FREEDOM OF SPEECH
By Muhammad Adeel
(truthdefender786@gmail.com)
There is a big debate going on in the Muslim world, rather the whole world on the issue of Salman Rushdie’s book Satanic verses. The book, on the basis of which, a verdict was issued from Iran to kill him, has raised many questions in the Muslim world and in the west on issues like freedom of expression, extremism in Muslims, etc. I won’t discuss Rushdie’s book in this article which is full of blasphemous quotes, but the philosophy on the basis of which it is being justified, i.e. “Freedom of Speech”.
The first question that comes in the mind of people like me is what is this freedom of speech which the west is boasting about and why is it so sacred in the western world. Why is it that in the guise of freedom of speech the west can say any thing to Muslims without caring about their feelings and without considering the repercussions? First let’s have a look at what Encyclopedia Encarta 2006 has to say about the definition of Freedom of Speech;
Freedom to Speak is a stuttering, speech therapy practice.::
Freedom to Speak is a speech therapy practice, dedicated specifically for people who Stutter.
http://www.stuttertherapy.com/HOME |
Digg - First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam::
Virginia's Supreme Court on Friday upheld the first US felony conviction for spamming, narrowly denying an appeal that argued that spamming was protected by
http://digg.com/tech_news/First_spam_felony_conviction_upheld_no_free_speech_to_spamHOME |
“Freedom of expression, both oral and written, from governmental prior restraint, except as such expression constitutes libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, or criminal conduct such as bribery, perjury, or incitement to riot.”
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I think that a person does not require a deep insight to reach the conclusion that no one in this world is free in the ultimate sense. Everyone in this world is bound by some law which places constraints on his or her actions. Just for a trivial example, a person in any society is not “free” to steal, because if he does he will have to face justice. Everyone in the society is connected and our actions are modified by those connections. Similar is the case for the freedom to say anything one wants. We all have emotional attachment with someone and hearing an offensive argument about that person enrages us. Like many people will not allow any other person to say an offensive thing about their parents. So, in order to take care of the feelings of each other we have to put a constraint to our speech. Similar is the case of the Prophet (P.B.U.H). Muslims have an emotional attachment with him that can’t be defined in words. Why can’t the west place a constraint on their so called freedom of speech when it comes to the feelings of Muslims?
John Stuart Mill on Freedom Of Speech::
free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/free/jsmill.htmHOME |
We Muslims are aware that freedom of speech is a part of western values and every nation has its own values which are sanctified by the people of that nation. But, they can’t just do any thing they want in the guise of their values. The west should also explain the hypocrisy on their part. We know that at the same time when the debate about the caricatures of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) was going on a man was convicted in Vienna for just writing that the holocaust did not take place, as writing or saying against the holocaust is considered as a crime in some European countries. Why didn’t we see uproar from the west on this issue? The west should explain this.
I think freedom to criticize is a better phrase than freedom of speech because freedom of speech has more aspects of offence to other individuals. I believe that everyone has the right to do valid criticism of anything. This is also what a Muslim should learn because its part of the teachings of the Quran to criticize things that go against its teachings. We have examples of freedom of criticism in the history of Islam, when the caliph Umar (R.A) was criticized by an old lady on passing a legislation from which he readily retracted. The west has the right to criticize Islam, but, that should be valid. For example, if someone criticizes that the Prophet (P.B.U.H) had 11 wives than that’s valid and we Muslims have a religious obligation to answer that. But, if someone depicts the Prophet (P.B.U.H) as a terrorist, we Muslims will never tolerate that.
The west and the Muslim world should start building bridges between each other. The Muslims also need to learn how to protest against something because in many cases they really over react. Burning cars and buildings during protests which are the properties of people is in no way permitted in Islam. We Muslims should also realize that we ourselves devalue and belittle the sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) in our everyday life. We Muslims have a religious obligation of making the west realize the importance of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) in our lives. We need to tell them that it is part of our faith to love him and to follow him in our everyday life. The Prophet (P.B.U.H) himself said in a narration of Sahih Bukhari that no one will be a true believer unless he loves me more than his parents, his children and the whole humanity. So the west should understand Islam and the Muslims before taking any step under the slogans of their values.
-------------------------------------
Pre-Article:What are Mp3s
Next-Article:Darwinism! is it the Best Choice?
|
Freedom of Speech