Turkey lifts decades-old ban on headscarves

[Smarty]

It means the future of Turkey is that of Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan far away from Europe. Such reforms will plunge Turkey into abyss of radicalism, bigotry and mixing religion with culture and politics.

Why headscarves or a especial dress only for women? Dress is as per body and environment. Headscarves are chains in the necks of women.

Another example of using religion to get political margin. Why they do not focus only on further development and education instead of such absurd reforms and dividing the society and bringing social strife.

But if a woman wants to wear headscarf then why you should have problem with it?
You sound islamophobic rather than broad-minded.

[khushal]

Hate to break the news to you; but something being Indian does not discredit it.

Logical Fallacy much?

it is not a logical fallacy. the article names one person named salma who teaches at a primary school. why do they not interview the parents. why do you not have any more articles and also you claimed this was happening during the rule of Taliban in afghanistan.

come on now you can do better than that. if you need help, let me know.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

It is a logical fallacy because you're agreeing with Dagar that something being Indian is the reason that its wrong; as for your questions; why is water wet? why is grey the color it is? These are just arbitrary points of contention. They don't really "prove" anything. To discredit it; you must provide an evidence based refutation, not hypothetical speculations.

You asked for a source; you got one. Something being "Indian" is not a logical rebuttal. I mean really, you thought that would fly? Get Help for yourself you clearly need it based on what we've witnessed here.

[khushal]

But if a woman wants to wear headscarf then why you should have problem with it?
You sound islamophobic rather than broad-minded.

Badlun thinks like shamlawar and Hitler. "Do what I say or else"

[khushal]

It is a logical fallacy because you're agreeing with Dagar that something being Indian is the reason that its wrong; as for your questions; why is water wet? why is grey the color it is? These are just arbitrary points of contention. They don't really "prove" anything. To discredit it; you must provide an evidence based refutation, not hypothetical speculations.

You asked for a source; you got one. Something being "Indian" is not a logical rebuttal. I mean really, you thought that would fly? Get Help for yourself you clearly need it based on what we've witnessed here.

Indian press is as good as pakistan press. they are not worthy of international journalism standard.

plus, your claim was when they were in power in Afghanistan. your article is in Pakistan and your article just names one person with only the first name that works in one of tens if not hundreds of primary schools in the Peshawar area. this is like the taj Anderson articles who says some person in a village told me "x" and another person in another village told me "y."

good try though.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Again this is an assumption without any evidence to ratify it; you're merely passing an opinion and one based on ad-hominem; thus your counter response is a logical fallacy ...as it is merely an allegation and not a fact. I didn't stipulate anything about it being exclusive to Afghanistan; Taliban on the both side follow the same mixture of Pakistani Deobandism and Pashtunwali

yes they did, they used to trade girls to settle disputes. this is Pashtunwali, not Islam.

That's what I wrote, nothing restricting it to Afghanistan. Again your contentions are merely speculation; speculation does not refute something. Anyone can speculate. your response is meritless on poor reasoning.

But my source confirms that the Taliban are in fact contrary to Islam but consistent with Pashtunwali

[khushal]

This is what you wrote and DSM was responding to:

The problem in Afghanistan is Pashtun thinking and culture; it is backwards and corrupt. So that is what failed in Afghanistan. Islam is fine and works properly But when Pashtuns mix their culture with everything that is what ruins things because Pashtun culture is very hateful towards women and sees women as property of men rather than people who can contribute in society. They think women can be traded off like cattle. This is against Islam. In the original days of Islam women used to define the prices at the market and even were teachers. If you believe dress has nothing to do with government then you should be happy that Turkey stopped the ban on women who wear headscarves because that should not be their concern. As for Islam, Clothing is not the most important part of Islam; but dress and how is the proper way to dress is apart of Islamic teaching, even if it is something which has low degree of priority.

How women can enjoy a beach with headscarf? Easy just walk on the sand look at the ocean during the sunset. I see women in headscarves do this all the time with their families. What do you think enjoying a beach is? walking around naked? lol

This is why your secularism will fail ; you don't use logical thinking.

Even the Karzai Government is not secular since they legislate based on Shari'ah. The problem with them is they're a puppet regime.

[khushal]

Again this is an assumption without any evidence to ratify it; you're merely passing an opinion and one based on ad-hominem; thus your counter response is a logical fallacy ...as it is merely an allegation and not a fact. I didn't stipulate anything about it being exclusive to Afghanistan; Taliban on the both side follow the same mixture of Pakistani Deobandism and Pashtunwali



That's what I wrote, nothing restricting it to Afghanistan. Again your contentions are merely speculation; speculation does not refute something. Anyone can speculate. your response is meritless on poor reasoning.

But my source confirms that the Taliban are in fact contrary to Islam but consistent with Pashtunwali

Its not passing an opinion. its questioning the journalism. you cant have one person with first name that could work in one of hundreds of school in a city with millions of people.

Its almost like if I say tom in new York told me that RTR was gay. so this would be evidence enough that confirms your gay.

[khushal]

RTR,
your changing goal posts. you intitially claimed that the Taliban were using females to settle disputes and your indian article does not say such.

you sir are a liar and a manipulator. your no different than shamlawar who is funded by the Saudis to manipulate.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I'm using Afghanistan as an example of Pashtun culture creating problems and making things worse and ruining things. The Women being traded is another example that Taliban use Pashtunwali rather than Islam.


context is crucial; you seem to always have problems with discerning contexts. I can help you if needed?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Khushal not at all; the Taliban were threatening these people that if they don't give their daughters there would be trouble. That's a conflict and that involves giving women away to appease a conflict.

that's all I said. it fits perfectly.....you need to learn to think logically Khushal.

[Badlun]

But if a woman wants to wear headscarf then why you should have problem with it?
You sound islamophobic rather than broad-minded.

I have the problem with mixing religion with culture and non religious stuff like dress, food etc. For me religion is only for beliefs, worship and morality nothing beyond it. Religion should not determine what dress an individual should use. Climate, culture, weather, art, aesthetics, fashion, body size,situation, position etc are the determining factors for dress not religion.

If a woman feels cold and cover her head then it is understandable but not as a religious duty or a pious act. This way the movement and personal development of a woman is restricted. For example if she wants to swim or take a bath in a beach, a human desire, will be unable to do because of her dress. Veil is an excuse to imprison and restrict women so that she may not fully participate in social, cultural, economic and political activities.

A person may chose drug but we cannot allow it . Similarly if the dress is not suitable we may also regulate it. This is what the secular government did in past in Turkey and many European countries are doing it now. For them it is also discrimination and religious symbol.

[khushal]

Your using that context excuse again. I have debunked your article though, if you believe the article then we all must believe tom in new York.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Similarly if the dress is not suitable we may also regulate it. This is what the secular government did in past in Turkey and many European countries are doing it now. For them it is also discrimination and religious symbol.

But this is your opinion; others have a different and their opinion is based more on factual references of religious doctrine; yours is just a speculation based on how you feel towards something.

I agree with you; if dress is not suitable we must also regulate it; The types of dress accepted in secular societies is degrading to women and degrades women to being *****s. I don't mean not covering the hair; but skirts or clothes that show the skin or are open or show the body. Thiese are hateful to women and thus should be repressed and suppressed It's an abuse of women.

While I don't think Hijab should be enforced, it should be accepted and tolerated because at last it shows respect for women and gives women self esteem. We have to regulate the secular types of dress because Islam leaves us a moral duty to stop corruption and secularism created alot of corruption in society so now Islam should put an end to those.

But I am glad you agree with Shari'ah concept of regulating dress.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You have to prove it's an excuse though; making an allegation doesn't demonstrate anything. If you can demonstrate than context has no bearing then you're right. But if you can't then it's not an excuse. To debunk something you need counter evidence; all you did was present a hypothesis; you didn't provide any evidence that THOSE must ALWAYS be the case. You have to show those are the only possible options for there it to be a debunking.

Good luck!