The people who see the head scarf as a part of daily life, because of the problems they faced, they need to defend themselves. In this matter some problems are occurred. Because some people use false methods while they are defending themselves. These circumstances are the result of continuity of the problems. As you see, in this article some faults of the people are focused. This condition bring with the new proposals. At the sane time this study, although it is a natural right, the prohibition of dress liberty by authorization tendencies is showing its inconsistency.
Nuri Çakır
Translated By: Tuğba Gürsu
As well as head scarf is the matter of former arguments, in the last twenty years, it is one of the most spoken subjects. Because of these intensive arguments there are a lot of studies over it. But it has still been argued. In spite of these it needs to be still spoken in order to reach a publican consensus.
The people who see the head scarf as a part of daily life, because of the problems they faced, they need to defend themselves. In this matter some problems are occurred. Because some people use false methods while they are defending themselves. These circumstances are the result of continuity of the problems.
As you see, in this article some faults of the people are focused. This condition bring with the new proposals. At the sane time this study, although it is a natural right, the prohibition of dress liberty by authorization tendencies is showing its inconsistency.1
A. The Relationship Between Head Scarf and Chastity
There is a direct relationship between chastity and wearing head scarf. In other words it is related with high values such as testicle, honesty and reliability. This situation is mostly forgotten by the women who wear head scarf. Above this forgetfulness, not only the state but also public opinion has contribution.2 Such that, a person who speaks about head scarf and chastity can ask a question such as: "Are those who wearing head scarf are moral or are those who are not wearing head scarf are immoral!" In fact, this view is not coherent, because although it is different to everyone, there is certainly a relationship between the dress and chastity. For someone whose hair is seen (by others) it may be harmful for her chastity, while it may be harmful for one's chastity if her shoulders are seen by the others. Besides it may give harm to one's chastity if only her genitals are seen and this may be against her chastity though. But anyway, it is undeniable that the dress is related whit the chastity.3
Because of all of these, head scarf is not only defended for the national right and liberty but also it needs to be defended.
B. Liberty Struggle Towards Authoritarian State
Most of the people who are opposed to head scarf is considered it is an ideological symbol. In this case, is it a wrong approach? For questioning this approach, let's talk about this is true and try to understand this.
“The women who wear head scarf make this for the support of their parties' ideologies. They can do whatever they want in the streets but it is not suitable to make politics in the public areas. As a result of these, it should be forbidden for the civil servant and student to wear head scarf.”4
The head scarf wearers aren't wearing head scarves for the sake of voting a party. On the contrary, the head scarf wearers, in the last fifteen years, gave their votes to a variety of parties in the hope of liberty of headscarf. These parties' main feature in their thinking that the prohibition of headscarf is a suppress towards "conservative society" and this prohibition can be finished with society's dominance.
Although the devout and head scarf wearers give their votes to different parties, actually their main function is trying to change the attitude towards head scarf prohibition by the state. Because of this, the people who want liberty for the head scarf, before the other defence reasons, must take into account this main function. In other words, it is defended in one view the head scarf is a result of religion liberty and on the other hand refuses of the state's formal ideology.
Actually, in the democratic states, there must not be formal ideology, it is not suppress with revolution. For this reason the people who are different from the formal ideology of the state try to be suppressed is generally wrong and out of age.
Here we want to take attention between the difference of the defence individual head scarf liberty and contradiction with the state authority.
Religious and conscious freedoms are individual liberties. In the developing countries, in order to protect state harmony and religious selective liberty, it's restricted to make religious inspiration.5 But the conflict towards state’s authority is democrasy and it’s the beginning of human rights. The reason of democratic state couldn’t be an ideological state, searching for the right towards the suppressive authority and want political liberty is mostly a wider justice and liberty than the religious liberty.
In that case, although head scarf is accepted as an "opposite ideological attitude", this attitude, it is more appreciated than religious liberty. Because the second is former's result it cannot be mentioned if there is not any contradiction right in a state there is no religious liberty. In other words because at the headscarf's consciously making political oppose to authoritical state's defend, it is not get difficult to defend the head scarf, but it's more easier.
In this case a question may come into mind: isn't there any restriction towards public area for the contradiction of authoritian state. Doesn't it mean that to defend this right in school or in government institution is led to make politics in those areas?
Of course, no. to make head scarf free for the civil servant, and students, isn't an ideological difference, on the country, to end modern, out of age difference that's started with revolution to where and to when the wrong is made, it is serve to be operated firstly in there.
C. Head Scarf and "Short Skirt" Liberty
In the defend of head scarf, we often hear a statement like this, the government did not prohibit head scarf such as "As the state doesn't interfere the women who wear mini skirt, like this, it shouldn't interfere to head scarf wearers", if this sentence is told by a women who wears mini skirt "As I have right to choose my own dress, you should have a right, too." It means like this and it is understandable, and it is a help to head scarf wearers in the name of human rights.6
In opposite to this, although it is only a liberty demand while it was saying by a religious person, it gains a different meaning. For the real religious person, wearing a short skirt is referred to an immoral behaviour, because it is forbidden by a religious doctrine. A religious person who makes this competence actually wants to say that: "The government do not prohibit this immoral thing so it should not forbid the people who try to live her religion." This is not a true discussion. In this discussion despite mini skirt, anything can be given as an example so it is a more sensible argument. For instance, we can say that "a woman can wear head scarf if one can wear a yellow t-shirt" or "As state doesn't interfere the person who puts on buckle, it shouldn't interfere the head scarf users." In this time it is not false, because it is a wrong and contradictory method arguing the difference between a religious dress and an immoral dress.
Because, the act of wearing head scarf can not be related with moral standards, related completely and only with culture and religious liberty. For the state, it can be linked by a revolution and secular principle, but, mini skirt/going out with obscene clothes can not be related with religious liberty. Mini skirt is not worn because of faith. But it is also destroyed the republic harmony. Because of this behaving immoral is a crime for every state such as ours.
In this case, an immoral dress can not be similarize and equalize with head scarf. Because it makes harder to defend the head scarf, it makes this argument go in a wrong way. Mecelle's rule should be applied in there.
To prevent badness and assume reality is important. If there should be a prior, to prevent badness is important. But when comparing mini skirt - head scarf, we cannot see this rule, but piouses prefer first to religion liberty, for us, obligative is not important, people should work to prevent corruption on one hand and on the other hand they should want from the state to accept all liberties and head scarf liberty. Corruption is not liberty but is it guilt. There can newer be a liberty in the form of manipulating crime liberty.
If we want to compare dress preference, we should use this statement "the government should not prevent the head scarf as it can not prevent non head scarf wearers.
D. The Other Matters
Our utilizations about some mistakes, that manipulated very much in press and are made in head scarf defense, are these:
1. The head scarf's name, colour and length are not important. What is important is the soul of covering. Namely, to wear head scarf as it is commanded. Because the ones who are opposed to head scarf liberty, each kind of head scarf is "out of age"
2. Whether there is a law about prohibition of head scarf is not important in the final plan. Because, in any form, if a law is made that restricted the head scarf right, it will not bring legal consequence. On the contrary, it means this struggle will become more intense. In addition to it this information may be useful to show that the authoritarian state hasn't developed any law for this aim.
3. "Public area" concept that has no meaning in constitution or laws isn't needed in head scarf's freedom search embrace. In countries where religion is practised in every field of life, as seen in example of Turkey, restricting religion to some public areas cannot be practical because it would mean having a society with no religion. Attempting to set a limit to religious working activities in the public area approach does not get along well with democracy as it limits religion liberty. In law's basic principle, head scarf freedom is in any case protected. Although, in defence, either relying on "public area" concept or "service taken, service given" differentiation or assuming this differentiation as valid a wrong preference. Because "public area" concept as authoritarian state has used concepts like this for press is not a legal/constitutional concept.
4. In arguments that are made in "public area" concept frame showing that students and patients are allowed to wear head scarf but teacher and civil servants like this are not allowed to wear these opinions are incoherent. The idea "if a teacher who gives public service wears head scarf, neutrality can be spoilt" isn't it valid for the student wearing head scarf? In other word, the condition of a student wearing head scarf isn't the neutrality spoilt? If we look at this perspective, a teacher can be "opposed to" her students head scarf, a doctor who's not wearing head scarf can behave partial to her patient. It is possible to punish these civil servants for their partiality but why are all civil servants that wear scarf are implicated with a wholesaler approach? This situation is a big injustice. In fact, the thesis that head scarf users can not be neutral has a meaning which shows that authoritarian state is partial to a part of society. In a free and democratic milieu, a probability like this is not discussed. Because state is responsible for its notion for an equal distance duty. Because thanks to state's neutrality in a society wearing or not wearing head scarf has not been an advantage any more wearing or not wearing head scarf is not belong to politics but it reveals is either a solely religion or world opinion expression.
5. It is not a true defence to defend that Mustafa Kemal and his close friends are not opposed to head scarf. Because while looking at revolutions that had been made, it can be consisted that society project without head scarf is placed in the revolutions arranging that will be made. Truly, in pictures of all textbooks that are published in sole party period and after that period this revolution that is made can be seen in family people phantom. In pictures grandmother is wearing head scarf, mother is without head scarf, and children without head scarf are defined as "contemporary". This kind of approaches in fact prevents making the lines definite so it paves the way for making the problem as gangrene.
6. The true nature, scope and border of religion command about head scarf is not important in this argument.7 How state continues head scarf prohibition based on a fetwa given by an institution of statue is wrong too. This field is not conviction field of supposedly secularism state's field but the field of person's who belief and culture. Besides nobody can guarantee that government will set up an official "scholars committee"
7. In head scarf struggle, for the ones in favour of freedom, it is not important to which world opinion they have, which party they belong to, against prohibition how they behave whether they open their head scarf or not. The most important thing if they are in active politics while they want to end this prohibition, whether they think to use this as a political material is not important. To make religion political and to use it for politics, as it's supposed is not to say society's religious wantings and to make politics over them. On the contrary, in democracy, each political movement in its own pattern if it thinks, argues society's religious demands and is in power, with these it shows itself in front of society and wants vote. For this reason, in this struggle, purpose, reason and motive of struggle is not greatly important. What is important is whether the ones who are in the right part act or not by applying true methods and with help of right proofs. Moreover, originally, thing to continue struggle without. As resignation is necessary, whether to see conclusion or not is not greatly important. In other words, to act positive and not to interfere in the duty of God is the most important principle.
8. For the solution of the problem, the unfounded methods like "To compare the state" is not useful. Because, originally thing not wearing more head scarf but wearing it for the aim of religious consciousness. To have this consciousness, it is enough for the state to extend freedom. In other words, if the state becomes exactly democratic, it is enough and more society's conservatism rises, it is inevitable that the state becomes conservative and democratic. Consequently, the main duty for us, as Bediüzzaman Said Nursi said in thirteenth Letter, is to show light to people who are not contest with the society's condition, that includes %80 part of society, and to help them in order to find the safe and right way. What we want from the state should be to make freedom, humanity namely the Islamic religion better by lifting up head scarf prohibition and all prohibitions in front of counsel. Because one state's respect for religion is in fact its best service.
Abstract
The people who see the head scarf as a part of daily life, because of the problems they faced, they need to defend themselves. In this matter some problems are occurred. Because some people use false methods while they are defending themselves. These circumstances are the result of continuity of the problems. As you see, in this article some faults of the people are focused. This condition bring with the new proposals. At the sane time this study, although it is a natural right, the prohibition of dress liberty by authorization tendencies is showing its inconsistency.
Source:
This article is taken from akademic magazine Köprü/Summer 2004