|
|
|
Scarf vs secularism
(II) THE writer may be right in his contention that the Turkish government functionaries should not have barred women wearing scarves from attending the National Day reception. Still this does not call for unjustified criticism of Turkish secularism. We live in a country where the majority does not have access to clean drinking water, and the police guard places of worship. How can we then criticize other Muslim countries that are economically and socially better off than Pakistan? The writer defends women wearing scarves, goes on to give us his own version of secularism and then criticizes the great Turkish leader, Kemal Ataturk. The writer draws a parallel between Turkey under Ataturk and Iran under the Shah but skips Khomeini’s Iran. Being originally a Turk, and being a regular reader of Turkish newspapers, I have yet to see a Turkish paper criticize Pakistan or Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Churchill declared Ataturk fourth great leader of the world. In fact, the 20th century did not produce a leader greater than Ataturk. The scarf is a symbol of Muslim women — Arab, Iranian or Turkish. Saner elements even among Europeans have accepted and allowed it. It is not worth debating so seriously. MURAD BAY Karachi The reply I welcome the two comments made on my essay Scarf vs secularism. However, I regret that the writers of the two letters have rather missed the thrust of my article, viz, the status of secularism in the self-proclaimed secular Muslim state, Turkey, and its prospects in the Muslim world at large. My purpose is not to defend the wrongs done by the Western secular states. So if the French authorities are oblivious of the Muslim sensibilities and discourage Muslim girls’ putting scarves, it is as condemnable as it is in Turkey. My learned detractor must realize that two wrongs do not make a right. However, I also know that in many a western country the authorities in the past have acted on the complaints of parents who wanted to have their daughters scarfed in their schools and the authorities compelled the school administrations to comply with their wishes. As regards the second comment I am a bit surprised at the logic of the writer of the letter — since the majority of our people do not have access to clean drinking water and the placement of guard at the places of worships, we should not criticize the economically better off Muslim countries! This implies that we can criticize only those who are worse than us. I think the writer is perturbed by my criticism of Kemalist model of Secularism. I must assure the writer that like him, I too hold Kemal Attaturk in high esteem as a leader of a great nation, but I must also assure that the greatness of a leader does not mean that his ideas and achievements cannot be analysed critically. So if I hold Kemalist secularism as being erected on the authoritarian pillars of military and bureaucracy which distort its democratic credentials, I do not cast aspersion on Attaturk’s person. All great leaders’ achievements have to be judged objectively and in historical context. Neither Attaturk nor the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, not even Churchill whose endorsement of Ataturk’s leadership has been taken by the writer as a final verdict, are infallible. As regards the Turkish papers’ criticizing Jinnah, I will certainly like to read an academic critique of the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in a Turkish newspaper. DR SYED JAFFER AHMED Karachi | ||
I read with great interest the article Scarf vs secularism (November 16). However, I was surprised to find that he has made absolutely no mention of the scarf problem of Western Europe, particularly in France and to a lesser degree in Germany. Headlines have been continuously appearing for the past number of years, about the determination of some Muslim girl to put on head-scarves in their schools and classrooms, and equally determined action of and local authorities not to allow them to do this.|
|
|
|
