5/1/10, Opinion-Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Op-Ed: Depicting prophets ... Free Speech Tested on TV
By: Qasim Rashid
For some, "South Park" became even funnier last week. For others, it stopped being funny at all.
Like the Danish cartoon controversy, the hype around the show's depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna will soon pass. However, the effects will long remain. Extremists, like those at Revolution Muslim, are using the incident as ammunition (literal or otherwise) to demonstrate the alleged evil of free speech. Extremists at the other end, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are eagerly launching a blanket character assassination of Prophet Muhammad and all Muslims in general. The controversy escalates with the violently inclined actions of the lunatics at Revolution Muslim. Non-Muslims are right to want to know, does Islam support Revolution Muslim's death threats? Is there a war between Islam and free speech?
The correct answer is an emphatic no -- Islam condemns the actions of Revolution Muslim. The Quran guarantees freedom of speech (22:40) and forbids compulsion in thought (2:256). Should a person insult a Muslim, the Quran forbids retaliation in any form, explaining that a Muslim's only option is to simply "turn away from them." (6:69) That's all. Not violence, not anger, not even offensive responses.
It is only natural for Muslims to be hurt when Prophet Muhammad -- or any prophet for that matter -- is insulted. Muslims hold prophets of God in higher regard than their own parents and our society certainly takes offense at insults spewed at our parents. But on this issue there is no debate. Islam unequivocally condemns the behavior of Revolution Muslim. Violence is never a permissible solution. Freedom of speech must reign free.
As an illustration, when Muhammad returned to Mecca after 13 years of persecution and exile, he overtook the city in a bloodless campaign. As the de facto ruler, he could have punished any of his persecutors for their crimes of slavery, torture, and genocide against the Muslims. Yet, he offered amnesty to all on acceptance of just one condition. His condition did not require conversion, enslavement, ransom, or even recognition of him as a prophet. Rather, his condition was to accept peace through freedom of conscience and freedom of speech for all. This is the shining historical example to which every Muslim is firmly bound.
Along with championing freedom of speech, Islam asks the individual to take personal responsibility and not exercise that freedom simply to deride others. (49:12) The 19th century messianic revivalist, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), founder of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and the Muslims who follow him, valiantly carry this message. While explaining a Muslim's responsibility in the face of insults Ahmad says, "They [Muslims] should not design harm against the followers of any religion or the members of any tribe or group . . . .If you are persecuted or reviled, be mindful that you should not meet stupidity with stupidity, for otherwise you will be counted in the same category as your opponents . . . "
This suggests that personally removing vulgarity from speech is not a threat to free speech. American history further supports this Islamic injunction. Individuals such as Thurgood Marshall, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrate that free speech is sacrosanct because it unearths truths and counters oppression, not because it can be used as an excuse to insult others. They contested the social chains that restricted true freedom, while abstaining from vulgarity or personal attacks on individuals.
It should be obvious, therefore, that in depicting Prophet Buddha as a cocaine addict we do not enhance our freedom. The same holds true for Jesus Christ, who has been robbed of all respect, most recently depicted as watching pornography and desecrating our nation's flag. We find a similar theme in the depictions of Prophets Moses and Krishna.
As a civilized society, the strength of our freedom of speech is not dependent on demonstrations of mindless insults. Rather, our strength derives from mutual respect and self-control. This type of strength, effectively utilized, marginalizes extremists on both sides who are wont to harm our nation, informing them that America has no place for their polarizing vulgarity.
Our Constitution protects "South Park's" freedom of speech, and it also technically protects the polluted filth flowing from the mouths of the people at Revolution Muslim. But, let us not meet stupidity with stupidity. While free speech must reign free, this legal right to insult for the sheer sake of insulting is not the type of power our American heroes cherished.
As Dr. King reminds us, "I am not interested in power for power's sake, but I'm interested in power that is moral, that is right, and that is good."
Comments (0)
Write comment