Skip to main content

Does Islam Stifle Free Speech?



The Islamic faith has not been allowed to evolve with more open or contemporary times.

That's because western imperialism and its quest for cultural hegemony across the world incites a siege mentality amongst many, causing a polarisation and a self-defensive gravitation toward older norms and customs so as to distinguish and protect themselves from the west.

And besides this, the west, and much of the incorporated world, refuses to acknowledge that a people's consciousness of themselves as one does not need to be limited to the borders of the nation-state.

A nation does not only achieve corporeal form only when it has a seat in a United Nations that has not been structured to recognise nations that transcend borders.  People talk about India and China being the most populous nations on the planet, but fail to realise that Muslims are themselves a nation of similar numerousness.  Hence, the west does not understand how Muslims can empathise with each other as compatriots even though they are regionally disparate.

...this whole question of whether Islam stifles free speech is itself grossly Eurocentric. It takes as the standard and norm the way 'free speech' has evolved and in quite a few respects, degenerated in the west, and judges everyone according to that standard.

This polarisation is further exacerbated by the west embracing and promoting what is recognised as  ‘immorality’ in many cultures, including the west in the past, as an 'expression of freedom’  They attempt to do away with the idea of 'immorality' by associating it with religion.  This twists the meaning of ‘being free’ where freedom is associated with the worse that one can be legally.

The western idea of ‘being free’ is a pretty far cry from the Christian idea of ‘being free’ as in being free of attitudes that compromises the idea of loving your neighbour as yourself, or the Buddhist idea of ‘being free’ as in being free of attachments that lead to an indulgence in the Christian ‘7 deadly sins’.  This is similar to the ideals in Hinduism and Islam as well.  This can lead to further polarisation and gravitation from western norms of recent decades, and old oppressive norms amongst ancient and traditional faiths can be maintained.

One could also say that the west stifles Intelligent Speech by associating human development to its lowest intellectual denominator.

Whilst the west has redefined free speech and freedom along of the vulgar and primitive, and promoting immediate and hedonistic gratification as evidence of 'being free', people across the world are left with either their own thus increasingly reactionary oppressive state, or exchange all alternative thought for microkinis, consumerism, and seeing all, including one's own gender, as sexual fodder.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with Islam, and there's no reason to assume it stifles free speech in itself.  We need to distinguish between Islam and the ‘practice of Islam’ in the face of western imperialism and cultural fascism.

Islam has to develop along its own path in view of equality, but with its own brand of freedom, and in line with their tenets that makes people naturally baulk at some of what the west confuses for freedom.  Muslims need to be allowed to seek the maximal development of all without the idea of  'maximal' being defined only along western lines.

In fact, this whole question of whether Islam stifles free speech is itself grossly Eurocentric.  It takes as the standard and norm the way 'free speech' has evolved and in quite a few respects, degenerated in the west, and judges everyone according to that standard.

The freedom of speech to an intelligent person is very much different than one practiced by a teen reared on American Pie, Marvel Heroes, Gore and Snuff moves, sexually brazen ‘music’ videos, and the Apple queue.

One could say that this movement against religion in the west is an expected corollary of the increase in consumerism, hedonism, and the influx of impressionable juveniles as the main force in their ‘market-driven’ system.  Their media moved from demeaning parents and intellectuals, and finally, of all other cultures in their attack on religion.  All opposing traditions are questions, reviled, and turned into insulting cartoons.

The freedom of speech to an intelligent person is very much different than one practiced by a teen reared on American Pie, Marvel Heroes, Gore and Snuff moves, sexually brazen ‘music’ videos, and the Apple queue. One could say that the west if fast-becoming a petulant juvenile who must just have its way.  One could also say that the west stifles Intelligent Speech by associating human development to its lowest intellectual denominator.

Ask this question by all means, but don't forget to ask, "what on earth has the west done to the idea of free speech?!" as well.

eX

#freespeech #islam #religion #thewest #eurocentrism #imperialism #westernimperialism #christianity #censorship

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…