Muslim Women in "Secular" Turkey

[redstar2000]

Turkey 'fails to protect women'

Amnesty International has severely criticised the Turkish government and judiciary for their failure to act over violence against women.

The human rights group's latest report claims up to a half of all women in Turkey have been victims of violence.

"Violence against women by family members spans the spectrum from depriving women of economic necessities through verbal and psychological violence, to beatings, sexual violence and killings," the reports says.

"Violence against women is widely tolerated and even endorsed by community leaders and at the highest levels of the government and judiciary."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3768847.stm

Although Turkish ruling class despots like to pass themselves off as a "bulwark of defense" against Islamic fundamentalism, it's nevertheless clear that their "secularism" has its "limits".

When it comes to treating women like shit, they'll stand up for their record against any mullah in Iran or "Saudi" Arabia.

Allah Akbar, suckers!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

:lol:

Here we go again!

Redstar why is that you constantly, I'm talking almost continually, make the same sweeping generalisations based on parochial bullshit views?


Although Turkish ruling class despots like to pass themselves off as a "bulwark of defense" against Islamic fundamentalism, it's nevertheless clear that their "secularism" has its "limits".

When it comes to treating women like shit, they'll stand up for their record against any mullah in Iran or "Saudi" Arabia.


Sorry what was the point? Yes several nations who were/are traditionally Islamic have/had somewhat conservative views towards the treatment of women, and have a poor record of Human Rights abuses in this area. So?

as is said time after fucking time, this occurs/has occurred in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CULTURE to some extent. There are plenty of other "traditionally Islamic" societies who have progressive and equal views towards the treatment of Women. You never seem to mention them though do you? That wouldn' fit your conservative and ignorant view of religion and its causes would it?

Open your eyes, and you might just be able to open your mind a little.

Comrade BNS

[RevolucioN NoW]

comrade bns,


as is said time after fucking time, this occurs/has occurred in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CULTURE to some extent

Yes, and its always some superstitious tripe to blame, religions of all stripes have repressive views towards women, remember that these "holy books" were written when women were viewed as property rather than people.

I suppose that if "every single fucking culture" is to blame then the only solution is to destroy the reactionary institutions which hold up these despotic cultures, yes?


There are plenty of other "traditionally Islamic" societies who have progressive and equal views towards the treatment of Women.

Really? I would love to see some examples of "islamic societies" which give women the same rights as men, not just in law but also in practice. Just one is all I want.

[The idealist]

http://www.women4peace.org/women-rights.html
Iran
Womens rights are not entirely equal to those of men, but that is what you get when a bunch of conservative guys at the top stomp down upon anything that could change the, for them, pleasent "state of affairs" (read those last three words and spot the pun :) ). Womens rights are actually getting somewhere.

http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/...women_iraq.html (http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/religion/women_iraq.html)
Iraq
Surprised? Of course Saddam later changed tactics, but it was there.

http://www.globaleye.org.uk/secondary_spri...yeon/women.html (http://www.globaleye.org.uk/secondary_spring03/eyeon/women.html)
Saudi Arabia
So much for USA's civilised buddy.

There you go Revolution now

[RevolucioN NoW]

the idealist,

all of those sources, even when combined together amount to less than a warm puddle of piss.

In Iran, women are required by the islamic theocracy to wear headscarves and other such outdated tradtions, and an incredibly violent religious police force keeps everyone in line. Yep, womans rights are certainly progressing...

In Iraq, now that Saddam is gone, the US appointed government will have to crack down on womens rights which were present during the nationalist Baathist regime as a means of appeasing the countries hugely influential clerics, looks like its back to the middel ages for Iraqi women.

Saudi Arabia does not even allow for its women to drive, and has a religious police force simiar to Iran as a means of enforcing this.


I will give you the benifit of the doubt and asume that the list you provided was a joke.

[The idealist]

Hey, cool it.

I did not say that these places were perfect, ok.

I was showing saudi arabia as a negative scenario. The fact that you responded so quickly also points out that you may not have read them through.

In Iraq, before saddam started begging for the support of the clerics, there was a law that made women equal to men.

So before you get your aggressions wound up, think back to places like the USA or the UK about 70 years ago. Not much better eh? The fact is that if you (in general terms, not "you" in person) get rid of the insane idea that every Moslem is a fanatic, you will find that it is not impossible for womens rights to come forth in islamic countries.


In Iran, women are required by the islamic theocracy to wear headscarves and other such outdated tradtions, and an incredibly violent religious police force keeps everyone in line. Yep, womans rights are certainly progressing...

I hate to trip you up in your own words, but can we have some sources of information here. Not that I don't trust your word, but I'd like to read it myself


In Iraq, now that Saddam is gone, the US appointed government will have to crack down on womens rights which were present during the nationalist Baathist regime as a means of appeasing the countries hugely influential clerics, looks like its back to the middel ages for Iraqi women.

Yeah, America has knocked iraq back, and yes America has probably done what you said (sources?), but only because the clerics the US needs to appease are the ones likely to cause trouble. By generalising you assume that ALL the clerics are against womens rights.
I will sketch out a quick (and possibly holed) line of assumptions

There are some extremist clerics that also supress womens rights
=assumption
The extremists are more likely to cause a fuss
=assumption
US supresses Womens rights in Iraq to calm down the "fussmakers" (extremists)
=assumption
There are some clerics who are not against womens rights that are ignored.
=BIG assumption?
Not all Islamic Clerics are male chauvenist pigs.


Saudi Arabia does not even allow for its women to drive, and has a religious police force simiar to Iran as a means of enforcing this.

As said. I was pointing out Saudi Arabia as a place where it DIDN'T work.


I will give you the benifit of the doubt and asume that the list you provided was a joke.

Do you make friends often?

[RevolucioN NoW]

hehe, i apologise for any insults etc in that last post, that was over the top of me. :)


So before you get your aggressions wound up, think back to places like the USA or the UK about 70 years ago. Not much better eh? The fact is that if you (in general terms, not "you" in person) get rid of the insane idea that every Moslem is a fanatic, you will find that it is not impossible for womens rights to come forth in islamic countries.

I never claimed that every muslim was a fanatic, just like i would never claim that every christian was a fanatic.

It is indeed possible for womens rights to come about in Muslim countries, but at the moment this progress is being held back by the reactionary clerics and will be for a long time. And the West is hardly a bastion of womens rights either, as i recall President Bush recently passed a law banning late term abortions.


I hate to trip you up in your own words, but can we have some sources of information here. Not that I don't trust your word, but I'd like to read it myself

Women in the "islamic Republic" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22551&hl=iran+womens+rights)

this is the best source i could find on short notice


By generalising you assume that ALL the clerics are against womens rights.

Well is the Koran not against womens rights, and dont these clerics have to abide by the Koran's teachings? There may indeed be some "progressive" clerics but a good majority are alligned to Iran (Iran is shiite, as is the majority of Iraq's popualtion) and Iran is hardly a womens paradise now is it.


Yeah, America has knocked iraq back, and yes America has probably done what you said (sources?), but only because the clerics the US needs to appease are the ones likely to cause trouble. By generalising you assume that ALL the clerics are against womens rights.
I will sketch out a quick (and possibly holed) line of assumptions

There are some extremist clerics that also supress womens rights
=assumption
The extremists are more likely to cause a fuss
=assumption
US supresses Womens rights in Iraq to calm down the "fussmakers" (extremists)
=assumption
There are some clerics who are not against womens rights that are ignored.
=BIG assumption?
Not all Islamic Clerics are male chauvenist pigs.

Indeed, not all clerics are male chauvinist pigs, but the most influential ones, such as the renegade cleric Al-sadr are opposed to women rights and as i mentioned many clerics are aligned with Iran.

Ill get some more sources tommorow ok?

[The idealist]

Disnea matter. :D No offence taken (I tell a lie, that "warm puddle of piss" did rub me the wrong way)

To continue (With no insults intended)


I never claimed that every muslim was a fanatic, just like i would never claim that every christian was a fanatic.

It is indeed possible for womens rights to come about in Muslim countries, but at the moment this progress is being held back by the reactionary clerics and will be for a long time. And the West is hardly a bastion of womens rights either, as i recall President Bush recently passed a law banning late term abortions.


*Sighs* Bush. Such abuse of a word formerly associated with low-growing botany. :(



Women in the "islamic Republic"

this is the best source i could find on short notice


It is ok. I see your point. And although it does not prove the corruption of the entire Iranian system (I mean, only three incidents) It is good proof that the system is bad, holed at best.





Well is the Koran not against womens rights, and dont these clerics have to abide by the Koran's teachings? There may indeed be some "progressive" clerics but a good majority are alligned to Iran (Iran is shiite, as is the majority of Iraq's popualtion) and Iran is hardly a womens paradise now is it.


As far as I know, there is no passage in the Koran that describes women as anything else than equal to men. I even remember mention of a passage saying "Men and women are equal/the same in gods eyes" (I can't be sure. I heard it quoted somewhere. It could even be the bible).

The suppression of womens rights in islamic countries, is probably due to most moslems big mistake: Confusing Culture/Tradition with Religion. This is probably because the two are very intertwined.



Indeed, not all clerics are male chauvinist pigs, but the most influential ones, such as the renegade cleric Al-sadr are opposed to women rights and as i mentioned many clerics are aligned with Iran.


I guess that proves a saying (my own actually) that describes capitalisme and religion/priests best:
"Scum and cream. One is that which floats to the top, the other is what it calls itself"

(Not to pat my own back, but I actually like that line)

In short, you have to be a real bastard to get to the top.

[redstar2000]

In a related story...


Honour killing in Jordan hospital

A Jordanian man has reportedly shot his unmarried cousin dead as she recovered in hospital after delivering a baby.

Jordan Times says this is the third case of so-called "honour" killing in the country this week. It also quotes official figures which say that nine women have died in such killings this year. No explanation is given for the apparent rise in deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3773449.stm


Redstar, why is that you constantly, I'm talking almost continually, make the same sweeping generalisations based on parochial bullshit views?

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it's because my "parochial bullshit views" keep making headlines at the BBC news site. :lol:

Why don't you whine to Amnesty International? Or to the BBC?

Or to "Allah"? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

Religion is far more then just an "opiate" to the masses. It gives these people some kind of cause to fight for, which is all well and good, but when they believe that their glory comes in death, that pretty much everyone is an enemy and a load of cheep explosives. It doesn't a genuis to work out what happens.

This just an example of how people blindly follow Religion, now when these holy scriptures also tell them to kill themselves for their God they also project a 15th Century mindset of women's right. Honor Killings, Multiple Wifes and other things of it's ilk.

Communism, Socialism and Religion do truly exclude each other!

[Severian]

When the Turkish government says "secular" what it really means is that the military, not the clergy, are in charge of the government. And the government is in charge of the clergy. It has nothing to do with, say, church-state separation. The clergy are on the government payroll.

And yes, this "secularism" - including its ban on headscarves for women at Turkish universities - has nothing to do with women's rights. As the BBC article shows.

[RevolucioN NoW]

It is ok. I see your point. And although it does not prove the corruption of the entire Iranian system (I mean, only three incidents) It is good proof that the system is bad, holed at best.

You are correct, three examples is not an absolute indictment, however i would imagine that this shows a startling trend, how many of these cases go unreported?


As far as I know, there is no passage in the Koran that describes women as anything else than equal to men.

Surah 4 - Women (Al Nisa) verse 34: "Men have authority over women
because God has made /the/ one superior to the other, and because
they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.
They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them (hymen).
As for those from whom you fear disobediance, admonish them and send
them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no
further action against them. God is high, supreme."

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0192.htm

Im not sure if this is an accurate reading, but I have no reason to doubt it.


The suppression of womens rights in islamic countries, is probably due to most moslems big mistake: Confusing Culture/Tradition with Religion. This is probably because the two are very intertwined.

A nations culture is heavily based on its Religion, they are, as you say, interwined to a massive degree. Muslims have not simple confused culture and religion, in most places they are exactly the same. The same thing happens, i would imagine, with every religion.

[Comrade BNS]

:lol:

well at least we haven't seen any racist type views thus far (Redstar excluded, cultural insensitivity is his forte it would seem)


It is ok. I see your point. And although it does not prove the corruption of the entire Iranian system (I mean, only three incidents) It is good proof that the system is bad, holed at best.

I'm glad you came to that conclusion, becuase osmeo f your earlier oppinions on "the Iranian system" were extremely naive. Grand Ayatollah Khomeini (father of "modern" Iran) was nothing but a brutal tyrannical bastard.


Surah 4 - Women (Al Nisa) verse 34: "Men have authority over women
because God has made /the/ one superior to the other, and because
they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.
They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them (hymen).
As for those from whom you fear disobediance, admonish them and send
them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no
further action against them. God is high, supreme."

The most misquoted part of the Qu'ran I have to say, also a poor translation I might add. N.J. Dawood, is the most quoted, but least qualified english translator. He is a Shi'ite for starters, and thus has imbedded predjudices towards the treatment of women (not a general comment on Shi'as, however I know for a fact that he comes from the same Shia sect as Mr. Sadr, previously mentioned). Also penguin chose this translation as "the definitive" translation for predjudiced reasons also. The good christians in London and New York need the savage and backward view of Islam to prevail so they can maintain their highworld, virtuous appeal.

It is true that in the Qu'ran God commands Women to be obedient to their husbands, however "husbands" face severe punishment for mistreatment of their wives. And as is the right of all believers, many modern interpretations chose to see it that men have been granted a certain amount of extra power in their marital relationships, and so in order to live a virtuous life, they must excercise restraint and treat their wives as equal, which they do. An earlier section in the Qu'ran states that those who "excercise restraint and justice in ALL their dealings will be reserved the greatest rewards in the next life". Therefore many progressive and equal minded Muslim men apply that statement to ALL their dealings, including their marriage. So one could say that the treatment of women is entirely dependant on the relationship and not the prevailing culture or religion.

Comrade BNS

[The idealist]

I guess I was trying to look on the bright side of the Iranian system. I guess I have a habit of seeing all nations opposing the US through rose tainted glasses.

Bad habit.

I guess it is back to square one: Bastards all over.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2004, 06:24 AM
:lol:

well at least we haven't seen any racist type views thus far (Redstar excluded, cultural insensitivity is his forte it would seem)


on what basis can u possibly assert that star is racist..

You base this claim on the notion that 'cultural insensitivity is his forte.

indeed he makes comments about a multitude of cultures which may be considered critical or even hurtful to those who subscribe uncritically wholeheartedly to those cultures. And so he should If a culture fucks up people's lives and inhibits social progress then sould make our criticisms clear.

We should therefore attack British culture for its emphasis on individual material gain, we should crticise the ultra-patriarchal culture which characterises hassidic judaism and we should criticise any cultural imperatives towards homophobia sexism or any other type of oppression.

To equate this to racism - ie to attacking en masse an ethnic, raial or national grou is idocy.

Given the prevelance of reactionary, oppressive cultures in the world at large it would be extremely hard to take a radical progressive position without showing 'cultural insensitivity'

[redstar2000]

So one could say that the treatment of women is entirely dependent on the relationship and not the prevailing culture or religion.

Sure, one "could" say that...all that's required is that you simply ignore the social context of all human behavior.

This guy is a real "sweetheart" and would never raise his hand in anger to his wife. That guy over there is a vicious bastard and his wife spends more time in the hospital than she does at home.

Just little social atoms, some nice, some nasty, whirling around in space with only occasional contact with a few other atoms.

That is such a totally wretched excuse that I'm amazed that you or anyone would try to pass it off as some sort of "explanation" or even "justification".

Do you dare to deny that your "holy book" says flatly and unmistakably "beat your wives until they obey"? Are there any Muslim countries or areas where this behavior is not accepted and upheld as the cultural norm?

Note that it is not simply the physical violence that is at issue here; it is the expressed "Will of Allah" that wives must be made to obey their husbands.

If your wife obeys you without beatings, that's ok with "Allah"..."He" doesn't say that you "must" beat her. "He" even adds that you shouldn't hold a grudge; once she obeys, then you must not beat her or even admonish her any more.

The fundamental principle is female obedience to male authority...which is to be secured "by any means necessary".

Am I "culturally insensitive"? No doubt.

I am hyper-sensitive to reactionary bullshit.

I will attack it...wherever I find it!

More to come...:angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[RevolucioN NoW]

Comrade bns,


The most misquoted part of the Qu'ran I have to say, also a poor translation I might add. N.J. Dawood, is the most quoted, but least qualified english translator.

If the section I provided is in fact "misquoted" then what is the correct quote? And if Dawood is the most quoted of all english translator of the Koran, then wouldnt that make his interpretation the "prevailing view"?


It is true that in the Qu'ran God commands Women to be obedient to their husbands, however "husbands" face severe punishment for mistreatment of their wives.

Then why do so many husbands "get off" with honour killings in Islamic countries, surely these murderers should be severely punished according to the Koran?

[Maynard]

There is no justification for any violence against a woman in any culture anywhere on earth. It is, of course, not unique to Islamic communities, Woman's rights should be fought for everywhere. Shirin Ebadi's work though, is an example that can be followed throughout the world.
Also another positive story from a few years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2044802.stm
Iran also has a huge majority of a younger population, many of whom who are fighting for change within Iran.

There is also cases though, where Muslim women get beaten up, not from a Muslim male but from Christians, like in Swindon, a 19 year old was beaten by a baseball bat for having a Hijab on or a mother beaten up at a school by another woman saying "America's only for white people" or another guy who was murdered for being a Muslim, with the murderer saying "I'm an American. Arrest me. Let those terrorists run wild". These should be opposed also

[Comrade BNS]

Do you dare to deny that your "holy book" says flatly and unmistakably "beat your wives until they obey"? Are there any Muslim countries or areas where this behavior is not accepted and upheld as the cultural norm?


:lol:

Don't presume to know about cultural norms in a culture so completely alien to you, Mr. Star.

And sir, it is not "my" holy book at all. I remain religiously unaffiliated at this point in time.

Let me give you a contextural lesson in the world of Islam. Islam is a religion designed to synthesise with many different cultures worldwide to work harmoniously with existing traditions, whilst establishing a common set of moral and ethical guidelines. In Islam, there is a system of law called Shari'ah (which means the source) almost none of the Shari'ah is actually specifically spelled out in either the Qu'ran or the Sunnah (sayings of the prophet), which means it is interpreted by the individual or the culture from certain meanings or passages etc... So, in Islam, certain crimes can be punishable by death, nowhere is it set in stone that one must be killed for committing a certain crime. So, If you are guilty of murder, the victim's family can have you killed, however they may also choose to have you work for them, or donate to charity, or be freed unconditionally. The basic premise is that it is up to the individual believer how he treats his fellow human beings, The Qu'ran states over and over again that God smiles on the compassionate and the merciful, because he displayed these traits when dealing with mankind. So although you MAY have a person killed or maimed etc... this was never generally the "cultural norm." for many peoples, but was with some cultures, thus evident the allowances Islam makes for cultural tradition and interpretation.

This was also the case for dealing with women. You MAY beat your wife, but you don't have to, and are not encouraged to necessarily. The increase in executions and wife beatings etc... in the Islamic world is due to the narrowing of the Shari'ah which was originally not only a law code, but a system of accepted do's and dont's not expressed in Law, a social security system and a rehabilitation mechanism. In in present "WESTERN INFLUENCED" form ( i say this because the lawyers and magistrates who now operate under current Shari'ah systems were all trained at western universities in Law, and so only apply the Shari'ah extremely narrowly. To add to this, the Shari'ah is not being continually reinterpreted to meet with changing demands within societies, but is instead merely the application of 14th century jurisprudence and oppinion, never designed to be used in such a manner) the extremes of Shari'ah are being pushed into the norm where there historically were not in most cultures.

Now in "modern" Islamic societies the people and/or the courts adopt one of five different schools of Shari'ah (all dating from around the 14th century), thus in Algeria, Jordan and Malaysia women are treated disgustingly on the whole because their society's subscribe to the Hambali (named after the Jurist whose decisions and oppinions are upheld as law) school of Shari'ah, whereas in Pakistan and Syria the treatment of Women is alot more liberal as they subscribe to the Deobandi school of Shari'ah.

Now that you have a basic understanding of the contextural and synthetic nature of Islam, Mr. Star I ask you to find how the religion itself can be at fault in a cultural context.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Islam is a religion designed to synthesise with many different cultures worldwide to work harmoniously with existing traditions, whilst establishing a common set of moral and ethical guidelines.

So your view is that all these different places already treated women badly and Islam just accommodated itself to these pre-existing norms.

But then how do you explain that crucial verse in the Koran?

Supposedly this verse, like all of the Koran, was "dictated to Muhammad by an angel". Thus, I don't see how you can deny that within the Islamic paradigm, it is "the will of Allah" that women must be compelled to obey their husbands...by force if necessary.

Your analysis of various law codes is not without interest...but is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. For all I know, they don't use the Shari'ah in Turkey at all...and it makes no difference.


Now that you have a basic understanding of the contextual and synthetic nature of Islam, Mr. Star I ask you to find how the religion itself can be at fault in a cultural context.

Because it adds divine sanction to barbaric practices. A bastard who beats his wife because both he and his victim accept this as a cultural norm is pretty bad; but would you not agree that it is far worse when the bastard sincerely believes that he is "an instrument of the Will of Allah"?

Cultural norms, after all, are not "sacred"...they can be challenged and ultimately overthrown. But how do you go about challenging "the Will of Allah"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[abigratsass]

ok first of all i read most of the quran in arabic and i cant remember anything that was slightly insulting to women furthmore you seem to forget that most muslim countries (ill be precise im talking about arab countries cause i have better understanding of them) are basically countries live in poverty( exulding the gulf) and that were under occupation for hundreds of years.....

that as it will in any part of the world will lead to ignorance,fundmantilists and all sorts of bullshit if you will.
most of abuse that is carried against women ( im talking about egypt now ) is based on cultural ideas ,most of the violince and forbiding girls from going to school and forced marriges....etc happen in the lower middel classes to low middel classes , they live in extreamly bad conditions ,they have no understanding of quran since they cant read and act according to theire culture only.

now about saudi for example they dont let women drive and force them to wear vale( or however its spelled) and they dont drive and all of that , althought its a diffrent situation than other arab countries but there also acting on cultural belifs cause once suadis come to egypt or lebanon or something they take there veils off and drive and do what ever they hell they want , cimply because they dont have social pressure there getting back home.

i think that humans are far more complicated that to be '' formed '' from one aspect , therefor i find it unfair to suggest that muslims or arabs act only according to religon there are other aspects that contribute to there behaviour and views of things, education being the main one and also the conditions they live...

when you find people living in graves '' i mean literally they live in graves , the dead dont chrge much'' its not uncommen to find woman and child abuse !!!
and them being muslim is besides the point!

im an arab and a woman and i dont know any one who was forced to wither wear a weil , forced marrige or anything like that ......on the contrary were actually forced to complete our education and live the way we choose , although my parents are muslims but they are educated and therefor they have a better understanding of islam which doesnt insult or suppress woman in any way i think!!!!

[abigratsass]

sorry for all the typing mistakes and shit , sorry if its hard to read !

[Soul Rebel]

In Iran, women are required by the islamic theocracy to wear headscarves and other such outdated tradtions, and an incredibly violent religious police force keeps everyone in line. Yep, womans rights are certainly progressing...

First of all that statement is wrong on two levels. One is the assumption that the womyn wear the headscraves by force. The reality is that there are two reasons why Islamic womyn wear headscarves. One is, yes, by tradition. They are required to wear them according to their religious belief. However, there is a second reason why womyn wear them. They wear them willingly for political reasons. They wear it to avoid what is called the "male eye". They dont want to be seen as sex objects, as domestics, as property, etc. They want to be seen as womyn and this is one of their ways to do this. The scarf has become a political tool for them. Try reading such articles Fundamental Misunderstandings: Issues in Feminist Approaches to Islamism by Bronwyn Winter.

Second, some countries have actually outlawed forcing womyn to wear the veil. Womyn in these countries have the option to wear it or not, they cannot be forced to wear one.

[redstar2000]

I think that humans are far more complicated than to be "formed" from one aspect. Therefore I find it unfair to suggest that Muslims or Arabs act only according to religion. There are other aspects that contribute to their behaviour and views of things, education being the main one and also the conditions [in which] they live...

No one would disagree that culture and living conditions have determining influences on what people think.

But what people often overlook in these decisions is that religion is a part of culture. It's not something separate and unconnected.

And, in the case of Turkey, it is clearly more important than the nominal "secularism" of that regime; violence against women is just as endemic there as it is in Jordan or Iran.

The "Koran" has been quoted directly in this thread as justifying violence against women...since you presumably read Arabic, you can look up the original yourself:


Surah 4 - Women (Al Nisa) verse 34: "Men have authority over women
because God has made /the/ one superior to the other, and because
they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.
They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them (hymen).
As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send
them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no
further action against them. God is high, supreme."

Of course, there are plenty of equally horrible quotations in the Christian "Bible". The difference is that "in the west", we by and large don't let people carry them out.

The "Bible" tells parents to beat their kids and even kill them if they disobey; but if you try to carry out "God's Will" here, you will go to prison for a long time and possibly even face the death penalty.

In Turkey and all other Muslim countries (as far as I know), carrying out "Allah's will" with violence against women even unto death is lightly penalized at best and usually simply ignored.

Thus anyone in the Muslim world who speaks out against violence against women is directly challenging "Allah" himself! S/he is actually saying that human decency is superior to the "morality" of "Allah"!

What courage that must take!

After all, Islam means "submission" and Muslim means "one who submits".

Our message is different: to rebel is justified!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas