‫بسم اهلل الرحمن الرحيم‬
Why the ‘Freedom to Offend’ is NOT the Mark of a Civilized Society
As the media cameras began to roll on the Charlie Hebdo attack, Muslims globally held
their breath, anticipating yet again another cycle of assault on their Islamic beliefs. They
were not wrong. As details of the incident emerged, so did the bombardment of
condemnatory and accusatory statements from journalists and politicians alike, that Islam’s
strong rejection of any insult against the Prophet (saw) or its sacred tenets was somehow to
blame for this act of violence. Muslims were then presented with an ultimatum. They had to
make a choice – either they were with the so-called defenders of freedom of speech and
accept for their Prophet and beliefs to be insulted OR they were on the side of those who
perpetrated this bloodshed. This absurd “them or us” ultimatum was based upon the twisted
logic that those who oppose the right to vilify religions are somehow ‘closet sympathisers’ of
those who kill journalists and cartoonists. It’s on par with accusing those who disagree with
the values of Islam as being ‘closet sympathisers’ of Anders Breivik, the far-right massmurderer who killed dozens of people in Norway in the name of his anti-Islamic ideology.
However, throughout the media coverage of this story and its aftermath there was also
another liberal assertion that rang out again and again, presented as an undeniable fact –
that freedom of speech, including the right to ridicule, insult, and offend was the mark of a
‘civilised, enlightened, mature’ society; it was a vital requirement for the healthy critique of
ideas, to challenge injustice, a prerequisite for progress; this was why the freedom to offend
should be defended at all cost. This is perhaps why Nicolas Sarkozy, former French
President termed the assault on the offices of the satirist magazine, “a war declared on
civilisation”.
The political and media hysteria surrounding the Charlie Hebdo attack left little public
space to examine the truth of such an established liberal assertion. Additionally, within
secular societies, the treatment of liberal freedoms as sacred cows means that even
querying the soundness of such values often evokes a reaction on par with performing a
blasphemous act. They are viewed as untouchable, beyond question. Those who criticise
them are shunned, viewed as outcasts, backwards, and enemies of enlightenment and
debate.
However, there has been to date no credible reason given as to what purpose insulting
the religious beliefs of communities serves for a nation. Nor has any sound argument been
presented as to WHY exactly the freedom to offend is the mark of a civilized society. Rather
there are numerous points that prove the converse.
Firstly, a civilised society is surely one where those of different faiths and beliefs are
able to live side by side in peace and harmony, within an atmosphere of mutual respect and
compassion. The question is surely therefore – whether it is the right to offend OR the
rejection of this ideal that can create this reality. Offending the deep-set beliefs that
communities hold as sacred, breeds nothing but resentment, hatred, alienation, and anger
within those who are the target of such insults. This can be the precursor to violence and
retaliatory attacks. This is in no way justifying the killing of journalists and satirists. It is simply
explaining a simple fact of human nature – that many people have deeply engrained
sensitivities about many things – from their religion to their race – and allowing individuals
free-range to ridicule and mock such things nurtures an unpleasant and dangerous
environment for all. It’s an obvious fact that supporters of freedom to offend seem to
stubbornly and irrationally overlook. This includes Western politicians of all hues who have
been lining up in the wake of the attack on the satirical magazine to voice their support for
the right of individuals to mock and ridicule all faiths. In a recent interview with the American
TV Channel CBS, UK Prime Minister David Cameron stated, “I think in a free society, there
is a right to cause offence about someone’s religion.”
For Muslims, their attachment to Prophet Muhammad (saw) is one based upon an
intense love, admiration and respect. He is viewed as dearer to them than their own families.
Insults against him (saw) cannot therefore be laughed off as simply satire or light humour.
No! They are a cause of deep hurt and intense anger which some respond to through violent
vigilante action. Such violence in response to religious offence is not unique to any
community. In 2004, when Birmingham Repertory Theatre hosted a play that was insulting to
Sikhs it triggered violent protests from the Sikh community against the theatre. Embracing
the freedom to offend is clearly therefore not the path to harmonious, cohesive and safe
societies.
Indeed, many journalists seem to live in a bubble, believing that their vilification of
religions and religious communities has no consequences or potential to inspire violence.
They adopt the ‘sticks and stones’ philosophy that lulls them into a false sense of security
that their writings and satire have no repercussions upon a society. And they often enjoy
protection behind the convenient wall of ‘intellectual discourse’ from the legal ramifications of
their words that in reality fall into the same category as ‘incitement of religious hatred’. One
non-Muslim writer wrote regarding the debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie
Hebdo attack, “At worst, satire is veiled aggression. True, it is the aggression of the pen and
not the gun, but it is a kind of violence nevertheless. If we pour petrol on a fire, we should
not be surprised if we get burned.”
Supporters of such ‘veiled aggression’ often argue that freedom to offend should not
cross the line into incitement to violence. However, when you consistently vilify communities,
demonise their values and stigmatise their members it creates a climate that does exactly
this. There is no doubt for example, that the relentless media hysteria regarding Muslims and
their beliefs that intensified following the Charlie Hebdo shootings had a part to play in
fuelling the increase in Islamophobic attacks in France and the UK following the incident.
Around 26 mosques around France have been subject to attack by firebombs, gunfire,
grenades and other means over the last two weeks. Muslim-owned businesses have also
been targeted. Alongside this, there has been racist graffiti, threats, and intimidation against
Muslims. In the UK, London mosques have been sent death threats, hate-mail, and insulting
drawings of the Prophet (saw). One needs to ask how innocent Muslim communities across
France and the UK who had nothing to do with the attack on the magazine have been
dragged into this issue; in essence come to be viewed as holding some responsibility in
some way for the incident and hence the target of Islamophobes. Surely the relentless focus
and demonization of Islamic values, associating them with violence or labelling them as
dangerous for Western societies bears some culpability for all this.
Furthermore, the sanctioning of the freedom to offend within liberal states, under the
umbrella of freedom of expression or the deceptive veneer of ‘political debate, has provided
an open platform for racists and Islamophobes, amongst them politicians and journalists, to
publically air their hate-filled vitriol and gain support for their noxious ideas and agendas. The
satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo itself has been long recognised for propagating racist
stereotypes of many communities. Yet despite this, it was provided an uninhibited license to
operate by the French government, even after the French Foreign Minister in 2012 warned
that provocative crude caricatures of the Prophet (saw) risked, “pouring fuel on the fire.”
Under the protective guard of ‘pluralism’, far-right, racist organisations such as the National
Front in France, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and the English Defence League in
the UK have been allowed to openly operate. So while some Western leaders such as
German Chancellor Angela Merkel have criticised the anti-Islamic demonstrations in their
countries, such as the recent 18,000 strong rally organised in Dresden by the racist, right–
wing movement "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisisation of the Occident”, it is the
secular system that they govern over that allows such inflammatory, divisive views to be
voiced under the liberal value of freedom to offend. This further fuels the rise of religious
hatred within societies. This is far from laying the foundations of a civilized society.
Secondly, surely the mark of a civilised society is one where its people are immersed in
good and decent values such as showing respect and kindness in the treatment of others;
and not one where offending, bullying, and stigmatising fellow citizens becomes a celebrated
act. It’s strange for example, that insults and verbal abuse if practiced on the playground
amongst children or in the streets by youth would be categorised as rude, anti-social, or
delinquent behaviour. However, if exercised by journalists or cartoonists, it becomes an
acceptable, even praised form of conduct.
Why is it though that while liberal states label the right to offend religions as a mark of a
civilized nation, their own media are constrained by defamation and slander laws and even
practice self-censorship in many matters in order to maintain a sense of decency and to
avoid offending their audiences? This includes imposing strict regulations in the language
that is used by broadcasters; avoiding publication of gruesome images from conflict areas;
and keeping away from humour on sensitive issues such as rape, paedophilia, genocide,
and a host of other subjects. This is because every society has red-lines and norms of
acceptable decent conduct which it is recognised are needed to ensure a relatively pleasant,
respectful environment for all, rather than one that is debased and low.
However, within liberal states, the standards of human decency and what constitutes
moral or immoral behaviour is being consistently re-defined – not based on what brings true
harmony or progress for societies but simply for the purpose of allowing individuals to say or
do what they want, regardless of the social chaos that sows. Stephane Charbonnier for
example, the editor of Charlie Hebdo who was killed in the attack, said that it was his aim to
target Islam until it “became as banal as the Catholic Church”. Hence, behaviour that was
once widely viewed as the mark of lowly conduct such as insulting others, under liberalism is
being normalised and absurdly passed off as a sign of modernity and progress. In a BBC
interview with Kenan Malik for example, an author, broadcaster, and opinion-writer for The
New York Times, he attempted to defend the freedom to insult by arguing that one way to
prevent incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo shootings was to break the link between
morality and the act of offending people - that it should no longer be viewed as immoral to
offend individuals. Such liberal views explain the growing levels of disrespect demonstrated
by children towards parents, or the youth towards their teachers within secular states. What
kind of society is it when decent human values such as shunning offending others are
viewed with contempt and cast aside, simply for the sake of allowing individuals to follow
their desires? Definitely not a civilized one!
And thirdly, a civilised society is surely one where open debate of different ideas and
faiths can take place in a respectful manner without the need for insults and offence. The
argument that preventing the freedom to offend would serve as a barrier to criticism of
thoughts, scrutinising beliefs, or challenging injustice and oppression is one that holds no
weight at all. Indeed, it is creating offense that hampers productive discourse over ideas for it
simply enrages, directs the focus of discussions to the insults themselves, and closes hearts
and minds to the truth. Additionally, resorting to mockery and ridicule of religions in order to
prove a point is simply surrendering to a deficiency in creativity in presenting arguments in a
civil way, illustrates a lack of sound proofs to support views, or indicates a frailty in intellect.
Indeed, the claim that enlightened discourse cannot take place without the need for insults is
in itself insulting to the intellect of individuals! Moreover, how does offending individuals help
reaching the truth on matters? How does it aid examining the weight of an argument or
critiquing two sides of a debate?
Additionally, the liberal argument that were it not for the freedom to offend, individuals
would not have the right to practice and propagate their religion as they wish, for the beliefs
of one faith may by their nature cause offense to those of other faiths, is utterly absurd. It
suggests that individuals cannot distinguish between expressing robust disagreement in
religious beliefs and mocking and satirising those ideas.
Furthermore, it’s ironic that while Western leaders such as David Cameron express their
unwavering support of freedom of speech, they effectively gag Muslims from discussing their
beliefs through a host of anti-terror measures back home. The British government for
example, is currently trying to pass a bill that could require colleges and universities to ban
so-called ‘extremist preachers’ from speaking on campuses, even about ideas which are
non-violent in nature. The bill has been accused by many, including the UK Parliament’s
Joint Human Rights committee of curbing academic freedoms. The record of what the British
government and politicians see as ‘extremist views’ is clear. It ranges from everything from
the niqab to Islam’s separation of men and women to the concept of one Ummah to support
of the implementation of Shariah and the Khilafah in the Muslim world. So the message is
clear – journalists and others should have the right to mock, ridicule, and vilify Islam, while
Muslims should not have the right to speak about some of the basic tenets of their belief.
Therefore, it is clearly the political agendas of secular governments that are being used to
silence Islam which are a barrier to open debate of ideas; not the rejection of the freedom to
offend.
So while many liberals are at pains to argue that freedom to offend religions is the mark
of a civilized society, the reality proves the converse. Indeed, there is something of the
‘emperor’s new clothes’ about this narrative that has been promoted so widely and accepted
so readily by so many without question. The truth is however, that civilized societies are ones
where those of all faiths feel equally respected, and their beliefs protected. They are ones
characterized by kindness, compassion, and harmony between all communities, and where
good, decent values are the norm and celebrated. And they are ones where speech is used
in a productive way: for healthy respectful debate; critiquing ideas, exposing injustice, and
holding leaders to account for their actions. It is this type of society that the Islamic values
and laws seek to create. This is why Islam condemns insulting the beliefs of any religion or
vilifying the members of any faith. Allah (swt) says,
ٍۗ‫عدْوًا ِبغَيْرِ عِ ْلم‬
َ َ‫وَلَا َتسُبُّوا َّالذِينَ َي ْدعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّـهِ فَ َيسُبُّوا اللَّـه‬
“And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in
enmity without knowledge.” [TMQ Al-Anam: 108]
The Khilafah state that ruled by Islam embodied this type of society. This was a state
which prohibited abuse – verbal or physical – against its religious minorities; a state which
embraced good, decent values; and a state which encouraged open, robust discourse
between those of all faiths. And such will be the reality of the future Khilafah state too.
Perhaps therefore, those secular governments and muscular liberals who are seeking to
pressure Muslims to leave their Islamic values through the use of inflammatory ‘extremist’
labels or false narratives should consider who exactly is undermining civilisation.
‫سنُ ۚ إِنَّ ر ََّبكَ هُوَ َأعَْلمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن‬
َ ‫ح‬
ْ ‫حسَنَةِ ۖ َوجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ َأ‬
َ ‫عظَةِ ا ْل‬
ِ ‫حكْمَةِ وَالْمَ ْو‬
ِ ‫ا ْدعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَ ِّبِكَ بِا ْل‬
َ‫سَبِيلِهِ ۖ وَهُوَ َأعَْلمُ بِالْمُهْ َتدِين‬
“Invite (mankind) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Truly, your Lord knows
best who has gone astray from His Path and He is the Best Aware of those who are
guided.” [TMQ An-Nahl: 125]
Written for The Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Dr. Nazreen Nawaz
Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir