Cheers for that, I didn't know when you asked for sources you didn't mean books LOL. Who needs those, right? I have much more documentary evidence by the way. If you have any complaints, go to the nearest phone box and tell someone who cares. Enjoy your personal grandstanding. I don't like your attitude and I'm done talking with you.

'In discussing this matter later with one of Turkey's greatest scholars the writer expressed the impression that the Turkish people while outwardly Sunni were, under cover of their dervish brotherhoods, partially Shi'ite, at least in their tendencies, and certainly mystical rather than orthodox. Whereas, in Moslem lands, the practice of takiye, dissimulation, had grown up to make possible a man's continuing his standing as an orthodox member of a mystic fraternity which emphasized an experiential rather than a traditional and formal approach to reality.' - The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, JK Birge

A key text revealing the tribal and Alevi heritage of Turkish Islam is the Battal Name. Too many examples to list in this, but all Alevi practices like drinking wine, mystical Islamic insight, use of music in a religious context, monastic life in a tekke, mourning of Imam Hussayn etc. are referenced clearly in this epic. And yet, Seyyid Battal Ghazi is considered a Sunni Muslim baba and his grave is visited by Sunni Muslim Turks, and the text attributes his authority as coming from Uthman, the Sunni Caliph.

The reason Turks give less importance to congregational worship is not just because of secularisation under Kemalist Nationalism as you stated. It's because Turkish Islam is a distinct entity with roots deeply entrenched in Alevism. It makes no difference that only a minority of Turks are outwardly Alevi. The substance of the beliefs and practices of Sunni Muslims in Turkey is heavily influenced by Alevism nonetheless. Check 'The Shi'ite Religion' by DM Donaldson, and 'Moslem Schisms and Sects' by KC Seelye.

You seem to be not very familiar with history, or at least Ottoman/Turkish history.

If you're serious about discussing this I suggest you first agree to not make personal comments, as I have no wish to discuss with a troll or deal with this new arrogant attitude that dominates the internet these days. If you confirm this I will address your comments in your post.

Some people here are wondering why I made the comment about Turkish Islam being strongly influenced by Alevism.

The reason is this Turkish Islam was heavily influenced by Turkomen Babas from Khorasan. In modern Turkey, even though the majority of the people identify their Islam as Sunni (and the reason for this is the legacy of the Ottoman Caliphate more than anything else) during Ashura they will mourn Imam Hussayn and his sacrifice at Karbala. This more than anything recalls very old Shia fundamentals. The Turks also ascribe less importance to congregational mosque worship than others, and have more of a belief in saints, visiting gravesites for 'pilgrimage' (a la Alevi). Regarding the Ottoman Empire, this Empire set itself in opposition to the Shia Safavids of Iran, and for this reason proclaimed its own propaganda as heralding the cause of Sunni Islam. However many holders of high office in the Ottomans were members of Alevi-style sufi sects, and the military strength of the Ottomans was purely Alevi/Bektashi.

I learned about Islamic history at SOAS, and still have a lot of information and sources about Turkish Islam and its affinity to Alevism in its unique character. Turkish Islam is a very different kind of thing in practise from what we know as Sunni Islam today. If anyone wants more info or to discuss this topic in more depth, that's fine. However I'm not going further into the Kemalist Nationalist vs Ottoman debate as that will lead nowhere.

There are a lot....a lot of persons who choose to to go to Hell....you name it any profession...for example drugs dealers. They prefer all the material things that this world/dunia offer to them.

Salaam

I agree with your post but I don't think it's so easy to predict who will go to Hell. The final judgment is for Allah alone, and nobody - even ourselves - can know if we are destined for Jannat or Jahannam. Regarding drug dealers, the Qur'an does not mention these but it does heavily indict the mushrikeen. So, some drug dealers whether criminals or corporations may not be bad - it depends on their intentions. Even the mushrikeen, they may change their views later on and become believers during their lifetimes. So, we cannot judge the people in my opinion.

Monogamy is not stipulated by the Qur'an. Regarding mutah marriage, this is something which, according to Bukhari, was allowed for Sunnis until Umar banned it.

This is an interesting discussion.

I propose that the so-called 'tajweed rules' of recitation of the Qur'an are not mandated by the Qur'an but are the manufacture of faked hadiths dating to about 300 years after the death of the Prophet.

What are the thoughts of people on this forum? Tajweed or not to tajweed, that is the question...

Got to be careful to avoid socialist totalitarianism. 'The People', al-nas, of the Quran are not a Borg like entity. Social liberalism and social democracy are much more humane than authoritarian government-owns-everything socialism.

Ali Shariati and his other ideologues were not trying to install Socialism per se, but a system that shared some characteristics with it. One of those characteristics was the promise of the redistribution of oil wealth to the masses, and from 1979 to date this has not yet happened. He was full of hot air.

In any case, in most parts of the world, Nationalism has come to replace Islam as the root of identification. Islam has merely been captured by nationalists to further certain nationalistic agendas (whether good or bad). Its this nationalism that teaches us that our former wars of expansion were "good" and "just."

I agree with you. However in the case of the Ottomans, they had to face an increasing threat and competition in the form of various forms of nationalism that emerged in the early part of the 20th century. The Ottomans were on the side of 'Islam' (I appreciate that many may disagree, but that was the justification used for their rule) and the nationalists were on the other side clearly opposed to the Ottomans and their natural secularist enemy. Although Turks today are proud of the Ottoman Empire as well as their secular Republic, nationalism was in fact the enemy of Ottomans in the last days of the Empire. The type of nationalism that eventually won out in Turkey was Kamal Ataturk's, but there were other types of nationalists at the same time as him.

It was for a reason, that Ataturk decided to do everything in his power to de-Islamify Turkey (e.g. replacing the Arabic abjad with the Roman alphabet so the people couldn't read the Qur'an, making religious orders illegal, banning all religious dress codes etc). That reason was the Ottomans' creed and entire basis of their rule was Islam, as the last Sunni caliphate. Mr Ataturk was anti-Islam because he was a nationalist.

So where I'm going with this is it's true that modern Turks celebrate the Ottoman Empire for nationalistic reasons but the Ottomans themselves were Islamists on the other side of a struggle for power with Turkish nationalism.

Ottomans had a secular code of law and system of courts dealing with a Kanun-type series of bureaucratic edicts that were made on the authority of the Sultan. This ran parallel to Islamic law which was administered in a separate system of law courts under the overall control of some important state officers. Regarding the comments made about Islamic law under the Ottoman administration, an important change by the Ottomans from preceding dynasties was a move to the adoption of a single maddhab as the basis for all sharia law in the Empire (for the sake of consistency), and the relegation of the ulema as a body to an organ under state control and sponsorship. You couldn't do better than the Ottomans in terms of law and organisation.

As for whether their system was properly 'Islamic', who knows.. Everyone is entitled to their view but the Ottomans had their Empire properly sorted out and organised, and their systems actually worked and in that sense were a great improvement on the chaos of the Abbasids.

Actually, Alevis are a minority in Turkey, about 15 million. Most Turks are Sunni and adhere to traditional Islam.

Yes, as I already stated, the Turks are officially Sunni (on the outside) but there is widespread borrowing from Alevism, in the people's private beliefs. In any case, Alevism is rooted in a more traditional form of Islam than the hadith-based Sunnism.

I agree with you that starting offensive wars is fundamentally unIslamic and anti-Qur'anic. However the Umayyads especially seem to have been a nasty bunch, whereas the Ottomans (although they made many gross errors such as the sometimes disputed massacre of the Armenians) seem to have been admirable in some ways. If you look at Turkish society even today, because of the Ottoman Empire the people are officially Sunni but their actual beliefs tend towards Alevism, and this is a clear sign of the Turkomen heritage of Turkish Islam which gave its military strength to the Ottoman Empire. So, I think we're dealing with a different kind of Islamic Empire altogether when we're talking about the Ottomans. They were peculiar/unique in many ways.

I think there are a couple of problems here. Firstly, people are saying that the Qur'an forbids nationalism, but there seems no doubt to me that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) sought to establish a 'nation' i.e. an organised hierarchical authority controlling the territory belonging to the Muslims and capable of waging wars and enforcing laws. The Qur'an uses the word 'nation' many, many times.

Secondly, the criticism of the Ottomans seems a little extremist. Every Islamic Caliphate was a nation-state and in the later period of Islamic history the Caliph was reduced to a figurehead in the eyes of the common people. Ottomans were no exception as the last Islamic Caliphate, so why single them out for criticism? People here are saying they were 'aggressive', but really aggression in their case was simple strength based on a superior political, social and military administration to any preceding Islamic Caliphate in history. Of course Islam was used as a pretext to justify the rule of the Caliphs and Sultans, but this happened in a much more benign way than under the Umayyads for example.

Who brought down the Ottoman Empire? It was a massive effort with many players involved. The Ottomans had an enemy in Britain, particularly, and found themselves on the losing side in WW1. Then they were brought down by a combined effort of Arab Wahhabi nutcases, organised by Laurence of Arabia the British agent as a part of a way for the European powers to change the 'balance of power' in Europe and Asia Minor. They had had their eye on the Ottomans for ages.

So, in conclusion I think the criticism of the Ottomans is quite unfair. Strength and a well-organised bureaucracy are the worst reasons to criticise a nation. Rather, they are praiseworthy and should be a source of pride for Turks and Muslims generally.

peace all,

Translating salat as 'prayer' in the following verses does not fit. Translators such as Yusuf Ali recognised this and ammended his translation accordingly.

,

To those will be salawat from their Lord and a mercy, they are the guided ones.

Does the Lord pray for people? (salawat = plural of salat)

Isn't salwat more correctly translated as 'greetings' and not 'prayer'?

In "al salaat" (Gematrical value 162), We pray God There are 6221 verses from the first to the last occurrence of God. 6221 is the the 810 prime number = 5 x 162.

6221 is a prime number but so what?

Where does 810 come from? 810 is not a prime number.

162 is not a prime number.

By God's grace and guidance, I have brought forth the truth about Salat. I can only show the path. It is upto you whether to tread on it or not. You can decide for yourself. Each of us are responsible for our own deeds.

Yours truly,

K.Vivekanandan

1. Where in the Qur'an does it state that burning incense is the primary part of salat?

2. You have written that parts of the Qur'an have been omitted from the version we have today. What is your evidence for this claim?