Court Backs Turkish Headscarf Ban

Originally posted by Maju While I have nothing against prostitutes, I have a lot against the people who use them and abuse them. .

To say you have nothing against prostitute but you have a lot against who use them it is an unbalanced view as much as saying "you have nothing agaist drug sellers, but you have a lot against drug users".

While some prostitute are forced LITERALLY to engage in prostitution, most are forced by economic difficulties. Those are as worse as saying I had to steal money because of economic difficulties. I  have no sympathy to prostitutes and those who use them too.

 

Originally posted by Maju . but I hate the feeling of being limited..

That is the whole foundation of our argument. When it is allright for you to excercise options of not feeling limited and when is it not your right to unlimit yourself. You have to teach yourself to accept feeling of being limited. From simple things as being limited not to eat the whole candy box in a store without being able to pay for it, all the way to limiting your sex adventure to your truely chosen beloved wife.

To say "I hate the feeling of being limited" is kind of a selfish statement.

 

Originally posted by Maju I'm not placing cultural diversity as any ideal. I'm just putting cultural examples of diferent morals. Some I like, others are indiferent and the most violent and represive are hateful to me.

Then I guess we agree here that injust cultural morals cannot be tolerated. What fits under injust? that is a whole new discussion. 

Originally posted by Maju When love is dead, and, sorry, but life sucks sometimes and love can't be bought, the family (understood as mother + children) still need means to survive with dignity and for that the state or community must provide if they want to promote a reasonable demographic stability/growth compatible with the rights of women.

Then I assume here again that we both agree on supporting single women who cannot support themselves. Regarding a pre-cautionary common sense procedure, is marriage. Naturally most ladies are reluctant to raise kids or various kids out of marriage. We always witness the hit-and-run habit of men where he get her pregnant and disappear or deny it. Marriage assures parent support, taking responsibility and pro-women policies of divorce (in US, mostly half of husbands assets goes to the ex-wife) are nothing but an assuring measurement of protecting their rights and recognizing they are valnurable to all challenges.

 

Originally posted by Maju You have some funny strange ideas about people who doesn't follow your schemes.

Don't get sensitive Maju. You should take it as a joke as much as I took your "whimpy" label on me. I hope you enjoyed it. At least, you have now a new terminology.

Originally posted by Maju Next time you are in Porstmouth take the ferry to Bilbao. .

Since Im a whimpy, I prefer traditional family-friendly beaches. But thank you though.

 

Originally posted by Maju This is ridiculous! Do you know how many Catholic priests have been prosecuted and convicted for pederasty in the last years only in the USA? And I'm sure this is not privative of that sect.

As yourself said it, "this is not privative of that sect". Nudists are not the only people with scandals. But their news visit our newspaper much more regular with other groups of course. No wonder that is happening as now, every a child molestar, a psycho is claiming to be a nudist as an access gate for their fullfillment. Same as the doctorine of repent in Catholism which allows for priests to take advantage of kids in private sets of confessions.

There is a lot that can be said here, I personally prefer observing the developing studies regarding nudity effect on the society and based on those imperial studies, I will be able to render a better decision in the future.

I enjoyed the topic though

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by cahaya the topic is discussing on Court Backs Turkish Headscarf Ban... I just wondering... why the turks law is banning headscarf wearing?? are they denying  Islam practices and muslims right in carrying their obligation according to their faith? If the country is claiming tht they are practicising democracy policies and acknowledge human rights...then they shouldnt ban the headscarft wearing.. if they are denying ISlam's laws at least they should respect individual rights and it is the person choice to select wht he or she is going to wear in order to follow him or her religion demand... this is so strange... For other people who is not a muslim... well headscarft wearing maybe not important for you guys... but me as a muslim.. to wear headscarft is a compulsory. in islam a woman must cover her hair from non family member or those men who she can be married to.. once u married to tht person.. thn feel free to do whtever u wish to...

Prove that hijab or turbans were used at the time of the prophet as an islamic headgear. I do not think that it is compulsatory. Islam is an august religion, but there is no way one can bring about a reconciliation between the republic and the kind of mentality that reduces Islam to �turban� wearing and also confines ethics to the narrowest interpretation of chastity, although ethics should embrace all society and every societal activity. I have given my reasoning against the hijab. Aside from azimuth no one else seem to provide documenatation to prove otherwise. http://i-cias.com/e.o/index.htm

Originally posted by azimuth 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 ...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.

Opinion or reality? Need proof from you on this one. Most traditionalists seem to follow the notion that women back then tied there hair behind their backs and all that the new revelations provided was to cover the hair fully past their necks.

- [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."

So what could this mean azimuth? Lengthen garments. But it does not say how far. Thats is up to us. Avoid being insulted. Yeah! So they would not become harrassed by aggressive men who might think of them as something less noble or conservative. Notice how no punishment is proclaimed for believers who don't lengthen the garments. But I am sure the history of traditional Islam and the taliban types love to take basic freedoms and personal choice out of the equation.

Or is this how traditionalists treat their women?

Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi 3257, narrated Talq ibn Ali

Allah's Messenger said, "When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven."

[Tirmidhi transmitted it.]

 If the religion was not changed or corrupted then you are going against your own scholars?

Hadith - Bukhari 4:668, Narrated Abu Huraira , see also Bukhari 7:786

Allah's Apostle said, "The Jews and the Christians do not dye (their grey hair), so you shall do the opposite of what they do (i.e. dye your grey hair and beards)."

Originally posted by azimuth 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.

In the process of writing I wrote prophet's wives and not believers. Only the last verse specifically mentions prophet's wives. My mistake if you were confused. Obviously the two previous verses I mentioned were for women of all ages. You seemed to jump on that like you have made a great discovery. But the point and logic of my presentation has not changed. The things to keep in mind is that the best garment is righteousness modesty; covering bossoms, and lenghten garments (cover legs or chest for example) are physical ways to do so. This all helps keep the wolves at bay and brings respect to women.

Originally posted by azimuth 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.

I have no problem with the Quran today as being written in the same language as when it first was delivered. The actions taken, as you say, were shared by the prophet and followers. That is why it reminds people to follow God and the prophet. He was a role model. His guide was God and the Quran. The hadith books were not around at the time of the prophet. It would be absurd to think that his compatriots lived by contradictory standards created generations later when they were not cannonized. Muhammad received personal revelations too, like many other humans do. But, the Quran was the only revelation he was commissioned to deliver and it is the only revelation we are supposed to follow.

If you think a believer needs to check with history and historical responses then you do not believe God that he is the teacher of the Quran. You need scholars and historians to tell you what to believe.

Seems that traditional believers tend to bring up this lack of detail bit into an arguement. Questions on prayers and such are given as examples. But if you look closer you will find it there in the Quran. I will show you if you do not have that info. But first, I am interested in how you get your info on prayer. Show me your hadiths on it. They must be out there somewhere. Are they detailed as you imply?

Lastly, I am of the mind that the Islamic religion is going through a reformation. It has in the past too. Yet currently we have greater access to vast amounts of information that enables us to question, confront or reafirm our own knowledge. The traditionalists will have to answer alot of questions with sound evidence while trying persuade inquisitive minds to see things there way. And the inquisitive ones will have much to say about age old beliefs. Commands will be evaluated and rules will be changed. People will be offended. But this is all worth it if the truth has a chance to surface. No more diets perscribed by the scholars (i.e.-shelled fish are harram); no more dress codes prescribed by scholars beyond the freedom of personal choice as layed out in the Quran; no more baseless commands. Piety is not how long one grows a beard or follows the rigours of blind superstitions. To each their own.   

 

Lastly, I am of the mind that the Islamic religion is going through a reformation. It has in the past too. Yet currently we have greater access to vast amounts of information that enables us to question, confront or reafirm our own knowledge. The traditionalists will have to answer alot of questions with sound evidence while trying persuade inquisitive minds to see things there way. And the inquisitive ones will have much to say about age old beliefs. Commands will be evaluated and rules will be changed. People will be offended. But this is all worth it if the truth has a chance to surface. No more diets perscribed by the scholars (i.e.-shelled fish are harram); no more dress codes prescribed by scholars beyond the freedom of personal choice as layed out in the Quran; no more baseless commands. Piety is not how long one grows a beard or follows the rigours of blind superstitions. To each their own.

From what you've said here I take it you are one of these liberal secularists who want religion to conform to what society wants. I suppose you will demand that Christianity and Islam accept and condone homosexuality.

Originally posted by Seko Loknar please follow the discussion. I never mentioned sexuality and its various inclinations. Call me a liberal or secularist but do so with respect and don't put words into my mouth. We have been discussing the different interpretations of how religion effects womens' roles in society. This came from the topic of banning the headscarf in Turkey. Because I question the authenticity of the headscarf 'command' doesn't mean I completely agree with the Turkish legal decision. Reread my post on this issue from an earlier response. I said the following: " 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."

My apologies. I've had conversations before with real wacky liberal people who were so insistent that religion conform to contemporary society's standards and to not do so made them oppressive and reactionary. I assumed, incorrectly, you believed that religion should move to conform to a societal standard.

 

Your comment "But this is all worth it if the truth has a chance to surface" is what led me on. There are millions of ways I can twist my explanation.....Lets say that something like fornication becomes accepted doctrine of mainstream Christianity, this in order to conform to a societal standard even though this throws away thousands of years of traditions. "Truth" can be twisted to mean many different things and change isnt always for the good.

I have always felt that religion is not supposed to conform to the standards of society for the very purpose of building ones spirituality and faith. Other words what�s the point of religion?

Anyway, again I do appologize for forcing words down your throat.

Edited by Loknar

I think that the government is being protectionist.

which goverment  you mean? I cant see any goverment protectionist  against headscarf ban. this issue has nothing with goverment.  Infact Erdogan goverment is complately against to this ban.isnt this a little weird? goverment was choosen by turkish people, but he cannot even stop this nonsense ban? Ban is not wish of turkish people.

It is not important if headscarf is related with islam or not. headscarf ban is related with freedom. Even If It have no relation with islam, people should have right to use it.

 

 

I really don't know how I feel about the banning of
headscarves anymore.

Firstly, it's very important to distinguish between a
headscarf or veil and the idea of hijab, or modesty.

You can wear a headscarf with the most tight-fitting,
revealing outfits and then it has absolutely no
religious relevence because it defeats the whole
purpose. Likewise you can still be modest in
thousands of other styles and fashions that still
conform to Islamic rules.

So are they banning a fashion accessory, or a
religiously-motived idea? The story that they also
banned women from wearing bandanas as a
substitute seems to suggest they're banning the
religious idea, which I don't support. But then again,
Turkey is a secular country - and the majority of the
population are proud of that, want it, and fight for it -
every day. What I would consider harmless, by my
country's standards and what threats we face, might
seem as bad as domestic terrorism to most Turks.

And the same is true in reverse. Take a Jehovah's
witness visiting door-to-door. In Dallas, Texas, it
might be a simply inconvenience. In Zepa, Bosnia, it
would probably be a terrifying, uncomfortable
experience. In Tel Aviv, Israel, I believe it's even a
crime? Like Shakespeare said: Nothing is either
good or bad, thinking makes it so.

As for banning a veil, who cares. These politicians
have to feed their egos and feel they're doing
something. As for banning a religious idea, that
shouldn't be allowed. Secular states aren't Godless
or soulless states, or at least they don't have to be.

I will state my own ideas about that.

I totally have nothing against people wearing headscarfs or not. It is a matter of choice. And people in Turkey are free to wear it except those who work for the state institutions and high school/university students(So still the state institutions). So there is freedom except for the workers of those places.

So, what we discuss here is the dressing of headscarf in the state institutions.But Turkey's situation is different here on that specific issue.

The extreme-Islamic sects and sectarians use headscarf as an Islamic symbol. They even force some students to wear that to make their propaganda.They give extra monetary help to those who wear the headscarf. They want to put the religion into the politics, which is basically against a secular state system. They want to found a theocratic regime in Turkey in long term. So, what makes headscarf to be banned in these state institutions were the abuse of them.Some people didn't wear it for their own reasons, but for their sect's reasons, they weren't really cordial.

Either, the traditional headscarf worn in Turkey is a little different from the turban which some groups use, mostly still for provocative reasons.Especially, there are some who is around with black sheets, closing even their nose and one eye, that is really absurd, and has nothing to do with religion.

So, I am personally not against headscarfs being worn in those state institutions as it is worn outside, but of course if it is made cordially, from the heart, in the right form,not the provocative one and not abused by blending religion and politics.

What is done in Turkey was something abusive, and the court is totally right about this issue considering terms of secularism.Some things had to be given to prevent more dangerous things.

Originally posted by Seko Pretty much my sentiments too Kapikulu.

Thanks a lot,Seko

Originally posted by Kapikulu .The extreme-Islamic sects and sectarians use headscarf as an Islamic symbol. They even force some students to wear that to make their propaganda.They give extra monetary help to those who wear the headscarf. They want to put the religion into the politics, which is basically against a secular state system. They want to found a theocratic regime in Turkey in long term.

How did a simple right of choice turns to be at the end a step toward a theocratic regime!

Making assumption that Islamist parties are giving money for spread of headscarf and to increase religion involvement in politics is an untested claim. Also, working toward religious groups invovlement in politics is not a bad thing. In fact, it encourages the application of the state system on all groups and provide an access to authority to all the groups in a true democracy. Instead of frustrated members who cannot participate in decision making turning against the state and adopt extreme measures, allowing them to participate is alwaying them to persue their believes and goals through systematic and recognized channels.

By the way, many religious groups operate in many secular countries, even in France, Germany, Austria....etc.  In fact, some European countries witnessed an increase of  the right & conservative groups involvement in politics, as recently the Christian Democrat party succeeding in Germany.

Increased representation of Islamic parties in Turkey should not be a worry if there is a true democracy as people are englighted and free to choose their approperiate next president. It can only worry either  Islamo-phobic or fanatic secular who sees every increase of religious representation a direct threat to the whole democratic system! As if religious groups can produce only theocratic leaders!

Edited by �ok ge�

give extra monetary help to those who wear the headscarf. Not excatly true, even If this is true,this means nothing, this people use headscarf with their free will and let remember, they have more thing to loose than gain. Remember they wont let to enter uni, If they use headscarf.

So they are actually bribing families to force their women to wear the veil... I see.

They want to put the religion into the politics, which is basically against a secular state system. Nonsense, all  world muslim use headscarf, do you think all of them is against turkish secular state system? ridiculus.

Not actually, have you seen the pictures posted by Mila of Bosnian Muslim women? They do not wear headscarf but they do wear miniskirt at times. In my neighborhood, old Muslim ladies do but young ones mostly don't. It's a vanishing fashion.