There is a confusion as to whether or not Islam unequivocally supports the concept of, freedom of speech. To better understand this issue, one must never forget that human expression is almost never clear cut. A language has countless nuances and its speakers have various forms of communication. Hence, one should be cautious and not impose onto a religion or its adherents a social/political construct born from a time where kings ruled with an iron fist and stifled any dissent. All social, political and religious movements faced oppositions. This is hardly foreign to all religions that preceded Islam. The advent of Islam provides one a glimpse into how Muhammad (pbuh) was stifled from speaking the truth. Simply for speaking about their faith and professing their ideals, early Muslims were punished. Consequently, it is fair to say that Islam was born from a society where the profane was uttered and the sacred was suppressed. Abu Bakr once exclaimed to an angry mob that had abused Muhammad (pbuh), Do you wish kill a man who says my lord is God? Here, Abu Bakr defends Muhammads right to free speech and expression. As Islams supporters grew, the Meccans were ever ferocious in preventing Muslims from reciting the Quran or proselytizing their faith. Visitors to the holy sanctuary of Mecca were warned and told to plug their ears and not listen to the Quran for fear of being bewitched. Some people actively stuffed cotton into their ears such as Tufayl bin Amr al-Dawsi. To much of their disappointment, the Meccans active hatred and fear mongering drove many to listen to Islam out of curiosity. Despite the thirteen years of persecution, sanctions, torture, and humiliation the Muslims endured in Mecca, Prophet Muhammad did not authorize his followers to take revenge on those who abused or slandered the Muslims. The many passion narratives of those companions in addition to the pleas of Khabab bin Arat, a close follower of Muhammad, whose requests for retaliation were swiftly rebuffed, prove that Islam does not agree with revenge tactics in the name defending Islams honor. Even after Muhammad and his followers moved to Medina, as an organized state, Muhammad frequently rebuffed requests to execute dissenters saying, They will say that Muhammad kills his people. Here it clearly shows that Muhammad was prepared for dissent. Even when people uttered things that were beyond the pale, he did not allow people to become vigilantes. In fact those who had taken the law into their hands were rejected by Muhammad and shunned. One notable example where retaliation and force was employed was Hamza bin Abdul Mutallib. He had heard of Abu Jahls verbal abuse of his nephew, Muhammad (pbuh). Driven by his love for his nephew, and not in the name of defending the religion, he confronted Abu Jahl and struck him so severely that his head bled profusely. Some people tried to retaliate but Abu Jahl stopped them while admitting that he had verbally abused Hamzas nephew. Looking at what transpired in France, there is no justification for two vigilantes to murder anyone. While it can be argued that the cartoons were completely unjustified, rude, disrespectful and spiteful in the name of freedom of speech, there is nothing in Islam that teaches or instructs people to violently lash out at those who insult Islam. No evil justifies another evil in the name of Islam. For a social construct that has been perversely twisted from its intended role in condemning tyrannical sovereigns to that of what satire does is uncalled for. Islam strongly encourages people to speak against tyrannical rulers, The greatest jihad is to speak the word of truth to a tyrant, Mishkat al-Masabih. Therefore, Islam agrees with the intent of freedom of speech. Should it be used to speak the truth, then Islam supports it. But what Islam does not support is using the right to speak to hurt people. Sure, a person has a right to utter any thing. But it is foolhardy and ridiculous for someone to fully believe that the freedom to say anything without bearing its consequences is logical and even a right! To label these supporters as heroes is overreaching and downright stupid. Should a person declare that he wishes to assassinate a head of state and his family, would any government let a person go in the name of freedom of speech? Is slandering people and defaming their reputation free from consequences? If yes, then why are there laws that hold people accountable for libel or defamation? Sure, a person can call into account someones lineage. However, a stiff punishment awaits those who slanders someones honor. This punishment can only be carried by a legitimate state and after the law has taken its course and hardly not at the hands of vigilantes. Therefore, let it be known that the actions of a few people do not define a collective body of adherents nor their religion. If people want to have a fair dialogue on Islams position on freedom of speech, a forthright and fair dialogue is the only way. Many Muslims should be aware that the real way of defending the Prophet (pbuh) is through emulating his life. In the face of such hatred, he extended the hand of peace to his detractors. In the face of such violence, Muhammad did not stoop down to their level. Killing people in order to defend Islam is not anyones job. Islam does not need defenders but followers.
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:33:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015