The Maldives: the world's least religiously free places
Muslim and Maldivian
Excerpts:
... the constitution also states that "a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives," and "No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives." That strips 3,000 non-Muslims of their citizenship. They will be allowed to remain in the country and to work, but all rights afforded citizens -- speech, movement, even habeas corpus -- can be curtailed. Freedoms enjoyed by Shiite Muslims may also be at risk, given that the government enforces a strict version of Sunni Islam.
...
The Maldives may be not be a big country, but the example it sets for other Muslim-majority nations matters. Richard Boucher, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, said recently that the Maldives has "a tradition of being a moderate country" that's "open to the world." Restricting religious freedom doesn't square with that.
Comment: Religious freedom and Islam are not compatible philosophies!
Right, apostasy... Though that used to be true of Christianity in some places too... There aren't any militant Christian states that I know of today, though there are still people who want one.
ReplyDeleteThe Westboro Baptist Church headed up by Fred Phelps is a good example. Friend of mine showed me a video on youtube a while ago of some christians quoting scripture that was remarkably similar to the promotion of violence made by the Ayatolah of Iran several years ago, i.e. "live by the sword, die by the sword".
The only real difference as I see it is that right now the Christians who are violent (white supremacists among the majority of them I believe) aren't in any positions of power that I know of. And that's a very good thing. It's going to take time to get the violent members of other religions out of power.
But subscribing to any given religion doesn't necessarily mean you agree with anyone else's interpretation of it. Islam can be tolerant when practiced by people who don't agree with violent interpretations. And by interpretation I also don't necessarily mean that "Whoever changes his religion, Kill Him" has a non-violent interpretation, but rather that it doesn't have to be kept in the sacred text or as a tenet of the religion. Of course right now a lot of folks say the religion's tenets demand killing anyone who removes it, but they could omit all the violent tenets. :)
I myself make a point of including as the principal tenet of my own "faith" a comment attributed to Buddha: Believe nothing, no matter who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your common sense. I also personally believe that Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed are all fictional characters.