|
Th-e past few years have been a cause of much grief and heartache for the Muslims living in the West. We have became accustomed to the sight of the Islamic lands being under occupation and the ummah being disunited. -The whole world has witnessed the horrendous spectacle of Iraq and Afghanistan, where civilian blood flows in the name of ‘fighting terrorism' and bringing ‘freedom and democracy'. At the same time, our own governments slaughter their own citizens, whether in Uzbekistan or Pakistan, in order to please their Western masters.
However, this struggle has been extended beyond the discussion of ‘combating terrorism and extremism', to a campaign to force Muslims in Europe, who had fled dictatorships in their own lands, to change their values. Previously, we thought that "citizenship" in Europe meant that we must live peacefully with our neighbours in accordance with the law. Now we are told that, to be a citizen of Europe, one must be willing to abandon all previous values and convictions and if this wasn't already enough, a true citizen is the one who is happy to have his beliefs and values ridiculed and insulted.
Cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) in an insulting manner were published in Denmark in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. Despite the global outcry these images caused at the time, 17 Danish newspapers republished the images in February 2008, in response to an unproven accusation that Muslims were planning to attack the cartoonist who drew the images.
Then in March 2008, Dutch MP Geert Wilders released a film entitled ‘Fitna', which purports to show that the Qur'an and Islam are intrinsically linked to violence. Th-is is part of a campaign he is leading in the Netherlands to ban the Qur'an stating, "I don't hate Muslims. I hate the Qur'an and their ideology."
Th-ese blatant attacks on the aqeedah of the Muslims are not the first of their type, and unlikely to be the last. -This campaign of insults, mocking and derogatory remarks against Islam and Muslims, has been intensifying for some time. But according to many voices in the media and political world, this is all justified, as it falls under the banner of freedom of speech.
We are told that when people make insulting remarks towards the Qur'an, the Prophet (peace be upon Him) and Islam and Muslims in general, this is a mark of a civilised society! But is the freedom to insult a sign of a civilised society? Is civility based on causing hurt and offence? Is modernity represented through disparaging remarks towards Muslims?
Freedom of Speech - Does it exist?
It seems that there are many people who believe that there are no limits to free speech in Europe, and that when Muslims ask that their core beliefs not be insulted or attacked, they are asking for special treatment. Whether it be Michel Houellebecq, Orianna Fallaci or Geert Wilders, we have seen those who attack Islam and the Muslims in Europe fall back on the claim that to censor them, is to alter a fundamental aspect of European culture. -This is not the case. Th-ough Western states pride themselves on freedom of speech, in practice we find that, in order to avoid damaging the society, there are always legal limits placed on freedom of speech. Th-e reason being to avoid conflict amongst different groups in society, or the leaking of ‘dangerous' information.
When the cartoons were first published in Denmark, the prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed that there was nothing that he could do against the newspaper in question stating, "In our society the media is completely independent. We have free press and the government has no authority to control the press or interfere with the press." -This is simply untrue. Th-ere are provisions in the Danish criminal code that supposedly reduce tensions between communities, though it seems that they can be ignored when it is in the government's interests to do so.
Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion.
So the prime minister clearly had the power to act against the cartoons, and also to act when the Danish People's Party MP Louise Frevert stated that, "Muslims are a cancer on the Danish society." However, it seems that the Danish government was more concerned with teaching the Muslim community a false lesson about freedom of speech than preventing the incitement of hostility against them.
In the UK, as in Denmark we find that laws exist that control free speech, on the grounds of taste and decency, as well as on the basis of national security. When two British civil servants decided to pass on disturbing information about a threat to the press, they were not rewarded as heroes. David Keogh and Leo O'Connor passed on information to the Daily Mirror about a discussion between Tony Blair and George W. Bush in 2004, in which Bush suggested that they bomb the headquarters of the Arabic news channel Al Jazeerah in Qatar. This was despite the fact that the government of Qatar was and still is an ally of theirs in their destructive campaign in Iraq.
For their courageous decision to let the public know about this monstrous discussion, Keogh and O'Connor were jailed for 6 and 3 months respectively. Under the Official Secrets Act, it is illegal for the British media to relay most of the details of the trial's proceedings. So much for freedom of speech!
Freedom of Speech - can it bring harmony?
There can be no doubt that the ability to criticise people in power is essential to hold them to account, and guarantee the people their rights. As in the Al Jazeerah example above, it should be possible to expose the actions of the government when they contradict the basic principles that are accepted in society as just or honest.
Does the same principle apply to attacking other groups and beliefs though? Many advocates of free speech claim that it is actually a principle that protects the right of the minority to speak against powerful majorities. In the real world though, the natural result of a society where everyone is free to attack and insult one another is that the dominant groups will impose themselves on smaller groups. That is because they have the power of the media and the power of numbers to impose their views on the minority.
Based on this, we find that Muslims are being subjected to an endless barrage of false accusations and suspicions, which they struggle to address because of the relentless nature of the media campaign against them.
Responding to this attack
As Muslims in Europe, we have a great responsibility. A great deal of fear and suspicion is being created in the wider society about our community. Despite our small numbers in Europe, we are being depicted as a threat to the existence of western society and culture. It is not surprising considering the intensity of the media campaign against Islam, that many non-Muslims are starting to look at us with distrust and apprehension.
In this climate, we have a duty to portray the true values of Islam, and explain the truth of our deen to the wider society. If we do not carry out this duty, are we going to expect the media to do it for us? As Allah says, in sourat ul Ahzaab,
"O ye who believe! fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right: -at He may make your conduct whole and sound and forgive you your sins: he that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest Achievement." (TMQ Surat ul-Ahzaab:70-71)
Furthermore, we should question whether a society can genuinely provide happiness and harmony for its citizens when it promotes insulting and degrading behaviour towards certain sections of the society.
|
