Secular versus Religious States

Secularity is the state of being separate from religion. Secular states attempt to remain neutral in religious matters.

Christianity and Islam are the world's two major leading religions in terms of the number of people following them.

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson, the most influential founding father of America was concerned about the power of the Church of England. He felt a guarantee of religious freedom was the best guarantee that America would avoid the religious intolerance and religiously inspired bloodshed that had marked much of the history of Europe.

Thus came the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

You can practise any religion you want in America, the state gives equal protection to all religions. In secular states you can practise any religion you want.

In spite of this you have religious zealots on both the Christian as well as the Muslim side who use bigoted interpretations of selected verses taken out of context from their scriptures to spread fear, divisiveness and hatred. Fortunately, they remain in the minority and do not become mainstream forces.

Saudi Arabia, holding one of the world's largest oil reserves has a government that is a monarchy. The Basic Law of Government adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. The Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law Sharia.

In the recent referendum where Maldivians voted to determine the presidential or parliamentary style of governance, why was there no Muslim model of governance that we could choose from ? Since we claim to be a 100 per cent Muslim country, surely Islamic sharia must be more appropriate for us?

Instead, we wasted valuable time going through a meaningless exercise to determine presidential or parliamentary system- both of which are mainly used in secular democratic countries.

Maldives can never become a liberal democracy unless it is prepared to give its citizens religious freedom among other rights. If Maldives cannot do it or will not do it, then let us not talk about changing to a liberal democracy. If Maldives insists that it should remain among the few countries on the planet that are 100 per cent Muslims, that suggests there is an intolerance of other religions. A few years back, Maldivians would have been aghast to even talk about this subject.

Even today conservative Muslim Maldivians are very scared to have places of worship of other religions in our country. I am not advocating to have them, but I find the basis of their fear unfounded. They say that it is alright if the non-Muslim was to have a statue and pray at his home.

That means it is alright in Maldives if the non-Muslims keeps objects of worship only in their homes or their rooms. Then they are allowed to worship their faith. If the non-Muslim were to call such 'own home or room' a temple that is not acceptable and all hell would break loose.

Let's take an example. Recently there was a big brouhaha when a British millionaire celebrated his birthday on a tourist resort where some Buddhist statues were erected. We took the man's money but were not prepared to tolerate his faith.

The foundation of our faith shouldn't be so weak that by merely seeing some statues on an island, hordes of Maldivians would be changing faith.

As Muslims, we should not have objects of worship but as tolerant Muslims we should allow them for followers of other faith who need them to practise their faith. As good Muslims, we should not sell liquor. So why don't we ban selling of liquor in Maldives? There is a strong argument that we can't do it because tourists will not visit Maldives.

Therefore Maldives has become a country that will selectively choose those of the tenants of Islam that we will practise and those that we ignore according to some twisted logic.

A previous post on my blog 'Secularism versus Islam in Malaysia on 1.6.2007' explained this problem in Malaysia.

The article read " Malaysia's top civil court, the Federal Court on Wednesday rejected a woman's appeal to be recognized as a Christian, in a landmark case that tested the limits of religious freedom in this moderate Islamic country.Lina Joy, 43, was born as Azlina Jailani. She started attending church in 1990 and was baptised eight years later. She was given permission to change her name, but "Islam" remained as her religion on her identity card.

She had applied for a name change on her government identity card. The National Registration Department obliged but refused to drop Muslim from the religion column.

She appealed the decision to a civil court but was told she must take it to Islamic Shariah courts. Joy argued that she should not be bound by Shariah law because she is a Christian.

A three-judge Federal Court panel ruled by a 2-1 majority that only the Islamic Shariah Court has the power to allow her to remove the word "Islam" from the religion category on her government identity card.

"She cannot simply at her own whims enter or leave her religion," Judge Ahmad Fairuz said. "She must follow rules."

Joy remains a practising Christian and the only Islam left of her is the name 'Muslim' on her identity card which cannot be changed.

In Maldives, our politicians will not address these issues because they are not popular and we are stuck with double standards and hypocrisy.