The first free-religious temple in Holland and the proposal for protecting sacred personages of all religions (1926)

De Vrij-Religieuse Tempel and Islam Ahmadiyyat

Miss Hidayat Budd writes:

On the afternoon of 29 May 1926, many representatives and members of various creeds and faiths gathered together on the building site at the Daniel Willinkplein in Amsterdam to assist at the laying of the foundation stone for the first Free-Religious Temple in Holland by Mrs E Groen-Levy, one of the establishers and prominent members of the Vrij Religieuse Tempel at Amsterdam.

As a symbol that the ceremony which was to take place concerned all fellowmen, flags of all nations were flying out over the building site; also, the flag, which no Muslim can behold without joy, flew out freely in the sunshine over the heads of its Dutch friends.

After a short inspiring speech delivered by the ever zealous leader of the Temple Society, Mr KH Noest, Jr., the ceremony took place, the first stone being laid for the building where everyone who wishes to speak of the beauties of his religion will be a welcome friend.

If it be the will of God, in the latter half of this year, the ideal of Mr Noest and his family and friends – all hard workers of the Temple Society – will partly have become a reality after many trials and hardships and disappointments, and Holland will be able to offer a place where everyone will be able to proclaim the glory of God in his own way.

On the charter, now resting beneath the foundation stone, also appears the name of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Holland, as represented at the ceremony and in the annals of Ahmadiyyat in Holland, the name of the Vrij Religieuse Tempel will ever be mentioned with gratitude.

By the grace of Allah, several times already Maulvi Abdur Rahim Dard [ra] has been a guest of this Society, delivering from its platform the message of Ahmad (as) to the Dutch public; and the bimonthly paper of this Society, “De Tempel” is also always open to Islam. What help and cooperation the Vrij Religieuse Tempel can give, is given in all love and sincerity.

I hope that no Muslim visiting Holland will omit paying a visit to the building at the Daniel Willinkplein in Amsterdam, in which homage is paid to the religion of Islam, in which the names of Muhammad and Ahmad, peace and the blessings of Allah be upon them both, are mentioned and listened to with no less respect than to those of every other prophet of God.

Lastly, I request all my brothers and sisters to pray that also upon this noble leader and his family and their coadjutors may descend the peace of Allah and His mercy and His blessings, so that they may feel that the love, given by them to Muslim fellowmen is never given in vain, but returns to them a thousand-fold from all quarters of the earth.

A proposal to amend the British blasphemy law and protect the honour of all religions

The British government cannot be unaware of the fury of the Muslim world at a cartoon of Muhammad (sa) published some time ago in the Star. The imam of the London Mosque and, at his instance, the ambassadors of the Muslim Kingdoms, protested against it. The professors of Azhar University, Cairo, approached King Fuad, and the Muslim press of India, Egypt and Palestine raised its voice against it.

The Star received a number of letters condemning the cartoon and, as the Morning Post informs us, it led to meetings, resolutions and prayers all over India. The government of India was also called upon “to make immediate representations to the British government regarding measures to be adopted to prevent the recurrence of such outrageous conduct.”

The Indian correspondent of the Morning Post, moreover, remarked, “There is no doubt whatever that quite unwittingly the cartoon has committed a serious offence which, had it taken place in this country, would almost certainly have led to bloodshed.”

The Muslim world was particularly offended by the fact that criminal proceedings could be taken if Jesus Christ were caricatured in this manner, but that nothing could be done in the case of Muhammad (sa); and the Comrade of India, referring to this distinction made in the English law, says, “Such is the law as it is administered in the ‘traditionally fair and impartial England’.”

The English law, as it stands, lays down:

“All contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, or exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule” are punishable by the English courts with fines, imprisonment and corporal punishment.

An Act of Edward VI, moreover, goes so far as to lay it down that persons reviling the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by contemptuous words or otherwise shall also suffer imprisonment. But the law offers no such protection to the followers of other religions. The honour of the founders of the great religions of the world is not safe in England; yet the Empire of which England is the centre, comprises all kinds of religions. Apart from the fact that a considerable number of English people profess religions other than Christianity, people come here from all parts of the world, and if undesirable events such as this are allowed to continue, we are sure that the prestige of the British government all over the world and especially in her Colonies, will seriously be damaged.

The world has already suffered a good deal through religious intolerance and fanaticism, and such a distinction in the law of a civilised country such as England is quite unjustified, unnecessary and unreasonable.

We therefore take this opportunity of suggesting that the existing law be so amended as to protect the religious susceptibilities of the followers of all other religions as well. It is surely the least courtesy that can be shown to the peoples of the Empire. Christianity would lose nothing, the honour of Jesus Christ would be equally intact, and the injustice of which England is now ashamed would be changed into a noble regard for the feelings of a vast majority of our fellow subjects within the Empire.

The desirability of this amendment is emphasised by the fact that the law against blasphemy is not now actively administered and people enjoy greater freedom in every respect than heretofore. If, however, the amendment of the law is not possible, it would surely be better to abolish the blasphemy laws altogether for those reasons given elsewhere in the same issue of our magazine.

Attempted repeal of the blasphemy laws

According to the Bible, it is laid down that a father must slay his own daughter or wife, his son or his friend for a difference of religion. It is written:

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother or thy son or thy daughter, of the wife of thy bosom or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ thou shalt not consent unto him but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

The punishment for blasphemy is also death. It is written:

“And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well as the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:16)

The history, therefore, of all Christian countries is blackened by these teachings of the Bible. The horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition are only too well known, while burning, imprisonment and death for the heretic were at one period, matters of common occurrence.

In England, in 1676, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Matthew Hale, ruled that Christianity was part and parcel of the laws of England and that, therefore, to speak in reproach of the Christian religion was to speak in subversion of the law. But the increasing divisions within the Christian Church and the growth of liberty of thought made it impossible to maintain this attitude in all its rigour and there gradually grew up (much against the teachings of the Bible) the doctrine that the manner, as well as the matter, must be considered in establishing a charge of blasphemy.

Later on, it was contended that blasphemy consisted not merely in the use of language which to some religious people might be objectionable, but must be of such a nature that it incites a breach of the peace or is calculated to do so. This is not all, however, for there is now established in London a society which is trying to get the existing intolerance of the law repealed. This society is called “The Society for the Abolition of the Blasphemy Laws” and numbers several MPs among its supporters. The contentions on which the society bases its arguments are given below:

1. Under whatever form the law of blasphemy is applied, it must be regarded as an attack on opinion. So long as the test of “decencies of controversy”, when connected with religion, does not mean what the phrase means when applied to other controversial subjects, there is a discrimination which is determined by the opinion under discussion.
2. There is no clear rule and cannot well be one as to what the decencies of controversy are. It must always be a matter of opinion whether, in view of all the circumstances, the language used is suitable or otherwise. The man charged with the offence cannot tell. He may be using language which to him is quite inoffensive. He cannot know whether the language he has used is “blasphemous” or otherwise until a jury has settled the point. And, clearly, whether the language used by anyone is likely to arouse strong feelings must be determined by education and environment. What would be suitable language in Whitechapel might be unsuitable in Mayfair. In these circumstances, punishment for blasphemy becomes virtually a punishment for lack of education or of taste.
3. A blasphemy law does not prevent blasphemy. It cannot prevent it from being either spoken or written. The most deadly sarcasm, the most scathing ridicule, and the fiercest invective may safely be used by a man who is able to wield them with sufficient literary or oratorical skill. It is the poor man, the uneducated, who alone suffers.
4. It is idle to suggest that a blasphemy law is necessary to protect the religious feelings of people from coarse ridicule. First, the religious feelings of all people are not protected. If a man goes out into the highways and coarsely reviles the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass or some doctrine peculiar to the Jewish or Muhammadan religion, he may be charged under the ordinary law with inciting to a breach of the peace or with using indecent language; but he cannot be charged with blasphemy. The religion protected by the blasphemy laws is practically that of the Church of England. Other Churches are protected only to the extent to which they hold doctrines in common with the established Church. Second, the real, the only adequate guarantee of decency of controversy is the good taste and the education of the public. This is found adequate in the discussion of political and all other questions, and it should surely prove itself equally efficacious in the matter of religion.
5. There is a growing dissatisfaction with this law of blasphemy. There has not been a single case of prosecution for blasphemy within recent years in which a number of clergymen and others, in no way upholding the opinions of the person indicted, have not protested against the existence of such a law. They resent the imputation that their religion needs some special form of protection and are anxious to divest it of the suspicion that it requires any other protection than that furnished by the common sense and good taste of the public. They claim that the manner in which the blasphemy laws are administered gives to many an obscure person a gigantic State advertisement and so intensifies the evil it is intended to cure.
6. The contention that if the present Bill becomes law, there will be nothing to prevent people from using coarse and indecent language in connection with religion is untrue. If the language used is genuinely indecent and so offensive that it may lead to a breach of the peace, it can, under either heading, be dealt with by the ordinary law. The promoters of this Bill have no desire to encourage or to sanction offensive or indecent language. They merely desire that the law which operates shall function with all alike, irrespective of their religious or non-religious beliefs. As long as the law applies to all alike, no one and no class has a special grievance. If the ordinary law is not strong enough to deal with abusive or coarse language in controversy, it should be strengthened. But a law passed and administered in the interest of one set of opinions and existing for their protection is alien to the liberal temper and destructive of the religious freedom which should exist in this country.

(Transcribed and edited by Al Hakam from the original English, published in the July 1926 issue of The Review of Religions)