Western mores and the headscarf!
Khalid Saleem
First there was news that the Swiss had put a ban on the minaret that
has always been considered an essential part of the structure of a
mosque. Apparently, the minaret was considered a threat of sorts to the
Swiss “Way of Life”! Then, came tidings of the French campaign to put a
ban on the wearing of the veil (Hijab) by Muslim girls. Both leave one
dumbfounded.
The Muslim World – or part of it – reacted in an irrational manner, as
is its wont, to either of these two developments. It is not often that
one gets a bit of good news from the Muslim world. There has been one
single exception, though. One refers to the welcome news some years ago
that Turkey had at long last lifted the ban on headscarves. The Turkish
parliament voted to amend the constitution to lift the decades-old ban
on (Islamic) headscarves in Turkey’s universities (and, one presumes,
other institutions).
The decision, one recalls, had not gone unchallenged though. Reportedly
tens of thousands of Turks demonstrated in the capital Ankara against
the amendment. “Turkey is secular and will remain secular “, they were
reported to have chanted. Be that as it may, one is still at a loss to
quite appreciate the juxtaposition between the concept of secularism and
a piece of cloth serving as headscarf. One had always presumed that
secularism grants freedom to an individual to decide his or her
principles and creed, without let or hindrance. But in the instance in
question we found some of our Turkish brothers expressing fears that the
headscarf was some kind of threat to secularism. Surely, this is not on;
not in the twenty-first century!
One cannot help noticing that the wretched headscarf has exhibited an
uncanny tendency to keep coming back into the news headlines. It brought
to one’s recollection that some years back there had been the
much-publicized case of a Turkish lady parliamentarian who had lost her
membership on the indefensible charge of her insistence on wearing the
headscarf in the parliament chamber. Turkey, as it happened, had enacted
strict laws against the wearing of certain headdresses and any one
falling foul of these was expected to pay the price. One cannot but hope
and pray that the new constitutional amendment is here to stay.
Taking the general view, one had never in one’s wildest imagination
dreamed that a piece of cloth used as a head-covering could generate
ripples of the magnitude usually associated with major earthquakes; and
this in countries that pride themselves on their liberal values.
Surprisingly, the apparently innocent practice of wearing a headscarf
has been a matter of controversy for quite some time now. One can only
surmise that there is more to this phenomenon than meets the untrained
eye.
There was this instance of the German Muslim lady who, some years ago,
was refused employment in German schools despite having been educated
and duly qualified as a certified teacher in that very country. Her only
crime was that she insisted on wearing a headscarf in class. One cannot
quite fathom the motives of the custodians of the values of Western
civilization who would not bat an eyelid at the sight of a scantily-clad
girl teaching a class and yet be mortified if another expressed the
desire to cover her head because of her religious beliefs. This is
particularly intriguing since it is more or less accepted practice for
society women in the West to wear hats on formal occasions.
The ‘civilized’ Western world appears more and more to be exhibiting an
ugly bias in so far as their much-vaunted defense of ‘human rights’ is
concerned. Not only do they arrogate to themselves the right to decide
what are human rights and what are ‘wrongs’, but they also reserve for
themselves the right to move the goalposts when it suits their purpose.
For instance, the right of a girl to go about provocatively and/or
scantily dressed in public is jealously defended. Yet her right to cover
her hair is looked upon with suspicion!
While on the subject, one is reminded of a hilariously funny incident
that was reported by the Western press several years ago. It had
happened in those days when the wearing of trousers by ladies on formal
occasions was frowned upon, not being considered ‘proper’ in the correct
circles of society. In several Western societies at that juncture, women
wearing trousers were denied entry into posh restaurants, offices and
clubs on the grounds that they were not ‘properly’ dressed. It so
happened that a well-known society lady appearing at a posh club in
London wearing a blouse and trousers was refused admission. All efforts
at persuasion having proved fruitless, the lady in question calmly
stepped out of her trousers, folded them up and put them in her bag.
There was then no objection at all to her entry into the establishment
in that state of virtual undress. This is relativity for you!
The ‘civilized’ Western world proudly projects itself as the undisputed
champion of ‘human rights’ the world over; the sensitive western hearts
bleed at what they selectively see as denial of human rights in the
East. This is not to suggest that all is hunky dory in the East; just
that respect for human rights should be universal and not selective.
Each nation and/or society has its traditions, its own culture and its
values. Breaking traditions and values does not make a nation or state
more ‘liberal’ or free. Nor, one must add, does it give one nation the
right to pass judgment on others.
Any society that prides itself on being liberal and an upholder of human
rights, then, by very definition should have a broad and unprejudiced
outlook. In other words, no one can expect to be liberal vis-à-vis tenet
‘A’ and at the same time restrictive as regards tenet ‘B’. By the same
token, no one can reserve the right to decide what is ‘good’ per se and
what is not. To quote just one instance; the Western animal rights lobby
expresses outrage at instances of bear-baiting in parts of South Asia
and yet sees nothing wrong with bull-fighting in Europe which is
generally accepted as a popular spectator sport.
It is time that the Western world realized that not all that it holds
dear is also good for the rest of the world. The world has seen several
civilizations. Each of these had its strong points as well as its
weaknesses. No civilization was, or is, perfect. And yet today many in
the West consider their civilization as above all imperfections. All
they believe in is ‘good’ and all to the contrary is ‘not good’ per se.
This is a pity to say the least.
The idea of ‘clash of civilizations’ is perverse in the extreme. There
is no reason for civilizations to clash. Each civilization can
supplement and enrich the other. All that is needed is an open mind and
a spirit of tolerance and justice. This is the twenty-first century. The
self-proclaimed liberal Western societies would do well not to regard
the mere donning of the headscarf by a Muslim girl as a threat. |
