Dr. Kashif Chaudrhy calls out hypocrisy and misinformation that has circled free-speech countries since the Charlie Hedbdo attacks occurred.
–
The appalling Paris attacks have brought the debate on free speech to the mainstream once again. Charlie Hebdo is being hailed a free speech icon. Free speech fanatics are on a rampage, demonizing anyone who is using their own free speech right to disagree with the content of the magazine, no matter how loud their condemnation of the atrocious violence. Like many other Muslims, I have also been asked to clarify my position on free speech to the point of queasiness. So I’ll let my free speech do the talking.
At the outset, I want to make this clear: It is possible to condemn and grieve the horrific violence in Paris and openly disagree with Charlie Hebdo’s content at the same time. The two are not contradictory. Quite to the contrary, not expressing my honest criticism for fear of backlash would be the real loss for free expression.
As a Muslim, I borrow my understanding on free speech from the teachings of Islam – which I find in complete agreement with my conscience. Here are a few salient points to consider in this regard:
1) Islam is not above criticism: The usual knee-jerk reaction I get when expressing any disapproval of the distasteful cartoons of Prophet Muhammad is: “Listen up you Moozlum! Islam is not above criticism.”
Of course it is not. No idea is above criticism – not a religious ideology, not the contents of a magazine, and certainly not someone’s differing view on free speech. I am not sure how my calm criticism of what I consider displeasing is translated to a plea to shelter my ideas from criticism. This is a logical fallacy. It does not make any sense. Anyone is free to critique Islam’s ideals and teachings all they want. Far from discouraging this, Islam welcomes intellectual and literary discourse and repeatedly invites mankind to reason. Just in the recent past, I have initiated two debates with anti-Islam critics on issues surrounding apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islam. The challenge on the latter has still not been accepted. Rest assured, we do not run from discourse. We welcome it.
2) Pointless ridicule is pointless criticism: Defining criticism by grisly obscene images of a man sacred to a quarter of the world – and not a critique of his ideas – speaks volumes about the intellectual, ethical and literary aptitude of some free speech fanatics. If I do not like someone’s ideas, I address them intellectually. I do not depict the person behind the ideas – or their beloved ones – in hideous cartoons to win the case for free criticism. Engaging in such a disgracious act would speak more about my own moral standing – and lack of an intellectual rebuttal – than anything else.
Muslims and non-Muslims live as neighbors in many Western countries. Mutual respect and cultural sensitivity are key to such pluralistic societies. Let’s say you had a new neighbor one day. You knock on their door and say: “Hey bro, welcome to the neighborhood. I live next door. Oh, and by the way, you look like a pig. And is that your mother behind you? She looks like a fat old donkey. Dinner at my place tonight? Lets connect?” Any human would be tempted to punch you back. Islam would certainly forbid the punch, but would also call the insult pointless in the first place. Thus if you were punched for insulting your neighbor’s mother, should you be anointed a free speech hero? And should anyone who fails to recognize you one be deemed a free speech enemy?
Equating the ‘right to free speech’ with a passionate ‘duty to offend’ is degrading it.
|
Even though we have the right to say offensive things, basic social ethics ask that we don’t. It should not be about how far we can challenge free speech limits. It should be about how far we can raise the intellectual standards of it. The Koran warns:
“O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule another people; perhaps they may be better than them..and do not insult one another and do not call each other by offensive nicknames.” (Koran 49:11)
Equating the ‘right to free speech’ with a passionate ‘duty to offend’ is degrading it. Whereas Islam does not punish such offense legally, it questions the need for unnecessary provocation. It lays greater emphasis on mutual respect, imploring society to higher ethical and intellectual standards to promote peace and harmony. The Koran, for example, prohibits worship of idols in strict terms, yet admonishes believers to not abuse them at any cost. The underlying theme is respectful difference of opinion – key to a harmonious pluralistic existence.
3) Free Speech comes with responsibilities (and limits): Like every right, free speech also comes with responsibilities. Racist, sexist, homophobic or other hate speech has no place in the civilized world. Even here in America, there are laws forbidding certain forms of hate speech. As for insulting speech, society takes it on itself to discourage and call it out. If standing up for free speech means defying its ethical limits, should those who espouse anti-black bigotry, anti-Semitism or any other form of bigotry be hailed free speech heroes?
Indeed such bigots have the right to bigoted speech. They have the right to use the ‘N’ word, mock 9/11 victims or lampoon Jews and the holocaust. Extremists in Pakistan have a similar right to glorify the killers of Charlie Hebdo. In turn, society should confront such bigoted abuse of free speech with better speech.
Not everyone agrees free speech must be a social – not legal – liability. France, for example, disagrees. It is one of over a dozen European countries that have criminalized denying the holocaust. In fact, just days after the Charlie Hebdotragedy, French authorities arrested a comedian over a Facebook post that was considered apologetic of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. In Germany, the daily Berliner Zeitung had to apologize for mistakenly printing a cartoon that offended the Jewish community. Instead, the cartoon was meant to offend the Muslims.
Even radical anti-Islam critics agree they would set limits to free speech. It is not a question then of whether free speech has ethical limits. It is a question of why offending Muslims is any different from offending Jewish, black, LGBT communities etc.
4) No Anti-Blasphemy Laws: “Oh! so Mr. Brownie, you want the West to live under your f***ing blasphemy laws?”
I have actually had this bigoted statement said to me before. No, I am not advocating for anti-blasphemy laws at all. In fact, these laws are against the clear teachings of the Koran. There is no punishment in Islam, let alone death, for offending one’s religious sentiments. This is a matter between man and God. As humans, Muslims are commanded to ignore offensive speech, and look the other way in peaceful self-restraint.
The Koran describes the believers as those who “walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant people address them, they say: ‘Peace’” (25:63). It also commands, “And when they (believers) hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say, ‘To us our deeds, and to you your deeds; peace be to you, we seek not the ignorant” (28:55).
Prophet Muhammad’s own example is also a guiding light in this regard. He never punished anyone for offending him or his faith. In fact, he forgave his blood-thirsty enemies when he returned victorious to Mecca, announcing universal amnesty. He also forgave – and led prayers for – the Medinite chief who led a smear campaign against him and his wives.
This is why while a handful of extremists called for violence against Charlie Hebdo, the majority of Muslims simply ignored their offense, responding to the abuse of free speech with better speech.
Most of Europe already has blasphemy laws e.g. in relation to the holocaust. I am not advocating for these. If anything, I oppose them.
5) Let us Elevate Free Speech: “Oh so you want to limit free speech further?”
Not at all! all I ask is to elevate your free speech. If you think your “right to free speech” is defined by a “duty to offend,” you are degrading free speech. Free Speech is much more sacred than pointless lampoonery.
As I see it, there are two models of free speech – one laying emphasis on the “need to offend,” and the other emphasizing intellectual criticism and civil dialogue. Let us support the latter. As a society, we have already set an ethical standard that discourages many forms of bigotry. Islamophobia must be recognized on the same par. If it is bigotry to offend Jews and Blacks, why is it heroic to offend the Muslims?
The Pope said in a recent speech: “One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected…. There is a limit.” He was joking about the punch. Though my faith would prohibit punching the neighbor who comes to my door abusing my mother, I would do one more thing other than calmly closing the door behind me: I would use my free speech to urge him to elevate his own.
And it is this same message I have for the Charlie Hebdos of the world.
Btw not 5 but maaaaaaaaany things that you muslims apologistic should know before speak abotu “FREEDOM OF SPEECh”…( And satire, and many , many , many others things)
http://www.rehj.cl/index.php/rehj/article/viewFile/509/481
Did you ever learn deeply about Rome?…Wasn´t perfect at all,.of course.:But nobody claim that, unlike most of you do about Islam ,quran, etc You thing history and science begun wiht Islam..prrrtzz (fuck Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Egiptians, Chinese,etc,etc,etc,etc,)
(and the muslim who spak clear about it..are considered traitors, apostates, bought by the jews, etc)
If “west” had been living by the backwards Islam standards…we haven´t never had “LIFE OF BRYAN” “Or Jesucrist Superstar” OR JUST THE FREEDOMS WE HAVE AT ALL …We couldn´t have confronted (verbally or cartoons i mean) and mock any “Holy “ridicoulous “absolute” dogmas that Churches and Crowns who dominated the people. “One image worth more than 10000 words !! …”WE” DON¨T WANT GO BACKWARDS . We gladly left those bacward and undeveloped times of repression away..,…Evolution is good People come to “west ” looking for thaaaat amog other things….No in the opposite way .HUMOR IS BOUND TO INTELLIGENCE… Is HEALTHY… Read more »
COrrection: “Even if those anger issues DO NOT end ..in physical agresseion..” 🙂
i noticed the author (KC) did not respond. personally i find that magazine vulgar, base, offensive on a gutter level. i am NOT charlie hebo. but i dont think they deserved to be killed. killing is not a “punch in the face”. what i do think is that the material should come w/a warning. “this material can be offensive to some people, can contain images of a violent or sexual nature”. i am for free speech, but i would like to know what im getting before i look@ it. if you dont like that sought of thing you stay away.… Read more »
Kashif
I am sorry you withdrew from this debate.
If you come back then please explain to me who teach people in France and in the West that it is our DUTY to offend ?
Free speech is fundamentally about the exchange of ideas, and near every argument against free speech contradicts itself from the first word forward. Humor is a method of delivery, and in the supply chain of exchange of ideas, it is just as important as the product itself. If you need an analogy, think Internet. And you balance this against “taking offense” – which requires a low effort at the very practical level, while often being a runaway train for “crazy dip shits” human output. I feel the limits are better applied on the “taking offense” side of the equation, when… Read more »
And, if Allah made humans in his own image, then that must mean that Allah intended us to use ridicule. He made our brains the way they are, based on His brain, so that means we should use all parts of them. To reject the ridiculing part of our selves is to reject the gift that Allah has given us.
Sure, societies with freedom of speech are societies with hypocrisy and misinformation. Nowhere near as much as societies WITHOUT free speech, however.
The best way to prevent misinformation is to OPEN the speech and press, not close down speech and press.
If a free press is the enemy of accuracy and consistency, then North Korea must be the most well-informed and non-hypocritical society in the world.
One BIG problem with trying to avoid offending religious people is that many religious people are actually somewhat embarrassed or conflicted about what their sacred texts say. Many Christians have been offended when I point out things the Bible actually says. Quote passages that they’ve never heard of and that look really insane to most people, and they think you’re ridiculing their religion. If I simply quote something from the Quran or the hadith that sounds really odd to most people, even many Muslims, am I ridiculing the religion or just pointing out what it says? Let’s say I simply… Read more »
Obviously, ridicule of religion CAN be a justifiable form of criticism. Most, if not all, major religions got their start by challenging the existing religious beliefs and practices. Most, if not all, prophets drew people’s attention by loudly criticizing religious authorities, even mocking them. If religious people always refused to risk offending people, today’s major religions would not exist. The Abrahamic religions would not exist if their leaders had always refused to ridicule other people. A religious person can’t have it both ways. If your religion got its start by attacking authority, then you can’t criticize others for attacking your… Read more »
I follow the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Not the heretical sect known as the Pastafarians, but the one true FSM faith.
If the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not exist, then why are all the stars and planets shaped like meatballs? Checkmate, atheists!
“Defining criticism by grisly obscene images of a man sacred to a quarter of the world – and not a critique of his ideas – speaks volumes about the intellectual, ethical and literary aptitude of some free speech fanatics.” One person’s obscenity is another person’s sacred ground, and vice-versa. The row here seems to be over the disparate boundaries of what each party is willing to accept & cede as sacred and profane ground. I am not an atheist, though I’m trying to envision an atheist’s perspective for a moment to play Devil’s advocate (there’s an irony or paradox… Read more »
Mostly_123: Very interesting exploration here. I like it, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of imagining an atheist view of the situation. Please allow me to respond as a particular sort of atheist, speaking only for myself and not for atheists in general. There could very well be a God or gods. Perhaps there is an omnipotent monotheistic being such as Yahweh or El or Allah. The actual existence or nonexistence of God makes no difference as to whether I should avoid offending the religious sentiment of another person. Even if I fully, truly believed in the same god as the… Read more »
some more to read for you Kashif
https://freedomhouse.org/blog/apology-danish-cartoon-crisis
The result was the death of 200 persons.
All this makes me angry.
Our laws can and do protect people, individuals, NOT ideas. And I’m happy with that. But with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of ill-exercised freedoms. One of the best cartoonists here in Switzerland said that he wouldn’t caricature or mock other societies and beliefs whose codes and limits her was not conversant with.
One little commented on irony of the Charlie Hebdo affair is that an entirely marginal magazine (60’000 circulation) that was struggling to survive, little read and largely ignored, has been saved by its enemies.
And let me add this..The Popes can……do some kind of nasty thing.. with that he said, like many things they (popes) have said before in order to try to protect their powers over fool people
And again,and again, the same logical fallacies,”half truths” about Islam,,etc,etc,etc,etc…(another example on how that ideology can affect even to intelligetn people) If an ideology condut to millions of people to feel “offended” by sutpids cartoons, in cartoons magazines, about their “beloved” prophet , in faar faaar foreing countries, ….making them gathering in huuge protestations, starting trying to “teach” “anothers”about “freedom of speech”, starting trying “opening debates”..etc etc( And I don´t even need to mention the burning flags;protestations before embassies, or attacks to those ones, ..Or just sending people to kill the cartonist, and many people supporting those killings, or instead… Read more »
I think some ideas and statements are simply inherently ridiculous. (I make ridiculous statements all the time, I should know!) They simply invite ridicule. Or, at the very least, there are some ideas that are so nonsensical, it’s nearly impossible to approach them with full respect, because it’s hard to point out how illogical something is without sounding like I’m making fun of it. For example: There are religious leaders in the world today, and not just Muslim ones, by the way, who are still teaching that the Earth is flat. Some of them consider it heresy to say the… Read more »
Correction of last paragrhapgh..
I don´t know why I used the expresion “in the last centuries..in this particular case.. I maybe was outrageous 🙂 …Because it´s only neccesary..to see their reactions , (the lack or jus weakness of them) .in contemporary time..nowday…about REAL problems..caused for their..ideology… in aporportion…
Not only are hipersensible to ..ridicoulous things..but always biasing and closing their eyes to REAL problems of their own…(And that..create distrust..Logical and intelligent..distrust.. How not?
PS: I thin you Wellokaye push the button of replying me by mistake.. haha.. But..by the way.. very goooood point .Yes 😀
But this is still worst than his facebook page!! Here is a man..tying to debate about the “historical” “accurancy” of some aspects of the personality and “facts” of an historical character ., who lived more than 10 centuries ago, This man is trying ¡¡ to “teach” anothers !!… about “historical facts” … While this man believes as “historical fact” that this character developed all a “holy” book , aaaall of it…all by himself..just with “god” inspiration… And also believing as “historical fact” ..that the moon was broken in two parts and nothing happened to the earth, for example, because of… Read more »
Thats not true. Here is what history tells us: 1) The tribe of Faraza (headed by Umm Qirfa) attacked a small Muslim scout group of 12 headed by Zaid bin Harris, camped outside Medina. 9 Muslims were killed. Zaid himself was critically injured but survived. The tribesmen also took a lot of merchandise that the Muslims were protecting. (Sirat Halabiyya 2/192) 2) Umm Qirfa did not stop at this. She prepared a group of 30 brave men from her family to go to Medina and kill Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (Ref: Sirat Halabaiyya 3/251) 3) Zaid Bin Haris had already vowed… Read more »
you said the Prophet Muhammad would never hurt anyone or cause them to be her but what about Oom Qirfa? according to Islamic tradition in the Arabic the Prophet Muhammad had her tied to two camels and two horses and split apart and killed terribly. How is this merciful and just and peaceful?what about her
Let’s be clear – a real intellectual discourse of any subject (ANY subject) cannot be had through the analysis of ONE TEXT – for example, to state that I believe there is no global warming by consulting the one scientific paper written with that viewpoint – wouldn’t be considered very intellectual, on any count. It’s a bit frustrating, reading religious “discourse” follow the same circular logic, employ the same fallacy – fine, you may believe that the Koran contains all of the known and unknown truths in the universe, and that is your prerogative; but please, don’t frame such debates… Read more »
Hi Kashif
I think you have misunderstood what Charlie Heboe is all about.
They criticized authorizes ,of any kind. Jesus,God,the Prophet, the Pope, the Bible…
They did not make fun of Muslims but of power figures ,like the Prophet and Jesus,and authority figures fir the Jews and any other religion .
Yes it was often vulgar and not eveunody laughed .
But democracy rest on the freedom of those not in authority to critize people in power
Muslims have no special privildeges here.
Not asking for privilege, just equal treatment. If free speech means freedom to lampoon anything, then make fun of 9/11, Jews, Blacks etc. I state clearly that no idea is above criticism, but using the N word or antisemitism of Islamophobia is NOT criticism. We must elevate our speech. We must honor it.
Kashif I think anyone should be treated with dignity and respect, that is why I do not like the drawings in Charlie Hebdo. But I still support their right to live and work.,and nobody has the right to execute them. Yesterday I watched long film about that magazine and the trial against them (2007?). In that trial it was a part of their defence in court that they could document that their drawings was not more focused on Islam than other ideas , You should try to find the movie,it is in French. I am not French. France has 10%… Read more »
I can not give a link to this documentary from 2008 but it is called in English:
“it’s hard being loved by jerks”.
You have NOT document that nobody makes fun of blacks and Jews,because that is simply not the truth.
I find no links in your article here to recent research that show Islam or Muslims are worse treated in than blacks and Jews because of freedom of speech.
The Jews leave France now in large numbers.
kashif
i guess you live in the US and speak about the situation inn US only?
Here is an interesting article:
And I leave this discussion here as I feel you idealize one group .
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/fbi-jews-4x-more-likely-to-be-victims-of-hate-crimes-than-muslims-less-likely-to-be-investigated/
See ..this is the POWER of MOCKERING..REAL Freedom of SPEECH IN ACTION
#We_Are_Coming_O_Rome
https://twitter.com/hashtag/we_are_coming_o_rome?f=realtime&src=hash&lang=es
Leeearrrn
I don’t know if this is because I’m an atheist or because I’m one of those people the article refers to as a “free speech fanatic,” but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that ridicule is a pointless form of criticism. And, I disagree with the idea that avoiding offense should be a major goal of public discourse. If the appropriate standard is that my speech, art, or writing must not offend anyone, then that is effectively allowing the blind spots, inconsistencies, and prejudices of others to dictate my right to express my opinions. Being offended does not make a… Read more »
@ wellokaythen
In brief, I think you made an logical, articulate and compelling argument (or counter-arguement, as the case may be)- strong points there.
If the person saying “killing over a cartoon is stupid” is a fanatic, then what do you call the person who actually kills because of a cartoon?
If you call both of them fanatics, then the word fanatic has lost all meaning.