5.1  Overview

Muslims are open to criticism, intellectual debate and engagement.

The Quran invites mankind to challenge it:

فَأْتُواْ بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُواْ شُهَدَاءكُم مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

“So bring a surah like it and invite all your witnesses besides Allah, if you truthful” (TMQ Al-Baqarah 2:23)

Muslims have no reservation neither a reluctance to enter into meaningful debates, where the foundations of the Islamic belief can be questioned and intellectually challenged. Indeed, the history of Islam, from the time of Muhammad (saw) is littered with examples of debates that Muslims engaged in over the foundations of belief.

However, today all one witnesses is an open season to insult Islam and mock the matters that are sacrosanct to Muslims. It is a denial of reality to think that any person or people would accept insults to matters that they value and cherish more than their own lives, without responding in some way to defend what has been insulted, mocked and ridiculed.

Muslims do not accept the trading of insults as the means to engage in meaningful dialogue nor express their disagreement with others (secular, atheist, religious or otherwise) – therefore this matter is only compounded with the hypocritical nature and double standards that the west flagrantly applies in ‘freedom of speech’, which essentially is the smokescreen allowing the freedom to insult Islam.

The recent escalation and boldness of the west to launch insults against Islam, culminating in the re-printing of the Danish cartoons across Europe, depicting Muhammad (saw) in a derogatory way – clearly suggests that the freedom to insult is both targeting Islam and represents the underlying sentiments of a right-wing few, that overtime may actually reflect the sentiments of the silent majority. This is demonstrated by the increased popularity of the likes of Geert Wilders, a right-wing Dutch MP whose central platform lies in xenophobic and fascist remarks against Islam, calls for the banning of the Quran and produced a documentary against Islam, titled ‘Fitnah’. Muslims have also witnessed the publicity surrounding the novel ‘The Jewel of Medina’ about the life of Aisha (ra), the wife of Muhammad (saw), which even non-Muslims have condemned as ‘soft pornography’.

This focused campaign against Islam detracts from the inability of the west to solve their own issues concerning the spiraling economic issues and the growing social, law and order problems.

It is actually in such a climate that Allah (swt) has bestowed a window of opportunity for the Muslims to expose and debate some of the issues surrounding the very concept of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and similar fundamental ideological issues.

Below are just five issues to consider around freedom of speech:

• Intellectual Dishonesty: Non-existence of freedom of speech except in abstraction and philosophy
• Double Standards in Application
• Social Consequences in its Application
• Issues in its origins
• Islam’s purer concepts for society

5.2  Non-existence of ‘freedom of speech’

• Except in abstraction and philosophy, the very term ‘freedom of speech’ is a myth – since in no society is there absolute freedom. Rather, we find a host of legislation that inhibits the ability to speak freely – whether these are defamation laws, incitement to hatred legislation, blasphemy laws, treason laws, libel law etc.
• So everyone is free to speak within the confines of the law. Therefore people in Syria, Uzbekistan and China have freedom of speech – as long as it is within the confines of the law, no different from the UK or the US!!
• Therefore, the actual discussion is relative i.e. – one is more free to speak on a wider host of issues in one country than another e.g. the classical comparison given by the west that in the Muslim world, you are not free to criticise the governments, but in the west you can.
• Though this itself may not be a critique, it raises the fundamental question on whom and how do legislators determine where the boundaries of speech arise? What is clear is that the freedom to speak is partial and motivated by ideological, political and material considerations – as the voice of Muslims if often muzzled and reigned in, whilst insulting Islam through the media is applauded.

5.3  Double Standards in Application of Freedom of Speech

 How can the west reconcile the freedom to insult Islam and Muhammad (saw), whilst debating calls to ban the Quran; what happened to freedom? Though Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom as espoused by the ‘west’, this serves to illustrate a blatant contradiction.

The very Danish newspaper which printed the infamous and insulting cartoons on Muhammad (saw) stated: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”  Sunday Editor April 2003 – responding to printing caricatures of Jesus.

It is not possible to accept the naivety and ignorance of the Editor, in not knowing that printing caricatures of Muhammad (saw) would provoke an outcry and backlash. It should be noted that Muslims would never tolerate insults to Jesus either; it is just to show the hypocrisy. Likewise, no paper would dare print anything in response to insulting the Jews, even if it were a critical academic piece that questions events surrounding the Holocaust.

• Jews and Holocaust: British Historian David Irving received a 3-year imprisonment in Austria 2006, for his book that merely questioned the holocaust. Likewise, Ernst Zundel received 5 years imprisonment in Germany 2007 for denying the holocaust. What blatant hypocrisy, since these writers did not insult nor mock Judaism, nor Jews, but rather sought to argue on scientific/historical grounds about their views and opinions on the events surrounding the Holocaust.
• In November 2007 – Two Spanish cartoonists were found guilty of offending the royal family and fined 3,000 euros (£2,100) each. Their cartoon, on the front page of the weekly satirical magazine El Jueves in July, depicted Crown Prince Felipe and his wife Letizia having sex. A judge said that El Jueves’ Guillermo Torres and Manel Fontdevila “had vilified the crown in the most gratuitous and unnecessary way”.
• Gerald Tobyn (Australian) who denies the scale of the Holocaust as suggested, was arrested at Heathrow Airport (UK) in October 2008, based on extradition warrant from Germany for anti-Semitism.
• The countries below, that have championed insulting Islam on the basis of freedom of speech, have nonetheless legislation making it a criminal offence to insult others.

Netherlands

• Criminal Code, Art. 111: “Intentional insult of the King,” punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a fine.
• 112: “Intentional insult of the King’s consort, the Heir Apparent or the spouse of the latter, or of the Regent,” punishable by up to four years in prison or a fine.
• 113: (1) “A person who disseminates, publicly displays or posts…an image containing an insult of the King, the Heir Apparent…punished by up to one year imprisonment or a fine”

Denmark

• Criminal Code, Art. 121: Attacking a public official “with insults, abusive language or other offensive words or gestures while he is executing his office or function or on occasion of such office or function,” punishable by a fine, simple detention or up to six months imprisonment.
• 267: (1) Violation of “the personal honour of another by offensive words or conduct or by making or spreading accusations of an act likely to disparage another in the esteem of his fellow citizens,” punishable by fine or simple detention. (2) It is an “aggravating circumstance” if the offence is aimed at “any person vested by public authority with jurisdiction or the power to make decisions…”
• 121, and the penalty may be increased to up to six months imprisonment. (3) It is an “aggravating circumstance” if “the insult was made in a printed document or in any way likely to give it wider circulation or in such places or at such times as greatly to aggravate the offensive character of the act.”

Germany

• Criminal Code, Sect. 90: “(1) Whoever publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of writings, defames the Federal President shall be punished by three months to five years imprisonment.
• 90a: “(1) Whoever publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of writings: 1) insults or maliciously maligns the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its Länder (states) or its constitutional order or 2) defames the colours, the flag, the coat of arms or the anthem of the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its Länder shall be punished by up to three years imprisonment or a fine.
• 103: “(1) Whoever insults a foreign head of state, or whoever insults, with respect to the victim’s position, a member of a foreign government present in his official capacity in the Federal Republic of Germany, or the head, accredited to the federal territory, of a foreign diplomatic mission, shall be punished by up to three years imprisonment or by a fine, and in cases involving defamatory insults, by imprisonment from three months to five years.

 

5.4  Social Consequences in Application of Freedom of Speech

• “…It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.” Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s – Danish newspaper, who published the cartoon caricatures of Muhammad (saw).
• It is a shocking statement that the west believes it is civilised to insult others. It is not surprising how such an attitude has directly contributed to the breakdown of the social fabric of society:
  • Breakdown of family
  • Truancy
  • Loss of any moral compass
  • Racial and Religious intolerance and tension
  • Rise in abuse, harassment by youth
  • Social and Public disorder
  • Increased insecurity
  • Increase use of abusive language
  • Loss of respect and control at schools – Introduction of metal detectors; teachers leaving – suffering from stress and trauma
  • Wider contribution towards crime, particularly violent crimes

Let alone Muslims, many non-Muslims are feeling the brunt of the breakdown of the social and moral fabric of society, the increased insecurity and the rise in crime.

5.5  Issues in the origins of Freedom of Speech

The notion of ‘Freedom of Speech’ was the product of the clash between the oppressive Church and Thinkers – where religion was hampering thinking, creativity, progress and the ability to question and challenge the religious/political authorities at the time.

Under the banner of newfound freedom, European society sought to progress in thinking, creativity and material progression thereby encouraging society to speak and question – as a matter of choice i.e. neither prohibited nor obliged.

Though this may seem harmless, the practical consequences of this have been:

1. Man is the one to set the limits on the applicability of these freedoms. Inevitably this application has been tied to political, material interests and to prejudices that are inherently produced within secular societies e.g. the legitimacy of racist/fascist political parties. We witness the partial nature by which Muslims voices are being drowned out through legislation, so the only speech that is acceptable and free is the one that is consistent with governmental rhetoric.
2. As man is the determinant on the application and extent of freedom, we have witnessed the application extended beyond the mere ability to question and challenge political authorities. It has gone into the realm of slander, mockery and disrespect to all types of authorities – not merely political but family, moral and educational – resulting in the social breakdown of society.
3. The freedom to speak is a right to exercise and therefore left to the whims of individuals whether to exercise it or not. The consequences, in an individualistic society, such as the west is that when the voice needs to be heard, it is muted e.g. walking past when someone is being attacked or insulted.

5.6  Islam’s purer concepts for society

• Islam has mandated the ‘enjoining of good and the forbidding of evil’ upon Muslims, such that all political authorities are accounted and Muslims are equipped with the understanding that they have the obligation to speak and account.
• Since Allah (swt) and not man is Sovereign, Islam is not subjugated nor subjected to the whims and interests of man, nor his prejudices – but rather Muslims are obliged to abide by the Islamic rules. Therefore, the duty to speak and account political authorities did not and does not extend to insult and mockery of people, nor cash-in on the misfortunes of others by selling a story to a major newspaper. It rather prohibited these matters and sought to hide the privacy and sin of individuals.
• The intellectual and ideological nature of Islam did not stifle thought or creativity – but rather harnessed and directed it upon the worship of Allah (swt), resulting in pioneering progression in the various scientific, medical and technological fields.
• Because of the duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, Islam has ensured that speech does not become silent when it is required, even if it brings harm to the individual – e.g. not ignoring situations when people require help even if it may result in oneself being harmed.

 5.7  Intellectual basis of Islam

• Every society possesses values and concepts that regulate the relationships in that society. Islam is no different in this regard and the key issues are:
  • How Islam provides a better alternative
  • The intellectual basis of this alternative
• Please refer to  ‘The Intellectual Basis of Islam’

5.8  Loyalty to Islam Paramount

• People who believe in a cause, do not trade them for worldly and material gains, neither do they remain silent. Rather they persevere in their support and defence, whether it is the preservation of animals, rainforests, football teams or for religious or secular beliefs etc… even if these bring some level of discomfort or difficulty in their life. So why do western governments expect something different from the Muslims in regards to supporting and defending other Muslims and Islam?
• Muslims will not trade the sanctity of the Islamic belief for material benefit and neither will they remain silent over its insult.
• Muslims prime loyalty is established upon their belief and there is no compromise in this regard:

 وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَتَّخِذُ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ أَندَاداً يُحِبُّونَهُمْ

كَحُبِّ اللّهِ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَشَدُّ حُبًّا

“And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah. But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else).” [TMQ Al-Baqarah:165]

Anas narrated that Muhammad (saw) said: “There are three things which cause anyone who takes refuge in them to experience the sweetness of belief – that Allah and His Messenger are more beloved to him than anything else; that he loves a man only for Allah; and that he dislikes the thought of reverting to disbelief as much as he would dislike being cast into the Fire.”

5.9  Anger focussed upon Impotent Rulers in Muslim world

• When a people and their beliefs are attacked, it is only natural that they look to their leaderships for the defence and protection of their beliefs, values and people.
• Yet we witness the impotency of the rulers in the Muslim world who cower at the feet of their western masters whilst Islam and the Muslims are insulted, mocked, attacked, divided and occupied.
• The insult to Islam has not merely been the attack upon the Islamic beliefs, which have been around since the advent of Islam – but the real insult has been the treacherous nature of the rulers in the Muslim world that have trampled upon and ignored the verses of the Quran, insulted the sunnah of Muhammad (saw) by discarding it in their rulings and insulted the Muslims by their non-implementation of Islam and cowardice to defend the honour of Muhammad (saw). It has been narrated that Muhammad (saw) said:

“Every traitor shall be raised on the Day of Judgment holding a flag, which will be raised according the level of his treachery. The traitor of traitors is the ruler who betrays his people.”

• Muslims must not merely recognise the treachery of these rulers, but also undertake the obligation to work to establish the Khilafah (Islamic State) upon the prophetic method.

5.10  Killing the Apostate

• Every nation has vital issues, which it is prepared to fight and die for. There are those that are universal i.e. connected to the survival of a people or the protection and defence of borders. However, there are other vital issues that are not common, but unique, and which arise because of a unique criteria and values that the nation possesses.
• As many countries have the death penalty for treason and this is legal and considered acceptable, Islam has also established issues that are matters of life and death – like the unity of Muslims, killing the adulterer and killing the apostate.
• Please refer to Chapter ‘The Intellectual Basis of Islam’ .
• The one seeking to apostatise from Islam, is first discussed with to clarify and understand the person’s reality (for example is he mentally unstable) and clarify whether the person has understood the issues and implications clearly.

5.11  Violent Nature of the Quran

• This idea lacks any credible appreciation of the Quran as a legal document that must be approached by the legal tools.
  • Please refer to Section ‘Approaching the Quran’, in “Intellectual basis of Islam“
• Since Islam is a way of life, embodied in a state, then as any state (ideological or otherwise), it will take steps to defend itself and expand its influence. The expression ‘violent’ is therefore deliberately grossly misleading.
• Contrary to this, those minority communities most at risk from this ‘violence’ actually thrived and sought to live under the protection of the Islamic State, for example the Jews.
• In contrast, the world has witnessed the inhumanity of nations advocating secularism, both in the colonial period and what is currently enacted by the brutal western foreign policy under the leadership of the US and UK – whether it is Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the situation in Iraq; flights of rendition etc.

 

5.12  Statements

Geert Wilders

• “Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!”
• ‘…Tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands’ because it contained ‘terrible things’ and that Muhammad would ‘in these days be hunted down as a terrorist‘.
• On 8 August 2007, Wilders opined in a letter^[14] to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant that the Koran, which he called a “fascist book”, should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler‘s Mein Kampf. He stated that: “The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order.”
• ‘Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology…the ideology of a retarded culture.’

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble

“All European newspapers should print the [Mohammed] caricatures with the explanation, ‘We also think they’re pathetic, but the use of press freedom is no reason to resort to violence.”

Chirs Huhne (Liberal Democrat Home Affairs, Oct 2008)

“The case with Dr Toben exposes a problem in terms of freedom of speech and I come to this as a good, classic liberal. It is a fundamental part of our system that we believe in freedom of speech and, like Voltaire, I may disparage what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Denise Spellberg (Prof of History and ME Studies, University of Texas)

In reference to controversial book insulting Aisha (ra), wife of Muhammad (saw), called ‘The Jewel of Medina’: (quote referenced from The Wall Street Journal 08/09/2008:

• A “very ugly, stupid piece of work” and added that “I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.”
• “As an expert on Aisha’s life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel’s fallacious representation of a very real woman’s life. The author and the press brought me into a process, and I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel. It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel’s potential to provoke anger among some Muslims.”
• “The combination of sex and violence sells novels. When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about Aisha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales.”

Sherry Jones (Author of ‘The Jewel of Medina)

Marwa Elnaggar criticizes the book for its inaccurate portrayal of pre-Islamic Arab culture and suggests that Jones was influenced by “the idea of the exotic and mystical Orient.” She describes it as “an attempt by a Western writer with little knowledge of Arabic, Arabia, Islam, and Muslims using her own Western, 21st century values, ideals and emotions to portray an unrecognizable version of the well-known and well-documented story of `A’ishah.” Bizarrely however, she argues that despite its “inaccuracies, its faults, and its biases,” it should be published.

BBC Presenter Jonathan Ross apology after leaving insulting messages in prank calls to Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs on Radio 2 (Oct 08):

“I am deeply sorry and greatly regret the upset and distress that my juvenile and thoughtless remarks on the Russell Brand show have caused”

5.13  Additional Information

• Even the Bible would be banned under the pretext of violent content (though argued that unlike the Quran, the Bible contains no injunction to fight. This only proves that it is not a way of life – and that it becomes subservient to the dictates of the secular ideology and its brutal mandate under the notion, ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s
• In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.
• In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.
• Psalm 137, a lament by the Jewish people exiled in Babylon, come these words: “O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back for what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!

Written by Br. Burhan