Having touched on the topic of Shariah, we move to the related question of freedom of religion under a Democracy.
It is always a good habit to explain the meaning of the words we use, so that others understand exactly what WE mean, instead of the reader or listener applying their own understanding to our words and getting a totally different understanding from ours.
“Freedom of religion” means my freedom to practice my religion in the way I understand it needs to be practiced without any interference from anyone.
“Democracy” is a system of government, where man makes his own laws, and imposes it upon others. We are told that those in government represent us. However, when we look at the question of representation, we find that my representative is only empowered to do what I mandate, and nothing else. If that representative represents my ward or province, he is duty bound every time he is asked to vote on an issue, to address the people in his ward or province, to obtain the majority view of those he represents and to vote according to that majority view. He is not entitled to vote as he pleases, using his own criteria. Today, members of legislative assemblies either represent themselves, or their party, but they do not represent us, and very often support the adoption of legislation of which we disapprove.
We are told that under a Democracy our freedom of religion is guaranteed. Most people accept this form of government because of this understanding. In our daily lives, praying as and when we please, we believe that this promise has been kept. But has it really?
The first pillar of faith of any believer in God (Jew, Christian, Muslim, or any other) is that there is no God but God, and that God alone is worthy of worship.
How do we understand the word “worship”? The one we “worship” is the one whose injunctions we obey. That means that a Believer obeys Gods guidance alone and no other. God tells us that He alone is worthy of making law and that man is not capable of this. When we follow the dictate of any man, whether a lay person or cleric, priest, moulana, rabbi, pastor, etc, and that person is acting solely as dictated by God, then we too are worshipping God. Should that lay person or cleric have made his own laws, and we follow his dictates, then he is the person we are worshipping. When we make our own laws (create our own interpretation of what is right and wrong, good or bad), and follow them, we are in fact worshipping ourselves.
When parliament makes laws, it has assumed the power and authority of God, and when we obey them, we worship it. This is in terms of God’s guidance to us; it is not my own creation.
Parliament adopted a law called the Constitution which proclaims that it (the Constitution) is the supreme law in the land. That means God and His law is not. When we accept the Constitution, we can no longer qualify as a Believer since we no longer meet the first and most important requirement; we do not accept God alone as worthy of making law, and it is not God alone that we now worship.
Under a Constitutional Democracy, we may only practice our religion to the extent allowed by the law. In effect, the law creates the boundaries of that religion. The “freedom” to practice means the freedom to practice that interpretation of the faith which the law allows us to practice. As such, this does not pass the test of the true meaning of “freedom of religion”. Are there practical implications to this?
As mentioned already, we fail the first test of a believer.
Also, under Gods guidance to all mankind on how we remain free, we are forbidden to impose our values or views on another and to ensure that no one imposes their views upon us. Here we are forced to abide by decisions made by a small group of people. This is a violation of our freedom, and our free will.
A believer is obliged to respond to the call of anyone who is oppressed. Laws bind us and restrict our potential in this regard. In terms of the Anti-terrorism Act, we may not support any organization deemed a “terrorist” organization.
This means that when a country, for example the USA, invades a country illegitimately and occupies it, and deems those resisting the occupation as terrorists, we are forbidden from assisting those who are resisting the occupation.
In practical terms, it means that the members of the French Resistance during the Second Word War were terrorists and everyone who assisted them were likewise terrorists since they were labeled terrorists by the power on the ground at that time. It means the Americans who fought the British Empire were terrorists since this is what the power at the time considered them to be. It means that those who are currently resisting the occupations of Afghanistan, Somalia and Palestine are terrorists since that is what the powers of the day are calling them.
The only consistent finding here is that the terrorist is the person who does not see things the way I, who am in power, sees them, and if I wish to occupy his home and he resists, he must be a terrorist. When a law is enacted that allows this sort of interpretation of peoples conduct, with no consideration of who truly is in the right or wrong, we can understand why God tells us that man is incompetent to make laws, and that we live under such a system at our own peril.
Under this system, “might is right” is the defining motto. It is an invitation to everyone to become “the power”. God warns us that He alone is capable of handling power, no one else, and that all power rests with Him alone. Any system that violates this principle serves the purposes of satan. This helps us understand who we truly serve when we accept such a system.
When we are not allowed to act in terms of our own understanding of right or wrong, good or bad, and forced to follow the values set by another, we have lost the essence of a free person and are little different from a slave.
Democracy does not guarantee freedom of religion. On the contrary, it guarantees the direct opposite.
It is we who decide who will rule over us. Do we want people who will protect our free will, or people who will enslave us? That is a decision each of us must make for ourselves.
When a person rejects what is being said here and claims that he can still be a believer and live under the constitution at the same time, this is only possible because the person concerned has created his own definition of a believer, and it is not the one given to us by God. Such a person is in fact worshiping himself and not God.
The question we are faced with is what changes must we make to our system of government, making use of the legal means available to us, to bring about the changes necessary for us to qualify as true believers in God. A more important question is do we have any inclination to become true believers in God, since this issue is only a problem to the true believer and no one else.
