If this is a defense of the imam hatip system, I have to ask: how many imams do we need? And why are my taxes used to support them, if we live in a nominally secular country?

If you want your children to receive more religious education, enroll them in a Koran course (Christians have Sunday school) or teach them yourself.

If you want to become an engineer or a doctor, you need to study maths and science, not religion. Studying the Koran is NOT a substitute, therefore any person wishing to pursue careers using these subjects should receive religious instruction in addition to the regular curriculum, not instead of it.

The imam hatip system should be dismantled, not reformed.

Mr. Emre,

Your approach gives us a clue to understand the current "secularism" in Turkey. Actually, that is what Mr. Akyol is always trying to say which is that the Turkish secularism separates willingly the religious education from the official institutions. However, for example USA has also a secular system but allows private religious education too.

Mr. Emre,

I think you are not the person who should worry about the tax issue. In my opinion, the banned people like "Imam Hatips" or "Women who wear headscarves" are the discriminated individuals who are supposed to reconsider the tax due to the madness of the "secular caste system" in Turkey !!!!

Thanks for this interesting information concerning religion in Turkish society - especially with respect to the imam hatip schools.

You say that: "... religiosity would become a hallmark of the lower classes in Turkey. Those who go to the mosque five times a day would be deemed as a "köylü," or a peasant."

This view of the devout is an unfortunate one and is common to many secularists who tend to look down their 'enlightened' noses at the religious.

Of course it is true that there is a lot about institutional/organized religion that can be problematic - not just in Islam but also in Christianity and Judaism. Religion is too often manipulated for nefarious political purposes.

On the highest level, Islam - like Judaism and Christianity - seeks to convey the intrinsic mystery and wonder of life. It is about adoration, grace, love and the understanding of one's place in the larger scheme of things. It is about harmony and respectful co-existence. Unfortunately Islamic teachings have been twisted by a minority of unscrupulous people in order to justify their dysfunctional conception of jihad. Wahhabist distortions have been a blot on the classical beauty of Islam.

The Sufis have long understood the esoteric meaning of both the Qur'an and Hadith. The Sufi interpretative approach of 'Ta'wil' is much preferable in my opinion to the more literal method - 'Tafsir'. The influence of Sufism in Islam is very extensive and very deep. The Mawlawiyah order founded by Jalal al-Din Rumi has enjoyed deep ties with Turkish society... even with the educated elite of the Ottoman Empire.

The reaction of secularists to the role of religion is understandable, because they are reacting to the ideological abuse of religion in the hands of extremists. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the solution. There is much in religion that answers profound human needs - whether one chooses to view the teachings in an allegorical or literal sense - and of course religious schools are not simply 'religious', they also offer curriculum that can be found secular institutions.

I believe that what needs to happen in societies that are seeking to exorcize the demon of religious extremism is not to ban religious schools/teaching but to take measures to ensure that the curriculum meets the highest standards and that the teachers are not using religion as a cover for pushing a political agenda. The distinction you made between the imam hatip schools and Pakistani madrasas with their medieval mindset is well taken in this regard.

Mehmet,

Turkey has a plethora of private options for religious education. Imam Hatip schools do not address the need they purport to (i.e., training imams).

There is no caste system in Turkey; you must be thinking of another country. The last time I checked, Turkey had a prime minister who graduated from a Imam Hatip school.

Emre,

I mean "official" private and religious education together. The reason I gave you the USA as example is because United States contains huge amount of religious groups like "cults" (tarikat) or "religious commuions" (cemaat) and since most of them were under non-control, the government let them to open their own institutions with lots of curriculum freedom.

However, here we don't only talk about the "Imam Hatip" but also the "coefficients" discrimination done to the Technical High Schools.

Please try to translate this into English :)

"Pire icin yorgani yakmak"

Poor guys!!

Emre is either resorting to blatant distortion or has difficulty understanding the obvious difference between the Turkish educational system and that of the West.

Both the U.S. and Western European countries present their citizens with huge religious education opportunities. They present even the option of skipping secular schools altogether and being educated in church-managed or otherwise religion-oriented schools. But this option does not exist here in Turkey except the Imam-hatip schools option.

In Turkey, we only have the Imam-Hatip option which we use for the same purpose. The title of the schools as Imam-Hatip (imam and preacher) is misleading in this respect.

Please secularist Turks, if you want to be considered as honest, honorable people by other people (and by God, the faith in whom you seem to despise), then stop trying to give out, to your dear fellow secularists in the West, the dishonest false impression that Turkish educational system already allows religious organizations to establish non-secular-oriented schools and that the Imam-Hatips are something more than that. If you want to dismantle the Imam-Hatip system or devote it solely to the training of religious experts, then you must allow the people the option of opportunities for good-quality, expertly religious education as is given in the West.

Or don't you care about being honest people and do you just hanker after the implementation of your top-down social engineering projects? If the latter is the case, I am sorry that you don't even deserve to be taken seriously at all because of your low morality.

Please speak for yourself; I am no stranger to the Western system. The U.S. forbids normative religious instruction in public schools. If you want someone to tell your child what they should or should not do, you can send them to Sunday school, Hebrew school, etc.

Turkey has plenty of Koran courses. What's wrong with them? Imam Hatip schools can train imams and Koran courses can teach the rest.

Finally, the Turkish education system does have a religion class, but they might as well call it the Hanefi class.

I think the only place where you can seriously study Islam is in a foreign university, because Islam does not have a rich tradition of exegesis. In Turkey you'll get rote instruction.

Ugur Mustafa Ravi,

I hear your call. If we are going to be perfectly honest, I think Imam Hatip schools should be dismantled for they no longer serve to their function. Private schools should basically replace them. These private schools should also be able to teach any religion, including Christianity as long as they do not promote violence. Religious education at public schools on the other hand should be elective, and cover multiple religions/sects and etc. That sounds honest, liberal, and fair to me. Am I mistaken?

Cingöz,

Yes, in Turkey, Muslims (and Christians and Jews and other religious minorities) should also be able to supervise the curriculum and should be able to stop the secularists from filling the curriculum of the "secular" (rather than just "public") schools with excessively intolerant and even violence-promoting secularist extremism. This secularist extremism is being operated not only in Turkey but also in the U.S. and the rest of the modernism- and secularism-dominated West. We must become even better than the West in this respect and take precautions against this problem too.

Ugur Mustafa Ravi,

I am a little confused, and cannot follow your point. So, what do you mean by preventing the secularists filling schools "with excessively intolerant and even violence-promoting secularist extremism"? A secularist curriculum would be nothing but one without a religion class, that is it. There is no "secularist class" teaching hatred. Perhaps you are confusing secularism with with atheism since most atheists are secularist (by implication) and quite vocal about the ills of any religion.

Also just to clarify my point, I did not suggest that Muslims and others should be able to supervise the curricula of every school. They should be able to decide on their own curricula at their own private schools, and only the relevant elective classes at public schools. I do not favor Muslim education dominating every school by resisting or preventing others. What happened to fairness you have been calling? I am advocating a fair segregation of schools for all regions, and an elective exchange where all religions are represented at public schools.

I do not support any religion overtaking every other school. After all, there is no reason for us to argue that Islam or any other religion for that matter is the best religion in every sense, and thus should be imposed on others. Or are we back at the 6th century?

Cingöz,

Secularism has two common meanings. One is the legal separation of religion and the state, which is expressed in Turkish with the word laisite or laiklik (from French laicite, but with some accent marks above the first i and e, which I can't type with my Turkish keyboard), and the other signifies a meaning in the way that I use the term.

This latter secularism is a dogmatic and militant/belligerent position which presupposes that religion is undoubtedly something really bad and tries to impose negative legal and political actions that arise from that philosophical supposition. The secularists impose such legal and political actions on the society as a whole including religious-minded people like myself. Both you and Emre appear to be secularists in this second sense, as indicated by your comments at this website.

From Wikipedia: "In its most prominent form, secularism is critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma rather than on reason and the scientific method."

However, secularism has its own dogmas which it is adamant to claim are not dogmas but unambiguous truths which everyone has to accept. This is obviously the attitude that religious people are blamed for.

...

No, Cingöz, you did not say that Muslims should supervise the curricula of public and/or secular schools. On the contrary, you implied that secular-minded people like yourself must supervise the curricula of the religious schools so that nothing that you find objectionable, violence-inducing or unpleasant may enter those curricula.

In response to that, I also suggested that religious people should be able to do the same to the curricula prepared by the secular-minded people in case they may also write such unpeaceful things. My approach is necessitated by the quite universal rule of "reciprocity". Without reciprocity, there will be repression by the group whose actions cannot be reciprocated.

With all due respect, your suggestion that secularists don't do it all, that they are so broad-minded, neutral and non-militant, is at best a farce. I come from the secular Turkish educational system and I have been informed about the secular part of the American educational system by people subjected to it.

In different ways and different levels of "subtlety and sophistication", both systems (Turkish and American) contain a truly high dose of anti-religion and secularist hate-mongering against traditional, socially conservative and religious-minded people as well as the concept of being a religious person itself.

Please acknowledge the obvious truth, or you will delude only yourselves. Unfortunately for you, we educated Muslims are aware of our dogmas and we know that nobody can live without setting some dogmas (i.e. principles of belief and thought) as the principles that guide them in their lives. But you secularists are much more fiery, more aggressive and much less aware of your dogmatism when it comes to your own dogmas. I think that this eventual dogmatism that the secular West has fallen into will be the reason for its downfall in the coming decades. The fate of Western Christianity with its militant dogmatism awaits Western-type secularism too.

Ugur Mustafa Ravi,

I think you have a reactionary view of secularism, which blinds your judgment. Let me further clarify myself.

Instead of getting tangled in a you said I said discussion, I will clarify myself by proposing that every religion should meet the fundamental principles of democracy, which includes non-violence, women's rights, freedom of speech and etc. Within these boundaries, religious schools should be able to teach any practice and philosophy they wish as long as they do not harm others. For example, I would object any teaching or philosophy that would lead any parent (whichever religion they may belong to) to deny health care to their children on religious/moral/philosophical grounds. But I cannot think of any religion that promotes such insanity although there have been occasional cases in the US. Within these boundaries, I am equidistant to every religion, and I believe that they have a positive effect on human psyche and the culture in which they operate.

It seems like you are making a categorical mistake by associating people who have disdain for religion (commonly hard line atheists or even perhaps bitter agnostics) to a larger category of secularism simply because atheists automatically fall under the category of secularism. By implication, atheists would refuse any religion doctrine in power, and thus define themselves as secular.

I think there is some confusion on your end about the definition and scope of religion and secularism. Religion is a belief system with its peculiar attitudes, beliefs, and practices with a sacred source. It is necessarily based on dogmas (i.e. principles of belief and thought as you said but you need to add that these beliefs are not subject to debate). Secularism, on the other hand, is a principle or even perhaps an ideology of a human construct aimed to guide matters of governance (politics). It is based on principles, norms and beliefs that are subject to debate and thus change (their resistance to change is something related to politics and not secularism) These two identities or set of principles collide only when they interfere in each other's realms, particularly when religious beliefs (and usually it is one version of it) seeks state control, and dictates its rules on daily dealings.

Theoretically and in practice in fact, I cannot see why one cannot be a secular religious person. Secularist is simply someone who promotes that state behavior should be based on debatable and changeable human constructs guided by the best debatable and changeable tool we have (science) largely because we have serious doubts about religious regimes' track record on this - among many others that I will not list.

Therefore, I do not agree with your statement that "nobody can live without setting some kind of dogmas". The term dogma has a different definition, and do not simply translate into principles and beliefs. Dogmas are "established opinions", teachings that one must assume correct - some of which are not even open to debate.

I try to guide my life in accordance with the principles of reason and logic rather than dogmas of any kind. I would be happy to hear as a secular person what my dogmas might be. But you have to make a convincing argument that demonstrates why that particular belief I hold is harmful to others (or wrong) without making inaccurate generalizations, such as associating secularism with materialism (another common misplaced and incorrect categorization that secularists and the West for that matter are subjected to)

Cingöz,

I am of the opinion that I refer to reason and logic much more widely in my life than you and other secular-minded people do.

Definitions vary according to the agenda of the people employing them. I used the word dogma approximately in the second sense cited at WordWebOnline:

1. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
- tenet

2. A doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative
"he believed all the Marxist dogma"

My definiton of a dogma as I used this term in my above comment would fit the first one too, only excluding the clause "without proof". However, now that this one turns out to be the widespread understanding of what a dogma is, I will no longer use my own definition.

So, I have my principles of belief just as you do.

Dear Cingöz, if you have studied only a little formal logic or logical mathematics (I passed one logic class and three such mathematics classes before I transferred myself to history), you must have learned that without axioms that are inherently "dictated" to the mind and are obvious without proof and also without theorems that have been derived from the axioms, our reasoning faculty just cannot work. It must have some definite information, some raw material to operate on.

However, it is important that we should separate rightly the real "axioms" from mere suppositions. Besides, it is also important that we use our reason not arbitrarily but in a disciplined and clear manner, so that our theorems will be accurate.

...

Praise and thanks be to God, I think that I am able to succeed in that better than most secular-minded people, if not all. I believe I have the right to express this good opinion of myself, because I have worked on achieving a clarity of thought and reasoning all my life. Even my academic success, up until my university years when my illness struck me down and later in the past few years, has not been able to assure me that I indeed had the ability to think clearly and as accurately as possible. I still sat down and contemplated. I've just made this last paragraph's assurance not to prove myself to you but to sincerely inform you of my intentions and outlook.

By the way, I did not say that all secularists are atheists. I request you to stop imagining what I said and putting words into my mouth, Cingöz.

The quotation was from Wikipedia. It is the general usage of the term "secularism" that posits it against religion, not me myself.

I am repeating my quotation from the Wikipedia article "secularism" because it seems you have not read the quotation and you are still claiming that this definition of secularism is my invention. Here you are:

From Wikipedia: "In its most prominent form, secularism is critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma rather than on reason and the scientific method."

Secularism as defined here includes many "principles of non-religious faith", to the degree of dogmatism, as these principles (that religion is inherently superstitious etc.) are simply unproven and are even simply proven to be false for some cases.

With all due respect, I have to ask you to read people's posts more carefully and to stop doing injustice to them (including myself) by putting words into their mouths.

Best regards

Uğur Mustafa D. Râvî,

Sorry to hear that your sickness affected your education. I hope you are feeling a lot better, and everything is all behind you. I had quite a few people in my family who have struggled with health issues.

I would like to clarify couple of things so that I would not be misunderstood.

I am sure you would agree with me that logic by itself is not science. It is a primary part of the overall process of reasoning, which leads to science and scientific knowledge. I do not even want to get started with the whole debate over that mathematics is science depending on how you define science, and etc. That is a rather philosophical debate. But I think I understand where you are leading with your argument. However, the existence of logic with its axioms, theorems, and other dictates, which are commonly called "logical absolutes" that we must assume correct or are always correct irrespective of time and space is a proof of some kind of A supreme creator(s), and thus we must assume his/her existence as given to be able to function. I agree that we need those logical absolutes to be able to function/operate. However, I disagree that the existence of logical absolutes is an evidence that a creator(s) exist. I may be mistaken but you seem to be under the influence of Transcendental argument for the existence of God, which has major logical flaws not to mention the fact that it constraints the Omnipotent and omnipresent God within the logical rules - a contradiction in itself. If you do not mean any of these and only referring to your claim that you just live your life in accordance with the rules of logic and etc. then forget about all I said above.

Other than that I think we are on the same page although I dont understand why you believe you refer to reason and logic much more widely in your life than I and other secular-minded people do. That is one bold statement on your part without knowing everyone. Would I be putting your words in your mouth if I pick on that? I guess you did not mean that but just used it to state that you do not disregard reason and logic unlike you assume we secularists accuse of you.

Again, I do not intend to challenge your understanding of logic. Even in the above paragraph on TAG, I only question where you go with that logic while still admitting that I might have misinterpreted your comments on logic leading to God.

This takes me to the second clarification. I did not make a firm statement that you said "all secularists are atheists." I used "seems like" meaning that "you seem to suggest" or "your arguments seem to be based on the assumption or premise that", and I demonstrated given the definitions I provided for both secularism and religion that one can be a secular Muslim.

I do understand that you took the definition of secularism from Wikipedia and thus your argument is consistent in itself. However, my intention was to demonstrate you that the definition of secularism you provided was too extreme, and is not necessarily true in every case. You seem to accept this extreme definition, and developed a rather hostile attitude towards secularists as if they wish religion out of everything in life. If this definition was correct then all Western countries would be equally hostile to religion since almost all of them are secular. But these countries demonstrate great variety, and I dont think this variety is because religious people give a great battle against the secularists everyday and prevent them taking over. This observation itself suggests that there is something else going on that defies Wikipedia's definition. It is that there is multiple degrees of secularism, which are not all equally hostile to religion.

The danger with your adoption of such an extreme definition of secularism is that it leads to polarization. If you adopt such an extreme definition then you cannot blame others who define Islamism and all religions for that matter as a belief system that defies logic and reason in the pursuit of a state led by the God and not democracy and etc - which also is not accurate. Overall, I do not think your stance against secularists is a healthy and peaceful one.

I hope I am clearer and I did not put any of your words in your mouth.