TR Casual Discussion Çay Bahçesi

[Afif]

Yo, on a totally unrelated note,

I heard olive oil is really expensive in the subcontinent, is that true?

Well, it depend. If we buy imported goods from Spain Italy or any other Mediterranean countries it is expensive.
However, if it is indigenous olive oil then no.

 

[YeşilVatan]

Well, it depend. If we buy imported goods from Spain Italy or any other Mediterranean countries it is expensive.
However, if it is indigenous olive oil then no.

That's very good then, because I'm sitting on top of about 2 tons of premium quality extra virgin olive oil.

IMMA BE FILTHY RICH

as soon as I find a buyer tho

edit: this has to be the best market research ever conducted

 

[Nilgiri]

Man I need to do a North African tour.

Start from Egypt all the way to Morocco.

If only.

Drop some TB2 supplies in Libya along the way....heh.

 

[Afif]

I have taken a look at this matter for some time to get a clear picture. From my observation, i found that a lot of Sufis/shia use this term because it goes against their ideology. Then we have the non-Muslims that use the word "Salafi/Wahhabi" as a political term. If we take a look at it from the context of Islam, and what the Scholars say about the term Salafi then we will get the following answer. The word "Salafi" comes from the word "salaf". The word salaf comes from the full word salaf as-salih or in English the 3 golden generations. The prophet/Sahaba, then the tabeen ( Succesors of sahaba), and then finally the tabee tabeen ( The successor of the 2 generation that was the successor of the sahaba).

Hope it made sense..

Thank you for your explanation, not to brag about my self but just to let you know, i have a B.A. in Islamic studies So yeah, i have the chance to fairly know all of these things somewhat in details.

It is not that, Sufis/Shia folks labeled them with that designation at first. But it is a term more like they choose for themselves.
The problem with the so called Salafies is, they reject all widely recognized Fiqhi schools of thoughts/Madhabs that has been developed over thousand years by hundreds of thousands renowned Islamic scholars.

And not just that, they also tend to think, most of these historic scholars were MISGUIDED cause they made tons of different interpretation/Ijtihad of Quran and Sunnah over the course of history to derive Fiqhi rulings according to their own understanding and their own contemporary circumstances.

And obviously, as we all know, these highly developed madhabs/school of thoughts created lot of flexibility and ease for average Muslims as you can follow any of these and do just okay.

It is very important to note that, when it comes to all traditional Fiqhi schools of thoughts even they have different interpretations and they disagree with each others a lot, STILL THEY RECOGNIZE EACH OTHER. So, as long as you follow any one of these traditional schools of thoughts, you will do just fine with the others.

However, when it comes to hardcore Salafies this is not the case at all, as i stated previously they reject all of these other Fiqhi schools of thoughts/Madhabs, Thus creating a lot of difficulties and unease.

And the problem doesnt stop there. To make matter worse, not just only they reject all of these Fiqhi schools of thought/Madhabs and call them misguided, but they reject the very idea of INTERPRETATION/ IJTIHAD itself!
And want to follow the text TOO LITERALLY without any context, understanding or consideration of the contemporary social environment and other factors that are usually taken in to account when it comes to conventional IJTIHAD as we know it.

For Salafies, following text too literally and without any so called interpretation is the PURITY that actual
AS SALAF US SALEH had. And now, in their mind, they are emulating what the actual SALAF did.

Now, i know that, my explanations, description and generalization is too incomplete and faulty and does not take into account a lot of variable among so called Salafies themselves and leaves out other important stuff, but this is a causal discussion not an academic one.
So i dont have any obligation to be super precise and back my every premises with loads of evidences and references.

 

[Anastasius]

The Turkish population is aging too fast, and not enough Turks are having kids while the Kurds are having too many this creates and demographic problem that could only be countered by becoming an immigration country, sort of like the US and Australia.

The problem with turkey isn't that it keeps getting more and more refugees but that it is not trying to assimilate them. Turkey needs to back up the refugee population, not keep them around the Syrian border or in Istanbul it needs to move them around the country to places that are full of Turks but have low birth rates. Turkey has 4 million refugees; according to the UNHCR if turkey divided them up between its 580 cities, it would have 6896 refugees per city, which would allow them to be assimilated. Once they have been Turkified, they can counter the demographic imbalance between the Kurds in the east and the Turks in the west.

Turkey has no other choice it isn't a young country any more, nor is it a rich one any demographic collapse in turkey is going to be a disaster.

No country in the world has fixed their demographic issues by becoming an immigration country, they have only made their problems worse.

The reason people don't have many kids is because it is difficult with an increasingly worse economy and public services. I see in in the US, now imagine it in Turkey where the average family lives in what is essentially poverty conditions compared to the US.

Fix those issues, which BTW are made worse by unrestrained immigration, and higher birth rates will follow.

 

[Sanchez]

It worked pretty well for Canada. Turkey is not Canada.

 

[No Name]

Turks dont want to have Kids.

Also you have feminism and a unjust divorce law which is putting men off from marrying.

Unjust system where women take it all if a women cheats on you the system will still favour the women which means she takes the money even gets the kids.

I know of a family friend whose marriage ended with the most petty excuses numerous cases like that.

People think men are the problem but there is something going on with women that has made them brainwashed and radicalised.

None of this changes what I said about the problem about Turkey's looming demographic problem.

No country in the world has fixed their demographic issues by becoming an immigration country, they have only made their problems worse.

The reason people don't have many kids is because it is difficult with an increasingly worse economy and public services. I see in in the US, now imagine it in Turkey where the average family lives in what is essentially poverty conditions compared to the US.

Fix those issues, which BTW are made worse by unrestrained immigration, and higher birth rates will follow.

Actually, it is the opposite only developed the economy that has a stable demographic are the immigrant countries. Fixing those economic issues won't fix the Birth rates the reason the birth rates are so low is because of the level of urbanisation, in rural areas children are an asset in cities they are a burden thus the birth rates won't go up.

It worked pretty well for Canada. Turkey is not Canada.

and what that meant to mean?

 

[Era_shield]

We welcome educated children, we need qualified engineers and physicists.

Our problem is uneducated, bigoted people who have just come out of the cave. We already have enough ignorant ignoramuses and bigots in our country.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Thank you for your explanation, not to brag about my self but just to let you know, i have a B.A. in Islamic studies So yeah, i have the chance to fairly know all of these things somewhat in details.

It is not that, Sufis/Shia folks labeled them with that designation at first. But it is a term more like they choose for themselves.
The problem with the so called Salafies is, they reject all widely recognized Fiqhi schools of thoughts/Madhabs that has been developed over thousand years by hundreds of thousands renowned Islamic scholars.

And not just that, they also tend to think, most of these historic scholars were MISGUIDED cause they made tons of different interpretation/Ijtihad of Quran and Sunnah over the course of history to derive Fiqhi rulings according to their own understanding and their own contemporary circumstances.

And obviously, as we all know, these highly developed madhabs/school of thoughts created lot of flexibility and ease for average Muslims as you can follow any of these and do just okay.

It is very important to note that, when it comes to all traditional Fiqhi schools of thoughts even they have different interpretations and they disagree with each others a lot, STILL THEY RECOGNIZE EACH OTHER. So, as long as you follow any one of these traditional schools of thoughts, you will do just fine with the others.

However, when it comes to hardcore Salafies this is not the case at all, as i stated previously they reject all of these other Fiqhi schools of thoughts/Madhabs, Thus creating a lot of difficulties and unease.

And the problem doesnt stop there. To make matter worse, not just only they reject all of these Fiqhi schools of thought/Madhabs and call them misguided, but they reject the very idea of INTERPRETATION/ IJTIHAD itself!
And want to follow the text TOO LITERALLY without any context, understanding or consideration of the contemporary social environment and other factors that are usually taken in to account when it comes to conventional IJTIHAD as we know it.

For Salafies, following text too literally and without any so called interpretation is the PURITY that actual
AS SALAF US SALEH had. And now, in their mind, they are emulating what the actual SALAF did.

Now, i know that, my explanations, description and generalization is too incomplete and faulty and does not take into account a lot of variable among so called Salafies themselves and leaves out other important stuff, but this is a causal discussion not an academic one.
So i dont have any obligation to be super precise and back my every premises with loads of evidences and references.

I have to disagree with you on the first point you made. A lot of Sufis/shias do label them as salafi based on the fact that the sufis/shia dont follow their way of understanding. So basically they "join" the wave of labeling because they don't agree with them. Thats why you will see some Asians being upset when visiting Makkah, and Medina because the saudi police are not allowing them to commit innovations in Islam.

I can relate to a lot of what you say but i have to say that you make a big generalization. However it depends on what we are discussing now, are you mentioning some "salafis", or are you talking about their Aqeedah/creed? If you are talking about the aqeedah of the salaf salih then it would be wrong for you to say that the "salafis" reject "all widely recognized Fiqhi schools of thoughts/Madhabs". I have looked it up in the past and i found at that the position is the following. Classical scholars have mentioned that "blind" following any madhab is not allowed based on the fact that the 4 imams of the madhabs are not infallible. So what have the scholars said about this. They said that we take the strongest opinion that they can connect to the most proofs around Quran, and hadith. So salafis actually don't reject fiqh, and they are open to following any madhab they wish.

 

[North_Star]

Hi all,
Adalar district, İstanbul...

 

[Afif]

I have to disagree with you on the first point you made. A lot of Sufis/shias do label them as salafi based on the fact that the sufis/shia dont follow their way of understanding.

I did not said, Sufis/Shias do not laber them as Salafi. What i am saying is, this designation did not originated from Sufis/Shias. It is a name that, Salafi folks choose for themselves at first.

I can relate to a lot of what you say but i have to say that you make a big generalization.

As i said,

Now, i know that, my explanations, description and generalization is too incomplete and faulty and does not take into account a lot of variable among so called Salafies themselves and leaves out other important stuff, but this is a causal discussion not an academic one.

are you mentioning some "salafis", or are you talking about their Aqeedah/creed? If you are talking about the aqeedah of the salaf salih then

As i clearly mentioned in my post, i am talking about some HARDCORE SALAFIES, not all of them.
And why on earth AS SALAF AS SALIH coming in the conversation?

it would be wrong for you to say that the "salafis" reject "all widely recognized Fiqhi schools of thoughts/Madhabs".

Again, i am talking about some hardcore Salafies, not all of them.

I have looked it up in the past and i found at that the position is the following. Classical scholars have mentioned that "blind" following any madhab is not allowed based on the fact that the 4 imams of the madhabs are not infallible.

Indeed, and no body should blindly follow any Madhabs, that is literally why we have thousand of renowned Fiqhi scholars in each Madhabs over the course of centuries who has contributed tremendously to the continuous development of their respective schools of thoughts/Madhabs.

So what have the scholars said about this. They said that we take the strongest opinion that they can connect to the most proofs around Quran, and hadith. So salafis actually don't reject fiqh, and they are open to following any madhab they wish.

Ah yes, you brought up a good point here, this is actually what majority of Salafies tend to say.

Even though it sound very logical at first hearing, the problem with this cherry picking strategy of their is, it does not work in real life and a lot of time leads to some serious self contradictions.

The obvious one is that, every Madhabs has its own principles/Usulul Fiqh at its core.

And you just can cherry pick one from that and one from that without sometime violating those respective principles that every schools of thoughts is widely based on.

So, either you develop your own principles to derive Fiqhi rulings from the text independently, or you follow any of particular Madhabs/school of thought in a way that does not break its respective core principles.

There is no room for MISHMASH.

So salafis actually don't reject fiqh, and they are open to following any madhab they wish.

I am not saying, they reject Fiqh as whole. This is simply not possible for any Muslim.

What i am saying is, some hardcore folks from wider Salafi community does not recognize an important aspect of Fiqh, which is Ijtihad/independent reasoning/interpretation, and they want to follow the text too literally.

 

[Tonyukuk]

Guys I think I will convert to Islam.

https://youtube.com/shorts/hy_AaVq0OdI?feature=share

No but seriously, why do all Islamic preachers talk this way? They have their own accent.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

People who have no clue about Islam or the ones who only regurgitate western shit dumped in their throats about Islam, should refrain from talking about it, let alone mock it.
Just because you don't believe, doesn't mean others have to put up with your adolescent rant about something you have no clue about.

 

[Tonyukuk]

People who have no clue about Islam or the ones who only regurgitate western shit dumped in their throats about Islam, should refrain from talking about it, let alone mock it.
Just because you don't believe, doesn't mean others have to put up with your adolescent rant about something you have no clue about.

Right. Muslim preachers literally say that anyone who leaves Islam should be beheaded. But you're saying that we are misunderstanding it or that it's western nonsense. I feel sorry for all you guys who have been brainwashed since childhood to defend this religion so vehemently. You will attack non believers but the second someone calls Islam out on its pile of bull crap you chimp out and act like an innocent victim.

 

[Afif]

Guys I think I will convert to Islam.

https://youtube.com/shorts/hy_AaVq0OdI?feature=share

No but seriously, why do all Islamic preachers talk this way? They have their own accent.

Come on man! you know he is not a preacher and he is just mocking.

Anyway, even if he was a preacher why would have it matter? he or for that matter, no body else is going to be the middle man between you and god.

Is it because you dont want be associated with the stupid peoples? Then, would not it mean, finding the truth your is not first priority?

Listen, if you are serious about this, start reading philosophy. i dont know if it is going to make to you a believer or not, but i can promise you, it is going to rewrite your brain structure and completely change the way you think about everything now.
Personally, i think reading philosophy on its own terms is worth it, more than anything else.

And along the way try some sociology, It will teach you how to take every different and alien perspectives into account without being super judgmental. Otherwise, it is very hard to escape our own social and cultural biases.

 

[Tonyukuk]

Come on man! you know he is not a preacher and he is just mocking.

Anyway, even if he was a preacher why would have it matter? he or for that matter, no body else is going to be the middle man between you and god.

Is it because you dont want be associated with the stupid peoples? Then, would not it mean, finding the truth your is not first priority?

Listen, if you are serious about this, start reading philosophy. i dont know if it is going to make to you a believer or not, but i can promise you, it is going to rewrite your brain structure and completely change the way you think about everything now.
Personally, i think reading philosophy on its own terms is worth it, more than anything else.

And along the way try some sociology, It will teach you how to take every different and alien perspectives into account without being super judgmental. Otherwise, it is very hard to escape our own social bias.

I know you're coming from an innocent standpoint.

Look I've been exposed to Islam and I have done a lot of research about it. And it didn't appeal to me.

I could list many reasons why I don't like it. Same with Christianity and other religions.

But my problem with Islam is that it has been weaponised against its own people. The West covertly supports radicals which pose immense danger to all Muslim majority countries. Trust me, the radical groups in Türkiye pose a greater danger to the nation than PKK. There are Islamic groups much more dangerous than FETÖ which are spreading like cancer. A lot of these groups get funded and nurtured in the West.

The goal is total chaos. How am I supposed to stay silent about this, knowing that most Muslims would support the removal of secularism from the Turkish Republic and the establishment of Sharia law? Which would lead to the eventual destruction of the nation.

Just several weeks ago Hizb-Ut Tahrir had a conference in Türkiye to call for the removal if secularism and the establishment of a Caliphate. Literally openly threatening the constitution. And they're supposed to be banned in Türkiye, yet the government is turning a blind eye to them

 

[Fuzuli NL]

Right. Muslim preachers literally say that anyone who leaves Islam should be beheaded. But you're saying that we are misunderstanding it or that it's western nonsense. I feel sorry for all you guys who have been brainwashed since childhood to defend this religion so vehemently. You will attack non believers but the second someone calls Islam out on its pile of bull crap you chimp out and act like an innocent victim.

I'm saying that your view on Islam is very very very narrow, therefore you should not talk about it until you've educated yourself about it independent of what is depicted for you. I hope you understand.
I would not get into a religious debate with haters of Islam since there is no value threshold and since I'm not a very good Muslim myself.
I'm shocked about the level of intolerance and ignorance by some of you though yet you write as if you know Islam inside out.
A very disrespectful approach that needed to be addressed.

 

[Tonyukuk]

I'm saying that your view on Islam is very very very narrow, therefore you should not talk about it until you've educated yourself about it independent of what is depicted for you. I hope you understand.
I would not get into a religious debate with haters of Islam since there is no value threshold and since I'm not a very good Muslim myself.
I'm shocked about the level of intolerance and ignorance by some of you though yet you write as if you know Islam inside out.
A very disrespectful approach that needed to be addressed.

How do you know my knowledge of Islam is very narrow? I have read the Quran. I'd suggest that you stop making baseless assumptions about others.

 

[Isbara]

I'm saying that your view on Islam is very very very narrow, therefore you should not talk about it until you've educated yourself about it independent of what is depicted for you. I hope you understand.
I would not get into a religious debate with haters of Islam since there is no value threshold and since I'm not a very good Muslim myself.
I'm shocked about the level of intolerance and ignorance by some of you though yet you write as if you know Islam inside out.
A very disrespectful approach that needed to be addressed.

"Kill those whom give up their belief in Islam" Muslim : Jihad 149

 

[Afif]

I know you're coming from an innocent standpoint.

Thank you.

Look I've been exposed to Islam and I have done a lot of research about it. And it didn't appeal to me.

I could list many reasons why I don't like it. Same with Christianity and other religions.

Look, i am not trying to convert you or tell you what is true or false.

But this was once my problem too, my parent sent me to religious school and i had to study there all my childhood and teenage years. i was extensively studying the religion itself and yet day by day i was growing more and more skeptical about lot of its practices and definitely thought some of this was barbaric and uncivilized. And i didnt care how much apologetic explanations my teachers tried to gave me. It simply does not work.

But now looking back at that period, i can understand the whole approach was wrong. Because, i was studying the religion by putting itself in the center of everything and taking it as the granted starting point for my study/research. instead of developing an independent inner principle based on unbias logic and reasoning.

Ironically, this is exactly what i was able to learn when studying in secular sociology classes and in my personal reading of philosophy.

Both taught me to doubt and question every social/religious/cultural believe, norm. practices and assumptions i previously had.
And it was so much fun! I remember, at that time i just read and read.

That is why i am saying, reading philosophy and sociology will definitely help you see the world in a new way irrespective of what your conclusion about God/ religion is.

Anyway, these are just my 2cent from personal life experiences.

The West covertly supports radicals which pose immense danger to all Muslim majority countries.

Yes, it is true.

Just several weeks ago Hizb-Ut Tahrir had a conference in Türkiye to call for the removal if secularism and the establishment of a Caliphate. Literally openly threatening the constitution. And they're supposed to be banned in Türkiye, yet the government is turning a blind eye to them

Duh, it was banned in Bangladesh a decade ago.
Why are you guys still hanging up with it?