The Freedom of Expression: A Clash of Interpretations

It is English common law - and plain human logic: You are in a crowded theater.  Some idiot stands up and yells out a falsehood: "Fire!! Fire!!"  The audience panics and rushes aimlessly in every direction, seeking an exit.  As they run for their lives, they trample under foot several others.  Death and injuries occur.  Was that free speech?  No!!  The perpetrator, if found, would be led away by the police on criminal charges!!

A rabid anti-semite scrawls on the tombstones of a Jewish cemetery in Queens, Long Island, the despicable swastika.  Was that free speech?  No.  It is an incitement to hatred!!

A KKK clansman, under the cover of night, burns a cross on the lawn of an Afro-American family to express his racist hate for the blacks moving in his neighborhood.  Is that an exercise of his constitutional right under the First Amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press..."

That offending clansman cannot get away with it under the cover of this first article of the American Bill of Rights.  Why?  An incitement to racial hatred in a society which prides itself on diversity.

A woman, during the 2008 presidential campaign (Obama vs. McCain) tells Senator McCain why she was going to vote for him and against Obama.  "He (meaning Obama) is an Arab!!"  McCain disagrees with her at a minimum level.  "He is not an Arab?!," he admonishes.  McCain's message would have been a great lesson in American diversity had he added: "So what if he was an Arab?!!"

A bunch of criminals orchestrate the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.  A great U.S. (and world) Ambassador, Chris Stevens, together with three other U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel, are martyred.  Does that inconsequential little nothing of a video insulting the Prophet Muhammad, put together by a renegade Copt who is now back in jail for parole violation, reason enough for that heinous crime?  Absolutely no.

That video, together with the satire expressed about Muhammad in the weekly French "Charlie Hebdo," resulted in ugly upheavals in more than 2 dozens of States, Members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  In these rage-full demonstrations, people died, property was destroyed, U.S. flags were burned, and a price of $100,000 was placed on the head of the video producer by a Pakistani cabinet member.  Did the provocative causes justify those dastardly effects?  No.  They simply painted Islam with a color with which it had absolutely no relationship.

What we are faced with today on a world scale is a very ominous clash of ideas competing for interpretation.  For the Muslims, the provocations which, since 9/11, took the form of a patriotic response to those events, are manifestations of anti-Islamism.  For the West, especially in the U.S., they are protected speech by individuals over whose actions the government hand is stayed.

The two sides are reading the same events, but justifying their responses on the basis of a variety of different texts, different value systems, different historic traditions, and different historical experiences.

To an American, the U.S. Constitution has settled the case in favor of the freedom of expression.  President Obama affirmed those beliefs when he told the UN General Assembly 67th session on September 25, 2012:

"I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.  Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

But the Muslim world is reading a different text.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, paragraph 2, states:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

The Muslim world is also turning to Al-Azhar's historic document of January 11, 2012 which, in my blog of January 24, 2012, I described it as "The Egyptian Magna Carta."  In addressing the "Freedom of Thought and Expression," Al-Azhar, as per my words in that blog:

"describes this freedom as being at the root of all freedoms, as is manifest in the utilization of all means of expression in writing, artistic production and digitized outreach.  It encompasses the right to assembly, to the establishment of parties and other civil society organizations, freedom of the printed, audio, visual and digital press as well as access to information necessary for informed consent.

This freedom, the Charter cautions, does not include the right to inciting violence, sectarian discord or radical calls for discrimination.  It quotes the maxim of the great historical Muslim scholars which states: "My view is correct but is subject to error, and the opposing view is wrong but is subject to rectification." 

On the day following Obama's speech at the UN, Egypt's President Morsi, in a clash of interpretation of the freedom of expression, told the same General Assembly in Arabic, translated by me into English as follows:

"Egypt respects the freedom of expression.  By that we mean an expression which is not exploited to incite hatred for anyone.  It is not the freedom of expression which targets for attack a particular religion or a particular culture.  A freedom of expression which confronts extremism and violence.  It is not the freedom of expression which enshrines ignorance and denigrates others.  But, at the same time, we stand firmly against the use of violence as a means of expressing rejection of these imbecilities."

Again in connection with making fun of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, a general call issued forth calling for a Trial of Muhammad World Day.  The Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Aly Gomaa, a renowned leader of moderation in Islam, condemned that call as well as the video produced in California.  An American newspaper charged Gomaa of incitement to violence and terrorism.  And in response, Gomaa publicly denied that false charge and called on the UN to enact an international instrument criminalizing attacks on any religion and on its symbols.

So goes the clash of interpretations of the valued principle of freedom of expression. Who is right and who is wrong?  This is an impossible question to answer in any definitive manner.

However, the long range response might be for world leaders, educators and foundations to encourage learning about and respect for all faiths, cultures and values.  There is also a crying need for mass knowledge of foreign languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu.  We need to bring our continents closer together through all types of exchanges, trade, tourism and the performing arts.

From the point of view of one of the newly democratically elected Arab presidents, President Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, a Salafi is as dangerous to world peace as is a westerner ridiculing Islam.

The Mountain and the Ram

There is an Arab poem about an angry ram.  The poem narrates that a ram has somehow perceived a mountain to be its enemy.  So it kept on attacking that mountain till the ram's horns were broken.  The messages you cannot punish someone or something by losing a part of your body without in the least harming your adversary.

How does this poem apply to the endless saga of denigrating Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam to which millions of Muslims respond by angry demonstrations?  I wonder if the Muslim demonstrators were to respond in more peaceful ways, whether the defamers, cartoonists or film makers, might give up on the stupid blackart of insulting the Prophet!!

Were this miraculously to happen, the poem would fit perfectly:  The denigrators would be the angry ram whose horns would be broken as it keeps on attacking the mountain (the Prophet Muhammad) without getting any rise from the Muslims.

Thus to the Muslims I say: "Don't get angry!!  Get even!!"  I know that this may be nearly impossible.  Muslims are enjoined by their faith to believe in all God's prophets, in all scriptures, and to respect other faiths.  The Quran, in chapter 16, verse 36, states: "And verily, we have raised in every nation a messenger, proclaiming: Serve Allah and shun false gods."

So it is out of the question for a Muslim to depict either Moses or Jesus in a disrespectful way.  After all, in a secular sense, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all born and ministered in the same region.  In that sense, the three of them may be regarded as "compatriots"!!  "Getting even" in the context of insulting either Moses or Jesus is therefore out of the question for Muslims.

So let us think of other ways to "get even" without being destructive.  How about giving up on endless demonstrations, with their attendant destructive consequences, including disruption of international relationships, and get in the film industry?  Make a good film about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, that crazy Egyptian Copt with a police record in California, and depict him as the buffoon he really is!!  Write a good script for that movie, hire some gifted actors and actresses (do not forget memorable songs) and call the film:  "The Abbasiyah Graduate!!"  (Abbasiyah in Cairo is the equivalent of the Bellevue hospital for the mentally-disturbed in New York City).

Now dub the film in several languages and market it everywhere.  I am almost sure that the film would draw millions to the box office as a form of revenge, and lots of money would be made for charitable causes.  Basseley's puny 14-minute video would be eclipsed, and "The Abbasiyah Graduate" would stigmatize that idiot for a long time.

The same may be done to the French editor of the weekly "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris.  There are millions of Muslims in Europe, especially in France, who would love to fund that "Get even" enterprise.  Crowds would have fun, money would be made, France would not need to close all its missions and schools in 20 Muslim countries for fear of violence, and that ignorant editor would live in infamy pour sa vie!!

Yes, the Muslims are angry at the video and the caricatures insulting the Prophet of 1.5 billion Muslims.  How about "Getting even" by also putting forth the great story of Muhammad's message, in print, online and in all types of visual imagery?  In my weekly seminar on "Islamic Law in the 21st Century" which I teach as an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, I, in 15 minutes out of 2 hours summed up that message as follows:

Muhammad's message advocated freedom of conscience; rule by consultation and consensus; justice in governance; the rights of women as equal partners in society; respect for contracts; mercy towards the weak; freedom from enslavement; amity towards non-Muslims; freedom from fear; the importance of education; and the value of truth and honesty.  To the Muslims, mankind is one in, God.

Friday, a day of prayer, has become a day of rage.  About that day's group prayer: the Quran in chapter 67, verse No. 10, says, "When the prayer is ended, then disperse in the land and seek Allah's bounty."  Seeking that bounty is the essence of "sustainable development."  It is not to be sought in endless destruction.  In Islam, piety and working for the commonweal go hand in hand.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood's political party "Freedom and Justice" has called for the enactment of an international law "for the protection of religious symbols."  Good!!  In my humble estimation as an attorney, that call would need decades for its implementation. Here are some of the reasons:

Where are we going to get a broad international consensus regarding: (a) What is a religious symbol?; (b) What do we mean by protection?; (c) Who will do the protection if not sovereign States within their own boundaries?; (d) To what extent can we differentiate between symbols and practices?; (e) How would this protection affect the laws in some European countries against the Niqab and veil in public places?; (f) Is the minaret a universally-acceptable religious symbol?; (g) Would such a law affect the freedom of expression enactments including the 1966 U.N. Convention on Civil and Political rights?; (h) How could a case be constructed and brought before a court of law of competent jurisdiction?; (i) Who might the plaintiff be and what injury could that plaintiff prove to have suffered?; and (j) What is the sentencing range and what form of compensation?

Am I complicating things?  Yes. Because I am looking at an issue which is very complex. 

Only by education, and cool-headedness could we shrink this problem.  Getting angry is understandable.  Getting destructive of life and property is not.  Fighting a wrong with wrong is not a solution.  For a Muslim faced with such provocations, it is better to be the mountain, not the ram.  Turn the whole episode into a farce, a spectacle of the absurd.  Put Terry Jones, the Quran burner, on a broom with a cone over his empty head, flying one way into an eternal sunset as the wicked male witch of the west..  Lighten up!! Make your tormentors the laughing stock of this world of rage!!

When Ignorance of Values Prevails Catastrophic Tragedies Occur

Out of a small church in Gainesville, Florida, came Pastor Terry Jones.  Consumed with ignorance about Islam, he judges it, not by its moderation and universalism.  He sees it through the prism of Bin Laden, the huge tragedy of 9/11, and the cutters of hands and legs in Northern Mali.  To Jones, the Quran, the holy book for 1.5 billion Muslims, is a book of evil.  Burning it at his church of only 300 congregants, is both a religious and a patriotic duty.

In his ignorance, as he burnt his copy of the Quran, inflaming passions of both Muslims and Americans, he incinerated also a central part of his own faith.  For the Quran, in its full recognition of both the Torah and the New Testament, glorifies the name of Jesus 25 times, and the name of the virgin Mary 34 times -the only mention of a woman in more than six thousand verses.

Nor did Pastor Jones presumably know that among the 6487 volumes which Thomas Jefferson sold to the Library of Congress, was his own two-volume English translation of the Quran which the Muslims revere as God's (in Arabic, Allah) words revealed to Muhammad.  The cover of that historic text reads: "The Koran: Commonly Called 'The Alcoran of Mohammed,' Translated into English immediately from the Original Arabic."  Jefferson had purchased his Quran in the 1780's in response to the conflict between the US and the "Barbary States" of North Africa -today Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.

From Jones, past forward to the American-made video entitled "The Innocence of Muslims."  It ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad and caused the senseless killing of a distinguished U.S. diplomat, Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the US Consulate in Benghazi, together with 3 other fine US foreign service officers, and several Libyan security guards.  But the catastrophe did not stop there.  Between September 18 and September 21, a mere four-day period of Muslim rage at that video, the capitals and other cities in 22 States, from Morocco to Indonesia, have been rocked by attacks on American missions, and violent clashes between the police and enraged Muslim demonstrators.

This is a real anti-American tsunami engulfing two dozen countries, some of which have just emerged from the reign of brutal dictatorships and are now governed by Islamic-oriented regimes.  Their sense of euphoria has outpaced their ability to grow in to governance.  Nor have they mastered yet how to balance between internal pressures, and external needs for assistance from the outside world, especially the USA.  Even without that video, the Arab street in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain is not yet safe.  And the Syrian civil war with nearly 25000 dead, and a huge number of Syrians living in tents outside Syria as refugees, has transformed Syria into a huge patch of killing fields.

The video producers are an Egyptian Coptic rabble rouser with a police record, named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a gas station owner.  His co-schemer is a man by the name of Steve Klein, an insurance salesman.  Justifying the production of that incendiary film, Klein is reported to have said that the intent of the film was to get extremist Muslims to stop killing.  The coptic church in the US has denounced that hallucinating video.

When it comes to Egypt, the tragedy assumes gargantuan proportions.  Egypt's new partnership with the US is still in its infancy.  President Morsi is US-educated and educator, and two of his sons are US citizens.  Under his leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood, which had put him forward as its presidential candidate, is kept at a healthy distance.  His Government, headed by Hesham Qandeel, is made largely of technocrats.

But when the Egyptian mob (the Muslim Brotherhood did not take part), angered by that video, replaced the US flag over the Cairo Embassy by a black flag of the Salafis, Morsi was a bit late in condemning that attack.  Balancing between the internal constituency and the need for US assistance and friendship is an art which apparently needs time for Morsi to master.

Two-hundred and twenty Egyptians including 20 security officers were injured at the Embassy's perimeter.  Twenty-four person were arrested.  Egyptian tanks surrounded the US Embassy for protection.  As Morsi, prompted by President Obama, denounced the violence, his Prime Minister Qandeel declared on September 13 that Egypt's highest national interest was being harmed.  Only then did the flame subside, and the "Million demonstrators" did not materialize in Tahrir.

The ignorance of values also extends to the Muslim World, now fully enraged by the attacks on the Prophet Muhammed.  When lecturing one day at the Cairo University School of  Law on the tragedy of 9/11, I discovered from the questions that many still felt that that criminal acts could not have been perpetrated by Muslims.  In the new Arab World, with its rediscovered freedoms, I wonder how many people are familiar with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, especially with its reference to "the freedom of speech, or the press."

Their experience is that government can suppress both, and they demand that Washington D.C. should suppress that video.  But how can it do so?  The new authority over that video is Google.  And Google is not beholden to the U.S. Government.  With the video being disseminated by YouTube, its owner Google has blocked access to it in only Egypt and Libya.  Here Google misses a main tenet: hate speech is defined by it as against individuals, not against groups.  Since the video mocks Islam but not Muslims, Google believes that it falls within its guidelines.  An aspect of ignorance: In Islam, Muslims, those who submit their will to God, are one with their faith.  There cannot be any Muslims without Islam.

OK!!  Turning to the Muslims, one could see in those combustible demonstrations an element of ignorance of the Quran, the primary source of Islamic law.  Several verses in the Quran call for giving a cold shoulder to that video which is based on both malice and ignorance.  By all means, hold the Prophet Muhammed close and dear.  But also remember God's words revealed to him-May Peace Be Upon Him.  To the likes of Terry Jones, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Steve Klein and their ilk, remember what Allah says in the Quran regarding dealing with those who are ignorant of or inimical to Islam and the Muslims.

In the Quran, Chapter No. 7, Verse No. 199 says: "Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammed) and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant"
And the Quran, Chapter No. 25, verse No. 63 says: "and when the foolish ones address them (the Muslims) they answer: Peace."

It is a pity that we in the 21st century, do not have a Geneva Convention making insulting any faith an international crime (Prime Minister Qandeel has called for that).  It is even a greater pity that a bunch of hoodlums in Florida and California can ignite such havoc across the globe.  It is even the greatest pity that when ignorance of values prevail, catastrophic tragedies occur.  May the souls of these four diplomats who were killed (martyred) in Benghazi rest in heavenly peace.  International law calls them "protected persons."  Now in their heavenly abode, they, by the grace of God, are eternally "protected."

Without Fanfare Egypt Resumes Its Regional Leadership Role

One of the most memorable songs of the Broadway Musical, "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" is "I believe in You!!"  In it, the singer, down on his luck for a long time, looks at himself in the mirror and sings that song of self-assurance.  The Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011 is a historical musical of self-assurance.

Yes, the economy is in tatters; women and copts are still concerned about their civil rights in an Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is ascendant; the bedouins in Sinai are restless; tourism is only a trickle; and the infrastructure has been crumbling for a long time.

But____But this is not a permanent scene.  The potential is quite different.  Egypt's huge demographics (nearly 90 million) will gradually have their impact on development.  The marginalized bedouins of Sinai top the list for infrastructure enhancement.  The crowded Nile valley will systematically be drained from human congestion, eastward to Sinai and westward to the great western desert all the way to the Libyan border.  The problem of sharing the Nile waters between nine riparian States will be solved through renegotiation of the Treaty of 1929.  In all of this, the security of the Egyptian street is being ensured.

Of equal importance, the Hisham Qandeel Government is seeking economic and financial and technological partnership everywhere - from the shores of the Red Sea and the Gulf, to China, Japan and Australia, to the US and the European Union.  President Morsi's first trip outside of Egypt was to China where cooperation agreements for $6 billion were concluded.

Nearly simultaneously, large business delegations organized by the U.S. Government and the Chamber of Commerce representing fifty U.S. corporations, descended upon Cairo.  They have their aspirations as well as their concerns.  These concerns revolved around Egyptian bureaucratic barriers inherited from the past and impeding foreign investments.  And the Morsi regime was ready to oblige.  The U.S. Government, encouraged by the present progress toward democracy, was also keen on reducing Cairo's debt to Washington, D.C. by $1 billion, coupled with other grants and debt rescheduling.

Moreover, the International Monetary Fund moved in the same direction of helping the Egyptian economy.  Until now, negotiations are proceeding between the Egyptian government and the IMF regarding Egypt's request for a $4.8 billion loan.  Judging by the past performance of the IMF (who can forget the 1977 bread riots during the Sadat regime because of the stringent demands of the IMF?), opposition arose against the IMF loan project.  Leading the popular charge against dealing with the IMF was the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).  The FJP was calling on Prime Minister Qandeel not to proceed with those negotiations until all "internal alternatives" are exhausted.  A romantic idea, in the face of the realities of present day Egypt!!  Thus the opposition was ignored, especially when the Islamic concept of "necessity" was invoked as a response to silence that criticism.

In the midst of this euphoria, Egypt's march towards democracy was being assisted by civil rights organizations.  Among those NGOs was the National Council for Human Rights which submitted to the new Justice Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Makki, no less than ten proposed bills.  All of those proposals aimed at enhancing personal freedoms and civil rights.  Topping these proposals were: a unified law for the construction of places of worship: mosques, churches and synagogues; a law governing NGO's; a law on the freedom of assembly and the right to peaceful demonstration.

Included in that bundle of proposed laws was a bill dealing with equal opportunity and non-discrimination.  It provided for non-discrimination on the basis of religion, language, gender or social status in education and employment.  Violators, the bill stated, would be punished by 6 months to a year of imprisonment, together with monetary fines reaching up to two-hundred thousand Egyptian pounds ($34 thousand).

As to family values as advocated by some members of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as extolling women subservience to men, this advocacy is expected to go nowhere.  A non-starter!!  For the first popular demonstration in Cairo in the 1860's was the historic march by women during which they ripped the veils off their faces and trampled them under foot.

The new Egypt is finding its post-revolutionary feet internally and regionally.  Its natural leadership role is being resumed without fanfare.  In Iran, the only regional ally of the killer regime of Bashar Al-Assad of Syria, President Morsi, at the meeting of the non-aligned States, called on Al-Assad to step down.  In the context of the newly-found freedoms of the Arab masses, consultations regarding a sub-regional alliance of post-dictatorship States are taking place.  The deal with Egypt, Libya and Tunisia which are a geographic continuum from west of Gaza to eastern Algeria.

A new Arab world is being born, with Cairo, the headquarters of the League of Arab States, is showing the way towards internal development and external independence from the sway of big powers.  Egypt seems to be looking at itself in the mirror, singing out, despite its present difficulties, "I believe in you!!"