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.
