Danish Cartoons 3: The Importance of Free Speech
Somehow, this issue has turned from “don’t insult us” to “free speech is anti-Islam” and “free speech must be restricted to exclude offense to religion”. It's one thing not to appreciate insult; it's entirely another to make up this bullshit about free speech.
First of all, Islam has thrived under free speech; it's what allowed Islam to grow so fast in the Prophet's (S) time. The Treaty of Hudaibiyah, between the Muslims in Madinah and the pagans in Mecca, was unfair on its face to Muslims in every way. But the Prophet (S) accepted it because it allowed him to preach Islam freely. Islam grew SO fast then, faster than it ever had before, that the pagans had to break the treaty because they realized how much weaker they were getting. This is how Islam gains from an atmosphere of freedom of speech.
Second, freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't protect offensive speech. Nobody will ever censor things like 'flowers make me happy' or 'peace is good'. The only ideas that are ever censored are offensive ones: criticisms of government, major institutions, other organized groups. Things like "China shot students in Tiananmen Square" or "Mao Zedong was the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century". Chinese nationalists can get pretty offended by those. The whole point of freedom of speech is so that you can attack people, and groups, and beliefs, without fear of physical retribution.
Mutual respect is important, but it has to come through open and honest discourse. Otherwise, you just end up with a situation where everyone secretly hates each other. I ran an interfaith group for 2 years and at one point, we would have to start each discussion with everyone openly insulting each other just so we could actually talk about the issues. Abandoning freedom of speech for the sake of fake tolerance just makes the same racism, which already exists, deeper and stronger. That's a recipe for disaster.
The purpose of freedom of speech, and democracy, and so forth, is not to eliminate conflict. That's not possible. The purpose is to focus that conflict into something productive, into a dialogue or debate where meaningful communication can take place. And sometimes it takes offense to kickstart that communication. I routinely have amazing conversations that start off by openly insulting another person's beliefs. The medieval interfaith discussions that we look back to with fondness today were often pretty insulting. That doesn't mean they disrespected each other; it just means that they strongly believe their positions.
Why can't we respect people enough that we don't fear them taking offense at every provocation? If people actually believe their beliefs, they should be able to take it. Just try to insult a missionary. You'll get frustrated and give up way before they even flinch. Most people can't stand missionaries, but I find some of them (those that say more than “you're all going to hell" the easiest people to talk to. They actually say what they believe. As it is, we have to assume everyone is so fragile that they're not worth talking to anyway. You can never get a meaningful discourse out of this; it'll just perpetuate misunderstanding, distrust, and hatred.
This principle is amply demonstrated throughout Islamic history. After all, the Qur'an states that "Truth stands out clear from error" (2:256, Yusuf Ali translation). What better argument for open discourse can there be? The history of Islam is full of other examples of thriving public debate: theological debates in Baghdad, Christians in Ottoman Courts, letters among scholars like Maimonides and Averroes. They would actually say what they believe, and the discussions resulting were astonishing in their candidness, sincerity, and capacity to bring understanding. Why are we surprised that we don’t understand each other, when we don’t actually say what we believe?
Now, you may ask: if Islam is so strongly in favor of free speech, why did the Muslim world go nuts and start burning embassies?
My sense is that many of the violent protests (most of them, I’m not trying to capture every single person’s motivation) were fomented by secular (if not fully secular, then at least impious enough to manipulate the faith of honest believers for personal political gain) elites, pressured for democratic reforms by the West while pressured for more Islam from growing opposition at home. Here was a golden opportunity: a chance to discredit democracy while strengthening their own reputation as defenders of the faith. Two birds with one stone! Why wouldn’t they jump at the opportunity?
Never mind the total tampering with the original cartoons, fabricating new cartoons to circulate with the Danish ones. What shocks me most in this whole thing, which is already enough to make me despair for all of humanity, is the idea of a supposedly devout imam drawing a picture of Muhammad (S) having sex with a camel in order to blame that on Denmark. How deranged do you have to be to do something like that? Is Islam getting anywhere by this?
Truly religious people are secure in their own beliefs and don't fear free speech. It’s mostly Islamist groups who push for free speech and democracy in Muslim countries. They can handle this, and though they feel offended, they respond with principle. It's corrupt secular elites who have the most to fear from free speech.
But why were secular elites (or clueless ignorant imams) so able to manipulate religion and create such frenzy?
It’s nothing new for Muslims to be susceptible to this. Hell, Saddam Hussein threatened Israel in the first Gulf War and suddenly became the hero of the same Muslim groups he had persecuted to shreds. It’s because Islamic cred has much more to do with “defending the faith” than with actually practicing it. And once someone else “defends” Islam, you have to measure up, and soon it’s a race to the bottom.
The problem lies in secular or nonreligious Muslims who try to be 'defenders of the faith' to assuage their guilt of abandoning all the ethical principles of Islam. Naturally, all their defending of the faith also abandons all the ethical principles. So of course they’re going to be susceptible to movements trying to 'defend the faith' since they’re insecure about their religious credentials. But it’s ironic, ridiculous, and sad. Defending the name of the Prophet while totally ignoring all of his teachings: who's blasphemous now?
It’s almost more distressing seeing so much of the West bend over backwards trying to appease this jahiliyya behavior by Muslims. Scrambling past each other to talk about how well they understand Islam, telling us that ‘Muslims don’t depict the Prophet’ and how blablabla is offensive. First of all, depictions of Prophet Muhammad (S) are everywhere, from the US Supreme Court to even some mosques and Sufi shrines. They’re frowned upon, because of fear they could lead to idolatry, but they’re really not a big deal. Second, Muslims don’t do a lot of other things common in the West, but you didn’t even see Muslim protests over torture in Abu Ghraib! How can anyone take this response seriously? Burning embassies and killing people over some damn cartoons? Shame on those who would appease such ignorant nonsense.
Why don’t liberals stand up for their own values? Free speech is about as fundamental a liberal value as you can get, the bedrock of a set of principles that have enabled an unprecedented growth of knowledge and progress in so many fields. There’s a rich liberal tradition that includes, in addition to enormous scientific and organizational development, such ethical accomplishments as the elimination of slavery and the general prohibition of torture. Note liberalism’s faults, but there’s a lot to be proud of here.
What the hell is wrong with people? Bullshit begets bullshit.
First of all, Islam has thrived under free speech; it's what allowed Islam to grow so fast in the Prophet's (S) time. The Treaty of Hudaibiyah, between the Muslims in Madinah and the pagans in Mecca, was unfair on its face to Muslims in every way. But the Prophet (S) accepted it because it allowed him to preach Islam freely. Islam grew SO fast then, faster than it ever had before, that the pagans had to break the treaty because they realized how much weaker they were getting. This is how Islam gains from an atmosphere of freedom of speech.
Second, freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't protect offensive speech. Nobody will ever censor things like 'flowers make me happy' or 'peace is good'. The only ideas that are ever censored are offensive ones: criticisms of government, major institutions, other organized groups. Things like "China shot students in Tiananmen Square" or "Mao Zedong was the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century". Chinese nationalists can get pretty offended by those. The whole point of freedom of speech is so that you can attack people, and groups, and beliefs, without fear of physical retribution.
Mutual respect is important, but it has to come through open and honest discourse. Otherwise, you just end up with a situation where everyone secretly hates each other. I ran an interfaith group for 2 years and at one point, we would have to start each discussion with everyone openly insulting each other just so we could actually talk about the issues. Abandoning freedom of speech for the sake of fake tolerance just makes the same racism, which already exists, deeper and stronger. That's a recipe for disaster.
The purpose of freedom of speech, and democracy, and so forth, is not to eliminate conflict. That's not possible. The purpose is to focus that conflict into something productive, into a dialogue or debate where meaningful communication can take place. And sometimes it takes offense to kickstart that communication. I routinely have amazing conversations that start off by openly insulting another person's beliefs. The medieval interfaith discussions that we look back to with fondness today were often pretty insulting. That doesn't mean they disrespected each other; it just means that they strongly believe their positions.
Why can't we respect people enough that we don't fear them taking offense at every provocation? If people actually believe their beliefs, they should be able to take it. Just try to insult a missionary. You'll get frustrated and give up way before they even flinch. Most people can't stand missionaries, but I find some of them (those that say more than “you're all going to hell" the easiest people to talk to. They actually say what they believe. As it is, we have to assume everyone is so fragile that they're not worth talking to anyway. You can never get a meaningful discourse out of this; it'll just perpetuate misunderstanding, distrust, and hatred.
This principle is amply demonstrated throughout Islamic history. After all, the Qur'an states that "Truth stands out clear from error" (2:256, Yusuf Ali translation). What better argument for open discourse can there be? The history of Islam is full of other examples of thriving public debate: theological debates in Baghdad, Christians in Ottoman Courts, letters among scholars like Maimonides and Averroes. They would actually say what they believe, and the discussions resulting were astonishing in their candidness, sincerity, and capacity to bring understanding. Why are we surprised that we don’t understand each other, when we don’t actually say what we believe?
Now, you may ask: if Islam is so strongly in favor of free speech, why did the Muslim world go nuts and start burning embassies?
My sense is that many of the violent protests (most of them, I’m not trying to capture every single person’s motivation) were fomented by secular (if not fully secular, then at least impious enough to manipulate the faith of honest believers for personal political gain) elites, pressured for democratic reforms by the West while pressured for more Islam from growing opposition at home. Here was a golden opportunity: a chance to discredit democracy while strengthening their own reputation as defenders of the faith. Two birds with one stone! Why wouldn’t they jump at the opportunity?
Never mind the total tampering with the original cartoons, fabricating new cartoons to circulate with the Danish ones. What shocks me most in this whole thing, which is already enough to make me despair for all of humanity, is the idea of a supposedly devout imam drawing a picture of Muhammad (S) having sex with a camel in order to blame that on Denmark. How deranged do you have to be to do something like that? Is Islam getting anywhere by this?
Truly religious people are secure in their own beliefs and don't fear free speech. It’s mostly Islamist groups who push for free speech and democracy in Muslim countries. They can handle this, and though they feel offended, they respond with principle. It's corrupt secular elites who have the most to fear from free speech.
But why were secular elites (or clueless ignorant imams) so able to manipulate religion and create such frenzy?
It’s nothing new for Muslims to be susceptible to this. Hell, Saddam Hussein threatened Israel in the first Gulf War and suddenly became the hero of the same Muslim groups he had persecuted to shreds. It’s because Islamic cred has much more to do with “defending the faith” than with actually practicing it. And once someone else “defends” Islam, you have to measure up, and soon it’s a race to the bottom.
The problem lies in secular or nonreligious Muslims who try to be 'defenders of the faith' to assuage their guilt of abandoning all the ethical principles of Islam. Naturally, all their defending of the faith also abandons all the ethical principles. So of course they’re going to be susceptible to movements trying to 'defend the faith' since they’re insecure about their religious credentials. But it’s ironic, ridiculous, and sad. Defending the name of the Prophet while totally ignoring all of his teachings: who's blasphemous now?
It’s almost more distressing seeing so much of the West bend over backwards trying to appease this jahiliyya behavior by Muslims. Scrambling past each other to talk about how well they understand Islam, telling us that ‘Muslims don’t depict the Prophet’ and how blablabla is offensive. First of all, depictions of Prophet Muhammad (S) are everywhere, from the US Supreme Court to even some mosques and Sufi shrines. They’re frowned upon, because of fear they could lead to idolatry, but they’re really not a big deal. Second, Muslims don’t do a lot of other things common in the West, but you didn’t even see Muslim protests over torture in Abu Ghraib! How can anyone take this response seriously? Burning embassies and killing people over some damn cartoons? Shame on those who would appease such ignorant nonsense.
Why don’t liberals stand up for their own values? Free speech is about as fundamental a liberal value as you can get, the bedrock of a set of principles that have enabled an unprecedented growth of knowledge and progress in so many fields. There’s a rich liberal tradition that includes, in addition to enormous scientific and organizational development, such ethical accomplishments as the elimination of slavery and the general prohibition of torture. Note liberalism’s faults, but there’s a lot to be proud of here.
What the hell is wrong with people? Bullshit begets bullshit.
2 Comments:
Actually, there were a lot of protests in response to Abu Ghraib. A LOT. But they just weren't well advertised in the U.S. media because it didn't favor them to put it on the air. If they put all these psychos burning embassies because of the cartoons, though, then we look stupid and they look righteous.
Good point on media coverage. And while in some ways I can't blame US media that much for jumping on such an obvious way to make their point (how could they not?), I also can't really blame Muslims for not anticipating this.
But I insist on two points: first, on the nonsensicality of the Danish cartoon protests (particularly the fact that they turned against Denmark, rather than the newspaper); second, on the size and degree of protests.
Yes, there were protests against Abu Ghraib, as well as against Guantanamo (notably against the desecration of Qurans), and against the Iraq War and against so many other things.
But you sure can't say that those protests were even CLOSE to the magnitude of the Danish cartoon protests, in terms of people participating, economic impact (I've never even heard of serious boycott attempts against the US for what is now a planned campaign of torture), and just how worked up people seemed to be getting.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home