Censorship in Islam!

[NGONGE]

Not sure if this article was posted here already. I apologise if it were.

If not, then our dear brother Bashir is at it again and waxing lyrical about all things Islamic!

Of course, many of you shall not be surprised to find out that I agree with the basis of his message. Current Islamic censorship is overbearing, meddlesome and very intrusive! I’m only sad to see that his words (and strong feelings on the subject) had let him down and allowed him to write such a weak piece.

 

 

Community Censorship Plagues the House of Islam

Even worse than the official censorship is censorship imposed by the community, which then becomes self-censorship. Friends, colleagues and even ordinary acquaintances all impose strict censorship rules on me under the guise of being concerned about my personal safety or honor. They demand that I tone down my strong views about sensitive issues.

 

Freedom of the press in the Muslim world cannot be separated from freedom of expression in general. Journalists, due to their conspicuous public role, risk their lives everyday. They have been targeted and killed in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan and other countries. The Muslim world is not a friendly place for freedom of speech at all.

 

Journalists, creative writers and artists all share the same fate. The writer in a Muslim society is in shackles. Every time I put pen to paper it is a struggle against the tyranny of community-imposed self-censorship. Nowhere is Rousseau's statement that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains," truer than in the House of Islam.

 

Everything is a taboo. Whenever a Muslim writer takes up a pen he starts tiptoeing in a minefield. You have to follow the flag signs of religious, cultural and social taboos. You should tread carefully avoid shame, social estrangement or even death.

 

The beheading of the Sudanese journalist Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed in early September was the latest example of community punishment of a journalist/writer.

 

Writers have to endure internet blockages and black ink splashed on their art magazines and school textbooks. One of the most bizarre censorship actions I have ever seen was the blotting out of the sexual organs of a historical picture of donkey standing in an old Arabian market.

 

In the House of Islam, you cannot have a principle other than that of the community. Every thing you do is referred to Islam. The mantra is "that's ****** BUT...But we cannot do this because we are Muslims." One hears this expression ad nauseam. In the Islamic world you cease to be a human being. You become only a Muslim, whatever that entails.

 

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea. You cannot go out of the circle. To express yourself freely means to risk death. And death indeed if you change your faith. Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

 

I am obliged to remind my readers however that Islam had its good days of freedom of speech in the middle ages when the Mutazilites and Asharites debated in public and in the royal courts about sensitive issues such as the creation of the Koran. This golden period has since been buried in the thick dust of history. With the rise of Islamic extremism in the present age, one can only hope for the return of such rationale.

 

On a personal level, I remember writing a poem in early 1980s, which was considered critical of Somalia's dictatorial regime of Siyad Barre. Later when I wanted to visit my ailing father I had to travel by land from Djibouti, taking a longer route, rather than risking an arrest at the airport of Hargeisa.

 

In another unfortunate instance, a lyric I wrote on raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and encouraging safe sex has to remain under wraps because musicians were all afraid to set them to music. They considered its message un-Islamic.

 

With Somalia now under the grip of extremist Islamists who have already banned all kinds of artistic works and dissenting voices, freedom of press is their last priority.

 

Censorship in the Islamic world is instilled at childhood. Children are taught that there are two angels sitting on the shoulders of every person entrusted with the task of monitoring every good and bad deed the person does or says. This has prompted me to write in a piece of fiction about the character of a little boy who dived into a pond and vented out his demons under water where no angels or people could censor his words.

 

To survive in such unfriendly atmosphere like this, journalists in the Muslim world have become like parrots that only echo the official line. Torn between the call of professionalism and that of censorship, they have to always adhere to the call of the latter. If it takes a village to raise a child in Africa, it takes a community to kill a writer, artist and a journalist in the Muslim world.

 

Therefore, to talk about how to promote freedom of the press in the Muslim world may be a question that could trigger another clash of civilizations.

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/2006/09/working_under_the_tyranny_of_s.html

Now that you read it, what ideas and opinions has that article conjured up in your head? I hope it does not all concern the faith (or otherwise) of the author. How do you perceive Islamic censorship? Is it spot on? Should it be increased or decreased?

[SeeKer]

I see you didn't find the post. It was in the general section ya akhi

 

Islamic censorship? I can say that I haven't being subjected to it. Bashir's piece was opinionated but I dare say the content says a lot about what the man stands for. I like the little derailment to the angels on your shoulder bit. The spin he put to it puts Bush to shame.

 

Having said that, I would like to point out that journalist everywhere are being criticized about their standards. Bashir points out that perhaps its the religion that oppresses the journalist. I think its the lack of true journalism the allows tyrant (not religion) dictate what they can or cannot write. If Bashir was assured of Islam blotting out his articles why doesn't he quote religious text? There is a difference between what the religion stands for and what a government claiming to be religious stands for. I am willing to listen to his whinning if he can provide clear textual proof (from Islamic sources) that Islam censors him, otherwise he needs to change his stand to certain government and certain people censoring him. I am tired people confusing these bloody governments and tyrants to be epitome and symbols of Islam. They categorically are not! :mad:

[N.O.R.F]

he needs to change his stand to certain government and certain people censoring him. I am tired people confusing these bloody governments and tyrants to be epitome and symbols of Islam. They categorically are not

He fails to recognise what a 'Islamic' govnt is and i not. He firstly needs to distinguish between the two.

 

be back for more later,,,,,,

[NGONGE]

Seeker,

 

First, let us deal with the parts we agree on. The mention of the angels on each shoulder! I’ve got to admit that I too was as confused as you were when I read that part. The author does not at all clarify his position on this. Is he saying it’s not true? Is he against it? Is it just a passing comment that he added so that we all get to know about his story(the one he claims to have written)? Having read that part several times, I can only conclude that the author considers the story of the two angels on each shoulder to be a myth!

 

Now, lets turn our attention to the parts that we disagree on. At the outset of this thread I specifically asked that we should not digress into arguments about the author’s personality, beliefs or even honesty. That’s really a pointless discussion (since he’s not here to defend himself). Still, you didn’t oblige me and decided to comment on him! Alas, I dare say you got it all wrong. It’s the same old confusing argument about Islam and Muslims. If you read the article again, you’ll notice that the author praises the golden age of Islam and wishes that it would return. Furthermore, in his entire article, he does not refer to Islam itself but rather to the way people are applying it today. He also clearly talks about official censorship (meaning the tyrant governments you speak about) and community censorship (meaning every Tom, Dick and Harry). In no way, as far as I’m concerned, does he criticise Islam itself!

 

Read his piece again (ignoring the bit about the angels) and see if you agree with his idea bout the ‘community censorship’ that he’s ;putting forward. Do you agree with it or disagree and why?

[Naden]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

How do you perceive

Islamic censorship

? Is it spot on? Should it be increased or decreased?

I think of it as tribal censorship more than Islamic censorship. Islam, the faith, allows all to conduct themselves however they fancy (limited by social mores, of course) at the very core of its ideology including the belief in God himself. Islam, the tribe, with its strong affiliations and revered symbols and figures, has to squash dissent.

 

Writers, artists and journalists are usually the ones that push the limits of social mores, articulating what needs to be changed. Or so we’d like to believe. Their control is important but this is not something unique to a society that’s largely muslim. I think what hides under a cloak of conservatism, traditionalism, the way of the salaf, or similar terms is nothing but a protection of the tribal identity that is of Islam but is not Islam.

 

Why complain so much, though? Putting people back in line serves its purpose for the powers that be, from business people to politicians to the self-appointed temple guards. As an earnest journalist, he ought to know that. So what if one journalist has his head cut off only to be drop-kicked through the slums of Khartoum? There are interests to protect. Goth has a blog and a site that people frequent and read, what more does a writer need? He has more audience than any Mu’tazala in the so-called golden era of freedom (foolish romanticism, if you ask me). Suck it up!

[SeeKer]

The writer in a Muslim society is in shackles. Every time I put pen to paper it is a struggle against the tyranny of community-imposed self-censorship. Nowhere is Rousseau's statement that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains," truer than in the House of Islam.

In the House of Islam, you cannot have a principle other than that of the community. Every thing you do is referred to Islam.

In the Islamic world you cease to be a human being. You become only a Muslim, whatever that entails.

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea. You cannot go out of the circle. To express yourself freely means to risk death. And death indeed if you change your faith. Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

Censorship in the Islamic world is instilled at childhood. Children are taught that there are two angels sitting on the shoulders of every person entrusted with the task of monitoring every good and bad deed the person does or says.

It takes a village to raise a child in Africa, it takes a community to kill a writer, artist and a journalist in the Muslim world.

Ngonge I can't critize a piece of writing by a journalist objectively when they approach a subject subjectively. Fox news is a classic example to it.

 

As you can see I picked a few quotes from his piece. I will try not to pick on him so i will lump him in with journalists and I will approach censorship in the same likeness (generally). Earlier I said he was subjective noh? Can I ask you a question Ngonge? Is freedom of speech practised in its true form anywhere on this earth? **Mull over that**

 

Journalists are there to provide us facts sax? If I were to take his piece as factual, I will come away from reading his piece that journalists in muslim countries are puppets. Not only puppets but "Muslim" puppets. That he believes he is being censored is evident but as to who exactly is the "community" that censors him is unclear. This is where you are telling me not to infer Islam. Excuse me if I can't tell the difference between Islam and Muslims. They are intertwined, one molds the other. The fact that his piece is littered with references of Islam and House of Islam and muslims doesn't clear up the misconception even a bit.

 

His last sentence that promoting freedom of press would "trigger another clash of civilization" isolates the Muslim world. You and I both infer that he blames the tyranical governments/individuals and lets be honest even the democratic governments have limits to freedom of speech/press i.e During General Mccarthy's era you couldn't say you were gay if you were in the service, You can't criticize the IRA in Ireland, Thatcher nearly banned Spy catcher, China, Eritrea and India are by the far the worst violators of freedom of press.

 

So what is Goth saying? I can only assume, and I don't mean to make an **** of myself, that he is singling out the governments. Are the governments backed by the divination? He didn't provide that detail but in my opnion insinuated it and my answer is still categorically that Islam has nothing to do with the lessening of freedom of press.That freedom of press is curtailed? Yes it is and has been for years.That it is an isolated problem? No, its not. The whole world suffers from it or suffered from it at one time or another. That I agree with his points? I agree to a certain limit and that was reached when he became subjective.

[NGONGE]

Now you’re getting yourself all mixed up and are confusing me with you! You asked me earlier if I believe that Freedom of Speech is practised anywhere in the world. I don’t think I need to spend a long time ‘mulling’ over it before I reach the obvious answer of NO, not fully. However, that’s neither here nor there. There is a difference between those that are seen to be working towards attaining full freedom of speech (even if they never get there) and those that oppose it or are seen to be working towards curtailing it! The McCarthy era was one of those; do you not see the irony in mentioning him along with the other examples you gave? It was journalists that exposed him, criticised his policies, conduct and style. And, it was journalists that told us about all the other transgressions of the others you mentioned.

 

 

Journalists are there to provide us facts sax? If I were to take his piece as factual, I will come away from reading his piece that journalists in muslim countries are puppets. Not only puppets but "Muslim" puppets. That he believes he is being censored is evident but as to who exactly is the "community" that censors him is unclear. This is where you are telling me not to infer Islam. Excuse me if I can't tell the difference between Islam and Muslims. They are intertwined, one molds the other. The fact that his piece is littered with references of Islam and House of Islam and muslims doesn't clear up the misconception even a bit.

There is a real problem here that I’ve come across time and time again. How to tell the difference between Muslims and Islam! You say (in this piece) that they are intertwined and that one moulds the other! Fine. Does that mean that when a reckless Muslim commits an act of terror (for instance), Islam is to blame? Or would we go back to the old argument of Islam being pure and just and that the mistakes of individuals should not be attributed to it? Where does one make the distinction, and how? When you and I criticise the Jews and Christians (another example), are we really criticising the faiths or are we condemning how their respective followers are interpreting and applying those faiths? How can we ever clarify what we are saying?

 

When I read a piece I don’t always only read what is being said, but, also what is not being said (which often happens to be more important). Here, the author deliberately spoke about and praised the golden age of Islam and, also, purposely did not speak about Islam (the pure and unblemished message). For me, as a reader, this suggests that his grievance is not with the actual faith but its followers and the way they interpret/apply it. I read ‘Community’ in its traditional meaning: a group of people that have something in common (which he happens to belong to and happen to be Muslim). I do agree with you (as I said at the start of this thread) that the whole article is weak, however, you seem to be avoiding the actual idea, suggestion and claim of the article: Censorship in Islam.

 

Naden seems to have worked it out but is, it seems to me, choosing to sit on the fence here and fob us off with talk about tribal identity, interests and control. All, I believe, to be true of course but are they RIGHT?

[SeeKer]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Does that mean that when a reckless Muslim commits an act of terror (for instance), Islam is to blame?

I will probably be in trouble for saying this and it is off the topic, but I have to reply to that question with the knowledge I have of Islamic rulings. That reckless Muslim that commits that act of terror is following Islamic text so there is no blaming. They are absolving the rest of the Ummah from their obligation. So, if you really pushed I would have to say, yep Islam is to blame.

 

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they doâ€

 

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

 

“Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Mercifulâ€

 

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

 

“and fight against the Mushrikoon (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah) collectively as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allaah is with those who are Al-Muttaqoon (the piousâ€

 

[al-Tawbah 9:36]

 

“March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allaah. This is better for you, if you but knewâ€

[al-Tawbah 9:41]

 

 

You want to distinguish between Islam and Muslim? Islam is the faith and muslim is the follower, simple right, but its the degrees of faith that cause the disparity. Saying the shahada makes you a muslim but does that mean you are a believer? There is even a hadith that highlight this. Prophet Mohamed (SAW) is said to be distributing Zaakah when he doesn't give it to one person. Sa'd ibn Waqaas speaks up saying that he believes the neglected man to be a faithful believer. The prophet (SAW) replies "Or (merely) a Muslim".

 

What I am getting at? Goth fails to highlight the distinction between the two.

 

Back to the topic at hand. Censorship does exist and I never said it didn't, that it occurs under the guise of Islam is where I draw the line. The terrorist has the seal of approval of Islam, he is following his texts. On the other hand ,the oppressor, who curtails freedom of press to further his cause does not.

 

A twisted understanding of an Islamic text that says Islam allows for freedom of press to occur would be sufficient to prove that Islam has a hand in it, otherwise the journalist in question should have either approached the subject universally or specifically (tyrannical government). His take on it was slanted religiously & that my dear Ngonge is my beef with him.

[-Serenity-]

Hello NGONGE,

 

I was watching this and remembered your debate here. Not entirely related but concerns journalism in the arab world.

[SeeKer]

^^Thats was a funny debate. I felt the al-jazeera man was absolutely rattled by the outspoken woman. I actually sent the link to my professor too.

[Zafir]

Interesting debate. Though I reckon, this Khalid person’s ideology sounded a lot like Khalaf’s posts right here on SOL.

[Reality Check]

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea.

This is true.