THE ‘ERA OF FREEDOM’
‘The Times of India’ (February 28, 1989, Section 2) published an article by British journalist Edward Mortimer, which is partially reproduced below.
‘The Rushdie Affair Directly Threatens the ‘Free World’
We find ourselves caught up in a religious War, a war of ideas... Their (British people) reaction arouses no less passionate feelings of outrage in us because it is equally offensive to our religion. By “our religion”, I do not mean Christianity. The Christian establishment is, in fact, very awkwardly placed in this affair: it disapproves strongly of incitement to murder but feels some sympathy with the Muslim demand for censorship of “blasphemy”. However, Christianity is no longer the religion of Britain in the sense that Islam is the religion of Iran. It is not Christianity that binds us together as a community because we have long since given up trying to impose religious uniformity on ourselves or to exclude unbelievers and members of other faiths from full participation in our national life. The religion of this country and of the “Free World” to which it belongs is, precisely, freedom. Its founding fathers are Locke, Voltaire, Burke, Wilkes, and Tom Paine, the authors of the American Constitution and the La Déclaration des droits de l’Homme. Unlike Iranians, we are brought up to think it primitive to fight over metaphysical beliefs but to think of fighting for freedom as something admirable. Of course, like other peoples, we practise this religion imperfectly, and not everyone takes it as seriously as journalists, the self-appointed priests or mullahs of the cult. But the idea of sentencing a writer to death for what he wrote is just as offensive to modern Western sensibilities as the idea that Christ might have liked to make love to Mary Magdalene or that the Prophet might occasionally have listened to Satan is to traditional Christian or Muslim ones.” (By arrangement with The Financial Times)
Here is a summary of Edward Mortimer’s perspective: According to the author, the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie’s work has sparked a religious war, a conflict of ideas. The reaction of the British people evokes intense feelings of outrage because it is equally offensive to their own religion. However, the author clarifies that when referring to “our religion,” it is not Christianity. The Christian establishment finds itself in an uncomfortable position regarding this affair. While it strongly disapproves of incitement to murder, it holds some sympathy for the Muslim demand for censorship of “blasphemy.”
In Britain, Christianity is no longer the binding religion of the country, as Islam is the religion of Iran. The sense of religious unity and exclusion of non-believers or followers of other faiths in national life is a thing of the past. Instead, the religion of Britain and the broader “free world” is “freedom.” The foundations of this religion can be attributed to figures such as Locke, Voltaire, Burke, Wilkes, and Tom Paine, the authors of the American Constitution and the La Déclaration des droits de l’Homme.
Unlike Iranians, the British are taught to consider it primitive to engage in conflicts over metaphysical beliefs and to view the pursuit of freedom as something admirable. While this religion of freedom is not practiced perfectly by all, and not everyone takes it as seriously as journalists who have assumed the role of priests or mullahs of the cult, the idea of sentencing a writer to death for his words is just as offensive to modern Western sensibilities as the notion of Christ being romantically involved with Mary Magdalene or the Prophet occasionally listening to Satan is to traditional Christian or Muslim beliefs.
The statement made by Edward Mortimer, as quoted above, is entirely accurate. The uproar caused by ignorant Muslims in the case of Salman Rushdie is indeed the reason behind the strong reaction from the West. However, it is incorrect to label the Western attitude in this matter as anti-Islamic or a conspiracy against Islam.
While it is not of any benefit to label such issues as “anti- Islamic” on the part of the West, the harm that arises from such public outcry is certain. Engaging in anti-West activities will only breed hatred and a desire for revenge in the hearts of the Muslims.
To effectively communicate the peaceful message of Islam, a state of normalcy and goodwill between the communicator and the audience is essential. Unfortunately, these harmful activities have resulted in animosity between Muslims and people from other nations rather than fostering goodwill.
Although the concept of absolute freedom may initially seem contradictory to Islam, a deeper examination reveals that it is favourable to Islam. This is because the modern revolution that prioritizes freedom has, for the first time in human history, created a global environment where the doors for introducing Islam to people have been widely opened. Freedom generates opportunities; therefore, the greater the freedom in the world, the more opportunities for Muslims to call people to God. Opening the door to peaceful endeavours is akin to opening the door to various divine blessings.
In ancient times, the recognition of freedom of expression was lacking, making it challenging to convey God’s message freely due to religious persecution. However, the modern era has established freedom of expression as an absolute right. Consequently, it is only in this modern age that there are no barriers to openly communicating God’s message to humanity.
This modern revolution, as highlighted by Edward Mortimer in his article, is a result of the concept of freedom. Freedom of expression grants individuals the ability to express their thoughts freely—an unprecedented development in human history. Freedom of thought and expression have become inherent and inviolable rights.
However, this freedom should apply to everyone, not solely limited to Muslims. To enjoy complete freedom for oneself, one must grant the same liberty to others. The world operates as a two-way traffic system; one cannot expect privileges without affording them to others. Just as one needs to provide opportunities to others on the road to drive their cars, similarly one cannot have opportunities for oneself without allowing them for others.
While there should be a code of conduct governing this “traffic,” it can only be implemented in matters that pertain to everyone. It cannot be enforced in issues that concern specific individuals or communities. The principles guiding this code should aim at fulfilling general needs rather than the needs of particular individuals or communities. Applying a universal rule to an individual or group is impractical. Therefore, even if a ruler, driven by a desire to bring about reform among their people, implements laws that favour one group or community while discriminating against others, they can never succeed. Such laws will remain mere words on paper.
An example of this is seen in Salman Rushdie’s book. The controversial publication was banned in India and Pakistan. However, illegal editions continue to circulate in both countries, with the only difference being that the book is now available through the black market instead of the open market. Despite the legal ban, imposing an absolute prohibition on the book was impossible.
Democratic countries grant their citizens the right to free trade. This freedom has allowed traders in various commodities, such as clothing, shoes, and grains, to make substantial profits by establishing commercial enterprises. However, it has also resulted in the existence of illicit goods like alcohol being sold openly. Yet, millions of Muslims are taking advantage of this environment of free trade, benefiting their families and national institutions by earning a profit. No Muslim has refrained from benefiting from this freedom simply because it has also enabled the trade of alcohol.
In matters of personal interests, Muslims have practiced this wisdom. However, when it comes to communal matters, they immediately demand the closure of liquor stores before engaging in trade. They assert that they will not take advantage of the freedom of trade until all such unIslamic activities are prohibited.
The Hudaybiyyah Treaty serves as an example in this context. It was a 10-year peace agreement, and the Prophet sought to ensure that the opposing party would honour the peace clause during that period, refraining from attacking him or his allied tribes. Therefore, he first committed not attacking the opposing side or its allied tribes. Despite being on the path of justice according to God’s testimony, while the other party was on the path of injustice, the Prophet obtained this right from the other party only by agreeing to grant it to them.
Another aspect to consider is that since freedom is available to everyone, it will inevitably result in some individuals misusing it. For instance, there will be those who unnecessarily criticize Islam or publish books that Muslims find insulting to their faith. However, Muslims should place their trust in the invincible truth of Islam rather than relying solely on the legal system. Why should trivial matters cause fear when Islam itself stands as an absolute truth?
If Muslims were aware of the invincible truth of Islam, they would effectively counter the arguments of their opponents with stronger and more compelling reasoning. They would respond to arguments with powerful counterarguments. However, in contemporary times, Muslims tend to take great pride in the cultural aspects of their religion while lacking rational arguments to address the religious misunderstandings of others effectively. Instead of providing sound, logical arguments, they often become angry when the Prophet is insulted. In this regard, Muslims should focus on addressing their own shortcomings rather than reacting with anger towards others. They fail to realize that their reactive behaviour is tarnishing the reputation of Islam.
Muslims strongly react against figures like Rushdie, citing the protection of the honour of the Holy Prophet as their motive. However, their efforts are futile if their reactions genuinely aim to protect the Prophet’s honour.
Swami Shardhananda, the founder of the Shuddhi movement in India, authored a book called “Rangeela Rasool,” which sparked a strong Muslim protest in the Indian subcontinent. They considered the book highly insulting to the honour and greatness of the Prophet of Islam. Tragically, in December 1926, Swami Shardhananda was assassinated by a Muslim youth named Abdul Rashid. His widowed mother, however, willingly allowed her only son to be sacrificed in an attempt to save the honour of the Prophet.
Despite this extreme step to protect the Prophet’s honour, the desired goal has not been achieved. Following his assassination, Swami Shardhananda became a national hero in India, gaining the status of a “martyr.” When India gained independence in 1947, a tall statue of Swami Shardhananda was erected at Chandni Chowk, a major intersection in the Indian capital, New Delhi.
The truth is that such actions can only be described as meaningless acts of self-sacrifice in the name of the Prophet’s honour rather than being seen as efforts to save his honour. Despite their claims, these activities have no connection to true sacrifice for the Prophet’s honour. They are simply acts of foolishness devoid of reason or basis in Islam.
Due to their defeatist mentality, Muslims are easily provoked by people’s negative comments and tend to retaliate. However, others do not hold the same level of sensitivity towards their own religions as Muslims have developed. As a result, when Muslims express harsh words about their faith, they are often disregarded. Yet, when non-Muslims utter offensive words against Islam, Muslims quickly become infuriated. Since others do not react to Muslims’ words, Muslims subconsciously believe they do not say anything negative about others while others continue to speak against them. However, this perception is untrue. The reality is that while others remain unperturbed and do not retaliate, Muslims are quick to lose their composure and respond in kind.
To illustrate this point, let us consider the example of Ahmed Deedat (d. 2005), an Indian-origin South African Muslim author and orator on Comparative Religion, who engaged in debates against other religions and published literature based on confrontational models, often employing strong language. An instance of his language can be seen in interviews published in his English bulletin, Al-Burhan (December 1988). In response to a question mentioning various religions, he used the harsh words, “Bulldoze them all” (Al-Burhan, December 1988, p.3).
Muslims highly appreciate the words of speakers like Ahmad Deedat and often express their admiration through applause. However, when others use similar language to criticize Islam, Muslims become angry. For instance, if someone were to say “bulldoze Islam and Muslims” in India, it would undoubtedly enrage Muslims and potentially spark a violent campaign against him. Such a double standard is not viable in today’s world.
Muslims must comprehend that they are being tested in this world. Consequently, God has granted absolute freedom to everyone. Therefore, Muslims should also extend the freedom they enjoy to others. In reality, by failing to recognize the rights of others to freedom, Muslims cannot deprive them of the freedom granted by societal norms and by God Himself. Nonetheless, by reacting in an unwarranted and un-Islamic manner, Muslims continue to provide reasons for people to ridicule Islam and Muslims.
A Muslim should be the strongest advocate and supporter of freedom of expression because the free exchange of thoughts facilitates their peaceful mission of spreading the word of God to all of humanity.
