The Cost of Freedom of Speech

On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway, and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her for her recent statement that the Qur’an’s views of women needed reevaluation. They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000 documentary for Norwegian television.
As they beat her, Kadra’s attackers shouted Allahu Akbar—Allah is great—and recited verses from the Qur’an. “I was terrified,” she said. “While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran.”
In this report writer gives a background report on what Muslems have done during recent fifty years on those who have been victimized of freedom of speech not only in western but even in Islamic societies. The persons such as Ahmad Kasravi(1947),Haji Ali Razmara, Faraj Foda(1992), Naguib Mahfouz(1994) after being accused blasphemy or treacherous were murdered by radical Muslims. The author warns about this event in west and calls it a great challenge for western societies.

The democracy and democratic values has been a great issue westerners debated on during recent decades. Many have criticized Islam for being so stiff and non-reflexive in its rules or criticized Muslims to act in some cases so radical and violated human rights, but when they are asked about democracy and liberalism can not reply correctly. They, themselves, believe that the mere liberalism does not match with democracy and say in some occasions we must limit human freedom. There is a famous saying among Persians and maybe Muslims that means the one who does not appreciate himself he would not do it for others. The domain of religion is one of those in which not any irrelevant idea should be allowed to enter and act what it likes. I don’t want to compensate the radical actions of those who have not known Islam and from that only they have learnt the punishment.
After September 11, according to what Zionists predicted in their scenario attacks on Muslims in west increased. The growth of Islam has been one of concerns among western leaders during recent two decades. Although Zionists in US continuously tried to show their oppressedness by different ways through media but they witnessed the increasing popularity of Islam. By WTC scenario they could reveal some Islamic radical groups and introduced them to people of whole world as they represent all Muslims. They figured out Islam in such a way they wanted to be, as a savages' religion and a close threat to western civilized world.
In western look on world everything is able to be criticized even Jesus. According their material look on world everything can be visible and accessible, so it differs from eastern look upon which some creatures like Devil can only live spiritually not bodily or Prophets and saints are far from being discussed or assimilated. According to western opinion it is not strange or blasphemous that a person like George W. Bush introduces himself as Jesus who has come to save humanity.So criticism on issues and cases that are deemed materialistically is as easy as westerners think.
The author has combined all of these events together with one look and by special intention with no attention to the reasons of events. Different looks on the issue is the result of different concept and beliefs that led to conflict.
The freedom in every society and upon every belief is appreciated as a value of humanity but as in some cases even western philosophers believe that freedom lead to anarchy, religion is one that domain. Of course it should be noted that religion itself and its ability to attract as well as those who try to introduce religion to people as preachers are all important factors that Christianity has not benefited any of them. The history of Christianity shows many distortions of what Moses and Christ told and preached really, so it is obvious that many of contemporary followers do not appreciate it and allocate it to a certain time and place.
In general, it is on Muslims to seek for ways to show Islam and its entity more clear than before and to prevent those who want to show a savage face of Islam.

Quebec Right on Muslims

Recently news on a Muslims woman who applied for a Job as a prison guard in Quebec caused some controversial debates on liberal values in western world. The Quebec government asked woman either remove her Hijab or she could not take the job and be trained for that, but she refused to remove her veil.
Some Canadians and Americans argue that liberal values do not allow one to treat freely. Muslim advocacy groups have been crying racism. "It is an ultimatum, remove the hijab or you're out of here, "said the head of the Muslim Council of Britain."That's not a security issue; this is much more a bigoted issue." A department spokesman said "As a security measure, the hijab can not be accepted as an element of the uniform to execute the functions of a correctional officer."
The Muslim Council called for compromise but the government refused. All across the western world, Muslims are struggling to fit in, to balance the norms of liberal democracies with the requirements of their faith.
What is important is that how western countries can call themselves liberal and democratic but do not allow Muslim citizens to treat as they want. They claim that all people are free for doing their religious rituals but see hijab as a politic sign. Muslims are trying to fit themselves in most aspects of western life for example education, politics, economy and culture but are not allowed to have the only right that a Muslim should have, the right to cover itself that is a religious rather than being political.
It seems that western countries fear of future as demographical reports show the increase of minority population such as Muslims in these societies so they predict if they remain passive and neutral to these changes, integration would face danger. In contrast to what they think I believe if they would come along with this fact that how it is important for a Muslim to do her religious practice they could also benefit this bigotry. According to Islamic beliefs, protection of land in which one lives is considered as worship so Muslims can help national integration in every western country, but what governments expect Muslims is just to assimilate not to accommodate.
In fact I think it is a common issue because in Iran some minority groups, as Christians and Jews and Zarahtoshtians, lives who like to live as they want but there are limitations for them from Islamic rules that force them to obey, what should they do? Maybe some one thinks that they are less in number than Muslims in western countries and they should assimilate Muslims in Iran but what is the difference. We believe that minority groups should act like Muslims and in western countries people believe Muslims should assimilate others. If they force Muslims to be like others we also force minorities to treat like Muslim.
What is the solution for this condition? Can we call it democracy, in societies, Iran and west? It seems that both sides only bear the name of democracy as all can see all over the world. Democracy is only an excuse for governments for not being blamed for autocracy. This is added by the claim of liberalism that westerners pretend to have in their societies and I think they are more under pressure for such an issue.