Why HIJAB disturbs dictators, democrats
In 1925, Kamal Ataturk, father of post-Ottoman
In 1928, Reza Khan, another soldier who seized power, passed a copycat Uniform Dress Law in neighbouring
Seven states in
The French Assembly overwhelmingly approved a ban on the HIJAB for school students. That is their idea of securing French secularism.
Some German and French citizens envisage extending the HIJAB ban well beyond schools. That’s their idea of emancipating all its wearers.
As the target of fascist, feminist or racist and mostly male wrath, the HIJABI woman is victimized both by those wanting to subjugate her and those who would liberate her. Or she is scapegoat-ed, in the service of one ideology or another.
What is it about her that so rattles dictators and democrats alike?
She is the battleground for the armies of those out to purify Islam or demonise it.
The FATWAS of the German and French governments echo those of Ataturk and the first Shah of Iran. They are interpreting secularism the way the despots did: as anti-religious – more precisely, anti-Islamic – rather than by its essential premise of neutrality toward all faiths.
One rationalized the ban under the rubric of progressivism, calling the HIJAB “a symbol of fundamentalism and extremism.” The justice minister of another was more forthright: German school children “have to learn the roots of Christian religion and European culture.”
Teachers and administrators will rule whether a bandanna on a Muslim girl, or a beard on a Muslim boy, would violate the law but not on students of other faiths or no faith at all.
And what of the Sikhs
This is treacherous turf.
Two more dubious rationales have been proffered.
One ascribes a political, as opposed to religious, motive to the HIJAB and invests it with radical attributes.
Alain Juppe, a former prime minister, encapsulates it thus: “It’s not paranoid to say we’re faced with a rise of political and religious fanaticism.”
The second posits the HIJAB ban as a tool for battling anti-Semitism. The formulation of Education Minister Luc Ferry stacks up thus: HIJAB is a/the source of anti-Semitism. Ban it, and the problem will be minimized or solved.
This is as dishonest as it gets.
While some Jewish groups have gone along with the law, others see it for what it is: “disgraceful” and “sad,” as described in London by Lord Greville Janner, vice-president of the World Jewish Congress.
French politicians and media also cite the pro-ban views of some Muslims as proof of the soundness of the decision. Others note that a majority of Muslim women in France, indeed across the world, do not wear the HIJAB.
This is as ignorant as it is racist.
That a majority of Christians do not go to church on Sundays does not negate the right of those who do.
That a majority of Jews are not Orthodox does not derogate from the fundamental religious right of those who wear the yarmulke and long locks.
That some Sikhs shave doesn’t mean that others do not have the right to believe their religion commands otherwise.
It is absurd to expect all Muslims to speak with one voice on religious matters.
It is downright authoritarian to present as legitimate the views of only those Muslims who echo government thinking.
Germany and France are moving in the direction of Turkey, while the latter is moving toward European norms in order to join the European Union.
Turkish women on the public payroll are still banned from wearing the HIJAB. But the mild Islamist government, moving toward restoring the human rights of Kurds and others, could conceivably lift the ban.
It is ironic that while Ataturk’s legacy is being dismantled in its homeland, parts of it are being imposed in democratic Europe.
Meanwhile, across the Muslim world, people will see the French and German initiatives as another instance of Islamophobia gripping the West.
They, like the Muslim girls in Europe, likely will find solace in more Islam, not less.
Haroun Siddiqui from the Toronto Star’s editorial page