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.