Kopi Venezuela...
Dan ini Versi Kopi Celup Indonesia...
Ini Kopi Celup Jepun...
Kopinya enak yaa...
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Jihad and Terrorism - Are Both Synonomous?
With the current brouhaha over JI in Malaysia, Its important to understand the difference between Jihad and Terrorism. Jihad is in separable aspect in Islamic teaching. Whether greater Jihad or minor Jihad, its part of Islamic teaching, something that those who profess to be Muslim have to undertake.
The call to Jihad is a 'natural' call. It is not something that is out of the ordinary. If you see justice has not been serve in what ever way, you are, as a Muslim obliged to make it right in accordance with the teaching, by action if you have the power to do so, by way of words and wisdom if you the the intellectual ability or resist injustice in your heart if you do not possess any of the two ( the weakest form of Jihad).
It is a sin to let your brothers or humanity for that matter suffer in physically or mentally by what ever caused. Be it natural or man made. Those who have the ability to help must not closed their eyes. You are as a Muslim obliged to help them, where ever they are. The help can be in any form. But the crux of the matter is that you must not let suffering continue. That is Jihad for you.
This is where the problem lies. Jihad has been narrowly defined and vilified by those who have ulterior motives. Whether its inside or outside the religion. Its has been used to serve their motive of continuing aggression toward Muslim and the Islamic world. Its a tool used by both leaders of Islamic country to continue their iron clad rule and by imperial power to continue their global domination agenda.
I took the liberty to paste this piece from Yasmeen Ali (Link) as I found her piece on jihad in the current context explain the dilemma. This is jihad with word and wisdom.
Western media is more often than not, awash with the details of “jihadists” who commit atrocious acts in the name of religion. More and more, Islam is projected as a religion of violence, hatred and vengeance. However, Islam comes from the root word Salaam, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah .The word Salaam is also an attribute of God. In this context, it means ‘The Giver of Peace’.
Two terms needs definition here. Jihad and Terrorism. Jihad is the Arabic for what can be variously translated as “struggle” or “to fight,” depending on the context. In the West, the word is generally understood to mean “holy war,” and denotes, inaccurately, to exclusively military connotations. The Quran does call for “jihad” as a military struggle on behalf of Islam. But the Quran also refers to jihad as an internal, individual, spiritual struggle toward self-improvement, moral cleansing and intellectual effort. It is said that Prophet Muhammad considered the armed-struggle version of holy war “the smaller jihad,” but considered the spiritual angle of holy war–the war within oneself–as “the great jihad.”
Terrorism, is a different concept altogether. According to Jason Burke, it may be defined as “the use or threat of serious violence” to advance some kind of “cause”.
But does Islam condone terrorism ? Is Terrorism and Jihad one and the same? Military conflict is to be directed only against fighting troops and not against civilians. As a matter of fact, all religions of “The Book”, promote peace and tolerance, not violence. Attacking innocent civilians, women, children, sick in hospitals, people going about their daily chores who are not at war with you is terrorism. If there is a threat to human life, property and honor, fighting for defending life, property and honor is deemed as Jihad. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which is a part of the United States Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, aimed to protect the right to keep and bear arms and may be deemed a concept on the same lines.
We need to examine if Terrorism is linked ONLY to Islamic militant outfits using gullible minds to serve their vested interests? This question has come more sharply in focus with the case of Faisal Shehzad.
Terrorism has it’s roots in cultures and religion other than Islam. We need t remember, Indra Gandhi was killed by her Sikh body guards, as she had ordered the massacre in the Golden Temple of Sikhs, her son Rajiv ,was killed by Tamils, the very same who have the honor of inventing the suicide jacket, in the first place, they are Hindu Extremists. We also need to remember the Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist group, blew up Air India’s Kanishka aircraft off the Irish coast on June 23, 1985, killing nearly 200 passengers and made an unsuccessful attempt the same day to blow up another Air India plane at Tokyo. In October 1992, suspected Sikh militants gunned down five civilians and a law enforcement officer in a heavily wooded area in Uttar Pradesh that had become a refuge for Sikh separatists fleeing a crackdown by Indian authorities in Punjab. The attack followed a massacre two months earlier of twenty-nine villagers in the same area. In that incident, villagers collecting wood in the forest were captured by suspected militants, bound, and killed by automatic gunfire .Then there are the “Christian Terrorists”, of all the religious wars in human history waged by any religion, at any place, and at any time, none have been bloodier, more genocidal, more barbaric, and more protracted than the 200-year “holy wars” by the Western Crusades against the Arabs and Islam.
“Islamic terrorism”, a term coined by the West, is itself a controversial phrase, although its usage is widespread throughout the English-speaking world. Muslims object to the term as it contradicts the spirit of Islam, which is a peaceful religion. What then, allows people from different religion, more especially Islam, to terrorism in the name of Jihad? The reasons are varied ranging from injustices suffered in the hands of a system that offers no relief, to lack of avenue to improve one’s lot, lack of education, lack of an understanding of the religion that is exploited by vested interests, and, a genuine thinking, that they are answering to a higher call. Terrorism is often conducted in the name of religion. More often than not, it evolves from the misuse of the term “jihad” by vested interests thus exploiting impressionable minds. We must also face the failure of our leadership of all shades and hues, of too many vested interests and agendas.
Besides the obvious need to evolve long term and short term strategy to address the lot of the common man who fights a war of survival, it is extremely important, that we address the question if Quran be taught as a mandatory part of our curriculum in both government and private educational institutions? Will self understanding of The Book disallow others from planting twisted ideas in minds? Can we overlook the role of a strong leadership in addressing peoples grievances?
Jacques Chirac, in his speech on September 24th, 1986 correctly said,” A “war against terrorism” is an impracticable conception if it means fighting terrorism with terrorism.”. Regrettably, the West is yet to pay heed to that sane advice.
The writer is a lawyer currently teaching in the Beacon House National University. She owns and operates her own blog. Yasmeen is a regular writer for Opinion Maker.
The call to Jihad is a 'natural' call. It is not something that is out of the ordinary. If you see justice has not been serve in what ever way, you are, as a Muslim obliged to make it right in accordance with the teaching, by action if you have the power to do so, by way of words and wisdom if you the the intellectual ability or resist injustice in your heart if you do not possess any of the two ( the weakest form of Jihad).
It is a sin to let your brothers or humanity for that matter suffer in physically or mentally by what ever caused. Be it natural or man made. Those who have the ability to help must not closed their eyes. You are as a Muslim obliged to help them, where ever they are. The help can be in any form. But the crux of the matter is that you must not let suffering continue. That is Jihad for you.
This is where the problem lies. Jihad has been narrowly defined and vilified by those who have ulterior motives. Whether its inside or outside the religion. Its has been used to serve their motive of continuing aggression toward Muslim and the Islamic world. Its a tool used by both leaders of Islamic country to continue their iron clad rule and by imperial power to continue their global domination agenda.
I took the liberty to paste this piece from Yasmeen Ali (Link) as I found her piece on jihad in the current context explain the dilemma. This is jihad with word and wisdom.
Western media is more often than not, awash with the details of “jihadists” who commit atrocious acts in the name of religion. More and more, Islam is projected as a religion of violence, hatred and vengeance. However, Islam comes from the root word Salaam, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah .The word Salaam is also an attribute of God. In this context, it means ‘The Giver of Peace’.
Two terms needs definition here. Jihad and Terrorism. Jihad is the Arabic for what can be variously translated as “struggle” or “to fight,” depending on the context. In the West, the word is generally understood to mean “holy war,” and denotes, inaccurately, to exclusively military connotations. The Quran does call for “jihad” as a military struggle on behalf of Islam. But the Quran also refers to jihad as an internal, individual, spiritual struggle toward self-improvement, moral cleansing and intellectual effort. It is said that Prophet Muhammad considered the armed-struggle version of holy war “the smaller jihad,” but considered the spiritual angle of holy war–the war within oneself–as “the great jihad.”
Terrorism, is a different concept altogether. According to Jason Burke, it may be defined as “the use or threat of serious violence” to advance some kind of “cause”.
But does Islam condone terrorism ? Is Terrorism and Jihad one and the same? Military conflict is to be directed only against fighting troops and not against civilians. As a matter of fact, all religions of “The Book”, promote peace and tolerance, not violence. Attacking innocent civilians, women, children, sick in hospitals, people going about their daily chores who are not at war with you is terrorism. If there is a threat to human life, property and honor, fighting for defending life, property and honor is deemed as Jihad. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which is a part of the United States Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, aimed to protect the right to keep and bear arms and may be deemed a concept on the same lines.
We need to examine if Terrorism is linked ONLY to Islamic militant outfits using gullible minds to serve their vested interests? This question has come more sharply in focus with the case of Faisal Shehzad.
Terrorism has it’s roots in cultures and religion other than Islam. We need t remember, Indra Gandhi was killed by her Sikh body guards, as she had ordered the massacre in the Golden Temple of Sikhs, her son Rajiv ,was killed by Tamils, the very same who have the honor of inventing the suicide jacket, in the first place, they are Hindu Extremists. We also need to remember the Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist group, blew up Air India’s Kanishka aircraft off the Irish coast on June 23, 1985, killing nearly 200 passengers and made an unsuccessful attempt the same day to blow up another Air India plane at Tokyo. In October 1992, suspected Sikh militants gunned down five civilians and a law enforcement officer in a heavily wooded area in Uttar Pradesh that had become a refuge for Sikh separatists fleeing a crackdown by Indian authorities in Punjab. The attack followed a massacre two months earlier of twenty-nine villagers in the same area. In that incident, villagers collecting wood in the forest were captured by suspected militants, bound, and killed by automatic gunfire .Then there are the “Christian Terrorists”, of all the religious wars in human history waged by any religion, at any place, and at any time, none have been bloodier, more genocidal, more barbaric, and more protracted than the 200-year “holy wars” by the Western Crusades against the Arabs and Islam.
“Islamic terrorism”, a term coined by the West, is itself a controversial phrase, although its usage is widespread throughout the English-speaking world. Muslims object to the term as it contradicts the spirit of Islam, which is a peaceful religion. What then, allows people from different religion, more especially Islam, to terrorism in the name of Jihad? The reasons are varied ranging from injustices suffered in the hands of a system that offers no relief, to lack of avenue to improve one’s lot, lack of education, lack of an understanding of the religion that is exploited by vested interests, and, a genuine thinking, that they are answering to a higher call. Terrorism is often conducted in the name of religion. More often than not, it evolves from the misuse of the term “jihad” by vested interests thus exploiting impressionable minds. We must also face the failure of our leadership of all shades and hues, of too many vested interests and agendas.
Besides the obvious need to evolve long term and short term strategy to address the lot of the common man who fights a war of survival, it is extremely important, that we address the question if Quran be taught as a mandatory part of our curriculum in both government and private educational institutions? Will self understanding of The Book disallow others from planting twisted ideas in minds? Can we overlook the role of a strong leadership in addressing peoples grievances?
Jacques Chirac, in his speech on September 24th, 1986 correctly said,” A “war against terrorism” is an impracticable conception if it means fighting terrorism with terrorism.”. Regrettably, the West is yet to pay heed to that sane advice.
The writer is a lawyer currently teaching in the Beacon House National University. She owns and operates her own blog. Yasmeen is a regular writer for Opinion Maker.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Buih-Buih di Lautan
Sekali pandang mereka seperti pahlawan hebat lagi perkasa
menepuk-nepuk dada yang tegap dan sasa
mempamer otot berketul-ketul lambang kejantanan
jerit suara nyaring gegar gempita
pencaknya seperti pendekar terbilang yang baru pulang
dari medan perang
melagukan mentera-mentera hikmah dari bibir yang kering
Sekali pandang mereka seperti pejuang yang ampuh
menjeritkan idealisma idealisma keadilan sejagat
berani meranduk duri perjuangan
rela berkorban segala
tiada ketakutan
tiada kegentaran
begitu jantan hulubalang-hulubalang ini
Namun rupa-rupanya
mereka hanya tidak lebih dari buih-buih dilautan
besinar dan berkilau indah bak sinaran mentari
bercahaya pelangi di permukaannya
mempersona mata
itu sahaja yang ada
kerana buih-buih ini hanyalah udara kosong
yang terperangkap dibawah selapisan air
Ia hanya satu penghias yang kebetulan
yang tidak membawa makna signifikan
diatas keujudannya
Begitulah ditakdirkan umat Muhammad diakhir zaman
sekalipun memakai baju Islam ditubuhnya
mereka hanya mampu menjerit dihalaman sendiri
takut untuk melangkah keluar
kerana tidak mahu mengotorkan baju
berpura-pura demi keadilan
menjual ayat-ayat tuhan untuk keuntungan dunia yang sedikit
Hanya berani menyalak sesama sendiri
hanya berani menyalak di halaman sendiri
hanya menjadi binatang suruhan
umpama anjing belaan yang setia
mengikut arahan dengan sedikit upah
Jika begitu keadaanya
Apa yang hendak dihairankan
jika kita dilayan umpama anjing belaan
setia dengan segala arahan
tanpa suara bantahan
Dan aku masih melihat
pahlawan-pahlawan tadi
menjerit-jerit di halaman
rumah sendiri....
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Meltup - coming soon in theatre near you..
Watch this video to understand whats coming in theatre near you. The big war is inevitable.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Parti Politik Baru di Malaysia....DAPAS...
22 tahun dahulu aku tidak menyangka akan terjumpa permandangan seperti ini. Aku tidak membangkang, tidak juga menyokong. Bagi aku ini semua dinamik, kita semua umpama campuran bahan kimia yang bertindakbalas antara satu sama lain, tindak balasnya akan jadi stabil setelah ia bertemu 'equilibrium point'nya. Aku harap semuanya akan berakhir dengan kebaikan.
Sebagai Islam/Melayu yang melihat dari tepi gelangang..aku dah terasa ngilu!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Burqa war
The basic fear of immigrant exist everywhere in the world. The will to preserve the 'culture of the land' exist in every society. But the hypocrisy is nauseating. When the third world made the same move it is labelled as oppressing freedom of expression, when they do it it is labelled to maintain freedom of expression.
FRANCE
The law: In 2004, France instituted a controversial ban on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in schools -- a law that was widely interpreted as targeting Islamic headscarves. More recently President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party has begun a push to also ban the burqa (a garment that covers a woman's entire face and body, leaving only a screen for the eyes) and the niqab (a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes open) in all public spaces in France. The parliament passed a nonbinding resolution on May 11 in support of such a ban.
The debate: France is the European country with the largest Muslim minority population (6 percent, or 4 million citizens). The proposed burqa ban has opened difficult questions about national identity and the place of religion in society. Sarkozy was quoted in June 2009 as saying "the burqa is not welcome in France" and has since argued that it is a tool for the suppression of women.
A parliamentary commission, which concluded earlier this year, recommended a partial ban in spaces like hospitals and on public transportation. In an attempt to minimize the controversy surrounding the legislative effort, Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP party in parliament, argued last week that the ban is based on security concerns ("the visibility of the face in the public sphere ... is essential to our security and is a condition for living together"), not religious discrimination.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Council of State, a body that provides legal advice to the executive branch, to examine whether a full ban would be constitutional. The council found that such a law would most likely violate the French Constitution and could be challenged in court. However, it also found that a partial ban on face-covering garments could stand in certain "high-risk" places for security reasons. (A similar law is already on the books in Italy, where a woman was recently fined 500 euros for wearing a niqab in public.) Nonetheless, Copé says he will continue to pursue a full ban of the burqa in France.
BELGIUM
The law: Belgium has taken great steps toward a ban on face-covering veils. On April 29, the lower house of parliament approved a bill that bans burqas and niqabs; the bill is expected the pass the upper house of parliament later this year. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have forcefully condemned the bill. The new law would impose a fine of 15 to 25 euros, or jail time of one to seven days.
The debate: If the ban is approved, Belgium will become the first country in Europe to completely outlaw face-covering veils. Although Belgium has an estimated Muslim population exceeding 600,000, legislators estimate that only a small percentage, 300 to 400 women, wear the burqa. Opponents of the bill therefore argue that the root issue is Islamophobia in a country with a rapidly growing Muslim population.
Meanwhile, in making the case for the ban, the head of the Liberal Party, Daniel Bacquelaine, told National Public Radio: "To forbid the veil as a covering is to give [Muslim women] more freedom. I'm proud Belgium is the first country to do that."
Amnesty International's John Dalhuisen, an expert on religious discrimination in Europe, counters, "The Belgian move to ban full-face veils, the first in Europe, sets a dangerous precedent. Restrictions on human rights must always be proportionate to a legitimate goal. A total ban on full-face veils would not be."
GERMANY
The law: Half of Germany's 16 states have passed laws restricting the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, including the burqa and hijab (headscarf), in schools. (Meanwhile, five of these states have made exceptions for Christian items.) Throughout Germany, women are not allowed to drive while wearing the burqa, allegedly for safety purposes.
The debate: This month Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a German representative in the European Parliament, called for a Europe-wide ban on face-covering veils, saying "the burqa is a massive attack on the rights of women. It is a mobile prison."
In the wake of moves toward bans in Belgium and France, as well as Koch-Mehrin's statement, German Muslim leaders such as Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, have voiced their disapproval of a similar national ban in Germany, calling it a "a completely senseless debate. It would only further widen the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims." German politicians like Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere agree with Mazyek, calling a ban "inappropriate and therefore unnecessary."
THE NETHERLAND
The law: Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom and well-known anti-immigration politician, has been at the forefront of the international movement to ban burqas and veils. In 2006, he introduced legislation before the Dutch parliament to ban burqas, but worries that a ban would breach religious freedom laws together with personnel changes in the Dutch cabinet stopped it from being voted into law.
The debate: Because of concerns over freedom of religion and offending the country's growing Muslim community, Dutch lawmakers have been especially reticent about a burqa ban in recent years. Yet 66 percent of the population would support it, according to a February 2007 opinion poll. Wilders attempted to once again put forward legislation banning the burqa in public places in 2008, but concerns about religious freedom have elevated the political opposition.
Wilders's party gained in recent local elections, and with general elections scheduled for June, he will probably gain more seats in parliament. Last fall, Wilders suggested a 1,000 euro excise tax on headscarves, which he dubbed a "head-rag tax."
TURKEY
The law: Turkey is officially a secular state; the wearing of veils almost vanished after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk launched his modernization drive in 1923. Headscarves were practically nonexistent in Turkey's big cities by the 1960s, but this trend reversed thanks to a religious revival in the 1970s.
Today, all veils are banned in universities and public buildings. The ban was introduced after Turkey's 1980 military coup; further restrictions were enacted in 1997. In November 2005, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the university headscarf ban against challenges, setting a precedent for current legislative efforts in Europe.
The debate: More recently, the election of Islamic-leaning parties such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) has led to enforcement of the ban being relaxed somewhat. Still, every year thousands of women -- such as Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case -- find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their headscarves.
Lawmakers have made several attempts in the last decade to lift the ban, but all have been unsuccessful. Despite the growing influence of religious parties in government, the headscarf ban is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon; Turkish military leaders see themselves as protectors of Turkey's secular status and remain fierce critics of religion entering the public space.
link click here
FRANCE
The law: In 2004, France instituted a controversial ban on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in schools -- a law that was widely interpreted as targeting Islamic headscarves. More recently President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party has begun a push to also ban the burqa (a garment that covers a woman's entire face and body, leaving only a screen for the eyes) and the niqab (a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes open) in all public spaces in France. The parliament passed a nonbinding resolution on May 11 in support of such a ban.
The debate: France is the European country with the largest Muslim minority population (6 percent, or 4 million citizens). The proposed burqa ban has opened difficult questions about national identity and the place of religion in society. Sarkozy was quoted in June 2009 as saying "the burqa is not welcome in France" and has since argued that it is a tool for the suppression of women.
A parliamentary commission, which concluded earlier this year, recommended a partial ban in spaces like hospitals and on public transportation. In an attempt to minimize the controversy surrounding the legislative effort, Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP party in parliament, argued last week that the ban is based on security concerns ("the visibility of the face in the public sphere ... is essential to our security and is a condition for living together"), not religious discrimination.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Council of State, a body that provides legal advice to the executive branch, to examine whether a full ban would be constitutional. The council found that such a law would most likely violate the French Constitution and could be challenged in court. However, it also found that a partial ban on face-covering garments could stand in certain "high-risk" places for security reasons. (A similar law is already on the books in Italy, where a woman was recently fined 500 euros for wearing a niqab in public.) Nonetheless, Copé says he will continue to pursue a full ban of the burqa in France.
BELGIUM
The law: Belgium has taken great steps toward a ban on face-covering veils. On April 29, the lower house of parliament approved a bill that bans burqas and niqabs; the bill is expected the pass the upper house of parliament later this year. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have forcefully condemned the bill. The new law would impose a fine of 15 to 25 euros, or jail time of one to seven days.
The debate: If the ban is approved, Belgium will become the first country in Europe to completely outlaw face-covering veils. Although Belgium has an estimated Muslim population exceeding 600,000, legislators estimate that only a small percentage, 300 to 400 women, wear the burqa. Opponents of the bill therefore argue that the root issue is Islamophobia in a country with a rapidly growing Muslim population.
Meanwhile, in making the case for the ban, the head of the Liberal Party, Daniel Bacquelaine, told National Public Radio: "To forbid the veil as a covering is to give [Muslim women] more freedom. I'm proud Belgium is the first country to do that."
Amnesty International's John Dalhuisen, an expert on religious discrimination in Europe, counters, "The Belgian move to ban full-face veils, the first in Europe, sets a dangerous precedent. Restrictions on human rights must always be proportionate to a legitimate goal. A total ban on full-face veils would not be."
GERMANY
The law: Half of Germany's 16 states have passed laws restricting the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, including the burqa and hijab (headscarf), in schools. (Meanwhile, five of these states have made exceptions for Christian items.) Throughout Germany, women are not allowed to drive while wearing the burqa, allegedly for safety purposes.
The debate: This month Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a German representative in the European Parliament, called for a Europe-wide ban on face-covering veils, saying "the burqa is a massive attack on the rights of women. It is a mobile prison."
In the wake of moves toward bans in Belgium and France, as well as Koch-Mehrin's statement, German Muslim leaders such as Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, have voiced their disapproval of a similar national ban in Germany, calling it a "a completely senseless debate. It would only further widen the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims." German politicians like Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere agree with Mazyek, calling a ban "inappropriate and therefore unnecessary."
THE NETHERLAND
The law: Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom and well-known anti-immigration politician, has been at the forefront of the international movement to ban burqas and veils. In 2006, he introduced legislation before the Dutch parliament to ban burqas, but worries that a ban would breach religious freedom laws together with personnel changes in the Dutch cabinet stopped it from being voted into law.
The debate: Because of concerns over freedom of religion and offending the country's growing Muslim community, Dutch lawmakers have been especially reticent about a burqa ban in recent years. Yet 66 percent of the population would support it, according to a February 2007 opinion poll. Wilders attempted to once again put forward legislation banning the burqa in public places in 2008, but concerns about religious freedom have elevated the political opposition.
Wilders's party gained in recent local elections, and with general elections scheduled for June, he will probably gain more seats in parliament. Last fall, Wilders suggested a 1,000 euro excise tax on headscarves, which he dubbed a "head-rag tax."
TURKEY
The law: Turkey is officially a secular state; the wearing of veils almost vanished after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk launched his modernization drive in 1923. Headscarves were practically nonexistent in Turkey's big cities by the 1960s, but this trend reversed thanks to a religious revival in the 1970s.
Today, all veils are banned in universities and public buildings. The ban was introduced after Turkey's 1980 military coup; further restrictions were enacted in 1997. In November 2005, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the university headscarf ban against challenges, setting a precedent for current legislative efforts in Europe.
The debate: More recently, the election of Islamic-leaning parties such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) has led to enforcement of the ban being relaxed somewhat. Still, every year thousands of women -- such as Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case -- find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their headscarves.
Lawmakers have made several attempts in the last decade to lift the ban, but all have been unsuccessful. Despite the growing influence of religious parties in government, the headscarf ban is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon; Turkish military leaders see themselves as protectors of Turkey's secular status and remain fierce critics of religion entering the public space.
link click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
