The Washington Post, in its editorial on June 12, denounced the human rights records of Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. It referred to the alleged punishment given to Raif Badawi, a blogger in Saudi Arabia, who was arrested in 2012 for his proposal that there should be an open debate about “interpretations of Islam”. Badawi was reportedly tried in a court and convicted. He was given 50 lashes in January but the remainder were postponed after international opprobrium. The Washington Post described the incident as another travesty of human rights and condemned the Head of the Human Rights Council and the US Ambassador for not raising the issue in the meeting of the Organisation for Islamic Conferences held in Jeddah, early this month.
Human rights is a vast topic that encompasses all aspects of human life in a civilised society. It includes fundamental political, economic, social and religious rights including the rights of women and children. All people, regardless of their colour, race, origin or faith, are entitled to food, shelter, healthcare, employment and freedom of expression. No one can legitimately deny or even impose a limit on these freedoms. In the case of the state, there is a Constitution that further defines the spectrum of human rights, which people are supposed to have unfettered access to. Since people of different religious beliefs, cultural and tribal orientations coexist, the government expects responsibility from its citizens, so that the expression of opinions and religious and cultural practices do not hurt people of a different faith or value system. Drawing this limit is a litmus test for the government. People in western countries do not, however, subscribe to a threshold and believe that the sky should be the limit for freedom of expression.
In India, until recently, communal riots used to break out on the slaughter of cows. The Hindu community believes that cows are sacred and cannot be slaughtered, while the Muslims prefer to slaughter cows on certain festivals. How do you reconcile the cow lovers and the beef lovers? People have inalienable rights to protect cows as part of their religious beliefs and the beef lovers also have the right to slaughter cows, at least on religious festivals. Both communities are within their rights in protecting and slaughtering cows. In such circumstances, the government cannot be expected to remain a bystander while people are killed and properties destroyed. The government should step in, allowing the slaughter of cows in certain localities and prohibit it elsewhere. One can argue, in both instances, that human rights have been denied but such steps are necessary to avoid a catastrophe.
In his book, The Discovery of India, Pundit Nehru narrated how the clashes between the religious practices of Hindus and Muslims have led to violence. Tensions could have been reduced with a degree of restraint and understanding, allowing both communities to peacefully observe their respective religious rituals and the rights of both communities would have remained undented. The Bharatiya Janata Party government has now banned the trading of cows to neighbouring countries, where cows are regularly slaughtered. The cow traders on both sides of the Indian border have been adversely affected. They can remonstrate because their commercial rights have been sacrificed. I am curious about how the Supreme Court would react if a writ petition is submitted by the traders’ community in India. In 1985, a writ petition was submitted at the Calcutta High Court, pointing out that several verses of the Quran condemned Kaafir (infidels), which was repugnant to secularism. Therefore, the petitioners demanded that the court outlaw the recitation of the Quran and confiscate its copies. The High Court granted the writ. However, the west Bengal government feared that the court’s judgment had the potential to exasperate one of the major communities in the country and suggested that the petition be quashed. The High Court dismissed the petition.
When a Pastor in Florida began burning copies of the Quran two years ago, General Petraeus, the commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, warned that this would put the American troops in Afghanistan at great risk. The pastor gave in to the pressure. Human Rights are very important, but sometimes they have to take the backseat when the peace and tranquillity of society may be threatened. In the US, a large number of people legally own guns. These guns often fall into the wrong hands and people are killed in schools, Churches and shopping malls. The antidote lies in granting gun licenses to select individuals, following rigorous scrutiny. The right to possess guns is not absolute.
Badawi has not elaborated what interpretations he was expecting from the debate on Islam. To the Muslims, all interpretations of Islam have appeared in the Quran and Sunnah, which need no revision or adjustment. In case of Islamic jurisprudence, many Muslim countries have navigated Sharia law by adopting British laws, with the condition that any law passed by their Parliaments will be voided if it contradicts the Quran and Sunnah. Consequently, polygamy is hardly practiced in Muslim countries. Wrongdoers are tried and punished in different ways but beheading, stoning to death and lashing have been virtually discarded, except for in a few countries, such as Saudi Arabia.
On the question of human rights, Muslims have chosen a different course: they will uphold the fundamentals of Islam above any discourse. It is their belief that Islam is absolute and neither its basics nor the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) should be subject to debate. Our western friends cannot see eye to eye on this. To them, human rights takes precedence over religious convictions. Therefore, there should be no limit on debates, discussions, writing or painting, even if they mock religion. It should be noted that Abraham, Jacob, Josef, Moses, Jesus and Miriam, revered in Christianity and Judaism, are also highly revered in Islam and that Muslims disapprove of disparaging remarks about them.
Since 1.6 billion Muslims, roughly 25 percent of the world’s population believe in certain practices, does it not fall under the territory of human rights to respect their beliefs? The Human Rights Council would do a great service to its member states, their populations and, by extension, to world peace if it bans the Quran, Bible and other holy books, along with the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), Moses, Jesus, Buddha and other prophets, from public discourse. This might appear to be an absurd proposition but sometimes beneficial outcomes emerge from absurdity. In today’s polarised world, marked by the resurgence of extremism and decline of tolerance, the advocates of human rights should not lose sight of the profound hatred generated by pointless debates on religion. There are overriding issues that call for our immediate attention.
The writer is a former official of the United Nations