There is a well-known rule in physics that nature abhors a vacuum. Air will rush in immediately to fill the space as soon it finds a way. Ideas appear to behave in much the same way. They will travel around the world, as soon as they are able to. The religious headscarf is just a piece of cloth, but for many Muslims it stands for decency, modesty and identity. For others it signifies compulsion or oppression. The success of liberalism that moved along with the flow of capital from the West around the world, is now getting a shake-up back at home. Translating cloth into words, what could well be the message carried around by some women in Europe wearing a headscarf is: "No! Your ideas and your life style are not the answer for everyone. Not everything you have done is correct, your treatment of us is not just - that is why we must keep our distance to you and stand together."
In February 2004 the western German state of Saarland, one of the 16 German federal states, became the fifth in the country to propose legislation that would ban Muslim teachers from wearing a headscarf in state schools. The proposal states that neutrality in public schools must not be endangered "through political, religious or ideological displays". The states of Hesse, Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria have already proposed such legislation. All bans must still be approved by state legislature.
Germany's educational system has no strict division between religion and the state. The state is neutral and leaves enough room for religious expressions without identifying itself with them, and without indoctrinating through them. However, until now, the Christian religion has in actual practice received a favourite treatment. Europe's cultural traditions were shaped by Christianity. Religion nowadays has not disappeared from modern Western life, rather the claims that religious institutions can make on individual behaviour. Religion has become a personal and spiritual experience that needs to be looked for in private. The main characteristics in such societies are the division of power into the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, the rule of law, the separation of state and religion, the plurality of life styles, a representative political system with several parties, the rights of the individual and freedom of expression.
In September 2003 a teacher originating from Afghanistan but holding a German passport, Fareshta Ludin, won her court case against a rule that would not allow her to enter the teaching profession at a state school in Baden-Württemberg because she insisted on wearing her headscarf in the classroom. This, in spite of the fact that in Germany's most populous state, North-Rhine Westphalia, at least 15 Muslim female teachers already wear their headscarf while teaching youngsters - without any problems at all. The judges of Germany's highest court ruled that Fareshta Ludin should have been allowed to teach in Baden-Württemberg, as there is no law to prohibit teachers adhering to religions other than Christianity from taking up their profession. Article 4 of Germany's Basic Law - the federal constitution - stipulates that everyone is free to his own religious belief and that no-one must be discriminated against on account of his or her religion. The high court further ruled, however, that each individual state may pass its own laws prohibiting Muslim teachers wearing a headscarf while teaching, if they consider it necessary, as decisions on education lie in the hands of Germany's 16 states. Many Germans had until now argued that the regulations relating to civil servants which state that they must practise moderation and uphold the German constitution, should really be enough to prevent the admission of female Muslim teachers wearing a headscarf at work, should they have become conspicuous. But this is not the case. In other words, the court ruled that tolerance is to be shown to someone who refuses to take off a headscarf in a public institution. What could be the background to this kind of behaviour on behalf of Fareshta Ludin, and on behalf of German institutions, lawyers and politicians?
Fareshta Ludin is one of 3.5 million Muslims now living in Germany – around 3.2 % of the population. Most come from Turkey, others come from the former Yugoslavia, Marocco, Tunisia, Iraq, Pakistan,
Iran, Afghanistan and other countries. The majority of Muslim women living in Germany do not wear a headscarf. Most migrants wish to be become integrated and not begin to establish a parallel society.
The largest community of Muslim immigrants in Germany is the Turkish community. According to Professor Faruk Sen, director of the Centre for Studies on Turkey, the second and third generation of Turkish Muslims are aiming for a more pluralistic understanding of Islam. Just 27% of those questioned are of the opinion that women should wear a headscarf in public. The percentage is even lower among the women questioned.
But there are other groups. Several organisations are being observed by Germany's watchdog institution that seeks out unconstitutional trendsetters. Recently the King Fahd Academy in Bonn, which was originally set up in 1995 for the children of Arab diplomats residing in Germany, has been accused of links with extremist Islamists. It must now meet several demands to avoid closure. One of its teachers was accused of calling for a "jihad", or holy war. The school will continue to teach a Saudi curriculum but will review teaching practices and materials for its 465 pupils. Achmed Senyurd, a journalist and expert on Islamic organisations, has estimated that more than 70.000 children are visiting Koran schools in Germany. "A parallell world of thought is slowly coming into being," he says. Some of them preach the rejection of Germany's "godless culture". For others, the headscarf signals a neo-Islamic femininity. On the website of a Muslim market the following words could be read: "They would like to drive us Muslims away. German culture has formed an alliance against decency and justice, as manifests itself in the headscarf." There are strong reactions on behalf of many public figureheads in Germany against such assertions. It is felt that fundamental democratic principles are being questioned.
The president of the constitutional law court of North Rhine Westfalia, Michael Bertrams, considers teachers wearing a headscarf as symbolic of a social order that treats women as beings inferior to
men, and therefore incompatible with article 3, paragraph 2 of Germany's Basic Law stipulating:
men and women are equal. Bertrams concludes that a teacher who declares herself in support of a system of values that contradicts our constitution, is not suitable to become a teacher at state-run schools. He referred to examples of Islamic family and inheritance laws. "If she is not prepared to
take off the scarf, how can she convince her pupils of the advantages of this constitution? It is an expression of her distance to Western values. Some of the forms of treatment of women practised
by Western societies can indeed be seen as the expression of a certain loss of value, a lack of
respect for women. Women degraded to objects or goods. But the question is, why does a woman
need to put on a headscarf in order to retain her dignity, whereas in fact the moral deficiency that
needs to be controlled is obviously on the part of men?"
Federal chancellor Gerhard Schröder says that no female civil servant, including teachers, should
wear the headscarf. But his view is that pupils should not be withheld from wearing one if they
desire. The German trade union for teachers, VBE (Verband Bildung und Erziehung) in North Rhine-Westphalia, has recently voted unanimously for banning by law the wearing of a headscarf by
teachers at school. But there are also some quite contrary points of views. In December a group of prominent German women launched a campaign against the government's headscarf ban for
Muslim teachers. It sees itself as working independently of political and religious considerations.
Over 70 women gathered at the German parliament building in Berlin to plead for a more discerning
and objective debate over the Islamic headscarf. The group signed an appeal against a headscarf
law. Initiated by Federal Commissioner for Integration and Foreigners, Marieluise Beck, the protest initiative includes politicians from across the party spectrum, scientists and leaders from the church
and media. The group resists equating Muslim women wearing headscarves with fundamentalism. Though they admit that the headscarf is a visible instrument used by Islamic fundamentalists to
portray the repression of women, it insists that not all women wearing the headscarf are religious fanatics. Marieluise Beck: "What we're trying to say is that what's decisive is not what's on the head,
but rather what's inside it. The signatories say a headscarf ban limits a woman's freedom of choice,
and leads to a stigmatization. "A threatening situation has now arisen for women wearing a headscarf - not just for teachers, there aren't so many, but for all women who wear a headscarf."
And not everybody in Germany or Europe is happy with the prevailing liberalism either. In the daily newspaper 'Tageszeitung' of October 8th, 2003, there is an article on some of the detrimental effects
the sexual revolution has had on Europe's society. Author Kerstin Decker, from one of the formerly communist eastern German states, writes about the "self-confidently shameless society. As every religion is about the cultivation of shame, this must naturally strike people who have not yet overcome religion. ...We live in an openly obscene society. And is this what others should aim for?"
Until now the jurisdiction on the wearing of religious dress at school was unambiguous. Already back in the sixties, the wearing of Bhagwan dress in schools was turned down by courts, as was the wearing of a nun's or monk's habit. But now this no longer applies: fundamental changes in the set-up of society towards an increased religious pluralism may prompt the lawmakers in the future to redefine the extent to which religious references may appear at schools. This is the verdict that was pronounced by Germany's consitutional court. Previously, the right to a negative religious freedom enjoyed priority: an individual had the right not to be confronted with religious symbols and their messages in a public place. The position taken up by the courts has now moved from a liberal perspective to a more communitarian one. So far only the conservative southern states of Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg have prepared legislation that would ban teachers from wearing headscarves, while at the same time allowing Christian or Jewish symbols. This, however, goes against the Federal Constitutional Court ruling of September 2004 which stated that any new law must treat all religions equally. Germany's president, Johannes Rau, recently made a statement underligning this important principle: "If a head scarf is going to be considered a religious symbol ... then monk's robes and crucifixes must be treated in the same way, "
Multiculturalism is an irreversible fact of all modern countries. But how much can a liberal society
tolerate and yet still remain liberal? It must protect itself from the wrong kind of tolerance if it does not want to be destroyed. Indifference can also be dangerous. The headscarf is not the real dispute. From
a European point of view the real conflict comes when girls are not allowed to join their class mates
for a class trip, or when they are forced into marriage by their parents. The fact that Turkish youths,
for instance, drop out of school disproportionately frequently and have an above-average tendency towards violence, is a problem. Parallel social groups are beginning to develop that shield themselves
off from the remaining German society. Such problems need to be addressed. Prohibiting headscarves is more like symbolically killing the messenger of bad news.
Looking around other Eropean countries, we see different reactions. The Austrians seem able to
take a more pragmatic view of the matter. A particular code of behaviour was agreed upon at schools, banning baseball caps that had been worn by too many pupils. Yet the wearing of a headscarf was allowed in spite of protests from parents. The reason given was that the state should not interfere
with religious practices. However, the liberal interpretation of laws would end, as soon as 'indoctrination' might become a concern. Should at any time headscarves be used as a means of propaganda, the school authorities would be obliged to intervene. The human rights convention allows a limit to religious freedom, if the safety of the general public or the rights of other individuals are at stake.
In the Netherlands, headscarves are banned only if schools are able to cite security risks. In Belgium, the decision whether to allow headscarves has been largely left to individual schools of which a few
have imposed a ban. Neither Italy nor Spain has sought any kind of ban. In Spain there has been a
court case over a ban of headscarves in a private school. Sweden has around 350.000 Muslims, that
is 4 % of the population. In a Grammar school in Göteborg, Sweden, two girls from Somalia requested
to wear the Burka. This request was turned down by the administration of the school on the grounds
that the teachers needed to recognize their pupils.
With around 1.5 million Muslims, who make up approximately 2.5 % of the population, the situation in Great Britain is different. The British government disapproves of a ban on religious headwear and symbols in state schools. Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien said the British government supported the right of all people to display religious symbols. "In Britain we are comfortable with the expression
of religion. Integration does not require assimilation," he said. The London Mayor, Ken Livingstone,
fears the ban will spill over to the rest of Europe and encourage attacks on minority communities.
Recently, a law was passed in France banning the headscarf at school. A poll had expressed that
57% of French people want the headscarf banned. One of the few voices against is the Catholic
church. To proponents of a ban, the principles are simple. The secularism of the French state,
inspired by revolutionary ideas and late-19th century anti-clericalism, protects state education
from religious proselytising. There are also fears about the influence of extremist Islamic groups,
many with foreign sponsors, that find ready recruits on France's isolated housing estates. Allowing
the headscarf, goes the argument, is a step towards other militant demands, from the insistence of Muslim men that their wives be treated by female doctors to a refusal to read certain western set texts
France is home to some five million Muslims, roughly 7.5 % of the population, but they are not
much reflected in the country's self-image. There are plenty of respected writers and academics of
North African origin. But there is as yet no Muslim member of parliament, one recently nominated
regional governor, no leading French Muslim businessman, no television news-reader. Nicolas
Sarkozy, France's interior minister, went to Cairo to secure a declaration from Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi - the prominent Sunni religious authority who leads the Al-Azhar mosque - that women in
non-Muslim states should obey local laws, and, therefore, that not covering their heads was
acceptable. The head of France's official Islamic council also urged Muslims to respect a law that
will ban headscarves in state schools, and not to heed fundamentalists challenging the country's
secular system. Dalil Boubakeur, chairman of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, said that he opposed protest marches called by some Muslim groups even though he also did not want a law
barring pupils from wearing religious attire.
What is behind the present drive of Islamic movements? There is plenty of feed-back available
from disgruntled Muslims. Reading the letters addressed to political magazines and journals,
several complaints become manifest - for instance:
"There are three key grievances that drive political Islam. First is the history of western imperialism
which denied Muslims independence and freedom for well over half a century. Second is the solution
to the Holocaust perpetrated by Europeans on European Jews - handing the British colony of
Palestine to Jewish colonists, who then perpetrated their own programme of ethnic cleansing.
Third is the exploitation of oil by the West, carried out with the connivance of local puppets who
traded the independence of their people in return for being kept in power, and skimmed off part of
the oil profits for themselves. - Historical grievances, not religious ones, are expressed today
through religion - the only political route allowed. Tens of millions of Muslims view the invasion
and colonial occupation of Iraq as simply a return of the 1920s, when Britain parachuted in its
puppet dictator in order to control the Iraqi oilfields, after carving off Kuwait better to control the
These grievances - along with personal feelings of maladjustments in a changing modern world -
make up the attraction for many individuals to seek refuge in Islam and find solace and identity.
Most radicalism arises in groups who, by their experience of mobility and displacement, are
disoriented by unfamiliar surroundings and Islam becomes their anchor. They are telling everyone around them that they are more zealous in their religious observance than those who confine their religiosity to private life. Subconsciously they will be asking for more and better attention.
Actions on one side lead to reactions on the other. The case of Fareshta Ludin has brought about a
huge debate. Using symbols that give identity and support is one way to express thoughts and
feelings. But it is possible to articulate them in a more direct way, finding new channels for a
dialogue. There are deficiencies in every system in the world and there is justified resentment on
behalf of Muslims. It's both an invitation and a challenge to correct and complement each other.
There are plenty of opportunities: double identity can be double cultural capital. In mathematics, multiplying two minuses gives a plus! Maybe something new will come out of this process: a better formula for mutual respect and for a more just and fair sharing of available resources. A hard
effort is required if we want this law to apply to us and turn the appearance of Islam in Europe
into a success story for everyone.
veröffentlicht im 'Defence Journal' im April 2004