From the days of Salman Rushdie and the Danish
Cartoons to the recent movie on YouTube, the issue of free speech and Islam has
primarily surfaced in the context of vulgar language being directed at the
Prophet (saw) and the teachings of Islam; this rabid Islamophobia is fueled by
the mainstream media, in particular the gutter tabloid press like the Daily
Mail. To reinforce the prejudice, the media disseminates un-Islamic actions of
individual Muslims as representative of Islam. Besides the mass media, the
Internet is filled with many anti-Islamic websites, engaged in the same task of
circulating crude propaganda and inciting hate.
There are primarily two types of groups engaged
in this type of activities, the far right extremists driven by xenophobia, and the
militant secular camp. The former has adopted the anti-Islamic stance to
conceal their disdain towards foreigners. So they make the flimsy argument that
the Muslims are not a racial entity. That is true; however, the Muslims are largely
composed of foreigners, when they are attacked by the far right, one can see
the racist undertones and at times the clear racist language surfacing.
In order to appear objective, the secular brigade
claims they are opposed to all religions, in reality they are focused on targeting
Islam. Hence, the disproportionate media spotlight on the Muslims. For example,
the occurrence of honor killings among a very small minority is amplified when
it involves Muslims, even though it is prevalent in other communities to the
same degree. In India, female infanticide has led to serious population
imbalance in certain areas, but this is rarely mentioned. The issue of women’s
right is constantly used to attack Islam and Muslims, yet, it is the US led the
world on rape, domestic violence, flesh trade and gruesome serial killers
preying on women.
Christianity
has gone through reformation; with creeping secularization they tolerate any
levels of abuse hurled at Jesus (PBUH), and are gradually accepting Homosexuality
and Feminism to conform to secular values. At this rate, Christianity will
eventually lose its identity. If Christianity has adapted, why can’t Islam they
argue. Hence, secular warriors are battling to kick-start a reformation within Islam.
From
a monopoly position, newspapers columnists like Melanie Phillips, and similar characters
on TV and Radio often justify crude attacks on Muslims, using the pretext of
free speech; yet they have never set a real example of their commitment to
‘free’ speech by giving the Muslims an ‘equal’ voice, so that the discourse is a
fair one. It is easy for the strong to target the weak; the Muslim
communities have almost no voice in the Zionist dominated mass media. In
contrast, they maintain a distance from powerful and influential communities
like the Jews; just the threat of anti-Semitism results in a rapid retreat
followed by an apology, and the issue of ‘free’ speech is quickly forgotten.
Secularist
admits that ‘free’ speech has limits, and it should not be used to incite
violence. How those limits are decided and enforced is another matter, but it
inherently contradicts the notion of being ‘free’. Such notions of freedom can
also exist under absolute dictatorship as long as you obey the dictator!
Concurrently, secularists argue that in a modern liberal society one should be
able to “attack all beliefs”. Is that so? Then we see the caveats, no
homophobia, no anti-Semitism, no racism, no sexism, no slander, no defamation and
so on. How does one attack or criticize
a belief without inciting violence? An obvious answer is not to use vulgar
language and employ words that are intended to cause offence.
For example, Islamophobic gangs often make the
crude allegation of pedophilia against the Prophet for marrying Ayesha, who was
nine-years-old. Her age is not a certainty, only that she was a young woman
(not a prepubescent child), and the ‘only’ virgin wife of the Prophet; others
were considerably older, much contrary to what a Pedophile would demand. Similarly,
offensive language was used to describe Prophet Ishmael as a bastard child, by
the Zionist dominated media to denigrate the Arabs, yet benign terms like ‘love
child’ are employed to describe the illegitimate children of celebrities. Another
false allegation is that the Prophet married the former wife of his ‘son’, when
they refer to the adopted slave, Zayd. Islam does not recognize the notion of
adopted son; to qualify as a son there has to be a biological relationship. In any case, it is a paradox for secular
liberals to lecture on sexual morality when they are constantly seeking to
break the existing boundaries; hence permit and encourage various forms of
sexual practices.
Islam targets minorities is another crude
allegation, it is surprising that the West should make such an allegation given
their track record. So they say Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State)
are oppressed as they have to pay the Jizyah tax. However, conveniently there
is no mention that the Dhimmis are also excluded from other taxes that are
levied upon the Muslim citizens, and they are also excluded from military
service. Furthermore, the rights of the Dhimmis are protected by the clear Islamic
texts; the laws are fixed and permanent, whereas in secular west, the minority rights
are subjected to the majority, who are at liberty to change those rights. A
clear example of this is the incarceration of suspects for years without trial,
and the use of torture, rape, sodomy and water-boarding (classed as enhanced interrogation)
by the US government.
Be honest, free
speech is not free, it is designed to protect secular values, thus inherently
it opposes values that are alien to it: likewise Islam opposes values that are
contrary to it. However, this should not stifle objective
discourse on various issues in a way that builds mutual respect and trust. Indeed,
the Muslim intellectuals and scholars are always open to a civilized debate.
They do not have a history of inquisitions and burning heretics.
However, the same cannot be said of secular
brigade, they are always encouraging crass anti-Islamic literature, provoking
an angry response from the Muslims, which is used to justify their initial claim
of Muslims as intolerant of free speech. A fair and honest debate requires a
level playing field, both sides given fair access, and parties are representative
of the respective ideologies. A cursory glance of the media shows, the experts
in Islam often tends to be the ones who either hate the subject, or do not have
a real commitment to it. Therefore, free
speech in the western secular framework is used to persecute Muslims and
denigrate Islam, rather than a platform to exchange ideas; it represents secular
intolerance.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
Originally published in December, 2004, it has been modified
substantially.
No comments:
Post a Comment