Following the attacks in Paris made on
the Charlie Hebdo staff, there has been a clear need to restate and reaffirm
the need and importance of freedom of speech: the freedom to question, parody,
and puncture any ideology is an essential part of democracy and a healthy
society. However, some questioned the wisdom of publishing (or even re-publishing)
the images of Muhammad on the Charlie Hebdo covers (for example, Jonathan Freedland and Joseph Harker of the Guardian) because they thought it would cause needless
offence to a very large number of Muslims - maybe even the “vast majority of Muslims around the world”. But to argue that the cartoons
shouldn’t be re-published because they might offend a large number of people is
to simply reinforce a religious taboo; it’s an argument to make blasphemy an
acceptable restriction on free speech. This makes it more difficult for those
who are not offended to express themselves as Maajid Nawaz found when he went onto Twitter to say that he didn’t find one of the
Jesus and Mo cartoons offensive. He was expressing an opinion about his own faith
and for this he received death threats. If it becomes normal in the media, and
in public life in general to take blasphemy seriously, then this will in fact restrict
the freedom of Muslims to express their faith as happened with Nawaz.
For anyone who might think there is a
need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims that are against depictions of
Muhammad because of the general prohibition of it in Islam, and who do not want
to offend a large number of these Muslims by reproducing the pictures in
question, they should remember another principle; one that is inextricably
linked to free speech - freedom of religion. Respecting this prohibition is
insensitive to the diversity of opinion and practice in Islam. Not only that, it
fosters the conditions in which an idea is immune from being challenged by
anyone - especially other Muslims. A tradition of depicting the prophet in some
Islamic art does exist. For some Muslims it is part of their worship. They should
be allowed to create and admire these images without fear of censorship or fear
of violence. A prohibition which silences critics, or anyone who wants to break
any of these taboos for whatever reason, is only helping one group of Muslims
force their interpretation on the rest of the Muslim population and everybody
else. By taking the demands and actions of one group of Muslims seriously (and
taking it as the general opinion of all Muslims) narrows the definition of
Islam and makes it harder for others to express their thoughts on it and to
practice it how they wish. It smothers diversity within the religion and any
dissenting voices. The prohibition of the depiction of Muhammad is open to
interpretation for those that want to follow it. Whether this interpretation is
correct or not (and that goes for any rule that a religion sets out), it does
not need to be followed by everybody. Even if it were undeniable that scripture
prohibited depiction, that would not mean that people have to follow it. And
even if the majority of Muslims find it offensive as is claimed, it still does
not mean all Muslims or anyone else must observe it. With freedom of religion
comes the right to interpret your religion as you want to and to practice it in
the way you want to. This means you don’t have to follow all the rules that you
don’t think are important, and nobody should be able to make you. Whether it is
extremists, conservative Muslims, or anyone else who thinks that nobody should
be depicting Muhammad, they are all damaging the diversity of practice in Islam
and making it harder for other Muslims to express their faith in different ways.
For Muslims who want to be able to discuss, develop, and express their faith
without limits to doing so, there needs to be a commitment to freedom of
religion and ultimately freedom of speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment