背信者の処刑は取り消しても、宗教を侮辱することは犯罪とみなされるべきだと、イランの聖職者Mohsen Kadivarは書きます。
まず初めに、コーランの原則と預言者モハメットの真の伝統に基づいたイスラム教とシャリーアを基本とするイスラム教を区別するべきです。前者は言論と宗教の自由を認めます。後者はそれらの自由に数々の制限を課します。
I.シャリーアにおける言論の自由の制限
シャリーアを基本とするイスラム教において、背信者は処刑されます。宗教的信条を侮辱する、あざ笑うことは死をもって罰せられます。法学者の一部は、これらを認識し実行することを大衆の責任だとしています。この意見は、タージールのような罰、また宗教的義務や禁令の固守を強制することを許容します。他のイスラム教宗派やイスラムに傾倒した哲学や思想を含め、異なる宗教や考えを宣伝することは害があると考えられ禁止されています。結局は宣伝であるとみなされるので、本や他の文化物の宣伝も同じ扱いを受けます。
II.イスラム教における言論の自由の原則
反対にコーランの原則と預言者モハメットと彼の家族の真の伝統に基づいたイスラム教は以下の原則を固守します。
a)イスラム教は唯一正当で神聖な宗教ですが、真実か嘘か関係なく、冒涜、多神論、無神論などを世の中の現実として受け止め、宗教や考えの多様性、多元性を認めてきました。それなのでこれらの真相は神が判決を下す日に決まることだろうとしています。
b) 人々は考えや宗教を自由に選択することができ、どういった信仰であってもそれを受け入れる、あるいは否定することを誰かに強制することはできません。
c) どのような宗教であっても、それを信じているが故に誰かが罰せられるべきではありません。犯罪は、信仰や考え方ではなく、行動に起因します。
d) 改宗、あるいはイスラム教から去ることを理由に誰かを罰することはできません。処刑のような世俗的な罰を背信者に課することはイスラム教の原則に反しています。
e) イスラム教の義務や禁令を守ることを誰かに強制することはできません。
f) 宗教的信条を批判することは自由なイスラム教の本質であり、現世でも来世でも罰を課しません。
g) イスラム教を含む宗教的信念を侮辱、嘲罵、軽蔑することは非道徳的であり、信者の清廉や尊厳を犯します。コーランによると、無神論を侮辱することも禁止されています。
III.ヘイトスピーチとしての宗教侮辱
国際人権規約第20条は、「国籍、人種、または宗教に対する憎しみを提唱することは差別、敵意、または暴力の誘引にあたる」としており、宗教的信条を侮辱することは信者をけなす「ヘイトスピーチ」に値するため、犯罪としてみなされるべきです。その様な犯罪を犯したものは、陪審員のもと民事裁判で起訴されるべきです。無論、これらの犯罪に課される罰は処刑ではありません。
「ヘイトスピーチ」は法で禁ぜられるべきだ、そしてその禁止は言論の自由の保障を押し切る、あるいはそれとは無関係であるという国際的な意見の一致があります。法の下のヘイトスピーチの規制は言論の自由と相反するとするアメリカ合衆国は先進国の間で特異だと言えます。例えば、イギリスではいくつかの制定法がいくつかのカテゴリーに属する個人をヘイトスピーチから保護しています。憎悪的、脅迫的、虐待的、侮辱的である、そして宗教を理由に個人を攻撃するコミュニケーションをこれらの制定法は禁止しています。ヘイトスピーチを犯した際の罰則は罰金、投獄、またはそれら両方を含みます。
攻撃的な無神論者による批判、それに対比する宗教的信条の侮辱、あざ笑い、軽蔑の境界性の欠如は、保守派による過激で暴力を伴う軋轢を結果的に生む出してきており、これからも生み出し続けるでしょう。
健全な世の中には人類間の相互的敬意が必要です。数人のイスラム教保守派による暴力的で過激な反応という必然的結果をもたらさずに、世界人口の四分の一の信条、即ちイスラム教聖典と預言者モハメットを侮辱しあざ笑うなど不可能です。
信仰と背信の競争を整理するには、批判と侮辱の間の線引きが必要です。この境界線がどこにあるかは場所や文化的成熟度により異なります。低開発国においてはたくさんの批判が侮辱とみなされ、先進国においてはたくさんの侮辱が批判とみなされます。それなので、これらの境界線を引くことは真剣なフィールドワークや理論的研究を要します。しかし、ダイナミックで成熟した世界は宗教的信条と言論の自由両方への敬意なくして達成できません。
もしも古風な信者が彼の宗教的考えを他者に強制する権利がないならば、無心論者が彼の具体的な考えを普遍的理念として強制する権利もありません。世界人権宣言のほかに、すべての暴力、侮辱、ヘイトスピーチを撤廃する規約、宗教的、無宗教的信条の義務と責任に関する世界宣言が必要です。
背信者の処刑と罰が取り消されるべきであるのと同様に、無心論者や信者ではない者による宗教の侮辱やあざ笑いは公に犯罪だとして認められるべきです。信条者と無心論者は、両者にとって有益である批判をする自由を認めるべきです。イスラム教信者とその他の宗教や考えを持つ者の間での唯一正当性のある道徳的行為は、相互的敬意に基づく健全な競争です。
IV.三つの原則
私は以下の三つの原則が「信奉者の信念を尊重しなくとも、信奉者自信を尊重する」こと、そしてイスラム教と言論の自由両方に関する信念の必要大前提だと思います。
１．宗教的信条を批判する自由。
２．ヘイトスピーチとして宗教的、無神論的信条を侮辱することの禁止。
３．処刑を筆頭とする、背信者へのすべての罰の取り消し。
reply report Report comment
Mr Kadivar can pray for freedom to criticise religious beliefs, particularly those of Islam, until he’s blue in the face, but that will never happen in Islam. There are two reasons: there are more Muslims who take every single word in the Koran to be the pure truth than in any other religion. Secondly, Islam is a totalitarian (‘holistic’, as Muslims themselves like to say) religion that regulates every aspect of life. Since the Koran denounces unbelievers and Muslims, many of whom attend prayers five times a day, are taught a narrative of victimisation by their imams, i.e. that followers of other religions are out to get them, and also that there is only one true religion, i.e. the one that rules every aspect of their lives, it is highly unlikely that Muslims will ever be able to accept criticism of their religion.
reply report Report comment
With all due respect sir, Muslims do not take every word in the Quran to be pure truth, that is why we have scholars who interpret the Quran, and try to keep it as relevant as possible. Also we do not deem every other religion to be a false one, it is not our position to say so. Besides, name me one religion that does not believe that it is the one true religion. At the end of the day, Muslims like myself do appreciate instructive criticism, but not blind hatefulness.
reply report Report comment
“Surely we can ban non-Muslims from visiting selected cities, without people playing the ‘hate speech’ card.”
My question is why would anyone do that? Wouldn’t that be the same if you say “surely we can ban Muslims to go into selected states, without people playing the “hate speech” card?” or “Surely we can ban Muslims to work some selected job (or whatever selected) without people playing the “hate speech” card?” . For me freedom in its every form (in speech or something else) doesn’t have compromise. However there are obvious speeches of hate such are ones used by Hitler (I know this is most common used one) where you openly call for murdering, violence, ignorance and any other element which would contribute to misery and suffering of someone. Those speeches are usually without any proof or based on messed up ideologies or misused religious views… and sometimes insanity.
reply report Report comment
The sole difference between free speech and hate speech is whether the person stating their ideals is trying to implement or force their ideologies on other.
Any religion Islam, Christianity or Hinduism are a set of beliefs that are followed often by the masses. They work perfectly fine when in a homogeneous environment but conflict when introduced and practiced in a diverse environment.
This is especially true for international cities and the Internet. There is always a clash of ideas and beliefs and thus conflict which could result in hatred.
Rather than changing how everyone thinks we should open up to other perspectives and try understand where the other person is coming from.
Free speech changes completely when the person speaking is trying to change the way you think and convince you that he/she is right regardless of everything else.
Therefore the sole line between hate speech and free speech is whether you are trying to state your point or trying to make others change theirs and follow yours.
reply report Report comment
Intresting.
reply report Report comment
I think that the expression of religious criticism can be named as hate speech, however it depends on the perspective. As a person receiving the criticism of the religion they follow it would be considered hate speech, but in contrast, the individual delivering the criticism about a religion is freedom of expression. The expressing individual has all rights to deliver criticism, but in these days due to certain “criticisms” that we’ve encountered such as violence, an eye over criticizing religion should be emphasized. As an act of disrespecting a religion, such as burning the Qur’an in ground zero, leads to violent acts as the extremists have been angered. Therefor, society should be aware of the publicity they use when performing such a criticism as it can cause damage to the society that did not express their opinions. Perhaps free speech in reference to religious topics should be permitted to be expressed in areas where people share the same opinion, or inside their own walls in order to prevent violence
reply report Report comment
It seems odd that a muslim cleric is proposing banning publication of the Quran. Regarding his three principles:
“2. The prohibition of insulting religious and atheistic beliefs as hate speech.”
If he reads the Quran, he will notice that it goes out of its way to insult unbelievers/atheists/polytheists – referring to the people themselves, as well as their beliefs. It also says that the perfect god has selected them to be tortured for eternity.
As you cannot have an omnipotent god that is not responsible for what happens in the universe, and you cannot have a perfect god whose actions should be disapproved of by its followers, then the only logical conclusion I can draw from that statement is that, from an Islamic perspective, unbelievers deserve to be tortured – and not just for a while, but forever.
If that isn’t hate speech, I don’t know what is.
The Bible would also be banned, as would quoting from many texts in the Bible, Quran and possibly others.
Half my extended family is muslim – I’m well aware of how unpleasant it is to be abused in the street by strangers. However, there are plenty of ways of dealing with this, without resorting to suppression of basic freedom.
You have an absolute right to hate me because of my religious or political affiliations, and to express that hatred. It is how you behave when expressing that hatred that should determine whether you are breaking the law or not.
reply report Report comment
‘5) if you are muslim you cannot enter this place’
You mean if I stated that ‘Non-muslims cannot enter Mecca’, this would be counted as ‘hate speech’?
How on earth can that be hate speech? I find that incomprehensible.
Surely we can ban non-Muslims from visiting selected cities, without people playing the ‘hate speech’ card.
reply report Report comment
in prior comment appeared a emoticon i didn’t put in !
In any case I apologize for that.
reply report Report comment
I think that a “hate” speech is something like:
1) if you are muslim you are a bad guy
2) if you are muslim you are stupid
3) if you are muslim you deserve prison or death
4) if you are muslim you cannot have this job
5) if you are muslim you cannot enter this place
6) if you are muslim you cannot speech
These are expression of judgements for which religion (or other beliefs) is not relevant ( a man can bad or stupid regardless of religion), or simple denial of human rigths because of religious belief, or reputing having or not a beliefs make a man guilty of a crime ( not of a sin !), or discriminating (allowing or not allowing to do something ) because of beliefs.
These expressions should be allowed.
On the other side:
1) I think god doesn’t exists
2) I don’t think jesus christ ever existed
3) I think that on friday you can eat meat
4) I think women are badly treated (in a sociological sense ) by catholic church
5) I think that religious men shouldn’t run a country
6) I don’t think that religious schools should ave money from the governement
7) I think abortion should be permitted
8) I don’t think women should wear niqab
7) Religion is the opium of peoples
are expressions allowed, because we can discuss these themes on logical and\or empirical grounds tryng to persuade each other .
There a third category of expressions making fun of religious themes; the acceptability of this expressions varies
in western countries too; I think that would be wise to abstain from using these expressions for religions that are not the ours. It is not a freedom issue, it is a wisdom issue.
If we could agree on this , we had made a big progress.
(sorry for the bad english)
reply report Report comment
By your definition of the criteria for hate speech, I believe that both the Bible and the Quran qualify on points 1 to 3, and possibly some of the others as well, in their description of those who do not believe in Islam or the god of the Old Testament.
reply report Report comment
Although ‘hate speech’ brings upon society several problems I think the main concern in this topic is who draws the line between ‘hate speech’ and ‘freedom of speech’ this is because perceptions vary from cultures and religion. What some may consider hate speech others may simply take it as freedom of speech- their right to express their opinions.
Expressing opinions about other religious beliefs of course should not be punishable by execution if we abide by ‘Universal Human Rights’ and whether it can be considered a crime in the eyes of the law should take into consideration points such as:
– government actors promoting a ‘hate speech’ is the first concern due to the ability to influence masses.
– a ‘hate speech’ repeated by a group within a community- against a particular religion or belief- can become embedded within that group and violence towards people following a religion can become a normalised act.
reply report Report comment
‘ According to the Qur’an, insulting atheistic beliefs is also prohibited’
May I ask where?
reply report Report comment
Of the three points listed above, the second seems to be a deliberately vague caveat upon the first, and the third, which has nothing to do with the first two, shouldn’t even need to be stated.
The key line seems to me to be: “It is not possible to insult and ridicule the beliefs i.e. the holy book and the prophet, of one-fourth of the world population without having to bear the consequences of the violent and extremist reactions of some conservative adherents to that faith.” The implication is that the fault lies with those who mock, not with those who murder. I wonder if that rather pointed last sentence would be classed as criticism or insult?
reply report Report comment
I don’t understand what you mean when you say “The implication is that the fault lies with those who mock, not with those who murder.”
I believe that freedom of speech should not be threatened by radicals from Islam or any other religion for that matter. By this phrase it seems as if you are stating freedom of speech is compromised by radicals and extremists, therefore, we should watch what we say.
Who gets to decide what for one person is a mere opinion for another person is an insult?
Different perceptions of opinions can cause misunderstanding between ‘hate speech’ and ‘freedom of speech’ Again, who draws the line between what is correct to say and considered your right to free speech and what should be condemn as ‘hate speech’?
reply report Report comment
‘Just as the execution and punishment of an apostate should be annulled, the insult and mockery of religion by atheists and non-believers should be officially recognised as a crime. ‘
And what should be the punishment?
reply report Report comment
‘ Though Islam considers itself the rightful divine religion, it has accepted the diversity and plurality of religions and thoughts, regardless of truth or false, even blasphemy, polytheism and atheism as a reality in this world. It has therefore left the qualification of their truthiness to be determined on the Day of Judgment.’
Really? Does Islam accept that child pornography is a reality in this world, and therefore left it alone until the Day of Judgement?
By the way, there will be no Day of Judgement. That is something somebody made up.
And I will say that until somebody produces evidence that it was not made up.
reply report Report comment
What is ‘insulting religious beliefs’?
Why should be people be allowed to criticise political beliefs, but not religious beliefs?
If somebody believes that the Earth will end in May 2012, because a Holy Guru said it would unless he was given 5 million dollars, why are we not allowed to criticise such a belief as irrational?
reply report Report comment
Sounds reasonable at first sight, but it’s easy to spot that sneaky “second principle” which is of course the point of the whole debate. Those with a totalitarian bent have no compunction about labelling any criticism of their behaviour as an “insult”. It is precisely this term that is used everywhere to stifle criticism and to whip up the fury of the baying mob. It is a weasel word which can be invoked at every opportunity to shut down discussion.
On the contrary, the right to mock or insult the ideas of others is a vital component of the right to freedom of expression.
reply report Report comment
I do not understand the difference between free speech and hate speech. Is it that hate speech is free speech intended to generate hate in others? If so surely those who hear or read free speech have the right to accept or reject it. What is the point? I for instance reject the piss Christ but acknowledge the right of the artist and gallery to act as they have otherwise I would not truly believe in the freedom I advocate. On the other hand employees of the gallery where the work is or was have perhaps been wrongly denied their freedom. I do not know the answer to that.
reply report Report comment
You look for the different evidence. In the hate speech case you have to prove that someone wish to use “speech” to start hate. And it happens. Can we hate people who are believers of some religion? It is absurd, but we can use “religion” to start hate.