Freedom of Speech... what are your views

PKPolitics Discuss » Social and Cultural Issues

Freedom of Speech... what are your views

(68 posts)

12 Next »

semirza
Moderator

'Freedom of Speech' and if there are any limitations. I Would like to know what views our honorary members have on this topic.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 15:52 #
zia m
Member

I agree with wiki definition.....
"Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation, or both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

you may include the harm principle, pornography and abusive language under hate speech.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 16:16 #
haider3
member

Freedom of speech is no absolute concept. If it is allowed at all, it comes within limits. Perhaps the main ban on speech freedom is hurting someone's feelings, either personally or through attacks on the person's religion or class status, or country or political views, etc., etc. Ridicule, a powerful rhetorical weapon, should be used, if used at all, sparingly.

I shall not go into racism here or the modern invention of what has come to be called hate speech with which, alas, I do not agree because it was devised to protect one and only one particular people.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 16:36 #
naseemkhanan
Member

While freedom of speech gives us the right to verbally express how we feel, it does not give us the right to curse and abuse other people.

Some things require self-control and respect. But unfortunately there will always be those who will pontificate that they have a right to do whatever they please.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 16:46 #
Sharif Aadmi
Member

"While freedom of speech gives us the right to verbally express how we feel, it does not give us the right to curse and abuse other people."

Spot on Naseem.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 17:10 #
piranditta
Member

Freedom of speech is a subjective idea........and it has many levels of understanding and impact in and around this idea...

In the modern human history freedom of speech has been introduced as a mandatory clause for any progressive society and this idea has surfaced in the areas of art, craft, family, society and eventually systems of rule......

and this idea is like a jinn, once its out of a bottle its impossible to contain it .....

in the context of our understanding which is always limited cause we the oriental mind are still in the clutch of another idea called "respect".....which is also nothing but a mental idea closely associated with the "fear" called "faith"....faith is nothing but a phobia which has 70 arms and each arm has 72 fingers.....

so the clash between two ideas....one of freedom of speech and the second of respect is the real clash in the core level here.....bad news is that both ideas have their merit and weakness.....too much respect is slavery and too much freedom is abuse.....thats why it reminds me of the awesome quote of the prophet of medina (s.a.w).....darmiyana raasta hi behtareen rasta hai!

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 17:38 #
haider3
member

piranditta sahib, you analysed that perfectly. Thanks. Also for the quotation from the Prophet (PBUH) which absolutely fits any case of this type.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 17:44 #
semirza
Moderator

@Mirza Sahib
To abuse and create negativity is not freedom of speech. One has to be careful because there is no such thing as a complete freedom of speech. For example inciting racial or ethnical hate there are laws in place against such behavior.
We are here at pkpolitics and not in some Hyde Park! There is a hell of a lot of difference between these two.
I do agree with pranditta about Miana Ravi that certainly creates an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 18:41 #
haider3
member

Moderator Sahib, I've never thought abuse and negativity have anything to do with freedom of speech. In fact, truth to tell, I'm sceptical of the whole concept of freedom of speech. I agree about inciting racial and ethnical hate, If we mean by this Wahid Doyoum he is as far as I remember a FATA man and occasionally his tongue ran away with him, I agree. His favourite punching ball was nota and sometimes he used me as one as well. But the point here was not free speech, it was the FATA situation with its daily deaths through our own Pak army and the foreign drones. It must have driven him mad at times. For him, I suppose, I was pleading on humane grounds. I know Khan_Sahib is also a FATA person and reacts differently, but there we have it, character differences.

Moderator Sahib, please, please, not to think I'm trying to tell you how to do your job. It's my ignorance that speaks here. Are people like WD or Musician, etc. eliminated completely from the blog they seem to be so attached to or is it only for a certain time period, which then, of course is perfectly bearable and can be accepted even by the most sensitive amongst us. That then would be the Miana Ravi our Prophet (PBUH) in his infinite wisdom recommended us to follow.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 19:01 #
semirza
Moderator

@Mirza Ghalib
My comments about Freedom of Speech were without having any one particular in mind.
Yes indeed! Miana Ravi works when followed but it works as a one way fare remains doubtful! Something like clapping can't be done with one hand.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 19:15 #
haider3
member

Moderator Sahib, you're far too clever for me. I don't know what to say. Except perhaps this: the stronger shows the weaker the way. As for clapping with one hand, this is what one calls a kaun I think, though I'm not sure, in Zen Buddhism. In purely mystical terms, it should not be impossible to achieve. But then most of us are far removed from such high heights. Sorry about misunderstanding you were talking about freedom of speech in general.

Back to freedom of speech, then, which many bloggers here seems to feel is the monopoly of the west. One word there then. There are draconian laws in most Western countries about - yes, you've guessed it: the Jews. Try criticising the Jews in public and you'll find the Black Maria of the police coming to fetch you. Similarly, try praising the Muslims in public, you'll find the secret service ringing your doorbell, accusing you of being a terrorist or at least a sympathiser of terrorism. So I don't know how that corresponds to any form of freedom of speech. But some other blogger enamoured of West ways would probably know how to answer the question.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 19:58 #
shimatoree
Member

Mirza Sahib

just a simple correction.

Wahid Doyum is an Afghan.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 20:22 #
haider3
member

Thanks, shimatoree sahib, now that you remind me, he did once say he shouldn't mind having Karzai for president. It would be better than having war in his country. I stand wholly corrected.

BTW I have another question about west standards of freedom of speech:

LEGAL HATE CRIMES

Why Isn’t Anti-Palestinism Condemned as a Hate Crime?
Only everything to do with the Jews?

And soon this will be extended to the entire west. Not one word of criticism will be tolerated.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 20:39 #
SufiSoul
Member

Your Rights & Freedom Ends where My Red Line Around me Starts......
We should know about every individual's red Line Around Him.....

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 21:06 #
LiberalKarachi
Member

My golden rule:

All speech should be 'free' except that which violates ubiquitous principles.

Keyword being "ubiquitous" - which naturally includes hate speech, racial slur, profanity, etc.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 21:08 #
mjkk86
Member

Words travel faster than acts or ommisons therefore can be more dangerous(hydley byrne v heller). To be honest freedom of speech is a joke, there is no such thing exist in this world, you could argue that west claims to have freedom of speech, but whether it is freeddom of speech or a term potraying west better than other is very much debateable. We are living in politicaly sensitive socitey where words can be construe as dicrimnatory which is evidence of no freedom of speech. finaly, article 10 of human rights act 1998 does give a right to express our opinion but again is mankind is capable of evaluating opinion objectively is questionable.

Posted 1 year ago on 21 Jun 2010 22:59 #
shimatoree
Member

Mirza Sahib
This issue of freedom of speech is what I call SPURIOUS.
It would be nice if the world consisted of educated civil people who thought before they spoke or wrote.
But that is not and has never been the case ANYWHERE.
Let me just mention a few historical facts-

Ancient Athens-( Greece)- is promoted as the great original bastion of democracy and freedom by the British and the West.
But a closer scrutiny shows that those freedoms were for a very small minority of the population of Athens-
Slaves, women and outsiders were excluded by design.

The great Greek state of Sparta is put forth as a great civilized state- well the majority were helots who had no rights whatsoever.

In England itself - these freedoms were restricted to the aristocracy only.

In France they had freedoms for a bit during the 1789-1794 French Revolution and once again that was only for the French. When they colonized North Africa- sorry no freedoms for the Arabs and Berbers.

In the USA- prior to the Civil Rights legislation by President Johnson-( 1963- 1968) the blacks DID not have the so-called Freedom of Speech esp: in the South.

I could go on but I think my point is made.

Those In the Westernized Pakistani community try to be holier than the Pope in putting forth the professed-( claimed) ideals of the Bill of Rights of the French Revolution. The reality is a bit different.

After 2001 September- just look at the quickness with which all the civil rights were put aside everywhere on the demand of a third rate politician made President by the action of one supreme court judge in the USA.

As far as the admirers of the British on this blog- I have just this to say-

A Brazilian young man was shot down by 7 British Commandos with more than 40 bullets while being held down-just because he LOOKED like an ARAB or a Pakistani or an Afghan.

So much for their Freedoms and due process of Law.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 1:17 #
zia m
Member

Let's ban all the TV stations, radio, newspapers and internet.
I guess the ottoman caliph during enlightenment era was right after all, in denouncing the printing press as "the Devils Invention".

"The guilds of writers denounced the printing press as "the Devil's Invention", and were responsible for a 43-year lag between its invention by Johannes Gutenberg in Europe in 1450 and its introduction to the Ottoman society with the Gutenberg press in Constantinople that was established by the Sephardic Jews of Spain in 1493. Sephardic Jews migrated to the Ottoman Empire as they escaped from the Spanish Inquisition of 1492."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 3:55 #
semirza
Moderator

@shimatoree
Thanks for a very informative post. I admire your intellectual approach tackling the topic in hand. Impressive; historical evidence presented with rational. Nicely arranged facts exposing reality of a western way to freedom of speech.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 4:29 #
shriq
Member

Piranditta,

"and this idea is like a jinn, once its out of a bottle its impossible to contain it ....."

Once someone opined that this GLASNOST in USSR is like letting jin out of bottle.

Maybe it was one of the factors contributing to the disintegration of a super power!

Within certain limits, it is a gift; without limits it is pain and problem! Be careful!

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 4:46 #
zia m
Member

Shimatoree,
From all the examples of atrocities by the majority towards their minorities you quoted, one can only conclude that we need more freedom of speech.
By curtailing freedoms such incidents won't even come to surface.
Closed societies where such atrocities are a norm is not the answer.
We need more dissenters and free thinkers in a society to safeguard the civil liberties of all its people.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 5:37 #
sasherwani
Members

Freedom of speech is NOT:

- Mocking anyone's religion(Any religion)
- Verbal abuse
- Insults - now this one is a bit tricky because 'anything' could be considered as an insult depending on how 'touchy' a victim could be. So I assume as long as you dont insult anyone using blatant lies or foul language, you are justified!
- Spamming! Spamming on forums is the same thing as screaming nonsense at a movie theatre

Ciao!

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 6:26 #
lota6177
Members

progress is not possible without intellectual freedom. Anything that stops from intellectual freedom is a bad thing not a good thing whatever it maybe.
Intellectual freedom is the right to freedom of thought and of expression of thought. As defined by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is a human right. Article 19 states:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_freedom

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 6:39 #
shriq
Member

Freedom of expression (among other things) should not clash with / touch rights of an individual/community.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 7:28 #
rashidsaleem
Member

To me freedom of speech means having the liberty to speak what I believe in but at the same time understanding my responsibility in choosing my words carefully. It does not end there; on the other hand it also stands for having the courage to hear views which oppose yours. Freedom of speech is more about being tolerant to me with respect for each other.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 9:09 #
haider3
member

Wikepedia seems to be the Bible of the bloggers of pkpolitics. Yet we know it's in the hands of the Jews. Next Bible: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights where the only word which makes any sense is Declaration. It is neither universal, nor human and has little to do with the rights of anyone, least of all those of the poorer parts of the world.

I state openly here and now, I'm not going to answer any objections to the above. It would only be a waste of time. I add for the benefit of all West-enamoured bloggers that while the West is on its way downwards, the most tolerant of countries, once again, will turn out to be the Muslim countries. This is future music. But as of today, 2010 June, you have tremendous sexual freedom in the West (look where it got them), but under their Jewish masters, not a trace of freedom of opinion, freedom of demonstration or freedom of speech. And this trend will not be reversed anytime soon.

N.B. This blog is a good example of where we are going in the direction of freedom of speech. There's a bit of everything on it. We quarrel occasionally, we complain. But no one is excluded because of his opinions. To the stars, friends, to the stars.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 10:28 #
aftab arif
Member

Freedom to say what you want as long as they is no personal abuse or profanities.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 10:39 #
sasherwani
Members

@ MG,

I also do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source for referencing and I have never used Wikipedia for reference on any forums.

However "Yet we know it's in the hands of the Jews"? What's your source for this claim? As far as I know Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia neither one of them are jews (source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html)

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 11:16 #
zia m
Member

sasherwani,
There are some lousy articles on wiki, but some articles are superb.
One has to pay attention to the citations given.This is also true of any book depends how well it is researched.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 11:48 #
haider3
member

sasherwani sahib, this one I will try to answer. But you won't like my answer either: Western dissident blogs. Look, I'll tell you how it is there. Bloggers there trust one another. We don't keep asking for proof for everything advanced. We don't feel we are one another's enemies. We know where the common enemy lies. That is one thing we haven't yet learnt on pkpolitics, but then Pakistan is at war so perhaps it's not surprising.

And the names upfront on most of west mainstream media are not Jewish, they are perfectly Christian or whatever, yet it all belongs to the Jews. On the same principle, much of the internet belongs to them as well, though still perhaps a bit less then the written press, TV and radio throughout the west. BTW: most west politicians bear non-Jewish names. That does not mean they are in command.

Good for you that you give Wikepedia a miss. It's all right for certain things. For history, however, I'd give it a miss.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 11:56 #
shimatoree
Member

Zia M-
To use the example of what The Turkish Regime did in Ref: to the Gutenberg Press is simply indulging in scoring debating points.
First the regime no matter what you might call it was a Kingship- and in that regards was no different than Henry the 8th in England.

Then again to use the statement that just go ahead and ban TV channels, internet etc and go back to the 14th century is the same.

The purpose of the discussion is to improve content.
Is it even possible to do that ?

I for one do not think so if there are no moderators.
With one modern gadgett- the cell phone the slogan was it would revolutionize communication- well perhaps but all it has done is provided another tool for chatter and gossip- it has failed to improve content.

Everyone here is for education . OK.
That means school education.
That means teachers( moderator of sorts).

In a court of law- the moderator is the judge.

Arguement for the sake of arguement might be called Freedom of speech but it has no end and redeeming value.

A free discussion amongst caring and thinking people with brains is good but even there people have to remain on topic.

If sloganeering is acceptable- then all you have are clones of Fowzia Wahab, Ahsen Iqbal and others .

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 12:02 #
shimatoree
Member

lota6177

PROGRESS- what is progress.

Did the Chinese make progress from 1949 onwards ?
Did Singapore make progress after the British left ?
Has India made progress since 1947 >

It would depend how you define progress.

You talk of freedom of thought ? For whom ?
For the " slaves " who are struggling to find food and do not have a place to de-fecate or urinate or for the intellectual elite.

Freedom of THOUGHT CANNOT be banned.

Only the freedom to express it can be and has been.
Oh the ref: to the UN Charter and what it says.
Does that make it so. And if it did- would that make progress.

I have said as much as I am going to on this topic.

I for one do not think so

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 12:10 #
zia m
Member

Shimatoree,
My comment on banning mainstream media was tongue in cheek and not to be taken seriously.
On the ref to Ottoman Empire being a kingship, i do agree with you, but the khalifa group will strongly disagree.

I don't know where you got the impression that i am against moderation.If the moderator is like a judge don't you think he/she should be neutral and act like an empire.

Once you have certain coc everybodoy should adhere to it.
Banning the likes of Fowzia Wahab and Ahsan Iqbal is not the solution.
I don't know what your rant about cell phones was. I guess you are at a higher intellectual level.
Thanks anyways.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 12:32 #
semirza
Moderator

@Sasherwani
I have removed two of your posts that were in response to off topic posts by Devil Hunter. (including his posts) I hope he won't disturb this discussion now.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 16:08 #
msyedh1
Member

No doubt there are some limitations for freedom of speech, but most of the times these limitations are applied according to their own likes, dislikes and agenda.

If somebody allied with you and favoring or promoting your agenda then there will be no limitations. everything will be freedom of speech.

On the other hand if somebody saying anything against your personal wishs and agenda then there are plenty of moral , legal limitation rules against freedom of speech. Does not matter truths and facts.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 17:09 #
shimatoree
Member

Zia M

My rant about the cell phone was about a conversation I had with an intellectual- academic long ago before Internet became common and the cell phone invaded everywhere.

This professor was raving about the great benefits of these new communication/information mediums and I being a skeptic and cynic when it comes to Human Condition said- quote
" not a damn thing will change as the majority will remain MORONS as they are now and the content of conversation on the millions of cell phones will remain the low level that it is wihtout the cell phones "

Now the Professor agrees that I was partly correct in my denunciation of the cell phone.

On a serious note- In the utopian world of WISHFUL thinking- I would like all discussions to be serious and I would like to ban FLIPANT behaviour. But that is my UTOPIA and unlikely to become true.
But I can wish.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 17:32 #
semirza
Moderator

FLIPANT behaviour has been noticed and being thought over but than this is another matter to be discussed as a separate topic and sure we will discuss it as well.

Freedom of speech remains valid only untill respect, emotions, intellect, beliefs, feelings held dear by others are not undermined through a careless, irresponsible, rude and arrogant use of words.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 17:44 #
msyedh1
Member

Why freedom of speech is always valid to Geo group to progress their propoganda, and there are no limitations for respects,emotions, beleifs,feelings. They are always careless,irresponsible, rudeness and arrogant behavior.
This groups is active everywhere, even in discussion websites.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 18:46 #
zia m
Member

Shimatoree,
Impact of cell phones was not the topic here but if you like to discuss cell phones that is fine with me.In developing countries land lines are a luxury, most people did not have the phones.The cell phones have literally changed their lives.For "intellectuals" in the west cell phones may have more negatives but for millions of people in Asia and Africa it is a blessing.
At the risk of being flippant, it may provide some insight..

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0712-rhett_butler.html

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 19:18 #
yahya
Member

Lord Justice Sedley stated in the notable UK high court judgement Redmond-Bate vs Director of Public Prosecutions [1999]: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 21:33 #
haider3
member

Oh, I liked that bit: "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." How true. Only there is an art in being as offensive as you like without overstepping the bounds of so-called decent speech. Very few of us have mastered it, alas.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 21:48 #
KHAN_Sahib
Member
Found an interesting article so thought to share with u.

Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The newspaper editor Flemming Rose, made the objective of printing the cartoons very clear. He said, “Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”1

Geert Wilders, a Dutch Politician who has made a career out of his opposition to Islam has publicly called for a ban on the Holy Qu’ran, and produced a film last year called ‘Fitna’ in which he equates Islam with violence, communism and Nazism.

This month, the UN is hosting a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Geneva, Switzerland. The conflict over freedom of speech raised itself again in this conference because some Muslim countries campaigned for a declaration that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights.2 This is seen as a way of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Islamic ‘aqeeda. Western countries, however, objected to such a declaration because they say it would limit freedom of speech.3 After a number of western countries including the US and EU threatened to boycott the conference this clause was eventually dropped, along with clauses criticising Israeli’s inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.4

Freedom of Speech is an emotive topic in the west since it is one of their fundamental values. As Muslims we need to understand the reality of freedom of speech and the Islamic viewpoint towards it.

Origins of Freedom of Speech

Europe lived in the dark ages for hundreds of years ruled by tyrannical Kings on behalf of an oppressive Church. Book burning, inquisitions, torture and death were common place for those who dared to confront this tyranny. Scientists, thinkers and scholars were all subject to harassment and even imprisonment for their views. The famous scientist Galileo, for example, was convicted of heresy in 1633 and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

After the reformation and the adoption of secularism in Western Europe and newly independent America, the shackles of the church were thrown off in public life. Fundamental to these new secular states was the adoption of freedom of the individual, ownership, expression and religion for all their citizens.

In the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,’ a fundamental document of the French revolution it states in article 11:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The famous First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” December 15, 1791.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 states:

“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.”

Therefore freedom of speech forms one of the cornerstones of the western way of life, and for them is considered a fundamental human right.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”5

However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don’t like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.

It’s contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.

No freedom of speech for Muslims

The controversy over this month’s UN World Conference Against Racism is a stark example of this clash. The build up to the conference and agreement on a final draft resolution has highlighted this rift over the limits on freedom of speech.

Differences initially arose over wording in the draft declaration that criticised Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Israel, Canada, Italy and America announced that they would not participate in the conference unless this wording was removed.

A spokesman for Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, said the declaration, which relates to the situation in the Palestinian territories, contains "unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases".

The EU was also unhappy with resolutions criticising Israel and sought to remove at least five paragraphs from the draft such as the phrase that, "in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, [Palestinians] have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture.”6

The other contentious resolution that some western nations wanted dropped was, “to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.” This was added by some Muslim countries as a means of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Holy Qur’an which we have witnessed recently in Europe. Western countries were unhappy with this resolution because it limited their freedom of speech i.e. the freedom to attack Islam. This was dropped from the final draft and now the resolution simply states, “recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions...”7

Therefore for the west it’s perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it’s not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.

There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder’s campaign to ban the Holy Qur’an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder’s was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?
A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?
A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.8

In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an “incitement to violence”.

Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.

Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn’t like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate’, militants and extremists.

Freedom of speech is a colonial tool

“You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas” not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.

Many Muslims are attracted to the concept of freedom of speech since they see it as a means of accounting the oppressive dictatorships they currently live under. Yet when Islamic groups speak out against their rulers and are subsequently tortured and imprisoned by their regimes western governments remain silent. In fact Britain and America openly support these ‘western friendly’ regimes.

Egypt as an example has been under a state of emergency since 1967. Thousands of members of the Islamic opposition have been tortured and imprisoned by the Egyptian regime. Current estimates are that there are 30,000 political prisoners in Egypt. However, since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel. The west turns a blind eye to this clampdown on political expression because it suits their colonial interests.

On the 50th anniversary of the uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet there was widespread media coverage and support for the Tibetan cause in the west. Compare this to the almost non-existent coverage on China’s daily oppression of Muslims in Xinxiang. At the same time as the 50th anniversary in Tibet was taking place the Chinese were clamping down heavily on Muslims involved in what they call "illegal religious activity”. A secretary with Hotan's Communist Party Propaganda Department confirmed that some illegal religious activity has been halted and illegal books, writings, computer discs and audio tapes had been confiscated.9 The only difference between Tibet and Xinxiang is that the opposition in Xinxiang is Islamic calling for Islamic ideas rather than western ideas.

Islamic view towards Freedom of Speech

The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life’s affairs (secularism). Human beings define how to live their lives free of the constraints of religion which is why freedom of individual, ownership, religion and speech are essential cornerstones of Capitalism. The right to speak and what are the limits of speech are therefore all defined by human beings.

This view completely contradicts Islam. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah سبحانه وتعالى who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent.”10

Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.11

Every word a human being speaks is recorded by the two angels Kiraman Katibeen. Even the speaking of one ‘bad’ word may lead someone to the hellfire.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The person who utters a word which meets with Allah's favour may think it has not been heard, yet for this Allah will raise him to a higher level of Paradise. Conversely, the person who utters a word that stirs Allah to anger may give no thought to what he said, only to have Allah cast him in Hell for seventy years."12

This is why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasised the importance of controlling the tongue.

Mu'az ibn Jabal narrated: I was in company with the Prophet in a travel, and one day I was close to him while we were travelling. So I said: “O Messenger of Allah, tell me of an act which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from Hell fire…shall I not tell you of the foundation of all of that?” I said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah,” and he took hold of his tongue and said: “Restrain this.” I said: “O Prophet of Allah, will what we say be held against us?” He said: “May your mother be bereaved of you, Mu’az ! Is there anything that topples people on their faces - or he said on their noses into Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?”13

There are some situations where Islam has obliged Muslims to speak out against oppression and evil (munkar).

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever saw a Munkar, let him change it by his hand and if he cannot then by his tongue and if he cannot then with his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan."14

Many Muslims nowadays are attracted towards the concepts of human rights and freedom of speech due to the medieval oppression waged against them by the corrupt governments in the Muslim world.

In the majority of Muslim countries today speaking out against the munkar and oppression of the governments is made illegal by the rulers and their agents. They brutally suppress all political opposition and try to silence Muslims through torture and imprisonment. Even in the west they are also moving towards silencing Muslims who criticise foreign policy or hold what they deem ‘extreme’ political views under the guise of anti-terror policy.

Despite all these limits they are trying to impose on Muslims speaking out, the fact remains that it is Allah سبحانه وتعالى who defined what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Therefore if He سبحانه وتعالى obliges Muslims to speak out against munkar and oppression then no government in the Muslim world or western world can take away this right.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him.”15

Muslims who account their governments or speak out against oppression are not doing it because of freedom of speech or because the west allows them to speak. Rather they are doing it as an obligation from Islam even if it leads to death.

Rights of speech in the Khilafah

The west propagates to the Muslim world that freedom and democracy is the only way forward if they want to progress and rid themselves of their oppressive dictatorships. However, as Muslims we look to Islam and Islam alone for our political solutions. The Qur’an and Sunnah have given us all the answers we need to establish an Islamic political system that will free us of the current corrupt systems ruling over us. This is the Khilafah Ruling System.

In the Khilafah it’s the constitutional right of all citizens (men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim) to express their opinions freely without fear of arrest or imprisonment within the limits of shar’a. The main areas where this right is exercised is the Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah), media and political parties.

Majlis ul-Ummah
This is an elected house whose members are representatives of the citizens of the Khilafah. The members of this house can be men or women, Muslim or non-Muslim. It is not a legislature like a western parliament. The main powers of this council are related to accounting the Khilafah government and its policies. The Majlis Member’s main role is to study closely the activities of the Khaleefah, government officials and civil servants working in the State’s departments and offices and holding them all accountable. This would involve giving them advice, voicing opinions and presenting suggestions, entering into debates, together with objecting to all of the wrong actions performed by the State.16

Media
Media in the Khilafah is under the jurisdiction of the Information Department (Da'irat ul I'laam). No permission is required to establish media in the state. Rather, every citizen in the Islamic State is allowed to set up any media, whether readable, audible or visible. They only need to inform the Information Department about the establishment of their particular media whether a newspaper, TV channel or Radio Station. General news can be published without permission of the state. However, sensitive information related to national security or government policy needs permission from the Information Department before publishing as is the case with any media organisation in the world.

The owner of the media is responsible for any information he publishes, and will be accounted for any violation of the shar'a like any other citizen.17

Political Parties
The right of the Khilafah’s citizens to establish political parties is established from the Holy Qur’an. No permission is required for this since Islam made the establishment of at least one political party fard al-Kifiyah (obligation of sufficiency).

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“Let there arise from amongst you a group(s) which calls to al-Khair (Islam), enjoins al-ma’aruf (good) and forbids al-munkar (evil), and they are the successful ones.”18

This order in the Qur’an to establish a group is an order to establish political parties. This is because the verse has determined the duty of this group as the call to Islam, enjoining the Ma’aruf (good), and forbidding the Munkar (evil). The duty of enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar is general and not restricted. It therefore includes the rulers and this implies holding them accountable. The holding of the rulers accountable is a political task performed by political parties and it is the most important task of political parties. Thus the verse indicates the obligation of establishing political parties which would call to Islam, enjoin Ma’aruf and forbid Munkar, and would hold the rulers accountable for their actions and conduct.19

At the time of the Khulufaa Rashida (rightly guided Khaleefah’s) the sahaba fulfilled this role.

In the Khilafah of Umar bin al-Khattab, some cloth from the spoils of war was distributed to the people, out of which each companion had one piece of clothing cut. One day
```
r
```
i and Ibn Maajah.

14 Sahih Muslim. Narrated by Abu Sa'eed al Khudree.

15 Abu Dawud

16 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p. 261

17 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘Khilafah State Organisations,’ translation of Ajhizat dowlah ul-Khilafah, Dar ul-Ummah, Beirut, 2005, First Edition

18 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 3, Surah al-Imran, Verse 104

19 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., p. 297

20 Ibn Qutaibah, ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, 1/55 and also Anwar al-Awlaki, ‘Life of Umar bin al-Khattab’

http://www.caliphate.eu/2009/04/islams-view-towards-freedom-of-speech.html
Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 21:58 #
yahya
Member

It's difficult to convince the west of "Islamic concept of 'free speech'" as most of them are not Muslim and many are not even religious, and do not consider Islam as true religion. Discussion on this ground is useless, just like discussion on the basis of western values which are unacceptable to Islamists. So a dead end there, it seems.

"criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights"

How is Zakir Naik going to preach if he can't criticise Christianity or Hinduism? He'd be sent to prison or gallows straight away.

"Therefore for the west it’s perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it’s not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed."

Unfortunately it's true that one man's prophet is another man's impostor. How can we get everyone to agree on who is a true prophet and worthy of respect? Anyone can claim prophethood and then demand special treatment.

In the meanwhile we can't take away the religious freedom of a person to disown a "prophet" if he considers him an imposter, or else there is no religious freedom.

Posted 1 year ago on 22 Jun 2010 23:05 #
Hussain Farooqui
Member

Yahya Sb.

There is no society in the world where there is freedom of speech without cultural and moral restrictions. When Queen Elibebath's scandal was exposed with Micheal Fagan, the true story was totally distorted to save the image of the queen. Similarly, 9/11 exposing movies were totally banned in the United States.

Posted 1 year ago on 23 Jun 2010 8:37 #
KHAN_Sahib
Member

http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/oo-ba-ma-fires-mccrystal-power-of-words?replies=2#post-158632

Enjoy!

Posted 1 year ago on 23 Jun 2010 19:46 #
lota6177
Members

shimatoree
PROGRESS- what is progress.
Did the Chinese make progress from 1949 onwards ?
Did Singapore make progress after the British left ?
Has India made progress since 1947 >
It would depend how you define progress.

What is Progress?
Progress is not just an increase in the GDP of a country.
Progress means improvements in different multi dimensional fields such as Economic progress, Social progress, scientific progress but above all human progress.
Dimensions of progress:
Human system = Culture + Human Well being + Governance = Economy = Resource Demand = Ecosystem condition = Ecosystem.
We know from first hand experience that a country under Gen Ayub Khan/ gen Yahiya khan had a booming expanding economy but disintegrated in half at the end of this rule. To measure progress of a country all these things should be evaluated and feel free to add some more so we can analyze china and India etc and see if they are really making progress?
Human Well-being
Measures ends or outcomes, including health, knowledge and understanding, freedom and security, relationships, work and play, and subjective well-being.
Culture
The creative, expressive, and symbolic aspects of a way of life, including art, crafts, food, games, gardens, literature, language, music and religion
Economy: the stocks and flows of an economy (income and wealth)
Governance: democratic participation, access to services, order and safety, political rights, responsiveness, and transparency
Ecosystem Condition
Ecosystem health, including air quality, atmosphere, land, freshwater, oceans and seas, and biodiversity
Resource demand
Human pressures on the ecosystem both extraction of resources and pollution.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/0/41432660.pdf
Idea of progress:
the Idea of Progress is the theory that advances in technology, science, and social organization inevitably produce an improvement in the human condition. That is, people can become happier in terms of quality of life (social progress) through economic development (modernization), and the application of science and technology (scientific progress). The assumption is that the process will happen once people apply their reason and skills, for it is not divinely foreordained. The role of the expert is to identify hindrances that slow or neutralize progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress

Link for khans sahibs article
http://www.caliphate.eu/2009/04/islams-view-towards-freedom-of-speech.html
Khalifah invented freedom of speech.:)
http://mbokhari.pkpolitics.com/2009/09/30/the-dead-parrot/

(Recyclist copies the whole Hizb-ut-Tahrir website and pastes it 10 times.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22A+practical+but+realistic+demonstration+of+manmade+laws+is+illustrated&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=6J&filter=0

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jun 2010 8:51 #
semirza
Moderator

@all
Kindly keep your discussions on topic please. Your feedback on Freedom of Speech is of value and required as a study.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jun 2010 10:54 #
shimatoree
Member

lota6177.

Thanks for effort.

To me there is no progress if the majority are hungry and destitute.
You know the brain is one organ which cannot function well without a continuous supply of glucose(suger) and oxygen.The issues such as freedom of speech only become important when one has no worries of food and safety.

That is all from me.

Thanks again.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jun 2010 12:32 #
lota6177
Members

Shimatoree
your welcome, Please look over the wiki link above about the idea of progress. It explains among other things what is the model for Chinese and Indian economies. Freedom of speech Is essential for intellectual freedom which leads to progress. Failure to progress leads to hunger and other ills. Anything that is causing hindrance to progress is an ill for humanity and causes undue suffering.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jun 2010 12:57 #
zia m
Member

""And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain--for the freedom of labor and thought--to those who fell in the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains--to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs--to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn--to those by fire consumed--to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still." ~Ingersoll-

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jun 2010 17:34 #