Hicham Maged’s blog

I’ve been following the controversial regarding the case of “Freedom of Speech” and found it really interesting yet something vital is missing. Well, the concept can be summarised into the following statement: “No one should be persecuted for his/her opinion regarding whatever as we are free to criticise and offend others.”

Okay! What about defining “freedom” at first? I’ve modelled freedom before, over I-MAG, as a bird that has two wings, and flies within a certain medium, heading towards a final destination. Let me elaborate more on the terminology mentioned up:

• The two wings are sense and responsibly.
• The medium is the freewill of the people, and;
• The destination is the welfare of a certain community on the minor scale, and thus humanity on the major one.

Hence freedom itself isn’t the ultimate goal; rather it’s the right and righteous path for reaching such destination. Nevertheless, the critical point that has been fogged during such controversial is that criticising people’s acts is totally different from offending them in terms of what they believe in, regardless the race and religion.

Having said this, I do believe, as a Muslim, that neither inspecting the belief nor judging people’s intention is my ultimate business; it’s none. We should rather be concerned only about the acts, which are the practised actions that either can be right or wrong. Yet only the awareness of the civil society is capable of filtering the right acts from the wrong ones and this should be broadened and not suppressed.

Consequently, this explains why I criticised Slaman Rushdi’s Satanic Verses, Jyllands-Posten’s Muhammad Cartoons, Greet Wilders’ Fitna and stuff that not merely flux wrong acts committed by some Muslims with the ideology of Islam, but mainly portray this as ‘Islam’ and ‘Muhammad’, which make me always wonders why? And why people are only highlighting on this side and don’t shed lights over the other one?

The other side stats that the revelation of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) from Allah Almighty to Mankind is simply for urbanising Earth, such urbanisation require integration of people, and the Qur’an mentioned that:

There is no compulsion in religion [2:256]

In the light of this, my criticism for terrorism is harder, regardless whoever committed; not merely because being illegal act against people but mainly because this reflects the barrenness to produce effective opinions and thus they used a short-cut: kill them all! OOPS! How about that Islam denies that concept as it contradicts with its mission statement if I can use such term!

Woah! It’s neither Islam nor Muhammad’s fault then; rather it is ignorance. For that matter, I feel sorrow for those who are committing not only the generalising sin but also the mix sin between applications and ideologies, which is much bitter, as I mentioned in my published articles over I-MAG before.

Related Posts

• Fitna for Whom

Related Sites

• I-MAG Magazine + My English Portal

[image source]

bookmark

(5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5)

 Loading ...