I do not think that a Muslim living in a secular country is incompatible.
Practicing true Islamic values in your personal life is not something which should lead towards a person having a mutually antagonistic relationship with a truly secular society which does not allow religious bias to marginalize anyone.
There is something wrong, either with that person's interpretation of Islam or the society's claim to be secular if this is the case!
In this case headscarves are being considered a threat which is not something logical and in my opinion highly objectionable even from a secular point of view!
To be fair, the headscarf does not hide the face so it has no security implications as well.
If someone covers their face (not mandated by Islam) then they can be asked to remove it or even face covering can be prohibited...I see no issue with banning face veils at all.
As long as a person is not imposing his views upon others, should he/she be stopped from wearing the clothing of their choice if it does not cause any security/identification concern?
Is secularism the absence of religious bias or an active targeting of people who practice their religion in their personal life?
As long as a person is not assailing the religious beliefs (forbidden in Islam) of others and is only practicing his/her own faith without impeding the freedom of others, he/she is not a threat to any emancipated society.
However if person is a proponent of venomous views or an active struggle against other fellow nationals because of religious bias/hatred, he/she is not only non-compliant with secularism but original Islamic values as well (not the Terror Manual 2.0 preached by ISIS).
The cause of extremism is not headscarves, however banning headscarves is perhaps a form of extremism as well!
The causes of extremism are more geopolitical in nature. Extremism finds space within many conflicts across the globe, more so where there is a disenfranchisement of a people. It is the outcome of a planned exploitation of religious, ethnic, racial sentiments to ensure a steady supply of foot soldiers who can help the power brokers stay relevant.
Religion is one tool which is used for such purposes, but it is not the only one for sure.
Secularism, Democracy, Communism, Shariah etc.
These are all just broad terms we use to project certain cosmetic aspects of a social philosophy we adhere to; the fact is that many core attributes of all successful systems are based on the common values of freedom, justice, equality, merit, socioeconomic welfare etc. which should all be balanced within a framework of laws/rules which can help sustain these values.
No system shall be liked by the populace if it fails on delivering across these multiple fronts to a reasonable extent!
The proponents of Shariah also cite the great examples of justice, equality, merit, welfare etc. which was set during the earliest era of Islam and was present for all citizens of the state regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity etc. Similar aspirations are claimed by proponents of other ideologies as well.
However the problem occurs when a popular ideology is methodically distorted, re-purposed and used to justify vile practices which are based on bias, exploitation, hatred, greed etc.
The draconian laws and highly questionable practices which the IS, Taliban are implementing is not Islam in its essence, it is their own cosmetic Islamic system with the objective of furthering their power base at any cost; even if it means complete divergence from Islam (except for few rituals) in most key areas resulting in a severe ideological damage to the very faith and ensuing social philosophy which they claim to serve in all their propaganda!
Same is the case of the other global power groups which have made war a highly profitable business and operate with impunity in the name of freedom/democracy, despite spreading more chaos!
The goals of all the projected systems are derived from the principles of human welfare, however their implementation can lead to a lot more divergence/friction because every system and its advocates/critics create extremist views of a varying nature. The society which does not control these extremist tendencies effectively due to its own insecurities, biases, geopolitical situation and leadership failures is usually painted in a shade of extremism more relevant to its particular realities.
We can debate what sort of extremism is more detrimental to the human cause, however the architects of manipulative ideologies are primarily focused on their own interest and instead of owning or acknowledging the ugliness of the dire consequences of their actions/failures they exert all efforts to manipulate certain sentiments/vulnerabilities in order to justify the righteousness of their cause as an end which justifies any means necessary, no matter what the effects maybe on the social fabric!
Of course all such parties carefully doctor their own facts in order to resonate with the audience on some level and create “us versus them emotions” to dominate the sociopolitical landscape!
Whether it is the ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Nazis etc. throughout history we see power brokers perpetrating cruelty and breeding intolerance, all the while claiming serve a higher cause.
We only have to look at the current state of Pakistan and the vision of its founding fathers to understand that extremism gradually creeps in when the State fails to deliver on key fronts and disenfranchises some or many of its own people; thus presenting an opportunity to power hungry forces which shall manipulate facts, exploit public sentiments and leverage geopolitical realities to create ideological space in order to gain power and stay relevant; truth be damned…
Despite many forces having conflicting views in Pakistan, majority of the common people expect that the philosophy they support shall be able to deliver a culture of justice, equality, merit and socioeconomic welfare.
This is all that matters to the majority of the people, delivering on these parameters shall deny the very oxygen on which extremism thrives…
Rest God shall be the judge of our individual faith and shoving religious views down each other’s throat was never the purpose of Islam.
To me the vision for the creation of Pakistan (and a Muslim state) is best reflected in line of the 11th August 1947 Speech given by its founding father to the constitutional assembly.
This vision neither conflicts with the true values of Islam nor with secularism/democracy etc.
"In course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."
In my opinion, the roots of extremism cannot be eliminated through policies which reek of ethnic/religious bias and thus further disenfranchise a certain people instead of integrating them.
Steps which single out the Muslim community and imposes humiliating restrictions is perhaps not going to help bridge any divide. This is playing into the hands of both Islamic and Anti-Islamic extremism which needs this clash of civilizations to stay relevant.
Secularism and Islam can coexist…we humans share a lot of common values and differ only in certain personal matters/preferences which should not be a cause of friction in an embracing and functional system which may have different roots e.g. Islamic, Secular etc.
Countless practicing Muslims living harmoniously in US, Europe, India etc. are proof that problem is not Islam and/or its clash with secularism…
It is only certain highly active lobbies which try to convince us otherwise...to increase their power-base through exploitation of popular sentiments prevalent at the time.
Whatever our faith and ethnicity maybe, I hope and pray that we develop enough wisdom, tolerance and foresight to repel these forces.
