Chapter 2

Religious Freedom

First: Working Papers

            1-Religious Freedom and Human Rights

Dr. Youssef Kamal El-Hag

            Religious freedom represents one of the universal human rights,

Meaning that it is protected by three international tools: the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the 1981 Declaration on Ending All Forms of Discrimination Based on Religious Beliefs. This also is in tune heart of human rights in general.

*Refer to Chapter I

            The paper considers that the international community has not yet reached a consensus to establish an agreement to protect this right due to its sensitive nature. The Catholic Church also did not easily recognize religious freedom as a universal right, as there were some heated debates in the Second Ecumenical Council about this matter until it was finally adopted.

2-The Catholic Perception of Religious Freedom

Professor Buanamo

            The paper discusses four main points:

            First: The foundation of the right of religious freedom, which is depicted by every human being commitment to seek the truth and uphold it, this acceptance and submission leads to the realization of human freedom in its most ideal picture. Compliance of the human being to God should be marked by a kind of freedom.

            Second: Religious freedom has two aspects; no one can be forced to embrace a certain religion against his wish or his personal will, and on an individual manner or among a group of people.

Although some objective requirements of society such as peace, order, prevailing moral condition, etc, are restriction that limit the possibility of manifesting religious freedom or expressing it.

            Third: the right of religious freedom is a universal right that should be recognized as a right for all human beings, which would naturally oblige all countries to guarantee it and protect it for all.

            Fourth: the relation between freedom and equality. This is the reason it is important to focus on religious freedom legal aspect and not just its theological aspect when discussing religious freedom. The Koranic verse that says “No compulsion in religion” means that no

 ___________________________________

*The Professor could not attend, and Dr. Silvio De Ferrari read it on his behalf

One can be forced to embrace a certain religion, but it represents the acknowledgement of a fact not a law.

            3-Religious Freedom in Modern Islamic Thinking

Father Christian Troll*

            This paper contains the following points:

            First: Religious Freedom as described in the “Human Dignity”

document.

            Second: Religious Freedom in modern Islamic thinking. The traditional Islamic philosophy obligates believers to abide by two essential matters: sincere faith and correct conduct, therefore blasphemy is considered the biggest sin a person can commit, Muslim scholars agree that apostasy represents a kind of mutiny against God, and rejecting being part of the Islamic community, therefore the apostate should be punished by no less than death. Nevertheless Imam El Azhar Sheikh Mahmooud Shaltout, considers that blasphemy is not sufficient proof that the apostate has left religion, unless he fights against the faithful, attacks them and attempts to take them away from their faith.

            Third: The nature of new issues lately presented by Islamic intellectuals, in connection with the fact that larger sections and sectors of people from the Islamic world are affected by western living modes and thinking procedures. For example the Central Council for Muslims in Germany announced two years ago its another religion, or not to have a religion at all.

            The paper classified Muslim intellectuals and scholars into three categories: the first includes those working in religious schools and universities. The second includes a modern group of interlocutors whose education is not restricted to religious matters. The

*the Saint George College-Germany

Philosophy, Islamic history and the history of religions in general. It also focused on Islamic voices that spoke of freedom and human dignity, and was interested in some Koranic verses, for being the source of religious directives related to the matter, which all agree that God himself created human dignity. An Egyptian philosopher named Mohammed Abu Zahra said on the subject: “The dignity of the human being is forever guaranteed not because of the religion he embraces, but just because of being human…”

            The paper points to two main obstacles that prejudice the credibility of any explanation or support of human dignity found in the Koran, in view of the treatment of slaves and the position of women. Conservative circles have lately shown positive changes in their positions towards slavery, but kept their positions regarding the prevailing negative trend inclusively perceived in Koranic verses, in relation to the position of women in comparison to men.

            Fourth: Human dignity and freedom, as there are two important Koranic terms related to this matter, which are “trust” and “succession”. Here I point to an important saying by the Moroccan intellectual El Lahbabi: “We cannot consider the acquiescene of a same person has the capability of refusing this faith as irrefutable proof of faith, except if this same person has the capability of refusing this faith, which means that this believer has freedom of choice”.

            Fifth: The consequences and responsibilities of freedom. Focus in the Middle Ages was on human freedom, but the real purpose behind it was to defend the justice of God. And I can say that Muslim intellectuals have now come to focus on the idea that God wants the human being to submit to Him in a free and responsible manner, meaning with complete free will and intention.

            Sixth: Freedom and divine laws. Muslim philosophers and scholars currently strive to define the extent of the relationship between the right of a person to freedom and his religious duties, based on the fact that guaranteeing this right would be a moral order

And a free choice, which spring from the person’s feeling of the commitments, put on his shoulders and because of any outside pressures he might experience.

Seventh: The purpose behind the state imposing legal system.

There is a trend that propagates the idea that the human being is the actual representative of God in relation to applying laws, and his inner providence on earth. One of the most prominent writers who wrote about this subject is Hassan Hanafy.

            Eight: Freedom and history. All facts found in divine religious and defined behavioral patterns do not acquire their effectiveness just from being mentioned in the Koran for instance, but rather through people related to these texts, through their application to historic and social situations, and within suitable time frames. An example of this is the Rifaat Hassan Tafsir (interpretation) of the Koranic verse: “The command rests with none but God”. Therefore recognizing the permanent base of freedom in general and breaking away from religious restrictions in particular does not only require efforts efforts in the field of interpreting the Koran, but requires also that the Koran be interpreted in a manner that would take into account present restrictions, in addition to prevailing social and historic conditions within the framework of human understanding of divine religions. In this manner one can refute the reasons presented by some people to keep the stern interpretations of holy texts.

            Nevertheless, there are some important trends in interpretation (Tafsir), like the writings of the Moroccan scholar Allal El Fasy in the fifties, who was close to American and European philosophies, and even handled them in a deeper manner than traditional Muslim scholars, the writings included the following:

·         The Shariaa is not an embodiment of God’s will, but is rather

 considered “a mere way or instrument to realize the divine will, which aims to spread happiness and welfare on earth and to realize justice among members of the human race”.

·         Applying the principle of interest, as it is possible to choose

not to apply some Koranic directives, like allowing polygamy in its literal sense, if it turns out that many Muslims do not approve of it in the present time, or if applying it would drive Muslims away from their religion.

·         To open the door to new interpretations of the Shariaa, as the Koran

Includes beside divine orders and prohibitions some guidelines presented by God to be used as a general framework that could be applied under the circumstances present at the time the Koran descended, as well as at the present time, in relation to directives related to slavery and polygamy, God made it clear that in reality his true will transcends the limits clearly stated in the Koran during the time frame when the Koran descended.

            I concluded my paper with two points: the first, an invitation to deal with matters from a subjective and realistic perspective by amending the prevailing understanding linking a person’s devotion to religion to his allegiance to rulers, which means avoiding using Islam to support ideologies calling for the realization of conformity between various ideas and trends. The second, to refute the saying that Islam is the reason behind the failure of attempts to coordinate between the concept of human dignity and freedom, while the opposite is true, as Islam is capable of offering a lot of support and strength to modern ideas.

***

Second: Discussions

            *The first paper pointed to discussions that went on inside the Church, or to opinion that occurred within Islamic societies, and I hoped that some of these discussions would be reported, but unfortunately we only got the outcomes.

            I also miss the full socio-political framework of the Universal Declaration; there are still many ongoing discussions about the universal character of this Declaration. Although the participants who

Drafted the Declaration came from a wide geographic variety; the Declaration ignored the participants’ roots, ethnic and sectarian backgrounds. Therefore we might have a feeling that the Declaration universal character is rather fake. Thus it is possible to say that Islamic society in general rejects the idea of universality; there is also a feeling that it is basically a western invention. Therefore it might be better to review this universal character, as well as to review the manner in which it is refuted or attacked.

            I see that Islam considers the subject of the right of a person to change his religion as the real test. Muslim scholars have to discuss this subject in a more open and earnest manner, as many Koranic verse are interpreted in a manner that was not intended in this domain.

            I understood from the second paper that there are certain matters connected to the “theological” concepts of Muslims in relation to the subject of slaves and slavery. Slavery was acceptable in earlier times and is still considered acceptable to a certain degree in some circles, but nowadays things have changed. What happens now is when a change occurs in the way Islamic religious philosophy perceives a specific issue, the change happens without us consciously knowing why and what led to this change, because we really do not want to openly research this matter. But if we decide to stop ignoring certain matters included in religious texts and try to uncover the truth to uncover the truth about what happened, what led us to re-interpret some things from a new perspective and to relinquish earlier interpretations, we would then be able to deal with many controversial issues like sex and moral standards, in addition to the differences between men and women.

But I believe that we decided to nip the issue of slavery in the bud without attempting to show the abilities of Islamic scholars as well as Islamic Laws to face any allegations that are presented within this framework.

            There is another point closely connected to what was mentioned in this paper, when it demanded that efforts be made to remove the ideological character of faith, the question here is: under globalization

Is it possible to separate faith and religion on one side and the state and its authority on the other, when globalization minimized the abilities of states to influence?

            The question of apostasy remains a permanent problem in any gathering organized by the Vatican or any committee affiliated to the Vatican to discuss this subject from a pure religious or theological perspective. Apostasy is connected in the minds of Muslims with the dynamics of authority and power, but the situation will differ completely if we look at it from a pure religious perspective, which also applies to calls to separate religion and state. Contrary to the prevailing situation in Islamic countries, the Vatican does not ask for separation of religion and state. Here I ask if Islamic culture and civilization have now come to submit to your indomitable influences.

You strive to add a religious character on various issues, while you expect us to open our doors and our minds to you.

            Over many past years no one was beheaded for being accused of apostasy, therefore in spite of what was stated in religious texts and criticism and complaints about what happens in the Islamic world, which were based on things that have a real foundation, but I tell our brothers Catholics that among you are people who commit things that are far more fiery and extreme than some known traditional and radical Islamic practices.

            *If indeed principles and concepts are standardized among all Muslims< it would be a way to realize progress, not as religious societies, but by believing in a group of values and principles that might help realize progress for the entire human race. I spite of all tensions caused by this matter, it is not important to do define the original source from which these principles to their source.

            *There is no real international congruence in opinions about the purport of religious freedom. But we can say that there is an unwritten law to religious freedom. It is true that these matters

Are not as clear as we all like them to be, but I imagine that the real problem lies in the difference between what is written in legal texts and what is really applied.

            *I agree with Dr. Youssef about the positive changes carried by connection with the three UN documents on Freedom of Religions, I see that there are general terms and require additional explanation. In relation to the marriage of followers of different religions, some media channels credited the Pope with saying lately that he advised western Christians not to marry Muslims.

            Everybody reiterates that freedom of faith in the Islamic religion is within values and principles, Qur’anic verses in turn affirm that:

“No compulsion in religion…” and on the other hand there is one Hadith that says: “Whoever changes his religion has to be killed” which in turn is restricted by other Hadiths. This matter was connected with apostates fighting against Muslims, which required that Muslims fight them in return. This same controversy is present in the Catholic Church. In my opinion apostates are to be killed only if they become belligerent.

            *I would like to express my admiration for what Father Christian Troll said about island not being a religion that has a unilateral view, but that it is rather receptive and full of interpretations. Contrary to what some people say I believe that Islam defends women and their rights, furthermore Islam offered a system of inheritance that did not exist before. There is a contradiction between the literary reading of Islam and the open reading that discusses historical conditions, or what is known as reasons for descent.

Therefore we try to differentiate in the study between religious concepts and intentions.

            *I feel that Dr. Youssef El-Hag’s paper has a historical character, as huge changes have occurred in the Islamic world in widespread opinions and views, as well in positions towards international values related to human rights stated in the Universal Declaration. Lately the idea of the universality of human rights has

gained ground in most Islamic countries, the educated and intellectuals or even the ordinary man on the street have acquired a different conception of this matter, but it is necessary to preserve the specificity of each culture or civilization, as without the preservations of this specificity the idea of human rights universality will loose its true meanings.

            There are also two observations on Father Troll paper, the first is: that “Abu Zahra is a known Egyptian thinker and not a philosopher as the paper described him. Although Allal El Fassy is considered a political personality, he also belongs to the Maleki School of thought and is a member of a known family of religious scholars. The second, is that the paper did not mention numerous new works published by Egyptian Islamic intellectuals, after Allal El Fassy published his last book in the early fifties, Egyptian universities and Egyptian intellectual life are full of works that specifically discuss the position of women and the issue of applying the Islamic Shariaa laws in modern times.

            *First: in relation to some circles offering resistance against religious freedom, true belief by followers of any faith entails their belief in the right of others to religious freedom. But in connection with the concept of religious freedom in Islam, I believe that Islamic laws consider that there is only one true faith, there are other divine religions that Islam accepts and recognizes, but they are considered second-class religions. There are also other religions that Islam considers to be of a lesser level or fake religions, and which should disappear from societies where Islam is predominant.

            Second: in relation to the rights of slaves, Islamic laws decree that they have right to marry four women. Although this includes a kind of injustice and inequality, it was justified by a viable legal explanation.

            Third: it is obvious that Eastern societies are developing and changing in a different manner than their counterparts in the West.

Changes within Eastern Churches are slower to occur in comparison with their Western counterparts, Eastern Churches also did not manage to differentiate between religion and state, which makes it difficult to achieve great progress within Eastern societies in this aspect.

*I invite you all to read the book written by the great Azhar scholar Sheikh Abdel Metaal El Seedy, entitled “Religious Freedom in Islam”, which was published in 1995 and again in 2000. in his book the Sheikh reiterates through his study of religious texts that he does not accept the imposition of any restrictions on anyone’s beliefs, and he considers that if a person decides to change his religion he has to be dealt with as if he was not a Muslim before, but rather as a person who has full rights, and dignity has to be preserved as any other human being.

            As to slavery and human dignity, slavery is just a relic from the past; Islam accepted it as a part of the social structure that was prevalent before the appearance of Islam, but the Islamic Shariaa guaranteed the rights of slaves. Slavery in Islam differs fro the American concept of slavery. The Koran affirms that human dignity is guaranteed for every human being including slaves.

            The status of women is an issue, which is connected to all religions and not just to Islam, as women are usually badly treated, but Islamic laws sanction development and keeping up with how societies develop.

            In relation to marriage between followers of different religions, the Shariaa Council adopts the same position taken by the church, which is not to encourage such marriages in order not to establish homes where members of a family differ about religious matters.

            *The paper prepared by Father Troll claims that religious freedom is just a philosophical, historical or theological title, and mentioned what some philosophers like Hassan Hanafy and others wrote, without referring to jurisprudence books that rely on the Koran and the Sunna as sources of knowledge. But if we wish to research religious freedom and freedom of faith we essentially have to refer to these sources.

            At this junction, we find two sections of religious scholars: the

First believes that freedom is freedom of thought not freedom of faith,

Which is not unrestricted, therefore they consider apostasy a sin and whoever commits it has to be killed, this is the reason the execution of apostates was common throughout Islamic history. The second section comprises modern scholars that consider apostasy to be of two kinds: a negative apostasy that occurs in the heart only, and positive apostasy that extends to the fighting. If the apostate demonstrates his apostasy and insists on relaying blasphemy through war, he then becomes a warrior and falls under the law of warfare and of spreading mischief on earth, but if he does not do this he does not submit to the Apostasy Law.

            Sometimes mistakenly, people confuse religious freedom, meaning freedom of a human being to choose the religion he would like to embrace willingly and by choice, with freedom within a religion, meaning the freedom of a human being, once he accepts to embrace a certain religion, to perform all the duties required by this particular religion. So one can say that apostasy is connected to the first concept.

            I also believe that there is no relation, whether in Islam or in any other religion, between women’s rights and religious freedom. As women’s right are considered as freedom within the religion, and slavery or any similar issue within the framework of religious freedom, but Father Christian in his paper linked this concept to all those matters.

            *In Islam the human being has two dignities: the first because of his nature as a human being regardless of his religion, and the second through deeds, which is known as the “acquired value.

Hence we can introduce human rights within the framework of the human being’s natural value. In fact human rights mentioned in Islam are much more than the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some Islamic countries ratified the Universal Declaration with reservations on two Articles only, Article # 16 because a Muslim woman does not have the right to marry a non-Muslim, and on Article #18 related to the right of a human being to change his religion. I believe if an explanatory bill, for these two Articles, was drafted to include such reservations or conditions, all Islamic countries would ratify it. If we refer to the rules of the Islamic Shariaa, and not to the behavior or ideas of some Muslims, we would find no Islamic state applies the Apostasy Law fro this perspective.

*The first paper historic review of the development of human rights on the international scene did not mention that religion was the source of this development. The paper also says that the development of human rights in the world was the result of secular efforts, reiterating that although these principles might not represent a solid base in the absolute sense, we all have come to review religions in relations in relation to these principles, but results born out of this development do not represent absolute principles, which we have use to define if the religions we follow are capable of adapting to these principles or not, but we do not accept them as mere international principles.

            I consider the second and third papers very good. But I feel sorry they did not review the development of universal rights from a secular point of view, as the second paper did not include any discussions of the reason that enabled the Catholic Church to in to understand this point, or what invited the Church to show a bigger interest in this principle. Why did the Catholic Church understand this matter and its importance at the earlier stage, to the extent that we now expect the Islamic world to adopt the same path in this matter? Was this caused by prevailing social frameworks or by historical evolutions seen by the regions where these two religions were centered?

            Developments in European societies helped to raise the level of awareness and knowledge in these societies and in the Catholic Church itself, and it can be said that Europe was more advanced than the Islamic world in this aspect. At the time these changes were occurring in Europe, two things occurred: first the emergence of new philosophical trends, and second western colonial powers appeared in.

            While the enlightened western mind was speaking of human rights and the need to establish the principles of freedom and democracy, westerners practiced tyranny and oppression in other regions of the world, which ignited resistance against western colonialism and calls appeared to reject western civilization. New resistance forces started to appear including religious forces, which naturally could easily invite people to oppose western civilization. When these societies were liberated, Europe had surpassed them financially and intellectually, and then came the phenomenon of economic globalization, which represent a new form of colonialism.

            Eastern resistance took various forms, but mostly it would end up as religious conflicts as is the case in Palestine, where the struggle started as secular but has now become a religious conflict. This is the matter that should be researched, not apostasy and slavery in their old historical concepts, because in fact this matter leads us to confront each other.

            *the three papers were well prepared and included many ideas and questions, which invite us to apply our minds to some of the issues that we currently face, like for example lack of democracy in many countries of the world, controversial matters that generate clashes, and conflicting interpretations of the concepts of religious freedom or the issue of apostasy. These papers also discussed the status of women in some countries that deal with women in a very strict manner; the paper also explained that sometimes there is no room for modernism or for presenting innovative interpretations even in the current modern world.

            *some people asked” are you prepared to change many of your existing structures and established beliefs to the same extent you ask Muslims to change?” I believe that this is the main key to all what I would like to say today, I imagine that this would expose us based possibility of the occurrence of a misunderstanding between us based on the fact that we are two completely opposite or antagonistic camps.

            Current conditions constantly push us towards a future overshadowed by conflicts and violence although God invites us to create a better world, in which we can all live, a world where freedom prevails regardless of the religions of people living in it.

We came to find out what we can do to help each other in order to establish the world we all want, not for Muslims alone or for Christians alone but for the entire human race. Hence when we talk we should not focus on leveling accusations at each other. We have to cooperate to realize this purpose and not waste the opportunity presented to us by this conference, we have to ask ourselves what can be done in order to improve our common future.

            *First: All parties accept the idea of universality but with some reservations. Governments most Islamic UN member states expressed such reservations. Since this concept is supposed to be applied in the entire world, it should then conform with the cultural frame through which it is going to be applied in any part of the world.

            *Second: Father Troll’s paper relied on the opinions of some modern Muslim intellectuals, but his paper did not include many other important trends that appeared in the Arab and Islamic world regarding the issues of freedom, justice and human rights.

            *Third: In connection with human dignity the Prophet (Prayers and Peace be upon Him) taught us that dignity is connected to human life, and it not restricted to members of a specific religion.

*Fourth: I believed that the issue of slavery was no longer valid, as rights have been avowed in all parts of the Islamic world; we should rather talk of contemporary slavery, such as political slavery, the slavery of tyrannized workers, women slavery, when women are exploited at work and at home, as these types of slavery can be found in the entire world and not exclusively in Islamic countries.

            *Fifth: I think that if we compare the rights granted to women more than a thousand years ago by the Islamic Shariaa to the rights granted to women by other systems, would we would find the Shariaa extremely superior no to mention the entire Islamic intellect.

            *Sixth: I would have liked the paper to refer to the Koran when it spoke of freedom and justice, instead of referring to El Mootazala (theological school which introduced speculative dogmatism into Islam), and to the medieval El Ashaera, because in the Koran, Surat El Insan very clearly speaks of human freedom.

*Seventh: in relation to freedom, rights and the issue of accepting religious laws, such laws are compulsory for a believer due to his belief, theoretically if a nation accepts a certain legal system having a divine origin, men of religion should be happy even if they belong to another religion

*Eight: the idea concerning the role of people in applying the Shariaa is not basically Hassan Hanfy’s idea, but rather the wisdom of the Imam Aly Bin Abi Taleb, when faced by El Houroureya words”

The command rests with none but God…” Imam Aly answered (May God favor him) “This is a word of truth used to express a falsehood by a legist and applied by an Imam. But Hassan Hanfy’s idea is that divine revelations are a reflection of reality, which modern thinkers disapprove of. The idea of benefit attributed to Allal El Fassy can be found in all denominations and not exclusively with the Maleya, but the Malkeya came up with the concept of purports.

*Ninth: in relation to apostasy, Muslim scholars do not agree about the punishment for it, and to my knowledge no Islamic state has criminal sentences for the apostate, but rather have civil sentences for apostasy. I have also not seen any legel Fatwa calling for the execution of the apostate, but radicals or extremists carry executions without waiting for a Fatwa from anyone, we consider these executions illegal acts and do not condone them. If the Islamic system recognizes the human being’s complete freedom to choose the religion that he wishes to embrace, it is only fair that this individual should be aware that the one of the conditions of this religion is that he cannot renounce it, just as the Catholic Church imposes on the Muslim who would like to marry a Catholic to abide by the Catholic rules of marriage in relation to rejecting monogamy and divorce.

Tenth: Freedom of religion does not mean that all religions are equal, if I believe that my religion is right I am required to allow other religions to coexist, but it is not necessary that in my mind I find them all equal.

            *I have a question and a comment that I would like to direct to Dr. Youssef. First the question is related to the position of countries that have a Muslim majority, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and do Arab and non-Arab countries inhabited by the Muslim majority have different positions towards this matter? Second in relation to Islamic countries in this aspects, I consider that the exerting wide religious efforts and focus on the positions mentioned in the Koran and not in the Ahadith (Prophet’s sayings), will help achieve a greater extent of progress.

            *The word apostasy is currently shrouded in a lot of mystery, as many Muslims accuse other Muslims who have secular tendencies of being apostates, or that they went beyond the boundaries of recognized traditions without specifying what those traditions are.

What would be then the way to define the matters that the Catholics think should be restricted? What are the wider parameters of Catholic theology as with Muslim theology?

            In relation to slavery and women’s position, I consider that it is not beneficial to discuss these matters when speaking of Islamic societies, because as we all know all religious faith that advocate a unique God grew and developed within a framework of slavery and of women being in a lowly position. Although belief that slavery is contrary to human dignity has become widespread, struggle is still ongoing in relation to the position of women.

            *I noticed that when people speak of human rights no one mentions three very important Islamic documents related to this subject, the first was published in 1980 by the UNESCO under the title of “The Islamic Declaration of Human Rights” issued by the Council in 1985.

While the third is the Cairo Declaration issued in 1990 by members of the Islamic Conference. From the Islamic of view, those three documents are to a great extent similar, and do not differ from the other documents issued in this respect except in two points, which are switching religion and calling for the new concept called “The Human Being in Society”.  I think that all these points should be taken into consideration when speaking of the Islamic perception of Human Rights.

            I think also there are two main obstacles impeding this path, in all Islamic countries namely: lack of freedom and democracy under dictatorial regimes that hold the reigns of power in all Islamic countries, as in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

            *I do not know why secular values are considered the opposite of religious values, while there are many good secular values, which compliment religious values. On the other side Muslims should not live always under the saying “The West is doing this to us”, as if it Islam and the West represent two completely different worlds, which is not true. There are many Muslims living in the West, there are also a great number of those Muslims who are proud they became Western Muslims, because of the secular framework under which they now live in Western countries, and which allows them to practice their religious edicts in the manner they wish. Repeating this saying makes the Islamic world incapable of propagating his ideas and his special program, which represents a weak point against the Islamic world and not exclusively against the West.

                                                 ***

Third: Comments

Dr. Youssef Kamal El- Hag

            In answer to the question about internal discussions that take

Place within the Church’s workrooms, I must say that they are not within my circle of interest. While I estimate that talking of discussions taking place inside the Islamic societies, would lead us to very complicated issues. I would like to suggest that we discuss these subjects within another framework and not within the current one.

            I think that the change in the Church ‘s position is actually taking its away in relation to the status of Islamic minorities in western societies, it is also a very clear in pointing that the principles of reciprocal treatment should prevail, while there is a commendable response from numerous Islamic sectors.

            In relation the universality of rights’socio-political framework, I do understand that this subject is extremely important, and agree with

Dr. El Awa’s comment about the need to integrate cultural traits specific to different civilizations with the principle of the universality of rights. Early pioneers deduced the universality of human rights contained an adequate area of diversity, variety and cultural and infinitesimal hairline where balanced should be realized, in order for relativity relation to human rights to be achieved.

            Dr. Emery is right in his observation about congruence of opinions in relation to religious rights, as until today there is no agreement in relation to religious rights from the perspective of the rights social parameters. In fact we do not have until now a comprehensive agreement about those rights, only a declaration that shows the tension not only limited to the relationship between Muslims and Christians, but also among other parties within societies.

            I do not agree with Professor Minto’s observation, as from the historical point of view we can see that the philosophical contributions did not necessarily come from secular intellectuals. I would like to point here to a Lebanese thinker, Charles Malek, who played a prominent

 Role and was definitely not influenced by seculars views, especially in his suggestion about switching religion, and the right of person to declare his religion when he lives in a society embracing another religion.

            We do not approve of a person declaring his religion through teaching others, just as the Catholic Church refuses this matter. But one of the main pillars of this right is that the believer has the ability to proclaim his religion within society, as this does not in any way represent an attempt to guide other people to embrace his religion.

But using the issue of “guidance” to refuse any practices in the field of teaching religion will cause this right to be totally inoperative, because the right of person to proclaim his religion and teach it to others represent an important and major component of religious freedom.

Father Christian Troll

            The issue of slavery is a problem that can also be found in Christian religious texts; furthermore we do have a long and painful register of slavery within Western Christian history.

            If we look at the Koran in relation to the position of women, we would find wonderful Koranic verses that would teach us many a thing about complete equality and human dignity, with an affirmation of non-differentiation between men and women from the perspective of human dignity, which is guaranteed for both of them. But the problem is that, in comparison with the prevailing circumstances before the Koran descendent; the very progressive positions contained in the Koran are now wrongly constued and interpreted. Thus it has become impossible to understand the hidden spirit or the true intension behind those positions, while efforts to maintain the process of development and reform are pursued.

            Hence I see that in the current phase, Muslims have a mission, which is to reconsider some of the interpretations of the Koran, of the Ahadith and of old juristic writings. As silence should not be kept in relation to the issue of slavery or the problem of interpreting religious texts or Koranic verses that directly deal with social problems.

Dr. Silvio Ferrari

            I would like to reiterate anew that there is a connection between

The concept of religious freedom on the side, and the concept of the state authority to organize and regulate religious freedom to other.

If religious freedom represents a basic component of human nature then it should be respected even if it opposes what represents the subjective truth, or even if it hurts to others. I do not mean that the individual has to stop preaching the facts that he believes in, and I do not also mean that the individual should not condemn the things he does not approve of or sees as untrue or incorrect. But rather that the individual should not ask the state to curb the right of others to express what they see as the subjective truth.

            Religious freedom is not just an absolute value, but also a system and course. All international conventions were keen to explain that imposed restrictions were only related to the aspects of religious freedom, especially restrictions that consists of violating certain rights like public order, moral principles and the rights of others. But acts that do not harbor the violation of these rights should be allowed within the framework of an open discussion within society.

Religious freedom is always effective and positive because it always carries within its folds the wish to proliferate what we consider right and realistic to others.

Chairman of the Session 

            Religious freedom is the subject of constant discussions, and results in many effects, because if a certain person decides to review a position taken by the Church and decide not to follow its ruling in that matter, the Church itself will not allow him to do so, based on its wish to realize welfare and benefit for others.

            As to the issue of marriages between Muslims and Christians, recently the Vatican issued a document regulating this matter, which the Pope reviewed and approved for publishing. The document who belonged to other

Religions, declaring that it did not encourage or through advisable that Catholics marry non- Christian immigrants, but the ban varied depending on those people religion, there were some exceptions in special cases and in line with regulations stated in Latin Laws or in Laws of the Eastern Church.

            Pope John Paul II pointed that Ecclesiastic Synods always invite the Church to do its best to encourage marriage between people of the same faith, this being the main principle applied in this connection.

            The document points that marriages between Muslims and Christians always face difficulties, which requires intense preparations and great attention through talking to such people during the engagement period and informing them in details of the profound cultural and religious differences they have to live with. In case the marriage is registered in the consulate of the country of the Muslim partner, the catholic partner should not utter the Shihada or sign of any document that contains the Shihada. In any case the Catholic partner should obtain permission from his or her Priest prior to the marriage; otherwise the Church will not recognize the marriage.

Ecclesiastic rules force the Catholic partner before obtaining a license or permission to marry  to promise to make every possible effort to have the children born from this marriage, embrace the catholic faith, the Muslim party has to be informed of this promise without having to promise anything. The Muslim partner in the marriage has to understand and accept the Catholic concept being there is no divorce and no polygamy.

            Nevertheless, concluding such marriages is not impossible, and the claims repeated by media channels about the Catholic Church prohibiting the marriage of Catholics and Muslim is untrue, the Church only asks its parishioners to be careful in such cases.

                                                            ***