My plea to Islam in my previous blog, “Is Islam the World’s FastestGrowing Religion?” was two-fold: (A) to offer Muslims the legitimate option to
reject Islam (without any dangerous consequences - expressed or tacit), and (B)
to remove all barriers - incarnational or digital - for a Muslim to explore any
worldview. This naturally suggests removal of all legal barriers in countries
subscribing to Islam to the proponents of conflicting worldviews.
First, some
clarity with respect to my previous blog:
(1) Growth
of any religion is not a matter of salvific or doctrinal significance for a
believer unless he desires to indulge in religious trivia.
(2) Islamic
growth was used as a mere premise to propose a two-fold plea to Islam. Examining
the veracity of the Islamic growth statistic was not an intent. Moreover, a
subjective belief never denigrates an objective fact i.e. if I do not believe
in the Islamic growth; the fact of the growth remains unassailed, as long as
the statistic is truthful.
(3)
Condemning Islam was not even an implied intent.
(4) The
two-fold plea is predicated on “freedom.” Anyone should have the freedom to choose or reject Islam and
all worldviews should be offered the freedom
of vocalized presence in all Islamic countries.
(5) The
intent is not to judge Muslims but it’s a complementary endeavor to desire for human
freedom.
Certain friendly
comments objected my essay. For the sake of space restrictions, parts of their
exact responses that reflect the entire theme of their response are shown
below. My response to the objections received is as follows:
Objection #1: “…For the mere fact being just as my India
has its divisions n restriction in each district whereby a non Mahrashtran is
forced to learn Marathi since they have no choice to reside in Mumbai to fit d
Norms, and despise it totally. IT doesn't mean the citizen being Christian,
hindu, muslim is being forced by their holy books to be hypocrites. my point
here is that u have very conviniently pointed out the hypocrisy u saw n
experienced but dint go deep in to ask d question Does Islam force you to do
what you are doing?...”
Response #1: Yes, the holy books
should not encourage hypocrisy. In highly conservative Islamic societies, women
are forced to go out in traditional Arabic attires only with their eyes
exposed. Once again, my point is to offer freedom of attire (and religion), in
this context. Of course, decency is mandatory – although it’s an individual’s moral
responsibility.
If people
love their traditional attire, then they would prefer that attire when they
venture out of their country. If they dislike their traditional attire, they
would discard it at the earliest. This is a vital aspect of human freedom.
I admire the
Islamic societies where freedom for attire is offered, where those who do not adhere
to the traditional attire are not condemned.
Islamic societies
are ruled by the Sharia law, and the Sharia law receives its counsel from the
Quran and Sunna. So it is reasonable to think that the force is indeed from a
specific interpretation of Islamic texts.
Objection #2: “…And one more thing, Islam has no
restrictions, it has guidelines to meet salvation. if you follow it, GOOD FOR
YOU N IF YOU NOT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE CLEARLY STATED. it for us to decide. its
because of these clear guidelines n logic explanations I chose to convert and
many more like me are. So dont doubt the statistics on petty observations, if
you have it in you to state the falsehood in the holy Quran , GIVE IT A SHOT.
For your satisfaction….”
Response #2: Theological debate on
salvation or other doctrines in Quran or Bible is not the intent. There are
conversions in all worldviews, so that levels out in the long run. An
undeniable fact is the existence of religious restriction in certain Islamic
societies.
So my question
is, “Isn’t it religious restriction when Islam prohibits proclamation of
another worldview in their country?” Bahrain and UAE are good case in point for
the legal presence of other religions. The legal presence of other religions in
Islamic societies is admirable.
But there
are documented instances of religious restriction or persecution of people in
these countries - jailed or otherwise persecuted for having proclaimed their
faith in the open.1 Restriction of other worldviews implies a lack
of freedom.
What’s
wrong if a person offers his religious text, free of cost to those willing to
take it? Lack of freedom is when a Muslim cannot explore another worldview or a
member of another worldview cannot proclaim their faith in the open in an
Islamic society.
If there is
no religious freedom, then there is a restriction. This is an undeniable fact.
If religious
persecution occurs in more progressive Islamic societies, one can only imagine
the amount of religious persecution in conservative Islamic societies. Nine out
of top ten countries where Christians are persecuted most are Islamic
countries.2
Objection #3: “…My suggestion for anyone who wishes to
know what Islam is that you read and understand the Holy Quran rather than
judge how the so called Islamic countries conduct their government and their
laws or whatever...becuz at the end of the day, NOT a SINGLE person can ever
claim to be the ultimate flagbearer of Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any
other religion-not even the highest mullah,or reverend or rabbi….”
Response #3: Couple of quotes
from the Quran referring to man’s freewill was quoted by another reader, they
are: “Indeed, We guided him to the way,
be he grateful or be he ungrateful” (Quran 76: 3) and “Rather, man, against himself, will be a witness, Even if he presents
his excuses” (Quran 75: 14-15).
If the
Quran asserts man’s freewill, then Islam ought to practice it by offering
religious freedom for man to exercise his freewill. Religious restriction in
any form or size denies human freewill, and contradicts the Quranic assertion
of human freewill.
Objection #4: “…Islam is the most righteous religion I hav
ever seen .I'm in america. The most Christians here have broken all rules of
morality. But did I blame your religion ??...”
Response #4: Blaming Islam was and
is not the intent. The only intent is a friendly and a civil discussion.
Christianity
may have the largest following in the USA, but America does not endorse any one
particular religion as an official state-endorsed religion. America loves and
embraces moral relativism. So any moral aberration in America is to be credited
to moral relativism and the depravity of mankind.
Objection #5: “…Islam from day 1 of its existence
encouraged people to question nd seek knowledge...infact from my own personl
experienc...d more i questiond d teachings of my religion...d more i
learnt...nd dts wt made me respect and love islam more….”
Response #5: While
this may be true to an extent, what would happen to anyone who would step into
an Islamic country and explicitly question the Islamic faith in both polite and
impolite terms? Would the much acclaimed bulldog of atheism - Richard Dawkins,
have the courage to question Islam in his own inimitable and impolite style as
he questions the Christian faith? 3
Would Islam
tolerate higher and lower criticism of the Quran as how Christianity tolerates the
criticism of the Bible? Is legitimate freedom offered whereby the Quran can be
questioned for its credibility?
When a
fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie for “Satanic Verses,” did any other Islamic
country offer him asylum? Even if they had offered him asylum would he have had
the courage to take it up? Why was Islam unable to tolerate Rushdie’s thoughts?
All these questions are predicated on basic human freedom that every human is
entitled to and its infringement by Islam.
Objection #6: “…The freedom that Islam grants is based on
commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom.
Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is
the complete breakdown of the moral and social order. The irresponsible concept
of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of
freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not
tied to any concept higher moral values or self control. For Islam, freedom
lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other
and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without
responsibility; no responsibility without freedom…”
Response #6: True freedom should be free of all restraints.
Permit me to respond through the Christian worldview.
The God of
the Bible allows man to freely choose or reject HIM. The God of the Bible does
not restrict a Christian from sinning.
The
Christian voluntarily offers his life to God and subsequently continues to
overcome his frailty with God’s help. Thereby he gains his true freedom, which
remains subject to God’s sovereignty.
So we agree
that freedom does come with commitment and responsibility. But this is merely
one aspect of freedom.
Every human
being should possess true freedom – without any restraints whatsoever and at
any point in time. True love is the supreme means by which God demonstrates HIS
love for mankind. True love entails acceptance or rejection of that very love. Thus
man should be allowed to accept or reject God at any time of his life.
Yes, man could
be irresponsible with his freedom. His freedom may lead to, as you accurately said,
nihilism and all other evil-isms. But this is inevitable for it is the logical
outworking of true love that grants true freedom, which consequently could lead
to rejection of God.
Conclusion: Most Islamic
countries subscribe to the Sharia or the Islamic law. The Quran and the Sunna
contribute primarily to the Sharia law.4
Therefore,
when Islamic nations force religious restrictions to restrict human freewill,
which even the Quran asserts, then a reasonable conclusion is that the Islamic societies
are either contradicting or affirming the Quran through an interpretation that
logically contributes to the restriction of human freedom.
The fact
remains that religious freedom is largely nonexistent in Islamic countries. And
as long as religious freedom is restricted, mankind is subjected to religious
slavery - undesirable in any context.
Whatever
the case may be, man’s inherent freedom (heart’s disposition) cannot be eliminated.
It may be confined for a period of time, but it can never be purged. The
society may incarcerate man’s tangible freedom, but any society can never deny
the freedom of his heart.
Endnotes:
3 “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most
unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a
misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
