Assalmu alaikum,

I can’t say I know what it is like to live as a muslim in the West. The only time I came close to that was when I spent 5 years in the UK while doing my A-levels and degree. And I must say it was the worst five years of my life as a practising Muslimah. I questioned how it was that I had to live among people who wud insult Allah and my Beloved Nabi and there was nothing I could do about it.

I also found the whole freedom of speech thing to be quite hypocritical. On the one hand it is perfectly ok to insult the Creator of the universe, but I could get locked up for denying the Holocaust and saying I despised homosexuals made me ‘homophobic’.

I have lived my whole life in Africa, Nigeria to be precise. And I know how the muslims over here deal with people who dare to insult Allah Azza wa Jal and His Beloved Messenger (saw), and I also know what can happen to anyone who openly declares to be gay. And call it barbaric, uncivilised or whatever, but I believe that I wouldnt trade our principles in anyday for the so called ‘civilised and advanced’ western lifestyle. Cos to me to be able to live in the Western World today and be fully accepted and welcomed, you would have to compromise on your islam big time. And if you refuse to compromise you join the bandwagon of the likes of Ali Tamimi et al. May Allah hasten their release. Ameen.

I pray that we all live to see the day when the banner of islam will once more be raised up high and when Allahs soldiers will silence His enemies for good.

The lecture below is by Imam Anwar al Awlaki and I feel it says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao5PUvxUFl4

“And I know how the muslims over here deal with people who dare to insult Allah Azza wa Jal and His Beloved Messenger (saw)”

Ooooh, how scary. Seriously lady. The problem is not with people who insult God but with people who have backwards mentalities like yours. Who feel that only they are entitled to express their opinions, good or bad, on matters or religion and God because “we have the truth” and all other criticisms must be silenced with physical violence or prison. Ridiculous. I hope that one day in the future you welcome yourself into the 21st century.

And newsflash. Saying you despise homosexuals does make you homophobic LOL. If I said that I despised muslims for no other reason that that they were muslim I would probably get every single person on this site lambasting me with “bigot, islamophobic, racist, blah blah blah” so why are gay guys any different? Oh, cause your religions tells you to hate them and that they are disgusting? Well maybe I follow a religion that tells me muslims are disgusting and I should hate them. I guess that I wouldn’t be an islamophobe anymore. I would just be doing my religious duty (as you are, clearly)

Good article btw. I had heard about that painting and found it to be rather gross but figured what the heck, In the end people can paint what they want. Although it did amuse me to read that the painter received death threats or something. Way to go freedom of speech lovers.
In the end, where most people stand on the issues of freedom of speech generally boils down to where they were raised, irrespective of religion. Umm Afnaan was raised and lives in a culture that considers it acceptable to do personal harm to those who speak against what the majority believes, hence the anti freedom of speech rhetoric. While the author of the article, (who I shall assume practices Islam just as much as UmmAfnaaan does) is pro freedom of speech most likely due in part to either an upbrining in a society like that or an extensive education in an uncensored society. Or it could be neither of those and he just has amazing powers of reason.

You shouldn’t really be showing the pic of the supposed depiction of Jesus and his disciples at the table.

Important point brother Ahmed Brown.

Saying something like Muslims believe in free speech…or I am against free speech…or I am for free speech….none of these mean much of anything.

“Free speech” as a certain understanding based on the first amendment to the U.S. constitution and the court decisions that have interpreted that amendment.

Other countries besides the U.S. (like Canada or in Europe) may believe in some sort of “free speech” but they do not have first amendments like the United States and so what that means practically and even philosophically is different.

Many Muslims have argued that Islam provides for a certain kind of free speech, and I don’t necessarily think that has to be wrong but it is obvious that the mindset and worldview that produced most modern notions of free speech is utterly alien to any mindset or worldview known at the time of the Prophet (saw) or during the classical Islamic period when most of what we accept as the Islamic tradition was formulated.

So, there are some hard questions and serious work that needs to be done to address such questions in our time in a meaningful way from an Islamic point of view. Pointing out double standards is fine, sloganeering about free speech from either side is to be expected but not really meaningful…but none of this really gets to the actual substantive issues involved as far as I can tell.

And Allaah knows best.

The hipocrisy of the West in this regard goes without saying. I mean, there are Western countries that implement thought crimes. Just look at the case of David Irving.

Interesting post. Also, Jazakallahu Khair to umm Afnaan and Abu Noor for their excellent comments.

As Salaam Alaikum,
I believe that people should be allowed to expres themselves in anyway that they like as long as it is not harmful to other people (such as advocating someone’s death) and isn’t defaming another person based on lies (like randomly calling someone a pedophile). I mean sure these people can say it, but they should be prepared for hte consenquences, such as a lawsuit or even jail time when you advocate that someone be murdered.

It’s very complicated.

What I do know, concerning Muslims, according to the Quran we are suppose to just turn away when someone is speaking evil. We are suppose to let them be.

The way that Muslims advocated for the death of those cartoonist is completely outrageous.

salaam

An excellently written article, Mr. Shehata. And there are some very insightful and thought-provoking comments as well.

I’m on a personal mission to understand Islam as well as I can (and I wish all Americans, indeed, people everywhere would). Forums like this one are enormously helpful.

One of the things I’ve learned is there are many, many different “brands” under the umbrella of Islam, well beyond Shi’a and Sunni, and for people to lump the actions of a few extremists onto the whole population is very, very wrong. And, I think that might be the root of the debate over free speech.

Americans fiercely — and correctly — guard their First Amendment rights. We believe it is the cornerstone to guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. We believe there should be as few restrictions on it as possible (the crowded theater example cited above is one, because it is a DIRECT incitement to violence). We also believe in strict separation of church and state. Therefore, freedom of speech does not protect anyone — or any religion — from being offended. I, too, have been disgusted by so-called “art” depicting someone urinating on Jesus, etc. — and I understand why the cartoons offended so many Muslims. In Denmark, however, as in the US, they aren’t seen as direct incitements to violence, simply mockery, and thus don’t constitute a reason to restrict them.

As I see it, there are many Muslims who understand this principle and accept it, and there are many who do not. Regarding those who do not, I respect their view — but the national laws trump religious traditions every time, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish, if those traditions require restricting speech. Under the First Amendment, many things offending many people can be, and have been, said. But many injustices have also been brought to light. Furthermore, we could not have given the world some of the astonishing things we all enjoy had not freedom of speech been in place — the refrigerator, telegraph, telePHONE, cures for many diseases, the list goes on.

I’m not saying others haven’t contributed to the world’s well-being as well. But I’m convinced that it was a climate of openness — protected by the First Amendment — that provided such fertile ground here in the US.

I often wonder why those who don’t believe in free speech — whether Muslims or otherwise — come here to live, since something so fundamental clashes with their tradition. I was raised on the maxim “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” and if I felt I couldn’t, I wouldn’t go to Rome. I’m not like those xenophobes who advocate “kicking ‘em out” — I only hope they see reason, someday.

It does make me angry, however, to see what’s going on in Canada right now with the Maclean’s/Mark Steyn case. Canada has kangaroo-court “human rights tribunals” that are not accountable to law in any way, shape or form, but they have the power to stifle free speech without accountability. Mark Steyn is, indeed, a very polemical writer, and he turns off a lot of people with his one-sided view of Islam. But he never advocated direct violence, and thus does not deserve to be silenced. The result of this trial will be, I fear, even more negative stereotypes being placed on Muslims at large. Because of the publicity, hundreds of thousands will buy the book at the core of the trial, and will be swayed by it. Millions of non-Muslims will view this as “yet another attempt” by Muslims to “take over the world.”

What to do about it? There are scores of excellent books on the market that address Muslims and non-Muslims, and the issues they generate. To me, one of the best is “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think” link to Amazon And, friend by friend, acquaintance by acquaintance, I’m trying to spread the word. I think this forum is an excellent place, as well, for educating everyone, non-Muslim and Muslim alike. Someday, I believe, we WILL come together in harmony and understanding.

But remember — can’t do it without free speech!

Lois,

Thank you for your well-informed, well thought out and well argued comments.

I agree with almost everything you said.

The only quibble I would have is the “if you’re going to come here, accept the way “we” do things here” part.

The United States has a long and complex history and is today and has always been made up of diverse groups of people who have always disagreed and contested the way to do things including around issues of freedom of speech.

Everyone here who wants to should engage in and contribute to that ongoing discussion — there is no settled way that “we” do things, a brief study of the history of free speech or any other legal concept in this country would make that clear. Interestingly enough, the majority of Muslims who are immigrants themselves would probably agree with this misguided notion that there is a single settled “American” way that things are done and that people who come here have to accept it. That’s due to their own experiences of other places, their desire to fit in and to succeed and their own ignorance of U.S. history.

Their children who are born and raised here and all the rest of us who have only known this country of course would never accept the notion that our own ideas are somehow foreign to the one correct “American” way of doing things.

I hope you catch what I’m saying.

Again, thanks for adding your perspective and May God reward your efforts to learn more about Islam and Muslims and to promote understanding and interaction between different groups of people. This is why God made people different, so that we can know each other better!

Abu Noor,
Thank you for the details on the legalese, I didn’t intend to start a first amendment interpretation thread. I’m in no way saying that the supreme court decisions about free speech are right or wrong, was just pointing out that free speech can and has been curtailed by law, there’s been precedent, and as you pointed out, various decisions that have gone against prior rulings and all i was doing was pointing out that ‘free’ isn’t free.

DrM, free speech is a legal right, which doesn’t guarantee that individuals will tolerate that right of yours, but then again, they have the right to dissent. “hate speech” has a narrow definition in legal terms, but in the popular media, it gets thrown around and the speaker gets attacked. Which is why you need people on your end who can defend views without getting personal in their attacks.
Say something that doesn’t agree with the majority view, you’ll get allegations and mudslinging galore in the media, the internet etc, but you probably can’t be sent to prison for it. That isn’t true in many countries. Try criticizing the monarchy in the Middle East.

There’s an interesting article in the New York Times today on this topic called “Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech”. The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

DrM

May Allah reward you.

It seems that the Western ideological campaign has really succeeded in brainwashing a lot of our brothers and sisters. I can’t believe there are people who believe ‘free speech’ exists even in the west. As I said earlier, try openly denying the holocaust or even quoting one of the many ahadith where Rasulullah (saw) talks about the muslims fighting and defeating the Jews at the end of time and see if you do not at the very least, spend a month in solitary confinement for ‘inciting hatred’.

Oh Ummah of Muhammad (saw), WAKE UP!!!!!!

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, thanks so much for your answer.

(By the way, I’ve posted under different e-mails on this website, as I have two I use interchangeably and often forget which one I’ve used before — sorry for any confusion! I use “Lois Lane” as a reference to my profession of journalism. My real name is Mary — I’ll try to remember only to use that e-mail here.)

You said: “The only quibble I would have is the “if you’re going to come here, accept the way “we” do things here” part.”

Fair enough — and I didn’t mean it to come across as xenophobic. I truly can’t understand how someone could live somewhere whose culture was so diametrically opposed to their own beliefs. I can only see it as painful in the extreme, especially for devout Muslims. Trying to raise modest young women, for example. And for the more conservative believers, who advocate the harsher punishments of Sharia law, it’s got to seem downright impossible. I’d never get along in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, to speak for myself.

What I meant was we do things the way we do because, by and large, it works for most of us. We celebrate diversity and pluralism, and the only way to protect that is to protect freedom of speech as unrestricted as possible. Of course, there ARE cases (which have been tried in courts of law) that restrict certain speech — yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when no fire exists, for example. But these restrictions are very rare; and, as I say, must be challenged in court to become legal precedent. The burden of proof on speech that is alleged to incite hatred is an imminent danger to the person (or group) being hated. Simply being wrong, or insulting, won’t hold up in court. Nor should it.

And that’s where that particular thought was leading. Americans believe the proper forum for objecting to something someone said or printed is in the public forum, i.e. letters to the editor or personal opinion columns. They become resentful when someone tries to circumvent this by lawsuits or “human rights tribunals” Canada-style. These actions are seen as “whining” and underhanded, and only serve to even more tarnish the view of Muslims. This is something that frustrates me, as I’ve learned not only is understanding possible, but very much “doable.” But as regards free speech, generally speaking, Americans believe the truth will out, given enough time in the public debate. (Which should be as unfettered as possible.)

Frankly, I wish many more Americans would come to websites like this one so they can learn more. Talk about the value of free speech! I’ll do my best to get the word out.

I don’t know how far freedom of speech applies in Austria, so I will discuss it from the USA perspective.

In the USA the removal of this art would involve no double standard. It would be perfectly legal and would not violate freedom of speech.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s CONGRESS that must not make laws to restrict speech. There are obvious exceptions, the classic example being shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

The museum is private, owned and operated by the Cathedral (and thus by the Catholic Church). In the US they could display or reject any art they want. You could make an argument about artistic freedom, but the answer to that is that it isn’t a law that prevents the artist from displaying it there. There is no law against creating such art or displaying it elsewhere.

From the US viewpoint, there is no comparison between this and the cartoons published in Danish newspapers.

A closer comparison would be if, say, cartoons portraying Muhammad in homosexual acts were posted in a museum owned by Muslims. There no one would have real objection to the cartoons’ removal.

I remind you of Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary”, displayed in the Brooklyn Museum. The depiction of the mother of Jesus included daubs of dung and photos of women’s external sexual organs. There were protest demonstrations and much public outcry. But the “art” remained. The most violent thing that occurred was that someone tried to deface the “art” with white paint. There were no actual riots. No one was killed.

Nice straw man arguments, Jim. Freedom of Speech does not exist anywhere in the world, only someone living in Disney land believes otherwise. The main difference being that the Catholic Church has not had a war declared on it, with multiple Catholic nations under brutal foreign occupation. The killings only happened after trigger happy police shot Muslim demonstrators(the majority of the demonstrations were peaceful BUT the media only focused on a handful of violent ones) following the REPUBLICATION of the cartoon in Europe 4 months after the initial provocation.
Don’t worry though, I’ll be posting a complete time line on the Danish hate cartoons. Watch for it…

As a Christian and an American, there are things in the Koran and especially the Hadiths that I find hateful and objectionable. I will not enumerate them here, you already know what some of them are. On the day in the USA that hate speech is made illegal, papers will be filed to supress the Koran and Hadiths, and there is an excellent chance that at least some of them will be upheld.

If Mark Steyn’s work is supressed in Canada, the Koran and Hadiths will also be supressed as there is much in them that is interpreted as a direct call to violence, pedophelia, and hatred.

Be careful what you wish for, as you may get it.

Answer to Wilders’ “Fitna” shelved.

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/290208_3.htm

The film was “one of the plans for participating in the debate that Geert Wilders has aroused with his proposal to ban the Koran. After extensive research, linking Bible quotations with real political events and acts of violence however produced an insufficient basis for a thorough journalistic production.”

Oops.

Amad, perhaps you know of someone who could do a better job. I personally would really like to see such a film.