Helping Google Find Sensibility

Regarding the latest attack on the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, Google has certainly acted as if Muslims do not matter. It has arrogantly refused to remove the offending content from the YouTube site that it owns. The offensive video, the reactions to it and the reactions to reactions have generated lot of heated debates.

Could it have been avoided?
Many have observed that the offensive video remained un-noticed for fifty-five days. Then curiosity traffic increased the hit count from five thousand to five million in a couple of days. Obviously ignoring it would have been a better option. That is true, as far as it goes. In the initial stage the best option was to ignore it. However those who profit from such offensive material also know this. They tried to get negative publicity in Rushdie affair, they tried it now and they will try it again. They will rub it in your face until there is a reaction. And when that happens, just wishing that there had been no reaction is not going to help us solve the problem.

What Makes Google Tick?
The question arises, why Google must rub it in our face? Google would not allow the freedom to insult to its own employees in its offices that it says we must learn to live with. Why? Why can’t it see reason? The answer lies in its very nature. It is a corporation---impersonal and amoral. You cannot plead with it on the basis of morality, decency, or sensibility. It does not understand the language of right and wrong or good and evil. It could not care less about the Prophets. It only cares about its profits. Right and wrong translate into profit and loss in its world. It would enforce a code of behavior and decorum in its offices because that is needed for ensuring productivity. It upholds the exact opposite on its sites because that is good for business. If it can increase its profits by inflicting pain on us it will gladly do that. If it sees that doing so reduces its profits, it will “find” that inflicting pain is wrong and insulting the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is immoral.

And it has been very successful.

Last year Google had revenues of nearly $40 billion. Ninety-six percent of these came from ads. And its claim to fame in the advertizing world is that it has revolutionized advertizing by providing targeted ads: Ads that are delivered to each viewer based on the personal preferences and interests of that viewer. Both the AdWords and AdSense programs that it uses are based on information about the users that it gathers and stores through their use of its free services.

It has a huge database about everyone who uses it and it uses that database to generate money. Every time you search for something using it, it learns something about your interests. It knows how to translate that information into hard cash because it can find the right buyers for that information. Every time you click on a Google ad, you are simply sending a check to Google as ad revenues are on a per click basis. It may be a fraction of a cent per click. But trillions of clicks turn into billions of dollars. In other words every time you use it you are financially supporting it and nurturing its arrogance.

It is our clicks that make Google tick.
Therein lies the secret to making it see reason. If most of us stop using Google even for one week, it will see such a huge shrinking of its revenue stream that it would find sensibility and decency faster than its fastest searches. It would immediately stop any and all insulting content if that happened.

Google Ads
A second but related area of our concern should be the otherwise responsible and serious websites that allow Google ads. When a web site agrees to allow Google to display ads on it, it gives them a blank space over which they can write the message they want. Google gets money from the ad sponsors for these directed ads and passes a fraction of that money to the site owner. For that fraction many “Islamic” sites are selling their iman. One can find a site hosting a lecture on Qur’an and Hadith and on the same page a Google ad displays a semi nude picture. Sometimes this blurring of the boundaries of the sacred and the profane is justified by the owners by issuing a disclaimer that they are not responsible for the ads. In most cases even the disclaimer is not there. As an example Pakistani Newspapers like Jang and Ummat frequently have obscene ads consisting of pictures of nude and semi nude women on their sites.

That such scandalous behavior has become acceptable is an indication of the toll that our blind submission to the Internet revolution has taken on us. For thinking people this should be cause for much reflection and soul searching. This calls for a new level of media activism that has been totally missing from the Muslim world. Isn’t it time that someone convinced the owners of such sites to stop allowing such ads?

Is It Futile?
There are those for whom all this talk is futile. In Google they see just an innocent search engine not a cold calculating advertizing giant that is also serving a cultural agenda, about which we may have some concerns. In the Internet and the media revolution they see only wonders.

It is part of a larger malaise in our attitudes about technology that we have been seeing for the past couple of centuries. In the 19th century the British introduced science and technology in the subcontinent through exhibitions for the public. The idea was not to educate but to impress. It was presented as magic. At an exhibition in Calcutta in the early 1800s the visitors were reported to make such comments as “Bap rey bap (Oh My!)…How fantastic.” 

It seems we have not stopped saying “Bap rey bap… How fantastic.”

Once we come out of this spell, we may realize that technology both gives and takes away. And the resulting bargain will be in our favor only if we are actively negotiating with it instead of passively submitting to it. A cell phone magically can connect you to another person on the other part of the globe without any visible link. Yet it also disconnects you from your immediate surroundings. We see that in the horrible acts of insolence when people even in the Haram making tawaf are talking over their cell phones.

Once we determine that technology should be our servant and not our master, our attitudes about it will change dramatically. And so will our attitudes about the technology leaders. We may then realize that Google’s declared goal is to “change the world.” Can anyone in their right mind advocate that we should just be a passive spectator as they go about changing our world?

Of course in the latest episode Google is betting that our love for the convenience it offers is greater than our love for the Prophet and our sense of honor. And not even convenience but only addiction. For there are a dozen search engines like Bing out there that we could use without sacrificing anything.

It is only through our determined individual and collective efforts that we can convince the likes of Google, Facebook, and others to agree to a code of ethics that assures freedom from insults for everyone--- which is the only way to ensure peace in the global village.

Khalid Baig in Albalaqh. Here

Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope's visit.

Antonio Federici's advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line "immaculately conceived".

The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.

Antonio Federici says it will now put up new posters near Westminster Abbey.
Pope Benedict XVI will visit Westminster Abbey on Friday, before holding Mass at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday.

Antonio Federici, a UK-based company, has yet to reveal what image will be portrayed in the new advert, saying only that it would be "a continuation of the theme".
A spokeswoman for the company said the new image intended to "defy" the ban from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

She added: "We are in the process of securing a series of billboards close to and along the planned route of the Pope's cavalcade around Westminster Cathedral".
A spokesman for the ASA said its rulings "must be followed and we are taking steps to ensure Antonio Federici do so".

He added: "We do not comment on the likely compliance of ads that have not yet appeared.
"However, we are continuing to conduct work behind the scenes, including with the advertiser, to ensure they comply with the rules."

Defending the banned nun advert, Antonio Federici said the idea of "conception" represented the development of their ice cream.

It added that the use of religious imagery represented its strong feeling towards its product.
The firm said it also wished to "comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues".
The banned advert was featured in editions of The Lady and Grazia magazines.

The ASA said in its ruling: "We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.
"We concluded that to use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith."
The publishers of The Lady said it had received eight complaints and that it had been a "misjudgement" to have published .

The ASA banned another advert for Antonio Federici in July 2009 that showed a priest and a nun appearing as if they were about to kiss.

A BBC report Here

Freedom of Expression or Freedom to Blaspheme?

FREEDOM of expression must not be confused with freedom from the consequences of expression. Exercising freedom and abusing it are not the same. The latter forfeits the former. Just because we are free to express ourselves, it doesn’t free us from the responsibility for what we express. We are responsible for what we say and do and for the consequences thereof and so must consider carefully what we want to express. This is the basis of what we call civilized socially responsible behavior. 

Obama, Manmohan Singh and the innocence of Muslims

Of all the comments made on the dirty film, the comment made by Vaiko stands tall. He has said உலகெங்கும் வாழும் அனைத்து மக்களின் நெஞ்சிலும் நெருப்பை கொட்டிவிட்ட சி‌னிமா (A film which has showered fire in the hearts of all throughout the world). He is right. Even Hillary Clinton has expressed her anguish and has condemned the film. Who is Hillary? She is not a Muslim. She is just a politician. One can imagine the toxicity of the film by her anguish.

The film reminds me of another mischievious, outrageous book written by Salman Rushdie. When The Satanic Verses was released in late eighties, similar reactions were seen throughout the world. The Indian Government acted swiftly then and promptly banned the book. But now it is not the case. It has not yet banned the movie. It has not yet blocked the URLs from the web.

How to vent our feelings? How to condemn this ugly, dirty and vulgar film? How to condemn this wretched movie?

Should we target the US embassies worldwide? Should we demonstrate in front of the embassies of USA? Is it the only way? I think we Indians are blessed with another option too. We could go in procession to the Raj Bhavans in the State capitals and submit a memorundum to the Governors there. We live in an age when there is not an iota of a difference between the Indian Government and Obama's government. What is the big deal there. The Manmohan Goverment has opened up the retail trade to American companies in the name of economic reforms. This move clearly demonstrates the slavery attitude of the UPA government.


உலகெங்கும் வாழும் அனைத்து மக்களின் நெஞ்சிலும் நெருப்பை கொட்டிவிட்ட சி‌னிமா என்று வைகோ சொல்லியிருப்பது மிக்க பொருத்தம்.
எண்பதுகளில் சல்மான் ருஷ்டியின் சாத்தானியக் கவிதைகளை விடவும் அதிகமான பாதிப்பை அமெரிக்கப் படம் செய்துவிட்டுள்ளதகத் தோன்றுகிறது. இந்திய அரசாங்கம் அந்தப் புத்தகத்தை  உடனடியாக தடைச் செய்துவிட்டது. ஆனால் அமெரிக்கப் படம் இன்று வரை தடை செய்யப்படவில்லை.

இந்த அழுக்குப் படத்துக்கு எதிரான நம்முடைய உணர்வுகளை எப்படி வெளிப்படுத்துவது? இந்த கேடுகெட்ட படத்தை எப்படி தான் கண்டிப்பது?

அமெரிக்கத் தூதரங்களுக்கு முன் ஆர்ப்பாட்டம் செய்வதுதான் ஒரே வழியா? ராஜ் பவன் வரை ஊர்வலமாகச் சென்று ஆளுநரிடம் கோரிக்கை மனு தரலாமே? இன்றையக் காலத்தில் இந்திய அரசுக்கும் ஒபாமாவின் அரசுக்கும் என்ன பெரிய வித்தியாசம் இருக்கிறது? சில்லறை வணிகத்திலும் அந்நிய முதலீட்டை FDI  அனுமதித்துள்ள மன்மோகன் அரசு ஒபாமாவின் கூலியாளாகத் தானேச் செயல்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது? 

Jamaat chief condemns the dirty film on the Prophet of Islam

Jamaat chief urges the Indian Government to block the URL of the dirty picture denigrating the Prophet of Islam

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Tamil Nadu chief A Shabbir Ahmed has strongly condemned the heinous, most outrageous and abominable video film denigrating the last Prophet of Islam. He expressed his agony and anguish over the sinister motives of the film maker. Inspite of the fact that the Prophet of Islam is revered and respected by billions of Muslims worldwide, the film maker has ventured to make such an ugly film on him. This betrays his evil intentions, he said. He urged the US government to take action against the film maker and all those involved in the dirty film and put all of them behind the bars.

The Jamaat leader appealed to the Indian government to block the dirty picture from the internet, before it spreads like wild fire and inflames passions. This would go a long way to maintain communal harmony, he said. He further demanded a complete ban of the dirty film. He has appealed all the peace loving, like minded and noble hearted souls to join together to curb this menace. He appealed them to urge the Indian Government to take effective steps in this regard.

The Jamaat leader lauded the Muslim community world wide for their more mature, peaceful protests against the dirty film. There may have been some stray incidents of violence in Libya and some other places, but, the protests have by and large been entirely peaceful. He urged the Muslim community to maintain the trend and express their distress and pain to the American community in a peaceful and disciplined manner. He also underlined the importance of conveying the true message of the Prophet of Islam to the world community.

இறைத்தூதரைக் இழிவுபடுத்தி அமெரிக்காவில் எடுக்கப்பட்டிருக்கின்ற கேவலமான வெறுக்கத்தக்க, அருவருப்பான திரைப்படத்தை தமிழக ஜமாஅத்தே இஸ்லாமி ஹிந்த் தலைவர் ஏ. ஷப்பீர் அஹ்மத் கடுமையாகக் கண்டித்துள்ளார்.

 ஏ. ஷப்பீர் அஹ்மத் வெளியிட்டுள்ள பத்திரிகை அறிக்கை பின்வருமாறு:  

உலகம் முழுவதும் கோடிக்கணக்கான முஸ்லிம்களால் உயிரினும் மேலாய் மதிக்கப்படுகின்ற ஒப்பற்ற தலைவர்தாம் அண்ணல் நபிகளார்(ஸல்) என்பது எல்லோரும் அறிந்த ஒன்று. இது தெரிந்த நிலையிலும் அமெரிக்க படத் தயாரிப்-பாளர் அண்ணல் நபிகளாரை இழிவுபடுத்துகின்ற விதத்தில் கேடுகெட்ட படத்தைத் தயாரித்திருக்கின்றார். இது அவருடைய தீய நோக்கத்தை வெளிப்படுத்துகின்றது என்றும் ஷப்பீர் அஹ்மத் தெரிவித்தார்.

இந்த கேடுகெட்ட படத்தைத் தயாரித்த தயாரிப்பாளர் மீதும் அவருக்குத் துணை நின்ற பிறர் மீதும் அவருக்குப் பின்புலத்தில் இயங்குகின்றவர்கள் மீதும் கடும் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கும் படியும் படத்தயாரிப்பில் ஈடுபட்ட அனைவரையும் கைது செய்து சிறையில் அடைக்கும்படியும் அவர் அமெரிக்க அரசாங்கத்தைக் கேட்டுக்-கொண்டார்.

இந்தக் கேடுகெட்ட படம் இணையத்தின் ஊடே காட்டுத் தீ போல் பரவி மக்களின் உணர்வுகளைக் கிளர்ந்தெழச் செய்து பெரும் பாதிப்பை ஏற்படுத்து-வதற்குள்ளாக இதனை வெளியிட்டுள்ள இணையத்தளங்கள் அனைத்தையும் முடக்கிவிடுமாறு ஜமாஅத் தலைவர் இந்திய அரசைக் கேட்டுக்கொண்டுள்ளார். நாட்டில் சமூக நல்லிணக்கம் செழித்தோங்குவதற்கு அரசின் இந்த நடவடிக்கை பெரிதும் துணை நிற்கும் என்றும் அவர் கருத்து தெரிவித்தார்.

அது மட்டுமல்லாமல் இந்தக் கேடுகெட்ட படத்தை முற்றாக, முழுவதுமாகத் தடை செய்யும்படியும் அவர் இந்திய அரசைக் கேட்டுக்கொண்டுள்ளார். இந்த விஷயத்தில் தக்க நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கும்படி ஒன்றுபட்டு ஒருமித்த குரலில் விண்ணப்பிக்குமாறு அவர் நாட்டின் அனைத்துத் தரப்பு மக்களையும் சமூக ஆர்வலர்களையும் அமைதியை விரும்புகின்ற நல்லுள்ளங்களையும் கேட்டுக் கொண்டுள்ளார்.

இந்தக் கேடுகெட்ட படத்திற்கு எதிராக அமைதியான முறையில் உலகம் முழுவதும் எதிர்ப்பும் கண்டனமும் தெரிவித்து வருகின்ற உலக முஸ்லிம்களை அவர் பாராட்டினார். லிபியா உள்ளிட்ட சில இடங்களில் நடந்த சிற்சில வன் நிகழ்வுகளைத் தவிர்த்துவிட்டுப் பார்த்தால் உலகம் முழுவதும் அமைதியான முறையில்தான் ஆர்ப்பாட்டங்களும் கண்டன ஊர்வலங்களும் நடந்துள்ளன. அமைதியான முறையில் எதிர்ப்பைத் தெரிவிக்கின்ற தங்களின் இந்த வழிமுறை-யைத் தொடருமாறு அவர் முஸ்லிம்களைக் கேட்டுக்கொண்டார். அதே சமயம் அண்ணல் நபிகளாரின் ஆளுமையை உலக மக்களுக்கு அறிமுகப்படுத்த வேண்டிய அவசியத்தையும் அவர் வலியுறுத்தினார்.

More. Here

Open letter to Barkha Dutt regarding Salman Rushdie

Dear Ms Dutt.
So wonderful and courageous of you to undo the efforts of politicians and Muslim clergy in keeping away the controversial author Salman Rushdie, from even a video link to the Jaipur Literature Festival, bringing him alive, the same evening from London on your channel and letting him blast India, Indian culture, its people, police, administration and the famous and respected Islamic seminary of Dar-Ul-Uloom Deoband, calling it breeding ground for Taliban and the peaceful protesters outside the Diggi Palace against his presence as gangsters.

Madame, you were highly agitated, when moments before you were to moderate Rushdie's video speak to the festival, the Rajasthan Police stopped the conference sighting a perception of threat to the festival. Your anger and disappointment is understandable. It must have hurt your ego.But what happened to the resolve you made in the debate that followed immediately after the video linking got cancelled. You so vociferously and emotionally condemning the competitive politicization of such religion based issues, that impinge on the freedom of expression and speech, also resolved that media should refrain from indulging in competitive mediazation and stop giving coverage and unnecessary exposure to fringe elements on both sides of the divide when it comes to issues based on ethnic or religious demands that harm the larger interest of the society.

Your bringing Rushdie on your channel in a programme lasting over 40 minutes was not in line with your resolve. Neither it will help to end the episode on an amicable note. And what did Rushdie say on that programme except to blast Indians, our culture, our leaders, our law enforcement agencies and hurt the sentiments of India's s largest minority , calling peaceful demonstrators outside the festival venue as gangsters.

The renowned seminary of Deoband was branded as nursery for terrorists.

Where was the need for you to recollect, Rushdie's comment, "that those who burn books will burn people" that was made several years ago, when his "Satanic Versus" was burnt in protest in several Muslim countries. What were you implying? That Muslims are immolators. And you just let him have uninterrupted time to predict the going down and under of a great country.

What happened to your nationalism, what happened to that fiery spirit in you, what happened to that passion and emotion that you so often show and exhibit when it comes to India's prestige and respect.

You provoked him into reiterating, that his blasphemous book, "Satanic Versus, in which he had ridiculed the Prophet if Islam and his household was work of art. That he was justified in writing the book that has hurt the feelings of 1. 7 billion people across the globe, including the 200 million, Indian Muslims..

If those agitating outside Diggi Palace were gangsters, what about those who deliberately, provokingly, exacerbated the issue by reading passages from the banned book. What would you call them? Intellectual gangsters?

Yes it is an old issue. It was dead, so was Salman Rushdie, but I am sorry the electronic media has brought back to life, this shameful issue. While you say that media should stop pandering to religious , self proclaimed leaders, nevertheless it's the media that never misses an opportunity to pitch in significant, ignorant, in articulate persons and make a mockery of religion. You have further inflamed the Rushdie episode, by giving him so much time only to lambast a great country and its people.

Who is Rushdie to say India will go down and under, India and its people have stood the test of time again and again. We stood up to the great tragedy of Partition, and then again we showed how cohesive we are, as people when we stood up to the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Syed Qamar Hasan.
Abu Dhabi based Indian journalist.
Cell. 0097150-6417350.

Salman Rushdie, Freedom from insult and Islam

“I wrote this biography of Muhammad just over ten years ago at the time of the Salman Rushdie crisis. For some time, I had been disturbed by the prejudice against Islam that I so frequently encountered, even in the most liberal and tolerant circle. After the horrific events of the 20th century, it seemed to me that we simply could not afford to cultivate a distorted and inaccurate view of the religion followed by 1.2 billion Muslims who make up a fifth of the world’s population. When Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwah against Rushdie and his publishers, this Western prejudice became even more blatant.

“In 1990, when I was writing this book, nobody in Britain wanted to hear that almost exactly a month after the fatwah at a meeting of the Islamic Congress, forty-four out of the forty-five member states condemned the Ayatollah’s ruling as unIslamic––leaving Iran out in the cold. Very few Western people were interested to hear that the Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land of Islam, and the prestigious al-Azhar madrasah in Cairo had also declared that the fatwah contravened Islamic law. Only a handful of people seemed prepared to listen sympathetically to the many Muslims in Britain who dissociated themselves from the Ayatollah, had no wish to see Rushdie killed, but who had felt profoundly distressed by what they regarded as the blasphemous portrait of Prophet Muhammad in his novel. The Western intelligentsia seemed to want to believe that the entire Muslim world was clamouring for Rushdie’s blood. Some of the leading writers, intellectuals and philosophers in Britain described Islam in a way that either showed astonishing ignorance or a quite horrifying indifference to the truth. As far as they were concerned Islam was an inherently intolerant, fanatical faith, it deserved no respect; and the sensitivities of Muslims who felt hurt by Rushdie’s portrait of their beloved Prophet in The Satanic Verses were of no importance.

“I wrote the book because it seemed a pity that Rushdie’s account of Muhammad was the only one that most Western people were likely to read. Even though I could understand what Rushdie was trying to do in his novel, it seemed important that the true story of the Prophet should also be available, because he was one of the most remarkable human beings who ever lived. It was quite difficult to find a publisher, since many assumed that Muslims would be outraged that infidel woman like myself should have the audacity to write about their Prophet, and that if they publish this book I would soon be joining Rushdie in hiding. But as it turned out, I was greatly moved by the warm and generous reception that Muslims gave my book in those difficult times.”

- the first few paragraphs of the Introduction to October 2001 edition (just after 9/11) of book Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet written by former Roman Catholic nun Karen Armstrong.

Karen Armstrong was motivated to study Islam so thoroughly and come out with this biography only after the protest by Muslims following the publication of The Satanic Verses about two and a half decades back.

Soroor Ahmed in Two circles. More Here

Salman Rushdie is a third class writer: Justice Katju

Salman Rushdie is a “poor” and “sub-standard writer” who would have remained largely unknown but for his controversial book ‘Satanic Verses’, according to Markandey Katju, till recently a judge of the Supreme Court.

Katju, who is now the Chairman of Press Council of India, criticised the admirers of India-born author based in Britain, saying they suffered from “colonial inferiority complex” that a writer living abroad has to be great.

From a report in Hindustan Times. Here

Slamming the Jaipur Literature Festival's focus on the Indian-origin British writer, Justice Katju, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, criticised “so-called educated Indians” who “suffer from the colonial inferiority complex” and believe that writers living in India are inferior to those living abroad.

“Salman Rushdie dominated the Jaipur Literature Festival. I do not wish to get into the controversy whether banning him was correct or not. I am raising a much more fundamental issue,” he said in a statement issued on Wednesday. “I have read some of Rushdie's works and am of the opinion that he is a poor writer, and but for The Satanic Verses would have remained largely unknown. Even Midnight's Children is hardly great literature.”

From a report in The Hindu. Here

Islam emphasises on 'Freedom from insult'

Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. 

It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions.

Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.

As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants.

Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.

A earlier post in Luthfispace Here and More by Khalid Baig Here

Islam emphasises on 'Freedom from insult'

Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. 

It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions.

Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.

As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants.

Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.

What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults.

From Khalid Baig's article in Al balagh. More Here.