This is a caption

“This is a caption”
Mohammad Javad Akbarian

The conflict between human rights and sacred boundaries has always been ongoing. As human rights progress to grant more freedom of expression and criticism, sacred values also find more examples to prevent arrows of criticism and denial from reaching the sanctity and boundaries of believers and religious individuals.

Of course, Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines the boundary of this confrontation so that under the name of human rights and freedom of expression, it does not lead to violence and spreading of “national, racial, and religious” hatred; these three descriptions of national, racial, and religious are mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article and their violation is subject to legal prosecution. In the American Convention on Human Rights adopted in 1969, it is also stated that any propaganda that leads to inciting national, racial, and religious hatred is considered a punishable crime (paragraph 5 of article 13).

“When a legislator uses interpretations similar to these three descriptions in a legal statement, these interpretations are not created in vain and have an external manifestation and a platform for implementation. Therefore, the legislator has paid attention to the separation of these three and the pursuit of punishment for such crimes in the outside world.”

So it is not possible to only be sensitive to national and racial hatred, but when it comes to religion, the hand of freedom of expression is left so open that these laws become meaningless and without context. On the other hand, it is not possible to consider the range of sanctities so wide that any criticism is perceived as an insult and incites hatred and produces violence.

In the new world and capacity of social networks, where even the smallest voices can quickly spread and react, it seems that lawyers, jurists, and muftis should consider these titles more in foreign cases.

But despite all the ambiguity in the cases, the door of execution as a pretext for insulting sacred beliefs must be closed forever; this is how certain the observance of human rights is, that human life should not be sacrificed for these concepts and ambiguities.

This ambiguity even exists in texts that document executions; for example, there is no punishment in the Quran for those who insult God and the Prophet, and the few narrations that are used to justify the execution of such individuals are not classified as authentic hadiths. The claim of consensus among Shia and Sunni jurists regarding the execution is false, and this claim is opposed by prominent figures in both sects.

In the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392, there are many provisions regarding insults; in article 263 it is stated that if the accused claims that their statements were made under coercion, negligence, mistake, or in a state of intoxication, anger, or habitual use of profanity, or without paying attention to the meanings of words or quoting from someone else, it will not be considered as insulting the Prophet.

All of these points show that there are no clear boundaries for criticism and insults, human rights cannot be ignored in the face of “national, racial, and religious” hatred, and one cannot submit to the development of sanctities.

If there is any doubt at any point in this complex issue, one thing must be considered indisputable and that is “human life”. If one can contemplate and argue about any human right, “the right to life” must transcend the arguments between rights and truth, and rise above laws, judgments, and examples.