Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 3 2013
Hate speech and respect for the sacred
by Ali Ã`nal*
Illustration: Cem KızıltuÄ?
3 November 2013 /
I should first note that the definition of hate speech as a crime in
the recently announced democratization package and the Journalists and
Writers Foundation's (GYV) attention to respect for the sacred are two
major important steps.
They are proper moves because, unfortunately, these issues attract
little attention in our country. They are proper because one of our
weaknesses as human beings is to vacillate between extremes and to
fail to achieve balance.
According to my brief research, a hate crime is defined in the
criminal codes of Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the
US. Belgium has defined hate crimes most broadly; the criminal code of
this country refers to gender, race, color, family, national or ethnic
origin, sexual orientation, marriage status, birth, wealth, age,
religious or philosophical beliefs, health and illness as well as
physical aspects as elements and sources of a hate crime.
There is no consensus among states on the definition of a hate crime.
The blurred line between hate speech and a hate crime poses serious
challenges regarding how to draw the line between hate speech and
speech protected by freedom of expression, as well as the line between
and hate speech and respect for the sacred. For instance, in the US,
religious institutions are opposed to the expansion of the scope of
hate crime laws to include homosexuals, arguing that religious
officials would be unable to express their opinions on and religious
approaches to homosexuality. The US is one of the countries where hate
speech and hate crime are most frequently discussed. The FBI reported
8,208 hate crimes in 2008; 48 percent of them involved racial
differences. Seventy percent of these racially motivated crimes were
committed against black people, while the remainder targeted
Hispanics, Jews, Muslims and whites. Sixty-five percent of the
perpetrators were white, 15 percent Hispanic and 13 percent African
American.
Actions that are motivated by prejudice
Why am I giving these figures? Because the hate crimes reported in the
US reveal that Muslims have committed no such crimes in that country.
As a Muslim, I am opposed to hate speech and favor a comprehensive law
on this matter. And I would also hope that such a law would help some
Muslims in our country correct their attitudes as well.
The commonly accepted definition of hate speech and hate crimes is
action motivated by prejudice. The main point of departure in the
adoption of such laws is racial hatred; in other words, this law and
its discourse are focused on attacks made against a person because of
his or her identification with a race and/or social group. For this
reason, these crimes are referred to as racially motivated crimes in
the West. Social groups include racial groups, religious groups,
groups with different sexual orientations, ethnic groups and gender
groups.
In addition, these laws provide protection from hate speech targeting
physical appearance, language, color, family and age. In order for an
act to qualify as a hate crime, intimidation, assault, verbal or
physical abuse, aggressive letters, graffiti, emails or killing
motivated by discriminatory beliefs is sought in the action.
Defining hate speech and crimes and identifying the distance between
these acts and respect for the sacred is not difficult for Islam.
There is one obvious fact in our lives. One aspect of our lives
depends on our will and the other is totally irrelevant to it. We
cannot choose the place and date of our birth or death, our parents,
our color, our race, our physical characteristics or our gender.
Therefore, these characteristics can be neither idealized nor used as
the basis of discrimination. One cannot denigrate people because of
these aspects and characteristics, nor can they be praised as evidence
of superiority. For this reason, a human being cannot be subjected to
hate speech because of any of these characteristics, and insulting or
discriminating against people because of these characteristics should
be defined as a crime.
The protection of five basic principles
Secondly, Islam -- as defined by Imam Ghazali, based on the precepts
of the Quran and the hadith, and as generally endorsed by Islamic
scholars -- seeks to protect five major principles in different
aspects of life that are specified in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and adopted in the modern world: religious freedom, the
right to observe religious duties and the protection of this right;
the right to life and its protection; the right to mental and physical
health and its protection; the right to property and its protection;
the right to marriage and reproduction and its protection. Of course,
there are other human rights, including the right to a fair trial, to
justice, to privacy, to dignity, to education and to participate in
public life, alongside the prohibition of torture.
Fundamental rights and freedoms should be protected from hate speech.
But there are also things in human life that a person can choose. This
means that a person can take on duties and responsibilities as a
result of these choices. In this respect, human beings are responsible
to God, their own selves, other people, other creatures and nature.
These responsibilities may be fulfilled in two ways: The first is the
promotion of the good and the second is discouraging evil. Islam
states that this should be done physically, verbally and with the
heart. Political authorities need to make laws to do the physical
coercion; other people can oppose evil in their words or hearts. From
an Islamic perspective, all this should be free of hate speech, insult
and denigration. The Quran states that everyone should be known by the
name they like most, that the best words should be spoken, that
discussions should be carried out courteously and properly, that evil
should be addressed with a nice attitude, that leniency should be
practiced even when faced with cruelty and that gossip and libel
should be avoided. In addition to these prohibitions, during the
execution of a sentence, no word of insult can be spoken to hurt the
person receiving punishment.
And I do not think that it is impossible to draw a sharp line between
hate speech and respect for the sacred. Fundamental rights and
freedoms are also duties and should be seen as such. This is man's
duty to God, his own self and other people as well.
The Quran states this fact in a verse that refers to the protection of
faith and freedom as well as the sacred and the prohibition of hate
speech at the same time: `And do not insult those who invoke other
than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. Thus We
have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord
is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do.'
Respect for religious belief and for the sacred is considered a
fundamental right and freedom that applies to all. Therefore, if I
exercise this right for myself, others should be able to do the same.
Considering that religious belief is a fundamental right and freedom,
it cannot be subjected to hate speech; this leads to a response by
others that will culminate in conflict.
A person may view his own belief and thought as more proper than
others; he may defend and promote it; if others are willing to listen,
he may explain it to them. But when doing this, he cannot insult or
denigrate the others and their beliefs. Likewise, a view or belief can
be defined or criticized by scholars; but this cannot come in the form
of insult or denigration. Therefore, freedom of expression cannot be
taken as a justification to physically or verbally assault the sacred,
the beliefs and thoughts of others or the freedoms and rights of
others, as noted above.
As a separate matter, I would also like to discuss whether or not holy
books include hate speech. Holy scriptures do not include any hate
speech whatsoever. I want to clarify some misunderstandings on this
matter here. The notion of kafir (unbeliever) is just a definition,
like the word Muslim; it does not connote insult or denigration. For
this reason, such notions cannot be used as a means of insult. In
another typical example, the Quran states that unbelievers are
unclean. But this is not used as an insult; the Quran uses this term
in a legal sense, because this statement is followed by a warning that
they should not enter Masjid al-Haram. Not even Muslims are allowed to
pray in mosques before performing a specific cleaning procedure
(ablution). If such words are used as a means of insult in a given
language, other terms should be chosen.
The Quran makes specific mention of prophets and people who should be
taken as models, whereas it does not mention the names of people it
considers evil. For instance, pharaoh, which is used in our language
as an insult, is a generic title for the rulers in ancient Egypt. Our
Prophet never made a statement of insult or denigration against the
nonbelievers in Mecca who fought against him.
In conclusion, hate speech should be defined as all statements and
remarks that insult or denigrate people, thoughts or beliefs; the
things people hold as sacred; and the freedoms and rights associated
with them. And freedom of thought and expression should not be used to
justify acts of hate speech.
*Ali Ã`nal is a columnist with the Zaman daily.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-330518-hate-speech-and-respect-for-the-sacred-by-ali-unal-.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Nov 3 2013
Hate speech and respect for the sacred
by Ali Ã`nal*
Illustration: Cem KızıltuÄ?
3 November 2013 /
I should first note that the definition of hate speech as a crime in
the recently announced democratization package and the Journalists and
Writers Foundation's (GYV) attention to respect for the sacred are two
major important steps.
They are proper moves because, unfortunately, these issues attract
little attention in our country. They are proper because one of our
weaknesses as human beings is to vacillate between extremes and to
fail to achieve balance.
According to my brief research, a hate crime is defined in the
criminal codes of Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the
US. Belgium has defined hate crimes most broadly; the criminal code of
this country refers to gender, race, color, family, national or ethnic
origin, sexual orientation, marriage status, birth, wealth, age,
religious or philosophical beliefs, health and illness as well as
physical aspects as elements and sources of a hate crime.
There is no consensus among states on the definition of a hate crime.
The blurred line between hate speech and a hate crime poses serious
challenges regarding how to draw the line between hate speech and
speech protected by freedom of expression, as well as the line between
and hate speech and respect for the sacred. For instance, in the US,
religious institutions are opposed to the expansion of the scope of
hate crime laws to include homosexuals, arguing that religious
officials would be unable to express their opinions on and religious
approaches to homosexuality. The US is one of the countries where hate
speech and hate crime are most frequently discussed. The FBI reported
8,208 hate crimes in 2008; 48 percent of them involved racial
differences. Seventy percent of these racially motivated crimes were
committed against black people, while the remainder targeted
Hispanics, Jews, Muslims and whites. Sixty-five percent of the
perpetrators were white, 15 percent Hispanic and 13 percent African
American.
Actions that are motivated by prejudice
Why am I giving these figures? Because the hate crimes reported in the
US reveal that Muslims have committed no such crimes in that country.
As a Muslim, I am opposed to hate speech and favor a comprehensive law
on this matter. And I would also hope that such a law would help some
Muslims in our country correct their attitudes as well.
The commonly accepted definition of hate speech and hate crimes is
action motivated by prejudice. The main point of departure in the
adoption of such laws is racial hatred; in other words, this law and
its discourse are focused on attacks made against a person because of
his or her identification with a race and/or social group. For this
reason, these crimes are referred to as racially motivated crimes in
the West. Social groups include racial groups, religious groups,
groups with different sexual orientations, ethnic groups and gender
groups.
In addition, these laws provide protection from hate speech targeting
physical appearance, language, color, family and age. In order for an
act to qualify as a hate crime, intimidation, assault, verbal or
physical abuse, aggressive letters, graffiti, emails or killing
motivated by discriminatory beliefs is sought in the action.
Defining hate speech and crimes and identifying the distance between
these acts and respect for the sacred is not difficult for Islam.
There is one obvious fact in our lives. One aspect of our lives
depends on our will and the other is totally irrelevant to it. We
cannot choose the place and date of our birth or death, our parents,
our color, our race, our physical characteristics or our gender.
Therefore, these characteristics can be neither idealized nor used as
the basis of discrimination. One cannot denigrate people because of
these aspects and characteristics, nor can they be praised as evidence
of superiority. For this reason, a human being cannot be subjected to
hate speech because of any of these characteristics, and insulting or
discriminating against people because of these characteristics should
be defined as a crime.
The protection of five basic principles
Secondly, Islam -- as defined by Imam Ghazali, based on the precepts
of the Quran and the hadith, and as generally endorsed by Islamic
scholars -- seeks to protect five major principles in different
aspects of life that are specified in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and adopted in the modern world: religious freedom, the
right to observe religious duties and the protection of this right;
the right to life and its protection; the right to mental and physical
health and its protection; the right to property and its protection;
the right to marriage and reproduction and its protection. Of course,
there are other human rights, including the right to a fair trial, to
justice, to privacy, to dignity, to education and to participate in
public life, alongside the prohibition of torture.
Fundamental rights and freedoms should be protected from hate speech.
But there are also things in human life that a person can choose. This
means that a person can take on duties and responsibilities as a
result of these choices. In this respect, human beings are responsible
to God, their own selves, other people, other creatures and nature.
These responsibilities may be fulfilled in two ways: The first is the
promotion of the good and the second is discouraging evil. Islam
states that this should be done physically, verbally and with the
heart. Political authorities need to make laws to do the physical
coercion; other people can oppose evil in their words or hearts. From
an Islamic perspective, all this should be free of hate speech, insult
and denigration. The Quran states that everyone should be known by the
name they like most, that the best words should be spoken, that
discussions should be carried out courteously and properly, that evil
should be addressed with a nice attitude, that leniency should be
practiced even when faced with cruelty and that gossip and libel
should be avoided. In addition to these prohibitions, during the
execution of a sentence, no word of insult can be spoken to hurt the
person receiving punishment.
And I do not think that it is impossible to draw a sharp line between
hate speech and respect for the sacred. Fundamental rights and
freedoms are also duties and should be seen as such. This is man's
duty to God, his own self and other people as well.
The Quran states this fact in a verse that refers to the protection of
faith and freedom as well as the sacred and the prohibition of hate
speech at the same time: `And do not insult those who invoke other
than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. Thus We
have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord
is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do.'
Respect for religious belief and for the sacred is considered a
fundamental right and freedom that applies to all. Therefore, if I
exercise this right for myself, others should be able to do the same.
Considering that religious belief is a fundamental right and freedom,
it cannot be subjected to hate speech; this leads to a response by
others that will culminate in conflict.
A person may view his own belief and thought as more proper than
others; he may defend and promote it; if others are willing to listen,
he may explain it to them. But when doing this, he cannot insult or
denigrate the others and their beliefs. Likewise, a view or belief can
be defined or criticized by scholars; but this cannot come in the form
of insult or denigration. Therefore, freedom of expression cannot be
taken as a justification to physically or verbally assault the sacred,
the beliefs and thoughts of others or the freedoms and rights of
others, as noted above.
As a separate matter, I would also like to discuss whether or not holy
books include hate speech. Holy scriptures do not include any hate
speech whatsoever. I want to clarify some misunderstandings on this
matter here. The notion of kafir (unbeliever) is just a definition,
like the word Muslim; it does not connote insult or denigration. For
this reason, such notions cannot be used as a means of insult. In
another typical example, the Quran states that unbelievers are
unclean. But this is not used as an insult; the Quran uses this term
in a legal sense, because this statement is followed by a warning that
they should not enter Masjid al-Haram. Not even Muslims are allowed to
pray in mosques before performing a specific cleaning procedure
(ablution). If such words are used as a means of insult in a given
language, other terms should be chosen.
The Quran makes specific mention of prophets and people who should be
taken as models, whereas it does not mention the names of people it
considers evil. For instance, pharaoh, which is used in our language
as an insult, is a generic title for the rulers in ancient Egypt. Our
Prophet never made a statement of insult or denigration against the
nonbelievers in Mecca who fought against him.
In conclusion, hate speech should be defined as all statements and
remarks that insult or denigrate people, thoughts or beliefs; the
things people hold as sacred; and the freedoms and rights associated
with them. And freedom of thought and expression should not be used to
justify acts of hate speech.
*Ali Ã`nal is a columnist with the Zaman daily.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-330518-hate-speech-and-respect-for-the-sacred-by-ali-unal-.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress