Here’s Sdr BH’s [author's name removed] reply to my email response to him:
[Email removed upon the request of the author. My reply remains below.]
Well, instead of just sending emails back and forth, I think it’s better for us to discuss openly about this concept of qualified freedom of speech.
I may not agree with Dato’ Ahmad Ismail calling non-Malays “kaum pendatang”, but I respect his right to say it. Similarly, he ought to respect my right to call him a bigot and a racist.
No matter how difficult it is to accept what others have to say, we must always respect their right to say it. We don’t have to respect the person, the organisation or even their point of view, we just have to respect their right to express it. As Voltaire, a French philosopher, once said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Similarly, Sdr BH [author's name removed], I do not agree with what you’re saying but I’m more than happy to publish what you’ve got to say on my blog.
On another point, I think we should really question the restrictions on who “qualifies” to study, analyse and discuss principles of religions, or philosophies for that matter. Are religious principles sacrosanct and “lay people” should be prohibited from espousing their views about them? If that is so, then philosophical principles ought not be discussed by any “lay people” except so-called qualified philosophers, too.
I’m sorry but this reminds me too much of the Roman Catholic Church that had a monopoly on God in the middle ages. In those days, lay people were not able to read the scriptures and think for themselves what those scriptures meant. Indeed, they had to literally buy penance from priests. Thankfully, there were reformists like Martin Luther that reformed Christianity.
Similarly, there was a progressive Islamic thinker by the name of Mahmoud Mohamed Taha that took a different approach towards Islam. Unfortunately, he was executed by the Sudanese government for heresy. For a living example of a progressive Islamic thinker, google Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im (or just click on his name to read the entry on Wikipedia).
By the way, justice is for all, and I don’t think there’s a need to specify any race or religion.
Jonson, I agree. All of us have a right to articulate our views. If a person’s faith is strong, and he has full confidence in his beliefs, no amount of criticism will rile him. People who react violently to opinions contrary to theirs often do so due to a deep sense of insecurity.
Thanks for sharing, Alice. That probably explains why BH asked me to remove his emails from my blog.
[...] Engaging a Muslim on Islam & the Freedom of Expression 2 [...]
nice post i agree you.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Hmm… but does that give a man the right to lie in public and spread falsehood? Surely there is a limit. One should defend differences in opinions and condemn falsehoods. But then again, one might argue the difference between a lie and an opinion is often times a matter of interpretation. That is why we have lawyers.
Dear Poli, there are laws against defamation and false publication of news. And, yes, that’s what lawyers are for. However, if someone is really stupid and bigoted, then they are entitled to share their opinion and show the whole world how stupid and bigoted they are. Our best defence is to use our intelligence (better yet, our wisdom) to counter what they say, NOT to use force or violence to stop him or her from saying what he or she believes. Peace, Jonson