Well, you quoted that Europe demands assimilation. So, I compared the situation of Europe to that of a few Islamic countries to illustrate that Europe is far more welcoming for foreign cultures compared to most Islamic countries.
I merely quoted that word to in turn illustrate that the pressure for a certain kind of 'assimilation' is indeed there and that nature of that extends far beyond 'Places of Worship' ! It is this underlying assumption that the 'natives' have a greater say in what should or shouldn't be the dominant culture of the State and that increasingly they'd want others to conform to that in one way or the other ! As it so happens in the eyes of the State there isn't any legal difference between a 'Native' and an 'Immigrant' so why would one's perspective enjoy a greater privilege than the others ?
The difference between that and what is in most Islamic States is that most of us explicitly mention that 'Islam will be our ideology, our dominant culture etc'; one might disagree with it but its there in the open for all to see when they apply for citizenship !
Well, we are all here to give our respective perspectives in a debate. Maybe in your perspective a woman is modest if she wears headscarf and I somewhat agree with that. Perhaps my perspective is more "western" than yours. However, my contention is that there is a certain limit to what can be allowed and what cannot. And as I explained in my earlier post, the headscarf, when gains prominence, may induce a "piety divide", differentiating women on their headscarf preferences. Thus, the actual personality of those people will be overlooked and other woman who don't want to wear headscarf will be pressurized to do so.
Were we arguing on, say, a country like France, I could bring up many other reasons why headscarf should be banned but I am analyzing in context of Turkey - a secular nation as envisioned by it's founding father however, composed of an Islamic majority.
No one in my family wears a headscarf and I don't think that a women who wears one is more modest than others ! I'm simply saying that do I have the right to legislate against a piece of clothing that someone might consider to be 'modest' or 'pious' ? I think not ! Not because I don't have an opinion on it but because I see wearing a headscarf no different from wearing a pair of jeans and if it gives some a kick thinking that its 'modest'...then fine. I can't define 'modesty'...no one can, its such a normative thing and so let them do as they please !
As far as making 10 year olds wear it is concerned then I think that I'm in no position to tell a parent what he or she can or can't teach their kids with respect to 'piety' ! And why ? Because 1) in the context of the headscarf, its a piece of clothing and its as oppressive as making a 10 year old boy wear a tie. And 2) because it, like the above part, sets a dangerous precedent whereby the State may override a parent's desire to bring their children up in a said way !
And I do understand that there is a difference between stopping a parent from teaching his/her kid that its okay to stick a knife in Grandpa because Eugenics is the way to go and teaching them 'women should cover themselves up and the headscarf is the way to go' ! I just don't see them in the same vein !
Plus the 'piety divide' works both ways ! A women who thinks that 'its modest to wear a headscarf' maybe be pressurized to forsake it because others give her looks betraying thoughts like 'oh that poor girl...she must be forced to wear it by her father or her husband' etc. Just as I wouldn't give credence to one side of the divide I wouldn't give any to the other either !
Of course you can argue like that. I would agree with you that nudity, more accurately termed "indecent exposure" (as termed by US legislative system) should be banned in public places.
Actually, you can never go for complete "freedom". Everything would be anarchy if that were so. The dilemma is to minimize constraints to liberty while at the same time, ensuring that the society is not harmed as a result of one's "free" actions. Society would be harmed would people be allowed to freely roam around naked in public because sexuality would be unrestrained. Society would be potentially harmed as a result of the Headscarf culture gaining prominence, as I explained before. This is the problem with headscarf, as is the problem with nudity.
Nudity was just one point in a an entire paragraph of other points. Headscarf is just a piece of clothing which isn't any different from variations in a pair of jeans, a shirt or a cap ! Just as I wouldn't think it to be an issue if a women chooses to wear a shirt that hides her curves for the same reasons of modesty or would want to drape a shawl on her bosom for the same reasons, I wouldn't look much more into a 'headscarf'. The bottom line is that its all about 'perception' and that trade-off between 'perception' and 'one's right to decide however amount of cloth they'd like to cover their heads with' ! In any sane society the right of an individual wouldn't be subservient to 'perceptions' cooked up by a plethora of factors, with the media being the biggest responsible party. Had that been the case....we'd still have stereotyping of the Blacks for the skewed crime statistics in the United States, of the Eastern Europeans for say the crime statistics amongst immigrants in West Europe, of thinking, in conservative societies, that every women who has men as friends, has a less than admirable character etc.; each of those instances and many more of a similar nature are condemnable and not in the least bit condoneable. I see a need to change the 'perception' of people that just because a women chooses to wear a headscarf - she's oppressed or that just because a parent decides to teach his/her children that 'wearing the headscarf is a good thing to do'...shes oppressing that little girl or she in turn has been oppressed by her husband !
It is not just exporting the idea "headscarf is a good thing/looks good'. If that were so there wouldn't be any problem. Many Muslims don't think that way. They think if you are a girl and don't wear headscarf, you are less pious than a girl who wears a headscarf. People with a more extremist mindset think if you don't wear headscarf, you may be heading for hell. They judge people based on appearances rather than personality.
I'm not sure how much thats true because barring one women in my family no one in my immediate or extending family wears a headscarf ! None of the women in my friend's families wear them and our, Pakistani women, in general don't wear it and no one thinks them to be less pious ! But nor does anyone thinks that those who do wear them are some masquerading as 'holier than thou' ! Its a non-issue for us and we believe that it should be thus for those elsewhere as well.
This would deviate the topic somewhat but: Now as to why I used the term "imperialism", the culture of headscarf and veil was prominent as public dresses in pre-Islamic Arabia. Islam did not add anything to this at all but in fact, liberalized this culture so that it suits all sorts of culture over the world. In short, only mandated that "general modesty in attire according to individual perspective" be practiced, chest be covered, garments be "lengthened" according to individual perspective and lax dress code with family members.
Now what we have across the Islamic world is this Arab culture being falsely propagated as an Islamic requirement. When we see someone tagging an image in facebook warning "sisters" to not show any hair because her hair would burn in hell if she does (or something similar), it just shows how much this Arab culture has succeeded in influencing gullible Muslims in the name of Islam. Thus the term "Arab cultural imperialism in the garb of Islam".
You may not agree with the term because there are different religious interpretations but that would require a religious debate to make my point which is not permitted here.
Let them 'send to hell' as many men and women they want ! Just as it would be ludicrous to present as the solution to ending 'religious extremism and religious hypocrisy' a targeting of the 'religion' part of it, it would be equally ludicrous to blame a piece of cloth and ban it if in some instances its used to 'set standards of modesty that are derived from religion and yet wholly unfounded in it' ! The way to go, in this instance, would be to provide your narratives of what the Quran does or doesn't say, present that before the people and let them decide and not go on legislating against something just because its misused in a minority of cases ! This has a two fold effect : 1) expediency - No backlash because people get to choose or refuse. And 2) you've just avoided giving the State an opportunity to take one step closer to 'Orwell's Big Brother' !
