Nowhere in the article is that point of view expressed.
It's a gross abuse of human rights to force people to keep uncovered any area of the body that they would prefer to cover. As I see it, forcing women to wear less than they would like is far worse than forcing them to wear more.
Not that I'm a fan of the latter — in fact I'd happily legalise naturism.
If you can read French, I suggest you look up Ni putes ni soumises, a French Muslim women's organisation who very, very strongly support the French ban on headscarves (and all other religious garb) in schools, universities and state offices.
The reason they support the ban? Because women were being put under considerable pressure to wear such things by their male relatives, to the point of violence. It not being allowed stopped that. The same will happen in Turkey, plus the women who do submit to pressure will find themselves discriminated against (why does a religious woman need university education anyway? You don't need a degree to cook, clean and look after children!)
Peer pressure is bad, yes, but the state is the ultimate bully. And nothing fuels fundamentalism in a religion better than being persecuted (either in reality or imagination) by the state. Headscarf bans are unjust, illiberal, and shortsighted.
> why does a religious woman need university education anyway? You don't need a degree to cook, clean and look after children!
With the notable exception of the Taliban, Islamic groups do not forbid women from education. (Especially in study of the Qur'an, for obvious reasons). Nor does the Qur'an itself forbid it.
So even the fundies that you are so fond of are on a shaky footing with regards to denying women an education. And when you get away from the loonie fringes towards the majority of practicing Muslims, you'll find womens' education is encouraged at least as much as it is in, say, the US...
(I find myself damning with faint praise in that last sentence. Nonetheless, the comparison is apt. You'll find opinion varies widely depending on specific location and subculture — particularly the city/country divide).
And nothing fuels fundamentalism in a religion better than being persecuted (either in reality or imagination) by the state.
Because, in the US, Christians are so terribly persecuted! That argument doesn't hold water, not even slightly. What feeds fundamentalism is tolerance of fundamentalism. Let them get away with it, and they will go for more.
You will note that the Turkish decision relates to allowing one form of religious garb only, and so favours Muslims over other religious groups. Christians are still presumably banned from wearing religious symbols. In fact, why the Turkish decision is so bad is because Turkey's constitution is very strongly secular, something which came out of the two main religious groups killing one another. So, favouring one of those two groups is a bad thing. I doubt the Christians will become more fundamentalist over it. I don't doubt that Muslim women who don't wear the headscarf will be assaulted or killed now - just like everywhere else. Re-read the French site I linked to - that organisation isn't of women from fundamentalist backgrounds, and their experience is what moulds their opinion.
> What feeds fundamentalism is tolerance of fundamentalism.
Partially, but again, you're confusing fundamentalism with a reasonable and tolerable level of religious belief. Lots of things may drive people from the latter to the former. There is no single cause. Persecution, or the feeling of persecution, is one of the big ones.
(I would say that the feeling of persecution in the US comes from the huge belief gap; you've got San Francisco and Bumcrack, Arkansas, in the same country. Both liberals and conservatives feel persecuted by the other.)
Also, it's a fallacy to describe headscarves as a "religious symbol". Yes, some may use them as such, but primarily they are an object to cover one's head (funnily enough). They are not comparable to crosses, etc.
> I don't doubt that Muslim women who don't wear the headscarf will be assaulted or killed now - just like everywhere else.
Okay, forbidding people from wearing headscarves may mean that some people could get away with not wearing them who otherwise would have to. But your victory seems a little hollow to me. You might suppress the symbol, but the underlying attitudes are unchanged, and this is what we should be concerned with.
Fighting religion head-on is counter-productive. Religious types do thrive on being persecuted; they practically enjoy it. Doubly so for a religion whose very name means "submissive". 8^)
Do you have a translation of this website that proves all your points?
Okay, forbidding people from wearing headscarves may mean that some people could get away with not wearing them who otherwise would have to.
Headscarves were not forbidden in Turkey, just religious dress in state buildings. As I said before, the new law grants a privilege to one religious group over the others in a country with a secular constitution. You have so far failed to address that issue.
You might think that the problem is only the fundies, but have you seen the latest police estimates for "honour" crimes? That figure of 17,000 a year is not for Iran, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else with lots of Muslim fundies -- it's for the UK, where the fundies are but a tiny minority of the Muslim population.
The UK is pretty liberal compared to many places and we do not restrict religious expression much. You want a case directly related to pressure to wear Islamic dress? How about the case of Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old girl murdered by her father for refusing to wear a headscarf. This happened in Canada, and the father is not considered to be a fundamentalist.
Now, these incidents happened in places where Muslims are a minority and still the pressure to conform goes as far as murder in some cases. This is the sort of thing that Ni putes ni soumises are worried about.
They thought the issue was sufficiently important that they translated their press release on the matter into English (the French doing that!), but I can't find it on their web site (it used to be there, honest). They also don't seem to keep an archive of their newsletter, which is really annoying. For the time being, here's the views of Britain's first Muslim peer, who doesn't support a ban, but thinks veiling is a Bad Thing.
In reverse order: I (roughly) agree with Lord Ahmed's position on this — the veil isn't helpful, and its wearing should not be encouraged. On the other hand, outlawing it would be a bad idea, and it's up to the Muslim community to debate the need for them. The only subtlety I would add is that it is up to the female Muslim community to decide whether veil-wearing should be encouraged. The male Muslim community should have a long think about the neccessity of telling their womenfolk what to do all the time! 8^)
(OTOH, perhaps I should stop telling Muslims what to do. Oh well.)
Next up: honour killings are bad, and do reflect badly on Islam, you are correct. (Although not all Muslim communities have this problem, just as not all communities with this problem are Muslim). But I have already agreed that there are problems with the Muslim attitude towards women. What I disagree with is the idea that a headscarf ban — on whatever scale — will somehow fix this. Instead, I can only see it making it worse.
How is the average Muslim woman going to react to a headscarf ban? Is she going to see it as a high-minded protection of her civil liberties, in a roundabout fashion? Or as just another example of repression of Islam by secular governments? Proportionally, how many Muslims are going to be driven towards liberalism, and how many towards fundamentalism, because of such a thing? To my mind the answer is clear.
That's speaking pragmatically. Idealistically, my positition remains that forcing a woman to wear less than she would like (or else to be refused higher education) is a horrible crime. And using state power to curtail individual freedoms always makes me squeamish.
You call headscarves "religious dress". I disagree, and have said so in previous comments. I would draw a line between a symbolic garment, such as one worn by the priest of a religion, and one that is prescribed to all followers on moral grounds. Headscarves may have picked up a symbolic component, which is unfortunate, but their core purpose remains functional.
I challenge you to find an example of a garment that Christians are told by their religion that they should wear, and cannot (in state buildings, etc.) because of Turkish law. In fact, I strongly suspect that the previous situation was biased towards culturally Christian prejudices (outlawing headscarves, but also a certain degree of nudity), via Western secular culture.
The trick is not in banning people from wearing head scarves, but persuading them that they do not need to wear them. As far as I can tell, women feel compelled to wear head scarves because:
a) their imaginary friend's book tells them to, b) the men can't keep their hands to themselves (which is a very real problem).
The Qur'an merely proscribes modesty, but also equality. You could therefore make the case that if the woman are going to wear one, then the men must wear one too. If you win that argument (you won't), you'd find very quickly men's interest in enforcing the head scarf rule would dwindle out.
Similar ideas are also dotted around the Old Testament (the first five books of which the Qur'an includes), so I'm sure that it pops up all over the Qur'an.
Essentially, though, is it any of our business? Muslim women are already told what to do quite enough, after all! And a head scarf is just a head scarf. It's not going to magically make a woman uncomfortable, unhappy or inconvenienced — in fact if you see a woman in a head scarf looking uncomfortable, it's probably because she can feel the eyes of everybody around her judging her for it. In a predominantly Islamic country, she wouldn't have this problem.
Forcing people not to wear head scarves is not going to magically improve women's lot. There are far worse problems in Islam's treatment of women — let's focus on those first, and a freer dress code may or may not follow.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's a gross abuse of human rights to force people to keep uncovered any area of the body that they would prefer to cover. As I see it, forcing women to wear less than they would like is far worse than forcing them to wear more.
Not that I'm a fan of the latter — in fact I'd happily legalise naturism.
(Not for that reason, you pervs.) 8^)
From:
no subject
The reason they support the ban? Because women were being put under considerable pressure to wear such things by their male relatives, to the point of violence. It not being allowed stopped that. The same will happen in Turkey, plus the women who do submit to pressure will find themselves discriminated against (why does a religious woman need university education anyway? You don't need a degree to cook, clean and look after children!)
From:
no subject
> why does a religious woman need university education anyway? You don't need a degree to cook, clean and look after children!
With the notable exception of the Taliban, Islamic groups do not forbid women from education. (Especially in study of the Qur'an, for obvious reasons). Nor does the Qur'an itself forbid it.
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/04/branson/branson.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/education.htm
So even the fundies that you are so fond of are on a shaky footing with regards to denying women an education. And when you get away from the loonie fringes towards the majority of practicing Muslims, you'll find womens' education is encouraged at least as much as it is in, say, the US...
http://www.missionislam.com/science/mwscience.htm
(I find myself damning with faint praise in that last sentence. Nonetheless, the comparison is apt. You'll find opinion varies widely depending on specific location and subculture — particularly the city/country divide).
From:
no subject
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5359672.stm
From:
no subject
Because, in the US, Christians are so terribly persecuted! That argument doesn't hold water, not even slightly. What feeds fundamentalism is tolerance of fundamentalism. Let them get away with it, and they will go for more.
You will note that the Turkish decision relates to allowing one form of religious garb only, and so favours Muslims over other religious groups. Christians are still presumably banned from wearing religious symbols. In fact, why the Turkish decision is so bad is because Turkey's constitution is very strongly secular, something which came out of the two main religious groups killing one another. So, favouring one of those two groups is a bad thing. I doubt the Christians will become more fundamentalist over it. I don't doubt that Muslim women who don't wear the headscarf will be assaulted or killed now - just like everywhere else. Re-read the French site I linked to - that organisation isn't of women from fundamentalist backgrounds, and their experience is what moulds their opinion.
From:
no subject
Partially, but again, you're confusing fundamentalism with a reasonable and tolerable level of religious belief. Lots of things may drive people from the latter to the former. There is no single cause. Persecution, or the feeling of persecution, is one of the big ones.
(I would say that the feeling of persecution in the US comes from the huge belief gap; you've got San Francisco and Bumcrack, Arkansas, in the same country. Both liberals and conservatives feel persecuted by the other.)
Also, it's a fallacy to describe headscarves as a "religious symbol". Yes, some may use them as such, but primarily they are an object to cover one's head (funnily enough). They are not comparable to crosses, etc.
> I don't doubt that Muslim women who don't wear the headscarf will be assaulted or killed now - just like everywhere else.
Okay, forbidding people from wearing headscarves may mean that some people could get away with not wearing them who otherwise would have to. But your victory seems a little hollow to me. You might suppress the symbol, but the underlying attitudes are unchanged, and this is what we should be concerned with.
Fighting religion head-on is counter-productive. Religious types do thrive on being persecuted; they practically enjoy it. Doubly so for a religion whose very name means "submissive". 8^)
Do you have a translation of this website that proves all your points?
From:
no subject
Headscarves were not forbidden in Turkey, just religious dress in state buildings. As I said before, the new law grants a privilege to one religious group over the others in a country with a secular constitution. You have so far failed to address that issue.
You might think that the problem is only the fundies, but have you seen the latest police estimates for "honour" crimes? That figure of 17,000 a year is not for Iran, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else with lots of Muslim fundies -- it's for the UK, where the fundies are but a tiny minority of the Muslim population.
The UK is pretty liberal compared to many places and we do not restrict religious expression much. You want a case directly related to pressure to wear Islamic dress? How about the case of Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old girl murdered by her father for refusing to wear a headscarf. This happened in Canada, and the father is not considered to be a fundamentalist.
Now, these incidents happened in places where Muslims are a minority and still the pressure to conform goes as far as murder in some cases. This is the sort of thing that Ni putes ni soumises are worried about.
They thought the issue was sufficiently important that they translated their press release on the matter into English (the French doing that!), but I can't find it on their web site (it used to be there, honest). They also don't seem to keep an archive of their newsletter, which is really annoying. For the time being, here's the views of Britain's first Muslim peer, who doesn't support a ban, but thinks veiling is a Bad Thing.
From:
no subject
(OTOH, perhaps I should stop telling Muslims what to do. Oh well.)
Next up: honour killings are bad, and do reflect badly on Islam, you are correct. (Although not all Muslim communities have this problem, just as not all communities with this problem are Muslim). But I have already agreed that there are problems with the Muslim attitude towards women. What I disagree with is the idea that a headscarf ban — on whatever scale — will somehow fix this. Instead, I can only see it making it worse.
How is the average Muslim woman going to react to a headscarf ban? Is she going to see it as a high-minded protection of her civil liberties, in a roundabout fashion? Or as just another example of repression of Islam by secular governments? Proportionally, how many Muslims are going to be driven towards liberalism, and how many towards fundamentalism, because of such a thing? To my mind the answer is clear.
That's speaking pragmatically. Idealistically, my positition remains that forcing a woman to wear less than she would like (or else to be refused higher education) is a horrible crime. And using state power to curtail individual freedoms always makes me squeamish.
You call headscarves "religious dress". I disagree, and have said so in previous comments. I would draw a line between a symbolic garment, such as one worn by the priest of a religion, and one that is prescribed to all followers on moral grounds. Headscarves may have picked up a symbolic component, which is unfortunate, but their core purpose remains functional.
I challenge you to find an example of a garment that Christians are told by their religion that they should wear, and cannot (in state buildings, etc.) because of Turkish law. In fact, I strongly suspect that the previous situation was biased towards culturally Christian prejudices (outlawing headscarves, but also a certain degree of nudity), via Western secular culture.
Yeesh. Long comment.
From:
no subject
a) their imaginary friend's book tells them to,
b) the men can't keep their hands to themselves (which is a very real problem).
The Qur'an merely proscribes modesty, but also equality. You could therefore make the case that if the woman are going to wear one, then the men must wear one too. If you win that argument (you won't), you'd find very quickly men's interest in enforcing the head scarf rule would dwindle out.
From:
no subject
Scary crazy woman explains.
Similar ideas are also dotted around the Old Testament (the first five books of which the Qur'an includes), so I'm sure that it pops up all over the Qur'an.
Earnest well-meaning woman illustrates.
Aha! Found some.
Quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith.
Essentially, though, is it any of our business? Muslim women are already told what to do quite enough, after all! And a head scarf is just a head scarf. It's not going to magically make a woman uncomfortable, unhappy or inconvenienced — in fact if you see a woman in a head scarf looking uncomfortable, it's probably because she can feel the eyes of everybody around her judging her for it. In a predominantly Islamic country, she wouldn't have this problem.
Forcing people not to wear head scarves is not going to magically improve women's lot. There are far worse problems in Islam's treatment of women — let's focus on those first, and a freer dress code may or may not follow.