“The blasphemy law is damaging Islam” - HRCP

[MilesTogo]

public anger , retaliation , try it and you will know ... recently some Indian artist left India and took refugee in Qatar because his life was threatned as he drew graphic pictures of a hindu godess "he considered that art thou "

Thank you - I got the answer. I don't have to try. I am not suicidal. Many have tried before and we know their fate. With this kind of society and mindset it does not matter if you have the blasphemy laws or not...

 

[Luftwaffe]

While all minorities in Pakistan must be protected and given equal rights, but the question is for certain people do they look around what is happening around the globe and in the neighborhood and their laws towards Muslims..

Agreed we've to show tolerance towards certain group but they too have to see they're in a Muslim country, would it not be good to follow rules and regulations and laws to avoid any sort of problem. Is it not enough that churches and temples and more are standing in Pakistan and our own brothers sister go there freely.

 

[muse]

I found it compelling and I hope you find it pertinent and will derive hope from it:



Letters concerning toleration
Ahmad Ali Khalid



In the late 17th century, John Locke, one of the founders and theorists of classical liberalism and modern liberal thought, wrote a letter (‘A Letter Concerning Toleration&#8217 about the virtues and difficulties of tolerance. His letter started a debate about the very meaning of faith, its relation to violence and the role of the state in relation to religion. Locke’s body of work, though renowned for its emphasis on reason and rationality, can also be understood as emanating from a revised reinterpretation of Christianity, and setting the parameters for a political theology of liberality. Our circumstances today are similar to those of Locke’s. Hence it is pertinent that we pen our own letters of tolerance.

Toleration in our times and in our lands has become a sign of moral laxity, vice and irresponsibility rather than a virtue. Tolerance is seen for the weak rather than for the strong, and is seen as opening the path to disbelief and corruption rather than the liberty of conscience.

Tolerance is not about making truth relative, abandoning one’s convictions and submitting to indecision and utter scepticism. It is a most rational and godly dimension of inter-human relations. It is our conduct towards others who hold differing opinions when it comes to faith or creed. It is not a discussion about the validity of one’s religious convictions or about salvation, but about harmony and peaceful relations. We must demonstrate both on the planes of revelation and reason that tolerance is both godly and rational, and that intolerance is irrational and satanic. Since when did anger and passion become citadels of strength? The Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself argued against anger and preached that patience is the true abode of the strong.

Is our religion inimical to toleration and does our faith prescribe intolerance? To these key questions we must firmly say no as the answer. Toleration is no vice, but a virtue and is the hallmark of those whose belief is firm and deep. Toleration is the fruit from which the fine arts of persuasion and gracious preaching can flow. Our own scripture points us in this direction: “[Prophet (PBUH)], call [people] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided” (16:125). Propagation of faith was never a political activity based on laws and punishments, but one based on discussion and reasoned argumentation.

Coercion itself is an evil, and is the furthest thing from the spirit of religion, and is akin to the distance between angels and demons. Our dealings in matters of faith must be one of kindness and patience. We should speak with the intention of compassion and understanding, rather than self-righteous diatribes. We should express empathy and be open to serious dialogue. We must reserve our judgement since God alone is the best of judges; our aim must be to fulfil this role on the stage of human conversation and interaction. Judgement is not befitting of humble human beings and we must be wary of demanding this seat of judgement for ourselves. Coercion breeds hypocrisy and as such cannot be justified for the greater good. The Quran itself recognises this notion. “There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error” (2:256).

Social intimidation, political isolation and character assassination on the pretext of some idealised pietistic model of religious conduct are some of the other manifestations of intolerance. The fallacy ad hominem comes to mind, where the character of the interlocutor is targeted and the arguments proposed are ignored. This creates an atmosphere of fear, where accountability and scrutiny are dispensed for slavish devotion to political and religious leaders.

Diversity in human beings and opinions is natural and nothing obscene or perverted. Tolerance is concerned not with opinions, but with citizens and inter-human relations, and how to construct a society based on respect and peace. The discussion of who is right and who is wrong pertaining to the nature of belief is beyond the discussion of tolerance. That is a debate to be had elsewhere. The Quran rhetorically asks the Holy Prophet (PBUH), “Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet (PBUH)] compel people to believe? No soul can believe except by God’s will” (10:99-100). Religious belief is based upon personal conviction and religious experience, and as such is contingent on liberty. As the crown of liberty shines, so does the crown of faith. They are bound together and are crucial for deep religious convictions and desire for critical discussion.

Furthermore, faith is a matter of the heart and a concept of deep and inner conviction. No amount of violence and force can sow the seeds of religiosity and faith in the hearts of human beings. Such a transformation can only come about through compassion and mercy. It must emanate from a person’s moral autonomy and free will. “Allah does not change a people’s lot unless they change what is in their hearts” (13:11). The Quran has made it clear that human beings have the ability to choose and are endowed with free will. Free will itself is similar to the concept of liberty. So why violate this God-given gift?

The spiritual destiny of any given individual is beyond the control of prophets, states or clerics. The Quran has made clear the purpose of the Messenger: “Obey God, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the sole duty of Our Messenger is to deliver the message clearly” (5:92). The prophets came as warners, with the upmost concern for ethical conduct and meaningful religious and spiritual experience in relation to the Creator. The truth must be determined by each individual for themselves in order for them to truly exercise their God-given free will. “Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so’” (18:29). Interference by the state or any other group to impose certain interpretations or convictions on the people goes against the grain of faith and common sense.

Those who arrogate the seat of judgement are most irrational and ungodly. God has made it clear that, “His is the judgement and to Him you shall all be brought back” (28:88). If one continues to argue the case that judgement on a person’s religious convictions and the nature of one’s heart and conscience must be carried out in this world, then ask from the Quran, “Is God not the most decisive of judges?” (95:8). How can fallible, argumentative and error-prone human beings hope to pronounce judgement on an issue so profound and so sacred? It does not befit human beings to act as judges of the spiritual and existential destinies of others.

If we grant the state the power to impose a particular faith, what is stopping it from imposing a particular sectarian interpretation in exclusion of other sects? Sectarianism is not the purpose of this discussion, but as it is part of our religious history and discourse, how can we suppress it? This suppression would mean violating the rights of other citizens to practice their faith according to the dictates of their conscience. Which version of faith will the state impose that is congenial to the conscience of every one of its citizens? Furthermore, what right does the state have of interfering in this matter of individual responsibility, which is a crucial teaching of faith? (See 6:94 and 164, 7:39, 17:15, 18:35, 19:95, 35:18).
For a person to be the best Muslim or adherent of any other faith, the state has to be neutral in regards to the intricacies and subtleties of religious doctrine, spiritual experience and scriptural exegesis. This is the best arrangement, so that the sublime nature of religion is protected and the God-given free will of every human being is protected as well. There needs to be an institutional division between religious and temporal authority.

On the issue of the value of human beings in respect to their creed, God in the Quran has made it clear, “We have honoured the children of Adam” (17:70). Since the origin of all human beings is one and the same, then surely the worth and value of all human beings must be one and the same, otherwise why does the Quran say, “It is He who first produced you from a single soul, then gave you a place to stay [in life] and a resting place [after death]” (6:98). Hence, acting via the state against a particular religious group or section of society who hold differing religious views, violates their natural rights and God-given honour. Before we have creeds, we have a sense of dignity and honour that should be cherished.

The diversity of human beings is not satanic and certainly not irrational. It is natural that human beings have different tastes and different beliefs, since this is the logical result of having free will and the ability to choose. In our diversity, there is some greater purpose, which can bring about deeper understanding. “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. There truly are signs in this for those who know” (30:22). Our diversity is meant to initiate dialogue and mutual recognition. “People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognise one another” (49:13).

We will be mistaken to think that the irreducible diversity of man, and the flowering of many dissenting opinions in matters of faith are at the root of much violence and war. Such an assertion is dangerous for it sees diversity not as something natural, but as something abnormal, which lends itself to the notion that the means to bring about peace is to go on the quest for cultural or religious homogeneity, quashing any difference of opinion. The reason for war and suffering, particularly in the case of our nation, is not the diversity of opinions, but the rejection of tolerating difference that has produced oppression and suffering. Difference in opinion and belief is natural and cannot be controlled by external actors, it comes from a person’s inner convictions, but the capacity for tolerance is a choice one must grasp to accommodate diversity. The pursuit of homogeneity is a foreboding objective that goes against God’s will; diversity is divinely ordained.

The purpose of the state and religion, it seems, are inevitably different, but there is a link. That link is mainly a concern for justice, sincere ethical conduct, morality and order throughout society, but that is not to say that our religion is a political ideology and our state should be synonymous with religion. It is neither prescribed in our faith, nor was it the vision of our founding father. One can have religious convictions and participate in public life, but the notion of a ‘state religion’ is contradictory, with no theological or rational justification. The state is concerned ultimately with this life, with the rights and status of its citizens, and the aim of security, health, peace and prosperity. Religion, though not cut off from the world, is ultimately concerned about the salvation of human beings. Mixing the machinations and murky business of statecraft with the intensely spiritual and virtuous experience of religion is detrimental to the latter. The Quran mentions that the Prophet (PBUH) was not sent to sort out the personal affairs of others, but convey a message (10:108, 17:54, 88:21-22).

Quashing God-given liberty (free will), stifling debate and criticism in an attempt to safeguard power under the pretence of religion can happen all too often when we cannot clearly separate religion and the state institutionally. Punishments and laws will never inoculate a sense of the Divine, the mind and heart will not yield to force, but to reason and compassion. The nature of faith is different from the business of the state. This is especially true since the methods of the state are not the same as the methods of faith. The state is dependent on coercive means to bring about justice and order, to secure the rights of its citizens, whilst religion is contingent on liberty. To merge faith and the state would be to corrupt faith and render it inauthentic. True belief, as it is pointed out in the Quran and through the use of reason, has to be based on sincere devotion out of love and understanding.

(To be continued)

The writer is a student at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com

 

[muse]

If you found the piece by Mr. Khalid helpful and hopeful - please do write to him and express your appreciation -- it will be good to know that there people out there who do care and who do appreciate.

 

[muse]

fFriends, below is the third and last installment of Mr. Khalid's "Letters Concerning Tolerance", please do review it.




Letters concerning toleration — III
Ahmad Ali Khalid


On the concept of citizenship as a basis of tolerance that cuts across sectarian and religious divisions, it should be said that our nation’s founder, Mr Jinnah, made it patently clear that, “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Citizenship must trump the exclusivist interpretations of religious membership. All citizens have equal rights and responsibilities, regardless of creed, and as such their convictions should not be made a basis for disadvantageous treatment.

However, we must be under no illusions, the problem of intolerance has run deep and has seeped into the popular consciousness exhibited by populist political and religious discourse. There are issues deeper than simply a humane reading of religious texts. There are more difficult and complex issues involved, such as religious authority and tradition. The problem is that there is no calibrated theory of Islamic law, ethics, philosophy or even textual interpretation (tafsir) that we can count as ‘progressive’. The challenges then are more complicated than we first thought; it is simply not the case of a particular interpretation but the underlying juristic, interpretational and ethical frameworks that provide the moral and psychological foundations of the obscurant religious discourse in Pakistan. This requires a more rigorous engagement and must emanate from new conceptions of education and jurisprudence. It is the paradigms from which the clerics, demagogues and puritans work that go unquestioned, the narrow and restrictive parameters they impose on interpretation that seem insulated from criticism.

That being said, there have always been many philosophical and intellectual traditions in Islam that emphasise the scope of reason, but perhaps the only option left for us today is to construct a theory of natural law within Islam that recognises reason, the inherent dignity of all human beings, and that moral values can be determined by all human beings regardless of conviction by the aid of our common reason.

Then there are other matters such as general law and order, education and other such issues that the state must solve in relation to its citizens. An intolerant society is often an impoverished society, not an affluent one. The path to this dangerous vice is often made alluring through harsh and unforgiving socio-economic conditions. Education and, more crucially, the values and moral priorities we pass on to the youth are critical, especially in a country like Pakistan where there is a huge youth bulge. A society must be equipped with the necessary intellectual tools and penchant for critical analysis to deal with demagogues and other opponents of democratic discourse, since the nature of such discourse does not rest upon an authoritarian leader but the success of autonomous and critical individuals willing to question. Such individuals will not come from a society where politicians have fake degrees, corruption is rampant, virtue is seen as weakness and basic welfare is not established.

Focusing on our nation’s history, it was the vision of Mr Jinnah to have a state built on the pillars of liberty and tolerance. For liberty cannot be born from the barren desert of intolerance but only from the fertile soil of tolerance. Notions of democracy and republicanism that make up this country’s political orientation are predicated on the notion of tolerance and the ability to withstand a multiplicity of viewpoints. It encourages maturity to debate and discuss rationally without the threat of violence or intimidation.

In Pakistan’s case, Mr Jinnah’s famous August 11th speech in 1947 lays down the foundations of tolerance, equality and freedom of conscience, which he saw as one of the pillars of his new republic. Why on earth this perspicuous text is not included in the constitution is a mystery. Also Iqbal’s keen advocacy of ijtihad, reconstruction and re-instating dynamism in fiqh to reflect the pluralistic and tolerant spirit of Islam is visible throughout his work in Reconstruction when he writes, “The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to reinterpret the foundational legal principles in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly justified. The teaching of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.”

Elsewhere, the former Chief Justice and late Dr Sheikh Abdur Rahman has dealt quite admirably with the case of religious freedom in his work Punishment Of Apostasy in Islam, where he engages with the traditional fiqhi stance towards freedom of conscience and tolerance whilst advocating new paradigms and rulings reflecting the clear and unambiguous Quranic texts that clearly lay down the foundations for freedom of conscience and tolerance. Other Pakistani scholars such as Ghamidi, Muhammad Khalid Masud and the late Professor Rahman too have advocated similar lines of argument for change.

Finally, after supporting tolerance, we must remain critical of this concept and prevent some confusion that may have arisen. Toleration is not the final ideal, but the first step; the higher aim should be to have a deep appreciation of pluralism and respect. Toleration can guarantee a peaceful co-existence but it cannot guarantee a constructive, proactive and creative co-existence. That requires something much deeper and more profound than tolerance — pluralism and respect. For instance, an individual can be tolerant but also can be dogmatic in thinking that he or she has the only single exclusive response to the problems of society. Tolerance cannot guarantee synthesis, reconciliation and consensus, items that are crucial for fostering an intelligent and productive society.

The free exchange of ideas cannot simply happen through mere toleration.

(Concluded)

The writer is a student at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com