Invisible Boundaries

The world has advanced greatly in science, medicine and technology, yet in many societies women still do not have full control over decisions concerning their clothing, medical treatment and important areas of their lives. A headscarf, shawl, long covering or face veil may carry religious, cultural, family or personal significance. The central question is therefore not whether a particular form of covering is always right or always wrong. The real question is whether a woman makes that decision herself or whether others make it in her name.

If a woman chooses to cover herself out of personal conviction, that choice should be respected. In the same way, she should not be forced to abandon clothing that is meaningful to her. The problem begins when a personal choice becomes a compulsory rule enforced through fear, family pressure, social expectations or the supposed honour of the household. At that point, the issue is no longer simply clothing. It becomes a question of power, control and the right to make decisions about another person’s life.

A woman’s dignity cannot be measured only by what she wears. Character, honesty, education, intelligence and humanity cannot be determined by a piece of fabric. Yet women’s clothing is often discussed as though it were the main measure of morality and respectability. This can cause society to forget that a woman is not only someone’s daughter, wife, sister or mother. She is also an individual with her own voice, needs and right to make decisions.

The situation becomes particularly serious when ideas of modesty are allowed to obstruct medical treatment. Illness does not distinguish between men and women. During a severe disease, an accident, childbirth or another emergency, even a short delay can place a life at risk. In such circumstances, requiring a woman to first locate a husband, father, brother or another male guardian has little connection with the reality of a medical emergency.

Visiting a doctor is not a social outing and it is not comparable to visiting a shop. Medical care is a necessity and, at a critical moment, may be the final opportunity to save a life. If a female doctor is available, many women may naturally feel more comfortable being treated by her. Their families may also prefer that arrangement. But when no female doctor is available and only a male doctor can provide the necessary care, treatment should not be prevented. Refusing essential medical assistance does not protect dignity. It places health and life in danger.

Women also became ill one hundred, two hundred or five hundred years ago. They experienced childbirth, injuries, fever, epidemics and other serious health conditions. Medical knowledge was more limited, but treatment still took place. In some communities, midwives and experienced women provided assistance. In others, healers, physicians or traditional practitioners treated patients. It is unrealistic to assume that women in earlier centuries were always treated exclusively by other women. Necessity forced people in every period to find practical solutions.

Modern medicine now provides far more opportunities to prevent suffering and save lives. For that reason, it is even more difficult to justify refusing necessary treatment when resources are available merely because the doctor is male. The consequences of such a decision are not carried by tradition. They are carried by the woman whose treatment is delayed or denied. She is the person whose illness may worsen, whose suffering may continue and whose life may be placed at risk.

Poverty is a separate matter. When a family cannot afford medical treatment, the issue concerns social inequality, access to healthcare and the responsibility of the state. In such circumstances, it would be unfair to place the entire blame on the family. But where sufficient financial means exist and treatment is still denied because of family control or social pressure, poverty cannot be used as an explanation. The problem then lies in a mindset that places inherited customs above the health of a human being.

Wealth alone does not create open-mindedness. A society may construct modern buildings, purchase expensive vehicles and use the latest technology while maintaining outdated power structures within the home. Progress cannot be measured only by machines, roads and infrastructure. It must also be measured by whether people recognise the dignity, health and decision-making ability of others. It is easy to describe a woman as the honour of the family. The real test is whether she is allowed to speak, obtain medical treatment and participate in decisions about her own life.

Another serious problem is the existence of double standards. Some men stare at women outside their families, comment on their clothing or discuss their bodies, while at the same time attempting to keep the women in their own homes completely hidden from public view. If a society suffers from harassment, inappropriate behaviour or distrust, the entire responsibility cannot be placed on women’s clothing. Men must also accept responsibility for their own conduct, attitudes and behaviour.

Turning male weakness into stricter restrictions for women is not justice. If the problem lies partly in the behaviour of men, then that behaviour must also change. Limiting women alone does not solve the problem. It simply transfers responsibility from the person behaving badly to the person suffering the consequences of that behaviour.

European and Muslim-majority societies differ in their histories, cultures, clothing, family structures and social traditions. Europe cannot reshape every Muslim society according to its own model, and Muslim societies cannot impose their way of life upon Europe. Differences are natural and do not have to disappear. Cultural diversity deserves respect, but only as long as culture is not used to restrict a person’s health, voice or ability to make essential decisions.

Not every old tradition is wrong. At the same time, a tradition does not become right merely because it has existed for generations. Times change, living conditions change and the needs of new generations also develop. A practice that may once have been viewed as protection, necessity or social order may no longer serve the same purpose under modern conditions.

Preserving traditions can be valuable, but passing every inherited rule to the next generation without examination is not always wise. Young people must study, work and build their futures in the world in which they actually live. Rules that do not correspond with their social reality do not automatically make them safer. They may instead make them dependent, restrict their opportunities and prevent them from accessing education, employment or healthcare.

Covering should therefore never become a means of silencing women, delaying treatment or controlling their lives. Whether a woman covers herself or not should neither increase nor reduce her human dignity, intelligence or right to healthcare. A tradition that provides identity, stability and personal dignity deserves respect. But when a tradition prevents medical treatment, suppresses a voice or removes control over one’s own life, it is reasonable to ask how long it should continue to be carried solely in the name of inheritance.

Shahid Shakil

2026-07-28