Turkey lifts decades-old ban on headscarves

[Badlun]

you need to learn to think logically Khushal.

Do you think that you are the only one who he is thinking logically. Your many stances have no logic for example

1. Considering that the economic boom of Turkey is only because of Islamists who are ruling Turkey for few years and you forget the past of Turkey completely. This shows your religious bias. Even the rulers are not islamists but for your religious ego you term them Islamists and make them equal to Ikhwans. Both are poles apart.

2. Instead of recommending some reforms,you reject completely the thousands years old Pashtun code of life, Pashtunwali to show supremacy of Sharia over Pashtunwali. Again religious prejudice.

3. You restrict Pashtuns to be just a thousands years old ethnic group while there are so many evidences already quoted that they have thousands years of history. Again your Mullah's mentality.

4. You try to apply reason/logic to religion while religion being a supernatural system , cannot be prone to logic or reason. This is a paradox on your part.

5. You turn a blind eye to the benefits of secularism in the west by just saying secularism is only for them not for us. We are all similar human beings. The same Muslims work perfectly in West in a secular system then why secularism may not be introduced in their own countries. A scientific, logical and reasonable position will be not tainted by religious bigotry that one system works in one place but not in another because their religion is different.

[khushal]

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!

whatever you say, you basically have nothing.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Do you think that you are the only one who he is thinking logically. Your many stances have no logic for example

1. Considering that the economic boom of Turkey is only because of Islamists who are ruling Turkey for few years and you forget the past of Turkey completely. This shows your religious bias. Even the rulers are not islamists but for your religious ego you term them Islamists and make them equal to Ikhwans. Both are poles apart.

Well look at it this way; Before the Islamist party took power; they were in economic depression for many years. Afterwards they experienced a boom. That's why they were in power for so many years. So really there is a great deal of logic behind it. The logic is the evidence shows that Under an Islamic rulership Turkey has fared better.

Tayyip Erdogan has been Prime Minister since 2003. This is 10 years. Not just a few years but a WHOLE decade.

If you're not even willing to give Islamists in Egypt ONE year's chance; then we have the right to claim Turkey as an Islamic Victory for 10 years.

Fair is fair and logic is logic; you sir are lacking in logic.

2. Instead of recommending some reforms,you reject completely the thousands years old Pashtun code of life, Pashtunwali to show supremacy of Sharia over Pashtunwali. Again religious prejudice.

Well because Pashtunwali is intrinsically tied with all those negative aspects; All the Positive aspects of Pashtunwali are already in Islam. So to rely on Pashtunwali is unnecessary.

Why hold onto something superfluous? Throw away the junk and stick to the essence.

Mawlana Rumi said "throw away the husk and keep the kernal". We should treat Pashtunwali that way. And whatever you think is good in Pashtunwali; Islam already has so we can throw it all away and just keep Islam.

3. You restrict Pashtuns to be just a thousands years old ethnic group while there are so many evidences already quoted that they have thousands years of history. Again your Mullah's mentality.

That's what science and history resricts Pashtuns to being too; we have no evidence of Pashtuns from any historical chronicles before 1000 A.D. any references like Abgan or Avagan or Pakhta or Pactuye are just wishful thinking and speculation. There is nothing concrete. Even Ibn Battuta said " Afghans are a tribe of PERSIANS" which means Afghans are not originally Pashtuns at all but some variation of Persians. and then later When Pashtuns evolved they adopted the Afghan name.

4. You try to apply reason/logic to religion while religion being a supernatural system , cannot be prone to logic or reason. This is a paradox on your part.

This is actually a product of your ignorance and lack of logical understanding; There is an Aspect of religion which deals with Supernatural; things like Angels and The Unseen; But then there's apart of religion which deals with Logic; things like Law, lifestyle and social governnance, politics, and morality. These are under the jurisidiction of Logic and Logic can be applied How we determine that something is a legal pronouncement based on Texts is also a Logical method. Because if a certain text concludes something then we can conclude logically that it is some type of expression of Islamic Legal Code.

So the problem here is you're confused about the different Layers and dynamics of religion

If you were more educated and studied more then you'd see that Logic and religion are not necessarily contrary. Even the Supernatural aspects can be dealt with Logically, for example Philosophers discussed different ways to verify the existence of God without simply believing. They used logical methods.

Please learn more about the Mu'tazilah and their use of logic in such matters.

You turn a blind eye to the benefits of secularism in the west by just saying secularism is only for them not for us. We are all similar human beings. The same Muslims work perfectly in West in a secular system then why secularism may not be introduced in their own countries. A scientific, logical and reasonable position will be not tainted by religious bigotry that one system works in one place but not in another because their religion is different.

See that's the KEY here the benefits of Seculairms IN THE WEST, not the East; the Western Benefits of Secularism is based on its History; since Western countries used to steal and plunder others for a LONG period of time they developed a great deal of comtrol over world capital and resources. That's why most of the worlds resources are consumed by the West because it is under Western control during the Imperialist era. So yes Secularism works in the West and that's why MOST G8 countries , except Japan are the same countries which engaged in Imperialism for a few hundred years. So that is why secularism seems to work in the West. But if you look at Africa, Asia and so on Secularism is not very beneficial, because there is a wide amount of discrepancy between those in control of resources and those who do not. Usually the ones who have control of resources were remnants of Stooges in power from the Former European Imperialists and thus maintain the status quo, Even in India, they are growing because they are benefitted; they are growing because they sell at very low cost to Western countries which allows Western firms to have more economic control; so what happens is a "trickle down" effect which creates an apparancy of growth; But it is simple Mathematics if .01 becomes 0.02 then they say that's 100% growth. So you have to understand things based on the actual defacto numbers. Not just Amalgamated numbers.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

whatever you say, you basically have nothing.

I had a source; you have just speculation against the source; that's something.

[Badlun]

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.

Hijab if introduced as a dress code according to the requirements of a situation like uniform of a school then it is understandable. It should not be gender based. Men should also have dress code not only women. Th eonly physical difference of man and woman is the chest and Quran has wisely mentioned only covering this part of body of women. I am really impressed by this verse.

That they should draw their khimar (veils) over their bosoms (24:31-32)

This is the only part of body which is clearly mentioned for the veil. No other part like head or face. Other private parts are human nature to be covered.

For me Sharia is equivalent term of Islam and Islam caters for faith, worship and morality but not for culture and the injunctions in Quran are only for moral reasons not to regulate the dress of men or women in all aspects. Otherwise all Muslims would wear the same clothes through out the Muslim world.

In secular societies there is rule of law and the system of justice is in practice in a very efficient and effective way. Many Muslims do not follow the religion but the law must be followed in secular world. Laws against pornography of minors and sexual abuse of minors are very strictly promulgated. After 18 years an adult is free to decide in many aspects of life as a complete human being.

[khushal]

I had a source; you have just speculation against the source; that's something.

its not speculation, its questioning it. no other news source has reported it, so ya indian express. fo-ge-abow-it

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hijab if introduced as a dress code according to the requirements of a situation like uniform of a school then it is understandable. It should not be gender based. Men should also have dress code not only women. Th eonly physical difference of man and woman is the chest and Quran has wisely mentioned only covering this part of body of women. I am really impressed by this verse.

That they should draw their khimar (veils) over their bosoms (24:31-32)

This is actually a misunderstanding created by the translators because they didn't understand the Idioms of Arabic. the word used here Juyyib is plural of jayb in Arabic. The word for chest is Sedra in Arabic; but Jayb is often translated into Bosom; however what Jaib is actually the entire body because jayb refers to jayb possesses the head the arms and the The word jayb comes from the word which means "chord of the Arc" if you look at the body the outline of the head and shoulders creates an arc. So in fact this verse does refer to covering the hair; and upper body.

Here is evidence from Tafsir Jalalayn that this is the case.

Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs -

; and let them draw their veils over their bosoms, that is, let them cover up their heads, necks and chests with veils, and not reveal their, hidden, adornment, namely, all that is other than the face and the hands, except to their husbands (bu‘ūl is the plural form of ba‘l, ‘male spouse’)

So your conclusion is incorrect and is based on poor understanding of Arabic. There is a lot of Physical difference between men and women, their size, their curvature, their hip-wait ratio, their back structure. Whether or not you think men and women should also have a dress code is an irrelevant issue. The point here is that Turkey allows women to wear Hijab and it is not forced. The religion is the basis for this code and this is proven by all the available information; both historical and linguistic. Secularists have no right to interfere with Muslim women's choice of hijab. However Muslims have the right to stop secularists because we're not meant to be secularized.

So your argument is irrelevant.

In secular societies there is rule of law and the system of justice is in practice in a very efficient and effective way. Many Muslims do not follow the religion but the law must be followed in secular world. Laws against pornography of minors and sexual abuse of minors are very strictly promulgated. After 18 years an adult is free to decide in many aspects of life as a complete human being.

Not true; Liberia is secular there is no rule of Law, Rwanda also secular, no rule of Law. rule of Law and secularism has nothing to do with each other. If you mean that Western Societies they have rule of Law this is true but it is to maintain power and control of the Upper classes over the middle and lower classes by making sure police protect their property; it is really a system to keep society pacified. But this is not the same as justice. Rule of Law in secularism does not mean it is not based on corruption

Most of the corruption in Muslim societies are products of secularism; Pakistan is a good example. In Saudi Arabia it is not secularist BUT the ruling regime is maintained in power by Secular Governments like America so their corruption is really a False religious persona with a Secularist power to support it.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

its not speculation, its questioning it. no other news source has reported it, so ya indian express. fo-ge-abow-it

question is not a rebuttal, it's simply questioning. and those questions are based on assumptions you have not qualified yet.

Like I said good luck in establishing the merit of these questions.

[khushal]

good luck in establishing the merit of a fictional salma in a city that has millions of people in it

[RevolutionThroughReason]

now you're just being a conspiracy theorist lol when you can't rebuttal always rely on elaborate scapegoats when faced with uncomfortable information.

you lose.