LESSON 33
RELIGIOUS LIBERTYAny move towards dialogue has to begin by verifying the existence of religious liberty. Religious liberty does not mean that people are free before God to accept or reject his revelation, but freedom from human coercion. Jesus himself denounced the unbelief of his listeners but left vengeance to God until the day of judgment (Mt 11:20-24; Rm 12:19-20; 2 Th 1:8). His kingdom does not make its claims by blows (Mt 26:51-53; Jn 18:36). The apostles likewise despised "all worldly weapons" (2 Cor 10:4; 1 Th 5:8-9).
The Fathers of the Church in the first three centuries, in spite of persecutions, had prayers said for the emperor and praised rulers who showed any tolerance. Yet once the Church achieved liberty, the Fathers at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople took imperial enforcement of orthodoxy for granted. The Church in the Middle Ages was tolerant, but not completely so: Non-Christians were never to be compelled to accept the faith, nor their small children baptized against their parents' wishes. Yet, "if they are able, Christians should compel unbelievers not to obstruct the faith by blasphemy, wicked propaganda or open persecution". Apostates, after a first and a second warning, were to be excommunicated and handed over to the secular authority for execution. Jewish rites were tolerated because they manifest some truth. Other religions had no right of worship, but could be tolerated if repression might cause greater evil and disturbance.
The Protestant Reformation demanded that the people follow the religion of their rulers. Exhausted by religious wars, Europe at last turned towards the idea of a secular state. Even so, such states were often anti-religious, and continued to persecute Catholics and dissident Protestant dissident sects. The popes in the 19th century came to accept in practice religious liberty for all, but never got around to revising medieval theory.
Catholic theologians wrestled with the theory of religious liberty throughout the 20th century. Their thinking was mature in time for the Second Vatican Council, and was enshrined in the Declaration on Religion Liberty of 7 December 1965. This document reflects a consensus not only among Catholics, but also Protestants and most others in the world outside Islam. It insists especially that:
- Compulsion may never be used to make people profess or repudiate any religion or to prevent them from joining or leaving a religious body, even if they fail honestly to seek the truth, a) because truth can impose itself only in virtue of its own authority freely sought and accepted, b) because God's law is mediated to each individual through his conscience, c) because civil authority is a human institution concerned with the common good of society, whereas judging the truth of revelation and man's acceptance of it are beyond its competency.
- Religious freedom includes the right to organize in community for worship and religious instruction.
- Religious freedom should be given the fullest possible recognition and be curtailed only when and in so far as its necessary.
Islamic tradition on the life of Muhammad shows that he envisaged a community governed by revealed law, a single party state ruled by the Muslim party alone, which was "the party of God". Those who opposed this were "enemies of God". Jews and others who did not contest the supremacy of the Islamic party and remained quietly in the background were tolerated.
The fundamental Qur'ân verse is "There is to be no compulsion in religion" (2:256; cf. 2:62, 5:82). A major hostile passage is 9:1-35, which was about banning future pagan participation in the pilgrimage to Mecca. But note verse 29: "Fight those recipients of Scripture who do not believe in God or the Last Day, who do not consider inviolate what God and his Messenger have declared inviolate, and who do not practice the true religion, until they pay the jizya by hand in a state of humiliation." A similar passage is 5:51: "Believers, do not take Jews or Christians as allies. They are allies to one another. Any one of you who makes an alliance with them is one of them" (See also 3:28,118). On the other hand, "God does not forbid you from being just and equitable towards those who did not fight against your religion and did not drive you from your homes... God only forbids you from making alliances with those who fought against your religion, drove you from your homes or helped in this action" (60:8-9).
All these passages are circumstantial, referring to particular incidents, individuals or groups of people with whom Muhammad had to deal. Do these passages apply only to these people or should they be generalized to apply to all Jews and Christians everywhere up to this day? Muslim interpretation is not uniform. Another problem comes from the teaching of abrogation; that is, in case of conflict, the verse revealed latest cancels the legal force of the early verse. The later verses are usually the more severe.
Among classical commentators on the verse, "There is to be no compulsion in religion" (2:256), az-Zamakhsharî (d. 1143) and al-Baydâwî (d. 1316) comment that its universal meaning is abrogated by the verse, "Prophet, fight the unbelievers and the Hypocrites and deal with them severely" (9:73), but its particular application to the People of Scripture (Christians and Jews) remains valid. In recent times, Sayyid Qutb wrote a commentary on the Qur'ân while he was in prison in Egypt before being executed in 1966. Regarding Christians and Jews, he maintained that the verse "There is to be no compulsion in religion" and similar verses are abrogated, since these people have violated their pact with God and gone back to polytheism. This idea is promoted by the Izala society in Nigeria.
Completely opposite in thinking is the Tunisian historian, Muhammad Talbi: "It is above all important to bring out clearly that the Qur'ân verses which incite to war have an essentially circumstantial application, connected with specific contingencies which today, we would hope, are definitely something of the past." He rejects the idea of a geographical Islamic world. Muslims must continue to be involved in politics and society, but in partnership with others of different faiths, or even of no professed faith, provided they are willing to cooperate for the betterment of the world.
In olden times disloyalty to the state religion was the mark of a traitor to the state. But today pluralism is a universal fact. Even in solidly Muslim countries, Talbi notes, there are growing numbers of people who are Muslim by culture but personally agnostic or not committed to Islam. The Qur'ân verse "There should be no compulsion in religion" (2:256), for Talbi, is a valid universal statement. Also still valid are the words to Muhammad, "Admonish, for you are only an admonisher. You have no authority to compel them" (Q. 88:21-22). If "no one bears the weight of another" (Q. 6:164), then everyone must freely choose his own way. Not to respect religious freedom is to take the place of God, and is the sin of shirk.
On non-Muslims, Talbi says that medieval Islamic theology and law gave them toleration and protection but was also discriminatory and sometimes oppressive. "Modern Muslim theologians must denounce loudly all kinds of discrimination as crimes strictly and explicitly condemned by the Qur'ân's basic teaching."
On the law that an apostate from Islam must be put to death, he says there is no Qur'ânic basis for it, and the adîth authorizing it is not authentic. The Qur'ân, he observes, argues that Muslims should remain faithful to their religion; it warns them of God's punishment in the hereafter if they are not faithful, but it specifies no fixed penalty for it. On the contrary, Muslims are urged to "forgive and overlook until God accomplishes his purpose, for God has power over all things" (Q. 2:109). Muslims may take up arms only in self-defence.
Who is the correct, Qutb or Talbi? Both argue from the Qur'ân, Hadîth and legal and theological tradition. What is needed is a new consensus. From 1970 to 1981 a series of Muslim international meetings issued declarations assuring "religious freedom" for all. Discrimination on the basis of religion is not allowed. Nevertheless a Muslim woman still may not marry a non-Muslim. Muslims have the right and duty to proclaim Islam throughout the world, but other groups must confine their expression of thought to what agrees with Islam. Moreover a Muslim is not free to change his religion. Muhammad Charfi, a Tunisian lawyer, blames such restrictions on the "official Islam" taught by theological faculties. More important than revising the laws, he says, is revising the programme of religious instruction.
QUESTIONS
- Survey the history of religious freedom in Christian thought.
- Discuss the principles of religious freedom propounded by Vatican II.
- Discuss the ambiguity of religious freedom in early Islam.
- Contrast traditional Islamic positions with that of Muammad Talbi.
«—Back West Africa and Islam Lesson 34—»