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.
The paper reviews the historical background
and disputes that accompanied the right to religious
freedom, especially in relation to the right of a person
to change his religion. It is noticeable that Islamic
countries that participated in these debates did not
agree among themselves on the issue of a person’s right
to change his religious beliefs, best on the fact that
this right is closely connected to human dignity. The
paper also reviews some of the other rights connected to
the right of religious freedom, like marriage and
education. The paper also discusses the 1981
Declaration, as the first Human Rights instrument that
dealt clearly and definitely with the right of religious
freedom.
*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
third includes people who specialized in
religious philosophy, Islamic
*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.
***
|