A Pakistani man who received death threats from his Islamic family for becoming a humanist has been granted asylum in the UK after the Government overturned its controversial dismissal of his case.
Hamza bin Walayat applied for asylum in 2017 after converting to humanism, a loosely defined group of non-religious people who “have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making”, according to the official Humanists UK website.
Walayat, now 29, claimed he faced persecution under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which carry the death penalty, The Times reports. But his application was turned down by the Home Office after he failed to identify “any famous Greek philosophers who were humanistic”, such as Plato and Aristotle, during an asylum interview.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
The government department concluded that his “knowledge of humanism is rudimentary at best and not of a level that would be expected of a genuine follower of humanism”.
However, after more than a year of legal battles and appeals backed by various humanist groups and high-profile followers, Walayat was this week granted asylum.
Following the decision, he said he has “believed in humanist values since I was a child but as I grew up I realised how dangerous it was to share those views in a place like Pakistan”.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, welcomed the news, saying his organisation could “breathe a sigh of relief for Hamza”. But he added: “We remain seriously concerned that other genuine non-religious claimants will have their lives jeopardised if their claims are not taken seriously by the Home Office.”
What do humanists believe?
Humanism does not have one specific definition, but all descriptions of the faith - or lack thereof - are similar.
According to Understanding Humanism, it is a “broad worldview” which combines an implicit trust in the scientific method with an increased reliance on rational thinking and a positive attitude about the world and other people.
From a scientific perspective, humanist groups strongly reject any explanation of the how the universe works which involves the supernatural, pseudoscientific or superstitious, such as a belief in a creator. Humanist Society Scotland says that adherents of humanism are people who trust “rational inquiry to help explain the universe around us, and who do not resort to supernatural explanations”.
Followers also attempt to “make their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals”, according to Understanding Humanism, which posits that “in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe”, human beings can “act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same”.
Is it a religion?
There is significant debate within humanist communities over whether the movement counts as a religion.
Despite many online definitions of humanism making at least one mention of exclusively providing support for “non-religious” people, the movement is so broad that this is open to interpretation.
The Human Truth Foundation suggests that humanism is not a movement in itself, but instead an umbrella term that encompasses atheism, non-religion, “freethinkers”, agnosticism, secularism and scepticism. As a result, it says, “humanism as a religion in its own right, rather than a philosophy or outlook, has been proposed occasionally, although it has never gained much support”.
But within the humanist population there is also a contentious subgroup known paradoxically as “religious humanists”. According to the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association, a group of self-described religious humanists, these followers “embrace the best aspects of religious congregations while rejecting all supernatural agencies and the traditional, hierarchical, dogmatic and creedal religions”.
They also attest to following the teachings laid out in the Humanist Manifestos, a trilogy of controversial texts that many, more secular humanists have denounced.
The Humanist suggests that a large portion of the humanist community “rejects not only the notion of theism, but the larger concept of religion itself”, while other followers “consider humanism to be their religion”, concluding: “At the end of the day, it’s simply a matter of personal preference.”
What do its detractors say?
In a 2012 article, The Guardian’s Andrew Brown suggested that the humanist doctrine, even as described by official humanist societies, is flawed.
Brown pointed to a press release by the British Humanist Association that claimed the group was “representing and supporting the non-religious and campaigning for an end to religious privilege and discrimination based on religion or belief” and “people who seek to live good and responsible lives without religious or superstitious beliefs”.
Brown notes that this description of humanism is framed “in a largely negative way”, meaning that a “consequence of defining yourself in this way is that your identity becomes dependent on what you are not”.
Atheist Ireland takes a more damning view of the movement, claiming that the “tenets of humanism do not represent a radical departure from those of any major religion”, and that it “establishes itself on the same fallacies, the same baseless assumptions, and strives for a society modelled in essentially the same manner; with the caveat of not demanding god’s existence or worship”.
“In this sense, it may actually be a more sinister and less consistent worldview – here are supposed naturalists and empiricists modelling their ethics on pseudoscientific claims while simultaneously derogating such acts,” the group adds.
