Let Them Wear Headscarves II: A Response

My call for dropping the ban on wearing headscarves, for those women who wish to wear them -- even on campuses in Turkey, in governments buildings in Germany, and in schools in France (where crosses are allowed) -- generated a considerable set of comments [here]. The following is my response. Given the variety of the responses, it is not possible to react to each single comment; instead I will try to deal with issues raised by several commentators.

I agree with those who see the headscarves as more than a piece of cloth, as simply a symbol of devotion to Islam. However I strongly differ from those who argue that Islam is a theology of violence that calls for killing gays, raping women, and dominating the world. I provided 50 pages of dense text to show that from this viewpoint Islam is not different from other religions or even secular belief systems such as socialism. ALL can be and have been interpreted as condoning, indeed promoting, violence, but they have also been interpreted as the spring boards of peace [for more, visit here]. Indeed the majority of Muslims, especially those in Indonesia, Bangladesh, and North Africa, reject terrorism, the sharia, and surely world domination. My main point is that we should see in these nonviolent but religious Muslims as allies rather than push them into the adversary’s camp. The importance of allowing the headscarf, which is hardly a dagger, is to show that we will not equate being religious with being violent.

Several of the commentators are concerned about the slippery slope, that we shall start with allowing the wearing of headscarves, and soon women will be wrapped in burkas and their rights will be denied. The fear of slipping down the slope is often raised when change is suggested or has just taken place. Earlier generations used to fuss about premarital sex, which they claimed would lead young girls to prostitution. And there are still those who are sure that most everyone who smokes a joint will end up being a drug addict. However, if one follows this line, we cannot change anything or experiment with anything.  Instead of being afraid of the slope, we must first examine the intrinsic merit of the suggested change, and second, notch the slope, set a clear marker for how far we are going to go and where the line which we are not going to cross is—newly drawn.

In the case at hand, allowing women to wear what they want, including religious symbols, should be fully allowed (as it is in the United States). Separation of state and religion means only that the state will not promote any one religion; however, each individual is free to practice his or her religion, Islam included. What we should not tolerate in free society is for anyone to be forced to wear anything, including religious symbols. Hence, the comments that soon women will be attacked if they do not wear headscarves points to the place the line should be drawn. Violence to enforce ideology or religious beliefs by Muslims should not be tolerated any more than we should tolerate the burning of black churches or the bombing of abortion clinics.

The issue, I am the first to grant, becomes a bit more complicated when we deal with social pressure rather than coercion. In some parts of many European cities, where Muslims live, there is considerable social pressure for Muslim girls to wear headscarves, wear modest clothing, and not take swimming classes with boys. Up to this point, such pressure is all too common. Women (and men) are subject to pressure to wear or not to wear all kind of things. When (at age 79) I run around on the university campus wearing jeans, a baseball cap, and sneakers, I am often teased by my senior colleagues. And I hear that some first year students are being mocked for still being virgins.

However, when social pressure is ratcheted up to the point that individuals do not dare to show their face unless they conform to the community’s norms, the time is due, indeed overdue, for public education campaigns on what citizenship in a free society entails. It requires tolerance for differences.

When all is said and done, it makes no sense to replace one kind of intolerance with another. Muslims who terrorize others to make them conform to religious dictates should be stopped whenever possible. (I speak about free societies; I would hardly invade Muslim nations to make them more liberal). Muslims (or any other groups) that puts excessive social pressures on their followers to “behave” should be subject to dialogues about what a civil society entails. However those who chose to wear a religious (or political) symbol, even if the choice is promoted by their friends, families, and communities, should be free to do so.

Comments

[Tony]

I agree with Dr. Etzioni. The "slippery slope" argument (which, by the way, many fundamentalist Muslims use to justify their ideology) is a logical fallacy. It seems like a valid type of argument, but it isn't. We should just examine any proposal based on its own merits, or lack thereof, instead of trumping reason with fear.

I think this is a complex issue, and that "community rights," particularly those of a subculture, whether isolated by choice, discrimination by the mainstream, or both, needs to be balanced by individual rights and female rights. Many girls, even adults, in isolated Muslims communities in the West don't have any say in the matter. Purdah and beating is also common.

However, there are liberal Muslim parents in the West with female children who actually choose to wear hijab. Some parents discourage it, but the girls choose to wear it anyway! Perhaps they see it as a symbol of their identity as a minority, or maybe they tie it in with certain feminist ideas about the objectification of women. Whatever - it's their choice.

While the slippery slope argument may be invalid, one must pause and consider whether the hijab could be a "canary in the coal-mine" so to be speak. Is the hijab being used to cover up abuse? (Literally, as in physical abuse, or psychologically.) Does it represent excessive seclusion of women or other prohibitions at odds with our modern notions of human rights? This is worth exploring.

[Tony]

I agree with Dr. Etzioni. The "slippery slope" argument (which, by the way, many fundamentalist Muslims use to justify their ideology) is a logical fallacy. It seems like a valid type of argument, but it isn't. We should just examine any proposal based on its own merits, or lack thereof, instead of trumping reason with fear.

I think this is a complex issue, and that "community rights," particularly those of a subculture, whether isolated by choice, discrimination by the mainstream, or both, needs to be balanced by individual rights and female rights. Many girls, even adults, in isolated Muslims communities in the West don't have any say in the matter. Purdah and beating is also common.

However, there are liberal Muslim parents in the West with female children who actually choose to wear hijab. Some parents discourage it, but the girls choose to wear it anyway! Perhaps they see it as a symbol of their identity as a minority, or maybe they tie it in with certain feminist ideas about the objectification of women. Whatever - it's their choice.

While the slippery slope argument may be invalid, one must pause and consider whether the hijab could be a "canary in the coal-mine" so to be speak. Is the hijab being used to cover up abuse? (Literally, as in physical abuse, or psychologically.) Does it represent excessive seclusion of women or other prohibitions at odds with our modern notions of human rights? This is worth exploring.

[Tony]

I agree with Dr. Etzioni. The "slippery slope" argument (which, by the way, many fundamentalist Muslims use to justify their ideology) is a logical fallacy. It seems like a valid type of argument, but it isn't. We should just examine any proposal based on its own merits, or lack thereof, instead of trumping reason with fear.

I think this is a complex issue, and that "community rights," particularly those of a subculture, whether isolated by choice, discrimination by the mainstream, or both, needs to be balanced by individual rights and female rights. Many girls, even adults, in isolated Muslims communities in the West don't have any say in the matter. Purdah and beating is also common.

However, there are liberal Muslim parents in the West with female children who actually choose to wear hijab. Some parents discourage it, but the girls choose to wear it anyway! Perhaps they see it as a symbol of their identity as a minority, or maybe they tie it in with certain feminist ideas about the objectification of women. Whatever - it's their choice.

While the slippery slope argument may be invalid, one must pause and consider whether the hijab could be a "canary in the coal-mine" so to be speak. Is the hijab being used to cover up abuse? (Literally, as in physical abuse, or psychologically.) Does it represent excessive seclusion of women or other prohibitions at odds with our modern notions of human rights? This is worth exploring.

[Tony]

I agree with Dr. Etzioni. The "slippery slope" argument (which, by the way, many fundamentalist Muslims use to justify their ideology) is a logical fallacy. It seems like a valid type of argument, but it isn't. We should just examine any proposal based on its own merits, or lack thereof, instead of trumping reason with fear.

I think this is a complex issue, and that "community rights," particularly those of a subculture, whether isolated by choice, discrimination by the mainstream, or both, needs to be balanced by individual rights and female rights. Many girls, even adults, in isolated Muslims communities in the West don't have any say in the matter. Purdah and beating is also common.

However, there are liberal Muslim parents in the West with female children who actually choose to wear hijab. Some parents discourage it, but the girls choose to wear it anyway! Perhaps they see it as a symbol of their identity as a minority, or maybe they tie it in with certain feminist ideas about the objectification of women. Whatever - it's their choice.

While the slippery slope argument may be invalid, one must pause and consider whether the hijab could be a "canary in the coal-mine" so to be speak. Is the hijab being used to cover up abuse? (Literally, as in physical abuse, or psychologically.) Does it represent excessive seclusion of women or other prohibitions at odds with our modern notions of human rights? This is worth exploring.