Broadcast the Adhan (prayer call) and freedom of religion
In defense of banning of broadcasting the Adhan
Karim Shamohammadi
2012-12-10
In defense of broadcasting the Adhan in Botkyrka Kommun (Stockholm) were
written some replies. But to opposite to Adhan from minarets some showed
right reactions. We have been the second group. We; a delegation
consisting of six met some members of Botkyrka kommun. We discussed with
them and finally the decision was delayed for two months till the end of
year. In addition the police will comment that the sound of if Adhan
annoyes people or not. However we keep to protest and appointed to meet
the minister. It is necessary to counter to defenders of Adhan from
minarets and who wrote to defend.
Anders Lindberg says:” Broadcast the Adhan is a part of the religion
freedom so no need to get permission of any office, picket and legal
regulations.” Other defenders say: “This is the rights of minorities
and freedom of religion. Children are placed in the context of,
so need to recognize their identity.” Finally they conclude that
opponents of Adhan are Islamophobia and have negative point of view to
Muslims and Islam. They say Adhan by minarets is like church bells, so
as church bells are allowed, Adhan should be allowed either. It can be
seen here that how they want to divide the annoying equally. The
democratic formulations that politicians have found are indeed strange!
It needs a long time to analyze how are said to defend the Adahn.
However, it is necessary to mention the important points to expose the
useless statements or comments, appeasement policy, tribute to Islamic
movements and overt and covert transactions to Islamic states
Freedom of Religion;
This is a trashy tool that these writers bring when they have nothing to
say in order to hold the appeasement policy. We have never told we are
opposed to freedom of religion but we have repeatedly stated that we
believe in freedom of religion, freedom of no religious
and religion as a private affair for each person. It should be
considered; freedom of religion in the modern world is limited and
conditioned to the civil rights and freedom & equality for all people.
No much time has passed in Sweden when the community was still heavily
dominated by frightful rules of church. For example no one could have
sexual relationship out of marriage, and children from this kind of
relationship were taken by state. But with innovation and progress in
society, secular society pushed back benighted rules and cut the hand of
church of people's life. So such a provision that "religious tools that
disturb the convenience and security of people should be prohibited"
comes from a secular society. It is seen Adhan is one of religious
expressions which contrary to the civil rights and freedom & equality
for all people I mention below.
Islamophobia;
It is said there is a negative point of view to Muslims and Islam. In my
idea the saying is illusory and deceptive. This positioning actually
mixed Islam and Muslims together to hide the originally topic. Indeed I
am not anti Muslim and any religious person, but I 100% oppose the
political Islam and Islamic laws and Sharia law that are used by some
states like the Islamic Republic of Iran to kill people. I believe in
freedom of religion but no one can disturb my convenience. I ask a
question; what is the definition of Muslims? Are Muslims the people have
escaped from criminal regimes? Are Muslims who have escaped from Sharia
law, murder and bloodshed? This categorizing coverage the politics of
cultural relativism- the system loads from fake- by "The respect for
their own culture" and also tribute to Islamic movements and Imams, who
the Swedish television showed their misogynist actions in mosques by a
film. But we; secular and egalitarian humans will certainly not let to
everyone wants to encourage the backward movements more than this.
Getting back to the original topic. Why we are opposed to broadcast the
Adhan because of several reasons as below:
1-
Adhan by minaret harasses convenience of people especially who do
not prey, kids, olds and who are sick, who work shift, who are atheist,
who are not Muslim and who have other believe.
2-
Indeed Adhan is an apparel assault to individual privacy. Adhan
is a clear propaganda that comes by force to alleys, streets and room of
sleeping and resting.
3-
Adhan is not a simple Islamic custom for Islamic movements. But
inside of Adhan is hidden the misogynist actions in addition overt and
covert dependence to Islamic terrorist movements & governments. This
leads to women, girls and kids are oppressed and do not dare to live, so
it conflicts with the principle of secularism in the community.
4-
Comparing Adhan to church bells means that it should be allowed
to these two strident sounds to disturbing the people convenience. Need
to remind that these two sounds are different. First; the political
power behind of church bells that burned people as Witch and Pagan has
fallen. But the political Islam that kills people has not fallen.
Second; although church bells and Adhan are two strident sounds but
Adhan is propaganda in all its words. The Republic Islamic of Iran
everyday executes, stones, excruciate by saying “Allah Akbar” (the
Islamic phrase means God is grander than can be explained). Although
behind of church bells is not paramount power in the Medieval but I
believe every disturbing sounds should be banned.
5-
I wonder why someone like Ismail Okur does not convict the
execution, stoning, no freedom of expression in Iran and other
countries!
6-
Indeed not only Adhan by minaret should be banned in Sweden and
whole Europe, but also should be banned in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Science is completed and who need to go to mosque can get notification
by mobile and internet. Howbeit this technology could have been used
since several decades ago!
