A high-profile Koran burning by Pastor Wayne Sapp in the US recently resulted in a wave of protests across the Islamic world, which have left at least 20 people dead. This issue, namely freedom of speech, is perhaps the most important issue of our time, and it will probably determine, in large part, the direction of the world in the coming years.
People like to say that the theory of a ‘clash of civilisations’ is overdone, and that the West can live in harmony with the Islamic world, even within the same societies. This is an easy thing to claim, as it merely perpetuates the popular belief that all religions can peacefully co-exist with other, directly-opposed religions, as well as atheism and belief systems of all kinds. But, in situations like this, the right to one’s own opinion is brought into direct conflict with the ‘duty’ that many adherents of religion feel to defend it – a defence which seems to often entail the taking of innocent life.
Without doubt, the pastor was being deliberately provocative, and I don’t think he deserves much airtime. But what he has done is bring into the spotlight the issue of freedom of speech once again. I don’t believe in being deliberately provocative, but I do believe in the right to be deliberately provocative, as long as you aren’t physically harming anyone, or obstructing their right to live their life as they choose. I also believe that no one has the right not to be offended. Life is messy, turbulent, unpredictable, and rarely as we would ideally choose – that’s the deal, take it or leave it.
A similar case occurred recently in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP and outspoken critic of Islam and Islamic immigration to the West, faced the prospect of going to jail for his beliefs about Islam. I was greatly relieved when he was cleared of all charges and released, because if it were to become a crime to have an opinion about a belief system, then any concept of freedom would surely have been laid to rest there and then. But I also think that the process did him a huge favour in terms of publicity for his cause, and publicly demonstrated that it is not in fact a crime to have an opinion about a religion, even Islam. I found his speech to the court after the case compelling.
Whether or not you agree with Wilders’ view of Islam, one has to note that he now lives under constant police protection due to the very real physical threat from Muslim protesters, all because he stood and accused Islam of being a violent and totalitarian ideology. Religion, it seems, has no concept of irony. I say a ‘very real’ threat because his compatriots Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortyn have already paid the ultimate price for their criticism of Islam in the foregoing years. Ironically again, such protesters would surely agree with Wilders’ view, and be proud of it – violence in defence of Allah, they would surely claim, is no violence at all.
I have non-muslim friends who despise Wilders, and who are utterly uncritical of Islam, despite its treatment of women, homosexuals, not to mention its very dim view of many aspects of their own secular, Western lifestyle. I think it has become such a taboo to talk critically about Islam that many so-called liberals simply cannot see that not speaking out about certain parts of Islamic doctrine allows certain attitudes to flourish that they would otherwise claim to be against. I think the central issue is the confusion of religion/ideology with race.
Let me be clear: Islam is not a race. It is a belief system, with adherents from all races and countries. Yet, because most of its adherents are dark-skinned, they believe that to talk about Islam critically is to somehow be racist. Anyone who would criticise the religion that is followed by a lot of brown-skinned people must dislike brown-skinned people. Yet it remains fashionable for educated ‘liberals’ to mock Christianity without impunity, and even such ‘religions’ as Scientology. If L. Ron Hubbard had preached the hatred against gays that we hear from so many muslim clerics, he would have been attacked mercilessly for it (and rightly so). Yet when a muslim cleric does the same thing, it is either completely ignored, or explained away as extremism – which leads me neatly to my next point.
Religions are, by their very nature, extreme: they claim to have an intimate knowledge of the ultimate truths of the universe. They claim to have a direct line to the divine creator, and those who stand outside their group stand condemned for all eternity to hellfire – that’s quite extreme. I don’t plan to go into the philosophical absurdity of religion here (I think that should speak for itself) but, even if God existed, the odds of choosing the right god from all the thousands of them that have ever existed, is extremely small. Such small odds should not create such passionate certainty. Religions teach exclusivity and superiority of one group over another. There are many passages in the holy books that contradict the popular and misguided perception that they are all-loving and exclusively peaceful. This excellent documentary on British TV went undercover at the main mosque in London, and found some hateful teachings against non-muslims as mainstream doctrine.
I have showed this documentary to friends but, as ever, it was explained away as the work of a small number of extremists, even though it shows exactly the opposite. I don’t want to overplay the role of religion and the damage it can cause to Western societies (clearly the corrupt political and banking elites take first place on that front); but it warrants discussion, and there comes a point at which we have to confront the reality of that which is around us, no matter how uncomfortable it may be – the future of the freedoms we now take for granted may depend on it.
Tags: freedom of speech, Geert Wilders, Islam, religion, Wayne Sapp
