Last Updated on Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:30 Please help us run Islam21c and its' projects for the next 12 months. Donate to our Just Giving page.
In other words there is a fine balance between the freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. Freedom of speech is curtailed if it dishonours unjustifiably or if it can cause harm to the wider public. The Muslim would argue that the west, when it applies this principle to Islam, does so with an element of prejudice. It fails to consider the unjustifiable attack on the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, or the public disorder that such expressions can lead to. In a world which is increasingly resembling a global village, the later must surely come into consideration.
Embassies are razed, diplomats are lynched, protesters have marched with unbridled aggression from east to west. The Islamic world and the West once again finds itself at loggerheads arising from two conflicting principles, the right of 'freedom of speech' against the right to 'defend one's honour'. What ensues is a repetitive discourse occurs between the two.
The argument a Liberal-Secular puts forward is that he can say what he wants without the Muslim having the right to be offended. He will then further propose that Muslims should be mature enough to handle such insults. The Muslims would argue that it is well understood that the freedom of speech is not absolute. Exceptions have always been made against blasphemy. Why then, the Muslim would argue, that these exceptions do not apply when Islam or its Prophet are in question?
The right to freedom of expression has been articulated both in the UN’s Universal declaration of Humans Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), however it is well understood that this concept is not absolute. The ICCPR states that restrictions are imposed to "respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order...". Even within the United States, the most liberal in terms of freedom of expression due to its Constitution's First amendment, defamation and censorship laws exist.
In other words there is a fine balance between the freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. Freedom of speech is curtailed if it dishonours unjustifiably or if it can cause harm to the wider public. The Muslim would argue that the west, when it applies this principle to Islam, does so with an element of prejudice. It fails to consider the unjustifiable attack on the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, or the public disorder that such expressions can lead to. In a world which is increasingly resembling a global village, the later must surely come into consideration.
There are many examples which highlight the inconsistency in which the freedom of speech is applied in the west, which implies an underlying prejudice against Islam and Muslims.
The Holocaust perpetrated against the Jews is a dark page in human history. Muslims sympathize with the many innocent lives that were lost during the Nazi era. Nevertheless Holocaust deniers do exist. These Holocaust deniers are not given the freedom to express themselves across 17 European nations in which it is considered a crime. The EU further advocates an optional maximum term of three years in jail to all member nations for denying or grossly trivialising crimes such as the Holocaust. The Muslim will ask why is the balance here towards suppression and not expression? What makes denial of the holocaust a crime while insulting a Prophet of God is not?
Staying in Europe, in 2007 a Swiss court convicted Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish politician, of racial discrimination because he denied the Armenian Genocide. In his defence he argued that he had a right to freedom of expression and added, "I have not denied genocide because there was no genocide". It is a crime in Switzerland to deny the Armenian Genocide and this was also the case in France until recently. Muslims see only duplicity in this.
We just have to look at events over the last week to further strengthen the case of prejudice against Muslims.
In the UK, an advert showing a pregnant nun having ice-cream was banned because according to The Advertising Standards Authority, “it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs”. The Muslim will ask why its ok to mock Islamic beliefs but not Roman Catholic ones?
Again in the UK, a Muslim teenager was charged with “sending a grossly offensive communication”. The teenager posted on facebook, “all soldiers should die and go to hell" two days after 6 British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. The judged ruled that the comments were "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" and understandably so. The Muslim however will ask why "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" comments against Islam go punished while a Muslim is punished when Western sentiments are offended?
The French take the cake though. In the country where the cartoons demeaning the Prophet are considered acceptable, protesting against these cartoons is not. Interior Minister Manuel Valls said, "There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up”. We are not even allowed to express our objections via peaceful and recognized democratic avenues?
Even in Australia, Senator Cory Bernardi was forced to resign as Tony Abbot’s personal parliamentary secretary because of his perceived homophobic comments; but when he called for banning the burqah or an end to multiculturalism, his leader or party did not see the need to censure him.
It seems, at least from a Muslims point of view, that if a value in question is closer to Western culture, the balance between the freedom of speech and its curtailment shifts towards the latter while in the case of an Islamic value such as the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, the opposite holds true. This inconsistent and perhaps even biased application of this value only compounds the hurt Muslims feel when Islam or any of its symbols are demeaned. This perspective towards understanding the reaction of Muslims towards recent events has long been overlooked.
Virtuous speech is not speech itself, but the impact it has on oneself and others. This is why freedom of speech has its boundaries defined in law. Perhaps it’s time for the West to be equal in its interpretation of this principle and to legislate against mocking Islam and its Prophet, at least for the sake of a more harmonious global village. Notes:
Sources: www.islam21c.com Islam21c requests all the readers of this article, and others, to share it on your facebook, twitter, and other platforms to further spread our efforts.
Western standards are mostly an illusion. It tells the society that they have rights and whatever, but the standards are actually used to bend the people to its will.
Western standards are mostly an illusion. It tells the society that they have rights and whatever, but the standards are actually used to bend the people to its will.
Today I watched a program about the parliamentary systems in the U.S, vs. Europe, vs. parts of Europe say between England and Holland for instance.. the system in England is set up so that after all the votes are in practically 70% of those who had voted get no representation whatsoever.
Thus I am confused about the bravado with which they would like to impose their so-called democratic system on the rest of the world..
Did Allah swt intend for us free humans to enter into slavery in one form or another? slaves to institutions, to systems that don't represent us, to those who would deny our talents save for what they desire to get out of us in terms of work to put into the pockets of a handful while the rest of us are in the mill of life with no pleasure, joy, pride in our work and talent, or does he intend for us to have what he dignified us with and that we become slaves only to him our sustainer?
I am so disappointed with everything, and really quite sad- this is the world we've created because we think we can do better than Allah!
the system in England is set up so that after all the votes are in practically 70% of those who had voted get no representation whatsoever.
You are misinformed. In fact the current Government of the UK is a coalition (Conservatives/Liberal Democrats) which obtained 59.1% of the vote. In countries which have a Proportional Representative system (PR) the Government is always a majority vote.
You are also misunderstanding the main benefit of a democratic system. A democracy doesn't guarantee good government, but it does guarantee a change of government. All governments go bad eventually. There are no exceptions. At least in a democracy, you get to kick them out when they do.
You are misinformed. In fact the current Government of the UK is a coalition (Conservatives/Liberal Democrats) which obtained 59.1% of the vote. In countries which have a Proportional Representative system (PR) the Government is always a majority vote.
You are also misunderstanding the main benefit of a democratic system. A democracy doesn't guarantee good government, but it does guarantee a change of government. All governments go bad eventually. There are no exceptions. At least in a democracy, you get to kick them out when they do.
Given that professors in the field broke it down with their own stats, I'd say you're the one misinformed. However, you are correct that democrazy doesn't guarantee a good govt. question the west enjoys so much imposing its very poor standards on the rest of the world, or why folks are happy with 'All govt. going bad eventually'
When you 'kick' someone out believe it or not you're only changing faces not forms of governance!
Given that professors in the field broke it down with their own stats, I'd say you're the one misinformed
No, you are wrong. In the UK it would be theoretically possible for a Government to be formed on as little as 30% of the popular vote (because the UK has a first past the post system). Nevertheless, the current Government did indeed receive 59.1%.
You should place more value on the ability to remove governments democratically. The other method is by violent revolution.
we're talking about the representative parties of the Parliament that which remains after the votes. Do some research on how it is done, compared to Holland/ or Turkey or Israel. You'll have a better understanding. I don't enjoy discussions based on personal opinions over those with facts!
Also as per The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. — Frederick Douglass
Br. ABZ always has that in his siggy and certainly very true words they're!
we're talking about the representative parties of the Parliament that which remains after the votes.
Because the UK has a first past the post system, the number of MPs will not usually correlate exactly to their percentage of the popular vote. However, in this case, the Government did nevertheless receive 59.1% of the votes cast.
In countries that operate a PR system (such Ireland, where I live) the government is always based on a majority vote.
I wonder why that it is so big deal to Europe that denay Holocaust of Jews is crime. Is it also crime to denay that Stalin murdered over 20 million? Or is it crime to denay genocide of Palestinians?
World War II took only from 1939 to 1945, genocide of Palestinians have continued over 60 years.
Seems here is double standars - others murder is more important matter than those other people.
I wonder why that it is so big deal to Europe that denay Holocaust of Jews is crime.
Personally I am not in favour of Holocaust denial laws and we don’t have them here in Ireland. But I’ll give you my opinion. Why exactly has the Holocaust been singled out for special legal protection and is this an example of Islamophobia?
The first thing to consider is that most Europeans would regard the Holocaust as the single worst event in history, or certainly one of the worst. This is enough to place it top of the agenda. You are in Finland yourself so I imagine you know this.
But more importantly, the kind of views that led to the Holocaust (ie Jewish conspiracy theories) are still thriving today. For that reason people fear that the same events have the potential to happen again. Therefore it is vital that the real history of events is correctly remembered.
In other words, these laws aren’t just made to prevent people taking offense. They are there in an attempt to reduce the chance of a repeat performance. That makes the Holocaust different from most of the other subjects that people are still ‘free’ to say what they want about, such as commenting about Christianity or Islam. Holocaust Denial isn’t just an issue of free speech. It’s about stopping the nightmare from returning.
The laws were originally made with home-grown, right-wing, white extremists in mind. Today, some Islamic groups are now also open to prosecution by this legislation. Nevertheless, if you look at the history and timing of this legislation, it’s clear it was originally designed for Neo-Nazi targets, not Islamic groups.
When you think about it, it’s pretty ironic if we now criticise Germany for making this law. Many other countries make it illegal for their own citizens to criticise their Government. Yet when it comes to the biggest issue of all, Germany have made it illegal not to. We should respect this, shouldn’t we?
But more importantly, the kind of views that led to the Holocaust (ie Jewish conspiracy theories) are still thriving today. For that reason people fear that the same events have the potential to happen again. Therefore it is vital that the real history of events is correctly remembered.
Aren't they and haven't they happened over and over again and since? I don't see laws against denying the srebrenica genocide amongst a host of others and precisely for the reason that Muslim blood isn't considered of worth compared to Zionist blood.
There's no desire for realism at all here and the language used to cover what's really going on is unraveling, at least to the common man if those who make the laws and impose them believe in their success merely by descending down to word play and florid speech they've failed miserably!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
You are misinformed. In fact the current Government of the UK is a coalition (Conservatives/Liberal Democrats) which obtained 59.1% of the vote. In countries which have a Proportional Representative system (PR) the Government is always a majority vote.
You are also misunderstanding the main benefit of a democratic system. A democracy doesn't guarantee good government, but it does guarantee a change of government. All governments go bad eventually. There are no exceptions. At least in a democracy, you get to kick them out when they do.
That's how it's supposed to work - but in reality, it doesn't work that way. You know that. Stop playing advocate for stupid causes.
Shariah will rule properly, and people will prosper. We just need khalipha back, and insha-Allah the time is getting closer now.
germany charges 8% religion tax on all catholics. If they dont pay - they are not counted as catholics and are denied communion and a Christian burial...
A WHOPPING 8%... extortion. Democratic? I hardly think so.
He didn't make a case let alone a strong one for his stupid cause. I think he needs to sit down and learn how the system works before discussing it, but I don't have all day to waste explaining to folks things that they have no desire to learn.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
In other words there is a fine balance between the freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. Freedom of speech is curtailed if it dishonours unjustifiably or if it can cause harm to the wider public. The Muslim would argue that the west, when it applies this principle to Islam, does so with an element of prejudice. It fails to consider the unjustifiable attack on the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, or the public disorder that such expressions can lead to. In a world which is increasingly resembling a global village, the later must surely come into consideration.
ba51th liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks