Thursday, April 20, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version
COMMENT:
Human rights and conversion — Ijaz Hussain
Gamal al Banna suggests that the reason for the bigoted view on apostasy is political. He thinks that the classical interpretation was formulated at a time of state building when conformity and social cohesion were deemed more important than personal freedom. Given the demands of the contemporary world where human rights occupy centre stage, he thinks that the interpretation is obsolete
Other Muslim jurists, whose interpretation of history of the issue is different from that of Sachedina, too, have tried to establish a liberal paradigm. Prof Abdelmouti Bayoumi of the Islamic Research Academy of Cairo believes, for example, that the hadith on which the punishment for apostasy is based is circumscribed by another hadith according to which changing one’s religion alone is not a sufficient cause for capital punishment. In his opinion, to be liable for trial and execution the apostate has also to be found working against the interests of the Muslim society or nation.
Gamal al Banna, an Islamic thinker and brother of Hasan al Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, suggests that the reason for the bigoted view on apostasy is political and has nothing to do with Quran itself. He thinks that the classical interpretation, which is more than 1,000 years old, was formulated at a time of state building when conformity and social cohesion were deemed more important than personal freedom. Given the demands of the contemporary world where human rights occupy centre stage, he thinks that the interpretation is obsolete.
This brings us to the external contradiction. It has arisen from the obligations undertaken by Muslim states under international human rights instruments. It was primarily this contradiction, rather than the internal one that catapulted the conversion issue onto the international stage. Had this not been the case, the issue may have been left to Afghanistan to handle as its internal matter. Let’s examine the basis of this contradiction.
A number of international human rights instruments enshrine the freedom of religion including the right to conversion. The first instrument in this regard is the Universal Declaration whose Article 18 states: “Everyone has the freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. The next one is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights whose Article 18, Paragraph 2 provides: “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. Article 26 of the Covenant reinforces the stipulation on freedom of religion by guaranteeing equal protection of law against any form of discrimination “on any ground such as race,... sex,... [or] religion”.
The last relevant instrument is the United Nations’ Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief whose Article 8 stipulates that the right to choose and change one’s religion, contained in the Universal Declaration and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is binding. Furthermore, Article 2 adds new stipulations which are as follows: “1) No one shall be subject to discrimination by any state, institution, group of persons or person on grounds of religion or other belief. 2) For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedom on an equal basis”.
It can be argued that Muslim states should withdraw from these human rights instruments so that the dilemma disappears. This, however, is not possible because human rights, including the freedom to convert, are no longer considered an exclusively domestic matter of a state. Of course, not long ago human rights were deemed an internal affair of a state. However, over the past decades there has been a paradigm shift in this regard.
Currently all states are deemed to possess a legal rather than a mere moral interest in the protection of human rights. This was recognised by the World Court in 1970 in the well-known Barcelona Traction case. The court also acknowledged human rights obligations as having an erga omnes character.
Nor does the matter end there. In cases of gross and systematic violations of human rights, such as genocidal situations, the international community now has the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds baptised as the “responsibility to protect”.
Thus the world of Islam suffers from a serious problem of relating to the contemporary world. It goes without saying that the international community is not going to change to accommodate the Muslims. The twin facts that the balance of force today is stacked against the world of Islam and that it simply cannot afford to live in isolation signify the need for it to transform itself. The key to such a transformation lies in educating the society. This objective can only be achieved by bringing all stakeholders on board. The most difficult task in this regard is to convince those who reject the objective as “secularist agenda” that it is indispensable for the progress of the world of Islam. Here and there one does come across half-hearted attempts in this direction. However, there is no serious and sustained effort to change the mindset. The outcome of battle for the soul of Islam will depend on how soon and to what extent we are able to influence those hostile to the idea.
This is the concluding article in a two-part series. The first part was published on Wednesday April 19, 2006. The writer, a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University, is an independent political and legal analyst
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...0-4-2006_pg3_5 
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by lahori Paa jee 
Share this thread with friends: