An abuse of liberty from Geert Wilders

Mar 4 2009 Agenda

With free speech comes a responsibility to respect the beliefs of others, argues Waqar Ahmad Ahmedi.

------------------------

I will never forget my first visit to Hyde Park. I was then an A-level student, accompanied by a cousin who wanted to introduce me to some of London’s famous spots.

This included Speakers’ Corner, described as the spiritual home of British soapbox oratory, where we heard impassioned preachers and activists bellowing out their views, mainly about God and governments. It was all quite entertaining and seemingly harmless – until I got a real shock.

“Muhammad was evil!” screamed one towering, dishevelled speaker before a handful of listeners. With his deep Irish accent, he launched into a scathing attack on the Prophet, describing him as an anti-Christ who was possessed by demons.

As a Muslim who since childhood has had an immense love for the Messenger of God, I could not let this go. Young and inexperienced as I was in public debates, I still plucked up the courage to confront and lock horns with this menacing figure. It was not an attempt to impress the crowd with any knowledge or eloquence, but a genuine urge to prove him wrong. The exchanges went on for 10 minutes, by which time the audience had also multiplied, but since the stubborn fellow had only abuse to offer me, there was little purpose in engaging him further. I decided to walk away.

The experience left me with mixed emotions – I was extremely upset that such false and cruel things could be said about the Prophet, but also very satisfied and grateful that I had defended him.

That pain, though, always returns each and every time the Prophet is maligned, as recently when Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP, produced the controversial movie Fitna. He has called for the Koran to be banned and branded the Prophet as a “terrorist”.

I have seen the film. It is a stark and cunning piece of work, designed to discredit Islam through images of burning bodies and fired-up clerics interspersed with verses from its scripture where – apparently – violence towards non-Muslims is encouraged. In fact, it would be no different to somebody presenting the beliefs and actions of the Crusaders and the Ku Klux Klan as having a Biblical basis.

What Fitna only exposes is Wilders’ own agenda of misrepresenting Islam. Through deliberate mistranslations and de-contextualised passages from the Koran, he has painted an ugly picture of the early Muslims as a barbaric, bloodthirsty mob rather than the peaceful and God-fearing believers they actually were.

He fails to acknowledge the 13 long years the Prophet and his companions were persecuted so ruthlessly, when they did not retaliate once, before matters reached such an extreme that self-defence became essential to survive. Had the Muslims not resisted further oppression, an end would have been put to Islam.

Of course, these facts have been conveniently omitted from the film. What a shame that Wilders did not follow the lead of many intellectuals who have studied the beginnings of Islam objectively, such as George Bernard Shaw who observed about the Prophet: “He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much-needed peace and happiness.”

Mahatma Gandhi was no less impressed: “I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.”

However, many will still defend the right of Wilders and the fanatic I encountered to exercise free speech. There is no doubt that this liberty does have many benefits, as it allows for an open flow and exchange of ideas and opinions, promoting civil debate. There is some truth in Voltaire’s celebrated statement too: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

But one must also ask whether it is morally right to abuse such freedom by disregarding the sensibilities of others. That includes malicious attacks on personalities, beliefs and traditions revered by millions of people, done in the name of freedom of expression but clearly intended to stir up trouble.

Far from being a mark of intellectual progress, the right to offend seems to have made our world all the more cynical and hostile, leading to greater intolerance and increasing tensions, both on an individual and international level.

This issue isn’t confined to religion. It is human nature to feel hurt when any person or view dear to you is insulted. Why, then, intentionally play with people’s emotions when you know the reaction it might get? The artist may defend their entitlement to unrestricted expression, but shouldn’t the victims of their venom also enjoy a right to have their sentiments respected?

Roald Dahl made a profound point when he said: “In a civilised world we all have a moral obligation to apply a modicum of censorship to our own work in order to reinforce this principle of free speech.”

Even so, however much anyone ridicules any belief, followers have no right to interfere with the law. Islam, for one, gives no such permission but rather urges fortitude and forgiveness.

Several people in the Prophet’s own time routinely made derogatory remarks about him, yet were never targeted for doing so. In fact, when the man at the forefront of mocking the Prophet died, the latter led his funeral prayer. Such was the Prophet’s magnanimity.

It is unfortunate that some Muslims have forgotten this noble example, and, because they dare not question their corrupt imams, make death threats whenever the faith is attacked.

There are better ways to deal with blasphemy. When Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was published, and Iran’s Ayatollah issued a fatwa for the writer to be killed and other Muslims publicly burnt the book, my father wrote a rebuttal to highlight the true life and character of the Prophet.

When the Danish cartoons created a similar storm, the head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, told his followers to turn increasingly to prayer and through their personal example embody the virtuous qualities of the Prophet. That, he explained, would be a more effective and lasting answer than riots and burning effigies could ever be.

Whether it is Jews who revere Moses or Sikhs following Guru Nanak, people of all religions can demonstrate the same commitment to their founders whenever they are criticised – not resorting to aggression or violence, but drawing attention to and epitomising the beautiful teachings they brought; teachings of love, respect and goodwill for all; teachings that the Wilders and soapbox orators of this world could learn a great deal from.

* Waqar Ahmad Ahmedi is the Outreach Secretary for the Birmingham Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. He can be contacted at ama.birmingham@gmail.com