Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Islam and freedom of speech - Is it a dichotomy?

I read this in a readers' opinion column somewhere:
The very essence of "free speech" is the foundation of Western Civilization. To restrict speech, including speech in any form on subjects such as religion, then becomes a fascist movement toward dictatorship. What separates Europe, the United States, and in essence the "free world" from the rest...is "free speech." If radical, religio-fascist elements win this battle, then in the future, such elements are given license and encouragement to attack all levels of Western philosophy and government including freedom of movement, free commerce, and especially the rights of women and minorities. Ergo, to "bend" to the will of Islam, is to then become de facto Muslim. Lastly, it appears that these intolerant oppressive elements...do not have a sense of humor. It is now time for these intolerant religious elements to join the 21st Century, and not plow the rest of Europe back to the 7th Century. Diana, Miami, Florida, USA.

THE furore in the Muslim world over the painful caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, carried by some sections of the Danish press, is not surprising. Islam doesn’t allow any images and portrayal of the Prophet and his Companions, let alone these sickening caricatures of the best human being that ever lived. No wonder the faithful everywhere find this shameful act most disturbing and painful.

And the whole non-Muslim world knows it...at least since the time the Iranian Ayatollah issued a fatwa against that (since forgotten) pennyworth of a man called 'Salman Rushdie' and made him hugely (in)famous.

So why do westerners (mainly christian westerners) do this time and again?

And not only towards those of Islamic faith, they have tried to embark upon this 'freedom to malign and mock' towards almost every minority community's professed religion. When some French designers took their creative freedom too far printing the images of Hindu religious symbols and signs on footwear and lingerie, Indian Hindus too had to act swiftly forcing French firms and authorities to withdraw the products and offer an unconditional apology. In Britain, the Sikh community stopped the staging of a play that mocked its clergy.

Creative freedom is fine and all artistes are entitled to their poetic licence. But as with all freedoms, this liberty too comes with a degree of responsibility. When creative licence begins to degenerate into licentiousness, it becomes unacceptable. Creativity cannot be at the expense of religious and communal sensitivities. This episode, coming after the Theo Van Gogh incident in the Netherlands last year, suggests that there is a method in this madness. Which is very disturbing. This dangerous misrepresentation and deliberate denigration of Islam and its followers could only widen the rift between the West and Islamic world. We should act before it’s too late.

Someone once said this about freedom's in society: "Your freedom to move your hand around freely in air stops at the point where my nose starts".

Freedom of expression is an internal Danish/European/American/Christian/ whatever issue but these issues have a totally different dimension. “This is about media operating from Denmark having offended millions of Muslims.” Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry. To understand the cause of so much anger amongst Muslims is no rocket science. Someone..somewhere really believes in upholding something as very 'sacred'.

Well..the Danish government has broad public backing for it's stance (no-apology to Muslims world) on the cartoons. An opinion poll showed that 79 percent of Danes think Fogh Rasmussen (Danish PM) should not issue an apology and 62 percent say the newspaper should not apologize.

Personally, I don't think Muslims insist on an apology from Fogh even though it's heartening to read that at least 20% of Danes think that he should. Sensible and rational people are still a reality even though a minority.

But the newspaper editor in chief should. That's the least he should be allowed to get away with.

No comments: