The Concept of Freedom in Islam

"And those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to do what is right and forbidding them what is wrong, making lawful for them the good (things), and forbidding for them the corrupt (things) and relieving them of their burdens, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and honour him, and help him and follow the light while has been sent down with him - those are they the successful."
Holy Qur'an (7:157)
Submission to the will and laws of Allah is the source of all freedom. It liberates the mind, soul, and behaviour from the evil influences of the world. It helps mankind overcome oppressive tyrants, unjust laws, lusts, deviation and psychological complexes which enslave his will. Submission to the will of Allah grants man the right to choose a better way of life, to live his life in a moral and upright way.
Islam was revealed to the Prophet of humanity as merciful, eternal and all powerful. If during his life man submits to the will of Allah, he can depend on His mercy at the time of judgement.
"And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the world."
Holy Qur'an (21:107)
The Prophet (s.a.w.) is quoted as having said:
"Surely, I am a granted mercy."
Islam freed mankind from the darkness of polytheism, slavery, and injustice. It introduced the light of faith. It opened the doors to moral and social reform, and created an atmosphere of security and safety in which man was free to think, invent, and seek the road to perfection and salvation.
Freedom is the source from which the tree of life grows. A little sapling needs of light, water, air, a spacious field in which to grow, extend its branches, bloom and bear fruit. So, too, does freedom need the light and guidance of Islam to flourish. If the young tree is deprived of light and space its growth will be distorted and stunted. So, also will oppression and servitude deprive man of his moral freedom. Oppression and servitude are like a horrible prison in which terror and tyranny devour man's self image, his will and his desire to grow spiritually. It deprives human life of all sense of a higher purpose, robs man of his free will and destroys all that is good in human nature.
Islam came to break man's fetters and tear dawn the wall of this prison. It enabled mankind to cast off the chains that hindered his growth and induced him to give proper expression to his humanity and follow the path to moral perfection. It created an atmosphere of hope and optimism which gave a true meaning to human existence.
The freedom that Islam grants is based on commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom. Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is the complete breakdown of the moral and social order.
The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept higher moral values or self control. For Islam, freedom lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without responsibility; no responsibility without freedom.
The Ullama (scholars), over centuries, have studied and researched the relationship between freedom and responsibility. On the basis of their research they produced their explanation of human behaviour, and outlined their connection with the divine justice. They concluded that if man were deprived of free will and the right to choose his path in life, he could never be reconciled with Allah, the Glorified.
Because Allah has granted man free will, which allows him to choose his course in life, man is answerable to Allah for his actions.
"Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful."
Holy Qur'an (76:3)
"...Nay! man is evidence against himself, Though he puts forth his excuses."
Holy Qur'an (75:14-15)
Divine reward or punishment is ordained in accordance with man's free will. Without free will and its adherent responsibility and commitment there could be neither reward nor punishment.
"And stop them, for they shall be questioned."
Holy Qur'an (37:24)
"And We have made every man's actions to cling to his neck, and We will bring forth to him on the Resurrection Day a book which he will find wide open. Read your book; your own self is sufficient as a reckoner against you this Day."
Holy Qur'an (17:13-14)
Because Islam insists that man has free will because that is the way that Allah created him. It allows him to express this freedom and to practise it within the limits of commitment and responsibility and self control. Man has an obligation to choose the path of righteousness, and to safeguard his freedom and that of others.
Because Islam grants free will, it is expected that man will use it to further his knowledge in all areas which help in the improvement of the human lot on this earth. Otherwise, freedom may become a tool of destruction, annihilation and doctrinal deviation. Man is urged, by Islam, to consider the physical and spiritual welfare of others in all his endeavors. This prevents freedom from being turned into a dictatorship, exploiting other's inalienable rights to share in nature's natural resources.
Political freedom in Islam is a means of leading mankind to justice, goodness and peace. It guarantees and protects the political rights of all.
Art and literature should reflect the values of the Holy Our'an, and emphasize love, goodness and human relations in an aesthetic way.
Irresponsible freedom in these areas leads to pornography, debauchery, and disrespectful for all moral values.
Man should therefore, practise his personal freedom without encroaching on the rights of others and deviating from a correct moral conduct. In an atmosphere which respects the rights and freedoms of others, mankind can grow and prosper. Life is filled with knowledge and good deeds. Freed from lusts and the control of tyrants, man can find his way to true happiness.
Freedom is "the power to choose and determine one's position". As such, man should choose and decide carefully on a course of action which would best benefit himself and others.
Freedom does not mean to satisfy all his instincts. Nor does it mean to give into the pressure of lusts and desires. Behaviour should be guided always by our inane sense of what is right and should not be motivated by our desire for pleasure or immediate gratification.
The collapse of the civilization and man' s fall into misery and helplessness are direct consequences of permissiveness and the frenzied pursuit of pleasure. The Qur'an presents us with lessons drawn from history. It tells us of nations and communities that destroyed themselves by ignoring the way of Allah and following only the way of the flesh, being ruled by their unnatural desires.
Allah, the Almighty, says:
"But there came after them an evil generation, who neglected prayers and followed the sensual desires, so they will meet perdition."
Holy Qur'an (19:59)
"So leave them plunging into false discourses and sporting until they meet their day which they are threatened with."
Holy Qur'an (43:83)
"Like those before you, who were stronger than you in power, and more abundant in wealth and children; so they enjoyed their share; so you enjoy your share, as those before you enjoyed their share. You have gossiped as they gossiped. Those it was whose deeds shall be nullified in this world and in the Hereafter; and those - they are the losers. Has there not come to them the tidings of those who were before them - of the people of Noah, and Ad and Thamood, and the people of Abraham, the in habitants and the destroyed cities? Their Messenger came to them with the clear signs; Allah would not wrong them, but they wronged themselves."
Holy Qur'an (9:69-70)
The emphasis on materialism and freedom without responsibilities in today's societies is destroying the social and moral fabric of these societies. It gives rise to moral decadence, promiscuity, crime and a lack of respect for all moral, legal and natural courses of actions.
Freedom is abused and has become a subversive tool, a scourge to mankind. This abuse of freedom has resulted in chaos throughout the world. It has led to corruption, crime, war, poverty, drug addictions, alcoholism and life destroying diseases such as AIDS.
Drugs
National and international organizations agree in their surveys that drug addiction throughout the industrialized world is increasing at an alarming rate. This increase is taking place in spite of massive public awareness campaigns and millions of dollars spent on education. Thousands of people are jailed through the world every day for drugs related crime. But the true causes of drug addiction- the breakdown of moral values, the helplessness and despair of the underprivileged, and the emphasis of a secular society on instant self gratification and solution of problems- are never addressed.
Let the statistics speak for themselves:
Drug addiction is increasing at an alarming speed. More than 50 million people worldwide are thought to be addicted to drugs. It is estimated that among the poor, black ghettos of North American cities the addiction rate is 50%. Across the population at large surveys suggest that 20% of the people are addicted either to drugs or alcohol. Rates are highest amongst the young. Millions of dollars, that could be spent on bettering the lives of the poor and underprivileged, are wasted on the war against drugs, and drug pushers.
In 1980s, with the introduction of crack cocaine into the U.S.A. the crime rate due to drug addiction increased dramatically. It is estimated that at least 60% of young America have experimented with drugs. In one report of high school students (1988) 47% of students had smoked marijuana and hashish, over 90% had tried alcohol. (Drugs, Society and Human Behaviour: 1990).
There is no reason to expect that the figures are any lower in the other industrialized countries.
In the Soviet Union alcoholics are now estimated to number about 40 million. This is having an adverse effect on the country's industrialization and production figures.
The Paris based "Jeune Afrique" magazine reported that 60% of traffic accidents and 40% of divorce cases are as a result of alcoholism. In 1986, in Japan, 25524 people commuted suicide. (National Police Agency of Japan: 1987). The numbers are expected to increase as materialism takes its toll on the Japanese population).
In Britain one out of every five children suffers from the consequence of family breakdown. Drug addiction and related crime are reaching unprecedented rates and bringing appalling suffering to the people.
Sex And Diseases
Human life is gravely threatened by the collapse of the natural male-female relationship, free sex, debauchery and man's lack of self control. Dangerous and often fatal diseases are the natural consequence of unlicensed sexual practices.
Throughout the world it is estimated that between 5 and 10 million people carry the AIDS virus. It is expected that at the close of this century there will be over 100 million infected people who because of the laxity of moral standards will continue to infect others.
AIDS is an epidemic disease. It destroys the body's immune system and leads to an appalling death. So far no cure has been discovered for it although it is well known that sexual abstinence can prevent it. Except in the rare circumstances where aid is contacted through infected blood transfusion and medical contact, AIDS is a result of illegal drug use (infected intravenous needle use) and illicit homosexual and heterosexual relationships. It is spreading rapidly throughout the world wherever moral values are not upheld.
The "Sunday Times" of London has reported that Britain may lose 10,000 citizens to AIDS before the end of the century.
The number of AIDS victims doubles every eight months. The report stressed that the number of victims, which at the time of the report stood at 512 was equal to the number of cases in the USA four years previously. The report criticized the British government's attitude towards the disease which it concludes is not taking the disease, its causes and effects seriously enough.
In the USA the number of AIDS victims continue to rise at alarming rates. More children are born with the disease and suffer dreadfully throughout their short lives. Educational authorities, hoping to stem the increase of victims, emphasize "self-sex" rather than stressing the moral turpitude that leads to the disease in most cases. It appears that the authorities believe that moral values have no role to play in the correction of the disease. They would be well advised to look at Muslim countries where strict moral values are the norm and consequently such diseases do not exist.
These statistics and reports draw a grim picture of the consequences of the materialistic life which has turned its back on Allah and all the moral and spiritual values of the Holy Qur'an.
The appalling suffering brought about by these diseases and addictions are a result of man's inability to practise freedom with restraint, and responsibility. The limitless freedom has resulted in chaos, disorder, crime, despair and death and for many the annihilation of the very freedom they wished to express.
Our young people were attracted by the outward manifestation of the freedom of the west. They did not understand the dangerous, destructive underside of the materialistic world. They looked to the West for ideas on clothing, eating and social conduct forgetting that the price of such behaviour is a loss of moral values. Lured by the fashionable clothing and standards of behaviour, they absorbed the bankrupt moral codes of the west, ignoring for the moment their own superior values. Many perceived, too late, the moral void that existed underneath the veneer of civilization.
Those who understand freedom as a license to act as one pleases should look to the Western societies and observe the fruit of such thinking. One of the major results is that women viewed freedom as breaking away from the home. Sexual freedom was unrestrained by moral commitment or responsibilities and promiscuity raged and ravaged the population.
The family collapsed and a generation of children was lost- a generation which is in need of love and care. The results are seen everywhere in drinking, drug taking and crime which is destroying millions of young lives.
Economic freedom is seen as a means to exploit the underprivileged by bribery and corruption. A capitalist class, whose sole aim is to amass wealth in the hands of a few, has grown powerful and influential on the sweat of others.
Man has an obligation to pursue knowledge and to increase his skills and to use them in his life. But, we should distinguish between science and useful products and civilizations which means guiding society towards a certain point in accordance with certain methods.
The Muslim should keep in mind that his outlook on moral behaviour should always be in accordance with the Creator of the Universe and His ordained principles and moral values. A divine civilization is that which is ordained by the Islamic Message. Man, in this philosophy, is a servant of Allah. Allah alone has full authority over man. Within the framework of obedience to the Will of Allah, man can live a life founded on justice and wisdom and exercise his divine given rights of freedom in his daily behaviour.
The necessity to think through one's actions and accept responsibility for them are clearly specified by Prophetic tradition:
"Should you set your mind on doing something, think of its outcome. If it is honest, go ahead. But if it is dishonest, refrain from doing it."
We must discover our God given personality and understand and be sincere in our beliefs. Only by doing so we can become strong enough to resist imitating others and their seductive but unethical moral codes of behaviour.
Islam encourages freedom of thought, speech, politics, economy, individual conduct, but insists that this freedom encompass a sense of responsibility and commitment. By doing so, Islam aims to build strong, unwavering characters who are secure in their self knowledge and have confidence in themselves and their values, and whose behaviour will always reflect their strength.
The Prophet (s.a.w.) warned us not to be foolish imitators of others. He urged us to develop our independent characters nourished by Islamic teachings.
He (s.a.w.) has said:
"Do not be a mere imitator with no firm determination. You say, 'I am with the people. Should people do good, so do I. And if they do evil, so do I'. But school yourselves. If people do good so should you. But if they do evil shun their evil deeds".
The Our'an and the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) nourished the Islamic concept of freedom. Never did he deny his followers freedom of expression. Muslims could always speak their minds while in his presence. He consulted them about his revelations and listened to their views and counsels. The first Muslim community lived in unprecedented freedom under the banner of the Holy Our'an and the leadership of the guiding Messenger. Everyone lived in an atmosphere of social justice and harmony. There was no place for pride and arrogance. Even as the teeth of a comb did they live. The only privilege accorded to anyone was that conferred by piety. All nations lived as one.
The pre- Islamic society into which Islam was revealed was pastoral. Its pillars were slavery, exploitation and injustice.
Islam laid down the principles of justice, equality and freedom and established moral values. Since the concept of slavery was entrenched in the pre-Islamic world, and equally contrary to the Islamic concept of freedom, many inducements to free slaves were introduced. Freeing a slave could help expiate sin. Sin is a spiritual perversion, called by the Holy Qur'an "a deviation, a malady". It separated man from Allah and His Mercy.
Manumission of a slave was one way in which a sinner could show remorse and atone for his sins and so be restored to grace.
There were many sins which could be atoned for in this way; a Muslim who was unable to fast during the Holy month of Ramadan: false testimony; breaking a sacred pledge to Allah; al-Dihar[1]. premeditated murder, or unjust murder, or even unintended murder as in the case of the death of a fetus: women cutting off their hair as a sigh of deep mourning or self mutilation for the same reason; all these could be atoned for by emancipating a slave without giving sanction to the sins. Emancipation had always to be accompanied by true contrition.
Islam, moreover, allocated a certain percentage of zakat revenues (an Islamic tax) for the purpose of emancipating slaves and established the laws of al-Mukatabah[2], and al-Tadbi[3] to legalize and be instrumental in the process of manumission.
Throughout the books of fiqh (jurisprudence) and Islamic legislation there are numerous rules and details about the emancipation of slaves. Slaves were freed primarily so that they could live in the freedom and dignity of Islam and be emancipated in soul as much as in body. Thus, it is clear that from the very beginning freedom of the individual was of paramount importance in Islam.
"And surely We have honoured the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We have given them the good things, and We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellent over most of those whom We have created."
Holy Qur'an (17:70)
In Islam freedom is an inalienable right which enable man to lead a moral and upright life, and brings him under the mantle of the justice and mercy of Allah.
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

[1] Al-Dihar is the saying of a husband to his wife. "You are like my mother to me", which means he would not be allowed to go to bed with her. He can't do so without an expiation.
[2]Al-Mukatabah is a written agreement between a master and his slave to emancipate the tatter in return for something.
[3]Al-Tadbir is the process of emancipating a slave after the death of his master. It is fulfilled on the strength of a statement said by the master during his life. It is "You are free after my death".

Imam Reza Network

Islam And the Freedom of Thought and Belief

This is a rather free translation of two lectures delivered by Martyr Mutahhari at the Husayniyyeh Irshad, Tehran, in the fall of 1969. They form part of a posthumously published collection consisting of an interview, speeches and notes, Piramun-e Jamhuri-ye Islami, Tehran: Intisharat-e Sadra, 1st ed., Khurdad, 1364
Lecture One
' No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error. So whosoever disbelieves in taghut and believes in God, has laid hold of the most firm handle, unbreaking; God is All-hearing.' Qur`an (2:256)
The freedom of belief and thought is one of social freedoms. It implies that man should be free in these vital aspects of his life and that there should be no obstacle in the way of his advancement and sojourns and no hurdle to the development of his capacities. One of the most venerable capacities in man, which he needs most intensely in order to develop freely, is his capacity for thought and belief, to put it provisionally (for later we will draw a distinction between them).
In fact, thought is the most important part of man's being that must be developed, and since its growth requires freedom-that is absence of an obstacle and hindrance-man stands in need of freedom. Nowadays also we observe that the so-called free-freedom of belief has become one of the most important global issues, especially ever since the publication of declarations of human rights. We read in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:
…the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Here 'belief' includes social, political and religious beliefs. Hence the greatest aspiration of man is a world wherein everyone is free to express his belief and wherein everyone has a right to choose any belief and to express it freely, a world wherein there is no fear or poverty and where there is perfect security and economic welfare. Such a world has been declared as a human ideal, Article 19 of the declaration states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Here we want to examine this issue from an Islamic point of view, to see whether or not Islam defends the freedom of thought and belief. It is here that we must differentiate between thought and that which is often called 'belief' nowadays.
There is a difference between thought and belief. Thought is human faculty that arises in the intellect. Since man is a rational and thinking being, he has the ability to think and reflect about problems. By the means of his thought he can discover facts within the limits of his capacity, whether the mode of ratiocination is deductive and rationalistic or empirical. God, Almighty and Exalted, has given man the faculty of intellect with which he can reason, that is, discover the unknown. Man is born in ignorance as the noble Qur`anic verse declares:
He brought you forth, knowing nothing, from your mothers' wombs (16:78)
Man is born ignorant and has to become knowledgeable, through thought and study. To think is to use one's capacity for reasoning regarding a problem and to solve it in a scientific way. Can Islam, or any other authority for that matter, deny man the right to think? No, because it is a human necessity and an essential need of his humanity. Islam has not only acknowledged the right to think, it has declared thought to be one of man's duties. Reflection is an act of worship in Islam.
Since we are used to read only the Qur`an and we do not read other scriptures, we often fail to appreciate the great emphasis laid by the Qur`an on thought and reflection. You will not find any book, religious or secular, that has driven man towards thought and reflection to the extent of the Qur`an. Repeatedly, it asks one to think about all kinds of issues -concerning history, concerning creation, God, the prophets and prophets and so on. There are a large number of such instances in the Qur`an. Thought has even been considered a worship. You have often heard the various traditions of the Prophet of this kind:
An hour's reflection is better than a year's worship.
An hour's reflection is better than sixty years of worship.
An hour's reflection is better than seventy years of worship.
The variance in these statements, as pointed out by the 'Ulama' (scholars), refers to the different levels of reflection as well as its subjects. One kind of reflection makes man advance to the extent of a year's worship. Another type of reflection makes him advance to the extend of sixty or seventy year of worship. In our traditions it is stated that:
Most of the worship of Abu Dharr consisted of contemplation.
That is Abu Dharr-whom we consider to be next or equal to Salman, and about the two of them we may say that no man after the Infallible Ones (the prophet, Fatima and the Twelve Imams) has had a faith likes these two-worshipped God a lot, but most of his worship consisted of contemplation.
Apart from this, there is a principle in Islam concerning the doctrines of the faith that sets our religion apart from other creeds, in particular Christianity; Islam does not accept belief in its doctrine except through reflection and intellectual effort. That is, when it calls upon one to know God and be a monotheist, it requires one to furnish the reasons of his belief himself. From the viewpoint of Islam, it is a scientific and intellectual problem that of a teacher who says to his pupil, 'Go and solve this arithmetical problem yourself. You should know how to solve it. My solving it for you will not help you.' Islam states categorically the La ilaha illallah (There is no God except Allah) is a problem that one must solve with the help of his own reasoning. That I believe in La ilaha illallah and am able to apprehend its meaning is not sufficient for you. You should yourself confront this issue and solve the problem.
Muhammadun rasulullah (Muhammad is the Messenger of God) is the second 'pillar" (rukn) of Islam. This is also another problem that you must solve with the help of your own intellect. The same is true of resurrection and other doctrinal issues, though the solution of these two helps in the solution of the rest of problems. In any case, belief in the doctrines is, from the Islamic viewpoint, a matter that depends on independent reasoning (ijtihad), not on imitation (taqlid), and everyone must verify them for himself.
Hence this is the most compelling proof of the fact that Islam not only permits intellectual inquiry into its doctrines but regards it as an intellectual duty of everyone to reflect regarding the doctrines of his faith in order to understand to some extent that he has a creator, and that God is one, the He has sent messengers, that the Qur`an has been sent down by God, and that the Prophet has been sent by Him. Islam does not accept belief in these matters if it is a verbal declaration and pronounced without intellection.
It is here that the difference between Islam and Christianity—and even other faiths—becomes clear. The case of Christianity is quite the converse, in that the doctrines of the Christian creed considered being beyond thought and reason. The Christians put it as a formula when they say that " this is the domain of faith, not that of reason. That is, they recognize separate domains for faith and reason.
They state that reasoning and intellection has its own function and faith and submission have a different function; you may reason if you want to, but you have no right to employ reasoning in the matters of faith. The domain of faith is the domain of submission; one has no right to reason in this matter. One can see how much these two positions differ. One of them considers its doctrines as a prohibited zone for thought and intellect; the other not only does not declare it a prohibited zone but also requires the intellect to enter it, making it an essential condition for the acceptability of faith. This is what is meant by freedom of thought.
Hence, from the viewpoint of Islam, one has a right to make a rational inquiry into such issues. Should some doubt occur to one's mind in his rational inquiry concerning God, prophet-hood or resurrection, he has a right to bring it to the attention of others and to ask them to resolve it. To question concerning doctrinal issues is an obligation. The people used to put a lot of questions to the Prophet (S), 'Ali (A) and the other Imams (A) regarding these issues and they would answer them. Our books on polemical issues as well as other works indicate the extent to which Islam acknowledges the freedom of expression and the right to inquire and question. Islam encourages the spirit of inquiry, questioning and research. The more the numbers of doubts that occur to an inquiring mind, the closer does it ultimately get to the truth?
That was concerning the freedom of thought and inquiry. How about freedom of belief ('aqidah)? A`qidah' is derived from i`tiqad, which is derived from 'aqd, in`iqad, and so on, meaning 'to tie'. 'To knot' 'to congeal' and 'to be concluded'. One's heart may be 'tied' to something in two ways: either as a result of reasoning and thought, or as a result of emotional and irrational attachment. Most of the beliefs of people in the world are a result of irrational attachment, not reasoning.
Now the question that arises is, should people be free in respect of their irrational beliefs? It is these attachments, which create fanaticism, stagnation, apathy and passiveness in human beings and arrest the process of rational thinking. Wherever such beliefs are formed, their first consequence is to stop the free activity of thought. It is said that,' the love of a thing makes man blind and deaf '. When one is made blind and deaf by prejudice, he cannot see facts and cannot hear the word of truth.
For instance, the idolaters worship idols, a practice that existed in the past and still exists at the present. Can we consider their belief a result of rational thought and a consequence of unfettered intellection? Or is it a result of superstition that has been handed down from generation to generation on the basis of imitation? Can one believe that a human being will conclude as a result of free and logical thinking that the cow must be considered as sacred, a belief which is subscribed to by millions of people in India even today? Is it possible that a group of human beings will reach the conclusion as a result of free, unfettered and logical thinking that one must worship the sexual organs, a belief which, is held even now by millions of people?
No, the human intellect and thought, even in its most elementary stage, will not reach such a conclusion. These beliefs have irrational roots. For instance, at the beginning there emerge some exploitive individuals who want to hold others in bondage (the world has seen for which they need some kind of creedal basis, without which its establishment would not be possible. The originator of the belief himself knows what he is doing. That is, he perpetrates the treachery with knowledge.
He gives prevalence to something - an idol, the cow or the dragon in a certain form amongst the people, who are thus misled. At first they are not very attached to it. But as years past and their children grow up observing their parents' practice, they imitate them. One generation succeeds another and the matter assumes a historical background and becomes part of national custom and traditions. It is looked upon as a matter of national pride and distinction, and then it is first a thin paste when mixed with water; you can form it in any shape you want. But once given a certain form and allowed drying, gradually it becomes harder the drier that it gets. Then it reaches a state when it cannot be broken even with a cudgel.
Should we combat such beliefs or not? That is, when we speak of freedom of thought does that include this kind of beliefs? The current fallacy lies just here. On the one hand they declare that man's reason and thought must be free; on the other they add that belief too must be free. The idolater must be free in his belief, and so also the worshipper of the cow or the dragon. Everyone must be free to worship anything he chooses and to practice any belief of his choice, despite the fact that these kinds of beliefs are contrary to the freedom of thought. It is beliefs such as these that put thought in bondage.
They praise England for being a free country, a land where all religions are free. There, they declare, the idol worshipper is free to worship idols; the cow-worshipper is free to worship the cow. Both of them have freedom to practice their beliefs and are even provided with facilities, and their temples and deities are looked upon with respect. All that is done, they say, because man has freedom of belief. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has also committed the same kind of mistake. The principle on which it rests is the dignity of man (a principle which we also accept). Now since man is respectable, it argues, every belief that he may hold is also respectable. This inference is strange, for it possible that man may choose something that puts him in chains. Is he to be left free to do so?
What is more compatible with the acknowledgement of man's dignity? To guide him and to show him the path of progress and development or to tell him that since you are a human being and every human being is respectable, you are free to choose anything and your choice is respectable even though I consider it to be a wrong one and know it to be a false superstition that has thousands of evil consequences, but I accept it because you have made this choice yourself? What he has chosen is a chain, bondage for reason and thought; how can you respect chains? Your respect for these chains is an insult to his human capacity and his dignity as a human being, which lies in his ability to reason. It is your duty to liberate him from this bondage so that his thought is set free.
The Queen of England once went to India where she visited temples. While entering a temple she would take off her shoes as a mark of respect even before the point where shoes are usually taken off - with the remark: "This is a temple and a place to be venerated." She was a Christian and not worshipper of idols; she showed respect to idols because they are held in veneration by some human beings.
There is a certain group of people (among the Iranians) who declare with a feeling of national pride that " We signed the declaration of human rights two thousand and five hundred years ago! When Cyrus entered Babylon he declared respect for all the temples of idol worship that were there, though he himself was a Zoroastrian and not an idolater. So we are a nation that has upheld the freedom of belief. " This is a most misguided position, though it may serve the purpose of political propaganda. Because one who seeks to subjugate a people must show respect for its beliefs. But it is something totally wrong from a human point of view.
The right approach is that of Abraham, may peace be upon him. He was alone in possessing a free mind, and he saw all the people around him captives in the chains of hollow traditional beliefs without any intellectual foundation. One day when the people left the city to celebrate some festival, he remained behind with the pretext of illness.
When there was no one about in the city he entered the main temple, took an axe and broke all the idols. Then hanging the axe in the neck of the biggest idol, he came out of temple. He did that on purpose, as the Noble Qur'an says, in order to emancipate the minds of the people. When the people returned at nightfall, on entering the temple they saw it in shambles. The whole scene appeared as if the idols had fought out a battle amongst themselves with the biggest idols being the sole survivor.
'Who has done all this?' they ask one another, for their inherent rational sense tells them that the lifeless idols could not have fought amongst themselves. Definitely it is the work of a conscious being. Some of them say,
"We heard a young man, called Abraham, making mention of them.
Perhaps he is the one who has done it." They bring Abraham in order to cross-examine him.
They tell him, " So, art thou the man who did this unto our gods, Abraham?"
Abraham replies, " No; it was this great one of them that did it. Question them, if they are able to speak."
He meant, " You see that the weapon with which the crime was committed is carried by the big idol. Why do you accuse me? Ask the victims themselves so that they may inform you.
" So they returned to themselves, and consulted their own reason. With his act Abraham made them 'return to themselves ' and emancipated their minds from the bondage of belief. Such an act as this is an act of human worthy.
Similarly the act of Moses, son of Imran, is an act of human worth. When Moses observes that his people are worshipping the Samaritan's golden calf as an idol, he declares:
"We will surely burn it and scatter its ashes into the sea." The Israelites who worshipped the calf did not do so as a result of free and unfettered thinking. After crossing the sea they came across a people who prostrated before idols-something they had not seen before. They were fascinated by it, considering it a good pastime, and they said to Moses,
"Moses, make for us a god, as they have gods."
The right approach is that of the Seal of the Prophets, who struggled for long years against idolatry in order to emancipate the minds of the people. Had the Arab paganism survived for another thousand years, the Arabs would have continued to worship idols (in the same way as idolatry still exists even in some civilized nations such as Japan) and would have not moved a single step towards intellectual progress and development. The Prophet came and released them from the chains of that belief and emancipated their minds. The Qur'an says of the Prophet (S):
' He relieves them of their load, and the fetters that were upon them.' (7:157)
That which the European considers as one's right to keep is referred to as fetters by the Qur'an which asks the faithful to be thankful to God for relieving them of the burden of superstition and for freeing them from the fetters in which they had chained themselves.
When the captives of war were brought before the Prophet (S) after the battle of Badr, they were bound in order to keep them from escaping. When the Prophet glanced at them, an involuntary smile appeared on his face. They said to him, "We did not expect you to rejoice at our misfortune." He said to them, "I am not rejoicing at your misfortune. It seems amusing to me that I have to put these chains on you in order to drag you to paradise and that I have to resort to force in order to emancipate you from your false beliefs."
Accordingly, there is a great difference between freedom of thought and freedom of belief. A belief is founded on thought and reasoning, Islam accepts it; otherwise it does not accept it. It permits a belief that is derived from freedom of thought. Islam never accepts such beliefs as are based on tradition and imitation and which emerge due to ignorance, absence of reflection and submission to irrational ideas in the name of freedom of belief.
This extremist view concerning freedom of belief that one finds in the European world today is partly a reaction to the terrible history of the Inquisition, which held Europe in its clutches for centuries. The Church used to investigate the beliefs of people to see if anybody held an opinion contrary to the official doctrine, even if it were a matter related to astronomy.
For instance, if the Church held the elements to be four and the sun to revolve around the earth, it considered it its business to discover and punish those who held different view, even if that were more scientific and logical. The 'culprits' were brought to trial and sentenced to the most terrible kinds of punishment such as burning at the stakes. If you read the history of the European Middle Ages, you will see that it has no parallel in the East.
I have pointed out once earlier that whatever one may say in characterizing the East's history in respect of cruelty and however our speakers may exert themselves in describing the black character of the Umayyads and the 'Abbasids-even Hajjaj ibn Yusuf –those accounts pale before the history of the Europe of middle Ages, even before that of contemporary Europe. Punishment by burning people alive was a simple matter. Albert Malet in the part of his history concerning the Midle Ages writes, for instance, how a woman was burnt alive for some very petty offence. Many scholars received the death sentence for expressing an opinion, not about some issue of theology, but some scientific issue related to physics or astronomy.
The inevitable reaction to this intolerance and tyranny was to declare that in matters related to religion and faith, the people were free to hold and practice any kind of belief, even if it were cow-worship.
Another reason for this approach to freedom of belief is that, in the view of European philosophers, religion and faith-regardless of whatever form it takes, whether it is the worship of God, or that of idols or that of the cow is a matter related to individual's conscience. That is, every individual in his personal life stands in need of a certain kind of diversion called 'religion'. They acknowledge at least this much that man cannot do without some kind of preoccupation with religion.
They make similar statements about art and poetry-matters, which are entirely subjective, to which such criteria as good and evil, true and false, right and wrong, do not apply. Hence goodness and badness depend on personal taste, as in the case of food one likes to eat and the colour of clothes one likes to wear. There is nothing, which is absolutely good and bad in matters of personal taste.
They do not want to admit any objectivity in the matters of religion and prophet-hood or accept that the Prophets have really been sent by God to show mankind and objective path in treading which lies man's felicity.
They say that the real nature of the religious feeling and its roots are unknown to us. All that we know is That man cannot live without religion and that he needs a certain kind of preoccupation in life that may termed as 'religious', regardless of whether that object of worship is the One God, or a man named Jesus Christ, or the cow, or some image of metal or wood. Hence we should not create trouble for individuals.
Everything that one chooses in accordance with his or her taste and liking for him/her.
Our objection lies just here. We do not consider this approach to religion as a correct one. In fact the kind of religion in which belief - as they declare - is a matter of free choice is, in our view, no religion at all. We believe in religion as a path of human felicity that has objective existence. We cannot say that any belief concerning the objective path of human felicity is free, even if it is not based on thought and intellection.
I will give and example. Will you permit freedom of belief in matters of health and education? Suppose the people of a region want to have trachoma and ninety per cent of them have it. Will you ask their permission to cure them of it? Don't you try by all means, through tact and force, to treat them of this disease, and declare that you have rendered them a service though they themselves don't appreciate it?
Suppose there are some people who don't want education. You open schools for them, but they oppose you and try to close them down. Don't you think that their compulsory education is necessary? Why doesn't the Universal Declaration of Human Rights condemns compulsory education as a violation of human freedom?
On the contrary, the same declaration in its Article 26 considers elementary education as compulsory. Does it negates men right to freedom in this matter? No. Why? Because, it answers, it is a matter related to Human welfare; those who want to remain ignorant and illiterate do not understand. Force must be used to make them literate; coercive methods are essential to render them this
service.
However, they don't take a similar approach in regard to religion, because they assume that while health and education have an objective reality on which human welfare depends, religion is a personal matter relating to a subjective need that must be satisfied somehow.
Man, they say, feels an inner need to worship and adore, whatever that object of worship may be. That is why they say that beliefs are to be respected and do not differentiate between belief and thought.
Hence there are two objections involved here. Firstly, we should not consider religion as a subjective matter of personal taste and preference, such as preference for a certain colorfor one's dress. Secondly, the choice of religion is different from preference for the color of dressing. That is, if man adopts an irrational belief, that belief becomes a hindrance to the free activity of his intellect and thought.
To summarize what we have said above, freedom of thought exists in Islam, as well as Freedom of holding a belief that is based on proper reasoning. But there is no freedom in Islam for a belief that not based on rational thought, for such a freedom amounts to a license for slavery and bondage. Hence the approach of the prophets, who used to break these kind of chains and compel men to think, was the right approach.
Islam, on the one hand, seriously combats idolatry and, on the other, tells the idolater that his belief in God in the state in which he worships idols is not acceptable. Belief in God must be accepted with a free and unfettered mind:
In the earth are signs for those having sure faith; and in your selves; what, do you not see? The Holy Qur'an ( 15:20-21 )
Islam does not accept an unthinking belief in God. It calls upon human beings to study the Creation - the plants, the animals, one's own creation, one's body and soul, the skies. It lays such a great emphasis on studied belief in Divine Unity that man is forced into the study of the sciences of nature as a means to acquiring the knowledge of God's Oneness, Prophet-hood, and resurrection.
Surely in the creation of the heavens and earth and in the alteration of night and day there are signs for men possessed of minds, who remember God, standing and sitting and on their sides, and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth; 'Our Lord, Thou hast not created this in vain. Glory be to Thee! Guard us against the chastisement of the fire.' Holy Qur'an ( 3:190-191 )
This noble verse points out that there are signs of the Divine in the earth and the Heavens. It calls men, provided they have intellect, spirit, and thought, to study those signs and to contemplate abut them. Another verse of the Qur'an declare:
There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error.
Holy Qur'an ( 2:256 )
It means that religion and faith is not a matter of coercion. The path is clear. All that is required is thought and care. Basically, the kind of faith that Islam requires cannot be forced.
There is no possibility of coercion, for it is impossible to force anyone to acquire the kind of Faith that is required by Islam. It is not possible to spank a child into solving a certain Arithmetical problem? His mind and thought must be left free in order that he may solve it.
The Islamic faith is something of this kind.
It has been written concerning the circumstances of the revelation of the above mentioned Verse that the Ansar, that is the people of Madinah belonging to the clans of Aws and Khazarj, used to send their children to the Jews before the Prophet's migration. The Jews were more civilized than the polytheists of Madinah and some of them, ten or twenty knew how to read and write. These children were to learn something and to be trained by Jews.
They would come to realize the difference of level of culture the Jews and their own families and clan and, occasionally, they embraced Judaism. When Islam came to Madinah, the Polytheists became Muslims, but most of the Jews continued to follow their faith. From among those who had been trained under the Jews, some continued to follow the Jewish Religion. When the Jewish tribe of Banu al-Nadir was exiled from Madinah due to its violation of the terms of treaty and on account of treason, the children of the Ansar who
were attached to the Jews and had embraced their faith wanted to go with them.
Their parents wanted to stop them and insisted that they remain and embrace Islam. When the matter was brought to the Noble Prophet (S); he forbade them to exercise coercion. He told the parents to explain the Islamic creed to their children and leave them free to accept or reject it. He recited to them the verse,
'There is no compulsion in the faith."
The truth has been made clear, he told them. The path of guidance has become distinguishable from the path of error. Should anyone fail to take the path of guidance, it indicates thesickness of his soul.
Islam has combated false beliefs that often form the basis of tyrannical regimes.
In our own country, Iran, it fought to overthrow a corrupt regime and then invited the people to its teachings, leaving them free to decide. This is history, and Western historians admit that the majority of Iranians remained Zoroastrian during early Islamic era. The Iranians gradually embraced Islam during a period when Arab rule had been replaced by Persian rule. They did not embrace Islam under Arab rule and the Arabs, too, did not force them to convert.
Lecture Two
In the last session, we discussed freedom of belief and spoke concerning the kind of belief that is free and the kind that shouldn't be free, for its freedom is contrary co man's dignity. We said that beliefs rest on two kinds of bases. Sometimes it is based on free thought, and sometimes it is imposed through imitation of ancestors without having even the least relation with the faculty of reasoning. The primary characteristic of the latter kind of beliefs is to hinder the course of free thought and co fetter the human intellect. These kinds of beliefs are chains of habit, custom and imitation that fetter man's spirit and thought.
In the same way as a man bound in chains is unable to release himself and someone else should emancipate him with the means at his disposal, the nations that are captive in the chains of such beliefs need another power that may emancipate them. This is the greatest service that can be done co man. One of the accomplishments of the prophets was to shatter the foundations of such beliefs so that liberated man may be able to chink freely about himself, his destiny, and convictions.
Many examples can be offered in this relation. In order that you may realize how someone in the bondage of custom cannot chink properly, I will mention a small example. One of the well-known Companions of the Prophet (S) once came and standing in front of him declared: "O Messenger of Allah! The more that 1 reflect, 1 find that the favour done by God to us through you is greater than we can imagine." Apparently he said this when the Prophet (S) was showing his affection to his daughter or some other girl. Then he related a terrible story, which is truly shocking. He himself wondered how he
could have committed such an atrocious act.
He said, "I was one of chose who lived under the influence of the custom that daughters were a source of disgrace and were not to be kept alive when born." Then he related that his wife gave birth to a daughter when she hid away from him, telling him chat the baby had been put to death. When the child grow up to an age of six or seven, his wife brought her in front of him with the belief that he would be delighted to see what a charming daughter he had and would not think of harming her. Then he de- scribed how he cruelly buried the child alive. He said, "Now 1 know what kind of beasts we were and how you have delivered us. At that time we used to think that we were doing something good."
There are certain matters in which compulsion is impossible, like love and friendship. No one can be forced to love or befriend someone that he does not love nor be compelled to relinquish his love for some- one dear to him. Among such things, which are not susceptible by nature co force, is faith. That which Islam demands from people is faith, not forced confession, for it is useless and unenduring; it remains as long as force is there and disappears as soon as its cause disappears. The Holy Qur'an speaks of faith throughout its pages. When a group of Arab Bedouins came to the Prophet (S) and claimed to have faith, God Almighty instructs the Prophet to tell them, "Don't say, 'We believe':"
The Bedouins say, 'We believe?' Say. 'You do not believe; rather say, "We surrender" (aslamna-); for faith has not yet entered your hearts.' (49. 14)
The Bedouins are cold that all that you may claim is chat you have embraced Islam, but you cannot claim to have attained faith. 'Islam' means an outward act of confession of faith and pronouncement of the shahaddatayn, whereupon one is counted as one of Muslims in respect of social rights and other laws that apply to Muslims. But Islam did not come merely to create a society following Islamic regulations. That is only one of the stages. Islam came to create faith, love and enthusiasm in the hearts, and faith cannot be forced upon anyone. The verse: has perhaps another meaning apart from the ore thaw 1 mentioned in the first lecture. It means that "O Prophet, you want people to have faith. But can you make anyone a believer by force?" Elsewhere the Prophet (S) is told:
Call them to the way, of thy Lord with wisdom and good admonition (16.125).
Then remind them! Thou art only a reminder; thou art not charged to over- see them. (88:21-22)
Hence there are certain matters, which by nature are not susceptible to coercion and the people, are of necessity free in regard to them; that is, there is no alternative to freedom there.
There are certain other matters where people can be coerced, but co act under coercion in such cases is not any merit. For instance it is a moral duty to be truthful, honest and just and to abstain from cheating others. It is possible co compel people to abstain from lying, dishonesty and theft. But that is from the viewpoint of law and order in society. However, there is another aspect involved in such matters, which is the moral aspect. That which morality requires of one is not that one should speak the truth but that he be a truthful person.
That is, truthfulness must be a spiritual habit for him. Truthfulness, honesty and justice are considered moral virtues when they become one's second nature. A righteous person is truthful, honest and just not due to the fear of penal laws but because he considers these qualities as a merit and human asset for himself, and abhors lying, dishonesty and deceit. Hence these qualities are considered moral virtues when they become part of one's character, and not when one is merely true and honest in conduct. Hence coercion cannot instill moral sense in people, and the moral sense is not susceptible co force.
Another matter, which is not susceptible to coercion and wherein freedom is a necessity, is personal development and growth (rushd). You cannot make a child grow and mature by always ordering him to do things and without giving him the freedom to choose. Within certain limits it is essential to guide him, but it is also necessary to give him a certain amount of freedom. Guidance and freedom should go hand in hand.
There are many social issues in which it is necessary for the guardians of society to guide the people, who will be lost without such guidance. But if they deprive the people of their freedom, even with good intentions (to say nothing of evil intentions), with the pretext chat people lack understanding and capacity, the people will always remain incapable. A society that has no freedom to make its choices and is always compelled to follow the judgments of its leaders -even if the judgments are right and the leaders have good will and fair intentions-it will fall co attain maturity.
Its development and growth lies in freedom, though it may make mistakes a hundred times. It is like a child learning to swim. If you want to teach swimming to a child and instruct him for a hundred years in a classroom concerning the required motions of the arms and legs, he will not learn swimming unless he is allowed to get into water and left free to learn the movements required for swimming. He will also not learn it if you hold him on your hands in water without leaving him on his own.
Freedom is also necessary for intellectual development. If people are denied freedom in matters where they should use their thinking, with the fear that they would make a mistake, or if they are scared of punishment in hell if they think about some religious issue and if a doubt occurs to them, their minds will never develop and mature in respect of religious issues. A religion that requires people to reach its doctrinal truths through thought and intellection, necessarily grants them the freedom, of thought.
It does not frighten them from entertaining doubts and does not tell them that an attempt to reflect concerning a certain problem is a satanic insinuation that would lead one to hell. There exist many traditions in this regard. One of them is the one according to which the Noble Messenger said: "My ummah is absolved of -nine thing; one of them is a doubt that occurs in the course of reflection concerning the creation" i.e. reflection on a doubt concerning the creation). It means that God would not punish one who in the course of his inquiry encounters a doubt. In a famous hadith mentioned in al-Shaykh al-'An.sari's Faraid al-'usial, it is narrated that an Arab Bedouin came to the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah, 1 am doomed!" The Prophet immediately knew his problem and said to him, "I know what you want to say. You want to say that Satan came to you and asked you, 'Who created you?' You answered that it was God. Then Satan asked you, 'Who created Him?' and then you could not give him a reply." the man said, "O Messenger of Allah, that is exactly what happened." The Prophet (S) said to him: 'That is pure faith.' That is, this doubt will lead you to real faith and is a preliminary step towards it.
Skepticism by itself is an evil destination but a good and essential transit. If one were to stop at his doubt and give up further inquiry, that is the skepticism of the lazy, and is destructive. But the man in the story just narrated did not sit at home when the doubt occurred to him. He did not worry that others would censure him for his doubt. That help-immediately came to the Prophet (S) co question him concerning his doubt, showed that he had a spirit of research and inquiry. The Prophet (S) therefore cold him not to worry.
This is freedom of thought. Hence Islam has broken the chains of imitation, and it does not accept a belief in its doctrines that is based on blind imitation of others. Is it possible that such a school of thought should have compelled people to embrace its creed? Islam did not do anything of this kind. What it did was to release man from the bondage of superstitious beliefs chat have nothing whatsoever to do with thought and intellection. It cooks off these chains and then left people to think freely for themselves. The battles chat it fought were against tyrannical regimes, not against people. That is, it fought those who held people captive in the chains of superstition and evil social customs. You cannot show an instance where Islam has fought people. That is why the nations embraced Islam with extreme eagerness and zeal and our own people were one of those.
The issue of freedom of belief constitutes one of the most radiant chapters in the history of Islam. Regrettably the history of other creeds has many a black page in this regard. Unfortunately, we do not give sufficient thought and attention to this matter. 1 have no time to elaborate on this matter and all 1 can do is to ask you to study history. Read the third volume of Albert Malet's work concerning the history of the European Middle Ages.
You will see what crimes have been committed to impose the Christian creed by those who are today making propaganda amongst us that Islam spread through force. You will see what atrocities they have committed amongst themselves (that is those whom they refer co as 'heretical' sects) and against Muslims and the followers of other creeds. Read the history of Zoroastrianism, especially that of the Sassanid era and of Iran before Islam. You will see what kind of conduct was adopted by the Zoroastrians in power and their priests against the Christians and Jews of that period. Read volume 13 of Will Durant's A Story of Civilization, which tells of the atrocities perpetrated by the Christians. Read also the volume 11 of this work, which concerns Islam, especially those parts where the author shows the extent of respect that the Muslims had for the freedom of peoples under their rule. Such a thing has no parallel in the world's history.
The scholars have mentioned two basic reasons for the emergence and expansion of the Islamic civilization. The first one is the un- bounded encouragement offered by Islam to think, learning and education as indicated by the Qur'anic text itself. The second reason they mention is the respect-or as they put it, tolerance and lenience- chat Islam showed to the beliefs of peoples, which allowed it to create a cosmopolitan unity out of different, heterogeneous and mutually hostile peoples.
When this civilization first came into existence, its first nucleus was constituted by the Muslims of the Hijaz. Gradually other peoples joined the fold of Islam. At first only a few of them be- came Muslim. The rest were either Sabaeans, Christians, Zoroastrians or Jews. The Muslims mixed with them in a friendly manner that there, was not the slightest trace of duality in their conduct. It was for this reason that they were gradually assimilated by Islam and embraced Islamic beliefs.
There are a large number of examples that may be cited from history. For instance, we read in history that the Commander of the Faithful 'All (A) repeatedly made this declaration during the period of his caliphate: i.e. 'Ask me any question that you may have so long as 1 am alive and in your midst.' Once a man rose from amongst the audience and in an insolent manner said to 'All (A): "You, who don't know what you are claiming, 1 will ask you. Answer me." From his appearance he did not look to be a Muslim. The accounts describe him as a lean man with long curly hair, who had a book hung in his neck. His appearance was that of the Arabs who had embraced the Jewish faith. At his insolence, the companions of 'All indignantly rose to chasten him. 'All told them to sit down. Then he remarked:
The proofs of God are neither established nor defended by thoughtless acts.
Then turning to the man, he said: "Ask anything that you may want." This sentence of 'All was enough to soften the man. Then he asked several questions and 'All answered them. The sources also mention what these questions and answers were. They also say that at the end the man pronounced the shahddatayn and embraced Islam.
People used to come to the Prophet (S) and put questions to him, to which he would answer. In history you read that 'All (A) often used to be present in the Prophet's Mosque, especially during the rule of the first two caliphs. Explaining the reason for doing so, he said that since the call of Islam had resounded throughout the world, people came from various parts and they had certain questions, which someone should answer.
At times he would send his close companions such as Salman and Abu Dharr to be present in the mosque and to be on the look out for people who came to ask questions and lest there be no one to give an adequate answer or some ignorant person should rudely drive them away. He would tell them so inform him if the visitor was a scholar from some part of the world and had come to inquire concerning Islam.
Even when we compare the Umayyads-with all that is said regarding them and about ninety percent of which is correct-with regimes in otter parts of the world, you will see that they were better. Especially during the era of the 'Abbasids there was a lot of freedom of belief- so far as it did not come into conflict with their policies.
AI-Mufaddal ibn 'Umay was one of the companions of al-'1m&in al-S5diq (A). 6ne day he came across Ibn Abi al-'Awja', an atheist, who was saying blasphemous things to a like-minded companion in the Prophet's Mosque in Madinah. AI-Mufaddal could not restrain himself when he heard Ibn Abl al-'AwjA"s blasphemies. Infuriated, he said to the latter: "O enemy of God, do you mention such things in the mosque of the Messenger of God?" Ibn Abl al-'AwjA' asked him as to which sect of Muslims he belonged.
Later, he said to him. "If you are one of the companions of Ja'far ibn Muharimad, you should know that we say similar things in his presence. He listens to us in such a patient manner that we imagine that he has accepted our views. Then in a poised manner he begins his reply and answers to all our objections. He never becomes impatient and there is no trace in him of this kind of fierceness of yours."
AI-Mufaddal got up and left to see the Imam. When he described to him the matter, the Imam smiled and told him not to be vexed. He told al-Mufaddal to come the next morning for lessons on theology, which would help him in his future debates with atheists. The book al-Tawhid al-Mufaddal that we possess today is a product of that episode.
As 1 said, some of our books of hadith consist of records of polemics and debates (ihtijdjdt). Among these is one of the volumes of the Bihir al-'anwar and al-Tabrisi's al-'lhtijdj. We must study these works, which are records of the debates that our Imams had with the scholars of other creeds, some of whom were materialists and atheists and others were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Sabaeans. Some of these debates were even with idol-worshippers. They would come to the Imams, question them and receive replies from them. None of them was ever told that they had no right to raise such question under a powerful Islamic government.
Of special interest among these debates are those of al-'Imam al-Rida (A) which have been recorded in works of history and hadith. The regimes of Harun and al-Ma'miin were among the most powerful regimes that the world has seen, and had they wanted, they could have easily curbed all freedom of belief and expression and no one would have dared to object. Yet we see that they permitted free debate amongst Mu'tazilite, 'Ash'arite, and even Shi'ite theologians. Though they were number one enemies of the Shi'ah, they, more or less, permitted Shi'i theologians to participate in such debates.
Since Islam had confidence in its own logic, it did not warn people against reflecting on the matters of theology. It is convinced that every human being can attain essential knowledge about God, His existence and Attributes through rational thought. The same is true of belief in prophet-hood and resurrection.
1 have stated it recurringly in my writings that 1 am not only not vexed by the appearance of skeptics who speak against Islam but am even delighted, since 1 know that their emergence will make the countenance of Islam more visible. The existence of skeptics who speak against Islam is dangerous only when the defenders of the faith are so lifeless that they fall to show any reaction. But if there is just enough life in the Islamic ummah so that it can react to the enemy's challenge, be assured that it is ultimately to the benefit of Islam.
In the last four decades, there was Kasrawi, who wrote things against the Shi'ah and occasionally against Islam. Those belonging to the Tudeh Party propounded materialist ideas and raised basic objections against Islam. There emerged other individuals who attacked Islam in the name of Iranian nationalism. But God knows how much service they indirectly and unwittingly rendered to Islam.
When Kasrawi published his writings, the Islamic scholars began to examine critically for the first time those issues which had become blurred during the course of several centuries and which had gradually come to be clustered with superstitious ideas. Before that, the people had no clear ideas about such issue's as Imamate, Shi'ism, taqiyyah, bada' and so on. The 'ulama' then began to discover the facts that had become buried beneath the heaps of false notions that had collected during the course of several centuries due to the absence of sceptics. Then the communists came, who unwittingly rendered great service to the development of Islamic philosophical and sociological thought and resulted in the publication of many a fine writing.
A living religion has nothing to fear from sceptics. Danger arises only when its followers are so dead that they do not show any reaction. Regrettably we have faced such a situation in the past. For instance, at the beginning of the Constitutional Movement there were some individuals who declared that the penal laws of Islam were obsolete. We do not find a single writing of the time that defended the Islamic viewpoint in this regard. The result of it was that some people, due to ulterior motives, and others out of ignorance, set aside the Islamic penal laws as outdated, and translated the penal codes of foreign countries into Persian.
However, today we observe a movement amongst Muslims in regard to other legal issues of Islam-such as women's rights-and there is no cause for worry and the victory ultimately lies with Muslims.
Basically a religion based on reason and thought, on philosophical reasoning and a series of objective advantages, has nothing to worry about in this aspect. That is why the 'freedom of thought that Islam has conferred since its advent to the present upon Muslims and the followers of other creeds has no parallel in the history of nations.

Murtaza Mutahhari
Imam reza network

The Realm of Freedom in the Human Rights Declaration

What the commentators of the Human Rights Declaration and philosophers of law have written in books on the philosophy of law about the limitation of freedom are some items. The first thing that has been brought up as the one setting limit on the individual freedoms is the freedom of others.
That is to say, an individual is free as long as he does not disturb the freedom of others and does not infringe on the rights of others. This is the most important argument that the philosophers of law have ever advanced and they have insisted it.
In fact, in the Human Rights Declaration, which is like the gospel of the Western law philosophers, it has been emphasized that any person is free so long as his freedom does not interfere with that of others. However, if the freedom of a person would create disturbance for others, then he is deprived of such a freedom. And it is at this point that freedom is limited.
At this juncture, many questions can be posed, among which are the following: Firstly, in which areas and categories do you conceive of disturbance on the freedom of others? Are spiritual affairs also included? Is opposition to the religious sanctities of people equivalent to opposition to their freedom, or not?
The Western liberal thought states: The limitation of freedoms does not include spiritual affairs, and opposition to the spiritual affairs does not impose limit on freedom. Thus, when it is said that Islam regards the one who insults God, the Prophet (S) and the sanctities of Islam as an apostate [murtad], and for instance, declared permission the killing of Salman Rushdie for acts of blasphemy against the sanctities of Islam, it does not accept and states that it is free to express one’s opinion. He is an author and he can write whatever he wants to write; you can also write whatever you like. Our question is this: Are the subjects of this book (The Satanic Verses) not an insult on the sanctities of others, or not? Certainly, you cannot say that they are not an insult.
Is freedom of expression so broad that a person on that part of the world could afford insulting the sanctities of over a billion Muslims who love their Prophet (S) more than they love themselves and are ready to sacrifice hundreds of their loved ones for his sake? Do they consider this act as freedom of expression?! If what is meant by freedom of expression in the Human Rights Declaration is such a thing, then we straightforwardly and unhesitatingly do declare that we do not acknowledge this declaration.
The Problems of Categorizing Freedom in the West
Our fundamental question to those who consider as valid this declaration and regard it as equal to the venerable gospel is this: From where has this declaration gained validity? Has it rational basis? In this manner, you have to argue with reason. It cannot easily be said that freedom is above the law and it cannot thus be limited.
If you say that it earned validity as the representatives of countries have signed it, then it becomes clear that its validity depends upon our signature. Now, what about those who have not signed this declaration, or have signed it on conditional basis? Are they also obliged to unconditionally abide by it?
Every society has a particular culture, things considered sacred, and laws, and in one of the provisions of this Human Rights Declaration it is stipulated that every person is free to choose his own religion. Well, once the person chose his own religion, he is supposed to observe its decrees. Choosing one’s religion does not only mean that he has to merely utter so but rather in action he has to be free as well, and to freely observe the precepts of his chosen religion.
Now, we freely chose Islam; Islam states that anyone who insults the holy personages of Islam is sentenced to death. The Western culture states that these decrees of Islam are against human rights, against the natural rights of human beings.
It is because every human being, on account of his natural need, has the right to say whatever he likes. Therefore, these two items (freedom of expression and religious freedom) stipulated in the Human Rights Declaration are contradicting each other.
Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Imam reza network

The Islamic View on the Freedom of Expression and the Press

 The discussion on whether the press and mass media must be free or must not be free is included in the group of “must and must-not” cases and the class of values-related cases. Therefore, the discussion on this issue opens another fundamental discussion on the criterion and origin of determining values.
There are those who believe that values are based on the desire and preference of people in every society. For this reason, one cannot talk about “must” and “must-not” as well as universal values that remain in every period and place. It is natural that on such a basis we have to determine in which period and in which society we are in so that we could know what to tell based on the desire and preference of people of that period and that society.
Yet, in our opinion, this basis is unacceptable and we believe that all social values cannot be determined by means of conducting opinion survey and referring to the public demand. Instead, many of the values are described on the basis of the real interests of human beings. This is apart from the fact that all social values of a society must finally have a rational foundation and must emanate from a coherent and logical system.
On this basis, regarding the second question we will also naturally arrive at the conclusion that the “must” and “must-not” we are talking about in the context of the freedom of the press will be based on the values system of Islam in the same manner that this issue in any other values system in which it is discussed will be based on the same values system.
The values system of Islam is a pyramid-like system with a central point on top and its surfaces below are arranged together in such a way that their placement together would lead us to the top of the pyramid. The ultimate point of values on top of the pyramid is the same thing that we described as “nearness to Allah” [qurb illa’llah]. In the parlance of philosophy, we regard the “ultimate perfection” of man as “nearness to Allah”.
All values in Islam are designed and arranged in such a manner that they are gearing toward the attainment of the ultimate perfection of man, i.e. “nearness to Allah”. In this manner, the criterion and standard of values are also specified. With the acceptance of this basis, every thing that has role in attaining perfection will find a positive value, and every thing that is a hindrance in the attainment of that perfection will be considered anti-value.
Every thing that draws man toward Godliness is a “good” and desirable affair, and every thing that separates man from God and draws him toward materiality and bestiality is “bad” and will have a negative value. The Islamic government and state is also duty-bound to endeavor to preserve and promote values, and to negate and hinder the growth and spread of anti-values.
So, the single criterion in determining “must” and “must-not”, “good and bad” and “value and anti-value”, and philosophically speaking, “hasan” and “qabah” is whether or not it is along the ultimate perfection of man and nearness to Allah. Freedom of the press and mass media can be evaluated on the basis of the same ruling.
If the press and mass media are effective for the perfection and nearness of man to God, it is a desirable affair and will have a positive value, and if they cause separation from God and lagging behind in the path toward his perfection, it will be considered anti-value and in many cases it is incumbent upon the government to prevent them.
If we give opinion on the issue from the philosophical viewpoint, speech and statement are among the human acts. Although in the common usage and public culture it is possible that sometimes action is used in contrast to speech, philosophically, speech is actually a kind of action. In philosophy action means any movement performed deliberately and willingly by man. In sum, action means deliberate movement.
With such a perspective, action is sometimes done by hands, at other times by the tongue, at another by the mind, and at yet other times by the other senses. Now, the general ruling we mentioned about values will be conformed here. That is, human actions, both individual and social, must be placed within the framework of the value system of Islam, and they must not be inconsistent with the movement of man toward the pyramid summit of “nearness to Allah”.
Of course, not all values can be related to “law” in its general sense. One set of values is technically called “moral values”, which are beyond the domain of law. The moral values are also sometimes called religious values notwithstanding the fact that in one sense religious values can also be divided into two: legal values and moral values.
The significant difference between ethics and law is that ethics is related to the domain of private, individual and personal lives of human beings while legal laws are enacted in the context of social actions of human beings and are responsible in organizing social relations.
Therefore, moral values, i.e. individual values, and legal values, i.e. social values and in other words, so long as an action—as per its philosophical definition we have just made—is done totally within the personal and private domain of individual and having no social implication whatsoever, is not covered by the legal laws, and the state and government, which guarantees their implementation, has nothing to do with it.
However, as soon as an action acquires social dimension and in some way finds relationship with others, the legal laws will encompass it and the political system and the government as the guarantor of their execution will take supervision of it.
Earlier, we have also pointed out that freedom of thought and freedom of belief, for example, are essentially not subjects of legal laws because belief and thought are purely personal and private affairs related to the heart. Yes, if the belief and thought wanted to be expressed by the tongue or to be published in the newspaper, magazine and book, this is no longer freedom of belief. Instead, it entered the domain of the freedom of expression, which is the subject of our present discussion.
But regarding the freedom of expression and the press, we have to state that it is natural that they are covered by the legal laws, for speaking and writing are two kinds of actions, which are not only related to the person in question as they may have relations with other members of the society.
In such an assumption, they are social actions and will be covered by the legal laws unless we assumed that a person writes something only for himself and delivering a talk only to himself. Of course, it is obvious that the point of the discussion, and in other words, the point of dispute on the freedom of expression and the press can never be such assumptions.
Speech and writing have social effects, and as such, they are social actions. Apart from that, it must be said that sometimes speech and writing have such social effects that other social actions do not have. The greatest social developments, whether in the positive dimension or negative dimension, have been the result of effects of these two actions.
The most important instrument of the prophets who have been the greatest catalysts of change throughout history in the realm of social life of humanity has been speech and talking. Many political and social tumults and disorders are also formed as a result of the influence of speech and writing.
Nowadays, the role of the newspapers and periodicals in the different arenas of human societies cannot be denied. Thus, there is no doubt that speech and writing must be regarded as important social actions and that the state and government has the right in the set of legal laws to take into account particular rulings for them. It is for this reason that speech is a very important and influential action and it is never been a simple action. Islam has also opened a special account for speech, explaining many decrees and teachings about language and speaking.

Second Exposition
From the viewpoint of Islam, everybody is free to express his or her own belief unless doing so is inconsistent with the human interests.
What is referred to as “interests” includes material and spiritual as well as worldly and otherworldly interests. This issue is similar to the case of a food manufacturer and pharmaceutical company that are free to produce any food or drug unless it is detrimental to the health of human beings. The mere probability of the existence of poisonous and dangerous food or drug in the productions of a producer will render its productions as banned.
Now, you have observed that due to the effect of the spread of the mad cow’s disease in Britain,[3][29] other countries have banned all imported beef products from Britain. Here, there is no more discussion about free trade. Why? It is because with a probability, let’s say, of one in a million, there is a chance that on account of consuming contaminated meat one person will be harmed.
Owing to this minute probability, (import-export) transactions are stopped and no one in the world has also complained as to why you, for example, are acting against the spirit of free trade.
If other things which are detrimental to the human health are also banned, no one will protest why buying and selling them are declared prohibited and their producers prosecuted, and no one either will say that it is against human rights and that human beings are free to produce whatever they like. They are free to produce so long as it is not harmful to others.
Those that exist in the world and are the focus of attention are usually these harms that will be inflicted on the human body and physique. But apart from physical harm, Islam also pays attention to the spiritual and religious damages. It acknowledges freedom so long as it is not physically and spiritually harmful to man.
The people of the world usually regard justifiable the imposition of limit on freedom only on matters harmful to man from the material and physical dimensions, while paying little attention to cases that are damaging to the humanity from the spiritual and religious aspects; in the present period, it can be said that the latter has not been given attention at all.
Alcoholic drinks that obliterate the human intellect, damage the heart and liver, and have numerous other harms, are not prohibited, for the people like them. They say that since the primary right of every human being is freedom in the choice of occupation, if someone wants to open a beverage shop you cannot and should not prevent him. If we would prevent such an occupation and job, we have behaved against human rights.
Prior to the Revolution, by resorting to similar arguments there were hundreds of liquor stores in Tehran and other cities in our country. They were saying that the concerned person has freedom to sell liquor and of course, you are also free to buy as the demand of human rights is that he is free in his job and those who regard it as unlawful [haram] and against the religion are also free not to buy.
Concerning hijab [Islamic modest dress] they are also saying that it must be free. Anyone who wants to have hijab can have it while anyone who does not like it can have without it. Freedom in the choice of attire and dressing is a primary right of human beings. You cannot compel anyone to have hijab. This is against human rights!
What is interesting is that such words are sometimes uttered even by those holding offices or partially holding offices in the Islamic system particularly in some ministries and government organs. Recently, they allegedly sought for the solution in such a manner that a non-government organization in a government building held a meeting for the removal of discrimination against women, and numerous foreign women without hijab participated in this program.
Perhaps, you have also seen in the newspapers its picture. They wanted to issue a decree and put to test the people so as to see to what extent the people are sensitive toward the religious laws and decrees. Thanks to God, because of the intense reaction that was shown by the people, they kept silent. So long as such people are present in this country, the other Islamic values will remain respected, and if some things have ever diminished, by the grace of God and His will, they will be redressed.
In any case, in the Western culture these freedoms do exist and are deemed respectable. They are saying that no law can set limit on them. We who are Muslims and observing the Islamic law have fundamental disagreement with them in this context. For them to merely say that they have been stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for us the said declaration is not a divine revelation. They have stated and written them based upon their culture while we do act based also upon our own Islamic and religious culture, and we do not have any compulsion on the observance of matters contrary to the decree of God and His Messenger (S).

Non-spoken and Media Expression
An issue that must be given attention is that books, periodicals, media, films, the Internet, and in sum, anything that in one way or another performs the function of message transfer, in reality, are the diverse kinds of expression and communication. In order to communicate to others his thoughts, beliefs, inclinations, and anything transpires in his mind and heart, man makes use of language, speech and writing.
Similarly, in a bid to communicate his message to others, he sometimes makes use of other body parts such as the eyes, eyebrows, hands, and feet. At other times, he does the same through drawings and paintings. All of them are means to do a single work, i.e. transfer of one’s message to others. With such a perspective, it is very clear that the newspaper, magazine, book, theatre, film, caricature, radio, television, the Internet, etc. in reality are all “various kinds of expression”, and every legal decree that expression and speech have can also be applied to them.
Therefore, if, for example, Islam states that insulting or embarrassing others, or divulging the secret of the private and personal life of others by means of talking and speaking are not allowed and in some cases they are to be prevented, prosecuted and penalized, doing the same acts through film, newspaper, book, and caricature has the same ruling and it makes no difference whether a person insults and embarrasses others by speaking, or does it by writing in a book or newspaper.
Some think that the paper of the newspaper has sanctity such that by speaking you cannot baselessly attribute something unjustifiable to somebody, but without any supporting document and evidence and only based on the fact that “it is said” or “it is heard” a whole page of the newspaper can be filled with accusations against an individual.
Sometimes you talk to a person face to face from a close distance, expressing to him love and affection. At other times, you write the same expression of love, interest and affection in a letter, which you send to the person concerned. Do these two forms of expression differ from each other? Does the face-to-face way an expression of love while the one inscribed on the paper an expression of hatred?
Once the subject is the same, whether it is uttered by the tongue or inscribed by the pen on a sheet of paper, there is no difference. Yes, there is a difference between them, for once you write and publish it in the book and newspaper its effect is ten times, hundred times, or probably thousand times greater.
If abusing, calumniating and accusing a person by means of speech face to face is bad, writing it in a letter or expressing it through a film and play is equally bad and unacceptable; it makes no difference (as far as the badness of the act is concerned).
If embarrassing a person in front of others by means of speech is bad, embarrassing him in front of thousands and millions of people by means of publishing an essay in a book and newspaper is far worse. It is not that all at once the ruling would be changed and since it was in the newspaper, it is not only not bad but also it would be regarded as sacred.
Therefore, mass media in Islam has no ruling distinct from that of oral expression. If the “spoken” form of something has been morally deemed forbidden, expressing the same through other media is also morally forbidden. If its “spoken” form has been unlawful [haram], its expression in any other means is also unlawful.
If the “spoken” expression of something has been recognized by the legal law as not allowed and prohibited and penalty for doing so is determined, the ruling for expressing the same through other media is also the same. On the contrary, if “spoken” expression of something and spoken reaction to it is deemed obligatory [wajib], in the case of having facilities expressing the same through other communication media is equally obligatory.

The Responsibility of Expression
Of course, it should not be imagined that regarding expression (both spoken and via media) Islam is only concerned with prohibiting and restricting it. Such a notion is totally wrong. So many expositions and statements (both spoken and via media) is deemed permissible from the viewpoint of Islam, without restricting them howsoever.
Many expositions and statements are not only permissible but they are also obligatory. Not only that they are obligatory; instead, some are among the most obligatory things. In a situation wherein the enlightenment of a society and its deliverance from the misguidance of unbelief [kufr] and polytheism [shirk] and impiety depends upon the use of the tongue, pen, film, and any other media, it is incumbent upon man, should he be capable of, to use them all to express the truth and refute falsehood.
Sometimes, this issue is so important in that to exercise dissimulation [taqiyyah][4][30] is unlawful, and in the words of the late Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified), “To take action is obligatory unless there is nothing to convey”.
The movement of Imam Khomeini (r)[5][31]—this greatest socio-political movement of the twentieth century—commenced with the pen and speech. The Imam began his work by issuing manifestos and delivering speeches.[6][32] He regarded speaking and “expression” for him as the most obligatory of all obligations and deemed himself “obliged” to do it. In some cases, his view concerning this “duty” is as what he said: If a person does not shout and voice out (the truth of the matter), he has committed major sin. In this connection, the Holy Qur’an also states:
بَيِّنّاه ما بَعْدِ مِنْ الهُدى وَ البَيِّناتِ مِنَ أنْزَلْنا ما يَكْتُمُوْنَ الَّذينَ اِنَّ اﻟﻼّعِنُوْنَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ وَ اللهُ يَلْعَنُهُمُ أولئِكَ الكِتَابِ فِى لِلنّاسِ

“Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse.”[7][33]
Those learned men who do not convey the truths of religion that God revealed for the people, do not resist against heresies and exercise voluntary silence for the sake of his personal interests are the subject of God’s curse and that of the angels and all those who are entitled to curse. In such cases as per the text of the Holy Qur’an, to express is among the most obligatory things and anyone abandoning it deserves the curse of those who are entitled to curse.
What is meant by “expression” [bayan] is not solely “speaking”. Instead, it includes writing, radio, television, and any media that can possibly be used to spread the truth and save human beings from deviation, ignorance and impiety. In such cases, to express is not only a “right” [haqq] but also a “duty” [taklif]. Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is one of the most important among them.
Of course, there are different stages of its duty. One stage of the duty of expression is related to the people in general while another stage of which is for the individuals who have peculiar facilities, powers and capabilities. In this context, the highest stage of duty is shouldered by the Islamic state and government, which possesses the greatest power and facilities in this respect.
In principle, the general criterion of proving duty for the government is the same general ruling, which we discussed in relation to values. That is to say, what is related to the “interests of society” and along the path of the society in general toward “nearness to Allah”, it is necessary for the government to the extent of its capability to provide them as far as possible.
And it is also incumbent upon the government to remove whatever is detrimental for the interests of society, both material and spiritual, and serves as an impediment for the realization of human perfection.
For instance, if expression of an issue (whether orally or through any other means) is harmful for the welfare of society, its spread must be hindered in the same manner that distribution of poisonous, contaminated and perilous foodstuffs and medicines in the society shall be prohibited.

The Freedom to Ask
An issue that has remained untouched is that sometimes the motive of a person in expressing a subject is not in propagating and promoting it, but in posing the question. That is, as an academic or scientific discussion and subject he wants to make clear for himself this issue. What is the ruling for this issue from the viewpoint of Islam?
In this regard, we have to say that Islam places special importance and value to posing a question and academic discussion, although it would be about the most crucial Islamic principles and teachings. Islam never suppresses raising a question and does not prohibit it.
Not only does Islam not hinder posing a question but also it gives importance to giving the reply and clarifying the doubt to such an extent that if a person from the enemies of Islam at the middle of the battlefield wants to ask a question about the truths of religion Islam has ordered to provide the opportunities for him to come and get a due answer:
يَسْمَعَ حَتّى فَأجِرْهُ اسْتَجارَكَ المُشْرِكِيْنَ مِنَ أَحَد اِنْ وَ يَعْلَمُوْنَ لا قََوْمُ بِأنَّهُمْ ذلِكَ مَأمَنْهُ أبْلِغْهُ ثُمَّ اللهِ كَلامَ

“And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad , then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah; and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.”[8][34]
But the point that must be given attention in this regard is that “there is a place for every talk and position for every point”. Question and inquiry are respectable, but they must be placed within the framework of the same general values system of Islam.
In other words, the manner and circumstances of raising question should not be in such a way that it is harmful to others, make them lag behind in the ultimate perfection and make them deviate from the path of perfection.
Religious and scientific inquiry and question must be posed in their proper place, and not that, for example, doubt would be raised before the assembly of schoolchildren or any other assembly that has no familiarity with the fundamentals of Islam and philosophical and scholastic matters.
Anyone who has a question has to raise it at the academic centers and at the circle of pertinent experts at the religious seminary and other similar academic assemblies. And there is no problem for that. There is no problem either with scientific discussions on religious controversies provided that their particular requisites and etiquettes are properly observed.
If it is so, apart from being not harmful, it also paves the ground for the growth and consolidation of the religious principles and precepts. But if a person does not observe the proper requirements and regulations, and asks the question in such a manner that it leads to the corruption of belief and deviation of others, he must be stopped in the same manner that distribution of any harmful item shall be checked.
Under the pretext of freedom in medical issues, can one spread any microbe in the alley and street?!
This is while there is no problem and impediment in bringing the same microbe in the laboratory and before the experts for study and research on it. Not only that there is no problem but rather it is very important because out of studying it, the experts can discover the means to prevent its infection, to resist against it and to cure those who are afflicted with it, and thus, saving the lives of thousands and millions of people.
Intellectual and religious doubts are exactly similar to it. Raising them in the public opinion of society bears no result except heavy, and sometimes, irreparable and catastrophic losses. But raising them in the academic circle of pertinent experts will result in the further growth, blossoming and exaltation of thought, learning and religion.

Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi

Imam reza network

The Importance of Understanding the Various Meanings of Freedom

These days, what has been talked about more than anything else, and has also been included in the political and legal literature of our country (Iran) and been discussed a lot, is the issue of “freedom”.
For every person, the issue of freedom is interesting. One of the slogans chanted in the Islamic Revolution of Iran was also “freedom”—“Independence, freedom and Islamic Republic”.
Political figures and groups in various countries, on account also of the same attractiveness that this issue has, talk a lot about it. In our own country we can observe that these days and the past three or four years, this slogan is regularly repeated, and everyone is presenting a particular interpretation of it. In order to make the issue clear, it is necessary for us to deal on it a little bit more specifically and precisely, and to examine its diverse aspects.
The interpretation that we usually have of “freedom” is in contrast to captivity, bondage and entanglement. Perhaps, at all times and in all societies the same conception of freedom, more or less, has been and is understood. The various terms, which exist in the different languages for this concept, approximately, are all denoting such meanings.
Every time a person hears this word (freedom) what usually first comes to his mind is that this concept is used in contrast to captivity and bondage. In principle, we comprehend opposite and contradictory concepts with the help of one another. For instance, when we want to describe light we use the concept of darkness. Similarly, in describing the concept of darkness, we discuss the concept of light. There is a famous Arabic expression, which states:
بأضدادها الأشياء تُعرف
“Things are known by means of their respective opposites.”
At any rate, in understanding contradictory concepts; in order for our mind to understand them better and easier, it usually imagines them together. The same is true for the concept of freedom. Once we want to imagine the concept of freedom, we envisage a being in captivity and bondage, saying that freedom means not in such a condition.
For example, we picture out a bird inside the cage, a person whose hands and feet are enchained, or a person who is detained and imprisoned, and we say that freedom means to be not in such a state and to have no such fetters—the bird shall be free from the cage; the hands and feet of the person shall be unfettered; or the person shall be set free from prison and be allowed to go wherever he wants, and thus we say, “He is free”.
The attractiveness of the concept of freedom for man is exactly on account of this contrast with captivity and bondage; for nobody wants to be in captivity, bondage and entanglement. Nobody wants to confine himself in a room and not allow himself to go out. Nobody wants to enchain his own hands and feet such that they could not move.
Everyone wants to freely and willfully go wherever he wants and to behave the way he likes. Without there somebody teaching him so, man naturally and innately likes freedom and liberty, and abhors captivity and bondage. It can even be said that every sensible being is such that he wants freedom of action, and limitation and restriction are against his nature.
Because of this appeal that the concept of freedom has for us, anyone who would also talk about it and praise it will catch our attention, and anything over which freedom is applied is attractive and desirable for us. At this juncture, we are most of the time negligent of these facts: Is freedom having only one meaning?
Or, are there diverse meanings for it? Is freedom, in whatever sense, concordant with the nature of man, and desirable? Is freedom having only a single type, and that is when the bird is freed from the cage? Or, are there various types of freedom, some of which are not only not beneficial but even so destructive and harmful?
As what is stated in the science of logic, one of the fallacies, which is relatively so rampant, is the fallacy of common word, i.e. a word having more than one meaning. The feature and attribute related to one meaning of the word is erroneously proved for the other meaning. As an instance, the word “shir”[2] can be cited. Mawlawi[3] says:
باديه اندر است شير دگر وان باديه اندر است شير يكى آن
می خورد آدم است شير دگر وان می‌خورد آدم است شير يكى آن
That one is shir [milk, or lion] in the badiyeh [cup, or jungle].
And the other one is shir in the badiyeh.
That one is shir, which devours human (or, which human eats).
And the other one is shir, which devours human (or, which human drinks).[4]
The word “shir” means “milk” as well as “lion”. “Badiyeh” also denotes two meanings: the first one is “desert” and the other is “cup” and “vessel”.
In this poem of Mawlawi it is not exactly clear which one is “lion” and which one is “milk”.
Badiyeh is equally not clear which one means “desert” and which is one means “vessel” and “cup”.
Or, the word “zamin” can also be considered. Sometimes, when we say zamin, we mean a limited, small and specific part of the earth. When we say, zamin-e keshavarzi [agricultural land] or when we say, “So-and-so has bought such-and-such zamin,” we mean a limited piece of the earth’s surface. Yet, at other times by zamin we also mean the earth; for example, when we say, “The earth [zamin] is one of the planets in the solar system,” or when we say, “The earth [zamin] revolves around the sun.”
When the earth is meant, the concept of zamin does not only refer to the surface of the earth but also encompass the atmosphere and space as well as the mines and depth of the earth. If we say, “So-and-so has bought such-and-such zamin and has also received its land title,” we do not mean that he has bought the earth and registered it under his name, or if we say that the rotation of the earth causes the day-and-night phenomenon, we do not mean that the rotation of the house or garden’s track of land brings about this development.
In any case, this problem regarding all words having more than one meaning exists. In using this kind of words by us or others, we should be careful lest the fallacy of common word were committed.
The concept of freedom is also among those concepts having diverse meanings, and is used in various senses in different sciences. Owing to this, there is the possibility of committing the fallacy of common word. Consciously or not, one could possibly issue a decree related to one meaning of freedom for another, and could even cause discord among the proponents of freedom.
Sometimes, on one hand, one would present his understanding of a subject and on the other hand, another would say, “I did not mean what you said. What I meant by the concept and meaning that I was defending was something else.” In contrast, the other one will oppose his statement and say, “What you attributed to me was not what I meant. My point is something else.”
If we take a survey of the collection of articles, books and treatises related to the concept of freedom, particularly the works written in the recent years, we will find out that there is no specific and common conception of the term among the scholars and writers.
A person has described freedom in a certain manner and renders his support for it while the other does the same for another conception of freedom and criticizes the other writer’s definition of the term. It is natural that given such differences and disparities in outlook, understanding cannot be attained. In order to attain so, we must have a common definition so as to bring the discussion to a conclusion. That is, once we can answer this question—Is freedom concordant with Islam or not?—then that is the time for us to know the meaning of freedom.
Concerning a term having diverse meanings—since the Western writers in their writings have mentioned up to about two-hundred definitions—although so many of these definitions are closer to one another and only through the omission or commission of one and two words that they are different from one another, in some cases those definitions have also inconsistency with one another—how could it be judged that it is concordant with Islam or not?
Similar to “freedom” is the term “democracy”, which is a Western term and sometimes described also as “populism” and at other times as “the government or sovereignty of the people”. Yet, a fixed and precise definition has not been presented, too. It is not clear whether democracy is a form of government and a type of social conduct. Is it related to the domain of government and political issues, sociology, or management? There is a lot of discussion in this regard.
At any rate, in order not to commit the fallacy of common word regarding the concept of freedom, it is necessary for us to be familiar with its various meanings.
1. Freedom as existential independence
One of the meanings of freedom is that any being shall be totally independent, not to be under the influence or sway of another being, and no kind of dependence to other being shall be presumed about it. For example, if somebody would say that the universe exists by itself, stands by itself and is not dependent on God, and the Will of God has no role in the rotations and revolutions (of its components), this statement connotes that freedom means deliverance of the universe from any sort of divine control.
In this case, as one of the beings in this world, man will also have the same ruling, and it opens the way for us to say that man is free from any kind of responsibility and servitude toward any other being including God. Of course, concerning the independence of the universe, there are two views.
Some believe that there is no such thing as “God” for the universe to be dependent on “it” and be under “its” will. Some others believe that God does exist and has created the world, but after the creation of the universe, He has left it to itself and after the creation the universe is no longer in need of God and is independent from His will.
By abiding with the regulation and system that God has set for it, it spontaneously continues the rotations and revolutions of its components. According to them, creation of the universe is like constructing a building. Once the constructor built the building, its survival no longer depends on his existence. It is in fact independent from his existence. It is even possible that the constructor would die, but the building would remain for tens and hundreds of years.
In the imagination of some, the world is also like that. God created it and thereafter left it to itself. This view denies the “cosmic Lordship” [rububiyyat-e takwini] of God while the first view denies the principle of God’s existence. Both the two views are incompatible with the monotheistic viewpoint of Islam.
2. Freedom as “freewill”
The other meaning of freedom, which is also related to the domains of theology, philosophy, scholasticism [‘ilm al-kalam], and philosophical psychology, is the freedom in contradistinction to “predetermination”. Since time immemorial, this discussion has existed among the thinkers and scholars: Is man really free in his action and has freewill, or is it that he is only imagining that he is free and the truth is that he is under compulsion and has no will of his own?!
The issue of predetermination [jabr] and freewill [ikhtiyar] is one of the oldest discussions, which exists in the philosophical discussions of all peoples and nations. After the coming of Islam or from the very advent of Islam, because of the Muslims’ contact with other peoples and cultures, or due to the intellectual sediments they had in their minds from the culture of pre-Islamic thought and heresy, this issue was intensely discussed among Muslims.
The fatalistic tendencies, meanwhile, gained much currency, and they would even cite Qur’anic verses in proving the predetermined state of man. Among the Islamic schools of thought, Asha‘irah (Ash‘arism), which is among the scholastic schools of the Ahl as-Sunnah, upholds the theory of predetermination.[5] Of course, it is not as extreme and passionate as others.
In any case, this question is posed: In terms of action, does man really have freewill and is free such that he could decide and do whatever he likes? Or, are there elements in the offing, which compel man to do a certain action and even to accept a particular idea and thought, and that freewill is just an illusion?
The proponents of predetermination believe that the different social, natural and supra-natural elements compel us to act and even think and decide in a certain way. According to them, as what Mawlawi cites as an example,
صنم اى است اختيار دليل خود كنم آن يا كنم اين گويى كه اين
That you said I have to do this or that
Is itself a basis of freewill, O master!
Speeches are nothing but illusion and imagination, and are incompatible with the reality; man has no freewill of his own and is under the influence of various elements.
This matter is also discussed in the philosophical psychology: Is man a being who, in terms of personality and mental frame, has the power of decision-making, or not? In scholasticism and theology this is also discussed: As the servants of God, are human beings under compulsion, or autonomous and free?
According to our view and that of the majority of Muslims, this belief in the domain of (personal) opinion and outlook is rejected, although in the domain of action and deed all people know that they have freedom and freewill. If mere predetermination rules over man, there is no more point of having moral and educational systems as well as government organs.
In the domain of ethics and educational system, if man is compelled to do a good or bad action, having no choice of his own, with respect to the good deed he must not be praised, lauded and be given reward. Equally, if he were compelled, he must not be punished and reprimanded for an evil deed.
If the child were compelled in his action, there is no more point of training him, and for controlling his action educational systems must be abandoned. In case both the teacher and trainer, and the child and pupil were under compulsion in their actions, the trainer could not advise the child to perform a certain activity and to avoid a certain undertaking. In the same manner, in the domain of legal, political and economic issues, all those regulations and recommendations that have been made are pieces of evidence that man is indeed free and autonomous.
When man is autonomous to perform a certain action or abandon the same, they will admonish him to perform or abandon a certain act. If he were under compulsion, having no choice and freewill on his action, then there is no point of admonishing or giving order to him.
This freedom and freewill in which we do believe is a creational [takwini] affair whose opposite is predetermination [jabr]. It has been endowed by God to man, is among the peculiarities of man and the criterion of his superiority over all creatures.
Among the creatures that we know, it is only man that has the power to choose and select, notwithstanding his diverse, and at times, contradictory inclinations. In responding to the call of his desires—whether they are bestial desires, or divine and sublime aspirations—he is totally free and autonomous. Undoubtedly, God, the Exalted, has bestowed this divine blessing to man so that out of his freewill he could select the right path or the wrong path.
All the advantages that man has over other creatures including the angels are under the auspices of having the power to choose and select. If he would make use of this power in the right path and choose the divine wishes while putting aside the bestial desires, he will reach an exalted station wherein the angels will feel humble before him. Of course, man’s possession of this freedom is a creational issue. Approximately, nowadays, nobody denies it and regard himself as totally under compulsion, having no freewill of his own. The Qur’an naturally gives emphasis on this issue:
﴾
…فَلْيَكْفُرْ شاءَ وَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ شاءَ فََمَنْ رَبِّكُمْ مِنْ الْحَقُّ قُلْ وَ
﴿
“Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.”[6]
كَفُوْراً﴾ اِمّا وَ شَاكِراً اِمّا السَّبِيْلَ هَدَيْنَاهُ اِنّا
﴿
“Lo! We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving.”[7]
Hundreds of verses, nay it can be said, the entire Qur’an, highlight the autonomy of man because the Qur’an is meant for the guidance of man. If man were under compulsion, his being guided was a predestined matter and so with his being misguided, and there was no place for guidance by choice.
In this manner, the Qur’an will become useless and futile. It is clear that the second meaning of freedom is different from the first one that we mentioned. Of course, they are common in indicating objective realities and so to speak, the “beings” and “not-beings”. None of the two meanings falls in the domain of “must” and “must-not”.
If man had been really created to be under compulsion, it can no longer be said: “He must be free.” On the contrary, if man had been created as autonomous, it cannot also be said: “He must be compelled.” In these two meanings of freedom, one cannot speak of “mandatory” and “moral” orders.
If in the parlance of philosophy it is proved that man is created to be under compulsion, the slogan of the freedom of man can no longer be chanted. If man is by creation under compulsion, whether we like it or not, the freedom of man will be an impossible and absurd affair. The domain of “being and not-being” is different from that of “must and must-not”.
Therefore, if someone applied “freedom” with its creational meaning and then arrived at the “must and must-not”, he is committing that fallacy of common word, which we pointed out before. If we proved that man by creation is free, one cannot arrive at the legal and moral freedom, and say: “So, he must be free,” or “It is good” for him to be free”. To discover and prove an external reality is one thing, and to talk about “good and bad” and “must and must-not” is another. One must not mix the two together, however.
3. Freedom as “the lack of attachment”
The third meaning of freedom is a concept, which is often used in ethics and mysticism. In this famous poem of Hafiz,[8] he has pointed to it:
است آزاد ﺗﻌﻠﻖپذيرد رنگ هرچه ز كبود چرخ زير كه آنم همت غلام
I am the servant of anyone who under the sky
Is free from every color of attachments.
In this sense, freedom is the opposite of “belongingness” and “attachment”. That is, sometimes the heart of man is attached and fond of some things, and at other times it has no attachment to anything; it is free from any form of belongingness.
Of course, what is meritorious is that man should have no affection to the world, material things, and worldly and non-divine pleasures, and not that he should have no love and affection to anything or anybody including God, the Prophet (S),[9] awliya’ [saints], and the like.
One more precise and mystical meaning of “the lack of attachment” is that the man in the sublime station of monotheism reaches a point where his love belongs to anything or anybody except the Divine Sacred Essence. In this state, even if he would love a person or thing, it is under the auspices, and because, of love of God, which is under the aegis of the Divine Beauty. In the perspective of the Islamic sciences, one of the highest stages of human perfection is love and affection to God:
لِلّهِ﴾ِ حُبّاً أشَدُّ آمَنُوا الَذِينَ وَ
﴿
“Those who believe are stauncher in their love for Allah.”[10]
In the Du‘a Kumayl[11] we read:
مُتَيِّماً بِحُبِّكَ قَلْبِى وَ
“(O Lord! Make) my heart enthralled by Your love!”
Similarly, this subject is also present in numerous supplications and traditions, and the highest station of man is that the love of God encompassed his entire being from head to foot and his whole heart is enthralled with His love such that not a single speck of love to other than God is ever present there.
This meaning is another conception of freedom; freedom means “emancipation” and lack of attachment to anything and anybody other than God. It is again obvious that this meaning is totally different from the first two meanings mentioned earlier. The two meanings are related to the domains of realities and “beings and not-beings” while this meaning is related to the domain of values and “must and must not”. Here, we are saying that it is “good” for man to be free from affection to other than God, and if he wants to acquire more perfection, he “must” be free and liberated from love to other than God.
If we apply this meaning to freedom, then absolute freedom is not desirable. That is, that man should be free from love and affection to anything and anybody other than God, the Exalted, is against moral values.
There is also an opportunity here to commit error and fallacy. Anyone would deceptively talk about freedom in this sense that man must not be under captivity and bondage, and then say that man must thus not be fettered even by the love of God and that he must emancipate himself and be totally free. To emphasize his point, he would recite the same poem of Hafiz:
است آزاد ﺗﻌﻠﻖپذيرد رنگ هرچه ز كبود چرخ زير كه آنم همت غلام
I am the servant of anyone who under the sky
Is free from every color of attachments.
This is while it is an obvious and deceptive fallacy. When did Hafiz wanted to say that “I am the servant of the aspiration of him who, to the extent of being insensible and cold-hearted, nurtures nobody’s love in his heart”? Hafiz negates affection and attachment to other than God.
His point is the negation of affection to materiality and worldliness, and that man should give his affection to a thing, which is worthy of such an affection, as well as to somebody who is the embodiment of all goodness, and whatever beauty and perfection existing in the world are all reflections of His Beauty. This is yet another meaning of freedom, which is often applied in ethics and mysticism.
4. Freedom vis-à-vis “slavery”
The fourth meaning of freedom is a social subject and that is freedom vis-à-vis “slavery”. In the past it was such that some human beings used to take other human beings as slaves, forcing them to work, buying and selling them. Some were also free and were slaves to no one. This meaning of freedom is also totally different from the three meanings mentioned earlier, having its own particular ruling features.
There are also numerous meanings of freedom apart from these four, which we will presently refrain from mentioning. We will instead tackle a meaning of freedom which is related to law and politics, and is the focus of our attention for the present discussion.
The purpose of mentioning these meanings of freedom is for us to pay attention to the fact that freedom has numerous meanings, each having its own particular ruling features, and the ruling features and effects of one meaning must not be erroneously applied to the other meanings.
5. Freedom in the legal and political parlance: mastery over one’s destiny
One current meaning of freedom advanced in law and politics is freedom in the sense of “mastery over one’s destiny”. In this meaning, man is free in the sense that he is not subject to the sovereignty of others and he is the one determining the mode, nature and way of his own life. Naturally, on the contrary, a person who is under the domination of others, receiving orders from the latter to do or not to do something, and cannot act the way he likes, is not free.
Thus, freedom in the legal and political parlance of the contemporary world means the negation of the right of others to have sovereignty over man, even if they happened to be God, the Prophet, the Commander of the Faithful,[12] and the Imam of the Time[13] (‘a).[14]
In this perspective, only man and his sovereignty right are genuine. If man himself willfully delegated this genuine right of him to God, the Prophet or others, they will acquire the same right; otherwise, they do not have the right. In sum, “man is free” means that no one and no being has the right to trample on the right of man to have mastery over his destiny and to designate duties for his life and actions.
In interfering on the affairs and lives of people, the jurist-guardian [wali al-faqih], infallible Imams (‘a) and the Prophet (S), who have their own particular stations, and even God Himself have to wait for their approval otherwise they have no right to issue decree and order to the people, and even if they did so, it has no value, and the people are not obliged to accept their enjoinment and prohibition.
Notes:
[2] In Persian language the word “shir” means various things: lion, faucet and milk. [Trans.]
[3] It refers to Mawlawi Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi (1207-1273), the greatest mystic poet in the Persian language and founder of the Mawlawiyyah order of dervishes (“The Whirling Dervishes”). He is famous for his lyrics and for his didactic epic, Mathnawi-ye Ma‘nawi [Spiritual Couplets]. [Trans.]
[4] In the last two lines of the poem, with the absence of the Persian post-positional word “ra”—which is common in poems—in either the word shir [milk, or lion] or insan [man], it is not clear which line means “The lion [shir], which devours human,” or “The milk [shir], which human drinks.” [Trans.]
[5] For information on Asha‘irah and other scholastic schools in Islam, see Murtada Mutahhari, “An Introduction to ‘Ilm al-Kalam,” trans. ‘Ali Quli Qara’i, At-Tawhid Journal vol. 2, no. 2 (Rabi‘ ath-Thani 1405 AH-January 1985), available online at http://www.al-islam.org/at-tawhid/kalam.htm. [Trans.]
[6] Surah al-Kahf 18:29.
[7] Surah al-Insan (or, ad-Dahr) 76:3.
[8] It refers to Khwajah Shamsuddin Muhammad Hafiz Shirazi (ca. 1325-1391), the fourteenth century Persian lyric bard and panegyrist, and commonly considered as the preeminent master of the ghazal form. [Trans.]
[9] The abbreviation, “S”, stands for the Arabic invocative phrase, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa alihi wa sallam [may God’s salutation and peace be upon him and his progeny], which is used after the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S). [Trans.]
[10] Surah al-Baqarah 2:165.
[11] Du‘a Kumayl [Supplication of Kumayl]: The supplication taught by Imam ‘Ali (‘a) to one of his loyal companions and staunch supporters of Islam, Kumayl ibn Ziyad. Usually offered on every night preceding Friday [Laylat’ul-Jum‘ah] individually or in congregation after Isha’ prayers, this supplication envisages divine teachings and solid foundations of religion in order to enable everyone to follow the right path for becoming a worthy Muslim. The Arabic text, English translation and commentary of this famous supplication are available online at http://www.al-islam.org/kumayl. [Trans.]
[12] The Commander of the Faithful: ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, and first of the Twelve Imams after the Prophet. He exercised rule from 35/656 until his martyrdom in 40/661. See Yousuf N. Lalljee, ‘Ali the Magnificent (Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 1987); Muhammad Jawad Chirri, The Brother of the Prophet Mohammad (Imam ‘Ali), (Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 2000); George Jordaq, The Voice of Human Justice, trans. M. Fazal Haq (Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 1990). [Trans.]
[13] It refers to Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Mahdi, the Twelfth and Last Imam from the Prophet’s Holy Progeny who is presently in the state of major occultation and will appear on the appointed time in the future to fill the world with truth, justice and faith after being engulfed by falsehood, injustice and unbelief. For further information on the Islamic belief on the Mahdi, see Ayatullah Ibrahim Amini, Imam Mahdi: Just Leader of Humanity, http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/index.htm; Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr and Ayatullah Murtada Mutahhari, Awaited Savior, http://www.al-islam.org/awaited/index.htm. [Trans.]
[14] The abbreviation, “‘a” stands for the Arabic invocative phrase, ‘alayhis-salam, ‘alayhimus-salam, or ‘alayhas-salam [may peace be upon him/them/her], which is used after the names of the prophets, angels, Imams from the Prophet’s progeny, and saints (‘a). [Trans.]
Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Imam reza network