News Flash for supporters of NYU Professor Varadarajan: Free Speech goes both ways

Few would argue that one of the rights cherished most by Americans is the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights. This right is broad and allows the Ku Klutz Khan, for example, to parade down a public street spewing hate and white supremacy. And while the vast majority of Americans disagree with the Klan’s message, they generally accept the group’s right to speak.

Of course, Americans are not the only people who hold the right to free speech dearly, although the definition and limits upon it may vary. In Islam, for example, speaking out against a tyrant is considered among the best of actions.

The Prophet Muhammad, may Allaah bless him and grant him peace, stated:

The best fighting in the path of Allaah is to speak a word of justice to an oppressive ruler. (Abu Da’wud)

Some people are quick to recognize their own right to free speech, but somehow seem to forget that others share that right as well. A recent case-in-point concerns the offensive and ill-informed remarks made by NYU Stern Clinical Professor Tunku Varadarajan about Islam and Muslims after the Ft. Hood incident. (Click here for 'Going Muslim' - NYU professor's remarks spur controversy.)

In addition to promoting the term ‘Going Muslim’ in a style reminiscent of McCarthyism, he seems to suggest, among other things, that special scrutiny should be given to Muslims living and traveling in the United States.

Undoubtedly, Professor Varadarajan knew that his remarks would spark controversy and would offend millions of other Americans. But no matter how offensive his remarks, he had the legal right to write what he did. What I find oddly amusing is that when the targets of his attacks voice their objection, some cry foul. Ironically, the response is challenged on free speech grounds, vehemently defending the good professor’s right to speak.

What happened to the free speech rights of those whom the professor offended? Do we not have a right to speak out? Do we not have a right to point out his erroneous logic and conclusions? How are we playing the victim card by trying to correct misconceptions and outright falsehoods?

Notably, the fact that someone is legally entitled to make a remark does not mean that he or she should. I suspect that all religions and moral codes of conduct have some version of the “Golden Rule”. To disparage another person’s beliefs and propagate lies about a religion with more than a billion followers runs counter to common civility at the very least.

Muslims are specifically told in the Qur’an not to disparage another person’s beliefs:

But do revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite, and in ignorance: for, goodly indeed have We made their own doings appear unto every community. In time, [however,] unto their Sustainer they must return: and then He will make them [truly] understand all that they were doing. (6:108)

Muhammad Asad states in his commentary:

This prohibition of reviling anything that other people hold sacred – even in contravention of the principle of God’s oneness – is expressed in the plural and is, therefore, addressed to all believers. Thus, while Muslims are expected to argue against the false beliefs of others, they are not allowed to abuse the objects of those beliefs and to hurt thereby the feelings of their erring fellow-men.

So, yes, the professor and those who share a fear and prejudice against Islam have a right to call for extra measures to be taken against their fellow citizens. But that is where the conversation starts not ends.