Other perspectives on the hijab case, especially those that support the Muslims' position, employ a different kind of reasoning from those that make bureaucratic regulations or national unity the fundamental premises of the argument. Some writers simply point to the facts that people are different,Brautkleid Standesamt , that their religious convictions are protected by the constitution, and that as long as wearing hijab does not create any problem for Thai society, they should be allowed such religious freedom (Preecha Suwannathat 1988; Narongrit Sakdanarong 1988). Others try to answer the two questions above.
Two prominent academics, taking the nature of Thai society seriously into account, have drawn on deeper reasons for their positions. Chalardchai Ramitanon, an anthropologist from Chiangmai University, points out that religious holiness stems from the use of a symbolic system supported by the faith of the religious community. Religions have several functions: they provide norms for societies, legitimize existing power, and endow people's lives with meaning,brautkleid billig , among other things. He states succinctly that in a society consisting of peoples of different religious persuasions, it is difficult to create a unified nation, particularly when the state interprets the notion of nation or country by associating it fundamentally with a particular religion. The possibility of conflict is thereby enhanced. He writes: "Being Buddhists is no proof of being Thais. The Burmese and Sri Lankans are Buddhists but they are not Thais" ( Chalardchai Ramitanon 1988).
Acknowledging differences in religions and citing the authority of history to support the point that in the past quarrels about religious symbols have easily led to battles as well as to the founding of new countries, Professor Nidhi Eiosriwong, a noted historian, asked: "Will our country disintegrate because Muslim girls who go to schools or colleges dress differently?" He argued forcefully that to push a people to choose between their religious loyalty and their love of the nation is the most unwise thing a state can do. A state with some degree of wisdom would try with all its might to avoid creating such a dilemma ( Nidhi Eiosriwong 1988).
These two academics help elucidate the fact that the Thai state tends to ignore basic differences in Thai society. The sociological basis of their argument is helpful to understanding the complexities of Thai society. When serious attention is paid to the sociology of religion, both the limits and contributions of Buddhism as a pillar of the Thai state become apparent. In this sense these professors argue that the foundation of the
Thai state, which many claim to be Buddhism, is not broad enough to accommodate the Muslims in Thailand. Meanwhile, the Muslims' commitment to their religion can effectively call into question the thesis of a unified Thai political community.
The line of reasoning of the Muslims who participated in the public debate in support of the young women who were wearing hijab is basically religious. Religious reasoning in this case helps to clarify the kind of sociological reasoning mentioned above. The secretary-general of the Shaikh-ul-Islam Office began his article in a Thai daily newspaper by pointing out that covering a woman's head is a cultural symbol of Muslim women's dress code, not, as many suspect, a symbol of Iranian women. He then cited an oft-quoted verse from the Holy Qur'an which reads: