Anti-headscarf Adana school principal suspended

[explorer9]

If you agree that terrorism is not nice, then condemn all terrorist groups or condemn none if you support terrorism. Don't be partial in your judgment.


I do denounce the acts of terrorism. Period.
Where did you smell the partiality factor in my response.
Look what Brevik did to Norway...
He became anti muslim based on what he saw was happening in his country....
And i was there in Oslo at that time....its first for Norway...



Turkey never was, never is , and never will be a european state.
Unless it solves outstanding border issues with Greece - EEU member who can veto - on Cyprus.....

My post was not related to Turkey's EU accession process .

 

[ashok321]

Banning headscarf is dumb . Niqab or Burka is understandable but headscarf ? Doesn't make sense .

I do hope that Turkey remains secular though .

It is banned by none other than A muslim state....so lets let them fight it within their sharia laws if any....why would world cry over it?

 

[Uchiha]

Let the liberal facists go on.

I wish I could throw a dictionary at your face

 

[Uchiha]

Western values will obviously be rated higher because they have actually made Europe and West into the developed and civilized society as they are now, as opposed to eastern values (which values?) which have failed to do so for the most part.

Those who adopted superior western values such as Turkey have progressed more than the rest of the Islamic world, for example. This proves Western basic values, as outlined by Ebenstein and Fogelman, are far superior to Eastern values. They are at least superior to the values, morals and ideals practiced in Islamic countries.



This is obvious hypocrisy. Many people here shed crocodile tears for Chechen and Palestinian terrorists but never do so for Pakistan's taliban terrorists. The same people will support Afghan taliban but cover up China by saying ETIM militants are "CIA sponsored" because they are the national ally of their country at a time when they are pretty much isolated by the rest of the world.

If you agree that terrorism is not nice, then condemn all terrorist groups or condemn none if you support terrorism. Don't be partial in your judgment.

Oh please, western values have historically been one the most backward civilizations. The so called 'western' freedoms the west takes for granted was inspired by Islam and nothing else.

 

[RazPaK]

If you are going with that argument religion loses its ''holy'' statue... According to books, religion is god made system that is perfect and someone who does everything in quran should be able to reach the highest state of hmanity but they cannot...

When you compere religion with communism, secularism or capitalism and some of them have end up better than religion even in one concept that means book is lie... as a muslim you shouldn't go there beucase like I said, even one mistake or one weakness will deselve its holy statues. It cannot be the gods book if there are mistakes.



Musjariqa? What is hat couldn't find anything about it on net. Can yu please explain it to me?

What are these mistakes?

Can you write a better chapter yourself than any Surah in the Quaran?

 

[Armstrong]

If you are going with that argument religion loses its ''holy'' statue... According to books, religion is god made system that is perfect and someone who does everything in quran should be able to reach the highest state of hmanity but they cannot...

When you compere religion with communism, secularism or capitalism and some of them have end up better than religion even in one concept that means book is lie... as a muslim you shouldn't go there beucase like I said, even one mistake or one weakness will deselve its holy statues. It cannot be the gods book if there are mistakes.

When your belief system extends beyond the 'spiritual' and tries to find solutions to man's everyday problems, it adds a dimension to it that makes a comparison between 'all them isms' incumbent, hence why Abrahamic religions are called 'Organized Religions' !

Because religion tries to address the human condition and deals with 'us', its bound to go between highs and lows ! Neither the highs validate its superiority nor do the lows invalidate it...for they are intrinsically linked with man's ability to do both good and bad ! By the way if religion was a touch stone or a book of spells that was supposed to make everything right then there wouldn't be any distinction between the 'levels of faith' or any need for there to be a 'judgement day' ! A momin is very different from a believer ! (Momin being someone who lives and breaths every nuance of that religion !)

Musjariqa? What is hat couldn't find anything about it on net. Can yu please explain it to me?

Mushariqa is a thousand year old notion integral to Islamic Finance that is similar to the modern day concept of 'Venture Capitalism' but it presents itself as being more ethical by agreeing to share the rewards and the risks between the investor and the manager of capital i.e if you're foOked...the bank suffers as well and you don't end up selling every ounce of what you had to pay up to what the bank owed...think of the concept of 'partnerships' !

Then there is Mudaraba, Sukuk and Ijara or 'Equity Finance, Debt Finance and Lease, respectively', all of whom follow a dynamic similar to the one mentioned above with the added prerequisite of forbidding the taking of 'interest - or making money off money' and investing in areas that Islam considers as 'unethical' !

All 4 of them collectively are the Islamic equivalents of different types of the 'Sources of Finance' that economies are run on and they by the words 'equity, venture capital and debt' are intrinsically linked with 'private investment' ! And they were conceived, though in rudimentary forms, 1400 years ago during the reign of the 3rd Caliph of Islam, Usman bin Affan !

 

[explorer9]

If you agree that terrorism is not nice, then condemn all terrorist groups or condemn none if you support terrorism. Don't be partial in your judgment.


I do denounce the acts of terrorism. Period.
Where did you smell the partiality factor in my response.
Look what Brevik did to Norway...
He became anti muslim based on what he saw was happening in his country....
And i was there in Oslo at that time....its first for Norway...



Turkey never was, never is , and never will be a european state.
Unless it solves outstanding border issues with Greece - EEU member who can veto - on Cyprus.....

My post was not related to Turkey's EU accession now Turks are in much better position & they dont want EU membership anymore.

 

[Armstrong]

- double post -

 

[explorer9]

If you agree that terrorism is not nice, then condemn all terrorist groups or condemn none if you support terrorism. Don't be partial in your judgment.


I do denounce the acts of terrorism. Period.
Where did you smell the partiality factor in my response.
Look what Brevik did to Norway...
He became anti muslim based on what he saw was happening in his country....
And i was there in Oslo at that time....its first for Norway...



Turkey never was, never is , and never will be a european state.
Unless it solves outstanding border issues with Greece - EEU member who can veto - on Cyprus.....

My post was not related to Turkey's EU accession now Turks are in much better position & they dont want EU membership anymore.

 

[King Solomon]

Where are you taking this discussion to ? When did I make this a d*ck measuring contest between what the 'West allows and what we allow' ? What has the number of mosques in Israel or the number of synagogues in Pakistan got to do with one's personal choice to teach 'x,y,z' values to their children, to dress as they see fit and define 'modesty' and 'immodesty' as they see it fit !

Well, you quoted that Europe demands assimilation. So, I compared the situation of Europe to that of a few Islamic countries to illustrate that Europe is far more welcoming for foreign cultures compared to most Islamic countries.

My only contention was that 'why should the Western perspective on what is modest and what isn't ?, 'what is normal and what isn't ?' should be the barometer that everyone else should be measured by ? How is wrapping your head with a 'scarf' for a Muslim any more in contravention with the values of 'freedom and human rights' that the West espouses as its own, as it is for a Non-Muslim to do the same thing ? What is inherently 'abusive' of teaching your kid to wear a headscarf ? Why is 'that piece of clothing' anymore offensive to their delicate sensibilities as a pair of shorts would be to mine ? What doesn't the same 'State' cry 'immodesty' when the same parents were to ask their children to wear skimpy dresses ? And why does this stop at the 'head-scarf' of all things....surely those 'ringlets' that the Orthodox Jews keep, the un-cut hair that the Sikh Children keep or the 'right to have your children circumsized' in accordance with one's belief, are as intrusive for the first two and quite a bit more intrusive for the last ?

'why should the Western perspective on what is modest and what isn't ?, 'what is normal and what isn't ?' should be the barometer that everyone else should be measured by

Well, we are all here to give our respective perspectives in a debate. Maybe in your perspective a woman is modest if she wears headscarf and I somewhat agree with that. Perhaps my perspective is more "western" than yours. However, my contention is that there is a certain limit to what can be allowed and what cannot. And as I explained in my earlier post, the headscarf, when gains prominence, may induce a "piety divide", differentiating women on their headscarf preferences. Thus, the actual personality of those people will be overlooked and other woman who don't want to wear headscarf will be pressurized to do so.

Were we arguing on, say, a country like France, I could bring up many other reasons why headscarf should be banned but I am analyzing in context of Turkey - a secular nation as envisioned by it's founding father however, composed of an Islamic majority.

Besides where does the 'right of the parent's' to raise their kids as per their belief systems end and 'its being forced upon them begins' ? Why is it that the buck always stops at the 'Muslim Headscarf' and not at a 'bikini' ? Why can't one argue that whilst taking your children to the beach whilst wearing a 'skimpy swimsuit' one is teaching promiscuity ? Why is it that one always argues that just because you've taught your kid that 'covering your head' with a scarf is a good thing, that you're imposing your beliefs or them or are violating their fundamental rights whereas one doesn't argue that asking your kid to wear clothes to begin with is a ludicrous, unnatural thing to begin with, as a Nudist would argue ? What is that threshold on which a said amount of 'cloth' is alright but cross it and it becomes 'transgression against the highest human ideals of freedom and liberty' ? And what kind of a precedent does this really set ?

'Why is that that right doesn't extend the other way around ?' Why is it that 'peer-pressure' to give up the hijab, to go from a said dress to another, a said hair-cut to another etc., not considered equally intrusive and hence socially unacceptable ? Why is that such exceptions are made in the case of the 'Headscarf' and the 'Headscarf' alone ?

And besides your assertion that 'its the voters who decide that' raises another question : Where does the democratic right of the People to set standards of propriety transgress the same 'freedom of choice' that the society proclaims as fundamental to their polity ? If it starts at the 'headscarf' then where does it end ? What kind of a precedent does it set for the future ?

Of course you can argue like that. I would agree with you that nudity, more accurately termed "indecent exposure" (as termed by US legislative system) should be banned in public places.

Actually, you can never go for complete "freedom". Everything would be anarchy if that were so. The dilemma is to minimize constraints to liberty while at the same time, ensuring that the society is not harmed as a result of one's "free" actions. Society would be harmed would people be allowed to freely roam around naked in public because sexuality would be unrestrained. Society would be potentially harmed as a result of the Headscarf culture gaining prominence, as I explained before. This is the problem with headscarf, as is the problem with nudity.

If there was a legislation saying that anyone who doesn't wear a headscarf will be penalized...I'd call that imperialism and I'd appose that vociferously as well. If, however, the export of the idea that the 'headscarf' is a good thing or it looks good on you, is 'imperialism' then what would one call all the 'suits and ties', the 'shirts and pants', the 'p-caps and t-shirts' as ?

It is not just exporting the idea "headscarf is a good thing/looks good'. If that were so there wouldn't be any problem. Many Muslims don't think that way. They think if you are a girl and don't wear headscarf, you are less pious than a girl who wears a headscarf. Similarly, if you are a girl wearing headscarf, you are automatically pious regardless of what you really may be. People with a more extremist mindset think if you don't wear headscarf, you may be heading for hell. They judge people based on appearances rather than personality.

This would deviate the topic somewhat but: Now as to why I used the term "imperialism", the culture of headscarf and veil was prominent as public dresses in pre-Islamic Arabia. Islam did not add anything to this at all but in fact, liberalized this culture so that it suits all sorts of culture over the world. In short, only mandated that "general modesty in attire according to individual perspective" be practiced, chest be covered, garments be "lengthened" according to individual perspective and lax dress code with family members.

Now what we have across the Islamic world is this Arab culture being falsely propagated as an Islamic requirement. When we see someone tagging an image in facebook warning "sisters" to not show any hair because her hair would burn in hell if she does (or something similar), it just shows how much this Arab culture has succeeded in influencing gullible Muslims in the name of Islam. Thus the term "Arab cultural imperialism in the garb of Islam".

You may not agree with the term because there are different religious interpretations but that would require a religious debate to make my point which is not permitted here.

 

[Selim I]

Not disturbing, but in my our girls in Turkey live a harder life then we men do and the state should make sure anything in its force to protect them. Protect them? I'm talking about parents who force their kids to wear the headscarf and some girls might never take it off again because they fear the reaction of their families.
Its easier and generally more acceptable in the society for a man to oppose his family, but if the girl decided to she's a *****, honor-less and depending on in which part of the country she lives her life might be in danger. Do I have to remind you that we have a very high and since the AKP is in force steadily growing woman-murder rate?

I am sorry, but I doubt that I understood more than the half of what you just said. I don't want to insult you, but can you at least elaborate what you just said?

I understood that, you think it's hard for some girls to take off the headscarf when their parents suggested or "forced" her to wear it when she was in her young ages. I partly agree with you here, forcing is wrong, but suggesting isn't. But we have to look in the other side of the perspective.
Parents are usually very afraid that their children will be ill-effected by their sorroundings, which in this case is their environment -> friends, school and so on. They are very afraid that their children will have bad habbits, as putting make up at early age and looking like a monkey, or taking tight clothes at very early ages, or mini skirts, or making bad friends, or in worse case scenario using drugs/alcohol and making "Zina".
Parents are very afraid of all those things, and they are always worried about their children, and they want to do whatever they can in power to refrain their children from those ill-acts.

Put in simple word, parents knows what their children doesnt. They know what things can lead to.

That is why, (especially religious families) wants their children to grow up in a culture where they present all of the above mentioned as ill-acts, and they want their children to wear accordingly to what they say, and in some cases they want them to wear headscarf.
And personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Especially not in a country whose inhabitants are mostly Muslim.

When you grow up one day, and when you eventually will have children, you will grasp all of what I just mentioned much more. And if you won't, you will perhaps feel guilty over your son using drugs and your doughter wearing as a mini-*****. And you will wish they were tought religion (which might be your worse dream right now) even though you hate it.
Because religion helps to prevent the above mentioned ill-acts which you must realize.

 

[King Solomon]

Oh please, western values have historically been one the most backward civilizations. The so called 'western' freedoms the west takes for granted was inspired by Islam and nothing else.

Yes, I am well aware of that. The practical implementation of Islamic values saw more depth in the west than any Islamic country for that matter.

 

[Uchiha]

I am sorry, but I doubt that I understood more than the half of what you just said. I don't want to insult you, but can you at least elaborate what you just said?

I understood that, you think it's hard for some girls to take off the headscarf when their parents suggested or "forced" her to wear it when she was in her young ages. I partly agree with you here, forcing is wrong, but suggesting isn't. But we have to look in the other side of the perspective.
Parents are usually very afraid that their children will be ill-effected by their sorroundings, which in this case is their environment -> friends, school and so on. They are very afraid that their children will have bad habbits, as putting make up at early age and looking like a monkey, or taking tight clothes at very early ages, or mini skirts, or making bad friends, or in worse case scenario using drugs/alcohol and making "Zina".
Parents are very afraid of all those things, and they are always worried about their children, and they want to do whatever they can in power to refrain their children from those ill-acts.

Put in simple word, parents knows what their children doesnt. They know what things can lead to.

That is why, (especially religious families) wants their children to grow up in a culture where they present all of the above mentioned as ill-acts, and they want their children to wear accordingly to what they say, and in some cases they want them to wear headscarf.
And personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Especially not in a country whose inhabitants are mostly Muslim.

When you grow up one day, and when you eventually will have children, you will grasp all of what I just mentioned much more. And if you won't, you will perhaps feel guilty over your son using drugs and your doughter wearing as a mini-*****. And you will wish they were tought religion (which might be your worse dream right now) even though you hate it.
Because religion helps to prevent the above mentioned ill-acts which you must realize.

Why are you giving examples from the opposite extreme?
Not wearing the headscarf isnt the same as become a zani, slut(miniskirt), or doing drugs. You can be a good muslim and be modest without headscarf.

 

[King Solomon]

If you agree that terrorism is not nice, then condemn all terrorist groups or condemn none if you support terrorism. Don't be partial in your judgment.


I do denounce the acts of terrorism. Period.
Where did you smell the partiality factor in my response.
Look what Brevik did to Norway...
He became anti muslim based on what he saw was happening in his country....
And i was there in Oslo at that time....its first for Norway...

I think you misunderstood my post. My point was, Breivik terrorism, Palestinian terrorism, Pakistan's taliban problem, Chechen terrorism, Kashmir terrorism and so on should be condemned at once or not at all. People should not be selective in condemning terrorism.

 

[Selim I]

Why are you giving examples from the opposite extreme?
Not wearing the headscarf isnt the same as become a zani, slut(miniskirt), or doing drugs. You can be a good muslim and be modest without headscarf.

I didn't say you cant, read my text carefully before commenting on it. I was saying those things which you people see as "extremism" as wearing headscarf can prevent ill-acts.