You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Olde Tyme Religion
Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts
2008-02-26
Lots of rationalization about the "original spirit" of islam, but it seems to go the right way.
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. 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.

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.

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. "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.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

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.

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."

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.

"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."
Posted by:anonymous5089

#11  "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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

More like the other way around, bubbe.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-02-26 19:36  

#10  Reformation Ptah, the key word is reformation = return to Old Testament.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-02-26 19:32  

#9  erk. I MEANT to say: One has to be a political naif to believe that once the Church had secular government power, no unscrupulous people would fake religosity to take it over, spoiling both in the long run.

Posted by: Ptah   2008-02-26 19:11  

#8  #6:
#4(2)Reformation in Christianity utterly ignores what is preached in the Old Testament

On second thought, I'll wait for Ptah to respoind to this.


Second thought WAS more accurate than the first, G(r)om! ;)

Christianity, as a rule, views itself as superceding portions of the Old Testament, fulfilling other portions, extending still others, AND totally ignoring some portions. You have to really KNOW your New Testament to see what applies and what doesn't. Paul called that selectivity "rightly dividing the word of truth".

The portion that causes heartburn is "replacement theology", where it is held that Christianity replaces Judaism rather than being the side-effect of extending The Abrahamic Covenant (old testament) to the gentiles. The issue then becomes how "Israelite" the Church should be.

Note that I said "Israelite": this is a reference to the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an independent political entity within the Promised land. How much should the Church BE the State? Jesus and the Apostles were silent, so the standard assumption during the middle ages was "yeah. we should be the state". This, of course, despite a total lack of any commands or instruction in the New Testament that can be construed as "civil" laws, such as inheritance laws, death penalties, and the like. I personally take this silence as indicating that Christianity is a religion of people and church, not people and temple/mosque/cathedral and state, since the letters of Paul are full of instructions on how to run the local church.

At the same time, I don't think those who initially advocated the Church taking over the State did so with nefarious motives: The Church taking over the State pretty much guarantees that nobody persecutes the church members, and looking out for the welfare of the church members is the job of the Clergy. One has to be a political naif to believe that once the Church had secular government power, some unscrupulous people would fake religosity to take it over, spoiling both in the long run.

The American Compromise, in which the Government is forbidden to suppress specific denominations or explicitly support specific denominations, combined with freedom of speech and press to allow the proclamation of the Gospel was, in my humble opinion, the best damn thing to ever happen to both Church and State. The church, and religion in general, should be free to influence people, both as voters and as officials, but not legislate. As a result, lefties are still frustrated that America continues to be regarded as the most "religious" nation in the world, although the government is supposed to be agnostic.

My biggest worry is a legal imposition of political correctness similar to the Human "rights" commissions of Canada. Once you're forbidden to say what you think is the truth, one tends to notice that the squeaky (i.e. violent) wheel always seems to get the grease, so you think you need to follow the same policy to get the same effect.

When THAT happens, my friends, THEN we are truly f*ck*d.
Posted by: Ptah   2008-02-26 19:09  

#7  Meh. Hadith. Let me know when it's possible to do textual analysis of the Qu'ran itself under your own name without making yourself the target of fanatics.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-02-26 17:14  

#6  
#4(2)Reformation in Christianity utterly ignores what is preached in the Old Testament

On second thought, I'll wait for Ptah to respoind to this.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-02-26 17:14  

#5  I saw this a while back as being inevitable. There is just no way for intelligent Muslims to rationalize several glaring problems:

1) Islam is supposed to be more "modern" than anything else, and that is why it is "better". However, even a damn fool can see that Islam is totally anachronistic and stupid in its practice. Stubbornly insisting that it is still better in any real sense has become embarrassing.

2) Reformation in Christianity utterly ignores what is preached in the Old Testament; Islam can do the same. It is dumb to use camel dung on wounds when you have antibiotics, even *if* Mohammed said to use camel dung.

3) Women are perfectly capable creatures, and men don't lose their marbles around them. Nothing in the Koran says otherwise, so let's go with that.

4) Homicidal lunatics that run around indiscriminately killing everyone and anyone have no real justification, ever. They must be stopped.

5) Nobody has any religious authority anymore. Islam has devolved into a free for all, with any kook doing things his own way. Order must be restored.

6) We Turks are better than Arabs, so what we say, goes.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-02-26 16:02  

#4  Who's gonna behead Turkey now?
Posted by: danking70   2008-02-26 15:31  

#3  Good luck with this one. A step in the correct direction, but will, undoubtedly, be supplanted by boomers of various sizes and descriptions with the only common denominator being influence by whack-job Islamonut "clerics."
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2008-02-26 13:37  

#2  Well nothing has been actually published yet.

I'm skeptical that the final document will conform to the info in this article.
Posted by: mhw   2008-02-26 13:35  

#1  If these efforts produce the Martin Luther of Islam, that would be great. Luther created an opening for individual conscience in a world dominated by dogma.

Islam still has to deal with the content of the book itself. They still have to finesse "slay the infidel" ande "wage jihad until Allah is obeyed" into something more like "turn the other cheek" and "render unto caesar." I wish them luck.

More likely they are setting themselves up as the Islamic Gorbachev. Once you admit that your system may not be the final authority on all matters, people start wondering whether there's much worth in the beliefs at all. If Islam is not the unalterable word of divine authority, then it loses its position as the legitimate conqueror of global infidelity. That would be a grand thing indeed.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2008-02-26 13:33  

00:00