first woman to be jailed for wearing banned Islamic veil

Hi Muhammad,


1.
The portion of the population in the countries I mentioned who do not support free speech are a good place to start. I know they do not apply it consistently because people who speak of their religions in such countries face severe persecution.


2.
Yes freedom of speech can be used in an attempt to oppose that which is just, allbeit not effectively, for as the holy Qur'an states, "Truth stands out clear from falsehood" (Surah 2:256).


Cars may be used to speed, and a portion of the popultation do speed when they drive. In fact the state of New South Wales in Australia has 141 speed cameras, of which 38 alone collect $10 million revenue per year 1. You wouldn't ban the freedom to drive just because people may use that freedom for dangerous ends instead of constructive ends owing to the practical obstacles which arise if such a ban was imposed. Relating this back to our discussion, I would like to propose that just because freedom of speech can be used for negative purposes does not mean that it should be banned (as this would rule out the benefits of freedom of speech and also because their are practical obstacles which arise from such a ban which render the ban under discusssion destructive).


I would like to examine an example from the early days in Medina which has been posted by a Muslim on a Muslim forum very similar to this one. I hope you will consider from the commentary I will add to it how very different history may have been if a ban on freedom of speech in Medina at the time was upheld.


As quoted;
'Mus’ab ibn Umayr (RA) was the first of ambassador of Rasul Allah (SAW) in Madinah. Before Rasul Allah (SAW) had arrived in Madinah, Mus’ab (RA) taught ahl al-Madinah about Islam and they began to enter the Deen.
This enraged Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaadah, one of the chieftains of Madinah. He sheathed his sword and set off for the head of Mus’ab ibn ‘Umayr (RA). When he confronted Mus’ab (RA) he threatened, “Stop this nonsense you speak or you shall find yourself dead!”'


From this it is clear that this chieftan initially banned freedom of speech. Had he upheld this ban (which many Muslims today would) a certain companion would have likely had his head removed, and Medina would have had a very different history. We read on;


'Mus’ab (RA) replied in the way that should be a lesson for us all. This man before him did not stop at rudeness and ignorance, he wanted to slit his throat.
Mus’ab (RA) said, “Shall you not sit and listen for a few moments. If you agree with what I say then take it, and if not, we shall desist from this talk.” Sa’d sat down.'


This demonstrates the value of free speech, if one agrees with a statement, new learning is gained. If no agreement is reached, the mature response is to desist and go one's seperate ways.


'Mus’ab (RA) spoke about Allah and His messenger (SAW) until the face of Sa’d ibn Ubaadah’s face shone like a full moon and he said, “What should a person do who wishes to enter into this Deen?” After Mus’ab (RA) had told him he said, “There is a man, if he accepts this Deen, there shall be no home in Madinah that will not become Muslim. Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh.”


When Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh heard what was happening, he was infuriated. He left his home to go and kill this man called Mus’ab ibn Umayr (RA) for the dissention he had caused. He entered upon Mus’ab (RA) and announced, “You shall desist of this religion you speak of or you shall find yourself dead!”'


Once again note the ban on freedom of speech, and ponder how the history of Medina would have been altered for worse had this ban been upheld.


'Mus’ab (RA) replied, “Shall you not sit and listen for a few moments. If you agree with what I say then take it, and if not, I shall desist from this talk.” Sa’d sat.


Mus’ab (RA) spoke about Allah and His messenger (SAW) until the face of Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh’s face shone like a full moon and he said, “What should a person do who wishes to enter into this Deen?”...
...Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh went home to his Madinan tribe that night and announced to them all, “Everything of yours is Haram upon me until you all enter into Islam.”


That night, every home in Madinah went to bed with Laa ilaaha illa Allah…"'


If you carefully examine the early history of Islam, you will no doubt find that wherever the authorities upheld the ban on free speech, their peoples fell into perdition, yet where the expression of a contrary opinion was permitted, a part of the people were drawn close to Allah.


There are other clear practical considerations from the holy Qur'an;


In Surah 24:16 it states; "And why did ye not, when ye heard it, say? - "It is not right of us to speak of this: Glory to Allah. this is a most serious slander!" To object that a statement which has been made by someone is not based in fact is to express a contrary opinion to that person. All human beings are prone to error. Even sheikhs are human beings, capable of transgressing beyond bounds if the faith they profess with their lips is not the faith professed by the hidden recesses of their hearts. Giving someone a title "sheikh" is not an abracadabra that magically makes a person immune to sin. The relevance of this to what I am saying is that if a sheikh slanders a non-Muslim community, they are not above the law of the holy Qur'an, and thus the holy Qur'an gives the believer a clear obligation to express a contrary opinion and denounce it as slander. Without the freedom of speech to express a contrary opinion to even a religious leader of Islam, it would prevent a person from fulfilling this divinely revealed obligation should a sheikh fall into sin. Being a sheikh in a Muslim country is like being the Pope in a Catholic country in the sense that it is a position of prestige, and people who are attracted to prestige in the eyes of men may be attracted to this position for reasons not authentically spiritual. Thus preventing freedom of speech shuts of the opportunity for a believer to fulfill this divinely revealed obligation in certain cases.


Here is another reason, related to slander;
"O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done." If it was the faith or community of a non-Muslim being slandered by a person who is in a purely nominal sense a so called "Muslim", how would other Muslims (or even non-Muslims) have the chance to ascertain the truth if the people's of that faith community were forbidden from speaking up in defense of their faith?


I have dwelt at some length on the subject of slander only because of the weight Islam gives to how negative slander is, it must be noted that I am not raising the matter in criticism of anyone on this forum.


Here is a reason related to the natural diversity of humanity for why freedom of speech is essential;
From Surah 49:13 "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)"


As stated by the holy Qur'an the reason for different nations being created is that they may come to know one another. If one is not freely permitted to express his/her opinions, how can one come to know them? Thus by forbidding free speech, one would prevent man from fulfilling one of the purposes of his creation. The reference to "nations" above, is clearly within the context of Muslims and non Muslims getting to know one another.


Now many Muslims state that insult to one's religion is sufficient reason to ban free speech (although a large portion of such people are often purely concerned with insults to Islam and will not speak up when the religions of others are insulted). They may assert that the shariah revealed via the holy Prophet upholds the ban on insult to people's religion. I do not know whether or not this is true, however I differ from Muslims in that Muslims believe that the purely social portions of the Islamic shariah meet the needs of all ages from the time of the holy Prophet onwards, whereas I believe that the purely social portions of the Islamic shariah were revealed to meet the needs and requirements of a prior age which lasted from the time of His holiness Muhammad untill 1844 A.D


Thus if we assume for the sake of the present discussion that it is true that the holy Prophet forbid insult to religion, I believe that this was done as humanity in a prior age did not have the same collective capacity as the peoples of today, and were largely not able to respond maturely to insult as the peoples of today are able. When Bibles are burnt, or Christianity is insulted, masses of Christians do not go on a rampage killing people and destroying property. Thus we see the capability of the masses to respond maturely to insult. If your grandmother (May Allah bless her) were to walk down the street, and I were to (God forbid!) senselessly kill her, I could not claim that such an action is justified as proven by the fact that she walked down the street and was brutally murdered as many grandmothers walk down the street and many rational sane people do not kill them under the pretext of them walking down the street. Likewise, the fact that when the holy Qur'an is burnt (a senseless and stupid act no doubt!), Muslims cannot claim that when a portion of them go on a rampage killing people and destroying property it was justified under the pretext of insult to religion, as many masses of mature reasonable people in this age such as the Christians of the west do not behave in such a manner when their faith is insulted. What I am trying to say here is not to take a swipe at the immaturity of that portion of Muslims, but rather to point out that the social conditions and social capacities and maturity of the masses are such that there is no longer authentic justification for banning free speech on the basis of insult, and to pre-empt any statements such as, "look at the number of deaths caused by insult to religion" as they are clearly not justified.


Now one may well say, "okay, so humans are collectively mature enough to respond constructively to the insults of the immature and the senseless, but even so, is there really any benefit in allowing insult to faith that would make permitting it worthwhile?"
To such a constructive question (and apologies if you do not happen to agree with the question in which case I'm knocking down a bit of a straw man with this next answer), I could only offer a frank examination of my own western history.
Only a few centuries ago it was against the law in Europe to insult the Christian faith (punishable by death). For this reason Newton was unable to publish his disagreement with the trinity, as to do so was considered deeply insulting to Christians. In spite of this it didn't bother Christians in the slightest that Christian leaders published a number of treatises which where very much insulting to various non-Christians faiths.


Now Muslims are human beings just like Christians (or even Baha'is for that matter, not singling anyone out here). Thus it is possible for Muslims to fall into sins and make mistakes just as Christians do. In fact there is an interesting Hadith which states just that;
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (Peace be to Him) said:


“Indeed, you will follow the practices of those who came before you - handspan by handspan, armspan by armspan - to the point that if they follow the lizard into its hole, you would follow them in this.” We said: “O Messenger of Allah, are you referring to the Jews and Christians?” He replied: “Who else?”


Thus if it was possible for certain Christians to be arbitrarily insulted when there was no authentic need to be, it is also possible (and if the above hadith is to be believed it is also likely) that Muslims may at times prevent the expression of a valid opinion owing to them arbitrarily feeling insulted when there was no authentic need to be.


Another part of the value of allowing freedom of speech is that religious misinterpretations and superstitions are not the only forms of mistake in human thinking. Established scientific hypothesis are sometimes also disproven, and for valid scientific opinions contrary to the scientific establishment to be promulgated it is necessary for freedom of speech to be permitted. It is very relevant to this discussion then, that a conservative Muslim website recently published an article on scientific renaissance in the Gulf which states, "Today, however, the Muslim world produces only one per cent of global scientific output. The decline may have begun with the 13th-century Mongol invasion of Baghdad, or subsequent fighting between caliphates, or a fear that science would lead to a rejection of faith." 2 The insistence of those in the Islamic faith circles that freedom of speech be supressed, may well be having such an impact on retarding scientific development in the Islamic world that a single western university such as harvard publishes more scientific papers in a year than does the entire Islamic world in modern times. With such a fact in mind, one may well ask the question, can Muslims afford to forbid free speech?


3. The suggestion to pray in Masjids came not from me but from Ghareebah on the basis of Ghareebah's misunderstanding of an earlier post of mine as post #116 of this thread makes clear. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if I can not say a Baha'i prayer in a Masjid. Having said you are most welcome to attend a Baha'i temple on a day when the verses of the holy Qur'an are recited there in spite of Baha'is having their own holy Scripture seperate to the Qur'an.


Kind regards

1 I am not allowed to paste links yet as I have not made a sufficient number of posts, however I am happy to email anyone the link who doubts the reference
2 As per comment for above reference, although anyone who googles this quote will easily find the article on Islamic website