Turkish Theologians Revise Hadith

[Falkenhayn]

BBC

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.

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation. Not exactly the same, but... it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion
Fadi Hakura,
Turkey expert, Chatham House

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

'Reformation'

Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.

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

Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.

The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.

An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.

"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."

The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Revolutionary

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.

But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.

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."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

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.

Original spirit

Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.

There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment... This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them
Hulya Koc, a "vaize"

As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".

They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.

One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.

She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.

"There are honour killings," she explains.

"We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love.

"There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them."

'New Islam'

According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.

"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "

Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.

Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."

[Bounty]

I am very curious what the new texts are going to look like. It's definitely a positive move, but I wonder just how many people are just going to accept a rewrite of their religion. The Reformation didn't exactly goo smoothly, either.

[Patrick Degan]

And Islam begins its move to catch up to the 16th century. Truly the Great Leap Forward.

Better than nothing, I suppose. But watch for the internecene religious warfare to follow. Won't be pretty.

[Darth Wong]

That's an improvement over the Christian attitude, at least. The Christians would never dare alter even the Pauline epistles, which were written by a guy who never even claimed to meet Jesus.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Ah, so Turkish theology finds itself between a rock and a hard place during the recent outpouring of support for secularism in Turkey and the negative image of Islam worldwide, and is going to start trimming and cherry-picking the word of the Almighty in order to curry public favor. Par for the course for any religion that expects to survive, really.

Although I wonder why Allah doesn't simply turn the religion's critics into pigs and monkeys again rather than yield ground and admit fallibility.

[Wedge]

WOW! This are very good news. I'm specially happy about the new treatment women are going to get. Still not the best, but definitely a step up.
Now we still have to see how many are going to be willing to accept this new revision of their religion and if it is going to be anything like the Christian reform.

[Adrian Laguna]

This is very good, though not unprecedented. Thanks to Mustafa Kemal, the entire nation of Turkey is already heretical far as traditionalist Islam is concerned.

That's an improvement over the Christian attitude, at least. The Christians would never dare alter even the Pauline epistles, which were written by a guy who never even claimed to meet Jesus.

What? The interpretation of all Christian texts has been changed multiple over the centuries. The Catholic Church even has a mechanism for doing so, since the primary source of their authority is St. Peter not the Bible (one wishes they would use it more often and more progressively, though). That's what I understand the Turks are doing here, they're not going to physically change anything, but rather make decisions as to which parts are still relevant and which parts can be safely ignored.

[Darth Wong]

This is very good, though not unprecedented. Thanks to Mustafa Kemal, the entire nation of Turkey is already heretical far as traditionalist Islam is concerned.

That's an improvement over the Christian attitude, at least. The Christians would never dare alter even the Pauline epistles, which were written by a guy who never even claimed to meet Jesus.

What? The interpretation of all Christian texts has been changed multiple over the centuries. The Catholic Church even has a mechanism for doing so, since the primary source of their authority is St. Peter not the Bible (one wishes they would use it more often and more progressively, though). That's what I understand the Turks are doing here, they're not going to physically change anything, but rather make decisions as to which parts are still relevant and which parts can be safely ignored.

So? They don't dare change the text itself.

[Stuart]

So? They don't dare change the text itself.

Mike, that's not correct. There are multiple versions of the Bible where the translators/compilers where the translators/compilers have made signficant changes to the next. THIS website gives a list of different Bible versions that differ from the KJV. THIS gives you a link to the latest of these where the text of the Bible has been completely re-written as The Inclusive Bible to eliminate homophobic, racist and gender-abusive references (in passing, one can only suggest it must therefore be a very thin book). In addition to playing games with pronouns, NIVI also changed the actual text of the Bible in ways that were considered to corrupt the message. THIS is an interesting discussion of the way the original text was deliberately corrupted in order to fulfill the aims of the translators.

Another case of a change in the Bible is between the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version. KJV refers to Mary as a virgin, RSV simply refers to her as a "young woman". That may sound trivial but its an explicit denial of the "Virgin Birth" dogma that lies at the heart of Christianity. (A PS, some sources suggest the term Virgin in this context meant a woman who had not yet delivered a baby boy).

Another aspect where the Bible's wordage has been changed to suit political expediency is the subject of slavery. Now, the Bible, especially the Old Testament, specificially condones and allows slavery. In recent years this has been subtly changed so that references to "slaves" are now translated as "servants" (implying a paid servant which is a very different issue. The real joke is that, in recent years, this has been reversed and the term "slave" is appearing again.

So, its not true to say that the Bible has never been changed or that nobody would dare do it (this, of course leaves out discussion of the The Wicked Bible published in 1632 which contains the commandment "Thou shall commit adultery" since the printer got fined 300 pounds for that typo). The translations of the Bible have been repeatedly changed to match evolving social and moral environments.

[Gil Hamilton]

Plus, people things have been added to the Bible over the years that aren't even a translation issues. Like the famous "Sermon on the Mount" was almost certainly added some time in the Middle Ages. It's only been a trend of the modern fundamentalist movement that has held the text itself of the Bible and interpretations involatile and even then they are somewhat shaky (as in they claim anything that supports them is the original unspoiled text).

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but it's fairly easy to fuck around with the text in the middle ages or the dark ages when nobody knows how to read anyway. In the modern age, with millions of machine-printed copies of the thing floating around, it's a lot harder to modify anything. Mind you, it's true that people often take liberties with "translations", but they get away with those because they never claim to be altering the text itself, as adulterated as it is. They only claim to offer a "translation" of it.

[wjs7744]

I'm never sure what to think of religious revisionism.

On the one hand, it makes the religion more compatible with the modern era, and making a religion more moral can only be a good thing.

On the other hand, it makes the religion more compatible with the modern era, and making a religion less vulnerable to criticism for it's irrational nature can only be a bad thing.

[Adrian Laguna]

So? They don't dare change the text itself.

And the Turks do? Allow me to repeat myself, I understand that the Turks are not going to physically change anything, but rather make decisions as to which parts are still relevant and which parts can be safely ignored. It's right there in the first statement of the article, "Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion."

[Sidewinder]

I'm sure Kemal Ataturk is smiling in heaven right now. Hopefully, his revolutionary idea to separate church and state will spread to the rest of the Middle East.

[Jawawithagun]

Are we going to get another 30-years-war out of this?

[(name here)]

if Adrian is correct, then this is indeed not very different from christianity. for instance, the Kosher rules remain in the bible, but are not followed.

[CmdrWilkens]

Are we going to get another 30-years-war out of this?

Unlikely in the immedaite term mostly because there is now Caliphate to declare the Turks to be apostates and deserving of death. So while the Turks and the rest of Islam may diverge (as the Sunni and Shi'a segments already have) its unlikely that there will be anything nearly as massive as the 30 years war. Part of that also is that the Turks are nothing if not able to enforce the change in dogma amongst their own people and they have the resources to resist anyone attempting to invade.

[Darth Wong]

So? They don't dare change the text itself.

And the Turks do? Allow me to repeat myself, I understand that the Turks are not going to physically change anything, but rather make decisions as to which parts are still relevant and which parts can be safely ignored. It's right there in the first statement of the article, "Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion."

You make it sound like they're just publishing an annotated Hadith, with sidebar notes. The article keeps talking about how they're going to "revise" and "alter" the text. That sounds a lot more dramatic than the glorified study guide you seem to be talking about.

[Adrian Laguna]

You make it sound like they're just publishing an annotated Hadith, with sidebar notes.

That's what my reading of the article leads me to believe.

The article keeps talking about how they're going to "revise" and "alter" the text. That sounds a lot more dramatic than the glorified study guide you seem to be talking about.

The article uses the word "alter" once: "Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted." They may alter them back, they may not, I don't think they will. Doesn't really matter that much what I think, though, the extent of the revisions will be known in the near future.

[Stuart]

Yes, but it's fairly easy to fuck around with the text in the middle ages or the dark ages when nobody knows how to read anyway. In the modern age, with millions of machine-printed copies of the thing floating around, it's a lot harder to modify anything. Mind you, it's true that people often take liberties with "translations", but they get away with those because they never claim to be altering the text itself, as adulterated as it is. They only claim to offer a "translation" of it.

I'm not sure that is the case. Back in the Middle Ages it is certainly true than only a minority of the population could read. However, that puts a lot of power into the hands of the ones who can. Also, people didn't travel much in those days; by and large they were born, lived and died within a radius of a few miles at most. So people couldn't compare what they were told at one point with what was being said at another. So, if somebody wanted to make a fundamental change to the Bible, he could do so. He'd just change how he read it (and, I assume, make notes to ensure he kept his "edits" to a minimum).

Also, even back then in Christianity, there was great debate over issues that lay at the heart of the Christian belief. I know its not quite done to use a work of fiction as a source but this issue is at the heart of one of Ellis Peter's Brother Cadfael novels (IIRC The Heretic's Apprentice). Ellis Peters did a mass of research for those books and her historical information is usually spot-on so her treatment of the debate issue is probably quite reliable.

It's true that books get a lot more circulation and inspection these days but that cuts both ways. Anything that gets printed is much easier to obtain and critique but equally, its much easier to get access to a printing press in the first place. It's notable that the plethora of different versions of the Bible (most notoriously the Inclusive Bible) is a recent phenomena; n the past there were so few different versions that each represented a significant shift.

In many ways though, its easier to change the Bible than it is the Koran. The Bible has to be translated from its orignal source material so changes can be written in as translation shifts. The Koran is authoritative only in its untranslated version which remains the standard used for prayer etc. An analogy would be if Christians prayed in Aramaic. So the idea of revising the Koran is rather more earth-shaking than the constant flow of changes that affect the Bible by way of "translation".

[Sarevok]

In many ways though, its easier to change the Bible than it is the Koran. The Bible has to be translated from its orignal source material so changes can be written in as translation shifts. The Koran is authoritative only in its untranslated version which remains the standard used for prayer etc. An analogy would be if Christians prayed in Aramaic. So the idea of revising the Koran is rather more earth-shaking than the constant flow of changes that affect the Bible by way of "translation".

As far as I know modern arabic is not same as one used in the holy Koran. The archaic system is preserved very meticulously. There exists counts of exact number of various letters for example. This is important because one of islam's selling point is unlike Christian bible the holy Koran was never changed since it was first compiled in written form. Any alteration to this book is a very sensitive issue. Even the placement of a single letter changed has potential to start a war among muslims.

So yeah Koran = ROM. Hadith = file on hard disk that may be edited as scholars learn more.

[Stuart]

As far as I know modern arabic is not same as one used in the holy Koran.

I believe that is correct (I don't speak Arabic so I can't be definitive on that) and that the ancient Arabic used in the Koran is quite different from todays Arabic - thinking about it, it would be remarkable if it wasn't. I do know that prayers from the Koran are in the original Arabic so that they do reflect the original content. As I said, it would be rather like Christians praying in Aramaic.

Even the placement of a single letter changed has potential to start a war among muslims.

Doesn't everything?

So yeah Koran = ROM. Hadith = file on hard disk that may be edited as scholars learn more.

That's a pretty good analogy as far as I can see. It also implies that the Bible is much closer conceptually to the Haditha than to the Koran.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, the Turks already have become apostates by mandating that the Koran be printed in Turkish, that the muzzein call prayers in Turkish, and that sermons in Mosques be conducted in Turkish. This is just the next logical step in the Turkish Reformation.

[Vehrec]

Plus, people things have been added to the Bible over the years that aren't even a translation issues. Like the famous "Sermon on the Mount" was almost certainly added some time in the Middle Ages. It's only been a trend of the modern fundamentalist movement that has held the text itself of the Bible and interpretations involatile and even then they are somewhat shaky (as in they claim anything that supports them is the original unspoiled text).

Technically, the early Reformationists were very keen on the Bible as the only knowledge that man needed in this life or the next. This legacy was transplanted to America by the damn Puritains and they and other Calvinist factions kept it alive until the 1900s when it became Fundamentalism.

[Sarevok]

Well, the Turks already have become apostates by mandating that the Koran be printed in Turkish, that the muzzein call prayers in Turkish, and that sermons in Mosques be conducted in Turkish. This is just the next logical step in the Turkish Reformation.

All these things has happened to some degree in non arabic speaking muslim countries. So language is highly unlikely to be a cause for friction among turks and those who oppose their reforms. The conflict, if it comes, will be from elsewhere.