IDEA 42
Freedom of Speech and its Limits (B)
“O king!” he said, “it is impossible, if no more than one opinion is uttered, to make choice of the best: a man is forced then to follow whatever advice may have been given him; but if opposite speeches are delivered, then choice can be exercised. In like manner pure gold is not recognised by itself; but when we test it along with baser ore, we perceive which is the better.” [Herodotus. The History, Book Seven, 10]
The Qur’an is described as Al-Furqan, the Criterion, Discriminator, or Divider, because it serves as the reference text for discriminating between truth and falsehood and dividing darkness in all its forms from the Light of GOD. That Light can be smothered and distorted, however. The history of Christianity is just one of many examples of how a dark and perverted doctrine, such as the Christian Trinity, can become embedded in people’s minds by various political events, constant repetition, and official enforcement to the point that a tripartite God can be seen as “pure gold.” The revelations brought by Musa (peace be upon him) and ‘Isa (peace be upon him) should have sufficed to dispel this gross offence against simple monotheism, but even those texts were gradually corrupted by the lure of scholarly innovation and institutional inertia. We can see that there is no sure defence against falsehood, even when the choice of alternate opinions is relatively free.
Slander poses the same kind of problem at a more granular level. One man’s malicious defamation can be another man’s courageous exposure of malfeasance in public office or a brave investigation of corporate crime. The variables in any case of slander are great in number and hard to define. No wonder, then, that only the most obvious infamy, namely the act of adultery in a community of believers founded on trust between and within families, is mentioned in the Qur’an and assigned a clear set of evidentiary criteria. Failing that, publicizing such an act is regarded as slander, and is severely punished for being nearly as dangerous to communal harmony as the act of adultery itself. We may infer from this that slander in general is indeed actionable on the basis of reputational harm, but that the evidence must be of high and indubitable quality before the defamed party can be considered guilty. Lacking such evidence, the slanderer is liable to be penalized.
More generally, offensive speech is frequently condemned in the Qur’an, but no set penalties have been prescribed for it. The first Muslim community in Madinah had to deal with a constant swirl of rumours, innuendo, malicious lies, verbal abuse, semantic tricks, and hypocrisy. The only consistent answer to all of this was to identify it, condemn it, endure its presence, and work to replace it with good speech (Q33:70) and beautiful admonishment (Q16:125).
The early Muslims had to practise the art of intelligently discriminating between destructive speech, on the one hand, and productive speech, on the other. They were not advised to censor or repress what was being said; the Prophet (may GOD bless him and give him peace) had not been accorded the degree of control that would enable the Muslims to do so, nor is there any indication in the sacred literature that he desired such control. The focus, rather, was on working on the root causes of malign speech through calls to faith, GOD-wariness (taqwa), mutual support, and good deeds — cultivating hearts and minds that would produce positive expressions. With a few notable exceptions, such as accusations of adultery, the best way to deal with offensive speech was to counteract it by ‘enjoining what was accepted and prohibiting the unacceptable’ (al-amru bil-ma’rufi wan-nahyi ‘anil-munkar). Rather than seeking the lazy way of violence or suppression to minimize offensive speech, the Muslim community was expected to develop the tools it would need to confront and conquer offensive speech by dispelling the bad with what is better (Q23:96).
This kind of soft power is far more effective in minimizing offensive speech than government control or top-down censorship because it engages the most important faculties of the human being, namely intelligence and compassion, in a manner similar to holistic medicine. It recognizes that offensive speech is produced by warped minds and diseased hearts (if it truly is offensive, that is), and that driving it underground, as it were, serves only to produce new symptoms in different forms while leaving the offending soul unconvinced and resentful. Over time, decades or even centuries, the habit of condemnation and suppression instead of dialogue and persuasion has coarsened the minds and hearts of Muslim communities and made them quick to judge, biased, and intolerant. We see today how religion has become a matter of taking commands and stilling one’s inner voice, of accepting the repeated demand that one sit down, shut up, and trust the leaders.
There are times, of course, when arguments and discussion can go on for too long, when We hear and we obey (Q2:285) is the best choice. A wise leader, someone who knows the real benefits of a fair and open exchange of ideas, knows also that not every occasion is suitable for its deployment. When people not used to rational debate are first given the freedom to express themselves openly, their lack of experience with such freedom is taken by them as an opportunity to indulge their stunted opinions and unquestioned beliefs. They never had a chance to practise out in the open when they were young, and suppression left them stewing in the half-cooked, malodorous broth of ideas that never saw the light of frank, respectful controversy.
This subject requires a rather more detailed treatment in a different format, and to that end I plan to write an essay entitled Speech, to be published on the http://www.academia.edu website.
Download the PDF version for free at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’ān – Mont Redmond complete version, or purchase a hard copy at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’an: Redmond, Mont: 9781738842506: Books – Amazo
