During the past few days the media focused on the declaration of the United Arab Emirates to build a Hindu temple on its territory. The decision was criticized by some, others made accusations to the UAE and its leadership, claiming that the Islamic religion rejects the establishment of places of worship for other religions in Muslim countries.
Clearly, this UAE step represents a deeper reflection for the narrow-minded to comprehend, not only of militants and extremists, but also from a bunch of preachers who claim moderation, tolerance and acceptance of others, but forget all that on occasions. They do not accept the other realistically, nor are they seriously convinced with tolerance and moderation.
The idea of repeating empty slogans of religious groups and currents in any given context and any occasion is not a good idea and is harmful to Islam. Islam is not a religion of slogans and I will not be exaggerating if I say it is one of the contemporary problems that the Arab and Islamic world is facing. The issue is not just about stripping our religion of its noble cultural values intentionally or unintentionally, but also about the business of using slogans to attract the sympathy of half-educated devotees and followers and sympathizers.
Those who oppose the construction of a Hindu temple do not defend the Islamic religion. It was more like an unintentional test of goodwill, revealing if true loyalties and convictions were to the religion of tolerance and all its noble values, or to narrow sectarian visions that purport tolerance and acceptance of others.
Islamic jurists who issue response (fatwas) should be familiar with the rules on which this religious science is founded, including the jurisprudence of reality (fiqh al-waqi’) which stems from the need to take into account the legal rule that ‘what the duty requires is itself a duty’. Thus understanding the context of the decision depending on the perceptions of strategic science becomes necessary. Who does not understand this must ask specialists, not issue inconsiderate responsa. The jurisprudence of reality is not a dialectic issue but an inextricable constituent of jurisprudence.
The United Arab Emirates will establish a solid structure and provide the elements of security and stability to all of its people and residents equally. It will do whatever it takes to enshrine coexistence and acceptance of others. In this context, incitement, hate speech, and intolerance are criminalized by legislation. The country will provide places of worship for other regardless of whatever beliefs they hold; we are not responsible to change that as long as we have accepted coexistence as the basis of instilling the desired security and social stability.
I am not a specialist in jurisprudence sciences, but I do have a modest vision of such controversies as the construction of a Hindu temple. I do not think that such a decision will impact religiosity among Muslims. The decision has nothing to do with any accusations and allegations that the UAE is facing. The country has a strong position against terrorism and extremism. None of the decisions adopted by the Emirates undermines the relationship between the UAE people and the Islamic religion. Clerics need more education and awareness and understanding of the changes around us. They need to take into account the calculations of States and regional and international powers, as well as the implications of demographic and religious realities and the imperatives of security and internal stability.
The controversy that some people raised about the construction of a Hindu temple benefits the agenda of some opportunist groups with narrow sectarianist visions. They ignore the negative effect their radical ideas have on the image of Islam as a religion of tolerance. These groups value their interests over the interests of Islam which they falsely claim to defend. The image of billions of Muslims may be distorted by them.
