Moderate Muslims Oppose UK Ban on Anti-Islamic Speakers The banning of Spencer and Geller doesn’t divide Muslims and non-Muslims, but those who believe in liberty and those who don’t
When the United Kingdom banned entry to two fervent critics of Islam, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org and Pamela Geller of theAtlas Shrugs blog, outspoken defenders of free speech were shocked and outraged. But surprisingly, among those speaking out against the UK's ban and censorship of the two were Muslims that sharply disagree with them.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and President of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy told The Clarion Project that the British government was acting like “servants of the entire global Islamist movement.” He views the ban as “patrionizing” to Muslims because it assumes Muslims can’t handle their ideas.
“The only antidote to bad or disagreeable speech is better speech,” Jasser said. “I have deep and profound disagreements with both Spencer and Geller on Islam and many of their generalizations about Muslims. In fact, I have publicly debated Spencer on April 2, 2011 on the issue of Islam mediated by Andrew McCarthy. However, every British Muslim who believes in real liberty and freedom should be utterly offended by their Home Secretary who believes that their British and Muslim views are not worthy or capable of engaging or offsetting the ideas of Spencer or Geller. “
Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, also rose to the defense of Spencer and Geller. He told the Clarion Project:“Despite the fact I have a difference of opinion on many issues with Spencer and Geller, they both have a legitimate point of view on the most contentious issue of our time--the challenge to Western civilization by the forces of international Islamism. To bar them from speaking in the UK, the Conservative government in London has demonstrated a revival of Chamberlainesque cowardice that does not go in character with Britain's Churchillian spirit and democratic heritage."
Raheel Raza, President of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, said, “Freedom of expression is the yearning of a person's inner being. To suppress it goes against ALL we stand for - liberty, freedom and equality.”
Author Salim Mansur, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, pointed The Clarion Project to aletter he wrote to Police Chief Eric Jolliffe after a rabbi was threatened with losing his job with the police department if his synagogue hosted Geller.
“Free speech is the most fundamental right of a free society; constrain it, strip it, shred it, and then let us not be surprised our society will be turned into a society such as one from where I fled as a young man to find freedom in the West,” Mansur wrote.
While Islamists react to criticism of their religion with death threats and legal repercussions, Muslims like these respond in a genuinely democratic fashion. They view Western society as not only compatible with their religion, but an asset to it.
The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists view their religion as a “civilization alternative” and code of governance. To the Islamists, all differences with Islam critics are irreconcilable. They are an adversary of Allah.
To reformists like Jasser, Raza, Fatah and Mansur, you can be a critic of Islam and a partner to Muslims. To them, a Muslim and a critic of Islam can get along just like a Republican and Democrat can get along. They can discuss the issues, find points of agreement and understand areas of disagreement.
The controversy over the U.K.’s banning of Spencer and Geller doesn’t divide Muslims and non-Muslims. It divides those who genuinely believe in liberty and those who don’t
Comments
Post a Comment