Controversy over the freedom of speech

It’s evident from the past history that freedom of speech was barred through the legislation. However, the current constitution was emerged for the said reason. The said right was deprived in respect of the state-harmony. Unfortunately the Blue Constitution states that all citizens are guaranteed the right to speech not creed and assembly, how ever; it states that all rights were granted upon, within and in accordance with the laws and regulation of Maldives.
“Meaning of law’ shall be defined for the purpose. The constitution (Blue 1998) states, the sources of laws includes; the constitution, Laws, Regulation, Presidential Decree and his order. So the question was rose; who deprived the right to speech, whether it was legally refrained, the depriving of such a right may question the morality and whether a law can be wrong when it is morally wrong.
Later, upon revising the Green Constitution of Maldives, the right to speech was granted and guaranteed as an unalienable right. Such a right shall not be limited, so its practicing and enjoying and misusing the right, to blame, defame others.
Islamic sharia supports “shura”, how ever the notion that everything shall be within the sharia is the principle. Shari maintains high degree of speech; Pre-islamic cultures, the tribes had discussed such mattes to defend and help their allies. Later during Prophet (SAW) era, he deprived the society from illness, the social values were upheld, and the tenets of Islam were highly protected. And also the anti-Islamic tribes, the societies and their allies were also protected an extent through the regime. It was evident from the Prophet’s regime that the “shura” upheld for various reasons; it can be concluded on the sense of the best alternative decision and majority decision (democracy).
God created every one as free. He may choose his way. God created man with pure instinct and created devil for the purpose of reckoning the deeds. The free mind can choose his creeds, he can be a non-believer, he can be a believer; Islam grants the right in an extent. But the question is is freedom absolute? Are the human able to decide to avoid hereafter, or the other life? But Islam used to protect the life, blood, wealth, children and reputation. Lets see that “Qazf”, it was laid down and revealed to protect the dignity.
We have heard A Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. All Muslims stand against the news paper. Islam counted as the majority in this world, but it was vanished he was not beheaded, he was neither tortured, it was just propagate idea to invade Muslim territories.
A paper was submitted to United Nations about the criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights, but the US and EU countries boycotted the conference the said clause was omitted. It would be inhumane to make such a criticism, and decided it’s in its one-way direction. Non-Muslims were not compellable to comply and limit, but Muslims were.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The person who utters a word which meets with Allah’s favour may think it has not been heard, yet for this Allah will raise him to a higher level of Paradise. Conversely, the person who utters a word that stirs Allah to anger may give no thought to what he said, only to have Allah cast him in Hell for seventy years.

Mu’az ibn Jabal narrated: I was in company with the Prophet in a travel, and one day I was close to him while we were travelling. So I said: “O Messenger of Allah, tell me of an act which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from Hell fire…shall I not tell you of the foundation of all of that?” I said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah,” and he took hold of his tongue and said: “Restrain this.” I said: “O Prophet of Allah, will what we say be held against us?” He said: “May your mother be bereaved of you, Mu’az ! Is there anything that topples people on their faces – or he said on their noses into Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?
Western Jurisdictions
As we know absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth. How ever a journalist is not required nor accepted to lead his sprits to racism, support annihilation, terrorism; these are some limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.
“Europe lived in the dark ages for hundreds of years ruled by tyrannical Kings on behalf of an oppressive Church. Book burning, inquisitions, torture and death were common place for those who dared to confront this tyranny. Scientists, thinkers and scholars were all subject to harassment and even imprisonment for their views. The famous scientist Galileo, was convicted of heresy in 1633 and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for claiming that the earth moved around the sun”
In every nation the issue is who will lay down the limitations? It was the Western states that clamp down on the political affairs of other nations. They advocate granting the right, through EU, and other pressure groups. Freedom of speech is granted to propagate the western ideology. It was from the capitalistic ideology that leads to secularism, stating that church and religion shall be separated. The Qur’an and Sunnah have given us all the answers we need to establish an Islamic political system.
So as far we discuss freedom of speech is limited, it has limits and it is subject to limitation. A Maldivian Journalist who has threatened to be beheaded has frozen in fear. He has been insulting the Islamic scholars of Maldives. Hilath was embarrassed due to the sermons delivered by the scholars. They argue that Fareed is supposed to blame and fear women, to degrade them in the society where Hilath used to shake every issue around him. Sometimes he is pro-government activist but occasionally he used to act anti-government ally.
Whom the Hell is calling for? Was an amusement to these free minded anti-islamic Ignorants. However they have blamed that Islam is an obsolete belief. They publicly argue for the freedom of religion. They believed that the constitution is bised and it corces to be muslims. Their majority are Athiests. Their poor creed; yes, God doesn’t exist, but what I found compare to the pro-athiest fathers these Maldivians are just baby atheists, having no base, standing, defence.
Non of the country nor a society has granted such rights utterly. So how do freedom shall be defined. Freedom cannot be defined in that sense. And no one can deprive others rights, defame others. As we know the limitations are being imposed to protect the tenets of Islam. This is a muslim state, 100% muslim (documents), state religion is muslim, 1st source of law is Islamic Sharia, so Hilath must have learned a lesson.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Controversy over the freedom of speech

  1. That guy says:

    Even if you want to deny it, Islamic Sharia is not implemented here. You can say it is a half-baked version of Sharia that is implemented here.

    Also, the myth of the 100% islamic state is a lie – created by Maumoon. A good muslim should think twice before calling such a swindler a “highest authority”.

  2. Pingback: “so Hilath must have learned a lesson”: Yasin Fikry | Hilath Online

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s