Chuka Umunna
: Ed's Google Speech and What It Means for Responsible Capitalism
Jamie Bartlett
: The Woolwich Attacks Are Not New
Martin Newman
: People of Woolwich Will Defy the Far-Right and Come Together Over Killing of a Soldier Son
B.J. Epstein
: Down With the Matriarchy? What Matriarchy?
Dr Peter Bruggen
: Sir David Nicholson Resigns but if Many Bad Apples Remain, The NHS Might Be Rotten to the Core
Following the recent anti Muslim video 'Innocence of Muslims' against the Prophet Muhammad (May peace and blessings be upon him) there has been much debate surrounding the misuse of the term freedom of speech.
Undoubtedly Charlie Hebdo's publication of the mocking cartoons is a senseless, provocation that can only further increase tensions following the crude YouTube video.
In addition within the same month Newsweek have decided to publish a cover entitled 'Muslim Rage' promoting a story written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote the story "Muslim Rage and the Last Gasp of Islamic Hate". The cover image and the story were both derogative and overgeneralizing and further added to the anti Muslim negativity that has been so prevalent in the media this month.
Rob Crilley from the Telegraph quite rightly denounced the cover as 'A sickening piece of shock journalism that cheapens a once great magazine". http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100181431/newsweeks-muslim-rage-a-sickening-piece-of-shock-journalism-that-cheapens-a-once-great-magazine/
I am a firm believer in freedom of speech but frankly this could not be termed as 'freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech give someone the right to harm, mock, insult and degrade another person's beliefs? Does freedom of speech give someone the right to discriminate against another person's religion? This is not freedom of speech this is inciting misrepresentations and could only be termed as propaganda.
The widespread protests and violence that have been aroused due to this negative propaganda against Muslims have become a cause for concern but Muslims need to speak up and defend the Prophet when he has been clearly misrepresented and ridiculed. Violence is not and has never been the answer to provocations and instead it would be better if we take heed of Islamic etiquette and protest peacefully in order to get the point across. By using violence we are only further making things worse and therefore it would be better to adopt a dignified response to undignified provokers.
There have been many people from different religions and cultures who have praised the Prophet after having taking the time out to learn more about him.
Michael H Hart, an American author who wrote "The 100 most influential persons in history" had placed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) as number one, on the top of the list.
He stated that, "My choice of Muhammad to lead the best of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.
In addition Gandhi had once said that, "I wanted to know the best of one who holds today undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind... I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life." (M.H. Hart 'The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History).
For Muslims the Prophet Muhammad is a much respected messenger of God and therefore continuous mocking and insulting media about him can only be termed provoking.
Follow Tasnim Nazeer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tasnimnazeer1
Guess what, those of us in the West are not gonna cry uncle and give up our free speech rights (including the right to mock and insult) to anyone. Deal with it...
That small point aside, yes, freedom of speech does include the right to behave like a gibbon in a cage.
So what if Muhammad is ranked no1 as the most influential person in the world, that doesn't mean that islam is right!
Ignore it long enough it will go away.
If you'd just ignored this stupid film it wouldn't have been noticed by anybody, now half the world has seen it - it was just rubbish not worth the time to watch it on any level
Mocking people and institutions is central to our culture, it is how we make sense of the world, if it won't stand up to ridicule then how strong is it really?
Perhaps you should just grow a thicker skin - don't let what people say bother you.
Let's see if we have any freedom of speech today or if this will be censored in favour of "I agree" comments...
Freedom of speech means putting up with rubbish like that video - did you actually watch it?
Kettle and black spring to mind
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Just thought i would copy this in here as your view of freedom of speech seems to radically differ from most peoples, Religion is not protected, nor should it be
I presume that the author has no particular desire to see Salman Rushdie murdered for writing a book, and doesn't support the murder and violence already perpetrated against many innocent people as a "response" to perceived blasphemy. Like many others, this article aside, she would just ignore it as some pointless provocation that doesn't merit a second thought. Then she might also consider that she is not really the target of any of these insults. But until the more extreme elements of Islam are also willing to turn the other cheek, the insults are going to keep coming.
I on the other hand, while deploring the video and the motivation behind it, defend its right to exist. Because it certainly IS an example of freedom of expression.
"Does freedom of speech give someone the right to harm, mock, insult and degrade another person's beliefs? Does freedom of speech give someone the right to discriminate against another person's religion? This is not freedom of speech this is inciting misrepresentations and could only be termed as propaganda."
I can only speak for America, but, yes, our first amendment to the constitution allows people to mock, ridicule, or degrade ANY religion (Islam included). Moreover, propaganda has been ruled to be a protected form of speech as well, provided it is not designed explicitly for the purpose of inciting violence, and none of the anti-Islamic comments have been designed to cause people to go around burning mosques and killing American Muslims. Discrimination involves actions, not words, against a protected group.
Muslims wishing to coexist in a world filled with free people in democracies must grow thicker skins because not everyone will molly-coddle their religious feelings. When they behave like toddlers and throw tantrums any time their religion comes under critical attack, they can only expect more attacks because those who criticize the Islamic religion thrive on provoking Muslims to anger just to prove to the world how immaturely Muslims can act.
In a democracy, where the free exchange of ideas takes place within the larger societal framework, if a group feels they are being misrepresented, they don't resort to violence--they produce counter-arguments against the opponent who is misrepresenting them.