|
Maldivians Have the Right To
Practice Any Religion
26/06/2005|www.adduonline.com -''Maldivians
Have the Right To Practice Any Religion..'' This was the
statement which caused a huge controversy in this country
during the last Ramadhan. Presumably, you all know who
expressed the statement and what happened there after. But
that is not the subject matter we want to address. What we
would like is to draw attention to some pointers which
indicate confused criteria, short memory, and shallow thinking
amongst the public
a) Shallow thinking
The statement in question was uttered during a speech which
centred around the comparison of 'freedom of religion' in the
Capitalist West and Islam. The speaker highlighted differences
in the two ideologies as regards how each system treats
religious minorities. Within this context, the speaker
proceeded to conclude the fundamental flaws in the Capitalist
ideology by stating gap between between its tenets and their
actual policies. So he said ''...Maldivians have been Muslims
for centuries.. if the West espouses 'freedom of religion' as
a universal right then Maldivians also should have the right
to practice any religion (meaning the religion they preferred
i.e. Islam)...and the West should not make a big fuss about
what religion we practice if they truly uphold the concept of
'freedom of religion''
In a nutshell this means :
1) Maldivians have adopted Islam as their religion and they
have been Muslims for centuries
2) The Capitalist ideology is built on pillars which include
the concept of 'freedom of religion'. According to Westerners
this concept gives humans the right to practice the religion
of their choice .The policies of Western nations towards other
states revolves around the marketing of these 'freedoms'
3) If the Maldivians chose Islam as their religion and if the
West implements 'freedom of religion' the Capitalist laws and
institutions should not interfere with our choice of religion
(Islam). But their discriminatory policies especially against
Muslims prove otherwise and contradict their fundamental
tenets.
So the alluded meaning of the controversial statement means
Maldivians should have the right to practise the religion they
have already chosen. Aside from that, this statement is
related to the policies of ideological states towards others
states. That is to say, the West should not attempt to
cultivate other religions in Maldives because it contradicts
the meaning of the real expression 'freedom of religion'.
However, the Maldivian public almost broke into a wild frenzy
by lifting the statement out of context - as if they forgot
about the rest of the speech
There are many verses in the Quran, which, if taken in
isolation can give contradictory meanings. For example Allah
says in the Quran ''Woe to those who pray .''[surah Maun]. So
on one hand Allah (swt) condemns those who pray. On the other
hand, the prayer is one of five pillars of Islam. Can such
contradictions be found in the revelation of Allah (swt) ?
We have to to read the entire surah in order to understand the
implication of the verse.
Have you seen him who denies Our religion?
It is he who harshly repels the orphan and does not urge
others to feed the needy
Woe to those who pray
but are heedless of their prayers;
who put on a show of piety but refuse to give even the
smallest help to others.
b) Confused Criteria
It could be argued that 'freedom of religion' means a free
license to commit apostasy. If the masses are really so
concerned about the preservation of the Islamic identity they
should evaluate statements and actions of every political
group using one fixed yardstick. Furthermore, if they truly
love Islam they should try to comprehend the meaning of
'democracy' and extract the correct Islamic rulings on such
terminologies. But it seems the actions of the 'anti' camp are
immune from any rigid checks and they are even free to mock
Islam. The cheap lies churned out by the 'anti' camp are
considered by many as smart tactics or 'lesser evils'.
c) Short memory
Also, during the entire episode the people were behaving as if
they were suffering from an extreme case of amnesia. The
controversial statement and its implications were 'exposed' in
a website which was already promoting these decadent concepts
en masse. Ironically the masses do not get worked up by the
sheer volume of slander and gossip published by the so called
reformists.
Conclusion
As for those who take humans (be it 'pro' or 'anti') as their
criteria and reference, Allah warns,
''And of Humankind are some who take (in obedience), others
besides Allah (swt) as rivals (Andaad);
they love them as they love Allah (swt). When those who are
followed disown those who followed them, and they see their
torment.
And all their relations will be cut off from them. And those
who followed will say, 'If only we had one more chance to
return (to the worldly life), we would disown them as they
have disowned us'.
Thus Allah (swt) will show their deeds as regret for them. And
they will never be able to get out of the Fire''
The mufasiroon (commentators of Qur'an) elaborated the nature
of these rivals. The Andaad are described as humans. As-Suddi
says, ''The rivals are people or men whom they obey as they
obey Allah (swt), even they obey them whilst disobeying Allah
(swt).''
Fath al-Qadeer by Imam Shawkani says, ''The rivals here are
the leaders.''
So, Andaad are humans, for the reference to 'love' is in the
context of humans, not idols. This is further clarified by the
fact that the Andaad will dissociate themselves from their
followers on the Day of Judgement, which is not possible for
idols.
The Muslim cannot shift aimlessly from one opinion to another
while having no opinion or original thinking of his own.
Rather, he must build his culture and thinking based on
original research and study. If the society carries a creative
way of thinking, its members will no longer constitute a
discordant mass of bodies that will shuttle from one opinion
to another like cattle.
They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are
heedless (of warning))
(5:179)
Ends
|
