Dialogue, Grace, Secular Laws, and Clash-prone
By Syed M. Islam
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
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
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
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?
oriented, indeed? NOT.