I am somewhat amused by the intermittent debate over Muslim women and their right to wear the veil, which we (sc. westerners) are told is prescribed by the Qur’an. The right to wear a veil is called a right by merit of freedom to practice one’s religion — in a democracy — without being coherced. And the defendors of a woman’s right to wear the veil shall declare that no state has the right to establish a dress code for its citizens. Naturally, it follows that if a government is allowed to dictate how citizens many dress, then what other liberties and rights will it not prohibit?
But ultimately it is not a debate on freedom of religion but rather a struggle between Church and State. Freedom is the nom de guerre, the subterfuge if you will, by which Religion attempts to jijack power from the legitimate possessor: the State.
If we are to look at the development of the Qur’an and that of Christianity, we shall discover more similarities than differences. Oddly enough, for whatever reason, both sides choose to highlight the differences. When we refer to the Muslim god, which consequently for all intents and purposes is the same as the Christian god, we do not call it ‘God’ but ‘Allah’; by doing so, we only reinforce the dichotomy of us and them, one that eventually transforms itself into that of us vs them. Interestingly enough, we do not call the Jewish god YWH but God, which is ironic since the god of the Torah — one akin to a mobster that rubs whomever He doesn’t like out of the picture and isn’t beneath taking mortal form and wrestling — is far from the god of the New Testament. Both the Muslim and Christian gods relie on messengers to transmit their dictates and their nature — at least theocratically — approaches that of an idea that cannot be fathom; a metaphysical entity that possesses no qualifiers.
So why are the differences highlighted? Well, Christianity and Islam are competing religions: they are two Titans fighting to save the human soul. Because they ultimately offer the same service, Christianity and Islam must focus on the differences. In effect both sides declare the other to be folly — infidels.
As I read what is described as the ‘oldest major work of French literature’, I was taken aback by the following:
One of the trademarks, if we may call it that, is the right of any Muslim man to have up to four wives.
But this issue is also dealt with by the Bible:
“If he take to him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish.” (The Bible, Exodus 21:10)
Whilst the Qur’an says:
“And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper….”
And:
“You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else)…. ”
Both religions predicate the inferiority of woman to man, after all Eve was created from Adam.
the Bible says
Now it must be said that a man’s aspirations are the produc ot his society. Thus as Muslim women claim that it is their right to wear the veil, what they are actually saying is: My religion commands that I wear a veil and I chose to obey the laws of my religion as opposed to those of my government. This itself is a dangerous mentality. Naturally, any government should distrust people that uphold the laws of a state within a state, i.e., Church, for it threatens its hold on power.
in Effect, it is not a struggle for the freedom to practice one’s religion, though ostensibly this is what it is portrayed us, but a struggle for power — the monopoly over cohersion over the individual.
Just as they choose to interrpet one aspect and ignore another, why not ignore this one?