Let me say at the outset that I am, in principle, not opposed to the headscarf, should a woman so choose.
KENT, UK: This is with reference to Khalid Saleem’s article “Threatened by the headscarf” (November 4). Let me say at the outset that I am, in principle, not opposed to the headscarf, should a woman so choose. I am also, by the same token, supportive of a woman’s right not to wear the headscarf. Thus, if that right is violated, such as in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is equally problematic. However, the writer seems to be a bit confused. He starts off with the Turkish example and then goes on to bolster his argument with a critique of the West.
Perhaps the writer is unfamiliar with Turkey’s history and secular nature. Turkey’s secular credentials were not imported from the West but were indigenous. Turkey was taken on the secular path by Ataturk, who had fought against western powers and established credibility among other Turks as a national hero. He saved the Ottoman Empire from being completely overrun by Christian Europe. After he did that, he went on a secularisation drive because he felt that it was the way to progress. One can argue that perhaps he went overboard but one cannot accuse him of being a western lackey. I do find it curious; however, that those men who jump to the fore to support a woman’s right to a headscarf, largely remain silent when a woman’s right to drive or vote or even work is denied on false pretexts and misinterpretations of Islam. Could it be that they are threatened by female emancipation and full participation just as the West is threatened by Islamic symbols?
Ayesha Ijaz Khan
Published in The Express Tribune, November 5th, 2010.
