Court Backs Turkish Headscarf Ban

Clothes does not make you a modest person or an educated one. However, dressing "modestly" is something else. It is like: please act responsible. That does not mean you are a responsible person.

Regarding nudity, I really don't think that because we are born naked it means we have to learn being naked. Trust me, I might faint if i saw a granny walking naked. Also flashing is a crime that you can get arrested for. It does bother normal people that you show them what they don't need to see.

Bottom line, the only thing that defines us as human from animals is two things.  Brain and constraining our urges.

Not because you are naturally born with it or a natural part of you, it means you should unlimit it.  We all have the urge of sex (or spreading our genes) just like animals. Does this mean you should excuse your husband if he slept with his secretary. Imagine him saying "oh dear, sorry but that was natural"!!  and that is an urge, soemthing even stronger than just walking naked because I was born like that. If you are expected to control a natural urge in you, of course you should control exposing yourself.

Edited by �ok ge�

I would like to know what is the big deal with the headscarfs and covering of breasts, and all the yards of materials women have to wear in order to be considered "modest and proper women". Clothing does not make a woman, her mind and character does. Just because a woman uses a Headscarf and covers her breasts and flesh does not make her a "modest or a good woman". I can be wearing an itsy, bitsy, teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini and still have better morals, be completely faithful and loyal to my partner, and be a better and happier person than someone who is trapped in an impenetrable armored suit and not showing any flesh at all, merely to satisfy a delusion of modesty. I think (and this is my interpretation only) that it is the males who do not want their women looked upon by other males and therefore make them wear lots of clothing to cover them from the eyes of other males. I think it all boils down to pure jealosy among males. Treating females like possessions must give males exhuberant feelings of power and control, and that feeling must not be compromised in any way. I find hipocracy in that!

As far as nudity is concerned, we are all born naked. Males and females exist in most species. It's no secret that males have male organs and females have female reproductive organs. We all come in different shapes, color, and sizes - what't the big deal? I still have not seen anyone being born fully clothed yet.    We are the only "species" who have decided to put clothing over our flesh to appease society's acceptance of "proper behavior". I can understand putting clothes on for protection from the elements...sun, rain...etcetera....but the truth is, we humans wear clothing because it is the acceptable way that society dictates - some are more strict than others.

I've seen documentaries of tribes still in existence who run around completely naked all the time and it is completely acceptable! There's little rape in such communities,the body is looked upon as a tool for survival in life, and the children aren't even fazed by it. I find no hipocracy in that!

Originally posted by gcle2003 (The Christians get out of this to some extent thanks to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, but Muslims can't claim that.)

The Holy Ghost, just love it. The most uncertain element in all Christian (Trinitarian) doctrine. It's almost a true Pantheist element... even it could be considered with delight by Chaotists.

I tried to stay out of this topic (redundant) but now I have an urge to say a thing or two.

Two issues: Turkey banning head scarfs; and Islamic understanding of sentences that some choose to accept as 'headscarf'.

By making this first point short and sweet, I'll say that Turkey has been on the defensive against fundamentalism from the beginning of the Republic. Part of the developement of it's political culture consisted on clarifying it's language, doctrines and state authority. The headscarf issue falls under this catagory. It is a secular (laik) law refraining from wearing it while in and on governmental duty and university settings. Other then that, the headscarf is allowed anywhere else. Opinions currently vary on the headscarf banning and the accompanying impact it has had. I think that the government is being protectionist. If and when governmental ideology matures further, dependant on percieved or legitamate threats to its constitution, then the headscarf situation will not be such a grave issue.

 

Originally posted by azimuth the Scholars are not making or saying anything new here, they are more like collectors of the events and what the prophet did, what his companion understood from each verse and how did they obay any orders mentioned in the Quran. so abou the Hejab or Head scarf, most of the scholars has mentioned that when this order came women started covering their hairs and neck. starting from the prophet's wifes. so its clear that they understood the verse as an order to cover their hair with a veil as an order not as a suggestion from God.

Many scholars had already wore the headscarf prior to turning moslem. Jewish and Christian women had already done so in their past. The moslems borrowed this tradition to the tee. Same for most Arab men and women prior to Muhammed. They wore hijab as a custom. Not because of their own religious beliefs.

 

The order for the prophets wives to cover themselves are the following: 

-  [7:26] "O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best
garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed."

- [24:31]

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not show-off their beauty except what is apparent, and let them cast their shawls over their cleavage..."  Which means they should (Khimar) cover their chests. - [33:59] "O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall LENGTHEN their garments. Thus, they will be recognized and avoid being insulted. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." The Arabic words used for cover are "KHuMuR" (to cover). One can cover a floor with a rug and cover a chest with clothing for example. In 24:31 "fel yedribne 'they shall put, they shall cover' is used. However in verse 33:59 "fel yudnine 'they shall lengthen' is used. The first is to cover the bossom and the next one is to lenghten garments. Specifically varied phrases for different sentences carry meanings appropriate to each context.  The word 'Hijab' was not used. The words for 'hair' was not even used in the above aya (verses). The word "Hijab" appears in the Quran 7 times, five of them as "Hijab" and two times as "Hijaban," these are 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17. Yet none of those are in the context of a dress code.  In summary and contrary to what was suggested by others, covering hair is not a commandment.   as i said it is Clear in Arabic, also The Quran came in Arabic language the exact one the people used to talk 1400 years ago. which means they would understand it much much faster and easier than today's Arab may do. The Quran is still clear.  [12:2] "We have sent it down an Arabic Quran, perhaps you will comprehend." People of the past and present can still analyze the Quran. It is not the domain of past scholars to interprete it only. Muslim scholars have many opinions about women that are often degrading and insulting. i.e.- comparisons to dogs, can't pray at certain times, abominations, etc. Though such scholars have much good to say too, I still focus on the negative to highlight the rediculous beliefs that still exist in the muslim mentality. The Quran, on the other hand, permits men and woman to eat together or to help each other (24:61; 3:195; 9:71). The Quran provides several examples of women being active role models in their societies and were interacting with men, such as Abraham's wife (11:69-71; 60:4-6), Muslim women in Madyan with one whom Moses married (28:23-28), the Queen of Sheba who later surrenders to the will of God (27:34:40), and Mary (19:16-30; 3:42-43; 66:11-12). Muslim women were so outspoken that they could engage in debate with Muhammad (28:23-28), and women pledged allegiance and voted for Muhammad's leadership (60:12). With respect to all the believers we still have the duty to enhance social rights and question inhibiting actions that impact the standards of living for all sexes. Modesty has been encouraged. But fear and insecurity (secular or traditional Islamic) can and should take a back seat to open discussions and freedoms.

Edited by Seko

I respect your view on nudity (god I hope you are joking though )

For me, I retain my realistic view that nudity is unacceptable thing on public and a tastless behavior. Only animals that can enjoy being naked (if they do even realize it). I dont think I would love to watch my female 50 years old professor giving me a lecture while she is nude or my 60 years old grandpa to come nude or my parents too. This is going back to premitive stone age. Wait, even in the stone age they used furr to cover up

Originally posted by Maju So are you saying, �ok Ge�, that because Universities are a public institution they should allow nudity (another personal choice that is harmless and helps to learn about tolerance)?

If you can assure me no kids will see your naked friends and pollute their virgin eyes, then sure

That was a joke. In answering your question, I will quote myself first:

Originally posted by �ok ge�  Both of the secular anti-headscarf state and the religious headscarf-imposing state are restricting women's freedom to wear what is suitable and what is their choice.

to make things clear, we have two issues here and not to mix them, headscarf is banned because 1- there is a dress code that must be followed, or 2-banning headscarf (a religious symbol) will assure tolerance and respectful envirnoment.

I purposely used "what is suitable" because I recognize that every place has its dress. If you going to attend a president party, you cannot enter the party except with a toxedo. If you are joing the Banana club, you might be able only if you wear a banana hat. If you are entering Church or a mosque, you should follow the dress code there. If you enter a private university, you stick with their dress codes.

All of the above are examples of private and special-club entities that require dress codes. My objection was to Public school, universities, and governmetn offices. These are not private entities that can forbid an individual from expressing his religious obligation wether a yamaka or headscarf. Neither it is my business or your business to try to persuade them that it is not a religious obligation. I guess something I always admired the United States for, their respect of who you are whatever you wear.

Your example of allowing nudity in public insitution is little unrealistic. First, it is not a dress it is nudity . Second, who said it is "harmless". Many kids and passbyers are around. Same as the laws that prevent nudity in public beaches or on streets. Third, it teaches what tolerance? to nudity?

As I said earlier, if you want tolerance, dont group people and tell them wear this and that, and speak this and that, and do this and that, making them homogeneous. That is in fact intolerance as you cannot stand their differences. And what is tolerance except accepting people's differences as they are and allowing them to be different?

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by Maju The state is not forbidding women to wear anything. Universities have some dress regulations: no mini-skirts, no hats and no veils, among others. .

Though the initial story was about universities banning headscarf, It is definitely a state law. The state of Turkey enforce that law on all public universities (I think the exception of Istanbul university?) and in all governmental offices and buildings.

The mosque is only a religious institution and only Muslims pray in a mosque. It is like the Banana club where all members choose to wear a banana hat and it is only defined to that group. Whereas universities and government offices and work are public institution.

The purpose of the law of banning headscarf is claimed that all religious symbols are prohibited to create a unified look and no segregation based on your religion which will enhance tolerance. I find this a "mentally-challenged" argument since you learn tolerance by dealing with people in their state withoug hiding. If you are a Christian, are not going to learn a respect to a jew who looks like you exactly with no differences. You will respect others when you have to deal with them in respect wether they wear Yamakas, headscarf, or crosses.

Originally posted by Maju Regarding French rules in schools, it must be noticed that many countries impose uniforms to all students, to erase artificially any class or social diferences in classrooms. This is not the French case but they have decided to ban all religious symbols, what I consider a prudent measure.  .

Same argument above i will use it here too. Children learn tolerance dealing with different people who acts different to them and wear different.

Originally posted by Maju I would rather wonder why are women in Saudi Arabia or other countries forced to wear veil and even forbidden from driving cars? That is actually an intolerable interference in social life and another Saudi abuse of Human Rights, as internatonally acknowledged.

As I said before, a secular imposing state is no better than a religious imposing state. Both are violating personal freedom.

 

Originally posted by Maju Furthermore, while France gives citizenship to any person born in French soil, Saudi Arabia doesn't give citizenship in almost any way, so most of its population are foreigners with no rights..

Actually Saudi Arabia is different than other Gulf states. Locals compromise the majority. There are 20 million locals for 5 million foriegners. Other Gulf states except Oman too, have more foriegners than locals. Regarding the law of citizenship, Saudi Arabia used to give citizenship extensively before King Fahad ascending to the crown in 1981. Due to huge population expand (the population growth is 2.3% annually). The country has suffered economic downfalls that had a tremendous impact due to the increasing populaiton of 38% under 14 years old, who will need job by the time they are in their 20's. In fact, two years ago, unemployment reached 30%. Therefore, it will make sense to shut down the neutralization of citizenship to foriegners as the country itself is unable to deal with its expanding population. Something similar to what the United States does as they control the number of Green Card holders (permenant residance) and H-1 visas (employment visa which can convert to Green card easier after five years). In years where unemployment is high, US will supply less Green cards and H-1 application.

France on contrast, has a 0.37% annual population growth and 18.4% of its population under 14 years old. France and other European countries in fact, were able to maintain a positive population growth only through neutralizing foriegners as citizens.

Regarding the absence of rights to foriegners in Saudi Arabia, that of course is acknowledged with no dispute. However, Saudi Arabia does not maintain a second class citizenship or a segregated body of neutralized citizens as some European countries due (without naming them).

 

Originally posted by Maju This was very clear when Saddam annexed Kuwait and gave citizenship to most foreigners, particularly Palestinians. Kuwaitis happened to be only a tiny fraction of the people in their own country.

Saddam did not give citizenship to foreigners for the sake of God and love and justice. Most Kuwaitis opposed Saddam and will make sense to turn Kuwait to a state of a majority that support Saddam through giving citizenship of locals there who supported him. Palestianians unfortunately were on the top of that list.

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by azimuth which means they are wearing veils already and need to cover their chests aswell.

It is assumed that they wear headscarfs as that was apparently customary among Arabic Pagans. You are trying to use this accidental mention of a Pagan custom to enforce it in the name of Islam. I find it a total aberration.

the order is clear enough, people who doesnt know much about the religion and its history would aruge about these things. half knowlege is worse than ignorance.

One can't know about everything. But I try to understand. Yet the more I understand Islam the less I like it. It seems a cult, in the worst sense of the term: mixing religion and politics since its origins, trying to get women back to the dark ages, threatening those that decide to abandon the sect...

Ugly.

I think we all agree somehow on the bottom line that banning headscarf is a result of secular & anti-religious laws rather than the argument that there is a code of dress that must be respected. If the secular state will place rules that ban headscarf arguing that it is the freedom of women to wear what they like and headscarf is a constrain on their freedom, how is this any different to a religious state that enforces headscarf? Both of the secular anti-headscarf state and the religious headscarf-imposing state are restricting women's freedom to wear what is suitable and what is their choice.

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Loknar Hmmmm. Do Christians also have to take off their crosses? Not sure in Turkey but in France you must (at schools). Of course small disimulated crosses or other symbols are not included, what are banned are explicit ostentative religious symbols.

 

Here's the thing. The cross is idol worship, the burcca isnt. African women wear the doorag (spelling?) but it is culture thing and i dont believe that the burcca should be eliminated.