The democratic model in the West is based on a principal pillar - freedom. It isn't simply political freedom but also freedom of speech, action and ideology. The only condition is that one person's freedoms shouldn't transgress on another's.
In that model it is imperative that everyone enjoys those freedoms, that no groups are excluded from that society and that anything that could possibly create divisions between the citizens of a country should be avoided.
The leaders of some Western democracies frequently urge others to adopt these ideas on the basis that they are the best that have ever emerged from the basic principle of individual freedom. They have imposed an ideological and racist hegemony on a group of societies that runs in parallel with the campaign that the US is waging against Islam and Muslims and whose objective is the disintegration of Middle Eastern countries in order to protect Israel.
In the state of Oklahoma, a Muslim student was forbidden to attend the Franklin Science Academy because of her insistence on wearing the hijab. The same thing happened at a school in France. These two incidents are a blatant violation of personal freedoms.
Consequently the question is: Is an individual's apparel a personal matter related to his personal freedom? Or is the Muslim dress the only one considered criminal in Western society?
Schools and other educational establishments in the West and especially in the US have turned from being places of learning to places for not so innocent amusements. Indecent clothes have become the prevalent dress code of students, sex and the use of drugs are widespread along with the possession of weapons. This goes on in schools in the democratic West under the banner of the protection of individual freedom.
But isn't it the right of any Muslim girl to cover her head in accordance with the teachings of her religion and at any time or place? This is after all a practice that doesn't encroach on the freedom of others.
In the face of this assault on the personal freedoms of a schoolgirl in Oklahoma, the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded that the state administration intervene on the basis that forbidding the girl from attending school was a violation of the US constitution.
The law governing school attire in the state of Oklahoma allows some exceptions if these are related to religious teachings. Why did the authorities at the school make this exception for Orthodox Jews and allowed them to wear the Yarmulke in accordance with their religious teachings but not for the hijab?
The US president invited Muslim Americans and diplomats from Islamic countries to break their fast at the White House on the first day of Ramadan in a naive attempt to win over the Muslims of the US - expressing his respect for the religion and declaring that his administration will not tolerate discrimination against Muslims. But he didn't go as far as denouncing Gen. William Boykin, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence affairs for his insolent attack on Islam.
Muslims are tolerant because they believe in the three prophets - Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) -- therefore they respect Christianity and believe in its teachings. To ban girls in hijab from education is an affront to Islam, Muslims and their beliefs.
Was Bush's vow to be strict with those who discriminate against Muslims as sincere as his commitment to a Palestinian state by 2005?
