1. 1 Bu tebli, International Institute For Muslim Unity/
International Islamic University Malaysiann tertip ettii THE SOCIAL
STATUS OF MUSLIM WOMEN IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY balkl uluslararas
konferansta 14-16 Austos 2007 tarihinde Kuala Lumpurda sunulmutur.
HEADSCARF DEADLOCK IN TURKEY AS A CASE STUDY By Dr. Serdar Demirel
(Department of General Studies, KIRKHS, International Islamic
University Malaysia) E-mail: [email protected] Introduction
Islamic dress-code has been a real conflict between the state and
the wider society in Turkey since the new republic accepted old
French model of secularism as its regime. Later on Turkey added new
dimensions to its adopted secularism. Nowadays, Turkeys brand of
secularism is amongst the most extreme and inflexible in the world
and according to this, religion must be kept under firm state
and/or secular control. Therefore Muslim womens headscarf (or
hijab) is prohibited in the universities and various official
institutions. And those groups with close connections
(institutional or ideological) to the state apparatus have been
closely monitoring headscarf practice among the Turkish Muslim
women. They claim that the reason behind the prohibition of the
headscarf is not primarily a religious, but a political symbol. It
is unnecessary to say that to them headscarf is symbol of
backwardness. This prohibition unfortunately, has led the country
to many crises, especially in social, political as well as
economical life. Indeed, the main victim of this conflict is
obviously Muslim women. Enforcement of the headscarf ban has been
tightened since 1997 when the powerful military launched a harsh
secularist campaign and ousted Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan.
Since then, the headscarf has become the object of one of Turkey's
most divisive struggles, as the country seeks to join the European
Union and the globalized economy. Despite its vital importance, the
issue of headscarf hasnt been very much addressed by Muslims in
writings. Several articles, however, have been written by some
prominent Turkish intellectuals. In this humble paper I have tried
to analyze the factors of the conflict between social periphery of
Turkish society and the state center which is monopolized by the
republican elite and the impact of headscarf ban on the status of
Muslim women in Turkey, from social, educational and political
perspectives within local and global realities and prospects.
1
2. 2 Historical Background In order to understand the social
status of Muslim women in Turkey and examine their realities we
need to look at historical background of the issue at least in
brief. The Ottoman State maintained its sovereign existence for
over six centuries from 1299 to 1922. The year 29 October 1923 was
very significance turning point for Turkish society due to it marks
the founding of the Republic of Turkey as a nation- state after the
fall of the Ottoman State. This is because a religious society
would be forced to transform itself into Western- like society
within the secular paradigm in the name of attainment of
contemporary level of civilization, by which Western civilization
was obviously meant. The process of modernization, actually,
started long before the Republic of Turkey especially at early
eighteenth century with the dating of the Ottoman decline.1
However, this did not mean paradigm shift for that time, but to
maintain its sovereign existence, and attainment of acceptability
to the advancing West.2 The founders of the new Republic rejected
the entire legacy of Ottomans and carried out radical reforms and
structural change by means of reforms which are called Kemalist
Revolutions3 in order to create a secular republic and westernized
society. The notion of an Islamic state or continuity of Ottoman
State was anathema to them. They viewed such a state as the way to
maintain the status quo and perpetuate the backwardness of Turkey.
They wanted to see Turkey transformed into a modern nation state
which lives as an advanced and civilized nation in the midst of
contemporary civilization. Such a nation would have to be secular
and rational, emphasizing science and modern education in order to
create a modern industrial economy.4 To achieve their goals and
objectives, they adopted a two pronged strategy: Transformation of
the entire socio-political structure according to modern Western
norms and values, on the one hand; and, a complete violent break
with the immediate past, and assertion of identity with ancient
Anatolian civilization on the other hand. Therefore, many attempts
were made to prove that Sumerians, the Trojans, and the Hittites
who were Turkish origin, and that the Western civilization, too,
owed its existence and progress to the Turks. 5 The main idea was
to cut off the links of the people with their past for the sake of
inculcation of Western values into Turkish society. They thought
that if the society continues to keep in touch with the past, i.e.
Islamic values, modernization process will fail. For this purpose
radical reforms had to be taken even it might be very painful.
Therefore, on 3 March 1924, the Grand National Assembly deposed the
caliph, and abolished the Caliphate. The abolition of the Caliphate
was the prelude to the programme of radical secularism6, The
Ministry of Religious Affairs was disbanded, the historic office of
Sheikh of Islam ceased to exist, the revenues of the Pious
Foundations were confiscated; and all religious schools were
transferred to the secular schools with a scientific positivist
curriculum, the religious courts of the Shariah which related to
matters such as marriage status, divorce and inheritance, were
closed, 1 Roderic H. Davison, Turkey A Short History, (The Eothen
Press, 1988), p. 67-90. 2 Rai Shakil Aktar, Turkey In New World
Perspective, (Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore), p. 18. 3 It refers
to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. 4 Feroz
Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, (Routledge, London and New
York, 1993), p. 53 5 Rai Shakil Aktar, Turkey In New World
Perspective, p. 30. 6 Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, p.
54. 2
3. 3 civil marriage replaced religious marriage and a Civil
Code based on that of the Swiss planned to prevail over all7, the
Turkish Criminal Code was imported from the Italian Penal Code and
the German Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted by Turkish.
Obviously, the reforms began with a modern constitution, by
adapting the European laws and jurisprudence. Meanwhile, the
reformist even changed the letters from Arabic characters to the
Roman alphabet which temporarily rendered the whole population
illiterate. The elimination of words of Arabian and Persian origin,
changing from the lunar calendar to the solar calendar, using
family names instead of religious titles, the substitution of
Sunday as a holiday instead of Friday are clear examples of moving
Turkish society toward secular society. In brief, above reforms and
others achieved the secularization of the judicial system
completely. Despite of the reforms, Article 2 of the Turkish
Constitution said, `The religion of the Turkish State is Islam.'
But, in 1928 this clause was deleted and all other expressions and
references to religion were removed from the Constitution.8 One of
the most important and symbolic reform was the dress code reform
which promoted aggressively by the state. The founder of the
Turkish republic Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had declared the new
quot;dress code reformquot;, in Kastamonu in 1925. According to
this new reform the fez was abolished, and men had to dress
European- style hats rather than the fez. The fez ban is still
today exist and no one is permitted to wear it. Furthermore, the
new dress code also banned women to wear the veil in public space.
The republic elite considered the fez and the veil as a symbol of
the old caliphate, which contradict the goal and objective of
modernization and secularization. For them the appearance of women
serves as a particularly potent symbol of the nature of the state.
The new dress code, particularly for women, would create very
serious tension between the state and the society. Because Turkish
society as a whole did not need or neither had the desire to change
their dress style which was designed according to Islamic teaching
and the local tradition. The progress in line with the reforms were
too rapid. Turkish evolution effectively abolished centuries-old
traditions in order to modernize Turkey, yet, the vast majority of
the population were unaccustomed and were not willing to adopt all
reforms. It was urban elites the true beneficiary of the reforms
rather than the generally illiterate inhabitants of the rural
countryside.9 Indeed, it was not easy task to replace religious
sentiments and customs that existed for centuries with a new world
views sentiments. Particularly, reforms related to Islam met with
opposition; and to this day, they continue to generate social and
political tension.10 Therefore, the common perception was that
Islam was in danger and jeopardy, and in order to assert who they
were, the only solution was to resist the reforms in many forms
with particular reference to the dress code of woman and which was
strongly resisted by people in the society. Since then the dress
code reform for women was and is one of the main problems in
between the state and common people. In short, the process of
modernization in Turkish society was a traumatic story about to
forget the past, it aimed to eliminate religious and traditional
values, and replace 7 Lord Kinross, Ataturk: the rebirth of a
nation, (Weidenfeld and Nicolson), p. 386-387. 8 Rai Shakil Aktar,
Turkey In New World Perspective, p.32-33. 9 Lord Kinross, Ataturk:
the rebirth of a nation, p.503. 10 Ibid. p.504. 3
4. 4 them with Western life style and ideology in the name of
progress. This project of social engineers was successful
especially among the urban educated people. They never believed in
possibility of multiple modernities such as integrity of Islam with
science for progress and development. After many painful reforms
the republic elite started to think that Islam replaced with the
modern way of life which is based on so called scientific
realities, but, later on a new challenge emerged. This time it is
associated with the new educated social class which emigrated from
rural areas to urban. And this time the same tension inevitably
arose through the debate about meaning of the secularism and the
dress code. Turkey's Secularism Crisis The constitution of the
Republic of Turkey states, in article 2, the characteristics of the
Republic as a democratic, secular and social state governed by the
rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national
solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the
nationalism of Atatrk, and based on the fundamental tenets set
forth in the Preamble. The Preamble also establishes the principle
of secularism, whereby there is to be no interference whatsoever of
sacred religious feelings in state affairs and politics.11 One
thinks that if the secularism is this much important for the state,
therefore, its definition must be crystal clear for everyone, at
least in the constitution, nevertheless, it is not. Though the hot
debates on the definiton was existed since the Rebulic was founded.
In fact, it is vital to have clear definition about secularism to
avoid subjective interpretation, specially in the constitution,
among the political parties and the intellectuals. If the
secularism is that it is a matter of separation of state and
religious affairs, then this has never been a reality in the
Turkish case. As I mentioned earlier that after the abolition of
the Caliphate, The Ministry of Religious Affairs was disbanded, the
historic office of Sheikh of Islam ceased to exist and in their
place two separate offices were established, a Presidency for
Religious Affairs (Diyanet leri Bakanl) and a Directorate-General
of Pious Foundations (Evkaf Umum Mdrl). The head of Religious
Affairs was nominated by the Prime Minister of the secular state,
to whose department he and his office were attached.12 This has
been done because the reformist knew very well that they would not
be able to eliminate religion from the heart of the people. Their
belief was, if you fail to eliminate the religion, then you can
control it. This is the actual meaning of secularism in Turkish
society. Based on above fact, Professor Dou Ergil says: Religion
has always been under state control. In fact all mosques are
staffed by official imams appointed and paid by the government.
Their work is overseen by provincial muftis attached to the
Religious Affairs Directorate, whose head has the powers of a
Cabinet minister. Public sermons are prepared by this
administration, whose budget is second only to the armed forces.13
Hence, it is clear to everyone in Turkey that secularism doesnt
mean a total separetion of religion and the state in the country,
however, the real dispute is in what 11
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/mevzuat/anayasa/anayasa-ing.htm 12 See:
Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, (Oxford University
Press, 1968), p. 413. 13 Dou Ergil, Structural crisis, (Todays
Zaman, 16.05.2007). 4
5. 5 extent the state should control the religion? This dispute
ignite another hot issue, that is to whom the public sphere
belongs, does it belong to people or to the state? The answer to
this question is directly related to the headscarf ban. In the
sense that, if the public sphere belongs to the state, in that
case, the state can ban the headscarf if it considers it necessary.
Needless to say that there are secular democrats who believe that
public sphere is not a state area. They have nothing to do with the
headscarf ban. Therefore, I would like to shed light briefly on the
group who believe in that public sphere is a state area as well as
their arguments. Public Sphere Dispute Obviously, there are two
main groups in this dispute. The first groups positon is
ideological one while the second groups sutruggle is depend on
class differences. Let us start with the first group. Indeed, the
first group includes affluent, university-educated, Westernized
elite, which dominates the military, the bureaucracy, the judiciary
and the Education and Foreign Affairs Ministry; in general they
represent the secular establishment, and holding on to its
deep-seated power positions in and around the state institutions.
This establishment is also called the deep state by Turkish media
which believes that they are the owner of the state. Furthermore,
they consider that Turkey does not have the luxury of having a
democracy14, since the Kemalist revolution has not yet been
completed. In order to complete the revolution, the state must
control religion and the public sphere. They firmly believe in
anti-democratic social engineering. These bureaucratic oligarchs
and their overenthusiastic supportters in elite circles are the
main power behind the headscarf ban in Turkey. They claim that they
limit freedom of pious people due to protect secularism and
Westernize them for attainment of contemporary level of
civilization. They dont feel how much they look like civilized in
Western world. Here is example of imitation Western people and
culture according to Andrew, he describes Turkish secularism as
folloved: Secularism has remained more of a nationalistic than
democratic concept in Turkey, not a means of securing rights so
much as excluding what the state sees as wrong. Since Ataturk's
death in 1938, the Kemalist philosophy has become the state's
quasi-religion with Ataturk as its undisputed prophet. Headscarves,
for example, are not allowed in government or civic buildings,
including schools and universities, while Ataturk's likeness enjoys
ubiquity on posters, badges and even in the corner of TV screens.
And it is the military that is the vigilant and ruthless protector
of Ataturk's image and legacy.15 Here an example to what kind of
secularism the republican elite believe. Sumru rtolu, the President
of the Council of State, just recently could claim in the name of
secularism that there is to be no interference whatsoever of sacred
religious feelings in state affairs, laws, education and even in
culture.16 Who can justify the claim that the culture must be
secularized? Culture belongs to the people and it isnt a state
affairs, but this type of secularism is the root of the problem.
They consider their understanding of secularism as end of the
history and unalterable. Our democratic republic as it is stated in
the constitution has been turned to a dogmatic republic by
endeavors of this group. 14 Hasan Cemal, Tank sesi, postal sesi!,
(Milliyet, 29.05.2007). 15 Andrew Anthony, A fight for the soul of
the new Turkey, (The Observer, Sunday, 20. 05. 2007). 16 Ortadou
Gazetesi, 11.05.2007:
http://www.ortadogugazetesi.net/habergoster.asp?id=7286 5
6. 6 They openly claim that Atatrks revolutions which provide
modern way of life to Turkish people unalterable and will live
forever. The irony is here they characterize modernity unchangeable
which is against the nature of modernity as modernity itself is a
state of constant change. For modernity everything is subject to
change and anything which is not open to change, then it is a
dogma. They expect the people to surrender to their dogmas for the
sake of so called modern life. Therefore, they measure Turkeys
development through criteria of the dress code. According to Nicole
Pope that many Turks continue to measure their countrys development
through the narrow criteria of the dress code, and only women who
have rejected the headscarf fit their criteria of modernity. Then,
she expresses her astonishments with the words: Personally, I have
always been perplexed by this understanding of modernity and its
inherent contradictions. How can a system that values womens
education also deny young girls access to universities because they
wear a headscarf?17 Here, I would like to remind you the notorious
convincing rooms which is a good example about how they try to
attain the contemporary level of civilization! Well-known lady
Professor Nur Serter, the ex vice rector of Istanbul University who
was surprisingly, one of the champion of the headscarf ban,
established convincing rooms at her university where
headscarf-wearing girls were encouraged to uncover their heads and
those who refused to do so dismissed from the university. By the
way, their practice is refused by the majority of Turkish people.
Turkeys Constitution openly declares that sovereignty belongs
without any reservation or condition to the nation.18 They claim
they are republicans despite their refusal of the will of the
people. That is to remember the old dictum, For the people; in
spite of the people! There are many surveys in which the views of
Turkish people on headscarf ban have been investigated and they
show where will of the nation lie. One of the most important polls
taken on the subject of freedom of religion and conscience in
Turkey is the Religion, Society and Politics in Turkey titled
research study that was made in February 1999 in order to
investigate relationship between religion and social and political
manners and behaviors. This task has been accomplished by financial
support of the Foundation for Social and Economic Studies (TESEV),
and with the academic skills of the researchers from The Bosporus
University (Boazii niversitesi), which is a state university and
internationally recognized for its success. The research of TESEV
gives a general idea as to what Turkish people think on the
headscarf ban, what is their position toward it. In this research
which has been recognized as a serious and scientific statistic,
the percentage of people who agree that not allowing students to
enter school with headscarf is wrong is 76%, on the other hand, the
percentage of those who do not find it wrong is only 16%. Rate of
people who agree with the statement Female government officials
should be allowed cover their heads if they want is 74.2%. The
questions designed to measure the dimensions of the so-called
balkanization of the public have yielded results that show that no
such great divisions exist. For instance, to the question of Would
you feel disturbed if the majority of your city or town consisted
of women and young ladies who wear headscarves? 83.5% have 17
Nicole Pope, Defining modernity, (Todays Zaman, 08.05.2007). 18
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/mevzuat/anayasa/anayasa-ing.htm 6
7. 7 given the answer No. The percentage of those who say that
they would be disturbed is only 12.8%. The questions pertaining to
women, by the expression of researchers show that the majority of
Turkish women wear headscarves. The rate of women who say they dont
wear headscarves when they go out is only 27.3%, whereas 53.4% say
that they wear headscarves, 15.7% they wear turban. Among the men
who give answer to the question, the rate of men who say their
spouse doesnt wear a headscarf is only 16.4%. Half of Turkish
people (50.2%) believe that religious people are oppressed, nearly
65% of those who think that religious people are oppressed with
particular reference to the headscarf ban. The research shows that
people are tolerant towards one another and that they have no
problems among themselves.19 For data-based discussion, we should
take into consideration the latest survey published in 2006 by the
same organization (TESEV) which reveals that, although 64% of women
wear headscarf, since 1999 it has not increased but decreased by 9%
and those who support an Islamic state is only 9 percent, as
opposed to over 21 percent six years ago. Yet the proportion of
those who say religion is important in their lives has increased
during the same period.20 In my humble opinion that this highlights
another contradictory reality of the Turkish society about how they
conceive Islam, however, it needs another discussion. According to
the study the most significant decline in womens covering has been
occurred in 18-24 age groups. Of course this is because of outcome
of headscarf ban in universities where women who cover have to stop
covering in order to enroll there. Anyhow, the result of the latest
survey was exactly what the republican elite wanted, and that
result should make them happy, but they are not, instead they still
feel under threat and continue to claim that the number of covered
women is increasing. This assumption is not actually based on any
data or solid proof that can be proved scientifically. The
bureaucratic oligarchs and their supportters in elite circles never
trusted the people and have been scaring them seriously because,
they believe that people will abuse their secular regime. So, they
ban headscarf in public sphere on the basis of protecting
secularism and to control religion. According to them religion is
only a matter for heart and conscience. Therefore, it should not be
in the public sphere. They firmly believe in it. This is because
they fail to understand what kind of religion Islam is. Meanwhile,
Ihsan Ylmaz, a columnist for Todays Zaman, mentioned to their poor
understandig of Islam in one of his article in which he says that
if we look at the five pillars of Islam, they are all about public
life. 1- manifesting and witnessing that God is one; 2- saying
prayers with the community in mosques, which is why we have the
call to prayer that our laicists do not like; 3- fasting to
empathize with the needy; 4- giving alms to the poor; and 5- going
to pilgrimage to meet co-religionists from all over the world.
Islam is about both the inner and outer worlds of an individual.
All what is needed in Turkish society is freedom of religion as
practiced in, say, the United Kingdom, whose government sends a
team of medical doctors and nurses every year to accompany British
Muslim pilgrims.21 19 Foundation of Social and Economic Studies in
Turkey (TESEV), survey titled Religion, community, and politics in
Turkey dated as February 1999. 20
http://www.tesev.org.tr/etkinlik/islam_demokrasi_anasayfa.php 21
Ihsan Ylmaz, Turkish neocons, war on Islamism and AK Party, (Todays
Zaman, 13.05.2007). 7
8. 8 To put in a nutshell this gorup is against for definition
of secularism in the constitution so that they can explain it as
they wish and accordingly limit freedom of religous people.
Headscarf As A Mean Of Class Struggle In recent months, whole world
witnessed huge demonstrations in big cities of Turkey via
international media in which Turkish secular women wearing
mini-skirts and carrying flags and posters expressing their worries
over their lifestyle in the future and shouting No to the EU!, No
to USA, and No to Shariah Law. People across the world failed to
understand the paradox that this segment of Turkish society
popularly known as White Turks in domestic debate call upon the
military to intervene in politics. On the other hand, other segment
of the society known as Black Turks with headscarf and conservative
values demand the military stay out of politics and support Turkeys
full membership for EU. The same paradox can be easily seen in
Turkish politics while so-called Islamist Justice and Development
Party (AK Party) is in favor of EU membership, but the well known
secularist Peoples Republican Party (CHP) founded by Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk, the champion of the Westernization process, on the other
hand, tries to keep Turkey away from EU membership and opposes for
applying its criteria in the country. How can we understand the
paradox of these social classes who attached the West ideologically
opposes the West, while, the largest, but, lower class of the
society with conservative values who are naturally considered as
anti-West in values but in favor of the West? This is the real
dilemma of Turkey. Although answer to this question seems very
difficult but, in the matter of fact, it is not. It is because the
conflict in the society, in a large extent, simply depends on class
differences22 i.e. in between the centre and the periphery. The
centre represented by The White Turks who enjoy the power of the
state and the periphery represented by the Black Turks who are the
victim of this power. Interestingly, democratic process of the
country from very beginning was in the interest of the conservative
periphery rather than the Westernized centre. They discovered that
the democratic process is the only suitable mean for them to change
their social status. This reality led majority of them to support
EU membership and democratic system despite they were aware of that
Europe is a different civilization. Furthermore, they believed in
good relations with EU which would bring its values like democracy,
freedom and prosperity. It was only true mean to establish the idea
of the sovereignty of the majority in the country. Exactly for this
same reason the White Turks opposed to EU process. This is because
that EU process means for them a huge lost of power over the
system. The only way to keep the periphery away from the centre is
to oppose democracy and criteria of EU and call upon the military
to intervene in politics.23 Justice and Development Party (AK
Party) is a major carrier of the periphery to the center since its
establishment. But visibility of the periphery in the public sphere
with their symbolic cultural tenets, especially womens headscarf
was a tool for the White Turks to alarm the central forces. 22 Ali
Bula, Oldu mu imdi? (Zaman Gazetesi, 22.05.2007); Mustafa Akyol,
Laiklii asl 'laikiler' ihlal ediyor, (Radikal Gazetesi,
18.05.2007). 23 See Fikret Bakaya, Cumhuriyet Mitinglerinin gerek
amac ne? Tehlikede olan laiklik deil, elitlerin iktidar (I), (Zaman
Gazetesi, 09. 05.2007). 8
9. 9 Peoples Republican Party (CHP) the champion of democracy
and secularism in Turkey, badly weakened Turkish democracy when it
aligned with the army and the Constitutional Court, the two
institutions that have helped the prohibition of headscarf in order
to preserve Turkey's secular identity. That is why Ak Party on
behalf ot the concervative segment of the society advocated
Westernization along with the EU accession process, introduced
radical political reforms in the field of human rights,
strengthened the market economy and engaged in an aggressive
privatization program. Hence, Faruk Birtek, a sociology professor
and a sort of benign Kemalist said to one of his Westerner friend
that so-called Islamists are more democratic than the secularists
in Turkey. For him it's what Hegel would call a contradiction
without a dialectic.24 To clarify dimension of social class
differences I would like to highlight here a phenomenon which
indicates nature of the conflict. The republican elite are not
uncomfortable with all women wearing headscarf such as cleaning
women, maidservants, women workers, peasant, etc. But, they are
uncomfortable with those women wearing headscarf who are educated,
engaged in society and politics. Because, they perceive their
existence in active social life as a challenge to their elite
position by representing an alternative modern image and identity.
Why Muslim Women Insist To Wear Headscarf We have seen in above
discussion the position of those who are behind the headscarf ban
and how they consider dress code of women as a matter of ideology.
It is strange to witness that the accuser on behalf of the state
ideology never ask the accused what does their dress code mean? Why
Muslim women insist to wear headscarf? Do they wear it because of
its symbolic dimension? Are they rebellious trying to change the
political system in the country through this sacred symbol? Does
headscarf mean rebellion against those in authority or against the
rules? We may find some marginal groups in the society who consider
headscarf a mean of rebellion against the system but for
overwhelming majority of Muslim women wearing headscarf, it is not
a way of rebellion, but it is just a religious obligation.25
According to Professor Ali Bardakolu who is the President of
Religious Affairs of Turkey, he explained the Presidencys stance in
debates concerning the ban on wearing headscarves in state
institutions and schools. He clearly said: .. The extreme and
private beliefs of people are not important. What is really
important is the 14-century-long Islamic experience. Muslim men and
women have seen the headscarf as a religious requirement until now.
There was no political angle in the past. Muslim women used to
cover themselves due to their religious beliefs. When examining a
religion, you have to take into account experiences, the living
religion and socialogical considerations..26 24
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2083583,00.html 25
Allah (SWT) said in His Holy Book: And say to the believing women
that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that
they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what
(ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over
their bosoms.. (An-Nur: 24/31) And Allah (SWT) said in another
chapter: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing
women, that they should cast their outer garments over their
persons (when out of doors): that is most convenient, that they
should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-
Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Ahzb: 33/59) 26 Ali Bardakolu,
Religion and Society, (Presidency of Religious Affairs, Ankara,
2006), p. 137-138. 9
10. 10 Anyone who has minimun information about Islam knows
that the hearscarf is not somthing innovation in Islam rather it is
a religious requirement as stated in the Holy Book of Islam and
Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) and with the unanimous
verdict of the Muslim scholar for the centuries. It is not
something up to Muslim individual to change or to ignore the divine
command. Based on this fact Muslims, either men or women have seen
the headscarf as a religious requiremeet not only in Turkey but in
all Muslim contries as well. That is why Muslims can not give up
the headscarf whatever the pressure. Beside this requirement,
Muslim women believe that Islam supports women to get proper
education, be active in social life beside women's central role in
the family. So they struggle in order to take an active role in
modern life but, within their values and belief. Unfortunately, the
republican elite dont look at what Muslim women have in their mind
rather they look at what they have on their head. Moreover, they
dont see or I may say they dont want to see- what is going on at
global level and what is the global trends among the follower of
different cultures and religions. People from all over the world
have attempted to return to their roots, to face the challenge of
worldly modern life. Instead of addressing the new trend they
prefer to put pressure on it. They fail to understand wearing the
headscarf is the acceptable way for Muslim women to take part in
modern life and it is not a demand for backwardness. According to
Nilfer Gle27 wearing headscarf for Muslim women is a way of being
in the public in an Islamic way i.e., to be in the universities, to
enter the parliament as deputies, and to pursue their professional
career. All this means a kind of public participation of these
women to social and public life. It is not only politics as we
understand it; it's larger than that, more cultural. So in that
respect, they try to be present in social life, in public life with
their religious values. This is a different kind of experience of
modernity which is an alternative to the republican elites
modernity.28 Yet, the state denies their right of education and
active role in public life if they choose to wear headscarves. They
force them to ignorance in the name of enlightenment. Millions of
people are victims of this prohibition directly or indirectly in
contemporary Turkey. Let us give some well known examples of this
painful process. Some Examples: Obviously, the world has recently
witnessed on April 2007, how the country's top generals threatened
through e-memorandum to overthrow the elected government under the
guise of protecting quot;secularismquot;. The primary reason behind
the military intervention was due to nomination of the foreign
minister Abdullah Gl as the countrys next president mainly because
of his wifes attire, particularly her headscarf. The Constitutional
Court, for many people under the influence of military power,
invalidated Parliament's vote for foreign minister Abdullah Gl on
the technical grounds that it lacked a two-thirds quorum something
that had never been a disputed 27 She is professor of sociology at
Bosphorous University in Istanbul and a well-known expert on the
political movement of today's educated, urbanized, religious Muslim
women. She is the author of The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and
Veiling. 28 Nilfer Gle, The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and
Veiling, (The University of Michigan Press, 1996). 10
11. 11 issue before. As we know that earlier presidents had
been elected without the presence of two-thirds of the 550-member
Parliament. This is despite his party has proven the most liberal
and democratic government in Turkish history in many ways,
increasing freedom of speech, successfully encouraging girls to go
to school, and making progress to join the European Union. As it is
seen in this case, men are too victims of the prohibition of
headscarf directly or indirectly for being married to someone who
chooses to wear the headscarf. Another internationally known
example is, Merve Kavak, US educated software engineer who was the
first woman wearing the headscarf, elected as a deputy to the
legislature expelled from parliament by force, in May 1999, and
after eleven days of this incident, she lost her Turkish
citizenship. Two years later, the Constitutional Court of Turkey
shut down the Virtue Party to which she belonged because of
supporting the headscarf cause. Ironically, The main distress of
headscarf ban is in educational field. It was mainly started with a
circular following rectorship elections in 1998, first in Istanbul
University and later in other universities. The women who have
chosen to wear headscarf are denied opportunities to go to
universities since then. Prior to this time, it was partially free
in some universities. This problem could not have been solved in
Turkish courts despite many attempts.29 For this reason one of the
victim of this ban, Leyla ahin who was a fifth-year female medical
student at the faculty of medicine of the University of Istanbul,
brought a suit to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human
Rights against Turkey for upholding the decision of the University
to prohibit her from taking exams or attending lectures while
wearing her headscarf. On 10 November 2005 the Court ruled that the
obstruction of Leyla ahins education by means of the headscarf ban
in Turkish Universities is acceptable in a democratic society. The
Courts decision unfortunately strengthened hand of the headscarf
prohibiters in Turkey and give them a false legal ground instead of
helping to improve human rights and defend the victim. Not allowing
women to choose their dress freely, depriving them of their right
to education, their freedom of religion and conscience, and their
right to privacy constitute state discrimination against women.
Judging the situation in Turkey in a subjective manner damaged good
image of the European Court of Human Rights not only in Turkey but
in all Muslim countries. For Muslim, religious women once again
became the object of discrimination. These are just a few examples
of headscarf ban victims but, real extent of suffering of the
victims is not measurable and it is still a problem which needs a
quick solution in the area of democracy, rights and religious
freedom. 29 Despite its apparently legal character, in fact it is a
political problem. See for the legal evaluation of the ban, the
article titled as, Headscarf Problem in Turkey: Juridical or
Political? By Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erdoan.:
http://www.ak-der.org/?p=reports&view=detail&tbl=rpt&cid=98&cnnm=3&lang=eng&m
=a8445719836f2d5e8b51986410e14728 11
12. 12 Concluding Remarks It is clear that emancipation of
Turkish women or their bodies are being used at the internal
political conflict by the secularist. In their view, dress style of
women cant be decided by themselves, but, rather, it should be
decided by the state. It is not an exaggeration to say that women
are seen as the object of political and social conflict, but not
the subject of their own will. The claim, protection of secular
womens right, turn to a tool to oppress other women, i.e. the
religious women. We have to accept that woman's body should not be
a symbolic field in which the ideology of the state is written.
Women's own interpretation about the meaning of their appearances
and actions have to be prior over others understanding. It is
undeniable fact that, Turkey has been passing through a social
change for last decades; like all social changes it is very painful
process when the guardians of the status quo are trying to resist
the demand of change. The social change which Turkey has
experienced is indeed very complicated and deep. From a
sociological point of view a new elite basically from the
periphery, with conservative values emerging insist to get whatever
they deserve in education, bureaucracy and politics. These demands
are definitely their constitutional rights. But the republican
elites who represent the centre cant say no to these demands, so,
they fight back through pretext of protecting secularism which at
the end alienates the state to common people. Based on above fact
we humbly can recommend coming points for the solution of the
headscarf dispute. It seems that an agreement cant be reached
because neither side will change its demands or accept any of the
demands of the other side related to the headscarf. However in
order to tackle the deadlock some steps can be taken. First,
secularism must be redefined according to requirement of so called
civilized world. Scular state, accordingly must be neutral in front
of all religions and different world views. For instance, in the
debate about the appropriateness of covered women vs. Western-style
clothing, the state must be neutral and can not take part in favor
of Western-style clothing. Second, the headscarf issue must be
internationalized through international institutions and human
rights and Civil rights organizations. The European Convention on
Human Rights, as it is known, largely influenced by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Its article 9 can be a gateway for the
sides of the conflict for the time being. Article 9 states in
paragraph 1: quot;Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observancequot;. This
Article proceeds to state in paragraph 2, which has assumed central
importance recently, quot;Freedom to manifest one's religion or
beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed
by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of
public safety, for the protection of public order, health or
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
othersquot;.30 Bringing awareness to human rights, and particularly
religious freedoms issues in the international area, the article 9
can be useful since all of the members of the European 30
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html 12
13. 13 Council have proceeded to sign the Convention. Let us
not forget that Turkey is in process of accession to the EU and its
criteria have binding nature on Turkey. Finally, Turkey's army
should be placed under civil control, like all armies in EU member
states and Turkey should not be an exceptional case for
international community. Secularism has turned into another form of
fundamentalism that trumps other values, not only religious, but,
democracy too. The old French model secular understanding had been
turned into a huge obstacle in front of the social peace and
harmony as well as for the prosperity. 13
14. 14 Bibliography - Ali Bardakolu, Religion and Society,
(Presidency of Religious Affairs, Ankara, 2006). - Ali Bula, Oldu
mu imdi? (Zaman Gazetesi, 22.05.2007). - Andrew Anthony, A fight
for the soul of the new Turkey, (The Observer, 20.05. 2007). -
Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, (Oxford University
Press, 1968). - The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey:
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/mevzuat/anayasa/anayasa-ing.htm - Dou
Ergil, Structural crisis, (Todays Zaman, 16.05.2007). - Feroz
Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, (Routledge, London and New
York, 1993). - Fikret Bakaya, Cumhuriyet Mitinglerinin gerek amac
ne? Tehlikede olan laiklik deil, elitlerin iktidar (I), (Zaman
Gazetesi, 09. 05.2007). - Foundation of Social and Economic Studies
in Turkey (TESEV), survey titled Religion, community, and politics
in Turkey dated as February 1999. - Hasan Cemal, Tank sesi, postal
sesi!, (Milliyet, 29.05.2007). - Ihsan Ylmaz, Turkish neocons, war
on Islamism and AK Party, (Todays Zaman, 13.05.2007). - Lord
Kinross, Ataturk: the rebirth of a nation, (Weidenfeld and
Nicolson). - Mustafa Akyol, Laiklii asl 'laikiler' ihlal ediyor,
(Radikal Gazetesi, 18.05.2007). - Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erdoan,
Headscarf Problem in Turkey: Juridical or
http://www.ak-der.org/?p=reports&view=detail&tbl=rpt&cid=
Political?: 98&cnnm=
3&lang=eng&m=a8445719836f2d5e8b51986410e14728 - Nicole
Pope, Defining Modernity, (Todays Zaman, 08.05.2007). - Nilfer Gle,
The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling, (The University of
Michigan Press, 1996). - Ortadou Gazetesi, 11.05.2007:
http://www.ortadogugazetesi.net/habergoster.asp?id=7286 - Rai
Shakil Aktar, Turkey In New World Perspective, (Sang-e-Meel
Publications, Lahore). - Roderic H. Davison, Turkey A Short
History, (The Eothen Press, 1988). -
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html -
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2083583,00.html -
http://www.tesev.org.tr/etkinlik/islam_demokrasi_anasayfa.php
14
15. Filename: HEADSCARF_DEADLOCK_IN_TURKEY_AS_A_CAS E_STUDY_
Directory: C:UsersKhalidDesktop Template:
C:UsersKhalidAppDataRoamingMicrosoftTemplatesN ormal.dot Title:
Subject: Author: Serdar Keywords: Comments: Creation Date:
19/08/2007 12:31:00 AM Change Number: 4 Last Saved On: 22/08/2007
10:39:00 PM Last Saved By: Khalid Total Editing Time: 15 Minutes
Last Printed On: 07/11/2007 9:24:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing
Number of Pages: 14 Number of Words: 6,197 (approx.) Number of
Characters: 35,323 (approx.)