WHY DO WE INSIST ON
SLANDERING PROPHETS?
Free speech is a fundamental human
right, but freedom of any kind should never be at the expense of another of
Allah’s creation. Plato, in his Republic,
was one of the first to explore the tension between individual freedom and the
need to restrain that freedom so that others might be free.
Today, however, we seem to have
forgotten that individual freedom of expression has limits. In Western law, slander and libel are
considered serious infringements on the rights of other individuals. As an attorney and member of the bar in the United
States, I have been asked to help clients
seek redress for defamatory statements made by individuals and by
journalists.
Slander and libel are both torts,
civil harms, under American and European law.
Both are forms of defamation.
Defamation is the publication of untrue and damaging statements. Defamation that is visible, for example in
the print media, or in a letter or other written documents, is called
libel. Defamation that is audible, such
as on television, radio, or as part of a speech or lecture, is called slander.
In order to show defamation, a
plaintiff to a court case would have to show:
1. That the person made a false and defamatory statement regarding the
plaintiff
2. That the person made an unprivileged publication to a third party
3. That the person acted negligently in doing so
4. That the plaintiff was damaged by the statements
For private individuals, defamation
claims can be fairly straight forward.
Typical examples include falsely accusing a person of committing a crime
of morale turpitude, or of committing a felony crime, as well as subjecting a
person to ridicule, such as impugning a person’s morality, character or
integrity. Statements that might impair
a person’s economic or financial well-being or that cause others to refrain
from socializing with that person are also defamatory.
While these types of defamatory
harms would appear to apply to everyone, public figures have had a harder time
pursuing such claims legally. Public
figures are expected to have a thick skin.
Because of their public presences, they are considered to be legitimate
targets of investigation in terms of their moral and legal behavior. We look up to public figures as role models,
so we expect them to embody society’s values.
They almost have a fiduciary duty toward society, a duty born of the
special treatment we give them. Fame
comes with responsibilities. We expect
famous people to live up to those responsibilities and so we allow them to be
subject to more close scrutiny in regards to their characters and
behaviors.
However, how far should we allow
this to go? We are all familiar with
tabloid newspapers. Some exaggerate
truth to make things sound more “sexy.”
After all, their goal is to sell a product, their paper or tabloid
website or TV program. The exaggerated
claims they make are somewhat like product “puffing,” the type of exaggeration
product manufacturers or shop keepers use to sell products. We have historically allowed exaggerations,
but not slander or libel.
Exaggeration is not the same as
lies. Ethically, it may really be just
as immoral, but we have historically tolerated it. P.T. Barnum said something to the effect that
there is a sucker born every minute. We
are adults, we assume that we will know exaggeration when we see it, and take
such claims “with a grain of salt.”
However, even here we have set social limits. We would not tolerate someone who took
advantage of a person with cognitive limitations or who defrauded someone based
on such puffing and exaggeration. We
call this fraud.
Slander and libel are like fraud;
the claims are false, in fact they are patent lies; and the other person is
harmed by it. Fraud is considered a
criminal act, as well as a tort, but slander and libel are only civil claims.
Shariah Law, the Divine
Legislation, has taken a different view of defamation. Islamic Law does not tolerate fraud or false
claims. Gharar is haram under Shariah
Law. Gharar is a term that indicates any
form of vague or undisclosed terms or conditions in a contract. It is a serious crime in Islam. La Gharar and La Riba are the foundations of
Islamic Finance and Economic Law.
Violating these two principles puts one in a state of harb or war with
Allah SWT.
Shariah Law is designed to protect
and promote the Maqaasid or Objectives of the Law. These include protection of faith, of life,
of property, of lineage and dignity and of the intellect. Defamatory statements go to the heart of the
Maqaasid in that they attack a person’s dignity, but they can also destroy a
person’s economic life, and impact all the other maqaasid as well.
We may have heard of the term
Qadhaf. Qadhaf is sometimes translated
as slander, but it is a particularly insidious form of slander – false
accusations of sexual misconduct. People
love to sling mud. We see it all the
time in the media, accusations of sexual promiscuity and misconduct by
celebrities. Because they are public
figures, we seem to tolerate it. We love
to think of these proxies for our own dreams as having rich lives, full of all
sorts of material pleasures. While this may seem fine to some, in reality it
denigrates those individuals and cheapens our whole society. Role models are expected to elevate us all,
not drag us into a cess pit.
While Western society might
tolerate such cheeky innuendos and accusations, Islam does not. Allah SWT did not tolerate the false
accusations of sexual misconductby the Prophet’s wife, Aisha RA, flung around
by the loose lips of some. False
accusations of sexual misconduct are punishable by 80 lashes and impugning of
any future testimony. Allah SWT has sent
a clear message that He will no tolerate such behavior. It is nasty, dirty and foolish. We all may snicker at the innuendos, but in
reality, it is a disgusting form of backbiting.
It is sleazy and it makes anyone who touches it sleazy.
Qadhaf, however, only refers to
false statements of sexual misconduct.
Other forms of slander and libel are also haram in Islam. These forms would not be punishable by the
Hadd punishment of 80 lashes, but would be punishable as a Ta’zir crime, with
punishment at the discretion of the judge, depending on the specific facts of
the case. This includes fines, impugning
of any future testimony, and a lesser number of lashes.
SLANDERING
PROPHETS
Human societies all agree that
defamation is a serious breach of the social contract. Living in society means, a Plato mentioned,
that we have to balance rights. We all
have rights and we have to consider the rights of others. Freedom can never be unrestricted; to have it
be so would be unjust.
Speaking of justice, throughout
human history, we have had public figures who have spoken out in favor of
justice. Some have died in the struggle
for justice in human society. They have
reminded the people of their duties and responsibilities toward one another,
and have spoken out against oppression and evil. Many of these figures we call Prophets. Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, and Muhammad SAW all
spoke out against injustice. They were
champions of the poor and oppressed. The
Pharisees rebuked Isa AS
for hanging out with the poor. So did
the elites who rebuked Salih AS,
and Muhammad SAW.
Yes, these men were public figures
I suppose, but why do we insist on defaming them?
I understand that those who
advocate this so called free speech are using the founders of religions or
philosophies as a symbol to speak out against the oppressive and unethical
actions of those who claim to be the followers of that founder. We use Isa AS
as a symbol for Christianity as a whole, and any time we want to ridicule or
speak out against some aspect of Christianity or some group of its adherents
who are acting unethically, we defame Christ instead.
A picture of Jesus (AS) covered in
urine might be a way of expressing the idea that Christianity is not to the
liking of the “artist”, and so should be pissed on. However, is it really necessary? Is it really
art? Yes, I suppose it is an expression
of something, but art is quite often so full of itself as to be mere
arrogance.
Admittedly, Islamic culture is not
as obsessed with symbols as is Western culture.
The Arabs are a matter-or-fact people, and the Qur’an is Mubeen,
clear. Although it contains the most
soaring passages of spiritual insights, it does so in a clear and un-confusing
manner.
So it is natural that Muslims would
find symbolic expressions aimed at pointing out unethical behavior by those who
claim to be the adherents of Islam, unintelligible. All we see is hate. And in reality, despite all the claims of
free speech and free artistic expression, what we have seen is nothing but
hate.
Repeatedly insisting on publishing
material that is known to offend people is nothing more than hate. Certainly the reactions of some who claim to
be Muslim have been not only unacceptable, but haram and fasaad (criminal) in
Islam as well. The events in France
at the Charlie Hebdo publishing firm are criminal under any law,
including Shariah Law. But, the repeated
publications of offensive cartoons is also criminal. It defames a person who came to support the
poor, the orphan, girls, women, widows, slaves, debtors, all who are needy and
oppressed.
As a descendent of the daughter of
this man of peace and love, I am personally offended by the defamation. Innuendos of pedophilia, of sexual
misconduct, of depravity are the worst forms of slander and libel. Depictions of my ancestor as a war-monger and
killer are equally disgusting. Lest
these advocates of hate speech forget, defamation is a civil cause of
action. Perhaps, we who are descended
from the daughter of the Prophet should sue on his behalf, or if the law does
not permit to sue on behalf of the deceased, then on our own behalf, for defamation. We could do so in both France
and United States,
with any renumerations going to charities.
THE
LOST BOYS
The individuals who perpetrated the
crimes in France
were misguided, foolish young people, who were easily brainwashed into
violence. Arabs form an underclass in
French society, much as Hispanics do in the United
States.
Many are poor, have little education, and little prospects of enjoying
the material life depicted in the media and advertising. The young man who took hostages in the Jewish
grocery had a criminal history and had spent time in prison for theft. The two brothers who attached the publishing
house had a propensity for violence and no understanding of the religion or the
man they claimed to be defending.
Moreover, despite the fact that violent elements in Yemen
have claimed association with the attack, it is not likely it was organized by
any real group, other than the two criminals who carried it out.
Al-Qaeda – it means “the
leaders.” It is a Hollywood
created name, if there ever was one. We
in America
pronounce it “El –Kaydah,” which ironically means “the plot.”
Innahum yakeedoona kaydan
Waakeedu kaydan
Famahhili alkafireena
amhilhum ruwaydan
Al-Tariq 86: 15. As for them, they Are but planning,
16. And I am planning.
17. Therefore grant a delay To the unbelievers:
Give respite to them Gently (for
awhile).
So the young men who attacked Charlie
Hebdo claimed to be associated with El Qaeda, and the other man claimed to
be associated with ISIS.
Clearly none of these men were really Muslim or really had anything more
than criminal intent. It is a shame they
fell through the cracks, and that because of the racism and anti-immigrant
sentiment that pervades many Western countries, they were unable to find a more
productive and healthy way to use their talents and energies.
The world is filled with
disgruntled young men of every ethnic and religious background. We have created them. We have killed their fathers, mothers,
brothers, sisters. We have destroyed their societies. We have railroaded them into poverty. We open factories in their home countries;
then, we hire only women, who are subjected to hideous working conditions and
monthly pregnancy tests. So the men are
forced to look for work outside their countries; low paying jobs no one will do
– menial, physically draining, back-breaking, demeaning, and most of all, not
the glamorous material paradise kind of jobs advertised on TV and the Internet.
These immigrants saddled with
tremendous stress. Their families gave
them all their money to go to the West.
They have the expectations of so many riding on their backs. But it is more expensive here than they
thought. They live in poverty, not the
luxury they imagined. And they expected
to send money home. Some support whole
villages. They are torn between two
worlds, not belonging to either.
Homesick and depressed, they feel like failures because they did not get
rich.
Now their sons are growing up in
this surreal world. The depression of
the parents infects their souls. They begin to hate their parents and their
back-home mentalities. They are brainwashed in school, taught about the new
culture, the superior culture. But soon
enough, these sons figure out, they are not really included in that new
superior culture. They never will
be. They are brainwashed to crave the
tech toys, the wide screen TVs, the I-phones, and they will spend every last
dollar or Euro to get them. But even
with all those toys, they will never be accepted. And the homelands of their fathers won’t
accept them either. They are lost.
The lost boys – children of
vampires. The vampires are the societies
that suck their blood dry, suck their spirits dry. The materialistic societies have sucked the
life out of their parents, and now it’s after them too. No wonder they strike out.
EXTREMISM
We live in a society that craves
extremes. Extreme sports, extreme
partying, extreme games, extreme entertainment, extreme everything. France
has just experiences a clash of extremism.
Charlie Hebdo is an extremist too. Extreme satire – extreme speech – extreme
entertainment. Why else would they
choose to publish the same offensive cartoon on the day they returned to
publication? In such an extremist
atmosphere, is it any wonder that the lost boys chose extreme violence as a
means for expressing their angst? Let me
ask you, if picture of Jesus AS in piss, and cartoons of the Prophet as a
violent and ugly madman are artistic expression protected by freedom of speech,
then why is not the expression of these young men not?
Well, they killed people. Yes, and under both Western and Shariah law
they have committed a crime. But how
many times have Western armies killed?
How many wedding parties have been bombed in Afghanistan? We apologize…. “Oh, it was a mistake.”
The world is drowning in extreme
hate. No one is innocent. We all have the blood of innocents on our
hands. When will it stop?
On the same day as Charlie Hebdo,
2000 people were killed in Nigeria
by the Boku Haram.
“There is a hole in the bottom of
the earth, where the blood pours out at the end of the day, when the usual
amount of people have died.”
(Desecration).
What is the solution? Islam is … if we really follow it. But most of us don’t. I pray more of us will.
