Posted on 02/26/2008 11:57:16 AM PST by northmoor
Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts By Robert Piggott Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News
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.
It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.
Some messages ban women from travelling without their husband's permission... But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone Prof Mehmet Gormez, Hadith expert, Department of Religious Affairs
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."
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Cool, all the muslims will start issuing fatwas against the entire state of Turkey and they’ll leave us alone.
Allowing women to travel alone? What were they thinking?
“Proof that words indeed mean something.”
I always have the feeling that phrase originated with Richard Weaver’s “Ideas Have Consequences”.
Words, unfortunately, can have fluid meanings according to the age and context in which they are used. In translation particularly dynamic equivalence is more useful than a formal or literal rendering, which often proves unintelligible.
“Sounds like a good candidate for a “top-ten new entries in the Koran” list - how about “Pork - the other white meat” for starters”
Wouldn’t it be fun to have a time machine and drop a few “modified” copies of the Koran in the right places a few hundred years ago. To be found today..
Here’s why I think Rush and GKC are similar... they both
have/had a way of articulating conservatism through media
Rush uses radio. Chesterton used his newspaper articles
and essays. They both speak/spoke for those who did not
have a forum.
The world has gone nuts and there is this lone voice
making sense, speaking with reason. Chesterton fulfilled
that for his age and I believe Rush is fulfilling that for
myself and for many others in this age.
“This ought to be interesting. A reform movement within Islam?”
We had our reformation. Theirs is long overdue.
Paul & Sowell? I’d vote for that.
Why do you owe Pelham $10???
“The comedy of man survives the tragedy of man.” GKC
[... I just thought it was a really cool, succinct, and
accurate statement of the reality of God’s creation...]
I Agree!
“I don’t think we’re comparing apples and oranges so much as oranges to nectarines, or maybe tangerines”
Oh please. You are comparing Pez to a banquet. There is zero evidence other than an occasional quote to indicate that Rush has ever read GKC or Russell Kirk. And if he did there is scant evidence that he understood them.
For one thing Kirk expressly rejected the idea that conservatism can be identified with the world and values of big business. And Chesterton is famous for his “Distributism”, an idea radically opposed to the Limbaugh theory of economics, assuming one can make sense of the hodgepodge he tosses out on the subject. Limbaugh can’t even get the economic policies of Reagan correct, since he contradicts what Reagan’s own economists have written.
Golf, football, detective fiction, Rush has it down cold. But if you want to hide something from Rush you merely need to put it in a book.
[... comparing Pez to a banquet ...]
LOL!
To be fair, Rush isn’t an intellectual and has
never pretended to be an intellectual. He is
an admitted student of politics and of the United
State Constitution.
Well, I’d give you the David Limbaugh comparison except that David writes his own material, and it’s doubtful his brother does.
Buckley is an erudite character with a classical education, even if he did seem to get lazy as the years went by. And the crew that he turned NR over to makes you question his sanity in recent years.
Sowell is a serious academic. His book on Marxism is a classic.
Rush is a glib fellow who was probably really good at snowing teachers. He gets a lot of mileage out of pretending to know subjects that most people haven’t enough expertise in to call his bluff.
This study must have been produced by that group named, “The Mohammad Seminar”.
I must be getting a bit tired, that last post of mine wasn’t addressing your question at all.
Buckley is maybe the closest to those Brit writers. But I wouldn’t consider him as serious a writer as they were. Buckley chose to write fiction. A better comparison would be Buckley’s one time acolyte Joe Sobran. He’s far closer to those great Brit writers in the breadth of their writing and their subject matter.
Frum would be part of the crowd, although I’m not sure he is a regular at NR. I quit reading the magazine in the late 80s when the adults began leaving.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.