Source/Credit: Troy Media | UK
By Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association | January 14, 2011
Mill was preceded by about 1,000 years by another individual who made similar philosophical arguments as him - Muhammad
LONDON, UK, Jan. 14, 2012/ Troy Media/ – Some members of the UCL Atheist Society took the decision to host derogatory and insulting cartoons of the Prophet Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them) on their website.
They have been asked to remove these, but have chosen to maintain them, in the interests of freedom of expression. However, the irony is their limited understanding of the philosophical foundations of rights theory that indeed is the very foundation of the University of which they are students.
More prudent approach needed
It is both relevant and necessary to outline the key principles that underpin Western political theory and philosophy in this area. Through this, it is hoped that a reminder of such principles inspire a far more prudent approach to this issue.
The founding fathers of the movement that gave birth to University College London in the mid 18th century were the major proponents of freedom in the English tradition; J S Mill in particular, who is seen as the main advocate of freedom of expression in the West. Indeed, the establishment of UCL was on the principle of freedom to receive higher education, something that was not available to those who did not accord to the mainstream religious beliefs of the time. So while rights were the very foundation on which UCL was built, some of the students there today seem to have neglected or overlooked aspects of the great intellectual tradition of rights based theory.
Perhaps let us start at the beginning. Rights are those things that everyone must be allowed to exercise free from any interference from the State, and from others. This is subject to the condition that the exercise of those freedoms should not harm anyone else. This has been manifested in modern law to mean that there is a presumption that people can express themselves as they wish, with restrictions only allowed where this expression violates the rights of others, or extremely important public interests. This aspect of rights theory seems to be pretty well known by all.
However, the second question, which Mill and many others would inevitably have asked themselves – and which the Atheist Society has not – is how that right should be exercised. Just because one has a right, does it mean that one must or even should exercise that right? Even if Mill felt he could exercise his right to free expression, how would he have exercised it?
It is within our right to insult you, the reader of this short piece. It is within our right to mock you, to insult your parents, or your siblings. It is within our right to lie, to be rude, to be unkind. However, is it somehow morally praiseworthy for us to do all of these things? Plainly not. Why? Just because we can do something, it does not mean that we must. What it means is that we must consider whether and in what circumstances the exercise of that right would be good and appropriate. It is this that the so-called disciples of Mill have forgotten. It is this that is lacking in their understanding of rights theory. And it is this that they must politely be reminded of.
Mill was a good person. Of course he believed in rights, and was a staunch defender of them. Yet, he also believed in goodness and morality and in the constructive use of those rights he was advocating for and defending. Part of the problems that society is facing today is the absence of this essential aspect of Mill’s teachings on rights. Yes we have a right to ignore the homeless, the destitute and the socially disadvantaged within our society. But it is precisely this attitude that results in isolation and selfishness. Is it not better to choose to be kind, to choose to be respectful, to choose to be good?
The irony is that while Mill may have been the primary proponent of such an approach to rights in the West, he was preceded by about 1,000 years by another individual who made similar philosophical arguments as him in Arabia – Muhammad. The same individual who is now the object of this attack was the one who proposed this notion: that we should all be free to think, feel and express us ourselves how we want, subject to other people’s rights and interests. But that we should be good in exercising those rights; that we should adhere to basic universal principles of love, tolerance, dignity, respect, trust and mutual harmony; and that we should ultimately be good people.
Would Muhammad have accepted criticism of himself? Yes, and in fact he did. But would he have stooped to insult, ridicule, mock and disrespect others in the manner of those who attacked him? No, because he rose above that, and strove to embody goodness.
That is the essence of the Islamic belief on this matter. It is the same as Mill. That while we have freedom to exercise our rights of expression, we should aspire to exercise those rights according to the principles of truth, beauty and love, with a view to building a better society in which to live. And it is this way of being that both disciples of Muhammad – Muslims – and disciples of Mill – proponents of human rights – ought to strive to embody.
Sinking to insult
And so, by all means criticise the Prophet Muhammad through discourse and debate and rhetoric. Criticise Islam by pointing out its supposed flaws. Show us which aspects the Quran you disagree with. Describe to us what aspects of the life of the Prophet Muhammad you find troubling and why. Engage with us intellectually, if you will. Indeed, the Atheist Society of UCL attempted to do just that in a recent debate. However, perhaps because of their failure in making reasoned and rational criticisms of Islam, Christianity, and the lives of the Prophets Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them both), they have fallen back on this distasteful attempt to insult, mock and deride, without any factual or reasoned basis.
People react differently to feeling offended – some even further antagonising a situation by adversely responding to criticism. However, regardless of such reactions, Mill, like the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus (Peace be upon them both) saw the importance of analysing the principle nature of an action and adjudging whether it, in itself was worth exercising, at the cost of critical intellectual discussion and thought. Who better to honour Mill’s philosophy than the contingent of UCL themselves, and thus it is our hope that the members of the UCL Atheist society that have published this cartoon, take the lead in demonstrating the importance of respecting the sensibilities of others, by removing this cartoon. It is our firm belief that rather than hosting a cartoon which hurts a large community of people, who regard both the Prophets Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them both) as a champion of virtuosity and justice, its removal would be a powerful indicator of their commitment to intellectual rigour and debate.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association, literally meaning ‘Association of Servants of the True Islam’, has over 80 local branches from Glasgow to Cornwall, with a membership of over 6,000. Members are aged between seven and 40 and its headquarters are in London.
Read original post here: UCL Atheist Society departs from founding principles
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.