by nabeel raza its just an effort to clarify the misunderstandings regarding Islam and freedom of speech

1. Research Paper
By: Nabeel Raza
Roll no 01
MSC FILM & TV

2. PAGE 1
Abstract
Now a days Freedom of speech has become a way to spread hatred
and hurt Muslims .This research is aimed to discuss overall sketch
of freedom of speech and hate speech and those ways which hurt
Muslims and how this can be stopped. In this research paper I will
briefly discus what actually freedom of expression is and how we
can differentiate with offensiveness and hate speech and why
Muslims are against this freedom. To attain the best possible
valuable data, an intensive research is made through internet,
television newspapers and social applications which all are
possible ways of expressing your opinion
But it also should be very clear that freedom of expression is very
important because it makes possible to express you and make
people aware of your views and thinking

3. PAGE 2
DEFINITION
Freedomof speechis the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without
fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The
term freedom of expressionis sometimes used synonymously, but includes
any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless
of the medium used

4. PAGE 3
WHAT IS FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION?
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under
article 19 of the Universal DeclarationofHuman Rights and recognized
in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil
and PoliticalRights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that:
“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and
"everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form
of art, or through any other media of his choice"
Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special
duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain
restrictions" when necessary "or respectof the rights or reputation of others"
or "or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or
of public health or morals".
Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations
to freedom of speech relate
to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting
words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-
disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public
security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle,
proposedbyJohn Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only

5. PAGE 4
purposefor which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." The idea
of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech
limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed
offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of
the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided. With the evolution of
the digital age, application of the freedom of speechbecomes more
controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for
example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese
government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable
data from foreign countries.
There are a lot of sayings about expressing you for example Allah Almighty
said in Quran “And wheneveryou give your words saythe truth” So if
freedom of expressions means to express the word of truth then every
Muslim respectthis in fact in Islam it is same like Jihad to say “Kalma-e-haq
in front of a cruel Ruler “But when it comes to hurting others and their
emotions then it becomes unbearable for everyone because a Muslims
cannot become a Momin until and unless his neighbor is not safe from his
hand and tongue so it’s also important for everyone to keep this in mind that
Importance

6. PAGE 5
Freedom of speech or any other freedom is as important as oxygen for any
human being becauseit is the thing which tells the world that no you are not
like others you have your own identity and if there is no freedom in society
then you are not alive and you are no more human being also you are like
any animal who has no mind or thinking or understanding power
But at the end of every argument we have to put “BUT” because without this
nothing can run smoothly so in this case but comes at that point when we
start using this freedom to abuse others
So while using our right we totally forgets that other people also have hurts
and minds
Its importance can be judged by this quotation
So Sir George defines this freedom in a very
Clear way that there is no need to add even
A single word to explain its importance
Background
Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates
modern international human rights instruments it is thought that
ancient Athens' democratic ideology of free speech may have emerged in the
late 6th or early 5th century BC. The values of the Roman Republic included
freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

7. PAGE 6
Concepts offreedom of speechcan be found in early human rights
documents. England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the
constitutional right of 'freedom of speechin Parliament' which is still in
effect. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted
during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of
speechas an inalienable right. The Declaration provides for freedom of
expression in Article 11, which states that:
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of
the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print
with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as
shall be defined by law.
Article 19 of the Universal DeclarationofHuman Rights, adopted in
1948, states that:
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.
Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in
international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article
19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of

8. PAGE 7
the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American
Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights. Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of
speechis understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right
to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct
aspects:
1. the right to seek information and ideas;
2. the right to receive information and ideas;
3. the right to impart information and ideas
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of
speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in
written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that
the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content,
but also the means of expression.
Offensiveness/Hate Speech
Hate speechis speechwhich attacks a personor group on the basis of
attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual
orientation. In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech,
gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites
violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group, or individual
on the basis of their membership to the group, or because it disparages or
intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership
to the group.

9. PAGE 8
The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. In the law
of other countries, hate speechis not a legal term. In some countries, a
victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or
both. A website which uses hate speech may be called a hate site. Most of
these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a
particular viewpoint.
Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate
speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions
allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and
are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993) found that racist speech
could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional
changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the
subordination of these minorities. The idea that hate speechis a mechanism
of subordination is supported byscholarly evidence.
Hate speech on the Internet
On May 31, 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed
to a European Union codeof conduct obligating them to review " majority
of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their
services within 24 hours.

10. PAGE 9
Following a campaign which involved the participation of Women, Action
and the Media, the Everyday Sexism Project and the activist Soraya
Chemaly, who were among 100 advocacygroups, Facebookagreed to
update its policy on hate speech. The campaign highlighted content that
promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, and used over
57,000 tweets and more than 4,900 emails to create outcomes such as the
withdrawal of advertising from Facebookby15 companies,
including Nissan UK, House of Burlesque, and Nationwide UK. The social
media website initially responded by stating that "While it may be vulgar
and offensive, distasteful content on its own does not violate our
policies",[but then agreed to take action on May 29, 2013, after it had
"becomeclear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have
failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of
gender-based hate."
Hate speech laws
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)states that
"any advocacyof national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by
law" The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism. On 3 May
2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights
Committee published Draft General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which
among other comments expressed concern that many forms of "hate speech"
do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20. This paragraph
does not appear in the final document.] Concerning the debate over
how freedom of speechapplies to the Internet, conferences concerning such

11. PAGE 10
sites have been sponsoredbythe United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees.
Enforcementof hate speech laws
Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those which are
designed for public order and those which are designed to protecthuman
dignity. Those designed to protectpublic order seem to be somewhat
ineffective becausethey are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern
Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the
regulation in twenty one years. Those meant to protect human dignity,
however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the
Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced

12. PAGE 11
What is Hate Speech
Hate speech is spoken words that are offensive, insulting, and/or
threatening to an individual or group based on a particular attribute of
that person or persons being targeted. Targeted attributes include such
traits as ethnic background, sexual orientation, race, or disability, though
there are other target attributes. In the U.S., another term for hate speech
is “fighting words,” as such talk is likely to provoke an otherwise
reasonable person into acting rashly against speaker doing the provoking.
Unfortunately, defending freedom of speech means defending any and all
speech equally, even that which may be regarded as unbearably offensive.
Examples of hate speech include name-calling and racial slurs, though
occasionally symbols like the swastika and burning crosses are called into
question as to whether or not they are truly examplesof hate speech, or if
they are nothing more than symbols that are given a negative
connotation from the situation in which they are used.
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech
Modern times have seen Americans staunchly protective of their First
Amendment right to free speech, believing that the government should
only intervene in extreme cases, and just as many people wondering
where free speech stops and hate speech begins. On the other hand,
“fighting words” are, according to many, a good reason for the
government to get involved and place a limit on how far someone can go
with their speech.
In the debate over hate speech vs. free speech, many Americans express a
concern that the number-one priority should be the well-being of the
community, and that a person’s right to freedom of speech can and
should be limited, if it poses a threat to that community’s well-being.
Freedom of Hate with Islam
The Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptanceof other
religions. It does not condonediscrimination of human beings on the

13. PAGE 12
basis of caste, creed, color or faith. It falls on all the OIC member
states as a sacred duty to protectthe lives and property of their non-
Muslim citizens and to treat them without discrimination of any form.
Thoseelements who seek to harm or threaten minority citizens must
be subjected to law. Our strong stand condemning violence
perpetrated against non-Muslims whether in Iraq, Egypt or Pakistan
has been consistent.
No one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and
prejudice. That kind of behavior is irresponsible and uncivilized
We also cannot overlook the fact that the world is diverse. The Western
perception on certain issues would differ from those held by others. We need
to be sensitive and appreciative of this reality, more so when it comes to
criticizing or expressing views on issues related to religion and culture.
The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that
sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the
film Fitnah and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of
incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion.

14. PAGE 13
Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility.
No Muslim can ever bear the insult of the beloved Prophet of Islam (saw). It is therefore
hardly surprising that the recent film attacking the honor of the Prophet (saw) has drawn
escalating outrage from Muslims all over the world. To add fuel to the fire, a French
magazine has now published some extremely derogatory caricatures of the Prophet (saw).
Those defending such actions claim they are upholding freedom of speech; and freedom
of speech can never be curbed regardless of the consequences

15. PAGE 14
At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and
uncivilized and we condemn them unequivocally
Rather than asking why Muslims hate the right to free
speech … we should instead be asking, why are
Muslims resisting freedom of speech?
Returning to our original point of discussion, it is necessary now to reframe
our initial question in light of this new perspective. Rather than asking why
Muslims hate the right to free speech, as if it were an inherent and natural
trait, we should instead be asking, why are Muslims resisting freedom of
speech?
Keeping power relations in mind, it is barely surprising that a minority group
would opposewhat has now become an oppressive legal weapon in the guise
of an emancipatory freedom. The discursive battle we are currently
witnessing can be seen as a fight to define the position of human rights in
social relations; a fight to determine the role of human rights in perpetuating
or resisting cultural domination and symbolic violence. Over whether human
rights are – as originally envisaged – a toolagainst power, or a further
apparatus for the powerful to continue to linguistically beat people into
submission.

16. PAGE 15
We are not against freedom of speech but we are against all those speeches
and expressions which hurt people
DOUBLE STANDARDS OF EU & USA
The grossly hypocritical nature of this elusive conceptis however quite
apparent for all to see. Europe, for instance, imposes legal and social limits
on freedom of expression; publication of anti-Semitic cartoons would almost
everywhere be liable to legal prosecution. In some of the European countries
it is against the law to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. But, it
appears that it is quite acceptable to ridicule Islam and the Messenger of
Allah (saw).
Nevertheless, many Muslims today find this slogan of freedom of speech
appealing primarily because of the oppressive, decadent environment in

17. PAGE 16
which they find themselves in the Muslim world. Therefore, this conceptis
taken at face value to be a universal concept.
The reality is that there can never be complete freedom of speech. Laws will
always be required that would limit freedom of speechin order to preserve
society at large. A clear example of this is the preservation of national
security. The Official Secrets Act exists in the United Kingdom for the
protection of official information, mainly related to national security. People
working with secret information are commonly required to sign a statement
to the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets
Act. In the US, the clash between the conflicting aims of national security
and freedom of expression came to a head in 1971 in the ‘Pentagon Papers’
case. ‘The New York Times’ had ignored the government’s demand to halt
publication of a document dealing with the US military involvement in
Vietnam. As a result, it was enjoined from continuing to publish portions of
the document. Although the Court’s decision went in the favor of freedom of
speechand the press, it did implicitly acknowledge a national security
exception to the First Amendment’s ban on prior restraint. In subsequent
years, the Court has upheld the government’s national security claims in
several cases that involved former CIA agents who had written memoirs.
Even the philosophers of liberalism had to admit that there exist inherent
discrepancies within the conceptof freedom and its application at state level.
One strand of liberal thought argues that freedom of speechshould not be

18. PAGE 17
limited becauseonce this happens, the society would inevitably move
towards tyranny and censorship. The other line of argument states with equal
force that a government’s involvement with the action of individuals should
never be removed because this would eventually lead to anarchy and a life
that Hobbes described in Leviathan as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short”
Moreover, some feel that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent ‘harm’ to others. But there has always been a problem in defining
‘harm’. Does prostitution, for instance, fall under this domain? Most liberals
would also include ‘offense’ as a major factor that should legitimize the
exercise of power over the actions of the individuals living in a society.
Again the issue arises as to which actions are to be considered ‘offensive’.
Should pornography, for example, come under this category? Some have
argued that pornography is not only offensive but is also harmful. Such
contradictions lead to a never ending debate as to what does/ does not
constitute ‘harm’ or ‘offense’. Thus what we find is that the slogan of
freedom of speech is one of the most used slogans in the world, and yet no

19. PAGE 18
one is quite sure what it entails or where the boundaries (should) lie
I think it is need of the hour to check whether we are practicing our right to
speak or we are propagating like we see in west that they don’tnotice what
US forces had done in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya but they always try to
prove that all the problems I the world are caused by Muslims

20. PAGE 19
Freedom of Speech in Islam
For the Muslims, the issue should be quite clear: Islam does not allow the
adoption and propagation of ‘Freedomof Speech’ as propagated by the west
since this would include the promotion of such ideas that clearly contradict
Islam, such as usury, obscenity under the guise of entertainment and
separation of Islam from life’s affairs.
This is not to say that Islam does not allow the Muslims to express their
opinions freely. It is allowed for a Muslim to express his opinion about
anything or any issue, but this opinion must be derived from Quran and
Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saw). Numerous examples can be cited
from the Islamic history where freedom to express one’s opinion not only
existed but was also encouraged. The companions of the Prophets (saw)
openly disagreed with each other on various aspects ofIslamic rules. The
Khaleefah Harun al-Rashid provided financial incentives for anyone who
would teach, learn, propagate or debate issues of the deen. Islam has given
the Muslims the right to express their opinions, even if they contradict the
opinions of the ruler or that of the majority of the Muslims. It has made it
obligatory upon the Muslims to express their opinions and criticize the ruler
if he abuses his authority by ordering something that displeases Allah (swt).
The Messenger of Allah said, “The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul
Muttalib and a man who stood up to an oppressive ruler, ordered him (to do
good)and forbade him (from doing evil) and was killed by him.”
Looking at the glorious history of Islam, we find that the Muslims excelled
in every sphere of life: science flourished under the Islamic rule. The
Muslims were the most advanced in the world in various fields suchas
mathematics, geometry, medicine, natural sciences, etc. In terms of
economics, they were the most prosperous;Khaleefah Umar bin Abdul Aziz
at one stage of his rule could not find a single poorpersonto give zakat to

21. PAGE 20
during his rule in 7th Century C.E. The Muslims also excelled in agriculture;
in the 8th and 9th century, Iraq under Islam had a population of 30 million,
80% of whom were farmers with modern irrigation systems from the rivers
Tigris and Euphrates. The ration of yield of seed for wheat in the Muslim
world was 10:1 compared to 2.5:1 in Europe. With regard to showing
tolerance towards the Non-Muslims, Prophet Muhammad (saw) had said
“Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state hurts me, and he
who hurts me annoys Allah (swt).” (Bukhri). With this kind of mentality
towards Non-Muslims, it is hardly surprising that the Christians of Ash-
sham fought alongside the Muslims against the Christian Crusaders who had
attacked the Islamic State.
The question that needs to be asked is, ‘What was it in the Muslim world
that had fostered such tolerance, authenticity, creativity, and human
flourishing?’ It certainly was not the current notion of freedom that is
prevailing in today’s world but rather it was the result of the implementation
of Islam on society. Unlike man-made systems, Islam is in total harmony
with the reality of human nature since it is revealed by the One (swt) who
created human beings. Therefore, the aims of Islam conform to the reality of
human society. Islam has designated certain aims for society which include
protection of mind, belief, private property, security and state. Only when
such aims exist in a society can human beings progress in every sphere of
life. To safeguard these aims, an Islamic society will restrict freedom of
expression as espoused bythe west since it acknowledges the fact that
society is not just made up of individuals and what an individual does will
have an impact on society at large. Islam makes no apology for doing this. In
actual fact, liberal societies, despite their claims of being free and tolerant,
are also forced to take certain steps to safeguard society. Hence they have
laws restricting the ‘amount of freedom’ that can exist in society. In addition
to this, their laws continually twist and change to suit their interests and are
often interpreted in a manner that clearly reflects their prejudice and enmity
towards Islam as shown in this recent example. The conceptof freedom of
speechis therefore laden with ambiguity.

22. PAGE 21
EXAMPLES OF HATE SPEECH AGAINST ISLAM WITH
DESCRIPTIONS
International Bestselling author JK Sheindlin psychologically analyses the founding
father of Islam, while putting him “on trial for crimes against humanity”.
They Must be Stopped" is a clarion call to action. Gabriel thoroughly addresses the
historical and religious basis of radical Islam, its frightening encroachment into societies
around the world, and its abuses of democracy in the name of religion
Written in an extremely accessible style by bestselling author Robert Spencer, "The
Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" is a fact-based but light-hearted look at the key
elements, values, and beliefs in the Koran.

23. PAGE 22
THESE ALL ARE THE EXAMPLES OF HATRED ABUSE AND INSULT OF
ISLAM AND PROPHET MUHAMMAD PBUH
There are a lot of websites pages blogs newspaper articles videos on internet which
can prove my topic right but I don’t want to commit any blasphemy because I am a
Muslim myself and all this is going on just under the tag of freedom of speech
So it’s not freedom its directly insulting and abusive and humiliating and after doing all
this west expects that there should be peace all around Muslims should not raise their
voices Muslims should not protect the dignity of Islam and their Holy Prophet it’s not
just limited to press TV shows processions internet but there are a lot of cases of burning
Quran just to express hate for Islam and Quran but still we hope Allah will lead them to
right path one day and May Allah show them that whatever they are doing against Islam
is not right because we respect their religion but their acts make them unlikeable because

24. PAGE 23
they are feared of Islam that’s why they try to draw a bad image of Islam just to mislead
their people and keep them away from its teachings
Rules and Regulations should be or Not?
A society, by its very nature, demands the existence of certain rules and
regulations as to what is and what is not acceptable in speech as well as in
other spheres of life. But the fundamental question is where these limitations
should be set. We either baseour society on philosophical principles that
tend to rotate in a vicious circle, or alternatively, as those who believe in
Allah (swt)’s supremacy, we turn to the Guidance sent by Him (swt). Forus
the choice has already been made: We have set you on a plain way of
commandment so follow it, and not the desires of those who have no knowledge (Quran
45:18).
Conclusion
The right to free speech does mean that people will say unpleasant things.
Those who argue for strong human rights protections need to acknowledge
and own this fact. It is an unfortunate but necessary side effect of the right.
The way to combatsuch speech is not to censor it, but by deploying counter-
speech, our own right to speak, in order to refute and neuter whatever bad

25. PAGE 24
thing has been said.
“I’M FOR TRUTH NO MATTER WHO TELLS IT
I’M FOR JUSTICE NO MATTER WHO IT’S FOR OR
AGAINST “
References
https://www.quora.com/What-are-a-few-examples-of-where-people-have-
misused-the-freedom-of-expression-or-freedom-of-speech-in-your-country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

26. PAGE 25
https://legaldictionary.net/hate-speech/
http://www.islamicity.org/8653/freedom-of-speech-an-islamic-perspective/