![The Economist explains](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20150114044717im_/http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/50_by_50/images/2014/12/blogs/economist-explains/20150103_woc626.png)
The Economist explains: How marriage makes people healthier
The Economist explains
CAN classical Islam be reconciled with freedom of expression as a modern, liberal-minded person would understand the term? It is not merely Wednesday's horrible events in Paris which make that question urgent. In Saudi Arabia today, a liberal blogger, Raif Badawi, received the first 50 of the 1,000 lashes to which he has been condemned (along with a 10-year prison sentence) because of the allegedly impious contents of a website he founded. And in Pakistan, where the judiciary and the lynch mob take turns to persecute people on ever-crazier blasphemy charges, a man accused of that offence, and then deemed mentally unstable, was killed by fanatics soon after being released from jail.
Let's consult an authority who is considered moderate in the spectrum of traditional Islam, Mohammad Hashim Kamali, an Afghan-born, British-trained law professor who now heads an institute of Islamic studies in Malaysia. His copious writings on the matter are adamant that Islam does allow, indeed insist on, freedom of religious choice, and on diversity of opinion about many matters. He has written approvingly of cases in Malaysia where apostasy (leaving Islam) was allowed, although recently Malaysian courts have taken a harsher line.
But as the professor presents things, there are clear limits to free speech. As he describes it, early Islamic lore (whose precedents can't be ignored) is overwhelmingly concerned with the avoidance of fitna, a term that can mean many undesirable things from sedition to confusion to war or anarchy; Islam deplores (though you can argue about how severely it seeks to punish) any kind of speech that leads to or in itself amounts to fitna. And in early Islamic polities, sedition and heresy were almost indistinguishable. If you tried to overthrow a caliph who was carrying out the will of God, that was impiety as well as treason; and if you poisoned the well of religious truth, you were undermining the political community as well as the faith. On a broader note, the professor writes:
The right to criticise government leaders and express an opinion, critical or otherwise, in public affairs...is the right of every citizen, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. However...in matters that pertain to the dogma of Islam, criticism either from Muslims or non-Muslims will not be entertained, as personal or private opinion does not command authority in such matters.
That sounds alarming to a modern libertarian ear. On the other hand, the holder of such beliefs isn't necessarily asking the state to enforce them, let alone enforce them brutally. For a devout Roman Catholic, it is equally the case that "personal or private opinion does not command authority" in fundamental matters of doctrine, but today's Catholics don't usually expect the state to punish those who challenge those core doctrines. Even Professor Kamali acknowledges the need to change with the times: in some cases "the formulations of established schools of (Islamic) law...may not serve the needs of harmony and cohesion and multi-religious societies of our time."
Perhaps the best hope is that the lived experience of Muslims who are citizens of Western countries will evolve faster than these complex theoretical constructs. Consider the tweet which many articulate Muslims have been exchanging since yesterday, in tribute to the policeman who died in the Paris attack: "I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so." Consciously or unconsciously this was written in imitation of another Parisian, Voltaire, and his apocryphal declaration that "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it..." Personally I find Ahmed's posthumous message, issued by his co-religionists, more moving than the French philosopher's famous line, which at best was a summary of his thinking, by a biographer, rather than anything he actually said.
This blog, named after the Dutch Renaissance humanist and scholar, considers the intersections between religion and public policy
Advertisement
The Economist explains: How marriage makes people healthier
The Economist explains
Free speech and public signage: Signs, signs, everywhere a sign
Democracy in America
Egypt's judicial politics: From Pharaoh to Phoenix
Middle East and Africa
Babbage: January 13th 2015: Online games
Science and technology
Fuel surcharges: A fuel and his money
Gulliver
Anti-poverty programmes: Helping the poorest of the poor
International
Graphic detail
Advertisement
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Great to see the large number of scholarly comments published by erudite men (most of them) of learning here. Being relatively unsophisticated, compared to these intellectual giants, I would be in their debt if they could, if not too burdensome, deign to add the evidence, surely collected over years of study and research and not picked up from suspect websites catering to their confirmation bias, supporting their contentions rather then just stating them?
1,400 + Years ago when Islam was born in Saudi Arabia. All non believers converted to Islam to accept one GOD. Pray to one GOD. Prophet Mohammed PBUH spread Islam all over the region in the shadow of sword. The holy book Quran which is written in Arabic language - many of my family members including my self have read Quran without knowing what is in it.
There are many translations none of which can be authenticated that if in fact the translated words mean what it says.
More and More radical Muslims who follow and learn from someone who has very little knowledge but profess to be the authority on the religion and the most amusing this is that no one can challenge those views.
What happened in Paris, New York, Bombay, Bali and many other places where terror was felt unfortunate many lives were lost.
We must stand against all terrorist activities. No Terrorist can claim to be Muslim and Terrorist. Either you are Muslim or you are Terrorist.
WE ALL NEED TO PROTEST AGAINST TERROR AND TERRORISTS not the faith they claim to have. There are many innocent Muslims who should not be punished because of it.
When one man or a woman is killed by a terrorist. It don't matter which religion, faith you belong to one common thing in all is that A human life is lost.
Life is precious: Give respect and get Respect. Don't insult any once feelings in the name of FREEDOME OF SPEACH
What you really want to say is the very last sentence.
Tell me one thing: why other religions, including Christianity, have almost never resorted to violence/killing civilians to avenge any "insult" on their Gods? For example, Jesus has been a common theme in many parodies in the west; have you heard any bloody revenge against it?
To Christians, It's a blasphemy. But it is a relationship between God and the man who commits it---God will judge it on the day, NOT other man.
'Consider the tweet which many articulate Muslims have been exchanging since yesterday, in tribute to the policeman who died in the Paris attack: "I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so." '
If this is true, then there is still hope for Muslims in France. I wonder whether Al'lah sent this policeman to Paradise, or the dead terrorists.....
The West should not compromise its liberties to please a political reconciliation between reason and faith. The break through Enlightenment was already two hundred years ago and our fight against superstition was long , bloody and claimed numerous victims. Now to backslide from the most important principles, that brought success to the civilization would be a grave mistake, if not a suicide.
The answer is clear to anyone who has read Voltaire and the Koran: NO! If you have not read them, I suggest you do so.
If one wants to put an end to the spread of a certain belief system, simply require students in high school to read the Koran and hold free discussions about what they have read. No need to provide any propaganda. No need to add anything to it. Just encourage the students to compare what they have read with what they already know.
When compared to modern humanistic values, the Koran will lose every time. Once "inoculated," the students can then continue with their regular studies.
Islam has culled Liberalism.
Can anyone own up to being a liberal any more?
And that is sad. very sad. our balance is gone forever.
Why don't we just face this sad truth that islam is barbaric in the first place and makes its followers fanatics who are too intransigent to listen to reason?
The sad truth is that most people have not read the Koran and are ignorant of its content. If people read the book, then what you suggest would be a reasonable goal.
The tyranny found in the Muslim world from Pakistan to the Near East is due to the hierarchy in place that of Pharaoh, The Cairo Conference: ISIS mother of Pharaohs. This is where the revolution is at that which made the French: the position of Maryamn by her purity (non-usury) chosen over all the women of the world. All the world made war on Mary her sword Most Gracious (Allah): her Battle to sit her House her Warship in the City of Peace; Jerusalem. It is a showdown of power between Alazhar and one woman sitting her House: called Satan, a Hindu and a Christian as well as rebellious. But when her Lord demolished Alazhar stymied the police the Egypt Army:Pharaohs Egypt: her servant comes running to her after plotting her life you are the best you are the best. There is no Athan being read that means when you cannot hear Athan it is war. It is all about the House of one woman. UN founded on the dispute of who would care for Maryamn. Egypt "the mother of the world" does not believe in the sings sent to Maryamn. Because that means women rule their House. And men must work outside and pray outside. And that is anathema (curse) to the Arabs and Muslims living in hypocrisy: subjugating the Noble (women): Maryamn. Bismillah
Mohammad Hashim Kamali lives in a country that's proven Islam kills constitutions as well as people. Malaysia's secular constitution guarantees its citizens freedom of religion. Lina Joy's appeal to the highest court in the land to enforce that right was dismissed after 9 years in court with this clarification that the Malaysian secular constitution can be trumped by the Islamic court:
"a person who wanted to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practices of the particular religion. Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity.... In other words, a person cannot, at one's whims and fancies renounce or embrace a religion."
Voltaire could not be an Indian. Islam and issues related to it are "No Go" areas in India's print and visual media. Gutless cowards in charge of the Indian media, including Bolleewood, dare not say or even suggest anything amounting to a caricature or mild criticism of Islam. Instead, they would focus on Hinduism and Hindu issues ad nauseum.
That is coming to Europe as well. Islamic terror, I feel, is working there too. The Danes, the French and the Germans would gradually choose to be discreet (and be discrete about it too).
All that points to: No, there will NOT be a Voltaire in the Islamic world.
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is this: Christianity states that God died for you, while in Islam you die for your god.
God couldn't be dead. if it happened , you peoples just worshiping the corps. but it could'nt be happened. Jesus , me & You are slaves & servant of God. All are Creation except 1 Creator. The Message of Jesus salallahu'alaihi wasallam & Muhammad salallahu'alaihi wasallam is 1 Absolute Creator & others is Creation.
The fundamental flaw in this analysis is the implicit assumption that the State is not itself theocratic; if Islam's objective is indeed the establishment of the Caliphate, your analysis is hollow, providing grounds for a rather ghastly "optimism" only so long as those aims are not achieved
By the way, Voltaire has written a dramatic work called "Mahomet ou le fanatisme" where Mahomet is depicted as a brutish dictator. To keep this in balance he wrote also in "Traité sur la tolérance" a short story depicting a tuggish Jesuit. Chalie Hebdo pales in comparison.
Reedited in France by Le Temps singulier
Islam has two fundamental problems with modernity, meaning with societies sharing the same democratic, liberal, visions of relations between people and people with the state :
1. The Koran is God's speech. It should be read in arabic, and the Hadith are just comments by scholars at the time of the prophets which in no way supersed the Koran. By difference the Gospels have been chosen around the IV° century to illustrate Jesus' teaching. Only some christian sects give a litteral value to the Bible or the Gospels.
2. In Islam there is no difference between the state (the institution which has the monopoly of force) and the community of the believers (the Umma). In Christianity, from the beginning, there was "Gives to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and to God what belongs to God". Even in the dark ages the punishments were done by the state (the Church gave the verdict in religious matters).
These are not small issues for Islam, and actually most, if not all, attempts to change that have been the result or the cause of schisms and violent struggles, without genuine solution.
3. The contradictions between the mythical Mohammed, held up as the ideal model for Muslims, and the historical Mohammed, a brutal conqueror, and a man of many unsavory habits. Fortunately(?), Christianity has no historical Jesus to contend with. A reformation of Islam requires a recognition of this contradiction.
It is impossible - in practice as well as in theory.
Please get a clue Economist magazine. Stop pretending that one can have free speech and Islam, as long as one has some "liberal" dog and pony show.
Your policy of an open door to immigration from the lands of Islam to Europe has led to terrible things in many European countries - and it will lead to vastly worse things in future.
Eventually even you, the Oxbridge elite in your bubble of privilege, will suffer and suffer terribly because of the open door immigration polices that you have supported - and, alas, your families will also suffer terribly.
By all means the gates of the city should be open to friends - but to open them to foes (to forces that have been the enemies of the West for more than a thousand years) is folly. And a terrible price is going to be paid for this folly.
Religions are 2000 years old;
Humans are 200,000 years old;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
This is 2015 years after the birth of Christ. Before Christ were Jews. Before Jews were Pagans. Religion in general is well over 2000 years old. Religion, Gods, mythologies are man's attempts at understanding/explaining that which they don't understand and have been around so much longer than the 2k + years of Abrahamic religions.
Religion is an intrinsic part of every culture. Religions can be identified as part of paleolithic cultures. Organized religion began as a part of the establishment of organized society, 10,000 years ago.
What do you expect from a religion that has a line like this written in its holy scripture ? "Kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing... " (Quran 2 : 191)
when you take it out of context... The previous entry , (2:190) is regards to (the polite version) "self-defense or being attacked" or (the not-so polite version) war. and if continue through 2:192 ,"then if they cease, then indeed, as Allah is forgiving and merciful", attacker stops, u stop too.
Also, it is very important to remember the arabs in the dark ages/pre-islamic times were barbaric and sadistic. so the early interpretations are violent. modern translation go with more peaceful ones but a lot of arabs today uphold the old translation, because arabs. :)
Seem to me like quite a few Arabs are sticking to those "early interpretations".
What a freedom of speech here, ***conditions applied.
Christianity should be constantly reminded of their failures to promote peace and harmony since 300 C.E. It's only in the past few decades that Christianity has entered its age of enlightenment. But one should never forget the abuses of Christians in the Holocaust, colonial and imperialism centuries, Native American genocides, Inquisition, Crusades, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
But Bible doesn't support all this madness---man did this against Bible/God's will.
While Koran DOES FULLY encourage/support Jihad--man did this to conform to its core teaching---which is REAL madness.
See the major difference? It is totally vain to defend Islam in this regard.
The bible has lots of violence in it. It is actually quite similar to the Koran in this regard. Read it and you will see! It says that adulterers should be stoned to death, and not only that. The Bible also told Israelites to annihilate the Philistines, and so on...
Jihad is a term that has been thrown around quite loosely in recent years. The Qu'ran promotes Jihad as an internal struggle and peaceful protest against oppressing forces. Only when peaceful methods fail does the Qu'ran support "Jihad by the sword" which is the same principle that led to the American Revolution
This kind of relativism is misplaced.
The bible has some violent tales in it. In the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christ tells his followers that his greatest commandment is "Love they neighbour as you love yourself."
Have Christians committed violent acts? Most certainly. But there's no justification from the founder of their faith providing theological backing for their actions. On the contrary, phrases like "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." have slowly allowed for the secularization of Christian Europe.
No such hope with Islam and the Middle East, where their Prophet directly committed slaughter. And now extremists around the world as using his life as exemplar and justification for violence.
The arbitrary nature of religious doctrine and dogma is most obstructive in un-evolved religions where tabus and punishments are most prevalent. It is beholden upon practisers of any exclusive religion to ignore all practices of other faiths, but not to condemn them or to punish them. This is the principle of co-existence which has pragmatically been proved to reinforce the development of communities. The intolerance of other faiths and their practices is destructive to socialised behaviour and results in war.