Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Secular Morality vs. Religious Freedom

Recently, my girlfriend and I had a discussion sparked by a careless comment I made. This discussion was sparked from a disagreement that she and I have often exchanged words about.  She and I have very similar philosophies on life and politics, but when two people who are very smart, argumentative, and opinionated spend a lot of time together, they tend to be quite good at finding issues on which to disagree.  The comment I made was made while she and I were listening to Cat Stevens. Cat Stevens converted to Islam in 1978, and my comment was something to the effect of how surprised I was that someone like Cat Stevens could convert to Islam, since he seems to be such a loving person, and Islam is such a hateful religion. My girlfriend’s reaction to this was what one might expect someone as compassionate and caring as she would react to what she perceived to be religious intolerance and condemnation of an entire group of people without adequate knowledge of the religion. Since this incident, I’ve thought quite a lot about our disagreement, my insistence that Islam is indeed a hateful religion, and her insistence that I don’t know everything about it, and it is unfair for me to make such broad statements.  The conclusion to which I’ve come is that both she and I were right.  I don’t know everything about Islam, and she was correct in her assertion that not all Islamic people are hateful.  
In fact, it could be easily argued that very few Islamic people are hateful, and that their actions are all out of the best intentions for mankind.  After all, doesn’t it say in the Quran, “O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty.” -The Quran, 5:8. This is a religious message that anyone can and should be able to get behind.  
However, was there any validity to what I said? Does it not also say in the Quran, “That is the reward of Allah's enemies: the Fire. Therein is their immortal home, payment forasmuch as they denied Our revelations.” -The Quran, 41:28.  In fact, a mere cursory glance at the Quran will reveal numerous references towards nonbelievers - they will suffer a painful doom, they will be burned in the fire, their deeds are made fruitless by Allah, etc. Some may interpret “disbelievers” to mean atheists, but it could be equally valid to interpret it as anyone who is not Muslim. It makes little difference to me; I think that tolerance and acceptance should be extended to people of any belief system. In any case, the huge number of references in the Quran calling for the death and punishment of nonbelievers seems to fly in the face of the first quote from the Quran, but notice that although it calls for the refusal to be seduced by hatred, it only asks this of ‘believers.’ Also, do these two quotes have to be contradictory? Couldn’t someone who considers his/herself a Muslim believe that Allah will punish nonbelievers without succumbing to hating nonbelievers? I consider it wrong to kill another human being, but I’ve known people who have joined the military, and although I don’t know if they’ve ever killed anyone, I wouldn’t hate them if I knew that they did. Their reasons for undertaking such an action were their own, and far be it from me to judge. I have my own personal philosophy, and they have theirs. Couldn’t a Muslim adopt a similar stance, that a nonbeliever will be punished by Allah, and although they think it’s wrong to not believe in the Muslim faith, they refuse to judge or condemn others personally for their lack of belief? I think so, and I think that there’s a good chance that a lot of Muslims in the world believe this way. Let’s look at Cat Stevens, for instance.
Salman Rushdie was a writer who published a book called The Satanic Verses in 1988. The book was considered by most people in the Islamic community to be blasphemous against Islam. In response, Ruholla Khomeini called for a fatwa on Rushdie, a call for his assassination.  Because he had blasphemed Islam, he deserved to die, and Ruholla Khomeini believed that a true follower of Islam would be well within their rights to execute that order, stating that
Even if Salman Rushdie repents and becomes the most pious man of all time, it is
incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has got, his life and wealth, to send him to Hell.” - Khomeini, Moin
When asked his opinion on this issue, Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) responded in a way that some perceived to be in support for the fatwa. Since then, he has denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie. (This information gotten from Wikipedia) Since there’s no way to truly be sure what’s going on inside his head, we can only guess as to what he truly believed. I myself would guess that, while he believed that Rushdie deserved to be “sent to hell,” he didn’t have any desire to be the one to do it, nor did he condone the actions of any other Muslim if they were the ones to do it. I’m sure that if not him, there were a significant number of people in this world who consider themselves Muslim who believe this way. On a personal note, I find it beyond belief that the man who wrote “Peace Train” would ever want to kill someone in reaction to a book, no matter how disrespectful it may have been to his personal beliefs.
As an atheist, I’m often called out by loved ones as being “anti-religion,” and as someone who continually strives to improve myself and become a better person, I’ve had to become more introspective, and consider whether my refusal to believe in a god and my insistence that religion is often the cause of violence and hatred is, in and of itself, zealotry. The one thing I would never want to be is the type of person who makes up his mind before hearing the issue, and my girlfriend has pointed out that, although I am generally quite open-minded, I tend to lean towards closed-mindedness when it comes to religious issues. When I alluded to the suggestion that Cat Stevens had revealed himself to be at least a somewhat hateful person by converting to Islam, did I know that he set up The Association of Muslim Schools, a charity that brought together all the Muslim schools in the UK, and Small Kindness Foundation, which supports orphans and families from various developing countries? On his website, during Ramadan, he said “I wish you all a beautiful month of elevation and Forgiveness, for He loves Forgiving at any time, but especially in this sacred month.” So, is it fair to condemn an entire religion because of what I perceive as its faults, as my girlfriend pointed out I have done? Certainly not. Regardless of my personal belief, it’s against my personal philosophy to condemn anyone based on their own personal choices, and beliefs. On the other hand, did I have a point? Yes. There are two sides to every issue, and although it’s not fair to sit on the extreme anti-religion side as I did, it’s also a mistake to ignore the fact of the numerous atrocities that are being done across the world in the name of Islam. Women in Islamic countries are still being circumcised against their will, and honor killings are still being carried out, all justified using real religious scripture. According to the United Nations Population Fund,
Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the ‘dishonour’ of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.”
It could be argued that Honor killing is encouraged by the Quran:
“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.” - Quran 4:15.
In this case, “lewdness” means sex before marriage, and regardless of the involuntary nature of rape, it is still considered premarital sex by many Islamic communities, and is punishable by death.
For more information about honor killing, see the following website - http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm.
In fact, it could be argued that the call for the murder of Salman Rushdie is supported by the Quran:
“[Believers] shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an.” -Quran 9:111
“[Believers] long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.” - Quran, 4:89
Beyond that, Allah punishes by death other unbelievers in the Quran.
So, what’s to be taken away from this discussion? What position should anyone who considers themselves a champion of human rights, and someone concerned with the proper treatment of human beings take on religion? Is it true, as some have suggested, that the ten commandments is a perfect code for morality? If that’s true, then why is it that we don’t have any laws against adultery? If a married couple makes the choice that they want to have sex with other people, as long as there is full disclosure and acceptance between both parties, can that really be considered morally wrong? Even if adultery is done without the consent of one’s partner, although that is certainly wrong, should it be punishable by law, or should it be an issue to be resolved between the two people involved? The question here is, regardless of one’s religion, is holy scripture of any religion really a basis for morality? The answer is a resounding no. My zealotry, which at one time was a rally against religion and theism, has changed to a call for secularism in governments across the world. Religion is not a moral code, and should not be treated as such. According to a talk given on Google Talks by Penn Jilette, even Glenn Beck agrees that morality is something that is so deeply ingrained into human nature that even nonbelievers have morality. I suspect, however, that his version of morality is different than mine, but I am sure that we do have some common ground in terms of morality. Based on what I know of human nature, I’ve come to a similar conclusion to Beck’s, although I think that most human beings have an innate tendency toward secular morality, and people’s desire for camaraderie and inclusion motivate them to belong to religious organizations, and embrace the philosophies therein. This is something that should not be discouraged. What should be discouraged is the promotion of legislature inspired by religious doctrine, and the tendency of some religious people to try to enforce their belief systems onto others, because they consider it to be the highest moral code.
The point I am trying to make is two-fold: firstly, a cry for secularity - everyone, regardless of their religious belief, should be able to embrace a secular governing body. Such a system does not inhibit religious belief, unless you consider making honor killings illegal an inhibition of religious belief. This brings up the second point that I am trying to make: although anti-religious zealotry is not really very helpful and doesn’t foster good human rights practices, the attitude that religion is sacred and should be immune to criticism is not beneficial to humanity either. While I agree that religion is a basic human right, and no one should be denied that right, a secular attitude should be adopted when it comes to moral issues that come with religion. Do people who immediately condemn those who criticise Islam know about the passages in the Quran I mentioned above that could, arguably, be interpreted as a call for the murder of apostates and rape victims? Do they know about the real existence of honor killings and female circumcision being done in the name of Islam? Would they object to the implementation of a ban of the wearing of full burqas, as was done in France, an issue which the president said was “one of freedom and dignity, and did not have to do with religion.”? - (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-26/world/france.burqa.ban_1_veil-public-places-french-people?_s=PM:WORLD). Essentially, my point is that a measured approach should be taken when dealing with religious belief. People who believe in religious freedom should be aware of the tendency of religion to inhibit other people’s freedom, for example, the fact that it’s illegal in a great deal of Muslim countries for women to be seen in public without male supervision and without wearing a full burqa, and the fact that it’s still illegal in most of the United States for gay people to get married. I hope that, after reading this, my girlfriend will have seen my side of the story when I condemned Islam as a “hateful religion,” although I am sure that she will maintain her caring and thoughtful attitude towards everyone in this world, an attitude for which she has earned my respect and admiration.