The right of Muslims to teach and preserve their religious beliefs should not be confused with hostility towards Christians, Hindus or any other faith groups. The controversy surrounding Jaamia Madinatul Uloom raises important questions about constitutional freedom, journalistic responsibility and whether Trinidad and Tobago’s promise of an equal place for every creed is being applied consistently.
An Appeal for Editorial Fairness and Equal Religious Respect
The Trinidad Express published two articles:
The Trinidad Express has an important responsibility in shaping public understanding of religious and cultural issues in Trinidad and Tobago.
Its reporting on the Jaamia Madinatul Uloom Institute raises a legitimate question about whether the exercise of Islamic religious freedom is being sufficiently distinguished from intolerance towards other religious communities.
A Muslim institution teaching its adherents that certain religious greetings and celebrations are inconsistent with their faith is exercising its right to religious instruction. That position may be debated, challenged and examined by other scholars, but it should not automatically be interpreted as hostility towards Christians, Hindus or anyone else.
The Institute’s subsequent clarification expressly recognised the right of other religious communities to practise their faith and affirmed the importance of kindness, justice and peaceful coexistence.
This distinction deserved particular attention.
I am not suggesting that the Trinidad Express deliberately promotes Islamophobia. Such an allegation requires evidence beyond the reporting of two articles. However, I am concerned that inadequate theological context and the framing of religious disagreement primarily through the lens of public offence can reinforce misconceptions about Muslims and their commitment to national coexistence.
I would therefore encourage the newspaper to apply the same editorial standards to every religious community.
Would a Christian institution be portrayed as threatening national harmony for teaching its adherents not to participate in Hindu religious rituals? Would a Hindu institution be similarly criticised for discouraging participation in Christian celebrations?
If not, why should a Muslim institution receive different treatment?
Our Constitution protects freedom of conscience and religious belief. Our national anthem promises that every creed and race finds an equal place. Our national watchwords call upon us to practise discipline, production and tolerance.
Tolerance cannot mean that Muslims must compromise their religious convictions to demonstrate respect for others. Nor can it mean that other communities must accept Islamic theological positions as their own.
It means recognising every religious community’s equal right to hold, teach, and practise its beliefs while respecting the dignity and freedoms of fellow citizens.
The Trinidad Express should advocate that principle, not inadvertently contribute to its erosion.
We cannot celebrate religious diversity while making religious conformity the price of national acceptance.
When a Muslim institution teaches its community the boundaries of its faith, should that be interpreted as an affront to other religions? Trinidad and Tobago’s constitutional guarantees, national anthem and watchwords provide a compelling basis for answering that question.
The controversy surrounding the Jaamia Madinatul Uloom Institute of Higher Islamic and Secondary Education (JMU) and its religious advisory department, Darul Iftaa, raises an important question about religious freedom, journalistic responsibility and the meaning of tolerance in Trinidad and Tobago.
At the centre of the controversy is a religious advisory issued to Muslims discouraging greetings such as “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Divali”, as well as participation in religious celebrations associated with other faiths.
The Institute’s position is rooted in its interpretation of Islamic monotheism, or Tawhid, and its understanding of the boundaries Muslims must observe in preserving their religious identity.
The Trinidad Express reported the advisory in two articles linked above. The first presented the Institute’s position and its theological reasoning. The second reported the Institute’s clarification that its communication was intended exclusively as religious guidance for Muslims under its educational care, and was not intended to offend or disrespect Christians, Hindus or other religious communities.
Taken together, the articles provide an opportunity to examine an issue that deserves more careful public discussion than the controversy over seasonal greetings might initially suggest.
The central concern is whether the reporting adequately distinguishes between the exercise of religious freedom and hostility toward other religions.
That distinction is fundamental to Trinidad and Tobago’s constitutional and cultural foundations.
Constitutional freedom: The right to believe, teach and practise
The Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago explicitly protects freedom of conscience and religious belief.
Section 4(h) recognises: Freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance.
Section 4(i) further protects: Freedom of thought and expression.
These are not merely protections against government interference in private worship. They are essential guarantees that enable religious communities to organise themselves, educate their adherents, establish institutions and communicate their understanding of religious obligations.
Section 14 provides a mechanism for constitutional redress where protected rights have been, are being or are likely to be contravened.
Section 4(h) is particularly relevant to this controversy. Religious observance includes more than attending a mosque, church or temple. It encompasses the right to understand, teach and conduct one’s religious life according to one’s sincerely held convictions, subject to the Constitution and applicable law.
A Muslim institution teaching that its adherents should refrain from participating in another religion’s rituals is exercising a religious and educational function.
A Christian institution teaching its congregation that certain Hindu or Islamic religious practices are inconsistent with Christian doctrine would be exercising a comparable function.
Likewise, a Hindu institution teaching its adherents the boundaries of Hindu religious observance should enjoy the same freedom.
The constitutional test cannot reasonably depend on which religion is expressing the position or whether the wider public finds that position agreeable.
There is, of course, a distinction between the freedom to teach religious doctrine and the freedom to engage in conduct that violates others’ rights. The former is constitutionally protected; the latter is not immunised simply because it is religiously motivated.
Nothing in the two articles, however, establishes that the Institute compelled anyone outside its community to adopt its position or interfered with another community’s right to celebrate its religious festivals.
That distinction should have been central to the reporting.
The national anthem: Equal place does not mean identical religious beliefs
Trinidad and Tobago’s national anthem contains one of the most important expressions of the country’s social philosophy:
“Here every creed and race finds an equal place, and may God bless our nation.”
The words do not promise that every creed will agree with every other creed. They promise something more meaningful: people from different religious traditions will enjoy equal dignity and a place in the national community.
The anthem does not say that every creed must participate in the celebrations, endorse the doctrines or adopt the practices of every other creed.
Nor does it suggest that religious institutions must refrain from teaching their adherents that certain practices are incompatible with their faith.
Equality of place is not uniformity of belief.
If a Hindu declines to participate in an Islamic religious observance because it conflicts with Hindu convictions, that decision should be respected. If a Christian declines to participate in a Hindu religious ritual, the same respect should apply.
The Muslim who declines to participate in a religious celebration for reasons of Islamic conviction deserves precisely the same consideration.
The Institute’s second statement makes this point explicitly:
Respect does not necessitate participation. Tolerance does not require religious compromise.
That is a legitimate principle of religious coexistence. It is not an assertion that other religions have no right to exist or that their adherents should be treated with hostility.
The newspaper’s responsibility is to help readers understand that distinction rather than allow the controversy to become a contest over which religious community has the greater entitlement to feel offended.
The national watchwords: Discipline, Production and Tolerance
The national watchwords provide another useful framework.
Discipline requires religious communities to understand their convictions, exercise restraint and communicate them responsibly. It also requires the public and the media to distinguish between disagreement and disrespect.
Production reminds us that national development depends on the contributions of all communities. Muslims, Christians, Hindus and others should be judged by their contributions to the common good, not by whether they adopt one another’s religious customs.
Tolerance is perhaps the most relevant watchword in this controversy.
Tolerance is not the absence of disagreement. It is the ability to coexist peacefully despite disagreement.
It does not require a Muslim to endorse a Christian theological belief, a Hindu to endorse an Islamic belief or a Christian to endorse a Hindu belief.
It requires each to recognise the other’s right to hold and practise those beliefs.
There is an important danger in interpreting tolerance as a one-directional obligation: the minority must accommodate the majority’s sensibilities, while the majority is not expected to accommodate the minority’s right to maintain its religious boundaries.
That would not be tolerance. It would be conformity imposed through social pressure.
What is missing from the journalistic treatment?
Although the two articles present the Institute’s statements, they miss several important dimensions or explore them insufficiently.
First, the articles offer no substantial constitutional analysis.
The controversy directly concerns freedom of conscience and religious observance. The newspaper could have examined Section 4(h) of the Constitution and explained its relevance to religious institutions educating their own adherents.
Second, the articles do not adequately distinguish between religious doctrine and social discrimination.
A religious institution teaching its adherents not to participate in another religion’s rituals is not equivalent to instructing them to discriminate against that religion’s adherents.
These are fundamentally different propositions.
Third, the comparative religious context is insufficient.
Would the same journalistic framing be applied to a Christian institution discouraging participation in Diwali, or a Hindu institution discouraging participation in Christmas celebrations?
A consistent editorial standard should apply to all three.
Fourth, the public reaction is reported without sufficient examination.
The second article refers to strong reactions among citizens but does not, in the supplied text, establish whether those reactions arose from the Institute’s actual instructions, the theological language used, or an interpretation of the statement as an attack on other communities.
A responsible report should distinguish these possibilities.
Fifth, the educational context deserves attention.
The second article explains that the material was compiled for the Institute’s primary, preschool and secondary educational institutions.
That is relevant. Religious education institutions have a responsibility to teach their students both the obligations of their faith and the ethics of living in a diverse society.
The question is not whether they may teach religious boundaries. They may. The question is whether they also adequately teach kindness, justice, respect and responsible relations with people of other faiths.
The newspaper could have explored this educational dimension rather than concentrating predominantly on the public controversy.
Freedom of the press must also be protected
Section 4(k) of the Constitution recognises freedom of the press. Journalists are entitled to investigate religious institutions, question their teachings, report public controversy and give space to those who disagree.
The newspaper does not have an obligation to endorse the Institute’s religious position.
However, freedom of the press carries an important responsibility: to report accurately, provide context and avoid presenting legitimate religious expression as something inherently threatening to national harmony.
The Institute’s right to teach its beliefs and the newspaper’s right to scrutinise those beliefs are not competing constitutional rights. They are complementary freedoms in a democratic society.
The Constitution protects both.
There is also an important legal qualification: constitutional protections principally regulate the exercise of public power and do not mean that every private criticism of a religious institution amounts to a constitutional violation. Nor does freedom of religion exempt religious expression from legitimate legal scrutiny.
The point is that public criticism should not be confused with denying religious freedom.
A question of national equality, not religious popularity
One of the more revealing aspects of this controversy is the implication that an institution’s religious teaching has become a matter of national concern because some citizens find it offensive.
We should ask whether the same standard would apply to every religious community.
Imagine the following scenarios:
- A Christian theological institution issues guidance that Christians should not participate in Islamic religious celebrations.
- A Hindu religious institution advises its followers against participating in Christian or Islamic rituals.
- A Muslim institution advises its adherents against participating in religious celebrations associated with Christianity or Hinduism.
Each institution should enjoy the same freedom to explain its religious convictions to its own community.
Each should also be accountable for any teaching that promotes hatred, discrimination or mistreatment of others.
The distinction is not complicated.
The right to reject another religion’s theology is not the right to reject the humanity or dignity of its adherents.
That principle should underpin public discourse.
It is also worth remembering that Trinidad and Tobago’s religious harmony has never depended on theological agreement. It has depended on citizens’ ability to maintain their distinct religious identities while sharing a common national identity.
We should be careful not to undermine that achievement by making social conformity the measure of religious tolerance.
Conclusion: The real test of Trinidad and Tobago’s tolerance
The Jaamia Madinatul Uloom controversy should be an opportunity for national reflection, not an occasion to question the legitimacy of Islamic religious education.
The Institute has a responsibility to teach its students that Islam requires fidelity to its monotheistic foundations. It also has a responsibility to ensure that this fidelity is accompanied by the Qur’anic obligations of justice, compassion and kindness towards people of other faiths.
The Trinidad Express has a responsibility to report the Institute’s position, investigate its theological basis and examine public responses. But it should also distinguish between a religious institution exercising its freedom of conscience and one expressing hostility toward another community.
Neither Muslims nor any other religious community should have to dilute their religious convictions to earn acceptance in Trinidad and Tobago.
Our national anthem does not promise that every creed will believe the same things. It promises that every creed will find an equal place.
Our watchwords do not demand religious conformity. They call for discipline, production and tolerance.
Perhaps the most important lesson from this controversy is that tolerance is tested not when someone agrees with us, but when someone exercises a freedom we may not personally agree with.
A Muslim who respectfully declines to say Merry Christmas or Happy Diwali should not be presumed to harbour hostility towards Christians or Hindus. Equally, a Muslim should not presume hostility when someone declines to participate in an Islamic religious observance.
We must be able to distinguish between respect for people and endorsement of their religious beliefs.
That is not merely an Islamic principle. It is a principle of democratic coexistence.
And it is entirely consistent with the promise of our national anthem:
“Here every creed and race finds an equal place, and may God bless our nation.”
