God vs. Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes sir,” the student says.

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

The student remains silent.

“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”

“Er…yes,” the student says.

“Is Satan good?”

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”

“Then where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From God”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”

“Yes.”

“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”

Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“So who created them?”

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”

The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”

“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir, I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“Yes.”

“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”

“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”

“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”

“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“And is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No sir, there isn’t.”

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”

“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”

“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”

“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”

“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”

The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.

“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”

“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”

“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”

Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”

To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”

The professor sat down.

Understanding Qur’an

Is there a hope to “Reform” Islam

An analysis of the real roots of Islamic terrorism and possible solutions

T. Hamid

It is evident that Islam has been linked to violence for almost all of its history.

Sadly, this is to a great extent true. From the beginning of the invasion of most of

Europe, North Africa and some parts of the East by early Muslims in order to

convert them to Islam. Continuously until the modern crisis of “Islamic Terrorism”

that shocked the world on Sep 11th, that ended the lives of many innocent Jews

in Israel, that ended the lives of many innocent Australians in Bali attack, that

caused the catastrophe of bombing the train in Spain, and which has tortured to

death many innocent Westerners who live in the Islamic world.

Many people in the West tried to correlate the recent violence observed in the

Islamic world to lack of education, poverty, and a feeling of oppression blamed

on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, the simple facts showed us clearly, and beyond doubt, that these

excuses are not the true causes of “Islamic terrorism”. Most of the leaders of

terrorism are highly educated people who range from Doctors, e.g. Alzawaheri

the second man and the real brain of Alqaida, lawyers, e.g. the first female

Palestinian terrorist, and University students, e.g. Mohammed Atta who was one

of the top organisers of Sep the 11th. In addition, most of the hijackers on Sep 11th were from Saudi Arabia, the richest

Islamic country. If the theory of poverty is correct, why then are the poor people

who live in Brazilia are not the ones who lead international terrorism?

Furthermore, Islamic Terrorism was minimal between the declaration of the state

of Israel in 1948, until the early 1970’s, when the Arabs were in a real war with

Israel.

If the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the cause of terrorism, we would have found

terrorism booming between 1948 until the early 1970’s. On the contrary, it

dramatically increased in the late 1980s and until now when some Arabs states

have signed peace agreements with Israel.

This increase in terrorism directly correlates with the rise of Islamism in the late

1980s until now.

I have a Muslim/Arabic background, and I know how Muslims (including myself at

an early stage of my life) think, I clearly state that Muslims are using the excuse

of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict just to make the world hate Israel. It has nothing

to do with the current phenomenon of terrorism. Which was going to happen any

way, as a secondary phenomenon to expanding a violent version of Islam in later

years?

It is also difficult for any normal mind to comprehend that throwing concentrated

sulphuric acid on the face of young girls who do not wear the Islamic veil/scarf,

by the hands of the Islamic groups in Algeria, is related to the Israeli/Palestinian

conflict.

As one who was a member of one of the most fanatical groups in Islam, GI in

Egypt, and as a person who has resisted Islamic fundamentalism when I realized

its threat some 20 years ago, I feel that it is my obligation toward mankind to

declare that the origin of Islamic Terrorism is deeply rooted in the way Muslims

understand their religion. In other words, in Islamic teaching itself.

When you read the Quran, you will find many great verses that promote peace

and tolerance. But you will also find verses that can make you very violent and

intolerant toward Non Muslims.

Sadly, most Islamic scholars throughout the history of Islam, present it in a way

that promotes a very violent and intolerant attitude. And more sadly, the

oppressive religious system suppresses many attempts to understand Islam in

the light of the peaceful verses.

Not only that, but the majority of Muslims especially those in the Arab world, are

brought up in a manner that considers a peaceful understanding of the religion as

a sign of weakness rather than a sign of strength.

A violent understanding of Islam is based on the following fundamental beliefs

that are fixed in the mind of many, if not most, knowledgeable Muslims.

These are:

1- The concept of “Allnasech and Almansuch” .

2- The ignorance of the value of the word “the” .

3- Practicing Hadith of “Al-Bukhary” and other books while ignoring

unambiguous peaceful verses of the Quran.

4- Historical understanding of the verses rather than language-based

understanding.

5- Presenting only a special part of the verse to promote specific meaning

and ignoring the rest of the verse.

Let us now address the previous points separately and see if this violent way

of thinking could change.

1- The concept of “Allnasech and Almansuch”.

According to this concept and based on traditional Islamic teaching, certain

verses especially the later ones cancel the meaning of other earlier verses on a

similar subject.

Let us have a look at these two parts of the Quran to understand the above

concept.

Verse 1

“60:8 God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith

nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing very kindly and justly with them: for

God loves those who are just. 60:9 God only forbids you, with regard to those

who fight you for (your) Faith, and drives you out of your homes, and supports

(others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It

is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.”

Verse 2

{9: 29} Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that

forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed),

nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the People of

the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizia (Humiliation Tax

according to traditional Islamic teaching and practice in history) with submission,

and feel themselves subdued. (Revelation Number 113).

Sadly, according to the concept of “Allnasech and Almansuch” traditional Islamic

teaching teaches that the “later” verse negated the “former” which obviously will

result in extremely violent understanding and practice.

This way of thinking (to cancel the meaning of the peaceful verses) is

based on the following verse in the Quran:

There are two ways to understand the above Arabic word as the origin of the

word “Nansakho”, is the verb “Yansakho” or its more powerful version

“Yastansikho”.

The first way of understanding the word ‘Nansakho” in the above verse, is to

abrogate (cancel the meaning) as in the following verse:

“22:52 Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he

framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel

(Yansach) anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and

establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom

The other way of understanding, the word “Nansakho” means (to write

and document something) as in the following verse:

“2:106 None of Our revelations do We

abrogate “Nansakho” or cause to be

forgotten, but We substitute something

better or similar: Knowestthou not that God

is able to do any thing?

“45:29 “This Our Record speaks about you with truth: For We were wont

to put on Record and write down (Nastansikho) all that ye did.”

The difference here is huge, as according to traditional teaching, the first verse is

canceled out. Thus ending in the violent verses canceling the meaning of the

peaceful ones, as those violent verses were proclaimed by the prophet

Mohammed at a later time.

On the other hand, if the word “Nansakho” is understood as ‘to write down anddocument’ the meaning of the verse could be that: If God has written of his

miracles or signs (Aia) in the books or did not write it down and consequently

people forget it, he usually comes with a better one.

As you can see, the interpretation which is based on pure Arabic language,

shows the real power of God in bringing new and better miracles and signs every

time which is compatible with the word ‘able to do anything” at the end of the

verse.

While understanding it as ‘cancellation’ of a meaning, it is not compatible at all

with the ability of God, as any one can cancel what he or she said.

I

n other words the concept of cancellation of the meaning is not compatible at all

with the end of the verse (see the black box above).

Imagine that, according to the concept of cancellation of the verses, most of the

peaceful verses in the Quran were considered “Mansuch’ or cancelled by the

violent ones and consequently it is not surprising to find the outcome of Islam is

almost always violent!!

2-The ignorance of the value of the word “the”

Many readers may wonder how these three letters can make such a

fundamental difference in the understanding of the Islamic religion.

It is as if some one told you give me a book, and then you can generalize the

meaning and apply it to any book. Whilst if he or she said to you “give me the

book’ then the whole meaning changes to a specific book that both you and the

speaker know.

To explain this point in the understanding of the Quran, please have a look on

the following verse:

“9:73 O Prophet! strive hard against the (Infidels) unbelievers and the Hypocrites,

and be very harsh against them.

Typical Islamic teaching generalizes the above verse to all Infidels. This

obviously will succeed into changing many followers of Islam into beasts.

The word “the” specifies the meaning to ONLY a certain item or group. Such

groups are defined by the following verse that specifies with whom the rough

treatment, violence, or fighting should be:

“2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not start attacking

others.

If the word “the” is considered in the process of understanding the Quran, many

the verses that promote violence against Non-believers (Infidels) will be specific

to ONLY those who start war on Muslims and can not be applied to any “Infidel”.

Can you see now how the word ‘the” can make such a difference!

3-Practicing the Hadith of Bukhary, and other books, whilst ignoring the

“unambiguous” verses of the Quran.

Hadith is considered by most Muslims as the “oral traditions” of Mohammed. No

one is considered to be a Muslim without following them, according to traditional

Islamic teaching. These started to be collected some 200 years after the death of

the prophet Mohammed by a man called Al-Bukhary, who was followed by many

others who also collected (as they claim) the oral traditions of Mohammed.

The best example to illustrate how following Al-Bukhary resulted in a catastrophe

in Islam. It is the hadith that justifies killing any one who converts from Islam to

another religion.

The Hadith is in a book called Sahih Albuchary and is considered by Al-Bukhary

as a correct Hadith or “ Hadith Sahaih”.

Let us have a look now at that Hadith, and compare it to what the Quran has

stated:

Hadith: “ It is not allowed for any Muslim to kill another Muslim except in the

following circumstances: if he committed murder, if he committed adultery, and if

he converted from the Islamic religion to another religion”

Look now at what the Quran states, to understand the difference:

18:29 Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: it is up to anybody to believe it or not to

believe it (convert or become Infidel)”

I think the difference is clear between the two approaches.

As the reader can see, applying that which is written in Al-Boukhary resulted in

justifying the threat of killing many innocent people such as Salman Rushdie (the

author of the book, Satanic Verses), and many innocent people who want to

have a different form of belief.

Whilst, to the contrary, the Quran gave full freedom for any person to believe in

what he or she wants.

The application of the Hadith mentioned above (called Hadith Almurtad or theconverter) has resulted in largely the domination of the violent version of Islam as

the Hadith, which was used to kill virtually any one who dares to understand

Islam in a peaceful manner.

4-Historical understanding of the verses rather than language- based one

(Jihad)

The exact meaning of the word “Jihad” is ‘to resist’. This could be to resist an

enemy who attacks you, or resist your desire to do evil.

Sadly, the word has been used throughout the history of Islam to attack those of

different religions.

The Arab invasion of Europe and many other parts of the world such as

Palestine, and North Africa are evidence of this. Since then, the word has

become linked to an attacking attitude, rather than its real meaning, which is ‘to

resist’.

It is like the word ‘gay” which typically means “happy”. Since its repeated use

describing homosexuals, it has come to refer to homosexuals rather than its

former meaning. The same has happened with the word ‘Jihad’ which is linked to

the violent attitude of most of current Islamic teaching. Whilst the original

language-based meaning (to resist), was forgotten by most Muslims, and is

virtually non-existent nowadays.

Muslims now have one of two choices. These are to understand the word in its

historical context which means that they are declaring war against Non-Muslims

all over the world, or to revert to the pure Arabic language-based understanding

of the words encouraging peace.

5-Presenting only a special part of the verse to promote specific meaning

and ignoring the rest of the verse

This point can be exemplified by the following verse that is used by many Islamic

organisations to recruit young people.

“9:36 and fight the Infidels all together”.

When Muslims read this verse, many of them especially the young ones, get very

motivated to practice the will of ‘Allah” and start thinking of attacking Non-

Muslims to satisfy the Creator and inherit the paradise.

What these fundamental Islamic groups are not showing to these young Muslims

is the rest of the verse, which is, “as they fight you all together.”

The whole verse is “and fight the Infidels all together as they fight you all

together” but the Islamic groups presents the first part only to support their violent

views. They hide the rest of the verse, as it will specify the fighting to ONLY

those who start war on Muslims.

As can be seen, the traditional way of understanding Islam has contributed to the

violence that has been committed by Muslims around the world.

It is so sad to see that so many people following such teachings, as those who

attempted reformation or tried to promote a peaceful way of understanding Islam

were prosecuted or killed.

I

tried to teach a peaceful understanding of the Islamic religion for more than 20

years. I have warned many people of the catastrophic consequences that will

happen from the expansion of such violent understandings.

Sadly the attempt was on a very small scale, and I failed because I was fighting

virtually by myself against the violent version of Islam that is supported by the

money of Saudi Arabia.

It is now the responsibility of Muslims to either accept the traditional teachings

which will encourage them declare war on all Non- Muslims, or to accept the

peaceful way of understanding their religion which can make them good human

beings.

I sincerely hope that they choose the second option!

Finally, I want also to say to all Muslims:

Do not resist the light …….. Do not love the darkness ………… Hate the violent

way of thinking, as it makes you appear as beasts ….. Your violent way of

thinking has resulted in the killing of many innocent people in the West ……. and

has resulted in killing many innocent children in Israel.

I

wish to see you one day demonstrating in your millions and saying to those

barbarous Islamic fanatics like Bin Laden, “Bin Laden …… you are the enemy of

humanity”.

Your “deafening silence” just shows that you support terrorism in your hearts,

and that you need to change.

I have been into Churches and Synagogues where they were praying for you and

for peace – and at the same time - your Muslim preachers in the Mosques are

saying loudly, “Oh Allah make their children Orphans, .. Oh Allah make their

wives widows, and even (most recently), Oh Allah make the uterus of the Infidels’

wives fibrotic”…………… If this is what you want your religion to be … do not

blame those who will say “shame on Allah, and shame on your religion”

If you mean God by the word “Allah”, then I assure you that the true God will

curse you forever for defaming his name.

 

Violation of Human Rights: Either Forcing Women to Cover Their Hair or Uncover Their Hair: Is Headscarf Trick or Threat?

                                                

I- I N T R O D U C T I O N:

                         Most of the reactionary Islamic governments are forcing women to cover their hair and telling them what they should wear is no doubt violating women’s human rights. In some countries, police admonishes and harasses citizen and non-citizen women who fail to wear appropriate outfit in public and hair cover. Women are losing their lives because of this highly restrictive clothing code. They are punished or prohibited to access necessary services, for example health care and education. Moreover, some Muslim countries seek to pressure other Muslim countries’ citizens to accept their strict restrictions on women’s rights, because those women who refuse to cover their hair are considered as a threat to the public order. 

                        And yet, a French legislation, which required Muslim students and teachers to not to wear headscarves in public schools, took effect in September 2004. In response, many Muslim women and girls had to leave their education or resign their jobs at public schools. Many Muslims protested French headscarf ban. They argued the ban affected their rights and was a part of discrimination of Islam.

On November 11, 2005, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered its judgment in Leyla Sahin v. Turkey[1], in which it upheld a ban on wearing headscarf[2] at Turkish higher-education institutions. In Turkey, wearing an Islamic headscarf in universities[3] by students and at the government places by officers is considered as a threat to the public order and contrary to the principles of resecularism and equality. Many Turkish university students have been leaving Turkey to pursue their university education in other countries such as Austria.  EctHR’s decision effects are much broader than it is thought because it concludes the case law on this issue and going to be an important example for those cases possibly will be filed by Muslim women who follow traditional Islam’s perspective throughout the Europe.                        Interestingly, all the countries and organizations regardless whether they force woman to cover her hair or to uncover her hair have same concern: That woman who covers or uncovers her hair oppose to aim of the governments or organizations is considered as a threat to the public order and opponent of the State.

                        My first reason by choosing this subject is woman’s importance for a community, to show where we are regarding women’s rights and how even a piece of cloth causes serious human rights violations while mostly women are responsible to train and create the people for community. Forcing women about headscarf in either way is a part of gender discrimination that means ‘woman cannot decide by her determination what she should do’. There are a ‘serious’ number of Muslim women and girls who are denied to access schooling and working which are the fundamental rights guaranteed by International Law as well as most countries’ National Law, because they are wearing headscarf or not wearing headscarf. It would lead to develop a generation of uneducated and unemployable Muslim women, which would lead to isolation and resentment of women even in the most developed countries of Europe. Secondly, in Turkey, headscarf problem causes to divide nation to the camps, creates stress and social anxiety, resentment, hate, misunderstanding and in-tolerance among people. And lastly, even though women’s rights in Muslim countries need special concern because women in those countries are made to suffer disproportionately by the system and those countries are the scenes of the worst abuses of women’s rights, only headscarf problem have had chance to be examined by a court of human rights under the principals of the international law.

            The goal of this essay is to present; both forcing women either to cover or uncover their hair violate human rights in the same way, for same reason or reasons and by the same attitude and because of the same fear. Since individuals have right to make their own interpretations and are free to apply their own implementations of religious books in their lives, objectivity requires there must be no double standard about this issue, no matter with what intention either politically or religiously is being used the headscarf by the woman. 

                        The paper is organized as follows: First, I discussed what kind of clothing requirements the women are suggested by religions with a view to limit my scope in the name of covering their hair. I had to separate the issue on current Islam and Islam in the Qur’an referring new developments and improvements on interpretation of the religion; second, I reviewed how headscarf laws violate human rights by various ways, in different countries, particularly in Turkey. In addition, I tried to open a discussion on European Human Rights Court’s final judgment about the ban on headscarf in universities and government places under the lights of fundamental principles of international Human Rights Law since this judgment has become a case law for the issue; third, I offered some concluding thoughts with possible solutions.

 II- A SHORT HISTORY OF HEADCOVERING: REQUIREMENTS OF RELIGIONS: 

As is same for the other facts, head covering problem cannot be determined and understood well without other divine religions’ perspective. Every divine religion needs each other’s content, because each of them is part of a total.

     A- Bible:

       Head wears and headgears, like hats and caps serve as protection and shade against the elements of nature like snow, wind, sun or rain, besides they are used as accessories. In old ages headscarves similarly serve the same purpose, protecting especially the head from the hot rays of the sun, and absorbing the sweat on the forehead. Headscarves had gained religious meaning when the divine religions appeared on the earth. As a distinguishing between pagans and Jews, head covering had been symbolizing women’s virtue and chastity for a long time. [4]According to Bible, head covering for women is unambiguously mandatory:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered, dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaved. 6 For if the woman is not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch, as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not from the woman, but the woman from the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] from the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things from God. 13 Judge in yourselves: Is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him? 15 But if a woman hath long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.[5]

St. Paul’s introductory statement to this argument on head covering that sets the context and stage for properly understanding is critically important. [6] St. Paul, introduces his discussion on the Christian woman’s veiling by praising the Corinthian Christians for their faithfulness in observing and practicing the ‘all things’ [7] especially the ‘traditions.’ The term ‘ordinances’ is used in several apostles and each time is referring to oral and written traditions that represent Christian doctrine as well as practical areas of Christian living.[8] The main point is given by St. Paul in 11:2 is that veiling was among the traditions or ordinances he praised the Corinthians for keeping. [9]           

According to 11:3, the practice of head covering is not a personal choice or culturally occasioned exercise, but rather in the Biblical teaching is rooted in divinely ordered ‘authority structure’. [10] If a male has ‘something’ on his head while praying or prophesying, he then disgraces his head, that is, his ruling head or authority, God, and if a female has no cover on her head, she disgraces her head, that is, ruling authority, her husband, or her father if unmarried. [11]It is clearly stated what physically upon a man’s or woman’s head is important because it reflects the divine order. [12] The woman’s veiling symbolizes her voluntary acceptance of her place in the divine order, absence of head covering is to tell the world that she stands on equal ground with man in leadership responsibilities. [13] Though the apostle focuses singularly on public worship, head covering to be worn wherever these activities occur, not just in church meetings. [14] Because in same letter St. Paul wrote “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also said the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” [15] This statement shows that women are not to prophesy in church meetings. [16]

1 So take me for your example, even as I take Christ for mine. 2 Now I am pleased to see that you keep me in memory in all things, and that you give attention to the teaching which was handed down from me to you. 3 But it is important for you to keep this fact in mind, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who takes part in prayer, or gives teaching as a prophet, with his head covered, puts shame on his head. 5 But every woman who does so with her head unveiled, puts shame on her head: for it is the same as if her hair was cut off. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her hair be cut off; but if it is a shame to a woman to have her hair cut off, let her be veiled. 7 For it is not right for a man to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man did not come from the woman, but the woman from the man. 9 And the man was not made for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 For this reason it is right for the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 But the woman is not separate from the man, and the man is not separate from the woman in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is from the man, so the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. 13 Be judges yourselves of the question: does it seem right for a woman to take part in prayer unveiled? 14 Does it not seem natural to you that if a man has long hair, it is a cause of shame to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if any man will not be ruled in this question, this is not our way of doing things, and it is not done in the churches of God.[17] 

            In vv. 13-15 it is indicated why woman should cover her hair: Woman’s hair is an important part of her femininity, since it is a natural constitution of sex. [18]Woman conforms to her nature when she keeps her hair long, so to not to show and hide her femininity she is ordered to cover or remove her hair as a shameful option. [19]

            Additionally, in both translations ‘because of the angels’ is indicating as the reason of the head covering. “Understanding angels’ ministries and their relation to believers, ‘because of the angels’ must imply that they are aware of a woman’s attitude and whether she is in the proper order when praying and prophesying.[20]” The full significance of this phrase may not be understood, but it must be important for the Christian woman to wear the veiling because the angels are involved. [21] Moreover, in Christianity head covering had been indicating women’s marital status for centuries. [22] It’s interesting to note that the reactionary Islam’s language while imposing head covering is so similar to Bible’s language.

     B- Qur’an:

          1- First Interpretation and Implementation: 

Disobedience of Shar’ia mandates in so-called fundamentalist societies is often punished harshly, including the use of violence [23]. According to reactionary Muslims, female sexuality must be carefully controlled, as its free expression leads to corruption, immorality and the breakdown of social values [24]. They believe erroneously women are inherently unstable and are unable to control their sexual behavior absent strictly enforced moral codes; women are, therefore, inferior to men and must be controlled by men for the sake of societal stability. Opposite to Qur’an’ic perspective and prophet’s life as an example [25] the primary, and virtually only role for a woman in a so-called fundamentalist country is to be an obedient and dutiful housewife. A man must control the family and women must be entirely submissive to men in all matters. Moreover, economic independence, education and work outside of the home discouraged[26].

As a result, so-called fundamentalists generally favor gender segregation in order to carefully restrict the behavior of women and reinforce the dominant role of men, even though nowhere in the Qur’an is prohibiting to women from working[27]. Furthermore, the laws that govern Muslim women in so-called fundamentalist societies mandate a strict dress code (the hijaab)[28], and place restrictions on personal choice in virtually all aspects of life, while men are afforded special rights such as the unilateral right of divorce [29] and right to enter into polygamous marriages [30] [31].

                This type of head scarf (=hijaab), which is subject of this essay was invented in the early 1970’s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian religious leader won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi’ite community. Sadr’s idea was that, by wearing the head scarf, Shi’ite girls and women would be clearly marked out, and thus they would not be molested by the Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon. [32] Later, idea became a symbol of a totalitarian ideology as a response to immediate necessity of unity of Islam and Muslim countries. Unfortunately, since it is not coming from the main ideology of the Qur’an, headscarf is not a right, proper and useful tool for establishing the unity needed.

                                   

         2- According To Recent Developments: Islam In The Qur’an:  

            We cannot observe Bible’s clear and consistent order about head covering in Qur’an.[33]

Islam in the Qur’an is asking unambiguously individual’s free interpretation to determine their aim of will by Creator in Qur’an. The phrase ‘this Book is for people who think’ is being repeated numerous. As a result, dictating others in one way of interpretation rather than present the options, is violating freedom of religious and is violating main principles of Qur’an, too.  Opposite to general belief, interpreting every single sentence by free mind, free will and free determination should be the duty of the all individuals. Otherwise there would be no way to examine people by the ‘text’ of the Qur’an [34] and most part of heaven and hell would have been reserved for the Muslim scholars and prayer leaders who interpreted Qur’an for others. According to their interpretation either under good faith or bad faith only they would have shared heaven or hell.

                There is no doubt forcing women what to wear or not to wear, violates women rights because this is a part of gender discrimination which means woman can not decide just by herself what she should do. It apparently seems Qur’an has been being implemented and interpreted mostly under the bad faith for centuries.

One of the main reasons of this misinterpretation and implementation error of Qur’an was, extremely prohibiting Muslim women being scholar and to interpret Qur’an, hence Islam has been left from women’s point of view for centuries. There has been an unfortunate vicious circle. Secondly, even though the Qur’an must be the primary source of Islamic Law, sometimes other sources cut off the Qur’an. Because Islamic law, which was constituted besides Qur’an with regional traditions even sometimes influenced pre-Islamic traditions and beliefs, -as blatant occurred about women’s rights-, is limited by interpreter’s century, intelligence, general thoughts, background, education, region, etc. 

Qur’an uses various formulas to call Muslim’s attention, in order to importance of subject, which is included by sentence. Some of rules, orders or advices are frequently and regularly repeated, as if; trading ethics, praying, importance of wisdom, rights of orphans, freeing slaves, equality between people, justice, forgiving each other, asking forgiveness from God, temporization of the life on the world, gratitude to God, etc. Some of orders or advices are supported with strong examples from the past, like; acting on earth by spreading corruption, widespread moral defective in the community, homosexuality, etc.  Some of orders are mentioned warning by eternal life that acts or behaviors will deserve. The advice for headscarf is not one of those. Moreover almost nowhere head covering is ordered. In just one sentence by the way of implicitly headscarf is approved and mentioned to use as a cover for bosoms[35]:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms {in public} beyond what may {decently} be apparent thereof [36] hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms[37].”

In another translation it says; “and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent and to draw their veils over their bosoms…[38]“.  From another translation “that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (ordinarily) appear. Thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display.[39]”

As it seems, a closed way of expression is being used to call multi-meaning, miraculously, for adaptation of the advice to different ages and distinguish their sexuality of women in public. It reminds women to avoid as much as possible getting attentions to their femininity and sexuality first, instead of their humanness, their personality or their intelligence, etc. Here, there can be asked a critic question: How much avoiding does Muslim women are ordered or advised? We need to move one verse back of 24:31, which gives men responsibility before women to ‘lower their gaze’:

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity -[and,] verily God is aware of all that they do.” (24:30)

As this verse required, women are a helper and have a secondary role at men’s duty in a society. It seems, in accordance to this recommendation woman have to be covered as much as opposite of man’s moral and social growth and mature ness. As known, in opposite proportioned as the women hiding as men becomes demander even aggressive, like happening in many Muslim countries, as a result of in most countries 24:30 is totally ignored.

In European Muslim societies, women do not wear Islamic headscarves, other than which are reflected local cultural, tribal and folkloric traditions.[40] However, in the West that we know, the scarf has never been an accepted item of clothing and these days is all to readily identify with Islamic extremism and backwardness. [41]The current popularity of headscarf is somewhat a reflex action. Most Muslim women wear it as a statement of anti-Western defiance. [42]Modesty is a state of mind, the disposition of a pure heart, which cannot be substituted by any amount of external attire[43]. Since current Islam has conflicted with the Qur’an, probably, they are suffering to failure of identify themselves between being an ‘independent individual’ and a Muslim woman. [44]At no stage did the Prophet ever lay down any kind of ‘school uniform’ regulation for women.[45] The regulation of the Qur’an is totally silent on the subject except for the proviso that no human has to right to declare anything prohibited that actually are allowed in the Qur’an. Nowhere women ask to cover their heads at all; men and women both have to ‘veil their gaze’ and women were required to veil their bosoms. Other than the minimum requirement, which is to cover the entire body from the neck down modestly, as is the normal female practice, were left to individual women to decide[46].

    III- THREATENING PUBLIC ORDER BY WEARING OR NOT WEARING THE HEADSCARF: VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

            According to the customs, traditions, historical and cultural background lay down on the land, interpretation or implementation of the statutes face differentiation and variation of their unique (=sui generis) meanings. In addition, former interpretation and implementation of the statutes may become out of necessity or out of applicable on the facts of the life. This reality is valid even for the divine statutes. Long-term negligence of the attempt for reinterpretation of the statute causes serious ‘social trauma’ in society as it is seen in many Muslim countries.

A- Forcing Women To Cover Their Hair:

 1-    Saudi Arabia: 

Saudi Arabia is strictly implementing the first and only interpretation of the Qur’an.

According to acceptance of first and only interruption and implementation, Qur’an is first source, second source should be the Sunnah, the recorded and codified statements of the Prophet Mohammed, by violating his orders not to do this, the third source should be Al-Ijma, which are the consensus opinions of the Muslim clergy (Ullamah, prayer leaders) and powerful members of various Muslim communities, the fourth is Al-Qiyas, which is direct analogy or analogical deduction; it is an extension of the notion of applying Islamic principles to the modern era relying upon the Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma as primary sources. [47]As a strictly legal matter, the concept of

interpretation has been a controversial subject in Islamic Law. [48] Opposite to main principles of Qur’an and also nature of the ijtihad, many Islamic scholars argue that there was a finite period of interpretation, known as Ijtihad, which existed for approximately 250 years following the Prophet Mohammed’s death (until A.D. 900) and closed. A consensus of Sunni jurists held that all issues of Islamic Law had been sufficiently addressed and that further legal interpretation was not permitted.[49]

            Even though, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued two major laws: the Basic Law of Government (Basic Law) and the Consultative Council Law as a sign of democratic reform on March 1, 1992, legislations could not make any impact on violations of woman rights among the country. [50] Islamic Law, Islamic principles and Islamic morality have been interpreted beyond just requiring that women be veiled in public, also allows the kinds of prosecution and harassment of women for ‘immodest’ dress.[51] “[T]hese measures include bans on anything that might be objected to as immodest or sexually suggestive by the most reactionary clerics, even if acceptable to the public at large.” [52]

 On March 11, 2002 a tragic fire occurred at an overcrowded and unsafe public school for girls in Mecca[53]. Fifteen girls were killed[54]. Fire precipitated a public uproar in the kingdom and unprecedented critical press coverage of the religious police and the General Presidency for Girls Education (GPGE), conservative agency responsible for policymaking and administration of female education [55]. After the fire scandal senior government officials appeared reluctant to take on the religious police, whom eyewitnesses criticized for hampering rescue efforts at the school because the fleeing girls were not properly attired in the customary abayas[56] and head coverings[57].                               

As known, like many other Muslim countries, in Saudi Arabia there is no freedom of religious even for Muslims, though Saudi Arabia has the most important mission for the Islam [58]. Qur’an never gives permission to a government to dictate their citizens in which way they should understand and practice the Islam, so actually those governments has exceeded even Prophet’s authority which was only delivering the message[59]. The women who refuse to observe a restrictive dress code in public are likely targets of punishment in Saudi Arabia[60]. Thus, Muslim women and girls who do not wear headscarf automatically become a threat to the public order and opponents of the State.

 “[T]he protection of public order argument is somewhat understandable though not necessarily convincing. It is therefore doubtful whether the state’s curtailment of women’s external freedom is permissible in such cases.” [61]Even though,  “[T]here are reasons to believe that a woman’s external freedom could weigh more heavily in the balance, but, especially considering the margin of appreciation of the state, there are also reasons to counter this, for instance, when a state insists that the imposition of a strict dress code is an essential component of public morality.” [62]

      2- Iran:

As it was mentioned above, Islamic headscarf that is used by so-called fundamental Islam as a political symbol shared by several radical movements that, each in its own way, tries to transform Islam from a religion into a political ideology.

“It was created in Lebanon in 1975 by Imam Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had become leader of the Shi’ite community there. In 1982, the Lebanese-designed headgear was imposed by law on all Iranian girls and women, including non-Muslims, aged six years and above.  Thus, Iranian Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian women are also forced to wear a headgear that is supposed to be an Islamic symbol. From the mid 1980s, the foulard appeared in North Africa and Egypt before moving east to the Persian Gulf, the Indo-Pakistani Subcontinent and Southeast Asia. It made its first appearance in France in 1984, brought in by Iranian Mujahedin asylum seekers. Today, thousands of women, especially new converts, wear it in Europe and North America.

 Megawati Sukarnoputri, President of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, does not wear it. Nor does Khalidah Zia, prime minister of Bangladesh, the world’s second most populous country. Shirin Ebadi, the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, does not wear it, except inside Iran - where she would go to jail if she did not. That the foulard is a political invention can be ascertained in two other ways. First, there is the Iranian law of 1982 that specifies the shape, size and even the “authorized” colors of the headscarf.  Second, the various Islamist movements have developed specific color schemes to assert their identity. The Khomeinists wear dark blue or brown. The Sunni Salafis, who sympathize with al Qaeda and the Taliban, prefer black. Supporters of Abu-Sayyaf and other Southeast Asian radical groups wear white or yellow. Supporters of Palestinian radical groups don checkered foulards. “[63]

While the enforcement of conservative Islamic dress codes has varied with the political climate since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, what women wear in public is not entirely a matter of personal choice[64]. Women are often subject to harassment by the authorities if their dress or behavior is considered inappropriate and may be sentenced to flogging or imprisonment for such violations, because they are considered they are openly a threatening the public order and opponents of the State.[65]. The law prohibits the publication of pictures of uncovered women in the print media, including pictures of foreign women[66].   There are penalties for failure to observe Islamic dress codes at work[67].

 3-    Afghanistan:

Before a U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban in December 2001, Taliban’s extreme

interpretation and implementation of Shari’a (Islamic law) had have a particularly harmful impact on women.[68]  In Kabul and elsewhere, women found in public who were not wearing a burqa, or

whose burqas do not cover until their ankles properly, frequently are beaten by members of the the religious police[69].  Some poor women could not afford the cost of a burqa, and were forced to remain at home or risk beatings if they went out without one[70].  Some women who could not afford to buy burqas had been unable to access necessary medical care[71]. 

In November 2001, the former Department of Vice and Virtue was dissolved and replaced by the Department of Accountability and Religious Affairs[72]. Women in rural areas mostly wear burqas, a traditional full body and face covering; however, many urban women did not wear burqas before the Taliban imposed this practice[73]. Even though a number of women in urban areas no longer wear the burqa since the fall of the Taliban, a majority of women continue to do so either from choice or community pressure[74]. In central Kabul, construction of the first mosque in the country to make provision for women worshippers continued[75].

After December 2001, women and girls receive some of the worst effects of Afghanistan’s insecurity [76]. Conditions are generally are better than under the Taliban, but women and girls still continue to face severe governmental and social discrimination and violence[77]. Those who organize protests or criticize local rulers face threats and punishment [78]. Soldiers and police routinely harass women and girls, even in Kabul City and in other cities. Naturally, many women and girls are afraid to remove the burqa[79] to avoid being threat to the public order and opponents of the State. Since soldiers are targeting women and     girls, so many are staying indoors, especially in rural areas, making it impossible for them to attend school, go to work, or actively participate in the country’s reconstruction[80]. Unfortunately, the majority of school-age girls in Afghanistan are still not enrolled in school[81].

 

      

 B- Forcing Women To Uncover Their Hair:   

  

            There are plenty of Muslim or non-Muslim countries that ban the headscarf in certain areas of community such as schools, jobs at the government level, official photos for IDs and passports, etc.  France, Egypt, Turkey, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Denmark and Tunisia are among them.

          1- France: To obstruct increasing tension and violence between Jewish and Muslim society wearing of ‘religious symbols’ including Islamic headscarf were restricted in public schools, in France. Especially impede misusing of headscarves as a political and ideological symbol, many Muslim students and teachers were totally deprived of benefits of public schools because of the ban. Meanwhile it was argued that Muslim women and girls were forced to wear headscarves by their fathers, brothers, boyfriends or husbands, and the covering of the head was a symbol of women’s oppression which had no place in a democratic society - and certainly not in a school. However, there are undeniably Muslim women and girls that they are suffering discrimination at the hands of the state and being denied their fundamental rights.

As a secular state, the Constitution protects freedom of conscience, education and expression of religious belief, and the Government generally respects this right in practice. However, some religious groups remain concerned about legislation passed in 2001 and 2004[82]. Although Parliament passed, at the Government’s request, a law prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools by employees and students, government policy continued to contribute to the generally free practice of religion[83]. There were a few improvements in the Government’s response to anti-Semitic attacks[84].

Meanwhile, some of the Muslim girls who wore the headscarves because they feared that if they did not they would be beaten up or even disfigured by extremists. Girls refusing the head scarves are often followed and harassed by extremist Muslim youth. [85]

The generally friendly relationship among religions in society contributed to freedom of religion[86]. After an initial decline in the number of anti-Semitic incidents there was an increase in the number of incidents from January to June 2004[87]. Government leaders, religious representatives, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) continued to criticize strongly anti-Semitic and racist violence, and the Government had to maintain increased security for Jewish institutions[88]. Thus, Muslim women and girls who wear headscarf have automatically become a threat to the public order and opponents of the State. 

The Government moved to restrict the wearing and using of “religious symbols” in public schools[89] and force girls who wish to wear the head scarves to switch to private Qur’an schools. In a public debate about secularism many of the hearings and publications associated with the debate focused on whether the wearing of the Muslim headscarf by public school students was compatible with secularism and gender equality [90]. In the past, various courts and government bodies have considered, on a case-by- case basis, whether denying Muslim girls and women the right to wear headscarves in public schools constitutes a violation of the right to religious freedom [91]. Obviously, prohibition of all girls from wearing headscarves in schools and universities will effectively exclude female Muslim believers from institutions of learning, in contravention of Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education of 14 December 1960. [92]      At the aim of the France’s secular public school tradition and recommendation of the inter-ministerial commission, the Government introduced a law to prohibit the wearing of “conspicuous” religious symbols–including Jewish skullcaps (kippa), Sikh turban and large crosses, besides Muslim headscarves, –by employees and students in public schools[93]. However, the only conspicuous or ostentatious symbol targeted by the ban, has been the headscarves worn by Muslim schoolgirls.[94] Additionally, it can be a subject for another discussion whether headscarf is only a symbol or a sincere belief/preference for Muslim women and girls regarding to their understanding of the religious book. Since The Bible does not even mention to wear kippa or large crosses, assuming Muslim headscarf can only be worn, as a symbol is presumption which leads governments and international organizations towards Human Rights violations.

The law was passed in March and entered into force in September [95]. Implementing regulations, finalized in May, provide for the display of “discreet religious symbols,” and grant considerable discretion to individual schools to interpret and implement the law [96]. Items of clothing such as ‘bandannas and turbans can be allowed in schools if such items are worn as fashion accessories’ without religious significance. [97] Students will not be permitted to seek exemptions on religious grounds to school dress codes[98]. Some Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh leaders, human rights groups, and foreign governments criticized about the law’s potential to restrict religious freedom[99].

Using the most conservative estimate, France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. [100]. There were several cases when school authorities took action to prevent women and girls from wearing Muslim headscarves in public schools [101]. By the school year end in June 2005, the Ministry of Education reported that 44 Muslim girls had been expelled. Negative societal attitudes regarding the wearing of Muslim headscarves may have led to incidents of discrimination against Muslim women[102]. Members of the Muslim community alleged that, when wearing headscarves, they had been refused service by private businesses [103]. Media reports indicated that some companies discourage women employees from wearing the headscarf or encourage them to wear a bandanna in its place [104].