The Arab Spring, of which Muammar Qaddafi is the latest victim and Bashar Assad likely soon to follow, is the result of millions of people who had no voice, few rights, and little power suddenly discovering all three. The voice they found was not that of Arabic satellite TV, the rights they demanded were not willingly given them by their governments, and their weapons were not drone aircraft and Abrams tanks. Instead they discovered that by communicating under the radar of government intelligence services using Twitter, Facebook, blogs and cell phones, they could unite to organize demonstrations and eventually bring down governments. Their demands were for the fall of dictators, the end of emergency rule under which people could be arrested and held without charge, the opportunity to elect their own political leaders, and religious freedom.
Wait a minute; did I just say "religious freedom"? I was kidding, of course. That is the definitive difference between the Arab Spring and other famous revolutions such as the American Revolution of 1776. The settlers who came to America from Europe were looking for the opportunity to practice religion according to the dictates of their consciences. When they established the American Constitution, they took care to ensure that no religion would ever be imposed upon the American people and that individuals would have the right to believe whatever they wanted about deities, religious systems and holy books. Freedom of religion is an essential part of our constitution and legal system.
You might argue that we haven't always done it very well, and that reminds me of a conversation I had with an Indian woman from Bombay many years ago. We were both in Capetown for a few weeks during the time of apertheid, and she commented how uncomfortable she felt by the way white South Africans looked at her as she visited a local mall. When I reminded her that even in America blacks did not always feel welcome in public places she replied, "Yes, but the difference is that in America racial discrimination is against the law. Here, it is part of the law."
And that's the reason religious freedom, the right to believe or disbelieve whatever you want about Muhammad or Allah or the Koran, is not even part of the equation when it comes to the Arab Spring and the new Middle East. Most Muslims never even consider how discriminatory their faith is to non-Muslims in general and ex-Muslims in particular. They love to quote La Ikrah fil-Deen, "There is no compulsion in religion" from Surah al-Baqarah in the Koran, but do not realize that their own most famous Koranic expositors such as Ibn Kathir interpret that verse to describe how Muhammad broke up Muslim families in Medina who had given their children to be raised by Jewish women. When Muhammad expelled the Jews from Medina and the Muslim women wanted their children back, Muhammad refused to allow it saying, "La Ikrah fil-Deen" (I have described this in detail here).
The new constitutions being written in countries that have experienced recent upheaval, such as Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, all include sentences containing something like "Islam is our religion and Sharia is our law." People who leave Islam in these "Arab Spring" or "America liberated" countries have no more rights than they ever did. It is still against the law, subject to persecution, prosecution, and imprisonment to say nothing of social rejection, to openly and boldly simply leave Muhammad behind.
This Arabic Television program, hosted by Rashid, recently dealt with the question of why Muslims who have exchanged Muhammad for Jesus in Arab countries - and there are thousands if not more - are not vocally demanding their religious rights just as they are joining with others in demanding political rights. Even apart from Muslim converts to Christianity - they call themselves the Abireen, or the people who have "crossed over" - why are not the millions of Copts in Egypt demanding full religious equality with their Muslim fellow citizens? Why are they not demanding the right to build churches as easily as Muslims build mosques, to call Muslims to Christianity as boldly as Muslims call Christians to Islam, and the right to run for high political office as easily as Muslims do?
The guests who appeared on Rashid's television show believe without exception that the Arab Spring is a good thing that will eventually result in increased rights for all people, non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims. I hope they are right.
Wait a minute; did I just say "religious freedom"? I was kidding, of course. That is the definitive difference between the Arab Spring and other famous revolutions such as the American Revolution of 1776. The settlers who came to America from Europe were looking for the opportunity to practice religion according to the dictates of their consciences. When they established the American Constitution, they took care to ensure that no religion would ever be imposed upon the American people and that individuals would have the right to believe whatever they wanted about deities, religious systems and holy books. Freedom of religion is an essential part of our constitution and legal system.
You might argue that we haven't always done it very well, and that reminds me of a conversation I had with an Indian woman from Bombay many years ago. We were both in Capetown for a few weeks during the time of apertheid, and she commented how uncomfortable she felt by the way white South Africans looked at her as she visited a local mall. When I reminded her that even in America blacks did not always feel welcome in public places she replied, "Yes, but the difference is that in America racial discrimination is against the law. Here, it is part of the law."
And that's the reason religious freedom, the right to believe or disbelieve whatever you want about Muhammad or Allah or the Koran, is not even part of the equation when it comes to the Arab Spring and the new Middle East. Most Muslims never even consider how discriminatory their faith is to non-Muslims in general and ex-Muslims in particular. They love to quote La Ikrah fil-Deen, "There is no compulsion in religion" from Surah al-Baqarah in the Koran, but do not realize that their own most famous Koranic expositors such as Ibn Kathir interpret that verse to describe how Muhammad broke up Muslim families in Medina who had given their children to be raised by Jewish women. When Muhammad expelled the Jews from Medina and the Muslim women wanted their children back, Muhammad refused to allow it saying, "La Ikrah fil-Deen" (I have described this in detail here).
The new constitutions being written in countries that have experienced recent upheaval, such as Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, all include sentences containing something like "Islam is our religion and Sharia is our law." People who leave Islam in these "Arab Spring" or "America liberated" countries have no more rights than they ever did. It is still against the law, subject to persecution, prosecution, and imprisonment to say nothing of social rejection, to openly and boldly simply leave Muhammad behind.
This Arabic Television program, hosted by Rashid, recently dealt with the question of why Muslims who have exchanged Muhammad for Jesus in Arab countries - and there are thousands if not more - are not vocally demanding their religious rights just as they are joining with others in demanding political rights. Even apart from Muslim converts to Christianity - they call themselves the Abireen, or the people who have "crossed over" - why are not the millions of Copts in Egypt demanding full religious equality with their Muslim fellow citizens? Why are they not demanding the right to build churches as easily as Muslims build mosques, to call Muslims to Christianity as boldly as Muslims call Christians to Islam, and the right to run for high political office as easily as Muslims do?
The guests who appeared on Rashid's television show believe without exception that the Arab Spring is a good thing that will eventually result in increased rights for all people, non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims. I hope they are right.
5 comments:
I hope they are right too.
But how true is this?
Tripoli's new military governor is linked to Al Qaeda
http://brutusbr.blogspot.com/2011/08/tripolis-new-military-governor-is.html
Tak,
As I see it, there are all kinds of individuals and groups struggling for power in countries such as Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt. They range from Al Qaeda and other Jihadists and Salafists, to people who truly want freedom and democracy (not that the two necessarily mean the same thing). That's why I say we need to wait and see what happens, because no one knows yet.
Interesting thoughts. I guess a Muslim is so programmed to think highly of Muhammad and the Quran that he would say, "Why do we need a clause like that? Who would dare leave beautiful Islam behind?"
And the ones who have left Muhammad behind and the ones who are not Muslims know better than to demand their equal religious rights in countries where 80% or more are Muslims. I guess they just grow up knowing there are some things that will never change and are not worth rocking the boat over.
You haven't mentioned atheists here. I have established a group of 550 here in Egypt and these are just the few I know of. Most were Muslims and fear being found out and punished, but one thing for sure is that the numbers are growing daily
Interesting thoughts. I guess a Muslim is so programmed to think highly of Muhammad and the Quran that he would say, "Why do we need a clause like that? Who would dare leave beautiful Islam behind?" And the ones who have left Muhammad behind and the ones who are not Muslims know better than to demand their equal religious rights in countries where 80% or more are Muslims. I guess they just grow up knowing there are some things that will never change and are not worth rocking the boat over.
Post a Comment