With her usual acuity and perceptiveness, [1] Diana West explains what is really going on in France's ongoing headscarf controversy:

When Jacques Chirac announced his intention to unveil Islamic schoolgirls in France by barring the hijab, or headscarf, from state-run schools, he raised some provocative questions. Why would a French president whose power as a global broker derives from his close ties to the Arab-Muslim world (and distance from the United States and Israel) act to restrict Islam's burgeoning place in French society? Why would the European leader behind the international opposition to the war in Iraq -- dubbed by at least one Arab media outlet "the Western Saladin" -- suddenly seek to sweep a big chunk of Islam out of the French public square?

Sure, Chirac took the ecumenical approach and barred Jewish yarmulkes and "obvious" Christian crosses from the schools as well, but it was the scarf-wrapped girl-multitudes in increasingly Muslim France that caused presidential concern. There hasn't been a good explanation for his decision, but the untamed uproar in the Arab and Muslim world makes it pretty clear that the priciest dates on sale next Ramadan won't be called (as they were this year) "Chiracs." Indeed, some analysts see hijab-trouble ahead for France, with Middle East expert Walid Phares predicting that "a myriad of jihads," both nonviolent and violent, "can and will take place."

Meanwhile, does banning Muslim headscarves in French public schools infringe on freedom of religion? Most clergy, along with such watchdog groups as Freedom House and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, have already said yes, huffily. But here's where things get intellectually gooey. If the headscarf is a feature of Islam, and Islam has a history of repressing non-Muslims, then is the headscarf a symbol of religious repression? If so, how can Chirac be curtailing religious liberty by restricting a symbol of religious repression?

Also worth wondering is whether a headscarf is a religious "symbol" in the first place. This sounds like a question for the muftis on call at "Fatwa Corner" at www.islamonline.com, a fundamentalist Web site tracking every wrinkle of the hijab controversy. There, a reader learns that the headscarf is not a symbol of Muslim faith, but rather "an ordinance from Allah to protect (girls') chastity." In other words, unlike yarmulkes and crucifixes, the hijab doesn't function as a sign of piety, as many assume. It is wrapped around a girl's head and upper torso to serve a purpose.

As one Web site scholar puts it, "If a girl is approaching puberty, there is the fear that her not wearing hijab may cause young men to be tempted by her, or her by them ... The parent or guardian has to make her wear hijab so as to prevent means that may lead to evil or immorality."

Such a revelation should give the hijab a new look. It certainly offers insights into ongoing culture clash. While most Westerners wince at the dowdy uniformity of the hijab, all the while hoping to convince themselves to accept it as a symbol of feminine modesty, Muslims regard it as a functional means of safeguarding young girls and women from the untrammeled sexual impulses of men. This belies a fairly unevolved set of manners and mores (not to mention an almost literal state of war between the sexes) that reflects the culturally entrenched repression and abuse of women in Islamic society. Little wonder that Turkey and Tunisia, two Islamic societies with a somewhat more modern bent, have long banned the hijab in public places.

Not too long ago, I received an e-mail from an American woman married to a "basically enlightened Lebanese husband." From him, she wrote, she was surprised to learn that "the concept of controlling lust, anger, etc., is not taught in the Arab world."

Rather, what in the West are matters of self-control and personal responsibility are in the Arab world outwardly and "socially controlled." Her husband has commented, she continued, "that some Arabs come to the U.S. and lose their manners -- once outside the controlling environment, they have none."

That observation could explain of the enduring nature of the hijab, the abaya and burqa in Islamic society. But what about in France -- not to mention Paris, the city of light, Balenciaga and Yves St. Laurent? Such uniforms reflect both women's second-class status within Islam, and Muslims' newly expanding place in the Western world.

All of which may help explain why, despite my own hankering for a little more modesty (and a lot more style) across the board, the hijab remains a symbol of repression and extremism --a definite fashion-don't.

Diana West received many responses to this article. Here are a few:

"My understanding is that far from being a sign of repression of women by men, the movement towards headscarves and veiling of women was begun in the 1970's by educated women in Egyptian universities. The western inclination to condemn an aspect of Islamic culture because it does not conform to western sensibilities is exactly the kind of cultural imperialism that muslims object to.

I don't know how this myth got started, but the veiling of Muslim women is as old as the Prophet Muhammad, who said: "When a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands" (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 32, Number 4092).

I thought the whole purpose of feminine modesty is that men cannot real control their REaction to female skin-only their Actions. Then why wouldn't you want your (hypothetical)daughter going to high school half-naked? However you'd feel in response to that is exactly how those French Muslim parent's are thinking. There's nothing repressive about covering the hair. The hijab and the headscarf are like night and day. BTW, some women feel oppressed because they can't legally walk around topless like men. In dry theory, they have a point. In reality, they don't. The difference between Islamic societies and ours is that we draw the line on how "covered" women should be at a more reasonable place. Those Muslim men are not boors, they are just less desensitized to feminine skin."

"I guess I don't understand why the world is so concerned with telling Muslim women how to dress. The mullahs of Iran have made it mandatory while France is terrified of any religious expression. The banning of any religious symbol, whether it is a skullcap, cross or veil, is wrong. I thought secular democracy was there to protect religious freedom. What is so wrong with a Muslim woman chossing to cover her hair? And as far as for Islamic oppression, what about the constant exploitation of the female American body? Isn't it oppressive to turn on the television and see women prancing around half-naked just to fulfill capitalist desires? Or maybe American women should not wear what they want because one out of three of us will be a rape victim as recent statistics have proven. The Muslim veil is just a symbol of modesty. It's good enough for the Virgin Mary. She wears one in every painting all the time. Even nuns wear it. Good grief, it's just a scarf."

Maybe it is just a scarf. But if that's all it is, I doubt there would have been demonstrations all over France in its defense. Clearly it is a symbol — of an elaborate system of laws that includes laws denying equal rights to women and non-Muslims. French officials won't dare say it, but that's really what the fuss is all about.