Evolving Ideas and Beliefs Through Inciting Hatred

This morning’s Nihal show on the BBC Asian Network raised some very interesting points of discussion on Islam, Jihad, and religious intolerance. With Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller being invited to speak at an EDL Rally in Woolwich, Nihal asked whether the anti-Islamic activists should be banned from entering the UK on the basis of inciting hatred.

From this discussion I want to address the value in challenging opinions, or those that supposedly “incite hatred”.

First and foremost I want to highlight the importance of freedom of speech. This sentiment very much lies at the heart of my corollary points. While opinions can hurt, people by their very nature have the ability of independent thought and free will. You cannot deny someone their opinion; neither should you force someone to think a certain way. These opinions may or may not be well informed; however, the individual has the right to hold them. I will make one exception to my belief in the freedom of speech and that is where opinion vilifies and victimises individuals and groups. These opinions need to be highlighted for their impact and subsequently questioned. Thus, a sentiment such as all convicted Terrorists must be punished for their crime differs from the victimisation in sentiments such as all Terrorists are Muslims and must be punished, or the infidels must be punished. While holding such opinions may be morally reprehensible you cannot punish someone for thinking a certain way. However, acting on these opinions takes the argument into a different area of discussion that will not be broached here.

Second, and born from the former; there is a great deal of insight and progression that may be garnered from challenging opinions, such as those held by Robert Spencer. While, these opinions have been identified as hurtful or even as inciting hatred, the points made are ones that have to be addressed by Muslims. Islam should not be beyond questioning. In fact, the exploration of Islam and questioning its main tenants were a daily occurrence during the Middle Ages. This is most notable in the distinct approaches to the faith, with differing sects following the practices of differing scholars. Islam’s strength will come from its ability to defend itself. If Muslims do not allow for investigation into those aspects of the faith that are identifiable as its weak points, or as its downfall then Muslims have done nothing but to ensure the degradation of their own faith.

Freedom of speech and the sentiments of Robert Spencer should therefore push Muslims to understand their faith better. I was greatly saddened at the inability of the Imam on Nihal's show to explain, counter or even concede to Spencer’s arguments. The fact of the matter is the Quran does contain passages that promote violence. What is not noted is that they are Meccan passages rooted in specific historical interactions. They advocate the use of violence during specific conflicts, unlike the general principles espoused in the Medina passages that teach equality, tolerance and peace. Defending Islam purely on the basis that it promotes peace or because we cannot question it is taking blind faith too far: it is not a good enough defence. Muslims need to claim ownership of those passages that contradict its main principles, explain them, denounce them and counter those that utilise them for base purposes.

Diversity of opinion and questioning of faith can only make religion stronger; it ensures that each believer fully engages with her/his faith.