleet basically was stopped at the Straits of Dardenelles by the Turkish mines and the coastal fortifications.

A look at the map will show that Bosporus is a straits that seperates European Turkey from Asiatic Turkey and at the mouth of the Bosporus lies the city of Istanbul, then known as Constantinople.

The enterance to Bosporus lies through a narrow neck of waters known as the Straits of Dardenelles, which opens up into the Sea of Marmara, which lies between it and the Straits of Bosporus. The Straits of Dardenelles opens into the Aegean Sea, to the south and likewise, the Straits of Bosporus leds the way into the Black Sea, to the north.

The future of Turkey may be with Muslims, but the Turkish economy is linked to Europe and in fact, apart from Turkish; German is the second language of choice for the Turks.

Ciao

Ciao

Re: # 2

I guess the Shias know everything! If what you've labelled 'crap', what do you follow that cannot be labelled the same? What chapters did the goat swallow, and which hidden pages were passed on to your folks?

Now go and find out how the Qur'an condemns those who cause schisms, and split up religion into sects, each sect rejoicing in what they have!

As for myself, my faith is what Prophet Ibrahim professed. And what is that? Go find it for yourself because it was neither Sunni nor Shia.

Now don't self-flagellate yourself, not now at least.

Peace.

Re: #7

Tahir,

I am sure your mom told you bedtime stories about Shias and "goat eating the Quran" stuff. I don't follow any religion, I am a humanist. Yes, my ancestors are/were Shia.

haideri.

Dr. Gill, the real problem that I see is that any change that is IMPOSED will be resented and will sooner or later come off. Only changes that stay are those which come from the inside. The real problem is with having an unquestioning mindset and intolerance of diversity of viewpoints.

Re: # 8

My dear Haideri,

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Now let's leave my Ammi jaan out of this because I never entered your walidayn's private chambers.

"my ancestors are/were Shia"
Please clarify, they could not be both!

CHOWK--where paths inter-SECT!

Read this on a blog...

"There are certain things human beings have worked out over time. One of those is that religious commitment (in any society) is a very individual thing. It HAS to be, because in terms of religion, each person is making up his or her own mind about ultimate reality and whether we make it public or not, that judgment is too crucial to be left to fashion . Precisely because that judgment is so important, it is also one that people do not automatically share with everyone else. Ultimately, some combination of circumstances, education, experience and innate personality determines where you stand, and that stand is inherently fluid because as you learn new things and experience new things, your judgment can shift. This does NOT mean that every individual shifts their public religious identity every few days. But every individual can and does alter how he understands that identification and what it may or may not imply. Because of that, its not practical to let any small group of people draw up a laundry list of beliefs and practices and order everyone to obey them on pain of death. ...while many will obey for pragmatic reasons, some will always disagree and these disagreements will themselves reach the point of killing and dying...UNLESS, society can agree to disagree. Which is what a lot of modern (and not so modern) countries have done. After hundreds of years of endless religious wars, most European countries decided this was just too ruinous and THERE IS NO END TO IT. So they agreed that everyone can follow whatever religion they want, as long as they agree to some basic rules in the public sphere.....it can be argued that a lot of those "basic rules" themselves derive from previous religious teachings, but the important point is that they can be argued about non-violently and mechanisms (elections, amendments, constitutions) exist to change them if public perceptions change. This formula has proven far superior to the endless religious wars of the past...which is NOT to say that it has solved all problems. clearly, wars have continued on other basis and society is far from perfect (in some trivial sense, it will ALWAYS be far from perfect)...but its an improvement over what it used to be when Calvin was flogging people in Geneva for not showing up in church on Sunday. This same change is coming to the middle east, whether some fringe element likes it or not. The alternative is endless strife, and over time, people get tired of endless strife."

Well said.

...SR

I saw the interview of Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy on GEO recently. He too spoke on these lines (abt changing according to the times).

The opening part of the interview is somewhat contrasting. The interviewer made some elaborate reference to 'Bismillah .....' stuff and Dr. Hoodbhoy replied it so simply that it reflecetd on a point that they two belong to 2 different schools of thought.

Secondly the interviewer asked the Dr abt the scientific achievements of the 'Muslim world' and ways and means of bringing that 'Renaissaince'.

In reality there's nothing like 'Muslim world' nor there's a 'Renaissaince' period of Muslims. By insisting on such falsehoods, ppl long to achieve chimeral things whilst ignoring the foreseable future ahead. It's like ignoring substance for shadow.

my wish list for 'reinterpreatioin

1. where does it say that we have to pray 5 times a day ? ... i recommend that we reduce it to once a week like other civilized religions ..... i have always maintained that namaz is the source of everything that ails the ummah ...

2. reduce ramadhan to three days a year

3. forgive the poor swine and make it halal to eat bacon and ribs ( sausage and pork chops can continue to be haram)

4. nowhere in the koran does it say that it is haram to drink - this whole prohibition thing came about because hazrat omar was a sloppy drunk ..... we can still have a rule against sloppy drunks, but it is not fair to deprive responsible drunkards .....

5. ......

....... i really can't think of much else that is wrong with islam ..... if we can do these four things, i think we will be well on the way to modernity and the world can stop beig fearful ..... getting rid of the facial hair and not wearing towels on our heads in public would also help ....

#13 Posted by hamidm2,

Very interesting. Do you like bacon and ribs but not sausage and pork chops? Why? Just asking ...

Re: # 14

zeemax,

... for the same reason that i like gurday/kapooray and not kaleji .... it is a simple matter of taste ....

#15 Posted by hamidm2,

Does Bhabi cook pork in the house or do you have to order it from outside and eat breakfast on the street corner?