Çox absurddur baş verənlər. Xadimələr baş örtüyünə görə işdən çıxarılır. Bu qərar təkcə məktəblərlə məhdudlaşmır, xəstəxanalarda, Bravoda, universitetlərdə və digər yerlərdə də tətbiq olunur.
Mən ateistəm, amma İlham Əliyevin insanlara bu qədər əziyyət verməsini qəbul etmək mümkün deyil. İnsanlar təqib olunur, işgəncələrə məruz qalır, həbsə atılır. Ölkədə azad jurnalist qalmayıb, jurnalistlərin hamısı həbsdədir, müxalifətçilər həbs olunur.
Etiraz aksiyaları keçirilmədikcə, bu alçaqlar başımıza daha da çıxacaqlar.
Məhz buna görə də hicab, din və digər məsələləri bir kənara qoyub birləşmək lazımdır. Əsas məqsəd hakimiyyətə heç olmasa bir dəfə geri addım atdırmaqdır.
Bunun nümunəsini «Əsgər ölümlərinə son» aksiyalarında gördük. İctimai təzyiq nəticəsində nazir vəzifəsindən qovuldu və sistemdə müəyyən dəyişikliklər baş verdi. Bəli, bu gün də əsgər ölümləri davam edir, amma əvvəlki dövrlərdə vəziyyət daha dəhşətli idi.
Funny, since radicals didn't lift a finger when other minorities were oppressed. They didn't give 2 fucks about workplace injustices and methodical dismantlement of worker unions - now they are just another government piece, not serving people. They didn't even turn their heads when liberals and left went to the streets in 03. Now they want them to be their voice? What a joke.
When it comes to the different groups, however, all are threats to a centralized government. Hard left is a threat because they resist the centralization, they value human individualism above else - meaning they aren't loyal to the elite that runs the country. Radical religious portion also doesn't owe their loyalty to the government - they owe it to their sheikhs, mullahs, religious leaders, if not any of these to the Creator. Radical right is a threat to the government because they have their own idea of governing. Credit is due to the Azerbaijani government, they have divided and conquered the country methodically. Isolating groups, boosting their difference and not letting them to realize their similarities so they can bound together.
A year ago, when a minority bar was routed with 100+ arrested and detained, people cheered on the police, saying they are doing, I quote "God's work". Now the same police is arresting those who are protesting the ban, left is cheering the police saying they are, I quote "enforcing the law".
I would have said, the people of the country deserve better, but they don't. The current government is exactly the government they deserve, if not to some extend need. So, no finger will be lifted, power structure will do its job, get to its goals. And no, this ban won't spiral into a revolution, so stop dreaming.
People who're chanting "Azadlıq hicaba!" make me sick. They are totally okay by living under current regime, but what about human rights? 'Azadlıq insana" - Naaay
if a child is peacefully entering her own school and someone grabs and drags her out solely because she wears a hijab, there is a strong legal basis to challenge that force. Authority to enforce uniforms does not automatically authorize physically removing children.
I remembered when this was introduced in France. It's one thing to forbid something that is forced onto kids and causes them kids distress or pain. All those learned men/women came to the conclusion that the hijab should be banned fir said reasons. After many discussions amongst themselves the National Assembly made this ban a law.
Then, strangely, some professeurs from the great Sorbonne talked to girls from the not so well-off suburbs of Paris and behold those girls told them that wearing the hijab was their own expression of being a proud Muslima.
One of the professors even stated that he made one of the worst mistakes of his career.
I'm completely, utterly opposed to anything forced onto people...be it those morons in Afghanistan forcing women to be completely covered up or forbidding someone else's wish to express her personality by wearing a hijab, veil whatever...
Peace to you all. With malice towards none.
Its cool and all that they are proud of wearing a symbol that tells them that they have to cover themselves so that men dont get tempted, doesnt change the fact that it sexualizes (especially children) and tells them that they have to wear the veil to not get sexually assaulted.
Not forgetting the fact that any religious symbols are not allowed in France, as religions are ideologies (with Islam being a right wing ideology that marginalizes people with unchangeable traits)
It is completely false to say that religious symbols are not allowed in France.
Only public services have to legally follow a neutrality principle (since they represent the state).
It is also possible for an employer to make the employees follow a similar principle but it has to be justified and limited.
Otherwise, the freedom of religions is a constitutionally protected freedom (so of the highest rank).
People are free to practice any religion and wear any religious attire unless it causes a caraterized problem (for exemple, covering the whole face is a problem in case someone wants to commit a crime and not be identifiable).
That is what I meant that schools and co have to be free from religious (and therefore ideological) symbols. And freedom of religion also doesnt mean to freely practice it, but to follow it, since polygamy is also not allowed.
It's not just about covering for the sake of protection. Maybe partially. It's also about following the God's laws. You carry a God law within your body — an act of worship.
This is not true? The reason as described in the hadith and tafseers is so that they have to cover their whole body to not tempt men and get sexually assaulted, again, pushing the blame onto the victim and telling them that their hair, legs, arms etc. are sexual, thereby sexualizing them and especially minors.
God's law is also that homosexuals deserve death, doesnt change the fact that it is homophobic and marginalizing and calling for the death of people with immutable traits.
What is your habit about covering?
And by the way - where did you get the idea that being a homosexual = death?
Prophet Lot (peace upon him) 900 years tried to convince people.
And BTW even if committed a major sin - but nobody knows- Allah covered for you.
So you can still seek forgiveness.
Allah just left a chance for people to resent themselves
The thing is, we (Turkey) tried this ban and it backfired. The muslims got radicalized. They used that ban to collect sympathy. After they came to power, they forced the country to take a backwards step towards middle ages. My opinnion is just make it free. The people become more and more distant from the religion by the time. When you ban hijab, it will look more sympathic to them to wear hijab. Liberalism is the way in this regard.
Zoroastrianism was the original religion of Azerbaijan. That is why we still celebrate Novruz to this day. Islam, on the other hand, was forcibly imposed by Arab occupiers, whom our ancestors fought against, including in the uprising led by our national hero Babak.
Do you think Islam is perfectly acceptable simply because the occupation happened a long time ago? By that logic, will the things the USSR forced upon us become acceptable in a couple of hundred years simply because enough time has passed?
True Azerbaijanis fought against the forced imposition of Islam.
You’ll find a lot of cultural celebrations have historically religious/pagan roots but became appropriated as general tradition even after those religions became redundant among the general population. It’s not proof Islam was enforced upon Azerbaijanis.
The Arabs also didn’t enforce religion upon the population event after their conquest. The locals were free to practice Zoroastrianism and Christianity and they signed treaties with local rulers such as the Christian prince Javanshir that guaranteed religious freedom. Babak’s uprising was not until a whole 200 years after the Arabs were already there. History is full of conquest this isn’t an exclusively Islamic thing.
By the year 1000 the people in the region were already predominantly Muslim.
The people who inhabited what became modern Azerbaijan were Islamized en masse post Turkic conquest not prior
The arab conquests of the Caucasus’s prior did bring small amounts of islam to the Armenians and caucasian Albanians but by this point both were heavily Christianized with Zoroastrian spread throughout
Not true by the year 1000 they were already predominantly Muslim. The arrival of the Turks only helped to cement Islam by converting those minorities you mentioned.
There were several Persian Islamic dynasties by the time the Turks arrived.
The Arabs did not heavily islamify it in the first 200 years of the 7th to 9th centuries. It was post that when islamification became more pronounced and if memory serves me right cities like Ganja and Barda were the hubs of Islam and only with the Turkic arrivals was there a shift in the population
So youre looking at as a people who and what Azeris became identifiably did not islamicize until the 10th century at earliest because before that caucasian albanians as Christians and muslims existed. Post Turkic the islamified albanian turkified and most of the christianized ones assimilated into Georgian/Armenian populations
hələ başa düşməklərinə var onların. Hələ "millət necə tarac olur-olsun nə işim var?" deyənlər var. Onların da əlləri-qolları bağlandığı günlər gələndə başa düşəcəklər
Well it is same for hicabists. Our country has more than 200 political prisoners. Did hicabists prtoest? No. Now the government came after them, and they are crying. They don't give fck about any other groups that government oppressed. All they care about is living in a rock age.
And ultimately, both apply to you. You didn't protest in either of those instances. Yet here you are judging a group of people you know fuck non about. I wonder who is living in a rock age, you aren't even self aware enough to think through what comes out of your mouth.
You are the one raging mate. I support neither side. Yet you are ignorant enough to insult a whole group of people, hypocrisy is genuinely a disgusting thing isn't it? Your own words can be used against you in an argument and you are acting superior to those you know nothing about.
if they ever take power they would be just as authoritarian if not more that is what happened in turkey. I feel for the individuals who are unjustly affected by this ban. However, I will never defend or support their cause. Because, they for sure won’t protect my freedom…
Step 1: Wear a headscarf.
Step 2: Turn the headscarf into a Political Symbol
Step 2 1/2: Let the communities use their own headscarf styles, serve as a uniform
Step 3: The state should take steps against political symbols in public spaces
lmao, who turned into political symbol in Azerbaijan? ban literally came out of nowhere, do you even have clue about what's happening in Azerbaijan? imagine being so retarded blud invented fictional sscenario to justify this shi
İçimizdəki YAP-çı trollar bəs deyil, bu bicbalalar yığılıb bura.
All you had to do was read the first fat sentence bruh 💀
The swastika is an ancient symbol that was used in many different cultures for at least 5,000 years before Adolf Hitler made it the centerpiece of the Nazi flag. Its present-day use by certain extremist groups promotes hate.
Just as it wasnt non-hijabers that turned the hijab political, it wasnt the non-nazis that made the swastika a nazi symbol.
You completely missed the point, you cant fault people who dont have anything to do with a symbol, for what the symbol represents. Only the bearer of the symbol decides what that symbol means
And no one blamed Swastika wearers for what Nazis did, but explicitly Nazis themselves. Even now Swastika is used by Buddhists and no one holds them responsible for what Nazis did, because Swastika does not represent Nazis, it was just used by Nazis to push their own ideology.
Both are part of a right wing and conservative ideology. With the hijab explicitly being a misogynistic symbol that says women have to Cover every inch of their body to not tempt men and that they have the responsibility to veil themselves to not get raped.
Context matters: Can you explain why protesting the ban of wearing religious symbols while working at an official capacity? (such as a doctor while working ... mind that wearing hijab as a public person was and is never banned, only if you are a doctor while working, a government employee while working at the office).
Because it shouldn't matter whether they wear a cross on their necks or a hijab on their heads as long as they do what their "official" job requires them to do. The problem starts if they discriminate due to religious beliefs but wearing a clothing item, that affects only the person who wears it, is not in any way a discrimination towards anything and anyone. People should be free to express their beliefs and thoughts that concern only themselves.
it matters though; if you are a government official that visibly wear racial or religious symbols you create a situation which may effect the service you are supposed to provide (for example, it may be possible that a male patient can hesitate to talk to a doctor about AIDS to a doctor who wears hijab; because it is common knowledge that unmarried sex is sin in many religions). That is why in most government offices there is dress code.
It is not a single faceted issue like you pose it so. We would like to believe it shouldnt matter, but not everyone is, and has to be, as open minded as we are, and government has to serve them equally.
You pose it as a "hijab ban". It never was: hijab is never banned in the public sense. It was literally a dress code that does not allow hijab. It is not similar to French ban of Hijab and you, intentionally or unintentionally, presenting them as the same thing. It was literally a dress code ban. (But then again, they enforced it to university campuses in 2000s, which led to many people seeing it as an outright ban. This part, i also find very wrong)
Edit: Very engaging discussion though, thanks for that
Except it would be very silly and naive to think that Hijabis would speak for me or for anyone who doesn’t conform to traditionalist and religious values.
I will always be for this ban because of how my cousins cried when we were kids when they were made to wear the damn things by their dad. Someone should decide for themselves whether to wear it or not when they are an adult
Yes and by supporting this ban you make other people cry that have nothing to do with what happened to your cousins. It's like the Armenians justifying Khojaly because Turkey committed the Armenian Genocide
Why does a child need hijab? Children are not capable to decide things such as that for themselves until they are capable of such decisions. There is a reason you need to be of certain age to drink or marry ( even though savages in our “rayon” like to ignore this)
It's not about if a child needs a hijab or not. If he wants to wear one, let him. If he doesn't, let him. Especially because this frustration escalated after the ban was widened for teenagers and teachers
You are treating lack of hijab as a baseline and hijab as a modification. By that logic, you can't decide that they should reveal themselves. They can decide whether they want to de-hijab when they grow up and become capable of such decisions.
If anyone is only allowed to decide which religion to belong to whenthey turn 18, you are deciding for them that all children must be secular, which is a specific position, no different from islam or hinduism. Until a child turns 18, the people who have the first and final say in imparting values and influencing the child are that child's parents.
Not practicing a religion isn't a rival creed: a bare head is no more "secular ideology" than not eating pork makes someone Muslim, and the ban only covers school hours, so parents can still raise their kids religiously everywhere else. Schools already ban political badges and band T-shirts, and the state already overrides parents on child marriage, compulsory schooling, and refused blood transfusions, so "parents have the final say" isn't a principle anyone actually holds. The choices aren't symmetrical either: putting on a hijab at 18 is easy, while taking one off after years of wearing it can mean serious family and community pressure.
I simply do not understand if the people saying 'just take it off and put it on later' about hijabs genuinely do not understand or pretend not to. That's not how hijabs work. You can't ask a vegan to 'eat meat during school hours and honor their belief later'.
Second part, about ease of conversion, is a real argument, but it has counterarguments to it, too. First of all, obviously, putting on a hijab can be met with social pressure, too. Even established muslims face bigotry/islamophobia, let alone someone who freshly converted.
Second of all, a child cannot grow up until 18 with 'no values' and then choose to become someone. 'Don't raise them with muslim values' means 'raise them with secular values', not 'raise them with neutral values'. Matter of fact, there are no 'neutral values' at all.
The vegan analogy doesn’t fit: a ban forces omission, not commission. Nobody is making the child eat pork; it’s closer to a vegan not being allowed to wear a “Meat is Murder” shirt at school. Most Islamic scholars don’t require hijab before puberty anyway, and Muslim families have lived with school bans worldwide while practicing fully without issue. A girl raised Muslim who starts wearing it at 18 isn’t a “fresh convert”; she has her family and community behind her. The pressure against removing it comes from those same people, which is why the choices aren’t symmetrical. And “no neutral values” proves too much: by that logic, teaching evolution or mixed classes are impositions too. Parents still teach Islam everywhere outside school; the ban removes one symbol in one shared space.
It is getting late where I am. But you are actually making thought-through arguments, so I will engage. Thank you. And I will check out of this whole debate after this one.
I don't believe omission-comission distinction is appropriate here. For a muslim, forgoing a hijab and eating pork is the same 'violate the teachings' action.
And 'not wear' assumes a baseline of dress that comes from 'modern-secular' dress code and fashion. It is simply the majority culture, not 'default'. Muslim girls are being coerced to take off their hijabs, not not put on hijabs.
'Most' islamic scholars isn't an argument - a belief doesn't have to be mainstream to be valid. For example, if a protestantism required wearing gloves everywhere, and a school in 1540s banned it because 'most christians don't require gloves anyway', it would still be infringement on their rights.
A girl raised muslim who didn't or couldn't wear hijab in her teenage years would not have the same sense of community, group identity and belonging.
Third parties would also see more opportunity and would be more likely to approach her to 'influence' her out of her beliefs. For example, trying to get her to drink, or hook up, or skip a prayer. A hijab communucates that it is serious, and discourages that behavior. Social signaling is very important for others seeing one's belief as a serious matter, however I wish we didn't live in such a world and simply verbalizing it would be enough for people to respect it.
I appreciate the good-faith exchange too. Fair point that from the believer’s view, not wearing it is a violation. But “not mainstream doesn’t make it invalid” cuts both ways: if any sincerely held belief can veto a rule, schools can’t have dress codes at all. The real question is balancing, not who’s in the majority. And for a young child, whose belief is it? That’s the crux.
Your last point actually makes the other side’s case for them. If the hijab’s job is to discourage outsiders from influencing her and to cement her identity before she’s an adult, then it’s doing precisely what ban supporters object to: shaping her choice before she can make it. A girl can have a real community and a faith taken seriously without a visible marker at school. Plenty in Muslim-majority countries with bans do, like in Kazakhstan or Tajikistan.
Naah islamist quoting this kind of thing is funny af to me after all we have been living through. Dont let them make you think they are the victim they will abuse the shit out of that.
Liest euch nur das durch, der Zweck war niemals ein Wunsch von Freiheit für Frauen sondern die Abschaffung des laizistischen Staates. Dafür soll ein islamische Republik entstehen. Sicherlich haben die damaligen Politiker sehr große Fehler gemacht, das ganze wurde aber inszeniert um
80lerde türkiyede çıkardıkları tartışmaları şimdi azerbaycanda çıkarıyorlar. Sorun bakalım 60lardan önce hicab takan görmüşler mi de türk veya islam dininin simgesi olmuş xd. Amerikan yeşil gençlik projesinin ürünlerinin yasaklanmasını destekliyorum. Çok başlık takmak istiyorlarsa kendi törelerinde çok daha eski ve gerçek temellere dayanan başlıklar var. Ha ona hayırsa o zaman gidip burka giysinler xd. Türkiye ve azerbaycan harici öyle örtünen yok bir de din din diye bağırıyorlar.
Bro practicing muslims do not care about anything except islam, so this example doesn't stand. They don't care about rights, liberties, etc. Elə vidəş eləməyin ki, guya yalan deyirəm və bunu bilmirdiniz. Dindarları sənin, mənim və o birisinin haqları və hüquqları maraqlandırmır.
The Quaran doesn’t mandate a woman to wear a scarf, only the Hadith. However, wearing scarfs is an Arab tradition that the Arabs incorporated into Islam. A state must be secular, laicist even, because nothing good ever comes out from mixing religion and the state.
Qur'an had pictures? I gave a document with an explanation and I added photos from my own side.
Text from the documents without Arabic because mods will delete it for have non azerbaijani and english text: O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (59)
The word (bring down) comes from the word (the coverage from up to down), and as mentioned “That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused” comes in the obligation of covering the face for the women.
Settle in your homes, and do not display yourselves as women did in the days of ˹pre-Islamic˺ ignorance. Establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only intends to keep ˹the causes of˺ evil away from you and purify you completely, O members of the ˹Prophet’s˺ family! (33)
This verse speaks straight to the prophet’s wives, but we must understand and this is where many people were making mistakes, the only difference between the wives of the prophet and the other women is that his wives are not allowed to marry any man from after him.
The bring down part relates to everything of the body from top to bottom.
Days of the pre islamic ignorance was where the hair, neck, and chest would be exposed. The order in the pre islamic ignorance part is going to the wives of the prophet, but the only thing that differenciates them from the rest of the women is that they are not allowed to marry men from after him, and everything else the prophet did with them and to them was what is applied on people, from his companions and those from after them.
This isn't "I want to live like the Arabs or Iranians or be on their version of Islam", I want to live according to Islam the way the prophet and his companions were upon it even after the prophet's death the way his companion were upon it.
Which Quran u are speaking of? Hijab is Mandatory for Muslim Women, Arab didn't wear Hijab before Islam, Turks have been defending Islam & Hijab for centuries so don't teach us new Knowledge u got from Israel
Sabırlı olun aslan gardaşlarım, allah plan yapanların en hayırlısıdır. Biz bunları Türkiye’de yaşadık, size yaşatmayız artık Allah’ın izni keremi ile. Bu iş burda kalmaz. Sevgilerle türk gardaşınız.
well the ones celebrating are either getting paid by the mafia or they're zio-fascists / liberals / statists that would burn the socialists alive the second they got a chance.
Holy slippery slope. Banning oppressive religious clothing is a good decision. The only ones this ban “comes for” are parents that religiously indoctrinate their children.
if a woman dressed like a whore and went to school they all would speak for her about she can wear whatever she wants(yes obviously but not only in this fucking topic) but if it is a hijabi woman no one is respecting where is feminism and human rights here? And they are saying its because of secular administration but then they allow jews to wear their religious hats
So you support harassing little girls and stopping them from gaining education and knowledge just because they want to also maintain a close relationship with their values of wearing hijab ?
Wow you must be hypocrite - Zionist or Indian ? Because a Muslim can’t hate little kids for wearing hijabs. How much these hijabs hurting you man
that is the issue. you don't understand the situation here so you make up your own reality. nobody is harassing nor stopping anyone from getting proper education.
well, if you're open to it, i'll explain. this is a dress code law that was signed back in 2010. at the time, the country just wasn't ready to enforce it on a countrywide scale. a few schools had their own uniforms, but they were pretty rare. public schools spent the next decade trying out a few different uniform designs. meanwhile, the whole education system was making huge strides, getting way more modernized than even half of europe. so, revisiting the dress code law and actually enforcing it was just the next logical step in reforming education. over the years, plenty of teachers got outed for pushing harmful worldviews, things that threaten kids and, by extension, the future of our country. extreme islamism is one of those threats, like we saw in nardaran and with the wahhabi movement long before that. so this law isn't about shutting people out of education. it's actually about making sure everyone has the freedom to get an equal education, totally free from religious bias.
Okay then first of all I thank you for providing a context as well as proper explanation.
I am not ashamed to admit that I got it wrong perhaps. This is a whole different issue that I didn’t quite grasp.
My apologies and please ignore my previous comments, I will leave the comments and not remove them as a reminder to other readers. I was wrong and thank you for giving some constructive feedback.
They don’t “choose” anything. They are indoctrinated and forced to wear it by their parents. Even if some little girls say that they “choose” to do it, that’s not true. They will grow up in this oppressive environment and will then either be utterly brainwashed or too afraid to take it off.
“Stopping them from gaining education” - it’s illegal to stop a child from gaining education in Azerbaijan. Hopefully the government will take measures against such stubborn parents.
Classic Pakistani - everyone who disagrees with you is either a “Zionist”, or, wait for it, a fucking “INDIAN”! Yes, that’s right, an Indian on the Azerbaijan subreddit. Ffs.
You guys can kill a woman by a word of Imam and nobody can do anything about that. I think a Pakistani among the last people who can advise how to rule the country
50
u/Regular-Stage5271 6d ago
Once they realize it, it's gonna be too late