Secularism or Islam?
-
You can punish a muslim with the laws of the Quran, but you cannot punish a non-muslim with those laws(except for certain cases, i.e. theft, treason).
Can you please elaborate, with examples, on this faith-based punishment, quoting verses of quraan as evidence?
-
Al-Islam is a way of life while Secularism is another way of life.
No human being can exist without a Lord except he claims to be the Lord. Therefore no system can guarantee freedom to humankind as long as it is created and managed by the creatures.
Secularism is a religion/a way of life in the same way that al-Islam is; none can accomodate the other.
Al-Islam preaches servitude to none but God alone while the other systems preach servitude to the creatures - which one is freedom?
I must quickly mention that Sunnism and Shiasm are not different from secularism; they are religions of enslavement. In al-Islam everyone has freedom to choose his choice of life so long it does not infringe on the rights of others.
-
Al-Islam is a way of life while Secularism is another way of life.
No human being can exist without a Lord except he claims to be the Lord. Therefore no system can guarantee freedom to humankind as long as it is created and managed by the creatures.
Secularism is a religion/a way of life in the same way that al-Islam is; none can accomodate the other.
Al-Islam preaches servitude to none but God alone while the other systems preach servitude to the creatures - which one is freedom?
I must quickly mention that Sunnism and Shiasm are not different from secularism; they are religions of enslavement. In al-Islam everyone has freedom to choose his choice of life so long it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Excellent!
-
My thoughts on this...
When we talk about secularism, what type of secularism are we talking about here? The Turkish type of secularism seeks to do away with religion, the banning of head scarves in Universities for example. The American version of secularism, guarantees personal liberties foremost, wearing a hijab to university is a personal liberty guaranteed by America's version of secularism, it allows one to practice whatever one wants, there are no limitations to ones practice of religion, whilst in Turkey, the government imposes restrictions on such liberties and practices, you can't be overtly religious in the eyes of Turkish secularism, it tries to do away with religion in the guise for modernity, it seems to be Islamic is not to be modern. Perhaps that's why to me, the proponents of Turkish secularism seem to have a very anti-Western stance and rhetoric, blame the EU, blame the US, I doubt they value Western style civil liberties as much, infact hasn't the Army threatened to government with a coup to "protect" Secularism.
I believe Quranic laws applies to all, Muslims and non Muslims, but that's because I believe the Quran to be the word of God. Non Muslims don't share my view thus I believe the implementation of Quranic law for them should be on the basis of their willingness on acceptance in its jurisdiction. Remember there is no compulsion in religion, those Non Muslims might disagree with many facets of Quranic law, there is no reason why we should impose on them what they don't believe. They have a right to a legal system of their beliefs and choice. This is where secularism should come in, not the Turkish example of it, but a more Western and American version, where civil liberties and freedom is paramount.
That said, I believe Muslim law, current Sharia laws are usually very stringent in its rules of evidence much more so than secular laws, you need x amount of eyewitnesses and so forth.
The problem however with Islamic law, the so called "Shariah laws", is that there is no uniformity around the world, Malaysian Shariah law differs from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia for example. It is also all highly based on the hadeeth (we know the problems that can arise from this). There is also a monopoly on Shariah law, because it's scholarly grounding is on the basis of individual bureaucracies of the respective Islamic institutions and bodies found in each country. They provide only their basis of understanding, tainted with bias, prejudice, usually favoring men, heavily influenced by factors other than the Quran, they have monopolized the laws and its issues. Powerful positions such as head Muftis play such a important role in the way Islamic jurisprudence is enacted upon each country, it's highly hierarchical, to the extent in some places its almost like having a pope issuing edicts.
Here is an example of some the absurdity that passes as Islamic/Shariah law, In 2003 a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via sms text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. Such a divorce, known as the "triple talaq" is not allowed in most Muslim states, there was a huge debate about this in Malaysia after this ruling. Malaysia is a country half way to being secular and at the same time Islamic. In Malaysia we have a dual court system, Sharia for Muslims and Civil, English based Secular Common law for non Muslims, in my personal view most matters seem to indicate that the Non Muslim Malaysians have a more just and equitable court with Secularism.
As long as we have Shariah law tainted by ahadeeth, filled with Sunni and Shia traditions, rife with cultural prejudice, male machoism, a monopoly of opinions, verdicts from the tutelage of pope like Muftis, secular law and secularism remains the best option, (not the Turkish version of secularism but the Western, American version, that which regards civil liberties as paramount). Secularism which guarantees freedom to lead your life, religion the way you see fit as long as it does not infringe on the same rights as others.
Just another note, Saudi Arabia is open for you. Since Turkey's military is so evil, your welcome to leave my country and go to Saudi Arabia.
Oh that's great!! someone expresses a contrary opinion and you wish them to leave and go to Saudi. The thing about democracy is that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, opinions, live with it, you're supposed to be a free country. Well maybe Turkey is evidently not. In my opinion if your Army does have a coup AGAIN, you're no worse than Saudi Arabia!! I have a right to my opinion, I know you won't be happy with what I've said!
-
My thoughts on this...
When we talk about secularism, what type of secularism are we talking about here? The Turkish type of secularism seeks to do away with religion, the banning of head scarves in Universities for example. The American version of secularism, guarantees personal liberties foremost, wearing a hijab to university is a personal liberty guaranteed by America's version of secularism, it allows one to practice whatever one wants, there are no limitations to ones practice of religion, whilst in Turkey, the government imposes restrictions on such liberties and practices, you can't be overtly religious in the eyes of Turkish secularism, it tries to do away with religion in the guise for modernity, it seems to be Islamic is not to be modern. Perhaps that's why to me, the proponents of Turkish secularism seem to have a very anti-Western stance and rhetoric, blame the EU, blame the US, I doubt they value Western style civil liberties as much, infact hasn't the Army threatened to government with a coup to "protect" Secularism.Your comparison between USA and T?rkiye is hilarious. Every counrty has its special conditions. 95% of population in T?rkiye is sunni muslim. And everyone is free in own beliefs and free to practice own religion. Only in public(state) services religous icons, applications are forbidden. So lets see what happens if people of T?rkiye begin to apply own personal beliefs to the public services. For example in T?rkiye the classes of all schools seperated into boys class and girls class, each have its class. Or for example in T?rkiye a woman working in tax office rejects to talk to a man and rejects to do the job of a man because of her beliefs or vice versa,or a male doctor who doesnt want to look after female patient because of his beliefs, or a female diplomat who does not want to shake hand with foreign male diplomat,etc. If one?s personal liberty restricts others personal liberty in public, what will you do? Do you see such examples in USA?s secularism? Let me ask you a question, for instance a conservative christian is a teacher in high school in USA, but she/he does not want students who have different religions, in her/his class, will USA government give rights her due to her/his personal liberty?
There is no headscarf problem in T?rkiye through the history of Republic till 1990?s. Do you think people in T?rkiye did not wear headscarf before 1990?s? When it is begun to use as a political sign then problem occurs and arises.
So Turkish secularism does not restrict people?s belief, everyone is free to practice own belief until it does not restrict others belief. -
peace fbahadir,
Turkish secularism does not restrict people?s belief, everyone is free to practice own belief until it does not restrict others belief.
in due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to Muslims- not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state.
let the Turks decide what they want.
peace
-
Your comparison between USA and T?rkiye is hilarious. Every counrty has its special conditions. 95% of population in T?rkiye is sunni muslim.
What are the special conditions of Turkey that its version of secularism needs to do away with religion??
And everyone is free in own beliefs and free to practice own religion. Only in public(state) services religous icons, applications are forbidden.
Urgh, thus you aren't really free to practice your own religion. Like I said before, the state in Turkey promotes it's version of secularism by doing away with religion. Religion is seen as a backward and ignorant, a hindrance to modernity. Completely different to a secularism where the idea of individual liberties are paramount.
So lets see what happens if people of T?rkiye begin to apply own personal beliefs to the public services. For example in T?rkiye the classes of all schools seperated into boys class and girls class, each have its class. Or for example in T?rkiye a woman working in tax office rejects to talk to a man and rejects to do the job of a man because of her beliefs or vice versa,or a male doctor who doesnt want to look after female patient because of his beliefs, or a female diplomat who does not want to shake hand with foreign male diplomat,etc.
Well shouldn't people have the right to have these, to do all that you've said if they choose to????? In Turkey you aren't given this right, you aren't given at all the right to practice your religious beliefs in the public domain. All this are choices for people to make, not the state.
If one?s personal liberty restricts others personal liberty in public, what will you do? Do you see such examples in USA?s secularism? Let me ask you a question, for instance a conservative christian is a teacher in high school in USA, but she/he does not want students who have different religions, in her/his class, will USA government give rights her due to her/his personal liberty?
I'm not from the states, but what I know of their education system is that in a public school a teacher wouldn't be allowed to do this, BUT as far as I can foresee, there would be nothing stopping this conservative teacher from going private and setting up a strictly evangelical Christian school in some hick town. I have a feeling the US government would allow her personal beliefs, albeit done without public funds. The US is a place where bigotry is allowed, the Ku Klux Klan are free to spout their beliefs, to march, burn crosses. Besides I can't believe you're trying to draw comparisons, civil liberties between the US and Turkey seriously can't even be compared!! You won't go to prison and you can't be charged for holding unAmerican views or "insulting" America , but in Turkey you can be charged for "insulting Turkishness". Your Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk highlighted to the entire world the serious lack of freedom of speech and thought within your Republic, all under the guise of keeping your secular state.
There is no headscarf problem in T?rkiye through the history of Republic till 1990?s. Do you think people in T?rkiye did not wear headscarf before 1990?s? When it is begun to use as a political sign then problem occurs and arises.
So Turkish secularism does not restrict people?s belief, everyone is free to practice own belief until it does not restrict others belief.LET PEOPLE DECIDE for themselves!!!! I'd be angry as hell if my state tells me what I can or cannot wear! But that's exactly what's happening in Turkey. How can you say Turkish secularism does not restrict peoples beliefs? If someones belief is in wearing the Hijab, she's immediately excluded from University/School!! She has no further avenues in the country and is left with the only options of not getting an education or going abroad for studies, America, another secular state doesn't find her wearing a hijab a University a problem, wouldn't even blink, but her native Turkey does because of its version of secularism!! I might not necessarily believe in the hijab but I believe in a persons fundamental right to choose as she fits, a persons rights and liberties.
Why can't the state let the Turks decide by giving them the freedom? Is wearing a hijab at university as an example such a great threat to your republic?
-
I would just like to clarify a grave misconception that the founder of Pakistan (Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah) was a secularist and believed in separation of religion and state. People who believe this myth point to his inauguration speech where he said being a hindu or muslim is not the business of the state. The speech is taken out of context, business does not mean "nature" of the state, it refers to the administrative set up of the state.
In another speech, the inauguration of State Bank of Pakistan, and in his Eid message 1948, he is on record saying "We want to enact ISLAMIC LAW in the country". As a matter of fact, throughout the struggle to create Pakistan as an independent Muslim state, Qaid-e-Azam was devoted to the cause of Islam and Islamic governance. One must also bear in mind that Qaid was not a particularly religious person, not an aalim, and therefore some of his personal habits cannot be used to justify that he believed in secularism. He may not have known the details of Islamic law, but he believed in its enactment on principle (and believed the details should be left to the proper authorities - i.e. the ulama).
Let us not forget, Qaid was the President of the MUSLIM League. He believed in a Muslim state. He was not a nationalist or fighting for a Punjabi state, or Sindhi state, or Bengali state, or any other ethnic identity. He clearly believed in a MUSLIM state, where the criteria for being part of Pakistan was RELIGION.
http//jamaat.org/qa/quaid.html
The Holy Quran is against secularism. We find many instances where the Holy Quran speaks on matters of governance. If the Holy Quran was secular, it would be absolutely silent on all governmental issues, because the definition of secularism is that the state is completely free of religious influence. Yet the Holy Quran says
Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things (45
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance (423
These are some examples of verses in the Holy Quran which instruct Muslims on the nature of government and legal judgments.
If the Holy Quran was only concerned with personal religious teachings, and gave commandments, but did not prescribe any WORLDLY punishments or remedies for breaking such commandments, perhaps it could be considered as endorsing secularism. However, the fact that worldly punishments have been mentioned in Holy Quran for sins such as theft and fornication, clearly demonstrate that the Holy Quran has nothing to do with secularism. Why would Allah be so concerned with the manner of a thief's punishment (cutting off of his hands), or the punishment of a fornicator (lashes and banishment), or the options for remedying murder (capital punishment or blood money), if the religion of Islam is strictly a personal affair and is not meant to have anything to do with the state or government?
-
Salaam Yusha
Yet the Holy Quran says
Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things (45
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance (423
These are some examples of verses in the Holy Quran which instruct Muslims on the nature of government and legal judgments.
Justice and mutual consultation can also be found in secular governments. In fact, from my experience in "islamic" governments, and from what we know of them nowadays, they are far from these two characteristics. That could be, in fact, an evidence that God is not much concerned about what type of government we may establish or what we may call it as long as justice and mutual consultations are its main characteristics.
Why would Allah be so concerned with the manner of a thief's punishment (cutting off of his hands), or the punishment of a fornicator (lashes and banishment), or the options for remedying murder (capital punishment or blood money), if the religion of Islam is strictly a personal affair and is not meant to have anything to do with the state or government?
These crimes are also punished under any government, secular or not. Do you know of any government, even an atheist one, who would not punish thieves, murderers or sexual crimes?
As for the exact punishment mentioned in the quraan, such as (amputating hands, ashing or any punishment), we have to remember that those are called (limits do not go beyond). Definitely you can go below them and still be obedient to God.
-
we have to remember that those are called (limits do not go beyond). Definitely you can go below them and still be obedient to God.
Where did you get this idea from?
-
What are the special conditions of Turkey that its version of secularism needs to do away with religion??
The answer is above your post. There are always sheiks, religous leaders to benefit from religion and change to regime into a slamic republic and Sheriah.
Well shouldn't people have the right to have these, to do all that you've said if they choose to????? In Turkey you aren't given this right, you aren't given at all the right to practice your religious beliefs in the public domain. All this are choices for people to make, not the state.
But people do not choose them and protest who uses religion to deceive people in all over the country nowadays. Besides there is an unchangable law in Turkish constitution that mentions ?Republic of T?rkiye is democratic secular republic?. And one of Turkish Army?s duty is to protect these laws and this right given to army also with laws. Turkish army and the people of T?rkiye are the founders of Republic of T?rkiye. Suppose people have choice of this and changed the republic into sheriah and now then you will ask this question ?what will happen to people who wants to work in public but not believe in sheria??. Because there is not a middle way, people are far away from Kur?an, so secularity is suitable for T?rkiye.
Besides I can't believe you're trying to draw comparisons, civil liberties between the US and Turkey seriously can't even be compared!! You won't go to prison and you can't be charged for holding unAmerican views or "insulting" America , but in Turkey you can be charged for "insulting Turkishness". Your Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk highlighted to the entire world the serious lack of freedom of speech and thought within your Republic, all under the guise of keeping your secular state.
You first compared US and T?rkiye so i chose an example like that. And the subject of Orhan Pamuk, he is not only insulted to Turkish identity but blamed the whole nation of made a holocaust but he acquittaned because of freedom of speech, see how democratic T?rkiye is and what do you think about the law(To say there is no Armenian holocaust, is a guilt) that French government accepted? Is it democratic? Now in T?rkiye there are peoples who does not recognize Turkish flag, Turkish identity, Turkish republic also in Parliament or governor of a city and they are free to speak and nothing happens to them, so you see how democratic T?rkiye and cannot be compared to other democratic republics, even T?rkiye exaggerated demoraticness
LET PEOPLE DECIDE for themselves!!!!
Yeah LET PEOPLE DECIDE, and because of this they are marching.
I'd be angry as hell if my state tells me what I can or cannot wear! But that's exactly what's happening in Turkey.
Every state or even every company and firm has its own rules about wearing, and you should have to follow those rules, there is nowhere infinite freedom.
How can you say Turkish secularism does not restrict peoples beliefs? If someones belief is in wearing the Hijab, she's immediately excluded from University/School!! She has no further avenues in the country and is left with the only options of not getting an education or going abroad for studies, America, another secular state doesn't find her wearing a hijab a University a problem, wouldn't even blink, but her native Turkey does because of its version of secularism!! I might not necessarily believe in the hijab but I believe in a persons fundamental right to choose as she fits, a persons rights and liberties.
I gave answer to this question above. You have to follow the rules if you want to obtain rights. If you are a citizen of a country, dont you follow the rules of that country? What do you think about England, the Netherlands or Human Rights Supreme Court of Europe that forbid Hijab or headscarf? Also as i mentioned before there is not a such problem until radical extremists began to use as a political sign, students can go university with headscarfs and people respect them(now people also respect) but now they cant(or they use peruke or they take out headscarf during the lesson and wear when they go outside) because of radical extremists.
Why can't the state let the Turks decide by giving them the freedom? Is wearing a hijab at university as an example such a great threat to your republic?
Wearing Hijab is not problem but the mentality behind is a great threat to Turkish Republic. I think your mind locked at headscarf.
-
peace yusha,
I would just like to clarify a grave misconception that the founder of Pakistan (Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah) was a secularist and believed in separation of religion and state.
In another speech, the inauguration of State Bank of Pakistan, and in his Eid message 1948, he is on record saying "We want to enact ISLAMIC LAW in the country".
State bank of Pakistan is not the legislative body, Constituent assembly is the legislative body and addressing this assembly on August 11, 1947 the Quaid said
YOU MAY BELONG TO ANY RELIGION, CASTE OR CREED THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE.
Before the martial law regime of ZIA-UL-HAQ, the Constitution of Pakistan was by and large secular, which included the Islamic family laws.
Secularism does not demand a state to be essentially atheistic or opposed to any religion. A state should be uniformly fair and tolerant to all religions/sects.
As a matter of fact, throughout the struggle to create Pakistan as an independent Muslim state, Qaid-e-Azam was devoted to the cause of Islam and Islamic governance.
And yet JAMIAT ULMA-A-HIND along with the founding member of the ?JAMAAT ISLAMI? whose link you have posted called him KAFIR-A-AZAM and OPPOSED his struggle for independence confused
The Quaid wanted the principles of ISLAMIC SOCIAL JUSTICE to play a vital role, but in no way did he wanted Pakistan to be a theocratic state with rigid sharia law.
The Holy Quran is against secularism. We find many instances where the Holy Quran speaks on matters of governance. If the Holy Quran was secular, it would be absolutely silent on all governmental issues, because the definition of secularism is that the state is completely free of religious influence. Yet the Holy Quran says
Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things (45
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance (423
In what ways do these verses negate secularism? Is secularism again justice or conducting affairs without mutual consultation?
If the Holy Quran was only concerned with personal religious teachings, and gave commandments, but did not prescribe any WORLDLY punishments or remedies for breaking such commandments, perhaps it could be considered as endorsing secularism.
I am not sure what kind of commandments are you referring to?
If you are referring to commandment concerning ?praying, fasting, belief etc? there is no worldly punishment for not complying with them, such matters will be dealt with on the judgment day.
If you are referring to commandment like ?don?t kill, don?t steal, don?t make mischief in the land etc? of course there is a punishment for violating such commandments in every society ?sharia or secular? as sis samia has pointed out.
In order to run any society in a systematic/peaceful manner certain rules/principles/commandments have to be obeyed and those who go against these rules/principles /commandments have to be punished according to the gravity of their crime, and that is the BOTTOM LINE of the commandments of QURAN, THEY MUST BE PUNISHED...how they are punished is a matter of ?what kind of society you live in?.
In a tribal society you may have the license to kill the killer of your family member, but no nation in the world would allow an individual to take law in his own hands, its for the state to punish the culprit.
peace
-
And yet JAMIAT ULMA-A-HIND along with the founding member of the ?JAMAAT ISLAMI? whose link you have posted called him KAFIR-A-AZAM and OPPOSED his struggle for independence
This is entirely false. As for Jamaat-e-Islami, they never opposed the creation of Pakistan, and they never ever, including Maulana Maudoodi, referred to Qaid-e-Azam in such deragatory language. Jamaat-e-Islami was only initially worried that what kind of nature would Pakistan take, i.e. would it be an Islamic state or secular state?
As for Jamiat Ulama e Hind, they were split into two groups, one supported Pakistan led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (rahmatullah alaih), and the other was pro-Congress, and opposed Pakistan. The Majlis-e-Ahrar was the most virulent in opposition to Pakistan, but even they later changed their stance.
-
Any time a country decides to rule by the devine law (Kuran) it ends up in the worst form of Tirany. Becouse they cant really find the details to all the disputes in the Kuran. And then they start to use hadiths and before you know you have people stoned to death.
Lets be reasonable, You can not use Kuran and only the Kuran to rule a country.
We agree that Kuran is very detailed to a certain degree. But there are a lot of things left to us to decide about.
Kuran should be used as a basis for state constitutions, but you can not try to resolve everyday matters by opening the Kuran whenever we have a dispute.
Few days ago ;D, there was a soccer match in brazil. On the time a goal was scored there where to balls on the pitch. Interestingly Kuran does not say anything about this.
So what do you do?- Are you going to add a verse in the Kuran about the rules of two balls in the pitch or,
2.You're going to take a paper and write down 2 ball rule?
If you do the second one, does this mean you are secular? If you do the first one will that make you islamic?
hypno - Are you going to add a verse in the Kuran about the rules of two balls in the pitch or,
-
peace yusha,
This is entirely false. As for Jamaat-e-Islami, they never opposed the creation of Pakistan, and they never ever, including Maulana Maudoodi, referred to Qaid-e-Azam in such deragatory language. Jamaat-e-Islami was only initially worried that what kind of nature would Pakistan take, i.e. would it be an Islamic state or secular state?
In the session in Lahore in 1940, the Pakistan resolution was adopted as the main goal of the party. The resolution was rejected outright by the Congress, and criticised by many Muslim leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Syed Ab'ul Ala Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami.
refwikipediaThe Majlis-e-Ahrar was the most virulent in opposition to Pakistan, but even they later changed their stance.
except for few most of the opponents changed their stance.......after independence ;D
peace
-
Peace,
Can you please elaborate, with examples, on this faith-based punishment, quoting verses of quraan as evidence?
I only need one quote- There is no compulsion in deen.
This suggests to me that you cannot force anyone to follow Islam. People choose it on their will.
The only faith based judgement I refer to is if a muslim is to steal/be stolen from by a non-muslim, or a non-muslim killing or being killed by a muslim.
Al-Islam is a way of life while Secularism is another way of life.
I completely agree, but assure me 100% that the current Turkish Government will bring in pure Al-Islam.
Oh that's great!! someone expresses a contrary opinion and you wish them to leave and go to Saudi. The thing about democracy is that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, opinions, live with it, you're supposed to be a free country. Well maybe Turkey is evidently not. In my opinion if your Army does have a coup AGAIN, you're no worse than Saudi Arabia!! I have a right to my opinion, I know you won't be happy with what I've said!
It's very simple logic. The majority of people in my country want secularism, they don't want Sharia. Those that do, I'm showing them that they can migrate (as per the Quran) to Saudi Arabia where their Sharia is already implemeneted.
Your comparison between USA and T?rkiye is hilarious. Every counrty has its special conditions. 95% of population in T?rkiye is sunni muslim
95%?????????????????????
Incorrect. Turkey's population is around the 70 million mark. There are 20-30 million Alevi Turks, Alevi's are Shiite.
Turkey's laws, regarding some religous bans are probably out of date. The banning of such things as the headscarf, was implemented to move Turkey completey away from the caliphate (in the 1920s). Maybe freedom (for the headscarf) should be granted (from an outsiders perspective), but I don't want it, nor would I agree with it.
not because I'm against someone else's own opinion, but rather because the fundamentalists (in Turkey), who once they get their way, try to IMPOSE it onto others through VIOLENT AND PHYSICAL means.
As I said, for an outsider it's fine, but for someone who knows the ins and outs of the country then it's not fine.
Is wearing a hijab at university as an example such a great threat to your republic?
Oh most definitely!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See what I said above, you are an outsider and do not know the ins and outs of the country. These fundamentalists IMPOSE their beliefs onto others. they form their own 'ghetto's' and are violent to women who are not covered, violent to people who choose to drink alcohol.
Understanding has been shown by the Turkish republic many times to these people, but yet these people have always showed violence to other people.
-
Can you please elaborate, with examples, on this faith-based punishment, quoting verses of quraan as evidence?
Peace,
I only need one quote- There is no compulsion in deen.
This suggests to me that you cannot force anyone to follow Islam. People choose it on their will.
The only faith based judgement I refer to is if a muslim is to steal/be stolen from by a non-muslim, or a non-muslim killing or being killed by a muslim.
The one verse you qouted is irrelevant.
As for the stealing, where did you get this notion? This might be shari3a law (I am not sure), but definitely not in the qur'aan (That's why I asked for evidence from the qur'aan). Look at verse 538 and see if there is any mention of faith.
Punishment for murder is treaty-based, not faith-based, 492
-
We need to understand what the prophetic mission was. What was the porphet's job desrciption before answering the question of Islam and Secularism. Just doing everything the Quran says is not Islam or a real reading of the Quran. I will deal with this issue based on the prophetic mission in my next post about that since we are moving too fast. First lets define what is Islam, and the best way to know that is to look at what the Quran tells us about the porphetic misson and the purpose of the Quran.
-
95%?????????????????????
Incorrect. Turkey's population is around the 70 million mark. There are 20-30 million Alevi Turks, Alevi's are Shiite.Selam
You are also incorrect, 99% of pupulation in T?rkiye are muslims, and when you look at sects that you can see 82% of them are sunni muslims, and %5.73 of them are Alevi-Shiite. When you estimate from these percentages, you can find a population of maximum 5 million Alevi-Shiite in T?rkiye not 20 million.