Turkey, Europe, Islam, and the 'Islamic' headscarf's incompatibility with Modern Democracy


By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

May 3, 2007 (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=26090)

In earlier articles, we presented the consequences and the repercussions of the nefarious Western support to Turkey's undemocratic, duplicitous, anti-Western, and heinous premier; we demonstrated how contradictory it is to demand the military to stay in the barracks, when the threat comes from a minority-shown-as-majority parliamentary episode, namely that of Erdogan's, that is strongly reminiscent of Hitler's rise to power. Many in the West portray themselves as innocent questioners mendaciously demanding why the military want to intervene because of the eventuality of the Turkish President's wife wearing the so-called 'Islamic' headscarf. They know very well why, but they try to diffuse confusion among the otherwise terribly misinformed Western public opinion.

'Islamic' headscarf is not compulsory in Islam

The West had always a very inaccurate representation of the Islamic World, and contrarily to what many believe, Orientalism and Islamology contributed greatly to the continuation of this misunderstanding and ignorance. As a matter of fact, the Islamic headscarf is not Islamic; it is Islamist.

Women in Abbassid Baghdad at the times of Harun al Rashid, in Andalusia, in Samarqand, in Esfahan, in Kairwan, and in Ottoman Istanbul at the times of Suleyman the Magnificent were not obliged to cover themselves with a 'piece of stuff'. They did so whenever they liked, as a way to embellish themselves, and not in strict way. One has to remember the former Pakistani Premier Benazir Bhutto, whom the Islamists have ceaselessly hated, to imagine how a Muslim woman in the streets of Baghdad at the times of Charlemagne would look. In this regard, it is essential to remember that in all the great civilizations in the Antiquity, women were covered in the same – non strict – way to which archaeological and textual evidence, numismatics and epigraphy testify in the most decisive and abundant way.

As a matter of fact, it was suggested by prophet Muhammad for the illiterate and quasi-barbaric women of Arabia that they wear a veil that would attribute them the same respect as a Persian woman in Istakhr, an Aramaean mother in Damascus, an Egyptian wife in Thebes, a Cappadocian lady in Caesarea, a Macedonian woman in Pella, a Greek wife in Corinth or a lady in Rome and in Constantinople. The excessive prostitution practiced in the mountainous (passageway for caravans) Hedjaz (this is Arabia – home to Arabs, who were depicted as the only barbaric and backward people throughout the Middle East) and the Prophet Muhammad's desire to eradicate the barbaric nomadic culture, Aramaizing the Arabs, are at the origin of his suggestion.

It is essential to realize that Islam, as viewed by the Prophet Muhammad himself, was the total cultural de-arabization of the Arabs. As regards, the other peoples of the Middle East or the rest of the world, Prophet Muhammad did not say anything, and would not view the de-arabized, and culturally Aramaized Arabs who followed him, in a position to tell – let alone dictate – anything related to the social behavioural system. Islam was viewed by Prophet Muhammad as a diachronic system of monotheistic behaviour and we have plenty of evidence how close Muhammad's system was to that of Nestorius, the leader of the Nestorian Christians. The first information Eastern Roman chronicle writers had about Muhammad in Yathrib (Medina) made them think they had to deal with another Christological dispute, an emanation of radical Nestorianism.

There is no obligation to 'hedjab' and a female Muslim can live as an excellent Muslim without wearing the headscarf. What is meant as needed for a female Muslim in Islam is a cover – an 'aura' of respectability that a woman must generate through her overall appearance. This being so, one has plenty of evidence that Muslim women lived a human life without restrictions necessary for modern Islamists' secret plans, as long as their region / country was not an area where the bogus-Islamic Obscurantism had not been propagated.

It is Prohibited for Women to Go outside their Homes!

With the gradual rise of theological obscurantism within Islam, a devious approach was diffused through various successive systems; Hanbal, Ibn Taimiya, and Abdel Wahhab cover a span of 10 centuries during which the devious theological system worsened, expanded and imposed a barbarism of purely anti-Islamic character that consisted in a process of behavioural and cultural de-Aramaization (viewed through the opposite side, it can be called barbarization / arabization) that revived the nomadic reductionism in extremis. Few things were needed in life to obtain the Paradise as reward, and of course one of them was nomadic conservatism and female segregation. To obtain this, a paranoid Fatemid ruler of Islamic Egypt imposed legislation prohibiting the fabrication of shoes for women in order to keep the women permanently closed at home. The fact that Al Hakim was Shia shows very well how Arabic reductionism's elements, expressed as a barbaric system by devious Hanbal, were crossing easily the porous Shia / Sunni 'borders'.

If Al Hakim was able to impose this inhuman, Satanic system, 200 years after the establishment of Hanbal's system, you can imagine what pseudo-Islamic, paranoid analphabets like Erdogan and Abdullah Gul may truly and secretively wish, with 10 centuries of Islamic Philosophy's and Sciences' collapse, and with the deterioration of Hanbal's system through the successive theological perversions of Ibn Taimiya (early 14th century) and Abdel Wahhab (late 18th – early 19th century), whom Erdogan's and Abdullah Gul's Islamic extremist instructors venerate!

'Islamic' headscarf is a top symbol of Islamic Extremism

This is the reality that has been criminally kept secret from Western readership about the headscarf of women like Ms. Erdogan and Ms. Gul. It is not a matter of 'stuff' that disturbs the Turkish military and the Turkish people in itsoutright majority.

The disturbing element is what is implied through the headscarf, and this is a barbarism far worse and far more lethal than that of Hitler before 70 years.

Top symbol for today's Islamist gangsters whose targets are shared by the duplicitous Erdogan and Gul, the bogus-Islamic headscarf offers Islamists in Turkey and allover the world two strong arguments of Victory:

1. Their false version of Islam remains unchallenged; all the world accepts that Islam is what filthy, vulgar, barbaric, anti-human and therefore ultimately Satanic system they want to impose as Islam.

2. Their absolute rejection of a secular society is actively imposed, with a President's wife wearing a piece of stuff that has as emblem “We do not accept Secular Society; we do not accept Democracy; we do not accept in Turkey, throughout the Islamic World, and allover the World anything else to exist except our model of Islamic Society as we define it”.

Why the falsely Islamic headscarf is a top symbol for Islamic extremists?

The answer is here very simple: it symbolizes the absolute rejection of the 'Western' (for them) theory that women and men are equal, although different. It symbolizes the society they want to impose, and the role of the women in that society. As they never study Islam, Islamic Philosophy, Islamic Sciences, Islamic Arts, and they limit their knowledge in the Coran as viciously interpreted by their – also ignorant of Islamic Lumieres – sheikhs and imams, they believe that theirs is the correct Islam, its correct understanding, and they do all this in the hope of permanent, materialistic recompense promised to them for the Hereafter by their analphabetic sheikhs.

The 'Islamic' headscarf's incompatibility with Modern Democracy

What is the ideal society for people willing that their female relatives wear headscarf and for the women wishing to wear it?

Here there is a great speculation; if asked, Erdogan's and Gul's wives would say that women wearing headscarf can work, and be fully accredited members of a society that looks similar to the Western societies. These are meaningless words.

Only life experience reveals what 'Islamic headscarf' means for a society.

Islamic headscarf means that if you are a female employee and have to work one day until late in the night, you face your father screaming at your face, in a way that all the neighbours hear very easily, that “his” daughter is not a prostitute, and as this is so, she is not allowed to return so late at home. This may happen even if you, as a family daughter and university graduate, are contributing with your salary to 75 – 80% of the family income! You will not dare answer to your father, because he is always right, and if you say that it was asked by your manager, your father will ask whether he is a Christian (willing therefore to destroy the good behaviour of the Muslim females). In any case, your company request will represent nothing to your analphabet father who was a worker, because he will say “you” do not need your salary, because what you need is that the neighbours accept you as a good Muslim.

How can this mentality be compatible with Western Democracy?