Religion Discussion (seperated from Turkish Defense)

[Turanist]

I don't blame Jews, I blame the Zionists, most of the neo-cons are Zionists

it is the people of religions that causing problems not the religions.

[Reincarnated Am]

[Turanist]

I'm hoping all Christians a Merry Christmas.

[Kharpert]

Thank you, Turanist.

[Gavur]

To all HAPPY HOLLY BIRTH

And A New Year!!!

[TurQ]

Happy Chrismas and peaceful new year

And I would also would like to wish a happy Eid ul-Adha (Kurban Bayram) coming on Jan 10th.

Eventhough Eid-ul Adha is not celebrated by christians, it is a common heritage of Muslims, Christians and Jews. It symbolizes Prophet Abraham's devotion to God and Prophet Ishmael's(Isaac for Christians) sacrifice.

And A New Year!!!

[Gavur]

The Role of Religion-ALI BULAC

12.31.2005 Saturday - ISTANBUL 01:15



The objections of those asserting religion cannot be "a super identity" or "uniting element" can be summarized in the following points:


1) Religious and sectarian wars took place in the West. If religion was a uniting element, these wars would not have taken place.

2) If religion was a uniting element, the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites would not fall into confusion, they would all gather under the common denominator of Islam.

3) Even though 99 percent of the people in Turkey are Muslim, there is an important number of Alevi citizens. This wide mass does not share the same views as the Sunnis.

4) Not only Muslims live in Turkey, there are also non-Muslims and atheists.

Let us first look at the first assertion: Religious wars are peculiar to Europe. Such wars did not take place either beforehand or afterwards. They are related to the Catholic interpretation of the Christianity and institutional and power relationships. No war took place inside Islam because of the different interpretation of the religion and the formation of more than one sect within the religion. The clash between Sunni Ottomans-Shiite Safavis, set as an example to this, did not originate from the discussion of which interpretation in Islam to make an official sect for everybody but from the conflict of power between the two Turkish dynasties, the Ottomans and Safavis. Iran was Sunni until the 15th century. The Safavis tried to create a reference against the Ottomans by making Iran Shiite.

The clash in Iraq today stems not from Sunnism and Shiism but from the Tikrit family's fear of completely losing their advantages they were profiting from during the Baath regime after the occupation of Iraq. If it was a matter of religion-sect, the Sunnis of today would not give support to the Arab nationalist Saddam who established the most secular regime of the region. Saddam and the Sunnis, if they were Sunnis, would not try to melt the whole Iraq in the identity of Arab nationalism, they would try to make Iraq Sunni. In this uproar, the Shiites are not totally innocent. The question here is that nominal identities are covering other fears and expectations. In today's Iraq, Sunnism and Shiism are identities that have nominal values. Moreover, let us not forget that the US, British or other intervening countries' intelligence services are conducting suicide attacks in the name of Sunnis at certain times and of Shiites at others and that two British secret agency personnel have been recently caught on the very preparation of such an action.

The existence of Alevis in Turkey is not an obstacle before Islam being a super identity or uniting element. If the Sunnis force the Alevis to believe and live like them, this can certainly be a reason for clash. However, the legitimate Sunni interpretation of Islam would not allow this. Alevis' expressing their own Islamic interpretations, living their sectarian, historical, and cultural values, setting up cemevis (Alevi meeting houses) does not interest the Sunnis. This can never be and should not ever be a reason for clash. The alevis are not a "minority", they are a part of the "Muslim nation" and naturally of the ummah of the Prophet Mohammed. The existence of non-Muslims and atheists in Turkey is a reality.

The atheists are an extremely small and marginal group. They can live as they like in their local reservations. The problem is when they want to make their marginal values about the religion a culture and world view for millions of people.

A similar case is valid for the non-Muslims, too. The existence of 55,000 Armenians, 20,000 Jews, 1,500 Greeks and 10,000 Christian Syrians does not disturb anyone. Nobody would think of converting them into Islam forcefully. They were defined as "minority" according to the Lausanne Treaty. They can be "free citizens" under the general umbrella of Islam but if their demand is to have more rights and freedoms within the "status of minority", all their legitimate demands including the community foundations and right of education should be met. This is an order of Islam and the established practice in history. The problems of the non-Muslims do not originate from Islam but from the given situation. Non-Muslims are freer in a world where Islam has authority and initiative


December 24, 2005

[Gavur]

Happy Chrismas and peaceful new year

And I would also would like to wish a happy Eid ul-Adha (Kurban Bayram) coming on Jan 10th.

Eventhough Eid-ul Adha is not celebrated by christians, it is a common heritage of Muslims, Christians and Jews. It symbolizes Prophet Abraham's devotion to God and Prophet Ishmael's(Isaac for Christians) sacrifice.

That's probably where barbarism started

Sacrifes must start within the person.Sacrificing some other creature (killing,cutting)to be closer to God is disgusting and barbaric to me.
I can only see it as a outdated tradition and not as a religous act that can make someone feel righteous about it.

[Kharpert]

That's pretty strange considering all of Christianty is centered around a human sacrifice.

[Gavur]

The Gospel, is that believers don't need to do that
to prove themselves to God .

Jesus Christ gave the ultimate sacrifice for us!