Freedom of Religion

The Qur'an says:
["Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)]

The above verse represents for me, the liberating essence of Islam.

Literalists, mainly but not only from the Hanbali school of thought, argue that the above verse was replaced and abrogated (naskh) by verses commanding the Muslim's to force others to submit to Islam.

Contextualist’s (those who apply the Qur’an according to context) argue that Islamic Commands to force non-Muslims to convert meant only to force those who were attacking Muslims or who were destroying innocent human life, only such tyrants as these were forced to convert to Islam. It was necessary to bring such into Islam, to “Compel them to Submit,” for STRICTLY self defense purposes OR to prevent them from tyrannizing, exploiting the Muslims.

In the case of the pagans, it was to protect the Pagan people’s own children from being killed by the pagans themselves.

For such contextualist’s, freedom of conscience can only be overridden when it is in the interests of human security. (Eg. Pagans could arguably be made to dishonor their Gods if their Gods demanded child sacrifices. )

However, if one is not a threat, or is not killing their children, contextualist’s would argue, it is against the liberating essence of Islam (as represented by the above verse) to force conversion.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) extended rights to religious minorities (JEWS and Christians) in the Charter of Madinah, giving the non-Muslims the right of choosing a legal system they wished their affairs be governed by, be it Islamic or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions.

Under the Sharia law as determined by the four commonly acknowledged 'Sunni Madhab's' (schools of thought) non-Muslims must pay a tax called Jizya if they want to be protected by the Muslims.

Those who've analyzed the Qur'an, Sunnah and Islamic historical context have argued that Jizyah tax was only due because the non-Muslim generally did not participate in Jihad for defense of the Islamic State, and therefore were paying for services. In this light, if a Muslim state is not at war, a non-Muslim citizen should not have to pay Jizyah.

The ijma (consensus) of the traditional Madhab's is that an unrepentant apostate should receive the death penalty. There are different points of view on what exactly constitutes apostasy and how long the Muslim should be given to return to Islam, but this was the generally understood law in Muslim societies, a perpetually unrepentant apostate was to be killed.

Contextualists argue that the death penalty was only applied by Qur'an and by Sunnah for apostasy to save life because, the pagan religion was very inhumane in killing children and in its blood lust, and the non-Muslims were at war with the Muslims and therefore to join them or to leave Islam implied you were a soldier for the tyrants cause..

At the time, Christianity was the tool the Kings to the North used to control the masses and to colonize others. The Romans had for a long time wished to crush the Arabic freedoms and in fact, both the Persian King and the Roman Emperor’s had often exploited Arab’s by using Arabic foot soldiers to do their dirty work. Arabs killed Arabs fighting for the contested Glory of Rome and Persia. Part of Islam was sovereignty for the oppressed, be it Arabs or whoever it came to. So when islam came, the Kings ordered Arabic Christians to turn against the Muslims to protect the exploitative, dehumanizing Kingdom’s.

An apostate was a considered a murderous traitor, and most often was one who wanted to kill the Muslims. It was only in this context that a Muslim who converted to Christianity was to be killed. It is in the Qur’an however, that this oppression of religious freedom did not apply to certain Christians who were said to be very close to the Muslims.

Jews also sought to divide and conquer the Arabic tribes of Medinah through the dehumanizing use of the Riba system, charging Arabic tribes such huge interest on loans that the Arabs would end up destitute and would attack one another to pay off their debts. Arabs divided were no match for Jews united, but Arabs united could overcome the Jewish tyranny maintained by the Riba system. Part of Islam is the unity of the oppressed, solidarity (AZHABBIYA-Qubahlia or solidarity of the tribes) and to go from Islam to Judaism was a threat to the uprising of the oppressed which depended on Tawhid (Oneness).

Islam was a power for liberation, and to repress the religious freedom of one who is not a threat to Islamic sovereignty or to the Muslims is a grotesque violation of this beautiful power for the liberation of all.

It is against Islamic liberty to restrict freedom of worship for either foreigners or for non-Muslim Maldivians (though constitutionally there is no such thing as a non-Muslim Maldivian the reality is different.)

It is not obedience to the liberating essence of Islam to kill or repress the religious freedom of an apostate who is not a threat, and it is not true to the liberty promoting essence of Islam to repress the worship services of non-Maldivian’s.

For the sake of the integrity of the heart of Islam, I feel that we must resist the tyranny of religious oppression in the name of Islam.

Abdul-Rahman