Die Hinrichtung von Apostaten sollte abgeschafft werden, doch die Beleidigung von Religionen sollte als Straftat anerkannt werden, schreibt der iranische Kleriker Mohsen Kadivar.
Zuallererst muss klargestellt werden, dass man zwischen dem Islam, der auf den Prinzipien des Koran und der wahrhaftigen Tradition des Propheten basiert, und dem Islam, der auf sich an der Scharia orientiert, unterscheiden muss. Im ersteren Fall wird die Meinungsfreiheit und die Religionsfreiheit anerkannt. Im letzteren Fall sind diese Freiheiten mehreren Einschränkungen unterworfen.
I. Einschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit in der Scharia
Im Scharia-orientierten Islam gilt, dass Apostaten hingerichtet werden müssen. Beleidigungen und Spott über religiöse Glaubensinhalte werden mit der Todesstrafe belegt. Manche Rechtsgelehrte argumentieren, dass die Massen selbst dafür verantwortlich ist, diejenigen zu finden und mit dem Tode zu bestrafen, die solche Straftaten begehen. In dieser Version des Islam sind Strafen wie Ta’zir und die erzwungene Einhaltung religiöser Gebräuche sowie die erzwungene Achtung religiöser Gebote und Verbote erlaubt. Die Veröffentlichung andere religiöser Glaubensinhalte oder Gedanken, was auch andere Formen des Islams und die philosophischen und/oder spirituellen Werke mancher muslimischer Denker einschließt, gilt als schädlich und ist daher verboten. Dies gilt auch für Bücher und kulturelle Veranstaltungen und Ausdrucksformen, wenn diese in irgendeiner Weise solche Inhalte betreffen.
II. Islamische Prinzipien fuer die Redefreiheit
Im Gegensatz dazu folgt ein Islam, der auf dem Koran und der wahrhaftigen Tradition des Propheten und seiner Familie basiert, den folgenden Prinzipien:
a) Obwohl sich der Islam als die wahre und von Gott gewollte Religion sieht, akzeptiert er, dass auf der Welt eine Vielfalt von verschiedenen Religionen und Überzeugungen existiert, egal ob sie wahr oder falsch sind. Dies schliesst auch Blasphemie, Polytheismus und Atheismus ein. Damit überlässt der Islam die Bestimmung ihres Wahrheitsgehalts dem Jüngsten Gericht.
b) Jeder Mensch hat die Freiheit, seine eigene Religion zu wählen. Niemand kann dazu gezwungen werden, eine Religion zu akzeptieren oder ihr abzuschwören.
c) Niemand soll auf dieser Welt dafür bestraft werden, einer bestimmten Religion anzugehören. Kein Glaube und keine Überzeugung ist eine Straftat.
d) Niemand soll dafür bestraft werden, seine Religionszugehörigkeit zu wechseln oder seinen Glauben aufzugeben. Dies schließt den Islam ein. Jegliche weltliche Bestrafung, wie zum Beispiel die Todesstrafe, für Apostaten läuft den Prinzipien des Islams entgegen.
e) Niemand kann dazu gezwungen werden, islamische Gebote oder Verbote zu befolgen.
f) Religiöse Überzeugungen zu kritisieren gehört zum freien Islam und verdient keinerlei Bestrafung, weder im Diesseits noch im Jenseits.
g) Wer religiöse Glaubensinhalte, wie zum Beispiel die des Islams, beleidigt, lächerlich macht oder verhöhnt, handelt unrechtmäßig und verletzt die Integrität und Würde der Gläubigen. Der Koran verbietet auch das Beleidigen von atheistischen Überzeugungen.
III. Die Beleidigung religiöser Gefühle als Hassrede
Laut Artikel 20 des Internationalen Pakts über bürgerliche und politische Rechte ist “jedes Eintreten für nationalen, rassischen oder religiösen Hass, durch das zu Diskriminierung, Feindseligkeit oder Gewalt aufgestachelt wird, […] durch Gesetz verboten.” Das Beleidigen religiöser Glaubensinhalte ist eine Art der “Hassrede”, die gläubige Menschen verunglimpft, und die als Straftat anerkannt werden sollte. Wer solche Straftaten begangen hat, sollte vor ein öffentliches Gericht und eine Jury gestellt werden. Ohne Zweifel ist die angemessene Strafe für solche Verbrechen nicht die Todesstrafe.
Es herrscht eine weitgehender internationaler Konsens darüber, dass “Hassrede” gesetzlich Verboten werden sollte, und dass solche Verbote wichtiger sind als die Meinungsfreiheit, oder dass sie die Meinungsfreiheit gar nicht erst einschränken. Die USA sind die einzige Industrienation, in der gesetzliche Verbote der Hassrede nicht mit der Meinungsfreiheit kompatibel sind. In Großbritannien zum Beispiel gibt es Gesetze, die mehrere Gruppen innerhalb der Bevölkerung vor Hassreden schützen. Diese Gesetzeverbieten jegliche Äußerung, die Hass schürt oder beleidigend, bedrohlich oder ausfallend ist und die eine Person aufgrund ihrer Religion angreift. Derartige Vergehen können sowohl mit Geld-, wie auch mit Haftstrafen belegt werden.
Der aggressive Atheismus hat die Grenze zwischen Kritik auf der einen Seite und Beleidigung, Hohn und Verunglimpfung religiöser Glaubensinhalte verwischt. Dies hat bereits zu gewaltsamen Ausschreitungen von Seiten konservativer Gläubiger geführt. Dies wird auch weiterhin passieren.
Eine vernünftige Welt kann nur existieren, wenn gegenseitiger Respekt zwischen Menschen herrscht. Man kann nicht die Überzeugungen, in diesem Fall das heilige Buch und den Propheten, eines Viertels der Weltbevölkerung verhöhnen und lächerlich machen, ohne die Konsequenzen der gewaltsamen und extremistischen Reaktionen von Seiten konservativer Gläubiger zu tragen.
Um die Spannung zwischen Glauben und Apostasie zu entschärfen, bedarf es der Unterscheidung zwischen Kritik und Beleidigung. Die jeweiligen Definitionen der beiden Konzepte hängen davon ab, wie reif eine Kultur ist. In unterentwickelten Ländern wird Kritik oft als Beleidigung gesehen, währen in den Industrienationen oft das Gegenteil der Fall ist. Daher kann eine klare Linie zwischen Kritik und Beleidigung nur gezogen werden, wenn man zuerst Informationen sammelt und sich über die theoretischen Probleme klar wird. Dies ist jedoch unausweichlich, da für eine dynamische und reife Welt Respekt sowohl für religiöse Glaubensinhalte wie auch für die Meinungsfreiheit nötig sind.
Wenn konservative Gläubige kein Recht dazu haben, anderen ihre religiösen Ansichten aufzuzwingen, so haben Atheisten auch kein Recht, ihre Überzeugungen zu universellen Standards zu erheben. Neben der Allgemeinen Menschenrechtserklärung der Vereinten Nationen wird auch eine Allgemeine Erklärung der Rechte und Pflichten bezüglich religiöser Glaubensinhalte und atheistischer Überzeugungen benötigt, wie zum Beispiel eine Konvention zur Abschaffung aller Formen von Gewalt, Beleidigung und Hassrede.
Die Todesstrafe und andere Bestrafungen für Apostasie sollten verboten, und die Beleidigung und Verhöhnung religiöser Glaubensinhalte durch Atheisten und Nichtgläubige bestraft werden. Gläubige und Atheisten sollten Kritik frei zulassen, und dies würde allen nützen. Gesunde Konkurrenz, die auf gegenseitigem Respekt basiert, ist der einzig akzeptable Umgang zwischen Muslimen und den Anhängern anderer Glaubensrichtungen und Überzeugungen.
IV. Drei Prinzipien
Ich glaube, dass die drei folgenden Prinzipien nicht nur Voraussetzungen dafür sind, dass “die/der Überzeugte, aber nicht unbedingt die Überzeugung” respektiert wird, sondern auch Grundbestandteile des islamischen Glaubens und der Meinungsfreiheit sind:
1. Jeder Mensch darf religiöse Glaubensinhalte kritisieren.
2. Das Beleidigen religiöser und atheistischer Überzeugungen ist Hassrede, und muss daher verboten werden.
3. Jegliche Bestrafung für Apostasie, vor allem die Todesstrafe, muss abgeschafft werden.
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.