for the last two days turkey is being quaked by photographs of women and men praying side by side in a mosque

many believe this is one of the first impressions of new reformist or in other words calvinist/protestant action in islam striving to smoothen the strict rules of islam by creating its own religious rules

many religious leaders and ordinary people from the street, on the other hand, consider it as a dynamite being put to the base of islam. They think that islam is being look like christianism day by day.

so what do you think on this and other efforts on reform in islam

do you think that islam in succeding years will look like as what it is today

does it something to do with USA's new middleeast project? http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=3834814&tarih=2006-01-24 - http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=3834814 &tarih=2006-01-24

This is really bad.

How can one call your self an 'Islamic Reformer', since any changhe to Islam is consdered a 'Bidda' which is totally 'Haram' unlawfull.

There has for many years now been these so-called modern Muslims, whether they are gay, women Imams etc.

But at the end if they cannot find verses from the Qur'an Sunnah to back there actions then they are highly sinfull. The west will ofcourse back such actions, since they will always try to dilute Islam.

"They think that islam is being look like christianism day by day."

Never, i as i have mentioned before practising Mumin Muslims are increasing as are converts to Islam.

"do you think that islam in succeding years will look like as what it is today "

It may infact go back to how it was in the past, Muslims following the true Islam (Qur'an and Sunnah), thus they will also be educated in worldly knowledge since Islam requires this to.

well actually according to the reformists Quran  did not mention the form of faith but the faith itself

i mean it dictated to fast, pray (namaz), going to hadj etc but the forms of fulfilling the obligations were defined later by hadiths and sunnet (actions of prophet mohammed.

in turkey it is beginning to form a group of people setting their rules of faith

there are many liberals in turkey believing the religion was corrupted by arbitrary applications of clerics which never existed in first days of islam. they believe that women were pushed backward by men-dominance and should regain their position throughout. Our women can not take part many religious events in the equal terms compared to men, rather they must stand a step back.

reform is not against to someone or something but it is applied when current practice does not work properly.

I don't think it reforms Islam, but it deforms Islam.

Why don't people leave a faith they don't like and get on with it.

i.e: Don't be a Christian homosexual bishop. Be a homosexual or a bishop. Because u r trying to do the impossible. For u can not reconcile the Christian text with a practice, that the text openly abhors.

I mean start your own religion or something. For by doing the above u r not following Christianity but your whim. It stupefies me that they can still call their religion Islam. You can not throw away the tenet's of a belief and keep the label.

If i was prostrating behind a couple of fit women with their asses hanging out in the air, i know where my concentration would be.

Reform can mean many things. The reform I would like to see is one that steers from ignorance. Insight and an intelligent review of Islam should be researched for a better understanding.

I am all for reform.

What this basically means is to increase our knowledge of this religion and accept what is truthful about it and challenge the accepted norm in some instances. Most of our current traditions are brought into religion and hence created. But they were not part of the religion originally. A good look at Islam can hurt no one, except for those who think they have something to lose.

Maju needs a bit of correction. Prostration is mentioned throughout the Quran.

But nowhere says that you must postrate. 

"So obey Allah and obey his Messenger..."

Qur'an 64:12

Messenger (PBUH) prayed and orderd to pray: Yes, so we pray

Cannot be asked for this long debate inwhich parts of threads be ignored. We established in long threads prior about the importance of the Sunnah.

That it's not an obligation for Muslims. You can pray in other ways, more proper of a free person. 

Islam already teaches Muslim's that this world is a prison for the Muslims and a paradise for the non-Muslim. So yes, iam proud to be saying that iam a slave of the one and only lord. I am not shamed to bow down to my creator. I can only pray the the lord, Allah shows you the way of Islam so that you can feel what my soul is feeling at the time of prayer.

Nor will i look down and try with every opurtunity to put other beliefs and their practices down since Islam teaches me this respect.

Proponents of reform in any religion can produce one of two justifications:

a) they are returning the faith to its true roots, and getting rid of man-made accretions that have distorted the original message.

b) peripheral aspects of the orthodox teaching (like restriction of priesthood to men in the Roman Catholic Church) were valid temporary expedients in their day, but need to change to reflect changes in society. At its simplest, least challengeable level, this would refer for instance to something like priests not wearing clerical collars.

For a couple of examples:

From (a) above, because they think their version is the correct one, and the orthodox are wrong.

(I have some sympathy with your viewpoint with regard to Roman Catholics who don't want to accept the authority of the Pope. This is logical nonsense since the whole essence of Roman Catholicism lies in the authority of the Pope.)

Under (b) above the argument would be that at one time, when homosexuality was unacceptable to civil society, it would be counter-productive to have homosexual bishops and priests. But that would be a matter of discipline and pragmatics, not a central tenet, and would therefore be open to revision as the idea of a homosexual clergyman became more acceptable to society at large.

Where do you find that in 'the Christian text'?

What version are you working from?

The King James has

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived. neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, not covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

Nice to be able to make up your own translations as you want. You can get rid of almost anything that way.

Moreover, it's from a letter of Paul's, not the Gospels. There's nothing in Christ's teaching to this effect.

That means that you have either not read carefully to my replies or that you have not understood.

-All Muslim's are required to follow the Qur'an. (iam glad that we both agree on this matter)

-Muslim's believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, Allah. (we also agree to this)

-Qur'an teaches us to follow the teachings of the final Prophet and Messenger Muhammad PBUH. Thus Allah, since the Qur'an is Allah's words is ordering to follow the final messenger PBUH.

-The actions of the final messenger PBUH are known as 'Sunnah'

-Books that have been compiled with the sunnah are known as 'Hadith'

One who reads these points will come to the conclusion that Allah has ordered us to follow the Qur'an and the Hadith (Sunnah->actions of the messenger PBUH). This is proven by the quote i gave to you on this topic already twice.

Thus the Sunnah is truly halal.

That's assuming that the Sunnah and the Hadith that you have were accurately recorded.

Is there a universally accepted Islamic doctrine that those collections are guaranteed correct? Otherwise, if they are only the result of human recording and recollection, they must be subject to human error.

O ofcourse you have a point gcle2003.

And there are many Hadith. Muslims however will ask as to whether the Hadith is 'Sahih' meaning correct or strong. You see there are weak ones out there as well. Thank God that their are Sahih Hadith such as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi. These Hadith collections are undisputed for being Sahih.

Similarly, are u saying that christianity is falliable.

regarding prohibition of homosexuality

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=homosexual&qs_version=49 - http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=homosex ual&qs_version=49

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023:17;%201%20Kings%2014:24;15:12;22:46;%202%20Kings%2023:7;homosexual;&version=31 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023 :17;%201%20Kings%2014:24;15:12;22:46;%202%20Kings%2023:7;hom osexual;&version=31 ;

The problem is that the bible has so many version, u dont know which one is correct anymore.

I think those liberals are called alewis,(a branch of extreme shias as they are viewed by others) and i think they practice concealment of faith in its outward manifestation. They have worn many hats over time but have remained alewis. No offense if u r one. Their goal to challenge non-alewi govt in turkey.

Well, from the original post it looks as if regulations on propriety in worship in are becoming more lax in Turkey, not that Islam is becoming more "Calvinistic."

Calvinistic theology puts forward the idea that before the creation of the world God chose who would be saved and who would be consigned to Hell.  This is called "predestination."  It also stresses a five point relationship between God and mankind.  As far as worship is concerned, no images of any kind were allowed inside the church, people were supposed to wear plain black clothing, and all holidays were banned from being celebrated.

If Islam reflects Calvinistic churches in any way, it is in the strict rules placed on the congregation in terms of propriety and orthodoxy.

Well, as a non-Christian of course I believe it fallible. However, I was making two different points. One is that the use of 'homosexual' only appears in modern versions of the texts. And arguably the more important one is that none of the references you quote (even with the 'updated' translations) are from the Gospels.

They are merely recorded letters from Paul, who never met Jesus and never even heard him preach. So, even if you believe that the gospels accurately reflect what Jesus taught (I think myself they probably are approximately correct), and you believe that Jesus was the Christ (which I don't), it is still incorrect to say that he taught anything about homosexuality.

Paul heard the voice of Christ on the road to Damascus and the light which shown upon him blinded him.  This was what initially led to his conversion to Christianity.

Christ did not overturn precedent that was in the law in the books of Moses.  He stressed that their was a more spiritual aspect than just following each point of the law to a letter, and that one had to accept him as the Messiah and the way to God, but he did not declare the old laws to be non-binding.

Sorry but that womans prayed(namaz), didnot prayed before even once at their home.

They dont know how to pray properly.

This is just a stupid show.

According to Paul.

Nor did he see them as binding.

The difference between the ethical teachings of Jesus and the obsessive, frequently sexually obsessive, ones of Paul are immense. Paul substituted another rigorous set of laws in a way that Jesus never did.

It seems like you are playing semantics here in order to find a loophole to justify homosexuality.

I was stating what it says in the Scriptures about Paul's conversion; what you said here is your characterization of the way that he preached.

The Jews and the Christians wanted their lifestyles to be different than the non-Jews and non-Christians who surrounded them.  This is one of the reasons why God promulgated such a strict code of laws and regulations for Moses to give to the Hebrews.  This concept carried over into the early Christian church; only now, strict adherence to the law was not required for salvation.  However, homosexuality was a major lifestyle issue that set apart Jews and Christians from "Gentiles", in particular the Romans and Greeks.

The fact of the matter is gcle2003 that the "christian text" includes the old and the new testament, of which the Gospels are a part, therefore what paul says matters.

I think other forumers have provided u with ample evidence to validate the earlier assertion.

But in case u r not satisfied, let me quote u the old testament of which the gospels are not a part.

Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.

For ur further satisfaction:

Genesis 19:4-7

Lev 18: 22; 20: 13; Deut 22: 17 – 18

Judges 19: 22 – 23

Kings 1 Kgs 14: 24; 15: 12; 23: 7

Ezekiel 16: 49-50

Originally posted by Maju That it's not an obligation for Muslims. You can pray in other ways, more proper of a free person.

My comment was to invoke from u another ludicrous response, in the absence of ur grasp of the matter. Well, u didn't disappoint.

Maju as a free person u r free to despise another free peoples religion, but there is no excuse for ignorance.I was not aware that msulims pray while being chained and cuffed.

It is evident that u are not familiar with the concept of prophethood. For my comment was to highlight the principle that the islamic tradition is not subject to something being present in the quran. For in the prophethood of muhammed there are acts of oral tradition, of enactment and abstentions which are a source of canonical laws. The provision for this itself is enshrined in the quran, get it!

the sunna is not again the Quran. not even a littel.

the sunna explains the quran in sayings and practice of the Prophet.

Not particularly, just pointing out it doesn't conflict with anything in the gospels I'm aware of. And, incidentally, even Paul doesn't single out 'homosexuality' as particularly sinful: no more than any other kind of sexual activity outside marriage. That's apparent in the passages you quote.

It always amuses me that some Christian sects are so down on homosexuality, but happily accept divorce and consequent adultery. A couple of years ago at a Methodist church in Cobb County, Georgia, when the minister welcomed homosexuals into the congregation, about half the congregation broke away and established a new church. But many of those involved were divorced and cohabiting with second 'wives'.

Paul disdained all kinds of sexual behaviour: it was simply 'better to marry than to burn'. His followers are somewhat more selective.

Well, I would claim it was 'mine', it is pretty obvious and commonplace. But it's what I subscribe to, yes.

I've no doubt they wanted to be distinguished from followers of other religions. I think that's probably true of most if not all religious sects.

All of course from the Jewish scriptures. Scriptures that permit and justify genocide, just for starters. Hardly compatible with Jesus' message,

It's very notable that no-one has been able to come up with a passage from any gospel.

And as for Paul - how do you stand on marriage after divorce, which is forbidden not just by Paul but by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:32) or swearing in God's name (Matthew 5:34-38) or about claiming charitable deductions from taxes (Matthew 6:1-3) or saving for your old age (Matthew 6:19-21)?

I find it odd that 'Christians' who fail to follow Jesus' own teachings respond so readily to the Old Testament and to Paul.

No offense to all you followers/Beleivers but i think that every religion has to "adapt" to its time.

It's impossible to live exactly like during Mohamed's time (what the Talibans want). Christianity has evolved, just like Islam and Judaism since their creation.

Islam in its first hundred years was much more permissive than it was today (women's right, nudity in art, artists and poets openly speaking about love and feelings...).

Islam today is very much influenced by the retrograde Saudi Wahabism doctrine (Saudis funding mosques all over the world, bringing Imams for training/mind washing in Saudi Arabia...). Let's not generalise here, lets make it clear that all Saudis are NOT fundamentalists/wahabism followers.

Wahabism is what is giving a bad name to Islam today. If you want to beleive in GOD, fine by me... but that is something personal. Have you heard that saying: "The more you scream out your faith, the less you beleive in it" ?

Cheers.

Modern spread of Wahhabism

In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi-oriented religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

Some Muslims believe that Saudi funding and Wahhabi proselytization have had a strong effect on world-wide Sunni Islam (they may differ as to whether this is a good thing or a bad one). Other Muslims say that while the Wahhabis have bought publicity and visibility, it is not clear that they have convinced even a sizable minority of Muslims outside Saudi Arabia to adopt Wahhabi norms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabism#Modern_spread_of_Wahhabism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabism#Modern_spread_of_Wahha bism

-------------

The point was simply this: "homosexuality is abhored by the christian text". It doesn't really matter what your or my view is of the text or if we agree with its ethics.

First u had the problem with the new testament, now the old. So u now have a problem with the "whole testeament".  Sorry mate but u cant be helped.

I do not accept divorce and adultery.  I don't accept homosexuality, but I tolerate its existence.  It is a sin just like all other sins. The Scriptures say that man is not to divide what God has joined together, in terms of marriage.  Adultery is prohibited by the commandment against covetousness, if you ask me.  The only possible exception that I can see for divorce is in the extreme case of spousal abuse.

Well, let me point out the denomination first of all: Methodist.  They tend to be pretty lax on morality and their preachers tend to shy away from the subject in the pulpit.  Second of all, any idiot can see that those people were clearly sinning (both the homosexuals and adulterers) according to the Bible, which is the basis of even the Methodist's faith.  So don't pull one of those "look at the so-called Christians and their hypocracy" deals here. 

Keep in mind that to be a Christian means accepting Christ's sacrifice, having a relationship with God through prayer and Scripture, and an ultimate renewal of one's life and behavior.  Clearly these people did not show any of these characteristics from what you have told me.  It is possible for people to go to church yet never accept Christ and experience a turnaround in their life.  In the end, man will always sin but the word of God remains constant and the same.

It wasn't me brought in the old testament. The point is that while you say 'Christian text' all you can find in support is either from the Jewish text or from Paul's post-Christian text.

I don't have a problem with the 'whole testament' because I don't have a problem with the Gospels. What I was asking you to do was to back up your assertion with something that came from the only central Christian texts - the four Gospels and their recording of what Jesus said.

It seems to me that you're the one who has the problem with the Gospels because they don't back you up.

What do you have to say about my second reply to you?

An arrow shot form the bow of ignorance always misses its mark. In case you never took a class in religious studies, u may read at ur leisure.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

"The Old Testament

The collection of books that the majority of Christians (including members of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches) call the Old Testament includes not only the 24 books of the Jewish Tanakh, but also certain deuterocanonical books preserved in the Greek of the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes seven such books (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [Ecclesiasticus], and Baruch), as well as some passages in Esther and Daniel, that are not included in the Jewish Scriptures. Various Orthodox Churches include a few others, typically 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, Odes, Psalms of Solomon, and occasionally even 4 Maccabees. Protestants in general do not recognize these books as truly part of the Bible, though they may print them along with the books they do recognize.

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books with Jesus as its central figure, written primarily in Koine Greek in the early Christian period, that almost all Christians recognize as Scripture. These can be grouped into:

• The Synoptic Gospels
  • the Gospel According to Matthew
  • the Gospel According to Mark
  • the Gospel According to Luke
• The Gospel of John
• The Acts of the Apostles
• The Pauline Epistles
• The General Epistles
• The Revelation of John "the divine" (traditionally identified as John the Apostle). "

Sexual immorality could include homosexual immorality. It doesn't follow that all homosexual behaviour is immoral, any more than all heterosexual behaviour is immoral.

As a matter of fact I even had a school textbook on comparative religion published (by McGraw-Hill) about 30 years ago. It was pretty widely used in UK schools.

I never actually taught a class in religious studies, but my collaborator on the book was a long-time professional RE teacher (and a Christian).

U know what... reading back that comment of mine seems a bit arrogant and entirely unneccesary, sorry!! If anything that should have been a privately held view.

Nice Shot! But nevertheless, by performing the hajj, one entails to an endless past of sins forgiven, just by swarming around the kabaa 7 times and kissing a rock which could possible be a meteorite from heaven as the legend fortails.