You talk of
"the freedom of religious practice so long as it does not cause any
damage to individuals or society." What I
ask is what to do you regard as 'damage'.
A Muslim friend
of mine once warned me that only followers of Islam will be saved
from the fires of hell and therefore I should 'embrace' the
religion. On this interpretation will you suggest, if you was to
ever gain power, that all the followers of Christianity, Buddhism,
Hinduism, Judaism and Sikhism are actually doing 'damage' to
themselves and therefore must convert?
The Qur'an states
explicitly that there must be no compulsion in
religion. There maybe misguided fanatics in every religious
persuasion, but Islam has a long history of religious tolerance: The
Golden Age for the Jews was in Islamic Spain (Andalus) and the
only time Palestine was safe for Muslims, Christians and Jews
alike was under Muslim rule. Neither the Crusaders nor the Zionists
felt other religions were desirable and worthy of protection. As for
"damage": of course, there must be limitations to religious
freedom, for example when aberrations like Satanism etc. demand
human sacrifice or infanticide.