Khan: A Western Muslim on Free Speech, Tolerance and the Offensive 'Toons
Amna J. Khan, op-ed columnist
Issue date: 3/6/06 Section: Opinion
I applauded the decision of the European boycott initiated by some Arab countries over the cartoons on Muhammad. They served as a powerful means in drawing attention to the irritation of the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the boycotts turned violent. The uncessary violence notwithstanding, I was still distressed by the cartoons that caused all of this.
I'm frustrated once again by the response of the West. Here was an excellent opportunity for us to try to understand what drew thousands to furious protests in many countries. Instead headlines screamed of the increasing chasm between the West and the Muslim world.
The issue of free speech was thrown in to justify the cartoons. Free speech is an ideal, and like other ideals, is difficult to define clearly. Free speech is understood by most as the freedom to say whatever you want about whomever you want in whatever way you like - without restrictions. This stance leads to problems. Under the umbrella of free speech, I can yell out comments that are racially insensitive, propagate remarks that incite hatred, and in the process, pit different groups of society against each other.
The argument becomes that free speech, as a right, is to be enjoyed until one abuses it. But that just raises more questions: what actions constitute abuse of free speech? Who defines what the abuse is? Where do you draw the line? The answers to these questions are relative, based upon one's biases and perceptions. What I find abusive, you argue is your right; what you categorize as abusive, I claim is my right.
The argument then continues that free speech is essential to democracy. It is free speech that ensures that if ever those we have elected in power abuse it, we can, without fear, publish our views against them. Free speech revives political discussions crucial to the growth of democracy. It allows those disadvantaged minorities fighting for their cause to be heard as they spread awareness of their plight. Free speech guarantees that the oppressed can speak against their oppressors without fear of reprisal. Free speech is vital to democracy because it reinforces what democracy is: power of the people.
But learning to tolerate each other despite ethnic, racial, and religious differences is also necessary. Tolerance is just as essential to the strength of democracy as all of the other freedoms we enjoy. Tolerating others does not mean that there are limits to free speech. Free speech demands great prudence and responsibility when being executed.
So what purpose did drawing those cartoons serve? The depictions in the cartoons were insulting, as they seemed to equate Muhammad, and thus Islam, with terrorism. Given how volatile the political situation is in the world today, especially in the Muslim world, what possessed them to pursue such actions? For those Muslims who harbor anger towards the West for its actions against Muslim countries, these cartoons only reinforced their view that the West is against them and their faith.
I do not condone the violence. I strongly condemn it. At the same time, I think the editors should have been more prudent. The West's blatant hypocrisy makes it difficult for me to accept free speech as a justification for the cartoons. Perhaps it is my position in society that causes me to take this stance.
As a Western Muslim, I am often forced to see such situations from more than one angle. Usually, I can understand the viewpoints of both sides. This time, I cannot.
Columnist Amna J. Khan is an NCAS chemistry major.
I'm frustrated once again by the response of the West. Here was an excellent opportunity for us to try to understand what drew thousands to furious protests in many countries. Instead headlines screamed of the increasing chasm between the West and the Muslim world.
The issue of free speech was thrown in to justify the cartoons. Free speech is an ideal, and like other ideals, is difficult to define clearly. Free speech is understood by most as the freedom to say whatever you want about whomever you want in whatever way you like - without restrictions. This stance leads to problems. Under the umbrella of free speech, I can yell out comments that are racially insensitive, propagate remarks that incite hatred, and in the process, pit different groups of society against each other.
The argument becomes that free speech, as a right, is to be enjoyed until one abuses it. But that just raises more questions: what actions constitute abuse of free speech? Who defines what the abuse is? Where do you draw the line? The answers to these questions are relative, based upon one's biases and perceptions. What I find abusive, you argue is your right; what you categorize as abusive, I claim is my right.
The argument then continues that free speech is essential to democracy. It is free speech that ensures that if ever those we have elected in power abuse it, we can, without fear, publish our views against them. Free speech revives political discussions crucial to the growth of democracy. It allows those disadvantaged minorities fighting for their cause to be heard as they spread awareness of their plight. Free speech guarantees that the oppressed can speak against their oppressors without fear of reprisal. Free speech is vital to democracy because it reinforces what democracy is: power of the people.
But learning to tolerate each other despite ethnic, racial, and religious differences is also necessary. Tolerance is just as essential to the strength of democracy as all of the other freedoms we enjoy. Tolerating others does not mean that there are limits to free speech. Free speech demands great prudence and responsibility when being executed.
So what purpose did drawing those cartoons serve? The depictions in the cartoons were insulting, as they seemed to equate Muhammad, and thus Islam, with terrorism. Given how volatile the political situation is in the world today, especially in the Muslim world, what possessed them to pursue such actions? For those Muslims who harbor anger towards the West for its actions against Muslim countries, these cartoons only reinforced their view that the West is against them and their faith.
I do not condone the violence. I strongly condemn it. At the same time, I think the editors should have been more prudent. The West's blatant hypocrisy makes it difficult for me to accept free speech as a justification for the cartoons. Perhaps it is my position in society that causes me to take this stance.
As a Western Muslim, I am often forced to see such situations from more than one angle. Usually, I can understand the viewpoints of both sides. This time, I cannot.
Columnist Amna J. Khan is an NCAS chemistry major.