Islamic and Western thought in Turkey - A problem yet not solved

[Deno]

Not true. Secular societies have their own set of taboos and restrictions. They may not have anything to do with religion, but they exist just the same. Just ask anyone who tries to do research on any politically incorrect topic.

Banning racism/family abuse is basic rights.

Please explain more about what are those topics you find as taboo?


Edit: I think my answer was condescending. Sorry if it was percieved wrong.

 

[Developereo]

Banning racism/family abuse is basic rights.

Please explain more about what are those topics you find as taboo?


Edit: I think my answer was condescending. Sorry if it was percieved wrong.

Correlation of race with IQ, the definition of "intelligence", Holocaust details, etc., etc.

Many of these topics are shunned because they disturb social harmony, but there is no scientific reason to bar them.

 

[Rusty]

I think a lot of the points being brought up here don't take into account many factors.
It is too simplistic to simply say "most Muslims countries are poor, therefore Islam is the problem"

The biggest problem Muslim countries are facing right now is post/neo colonialism.
The vast majority of them were under European rule who did their best to not only destroy our past, but also our future.
they created an elite class who were more European then their native culture.
The legacy of this elite class was that all our countries are being run by people who are ashamed of Islam and in many cases, are helping to repress it or discredit it.

Islam is perfectly viable in the modern world, I would actually say it is more viable in the modern world then in the past. Islam gives solutions to so many modern problems and it offers something more then an empty materialistic existence.

 

[PacificBeach]

I think a secular Muslim is someone who can accept that the state itself is non-religious and rules on behalf of all religions, ethnics etc and does not put emphasis on one of those. Religion is private, thats my idea of a secular-Muslim.

What I didn't like is that there was no clear commitment from Zulkarneyn to democracy. He also argues in favor of Sharia which is not compatible with the our constitution or democracy.

I dont see what's the problem with secularism (generally; this is not directed at Zulkarneyn) , you can practice your religion as free as you want. The problem is very religious people will put their noses in the lifes of others: You cant do that, thats harram etc. ,these people they will put others under pressure for being different until they bend and do as they want or people get hurt.

I would also like to ask Zulkarneyn whether he thinks that Science (which you're apparently supporting) is compatible with religion.

Also Zulkarneyn if we introduce sharia-law for Muslim, Jewish laws for Jews etc which law will be used for non-religious people? Which law will be used if a Muslim steals something from a Christian? Chaos.

Quran reveals many interesting scientific phenomena that wouldn't have been known at the time; such as the expansion of universe, the seas whose water do not mix with each other, many others about celestial bodies, etc. This is amazing considering that the Quran was revealed in 7th century.

Islam obligates us and encourages us in the pursuit of knowledge as in "Seek knowledge even though it be in China."

How can such a religion be incompatible with science? Do we have an example of lets say... a proven scientific knowledge that is in clear conflict with Islam's teachings?

I think the Catholic Church's clashes with scientific community in middle ages as in Condemnations, Copernicus and Galileo affairs, etc brought this sticker that science is incompatible with religion.

Secondly, Islam is a comprehensive religion, its rulings cover all aspects of life, social, economical, political, judiciary,... Can not even pray certain prayers alone such as the Cuma prayer which requires a communion. It covers both private and public domains.

The choice of believing whatever he wants belongs to each individual. The choice is personal. One can choose Islam, be atheist, be a Christian, etc... There is no compulsion. However once we make the choice to be a Muslim, there is no longer an option for us anymore but to embrace all rulings of Allah. Otherwise, if we don't then it means there is contradiction in our belief.

How can we tell that we believe but at the same time reject Allah's rulings-laws or refrain from applying them? This is pretty much a mutually exclusive situation. One one hand declaring our faith in Allah, his Angels, his Books, his Prophets and his Destiny in its entirety but on the other hand rejecting or disliking application of His rulings.

Would there really be a good reasoning, an intellectual basis behind such a belief? What could be the possible rationale of a Muslim who does not want/like Sharia? We accept Allah as our Lord but do not recognize His authority? or that we know better? The society of men can develop better laws? or that His rulings did not last the elapsed time and are no longer applicable at present?

The people who do not rule by what Allah sent down are described as unbelievers, wrongdoers, and rebellious. Similarly believing in part of the book and disregarding the rest is not an option.

"... and whosoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, such are the disbelievers." (5:44)
"... and whosoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, such are the wrongdoers." (5:45)
"...and whosoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, such are the rebellious." (5:47)
Allah condemned the Jews saying: "....Then do you believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part?" (2:85)

 

[Deno]

Correlation of race with IQ, the definition of "intelligence", Holocaust details, etc., etc.

Many of these topics are shunned because they disturb social harmony, but there is no scientific reason to bar them.

Correlation of race with IQ: Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you can see that studies are made on this subject. and IQ is something that can be improved with experience.

Holocaust denial is a bit crazy talk... It is proven by both German and foreign documents and facts... However one can dabate holocausts details... There is no such thing as ban on that subject... I see ban of denial of holocaus as barbaric and many historians are on the same path as me.

I never said secular society is without faults... I said secular society has more room for self-determination, creativity and freethought than religion based one.

 

[Deno]

I think a lot of the points being brought up here don't take into account many factors.
It is too simplistic to simply say "most Muslims countries are poor, therefore Islam is the problem"

The biggest problem Muslim countries are facing right now is post/neo colonialism.
The vast majority of them were under European rule who did their best to not only destroy our past, but also our future.
they created an elite class who were more European then their native culture.
The legacy of this elite class was that all our countries are being run by people who are ashamed of Islam and in many cases, are helping to repress it or discredit it.

Islam is perfectly viable in the modern world, I would actually say it is more viable in the modern world then in the past. Islam gives solutions to so many modern problems and it offers something more then an empty materialistic existence.

I agree on your first part. It is not Islam that should be fault. Religion is religion there is no difference between them. The difference between muslims and christians is this, they shake them off their taboos and opressive religious leaders while muslims in generald did not.

Muslims biggest problem is not emperialism, its their failure at shaking of their religious taboos and dogmas and allow freethought. Thats why Emperial powers can easlily control muslim countries... A little support to some religious leader and one or two provacative word from him then you have a country with inner turmoil...

 

[DarkPrince]

great article Zulkarneyn bro

 

[DarkPrince]

I agree on your first part. It is not Islam that should be fault. Religion is religion there is no difference between them. The difference between muslims and christians is this, they shake them off their taboos and opressive religious leaders while muslims in generald did not.

Muslims biggest problem is not emperialism, its their failure at shaking of their religious taboos and dogmas and allow freethought. Thats why Emperial powers can easlily control muslim countries... A little support to some religious leader and one or two provacative word from him then you have a country with inner turmoil...

deno my atheist sisso listen

emperialism is not a bad thing if the Emperor is good

today's biggest problem is people's "Iman"

if a person's "Iman" is not ok

u can try 1000 things it will not gonna work out

 

[Developereo]

Correlation of race with IQ: Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you can see that studies are made on this subject. and IQ is something that can be improved with experience.

Of course, some people have managed to buck the trend and risk their careers. The point is that there are many subjects which simply will not get funding or departmental approval. Only a few exceptional cases will dare to proceed, either through self-funding, or because they have established careers. There are lots more subjects, from exposing flaws in relativity to archaeological "anomalies" that simply get swept under the carpet.

Established science has its own set of taboo subjects and heresies which must not be broached.

Holocaust denial is a bit crazy talk... It is proven by both German and foreign documents and facts... However one can dabate holocausts details... There is no such thing as ban on that subject... I see ban of denial of holocaus as barbaric and many historians are on the same path as me.

Nobody's talking about denial. However, any attempt to question the numbers or details is quashed in Europe.

I never said secular society is without faults... I said secular society has more room for self-determination, creativity and freethought than religion based one.

This is what you wrote, which is simply false. All societies have their taboo subjects.

Secular societies do not have dogmas or taboos that can hinder creaticity and freethought but religons have...

 

[Developereo]

I will go to bed, but I still did not meet, good-bye, I hope other members more to share your point of view.

I agree with your basic premise that most Muslim societies lack adaptability. The reason is that, in most societies, there are competing voices for influence: clergy, educators, business interests, political figures. However, in most Muslim countries, the religious scholars have a dominant role, which goes largely unchallenged. This is partly because Islam is accepted as the answer to all questions. Also, as we agree, religious scholars tend to prefer the status quo and are afraid of change, so Muslim societies are stuck in a time warp.

These societies will get unstuck and progress only when the influence of the clergy is balanced by the secular voices due to economic and competitive demands.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

@Deno Living in Turkey you can't impossibly say that secularism has not any taboos. Under Ataturks leadership when Turkey was ruled under one party leadership Kazim Karabekir and his friends (one of them was Adnan Adıvar) founded a second party in Turkey called Progressive Republican Party/Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası which advocated liberal democracy but was islamiccally oriented. Ataturk shut down this party because of allegations that never had real backings. After that single party period continued well into 1946. Only after that we saw other parties entering the political arena. But the multiparty period was itself full of turbulent years and coups until AKP entered the scene.

Today there are many taboos in Turkey thanks to secularism. People have been restricted Univeristies and other official areas just because they wear head scarf. Talking about Ataturk objectively is the biggest taboo. Furthermore children are brought up indoctrinating to be extremely subjective leaning towards Ataturkism. Though this is thankfully disappearing slowly thanks to the AKP.

The point of my thread was exactly to discuss these matters. Constructive criticism and an objective/realistic look into the Turkish history is far away from reality in Turkey. Those people who tried to introduce reforms that would benefit Turkey as a whole (economically, socially) were either executed (Menderes and his friends) or kept away from politics (Kazim Karabekir and his friend). Can you tell me if taboos don't exist, why are some forces (the defendors of secularism aka the military) banning political parties that are supported by the people? Adnan Menderes' DP in the 1950ies and several times tried to ban AKP in the 2000's 2010's? We all know Turkish political history has been turbulent until the AKP came to power. No sense sense in denying this. I am not telling you that Ataturk was all bad, he had done whatever he could do, but they were definately not perfect and in accordance with many's beliefs. Hence, today if we want to develop an enlightened youth whose heart is at peace we need to teach them real history and objectivity and constructive criticism. Living in Denmark my whole life i see that these are what Turkey's education lacks in.

 

[Deno]

Of course, some people have managed to buck the trend and risk their careers. The point is that there are many subjects which simply will not get funding or departmental approval. Only a few exceptional cases will dare to proceed, either through self-funding, or because they have established careers. There are lots more subjects, from exposing flaws in relativity to archaeological "anomalies" that simply get swept under the carpet.

Established science has its own set of taboo subjects and heresies which must not be broached.



Nobody's talking about denial. However, any attempt to question the numbers or details is quashed in Europe.



This is what you wrote, which is simply false. All societies have their taboo subjects.

It was wrong of me to say that secular cociety does not have taboo but there is not even a comperssion between religion based society and secular society on taboos and dogmas...

Even in ther core this shows very clearly... One is based on thoughts of one man from thausands of years back and one is based on contunius studies of experts and experinece of societies themselves...

 

[Saithan]

Good POV and interesting discussions. If I should sum up how I see it, it'll be like this:

Islam is not the problem, humans are the problem. 7 billion people on mother earth with 7 billion ways of thinking, go figure.

Only a few will strongly argue against islam and that it's not viable with democracy, I don't know why they get that idea, but maybe it's because they're stuck in their own way of thinking. Just like how the church tried to quell Galileo, they (atheists etc.) are trying to quell all the voices that are doing their best to prove that democracy and islam go well hand in hand.

However people are free to think what they want as long as they don't impose it on others, which I think is the problem with the west tbh (and atheists).

However while discussing the ideologies and such I think it's very wrong to point fingers and start heated debates over dead people. They did what they thought best and while it may have been good for a short while it won't last because the world keeps turning around.

The point about the ottomans being afraid of western science/approach was a good point, and the way Atatürk tried to rectify it with the new republic was also a good point. However look at it like this.

If the Ottomans kept Turkey in the stone age, Atatürk gave us a cold Turkey (figuratively speaking). How else can you take a people with 500+ years culture and religion and ram the new age into their heads ?

And yes it's not perfect, but we're getting there because we're educated, we're cultured and we know our past and we know what to expect of the future.

As long as we don't lose our iman we're well off.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to say, it does not befit a muslim or a decent human being to speak ill of the dead, but perhaps I'm the only one who feels that way.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Good POV and interesting discussions. If I should sum up how I see it, it'll be like this:

Islam is not the problem, humans are the problem. 7 billion people on mother earth with 7 billion ways of thinking, go figure.

Only a few will strongly argue against islam and that it's not viable with democracy, I don't know why they get that idea, but maybe it's because they're stuck in their own way of thinking. Just like how the church tried to quell Galileo, they (atheists etc.) are trying to quell all the voices that are doing their best to prove that democracy and islam go well hand in hand.

However people are free to think what they want as long as they don't impose it on others, which I think is the problem with the west tbh (and atheists).

However while discussing the ideologies and such I think it's very wrong to point fingers and start heated debates over dead people. They did what they thought best and while it may have been good for a short while it won't last because the world keeps turning around.

The point about the ottomans being afraid of western science/approach was a good point, and the way Atatürk tried to rectify it with the new republic was also a good point. However look at it like this.

If the Ottomans kept Turkey in the stone age, Atatürk gave us a cold Turkey (figuratively speaking). How else can you take a people with 500+ years culture and religion and ram the new age into their heads ?

And yes it's not perfect, but we're getting there because we're educated, we're cultured and we know our past and we know what to expect of the future.

As long as we don't lose our iman we're well off.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to say, it does not befit a muslim or a decent human being to speak ill of the dead, but perhaps I'm the only one who feels that way.

You got it wrong mate. I am not speaking ill of the dead, i am trying to sum up what has historically happened and analyze it with today's perspective. Speaking ill of the dead is if you accuse (iftira) or curse them, i am doing neither.

 

[Saithan]

You got it wrong mate. I am not speaking ill of the dead, i am trying to sum up what has historically happened and analyze it with today's perspective. Speaking ill of the dead is if you accuse (iftira) or curse them, i am doing neither.

Sorry, if it seemed like I was refering to you, it's not. I just feel that in many of the discussion we have in this forum we look back to the past and start pointing fingers. An objective observation is useful for all, but propaganda-like posts is not going to get a constructive debate or reaction, i'm thinking of F-murats posts here and some slightly ultranationalists posts.