AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): What does the Bahraini government want from the Shia? Is it seeking to organize religious affairs or to dominate them? Is its goal to protect society or to reconfigure the religious sphere in such a way that only its own approved voice remains?
Observers say the government's insistence on its current path is not merely about organizing mosques and pulpits. The government wants to determine who has the right to speak in the name of religion, what they can say, and where the boundary of their speech lies.
The main danger lies in the government, instead of administering public affairs, determining the form and content of religious speech and its speakers. Such a government treats religion not as an independent sphere, but as an arena that must be under supervision and guidance.
Turning the Religious Scholar into a Government Employee
More dangerous is when conditions and regulations become a tool for selecting religious scholars, preachers, and eulogists based on loyalty and political acceptance, rather than on sincerity, scholarly ability, and the capacity to represent the community.
In this case, what is wanted is not a religious scholar who speaks based on his own belief, but an employee who adheres to what he is permitted to say. The pulpit is also asked to be not the voice of the people, but the voice of the government. Thus, it becomes clear that the issue is not religious, but entirely political.
A government that wants to ensure the pulpit does not criticize it, the preacher does not object to it, and the religious scholar cannot say "no," is in practice trying to turn religion from a position of independent authority into one of the tools of politics.
If the criterion for acceptance becomes the degree of obedience, we will face a dangerous process: emptying religious speech of its content and then reproducing it in a form that aligns with the government's demands. Governments throughout history have repeated this many times.
A religion that cannot advise the ruler, object to a decision it deems oppressive, or defend one of the people's rights becomes a contentless religion; a religion that is allowed to speak as long as it does not offend anyone, and is allowed to advise as long as it does not approach the government.
On this basis, the questions must be more explicit: Does the government want religious scholars or religious employees? Does it want an independent pulpit or an approved one? Does it want religious speech arising from the beliefs of its holders, or speech that must first pass through the gate of security and oversight?
A religious scholar who loses his independence does not only lose his personal freedom, but also loses part of his moral credibility before the people. People need a religious scholar who pleases them, not a scholar who is content with the government's approval. They need someone who speaks the truth, even if that speech is bitter.
People need a religious scholar who can tell the ruler, "You and your government are wrong," tell individuals in society, "You are wrong," tell the oppressor, "Stop," and have the courage to tell the oppressed, "You are not alone."
But turning the pulpit into a space where any criticism is forbidden, except speech permitted based on government policy, means the government is no longer merely seeking to organize religious speech, but seeking to redefine it in its own favor. Here, the issue is bigger than one Friday prayer, broader than one security permit, and beyond the issuance of a certificate of good conduct.
The issue relates to the future of the relationship between the state and religion, the boundaries of the state's authority in society, and the right of every group to perform its rituals and express its religious thoughts, without this freedom being tied to political satisfaction or security approval.
Shia and other groups have the right to ask, not in a low voice and not behind closed doors: Why are the doors of the pulpits closed and then opened only for those who pass through the government's gate? They have the right to know: Is a religion being asked of them that allows them to perform their rituals freely, or a religion performed with a permit? Is an independent religious scholar wanted, or a religious scholar whose independence has been taken away? Is the pulpit asked to be a witness to the truth, or a witness for the government?
These questions do not disappear with the ban on Friday prayer, nor do they end with the issuance of more permits; rather, the wider the circle of prohibition and oversight, the more urgent the questions become. A government confident in itself does not fear an independent pulpit, does not fear a religious scholar who speaks the truth, and does not fear criticism.
But when everyone is asked to speak with one voice, praise the same decision, and remain within a specific framework, the problem is no longer only in religious speech; the problem is in a government that wants to choose for the people what they hear, who speaks to them, and what they believe.
**************
End/ 345E
