A
few years ago I had the pleasure of heading up a multi-national team looking at
issues relating to HIV-AIDS in Swaziland, a small country in Southern Africa.
One of the team members was a Civil Engineer from Nigeria and we became friends
as well as colleagues. As the Project concluded, he returned to his duties
teaching at a university in Nigeria but we have remained in contact through the
marvel of the Internet.
Last
week he sent me a Press Release that he had received from a Nigerian group:
Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC). titled: ANTI-ISLAM FILM: CRIMINALIZE
BLASPHEMY.
The
group’s web-site notes: Our motto is "Dialogue, Not Violence". We
therefore employ peaceful means to resolve conflicts affecting Muslims”. I
must say that the tone of the Press Release and the overview of their site
appears to bear this out.
What
follows is my response. I know it is long but in this instance necessarily so.
We live in troubled times and as such our dialogue must be well thought-out and
equally important, presented, as this one is, not only as an informative piece
but one supported by established principles. Such my was attempt.
Your comments or criticisms are, as always, welcome.
Thomas
Ignatius Hayes
My Dear Friend Abdul Hakeem:
I carefully read (several times) the Press Release you sent and
rather than send a quick and not-well thought out response, I waited for the
weekend to compose and offer the following comments.
Let me first say categorically that the “film” in question is an
abomination. However, it is not even a film, merely a trailer that was dubbed
from English to Arabic (with totally different dialogue) and introduced to the
world through social media (You-tube). This is hardly a professional enterprise
and yet it has sparked such terrible reactions.
·
No one that I know of had
ever heard of this “film” before the trailer was released on You Tube. To the
best of my knowledge the entire film has not been released and probably will
not be.
·
From what I have
understood, the “actors”, none of whom spoke any Arabic, were give other lines
to say and the horrible words that caused so much upset were dubbed in by
people (assumingly the producer) to elicit the type of reaction that the entire
world has seen.
·
I can assure you that until
the trailer was shown on Egyptian TV, neither I nor anyone I know or have ever
heard of had seen or known about the film.
·
I applaud the condemnation
by MURIC of the violent demonstrations and destruction of property that
occurred.
·
There are millions of
practicing Muslims in America and there was (to my understanding) no violent
or otherwise over-reaction to this clearly provocative and unprofessional video.
I agree with the presented sentiments that 100% that the world in general finds itself caught between Muslim fanatics and Western
extremists. I wrote a blog some
years ago about political extremism in US politics and how, after much debate
and way too many speeches, we always reject far right and far left views and
vote towards the center position.
Rather than boor you with the entire essay,
the conclusion I drew is as follows:
Somewhere we have to remind
ourselves that we are, for the most part, a centrist Republic and we can leave
broad swings right and left to France and Italy and maybe sometimes to local
elections but not in one that counts towards public policy and protection of
the Constitution in the spirit that was intended by the founders.
I know that is not
applicable to the instant reaction of the rioters and protesters but I truly
believe that given the chance, the vast majority of people in our world,
irrespective of nationality, religion, language, social status, etc., would
lean towards the middle ground just like the pendulum of a clock or the clapper
in a bell. Sooner or later they stop and it is always in the middle.
·
As your submission
continues, it is stated:
“We strongly believe that blasphemy against any religion must be
criminalized to serve as deterrent against potential blasphemers.
This mandates some comments on my part and especially as pertains
to America and its Constitution and Bill of Rights. It must be remembered that
America was not just a former English colony. Rather it was a haven from its
very beginning for those individuals seeking refuge from harsh persecution, from
religious intolerance, denial of free speech, and the denial of basic human rights so
well stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.”
·
Mr. Jefferson’s philosophy was in part the basis for the
Constitution and Bill of Rights, the founding documents of the United States, precepts that have been maintained since their adoption more than a quarter-century ago.
The First component of the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits:
The making of any laws:
o
respecting an establishment
of religion,
o
impeding the free
exercise of religion,
o
abridging the
freedom of speech,
o
infringing on the freedom
of the press,
o
interfering with the
right to peaceably assemble, or,
o
prohibiting the petitioning for a
governmental redress of grievances.
·
As such, the first is notable as it prohibits the mandating of
a single religion for the country and the second goes further and allows for
the people in America to practice whatever religion they wish.
That was and remains one of the unique components of American life.
We have Mosques, Synagogues and Christian Churches of many denominations
equally protected under the law and no\ne of which can become the state
religion. Muslims in America (and there are many and some very well known)
enjoy all the freedoms that are provided to any other American, be they Jewish,
Protestant, Catholic or even atheistic. In America, no one, citizen, immigrant
or visitor has to risk punishment for attending whatever religious service he
prefers.
This is far different than, for example, in Saudi Arabia where I
lived many years ago where not only were there no churches, but even the
mention of the word Christmas was punishable. Attending Mass was prohibited by
law and when I violated that law by going to Mass at the Irish Embassy I knew
the risk. This was usually at the hands of the mutaween (المطوعين، مطوعجية)
the government-authorized or government-recognized religious police. I felt
their lash on my legs more than once.
It is interesting that their title translates as “pious man” yet we
remember the terrible incident in March 2002, when they prevented schoolgirls
from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls were not wearing
headscarves and abayas and not accompanied by a male guardian. Fifteen girls
died. Again, extremism on its own merit or lack thereof should not be
acceptable to our human conscience whether in Saudi or in America.
·
The third component, Freedom of Speech, is difficult for people
outside (and sometimes inside) America to fully understand. For example: the
Flag of the United States is the most respected symbol of the country. There
are rules for “flag etiquette” and provisions even made for how worn-out or
damaged flags are to be reverentially disposed-of.
Yet even so, the right to burn the American Flag even by American
nationals has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being a component of Free
Speech. I agree with what you must be thinking. It is on the surface
irrational. Sadly, so has the right to protest at burials of returning soldiers
from wars. As awful as this sounds, it is a critical component of our history
and custom and the cornerstone of our free society.
Many times it is hard for most Americans to accept some of the
implications of free-speech and there are exceptions. The most obvious is to
shout “Fire!” or some other warning in a crowded place to cause panic.
Perhaps, just perhaps, purposefully making a film or even other
similar actions to cause a reaction that not unexpectedly would lead to
violence can be viewed in the same terms as shouting “Fire!” in a theatre.
That is for our Supreme Court to decide for that is how our
Constitution works. I am not alone in hoping that any action that is designed
to incite violence and mayhem should be held to the same standard.
In America there are existing laws for slander and libel (spoken
vs. written) speech, many of which have their precedence in English Common Law.
I am not an attorney but I do not believe there are such laws for blasphemy.
Perhaps you think there should be and that is the logical and understandable
answer. But if we remember the Freedom of Religion clause coupled with Free
Speech, it is clear why no such law has been passed, at least has not in 225
years of American government.
·
Next we come to Freedom of the Press. This is entwined with Freedom
of Speech but also is notable as unlike many other countries, there is no
official or even un-official government news publication. There are media
outlets with a bias towards the left or the right but again, that is there privilege.
During election times, the editor of a newspaper can openly recommend against
voting for the incumbent President or Senator or anyone else without fear of retribution.
·
The right to assemble has interesting consequences. The best
remembered are when a town in Illinois that was home for the largest number of
concentration camp survivors, was targeted as a place for a march by the
American Nazi Party, replete with swastikas and uniforms. The Supreme Court
upheld their right to march under the terms of this clause in the Bill of
Rights – with the caveat that it be “peaceful”. It was and is now a little
remembered piece of history and, I believe, a credit to the consistency of the
Constitution and its application by the courts.
·
And the last of the clauses in the First Amendment, the right to governmental
redress of grievances. We have marches in front of the White House and other government
buildings every day of every year. Some are silly and some are serious but all
are allowed. We could and did protest the draft and the Vietnam War in the 70’s; or the
right of African Americans to vote in the 60’s or women in the 20’s. All peaceful protests
are legal and interesting were legal more than a hundred years before Gandhi
and certainly before Dr. King who both called for nonviolent protests.
Is the American
system perfect? Of course not. Nothing that is man-made is. Remember that our Constitution
upheld slavery and denied citizenship for such people for 70 yerars. Further to that, the Supreme Court, even as late as the 1850’s
denied even basic human rights to people held in bondage. It took a terrible Civil War to change that.
There are other
instances that parallel changes over the years such as the right of women to
vote, to declare once and for all by a constitutional amendment that all people
born in this country are citizens and further that all citizens, whether born
here or naturalized after coming to America, are equal under the law. That is
something that is unique to America.
I remember living in
England for 12 years and holding a position of some public prominence but never
saw myself as being a real part of the country. I was told that the difference
between the US and UK was that America was a country of immigrants; the UK is a
country with immigrants. Interesting difference.
·
And finally, your Press
Release also stated: The West must
unleash some control mechanism on the “advocatus diabolic” within its system.
We will hold the West responsible for the recklessness of its citizens until
this is done.”
First, look at the meaning of the Latin phrase Advocatus Diabolic: “Devil’s Advocate”. It is a Christian term that
is the antonym of Advocatus Dei, or
“God’s Advocate”. Rather than actual human titles, the terms represent a
metaphor indicative of the conflicting sides of human behavior, that is, that all
people are pulled in both ways by the forces of good and the forces of evil. I
would not at all be surprised if similar sentiments were to be found in the
Holy Koran.
The point I am making is that there is nothing that I can envisage,
nothing of course other than the power of God, of Allah, that has the supremacy
to control the actions of the Devil or of the evil that we see in this world. We
men are not only servants of God but we are also his chosen instruments to
fight evil on His behalf.
The question for you is how Allah would wish us to act in his name. Is it
violence or hatred? We are taught that God is love, pure love, and if we
believe that, then how can violence and wars be in his name? That question my friend has been asked over
the millennia. It has also been prayed over so let us agree to do just that:
pray to the One who has made all of us and who gave to us an intellect and a
free-will that allows us to determine right from wrong.
I thank you for
sending me this Press Release as it has made me think deeply and that is always
good. I hope that my very human way of trying to explain what is a very complex
process can, hopefully, bring our two outlooks closer.
Edmund Burke, the
famous political philosopher in England hundreds of years ago wrote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of
evil is that good men do nothing”.
I have every confidence
that your sending the Press Release and my response represent at the very least
“our doing something”.
With warm regards,
Thomas
