The freedom to sin.

[burahadeer]

LEADING NEWS SOURCE FOR TURKEY AND THE REGION

 

Login | Become a member | I forgot my password

HOMETURKEYECONOMYWORLDSPORTSLIFEARTS/CULTUREOPINIONVIDEOPHOTOBLOG

Sub Categories: » HOMEPAGE / OPINION/ MUSTAFA AKYOL Sunday,June 3 2012, Your time is 00:58:07

 

The freedom to sin

 

In a recent piece of mine (titled “Can Islamists be liberals?”) I mentioned “the freedom to sin.” Some readers have asked what exactly I mean by that. So, let me try to explain.

 

In fact, the term “Freedom to sin” is the title of one of the chapters of my book, “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty” (WW Norton). In it, I explain why we modern-day Muslims need to rethink the means of the Quranic duty of “commanding the right and forbidding the wrong.” I argue that Muslims need to make a clearer distinction between “crime” and “sin,” and stand against the latter only through civil means such as preaching.

 

This argument does not arise from distaste toward Islamic piety, as it would come typically from a secularist. Quite the contrary, my argument for “freedom to sin” arises from a care for Islamic piety, for I have seen that it comes only through sincere belief and not coerced behavior.

 

This is best exemplified by the “religious police” in Saudi Arabia. This institution coerces every individual on Saudi streets to conform to what it perceives as Islamic norms. All women are forced to veil themselves, for example, and all shop owners are forced to close their doors during the times of prayer. The result is that every Saudi citizen appears fully pious.

 

However, it is also well-known that some Saudis often fly to European capitals, to throw off the veils and wear mini skirts, and to hit the wildest night clubs, in order to indulge in all the sins that they can’t access at home. And while it is their civil right to do that, this phenomenon indicates that the regime-imposed piety in Saudi Arabia might be creating more hypocrisy than genuine piety.

 

And hypocrisy, according to the Quran, is worse than disbelief. It is the number one thing that Muslims need to avoid.

 

Observations like this have gradually persuaded me that genuine piety arises only through personal choice, and that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. “Freedom to sin,” in other words, is the necessary medium to be sincerely pious.

 

But what about the Quranic duty of “commanding the right and forbidding the wrong,” that basis for both the Saudi religious police and other authoritarian-minded Muslims?

 

In my book, I address this question as well, by going back to the history of Quranic exegesis (tafseer). As I note, the Quran is far from being specific on what to “command” and what to “forbid,” and its earliest interpretations were much more modest and limited in the scope that they attributed to the obligation.

 

For example, Abu al-Aliya, an early commentator on the Quran, argued that the verse specifying “commanding the right” was in fact simply “calling people from polytheism to Islam.” The parallel duty, “forbidding the wrong,” he believed, was all about “forbidding the worship of idols and devils.”

 

As time went by, however, the scope of “commanding the right” and “forbidding the wrong” expanded more and more. This was the interpretation of medieval Islamic scholars, who thought in a political culture where individual freedom was less valued than communal harmony.

 

But times are changing, and new interpretations are coming. One example is a 2008 statement by Dr. Ali Bardakoğlu, a theologian and the former head of Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs. “We only communicate the known rules of Islam,” he said. “It is free to observe or not to observe them, no one has the right to interfere.”

 

In my view, Bardakoğu was totally right. And his approach to religiosity is what Muslims need in the 21st century — especially if they want to nurture genuine piety rather than hypocrisy.

May/19/2012

 

 

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-freedom-to-sin-.aspx?pageID=449&nID=21093&NewsCatID=411

[burahadeer]

''''And hypocrisy, according to the Quran, is worse than disbelief. It is the number one thing that Muslims need to avoid. '''''

[Marksman]

I know that people have free will, but isn't it one of the tasks of the government to limit the easy acces to sin? For instance by only selling alcohol at certain places and to certain people (non believers). Easily offering some 'sinful' things to the public for them to choose between right or wrong is not the way to go according to me.

 

Here in the Netherlands people are contemplating to change the minimum age of buying alcohol from 16 to 18 for instance and selling alcohol at certain specific places (no more in the supermarket). Although I don't think this will be accepted widely by the elite and alcohol companies.

 

Yes there is a lot of hypocrisy within some Muslim states. An example for this is when I was in the K.S.A. and posters with children on it were pixelated, because the state thinks this will increase pedofilia. The fear of sinning is rampant over there and very laughable.

 

Religious police is backwards and nullifies the concept of sinning. It does not accept that people can make mistakes and repent themselves to the AllMighty on their own terms.

 

There should be a balance between the right to sin and that the government should protect the moral fabric of a society.

[burahadeer]

I know that people have free will' date=' but isn't it one of the tasks of the government to limit the easy acces to sin? For instance by only selling alcohol at certain places and to certain people (non believers). Easily offering some 'sinful' things to the public for them to choose between right or wrong is not the way to go according to me.']

 

 

 

 

agree but still there' no single muslim country that bans alcohol...they all have liquor stores except in saudi arabia and even still here it's available at will. the whole thing revolves around hypocrisy.

[Mario B]

I think Religious police is bida'a, it's ironic that it's a "salafi" invention. The job of security forces is to keep peace and security and not micro manage religion.

[Mario B]

burahadeer;837789 wrote:

agree but still there' no single muslim country that bans alcohol...they all have liquor stores except in saudi arabia and even still here it's available at will. the whole thing revolves around hypocrisy.

Alcohol in the muslim world is a controlled substance and is sold in five star hotels' date=' you dont go and buy openly. Plus Sharia is for Muslims, so in a country like Nigeria that is half muslim and half Christian, christian can have their alcohol establishment...and I think is sign of torelance what you're describing.

 

Every soul is a pledge for its own deeds[ Quran 74:38']

[burahadeer]

^ it's not controlled ,you can go to any hotel in any abu dhabi ,one of the strictest in muslim world,and have as much booze you want.you can buy too...clubs r there my friend:D

 

 

how was it in Mogadishu,what about that liquor plant in Balcad,how is jubouti,how is hargeisa,burao,bosasso today.

hahahaaaaaaaaa

[GaraadMon]

Marksman;837771 wrote:

I know that people have free will, but isn't it one of the tasks of the government to limit the easy acces to sin? For instance by only selling alcohol at certain places and to certain people (non believers). Easily offering some 'sinful' things to the public for them to choose between right or wrong is not the way to go according to me.

 

Here in the Netherlands people are contemplating to change the minimum age of buying alcohol from 16 to 18 for instance and selling alcohol at certain specific places (no more in the supermarket). Although I don't think this will be accepted widely by the elite and alcohol companies.

 

Yes there is a lot of hypocrisy within some Muslim states. An example for this is when I was in the K.S.A. and posters with children on it were pixelated, because the state thinks this will increase pedofilia. The fear of sinning is rampant over there and very laughable.

 

Religious police is backwards and nullifies the concept of sinning. It does not accept that people can make mistakes and repent themselves to the AllMighty on their own terms.

 

There should be a balance between the right to sin and that the government should protect the moral fabric of a society.

Why do you think the fear of sinning is rampant? Is it due to the fact that a few religious scholars are cosy with the government and can impose their religious will on others with little accountability, it's similar to the lobby groups in U.S that hold sway over political decisions, the majority are held hostage by the few.

 

Also, how would one enforce an alcohol ban? Would someone who claims to longer be a Muslim be exempt or would they face death for the crime of apostasy? Why on earth would someone need a government body to keep them sinning? It Seems pretty disingenuous to me.

[Mario B]

@ Burahadeer= It's controlled, that's why you can only get it in Hotels, I doubt if it's sold in high streets or supermarkets. Remember these countries are tourist hubs where Golf tournements, Motor racing, shopping occur and they are financial and media hubs which are run mostly by expatriates, so the state caters for their needs, remember Sharia is for Muslims not non muslims.

[GaraadMon]

What about moonshine? Social engineering projects conducted by governments tend to fall flat on their faces, you can see it in Indonesia. The high government taxes on Alcohol imports leads to several hundred deaths a year from alcohol poisoning (as a result of inexperienced moonshiners using methanol).

[Mario B]

Backlash, Alcohol is taxed higly in Scandianavian countries and we dont see high death from illegal moonshining, maybe people should just stay away from illegal mix.

[GaraadMon]

Yes, but the obvious difference is the fact that Scandinavians can actually afford it.

[Mario B]

Imo, I believe developing countries wether Muslim or not should have high alcohol and cigarattes tax. And the west should consider putting a 20% sales tax on junk food.

[GaraadMon]

I agree with you on that point, I personally think they are both (Alcohol & cigarettes) harmful to societies, especially developing ones. I'm just against the sudden leaps made to appease a few hardcore lobbyists. More thought is needed before implementation, for example, why didn't the government consider the fact that brum (similar to Rum), has been served as a beverage for thousands of years by the Malays?

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

burahadeer;837798 wrote:

how was it in Mogadishu,what about that liquor plant in Balcad

What plant? Baliis, don't bring wax aadan ogeyn oo internetka ka aqrisay aad run mooday. Hubso.