Turkish Theologians Sue Headscarf Fashion Mogul
I would like to thank a reader for calling the following article to my attention:
Two liberal theologians have taken Turkey’s most famous Islamic clothes designer to court, alleging the couturier is exploiting religion for personal profit. The case is highlighting the growing tension between Islam and the country’s market economy.
Dubbed “Allah’s tailor” by the press, Mustafa Karaduman long ago earned the odium of Turkish secularists for his successful mass-marketing of the brightly-colored headscarves and ankle-length coats that have become a trademark of conservative urban women.
But what angered the two Turkish theologians — Ilhami Guler and Suleyman Bayraktar — was the name of the company that Karaduman established in the 1980s. “Tekbir” refers to the core statement of Muslim belief — “there is no God but God.”
“Jesus was upset by the sight of the money-lenders in the Temple, and I’m upset by the thought of a new generation of Muslims for whom Tekbir means expensive headscarves,” Guler says…
A court decision requiring Tekbir to change its name could trigger a host of other cases against countless other Turkish companies with religious names — from Sharia Swimsuits via Medina Travel to Jihad Meat Balls.
Tekbir’s Karaduman has long been vilified by religious conservatives in Turkey, who argue that the fashion displays of headscarf-wearing models he pioneered in the 1990s are un-Islamic. But Ilhami Guler says it was the heavily publicized mid-April release of Tekbir’s 2008 summer collection that drove him to take action.
With white-robed dervishes whirling in the background, models — none of whom wear a veil in real life — strutted up and down to the sound of mournful Sufi pipes. At one point, they dropped to their knees and raised their hands, as though asking God for forgiveness….
In the conservative press, too, news of the court case has generally been greeted positively. But not all pious Turks approve of Guler’s action. A headscarf-wearing PhD student in Istanbul, Hilal Kaplan thinks the mentality behind the Tekbir trial is uncomfortably close to the closure case a senior prosecutor opened against the AKP government this March for anti-secular activities….
“One is unhappy about the mixing of religion and trade, the other about the mixing of religion and politics,” she says. “What we need is debate, not bans.”
While Mustafa Karaduman declined to comment about the case, his belief in Islamic fashion appears unshaken. Interviewed recently by a conservative Turkish news agency, he boasted that even the Iranian government had asked for his help in modernizing Islamic clothing.
If anything, the threat to Tekbir’s domination of the conservative fashion market comes from Karaduman’s public admission late in April that he had three wives. Accepted under Islamic law, polygamy has officially been banned in Turkey for 80 years. Karaduman’s confession sparked outrage, not least among conservative women.
“I used sometimes to shop in that gentleman’s store,” says Hidayet Tuksal, a prominent religious feminist. “I will never do so again.”
She doesn’t think she’s the only one taking a stand either. “The Tekbir shop near my house used to be packed. Every time I’ve walked past it since April, it’s been nearly empty.”
“Tekbir” refers to the core statement of Muslim belief — “there is no God but God.”
No it doesn’t. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir
Let me add some more:
Two liberal theologians have taken Turkey’s most famous Islamic clothes designer to court, alleging the couturier is exploiting religion for personal profit.
There are several issues here. First of all to be annoyed by the use of religious terminology for marketing purposes does not indicate one is a liberal but rather that one is a conservative. It might be that truly conservative values here might correspond to a liberal approach when looked at from a Western point of view (this is actually an interesting point but I lack the depth of knowledge and the time to explore it).
‘Liberal’ in a more Western sense, especially in the particular strain of propaganda directed to English speakers by some, is actually a part of the advertised ‘moderate Muslim’ package. This kind of shallow consumption habits and superficial/symbolic religiosity with branded clothing etc. is talked up as a good thing that renders Muslims ‘harmless’ in some sense.
All that said, I don’t think suing people for brand names in this a manner is a good idea and this case in particular sets a bad precedent. I don’t know what will happen but if the government will be involved, I’d much rather see the trademark office simply refuse to register words with religious significance rather than having laws agiast ‘exploiting religion for profit.’ I highly doubt you can have a law agaist that and expect its scope to be well-defined. It appears, afterall, to be the second oldest profession.