There is an international organization called the “International Federation for Human Rights,” whose headquarters is in Paris. Here is an account of the situation of this organization, which is devoid of the guidance of divine revelation:
Allamah Mufti Muhammad Taqi Osmani, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, says: “Some time ago, a researcher from this organization came to Pakistan for a study. He came to me for an interview and stated: ‘Our goal is to work for freedom of thought. Many people are in prison and detention centers for advocating their freedom of thought, and they should be released. This is a united issue that no one should disagree with. I have been sent to Pakistan to gauge the opinion of various segments of society on this issue. I have heard that you are in contact with many scholars; I also have some questions for you.’
I asked him what the purpose of this review was. He said: ‘I want to learn what different groups think about this.’ ‘When did you come to Karachi?’ I inquired. ‘I arrived this morning,’ he replied. ‘When are you coming back?’ I asked. He said: ‘I will go to Islamabad tomorrow morning.’ ‘How many days will you stay in Islamabad?’ I probed. He said: ‘I will stay in Islamabad for one day.’ I remarked: ‘You want to gauge the opinions of different groups and then report your findings to the center. In your opinion, how many days are sufficient for this purpose in these two or three cities?’ He replied, ‘It’s clear that in this period of three days, not everyone’s opinions will be clear. But I meet with different intellectual groups; I have met some, and that’s why I came to consult you. You can guide me.’
I asked him how many people he had met in Karachi that day. He said: ‘I have met and talked with three people, and you are the fourth.’
I responded, ‘You have asked for the opinions of four people, and then you will write in your report that this is the opinion of the people of Karachi. Excuse me, but I object to the accuracy of this review; this is not how research is conducted. That’s why I won’t answer your questions.’
He apologized for his short time and stated he could only meet a few people. I said, ‘If time is limited, what was the need for you to take responsibility for this review?’ He insisted, ‘Although your protest is valid, you still have to answer some of my questions.’ I apologized again and said that I could not cooperate with such a careless and incomplete review. I added, ‘Of course, if you allow me, I would like to ask a few questions about the fundamental purpose of this organization.’ He said, ‘I came to ask you originally; if you don’t want to answer my questions, then ask any questions you have about our office.’
I asked: ‘You said that the department on whose behalf you were sent is the banner of freedom of thought. Of course, absolute freedom of thought is significant; but does it have limitations?’ He replied, ‘I did not understand what you meant by this question.’ I clarified: ‘What I mean is this: Is this freedom of thought so absolute that whatever comes to a person’s mind can be expressed, spread, and others invited to it? For example, my opinion is that the capitalist members of society have accumulated huge wealth, so the poor have the right to loot their capital and steal their property. I will promote a theory that the poor should loot and that no one will arrest them because the capitalist class acquired this capital by exploiting the poor. Now you say: are you in favor of this freedom of thought or not?’
He replied, ‘We do not support this way of thinking.’ I then said, ‘I want to clarify the same thing: if freedom of thought is not absolute, do you agree that there should be limits?’ He said, ‘Yes, there should be limits; for example, my opinion is that freedom of thought should be restricted so that violence and hardship are not inflicted on others as a result.’ I replied, ‘You have applied this rule based on your opinion; but if someone believes that certain great goals cannot be achieved without violence, and that we must accept the losses of violence to achieve those lofty goals, is that person’s freedom of thought acceptable or not? Secondly, according to your view, you impose a condition for freedom of thought. Does another person have the authority to impose a different condition based on their opinion or not? Otherwise, there must be a reason to act according to your opinion and not others. Therefore, my essential question is: What are these limitations? Who decides on the existence of these restrictions? What criteria do you have based on which you make the decision to impose certain restrictions on freedom of thought, while not applying others? Please provide me with a precise criterion by which you can determine that such and such a restriction is correct while another is incorrect.’
He replied, ‘We have never thought carefully about this aspect of the matter.’ I said, ‘You belong to a large international organization, and you have come to prepare a report for that organization and have taken responsibility for it; but this basic issue is not in your mind – what should be the scope of freedom of thought? In my opinion, your program is not fruitful. Please find the answer to my question through the organization’s information and by consulting your colleagues.’
‘I will report your comments to the organization and provide the information we have on the matter,’ he said. Then he thanked me profusely and left. To this day, I am waiting for the information and the answer to my question, as per his promise, and I am certain he will be unable to provide a response by the Day of Judgment, nor offer a standard that is universally accepted. This is because one person establishes one standard, while another may choose a different one. Your standard is born from your reasoning, and his standard arises from his reasoning. We find no one in the world who prescribes a standard that is universally applicable.
I say without hesitation and fear that man has no other criteria than “divine revelation” by which he can provide a mandatory and eternal measure for the permissible implementation of these vague notions. Without Allah’s guidance, man has nothing else.
If you study philosophy, you will encounter the issue of the relationship between law and ethics. There is a school of thought that claims: “Morality has nothing to do with the law, and the idea of good and bad is misleading; nothing is inherently good or inherently bad.” This school asserts that the terms should, shouldn’t, maybe, etc., arise from human desires; without this, there is no notion and no criterion for determining good and bad. This is the renowned principle of divine law (jurisprudence) over secular law. At the end of this discussion, it is stated: “Humanity can have one basis for determining these matters, and that is religion; but since religion is a belief of man and has no place in a materialist system, we cannot accept it as a foundation.”
