‘Headscarf still an issue,' Parliament speaker says
Speaker of Parliament Köksal Toptan has said the headscarf issue remains a social problem, saying that it should cease to be on the agenda and must be resolved as soon as possible and once and for all.

Toptan was answering questions from the press upon his arrival at the Ankara Chamber of Commerce's (ATO) conference hall to attend a meeting sponsored by the Turkish Association of Agriculture (TZD). Toptan stressed that the headscarf was still a social problem and that it had to be settled immediately one way or another. "Technically speaking, I don't think it can be resolved through a change in the constitution, but since it stands out as a social problem, it should cease to be on Turkey's agenda," he said.
In response to questions on the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), Toptan said: "It is apparent that it is the Turkish citizens who are implied in the phrase 'Turkishness' in Article 301. It is obvious that we cannot possibly file any lawsuits in connection with an insult hurled at people of Turkish origin who live outside of Turkey. The government is working on this issue. Once it is finished and submitted to Parliament, the optimal steps will be taken. But let me say this: The hypothesis that 'articles similar to 301 exist in the constitutions of all European countries, but are not enforced' is not true. It is enforced in all of them, and the number of cases is far higher than in Turkey, as a matter of fact. But we should also admit that we have had problems from early on since the passage of this article. Maybe an amendment of this article will lessen the practices based on it."

I would think members of the Turkish Parliment would have much better things to be concerned with! What an ridiculous waste of time and resources. Here's an idea...letwomen make their own decisions about this issue!

What I hate about religions (at least those with long traditions), apart from the fact that they seem a mass brain-washing, is that they are based on patriarchal system of values. It is men who tell women whether she may or may not wear a scarf, it is men who tell women she cannot have an abortion...Let women decide for themselves, who gives you the right to know better!

But seems some women like to talk for other women even if their men don't decide about their decissions,a bit more tolerance and a bit more respect,thats the best fix...Sure there r planty reasons of that problem and sure all headscarfed girls or women don't do that with their free willing,but i think we forget planty women who do that with their free wiling just as a part of their beliefs,you will defend democracy when its good for you,but you will deny some freedoms when seems danger for you,such a big paradox.We all have to respect all sort freedoms ''in limits'',unless doesn't give any harm to social and world peace..

The only people create this as a problem yet again the politicians, other higher state managers of Turkey.

There is no problem with the society.. there are people who wear and there are poeple doesnt...

its just holding the society busy with this topic and see whats going on behind of what they are doing...

the problem is that... woman who wears headscarf cannot enter some public areas especially to schools...
the problem is not that if they can decide theirselves or not...

for true analysis.. you have to buy your tickets and travel all around turkey and ask every single woman wears headscarf 'why are you using this?'... and then you can understand whats the reality...

Are we discussing Muslim countries or Turkey?? Try to preserve some dignity....and don't fall off your rocker.

Peace train, thanks for clarifying yourself! Perhaps I'm a bit sensitized to posts in which people say that muslim women aren't oppressed . There are people who dig out some examples of women who became successful and use as an argument against the widespread abuse of women in islam, so I get frustrated easily by such posts. While there are some exceptional examples of very strong women, it is extremely alarming what's the fate of the majority and I think muslims should talk about it and be furious about it.

Anyways, headscarf in Turkey - yes, from a democratic standpoint, it should be a personal choice. At the same time, I think it's a valid concern that women who don't wear headscarf might be under pressure to wear it, as we all know some people like to moralize and demonize those who don't follow the main religion. I'm afraid that the oppression would be reversed, not in a legal way, but by the society. It's a difficult decision, but I'd prefer if there was no governmental interference in such matters.

There are two questions that bother me about headscarfs. Other than the following two questions - I can not care less if they decide to close their eyes too: If they bump into me, I will hit back.

Question 1 :
WHERE EXACTLY IS THE LIMIT?..SHALL WE EVENTUALLY HAVE HIGHSCHOOL - MIDDLE SCHOOL - KINDERGARTEN GIRLS IN TURBAN TOO?

Question 2 :
SAY GIRLS IN TURBAN ARE ALLOWED INTO UNIVERSITIES (I EXPECT SYMBOLS RELATING TO OTHER RELIGIONS WILL ALSO BE FREE, NO?): WHAT DO WE DO WITH THESE GIRLS AFTER THEY GRADUATE?

IF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS BECOME FREE TO DISPLAY EVEN IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES, SAY IN LEGAL COURTS, HOW WILL ONE OF OUR TURBANED MOSLEM LADIES FEEL IN COURT - AFTER HAVING A CAR ACCIDENT WITH ANOTHER LADY WEARING THE GOLDEN STAR OF DAVID - UPON DISCOVERY THAT THE LADY JUDGE ON THE BENCH IS WEARING AN EVEN BIGGER STAR OF DAVID?

new subject: Why do most Turks were moustaches? National tradition?

I am bearded.
Any one who wears a beard, in Islamic tradition, has to obey certain rules. I know some of the rules,
1. The beard should be of modest length, so that one is not mixed up with followers of other religions.
2, It should always be well trimmed, clean and suitably perfumed.
3. The beard should not rise in a way to close your cheeks (high cheek bones). (can you guess why?)
4. It is not obligatory for moslem men to wear beards, but it is recommended.

My own beard, unfortunately, fails on more than one count...

Women who wear head scarves say that they adopt this dress as a sincere expression of their religious beliefs. The decision to wear (or not to wear39) dress such as head-covering in public is a form of personal and religious expression protected by various instruments, including Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and can only be limited where interests of the individual are outweighed by the state's legitimate concerns regarding, for example, public order, health or morality. In Turkey the wearing of the head scarf by students or elected representatives has not presented a threat to public order, health or morality, and it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which it might.

The head scarf issue has not been tested in the European Court of Human Rights either with respect to educational institutions or the workplace. However, the Turkish educational establishment is using the considerable prestige and authority of the Council of Europe to justify the ban. An evaluation of legal issues relating to the ban, believed to have been prepared by the Council for Higher Education (YÖK) and circulated to university rectors, as well as a statement by the Turkish Prime Minister's Office's High Coordinating Council for Human Rights, refer to and summarize an admissibility decision in the case of Lamiye Bulut.40
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/turkey2/Turk009-05.htm

I wonder why people do not prefer to discuss my imperfect islamic beard, rather than risky issues like religion, politics etc..

There must be ways to improve this beard !

or women or men who have cosmetic surgery like J. Lopez and Bulent Ersoy

You are so right...I have a friend who has a nice beard, he does sort of a topiary job on it. It looks very nice. I suppose one has to have a rather dense growth of hair to get that effect.

So, do you have a topiary effect AlphaF?

Noo, I am perfect ! (ezcept the tousled beard)

Transsexual Diva Bülent Ersoy (who recently underwent extensive external-body plastic surgery) pooh-poohed her Esthetic Surgeon's well-intended advice and refused to fully recuperate before resuming work. As a result, she's suffering a number of surgical complications. For example, the silicon that had been injected into legs and knees to enhance their looks, has now slipped down to her ankles (ayak bileğe) -- and everyone is (cruelly) joking about the diva's silicon woes ('ayak bileğine kayan' silkonunu).
And in the sidebar entitled Çorabın sırrı çözüldü (Secret of the stockings solved), we learn that Ersoy chided one of the female Popstar contestants for not wearing stockings on-stage. The argument heated up when fellow-female jury-member Ebru Gündeş declared "I don't wear stockings either." And it caused people to say that Bülent Hanım only favored stockings these days because they help hide the scars from her esthetic knee surgery.

I think, first of all my opinion about the ban:
The ban must stay for the personel working for the goverment departments. Teachers, doctors, clerks etc whoever gives the governements services CAN NOT WEAR anything symbolizes a religion.
Because, simply, governments must treat everybody equal regardless their religion (muslims, christians, jews etc). it is governments duty to put equal distance to everybody. So because a democratic, secular government cant have a religion, the turban ban should remain as it is. If you allow it, the very basic idea of 'government has the same distance to everybody' will have a shadow.
Basically governments cant have a religion. Coming to power by elections and thinking that 'oh we have the power then we can change it' is fundemantally WRONG. (with the same principles, religion sections in ID cards should be removed immediatly.)

About the universities:
My personal idea will be removing the ban from universities..However, at high school and in primary education, the ban even should not be discussed. Because at that age, they should be protected from the pressures coming from the society. They are vulnerable.

Now then about turban itself:

we all know that there are millions of milions of muslims they think that wearing turban is not necessary and turban problem is nothing to do with freedom. They are simply not covering themselves. We all know that the way they practice islam in libya, saudi arabia and turkey is very very different. so where is the line?.who is right? what is the answer?

Then what about the religious communities which are spending everything they have, on bringing sheria (which they are quite powerful at the moment in Turkey. One of them is Fettullah Gulen for example, which owns Zaman!!!) ? What about the pressure they are imposing everywhere? think of a girl wearing a mini skirt in a place where majority is wearing head scarf? (ie Fatif in Istanbul) how long do you think that girl can wear that skirt? or simple how long will she last without putting a headscarf herself? or what do you think the majority will think about that girl? well we all know what they think..dont we? where is that girls rights then? everything is legal from outside. no forcing..BUT THAT IS PRESSURE!!
(we can find thousands of examples about this type of pressure.) And of course you can go back to universities about this ban as well: what about as a parent if you think your daughter will be seen as less muslim, not honourable, non muslim or not muslim ENOUGH? It will be denying rights..wont it?

Secularism (if it could be imposed properly) is a very important at this moment because a secular country's government must protect its citizens from religious communities' pressure.. Because it is STATE'S BASIC DUTY. (State should provide the environment for its citizens to practice their religions freely WITHOUT any pressure from anywhere)

When you look at the posts above, the common idea is that muslims are not living freely or practising their religions in Turkey because of turban ban. That is not right.

I believe that turban is a symbol as far as Turkey is concerned..It is a statement.
My mother hides her hair because she is a muslim. Old school woman..
In any of the government departments she was never ever returned back because she is wearing a head scarf. She has never ever been denied anything in any of the hospitals. She has never ever been mistreated. I have never ever heard of any of women i know, complaining about those things.

The thing is that Turkey is not a liberal country and has severe violations of free speech, therefore it is somewhat dangerous to give religious freedoms (read: islamic ONLY!) and not enforce freedoms FROM religion. If a president preaches about religion, and is a former imam and a former leader of an islamist party... not much good can happen for liberal values there.

It is out of Topic but how funny to see the Kittens as they were having rights their freedom of "speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5bxshM-5g

Uhhh....women's intuition?

To all smart ladies, moslem or not,

Turban makes you invisible ! You dont have to wear anything else, if it is warm enough.
Free headscarves while stocks last, anyone?

headscarf never been a problem for society in Turkey ,just it used as a political weapon by the strong secular bureacurats and supposedly (false) intellectuals.

35 years ago there were plenty of strong secular bureaucrats and many intellectuals around; there were many moslems too; but there was no turban...

Somebody else probably started it, no?

pity thats our one of most weak side,there r so many social and political phobias in our country,so why we walk on democracy road as turtels,and blinkers never let us to see real sides of freedoms.İts ok when ur in laws wearings but its danger when a student or public worker or politican wearing,isn't that to nothing then mislead urself????

real peace will set in this great country when we show same tolerance for decolette and headscarf....

to Alameda:

I take it you have Arabic origin and well versed in ways of Islam. Can you pls confirm whether or not, I am correct on following two points.

1. "Turban" as worn by some ladies of Turkia now, was a popular headgear among Jewish ladies of Lebanon, about 40-50 years ago.
2. Islamic tradition (maybe, even Quran) requires Moslem ladies not to dress in a way that may lead to their confusion with followers of another faith.

I will tell you exactly what is important, when Alemeda replies my request..

You were not rude, at all

shame on who using beliefs and details of beliefs for the political aims and shame on who doesn't respect to induvidual preferences (unless this preferences don't give any harm social peace )

Hmmmmm.

In London, a lot of muslim parents send their daughters to all-girls schools run by the Catholic church or the Church of England, because the schools have a good academic record, and also because there are no boys. e.g. the Virgo Fidelis school 2 minutes from my mum's home has a lot of Pakistani students, and St. Martin-in-the-Fields (my old school) has a lot of Nigerian students.
In actual fact, when I was there one girl in my class was Turkish, and another was Egyptian.

Does this mean muslims in London are more tolerant than secular Turks in Turkey? Ouch.

I am a Christian, and have had some wonderful teachers who are Jews, Buddhists, total atheists, and yes of course Muslim. My first primary school teacher was Mrs Mirza from Pakistan. She wore shalvar-kamiz and a head covering. I remember Mrs Sheikh (married to an Arab), and Mr Helowitz (Polish Jew), and Miss Meliniotis (Greek Orthodox) as well as "religion is the opium of the people" being one of the favourite phrases of Mrs Marsden. I didn't see any difference between them and Miss Martin who was a deacon in the anglican church, or Mrs Drey who was married to a Baptist minister. None of them treated me any differently, or gave me better or worse marks because of religion. The only thing that mattered to me was whether they were good or bad teachers.
A multi-cultural education is really nothing to be scared of, it adds breadth and depth to your life-experience, and to your personality I think.

I totally agree with you, Marion. Very well formulated!

thats such an easy to blame others to be with somethings about their preferences and thats such a big mistake to see theirself once owner of all system??

Off the topic, sort of.... IF I was to base my view of Turkey with the rants on TLC forums, I'd not bother with Turkey anymore. That was a big IF.

After my first visit to Turkey I was so enchanted ! I thought how marvellous a country. What struck me were the contrasts and diversity. A democratic country that should be an example for other 'Muslim' countries in the Middle East. And not only that but an example for the 'Muslim' individuals living in the non-Muslim countries. An example of tolerance and co-existance.

I guess I was mistaken. Regardless, I still love Turkey and it's people and the language.

I live in USA where people are allowed to study and work with their headscarf or with any other religious or cultural dressing. In this country we do not look at what do you wear and what do you believe in. We look at how hardworking you are. This the secret, I think, that makes USA a super power. We respect diversity. Where I work there is a girl with head scarf and there is a a very religious jewish guy.

I think, letting people have Kurdish language classes does not divide Turkey. Letting girls wear headscarf does not make Turkey an Islamic state.

If you do not want an Islamic regime in Turkey, you should allow girls with head scarf to study and work in public spaces otherwise they will be the enemy of the secular system.

As you are scared of religious people, some people are scared of Kurds. You should respect the differences.

This is an article published in Turkish Daily News by a brilliant young Turkish intellectual, Mustafa Akyol.

Why Are We a Nation Obsessed with the Headscarf?
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]

To most outside observers the scene must be looking pretty bizarre: Thousands of otherwise reasonable men and women in this country, who make up much of the social elite, are having panic attacks in the face of the possibility that Turkish universities might tolerate their students wearing the Islamic headscarf. Virtually everyday, bureaucrats, pundits and even university rectors lash out against the proposed article in the proposed constitution to set the headscarf free. "This will be the end of the secular republic," they passionately claim, without realizing that a secular republic that doesn't respect the rights and liberties of its citizens is called a secular tyranny.

I have repeatedly said what I think about this prohibition on the headscarf: It is a violation of human rights, and it is a shame on our democracy. I also have made a suggestion to make things more fair if this ban is going to last: The citizens who wear the headscarf should pay less taxes. They obviously don't get anything from Turkey's education system, and they should not be required to take a share in its finance. If they are second-class citizens, why should they pay the same rates with the folks in the first class?

Anyway, tyrannies are tyrannies and they don't bother about such details. And the story of our homegrown one is too broad a topic to discuss in a single column. That's why I rather want to focus on the origins of the obsession with the headscarf. While other Islamic practices such as the Ramadan fast is not a problem in Turkey, why is this one a huge bone of contention?


Remembering the hat revolution

To find an answer, we have to go back to the Ottoman Empire, which underlies much of modern Turkey. In this multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, headgear was an important symbol because it specified a person's religious and thus legal identity. For a long time, the three “nations” of the empire — the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians — had their own distinct turbans. What you put on your head also said who you are.

The person who changed that was Sultan Mahmud II, who, during his reign (1808-1839), brought in many modern concepts such as the rule of law, the limits of the state's powers and the idea of equal citizenship. Under Mahmud, Jews and Christians were granted equal rights with Muslims, and all of them were introduced to a new headgear called the “fez.” This red cylindrical cap was a novelty, which some conservatives did not like, but soon all Ottoman citizens, regardless of their creed, accepted it.

Yet the real revolution would come about a century after Mahmud II, and this time the goal was not “Ottomanization” as he had aimed, but rather de-Ottomanization. Mustafa Kemal, Turkey's Westernist founder, took that bold step as early as 1925 with this famous “hat revolution.” For him, the fez symbolized everything that he wanted to save the Turks from, and the bowler hat represented everything that he wanted to turn them into. He showed up in the conservative city of Kastamonu in August 1925 with a bowler on this head. “This is called a hat gentlemen,” he said, “from now on, we will wear this.”

Soon came the hat law, which outlawed all religious turbans and made it compulsory for civil servants to wear the “headgear of the civilized peoples.” Atatürk did not touch women's veils, but he systematically promoted the ideal “modern Turkish woman,” who was supposed to wear all the trendy clothes including those vintage swimsuits of the ‘30s.

Atatürk and his followers were very enthusiastic about the bowler hats, and, at a time when much of the war-stricken Turkish society was in total destitute, they did not refrain from spending great sums of money to import them from various European countries. Yet not everybody was a great fan of this compulsory fashion. For many devout Muslims, the hat represented the Christian West and they perceived its imposition onto Muslim society as an act of forced self-denial. They saw in the bowlers even an implicit message of disobedience to God. It was impossible to wear this rimmed hat during the daily Muslim prayer, in which the believers put their foreheads to the ground as a sign of submission to the Almighty. So putting on the hat, for them, looked like abandoning worship.


The victims of the bowler hat

Hence came the reactions to the hat revolution. In the northeastern coastal town of Rize the whole populace rejected the idea, sparking a rebellion that led Ankara to send the giant warship Hamidiye to the shores of the city in order to be persuasive. In Erzurum a group of 30 protestors were fired upon by the gendarmerie and several of them, including a woman, were shot.

The most notorious episode would be the case of İskilipli Atıf, a “hodja,” i.e., a religious scholar, who wrote a treatise titled “The Hat and the Imitation of the Franks,” in which he objected to the idea by arguing that it would amount to the abandonment of Muslim culture. Although he had written that 32-page tract before the revolution, at a time when the word was around but the law was not in practice, he was arrested by the authorities charged with treason. Soon he was tried by one of the “Independence Courts,” which were arbitrary revolutionary tribunals similar to the ones established by the French revolutionaries and later the Bolsheviks in order to eliminate the “enemies of the people.” In his defense, İskilipli Atıf said that he stood behind his views, and the court cold-bloodedly sentenced him to death. The old man was executed by hanging on Feb. 4, 1925. “Don't cry my child,” he said in his last hours to his daughter who was in tears. “Just recite the Koran for my soul.”

İskilipli Atıf was only one of the many victims of the hat revolution. Eight others were executed in Rize, seven in Maraş and four in Erzurum. According to the Turkish version of Encyclopedie Larousse, the number of people killed by the regime was as high as 78. Moreover, many others were sentenced to 10 to 15 years of imprisonment.


Permanent revolution

More than 80 years have passed since the hat revolution and its victims. Yet the mindset of the revolutionaries has changed very little, if at all. Nobody wears hats anymore, and the male headgear is a non-issue. But now the focus is on the female headdress. The revolutionaries still want to do the same thing: They want to eradicate all traditional Islamic clothes. They would love to do it by employing revolutionary guards on the streets to rip the veils off, but that is not feasible. So they rather prefer to contain the veiled women by pushing them out of the “public square” and denying them the right to education. The ultimate aim is to make all of them “modern” by using coercive powers of the state.

What these revolutionaries fail to understand is that in the modern world, states have no right to interfere with the dress codes of their citizens, and that individuals have the right to live in whatever manner they choose. Actually if there is any version of “modernity” that they resemble, that is the way of Chairman Mao, whose Cultural Revolution traumatized a whole nation during the late ‘60s. Turkey's cultural revolution has been much less radical, thank God, but unlike Mao's now defunct tyranny, it still goes on.

Another one by the same author...

Turkey and the Headscarf
[Originally published in The Washington Times]

There are few countries in the world in which policemen ensure that women dress appropriately. Saudi Arabia is one example. Its notorious "religion police," called mutawwa, force women to cover their heads and bodies. In Turkey, the story is reversed: The Turkish police require the removal of headdresses.

To be fair, Turkey's dress code is much less severe than Saudi Arabia's. In Turkey, the ban is enforced only in defined parts of the public square: government buildings, courtrooms, university campuses and all schools.


This ban has been a hot issue in Turkey for many years. While no civil servant or high school student has ever been allowed to wear a headscarf, university students once were accorded this privilege — until the 1990s, when the secularist establishment was alarmed at the growing number of such "religionists" in colleges, and strict rules were applied to ensure the "tightheads" wouldn't be taken in.

Some students agreed to uncover their heads and continued with their education, but thousands lost their chance to graduate — simply for choosing to wear a cloth over their heads, which they believe to be God's will.

A few months ago, a new episode was added to the longstanding drama. In the Ataturk University of Erzurum, a very conservative town in the East, all students, of course without any headscarves, came to receive their diplomas at graduation. With them came many mothers and grandmothers. Alas, some wore headscarves. Following a order from the university rector, police denied them entry.

The women cried and swore that they, too, believed in the principles of Ataturk, Turkey's founding father; but the orders were strict. In secular Turkey, no religious garment must ever appear on the "public square" — the liberated zone of Turkey's self-styled secularism.

* * *

The bone of contention here is the rigid ideology of Turkey's secularist establishment. Theirs is an intolerant version of secularism imported from France in the early 20th century, a time when the anticlerical zealotry of French revolutionism was at its zenith, and the Nietzschean claim "God is dead" was the intellectual norm. An all-powerful state and a uniform society were seen as the key to "progress."

The young Turkish Republic, founded in 1923, formulated an authoritarian mode of secular nationalism, not neutral to but dominant over and sometimes outright hostile to religion. In two decades of single-party rule, most Islamic traditions were replaced with European ones. Speaking against these "reforms" was punished severely.

That's why Turkey was never a really convincing example of the compatibility of Islam with modernity for Muslims in other nations. At the problem's heart is the lack of real democracy. While Turkey evolved into a much more democratic country in recent decades, it still retained some vestiges of the authoritarian secular nationalism.

Turkey's current conservative government, run by the AKP (Party for Justice and Progress) is very much willing to lift the headscarf ban. Yet whenever AKP leaders speak about changing the ban, they are reminded by the secularist establishment such a move would create a "regime crisis," a euphemism for pressure from the military. Consequently, Turkey remains the only country in the world in which a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf has simply no chance for any kind of education. Turkey's secularist establishment claims this is necessary, because otherwise Islamists will turn Turkey into another Iran.

That's an unsubstantiated fear. Turkey's current government led by AKP leader Tayyip Erdogan is not Islamist — let alone "Islamofascist" as a commentator recently argued — but a conservative political force that has brought more freedom to the whole Turkish society in recent years. Polls show more than 90 percent of Turks wish to live under a secular regime, but more than 70 percent oppose restrictions on the headscarf and such personal Islamic practices.

What the people actually want is a government that makes no laws — and employs no police — "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus, while the United States promotes liberty and democracy in the broader Middle East, it should remember even Turkey needs more of both. Apart from secularist and Islamist authoritarianisms, there is a third way called liberal democracy. That is exactly what the Turkish society needs — and deserves.

Did they catch the killer, who was he?

That is all I can say on this topic. Like the author of the 2 articles that I posted, I do not believe in authoritarian secularism because I was raised in a culture where differences are seen richness. But in Turkey as far as I know differences are seen very very dangerous. That is why Kurds, religious people, Armenians, missionaries, etc are seen dangerous.I think you should relax.

Get onto a new topic, please, after a while it gets boring....

Cacik, First of all, I have no idea of what country you are from, consequently, it's hard to know what your frame of reference is.

If you are in the USA, I suggest you yourself put a hijab on and keep it on for a month. Go about your life and report back. Tell us all how much love and compassion you have received. Tell us about the great career opportunities you have received.

I agree, incidents such as the one I posted are not at all common. However there are many much more subtle incidents of verbal insults, shouting from passing cars, throwing debris that I know of and have witnessed personally in the flesh with my own eyes, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I do know, and very well.

Let's see you try to get a good job with a hijab. Too bad you don't have a twin so you could do a with hijab and without a hijab experiment.

Although events this extreme are a minority, they are a very loud and very dangerous minority.

Islamophobia

I don't think that there is any islamophobia, in the sense like there is homophobia or antisemitism (especially antisemitism in the past in europe) for example. I would agree that there is some sort of antipathy and some misunderstanding about muslims, but it isn't anything large scale, but rather isolated examples. At the same time, it's hard to misspel any misunderstandings and antipathy towards muslims if there are no muslims who protest against the cruelties that seem to be sanctioned by their religion and especially if you look what is going on in muslim countries.
If there was islamophobia, you would see muslims who move from the west to muslim countries. I have never heard of anybody doing that, in fact, they still move to the west as much as they can.

The real problem - one that can never be reconciled - is between Jewish and Christian faiths...I think Jews are winning.

Moslems are only innocent and unaware bystanders.. They only get killed as the fight moves on...

Believe it or not.

Antisemitism in Europe didn't happen all at once. It started with the demonization of the Jews and built up slowly.

As long as we have people like Daniel Pipes

Ann Coulter

This American Life pull the slider to 7:15 and listen to the problems this 4th grader had in school.

I don't understand how these people can be allowed to continue. There are laws against libel.
Libel

What would you call it when a place like the Khalil Gibran International Academy faces such objections to the school.

I think if anything we need more places like the Khalil Gibran International Academy.

When the Ottoman Empire began, Edward Longshanks, King of England, was fighting in the Ninth Crusade with his Mongol allies, who massacred their way through Anatolia to Aleppo, driving tens of thousands of terrified Seljuk Turks before him. Edward would return to England, still in contact with his Mongol buddies, and proceed in time to murder the Jews of England. Longshanks and his ally, the Mongol Abagha are as much the fathers of the Ottoman Empire as Othman the First.

We could spend years throwing weblinks back at each other showing how the other side suffers.

You obviously cannot accept - you can't even write it - that phobia exists in the islam world towards anything non-islamic. For every post you retaliate with weblinks..... so I would prefer not to continue this debate.

You want to know why islamophobia exists, for precisely the reason you have shown, a refusal to see the other side, a refusal to see that you are not the only victims of persecution. You continue to shower us with statistics and websites without acknowledging that there is far more to it that your superficial view.

So as long as you are unable to enter equally into debate an accept that there is fault on all sides, you will always have islamophobia.

My last words because it is such a waste of my time !

Maybe it's just me, but I believe that too much has been made of this issue. I don't think average people care whether or not a woman wears a headscarf. I think it is a political tool used to cause hate and discontent between people and to even discuss it in a political arena only makes insignificant differences between people seem HUGE.

Personally, I would never wear one but I don't care if someone else does. It means something different to me than to them..I am sure. But the point is, this issue is used to polarize people, not because politicians really care.

The issue has very little to do with average people or with the average politician: They are mere tools...

A great deal more is at stake....

pls rephrase you query...

Tell me...which group on the world is in minority, yet are alleged to have great manipulating powers (some open/some veiled/some secret - some religious/some political/some economical) to reach their goals?

- Where does this Turban come from (historically), anyway?
- Which newspaper in Turkia is pushing for headscarfs?
- Who is the man behind that paper?
- Where is that man sheltered? Which country does he live and operate from?
- Which group in that country is alleged to be very powerful, in control of finance and politics?
- What exactly is the ultimate goal of this powerful group that seem to run that country.
- What kind of a new world order this group has in mind?
- What kind of a new common (unified) religion is under design, for this new world order?
- What role this powerful group has in mind for Turkia, to achieve their own goals?

OBAMA started reminding me more and more of Martin Luther King. I hope he does not meet the same fate....

Barack Obama should not risk his life by running for the US Presidency. Enemies will be tempted to assassinate him!
Posted by africanpress on January 18, 2007

For one, as African Press, we would love to see him run for the presidency. We would like to see him nominated by the democrats to be their flag bearer. We would love to see him win, and move to the white house. But yet again, we know that it is 95% to 5% chance for him loosing his life to the killers the moment he takes the challenge for the White House seriously. Then we think later, oh what a waste! Is it not better then that a warning of love is sounded now, before Obama hits the campaign road?

Anybody who understands the US politics and history will keep their fingers crossed, when they hear that someone wants to become the first black US President this century.

Dr Martin Luther King was seen as a threat, and a rising star, when he got popular fighting for the rights of a black man and woman. And he was seen by others as a man who wanted to force legislation in congress that would give rights to the blacks for equal participation in politics, employment and education. As a result he was considered a headache and put to rest forever.

When everyone saw General Colin Powell, the former US military chief, become the first US Secretary of State, many people started thinking he may be tempted to run for the presidency. They were right. Yes, he contemplated to do so, but wisely listened to advice from his loved ones who did not want to loose him to the gun.

Senator Obama, becoming the first black US president would be great for Africa. He might do good things for the continent, but will his advisers guide him to choose life, and do more for Africa as a senator, or they will let him face the enemies, - those who will do everything on this planet, to ensure no black man becomes the US President and Commander in Chief? These are serious things we are talking about, and must be addressed before it is too late.

When John F. Kennedy stood for President, many Americans questioned themselves, complaining that the US was not ready for a Catholic president. John F. Kennedy won, and became the first Catholic president. That gave a breed to his enemies, and elimination plans were activated that resulted in the assassination of John F.

His brother, Robert Kennedy decided to step in his shoes, and was nominated as the Democratic flag bearer. He was surely going to win the presidency, because there were many sympathy votes due to the lose of his brother after he was assassinated.

But history confirms. He too lost the race to the gun when he was assasinated!

Now the real question we have to deal with here and now, is the reality that Obama will not have an easy ride, if he seriously chooses to target the White House after George Bush. We are afraid he will loose his life to the gun just like Luther, Kennedy and Kennedy!

It is not APN’s wish that he should not run for presidency, but we are also dealing with a real threat! Those who love Obama should advice him against running for presidency, and make him understand that it is for his own benefit and family.

So will Obama be wearing a headscarf or not?

Life threats:

The prospect, even the likelihood, of assassination played a significant role in Colin Powell's decision - and that of his wife - to abandon any thought of a presidential run.

Alpha...I don't know the answers to all your questions but I do feel like politicians use our fear and misunderstanding of eachother to justify their wars and conflict and inept abilities in diplomacy.

You are an optimist..They are not as dumb as you think...

Why do they do it Lisa, for fun - or for something else?

The replies to some of my queries are hinted in my previous posts. Detailed discussions are available from many sources on the internet.