| Religious Freedom Is Indivisible: Muslims Should Seek it in Islamic Societies Too | |
| By Sultan Shahin, editor, New Age Islam
Though I won't use such strong words, I fully agree with the sentiments and thoughts expressed in the above sentiment. The analysis that "it will only encourage fundamentalism" is also correct. It is actually happening. The fundamentalists are taking advantage of the situation created by the Swiss ban on minarets and the French ban on burqas (veils). But then the question arises in my mind, how come we get agitated only when our own religious freedom is at stake in non-Muslim societies. We do not worry when Muslims themselves, not to speak of non-Muslims, are not allowed religious freedom in Islamic societies. We were permitted to defend ourselves with arms (a form of Jihad, albeit a lesser form) because if we had not done so, people may not have been able to worship in temples, monasteries, churches, synagogues, etc., all those places of worship were God is remembered and God's praises are sung. Renowned Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes: "The Qur'ān asserts that if the use of force would not have been allowed in such cases, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations could have reached the extent that the places of worship – where the Almighty is kept in constant remembrance – would have become deserted and forsaken, not to mention the disruption of the society itself: وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا (٤٠:٢٢) And had it not been that Allah checks one set of people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would have been utterly destroyed. (22:40) Apparently we were allowed a lower form of Jihad, the Qital, that involves fighting, so that we could safeguard the human right of every individual to freely sing the praises of God in any kind of worship place he likes, be it a monastery, a temple, a church, a synagogue, or a mosque. But how come, we feel concerned only when it is a matter concerning a mosque and do not bother if states, particularly Muslim and avowedly Islamic states do not allow temples, monasteries, churches and synagogues to function or create hurdles in the way of non-Muslims singing the praises of God in their own way. Not only that. We have scholars who claim that while non-Muslims have perfect freedom to practice their religion in an Islamic state, (though in practice they are not mostly allowed that freedom), Muslims do not have that freedom. Once born to a Muslim parent, you are doomed for ever to be a Muslim or else. Well, your throat will be slit, no less. Indeed, there are "revered" ulema (scholars of Islam) in various schools of thought who say that if someone is seen so much as not attending Friday prayers, his throat should be slit. Sample the following:
"A person greatly admires Hazrat Maulana Rashid Gangohi, the outstanding scholar who was one of the founders of the Deoband madrasa. The gentleman to whom I refer is a kindly soul, who can be depended upon for help by others. However, when in the course of conversation I chanced to remark that the most basic virtue lay in kindness towards others, he contradicted me. Kindness, he contended, was reserved for "pious, practicing Muslims". As for others, they should be given a chance to mend their ways, after which "they would be Wajibul Qatal (liable to be killed)". Another person I chanced to meet — a finance man, no less — feels that people who do not attend Friday prayers "should simply be killed. Slit their throats!" "Now, this kind of sanguinary verbal ferocity is very different from the traditions of quiet piety and gentle acceptance in which most Muslims were brought up. I claim no expertise to suggest whether this or the other is the 'correct' version of Islamic thinking. However, there are certainly many scholars who hold that this aggressive literalism, popularly but incorrectly referred to as 'fundamentalism', is a doctrinal innovation of relatively recent origin. It is very much a product of the linear, pseudo-logical thinking that has characterised our violent and intolerant age — an age that began with the full flowering of modern imperialism in the nineteenth century and whose baleful cultural and psychic responses have long outlived their origins. With this kind of intellectual legacy as a backdrop, what kind of political discourse is possible in Pakistan?" -- Salman Tarik Kureshi http://newageislam. Also, sample the following from a supposedly enlightened scholar of Islam: "Freedom is a neutral word. Accordingly, affixing it with religion would mean a liberty of a person either to have or not to have a religion, either to practice or not to practise, either to propagate or not to propagate, either to embrace or not to embrace, either to change or not change one's own religion. If he decides to do so he has the freedom to do it without any interference of others. This is the meaning of freedom as it appeared in the above examples. "Is a Muslim allowed to enjoy such freedom? As a matter of fact, under Shariah law, a Muslim is not free to do so, no matter whether he is under Muslim rule or non-Muslim rule except with dire necessity. In fact the meaning of Islam itself, that is submission and surrender to the will of Almighty Allah (swt), is inimical to the vague meaning of freedom (cf.hurriah) in its absolute sense. Thus, a Muslim cannot enjoy freedom in respect of articles of belief (Iman) and practicing of pillars of Islam, (arkan al Islam) and observance of codes of life, because, these are essential of keep him a believer and a Muslim. He may enjoy a guided freedom with regards to those matters that do not fall under the basic and obligatory tenets and pillars of region." – Freedom Of Religion in Shariah by Dr. ABM Mahboobul Islam of the International Islamic University of Malaysia. The poor orphans of war known as Taliban who ruled Afghanistan for a while have been considered bizarre in thinking that if someone does not have a beard of a certain length and doesn't wear certain length of cloth or if a woman shows even an inch of skin, they are liable for various punishments. But I find that this is actually the mainstream of conservative thinking in Islam which is not being opposed by mainstream Islam. It is to the credit of Talban that by trying to implement these outlandish ideas of our ulema they have brought this out into the open. But for them people like me who were happy with the thought of a mainstream Islam, peaceful and pluralistic, would not have thought of studying the clerical literature at some length and trying to find out the truth. It is this obscurantist mindset that pervades the minds of a large number of Muslims. No wonder then that while some of us balk at the very thought of a Talibani Islam and just take it for granted that such an interpretation of Islam simply would not be acceptable to the mainstream, on a closer look we discover that actually the mainstream, at least in backward societies, does not have much of a problem. I hope Mr. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society and other people who are bothered about the Swiss ban on minarets or the French ban on burqa or India's Hindu Right demanding the abolition of Muslim Personal Law will also express their disgust, if they feel it, over the lack of religious freedoms to non-Muslims and more so Muslims in so-called Islamic societies. So-called Islamic scholars go to great lengths to prove that Quranic dictates like "La Ikraha fid Deen" (There can be no compulsion in religion) or Lakum Deenakum waleya Deen (For you your religion and for me mine) have no meaning and relevance for the Muslims today and should be banished from our consciousness. Shame on such scholars!!! Until we start fighting for religious freedom in our own societies (of both Muslims and non-Muslims) URL: http://newageislam. |
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
__._,_.___
