I was going through BBC’s Have Your Say discussing whether Turkey should ease its scarf ban at higher education institutions. I must admit I do not know a great deal about Turkish politics, but I found the thread interesting nonetheless. The mass majority of comments opposing lifting the ban stated in a way or another that it-the scarf- is a political statement at best or a sign of women’s oppression.

Living in 2008 Bahrain, a country with a high percentage of females wearing some sort of head cover, it is very hard to relate to headscarves as political statements. In Bahrain, there is no one scarf. There is no one cover. There is no one style. Females in the streets, malls, educational institutions, government bodies may have a form of head cover, but even their reasons for doing so are various. The reasoning behind it may have a correlation with its style, type or fashion.

There are those who do it- voluntarily- out of religious beliefs, and those who do so out of the religious beliefs of their families, simply because they are asked to. A female in the latter category may happen to like the scarf, hence communicate that in the way she’s wearing it, or hate it, and again that can be communicated in its style. There is also those for which it is merely a cultural dress code, one that you would wear only within the constrains of this society, where women are expected to dress modestly with a certain de facto fashion and hence those are often rid themselves of it once in foreign country. There are those for whom the scarf is simply a cultural fashion, an extra piece of accessory which can be worn in funky ways. I can go on.

I know this is how current day Bahrain is. With head cover way too spread and way too diverse in the same time for anyone to draw connections with Islamism, secularism or otherwise. In Bahrain, you find secular political societies with female members with head covers. In Bahrain, daughters of supporters of Iranian revolution – covered or not- may know nothing more than the name of Ayatollah Khomeini about that political movement.

Has this always been the case? Those who lived their adulthood in the 80s tend to think otherwise. They say head cover at the time was linked to Islamism. My grandmother would not know what you are talking about if you imply linking women’s covering up with politics. That generation of women was simply raised to think women dress modestly, with no connection to politics or icons of any sort. My mother, on the other hand, would tell you about how you had to decide between being “communist” or “Muslim”- in those terms.  She would also tell you how religious icons were fought, and how people wanted to make a statement by clinging to what they believed was their right- freedom of belief. I assume she lived what is now referred to in Turkey as political Hijab/ non-Hijab. Not covering your head was as much of a political statement as was covering it. I do not envy them.

An incident casually mentioned by a state primary school teacher indeed caught my attention. Two third-graders wrangling over who is the bad guy, Saddam or Nasrallah. Although both residents and also citizens of the same country the two kids had poles apart background. Both found it incomprehensible that the other was claiming his only idol and hero to be an evil man.

My worries were certainly amplified when during a conversation with yet another friend, he mentioned how offensive he finds it that people have pictures of Nasrallah and other Ayatollahs on their cars as well as inside and outside their Hussainias. “There should be some tolerance and respect to other Sunni neighbours.  There should not be black flags during Ashura in areas inhabited by both Sunna and Shia. There should be one Bahraini identity” he added.

I pointed towards the noticeboard behind him, where he had two pictures of Guevara hanging, and to his T-shirt where yet another Guevara was in place. I asked how different he thought Guevera the icon was from Nasrallah or any other. “Guevara does not resemble any religious sect or background” was his answer.

I did not hide my astonishment and disappointment at his answer. Guevara is a Marxist-Leninist and if everyone on the island thought like my friend does then many should be offended by his picture as his ideology counters theirs. The very absence of religious background is contrary to the belief of many.

I came back home contemplating over both conversations and to how the concept of tolerance is causing everybody’s intolerance. Bahrain for ages witnessed the commemoration of the Ashura festival and the exhibition of its black flags on Bahraini streets. Although not necessarily performing any of the rituals, most Sunni Bahrainis recognize the importance of the time of the year and show a great deal of respect and understanding for their fellow Shia. How the black flags are causing some of the modern and liberal non-shia Bahraini to feel offended is indeed a step backward.

Which way does tolerance go? Does it mandate the absence of any social, political and religious differences and the abolishment of any iconic slogans and idols in order for everyone not to feel offended or discriminated against? Or does it mean that each and every social, political and religious sect should exhibit their slogans and icons in without fear in their own society?

Does tolerance give me a Nasrallah, Guevara, Khomeini, Saddam, Abdel Nasser free Bahrain? For if it does I really prefer it the other way around. Where does tolerance stop if it was to strip down the identities of the social spectrum?

Tolerance is when I tolerate others even if I disagree or disapprove. Tolerance is to live, and to let live. Tolerance does not mean we should all wear a physical and a mental uniform not to offend others.

Bahrain’s one identity is there- the one Bahrain has always been there. Regardless of our religion and political standing we make up for the one Bahrain, and I chose to say regardless not without. With my religious background, with my political opinions I am a Bahraini, who love all other Bahraini given any differences.

I applaud to the Just Bahraini campaign initiated by blogger Mahmood, for we need a reminder of things we have in common rather than the constant propaganda of sectarianism. However I would like to draw his attention to the fact that I feel that his message need to say “Shi’i OR Sunni, I am Bahraini”. His Arabic slogan translates into “Not Shi’i, not Sunni, just Bahraini” which made me stop to mull over it for a few seconds. So, what if I think I am either? I want the Sunni to feel Sunni and the Shi’i to feel Shi’i, but also feel Bahraini, above all. Those who are neither are also as Bahraini, for Bahrain is the homeland of us all.