| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Could this be what we have all been waiting for? Possibly. It will be interesting to see its content, and what reception it receives from Islamic authorities outside of Turkey. My guess would be that that reaction will be hostile, because to accept this would be to assume that Islam has gone drastically wrong almost from its inception -- militating against all the claims of Allah's careful protection of his umma. But we shall see.
By Robert Pigott for the BBC (thanks to all who sent this in):
Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.
The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.
That is, the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The BBC, like Reuters, often forgets this.
As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia. But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.
Certainly Muhammad never uttered a significant number even of the ahadith that are generally considered sahih, or reliable. Whether the Turks will be able to convince any significant number of Muslims of that is another matter.
'Reformation'Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.
Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.
Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.
"Controversy" is understated.
The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.
"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.
It is refreshing to see an Islamic authority admit and confront that. For pointing that out I have been called an "Islamophobe" and worse -- which name-calling, of course, does absolutely nothing to end the widespread Islamic approval of the practice.
"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.
This is where it really starts to get silly. The Hadith is, for better or worse, the core of Islamic tradition. And since the ninth century, after Bukhari and Muslim and the rest made their efforts to winnow out the false from the true and published their collections, there has been a broad consensus (whether or not it was in fact correct) as to which ahadith were genuine and which weren't -- although there is serious disagreement about some. So to say that this whole process represented a "hijacking" of Islamic tradition is tantamount to saying that the whole thing was "hijacked" from the very start, before it even got off the ground.
Of course, that may be the only way of selling the idea that ahadith considered authentic should be junked.
Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.Revolutionary
Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.
But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.
Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.
"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.
"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."
The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.
Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".
So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.
Original spirit
Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.
As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".
They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.
One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.
She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.
"There are honour killings," she explains.
"We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love.
"There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them."
'New Islam'
According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.
He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.
"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.
"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "
Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.
Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."
Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.
They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.
Here again, it is refreshing to see a Muslim scholar acknowledge what I have been vilified and smeared for noting.
"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura."You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.
"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."
Indeed.
Posted by Robert at February 27, 2008 9:58 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What about the Qur'an? They going to revise that?
Posted by: Elric66![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 27, 2008 10:29 AM
Could this be what we have all been waiting for? Possibly.
................................
I wish I could feel optimistic about this--I really do. The Turkish government, though, does not exactly carry a lot of credibility--especially religious credibility--with hard-line Muslims around the world.
My guess is that, at best, it will be considered much as officially-sanctioned forms of Christianity are in China--that is, not regarded with much respect. At worst, it will be considered an active form of blasphemy--a target of violent fatwas.
I really hope to be wrong about this. I think that Islam, though, has already seen its "reformation"--and that is represented by Wahabbism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and--God help us--Al-Qaeda and their brother Jihadists.
at February 27, 2008 10:33 AM
What about the Qur'an? They going to revise that?
Posted by: Elric66 at February 27, 2008 10:34 AM
Turkey wants to join the EU.
I wonder if this is an example of Al Taqqiya?
Posted by: Britannia's Lion at February 27, 2008 10:35 AM
From the article:
"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."
Wow! I had no idea that attacks on women, like rape and murder, are a thing of the past...
That's just silly logic... And, you will note that they aren't doing anything about women having to wear a hijab... That's just too controversial...
Cheers
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at February 27, 2008 10:36 AM
Call me cynical, but I see violent attacks in turkey's future.
Posted by: iwillnotsubmit at February 27, 2008 10:42 AM
Could this be what we have all been waiting for? Possibly.
................................
I wish I could feel optimistic about this--I really do. The Turkish government, though, does not exactly carry a lot of credibility--especially religious credibility--with hard-line Muslims around the world.
My guess is that, at best, it will be considered much as officially-sanctioned forms of Christianity are in China--that is, not regarded with much respect. At worst, it will be considered an active form of blasphemy--a target of violent fatwas.
I really hope to be wrong about this. I think that Islam, though, has already seen its "reformation"--and that is represented by Wahabbism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and--God help us--Al-Qaeda and their brother Jihadists.
at February 27, 2008 10:43 AM
Those waiting with bated breath should keep carefully in mind that a rearrangement, as to assigned rank of authenticity, of the Hadith, is the easiest of the tasks of those who would make less dangerous the texts of Islam.
But since the Hadith were spun, quite naturally, out of the Qur'an, it is the text of the Qur'an itself that will need changing. Eliminating the doctrie of "naksh" or abrogation will soften the many blows delivered, in the Qur'an, against Infidels, but the dangerous passages will remain. The task will still be that of somehow managing to interpret such passages as 9.29 -- unambiguous passages -- so that their clear meaning is made only "symbolic."
And then there is the figure of Muhammad himself, the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil. Just how will those scholars bent on reforming Islam by changing the texts manage to eliminate so much of what is recorded as being part of Muhammad's life. Will they declare his participation in the decapitation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza to be a fiction? The attack on the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis? The seizure of loot, and the women of those whom he and his followers killed? The murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf? The marriage to little Aisha? Will all of this somehow disappear?
And even if these Turkish scholars manage to re-assign levels of authenticity, presumably through their own study of the isnad-chains, there is a question of authority and of acceptance. How many of the world's Muslims are likely to accept what these latter-day Bukharis and Muslims suggest, rather than to stick with what, in history-haunted fossilized Islam, was decided long ago, by the real Bukhari, and the real Muslim, and the other celebrated muhaddithin whom presumptuous twenty-first century moderns, in still-Kemalist Turkey, dare to re-arrange, dare to second-guess?
De Gaulle's laconic comment on another proposal for a similarly large undertaking:
Vaste programme, monsieur.
Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 10:43 AM
What about the Qur'an? They going to revise that?
Posted by: Elric66 at February 27, 2008 10:43 AM
Turkey wants to join the EU.
I wonder if this is an example of Al Taqqiya?
Posted by: Britannia's Lion at February 27, 2008 10:44 AM
The Hadiths are not the "word of Allah", (as they claim their Koran is) so how these tales ever gained any sacrosanct status is indicative of what they were "collected" to allow:
-terrorizing in the name of the "prophet" (and, by association, "Allah").
They should all be voided as mere folklore.
And have no more weight than the story about Washington and the Cherry Tree.
This is a babystep that fails to acknowledge the ultimate non-"sacred" and illegitimate character of the Hadiths, as such.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 27, 2008 10:44 AM
Qur'an:9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."
That is threatening enough. Who needs ahadith?
at February 27, 2008 10:58 AM
What???? You mean to say the Religion Of Peace is imperfect, and they are going to 'fix it', by editing ahadith? How wonderful of the Turks.
If cartoons from Danes caused muslim hurt feelings, this attack on Islam's purity and perfection, and on Mohammad as well, should cause them spasms of the esophagus. What's next, The Quran? Let the riots begin...
at February 27, 2008 11:16 AM
"That is, the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The BBC, like Reuters, often forgets this." -- Robert
Yes, can you imagine the mainstream media making consistent references to "The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" ?? Never! But for Islam no sensibility is too tender to indulge. That and laziness.
Posted by: alexon at February 27, 2008 11:21 AM
Innovation (bidah) is a serious crime in Islam,
heresy includes new ideas that are in conflict with established principles. Lots of murdered innovative-minded Muslims can attest to this.
Are we going to see something meaningful here, such as a rejection of the established legal understanding of Jihad or the punishments for apostasy which are established by the great legal scholars of Islam (all of whom seem to take the Hadith quite seriously)? Is Surah Nine still in currency (when Muslims are strong), if you scratch abrogation? Is Islamic jurisprudence also to be revisited then? But isn't Jihad beyond Ijtihad (a "right of Allah" that man can never overrule)?
at February 27, 2008 11:21 AM
It is crap, complete crap they could not revise one word of this rubbish without having their heads cut off.
Its another crude attempt to get into the EU so they can take us over.
It they really want it (the koran) to be revised I think the Pope would be only too happy to help.
Come to think of it I just ran out of toilet paper.
Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 27, 2008 11:22 AM
"According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy."
It's doubtful that this project will even succeed in "modern, secular" Turkey. Imagine how it will be received in the rest of primitive, clerical Islam.
Posted by: alexon at February 27, 2008 11:32 AM
As usual it's all a bunch of bullcaca. Smoke and Mirrors. Balderdash and folderol. "Taqiyya" tommyrot.
Posted by: darcy at February 27, 2008 11:34 AM
"They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones."
This is a step in the right direction if they can pull it off. A HUGE "If"....
Posted by: alexon at February 27, 2008 11:37 AM
"Innovation (bidah) is a serious crime in Islam,
heresy includes new ideas that are in conflict with established principles. Lots of murdered innovative-minded Muslims can attest to this. -- Nick Danger
Good Point. If Turkey goes all in with this project (doubtful itself) then they just might be the first recipients of Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program.
Posted by: alexon
at February 27, 2008 11:49 AM
This Turkish project is either an exercise in taqiyya, or will be grandly ineffectual folly.
Why? Because the substance of the Sunna is dependant upon the Ahadith.
The academic historian of Islamic law, Chibli Mallat, wrote in 2003:
“...none [of the 4 schools] would disagree with the statement attributed to the Syrian jurist Awza’i (died 774 a.d.) that the Book [i.e., the Koran] is in greater need of the sunnah than sunnah is of the Book [i.e., the Koran].”
"From Islamic to Middle Eastern Law a Restatement of the Field (Part I)", The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), p. 724.
For Chibli Mallat's CV:
http://www.mallat.com/articles/principal.htm
at February 27, 2008 12:02 PM
What the problem?
Ishaq:327: "Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'"
http://infidelnation.org/DOWNLOADS/Sirat.rar
8:67.
It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobae008.htm
at February 27, 2008 12:08 PM
"to say that this whole process represented a "hijacking" of Islamic tradition is tantamount to saying that the whole thing was "hijacked" from the very start, before it even got off the ground."
Or at least "hijacked" pretty much immediately after the death of Mohammed. This is essentially the preposterous position of "Koran-only" Muslims, such as Thomas Haidon, as well as the group Muslims Against Sharia.
Posted by: cantor at February 27, 2008 12:19 PM
Well, at least it's an acknowledgement that there's something wrong with the Islamic religion. Whether or not the effort amounts to anything in the Islamic world remains to be seen.
It's possible -- and even likely -- the rest of the Islamic world will excommunicate the Turkish nation as an apostate nation, and wage Jihad against it.
It's also possible, on the other hand, that if Turkey succeeds in imposing the new, reformed Islam on the Turkish people, they'll become a counterweight to the Jihadist mentality of the rest of the Muslim world. The new Islam might even be an attractive alternative for many Muslims who don't like what they see in their world today, but can't bring themselves to break free of the grip Islam has on them.
It's also conceivable that we we could wiend up with three different branches of Islam: Sunni, Shi'ite and "reformed Islam".
Everything depends on how deeply, and widespread, the new, Turkish Islam takes root in the Turkish nation.
Posted by: rational at February 27, 2008 12:19 PM
I, too, am skeptical about the eventual success of this project. But, can anyone think of a more likely scenario that would lead to successful internal reform of Islam? It has to start somewhere, why not here? Little acorns, etc.
The Saudis might have a thing or two to say about it, though.
Posted by: Eastview at February 27, 2008 12:21 PM
The scholars working on this program would be wise to watch their backs. Charges of blasphemy or apostasy can't be far in the future for any of them. Even if women got equal treatment with men would the same hold true for non-believers? It's hard to see that happening without Islam having been rewritten to a point where it is no longer recognizable.
Posted by: PMK at February 27, 2008 12:22 PM
This sounds like taqiyya.
Posted by: PRCalDude at February 27, 2008 12:42 PM
And if you look at it from the view that Mohammad made it all up, Islam is a 'whole lot' to do about nothing. But that nothing got hijacked. While it is technically not possible to hijack nothing, Islam has managed to do just that, by stealing a fairy(s) tale and making it real. Why? It's one hellofa good idea to control people, and generate power, and money for the ruling classes. Imams, Mullahs, Ayatollahs etc. Islam is a fraud, hijacked by the fraudulent. Now some frauds in Turkey want to compound the fraud by editing the fraudulence of Islam, ahadith, but not further exposing, or eliminating it, The Quran. It does not matter how you rearrange the letters in 'fraud', it always comes back to fraud...
Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 12:46 PM
I feel a radical schism coming on, like in Al Pacino’s “Scar Face”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKK0vpEIWpY
It all ends badly in the end, situation normal for any mob turf wars. The other ‘mob boss’ is Iran, with Saudis narrowly watching.
at February 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Wow.Good luck to them!I hope they remember how much fun the Reformation in Europe was.The shock waves of which went on for many years.They better have all thier ducks in a row before they shoot.
Posted by: anonamustafa at February 27, 2008 12:56 PM
What shocks me about this posting is that Spencer is very behind in his following of news in the Islamic world. Turkey announced this about 2 years ago (and it is the sixth occasion since 1980, for the record). There have since been subsequent conferences in Al-Azhar, India, and Indonesia that welcomed the Turkish delegations to discuss the issue, raising important questions in Hadith studies. Granted, nobody except old men in robes sitting in libraries really care about Hadith collections or the level of correctness that they are appointed, a point which Spencer continuously misses.
Ultimately, the Turks are not setting out to turn sahih into something else as Spencer and the article suggests, but rather counter the influence that Hadith have in Islamic thinking, pushing a more balanced point of view amongst general religous scholars, which usually does a good job succeeding (just look at the recent meeting last week in Pakistan, where the institution "that sparked the Taliban" has for the 10th time in 20 years openly condemned terrorism and violence within Islam. Is it just me or do I hear crickets chirping on this matter? It was reported in the BBC.)
Also, Spencer has never been called an Islamophobe for pointing out inaccuracies in Hadith and asnad chains, ever. He is called an Islamophobe because he runs a website and advocates jihad...oh I'm sorry, a "cultural and military struggle" against an entire religion. It seems as though this story was just yet another chance to cry to himself.
Just doing some thinking...
By the way, so does that mean the BBC's good? Bad? Fork-toungued? I'm confused. One story says the BBC is the devil for protecting jihadists, another says they are reporting "refreshing" calls for reform. We call that a flip-flop.
at February 27, 2008 1:08 PM
I expect this to turn into seething, rioting, burning of Turkish flags, boycotting Turkish products. . .heck they'll probably switch from eating turkey to eating ham on Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Posted by: walterc at February 27, 2008 1:11 PM
I'm confused.
Posted by: An American
Yes you are...I am in complete agreement...
Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 1:33 PM
"An American":
Good to see you back, as always!
What shocks me about this posting is that Spencer is very behind in his following of news in the Islamic world. Turkey announced this about 2 years ago (and it is the sixth occasion since 1980, for the record).
The article "Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts" from the BBC is dated...let's see...February 26, 2008. Is that two years ago? How time does fly!
Anyway, my good man, I posted this story because the BBC did. I trust you have contacted the Beeb and asked them why they're posting old news.
There have since been subsequent conferences in Al-Azhar, India, and Indonesia that welcomed the Turkish delegations to discuss the issue, raising important questions in Hadith studies. Granted, nobody except old men in robes sitting in libraries really care about Hadith collections or the level of correctness that they are appointed, a point which Spencer continuously misses.
Oh, and jihadists! How dreadfully inconvenient!
Ultimately, the Turks are not setting out to turn sahih into something else as Spencer and the article suggests, but rather counter the influence that Hadith have in Islamic thinking, pushing a more balanced point of view amongst general religous scholars, which usually does a good job succeeding (just look at the recent meeting last week in Pakistan, where the institution "that sparked the Taliban" has for the 10th time in 20 years openly condemned terrorism and violence within Islam. Is it just me or do I hear crickets chirping on this matter? It was reported in the BBC.)
Crickets chirping? Oh, my friend, I marvel at your carelessness yet again! It was posted here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020099.php
Also, Spencer has never been called an Islamophobe for pointing out inaccuracies in Hadith and asnad chains, ever. He is called an Islamophobe because he runs a website and advocates jihad...oh I'm sorry, a "cultural and military struggle" against an entire religion. It seems as though this story was just yet another chance to cry to himself.
Actually, if you read the above, I noted that I was called an "Islamophobe" for pointing out the existence of ahadith in favor of female genital mutilation, and for pointing out that the principle of abrogation cancels earlier peaceful verses in favor of later, more violent ones. For proof, search for my exchanges with Khaleel Mohammed and Dean Esmay.
Just doing some thinking...
Yet again, not enough, my friend, but keep trying!
By the way, so does that mean the BBC's good? Bad? Fork-toungued? I'm confused. One story says the BBC is the devil for protecting jihadists, another says they are reporting "refreshing" calls for reform. We call that a flip-flop.
Sometimes, my friend, life is more complicated than your blinkers and prejudices will allow you to perceive.
Anyway, again, it's good to see you again! I must say I'm amused that you keep coming back, especially since you never did get around to producing those Arabic texts that would have proved your case the first time you endeavored to expose my ignorance to the world. You remember those texts, right? The ones from your Arabic hadith that just happens to coincide with the citations on Wikipedia that contest the mainstream position about Aisha's age:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016333.php
And then there was the time when you informed everyone that I was completely misquoting Sura 9:29, which, you said, did not mention the People of the Book -- the only catch was that it does, as I showed you from the Arabic text. That one is in the comments field here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017476.php
And now you're back again. I tell you, sir, if I were Meadowlark Lemon, I certainly would offer you a position on the Washington Generals.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 27, 2008 1:33 PM
An American:
"Turkey announced this about 2 years ago (and it is the sixth occasion since 1980, for the record). "
Link?
"There have since been subsequent conferences in Al-Azhar, India, and Indonesia that welcomed the Turkish delegations to discuss the issue, raising important questions in Hadith studies."
Link?
On what basis do you apply your interpretation that they "welcomed" this?
What were the "important questions in Hadith studies" being raised that they welcomed? Anything of reformative value, or just theological minutiae that may have no reformative value ("reform" defined, of course, relative to conforming to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)?
"Granted, nobody except old men in robes sitting in libraries really care about Hadith collections or the level of correctness that they are appointed"
You are making two claims here that require more than your word to be verified. Will you supply proof of your two claims?
"(just look at the recent meeting last week in Pakistan, where the institution "that sparked the Taliban" has for the 10th time in 20 years openly condemned terrorism and violence within Islam. Is it just me or do I hear crickets chirping on this matter? It was reported in the BBC.)"
Openly condemning "terrorism and violence" is not sufficient. These terms can easily be defined to exclude "self-defense" and "freedom fighting against oppression" -- where the "oppression" against which the Muslims are "defending themselves" can be defined in ways that in fact end up legitimizing violent jihad.
Posted by: cantor at February 27, 2008 1:39 PM
I was wondering whether 'Muslims against Sharia' is, or might like to work with them. He could use the backing of the Turkish Department of Religious Affairs, while they could use the head start that he already has.
MAS
If you are reading this, how about it?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 27, 2008 2:18 PM
Let's not be so pessimistic. We should be encouraged that somebody is finally making an effort at reform, and responding to Robert's call for a serious challenge to jihadist theology from credible Muslims. Let's applaud their efforts, wish them well, and watch to see how the umnah reacts.
Posted by: Ernie Banks at February 27, 2008 2:30 PM
'She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.
"There are honour killings," she explains.'
Wait a minute... I thought honour killings were attributable to local culture and not culpably a part of Islam.
Hmmm this woman is obviously an Islamophobe.
at February 27, 2008 3:01 PM
Anonamustafa,
Good point about the Reformation in Europe. It ultimately led to the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), in which the Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other in great numbers. The final death toll, when the attendant starvation and disease are taken into account, has been estimated to be at least 30% of the population.
Of course, internecine warfare in Islam has been no less bloody.
Posted by: Eastview at February 27, 2008 3:01 PM
BTW, re my last post, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Turks helped finance one or both sides in the Thirty Years War. The idea was to let the Europeans bleed themselves white, until they were weak enough that the Turks could then complete the conquest of Europe they were attempting.
Anyone else know anything about this?
Posted by: Eastview at February 27, 2008 3:12 PM
I think this is great! So many of you criticizing this are not helping. What do you want - everyone to just reject Islam? That's sure not going to happen. Successful or not, this effort definitely brings to light some of the evil INHERENT in the religion itself (as Robert pointed out many things he has been saying that are now being pointed out by the actual "reformers"), and if they can make some inroads, hurray for them! If they get attacked like crazy by the fundamentalists, oh well... might distract those guys from other targets for awhile at least. I only see good from this effort & nothing negative. It might make Islam look "reformable" optimistically, but so what? The folks who will think that already think it anyway. At least the Turkish folks are bringing up real issues & trying to "modernize". I hope they themselves might see the difficulty of reconciling some of that quran stuff with real democracy and personal freedom, etc - or at least maybe some individuals within the effort, or some of the citizens who now have more ability to think about the issues. Looks like a noble effort to me.
Posted by: thatisall at February 27, 2008 3:48 PM
BTW, I am again amazed at Robert's ability to patiently deal with irrational attacks on himself (see An American). I am so impressed how you (Robert) put up with this stuff in the midst of the actual jihad issues to boot. May God strengthen and bless your efforts. :-)
PS Perhaps "noble effort" (as I said at the end of my previous post) is a little overstated for something muslim - I guess I should have said "refreshing" or even "brave" - but not "noble". Sorry!
Posted by: thatisall at February 27, 2008 3:59 PM
Let's not be so pessimistic. We should be encouraged that somebody is finally making an effort at reform, and responding to Robert's call for a serious challenge to jihadist theology from credible Muslims. Let's applaud their efforts, wish them well, and watch to see how the umnah reacts.Posted by: Ernie Banks
Like a squirming snake. They lie, naturally, or just brush it off as “out of context”. At the end of the day they will find ‘reforms’ to protect their soft underbelly with taqqyia to confuse those naïve infidels, and strengthen their supremacist ideology. I’m not too optimistic, though curious as to how this will play out in the annals of history.
Good luck just the same, and let’s watch the fun of Ummah squirming under deeper scrutiny…
at February 27, 2008 4:19 PM
Historically, rulers of existing social orders, especially those that have been in power long enough to have established a claim of divine legitimacy, never voluntarily step aside or willingly allow themselves to be replaced by new social orders. If fundamental change occurs at all, it is usually by means of violent revolution. One only has to read history to see that this is the dominant way civilizations are changed.
So, is it reasonable to expect the existing theological power structure in the Islamic world, where legitimacy is largely vested in the Saudi version of Islam, will "evolve" if it means losing their present power? Has change in Islam EVER occurred, throughout its entire 1400 year history, without violent bloodshed?
Still, if the Islamic world is to evolve it has to start somewhere. The Ankara theologians are going to have a tough time challenging 1400 years of Islamic tradition. Although one might not want to stake any serious money on whether their attempts will be successful, we can nevertheless wish them luck and provide help wherever it makes sense to do so.
Posted by: Eastview at February 27, 2008 4:20 PM
Turkey wants to join the E.U.
How much is the State Dept paying Turkey to produce this?
Then the State Dept will have Kosovo pay their debt to us for acknowledging them as a country, that debt will be to accept this new rendition publicly.
Then all the State Dept needs is a person to become a leader of a nation that can speak for Christians and muslims. Maybe a leader that has been both.
Someone the U.N. will love, the E.U., all religions, and races. The person must be against only one thing and that is Israel. Got anyone in mind?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 27, 2008 4:32 PM
Re my previous post:
Of course, I left out conquest as a way to change social orders. The underlying principle is the same, though. Ruling orders just don't voluntarily step aside in response to someone challenging their celestial legitimacy to rule. In fact, Islam, itself, gained a foothold in the world by means of conquest. Given that the jihad (warrior) mentality seems to be woven into their religion, one might reasonably wonder if anything less than this would suffice to defeat them.
Having said this, I still think it worthwhile for us to extend our support to the Ankara scholars. Thought should be given to the forms of support that would be most helpful and effective. This might mean no overt support at all, since some kinds of support could easily be interpreted as constituting interference by Crusaders and Zionists, and could therefore backfire to the detriment of the project as a whole.
Posted by: Eastview at February 27, 2008 4:45 PM
Alaska1000, your 4:32 PM post.
You appear to be alluding to Obama.
So you think the State Dept. might already be providing support to the Ankara scholars? Somehow that doesn't seem right, because that would require a more sophisticated and subtle touch than it possesses.
Care to elaborate on your POV?
Posted by: Eastview at February 27, 2008 4:53 PM
Reform? Really!
IMO - the efforts of those who are moving towards "REFORM" within Islam are either very naive, or are very clever at the ole cloak-and-dagger routine (I choose the latter).
In the mean time, we should error on the side of caution by maintaining our stance and to not let down our guard.
In the mean time, I won't fall for this notion of "reform" until I see some real change FIRST, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on them, not on my attitude.
Posted by: champ at February 27, 2008 5:36 PM
Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.
When one of these "reformers" goes and nails a copy of the new and improved Qur'an and ahadith to the Ka'aba, I'll take it seriously.
For now, they don't even dare mention the changes to their co-religionists, only to the guillible (and non-threatening) kufirs. Good luck with that. [Guffaw].
Posted by: special_guest at February 27, 2008 6:29 PM
Alaskan1000, you piqued my interest to search for "Obama Israel". I didn't like what I found.
Posted by: special_guest at February 27, 2008 6:39 PM
One way to gauge the viability of this project within Turkey is whether Prime Minister Erdogan and his Islamic "Justice and Development" Party are on board or not. I suspect they are not. If not, the enterprise has no chance whatever for success within Turkey, let alone beyond Turkey. The BBC article makes no reference to how Erdogan and his ruling party view it. If this is a project of Ataturk admirers who hope to minimize Islam's influence in State and society then it will go nowhere.
However, if there is an impact from such a project as this, it can only help contain Islam and its most virulent strains, imo. Either they fight amongst themselves and dilute their unity (how is that bad?), or there is partial success (again, unlikely) and a nascent "reform branch" is born which contrasts and highlights the hatred and intolerance of militant Islam even more so.
Success or Failure, it's a win for the West. Sure, a few gullible Non-muslims could be lulled into a false sense of security, but not many I think. No westerner need place hopes or bets on the outcome. If it succeeds, great. If it fails, the failure is just more evidence that Islam is unreformable. People here don't need that additional evidence but a lot of other westerners do.
at February 27, 2008 7:05 PM
I say "westerners" but of course the community of people threatened by Islam is greater than just the west, such as our friends in India and other Non-western lands.
Posted by: alexon at February 27, 2008 7:12 PM
THE ARABS - ESPECIALLY HE SAUDIS - HATE THE TURKS, THE OTTOMAN.
THE SAUD HAVE BEEN STEADILY DEMOLISHING ALL REMNANTS OF OTTOMAN RULE IN ARABIA AND MECCA ETC.
THEY WILL NOT FOLLOW THIS NEW/REVISED HADITHA.
THEY ARE THE PRIMARY BACKERS OF THE SPREAD OF WAHHABISM/QUTBISM/SALAFISM ETC.
UNTIL THE SAUDIS REFORM THEIR ENTIRE APPROACH, WW4 WILL CONTINUE.
Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at February 27, 2008 8:23 PM
Does anyone think the mullahs will follow the suggestions of an Islamic advisor named Felix Koerner? His heart my be in the right place, but the paranoid Jew-haters of Islam will only fight this more so.
There is only one hadith in Islam that really, really needs to come down. That is "Whoever changes their religion (Islam), kill him."
Once that is no longer the case, and Muslims can leave Islam as easily as Christians can drop their faith-- without fear of prosecution from the state, or persecution from other Muslims, than the whole Sharia house of cards falls. The mullahs, and all "good" Muslims know it instinctively, and they fear it. Islam is brittle. It will implode. It's an all or nothing ideology, like communism or fascism.
at February 27, 2008 8:43 PM
Now wait a minute.
I have heard from our "leaders" for at least seven years, islam is all about peace. So now, will this make it more peaceful? Or, a turn for the worse, and our "leaders" need to restate?
Why make a peace filled faith more peace filled?
Sombody better find that bill of goods.
Hope is one thing diffrent than what one believes, or faith.
I think Turkey season is fast coming.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 27, 2008 9:11 PM
One small note, the first thing, the only thing that should be dealt with ,first, taqiyya.
The rest of any reforms without this first, will remain in doubt, in question. Take it to the bank.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 27, 2008 9:28 PM
"One way to gauge the viability of this project within Turkey is whether Prime Minister Erdogan and his Islamic "Justice and Development" Party are on board or not."
Also the intelligentsia-inveigling Fethullah Gulen is a good barometer: anything he supports is ipso facto sinister.
at February 27, 2008 10:05 PM
cantor mentioned Fethullah Gulen. Here are a couple of particularly creepy quotes of Gulen that are worth mentioning:
You must move in the arteries of the system, without anyone noticing your existence, until you reach all the power centers… until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria… like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete, and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it… You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey… Until that time, any step taken would be too early - like breaking an egg without waiting the full 40 days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all - in confidence… trusting your loyalty and sensitivity to secrecy. I know that when you leave here - [just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and feelings expressed here.
And
The philosophy of our service is that we open a house somewhere and, with the patience of a spider, we lay our web, to wait for people to get caught in the web; and we teach those who do. We don't lay the web to eat or consume them, but to show them the way to their resurrection, to blow life into their dead bodies and souls, to give them a life.
Good point, cantor. If Gulen is involved in this "reformation", we should watch our backs. And our fronts.
Posted by: special_guest at February 27, 2008 10:58 PM
Does reformation of a lie suddenly make it the truth?
Posted by: Foehammer at February 27, 2008 11:26 PM
foehammer-
"Does the reformation of a lie suddenly make it the truth?"
Only in one exceptional case:
Lie = Eli.
(As in "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!")
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 28, 2008 12:43 AM
specal_guest, thank you for linking to that other topic from early this year about internal power machinations of Turkey, Fethullah Gulen, etc. I missed it at the time. Lots of interesting posts. You and Morgaan really had at it but there was light as well as heat. I learned a lot about what's going on inside Turkey.
I did find the small final post by Leonid P.B. important:
> Morgaan & special_guest:
"In 1999 the footage was AIRED. When was it SHOT?"
Since Gülen talks about "the situation in Algeria" where their [the Islamists'] "heads were crushed", the footage is obviously post-1994, ok?
We know the footage was shot post-1982 since there is an explicit reference to that year. Leonid seems correct that Fethullah is referring to the 1994 bloodshed which saw more than a few heads (Islamist) crushed in Algeria. Perhaps Morgaan will appear with a contrary view? He did make some salient points on the other thread.
If the post-1994 date is true then the footage and words of Fethullah cannot be written off as decades old youthful indescretions. It paints a much more calculating and deceiving figure. Very damning if post-1994 which appears to be the case.
at February 28, 2008 1:32 AM
special_guest, those are crucial texts from Gullen's past. He has to directly and completely abjure them, for us to even begin to entertain taking him seriously as a reformer.
alexon, I remember that exchange well. Perhaps Morgaan finds Gullen's his dapper personality sufficiently charming -- and his "Naqshbandi Sufi" mysticism sufficiently fascinating in that Oriental exotic sort of way that has been seducing Westerners like Pierre Loti for a long, long time -- to be swayed by the wool he pulls over eyes.
at February 28, 2008 3:29 AM
P.S.: I also seem to recall, a few crescent moons past, a rather definite-sounding promise from the aforementioned, something about "I'll be seeing (or phoning or faxing or texting or whatever) Fethullah soon and I am going to ask him about this and report back" -- but what do you know, nothing more was heard.
Posted by: cantor at February 28, 2008 3:32 AM
Yes, special guest, thank you for pointing to the Fethullah Gülen material. I, too, missed it when it was discussed in JW. Very illuminating.
Anyone know if Gülen is connected in any way to the Hadith revision project in Turkey?
Posted by: Eastview at February 28, 2008 4:51 AM
Wake up and smell the Taqiya everyone.
This is nothing more than a ruse to speed up Turkeys' entrance into the EU. From that point onward we will be swamped with muslim immigrants all claiming to come form Turkey.
This is so obvious it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that the politicians will swallow it hook line and sinker.
Posted by: DaveMate at February 28, 2008 5:17 AM
Rewriting the rules of Islam
who are they kidding?
they are trying hard to be a part of Europe.
Sorry , not yet
Rewriting is not the word they need to be a part of Europe ERASING IS
at February 28, 2008 11:38 AM
cantor, she did reply to say that
she heard back from her friends in Turkey, and not to worry, they agreed that Gulen is trustworthy. I hope that puts everyone's mind to rest.
As for when Gulen made those quotes, he was born in 1941. As alexon said, the quotes were made after 1982, which means Gulen was at least 41 years old when he made his "youthful indescretions". (Kind of like how during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis the media referred to the Iranian kidnappers as "students" when they were obviously old enough for tenure).
But bottom line, according to the BBC, Gulen was under investigation in Turkey in 1999 (that's right, when these quotes were broadcast) for telling his followers to plot to overthrow the state. It doesn't give the explicit details of what Gulen said, but it seems in line with these quotes. That would have made Gulen in his late 50's when he made the quotes.
Posted by: special_guest at February 28, 2008 12:45 PM
Fundamental change, yes, but:
(a) nothing in this long article suggests any potential change in interpretations relating to how to relate to the Kuffar, apostates, etc. It deals with improving the life of muslims -- almost exclusively women. That is good, of course, but completely avoids the question of Jihad. I doubt anything like this is even on the table.
and
(b) They will get shot to pieces anyway. Whole civilizations have been slaughtered by angry muslims for less than this.
Still, I wish them well. Interesting that Esposito and company are busy publicizing this book saying that extremism in Islam has nothing to do with Islam, and at the same time the Turkish government is putting life and limb on line to gut the heart out of the religion in order to put an end to some forms of extremism. So -- who is right, Esposito, who is paid big oil bucks by his Saudi handlers to whitewash Islam, or these brave Turkish Intellectuals who are risking their very lives?
Posted by: Archimedes2 at February 28, 2008 1:03 PM
special_guest,
Your link does not provide a statement by Morgaan that she in fact heard back from those friends.
Much to my distaste at having to read Morgaan again, I combed through that thread again, and only found two promises from her, but no follow-up on those promises:
1) "I have sent to Turkey this afternoon for clarification on this from friends I trust.
I will let you all know, or I'll give the information to Robert, and we will see if we can get some clarity here. I think I am correct in what I say, but if it turns out I'm wrong, I shall apologize, as always."
2) "I have requested an interview with Fethullah Gulen and will publish it in a place it can be easily accessed."
Unless I missed something on that thread, she never delivered on these two promises.
Posted by: cantor at February 28, 2008 1:11 PM
Cantor is correct. Unless she posted it somewhere else, there was no follow-up by Morgaan on the requested interview with Fethullah Gulen which would supposedly clear up the misunderstanding about when Gulen's creepy comments were made and taped.
Post-1994, which appears to be the case, destroys any credibility he or his supporters lay claim to.
Posted by: alexon at February 28, 2008 6:06 PM
alexon, as far as I'm concerned, even pre-1994 puts Gullen in a gravely compromised position -- by the very nature of the comments made. When, for example, a man vows in 1980 (when he was, say, 25 years old) that he is going to make it his life's goal and mission do everything he can to deceive people and make them think he is harmless even though he has plans to harm them, how can we ever believe such a person later, even 28 years later? The only way to even begin to entertain a restoration of such a person's credibility is for that person to completely and directly repudiate all his previous offending remarks as well as all remarks he ever made that bear any connection to them. And even that is, of course, not enough. A Fethullah Gullen must grovel at our feet, be a good boy forever, make transparent all his transactions, and pray that we someday slowly warm up to thinking of trusting him again.
Posted by: cantor at February 28, 2008 8:03 PM
Yes, pre-1994 is still a major problem, but post-1994 is beyond repair.
Posted by: alexon at February 29, 2008 1:57 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)