Court Backs Turkish Headscarf Ban

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

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 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!

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�

Originally posted by Maju Well, I don't have any problem with well understood poliamory either. As you say well, �ok,  it is a natural thing. There's nothing wrong about that, specially if there is consensus inside the couple on it (though some prefer not to know, I know). It's a complex matter anyhow but I won't be the one judging on such things.

If I understood you well, you are saying basically that you are fine with spouses having sex out of marraige?

The number one element in raising a healthy society is a healthy family. Otherwise, why governments are spending all that money in family support and dealing with high divorce rates.

Try to watch Jerrey Springer's show and see how pathetic it is filled with spouses who had sex out of marriage and got children who needs a DNA test and refusal of custody...etc   Or have you looked in the newspaper maybe and watched how many divorces are caused by cheating?

If you and your spouse are fine goofing around with other men and women, that is your choice, but try not to miss up with other people's spouses.

Originally posted by Maju Anyhow, Islam condones poligynia, which is a machoist form of poliamory, why not poliandria or other imaginative variants?

I'm not sure what are you tring to say here. That Islam ignores or condones polygame?
no porque otras naciones hacen la poligynia, significa que tienen razón! (not because other nations do polygame, it means they are correct).

Originally posted by Maju Many cultures allow diferent kind of marriages and love out of marriage. If we're going to be truly cosmopolitan and open-minded we can't judge such practices.

Siempre! Many cultures allow for a wife to be burned with her desceased husband. Does it mean we should watch it and admire that part of the culture and have an open mind about it???

Originally posted by Maju You said that you would faint if you see an old lady naked. And I say you're truly a whimpy. It's not surely your fault but that of your education.

 

You can call me a whimpy and i can call you a nuptial figher. However, I think most of today's human being don't appreciate you walking nude in public. If you are proud of your nudity, find a proper place maybe.

 

Originally posted by Maju What happens in Saudi Arabia: do they censor anthoropological documentaries when old (and young) people appear naked or almost? Not in my country luckily..

 

My sister studys nursing and they have seen even videos of male private organs. No sanction is imposed on educational and special-purpose films.

 

Originally posted by Maju But you can also come to Europe and visit some beaches to see people of all ages taking the sun and bathing in complete nudity without anybody caring much about it. It's not mainstream but it's ok. And has nothing to do with sex, at least in the common restricted acception of the term. ..

 

Thank you for your European style invitation. I have been to Europe and nude beaches are seperate from public beaches. In fact, you have to be of a certain age in order to enter those nude beaches, which means it has a negative impact on immatures and children.

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by Maju To prevent all those problems Napoleon had a remedy "the child born of a married woman is son of the husband" (Napoleonic code). I have another: support lone mothers and end with that anachronism of traditional family.

Napoleon was not the initiator of children of married couples to be named after their husband. Supporting the mother is not the answer because that support has to come from somewhere. If you enjoyed your sex with her or not, sorry you have to support her child as it is a product of you. Plus, it is not the fault of the mother to be a single-parent. Social and Scientific studies has shown that children can have a severe mental and growth imbalance with single-parent uprising.

Originally posted by Maju If your wife wants to make love with me (this is a hypothetical case, of course, I only make love with people that I fall in love with - but I don't ask them their civil status anyhow), you may have objections but I don't see why I would have to worry. It is she who has to make her choices. It is her right.

Then I think it is easier and wise to marry a prostitute. She has no objections with you goofing around and she will support the family financially too.

Originally posted by Maju I'm against speding a cent in supporting family. The only thing that must be supported is motherhood, so children do have a reasonable good enviroment to grow in and women are not forced to become their husbands' slaves on economic grounds. .

Wether you and me like it or not, women need an external support especially during their pregenancy period and recovery period and the time they spend with their children at early ages. If you are opposing spending a cent in supporting a family, then who is going to support them? Government? They need to tax you for that, so you are going to support them no matter what. Or maybe the husband? Yes, he has an obligation. This child does not only belongs to the mother and deserves a normal stable life.


 

Originally posted by Maju I don't admire that - I reject it as I reject burka, but I do admire naturality in allowing diferent types of relationships without making big deal of that.

I think you missed the point here. The point is that if other cultures do it, it does not mean it is correct or it is a part of the culture that we shall stay nuetral about. If you are opposing Burka for women rights, I oppose sex out of marriage as it has been proven the case most of the time the husband will escape his obligation leaving the women valnurable to many difficulties. Also, why would I support a child that is not mine? We are not hamsters who only produce with only motherhood support. 


 

Originally posted by Maju What is a nuptial fighter? First time I read or hear that term.

Don't worry, Nuptial fighter is much politer than a whimpy. Nuptial fight is when males go and fight during the breeding seasons of various animals. I just loved classifying you a nuptial fighter as you might wait for your breeding season and excercise your mother nature-given right of breeding around with various females at the same time

Originally posted by Maju You're wrong about nude beaches, at least here. There are beaches where nudism is not allowed (something I dispute) and there are others where it is (but being clothed is also allowed, paradoxically).

Im not sure about Spain, but Portsmouth, England, sets an age requirement for entering a nudist beach..

Originally posted by Maju I'll tell you one story about my great-grandma Maximina.

Funny story. For me, I would like to tell you also a story but not as peaceful and funny as yours.

Nudism is nothing but a blanket for social decay. If it wasnt to encourage it, at leasts it covers it. As far as I recall, the well-known American nudist Jonathan Tampico  was convicted of child molester. He is known to frequent nudist camps and to use the preaching of family nudism and whole body acceptance to victimize male children. He is not on the "Caution List" of the American Association for Nude Recreation (past American Sunbathing Association).

Also in 1992, Joseph Robert Wanner, 39 years old and a substitute elementary school teacher; pro-feminist member of a university women's action committee; naturist; and articulate defender of abortion, animal, atheist, and Native American rights, was arrested at his home in Kutztown, Pennsylvania. Mr. Wanner was charged with 14 counts of rape, 14 counts of statutory rape, 12 counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 3 counts of corruption of minors, 19 counts of sexual abuse of children for the production and manufacturing of child pornography, 144 counts of child sex abuse for possession of child pornography, 17 counts of indecent assault, 6 counts of aggravated indecent assault, and 1 count of voluntary deviate sexual intercourse (with a cat).  

Copies of the police reports are available on http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Tampico.ht ml

Edited by �ok ge�

Social and Scientific studies has shown that children can have a severe mental and growth imbalance with single-parent uprising.

This is not true. It is known that such children grow up quite normal.

What are you trying to show us by those examples? I am an atheist and I support feminism. Do you claim that we are less moral than religious people?

Your article says the results were not normalised for all factors. Most single-parent families are poor, because the parent does not have support. If they were not poor, things would have been different. Also, I have seen research which gives different results than this before.

To be precise, what examples?

The example at the end of your previous post. I am asking you if you believe that there is a connection between that person's deviant sexual behaviour and him being an atheists' and feminists' rights supporter? 

Originally posted by Maju 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 headscarf Arab wore before Islam is different than the one women had to wear after Islam.

that the first one was not actully covering the hair, it was mostly used as a type of sun and environment protection, women also used it as a beauty accessory, with more colors and gold hanging on it.

the one Islam ordered women to wear is different , that it has to cover all the hair and the neck and to be less attracting when the women is out of their homes.

and iam not using anything here which is not being used through history.

AS i said earlier when any verse comes with an order for muslims to follow the usual practice is to see what did the prophet and his companions reacted to such verse.

the way they delt with such verses IS the way the Verse is has to be understood  as simple as that.

you dont come now after all these years and to tell us that the Quran was misunderstood and you the wise one after 14 centures found out the truth !

the way the Prophet and his companions dealt with the Orders in the Quran is the exact action required by the Quran.

 

Originally posted by Maju 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 didnt say one can know or cant know, i said half knowledge is worse than ignorance,

that when you base your actions and decision on such poor or incomplete knowledge about certain matter.

and about the dark ages story, well if you are intersted i advice you to keep getting more infos and read more about how women treated through history and how are they actully treated now FROM DIFFERENT angles and not from one community and one source.

Originally posted by gcle2003 On the questionof interpreting the Koran: if you are going to claim that the original Arabic has to be translated so that it can be understood by people today (including today's Arab speakers) then what you are taching is no longer the word of God but the word of the translator. Interpretations of the Koran are no more valid as Koranic truths than the translations of Christ's teachings in the King James version are valid as Christian truths. They are both the work of men. (The Christians get out of this to some extent thanks to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, but Muslims can't claim that.)

iam not claiming that the original arabic has to be transilated to be understood by Arabs today, we Arabs read the quran as it is when it first came.

the thing is that there are some words which are not popular today and not clear to many people and we have Arabic/Arabic Dictionaries for these words. similar to the English/English ones.

also it is known that the Quran has deep meanings which are transilated through the Actions of the Prophet and His close Companions after him.

these Actions ARE the ones the Islamic Scholars used to give more details about certain verses.

so the comparision between the Quran and the bible is weak, that the first bible is not the same as the ONES available today.

Muslims dont treat the transilations of the Quran as Quran.

Originally posted by Seko 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.

well obviously this law is not being enforced as you are saying, less than a month ago the Turkish President made a party in his residence and didnt invite the women from some political parties because they wear head scarf and made an announcement that this place wont allow any women with head scarf to enter it. !! how can this be a governmental duty and university settings???

and how would you make this as a law while a huge percentage of the population are against it? very democratic huh?

they are calling themselvs secular and Muslims at the same time and so strict about a peice of extra cloths a woman wants to wear on her head. i wonder if they acctuly pray and if they do  what do they wear? i mean the female ones.

Originally posted by Seko 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.

dont know how you can use the christian and the jewish wearing of hijab against the using of hijab to musilms?

these two religions are supposed to be the same in line with islam and as per muslims belive that these religions were corrupted and changed by its people, so having some wearing hijabs can be considered one of the things which werent changed or corrupted.

and as i mentioned above the wearing of head scarf before islam is not as it is after islam.

Originally posted by Seko 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. lol how is that in the contrary? how did you assume that these verses were for the prophet wives? did you even check the reasons behind these verses and when they came on which occations and what the muslims DID in order to follow these verses?? i can see you are using different meanings of the words in the quran i wonder which dictionary you are using. also the word hijab has more than one meaning. you cant just make up a conclution by yourself and deciede that these verses where for prophet's wives. Originally posted by Seko   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.

what i meant from my quote which you used is that the quran came in the same exact languge as the Arab spoke that time WHICH means that it was understood by them faster and the Actions they took were the accurate ones regarding any order in any verse.

Arabs today do understand the Quran easly too but as you can see to know the exact requrement of certain verses Muslims had to check through history What the early muslims did when such order or requirenmt came.

iam not saying Arabs dont know what is written in the Quran unless they transtlate it. we do know whats written there and for more details about certain matter a history must be used

a simple example the prayers werent mentioned in details in the Quran.

how would you know that you  are praying as God wanted?!

it was explained by the Prophet as he said Pray as you saw me Pray.

 

what are you talking about?

discuss whatever you like anywhere, that quote is not a complain or a restriction or anything.

you misunderstood what i meant obviously and happily tried to make fun of it >>><<< and another one for the "banana club"  suggestion here it is >><<

anyway

i meant you dont expect people to belive you on your claims with few knowledge you got from reading a transilted verses, and not caring about what people did through history from their understanding to such verses.

its wiser to take into account why others did such actions regarding such orders and didnt do what you see as obviouse order.