When free speech becomes hate speech

Are we willing to risk the consequences of giving Zakir Naik his right to speak?

COMMENT

by Harpreet Singh

The problem with freedom of speech is that it means stupid people are allowed to speak too. And stupid can also mean dangerous.

Zakir Naik has become the subject of public debate since last weekend, when news first spread that the Mumbai-born preacher was in Terengganu to deliver a series of lectures on Islam. Hindraf Makkal Sakthi immediately demanded that the federal government cancel his tour and have him deported, calling him a “deviant foreign preacher” and a “virus in a pluralistic society.”

This isn’t the first time that he’s been the centre of negative attention. He has been banned from Britain and Canada for his inflammatory speeches.

An example is a speech he delivered in 2007, when he appeared to condone the actions of Osama Bin Laden. “If he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him,” he said in the speech, a recording of which is available on YouTube.

Probably realising the implications of what he said, he added that he didn’t know Osama personally.
“I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is, if he’s terrorising a terrorist, he’s following Islam.”

If that statement isn’t extremist and absolutely inflammatory, then the meaning of extremist has really changed, hasn’t it?

Zakir understands how he sounds, as moderate as he is reputed to be in some circles. When asked about this much later, he said that his comments were taken out of context. He said he was telling Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist if the word referred to someone who would terrorise “anti-social elements.”

“When a robber sees a policeman, he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context, every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber. Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element.”

Now he just sounds like he’s backtracking, and nowhere near as intelligent as he is reputed to be. He went on to add that he knew how he sounded.

“I’m aware that ‘terrorist’ more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorise a single innocent human being. The Muslims should selectively terrorise the anti-social element.”

No. You don’t get to redefine the word “terrorist” in such a flimsy way.

The right to free speech – a right that Zakir has fought for every time he is barred from a country – becomes dangerously stretched in this case. His brand of free speech in this case becomes very similar to hate speech.

If we are to allow him to stay and speak in this country, we must also exercise our right to free speech and say as loudly as possible that such dangerously narrow-minded thought has no place in our country. This is a man known for his attack-oriented approach to comparative religion, denigrating and disparaging other religions and generally quoting other religious texts to beat them into line with his view of Islam.

Lawyer Syahredzan Johan says that action should be taken against Zakir only if his speech here promotes extremism or violence. “Charge him after his speech,” he said, “but he should be allowed to talk. But we cannot stop others just because we hate what the others are saying.”

Yes, his visit this week may turn out to be completely safe. But based on what he’s said in the past, can we risk more hate speech on our shores, especially in fearful times like these?