;Ikenna Anigbogu
Professor Karmani
Analysis and Expression
Contemporary Debates in Islam Virtually, everyone believes in freedom of speech in any liberal society because it is one of its fundamental and most valuable tenets but how ‘free’, freedom of speech should be has been a bone of contention in diverse liberal society. The discourse about freedom of speech and the offense and harms it can constitute in a society has been an issue since the inception of liberalism. The Rushdie’s affair in 1989 brought into public view “the nature of Islam and its relationship with the West” (K. Malik 41).The Rushdie’s affair, generated as a result of a book, Satanic Verses, written by Rushdie Salman, it aggravated the Muslim society to the extent that a fatwa was issued ordering his death. In 2005, the publication of the Mohammed cartoons by Jyllands-Posten reignited the debate on freedom of speech and its limitations and there were two sides to it. On one hand of the debate, there are people who argue that for social harmony and progress in a plural or diverse society, “constraining free speech” or limiting it out of respect for the deeply held views of the different group is important (K. Malik 53). There are also those who argue for the right to free speech only when it is to their benefit or interest, which is double standards. That is, they use freedom of speech as a means to an end. To this end, Kenan Malik, a London writer and strong proponent of free speech, disagrees with both sides of the debate, calling them “enemies of free speech” because they in one way or the other limit the use of free speech in a diverse society and by propagation, disrupt social harmony and progress (Malik 53). According to his article, it is only by “extending free speech” and not “extending restrictions” that societal harmony can be achieved (K. Malik 50). In the debate “Muslim vs. Free Speech” held by The Dispatches, a British TV current affair documentary, he argues that for the very reason we live in a plural society, we need the greatest extension of free speech because giving of offense is inevitable and important for social harmony and progress in a society. He says it is inevitable because beliefs are deeply held therefore, clashes are unavoidable and we should better deal with such clashes in the open rather than suppress them; and important because any form of social progress must offend some people in a plural society. Nesrine Malik, a British writer, in her article “Freedom to Offend Everyone” argues similarly, she argues that “defenders of free speech must be consistent and stand up for offensive speech no matter who is the target” (N. Malik 3). Gary Younge, a black British writer, opposes this view. In his article “The Right to be Offended” he stresses that the right to freedom of speech does not equate to the right to be offended, which means that the right to be offended is not a necessity for social harmony. While allowing the right to give offense might lead to social harmony and progress in a plural society, limiting or constraining freedom of speech out of respect for the different pluralities in a diverse society is a more reassuring path to social harmony and progress. Limiting freedom of speech makes sure that deeply held views are respected and any form of potential insult which could lead to the violence avoided. The media of course should be allowed to print what they feel they is important but that doesn’t mean they should be insensitive or be all out to offend minority groups like the case of the Danish cartoons.
Kenan Malik in his article “Enemies of Free Speech” clearly emphasize that only when offense is given, can there be liberty and social harmony in the society. But this logic is flawed. He argues that every member of the society has to be able to put up with offense for harmony in the society because giving of offense is inevitable in a diverse society. But Gary Younge in his article “The Right to be offended” argues that “this logic is disingenuous” because it equates the right to freedom of speech with the right to cause offense (Younge 1). He argues further that if this statement were true, it would then have “one consequent and subsequent responsibility” that “people must have the right to be offended” and those who intentionally give offense must be able to withstand the results (Younge 1). Considering the Danish cartoons controversy, the giving and receiving of offense didn’t follow through. The cartoons caused offense to the Muslim community, and from Kenan Malik’s view, they should accept this as it is fundamental whilst living in a plural society. Muslims accepted this offense and responded with protests as should be from if we follow the logic of giving of offense because they have the right to be offended, therefore, the West should be able to weather the consequences, which it didn’t as most Western critics called their response “an evidence of a clash of evidence” (Younge 2; K. Malik 51). We see that the logic behind the giving of offense as a criteria for social harmony, doesn’t always follow through on both sides.
How will limiting or constraining freedom of speech be a more reassuring path to societal harmony? By showing that by constraining free speech, we seldom will have any form of societal chaos and that giving of offense has a more potential of raising societal chaos. K. Malik asserts that limiting freedom of speech is a slippery slope that leads to excess censorship. He puts that speech has be “constrained not in exceptional circumstances but in all circumstances especially in diverse societies where there are deeply held views and beliefs” (K. Malik 44). In other words censorship has become the norm out of respect for other people’s views in a plural society. He implies his idea of slippery slope when he talks about censorship in India: where the Muslim community advocated for the ban on the Rusdie Salman book “The Satanic Verses” and when the Indian authorities caved into their pressure, it lead to a spiraling event in which the Hindus came forward that there should be a ban on the screening of Jashn-e-Azadi because it was anti-India, then the Sikhs came forward that an American comedian should be sanctioned for using the Golden Temple in Amritsar. However, a key problem with K. Malik’s arguments is that it assumes that only when we limit freedom of speech are we on a slippery slope, while in reality, in every discussion involving free speech, we are always on a slippery slope it only depends on how far we want to go down the slope. That is, whatever we do on free speech might lead to a spiraling series of events. That said, it might be reasonably contended that the extension of free speech to give the right to offend and receive offense is also a slippery slope as it could lead to a state of anarchy where no one follows any laid down rules whilst they use their freedom to speech. This would lead to violence and deadly clashes bringing down any form of societal harmony or progress. Even still, it is possible although that limiting freedom of speech might lead to further restrictions-but they might not. But if they do in any case, such restrictions will be justified.
Kenan Malik further argues in agreement with Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, that this happened because the definition of tolerance has been turned on its head. He says “tolerance used to mean the acceptance of diversity and difference but today, it means the refusal to accept diversity and difference” (K. Malik 45). However, K. Malik and Rose assume that only one definition of tolerance. The Museum of Tolerance defines tolerance as a fair and objective attitude toward those whose opinions and practices differ from one’s own and also as the commitment to respect human dignity. This definition therefore tells us that respecting other people space in a society for the very reason for the growth and harmonious existence of the community is tolerance. Therefore restricting free speech out of respect of the pluralities in a society is a form of tolerance and not intolerance or bigotry. Though questions like who decides what to be constrained, that is, who draws the line between what is free and limited will have power to do anything, thereby leading to tyranny. But the fact remains that a diverse liberal society will cohesively agree on what should be allowed or not.
Then there is the problem of double standards. Nesrine Malik in her article “Freedom to Offend” says that anybody defending free speech “must be consistent” and free speech fundamentalists should also defend the right to give offense (N. Malik 3) in their action so as to avoid any form of double standard which is evident in most cultures and countries. Kenan Malik treats the problem of double standards by giving a solution in his article when he says double standard should not be confronted by extending limitations on speech but by extending freedom of speech [to include the right to offend] (K. Malik 50). Double standard is a situation in which one advocates for an idea but refuses the application of such ideas to himself or herself. The limitation of free speech can also solve the problem of double standards. As mentioned by Kenan Malik, John Milton and John Locke in their respective papers “Areopagitica” and “Letter Concerning Toleration”, which were one of the philosophical foundations of liberalism, they opposed extensions to Catholics because of the problem of double standards which is faced today (K. Malik 50). So by ensuring that every member of the community is equally deprived, we create a sense of equality and fairness which is a characteristic of a progressing society. It is important also to note that the media plays a huge role in the society and as well as in this debate. Kenan Malik clearly show that the media have propagated the sense that radical Islamist represented all Muslims when he gives us the examples of Nasser Khader who was referred to as “not a real Muslim” because he wasn’t offended by the cartoons. As The Economist argued in the “Cartoon Wars”, I support their argument that the Government should not in any way come in the way or sanction the media, but it doesn’t mean the media should be partial when representing views of the society they represent like in the case of the Mohammed cartoons where the media chose the opinion of radical Muslims as the opinion of all Muslims thereby being stereotypic in their story. This also doesn’t mean the media should be in sensitive to the deeply held views of the society.
This essay does not argue that the right to give offense is inherently bad or would lead to anarchy, neither is it stating that limiting freedom of speech is a sure way to tyranny and excess censorships. Instead this essay sets the position that acknowledging and respecting individuals deeply held views. To put it another way, it is arguing that limiting free speech ensures people’s views are respected and their sensitivities taken note of and not necessarily silencing societal dialogue, debates or arguments. To achieve this the liberal society should advocate for constraining free speech especially when it revolves around issue with potentials of societal violence. Ultimately, the goal is that there should be a harmonious society.

Works Cited
Malik, Kenan. “Enemies of Free Speech” Index on Censorship. March 28, 2012.
Malik, Nesrine. “Freedom to Offend Anyone” Opinion. April 17, 2014.
The Economist. “Cartoon Wars” Leaders. February 11, 2006.
Younge, Gary. “The Right to be Offended” The Nation. February 27, 2006.