Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on the burka

[mrsruffallo]

Have to say I agree with her. She makes an eloquent case against the burka, and the dilemma facing liberals in Europe on this issue.

Actually, I would have to say that Turkey's development has little to do with possible reform movements in Islam and much more to do with:

(1) Turks' historical and cultural values that don't align terribly well with fundamental religious belief/behaviour - women respected advisors in the state, Turkish language not even having the words "he" and "she", etc.

(2) Young Turks et al paving the way within Ottoman Empire for a change to a Western way of life and Turkey's founders following in their Western sympathies, especially towards France. Turkish word for "secular" is "laik", a direct assimilation of the French word "laic".

(3) Its founder and benevolent de facto dictator Ataturk - If he hadn't suddenly ordered men and women to dress like Europeans, the alphabet to change from Arabic letters to Latin letters, for women to have the right to vote, for the country to be a secular republic, etc, Turkey would not be what it is now, "reform movements in Islam" or not.

I agree with you esp. on the western/French sympathies of Turkey, CoteDAzur. I was saddened by the remarks of former French President Giscard D'Estaing regarding Turkey's interest in joining the EU. I think Ataturk and the Young Turks existed in an milieu where such a lurch towards modernity was intellectually possible and didn't have the same opposition such a move would have now, if it were to be initiated in any given state where there was a Muslim majority.

Sadly, I agree.

Re EU, there are prejudices and misunderstandings on both sides. The average Turk is fiercely nationalist And wary of "outside powers plotting to manipulate Turkey" and if it were known that EU membership means having to adopt laws made in Brussels, support for applying for EU membership would drop to single digits.

Math it's not a cse of it being leglly binding from what I have been informed. It's a case of if two like minded people have a dispute, and they want it dealt with in a way consistent with Sharia law, they can go to these councils. It isn't about enforcing it "legally", or saying "all muslims must go to this court".

I agree thought that the "Wahhbiist" interpretaion of Sharia is not the actual Sharia, and this could lead to problems if it is the loudest voice.

"this means that the place of women in a fundamentalist Muslim society today is the same as the place of women in that society many hundreds of years ago"

Unfortunately it's often the place of women in Arabic society before Islam.

I am intrigued by yours and CoteDAzur's discussion regarding Turkey. I don't really know much about the situation there, just what I'm told, and that seems to err on the side of "Turkey's wish to be secular is only because they want to join the EU" type argument.

"two like minded people have a dispute, and they want it dealt with in a way consistent with Sharia law, they can go to these councils"

Except that it will be highly unlikely that the younger or the female of these two people to stand up and refuse to go to the Sharia council, if their families say they should.

'"Turkey's wish to be secular is only because they want to join the EU" type argument.'

That is a prejudiced and woefully ignorant argument.

Turkey has many faults, but it is, and has always been, secular. Its very first constitution of 1924 starts with these sentences:

1. Turkey is a Republic.
2. Turkey is.... secular. Its language is Turkish. Its capital is Ankara.

And this is the current constitution:

1. Turkey is a Republic
2. Republic of Turkey is a (...) democratic, secular, and social state of law.
3. 1st and 2nd items of this constitution cannot be changed and their change cannot be proposed.

I trust that everyone here can venture a guess as to why 4 was deemed necessary at some point

As I was saying, it is easy to sit back in your comfortable Western European homes and judge desperate measures in other places as "demeaning". Most people have little idea about the difficulties of holding back the tide of religious fundamentalism in a place where overall level of education is not great.

In any case, It has given me a good deal of personal satisfaction to see countries like France and Belgium, who have berated Turkey for headscarf ban some years ago on grounds of personal freedom, going down the burqa ban route themselves.

And this is the current constitution:

1. Turkey is a Republic
2. Republic of Turkey is a (...) democratic, secular, and social state of law.
3. 1st and 2nd items of this constitution cannot be changed and their change cannot be proposed.

I trust that everyone here can venture a guess as to why 4 was deemed necessary at some point

As I was saying, it is easy to sit back in your comfortable Western European homes and judge desperate measures in other places as "demeaning". Most people have little idea about the difficulties of holding back the tide of religious fundamentalism in a place where overall level of education is not great.

In any case, It has given me a good deal of personal satisfaction to see countries like France and Belgium, who have berated Turkey for headscarf ban some years ago on grounds of personal freedom, going down the burqa ban route themselves.

The secular republic of Turkey existed long before the EU was even dreamed up.

Yes, the Sharia courts are a mediating body, but I agree with Cote wrt the element of voluntarily using them, or lack thereof.

For the sake of Turkey, maybe it's a very good thing that the west seems to be finally becoming cognisant of creeping fundamentalism and how it operates. There's irony there of course, but realism too.

"Except that it will be highly unlikely that the younger or the female of these two people to stand up and refuse to go to the Sharia council, if their families say they should."

I understand that, but it's not just in cases of marriage that they are used. They are often used in cases of business too. My problem with Sharia law arises when it comes to the wahabi form of Sharia. However I have to admit that I am not educated thoroughly enough on the issue to argue for or against properly.

And as I said, don't know much about the politics of Turkey, just hearsay, so it is incredibly interesting to find out about it. I may go and do some thorough research into it when I have some time.

Can I ask though. The ottomon empire; is this pre turkey (as it is today)? When did the Ottomon empire end? Was this after WW1?

I wasn't referring only to marriage disputes.

Re Turkey & O Emp - Ottoman Empire lost WWI alongside Germany. Its government signed of Sevres whereby Allied powers partitioned Ottoman land. British, Greek, French, and Italian armies summarily invaded their assigned territories in Anatolia.

Meanwhile, Mustafa Kemal conjured a resistance, fought on all these fronts against the Allies and was somehow victorious. Sevres was replaced by Treaty of Lausanne which defined the borders of Turkey, which was founded in 1923. Mustafa Kemal was given the name "Ataturk" (father of Turks) and was revered as a demi-God and was de facto dictator of Turkey until his death.

The incredible luck of the Turkish nation that must have played a big part in some hungry, bare-footed peasants winning wars against armies of numerous countries continued during Ataturk's rule. He could have been a Saddam. Instead, he decided that the new country should be a secular republic, a democracy, a place of law where large parts of the constitution were literally copied from those of France and other European countries. He ruled that women now had the right to vote (a long time before many Western countries), that they were equal with men before law, that men and women were to discard Ottoman clothing and dress like Europeans, that the alphabet should be Latin and not Arabic, etc etc.

That is it, in a nutshell. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

CoteDAzur - Any Kurd living in Turkey would die laughing at your description. You've also forgotten to mention the numerous military coups that have occurred there.

My view is that ataturk was very corrupt. He even changed the adhan ( call to prayer) from arabic to turkish.

Nationalism in it's worst form. I thought muslims were traditionally supposed to be 'one ummah' {one nation}.

Awful man.

I live in an area with a lot of headscarves, hijabs/niqabs...doesn't bother me at all.

Same arguments were made in the same area in the 30s about good Jews. Bad ones spread socialism, wore locks, yamulkes...zzzzz...

All these false arguments about people who claim to care about women's rights when they happily support/supported two wars that killed 2.5mn...better dead than niqab'd eh?

20,000 women a year are trafficked into the USA through the Mexican border, mainly to serve as prostitutes, house servants or as adopted children. Like any of these women's rights whingers give a fuck about that...

All this shit about Muslims, Muslims, Muslims...

Goth - What are you on about, woman?

This is the question I was asked:
"Can I ask though. The ottomon empire; is this pre turkey (as it is today)? When did the Ottomon empire end? Was this after WW1?"

And that is the answer I gave - When and how the Ottoman Empire ended and Republic of Turkey began.

If coups d'etat in Turkey had anything to do with the end of the Ottoman Empire, I would have mentioned them.

If any Kurd you know even disagrees with what I have written in that regard, let alone "die laughing", he should read a book - a practice you might like to emulate before challenging me on this subject.

Thanks Cote sounds like Turkey has a very interesting history in deed, shall be off to the library.

tums - Do you honestly believe that a man who has not only built a resistance out of nothing, fought the Allies and won, built a country, and made that country a secular democratic republic rather than his Saddam-esque personal fiefdom, gave women the right to vote, etc is an "awful man" because (shock! horror!) he said the call to prayer should be in Turkish? Seriously. In the grand scheme of things, I hope you can understand that this is a very minor issue.

I happen to think changing the call to prayer to Turkish was a very commendable thing. Previously, nobody knew what it was saying. You do realize that 99.9% of Turks don't understand Arabic, I hope? Why should it be a bad thing to call people to prayer in words that they actually understand?

I don't see how Muslims stop being ummah if their announcements for prayer are in their own language so they understand what it is talking about. Maybe you can explain.

Cote the thing is the call to prayer should always be in Arabic. It's very short, and took me all of about five minutes to learn what it meant.

"God is most great. God is most great.
God is most great. God is most great.
I testify that there is no God except God.
I testify that there is no God except God.
I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
Come to prayer! Come to prayer!
Come to success! Come to success!
God is most great. God is most great.
There is none worthy of worship except God"

Sermons and Imams should teach in whatever language the people speak in order for the followers to be able to understand, but prayers and the call to prayers should always be done in Arabic as they are seen as sacred words, never changed from the time of the Prophet.

Cote - Are you really trying to paint Turkey as some democratic paradise?

Come on! So the Kurds are not oppressed at all? So why weren't they even allowed songs in the Kurdish language until 1991? Don't tell me, is that 'too dangerous' as well?

You've also ignored the countless military coups, media censorship and the 'deep state' theory.

And your remarks about the athan are heniously ignorant. You're trying to say what is good for Muslims, when you don't even know what you're talking about in the first place.

Oh and guess what, in many Middle Eastern countries which were colonies the law is also copied from their former colonisers. They're not all sharia states you know, in fact very few are.

And yes, forcing women to undress is demeaning. Considering that, according to you, Ataturk was such a glorious visionary, his legacy must be pretty weak if it takes a few headscarves to undo it all.

Songbiird - I do understand that there is a rationale behind having the call to prayer in Arabic, although I would disagree with you on its soi-disant sanctity.

Prayers are sacred and should not be translated - agreed. I'm not so sure that the azan is "sacred". That it hasn't changed for a long time does not make it sacred, but I will not claim to have the final word on this.

Curiously, I would expect the primary grievance of the religious camp towards Ataturk to be his abolishment of the Caliphate and so I'm a bit puzzled by this hostility about translating the azan. It was not even for a long time (

Goth - Everyone else here understands what I have said and why, which makes me think that you are being deliberately obtuse.

This thread is not about Turkey. We have only talked about it as a secular Muslim country, and I have answered a question about Ottoman Empire's end.

But here is a quick clarification:

(1) I have never claimed that Turkey is a "paradise". On this very thread, my words were "Turkey has many faults".

(2) I have said that it is a "democracy" - i.e. a system where people vote for their government.

(3) State treatment of Kurds and other ethnic minorities is a human rights problem, not a secularism problem, and hence irrelevant to this thread. Ditto for coups etc. If you would like to learn about all that, create another thread. We can then continue your education at your leisure.

(3) I have not said anything about "what is good for Muslims".

(4) Turks have never been "colonized".

I was just about to say that they do read the azan in Arabic as some of their Imams have been asked to have voice coaching because they're so badly out of tune

Oh it can be torture. You think the azan is "short"? Wait until you hear it from the imam in my old neighbourhood His arrival lowered the value of the houses in the mosque's immediate vicinity. I kid you not.

The majority of muslims I know curse kamal Ataturk as soon as his name is mentioned.

He willngly replaced the caliphate to implement man-made laws.

Father of a nation?

"He willngly replaced the caliphate to implement man-made laws."

Sorry, I didn't realize until now that you were a fundamentalist.

Yes, Turkey is a country based on "man-made laws" rather than religious ones. We happen to think this is a good thing.

Do you and those Muslims you know all live in the UK? That is another country based on man-made laws. Do you all get together and curse England as well, or is this phenomenon particular to other countries these friends of yours have originated from?