Editor in Chief: Moh. Reza Huwaida Friday, March 29th, 2024

Lack of Religious Tolerance

|

Lack of Religious Tolerance

I remember vividly when my professor said that whoever talks about the holy Prophet recklessly, you can behead him/her immediately without taking them to court. Although my classmates beamed with satisfaction, nonetheless I felt an infusion of strong rage and emotion. I raised my hand to critique him but I was not given a chance. My classmates, who showed great religious orientation, rolled their eyes. I had to repress my feelings and the lump in my throat. I kept silent with a burst of emotion burning in me.

If you breathe a word secularly, you will be labeled ungodly, anti-religious, member of a particular party, supporter of Western ideas, etc. Further persistence in your belief will be construed as having stronger ties with a party, and keener interests in secular or anti-religious ideas. Jalauddin Mulavi, a great Islamic mystic, tells a good parable in his poetry. In this parable, an old man complains to a doctor of a headache. The doctor attributes his pain to his oldness and senility. When he further complains about his poor eyesight or shortness of breath, he gets the same answer. Then, he gets furious and scolds the doc for his silly idea. The doctor also attributes the man’s anger to his oldness and interprets his intolerance a proof to his own claim. So, is there anyway left for the old man other than keeping silent?

Today, critical analyses, fair judgments and talking in social atmosphere have changed to a great challenge. Although political categorizing upholds the spirit of freedom, nonetheless it does more harm than good. It closes the door to critiques and analyses. When you want to move your lips to say something, you will be asked which party do you support or have membership in. Then, without paying attention to your opinion and analyses, you will be labeled unfairly and all your words will be judged upon your particular orientation, party, etc. Finally, your words will fall on deaf ears. One will face this dogmatic method in our society.

The dogmatic individuals abound who cherish their own beliefs and deny the others’. In other words, it is really jaw-dropping to see them show no tolerance towards critique regarding their religious beliefs however, refuse others’ beliefs with great disparage! They deem themselves right and the others wrong. They believe that only their own beliefs lead to salvation. Therefore, they allow themselves to insult the others.

For religiously biased individuals, religion is a celestial inspiration veiled in sanctity and secrecy rather than a terrestrial commodity sent to the earthly creature to practice it as a code of life. So, according to them, humanly interpretations and exposure to public accessibility will relegate the position of a sanctified religion. Moreover since religion chose a secret language, it is beyond the people’s understanding. Hence, the followers’ responsibility is to respect it and whoever dares talk recklessly, has to be attacked or even beheaded in a desert court.

John Hick, an English philosopher of religion, began to find great difficulty, during the course of his life, in trying to justify the belief that one faith-tradition was true, and that friends of his who were not-Christians would be going to hell for not subscribing to a belief in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, on the basis of his extensive reading of the scriptures of other faith traditions, he began to see that there was just as much ‘good’ to be found in them, as there was in the Bible.

Hick began to argue that a person’s religious beliefs were largely decided by where they were born, and that people cannot be held accountable for “accidentally” being born in a non-Christian environment. For example, if a person is born in India into a Hindu family and leads a devout Hindu life, it seems odd that God should condemn them for this simply because they were not born in a Christian country, or a Christian family, or because a Christian missionary had failed to reach them and tell them about Jesus before they died. In fact, it is obviously going to be the case that a person born in India will most likely grow up with the belief that salvation is achieved through the many Hindu gods. Moreover, as someone born in Saudi Arabia is most likely going to become a Muslim and follow the teachings of Islam.

With this insight, Hick felt he had dealt Christian exclusivism a mortal blow:

“Can we be so entirely confident that to have been born in our particular part of the world carries with it the privilege of knowing the full religious truth?”

According to Hans Kung, a Swiss Catholic priest and theologian, insofar as a religion serves the virtue of humanity, supports human beings in their dignity, and allows them to gain meaningful and fruitful existence, it is a true and good religion. But if religion spreads inhumanity and hinders human beings in their human identity and meaningfulness, prevents them from achieving a meaningful and fruitful existence, it is a false and bad religion.

I do agree and appreciate John Hick and Hans Kung for their great religious tolerance and for not deeming only themselves right and the others wrong. Such pluralistic ideas are highly respectable and prevent from disagreement and disunity. The world, especially our society, should learn from the history. Many historical wars and bloodshed originated in religious intolerance. Moreover, Islamic countries, especially Afghanistan and Iraq suffer bitterly due to religious radicalism – which gave birth to Taliban here and ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Hope our people, particularly mullahs give up religious stereotypes. 

Hujjatullah Zia is the newly emerging writer of the Daily Outlook Afghanistan. He can be reached at outlookafghanistan@gmail.com

Go Top