I very much appreciate your ideas and strongly agreeing your analysis on this headscarves issue. The "regime crisis" is the weirdest reasoning for a massive imprisonment of human rights dwelling from Islamophobia.

Drawing anologies between the system in Saudi Arabia and the system in Turkey is completely outrageous. The Turkish police does not require the removal of headscarf at all. Headscarf is not allowed in the offical establishments of the state because it is the neccessity of a secular regime. This becomes even a more important necessity considering the fact that the religion of Turkey is predominantly Islam.

Allowing headscarf on public square in predominantly conservative towns such as Erzurum, would indeed restrict womens' right to not wear headscarves. In Erzurum, the only ticket to modernity is the presence of Ataturk University and Turkish Armed Forces in that town. That is why you see young Turkish girls wandering freely in the streets of Erzurum without wearing headscarves.

Headscarf is a ban, imposed by men, on a woman's freedom to be herself, express herself and explore her choices in life. We all know it, so why not fight it rather than defending it?

"The Turkish police does not require the removal of headscarf at all."

This is true. We are a lot more refined than that... The police is not involved --not directly, anyhow.

The prohibition of headscarf (and that of similar personal choices) is excercised when you're at the point of claiming what's normally your right to do so: Such as enrolling in a university, reciving treatment at a hospital or being present in a funeral ceremony or applying for a passport or being employed by a publicly funded entity (which covers almost everything in Turkey, other than the relevanly small private sector).

What is worse, the definition of public space/domain has been so morphed that it now means anything or any place that has received public funds or is owned by such.

It has reached a point that publicly funded entities segregate against the public that has funded them.

Unless you're within the bounds of your own private home, you're in their defintion of 'public space' and hence liable for prosecution.

This is what is so outrageous obout it all. It's not about the headscarf. If this is not Fascism, I don't know what is.

is the headscarf a representation of a certain ideology, and if it is, is the banishment of the headscarf a certain way of banishing that ideology or is it simply a religious requirement, in which case, is religious intolerance the ideology. i believe that this is the real controversy. it's beyond the headscarf itself.

"it's beyond the headscarf itself."

Precisely.

And the interesting thing is, it is not winning any cookie points to its proponents.

That alone begs the question of 'why are they so staunchly defending their stance?'...

The answer to this question may turn out to be a lot more interesting and immensely valuable than whether the headscarf issue is real or not.

Something subtle happened and their instincts (that is, instincts of the proponents of headscarf prohibition) of flight forward have landed them in the midst of a loosing battle --a battle against their own resources...

Now, a few of them do realize that they have landed themselves between a rock and a hard place --all of a sudden-- and, yet, they are unable to conjure up the will or the momentum to maneuver themselves out of it.

Now, as you may have gathered, I am not asking why the prohibitionists are doing what they are doing; but, can anyone guess who may be playing foul with their instincts, who would want to, and why?

The Turkish Republic was founded on the separation of state and religion - the fact that the current party even has Islamic ROOTS shouldn't be tolerated. Turkey has been criticised for years on its human rights record - but I believe our ban on headscarves has been justified by the presence of fundamentalist Islamic countries as our neighbours. The threat of being overrun by a fundamentalist regime has been all too apparent in recent years with the rise (and fall) of Necmettin Erbakan. However, as soon as the threat of Islam becomes a world affair, countries like France, America and Australia instil laws designed specifically to target Muslims and ostracize their minority populations.

Liberty is not something to be abused - just like the Kuran, it must be used in the context of particular situation. Turkey is not in a geographic or demographic position to allow veils to be worn in public. It was founded on the principles of religion as a PERSONAL rather than SOCIAL entity. As a result, religious symbols such as the veil should be removed when entering government/public buildings, because religion is not any way related to the character of TURKIYE.

Ataturkun yaptiklarini hic bir zaman degistiremezsiniz. You can use the banners 'liberty' and 'freedom', but we all know that in every Islamic-orientated country in the world, none of them are a democracy, none of them adhere to feminine rights, and none of them are socioeconomically viable.

PS.The Kuran states that men should cover themselves just as women do - so how come no man ever wears a veil? It is this sort of paternalistic, sexist interpretation of modern day Islam that justifies the Turkish Republic's secular nature, and the veil as a symbol of oppression, and NOT freedom.

PPS. If you are telling me that the Erdogan government is not religious - then tell me why they are planning to build mosques in Istanbul. The Turkish health and education system needs so much money, how could you explain all those funds being spent on a mosque instead?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
The Turkish Republic was founded on the separation of state and religion
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

This is not a fact but merely a declared policy: The TR has never separated state and religion.

What it has done is to bring religion under state control. Much more so than that in Ottoman times; except this time a little different: The state has *absolute* control over religion.

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
but I believe our ban on headscarves has been justified by the presence of fundamentalist Islamic countries as our neighbours.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

One wonders how that conclusion is drawn...

Have I missed something?

Did the revolution in Iran, or elsewhere, start with people wearing headscarves?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
However, as soon as the threat of Islam becomes a world affair, countries like France, America and Australia instil laws designed specifically to target Muslims and ostracize their minority populations.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

I see... Widespread oppression justifies the even wider use of oppression...

An interesting way to argue against people's personal rights..

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
Liberty is not something to be abused
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

True. But, who is to draw the line?

A handful few that happen to like it that way?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
Turkey is not in a geographic or demographic position to allow veils to be worn in public.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

Why?

Are you referring to personal health issues?

What has changed? The climate?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
It was founded on the principles of religion as a PERSONAL rather than SOCIAL entity.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

So?

Why can't someone excercise her PERSONAL right to wear headscarf?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
As a result, religious symbols such as the veil should be removed when entering government/public buildings, because religion is not any way related to the character of TURKIYE.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

Character of... Is that somesort of gospel?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
Ataturkun yaptiklarini hic bir zaman degistiremezsiniz.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

Tabii ki hayir. Decmis degismez. Bugun ve yarin baska ama.

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
You can use the banners 'liberty' and 'freedom', but we all know that in every Islamic-orientated country in the world, none of them are a democracy, none of them adhere to feminine rights, and none of them are socioeconomically viable.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

So, let us deny their people any and all rights.. Right?

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
PS.The Kuran states that men should cover themselves just as women do - so how come no man ever wears a veil?
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

Bingo! You are about to get it: It is a personal issue.

Men don't feel like doing it. Some women do. Even the educated ones.

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
It is this sort of paternalistic, sexist interpretation of modern day Islam that justifies the Turkish Republic's secular nature, and the veil as a symbol of oppression, and NOT freedom.
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

Well.. please re-read what *you* have written above..

Who do you think comes accross as 'paternalistic' and 'oppressive'...

v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v
PPS. If you are telling me that the Erdogan government is not religious - then tell me why they are planning to build mosques in Istanbul. The Turkish health and education system needs so much money, how could you explain all those funds being spent on a mosque instead?
^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^:^

I am not out to defend municipal policy here. But, just to clarify a point which you seem to be confusing, neither the State nor the Municipality of Istanbul is planning to *build* mosques anywhere.

That side issue which you seem to be fond of pointing out is this: Should the Municipality (of Istanbul) *allow for* a mosque to be built in a particular neighborhood?

Well, if the planning permission is given, the mosque will not be built using taxpayers money.

Please check your facts.

Dear Tolga, Ece and other headscarf opponents,

It is incumbent opon those who render value-judgements on others, to state what values they espouse. For example they should have the intellectuel fortrightness, to declare " Im am an islamophobe and that is my controlling philosophy (!) and it overrides all other values or considerations. So my remarks hould be considered in such light", A sort of disclaimer if you will.

Those of us who oppose such ban are doing that. We do not base our arguments on our faith or lack thereof. Instead we argue that "in a demoracy, government cannot interfere in the peoople's religious convictions- or lack thereof; the government canoot take side between religions, nor can it take a position for or against it" to put it in simple terms. Which part of this do you object to, and on what grounds? This is the very definition of secularism in a democacy even in France. If you oppose the basic human rights, such as freedom of thought, expression, faith , have the guts to say so.

Your arguments are so incoherent, so devoid of reason that one is at a loss, on how to respond. Take one or example:
"Allowing headscarf on public square in predominantly conservative towns such as Erzurum, would indeed restrict womens' right to not wear headscarves. In Erzurum, the only ticket to modernity is the presence of Ataturk University and Turkish Armed Forces in that town. That is why you see young Turkish girls wandering freely in the streets of Erzurum without wearing headscarves."

How does allowing one to excercise a basic human right constitute denying another to do the same? Using that logic(!), allowing some to not wear headscarves constitutes denyin others to do the opposite. And what does "conservative Erzurum" have to do with allowing or denying a basic freedom? What business of yours or the governments to declare, or need to know whether a city is "cionservative or liberal"? From this, can we understand that you are against the headscarf ban in "liberal cities", say Izmir or Istanbul?

Yes, Tolga and Ece are very good exemplifiction of the mentality we are up against, in defending fundamental human righs in Turkey.

Muzmin Anonim eloquently and patiently responded to even the most irraional and incomprehensible arguments. But let me add one thing in response to his response to Tolga's argument: "ataturk'un poltikalarini hicbir zaman degistiremezsiniz" (you can never change Ataturk's policies). I submit to you this is the very character of the fasist ideology ( or Stalinist if you like). Further, he should be reminded that it was Ataturk who said "I do not leave you a dogma; I leave you reason (rationale) as guide". He should also be reminded that it is todays Kemalists in Turkey, who censor Ataturk himself, by deleting certain sections from his speeches because it would seem that he was sypathetic to Islam, or the picture of his wife Latife Hanim with turban, i.e protecting Kemalizm from Kemal.

It will be lost on the fasists, but let me inform those who may not know that :IN Turkey there exist no law banning hijab in "public domain"(?), for government employees, or for students. Quite the contrary, even the current constitution prepared after the 1981 military coup, and the laicist laws guarantees one's "right to wear any attire that is not prohibited". I challenge all to show me any article in the Turkish constitution or any law prohibiting the wearing of the headscraf. Nor was there a prohibition in the Parliamentary code banning a deputy from wearing a scraf in Parliament. The current practice is notihng other than arbitrary, conduct by the fascist-laicist illegitimate power-holders in open controversion of the law, universal human rights and most basic standards of decency!

For futher discussion of the topic: See my article "Post-modern Secularism: The Turkish Version", on Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy site www.Islam-Democracy.org/documents/pdf/CSID_2001_proceedings.pdf.

Bekir L. Yildirim

The secularism in Turkey is far beyond that of the Europe has. It's acting as a peculiar religion. The god is "Ataturk" whom there is no possibilty that he could have a wrong argument in his works and sayings, don't even intend to say so. It is prohibited by the Law. When you come to Turkey you can see thousand of busts, sculptures, paintings, photos of his Holy Face. One of my Italian colleague has asked me "The airport is Ataturk, the street is Ataturk, the building name is Ataturk, the hospital is Ataurk. Why you name everything Ataturk?". I responded him that "Cause we love Ataturk so much !". Every morning, in all our state schools children, in a military order, have to swear for the loyalty to the path of Ataturk. I'm not opposing him. Just we need to think a little wider, a little, just a little !. We're proud to have a secular Republic, but with a single leader so far... What a shame ! He did a great job in his time, but the time is over. Or is it? Seems not so !

The hypocrisy about people who defends headscarf in terms of individual liberty and �universal human rights and most basic standards of decency� is that, you would never hear them talking about any other abuses of those rights in Turkey.

You would assume that in Turkey there are no other human rights abuses but headscarf issue. You would never them. They talk about religious freedom but they are happy to see religion is a compulsory class, they talk about civil liberty but they are happy to see alevis forced to study Sunni Islam. They talk about basic standards of decency but they are happy to see religious affairs (diyanet isleri) funding Sunni mosques, Sunni imams with the money collected from various faiths.

People, who defend headscarf on grounds of civil liberty and universal human rights, should reinstate their position on other issues as well. If they want to be credible, they should tell us "are they against or for compulsory religion classes, are they against or for religious affairs, are they against of for the idea that diyanet isleri funding only one particular Islamic faith�. When you reduce the concepts of freedom and liberty to a headscarf issue in Turkey and turn your back to other abuses, it simply indicates that you don�t care for freedoms and liberties you only care when they suit your interest.

And also I agree that �headscarf is a ban, imposed by men, on a woman's freedom to be herself, express herself and explore her choices in life�.

Its so obvious to the whole world (Muslim or not) that Ataturk imposed his zealous anti- Islamic doctrine, due to his own Jewish background, as no Muslim would ever ban the headscarf for it's womenfolk.

The close relations Turkey enjoys with Isreal is a testamony to the enormous power the Jewish community hold in Turkish life.

The constant dribble of 'Ataturk's Vison' or whatever is the source of silent giggles in Europe as we all know exactly what it really means.

Please allow this post as it is mearly my own opinion.

Many thanks.

I believe the headscarf issue gets wrapped in a totally different package most of the time. I see many who interpret a woman wearing a scarf to equate to that woman wanting restricted rights, Sharia Law, and all the makings of such things.

This is not true and should not be a symbol to smack human rights or democracy in the face. Women want the right to choose what to wear and how to wear their attire; scarf wearers included. I have not found even one woman yet who wears a scarf that wants anything other than to have the same rights as others whether it is to enter the university or to take care of business without harrassment.

Turkey needs to get over that a woman's headscarf is going to somehow affect the entire population and its democracy. The more freedom a country allows, the more progression it can realize. The more power given to a piece of material, the stronger it gets as well.

In Turkey's case, let the covered women go to the university in the attire she chooses, so Turkey can be among the well-educated. Why discount part of the population because of a piece of cloth?

SalaamunAlaikum!
AlhamdoLillah,its no where mentioned in The Quran that a women should wear a scarf,its only the Socio-Geographical-Religious worms that surrounds us since centuries,unfortunately.
The Quran only orders a women to cover her areas/parts of shame by wearing a "Jalabib" (Gown) then to cover the pockets over it (Breast part).
Its the other schools of thoughts that promote the head covering,as well as at times,face covering (Hiding).

You're quite a radical aren't you Mustafa.

So your argument is, that disallowing headscarves in public areas of government, is an oppression to freedom. I'm sad to break it to you, but freedom is not defined by "Let's do whatever the heck we believe in" or "Let's do whatever we want!".

This is the best way I can teach you freedom, because you seem to lack any sense of it. Freedom is a circle and you are a dot in the center, when this circle grows, in an equal society, other people's freedom circle grows as well. However, what if your circle intersects someone else's circle, that's when you have a conflict of interest. This is what is occurring in Turkey, a conflict of interest, not an oppression of freedom.

Let me explain to you this concept a little deeper to get it through your close-minded neo-conservative head. Kemalism is progressivism and the idea of modernization, that is what Ataturk founded his party on and his nation. By your logic, that freedom should exist your imaginary world, well, then I should walk naked in the streets of your imaginary-perfect-freedom-world. Would people like that in your world? I guess you are going to argue they would enjoy it. What if my religion believes in the sacrificing of people to God (Incidents like Waco and Jonestown are related examples). You're oppressing me by putting me in jail for sacrificing a volunteer who wanted to be sacrificed to his God. Hmmm, or would you argue that you wouldn't put me in jail for that?

The headscarf is a symbol of oppression, a symbol of Muslims that came AFTER Mohammed that wanted to suppress women in Islamic society. Mohammed never said to worship himself, and to live as he lived, he said to believe in God and the Quran. The Quran simply states that you should cover your private areas, not your hair, what does your hair do anyway, just a bunch of protein on top of your body. Headscarves are a tool of religion, and religion is a tool of control, this has been widely accepted by even the most liberal of all scientists, sociologists, and historians.

Mustafa, I have a personal question for you, why don't you ever seem to criticize real oppressors of freedom like France and Switzerland for taking people to court for simply expressing their point of view on the Armenian genocide theory? Where is your passionate criticism and your hate of oppression there?

Anyway, I'm sure you think you know all the answers. It's nice to know that people like you are put in this earth to use wrong logic with good writing skills to convince the world that people should be encouraged to do wrong. Oh and btw, Iran was just like Turkey once, they had a more oppressive government, but it did indeed start with small things like headscarves and evolved into full revolution. But I'm sure you think Sheriah Law is not oppressive at all.

One more thing, these women who wear headscarves are sociologically brainwashed that way from a young age, after which they never even feel any hate toward it, in fact, they find it to be safe and the proper way to live life. If they take it off, I guess they must feel like they are committing major sins, and the Train of Consequences to Hell is coming to pick them up.

One problem is, people see the headscaf-ban as an oppression to freedom of expression, even though to me, the headscarf itself is an oppression of expression and religion. It literally is like wearing a sign that says "Hey, I'm wearing a headscarf to not go to hell, but you aren't so you'll probably burn in hell", it's a complete insult towards women of all religions. It is not Islamic law nor is it an Islamic rule. It's a corruption of Islam that needs drastic reform to fix.

If these women were given a choice to either wear the headscarf or not wear it after they are 15 or so, it wouldn't be a bad thing, because then it's the women's choice. Right now it is the sociological corruption's choice. These women are in dire need of psychiatrists because they have been psychologically harmed from a young age to require the headscarf. If God demanded that women needed head scarves they would have been born with it, or the Quran would have said it clearly while MENTIONING that the HAIR should also be covered. It does not.

Mustafa Akyol you know what you are an example of? You are an example of someone who takes the Wrong approach for the Right reason. When you should be taking the Right approach for the Right reason (freedom).

It is a fair comment to say that much of anti-hijab policies are most vigorously defended by women. I have witnessed from many self-proclaimed modern Turkish women the belittlement of women wearing hijab. They sometimes criticize them with such venom and hostility that you could believe for a moment that covered women discriminated against the non-covered ones, that is was them that are being discriminated against by the secularist state and its supporters. This is obviously not the case so I therefore ask myself what are the reasons behind this aggressive and intolerant stance.

It is far too simple to say that these women are scared of being forced into wearing the hijab. As muslims we know there is no compulsion in religion and the majority Turkish Muslims have never shown characteristics of one day trying to engage in compulsion. There are many conservative practicing Muslims whose wives choose not to wear a headscarf, and it is their human as well as Muslim right to do so.

What is behind all of this? Why do our self-proclaimed modern and western clothed women talk about covered women as though they are inferior and should not benefit from the same rights unless they become ‘western’ or ‘modern’?

I suggest that these women have an inferiority complex. When a hijab is worn out of choice by a woman, it says a few things about her. She is pious and has religious ideals. The sous-entendu of this is that she has strong moral standing and lives by a code of conduct. It also shows at least a part rejection of materialism and vanity. This is mostly seen as positive, and many men long for wives with such characteristics.

These characteristics can obviously be found in plenty of women who do not wear the headscarf. You don’t need a hijab to possess values. Maybe the anti-hijab women, including the military wives, do not see it that way. Their simplistic minds and powers of reflection might tell themselves ‘if covered women represent morality, what do we represent?’ Are they not confident in the western lifestyle they have adopted? Maybe they have doubts about their revealing clothing and glasses of wine. They might tell themselves ‘but this is what a modern woman is like, is it not?’ This would explain the anger at the covered women who demonstrate forwardness and modernity through education and successful careers but did not have to reject their Turkish Muslim past and customs in the process, hence the necessity to stop them doing so. They have proved that modernity is not just a dress code or an eating habit. So if you can be modern without being revealing or drinking, be modern even whilst maintaining one’s religious practice and tradition, how do the anti-hijab women perceive themselves?

These anti-hijab women have found a way to temporarily remedy their complex by advocating a ban on conservative dress. The tools they have been using are their men as this cannot be achieved without their support. Without the hijabs of Turkey exposed to them, they can more easily convince themselves that they are the norm (not the 70% of covered women) and not ask themselves the painful and disillusioning questions they might do otherwise. Instead of dealing with their complex internally which takes a lot of strength and courage, they rather make sure that the covered women suffer for simply existing and pushing such thoughts to the front of their minds.

In order to appease the secularist fears, we must learn how to appease secularist women. We must make it clear to them that lifting the ban on hijab does not mean that they will be considered morally inferior women. They must first be confident in their hearts and minds and rid themselves of the insecurity that they might have ‘sold out’. They have an equal place in our nation but not a superior one. They are different but remain women, the back-bone of a family and society, hijab or no hijab. Since the problem is not with the majority of the country who are Muslim, it is logically with them. Therefore the solution depends on the evolution and modernizing of their mentality.

May I add that JohnPatton exemplifies secularist extremism and that his opinions are very dangerous. Even more so because he cries 'freedom' with his ugly statements... sounds a bit like George W Bush...he uses big words but does not comprehend them....

He talks about Islam as though he is Muslim but he is not. he is clearly orientalist and the worst type. Johnpatton states lie after lie in justifying his anti-hijab views.

Apart from insulting the women who wear the hijab with conviction, his comments are fascist and narrow minded.

John patton, you are not even Muslim, let alone a Muslim Women, so mind your own business! When one has nothing good to say, one is better off saying nothing. Take note of this as it will stop you making a fool out of yourself again in the future.

Dear ece, Muzmin, Tolga, Razvi and others! your statements made my eyes bug! SubhanAllah, what a stupid statement : “The Kuran states that men should cover themselves just as women do..”! Tell me plz where you get it? Have u ever read Qur’an?
For first time I hear that “Headscarf is a ban, imposed by men, on a woman's freedom to be herself, express herself and explore her choices in life”! No one imposed me to wear headscarf; I came to it myself as millions of Muslim women!
Dear all, not headscarves allowance but it’s prohibition caused the revolution in Iran if u don’t know!!!
And, the last, for 14 centuries Muslim women wear hijab and are sure that it’s required by the Qur’an, now u here claim that it’s not demand of God! I didn’t know that u r here giving fatwa to Muslim world! 5 time prayers are not mentioned exactly so u say we shouldn’t pray 5 times a day?
Peace!