The representative of the Shiite cleric Ayatullah Al-Sistani has told the Iraqi people that voting in the forthcoming election in Iraq is a religious duty binding on everyone and warned that those who fail to cast their votes would end up languishing in hell.
On their part, the religious leaders of Fallujah cautioned the Iraqis against taking part in the election that they said should be boycotted. Anyone who takes part in the process would end up in hell, they warned.
Such is the prevailing attitude among the religious men in Iraq. They have found no convincing way to explain to the public their stand on what is purely a worldly affair. So they are arrogating to themselves a power that belongs to the Almighty Allah and talking in terms of heaven and hell which has nothing to do with whether you exercise your voting rights or who you vote for.
The important question here is: What is it that made these religious men suddenly involve themselves in public affairs and start issuing fatwas on everything — from using a seat belt while driving to the Iraqi and American elections?
The answer: Iraqi politicians. When they failed to organize and run their affairs properly they sought the help of religious men to intimidate the people. They introduced religious men to lead the political process with muftis becoming so embedded in national affairs. It is now almost impossible to tell who is a politician and who is a religious man or to remove the muftis from public life after having been given a taste of power and influence.
Religious men in Najaf and Mosul have the right to adopt whatever political position suits them and goes with the prevailing mood in society. They however have no right to distribute gardens in heaven or frighten people with hellfire because of differences over matters that we all know are worldly and keep changing.
We should not forget that involving religion in political disputes was what hastened the collapse of the Islamic state. We also know that preventing the church from interfering in political disputes and the Pope from granting absolution and heavenly grants led to the progress of Western societies.
Religion remains strong in the United States today, with more than one third of the people attending the church on Sundays. Religious men there express views on matters relating to war and peace without directly involving themselves in politics.
We should not forget that Iraq is a country that has just emerged from a totalitarian regime that denied its people their religious rights. The Saddam regime prevented the Shiite leaders and Sunni groups the right of association and imposed a ban on organizing and engaging in religious debates as they do today. The religious leaders should not misuse the freedom they have just regained in a manner that leads to the creation of political entities that fight each other in the name of religion. The responsibility of religious leaders in a country like Iraq should be to reconcile different viewpoints and reduce chances of tensions and conflicts in society.
Those religious leaders in Najaf who urged the Iraqi people to join the political process conducted themselves better than their counterparts who urged a boycott. Both groups are of course much better than those religious men who justify kidnapping and cutting of throats and who operate under different names calling themselves scholars at one time and members of that league or this front at others.
These are the same scholars who remained silent without uttering a single word of protest during the totalitarian rule. The duty of religious men in Iraq should be to encourage coexistence and harmony in a country known for its diverse religious and ethnic groups. People need scholars to unite them and not send them to heaven or hell just because of political differences.
