Behind the veil The word Hijab from the verb "hayaba " or jajabah "which means" hide. " This name also corresponds to the tissue that most Muslim women use to cover up. Explains the history of Islam that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, wanted his wives and followers cover their heads with a veil to prevent confused with women of other faiths or of the street. That is, the idea arose as a means of protection and identification. Since then, Islam has encouraged the decency and has tried to remove the believer of vice, immorality and sin, and therefore, both men and women should dress with modesty and austerity. The woman, who is likely to "provoke" a man's sexual desire with her feminine beauty, must cover their hair, face and part of the body.
Today it is difficult to understand the imposition of the hijab and visions are most close to the Muslim religion see it as a representation of the discrimination and the limitation of the rights of women. But the reasons for wearing the hijab can be of different nature: women are very devoted to the tradition they have decided to wear it with pride, others because of its fundamentalist ideology, take it fulfilling to the letter the sensitive interpretation of sacred texts and others that simply are not given another option but to live completely hidden with no option of being able to question the laws.
The headscarf is being debated not only among Western societies if not in the Muslim communities themselves. In countries like Afghanistan or Iran, the concealment of women is much more radical, is total (burka) but it is a fact that is linked to socio-political situation. In other countries such as Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon or Turkey, the constant political, social, scientific and cultural development is doing to transform the Islamic nation. It is these countries where wearing the hijab also involves a distinction of social status, more complementary fashion for women or a sign of cultural identity. Women can hold high office as Minister for Education in Qatar, Al Mahmud Heija or Minister of Planning and Administrative Development in Kuwait, Mubarak Masuma.
But our vision Central Europe, which claims to liberalism and freedom, inevitably leads us to believe that one of the main enemies of our "evolution" are religions and their symbols, whether a crucifix, a rosary, a shayla, a burqa or a hijab. And faced with a threat as it receives more rejection who is the unknown element in this case, the veil of Islam.
The problems presented for the Institute Najwa Camilo Jose Cela not given for the first time, have also been cases like hers in other schools who were not so important because agreed.
The Education Act 2006 stipulates that school boards will be the full autonomy to govern the internal rules of coexistence, that is, should be the schools themselves who agreed between their own standards for these issues. However, in chapter three of the article of the Law on the education of students states that "in no case shall be no discrimination on grounds of birth, race, sex, religion, political or any other condition or personal or social circumstance." Here is where you create controversy because then you get discriminated against those who express their beliefs through their appearance.
The background of all is the fact of looking at the handkerchief in only one way: as submission and discrimination against women. While it is true that in some countries where the official religion is Islam (about 1,200 million followers) limiting women's freedom is on the agenda, not the same for all women and by no means imply that we wage a battle against it in a way so discriminatory. It should put the freedom of expression for people relentless tendency to solve ideological problems of other cultural identities.
The Government should be willing to change the Organic Act to establish a single standard for all centers based on the values \u200b\u200bthat enacts: "Tolerance and reason", however, the coexistence of different cultures occupying the English territory will become difficult in the future. Looking at other cases where the executive branch has taken up the matter we observe that, for example, was not exactly a model of tolerance the French government, when in 2004 passed a law banning the wearing of religious items in public schools. The dissatisfaction arose among the Islamic community has been growing ever since. But other countries such as Germany, Netherlands and United Kingdom have been much more flexible over the right Freedom of image. The engine of progress and change is not thought to prohibitions, an imposition on the other, if not the respect of fundamental rights and respect between cultures. So far the latter has worked better than the first.
Patricia Goalkeepers
