Turkey

mountainyman

What do Muslims on this board think of Turkey. It is a secular state where most people are Muslims.

Do you think that this is good or bad?

MM

wes

Turkey is an odd one. I like the secular system. I do think they do go overboard in some place with it. For the most part its a good albeit flawed form of secularism.

Truther

Hmm I've always wondered about Turkey. I think it's too secular for my liking. I know a few Turkish Muslims who have girlfriends. That's not very Islamic is it?

wes

Truther wrote:

Hmm I've always wondered about Turkey. I think it's too secular for my liking. I know a few Turkish Muslims who have girlfriends. That's not very Islamic is it?

Its a secular nation, so I see no reason for them not to have girl friends. They could also be non-practising Muslims.

the_new_mr

A Muslim having a girlfriend has nothing to do with whether or not they're living in a secular state. I know Egyptian Muslims with girlfriends and I'm sure there are Iranian Muslims with girlfriends. It's just a case of them not practicing their faith correctly in that area.

As for Turkey itself, I honestly don't know enough about it to comment really. But I understand that women in the government are not allowed to wear hijab. If this is true then it's going too far. I think that Ireland wouldn't mind if a Muslim female was part of the government and wore hijab.

Medin

mountainyman wrote:

What do Muslims on this board think of Turkey. It is a secular state where most people are Muslims.

Do you think that this is good or bad?

MM

Very bad. SCLRSM is a way to destroy the Faith. It's SCLRSM that should be destroyed. Plain & simple.

InFront

the_new_mr wrote:

As for Turkey itself, I honestly don't know enough about it to comment really. But I understand that women in the government are not allowed to wear hijab. If this is true then it's going too far. I think that Ireland wouldn't mind if a Muslim female was part of the government and wore hijab.

That's a very interesting point because just a few months ago when the Irish Agricultural Minister and the Education Minister - both females - went on a trade mission to Saudi, they visited mosques and wore the veil, and the pictures were beamed back to Ireland and there was no real problem.
Compare that with Turkey, with its Muslim population, where women both in public office and in their personal lives are banned from wearing the veil in public places. It's quite a contrast, I don't think it is a progressive move at all.

From what I understand there is an apprehension in Turkey, that embracing Islam constitutionally, through legislation or in Turkish society as a whole would not find the state any favour with the European Union, a union which it wishes to join. Unfortunately I think that is a significant motive in how Turkey approaches Islam in public life.

wes

InFront wrote:

From what I understand there is an apprehension in Turkey, that embracing Islam constitutionally, through legislation or in Turkish society as a whole would not find the state any favour with the European Union, a union which it wishes to join. Unfortunately I think that is a significant motive in how Turkey approaches Islam in public life.

The current ruling party are the most pro-Islam party in the Turkey and also the ones pushing for EU membership. Also the religious support this, as they feel if they are in the EU they will have more rights.

So EU membership has nothing to do with Turkeys system, Kemalists haven't moved with the times and are basically shooting themselves in the foot.

donaghs

The Kemalists probably need to open up a bit more and and more inclusive. But I'd sympathise with their position. Ataturk and his followers could see that the Ottoman Empire and Turkey had gone down the tubes because of its backwardness, and drastic action was needed if Turkey wanted to remain a regional player. Religion and outdated customs were at the heart of the problem. I think its fair to say he accomplished what he set out to do.

A good comparison is Peter the Great in Russia. He went even further and personally cut off the traditional Russian beards of nobles. He also banned their traditional headwear and long flowing robes.

I don't necessarily think secularism is the problem. Countries with a secular past, e.g. the US (its present is more complicated), have much more religious diversity and freedom than traditional theocracies.

wes

donaghs wrote:

The Kemalists probably need to open up a bit more and and more inclusive. But I'd sympathise with their position. Ataturk and his followers could see that the Ottoman Empire and Turkey had gone down the tubes because of its backwardness, and drastic action was needed if Turkey wanted to remain a regional player. Religion and outdated customs were at the heart of the problem. I think its fair to say he accomplished what he set out to do.

A good comparison is Peter the Great in Russia. He went even further and personally cut off the traditional Russian beards of nobles. He also banned their traditional headwear and long flowing robes.

I don't necessarily think secularism is the problem. Countries with a secular past, e.g. the US (its present is more complicated), have much more religious diversity and freedom than traditional theocracies.

I agree it isn't secularism, but rather the Kemalists who are the issue. What Attaturk did at the time worked, and was the right decision for the time. I think a lot of Kemalists, have forgotten this progressive tradition of changing with the times which was what Attaturk was trying to accomplish. The Kemalists seems to be the backward when compared to main stream European secularists. I am not saying religion should run Turkey, far from it, the current system in Turkey is actually pretty good, the main exception is that some Kemalists have embraced ultra-nationalism which can be as dangerous as religious fanaticism.