ایرانی مذہبی عالم موحسن کادیور لکھتے ہیں کہ دیہریوں کی ہلاکت کو ختم کر دینا چاہئے لیکن مذھب کی توہین کرنا ایک جرم ہونا چاہئے.
سب سے پہلے تو ہمیں قران اور رسول کی صحیح احادیث کے اصولوں پر قائم اسلام اور شریعت والے اسلام کے درمیان فرق رکھنا چاہئے. پہلے میں آزادی اظہار راۓ اور مذھبی آزادی کا تحفظ ہے. دوسرے میں ان آزادیوں پر کافی حدود موجود ہیں.
١. شریعت میں آزادی اظہار راۓ پر حدود
شریعت والے اسلام میں کسی دیھرئے کی سزا موت ہے. مذہبی عقائد کی توہین اور ان کا مزاق اڑانے کی سزا بھی موت ہے. کچھ فقہاء کے مطابق ان جرائم کی شناخت اور ان کی سزا پر عمل درآمد کرنا عوام کی ذمہ داری ہے. اس زاویے کے مطابق تعزیر جیسی سزائیں اور مذہبی عقائد پر عمل درآمد اور مذھب میں ممنوع چیزوں سے لوگوں کو زبردستی بچانا جائز ہے. کسی بھی اور قسم کی مذہبی سوچ کا فروغ منع اور نقصان دہ سمجھا جاتا ہے، یہاں تک کے دوسرے اسلامی فرقوں اور مسلمان فلسفیوں اور عالموں کے کام و سوچ بھی. اور ایسی کتابوں یا دوسری ثقافتی چیزوں کو چھاپنا بھی منع ہے جو کسی دوسرے فرقے کو فروغ دیتی ہوں.
٢. اسلام میں آزادی اظہار راۓ کے اصول
اس کے برعکس، وہ اسلام جو کہ قران اور رسول اور ان کی آل کی صحیح حدیث میں دیے گئے اصولوں پر قائم ہے اس کی یہ اصناف ہیں:
ا) حالانکہ اسلام اپنے آپ کو سچا مذھب مانتا ہے، یہ دنیا میں مذاہب اور خیالات، جیسے سچ اور جھوٹ، اور یہاں تک کہ توہین مذہب، متعدد خداؤں کو ماننا اور خدا کو نہ ماننا، کی متنوعی کا بھی اعتراف کرتا ہے. اس لئے اس نے ان سب چیزوں کی سچائی کا حتمی فیصلہ قیامت کے دن کے لئے چھوڑ دیا ہے.
ب) لوگوں کو اپنے مذہب اور عقائد چننے کی آزادی حاشل ہے اور کسی پر بھی کوئی مذہب ماننے یا انکار کرنے کی زبردستی نہیں ہے.
ث) کسی کو بھی اس زندگی میں اس چیز پر سزا نہیں ملنی چاہئے کہ وہ ایک مخصوص مذہب پر یقین رکھتا ہے. جرم ایک عمل کا ہوتا ہے کسی مخصوص عقیدے یا مذہب کا نہیں.
ڈ) مذھب بدلنے پر یا اسلام چھوڑنے پڑ کسی کو بھی سزا نہیں ہونی چاہئے. اسلام چھوڑنے پر کسی قسم کی دنیاوی سزا، جیسے کے موت، کا لاگو کرنا اسلامی اصولوں کے خلاف ہے.
ای) کسی پر بھی اسلامی فرائض ادا کرنے کے لئے زبردستی نہیں کی جا سکتی اور نا ہی ممنوع کاموں سے رکنے کی.
ف) مذہبی عقائد کی تنقید ایک آزاد اسلام کے اندر مکمل طور پر جائز ہے اور اس پر کوئی سزا نہیں، نا ہی اس دنیا میں اور نہ ہی آخرت میں.
ج) بشمول اسلام مذہبی عقائد کی توہین کرنا اور ان کا مذاق اڑانا غلط فعل ہے اور اس کے ماننے والوں کی عزت کی خلاف ورزی ہے. قران کے مطابق جو لوگ خدا کو نہیں مانتے ان کے عقائد کا مزاق اڑانا بھی منع ہے.
٣. مذہب کی توہین نفرت آمیز گفتگو کے طور پر
عالمی معاہدہ براۓ انسانی و سیاسی حقوق کی شق ٢٠ کے مطابق “کسی بھی ایسی نفرت آمیز چیز کا فروغ جو مذہب، قومیت یا نسل کی بنیاد پر امتیازی سلوک، جارحیت یا تشدد کی طرف اکسائے، اس کو قانوناً ممنوع ہونا چاہی” اور کیوں کے مذہبی عقائد کی توہین کرنا ‘نفرت آمیز گفتگو’ کے زمرے میں آتا ہے اس لئے اس کو ایک جرم سمجھنا چاہئے. جنہوں نے اس جرم کا ارتقاد کیا ہے ان کا ایک سول عدالت میں جیوری کی موجودگی میں مقدمہ ہونا چاہئے. اور اس جرم کی سزا ہرگز موت نہیں ہے.
اس بات پر بین الاقوامی راۓ عامہ متفق ہے کہ ‘نفتر آمیز گفتگو’ قانونی طور پر ممنوع ہونی چاہئے اور کہ ایسی ممنوعات آزادی اظہار راۓ کی گارنٹیوں سے بڑھ کر ہیں. ترقی شدہ ممالک میں امریکا اس بات میں منفرد ہے کہ ادھر قانون کے مطابق نفرت آمیز گفتگو کی ریگولیشن آزادی اظہار راۓ کے برعکس سمجھی جاتی ہے. مثال کے طور پر برطانیہ میں کئی قوانین لوگوں کے مختلف گروہوں کو نفرت آمیز گفتگو سے بچاتے ہیں. یہ قوانین ایسی مواصلات پر پابندی لگاتے ہیں جو نفرت آمیز، دھمکی شدہ، توہین آمیز ہو یا جو کسی فرد کو مذہب کی بنیاد پر نشانہ بنائے. نفرت آمیز گفتگو کی سزا مالی جرمانہ اور جیل دونوں ہو سکتی ہیں.
ایک طرف تنقید اور دوسری طرف خدا کو نہ ماننے والے جارحانہ لوگوں کی مذہبی عقائد کی توہین اور مذاق سے قدامت پسند موتقین ہمیشہ کلیش کرتے رہیں گے.
ایک سمجھدار دنیا کے لئے انسانوں کے درمیان باہمی احترام بہت ضروری ہے. کسی کے عقائد (جیسے کے قران اور رسول) کا مذاق اڑانا اور پھر دنیا کی ایک چوتھائی عوام کے قدامت پسند موتقین میں سے کسی ایک کی بھی طرف سے جارحانہ اور شدت پسند رد عمل کی توقع نہ کرنا بلکل غلط ہے.
عقیدے اور نا ماننے کے درمیان کشیدگی کو ختم کرنے کے لئے یہ ضروری ہے کے تنقید اور توہین کے درمیان فرق کیا جائے. یہ فرق جگہہ اور ثقافتی سمجھداری کے مطابق مختلف ہو گا. کئی ترقی پزیر ممالک میں تنقید کو توہین کے طور پر دیکھا جاتا ہے جب کہ کئی ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں توہین کو تنقید سمجھا جاتا ہے. اس پورے معاملے اور اس میں متنوعی کو سمجھنے کے لئے سنجیدہ تحقیقی کام کی ضرورت ہے. ایک ڈائنیمک اور سمجھدار دنیا اسی وقت بنائی جا سکتی ہے جب لوگ دوسرے کے آزادی اظہار راۓ اور کسی بھی عقیدے کی پیروی کرنے کے حق کو مانیں گے.
اگر کسی روایتی موتقد کو کسی اور کو زبردستی اپنے عقیدے پر یقین کرانے کی اجازت نہیں تو پھر خدا کو نہ ماننے والوں کو بھی اپنے عقیدے کو زبردستی ایک عالمی شکل دینے کی اجازت نہیں ہونی چاہئے. انسانی حقوق کے عالمی اعلانیہ کے ساتھ ساتھ ہمیں ایک عالمی اعلانیہ براۓ مذہبی فرائض و زمہ داریوں کی بھی ضرورت ہے جو کہ ہر قسم کے تشدد، توہین اور نفرت آمیز گفتگو کے خلاف ہو.
جس طرح مذھب کو چھوڑنے والے کے لئے سزاۓ موت کو ختم ہو جانا چاہئے، اسی طرح مذھب و خدا کو نہ ماننے والوں کی طرف سے مذھب کی توہین اور مذاق اڑانے کو بھی جرم قرار دینا چاہئے. موتقدین اور نہ ماننے والوں کو اس بات کا اعتراف کرنا چاہئے کے تنقید کرنے کی آزادی دونوں کے فائدے میں ہے. باہمی عزت پر مبنی ایک صحت مند اور مثبت مقابلہ مسلمانوں اور دوسرے عقائد و مذہبوں کے ماننے والوں کے لئے واحد قابلِ دفاع راستہ ہے.
٤. تین اصول
میرے مطابق نیچے دیے گئے تین اصول ایک طرف ‘موتقد کی عزت کرنا لیکن ضروری نہیں کے عقیدے کے مواد کی بھی عزت ہو’ اور دوسری طرف اسلام اور آزادی اظہار راۓ دونوں میں ہم آہنگی کے لئے بہترین گائیڈ ہیں:
١. مذہبی عقائد کی تنقید کی آزادی
٢. مذہبی اور خدا کو نا ماننے والوں کے عقائد کی توہین کو نفرت آمیز گفتگو کے طور پر ممنوع کرنا
٣. مذھب چھوڑنے پر سزا کو ختم کرنا اور خاص طور پر سزاۓ موت کو.
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.