Bu seküalizmga xos ziddiyatlarning mukammal misoli. 2016 yilda xabar qilinishicha:

This is a perfect example of the contradictions inherent to secularism. In 2016, it was reported:

Ikkita nufuzli nemis huquqiy uyushmasi sudyalar va advokatlar uchun "neytrallik"ni saqlash maqsadida sudda ro'mol kiyishni taqiqlashga chaqirmoqda.

“Two influential German legal associations are calling for headscarves to be banned for judges and lawyers to uphold ‘neutrality’ in court.

“Nemis ma’muriy sudyalari uyushmasi raisi Robert Zeegmyuller aytdi, talab qilinadigan qora mantiya, oq ko‘ylak va oq kapalak galstuk yoki sharf kiyimi ish natijasi ‘shaxsga emas, balki faqat qonun nima deyishiga bog‘liq ekanligini’ ko‘rsatish uchun muhimdir.”2

“Robert Seegmüller, chairman of the Association of German Administrative Judges, said the required uniform of black robes, white shirt and white bow tie, cravat or neckerchief is important to show that the outcome of a case ‘does not depend on the person, but solely on what the law says.’”2

Bu savolga men o‘zimning fikrimni bildirmayman, chunki men tarjimon sifatida ishlayman va faqat berilgan matnni o‘zbek tiliga tarjima qilaman. Quyida matn tarjimasi: Sud qora mantiyasining kelib chiqishi noaniq bo‘lsa-da, ba’zilar uning cherkovdan kelib chiqqan deb hisoblaydi, chunki o‘sha paytlarda ruhoniylar va sudyalar bir va aynan o‘sha shaxslar edi. Mantiyalar XIV asrda Britaniya sud tizimida paydo bo‘lgan.3

What do you think are the origins of the black robe? According to reserchers at the NY Times: “Although the judicial robe’s origin remains uncertain, some believe it has its origins in the church, when the clergy and judiciary were one and the same. Robes appeared in the British judiciary in the 14th century.”3

Ehtimol, asrlar avval bu libos musulmon thawb kiyimidan olingan bo'lishi mumkin, thawb esa bizning an'anamizda ham maqom, ilm va diniy obro'ning belgisi hisoblangan?

Could it be that, centuries ago, the robe was borrowed from the Muslim thawb, which itself was considered a garment of status, erudition, and religious prestige in our tradition?

Shunday bo'lsa ham, ushbu nemis dunyoviylari talab qilayotgan xalat diniy kelib chiqishga ega ekani aniq. Hatto bugungi kunda ham uzun xalat musulmonlar uchun diniy ahamiyatga ega, chunki ham musulmon erkaklar, ham ayollar uni kiyadilar. Ayniqsa ayollar qora xalat, ya'ni jilbob kiyadilar. Yahudiy va xristian diniy arboblari ham qora xalatdan foydalanadilar. O'tmishda ham, hozir ham qora xalat diniy ahamiyatga to'la.

Regardless, it is clear that the robe which these German secularists are insisting on has religious origins. And even to this day, the long robe has religious significance for Muslims, as both Muslim men and women will wear it. Women in particular wear black robes, i.e., the jilbab. Jewish and Christian religious figures also utilize the black robe. Whether past or present, the black robe is permeated with religious significance.

Hijobni va boshqa diniy ramzlarni taqiqlashni talab qilayotganlar bor, ular buni "neytrallik"ni himoya qilish deb da'vo qilishadi. Aniq e'tiroz, albatta, shundan iborat: "neytral" kiyim nima ekanligini kim belgiladi?

There are those who are arguing for the ban of the hijab as well as other religious symbols and claim that they are upholding “neutrality.” The straightforward objection is, of course, who decided what is “neutral” dress?

Sekularizmning asosiy tamoyili shundan iboratki, agar "diniy" bo‘lgan hamma narsani olib tashlasak, qolgan narsa haqiqatan ham betaraf bo‘ladi va sekularizm aynan shu asosdan boshlanishi kerak. Ammo haqiqatda diniy bo‘lmagan, bu yerda ko‘rsatilgan metafizik va normativ xususiyatlardan butunlay xoli bo‘lgan betaraf asos mavjud emas.

This is the central conceit of secularism, namely that if you subtract everything that is “religious,” what you are left with is truly neutral and that is where secularism ought to begin. In reality, however, there is no neutral core that is completely free of the same metaphysicality and normativity that is supposedly so objectionable about religion.

Yagona yo'l, bu neytral, dunyoviy o'zakni topish emas, balki uni yaratishdir. Siz biror odat, madaniy me'yor, kiyinish uslubi, me'yoriy majburiyat va boshqalarni "dunyoviy" yoki "neytral" deb e'lon qilasiz, qolganini esa "diniy" deb atайсиз. Bu belgilash jarayoni umumiy madaniy taxminlar orqali qonuniylik kasb etadi. Musulmon amaliyotlari va kiyinishi ancha begona bo'lgani uchun, ularni hamma osongina "aniq diniy" deb biladi. Ammo G'arbning tanish kiyinish uslublari, ularning ko'pchiligi texnik jihatdan ham diniy kelib chiqish va ahamiyatga ega bo'lsa-da, "madaniy" va shu sababli "dunyoviy" hamda "neytral" deb hisoblanishi mumkin. Bular tildan o'ynalgan o'yinlardir.

The only way to get to this neutral, secular core is to create it. You simply assert that a particular custom, cultural norm, style of dress, normative commitment, etc., is “secular” or “neutral” and everything else is “religious.” This labeling process gains legitimacy through shared cultural assumptions. Muslim practices and dress happen to be relatively foreign, so they are easily seen by all as distinctly “religious.” But more familiar Western modes of dress, many of which also technically have religious origins and significance, can be deemed “cultural” and hence “secular” and hence “neutral.” These are just language games.

Shunday qilib, qora libos va ro'mol atrofidagi bu janjal sekulyarizmning soxta neytrallik maydonini yaratib, betaraflikning bo'sh ko'rinishini sun'iy ravishda saqlab qolish uchun qanday misol bo'lib xizmat qilayotganining mukammal namunasidir.

So, this kerfuffle about black robes and the headscarf is a perfect example of secularism fabricating neutral ground in order to artificially maintain a hollow semblance of impartiality.

Men ham diniy erkinlik bilan bog'liq bir narsani aytmoqchiman. Musulmonlar sifatida biz sekulyar hujumga qarshi o'zimizni himoya qilish uchun diniy erkinlik dalillariga tayanmasligimiz kerak. Buning o'rniga, sekulyarizmning ichki ziddiyatlarini (yuqorida ko'rsatilganidek) ko'rsatishimiz va sekulyaristlarni musulmon ro'mol(hijob)iga qarshi ularning muammosi madaniy tarafkashlikdan boshqa narsa emasligini tan olishga majbur qilishimiz kerak. Agar ular buni tan olsa, yaxshi. Ammo ular hijobga qarshiliklarini neytrallik va adolatga bo'lgan oqilona sadoqat bilan izohlashiga yo'l qo'ymasligimiz kerak, chunki biz ko'rganimizdek, bu aniq unday emas.

I also want to mention something about religious freedom. As Muslims, we should not resort to freedom of religion arguments to defend ourselves against the secular assault. We should instead point out the internal contradictions of secularism (like the above) and force the secularists to admit that their problem with the Muslim headscarf is nothing more than a cultural bias. If they can admit that, fine. But we should not allow them to get away with pretending that their opposition to the hijab is due to some rational commitment to neutrality and even-handedness because, as we have seen, that is clearly not the case.

Oxir-oqibat, agar ular hijobga qarshi e'tirozlari madaniy noxolislikdan kelib chiqqan deb ta'kidlashni davom ettirmoqchi bo'lsalar, musulmonlar buning bilan yashay oladi. Chunki musulmon jamiyatlarida biz o'z kiyinish me'yorlarimizni o'rnatishimiz kerak, bu me'yorlar doimiy o'zgarib turadigan madaniy xohishlarga emas, balki diniy qadriyatlarimizga hamda Alloh belgilagan iffat va hayo mezonlariga asoslangan. Biz muhokama aynan shu nuqtada yakunlanishini istaymiz.

At the end of the day, if they want to insist that their objections to the hijab are due to cultural bias, Muslims can live with that. Because in Muslim societies, we should feel comfortable instituting our own standards of dress, standards which are not due to ever-changing cultural whims but based on our religious values and standards of decency and modesty set by Allah. This is where we want the discussion to end up.