A new survey asks an old question, ‘Is Turkey becoming more conservative?´ The answer, like Turkish politics, is conflicted. While 94 percent of Turks identify themselves as religious, very few are observing this month´s holy fast or regularly pray five times a day. Experts point to the enduring popularity of the AKP, motivating people to adopt a religious mantle without necessarily the belief system to go along with it.

 
 ..94 percent of Turkish participants defined themselves as ´religious´, only 20 percent were fasting for all of Ramadan, while only 34 percent performed prayer five times a day. Moreover, fasting and praying were the least common in Turkey as compared to seven other Muslim countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Tanzania.

   ... conservatism in Turkey is on the rise only in appearance. ´During the first half of the 1990s people in Turkey were more conservative. With rising levels of education and income the country has become more flexible and less conservative´

  ... people became more flexible in their religious practices. ´Today people who define themselves as conservative usually have material interests in doing so. On the other hand, the number of people not fasting and not praying or who have a positive attitude toward dating has increased. Conservatism in Turkey is make-believe,´ he said.

 
  Previously people who defined themselves as religious felt that it was necessary to pray or fast according to Islamic norms. However, today the world is transforming and people don´t feel that way anymore

  Nilüfer Narlı from Bahçeşehir University interpreted the issue in terms of a difference between belonging and believing. ´When a person says I am religious the reference is to the identity not to the faith and believing. When we look at religious practices we do not find people practicing Islam at the level of believing. Therefore, religion loses its significance as a practice while it gets stronger in terms of belonging, as an identity´, she said.

  Although 68 percent of participants said there was a conflict between secular forces and the ruling party, Gür said the secular versus anti-secular, or moderate Islam versus fundamentalism, debates were not actually on people´s agenda. ´These are only certain elites or political parties´ concerns. Polarization in Turkey is not ideological but economic. People do not vote for the AKP on ideological grounds but for economic reasons. In fact Turkey is moving toward wider class differences rather than ideological ones,´ Gür said.

..´Turks have adopted a more negative stance toward Hamas and Hezbollah since last year. A total of 65 percent of participants said they have an unfavorable opinion toward Hamas, compared with 54 percent in 2007. In 2003, 15 percent of Turkish Muslims had positive views of bin Laden. Today, seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden´s ratings have plummeted to 3 percent.´

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=115853

Title of the article "Conservative but relaxed about it" 

The article definately has a point. What I observed is that many Turks who generally define themselves as religious pick from islam what they like and drop the troublesome parts, eg. wear "half" a hijab, fast and pray when it´s convenient or they need something.

I just have no respect for that kind of practicining. Either they are religious, or they are not. Excuses like ´I didn´t really feel like waking up for fadjr´ is just not good enough.

Personally staying in Turkey definitely makes me less of a muslim because of the lack of niyah I see everywhere.

I think this article is definitely only one side of the story. What about all those stories where a person drinking beer in public in ramadan in Istanbul is beaten by mob, or a person smoking a cigarette in ramadan who has stopped at red lights got punched by some random person... and on and on... 

Firstly: what is niyah? And secondly: this is blaming others for your own problem canim...

 Niyah means intention. It is something that you have to take a moment and get into when you are getting already to pray, but it´s also a more general thing. Some say that when you don´t have the "right" (pure) intention Allah will know it and you don´t get hasanat (reward, acknowledgement) for whatever deed you are doing.

You are right, catwoman, it was a problem when I started to learn about islam. I remember being in my home country learning so much about islam from muslims (mostly converts) there, and then going to Turkey and see many things I had learnt being ignored by Turkish muslims. It is something that confuses a newbie a lot and it is really hard to tell what is actually islam and what is culture, or simply laziness towards islam. Ultimately it made me question islam a lot - if Turkey is an islamic country why is the mass ignoring so many rules? - etc. Even Saudi Arabia and especially Iran are doing so many false things in the name of islam it is nearly impossible to tell right from wrong. You constantly have to go to the books because you can´t trust anything that another muslim tells you; chances are they have been misimformed as well.

At this point I have pretty much given up. I have to laugh when someone says "I have dropped beer this month in honor of Ramadan" and so on

Azade.... but my point is... why do you need to have other people practicing Islam in a certain way to be a good muslim yourself? Maybe their way of practicing their religion is right for them, who are you to tell them how they should practice their religion? And how does it affect you what other people do? It would be tyranny to impose on people how they should practice something so intimate as religion.

 Generally speaking I agree with you, but a big part of islam is to follow the set rules and (as I have seen it in my home country) and using the rules, support and guide eachother, whereas in eg. protestantism there´s more of a "each to their own" attitude thanks to Luther, which gives more room for interpretation.

Perhaps I´ve just learnt about islam from very conservative converts

Well, as far as I know, Islam has tons of interpretations as well. Naturally, each of them says that it is the ´correct´ one... I am sure it depends on who you learn these things from.. Thanks for explaining.

 Yeah you are right about that catwoman, there are many differences between the schools of fiqh, who base their rules on different Qur´an verses, it´s really hard to find an absolute truth to anything even in islam.

 İ wonder why didnt you add the title of the article you have quoted  ?

The writer saying those things under that title to make a point,so you just erased the title and kept the content for a reason ?

There was no particular reason..

I must have forgotten it.

Do you think I omitted deliberately?

 Actually i dont agree azada,anyone can say whatever he/she likes

We have 2 things only as reference in İslam...Qur´an and Hadith ´strong ones´

So regarding to the rules,they are obvious

İmams dont have different opinions at explaining the rules,because they cant

Maybe about applying them,some is a bit conservative than the other,some a bit simplified than the other,but all are with in the rule in Qur´an

And its mercy for us when imams have different opinions about a matter ´again within the Qur´an rules´ you can apply any opinion you wish and any of them will be right.

Examples,

You know Reba ´when you lend someone money and you take an extra money from him when he give it back to you ´ is haram ´forbidden´

So,if you borrow money from a bank is haram ?

İf you put money as a deposit in the bank and you gain interest is haram ?

İmams have different opinions about things like that

But for example is alcohol haram ?

They dont have different opinions about that because the rule is obvious.

When you hear something different,you know you shouldnt trust that person opinion because its against the rules.

What is written in Quran is not clear enough and it is obviously inadequate to give sufficent answers to all problems people are facing in modern world.

Just that little example you have given it up there is a proof for that.. In today´s world with the inflation and everything, if you dont take interest from a bank because it is haram, would not be a losing money because of Quran.

The other example you have given is the alcohol. And we know that drinking a moderate amount of wine is good for you. Why will  a good thing be banned by Quran?

People are learning faster than ever. The information is traveling with incredible speed in this century that people dont need to look at Quran anymore for their answers. Science is able to give more and more answer to almost everything.

And that is how it is going to be in the future!!

Inşallah!

 Canlı can you tell me which leading imams think it is aceptable to put money in the bank and gain interest from it or borrow money?

From what I have read all imams say it is haram, but if you have some material stating the opposite I´d like to read it. We actually have a special bank (http://amanah.dk/) where you can borrow or deposit money with no interest in my home country, because loads of muslims here have not been wanting to buy a home (with a loan in the bank) because it´s a very common opinion that it is haram.

Well,i think you should add ´i think,or in my opinion´ because obviouly thats not WE muslims think !

İ didnt know that Qur´an was meant for some period,and not the other

So its fit for the past time and not suitable for the present,nor the future ?

Hmmm,sorry to disappoint you,but believers,not just muslims,but all,DO believe that their holly books and rules are valid for all times

Just a little example,check the accident rate that made by drunk people and maybe you can find an answer ?!

Science will give answer for if lying is sin or not ?

Science will give answer if stealing is good or not ?

mmmm do you need more examples ?

What brought up science here ? even tho,who said that religion conflict with science ?

Again,i guess you need to add ´i think,or in my opinion´  because WE ´believers´ actually have time to read Quran .

 azade,im trying to search that issue for you on the net and have it in English so you can go through it yourself.

Yes,here our imams have different opinions about the gaining interest issue

Some dont allow it and some do

But at borrowing money issue,most of them are against it.

We can continue it via pm if you like

We would find handsom complaining that he feels like sitting in mosque  

Actually, thehandsom it seems you are now confusing the terms science & religion. Science is one thing and religion is another. Science is a method of obtaining true informations, explaining the matter and events using mathematics. Science is entire informations obtained via these methods. Science is related to nature, laws of nature not the laws beyond nature. This universe which we live in has standart laws. So human-being is bounded with that laws just like no thing can be faster than light, because of this proving or disproving & verifying or refuting a subsistence beyond nature with science seems impossible. Then you cannot prove or disprove God using science if the God is beyond the scientific formulas, senses and experiments. In that case God cannot be observed, cannot be explained mathematically. Because of this He is called God. And because of this many scientists do not mention their beliefs in their articles except some personal allusions. So this is belief and everybody is free to believe in God or not. People are researching through the centuries, whats the purpose of life, what will happen when we die, how life started on earth etc. People who thinks these are withstand to a subsistence beyond nature namely God, choose a religion for themselves, try to abide by its rules. Some rules which comes to you absurd, maybe very meaningful for another one, thats belief, and thats simple...

I didnt know that Qur´an was meant for some period,and not the other

So its fit for the past time and not suitable for the present,nor the future

Hmmm,sorry to disappoint you,but believers,not just muslims,but all,DO believe that their holly books and rules are valid for all times.

But Canli, you proved yourself that Quran is not giving you clear answers in today´s world with the saving money!!!

Check the accident rate that made by drunk people and maybe you can find an answer ?!

But then, it could have been like ´dont drink and drive´..why was it banned totaly?

Science will give answer is lying is sin or not ?

Lying is a moral concept and moral concepts are determined by the societies not by religious books.

Do you think humans were lying all the time when there were not books around?

Science will give answer if stealing is good or not ?

I would support Robin Hood type stealing personally   Again, good or bad is a moral concept and it is nothing to do with religions

Who said that religion conflict with science

I am (and many many many people are) saying that religions (and all dogmas) conflict with science..

Again,i guess you need to add ´i think,or in my opinion´  because WE ´believers´ actually have time to read Quran .

I think I have read  Quran more than an average believer.

 Do you want a religion with daily tasks as well ?

Well God put on the rules for us,and gave us minds,brains that we can use them to apply those rules

You know Qur´an is not a unique in its own in that matter,all religions set rules,and its human´s job to apply them.

And as for alcohol,did you want God to set the allowed amount as well?

Maybe 100 ml/day ?!

What is harming human is harmful,the little amount or the large one

Thats good,then we finally agree on something

That religion is not Science and also Science is not religion

Then why did you say one ´Science´  can take place of the other,knowing that they are not same and not deal with same issues from same points of view?!

And i respect your opinion,but that doesnt mean that i agree with you

İ see that you have added ´ i think´ !

Actually I dont think I am confusing those terms at all!
Religion is the earliest form of science, people speculating about what and how things were created etc..
And saying that  science and religion are completely distinct and separate entities is a bit of a nonsense.
Sience and religions always overlapped throughout history.
ie
Religions stated that the earth rides on the back of four elephants or standing on a giant turtle, science has come and proved that they were wrong.
Religions stated that diseases were caused by a rejection of God, science has come and  shown this to be incorrect.
Religions said that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, science has come and  proved that this religious view is NOT correct.

Religions said that we are from adam and eve, science has come and proved that this  can  NOT be right.
Anyway..There can be many examples..
Science make efforts for better and finds better ways to explain and predict what goes on around us. Religions try to do the same.
Religions are JUST "attempts" at giving answers to the unknown, because people are afraid of the unknown (ie  laws beyond nature). and science is about exploration, finding and THEN publishing the ´proven facts´ .
And about "the  laws beyond nature"
You can not prove scientifically what they are, you can not see them, you can not touch them.
And amazingly people still believe that there is something!!

Science, tries to explain nature with physics and bio-chemical laws rather than divine powers, but the religion discusses these laws if these system of laws put in order by a divine power. That does not mean religion and science overlapping, the events you mentioned is a way people are using religion for their own good through the centuries with lack of information about universe that still causes problem today. Of course people used their beliefs in old ages to explain life, nature or universe because thats a way to question why they live in this world but in reality religion and science do not overlap. Sorry thehandsom i think you are again proven wrong.

And yeah amazingly there are billions of people in the world believing in various religions . All are brainless what a pity .

People who believe in religions are not brainless, because religion satisfies some normal psychological needs in people. What is brainless, I think, is when people in the name of religion do horrible things to each other, when they put religious rules above the respect for life and dignity of another person.

Science and religion always overlap..

Religions have never limited itself to making claims about morality and how we should live our lives (the simple example will be that the alcohol issue Canli mentioned)- historically, all religions have come up with explanations of the world and our place in this world, how we should live and they still continue to do so. But When religions do that, it ends up making claims that are incompatible with science.

Religions are the product of their times and ways of thinking which  have no relevance for the modern world.
And science is not and can not be neutral to religions. Science always comes into conflict with religious beliefs.
´science and religion do not overlap´ is  the idea for preventing critisism towards religions.
In the end science is concerned with what exists and whatever form this existance is. If anybody claims ´something exists´ then, by definition, that ´something´ falls into scope of science.

Anyway about all those billions and what they believe, I never said that they were brainless..
But number of people believing in something else does not make "what they believe" is right
The masses believed "the world was flat" or "earthquakes were caused when those creatures move" at some stage in history.
But they were wrong.

I am not a Muslim, but can you then explain why the things I hear about rules/laws from the Qu´ran are so different when said by a wahabist imam or a (regular) sunni/shi´i imam? The only ones I hear talking about ´don´t shake hands with a woman´, ´a burka is compulsory´, ´gays should be pushed of a building with their heads down´ etc. are wahabists. We have quite a few here in the Netherlands and there were many problems with them and their followers, while with others there were not, or at least not that big problems.

I think imams from the several (I´ve heard there are 7 schools all have several and sometimes very different ideas about what and how to tell/teach.

Of course science and religion overlap as they both try to explain the origin of things. Science does it by objective methods, religion posts a theory and requires that people believe it not asking for proves. Religion is an authocratic science where all proves can be limited to "because our Holy Book says so" - from the beginning of ages those who had scientific knowledge formed religious power and protected their knowledge from the public. Take the Egyptian priests at the times of pharaos - their scientific knowledge was impressive and often they´d use it as proof of divine presence.

Later on religion was used as a collection of rules of hygiene, social convenance and science - nobody would dare to question powerful religion mongers as they´d always refer them to THE BOOK. That´s still the case in religious countries, people agree to being made fools of hoping somebody will make it up to them after death.

The radical Vahabbites of Saudi Arabia are the closest business associates of the business and political circles worldwide. Your small community may have problems with them but they are indeed completely free to continue with all of their medieval laws allowing public executions of sinners by sword.

There is no reason for criticizing or being against them. They are already sharing what they have with the West. They let the US use their soil for military activities and finance operations held against those who try to control their own national resources themselves.

Actually I rather like Turkey´s attitude to religion - it reminds me of the UK.  We have a kind of religion but only pick out the nice bits ... then gradually as you get older (and think about dying) you suddenly panic and feel its time to get some good points with God/Allah and become devout.

Please don´t change (and don´t stop getting "ill" during Ramadan) - it is one of the things I love about you raki drinking, tobacco smoking Turkish muslims!

Ben diyorum bayram haftası, siz anlıyorsunuz mantar tahtası . Firstly, religion do not try to explain the origins of anythings, it only accepts. Im talking about definitions, you are talking about history, superstitions and people who tried to explain mysteries using superstitions.

Besides there is a sharp difference between science and religion. It is clear that source, goal and method of scientific knowledge is different than religious knowledge. Scientific knowledge uses human intelligence as a source, its goal is to define and discover universe and its method is experiments whereas religious knowledge´s source is God, its goal is to make people live due human-being creation and its method is divine inspirations and prophets. So in religions the most important factor is faith. But also many philosophers think that faith is to be supported by wisdom and intellect. So people use science to observe universe not religion. Religion uses meta-physical knowledge in relations of God and people, which is not scientific. One is scientific knowledge, other not. Thats what i mean to say you confuse terms. Science and religion do overlap??,  this is about what you understand from the word "overlap", i think is not, since the methods and sources are different, thats why i said "science do not try to prove or disprove God" because science bounded with the laws of universe.

Surely people do not believe that is something known, because thats already known. So the knowledge related  to faith, has to be something that cannot be disproven, otherwise this is called superstition and then cognition supersedes into faith. People who do not perceive this and still believe superstitions are the ones you continously mention in your posts.

Finally religions do take subject as morality, meta-physics, object lessons and advices not the science. So we should look at religions in this perspective not like biology or physics. Thats my point...

70 ?!

Look Trudy,actually things are very much simple

To be a Muslim you must accept 2 things,and believe them deep into your heart ´Akida´ which means deep believe

That there is only one God ALLAH and Mohamed SAV is his last messenger.

Muslims have no differnces upon this,and who has,i can freely call him/her not muslims.

And in that believe we are ordered to follow 2 things...Qur´an which are words of ALLAH,and Hadith,which are words of Rasul SAV.

So by those 2 things and in those 2 things we judge,i personally dont know wahabist,Sunni,Shi´i...etc

İ know those!

Someone comes to me tells me...Burka is compulsory..i say ok...show me in the book..tell me Hadith

İf he did,and show it to me..ok then it is...if not...so...sorry,its not compulsory

´gays should be pushed of a building with their heads down´...mmm !

Did theye even have any buildings at that time ?!!!

Anyway,same...here is the book,show me...Hadith...tell me

İf he/she did,then we start to talk,if not...then nope sorry

Those are our judges

And not just showing it to me and explaining it as they want.

İ know/read/search the back ground of the hadith,and what happened and in what incident it has been said,then if its same case with same given data ,then ok,i accept that judgement,if not...then he/she can keep his/her opinion to her/himself !

İm sorry Trudy,but yes anyone can say what he/she wants...but we have 1 book,and also we have specific hadith those are no doubts about them we go back to them

Those are our teachers/judges,guides...etc

´´there was a time in the past when they were fighting İslam,so the wrote hadith silly ones,and said Rasul SAV said them to mislead muslims,and separate them,so imams on that time reviwed all hadith,and decided which is strong and which ones those people put them´´ 

And ALLAH gave us mind,so at any matter,we judge by our book,hadith of Rasul,and see if we accept the given explanation or not.

So even when imams say opinions,explain something...we ask...about Qur´an,about hadith that got that Fatwa ´opinion´ from then we accept it or not.

And also that is what ALLAH ordered us to do,and gave us minds to use,and later HE will ask us,Havent İ gave you Qur´an,havent İ sent you my massenger to clarify what is hard for you,havent İ gave you minds to use

then why have you did so and so ?! 

So we better have an answer to that,also that one who said ´gays should be pushed of a building with their heads down´

HE will ask him to get it from book,from hadith not from wahhabi/sunni/shi´i or whatever...and he better has an answer...if there is any !

If religion doesn´t offer an explanation of the origin of things then I must have read about Adam and Eve somewhere else . And it was not religious leaders who burnt scientists on stake for having revolutionary theories that didn´t agree with what the religious lot accepted. Are you sure we grew up in the same universe?

Of course the difference between religion and science is huge. Science is fact-oriented while religion is a made-up bunch of nonsense that might have held 1000 years ago and it´s based on belief not fact. Thus it offers a non-demanding answer to all your questions - god´s will.

 As written by man. 

Of course! The only gender who´s right by the virtue of their dangling evidence

Yeah you have to read more because religion(i mean the monotheist ones) accepts every single susbsistence, thing created by God firstly. And you are again talking about religious leaders instead of religion and science.

must have read and must read are two totally different things. And religion would not exists without religious leaders who promote/interpret it and control god-fearing mob. Religion doesn´t exists without followers thus you can´t speak about one without the other.

I wish all the religions went down the sink

Allegedly quoted from K. Atatürk

 This made me laugh so hard....Thanks WT! 

 I had deleted this claim without source but it was undeleted by the freedom of speech committee.

Such a claim without source is not accepted. Show the source, show a reliable source, show us who claimed this.

I would like to propose a toast to "freedom of speech committee". Now we are all free to question validity of this remark.

P.S. I have already promised to find the book where the quotation was made from but it will take time.

haha

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk

I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.

• Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928)

463

I quite like question the validity of the decisions she makes..

Cheers from me to the toast..

I was trying to abstain from commenting about all these censorship related issues...but come on!! now what is next to be banned in this site?... phewww people is just taking all this too seriously!

Admin will soon add rule # 15

Quoting thehandsom

haha

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk

I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.

• Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928)

page no 463

 Then read these quotes as well with all the sources handsom.

http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/ata10.htm

Accoırding to here Atatürk has a religion and he belives in Islam. If you can translate them in egnlish for others, it would be good.

And is it ok to quote whatever as long as we give its source?It can be any bulls***. If it is ok, in the coming days I´ll quote a lof of things just for the sake of freedom of speech.

As long as you are not quoting any PKK sources...

You cannot just put forward such a claim and tell that I´ll try to find the source to this claim. Then find the source first.

OK, then I´ll try to find the ones which handsom will love the most.

look mltm.

I gave the source up there..OK?

what was wrong with my links..eh?

And pls..dealing with me is becoming an obsession for you..It wont do any good for your health..

 The wrong thing is you handsom you know

I like playing games as much as you do. I am as stubborn as you can ever imagine.

I´m interested in psychology and my ability of empathy is quite good. I know the things that you enjoy, I know your tactics. I am not going to give up and leave the site being defeated by your games under the cover of "freedom of speech". To your L O L s I have my L O L s, and in the future to your links I will have my links. I know my subjects.

So mltm, let´s see.. you asked for sources, you were given sources...now you take exception to the sources?  Last time I checked you had not been made and administrator.  You don´t get to make up the rules as you go. 

You seem to have a personal issue here with several members of this site and frankly you are looking a bit fanatical lately.  You can´t seem to make up your mind as to what you want!

 We are still waiting for the vineyard´s source.

Yes, lately I look much more fanatic than I ever used to be. It becomes inevitable when the owners of a turkish language and culture site are not Turk or/and enough turkish patriotic (I´m sorry if it offends but that is the truth). Otherwise we would see more sensitivity about Ataturk and PKK issue.

 Therein lies the issue Meltem.  It´s not your site!  It is admin´s and cats and all of the users...not just the Turks...not just the people who want translations....ALL of us!   

What´s wrong with thehandsom´s source?  A source by any other name is still a source.

I presume these are Admin´s words on the "About TC" page:

"

What is Turkish Language Class?

This web site is built for teaching Turkish to my love. The idea of building this web site actually came out of the lack of online resources about Turkish. We were searching the Internet to find some useful resources that could be helpful but we couldn´t find any good, complete and free web site. We thought that we can do better and share it with the people who have the same problem. It is becoming the proof that love can move mountains.

This site started simple, but it is slowly improving to eventually become an interactive environment for learning the Turkish language. The goal is to have a web site where users study lessons, improve their Turkish language skills, interact with the web site and with each other, get to know people with the same interests, and eventually learn some Turkish while having some fun at the same time. Everything on this site is free, and you can get your free username and password to access the members-only parts of the site. "

Having read the new rule I don´t believe it is censoring anyone in the true sense of the word.

What it does is set a boundary in order to contain the issue so that it doesn´t take over the site.  This is important because I think over exposure of such issues is not in the spirit of the original intention of the site.  Perhaps Admin has added the PKK rule for 2 reasons: a) to guide members   b) to attempt to bring some uniformity to moderation and leave less to individual moderation decisions.   It´s possible that the rule could have been more broadly formulated to mention political issues pertaining to Turkey rather than one particular issue.  I´m not sure.

I would say Admin. has chosen the middle ground in order to appease both sides and it would be helpful if we could all recognise the difficult job he has, trying to balance the wishes of a broad spectrum of members.  I don´t think censorship is the real intention, only balance of subject matter.

Here is a quick translation of the addresses and statements "allegedly" made by Ataturk.

Dear Meltem, you must have been too lazy to translate them yourself. This is your proof. What do you see in these statements? I think we wouldn´t expect Ataturk to so openly denounce religion. That is why I  indicated in my message that the statement I quoted was an alleged one. As a matter of fact probably all of the messages quoted from your source are equally "alleged" in nature.

Since I have in excess of 3000 or so books in my library, I cannot instantly find the book where I quoted Ataturk´s words. I remember the title of the book as something like : "Ataturk´s Love Affairs." As far as I remember (read this some 5 years ago) he was making this statement to his French girl friend in a complaining tone.

"..then I ordered The Qoran to be translated; and it has been translated into Turkish for the first time. I also issued orders for the translation of a book on Mohammad´s life.. (Essential Ideas of Ataturk, Fethi Naci page 55)

"The sacred altars of mosques are the ultimate and the most efficient sources for  the spiritual and ethical nourishment of society. Addressing people in a way they can comprehend, appealing both the brain and the spirit will prop up the mortal existence of the Muslims, cleanse their brains and fortify their belief and inspire courage in their hearts."

"God is one and it is highly praised. May the peace and love of God be unto you. Our beloved master (Mohammad) was assigned as a messenger to tell people of the truth. The fundamentals of this are known to all of us and are plainly laid out in sacred Qoran. Our religion which has inspired people is the last one. It is the most perfect religion. Because our religion is in full comformity with reason and truth. (Ataturk´s Addresses c.2 page 93).

"Our religion is the most reasonable and most natural one. That is why, it is the last religion. For a religion to be natural it needs to comply with reason, technics, science and logic. Our religion complies with all these. In the social order of Islam no class is allowed privilege above others. Those who take such a privilege for granted act in an improper way. We don´t have an ecclesiastical class; we are all equal and we are bound to learn the rules of our religion in equality. (Ataturk´s Addresses and Statements."

"Our enemies accuse us of being under the influence of religion alluding that the recession and collapse we underwent is related to this fact. This is of course a mistake. Our religion has never required that women should fall behind men. What God orders is for muslim women and men to have learn about their religion together. Both women and men must seek this education, going wherever  knowledge is in order to  get this education. Anyone studying Islam and Turkish history will find out there are actually no restriction about those aspects of life which we believe are bound by thousands of rules. In Turkish society, those women who pursued their educations did never fall behind men in anyway, arguably they even surpassed them. (Atatürk´s Addresses and Statements page 2)

"Turkish people need to be more religious, I mean religious in the purest sense. I believe in religion just as I believe in truth. It contains nothing that objects to consciousness and development. Nevertheless, there is another religion in existence in this Asiatic community which is even more complicated and composed merely of superstition. These ignorant and helpless people will be illuminated when the time comes. If they cannot get near the light it means they have doomed themselves to destruction. We will save them (Ataturk and Religious Education, Religious Affairs Administration Publications page 32)

Why do you keep pasting rules?  We all know where they are found.  

Censorship is censorship no matter how you try to define it.  The issue here is that people are being told what they can and cannot discuss...THAT is censorship! 

And it is now being broadened by one mod (who has clearly admitted her rationale in her last post) to members being told that they must post sources and they cannot comment on articles that they paste here............which is quite confusing as other mods clearly disagree with this sentiment and are telling people to always comment (and I could not agree more....who cares about articles being cut and pasted ad nausem without comment by the poster!)

It has been made clear by mltm´s last post what her aim is.  She wants to silence people who are in disagreement with her fanatical views.   That equals censorship!

 What I quoted wasn´t a rule.  I referred to the new rule, but didn´t paste it  and I don´t "keep" pasting rules.  , Hmmm . . . is this an attempt to censor me? .      Please don´t let my posts agitate you gg and congratulations on being able to navigate around the site .

My post was about Admin adding the new rule and only that. I don´t believe there was anything antagonistic in my post, yet you seem antagonised. 

If you have a problem with a Moderator/member, follow the rule regarding appropriate action (I can paste the rule here if you like or even provide you with your favourite . . . a link!   ).

Iyi geçeler

  İm also still waiting for your supported link vineyards

You know the rules of the forums very well,needless to remind you,and although handsom has posted a link,but i dont think Wiki is the trusted documental site that we can relay and depend on in such quotation.

 I stand corrected...what I should have said is why do you keep quoting admin.   I found it amusing....you take it as accusatory....whatever.   

Either way, don´t you keep worrying your teeny little brain over me.  You don´t have anything to offer that could possibly agitate me.  My concerns are regarding censorship....not you. 

And since you seem to have such issues with me, you may want to start to follow your own advice.

 Millions of people find wiki to be a trusted source of information and now you are saying it´s not good enough?  Or just not good enough in this situation?  I´m confused.  Should all wiki references also be banned from the site?  

Mmmm,ok,it maybe a trusted source of information,but surely its not documental one

That is not something one can say to another just like that,that is  part of history,about  leader...so yes,wiki not good enough 

 In your opinion. 

 Well,and also in any debats between any political parts

 Hmmm...what´s your source? 

 Simple . . . I quoted Admin. (for the same reason you "keep" quoting mltm) because it was pertinent to the comments I wished to make.  I believe this is why a "Quote" facility has been made available to us.  Also it makes threads easier to follow, rather than scrolling back and forth and it´s more accurate than paraphrasing, so there´s no chance of misquoting.  As a seasoned member who knows her links and her way around the site, I thought you already knew that.  Glad I could be of service .

 Clearly you were agitated enough to respond to my original posts and all because I quoted Admin.  I think the exclamation marks gave it away.

Oh gg!  Me thinks you love me really

 Nope, no issues with you at all and you haven´t done or said anything I wish to complain to Admin about, I´m easy going that way

Well it´s been nice speaking to you again gg, always a pleasure and never a chore

In case you haven’t noticed, which I am sure you have as you clearly have read enough of my posts...…I always use exclamation points!!! You can trust my words when I say…nothing you do agitates/bothers/disturbs me.

I started my sentence with the comment because I find it amusing…as I already stated but you have difficulty conceptualizing….that you seem to have made yourself the guardian of admins words.

Once more, for your edification, I was actually commenting on censorship. I think that should be clear enough even for someone like you. 

Who claims that wikipedia is a trustworthy site must be so far away from scientific research. For that person the most important thing that he/she has ever researched in his/her entire life must be the number of kids Angelina and Brad Pitt have adopted.

Inwikipedia while reading some important thing about a certain chemical reaction, you may be finding yourself reading something about how nice the weather is or a cookies recipe of someone´s grandma. Once whilst reading something I did not like, I just wished to change it, and I wrote what I wanted.

Let´s look at handsom´s source in this "reliable source":

"From Quotes about Atatürk:

Our life here is truly hellish. Fortunately, my soldiers are very brave and tougher than the enemy. What is more, their private beliefs make it easier to carry out orders which send them to their death. They see only two supernatural outcomes: victory for the faith or martyrdom. Do you know what the second means? It is to go straight to heaven. There, the houris, God´s most beautiful women, will meet them and will satisfy their desires for all eternity. What great happiness! "

And to see how trustworthy it is, let´s look at this page once again to see at the bottom of the page a new brand edition

As quoted from wikipedia:

"Quotes about Atatürk

• handsom visited here (23 septembre) to copy paste a quote from wikipedia which is his great source. Since he found wikipedia, he lives very happyly. J´AIME TOUS LE MONDE!!! BISOUS!""

Look mltm..

You should stop this obsession of yours with me. OK?

I came across that quote in various Turkish sites ages ago. (I have not read the book myself but people were giving the page number and everything what would yourself think?)

And you should stop trying to associate Ataturk with religions. 

It is a sheer insult to Ataturk in my view..

 Look handsom,

I´ll discuss here as a member who uses her freedom of speech, so listen to it like this.

I never associated Ataturk with religions, that´s why I got especially angry, so you agree with me. In your dear views then, what vineyards did was insulting, though I just asked him for the source so that we would know who claimed it.

Indeed that claim has been made by Grace Ellison who we learn that is a british journalist. That claim belongs to her and just to her, though it is not like saying just her view, she claims that it is his exact words, though just one journalist, and she is british, at that time in 1920s british and ottomans had what kind of relations? , no record, nothing that would support this claim other than it is in her book. She has NO PROOF while we have so many reliable sources that are proof about what Ataturk said about religion.

But the important thing is not that. Ataturk might have whatever religion, he can be muslim, jew, atheist, or deist, that religion part does not interest anyone. Why Ataturk is so important to Turkish people is not because of his religion but because of what he has done for the republic of Turkey. Bringing here one person´s claim that has no proof serves to whom? Apart from seperating people about Ataturk, creating chaos. For freedom of speech ok, but here I am not trying to ban his right to say this, I am now discussing as a forum member here who has the freedom of speech.

Apart from my personal opiinon, as a mod here now, such a claim should have had a source under. Everyone should have known that it was GRACE ELLISON´S, a british journalist´s claim in her book.

Meltem you are an intellectual snob, which is the worst kind.  Perhaps you may be interested to know that academics at Oxford University in England tested the reliability of Wikipedia last year and found it to be 98% accurate - which is actually more accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica (a rather more respected source).

Being a scientist does not automatically make you intellectually superior.

You appreciate all that Ataturk did and want all Turkey to feel the same way. People who agree with you even created a law to prevent people speaking otherwise.  However I have news for you .... he was not a god, he was human and fallible and, whilst you hate the idea, many people in Turkey do not share your high opinion of him.

You disbelieve somebody because they were not Turkish? You must disbelieve an awful lot in life then....

 My last post will explain you a lot, so please REread it.

And not seeing wikipedia a very reliable source is being a snob? Wow, you sound like you are so certain about your judgement! But these words do not look good on you because it´s like the words coming from "intellectuel, educated people" enemies, because they feel some kind inferiority complex towards them, because they know that they can never get there, and they choose to deface them, but I believe that you are not one of them and you are "just" using these people´s words now. Nice try to label me.

And I do not disbelieve someone because he/she is not turkish. It´s just I do not believe everyone, everything I read, especially when I hear a claim about someone very known just from ONE person and without any real PROOF.

Bit confused by this actually

Using which "people´s words" ?

I am so jealous of your scientific mind

I wish I could test chemicals on my pets

You are getting angry as a "moderator" and  decide to delete my message before even bothering to ask for a source and somehow still manage to remain a champion of freedom of speech... So far so inconsistent...

Keep thinking you love and defend Ataturk. By the look of the things it seems you are merely in love with his blue eyes.

According to my moderating believes, such a strong claim cannot stay without any source, so I deleted it the moment I saw it, though I did not delete it permanently, so that it could be undeleted, then I private messaged you asking for the source. Here is all the process.

About your last paragraph, I do not find it worth answering.

In this reply you mention 3 times that Grace Ellison has the British nationality. Apperently her nationality is important to you, for believing or disbelieving. It tells me a lot of your view of the world.

Somehow I have found your messages worth answering, but I won´t any longer.

 Wonderful to see you back Vineyards

That is a very strong statement! What is your source?

Ok, this conversation shoud stop, it´s getting ridiculous. A quote has been provided, no more splitting hair PLEASE!

If Meltem needs additional sources, she can PM Vineyards, please, take this personal disagreement off of the forum!

 Kitty it was a joke......here honey, here´s some catnip! 

I must say that this made me laugh! Oh the love between our members...

 Love? Where, when, how, who? What did I miss?

Thank you for welcoming me back.

I would like to second WarTrain´s post - good to see you back Vineyards (now - if only you could produce that source for Mltm........)

 I think the only source that would satisfy her is a link to Allah  

Is there an Allahpedia?

Godpedia?

 Is this what they call "tough love" ?  Oh gg I love it when you get cross with me

 İ dont actually know why you are making fun about it

Any quotation should be supported with the source,and Vineyards didnt offer one.

You are just picking on mltm at anything she say/do even if it was applying the forum rules!

 Where does it say that quotes must be supported by a source in the forum rules?

Rule

 12. Any message with more than a few sentences copied from another source must give the source with the copied text. Excessive copying from other sources must be avoided. Instead of pasting a whole article please post a link to the article and your thoughts about it in a few sentences.

Clearly he did not violate this rule..  Any message with more than a few sentences...it doesn´t appear to be more than a FEW but only a SINGLE sentence. 

 Ama....do you have a source to back up this statement?

 This is not the same thing.

You quote someone´s words, put that person´s signature under it. You do not quote an article.

To explain you better, I will give you an example:

"I totally support the Iraqı war, I wish all arabs go down the sink."

teaschip

Source?? Well no need for a source.

I am locking this thread because of an argument that is turning too personal and ugly.

I have also deleted the last message by Vineyards because of a personal attack in it.