I think there is in surat elnisaa2(women) even clearer things about hijab...  I will ask one of the girls{they know better about this} and get back to you...

in anyway you think of it... as islamic law or not, still unfear to ban girls from going to school because they're covered...

I heared the Islamic party won in Turkey a year ago or so.. what happened nw?

That's also for Turkish culture. Traditional women used to wear head scarfs (not hijabs though) since ancient times and they still use such costumes, though they arent prohibited or banned anywhere. But covering your hair shouldnt have to be the very same way that Arabs used to 2000 years ago, eve before Islam, right?

But anyway, the EU court's decision makes no sense or no importance for me, since it isnt God or our father to decide the right ot wring for us. If we have any problems with wearing hijab or not (we dont, that's false agenda), we should solve it our own, not by the advices of a western court or Arab league...

It should not be banned and it should not be forced on to. thats if the state doesnt want any internal problems, but as i can see the turkish government is really pushing it. there are way too many devoted muslims in turkey, 25-30% of the country. its just a matter of time till an uprising of somesort to happen.

i think this is one of the great disadvantages of translating the quran, it simply loses its meaning.

they should translate the Explanation of the words in the Quran not the Quran itself word by word,

for example from the above Ayah (verse) it says in Arabic "Wa LeYadhrebna BeKhumrehinah Ala Jeyobehenah"

if you asked someone who knows Arabic but not the Calssical Arabic to translate that word by word he would say.

"And To Hit themselvs with their Head Scarf on their Pokets"

really that how it sounds. but its not correct.

the Translations you provided for this exact verse says.

"and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms"

"that they should draw their veils over their bosoms"

"and to draw their veils over their bosoms"

 each saw that the word Veils is the correct translation for the Word "Khumrihena"

also each saw that Bosoms is the Correct translation for the word "Jeyobehenah"

so now what does that verse means????

in Arabic we have like 7 volums of Explanations of the Words of the Quran in Arabic, 7 volums from one scholar. not to mention other scholars through history.

in the Explanation "Tafseer"  of Ibn Katheer , this verse orders women to use their Head scarf to cover their chests,

Which means that they are already Covering their heads with their Head Scarfs and need to Cover their Chests with that scarf too.

so covering the Head, the Neck, the shoulders and the Chest with their scarf.

i dont know if there are any English translations of the explanations of the Quran, such as the reasons of each verse and when it was said and what people did understand that at that time and what they did in accordance with this verse.

anyway there are more verses talking about Hijabs.

such as Surat Al Ahzab Ayah 59,  "chapter 33 verses 59"

[59] O Prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

in Arabic its much much clearer than that.

it says "Yudneena Alayhinah Men Jalabebhenah" which simply means "lower (cover) on themselves with thier clothes"

Tabari in his Explanation says that this is an order for wormen to cover their heads and faces when they go out of their homes.

well first of all Muslims belive that the Quran is NOT Prophet Mohammed's words, its God's words.

the life of the Prophet and his sayings are called "Seirah" which includes the "Hadiths" or the sayings.

each Hadith has its sources goes back to the Prophet from his companions ( males and females) from his wife Aisha there are more than 3000 Hadiths. total Hadiths are over 100000 i think. more info about the Hadiths check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadiths - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadiths  ( note that the links they provided as sources are as important as the article itself)

now back to the topic.

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.

well Maju its clear enough in Arabic, and people at that time understood the meanings very well.

I don't think the veil should be banned or forced upon. It should be the woman's choice. The justification for head covering, as far as I can see, comes from hadiths. Between the hadiths and the Qur'an, I go for the Qur'an! The hadiths present too many inconsitencies and one in his own sane mind can't think they're not corrupted.

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.

what are you talking about? what the VII century has to do with this?

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.

so what the scholars do is see through history and check what the people ACTULLY did when this verse came. Did they got confused what to do? or they all did what they understood?, clearly they did what they understood. which is covering their hair,shoulders and chests.

and i did explain above that the word "khumrehinah" means Head Scarf also the translations you provided translated it as veil right?

which means they are wearing veils already and need to cover their chests aswell.

about the "polemic", the wearing of veils are accepted by the majority of the muslim population in the world, the people who are trying to show us that we misunderstood the quran after more than 1400 years of practice are the nonreligiouse ones who want to get support and reasons for their non religiouse actions. and obviously aren't getting that much support.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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:

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?

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

Forcing someone to wear something is much much more of a restriction than forbidding them to wear a particular garment, and leaving them free to wear whatever they like otherwise.

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.)

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.

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]

No I'm not joking. When weather helps I do enjoy being totally or partly naked. I always go to beaches that allow nudism and do not wear anything at all there.

Clothes are just an option, specially recomended to withstand the weather.

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 agree, as the Sufi saying goes:

'I have seen many men without any garments on them, and many  garments with no men in them'.

Don't judge Islam too fast, Maju.

Having said that, as an atheist, I support religious garment ban on government employees and schoolchildren (under 18). The rest, including universities and non-officials in government space should be free.

If you reduce the problem to individual freedom vs state oppression, of course it follows that everyone should be free to do what they like. But this world, in which the individuals are free and the state is the evil oppressor this is just a liberal-bourgeois fantasy world. In the real world, individuals are oppressed by many actors besides the state. The family forces the little girl to cover up, the village community forces the young woman to cover up, traditions decreed by people who died a thousand years ago dictate what the individual does or thinks. If the individual emancipation is important, as you all agree, the state can be a liberator as it can be an oppressor. The state can show people that their little village is not the whole universe, they won't get killed by a thunderbolt if they take their headdress off. It is very important to know (and see) that it is indeed possible to live a different life, if they want to, and the state can do this, through economic support, education, example, creating opportunity, etc.

Only when the individual has her economic, social, sexual, conceptual, etc. freedom, can we call her decision a free one. So in, say the UK, where much of this is real, a woman's decision to wear the headscarf may mean something. Without that, as is the case for many people in rural Turkey, it is so much empty talk.  

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.

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.

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).

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???

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.

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.


 

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

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

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.html - http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Tampico.ht ml

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...

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?

No, empirial studies show just the oppsite to what is claimed now. I will copy myself from another thread in which we touched over this issue.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6979&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6979& ; ; ;PN=1

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.

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? 

I don't see where it says the results were not normalized for all factors. In fact it says clearly "After adjusting for other factors, children with a lone parent were found to be twice ...."

Also, it admits that other contradicting articles exist, however not in the size of this study or even closer.

Regarding that if a single parent can succeed if financial and educational support is given, Im sure it did exist. However, we are discussing the norms and not the exceptions. I quote myself from the same thread:

Both of the two examples were given in regards to Nudism. The fact that he was an athiest just a state of the fact, positions, and roles he was involved with, including being a teacher and an animal right supporter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While I have nothing against prostitutes, I have a lot against the people who use them and abuse them. So I would never be that kind of "guy", the shame of my gender. Paying for sex... what a misery!

But I've been with polyamorous people and it's fine. Better than jealous ultra-monogamous ones. And not that I'm a particularly polyamorous person, I think I'm rather monogamous but I hate the feeling of being limited.

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.

I would have no problem supporting children that aren't biologically "mine", assumed I love their mother. But, just in case let's the state or community make sure that lone mothers have means for a worthy survival, so the kids (and the mothers) are not negatively affected by any marital problems.

The couple is not any contract for bringing kids it is a matter of love between two persons (more persons wouldn't be a couple ). 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.

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

You have some funny strange ideas about people who doesn't follow your schemes. Nuptial fight is not the idea I have of attraction and love, it's more a man-woman bilateral thing. When I see strong competition I know it's time to go (not because I fear any fight but because I know when I am in excess and find "nuptial competition" ridiculous). After all it's just an affair. If there's something strong there's not any of that competition, though there can be affairs always. Why to put limits to Eros?

Next time you are in Porstmouth take the ferry to Bilbao.

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. Mixing nudism and pederasty seems to me totally absurd. I don't deny that there are some perverts around in all kind of enviroments but I don't make of child abuse my banner against religion. I think that most Catholics (or Muslims for the case) are not such kind of people.

Anyhow, I have also a recipe against rapists, including child abusers, surgical castration. They will be still able to live normal lives but they won't have anymore those urges that they don't know how to manage. It's quite a compassive and effective measure and I wonder why it is not applied everywhere already.

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.

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.

 

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

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.

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.

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

I do have sympathy for prostitutes because I know theirs is a miserable life (at least in most cases) and I am entitled to the divine virtue of compassion. Instead I feel no respect for their masters nor their clients, specially the first kind, but rather hate.

I don't think you got the point when us used that drug comparison. It's like saying I don't like drug sellers but I feel compassion for drug users. I see prostitutes and addicts as the victims of their stories. You can't compare a prostitute to a drug dealer, the most with the drug itself. I also don't think that prostitute clients are any kind of vitims but vicious people that should learn to solve their urges on their own.

But of course you're not in favor of masturbation either, am I wrong?

Maybe but it is not anymore selfish that saying that you don't want to pay the manteinance of other's children.

And, anyhow, I value Freedom as one of the three sacred pillars of  human existence, so as long as I'm not damaging anyone else, I don't have to constrain anything.

I agree that the pillar of Justice is the more dificult one to define. Still it's all about freedom: if you damage others' freedom it's unjust, if you don't it's fair. That's why I didn't use the term "just" (somehow ambiguous) but "violent and repressive" (quite more precise).

That's another solution but doesn't help when the father is unknown or only sometimes when the husband is abusive.

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 - http://i-cias.com/e.o/index.htm

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)."

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.

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.   

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."

What is your point anyways? To say that I want religion conform to society's whims and fancies? If that is your understanding than you have not been paying attention. To clear the air I will leave you with my view once again. Socieities have the capabilities to create governments as they feel necessary. Religious doctrine may or may not become law within the legal jurisdiction. If it is to become law then it needs to be understood with utmost clarity that the law is an actual religious command and not only a dogmatic persuasion. How a government makes that decision was not discussed. 

You are always welcome to prove your position, whatever that may be. Lastly, religion is not static. Society is not static. Religion grows through adherents who find an appealing quality to it. Religion helps one in the spiritual and worldy realms. Because people have held age old beliefs about certain aspects of religious duties does not mean that religion is completely understood. The duties may be fixed but the search for understanding of it may continue. We are told to judge by what God has sent down and not to follow others wishes. We are told to investigate lest we harm someone out of ignorance. 49:6, 5:49. So why would you say I want to bend a religion so it can conform to something else? I am searching for meaning through investigation. And when I have doubts I'll research it. Some of my doubts have been presented so far. If you have an offense to it then that is your perogative. If you want to correct me then please do so. Just bring the proof.  

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 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.

Darn! I don't like it when this happens.

When I say government, I mean the ruling bodies in charge. So for clarity sake and my lack of being more specific I should say 'Governmental bodies'. That would be the current reigning political parties, National Secutity Council, Office of the President and the Constitution. So in this sense the process of checks and balances would approve/reject such laws.

I agree that freedoms of expression can improve.

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.

Pretty much my sentiments too Kapikulu.

Thanks a lot,Seko

Sex without marriage is banned in Islam as it is considered as adultery.

It has reasons though, to provide true loyalty and commitment and either, we see children being left by parents, and AIDS,syphilis etc. 

It is the rule, some apply it, some don't

And about the scarf stuff in Qur'an, from what I know either, there is no clear and bare statement about covering the head, it is about covering the bosom as I read in some Turkish translations.

It is not banned in Turkey, I had several Armenian people in my old school when I was in high school, walking around freely with their crosses on and showing them to us intentionally.

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!

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.

I dont  think becoming a student can be called as a workers of those places.

Hospitals, public parks or even some big banks are state institution, will we not accept ill people because they use headscarfs, because hospital is  state instutition? No need to distort fact, and lets remember, headscarfs not only banned at state univercity but also private university, so this state institution dont hold much water.

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.

Yeah, I agree, we have a little different from france or germany. Our population is mostly muslim.

The extreme-Islamic sects and sectarians use headscarf as an Islamic symbol. They even force some students to wear that to make their propaganda.

lie, noone is forcing student to wear headscarf(they have no force), but state force them to not use headscarf. Changing fact?

by the way, what it this The extreme-Islamic sects and sectarians?

I dont know any The extreme-Islamic sects who is effective too much in Turkey, but I think for you, wearing headscarf make every one, extreme islamic sect.

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.

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.

 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.

what I can see is, state is pressuring religious people, not otherwise.You cannot punish someone, because you think he would do something. Against every basic of law.

there cannot be any punishment  without guilt.

Some people didn't wear it for their own reasons, but for their sect's reasons, they weren't really cordial.

Absurd, cant find other word.

they  wear headscarf not their religious idea but politic idea. Great sense, just curiosity, do this people also pray for their politic ideas?

Either, the traditional headscarf worn in Turkey is a little different from the turban which some groups use, mostly still for provocative reasons

let me think, banning headscarf is accepted, but wearing is called as provocative. are you out of mind, do your grantmother wear it because  of provocative reason? hit her, she is provoking you.

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.

this is their decision, not yours. and lets remember they are minority of minority. even, no need to mention(of course If you have good will)

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.

can you tell me, what they should do, to be not called as provocative? do not wear headscarf?

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.

So you are not against headscarf. I understand you, remember your grand mother is enemy of state. (most probably she is wearing  headscarf)

It is not banned in Turkey, I had several Armenian people in my old school when I was in high school, walking around freely with their crosses on and showing them to us intentionally.

oh so this crosses are also provocative. To much provocation in Turkey.

Ironic, minority have more right than majority. they can use their cross, but a muslim cannot use headscarf.

By the way, dont you think, Iranian goverment also think not using headscarf is provoking.

I think our country is different than Iran(Infact It is mainly said, If we let this people use headscarf, our country would become like Iran)

But It looks like your country is almost same with iran, just different face..

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

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.

Typical traditional Islamic prejudism in action?  Looks like Turkey isn't the only country facing the injustices of religious bigots.

"While some are fighting the ban against headscarves, others are struggling against order to put them on. In the Netherlands, Muslim teacher Samira Haddad filed a suit against Amsterdam's Islam Preparatory School when her application for work there was rejected on the basis of her not wearing a headscarf." http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20051118093203684 - http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20051118093203684

Turkey may sound extreme, but I would rather have it her way then let fundamentalists take it over and make all women were a headscarf. Look at the Iranian women. That is one kind of revolution that is not welcome in Turkey.