Woman-friendly Islam

[rtwngAvngr]

This is make up, smoke and mirrors, a lady in a box, and a man with a cape. A show, if you will. They'd be fools to let them in.

 

[ekrem]

Kathianne. I agree partly with your sources.

Yes, in Turkey there are over 70.000 mosques. No other country has more mosques in its country then Turkey.
But what counts is not quantity, but quality. Every mosque in Turkey is state-run, Imams - now even woman imams - are educated by the state via "Diyanet" which was described before and are public officials.
In Turkey there are no radical mullahs in mosques. All Imams are educated by Turkish state and they are on wage list of Turkish Finance Minitry not on SAudi List. Diyanet is every Friday faxing every Friday (Friday is like Sunday for Christs) the prayers into the mosques.

Religion in Turkey via mosques is very centralized and nothing happens without Diyanet. There is no authority in Turkey besides Diyanet to manage Religion in Turkey. Through absorbtion of Islam by the state Islam is being managed and depolarized in Turkey. The turkish style of laicism doesnot convert its claim of laicism by putting Religion under or beside the state and only manage both factors. But rather Turkish laicism gives the state the interpretation monopol of Islam and arranges legal religion life to be bureaucracytated.

This is the form of laicism in state politics and on individual basis being secular does not mean being anti-muslim. It means leaving religious issues to private life and keep it out of politics.

Here Atatürk as he holds prayers:
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/10.jpg
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/13.jpg

Atatürks mother wore headscarf, do you think he hated his mother?
No it is an dress-code established in special public areas.

Turkey-Turks are in majority Muslims allthough there are different branches of Islam in Turkey. Anyway, Turkey-Turks were the ones who freely adopted Islam and were not forced to. So Turks chose Islam becuase they believe in it.
Kemalism (Ideology of Atatürk) is not static and there were always paradigm changes in reliance to Islam.
So in 1980s after Leftist-Rightist clashes and afterwards military coup, the so called Turkish-Islam sythesis was born makeing Islam fully autonomous from non-turkish influence.



And in your article it is said that Turkish Military relies on ideolgies such as martyrdom and Islam and so on. You don't believe this yourself or do you?

Now comeing to the streets as you wanted me to mention:
you can go to prostitute bars or into the mosque. It is up to everyone himself.
You can wear tanga on the beach or headscarf in the street.
No one in Turkey is forcing anyone to pray or fast in Ramadan.

From the remarks here i can see that noone really knows about Turkey. And the only way to change this is not by discussion forum but by comeing with your american wealth to Turkey and see it yourself.

 

[ekrem]

Warning: This thread may make you dumber.

Why don't you let people decide this theirselves?

With such commentaries you only widen the frequency of informative posts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why don't you let people decide this theirselves?

With such commentaries you only widen the frequency of informative posts.

No.

I think europe should do what I think is best, which is to not allow any more muslim influence in their continent.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne. I agree partly with your sources.

Yes, in Turkey there are over 70.000 mosques. No other country has more mosques in its country then Turkey.
But what counts is not quantity, but quality. Every mosque in Turkey is state-run, Imams - now even woman imams - are educated by the state via "Diyanet" which was described before and are public officials.
In Turkey there are no radical mullahs in mosques. All Imams are educated by Turkish state and they are on wage list of Turkish Finance Minitry not on SAudi List. Diyanet is every Friday faxing every Friday (Friday is like Sunday for Christs) the prayers into the mosques.

Religion in Turkey via mosques is very centralized and nothing happens without Diyanet. There is no authority in Turkey besides Diyanet to manage Religion in Turkey. Through absorbtion of Islam by the state Islam is being managed and depolarized in Turkey. The turkish style of laicism doesnot convert its claim of laicism by putting Religion under or beside the state and only manage both factors. But rather Turkish laicism gives the state the interpretation monopol of Islam and arranges legal religion life to be bureaucracytated.

This is the form of laicism in state politics and on individual basis being secular does not mean being anti-muslim. It means leaving religious issues to private life and keep it out of politics.

Here Atatürk as he holds prayers:
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/10.jpg
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/13.jpg

Atatürks mother wore headscarf, do you think he hated his mother?
No it is an dress-code established in special public areas.

Turkey-Turks are in majority Muslims allthough there are different branches of Islam in Turkey. Anyway, Turkey-Turks were the ones who freely adopted Islam and were not forced to. So Turks chose Islam becuase they believe in it.
Kemalism (Ideology of Atatürk) is not static and there were always paradigm changes in reliance to Islam.
So in 1980s after Leftist-Rightist clashes and afterwards military coup, the so called Turkish-Islam sythesis was born makeing Islam fully autonomous from non-turkish influence.



And in your article it is said that Turkish Military relies on ideolgies such as martyrdom and Islam and so on. You don't believe this yourself or do you?

Now comeing to the streets as you wanted me to mention:
you can go to prostitute bars or into the mosque. It is up to everyone himself.
You can wear tanga on the beach or headscarf in the street.
No one in Turkey is forcing anyone to pray or fast in Ramadan.

From the remarks here i can see that noone really knows about Turkey. And the only way to change this is not by discussion forum but by comeing with your american wealth to Turkey and see it yourself.

Thanks for that response. In all honesty, the Cornell site is the only one that refers to the martyrdom in military, so Would you say though, that radical Islam has grown or not in recent years, in Turkey?

 

[ekrem]

No.

I think europe should do what I think is best, which is to not allow any more muslim influence in their continent.

The truth is that Membership will be decided by other factors.

energy-secuity: establishing Turkey as 4th energy source for EU.
Bakü-Tiflis-Ceyhan Pipeline, Kerkük-Yumrtalik Pipeline as well as Novossijsk-Samsun-Ceyhan Pipeline will bring Turkey 240 Mio Tonnes of oil where Turke only consumes 28 Mio Tonnes.
Herefore in Ceyhan there is being build an Oilterminal with 220 Mio Tonnes capacity which is even bigger as the european counterpart Rotterdam (140 Mio Tonnes).
On natural gas, there is the Nabbuco, Pipeline Project and the Transcaspian Pipeline project as well as Egypt-Syria-Turkey natural gas project.


common security policy: EU is these days sending troops into Congo to monitor elections. Turkish soldiers are also going with them. As they were in Bosnia, Kosova and elsewehere.
EU is establioshing common foreign security policy called CFSP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy
http://europa.eu/pol/cfsp/index_en.htm
Chirac wanted to build up this Security policy autonomous from NATO.
But he could not convince other EU members and USA.
This CFSP relies on NATO material, where Turkey as NATO member has veto-right to block usw of NATO material or bases for other organisations (CFSP) other then NATO.

also demography and economy and business interests are factors.

Turkey is from day to day getting stronger in econonmy as well as influence on its neighbours and on Turkic states in Central Asia. And on these issues Turkey will make EU real Global Player rather than Paper Tiger. Or EU can fence theirself off as a christian club and Turkey can look elsewhere as Hu Jintao and Putin are inviting Turkey into SCO.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060616&hn=34037

Wouldn't both sides need each other politicians from both sides would have cancelled this project due to major resistance in population and would not have had opened negotiating chapters.

So wake up from your Islam-EU-Turkey connection.

 

[Annie]

Canavar, I may be reading things wrong, but it seems to me that GW is pushing EU to accept Turkey, but they are balking. At the same time, Turkey is leaning more towards Iran, which of course is going to make the West all the more sure to not include?

 

[ekrem]

Canavar, I may be reading things wrong, but it seems to me that GW is pushing EU to accept Turkey, but they are balking. At the same time, Turkey is leaning more towards Iran, which of course is going to make the West all the more sure to not include?

I think it is valid to say that it is in US interest for Turkey being anchored in western system rather than Turkey look otherwhere, namely Russia as Turkish-Russian relations are advancing rapidly and were never this strong since Russian-Turkish encounter.
As described before in this Thread we are the most advanced Muslim country with Democracy. Also we have a great History ensuring us influence on this strategical region.
Also we are in NATO and Turkey is by its military a regional Mini-Power and is now adding to this military component also the economy factor.
So a region full of security and energy interests not only for US.

Also there are Spain, Greece, Italy, UK which are strong supporters of Turkish accession into EU, whilst Germany with Merkel takes now a position of not promoting as well bloking Turkish Accession. But Merkel says that "pacta sunt servanda".

The thing with Iran is, that Turkey and Iran had almost 3 years ago only minimum diplomatic contacts as Iran played dirty games on Turkey with terrorists and blocked Turkish businessmen from doing business in Iran.
Meanwhile they open their market for Turkish investment stop funding Anti-Turkish terrorism and even Iranian soldiers kill PKK. And bilateral trade is rapidly growing.
And the multiplicator for all this is USA by their Iraq-action.
The fact that USA does not care on security concerns of Turkey regarding Iraq will not make Turkey stepping back from its security concerns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101613.html

When you begin from zero the significance of development in relations is greater rather Turkish-German relations would improve from from 9 to 9,5 by a relation scale of 0 to 10.

Peugeot, Renault, OMV all big European firms are active in Iran and doing business there why we shouldn't ?

But this is only a reply to you and not describing EU-Turkey on Iran, as there is no Iran dilemma in EU-Turkey relations.
Turkish position on Iran is EU position.

EU-Turkey dilemma is regarding Cyprus and customs union which EU wants to widen on new EU member Cyprus.
From all new 10 EU members of last accession rounf Turkey did not widened customs Union on Cyprus.

But Turkey will not open its Ports and airports for Cyprus to make trade.
And off course French "Grand nation" feeling, fearing that Turkey by its size will fundamentaly change power structure within EU.
So there is still a long way to go and the way is unpredicatble, but for both sides it is better not to cancel this way. And till now every potential candidate wich EU opened accession negotiating in the end became EU Member.
So we will see.

 

[ekrem]

Canavar, I may be reading things wrong, but it seems to me that GW is pushing EU to accept Turkey, but they are balking. At the same time, Turkey is leaning more towards Iran, which of course is going to make the West all the more sure to not include?

Discussions on Turkey's alternatives to European Union membership have so far widely seen as unrealistic, redundant or marginal efforts. In the past couple of years several Turkish political and military figures, and intellectuals, have suggested giving up the EU membership process and introducing a deeper rapprochement with Russia, China and even Iran towards a regional union. However they merely emerged as emotional responses to what was perceived as the EU's unfair and hostile policies towards Turkey and failed to come up with a convincing detailed alternative strategy.

Despite such a background, recent developments in Turkish foreign policy re-fuel these discussions and necessitate a closer look particularly at Turkish-Russian relations. Two concrete trends deserve particular attention here: First of all, the great loss of confidence among Turkish decision-makers as well as the public on the future of the EU accession talks, largely due to the Cyprus stalemate and new hurdles introduced to the membership process. Secondly, parallel to that we are witnessing much more close political and security dialogue, and deepening of economic ties between Ankara and Moscow.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin five times last year, and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer is paying an official visit to Moscow this week. Not to mention dozens of other regular visits between high-level officials of the two countries. Under these conditions, some Turkish analysts started to argue that Turkey should immediately make up its mind, give up an open-ended EU process and work towards other alternatives, mainly deepening relations with the Russia.

However, according to Russian Ambassador to Turkey Petr Vladimirovic Stegniy, for today Turkey's EU process is not something Moscow views as harmful for development of Turkish-Russian relations.

"In principle we look our cooperation with the EU and your cooperation with the EU as complementary," Stegniy told the TNA in an interview to be published this week. The Russian ambassador says Moscow is not aspiring to become an EU member for obvious reasons, but they have a positive view of Turkey's EU process.

"This is because first of all Turkey wants it," he said. "Secondly, we have a more predictable neighbor who is playing with European standards. And if we launch an adaptation process in time, we can avoid any possible implication to our bilateral relations."

This is Moscow's "politically correct" look at the current Turkish-EU relations, if Turkey will continue its desire for EU membership process. However, it is obvious already from now that Turkey's EU process will enter into a much more difficult period in the coming months, mainly due to the Cyprus problem and also increasing Turkey-skepticism in countries like Austria and France. On a larger scale, Europe is going through deeper economic and political problems and an identity question, which further complicates Turkey's EU process.

On the other hand, Russia is showing more assertive signs in terms of the economy, stronger involvement in regional and global problems and also desire for a closer cooperation with Turkey. Although we had in the past mere rhetoric on the opportunities for closer ties of Turkey and Russia, today we have more practical concrete cooperation mainly in economics and trade, but not limited to that, and also increasingly including politics and security.

Under these conditions, one could say that the glass is half empty and half full in both Turkey's difficult EU process and its promising relations with the Russia. They are still developing and will be shaped by significant decisions in the coming months and developments in the coming years.

It would be wrong to derive a simple and quick conclusion for the time being that the Russia is becoming an alternative to the EU for Turkey. But one thing is clear: If the EU loses Turkey, Russia is waiting to become Turkey's main partner.

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/opinion-9635.html

After 60 years, a Turkish State president is visiting Russia this week. 2 weeks ago, Turkish National Security Council Director Alpogan visited Russia.
We are holding together military maneuvers,
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246609.html
working together in the Black Sea and 2006 is "Russia Year" in Turkey and "Turkey year" in Russia.
More and more Russian tourists come to Turkey and our business relations radidly grow reaching 18 $ dollars a year which will rise to 25 $ Billion in 2008.
http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060531-110636-2682r

This makes Russia Turkey's second biggest trade Partner.

And we are in talks of Arm-Deals with Russia.
So with the Israeli-Russian made KAMOV Attack-Helicopter KA-52, in which Turkish mission computer and Turkish parts will be integrated and be produced in Turkey with full Technology transfer from Russia.

The Russians apparently aim to win Turkey over to the network of relations they are working to shape with China and Iran in sort of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Council)
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060616&hn=34037
as a counterweight against the superpower USA.
The Turkish-Russian “strategic partnership” which is being formed does not only include Security interests as the US is only egoistically interested in (North-Iraq) but will have a significant impact on the future world balances and developments especially in Turkic Central Asia, Caucasus and Middle East.


Eurasian geopolitics and the Turkish-Russian energy corridor make this Turkish-Russian partnership a very important factor in the globalizing world.

 

[ekrem]

Turkey Plays Chicken
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062006B


A good read on Turkey's place in energy security in this world.

 

[Eightball]

Whats this say about all religions?

First of all, a belief system is supposed to be Creator spawned/authored. Right?

Secondly, why would the system/tracts/verses have to be eliminated or changed to mean something different, new or better?

This is where I have a very hard time with these belief systems that claim to be the truth. They make alterations from the original, and some how that's Creator ordained.

Was the Creator suffering from Alzheimer's when he first presented his truths?

Joseph Smith's prophecies have been eliminated, changed, modified hundreds of times since the 1830's.
.....
I want a God that has, unalterable, omnipotent communication with His creation, and doesn't have to constantly modify/change His message in order to be more "clear", "right", or "truthful".
.......
The Dead Sea Scrolls proved strongly that Judeau Christian truths allegedly given to man via prophets, has not changed in intent or in grammatical presentation in thousands of years.
......
I think this is the great dividing point between systems of religious belief.
........
I'm for an infallible God, that doesn't make mistakes communicating the first time-around. I'm for a God who is omnipotent, and therefore has total control over his transmitted communications with his creation(man). He(God) is strong(omnipotent) enough to protect the accuracy of His communications throughout the ages and doesn't need to add addendums, Latter Day Prophets, correct mistaken for wrong treatment in value between the female and male components of His created humanity. He sees each race of humanity, as one color, and doesn't, doesn't exclude one from special service in the church due to color of skin, or race.

Any religion that has to change it's the original doctrine as handed down by their alleged prophets of God, is actually telling the world that their god, is not omnipotent, and can't be trusted to be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. That's shakey ground to put trust in.
.....
Isn't the definition of a true prophet or prophetess of God that they must be 100% correct in all that they communicate to mankind as "Word/s" from God? That 100%, means throughout their entire lives of speaking God's messages? One bad prophesy, and they are considered a false prophet. Every they have said previously must be brought into question. How does that square with latter day prophets that have changed dictums from God more than once, and now call that the "truth"?

Now, what can we say about these latter day prophets that came hundreds or maybe a thousand or more years after Christ's ascension, and the original apostles had passed away?

Did the work of Christ, and the original Apostles need addendums, modifications, etc. to clearly communicate God's nature? Did they need the work of latter day prophets who refuted the original nature of Christ, and changed his status from divine to just human and nothing else? Or did we take a step of progress by changing Christ from divine but to merely one of a myriad of smaller gods, or prophets? Did we take a step of progress by saying that the crucifixion was but a ploy, and never happened in history?

It boils down to this. Is God able to communicate to man clearly the first time, or is God fallible, and weak. If He was fallible, I would be jumping ship. I don't believe He's weak, and needs a myriad of additional newer religions/prophets that strip Christ's divinity away, and place man at the helm, and also covertly, communicate that God is fallible, and not really 100% in control of His creation.

I can't look out at night, marveling at the infinite universe, and think that God, needed correction and couldn't handle it the first time around. The God of Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Isaiah, Mark, John, Paul, or Barnabus, is good enough for me. He's not contradicted Himself through the ages, and He can't and won't in the latter days either.

 

[Annie]

Whats this say about all religions?

First of all, a belief system is supposed to be Creator spawned/authored. Right?

Secondly, why would the system/tracts/verses have to be eliminated or changed to mean something different, new or better?

This is where I have a very hard time with these belief systems that claim to be the truth. They make alterations from the original, and some how that's Creator ordained.

Was the Creator suffering from Alzheimer's when he first presented his truths?

Joseph Smith's prophecies have been eliminated, changed, modified hundreds of times since the 1830's.
.....
I want a God that has, unalterable, omnipotent communication with His creation, and doesn't have to constantly modify/change His message in order to be more "clear", "right", or "truthful".
.......
The Dead Sea Scrolls proved strongly that Judeau Christian truths allegedly given to man via prophets, has not changed in intent or in grammatical presentation in thousands of years.
......
I think this is the great dividing point between systems of religious belief.
........
I'm for an infallible God, that doesn't make mistakes communicating the first time-around. I'm for a God who is omnipotent, and therefore has total control over his transmitted communications with his creation(man). He(God) is strong(omnipotent) enough to protect the accuracy of His communications throughout the ages and doesn't need to add addendums, Latter Day Prophets, correct mistaken for wrong treatment in value between the female and male components of His created humanity. He sees each race of humanity, as one color, and doesn't, doesn't exclude one from special service in the church due to color of skin, or race.

Any religion that has to change it's the original doctrine as handed down by their alleged prophets of God, is actually telling the world that their god, is not omnipotent, and can't be trusted to be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. That's shakey ground to put trust in.
.....
Isn't the definition of a true prophet or prophetess of God that they must be 100% correct in all that they communicate to mankind as "Word/s" from God? That 100%, means throughout their entire lives of speaking God's messages? One bad prophesy, and they are considered a false prophet. Every they have said previously must be brought into question. How does that square with latter day prophets that have changed dictums from God more than once, and now call that the "truth"?

Now, what can we say about these latter day prophets that came hundreds or maybe a thousand or more years after Christ's ascension, and the original apostles had passed away?

Did the work of Christ, and the original Apostles need addendums, modifications, etc. to clearly communicate God's nature? Did they need the work of latter day prophets who refuted the original nature of Christ, and changed his status from divine to just human and nothing else? Or did we take a step of progress by changing Christ from divine but to merely one of a myriad of smaller gods, or prophets? Did we take a step of progress by saying that the crucifixion was but a ploy, and never happened in history?

It boils down to this. Is God able to communicate to man clearly the first time, or is God fallible, and weak. If He was fallible, I would be jumping ship. I don't believe He's weak, and needs a myriad of additional newer religions/prophets that strip Christ's divinity away, and place man at the helm, and also covertly, communicate that God is fallible, and not really 100% in control of His creation.

I can't look out at night, marveling at the infinite universe, and think that God, needed correction and couldn't handle it the first time around. The God of Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Isaiah, Mark, John, Paul, or Barnabus, is good enough for me. He's not contradicted Himself through the ages, and He can't and won't in the latter days either.

Such as the covenent with the Jews? Didn't God change his mind on that and make a New Covenent?

 

[Eightball]

This new covenant with the Gentiles doesn't void God's covenant with Israel does it?

Doesn't the last book(Revelations) of the New Testament pretty much nail that fact down, as God preserves a remnant 12,000 from each tribe; 144,000 in the end? The beast and his cohorts try as they may to destroy Israel, but God will have nothing of that?

Does the one covenant necessarily supercede the other, or is one covenant for a different purpose, or less encompassing purpose?

The Covenant through Christ appears to me to cover all of mankind, Kosher or Gentile, while the earlier covenant is involved in the protection, and preservation of the nation of Israel?

I'd be the first to say, I'm no bible scholar. In fact I dropped out of bible school(lack of funds) about 20 years ago after only finishing one year, and moved my family back to California and resumed by previous career in electrical construction.
...
I get a little ansy when we start debating dispensationalism versus the Covenant doctrine. Sometimes I wonder if we are splitting hairs on some things and losing sight of the Gospel. Just my opinion; nothing meant personal.
.....
I have Christian friends that argue over the issue of once saved always saved versus, losing ones salvation too. Again, I think the God of the bible has entered into the life of the new believer and doesn't get eradicated, because of contrary, outward behaviour. A new creation doesn't get uncreated back to it's old nature in my opinion. Once being seated in the heavenlies, seems pretty permanent. Pauls travails of the "wretched man syndrome"(Romans 7) didn't "drum him out of his salvation" but instead drove him towards greater God dependency. Once in Christs grip, I believe your safe, even if you throw some rebellious fits. The underlying old nature has been eradicated, but the unredeemable flesh still tries to influence and sway the new "born again" nature from God.
....

The other one is "election" versus the recipient's involvement in one's salvation. Seems that those churches that are usually labeled "covenant" in some way or another adhere to the doctrine that our salvation or being "born again" does not involve our participation, and was already set in motion before time began by God. There are also those that believe in some modified approaches to that doctrine too. On the other side is the approach that man has to seek God out on utilizing his own will, and must make the decistion to believe by faith by his own volition, in order to be written-up in the Lamb's book.
.....
I guess I'm just talking about Calvinism versus Armenianism. One thinks its all God(Calvinism), and the other believes it's all man that determines salvation(Armenian).
......
I tend to think that the names written in the Lamb's book are there because God isn't "time-bound" and sees the beginning and the end of every human life before any thing has occured in time. God already knows who will choose and who will refuse. We don't know that outcome as we are finite creatures, who are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. When Jesus told those Jews that He was, "I Am", He was telling them that He was just that; the one that transgressing all time(past, present, future), and is the Creator of all things; namely God, and of course was accused of blaspheming as a result.
......
All I know is that Israel hold a special place in God's heart, and that may be in reference to the earlier covenant. That covenant may have never been eliminated by just superceded by a more encompassing one though.

As Paul mentioned in one of his epistles. The Jew is the Olive tree and the Gentile is the Wild Olive tree. The new covenant grafts the wild olive to the original olive tree. Therefore, the Jews are where the all things originated....the message, the Messiah, the salvation....and now it has been extended out to all of mankind(gentiles). There will be no Jew, gentile, barbarian.....etc..all will be the same in this book, yet in God's mysterious economy, Israel, the nation holds a special significance.
.....
Again that's my non-scholarly approach.....as a simple Christian believer, that's hoping not to be swayed by undoctrinal messages.......but wants to attempt to follow the truth. I know full well that there are a myriad of messages of, "this is the way" and "that is the way", and "this is the real truth" and "this is the ultimate truth".

As a fallible human, I fall totally on God's grace to get me through this myriad of messages from without and within that bombard me with alleged Spiritual leading.

I have to rest on one thing. The bible. "Faith cometh by hearing , and hearing by the Word of God". I must trust God for common sense in understanding His Word too.

I don't believe that I need an updated addendum to the bible, or any other special message of better clarification. I think my God is wiser and bigger than that possibility, and got it right the first time. He said it was finished, I believe Him.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, I'm still trying to make sense of this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33243

that began the whole discussion. Thanks for your response, which seems quite thought out!

This new covenant with the Gentiles doesn't void God's covenant with Israel does it?

Doesn't the last book(Revelations) of the New Testament pretty much nail that fact down, as God preserves a remnant 12,000 from each tribe; 144,000 in the end? The beast and his cohorts try as they may to destroy Israel, but God will have nothing of that?

Does the one covenant necessarily supercede the other, or is one covenant for a different purpose, or less encompassing purpose?

The Covenant through Christ appears to me to cover all of mankind, Kosher or Gentile, while the earlier covenant is involved in the protection, and preservation of the nation of Israel?


...

 

[ekrem]

[Sexism Deleted] in Turkey

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401381.html


By Mustafa Akyol
Sunday, July 16, 2006; Page B02

ISTANBUL

"Women are imperfect in intellect and religion."

"The best of women are those who are like sheep."

"If a woman doesn't satisfy her husband's desires, she should choose herself a place in hell."

"If a husband's body is covered with pus and his wife licks it clean, she still wouldn't have paid her dues."

"Your prayer will be invalid if a donkey, black dog or a woman passes in front of you."

In a bold but little-noticed step toward reforming Islamic tradition, Turkey's religious authorities recently declared that they will remove these statements, and more like them, from the hadiths -- the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad.

Hadiths are serious stuff. More than 90 percent of the sharia (Islamic law) is based on them rather than the Koran, and the most infamous measures of the sharia -- the killing of apostates, the seclusion of women, the ban on fine arts, the stoning of adulterers and many other violent punishments for sinful behavior -- come from the hadiths and the commentaries built upon them. Eliminating these misogynistic statements from the hadiths is a direct challenge to some of the most controversial aspects of Islamic tradition.

Modern Muslim intellectuals have long argued that the hadiths should be revised, but this is the first time in recent history that a central Islamic authority has taken the dramatic step of deciding to edit them. The media and intellectuals of Ankara and Istanbul largely welcomed last month's decision, which the Turkish government supported. And although there were rumblings of discontent from ultraconservative commentators, they didn't amount to a protest. Yet, despite the rhetoric about the need to make alliances with progressive Islam in the midst of the fight against terrorism, Turkey's move toward reform has been widely overlooked in the West, and there has been little acknowledgment of it in other Muslim countries.

The proposed revision came from the Diyanet, Turkey's highest Islamic authority, which controls more than 76,000 mosques in Turkey and other parts of Europe. Its president, Ali Bardakoglu, a liberal theologian appointed three years ago by the ruling conservative Justice and Development Party (known as AKP), declared that a new collection of hadiths, free of such misogyny, would be prepared by 2008. He also announced that enlightened imams would be sent to the rural, conservative regions of southeastern Turkey to preach against practices such as honor killings.

Many Muslims view hadiths as sacrosanct, although their accuracy has been a major point of contention among scholars. The hadiths were compiled two centuries after the Koran, which was transcribed during the prophet's lifetime and canonized right after his death in Medina in the 7th century. By the 9th century, people were constructing such strange stories from the prophet that scholars such as Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj decided to evaluate and catalogue them. Focusing on the reliability of the chain of transmitters, these scholars created collections of sahih , or trustworthy, hadiths.

But some modern Islamic scholars have felt increasingly uneasy about the inconsistencies and narrow-minded assertions in these collections. There are other hadiths that explain Muhammad's great respect for his wives, for example, and insist on the rights of women. The contradiction implies a need for revision. "I can't imagine a prophet who bullies women," said Hidayet Tuksal, a feminist theologian in Ankara. "The hadiths that portray him so should be abandoned."

Similarly, in proposing to create its new standard collection, the Turkish Diyanet intends to look beyond the chain of transmitters to logic, consistency and common sense. In many ways, this is a revival of an early debate in Islamic jurisprudence between rival camps known as the adherents of the hadiths and the adherents of reason -- a debate that ended with the triumph of the former.

The reawakening of this medieval debate and the consequent revision of the hadith literature could be a revolutionary breakthrough.

It is no accident that Turkey is the place where the traditional sharia is being reconsidered. The process of modernizing Islam, which dates in Turkey from the late Ottoman Empire, has accelerated since the 1980s, when Turkish society began to open. Since then, a flourishing Muslim bourgeoisie has emerged, and members are wittily called "Islamic Calvinists" for their religiously inspired capitalism. This has given rise to a new social atmosphere: In modern Turkey, you see models parading down the catwalk in fancy headscarves and Koranic courses promoted by clowns handing out ice cream. Muslim politicians such as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul repeatedly stress the need for change in the Islamic world.

These reform-minded Muslims are not secularists who want to do away with religion. On the contrary, they want to reinterpret Islam because they believe that its divinely ordained, humane and generous essence has been eclipsed by mortal man's erroneous traditions and ideologies.

This is crucial because only such godly reformists have a chance to appeal to more traditional members of their faith. Since the 19th century, traditional Muslims have felt forced to choose between their faith and modernity -- a dilemma that has been fueling a reactionary strain of radical Islam. The Islamic world needs an alternative -- a path between godless modernity and anti-modern bigotry. With its revision of the traditional Islamic sources and with its rising Muslimhood that embraces democracy and open society, Turkey may just be opening the way. The West should be taking notice -- and encouraging other Muslim countries to take inspiration from Turkey's moderate course.

 

[nt250]

Whats this say about all religions?

First of all, a belief system is supposed to be Creator spawned/authored. Right?

Secondly, why would the system/tracts/verses have to be eliminated or changed to mean something different, new or better?

The one basic fact of Islam is that all Muslims believe that the Koran is the the last literal true word of God and is the only religious text that has never been changed and has never been touched by the hand of man. In it's original Arabic, the Koran is perfect.

The Hadiths, however, are another story. The difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Muslim are in which Hadiths each sect considers "valid". There's a lot more to it than that, but that's a basic enough description for this discussion. The different sects of Islam dispute each other over who was Muhammad's rightful heir and successor. Since the Hadiths are witnessed, reported, and narrated by these successors, each sect has no problem dismissing any of them based on who wrote what. So any Hadith can be ignored based on the opinion of the ignorer.

The Koran, on the other hand, cannot be disputed by any Muslim, no matter what his sect is. The Koran is the last literal true word of God and can never be amended or changed. But since no Muslim can interpret the Koran on his own, he has to rely on the interpretation of others to tell him what it all means, and those people get their interpretation from the Hadiths.

Nice racket, huh?

 

[dilloduck]

The one basic fact of Islam is that all Muslims believe that the Koran is the the last literal true word of God and is the only religious text that has never been changed and has never been touched by the hand of man. In it's original Arabic, the Koran is perfect.

The Hadiths, however, are another story. The difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Muslim are in which Hadiths each sect considers "valid". There's a lot more to it than that, but that's a basic enough description for this discussion. The different sects of Islam dispute each other over who was Muhammad's rightful heir and successor. Since the Hadiths are witnessed, reported, and narrated by these successors, each sect has no problem dismissing any of them based on who wrote what. So any Hadith can be ignored based on the opinion of the ignorer.

The Koran, on the other hand, cannot be disputed by any Muslim, no matter what his sect is. The Koran is the last literal true word of God and can never be amended or changed. But since no Muslim can interpret the Koran on his own, he has to rely on the interpretation of others to tell him what it all means, and those people get their interpretation from the Hadiths.

Nice racket, huh?

Hey--don't worry
Islamo facism is no threat to America--ask a Democrat.

 

[nt250]

Hey--don't worry
Islamo facism is no threat to America--ask a Democrat.

Ask 99% of the Western world.

If I read one more quote from some idiot who says Islam has been "hijacked" I'm gonna toss my cookies.

 

[dilloduck]

Ask 99% of the Western world.

If I read one more quote from some idiot who says Islam has been "hijacked" I'm gonna toss my cookies.

They we all peaceful and loving until Bush screwed them around.


He MADE them the haters that they are !!!!!!:teeth:

 

[nt250]

They we all peaceful and loving until Bush screwed them around.


He MADE them the haters that they are !!!!!!:teeth:

Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that.