A. A. B. I disagree with Ali, because the reform was done not by the AK Parti government, but by academical scholars who are often closer to the CHP opposition than the the ruling government. I also don't think it is a redical reform, it rather is a synthesis of what has happened already during the last decades. But what is new about it is that it is a work for the general public. I also disagree with his comparison of Wahhabism and the Protestant reformation. Wahhabis do believe in Coran and Hadith whereas Protestantism says "sola scriptura", ie only the Bible. The only thing that comes close in Islam are the recent "Coran only" movements.

Nihat The Brits may have exaggerated the scope of this effort. I saw in Turkish Radikal articles in the past couple of days where Diyanet officials express unease with the outing and downplaying the importance of it all.

islam = terror Edited by MvdG: no religious bigotry allowed.

Nihat Now, this is really good. Read it: Turkey “not reforming Islam, but itself” with hadith review (says the head of Diyanet to clarify it for all). What was it? Oh yes: I say tomato, and you say tomato.

A. A. B. Nihat, I think the BBC does quite exaggerate the whole thing, but the Diyanet also plays it down quite too much. The truth is, as so many times, in the middle. I would say it is mostly an answer from (quite progressive) scholars to the increasing demand from people for Hadith books to read themselves. Now this one eliminates dubious ones that contradict the Coran and contains commentary to avoid literalist misunderstandings. I hope we'd be able to publish a German translation soon.

Nihat You're right, AAB. I can understand Diyanet's playing it down as the BBC's language kind of put this institution (of a secular country) in a rather presumptious place. I am not a believer, but I didn't mean to put down Diyanet's effort (in case I came across that way). I think it's a valuable project irrespective who says what. It's for the Turkish faithful; if it's good for them, it's good for me, too. Others can make what they will with it.

A. A. B. Nihat, I agree with you. I believe Sunni Islam staying away from extremism is good also for Alevis and Atheists. Both groups seem to be quite worried about Sunnis getting more radical. Michael, Something might happen in the Arab language area when the Saudis run out of oil.

C Stanley

I also disagree with his comparison of Wahhabism and the Protestant reformation. Wahhabis do believe in Coran and Hadith whereas Protestantism says "sola scriptura", ie only the Bible. The only thing that comes close in Islam are the recent "Coran only" movements.

I have to admit that the first time I read Ali's series I didn't quite understand the comparison he was making there, but now when I reread, I think he is right. It's not an exact analogy, as you point out, AAB (analogies never do hold up point by point anyway.) But the point is that the Protestant reformation rejected Tradition as a means for interpreting Scripture, and same is true with Wahhabi's rejecting the Tradition which had embraced a moderate interpretation of Koran and haddith. A better way of looking at your point (and making it consistent with Ali's anaology) might be in that the NT books other than the gospel all contain verses which could be considered similar to haddith (because they talk about how the actual words of Christ should be interpreted and lived.) So in that sense, sola Scriptura does contain something like the haddith and in both cases (Luther and Wahabbi) the call was to throw out all of the authority of traditional theologians who had then imposed more layers of understanding on those texts, and returning to more literal readings of the texts themselves (which could support either conservative or liberal interpretations, according to the agenda of the 'reformers'.)

C Stanley I was basing that on Ali's statements, which suggest that Wahhab himself rejected 'tradition' as a basis for theological interpretation:

At the time, the Ottoman sultan, backed by a class of traditionalist jurists in Istanbul, was considered the equivalent of the Muslim pope - "the shadow of God on earth". Wahhab (just like Luther in Germany) accused the religious elite of materialism, corruption and decadence, and rejected the "tradition-based" approach to Islam.

Are you saying that he's wrong, or just that the later followers of Wahhab ended up embracing their own version of tradition as a means of interpretation?

A. A. B. 1. Hadith is not scripture. Originally, it was even forbidden to write it down. And even more than traditional Sunni Islam, Wahhabism insists that only Hadith can tell you how to interpret the Coran correctly. 2. Wahhabism rejects the traditional legal approaches, but for the sole reason that they claim Greek and Persian influence that has "distorted Islam" in there. They strongly adhere to teachers and interpreters like Ibn Taymiya and his disciple Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abdulwahab and so on. Protestants think the Bible is enough and everyone can understand it. Wahhabis strongly insist on following certain teachers (the ones they recognize, that is)  and understanding Coran on your own, or with scientific methods such as literary analysis is heresy to them.

C Stanley Well, I freely admit that I'm still learning about all of the various groups and who believes what, but I took Ali to be saying that Wahhab had as his intent to reject tradition (as it was at that time, including the interpretations that were enforced via the rulers of the Ottoman Empire.) And that this was, in a way, analogous to Luther challenging the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. What came after that may well be a different story- just as in some Protestant sects, tradition and authority still end up being part of scriptural interpretation, even though they reject some of the fathers of Catholic Church theology. When it comes down to it, there's no such thing as an absence of all tradition (nor an absence of all authority, for that matter)- but there are degrees of accepting traditional interpretation that might sometimes stand in the way of more literal interpretations. So I think the point is that Wahhab rejected the specific tradition that had come to be during his time (which I presume he felt was brought by outsiders, as AAB mentions.) This doesn't mean he was rejecting tradition per se, so he was calling for a return to originalism and literalism which then began another sort of tradition, no? So that his followers later would claim legitimacy for their interpretations from the scholars who created this newer tradition?

A. A. B. C Stanley, Ibn Taymiya lived about 600 years before Ibn Abdulwahab (his name is not Wahab, because that's one of God's names in Islam, the "Abdul" means "servant of"). It is true that he rejected dominant tradition, which he insulted in strong words, in favor of another, already existing tradition, which he helped radicalize. But there is no creativity, nothing new in his work, just a radicalized revival of 600 years old opinions that had been widely rejected. Reformation leaders like Luther or Calvin, through insisting on the Bible as the only source, developped new approaches in theology and religious practice. They encouraged alphabetisation so people could read the Bible. Ibn Abdulwahab did none of those, instead he went to find some nomad tribes in the Najd area and encouraged them to wage war and destroy religious and cultural sites of the Islam he rejected. His own brother Suleyman wrote a treatise against him, warning of him as a madman.