31 : DEFAMING ISLAM: FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS?
There
have been occasional incidences of defaming Islam
through mockery of the Prophet, burning the Quran
and so on. The role of the West has been often,
though not always, a defensive one for such actions.
They tend to defend such actions, citing the right
to freedom of speech for those involved.
(i) The position conflicts with the well-accepted
political theory that the rights and duties of
the social beings are closely interrelated. Mr.
X, for example, is able to enjoy his rights because
Mr. Y respects his rights and similarly Mr. X
has also a moral duty to honor the rights of Mr.
Y. Every individual in the society has a boundary
for his own rights and this boundary for one man
ends where that of the other begins. When you
cross your respective boundary, then the rights
of others are squeezed.
(ii) To deal with such a situation, every civilized
nation insists on sensible use of freedom of speech
so that the human rights of others are not endangered.
In America, for example, the Constitutional right
to speech freedom is not considered absolute,
for it does not allow you to falsely shouting
'Fire' for creating stampede in a crowd. Accordingly,
you can inject civility in the role of freedom
of speech by encouraging its use in promotion
of human rights (such as through criticizing the
evils of the society or a despotic ruler) and
discouraging its use for violation of rights of
1.6 billion Muslims.
(iii) A man of conscience can easily honor the
difference between criticizing a human error and
falsifying a holy divine institution. A well-intended
criticism of a man-made wrong may hurt only the
target person but that may bring goodness (through
corrective role) for the wider society. By contrast,
an untrue expression against a divine truth cannot
help the society. Such an act, on the contrary,
is likely to be a lightning rod, robbing peace
off peaceful society.
(iv) The above defenders (the majority being non-Muslims)
could better sense the harmful effects of defaming
Islam through a process of empathy--feeling the
impact by putting themselves in the position of
offended Muslims. They would never feel good if
scandals were spread against their Prophet(s).
The righteous Muslims would also feel the same
way if anyone falsely blames the prophets like
Jesus or Moses who are repeatedly named in the
Quran as among the holy prophets of Islam.
The above arguments will hopefully appeal to the
good sense of the concerned people and accordingly
influence their roles in the event of any blasphemous
expression against Islam.