In fairness, all the three arguments are irrefutable on the surface, but, to borrow a Quranic phrase, all the three are ‘words of truth marshalled in the defence of falsehood’. As for the right of the individual to refuse rites and rituals he or she finds unacceptable, no one is questioning the minister’s right not to light the ceremonial lamp. Secondly, the argument about the roots of the ritual of the ceremonial lamp is as true as the claim that the roots of modern banking are in the ancient practice of usury that the Quran promises to punish with hell-fire. That the Muslim League wholeheartedly cooperated with the banking industry and even avariciously vied with other political parties to win elections into the governing bodies of cooperative banks shows that their claims of punctilious adherence to Islamic ideals is rather specious. This argument also applies to the League’s general tolerance of some of its leaders’ notorious indulgences in corruption. Compared to these more serious violations of Islamic ideals that they gleefully perpetrate, lighting a ceremonial lamp with no religious overtones seems quite innocuous.