The case, yet another in this matter, as it has exploded with low noise. "Someone" has prevented Fatima, a student of 13 years of Palestinian origin, to read his speech to President Napolitano during the visit of head of state in Reggio Calabria. An obstacle (even this legitimate?) Resulting from the veil that the girl, the Muslim family, would have worn during the reading of a text prepared for days, with meticulous effort. "Someone" has telephoned the Statues on the journey from Reggio C. to "suggest" to remove the hijab while reading his speech in front of Napolitano. Which, incidentally, has still received and heard. (pictured)
The story, indeed the record, it's all here. Certainly not cheap. Back to manifest that fear of the unknown (of 'the other call it what you will) that accompanies man from its earliest origins. This is one of those human characteristics that define René Girard "... hidden from the foundation of the world." And suddenly, but not entirely unexpected, burst to the surface and are revealed bursting with immediacy. Prove, in fact. Reveal, "King veil." Show? Or again, conceal, cover up? or concealment demonstration? The language, this is the truth, is ambiguous at least as human thought.
misunderstanding which is underlined even looking lexical item. They call all veil. But not everyone agrees on the meaning of the term. Many also include under this name hijab, burka and niqab, which leaves uncovered only the habit nun eyes. In short, veil, headscarf, hijab, burka or niqab, always stone of the scandal it is.
But look at the picture that illustrates this paper. A face of pure young woman framed by a decorative cloth, to cover the head and shoulders. We prefer to call it f oulard , a French word. No, say the purists incidents in which angry captive-Judeo-Christian-Po, is an Islamic veil. Therefore to abolish and prohibit at least in public places. In private, if not the nose peeking through the keyhole, even if they can make.
E 'only (and not cheap), yet others say, yet another sign of submission macho element female widespread in the Islamic world. Ergo should be abolished. Also because the Koran does not prescribe. So religion has nothing to do. It is not entirely true but a bit short 'approximation can be used. Especially the ignorant. Who can read and write (no need to even know how to do arithmetic) to browse the Koran XXIV Sura An-Nur (The Light) 30-31
'And' the believing women to lower their gaze and be caste and not showing, their ornaments except what appears, to let down the veil from their chest. "
Then the Koran and the religion that is based on it, got to do or not? The answer inevitable is a resounding boh! too cryptic for that "... but what is" shuffles a deck of cards already very messy. If we show what is not clear what should be covered. Pardon, veil. Unless that "what seems" means something else. We go into the ground so muddy textual exegesis and interpretation. In fact, there are those who translated the verses are criminalized in this way
"... tell the believing women that lower the gaze and guard their shame and their parts do not show too fine, except what is outside, and covering her breasts with a veil and not to show their beautiful parts other than their husbands or their fathers or their sons or their in-laws ... '.
a test in which some might find a suggestive invitation to incest or otherwise interparentali. Invitation that is also present in the above quotation, and I have omitted only for the sake of brevity. On this point, the translations are unanimous.
According to the second translation, however, "what seems" could be sinuses, these are to be covered. So why hide the head and face? The Secretary of Muhammad did not written. How? Would not you know? The Koran did not write it seems that Muhammad could not read or write (even on this there are no certainties, only more or less reasonable assumptions). It seems that the text was composed in 632 AD, some 20 years after the death of the Prophet, Zaid ibn Thabit by his secretary at the request of the Caliph Othman. But even in this case there are no certainties.
A fine mess. But Catholics are accustomed to other exegetical backflips on sacred texts. A Mess for once at least not only "Italian". In France, the very homeland of the Marseillaise, the Revolutionary Enlightenment motto "liberty, Egalité, Fraternité , are made worse off because the scarf (this time the French forces) is prohibited in all public primary and secondary schools. The prohibition is not limited to the Islamic headscarf, but also deals with Christian crosses a certain size (you need to arm themselves with the ruler and / or arms to enforce the law) the Jewish yarmulke, the Sikh turban and, with supreme contempt of ridicule, as he explained the education minister Luc Ferry in office at the time of entry into force of Law (2004), "some hairy (sic), ie the honor of the chin (beard) where is grown according to certain rules of Muslim law. By the beard of the Prophet, is not all that ridiculous? No, it's grotesque.
the face of such controversy crucifix dispute even so, no crucifix that has delighted a few weeks ago, appears to be a noble argument, even if quodlibetale. I have a suggestion: ban in public places, along with veils, the chador, burka aut the like, the use of the bandana that you show "only what is ..." . A beautiful and shiny square. The rule, strict, rigorous, would operate in derogation of any immunity even for the highest offices of State nature and would be retroactive. Just as the law on the process soon. Of course, without bargaining.
0 comments:
Post a Comment