Islam vs Free Speech

I realize that's a provocative title -- or at least, someone will see it that way. But that's what free speech is about. (And it's not just Islamists -- see the update below.)

Here's an interesting story on the latest example of Islamists responding to exercises of untrammeled speech with firebombs. It seems obvious from some of the comments by Muslims that they just don't get it. Here's a shining example:

Anjem Choudary is a longtime critic of what he calls the blanket protection of free speech, especially when it offends Islam.

“I’m not going to blame people who are reacting towards provocation. I think we need to deal with the root cause of all of this problem which is people gratuitously attacking Islam and Muslims and we should learn the lessons of Salman Rushdie,” he says.

Just to make sure I heard him right, I asked Choudary if he was saying that the author’s life was in danger if she dared publish her book.

“I think certainly, you know there will be consequences for her,” he said, reading the shock on my face and adding: “Well, would you just prefer that I remain silent? And then someone just you know firebombed some more houses and some more publishing places and you find blood on the streets of London? Is that a wise thing to do? I think it’s better for us to come out and tell you ‘look, this is what the Islamic verdict is.’”

Choudary is trying to put himself in a positive position, but what he's doing is condoning violent reactions to open expression of ideas he disagrees with. He really doesn't put Muslims in a good light here with that final comment: the Islamic verdict seems to be that "they" (whoever they are in this case) are perfectly justified in killing you because they don't like what you said, and it will be your fault for saying it, not theirs for being repressive barbarians.

The more "moderate" stance expressed by another commentator is not much better:

Shelina Zahra is no opponent of free speech, she and her blog, www.spirit21.co.uk, thrive on the cut and thrust of earnest, intelligent debate. But she too has reservations about the tone and content of the book.

“I think the book raises the same big question again — where does freedom of speech end, and sheer good manners and etiquette begin? And it’s a conversation that is constantly at cross purposes, because the two shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. Muslims simply state generically, if we find it so upsetting, why do you keep publishing this stuff? Are you out deliberately to provoke?”

Zehra says although she has not read the entire book, it certainly falls short of scholarly pursuit. And she asks openly, what is the purpose of publishing such a work?

“I think Muslims are not saying anything about freedom of speech but actually legitimately calling a public debate on whether the concept of freedom of speech has blanket applicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion.” says Zehra.

The juxtaposition of "free speech" and "good manners and etiquette" as concepts here is much worse than apples and oranges. As you might imagine, I come down on the side of untrammeled free speech rights, save, as the American courts have developed the theory over the years, in cases of imminent threats to public order -- yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and incitements to violence.

Her last comment demonstrates that she really doesn't have any real understanding of what free speech, American style, is all about. The whole point is that free speech must be free -- not "no questions asked," as I noted, but absent a direct threat on the part of the speaker to public order, pretty much anything goes.

A democracy, which is where you're going to find free speech guarantees, is a messy kind of thing, and you need a thick skin to survive in it. Good manners and etiquette really have no place in this discussion -- yeah, it would be nice if everyone behaved themselves, but people don't always, and those are the people who most need the guarantees: nobody's going to try to shut you up if everyone agrees with you.

I'm also very aware that we seem to be dealing with a fundamental cultural difference, which may explain the attitudes expressed by these two Muslims. It's simply that Americans have a very different idea of social order and appropriate conduct than members of many other cultures: we are much less socialized in terms of putting group priorities ahead of those of individuals. It's an uneasy kind of mindset, I think, because biologically, we're social animals, so putting individual rights, as in free speech, ahead of manners and etiquette, which are, after all, the "grease" for squeaky social wheels, strikes many as bizarre. (As far as that goes, remember that we're still trying to find the balance points in a lot of areas.) Conversely, our reverence for the free expression of ideas, no matter how offensive they may be to others' sensibilities, strikes someone from another culture as socially destructive. I don't know that there's any meeting point here, although I might point out that social disapproval is the main regulator of expression: it's the "marketplace of ideas" in action, with the approval of one's community as the currency. I think, however, most Westerners would agree that social disapproval has to stop short of murder.

I'm sure there are Muslims who do get it -- I know there are. They probably don't want to say anything, though, for fear of being beheaded on video.

Do read the comments here, too -- they run the gamut of the positions I've outlined above, and are pretty interesting.

Update:

Andrew Sullivan points out a truth about free speech and dissent:

There is something very sick about a political movement that cannot tolerate the mildest of criticisms from within. American conservatism has stopped being a discourse or a tradition or a party. It has become a religion of sorts, and dissent - even on pragmatic grounds - is regarded as heresy.