Is Islamic culture respected? (Part One)
Examine the Free Speech in Countries like America and Denmark.
Problem: free speech is not regulated, like say, the food industry.
In other industries, for example, we know that there are certain guidelines, for ex. Food must not pose a threat to health.
Toys must be safe; no lead paint, if there are small parts, then toys must be labeled, as such.
Health equipment; is another example of regulation.
Laws on “freedom of expression” are “no racism”, no “hate”, etc.
Are the laws sufficient? Too vague?
Because countries like America and Britain, which are the biggest proponents and in practice allow the most so-called “free speech”; they also have the highest incidents of hate crimes, and violent threats directed at “Free speech” proponents. Such as writers/artists, or in Denmark, it was the editors of newspapers carrying the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, years back.
The non-Muslims should be taught (tolerance), or governed by/ laws which allow free speech, enacted under “appropriate conduct”.
For example, if you have a problem with Muslim women’s dress in western countries, being forced to/or wearing the face veil, of their own free will, does that constitute a threat to your liberty, or safety? You believe that the public should be able to see anyone’s face.
What about tattoos? Do they not also cover the face? That person can no longer be identified except by his tattoo, for example. If several people then have such tattoos, doesn’t it mean that there is confusion about who is who?
Free speech should be able to show that it is somehow important, or expresses, either art, or culture, or seeks to right some wrong, or so on….
It should be specific: i.e. Don’t complain about Islam in general, is a bad religion; there are examples in the Bible about things which most people would not agree with, yet, the Bible as a whole is not being banned, or attacked, as a whole, nor are certain Christians, denominations, sects, or groups being attacked as a whole.
For example, someone could protest that Muslim women should not wear Islamic clothing, such as the burqa, or a face veil, and give reasons why. There should be a clear and defensible argument why this is not good in a Western society. (I.e. People can merely teach their children that Muslims believe they must dress this way, if it bothers them or their children).
Laws, denying men unilateral divorce, for example. Laws; denying men the right to practice polygamy; these apply to all Muslims; might/might not be seen as violating the basic right to religious freedom. In a secular society, which decides matters in a legal or constitutional framework, what things does the government have a right to ban, or legalize?
But the banning of a covering overcoat? Will Muslim women be allowed to wear “London fog” coats in summer, or will that constitute something illegal. I.e. trying to over cover up in the summer when people should be uncovering?
Should free speech which is “provoking” anger, with no other intention except to “provoke” a group of people, or a religious sect then be illegalized? Considering that such free speech, serves no other purpose; it is not (construed as) being done from an (largely) artistic perspective, it is not challenging a specific idea or belief dangerous to the wide public.
We find that countries like Canada, which have not banned the face veil, have fewer problems. The Muslims are perhaps not choosing extremism, as a result of more freedoms. Definitely, they are happier than Muslims in France at the moment.
Isn’t the government’s direct involvement in banning Islamic clothing, or Islamic teaching, going to anger Muslims, cause resentment, anger, and possibly extremist views? Should the government not make it its job to target specific religions, or sects?
“Then should We turn the message away, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?” (43:5)Qur’an
No comments:
Post a Comment