Does Islam believe in free speech or not?

[The Neo Nerd]

Which country apart from America supports freedom of speech without significant limits?

Australia

Right to freedom of opinion and expression | Attorney-General's Department

The right to freedom of opinion is the right to hold opinions without interference, and cannot be subject to any exception or restriction.

The right to freedom of expression extends to any medium, including written and oral communications, the media, public protest, broadcasting, artistic works and commercial advertising. The right is not absolute. It carries with it special responsibilities, and may be restricted on several grounds. For example, restrictions could relate to filtering access to certain internet sites, the urging of violence or the classification of artistic material.

 

[Augustus]

Australia

"The right is not absolute. It carries with it special responsibilities, and may be restricted on several grounds."

 

[The Neo Nerd]

"The right is not absolute. It carries with it special responsibilities, and may be restricted on several grounds."

You did say without significant limits.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

And our limitations are very similar to the ones in the U.S.

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RAYYAN]

I think there is nothing called "Freedom of Speech" there is Freedom of Speech with limits

 

[gsa]

I think there is nothing called "Freedom of Speech" there is Freedom of Speech with limits

In the United States, the freedom is nearly absolute, particular in "core" areas of concern to the First Amendment, including religion and politics. The limitations are narrow exceptions to the rule. The same is true, by and large, in Europe and countries with similar common law and civil law legal traditions.

Even the Universal Declaration of Rights, which does contain the kind of wiggle language you want to use to impose limitations on criticism of Islam, also contradicts the Islamic principles being articulated in opposition to free speech and blasphemy and apostasy laws:

Art. 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Art. 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Muslims have no right to demand that non-Muslims recognize their religious sensibilities. It might be respectful to do so, but there is no basis for coercion or government limitation of speech that is intended to offend Muslim sensibilities.

 

[Augustus]

In the United States, the freedom is nearly absolute, particular in "core" areas of concern to the First Amendment, including religion and politics. The limitations are narrow exceptions to the rule. The same is true, by and large, in Europe and countries with similar common law and civil law legal traditions.

Would say there is a fundamental difference between most of Europe and America.

Much greater restriction in Europe on hate speech, potentially libellous/slanderous speech, comments deemed to cause significant offence, etc. These differences are significant rather than minor technicalities as you can be criminally charged for a an often victimless 'speech crime' that has no component of incitement to violence or threat of physical harm.

Britain has imprisoned people for tweeting offensive jokes and comments.

I don't know if countries like Canada and Australia are more American or European in their approach, or if there are any individual European countries that are more American. Anyone have any ideas?

 

[psychoslice]

Its so sad that religion these days can still control peoples minds and execute them for using their minds, just for questioning their beliefs that they were born into, it must be terrible for them.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Say, 'O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah .' But if they turn away, then say, 'Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to God].'" (3:64)
1. this verse Makiya
2. is cancelled-no fighting
3. this verse refers to the contradictions of the Qur'an
4. here is an invitation to integrate
5. in other verses say we must fight them

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

From a person that has studied the Quran, yes, that is a fact as found in Quranic verses.

"If Allah so willed, He would have made you a single People, but His plan is to test each of you separately, in what He has given to each of you: so strive in all virtues as in you are in a race. The goal of all of you is to Allah. It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute." (5:48)

"Say, 'O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah .' But if they turn away, then say, 'Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to God].'" (3:64)

"And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.'" (29:46)

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." (2:256)

It lets religious pluralism and the right for people to think what they want and say what they wish, at least in terms of faith. It might be considered blasphemy to say "I disbelieve in Quran, God and Islam" for the Muslims, but the Quran clearly says in the chapter "The Infidels," that the infidels has the right to say it.

I also think there is a letter (or Hadith) written by his companions attributed to Muhammad, it was originally sent to the Saint Catherine Monastery;

- This is a message from Mohamed ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
- Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
- No compulsion is to be on them.
- Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
- No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
- Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
- No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
- The Muslims are to fight for them.
- If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
- Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
- No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (The end of the world - Judgement day.).

Regarding its authenticity, some say that since it's a copy of an alleged original version that never was subject to examination by other scholars than those specifically chosen by the authority (thus suspected by some to have been under duress in their confirmation or unreliable, schematic scholars), some critics have pointed this out to dismiss it, but it more or less doesn't affect the authenticity of the letter, the original version was held by people that aren't suspected to deceptive, to believe it was altered is mere wishful thinking, pure conjecture and there is no credible sources in support of this claim. Though, since it's only a copy of an alleged original that has since then been destroyed, we are not to say this letter is conclusively authentic or true either, allege doesn't necessarily mean false and doesn't necessarily mean true, therefore there is no way to actually determine its authenticity.

It falls under the classification of a "maybe," "inconclusive." It may and it may not be true. No way to actually tell other than to speculate for yourself and assert your own opinion on this subjective matter. If it's authentic, it is furthermore proof of Islam teaches free speech upon those already sufficient enough evidence from the Quran. If it's inauthentic, then we can either say that most Muslims still has regarded it as reliable and incorporated it into their doctrine of Sunnah, but the Quranic verses should be plenty and enough if it's inauthentic. Two responses, Trinity, a Roman-founded doctrine, did not exist during the Islamic era, at that time Christians were Unitarians, a Levant-founded doctrine. Trinity did not exist and was not founded until many centuries after Islam and more than a millennium after Christianity's establishment. Islam criticizes the earlier, Unitarian Son of God doctrine, which is claimed to be the earliest doctrine of Christianity after, in Islamic belief, the corruption of the original Christian teachings of Jesus Christ, but even there, the answer is no. I'm not going to answer these questions directly, but an indirect response to give you an insight, none of that asked are Islamic doctrines, but Muslim opinions, more or less, with high status (whether by Sunni scholars or believers in general).

The conclusion is Islam believes in free speech.

And the Messenger comes to you and you take him, they finished and fear Allah that Allaah is severe in punishment pioneering [hashr:
1. this verse all freedoms of expression in Islam
Therefore your conclusion is not true
2. obey the Prophet and Apostolic orders
3. brutal punishments in the Qur'an
4. broad authority to successors of the Prophet
5. the system of punishment in Islam
Includes all the details and give the Governor broad powers to intervene in individual freedoms
6. the freedom of expression does not exist in Islam
From this verse and others

 

[leibowde84]

And our limitations are very similar to the ones in the U.S.

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you do things like deny the Holocaust and blaspheme in Australia? Just curious.

 

[leibowde84]

Would say there is a fundamental difference between most of Europe and America.

Much greater restriction in Europe on hate speech, potentially libellous/slanderous speech, comments deemed to cause significant offence, etc. These differences are significant rather than minor technicalities as you can be criminally charged for a an often victimless 'speech crime' that has no component of incitement to violence or threat of physical harm.

Britain has imprisoned people for tweeting offensive jokes and comments.

I don't know if countries like Canada and Australia are more American or European in their approach, or if there are any individual European countries that are more American. Anyone have any ideas?

European countries, for the most part, do not have freedom of expression, in that it is not a guaranteed constitutional right. Therefore, it is safe to say that Europe is pretty different than the US.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Can you do things like deny the Holocaust and blaspheme in Australia? Just curious.

Blasphemy law in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Commonwealth does not recognize blasphemy as an offence.[1][2] In 1991, the Australian Law Reform Commission proposed the removal of all references to blasphemy in federal legislation.[3] All that remains as a law against blasphemy is a prohibition against the registration of a ship which has a blasphemous name.[2] This law exists on a more practical level and is to prevent strained relations between Australia and other more religious nations and to protect the vessel and its occupants from harm whilst in foreign waters.

But as with most judicial systems, different acts and laws do have overlapping areas of responsibility.

Australia's Constitution (Section 116) prohibits Australia from having a state religion, and the Crown has rarely acted to protect religion. The Crown has not prosecuted anyone for blasphemy since 1919. In some jurisdictions, such as Tasmania, Queensland, and Victoria, someone who is offended by someone else's attitude toward religion or toward one religion can seek redress under legislation which prohibits hate speech.

Hate speech laws in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.[1]”

In specific regard to the holocaust:

In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.[2]

Research - Article - Jones v Toben - Racial Discrimination on the Internet (October 2002)

He was merely ordered to remove the information from his website.

 

[LuisDantas]

I fear many Muslims may answer that yes, Islam believes in free speech, out of habit alone.

But while so doing they may well mean that speech that offends Islam is inherently shameful and therefore unworthy of free expression.