Democratic Nations Should Stop Supporting Regimes That Do Not Allow Freedom of Expression: Sultan Shahin Tells The UNHRC in Geneva During Its June 2024 Session

By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam 27 June 2024 Mr. President, Suppression of Freedom of Expression and curbing dissenting opinions is one of the factors leading to Islamist radicalisation and terrorism. Hardly any Muslim country allows its people to freely express their views. Religious dogma has also taken hold in these societies due to lack of free debates. For instance, some countries like Pakistan have anti-Blasphemy laws with stringent punishments to the alleged blasphemer. The dogma is that there is a consensus of ulema that blasphemers of Islam, Quran and Prophet Mohammad should be put to death. This is not true. Only a few scholars take such a hard line. But lack of debate allows this hard-line dogma to become the accepted truth. There is also a consensus of Islamic scholars that ordinary citizens cannot take the law into their hands, and only judiciary can order any punishments. But a lack of debate in Islamic societies ensures that this fact does not reach the common Muslims. Mr. President, Most people involved in anti-Blasphemy violence, in Pakistan, for instance, get their ideas from the Islamic scholars’ ill-informed speeches. But reformist Muslims who try to question these violent ideas face threats. It’s time democratic nations stop supporting states that curb free speech and are intolerant of dissenting opinions. ----- In order to accommodate as many ECOSOC Status NGO delegates as possible each delegate is only allowed to speak for 90 seconds in that forum, however I would like to elaborate for New Age Islam readers. We can hardly blame present day Muslim societies for a lack of free debate. Apart from the time of Khulafa-e-Rashidin, there has never been a Muslim state that allowed freedom of expression. Not only has just political freedom been clamped down upon, even religious views could never be debated freely. One can hardly think of even one great jurist in Islamic history who was not persecuted, tortured and whipped for his theological opinion throughout the millennium and a half history of Islam. The most tragic part of this history is the period between 825 CE and 841 CE, when the so-called rationalist theologians, the Mutazila, were supported by the Caliphs and in a sense enjoyed political power. The then Caliphs supported their theology. But these brilliant and visionary rationalist ulema too persecuted severely those who disagreed with them, the traditionalist Ahl-e-Sunna and the Ash’aris. Even a great jurist of the stature of Imam Hanbal was flogged repeatedly. It was only when the new Caliph al-Muntassar realised the popularity of Iman Hanbal that he was released and allowed to function freely. Then, however, ahl-e-Sunnat began the persecution of the Mutazila, which continued for centuries. This persecution was so severe that we hardly find any Mutazila literature of those times. We know of Mutazila views only from the quotations used in their refutation by Ahl e Sunnat theologians. The history of persecution of dissenting views is long and easily available on the internet. I will not, therefore, go into details, but mention only a few scholars who suffered enormously and some who are still suffering: Ibn al-Rawandi (827-911), Al-Mansur al-Hallaj (858-922), Al-Ma'arri (973-1057), Averroes (Ibn Rushd) (1126-1198), Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), Abdullah al-Qasimi (1907-1996), Nawal El Saadawi (1931-2021), Nasr Abu Zayd (1943-2010), Mohammed Arkoun (1928 - 2010). Still suffering persecution in Saudi prisons are Raif Badawi and his sister Samar Badawi for their call to reform and freedom of speech as well as freedom of movement for women. Information on internet: Raif Badawi: A Saudi writer and activist, Raif Badawi, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for "insulting Islam through electronic channels." His blog, "Free Saudi Liberals," advocated for secularism and freedom of speech, which clashed with Wahhabi principles. Samar Badawi: An activist for women's rights and the sister of Raif Badawi, Samar has been arrested multiple times for her advocacy, including her fight against the male guardianship system. While women in Saudi Arabia have gained a measure of freedom of movement without a male escort, and there is now a general atmosphere of freedom in some respects, freedom of expression is still very much restricted. As for the state of freedom of expression in Afghanistan, the less said the better. The second Taliban regime is as oppressive as the first one, but the world community is gradually coming to terms with them. Indeed, the world community doesn’t seem to have any problem in dealing with oppressive regimes as long as they are useful. Apart from the international community, a big responsibility also devolves on Muslim ulema to propagate through whatever pulpit is available to them these two facts I mentioned in my speech in the interactive dialogue at UNHRC. 1. The Quran doesn’t ask common Muslims to punish blasphemy or apostasy in any way. These punishments are later innovations of some ulema. There is no unanimity of ulema on this. 2. All punishments in any civilised society are to be prescribed by the State or Judiciary. Crimes should never be punished by common Muslims without any authority. I sometimes imagine meeting Mohammad Riyaz Ansari and Ghous Mohammad, the two terrorists who beheaded Kanhaiya Lal Teli, an Udaipur tailor, for supporting a BJP leader’s blasphemous statement against Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). I imagine meeting them before the slaughter. If they told me they were going to avenge on video the denigration of the Prophet by killing one of the thousands of supporters of that lady, the original blasphemer. I would tell them this is wrong. No one can take an innocent person’s life. Even if he has done some wrong, he is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and even then, it would be for the state to punish him. Now these two are not only headed for a death row themselves but are going to hurt the peaceful image of the Indian Muslim community, which will henceforth be considered as extremist as its Pakistani counterpart. The difference between Indian and Pakistani Muslim communities will be erased. Indian Muslim community has drawn a lot of praise worldwide for the patience and stoicism with which they have faced provocations for years, and have thus protected their life and limb, as well as the image of Indian Isam. But the impact of years of patience will vanish as soon as the video of the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal Teli by two bearded, religious looking Muslims goes viral. Now, I would naturally want to dissuade them from this dastardly, inhuman, un-Islamic, anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim, anti-national act. But what would I tell them? Ansari is a welder's son. Ghous must belong to a similar background. They may have studied in madrasas, either Barailvi, Deobandi or ahl-e-Hadith. They must be familiar with classical Islamic theology, which calls for beheading blasphemers, apostates, and even Muslims who deviate even slightly from the views of the founder of their Maslak (sect). They may have read at a young age a book called Islami Akhlaq o Aadaab, prescribed for 10/12-year-old boys says in a separate exhortation, apropos nothing, without any context: "When you go out to kill Mushrikeen, make sure you kill them before they are able to kill you. But even if you get killed before killing them, according to some ulema, you have served a good purpose, as this will inspire others to kill Mushrikeen." (I have put the above in quotes, but this is actually a summary and gist of the para, from my memory.) This same para and the same exhortation is elaborated at great length in probably 10 such paras in Bahar-e-Shariat, taught to students of Aalimiat at the age of 16/17. Now how will I talk to Ansari and Ghouse, who may have gone through such incendiary education. What will I tell them, knowing that this is a life and death matter not only for these idiots who are going to turn into terrorists soon, but also for our community. I will naturally bring all my persuasive capacity to the fore, marshal arguments from all my learning of Islamic theology, and present it in a language they can understand. But will that wipe away what they have learnt in seminaries or heard during Friday Khutbas (sermons) in mosques? Similarly, if I came face to face with "Islamist" mobs that ran riots in the Jharkhand capital of Ranchi, resorting to stone-pelting, arson, and vandalism, on the same issue of Blasphemy, before they had gone on a rampage, and thought I should try and stop them, what sermon would I give them. I know their mindset. They have all gone through traditional Islamic theological education, either directly through madrasa education, or Juma Khutbas (Friday sermons) in mosques, or indirectly through books on the internet. What sermon will I give them, if I had an opportunity, knowing that soon some of them will either be dead or in prison, bringing the entire community into disrepute. I doubt if any arguments, however learned and persuasive, can douse the flames of an inflamed sentiment. The time to work on this is now when there are no issues of blasphemy or apostasy agitating common Muslims. And while thinking, rational Muslims have a role, the heavy load has to be borne by the ulema. They have to first educate themselves properly in accordance with the norms of a modern civilised society. Then pass on the new learning to common Muslims, so that when the occasion arises, they remain cool and calm. Ulema should understand that today’s world discusses and debates all aspects of religion. People discuss their own religions, and threadbare. No holds barred. Movies are made about Hazrat Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) that a Muslim may consider blasphemous. They may be right or wrong in this characterisation. But nothing should be done. Violent repercussions are entirely impermissible, both by Islamic as well as State law. Similarly, the world is bound to discuss and debate various aspects of Islam. We Muslims can contribute to that debate by accepting or refuting some points. But we cannot go beyond that. Our Ulema have to at least start debating these issues among themselves. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-human-rights/democratic-nations-freedom-expression-unhrc-geneva-2024/d/132586 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism