Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Separation of Mosque and State
Turkey's Constitutional Court has decided against disbanding the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and ruled instead to cut the party's public funding. This sent a clear signal that the AKP is now on probation, and may yet be shut down if it pursues what ardent secularists view as a policy of creeping Islamization.
These decisions echo beyond the Middle East. From Istanbul to Paris, and from Cairo to Jakarta, the conflict between Muslims who want to tighten versus loosen the mosque-state link is escalating. In Middle East countries that have pursued modest political reform, this elemental dispute is undercutting democratization. But even where democracy is on firmer ground, the battle between Islamists and secularists is eroding the quality of democratic governance. The stakes are enormous.
Consider Turkey and France. While it may seem odd to put them in the same basket, the political systems of both countries have long been guided by elites who champion an ideology of state-enforced secularism. Although upheld as a key ingredient of democratic life, this ideology was animated by a profoundly illiberal impulse: to keep any display of faith out of the public sphere. This arrangement worked so long as the vast majority of French and Turks favored or acquiesced to it. But in recent years, social, demographic and economic changes have enhanced the clout of a new generation of Muslims--many of whom are not ready to fold up their headscarves when they walk into a public university or government office. Alarmed, the defenders of "laïcite" and Ataturk-style secularism are striking back.
Thus in France, political leaders left and right have applauded the recent decision by that country's highest court to deny citizenship to a Moroccan woman because, among other reasons, she wears a burka (a full body cover traditionally worn in Afghanistan). This clothing, the Court stated, is "incompatible with values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes." Echoing a similar logic, Turkey's Constitutional Court cancelled an amendment proposed by the AKP that would have allowed for the wearing of headscarves in public universities. The Court went a step further when it considered a proposal to disband the AKP itself. But while the Court has stepped back from the brink, a hobbled AKP must now tread carefully between its desire to promote "religious freedom" and the ardent determination of secularists to confine that freedom to family or the mosque.
In France and Turkey, unelected courts have intervened in ways that ignore or defy the voice of elected parliaments. But at what cost? France's democracy will certainly survive. But it is a huge leap of state authority for France's highest court to deny citizenship on the grounds that someone's religious values clash with prevailing notions of gender equality. While French intellectuals are busy debating whether the burka-clad woman in question suffers from false consciousness, they should ponder the broader implications of the Court's actions (particularly in a country that practically invented the term liberté).
By contrast, the decisions taken by Turkey's Constitutional Court may --or may not-- create a space for the deepening of democracy. Much will depend on whether moderate political leaders on both sides of the Islamist-secularist divide can use this fragile moment to craft a mutually acceptable vision of secularism.
It won't be easy. It may be that AKP leaders genuinely believe that allowing headscarves is not part of some grand conspiracy to Islamicize society. But many secular Turks think otherwise. After all, they argue, the issue is not merely freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Open up the universities to headscarves and many secular women may feel growing social pressures to wear religious garb. Islamicization will come, not out of choice, but out of a fear.
While such concerns may be exaggerated, they should not be dismissed. True, the banning of the AKP would have been a disaster not merely for Turkey, but for the wider Middle East, where a new generation of Arab Islamists has been inspired by the AKP's quest to forge a pluralistic vision that is also attentive to conservative religious values. Yet Washington should not romanticize the AKP by ignoring or downplaying the tensions and fears provoked by its efforts to advance a post-Islamist secularism. Instead, the U.S. should take a cue from European leaders, who are now encouraging the AKP to address the concerns of secular Turks, many of whom voted for the party only to wonder about its ultimate intensions.
By Daniel Brumberg |
August 7, 2008; 10:09 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: McCain: Secular Messiah? |
Next: Temple of Conflict
Posted by: VICTORIA | August 21, 2008 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Halozcel said
“Woman in islam has no right of choice.
Woman in islam has no right to divorce her husband/master”
In a Syrian soap opera I was watching this morning (on MBC) a young woman had just discovered that her husband is planning to get her a co wife. The prospective bride is the husband’s secretary who is also the wife’s friend. The wife gave her husband an ultimatum.
She: “You either forget about marrying this other woman or you divorce me”
He : “ The Sharia gives me the right to marry up to four women, and so I am not doing anything wrong, and I love you and therefore do not wish to divorce you”.
Does this not encapsulate what Halozel asserted above?
Posted by: Ibrahim Mahfouz | August 21, 2008 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HAlozcal-
glad you showed up-
First- I said this-
"Turkey has been a muslim country for a almost a thousand years!"
"*Turkey has been a muslim country for a almost a thousand years* Wrong.Terrible wrong...it was Ottoman Empire that founded in 1300 AD."
Wrong Halozcel- Terrible worng-
I said Mulsim- NOT Ottoman-
Or have you forgotten the Seljuks?
http://www.turkeyforyou.com/travel_turkey_seljuks
A thousand years Halozcel- surely you learned that as a little Turk in school!
"Very simple.Woman,herself...
Woman ought to decide,not her dad,not her brother,not her husband/master,even not her own son."
EXACTLY! Why should women be excluded from the political process because they CHOOSE to wear hijab?
And you know well,I'm sure, the story of Merve Kavaci- a woman who was denied her won seat in the parliament because she wore hijab to her own confirmation! And THEN her Turksih citizenship was revoked!!
"If a girl of six or seven years old wears Burqa,can you believe *it is her choice* ?
Shall not State(if state is state) protect that little girl ?"
NO- it is her PARENTS choice to dress her as they wish-
but I notice you STILL are remarkably silent about your constant contention that women in TURKEY are wearing "burkas".
Because you know you have to go deep down in the villages to find even one!
And where do you find little girls in burka?
NOWHERE!
When is the last time you were home Halozcewl, to make such assertions?
Observer-
"Victoria threatens on behalf of the Turks:
“And let us not forget the oil pipelines that one has to access from Turkey too- o yes- if I recall- isn't that a stones throw from and connected to georgia?”
This is a clear threat!"
That is a statement that alludes to the underlying interest in that area of the globe-
RTurkey has been petitioning for admission to the EU for over 40 years- the longest standing and rejected petition ever.
It is actually the new democratic government - the AKP- (the one you are alleging is turning Turkey into an islamic state which only those with the most peripheral knowledge of it's history do so)
that is coming into compliance with the many many roadblocks thrown up by the EU for admission-
Yes, anon is entirely right- the EU is basing their rejection entirely on the religion of the country- even though the EU itself strenuously denies that fact.
Because that would be a senophobic position, a biased prejudiced one- and the EU isn't biased- but modern and reasonalbe! Right?
But it is apparent to all, isn't it?
As for the Kurds- even the USA has called the PKK (Kurshish separatists) a terrorist group-
If we had a separatist communist group that killed 10,000 civilians in the US- no, make that 40,000- because Turkey has 1/4 the population of the USA- do ya really think we would sit on our hands?
The Turks grew weary of the coercion tactics of the ossified nationalists- who went to an extraordinary extreme to wipe religion out of the ladnscape- even changingthe alphabet so that new generations cannot even read their own history past Ataturk in 1924!
How is THAT for doublespeak?
The Turkish people have spoken in a democratically elected leadership, and continue to speak.
Voting out the old guard (who just this year tried to make another military coup and force their way back into office- not by democratic process- but by totalitarian FORCE!
which is why this statement by the author is so disingenuous-
"The conflict between Muslims who want to tighten versus loosen the mosque-state link is escalating and undercutting democratization."
Undercutting democratization HOW?
By participating in a democratically elected government?
It's not a tightening of the "mosque-state" linj that is in question-
but an issue we resolved in America 230 years ago-
Freedom of religious expression-
Why does the nationalist CHP oppress their own women by excluding them from the ability to attain an education- or participate in government offices ?
The women have shown what they want! They are in the streets- protesting and proclaiming their right to wear their headscarf and declare their religious freedoms just like we do in America.
NOT the men- the WOMEN-
If masses of women protesting in the streets is not an expression of their own will- what is?
Who exactly is the oppressor here?
In Turkey's case- it is the minority and disgruntled rejcted by the people CHP who are STILL living in the past glories of Ataturk's nationalism.
The rest of Turkey wants to move on.
And for Turks (as well as Americans, French,Israelis) that means the freedom to practice their own religion.
Do you think Mr. Brumberg would ever advocate taking the scarves off the heads of Orhtodox Jewish women in Israel, and threatening their right to attend a university and better themselves by their education?
The outcry would shake the entire planet if he did.
So why is it ok for him to propose doing it to Turkish self-identified mulsim women?
Are they worth less?
I'm sorry I have to speak so simply- as if to a child- but it is clear that people haven't bothered to learn the first thing about the history- or current political climate of this country.
Posted by: VICTORIA | August 21, 2008 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ansari said;
“Islam is the only danger for Capitalism.”
Islam is a primitive ideology that could not compete with any present day ideology. It poses the most danger to the Muslims themselves. Look around you and see what had it done to its followers. Theirs are all failed societies and the extent they lag behind seems to be directly proportional to the degree they apply their religion's teachings in their Sharia laws. Two examples that come quickly to mind is Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Turkey separated mosque and state while in Saudia the mosque is the state.
Posted by: AMH | August 21, 2008 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria threatens on behalf of the Turks:
“And let us not forget the oil pipelines that one has to access from Turkey too- o yes- if I recall- isn't that a stones throw from and connected to georgia?”
This is a clear threat! Either we do the bidding of the Islamists by siding with them in that Hijab debate and at the same time allow them into the European Union or they will blow up the pipelines through Georgia. We cannot be threatened. Ask Saddam and the Turkish caliph before him. Turkey is a Middle Eastern country and should stay in the Middle East, especially now that a growing numbers from them seem to be yearning to the caliphate times and its symbolisms.
Posted by: Observer | August 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
*Who are any of us to decide what a woman wants or doesnt want for herself*
Very simple.Woman,herself.But,but,but one thousand times but,woman(man's tilth as written) must be FREE.First of all,woman has to be Human,not tilt,not half creature.
Woman ought to decide,not her dad,not her brother,not her husband/master,even not her own son.
If a girl of six or seven years old wears Burqa,can you believe *it is her choice* ?
Shall not State(if state is state) protect that little girl ?
If she *prefers* to be one of four women,shall not State protect that little girl ?
Woman has right to choose.If you wash brain from childhood as saying *it is divine obligation* such as Poster Ansari writes,who believes *it is my choice* palaver ?
Woman in islam has no right of choice.
Woman in islam has no right to divorce her husband/master.This is Enslavement.
Woman in islam is man's tilth(such as written) and has no right to be witness alone.
Islam/Submission rejects Human Rights and Women Rights.
*Turkey has been a muslim country for a almost a thousand years* Wrong.Terrible wrong.Turkey has been founded as secular and Republic State in 1923.Before then,it was Ottoman Empire that founded in 1300 AD.Secular Republic of Turkey is completely different from islamic Ottoman.
Look,I am asking to all *islamic cotton princess* tale writers some questions;
-How many muslim woman professors were there in islamic Ottoman Empire ? Let me tell.Zero.Null.
-How many muslim woman Doctors were there in islamic Ottoman Empire ? Zero.Null.
How many muslim women Journalists,Lawyers,Bussinesswomen,State Staff were there in islamic Ottoman Empire ? Null.
Yes,where were those *it is my choice* palaver sayers in islamic Ottoman Empire ?
Posted by: halozcel | August 21, 2008 10:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Ansari:
This clearly shows the hatred in the hearts of western puppets for Islam. Wearing a headscarf or burqa is a fundamental right of a Muslim woman, because it is a divine obligation on her. Restricting this means that it is a direct oppression on religion but since Islam is the only danger for Capitalism, the West want destroy each and every mark of Islam from the minds of Muslims.
Indeed, Islam is the only alternative and ultimate solution for the whole mankind. It is a complete code of life that deals every matter of a human being. And the only method to implement Islam is the Caliphate that brought the mankind to its glory that history has ever witnessed!
August 20, 2008 1:42 PM
-------------------------------------------
This is precisely why Western Europe would prefer to keep Turkey, a country with a Muslim majority, which has only one ninth of its landmass in Europe and the rest in the East, out of the EU.
Europeans have not forgotten the Ottoman Empire. The fear of Shariah Law is real for Turkey has a large population compared to most countries in Western Europe. Despite desperate attempts to bring the country in line with principles of democracy shaped by Christianity in Western Europe, Turkey is lagging behind. The plight of Kurds is a serious issue as far as Europeans are concerned.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"I mean, understand... In France or Turkey, if they *allow* women to wear headscarves on government business, it's five minutes away from becoming *mandatory,* for varying reasons, whether a Muslim woman wants to or not."
That's an extreme position, and could be used in any circumstance.
How would you feel, Paganplace, if you were not allowed to go to college unless you took off your pentagram?
And the issue, although no one seems to actually be aware of it- is girls being forbidden to attend college because they wear a headcarf.
Now, we can make freedom of religion , freedom from religion cut both ways-
But, none of it matters- opinions are moot-
he Turkish people themselves have decided using their voices to vote.
That is the way a democracy works, n'est pas?
I recommend,Paganplace- you go back and actually read the opinions of the head of the party that you are,albeit unconciously- supporting.
One can be an extremist in any ideology-
When the majority of the people want a thing, like the majority of Turks want their girls to be able to access education while still having the freedom to practice their religon as they see fit- harming nor coercing any-
Why should a militant minority, run by generals dictate policy that goes against the desires of a majority?
Even Halozcel- who is an extreme nationalist (like the CHP) does not dare to cross that boundary in his reasonings.
But he is very aware that americans have no knowledge whatsoever of the political machinations at work in Turkey- and are primed to be goaded into fear and alarm.
Mr. Brumberg also seems to have a very limited knowledge of what the public feels in Turkey- but he also knows that his little bit of knowledge is greater than most-
The operative words in your sentence-
"whether a Muslim woman wants to or not."
Please forgive my bluntness here- as it is not personal-
but who are any of us to decide what a woman wants or does not want for herself?
Women are protesting in the streets in Turkey- for the right to wear hijab!
And let us not forget the oil pipelines that one has to access from Turkey too- o yes- if I recall- isn't that a stones throw from and connected to georgia?
take a look at these maps- one look makes it all very very clear- (and strangely- every single page I clicked on couldn't be found by my webserver! fancy that)
Posted by: VICTORIA | August 20, 2008 11:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Which is to say, we might be spoiling for certain fights over *here,* in our arrogant way of thinking certain stuff never came down before.
But memories are longer in Europe, though they might fool you about it.
Posted by: Paganplace | August 20, 2008 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I mean, understand... In France or Turkey, if they *allow* women to wear headscarves on government business, it's five minutes away from becoming *mandatory,* for varying reasons, whether a Muslim woman wants to or not.
I like to think that in America, we can go to bat for that, but for all our faults, we can actually do that.
Posted by: Paganplace | August 20, 2008 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
". Although upheld as a key ingredient of democratic life, this ideology was animated by a profoundly illiberal impulse: to keep any display of faith out of the public sphere."
Actually, (though the term 'illiberal' seems much-misplaced in this case,) such 'displays' are kept out of the public sphere of power precisely because if allowed, they have a way of becoming *obligatory.*
"While French intellectuals are busy debating whether the burka-clad woman in question suffers from false consciousness, they should ponder the broader implications of the Court's actions (particularly in a country that practically invented the term liberté)."
Well, if you discount the Classical Goddess of the same name, they *did* invent the term. And, frankly, that involves making the state a refuge from any obligations imposed by any religious authorities.
Inconvenient as it may be, one cannot simultaneously submit to those outside religious authorities and claim liberte, egalite, fraternite... Because particularly in a certain raw form of liberte, the very notion of trying to at once submit to a religious authority *and* claim for that authority, the right to dominate you as an individual to represent.... submission, well, that's contradictory to that ideal.
It's... Not America in France or Turkey. It's.... Somewhat different. And what we tend to forget about political/religious authority over here, is still fresh blood upon the stones of the cities, over there.
Mind you, I'm all manner of pro-headscarf, here in America. But we're having enough trouble with 'religious tests' as it is, without making people who aren't 'good Catholics' wear black and a little doily on the head just to do business.
That's kind of close to what you could get in Turkey or France, either for speaking to one's government or representing one's community, respectively.
I'm all American about it, really, but there's particular reasons we can absorb a bunch of people playing 'Let's dress like the SS' and marching in Peoria, whereas across the ocean, they really can't. They don't have that luxury.
Posted by: Paganplace | August 20, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ansari lectures:
"It (Sharia or Muslim constitution) is a complete code of life that deals every matter of a human being. And the only method to implement Islam is the Caliphate that brought the mankind to its glory that history has ever witnessed!"
The Turks who are now forbidding women from wearing the Hijab were the ones who wore the mantle of the caliphate for five hundred years ending in 1923. They enslaved, among others, the whole of the Arab people and stunted their growth and made them what they are today; the least developed of all nations. Despite the ample privileges they had as colonists, in the name of Allah off course, the Turks realized that their existential future depended on separating mosque and state. Ironically their former subjects among the Arabs have not learned this simple lesson. The World War I was enough of a lesson for Turkey. The Arabs lost every conflict in the 20th Century and the 21st century so far and they still had not yet learned their lesson. They will tell you it is Allah’s will, and as long they truly believe this , Allah is not going to disappoint them.
Posted by: Ibrahim Mahfouz | August 20, 2008 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ansari,
You say *Islam is the only alternative and ultimate solution for the whole mankind*
What did islam solve since 1400 years ?
Posted by: halozcel | August 20, 2008 2:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This clearly shows the hatred in the hearts of western puppets for Islam. Wearing a headscarf or burqa is a fundamental right of a Muslim woman, because it is a divine obligation on her. Restricting this means that it is a direct oppression on religion but since Islam is the only danger for Capitalism, the West want destroy each and every mark of Islam from the minds of Muslims.
Indeed, Islam is the only alternative and ultimate solution for the whole mankind. It is a complete code of life that deals every matter of a human being. And the only method to implement Islam is the Caliphate that brought the mankind to its glory that history has ever witnessed!
Posted by: Ansari | August 20, 2008 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
James R.Cowles,
*If a Catholic wears a cross or a Jewish man puts on a yarmulka* these are not segregation,discrimination.
Burqa,black wrap,headscarf are discriminative and mark of being second class citizen.
Burqaq is the symbol of *two equals one* and *woman can not divorce her master/husband*
State(is state is state) has to provide man-woman equality and enforce(of course enforce) to teach *two plus two makes four*
Comparison Burqa with Catholic cross is empty polemic.Instead of doing empty polemic,try to come to twentyfirst century.
Watch Olympic Games.Jamaica(island state)/third class country won first,second and third place at women 100m race.Where are the muslim women runners,swimmers ?
I am watching Olympic Games from morning to evening.I am seeking...I am seeking muslim women runners who won any race.
Please,please open your eyes,look at the world.
Where is the World and where is the islamic World.
Posted by: halozcel | August 20, 2008 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Brumberg states-
"Open up the universities to headscarves and many secular women may feel growing social pressures to wear religious garb. Islamicization will come, not out of choice, but out of a fear."
If the people of Turkey wanted radical militant nationalism- they would not have voted the AKP into office.
The head of the CHP (Turkish Nationalist)OYMEN speaks about headscarves-
Question: "Under the American Constitution if the nation or a state were to prevent women from wearing head scarves in universities it would actually be seen as an infringement on their religious freedom."
OYMEN: "Of course, because you don't have the danger of Islamization of American society or Sharia governments in America. You don't have such a threat. If some Indian students put their special traditional clothing in universities we don't mind because we don't see them as a threat to our society. But if in Turkey you use it as a symbol of religious state, then it's different. For instance, why NAZI clothings, uniforms, are prohibited in Germany? Isn't it a democracy, Germany? Why you prohibit such uniforms? Because they feel that there's a threat of a revival of Nazi tradition. You see the difference."
Question: "So you would equate head scarves with Nazi..."
OYMEN: "Of course, yes. Anything, not only head scarf, but anything, any uniform that will be used as a symbol of a political belief or religious belief is a sort of identification of a religious or national symbols to dominate the society. For instance, in the Hitler time, Hitler youth were put in black shirts, so they called themselves Blackshirts. So it was a symbol of Nazi ideology. In Mussolini time, in Italy, they were wearing brown shirts, so those who carry brown shirts are by definition supporters of Mussolini. So only in authoritarian systems you have such things. Not in democracies. In a Western society you cannot identify the political philosophy or belief of persons while looking to their clothing only. It's what they are trying to do in Turkey. Not only putting the head scarf, but they put it in such a special way that only the believers of this party ideology do it. It's not a traditional head cover of Anatolian woman. It has nothing to do, it completely, never seen such a thing until 20-30 years ago in Turkey.
(BECAUSE IT WAS BANNED) insertion mine
There was not one single person covering their head in this format. So it is the symbol of the ruling party or, to say the truth, symbol of a certain political-religious ideology. And it is imported from Lebanon. It was originally used in Lebanon and they imported it to Turkey as a symbol. And the prime minister himself said, if it's a symbol what's wrong with that? So he accepts that it is used as a political symbol."
Question: "But to sort of equate Blackshirts or Brownshirts with a head scarf of billions of people from a religious party seems to be rather..."
OYMEN: "Well you may believe that it's exaggerated. It may. It may be. But in the beginning, Hitler was elected as a political party. He got 44 percent of the vote, he got the support of any number of Germans who are not by definition Nazis. But by time he turned the country into an authoritarian system, totalitarian system and he created a mess who was responsible for, let's say, sufferings of millions of people. I cannot compare today our ruling party with Hitler. Of course not. But the matter, the fact that the party is elected does not mean that they would always observe the rules of democracy. So this is the difference. So Hitler did it for political ideology or nationalist ideology. Now, in our country, they use their political backing in elections for an Islamic society. So, you cannot find one single week, look at the newspapers, you cannot find one single week in the last five years or more where one of the leading members of the government has not raised a religious issue."
This is the LEADER of the opposition party speaking! The one mr. Brumnberg is supporting!
90% of the population of Turkey is Muslim.
The CHP lost in a fair election, because the people of Turkey were tired of military coups and generals running their country into the ground.
And the Turks just voted a year ago for another AKP memeber to be their President. (Gul)
Can you imagine what the uproar in America would be, if, an orthodox jewish woman was prevented from going to a university and getting an education because of her headscarf? Or even a muslim girl?
Creeping Islamization? Turkey has been a muslim country for a almost a thousand years!
The author also fails to mention (or just doesn't know) that the nationalists were just thwarted in yet ANOTHER coup attempt to take over the government by force- yet again.
Enough already!
There are many many muslim secualrists in Turkey- who want their girls to be able to wear the religiously mandated scarf and still get an education.
Burkas in Turkey? Where? There are some nude beaches on the coast- but you will have to go deep into a vilage to find even one burka wearing anatolian woman.
Even that ardent nationalist Halozcel- despite his hysterical alarmist views- will attest to that.
"While such concerns may be exaggerated, they should not be dismissed."
Why not? They are dismissed in the USA, we don't coerce people here in the matters of their religion-
"True, the banning of the AKP would have been a disaster not merely for Turkey, but for the wider Middle East, where a new generation of Arab Islamists..."
ISLAMISTS? You are using a western media contrived word that means extremist to describe Arab muslims who advocate a moderate secualr friendly pluralist view?
"...has been inspired by the AKP's quest to forge a pluralistic vision that is also attentive to conservative religious values."
Not conservative- one isn't conservative because they wear a headscarf-
There are not many on these boards who would accuse me of being anything but very liberal in my views- and I wear one.
Mr. Brumberg- your views are so slanted and alarmist- as well as uninformed on the subject you are writing-
that it is the definition of journalistic irresponsibility.
"While such concerns may be exaggerated..."
Indeed, they truly are. Pandering to the fear factor already propogated by the neocon mentality.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Posted by: VICTORIA | August 20, 2008 12:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
James R. Cowles:
Hmmm ... So a Muslim woman may be denied French citizenship because she wears a burqa. I wonder when a Catholic applying for French citizenship will be rejected because she wears a cross, or a Jewish man because he wears a yarmulka. JIM
-- I hear ya, Jim. I was denied citizenship in Saudi Arabia because I was a Christian. And I've got Jewish friends, and they were shocked SHOCKED! to discover that they couldn't even VISIT Saudi Arabia. Weird world, eh?
Posted by: Fuji | August 20, 2008 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hmmm ... So a Muslim woman may be denied French citizenship because she wears a burqa. I wonder when a Catholic applying for French citizenship will be rejected because she wears a cross, or a Jewish man because he wears a yarmulka. JIM
Posted by: James R. Cowles | August 20, 2008 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
*new generation of Arab Islamists has been inspired by the AKP's quest to forge a pluralistic vision*
Could you please to write those *islamist pluralist* parties in Middle East ?
*Islamist Pluralist*(whatever it means),*islamic democracy*,*Taliban Democracy* etc. are all *Alice in Wonderland* concepts,nothing else.
Why not Democracy AS DEMOCRACY ?
Why do you advice *veiled democracy* and *desert rules* to Turkey ? Why dont you recommend Democracy as Democracy to Turkey ?
JKASSEL,
Oppression/subjugation is Headscarf,not contemporary secular codes.
Oppression is *two equals one*,not man-woman equality.
Posted by: halozcel | August 19, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The situations in Turkey and France are quite different. Turkey is in the unadmirable position of being in fear of becoming a theocratic state, and, as a result has long held its current position on Muslim religious emblems, such as headscarves. It is neither the elite, alone, who support this policiy, not the poor who object to it.
Some secularlists, among them the elite, do object to limitations placed on freedom of religious practice. They know that well-educated Turkish women who wear burkas will be employed, but not in positions befitting their credentials. They have seen well-educated middle-class Turks leave their country in order to practice their religion freely.
On the other hand, many are fearful of Islamism. Turks in the South, who are far more religious than those in the North, are not entirely happy with a secular state, and the Turkish government, needless to say, knows this. As well, there are the Kurds, who occupy territory not only within Turkey, but in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. An independent nation of Kurdistan would not only be just, it would alleviate some of Turkey's tensions and gain support for Turkey's entrance into the EU, the delay of which in no way encourages Turkey to liberalize. (Turks know bigots when they see them.)
Ever nativistic France and Austria are the staunchest opponents of Turkey's acceptance. Among their chiefest fears are more Muslim immigrants. In France's case, there is also the despicable need to preserve "Europeaness" (read Frenchness).
France's position is very different.
Posted by: Farnaz | August 16, 2008 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I tend to agree that codes which prohibit headscarves in a public building is oppressive. Yet I must confess concern over a religious edict requiring female believers to completely cover themselves in a burka. There must be room for moderate voices to reasonate in islamic political discourse. Perhaps the AKP is one such voice.
Posted by: jkassel | August 12, 2008 8:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Put it in any politically correct way as one will, Islam was founded as a political religion. For anyone who has overlooked the details, the Islamic era started in 622 AD, the year Mohammad fled to Medina and established political rule, NOT 610 AD when he got his first religious revelation.
Political Islam needs reform. Turkey and Europe are right to be vary of Sharia Law creeping its way back into mainstream politics whenever it gets a chance.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 2:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Islam puts the religious and social blame on women for not respecting men and for provoking men's sexual desires by not covering themselves. Islamic women are expected to voluntarily take a subservient role. This has led to honour beatings, maiming and killings when women have dared to be "westernized":
Secular Turks attack religious council's code for women:
A powerful state body regulating the role of Islam in Turkey has come under fire over an article on sexual behaviour that equated flirting with adultery and condemned women for wearing perfume.
Secularists and women's groups hit out after the directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) published the article on its website setting out recommendations for proper sexual conduct.
Invoking the prophet Muhammad, it put the onus squarely on women by urging them to cover up and behave modestly to avoid provoking male sexual desires.
"Women have to be more careful, since they have stimulants," the article stated. "The women communicating with strange men should speak in a manner that will not arouse suspicion in one's heart and in such seriousness and dignity that they will not let the opposite party misunderstand them, that they should not show their ornaments and figure and that they should cover in a fine manner."
On the use of perfume, it continued: "His highness the prophet Muhammad did not think kindly of women who put on perfumes outside their homes and go strolling and saw this as immoral behaviour."
The article said women and men should not be alone together unless married and questioned the role of females in mixed-gender workplaces. It blamed "social and moral" decline in the west for the legalisation of abortion.
The article was widely condemned in the pro-secular media. Yusuf Kanli, a columnist in the English-language Turkish Daily News, said it reflected a "very primitive mindset", adding: "Is this mentality at all different with that of the Taliban that placed Afghan women behind chadors?"
Kizbes Aydin, the head of a female cultural group, said that the recommendations incited violence against women. "They justify the implementation of violence with excuses such as 'she has perfume', or 'she dressed up provocatively'."
The article is especially striking since Diyanet has a reputation for promoting a moderate interpretation of Islam. It is sponsoring a study of the hadiths, the sayings ascribed to Muhammad, with a view to striking out those judged inauthentic or misogynistic."
Posted by: pentimento | August 8, 2008 2:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Even a cursory survey of the negative impact of religion on humam rights in today's world reveals that the secular Turks got it right in framing the issue as "not merely freedom of religion but freedom from religion" as Professor Brumberg phrased it in his excellent article. Unfortunately, this point gets lost more often than not in discussions about "freedom of religion" in the United States as a function of the strong religiousity in American society and the extent to which the Republican Party and the Bush Administration has played to it over the past seven years. Even preceding the Bush Administration, a declared athesist could not be nominated for president, the senate or perhaps even the House, by either political party. This is not a legal restriction, but simply political pragmatism given the grip that religion holds over Americans. Much of the religious propaganda in America, e.g., against gay rights, reveals that their concept of "religious freedom" includes the right to restrict the civil rights, even of people who do not share their religion or do not interpret even the same religion in the same way. And if certain Christian elements in America exert such an oppressive influence, as they do, it pales beside the much more oppressive proclivities and even practices of certain Islamic groups or even governments. So the most humane, sustainable formula for all concerned is to maintain strict separation of religion and state power. Perhaps counterintuatively for many Americans, a country that has achieved this to a remarkable degree is the "Socialist Republic of Vietnam." The governing Communist Party of Vietnam guarantees both freedom of and freedom from religion in its constitution of 1992 and amended in 2001. The Party itself is atheist but respects all religions and allows all religious Vietnam citizens to worship as they please in a church of his/her choosing, provided they operate within the framework of law and the constitution. Thus, a Vietnamese athesist could run for the National Assembly (parliament)while an American atheist could not get nominated by either major party to run for Congress or the Presidency. This is not to say that Vietnam does not have political restrictions that the U.S. does not--but the topic of Brumberg's article is religion qua religion and thus the subject of my comment not only as it applies to Islam, Turkey and France, but to the larger world beyond both.
Posted by: Andre Sauvageot | August 8, 2008 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, I will have to politely disagree with my reader. When the state effectively makes it a crime of wear a headscarf in a government office or at a pubilc university, it is enforcing a certain kind of code. Turkey, in particular, has very illiberal laws on the expression of identity. Islamists and especially Kurds must tread carefully. The AKP has proposed a modified version of the law on "Turkishness," but it will not go further than this lest it offend the military or the nationalist parties. Turkey's identity laws are in some ways more draconian than those of the former Soviet Republic.
Posted by: Author (Dan B) | August 8, 2008 7:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"While it may seem odd to put them in the same basket, the political systems of both countries have long been guided by elites who champion an ideology of state-enforced secularism."
It may be semantics, but 'state enforced secularism' is normally used to describe the regime type exemplified by many (former) communist countries who banned religious expression outright. France and Turkey do not do this. They ban religious symbolism within the political sphere and in public institutions. Both countries actually support religious civil society bodies. Therefore, secularism is not 'enforced'.
Posted by: Ken Houston | August 8, 2008 5:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
If we lived in soap operas- yes- because they are the most credible source of impartial political analysis and social commentary possible.
What is a grown man doing watching soap operas in the middle of the afternoon?
That is what we have pre-nups for- ever heard of one?
Personally, ,my own contains the terms that if my husband were to consider getting a second wife- he must divorce me honorably and blamelessly- and pay me $100,000.00 dollars.
I think most women, anywhere- who have been in such a situation where there husband leaves them for another woman- would consider such a term reasonable.
And, O yes- before you start babbling that is an anomaly or non-islamic- all the T's were corssed and the I's dotted IN A MOSQUE!!!!! And, witnessed by muslims. A woman and a man- o yes- shoots down halozees continual assertion that women are somehow worht less than men-
But then again, I take my cues from REAL LIFE-
it's a good thing I don't take my reality check from a soap opera.
What village are you all crawling out from anyway? Importing your antiquated social mores and projecting them onto everyone else.
One more thing- soap operas are geared towards WOMEN- not men-
So let me take a wild guess- whose the sympathetic character in your particular soap?
Would it be the MAN- or the WOMAN?
Soap opera actors (not exactly known for their multi-dimensional character range)...
you know what? I can't stop laughing-
why not just post some youtube videos as your next "proof"