Turkey’s religious body says engaged couples should not hold hands
Source: Hurriyet Daily News
The Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), Turkey’s top religious body, has stated that engaged couples should not hold hands or spend time alone together during their engagement period.
“In this period, it is not inconvenient for couples to meet and talk to get to know each other, if their privacy is considered. However, there could be undesired incidents with or without their families’ knowledge … such as flirting, cohabitating or being alone [with one another]. This encourages gossip and holding hands, which Islam does not allow,” the Diyanet said, responding to a public question.
It urged couples to fulfil their engagement period “in line with Islamic norms,” encouraging couples not to have a religious marriage unless a civil marriage had been decided upon.
The Diyanet - which is one of Turkey’s best funded state institutions, largely provided for by public taxation - has previously made headlines with controversial rulings on the usage of toilet paper and cleaning products containing alcohol.
Read more: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-religious-body-says-engaged-couples-should-not-hold-hands.aspx?pageID=238&nID=93379&NewsCatID=393
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 12:14 AM - Edit history (5)
The ancient Romans dislike of the left brought with it the Latin word for evil, sinister, which also meant left.
Left was consider bad luck that to start even a walk with the left foot was considered bad luck. This became so ingrained that when Frederick the Great of Prussia in the mid 1700s wanted to speed up his army by forcing them to THINK of what was the next step to take forced them to start with their left foot for it was so out of the ordinarily by then. All armies followed what Frederick the Great did, so all soldiers today do commands on their left foot and have forgotten it was to differentiate marching from walking.
Just pointing out how bad doing anything with your LEFT was prior to the mid 1900s.
People even traveled on their left, which is still the norm in England and many other island nations. The Germans started the move to travel on the right do to adopting teams of horses (horses side by side) instead of in tandem (horses in line ahead or behind each other). Given people mount horses on the horse's left, in a team the lead horse is also on the left. When two teams of horses meet each other on a road, the lead horses of each team had two other horses between them when passing on the left, but where right next to each other when passing on the right. Fir this reason passing on the right became the norm in Germany by 1600 and from Germany spread to the rest of Europe, except England, by 1700. In the 1700, do to German migration to America, passing on the right became the norm in America by 1750.
Notice this was to adapt mounting a horse on the left to teams of horses. We mount horses on the horse's left for we carried swords on our left to better draw them with our right hands. A sword on the left did not have to be carried across a horse's back if you mount the horse on the horse's left.
Women were also expected to stand on their husband's left. Three feet to his left and three feet behind him. Now this sounds sexist but there was a reason for it. Most men are right handed. In a tight group it is easier if everyone uses the same arm, thus right handedness was favored for it covered over 90% of men.
Women on their man's left was also the result of most men being right handed. I would like to say this is related to swords, but women being on behind and to the left pre-existed the invention of bronze and copper is to soft to make a sword out of. Thus this pattern reflected the use of spears as pikes or quarter-staffs.
A man with a quarter staff in his right arm could defend himself from attacks from all directions except to his left rear. Attacks from his front he could see and defend himself from. Attacks from his right or left he could see and defend himself from. An attack from his rear right he could react to be dripping his staff and using its rear against an attacker. This was NOT possible if the attack was from his left rear. Thus his woman stool that position. Any attack on him from his left rear had to go through her, and she could delay any such attack long enough for him to react to it. In that position she could also warn him about any attack from his rear and rear right and give him the few seconds he would need to react to such an attack.
Remember I am talking about the time where most fights involved physical muscle. In such fights men are better. This did not mean women were just standing around when a fight broke out. In many cultures women were the archers while the men did the hand to hand combat. The ancient Sarmatians of the Black Sea region (present day Ukraine). These were an Iranian speaking group, who were known to have the best horses of the ancient world (these are believed to be the ancestors of the Arabian horse, pre Mohammad the Arabs were known to hate horses, Mohammad changed that).
The Sarmatians were known to the Ancient Greeks as the people whose "A Maiden could not marry till she killed three men in combat". Sarmatians were known horse archers, and would send their women to shoot arrows into their enemy's formations and then ride away hoping those who their had just attacked would chase them. If their did the women would ride right by the men sitting in ambush with lances and more arrows. Thus the women perform what was later called "Light Cavalry" duties, scouting, harassing the enemy, gathering fodder and food for the troops and joining behind any heavy cavalry charge. "Heavy Cavalry" is the term for horse used to charge enemy foot and horse soldiers to break up those formations and scatter them. Heavy Cavalry is the classic knight charge, the saber mounted horse charge etc. They can be used as light Cavalry but generally kept back to be at full strength when a charge is called for.
More on the Sarmatians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
Please do NOT confuse them with the Samaritans of the bible, a completely different group of people, living in Palestine NOT the Black Sea Area. I mention them for the spelling is close:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans
One branch of the Sarmatians survived till the fifth century, these were the Alans of the late Roman Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans
Both the Alans and Sarmatians were absorbed by the Slavs after about 500, as the Slavs moved into former Sarmatian territory with the heavy plow. The Heavy plow transformed previous pasture only land to farm land and farmland can support a much higher level of population not only of people but horses. This preexisting Sarmatian tradition along with the Slavic tradition of a female pagan "King" of the gods (transformed into a worship of Mary according to Protestant sources), women in Slavic countries tend to have more power (but not necessary more "Rights"
then women in western countries.
The tactics of the Ancient Sarmatians were extremely effective on the Steppes (and remain the dominate tactic on the Steppes till Cannon Was introduced by Ivan the Terrible and even after that date was still effective on the Steppes till the mid 1800s when firearms finally caught up with bows in term of effective volume fire).
These tactics were so effective that the heavy cavalry (male) formation was adopted by the late Roman imperial army around 600 AD. Two lines of Lancers, followed by four lines of archers, followed by one line of more Lancers. The Archers shooting over the head of the Lancers in front of them (and then shooting for volume not accuracy). All the horsemen worn heavy armor and the armor was NOT nly on the men riding the horses, but the horses themselves.
The Roman tactical book of 600 AD does NOT mention harassing by light cavalry, but does mention that harassment of the enemy is important but gives that to males not females (and can be done by horse or foot soldiers).
The Sarmatians seem to have divided the roles of light and heavy cavalry along sex lines. Being pregnant seems NOT to keep women out of combat among the Sarmatians. The Greek legend of the Amazons seems to reflect contacts with the Sarmatians, along with a refusal to accept a culture where men would defer to women in anything outside the home. A good example of this is the Greek story of the Amazons burning off their right breast so their could shoot arrows. This makes no sense for such an act has no effect on a woman's ability to use a bow. On the other hand, a woman having her baby sucking off her Left Breast while she is shooting arrows with her right arms, is something no Ancient Greek could ever accept as possible. Such actions are not only doable but it is THE most likely explanation for the Greek report of Amazons burning their right breasts. I.e. The Greeks saw woman shooting arrows at them, some women with a larger frontage under their scale armor on the woman's left. The enlargement was a baby sucking on the baby's mother left breast while she was shooting arrows with her right arms. Breast feeding a baby while going into combat was beyond any ancient Greeks ability to accept so that the burning off of the breast was a more acceptable explanation then what appears to have actually occurred (i.e. taking a baby into combat, breast feeding that baby while shooting arrows into enemy formations).
In graves of leaders of the Sarmatians, if it is male bows, arrows and swords are found. If the grave is for a female leader only bows and arrows are found. This reflected their tactics, only men did any actual charge, but women joined in and probably lead any harassment of any invading force.
I bring up the Sarmatians to show women did participate in combat, but their deferred any hand to hand combat to men for men are physically stronger (THis recured in Vietnam, women tended to avoid hand to hand combat, leaving that to the men, but did participate in fighting including spinning and other firearms related actions). Thus even the Sarmatians women would be to their men's left and rear in any meeting with potential enemies. With the Sarmatians the women may even be further to the rear but within bow shoot range.
Please note even today the people on the Steppes make a practice of shooting from horseback, and it is something woman participate in, through today the tendency is to fire AK-47s instead of bows.
Thus a woman's place to the rear and left of their man had a strong rationale in the ancient world and in most places in the world till recent centuries when you finally start to see lefties being accepted.
Please note, in formations it is best if all but the ones on the edge go the same way. On the edges it is better to go in the direction of that edge. Thus in formations dominated by right handed people. The formation is better off going to its right. At the same time it is better for the left side to go to its left. In smallest effective formation the number in the formation tends to be around 10. While a modern fire team is around four soldiers, a squad tends to have 10 to 12 soldiers, organized with two fire teams. Such a squad works best with everyone but the man on the left moving right. Thus a good ratio of lefties to righties in most combat formations is about 9 to 1. Thus the modern ratio seems to be 9 to 1 to reflect this combat need in the past. Nine people attacking as one to the unit's right, while one person guarding the left.
This is also true in baseball. Every position (with the possible positions in the outfield), except first base, is better done by a right handed player then a left handed player. The first base is the only position that a left handed player is better at then a right handed player (all other things equal).
Sheer or otherwise...
