Of Dialogue, Grace, Secular Laws, and Clash-prone Faith

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF version

By Syed M. Islam

June 27, 2003


Weblink: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/344/9992_muslims.html



Please check out the interesting news piece at the above link. Could anyone knowledgeable please provide the exact Quranic verses that refer to Hijab (H) mandate for women? I agree with Irina Bochinkova's statement: "The Quran is not a legal source of rights on the territory of the Russian Federation. We have a secular state, so no religion can be a dominating one."

Refusing to take off the H for passport photos and considering a request for it a 'great disgrace' are indeed leaps toward the 'dialogue' and not 'clash', aren't they? The Quran is not a legal source of rights in countries that do not venerate its godly birth in legal matters. Despite what seems to be a theoretical methaneball of arguments that Muslims prefer 'dialogue,' just look at this situation and ask yourself whether this insistence on divisiveness really promotes 'dialogue' or, rather, a confirmation of a 'clash.'

What 'common ground' could a Muslim truly establish, in this context, with uniform laws that should apply equally to members of all religions?

If losing the H should be such a disgrace for women, why do some Muslim men prance about without their cap or a beard, or are those optional, if for no other reason than that they are men?

A uniform 'dialogue' or a series of chaotic 'clashes', proportional to the number of religions seeking special, graceful exception to the common rule of law?

Extrapolating from this to other Quranic guidance, for instance, what if Muslim men insist that, if a secular society should disallow them to marry four women, concurrently, that would be an infringement on their religious freedom? Should they be so allowed, to let them conform to Quranic 'strictures'?

Maybe we ought to notify the Mormons here in the US?

In a lawsuit, what if a Muslim man complains that he would not accept the verdict if the key witness was only one woman? To protect his religious grace, must the court venture to find another woman (two women's = one man's witness, Muslim Godly commandment) or replace the female witness with one male? Credibility of testimony of a human would be half if "it" does not sport a penis (irrespective of the latter's size or circumference)? Insist on that 'grace,' and before long we may see generations of women straddle Freud's penis envy theory, helping it make a comeback! Funny? Not really; just consider the circumstance, speaking gracefully.

What if Muslim men insist on cutting off a limb of a Muslim thief, if caught, or stoning a Muslim woman to death in case she should become pregnant out of wedlock? Should the court let them have their way, because imposing any secular ruling in each of these instances would be an infringement on their freedom of religion?

If we should consider ourselves capable to understand and discuss these probabilities objectively, let us recognize the potential divisiveness among people based upon faith that similar religious insistence really promotes. Based upon what again? 'We know best of what God wants; down with your man-made secularism and its religion-blindness.'

How many sets of laws must a uniform society maintain, in order to cater to its various religious faithful, or is it a unique quirky demand, sledgehammered incessantly only by some Muslims?

Very dialogue oriented, indeed? NOT.