veiled4allah: Dissent and disorder - American and Islamic approaches

PG said:

Total comments: 64

I am troubled by the repeated phrase "society's normal order." Some of the most important advances in American history have created great disruptions in society's normal order, particularly in the civil rights movement. The freeing of slaves and integration of schools were controversial precisely because they were not part of the normal order.

It sounds like a woman who advocated women's right to transport themselves, in a strict Islamic nation, by this definition would be considered to be dissenting in a dangerous way because "society's normal order" is that women behave one way and she is saying that they should behave in another.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Wow. You certainly read that article in a totally different way than I did. I thought that the article made it very clear that people with opposing views have the right to express those views and to assemble for the purpose of doing so and it is only if there is the imminent threat of violence that action can be taken against them.

That is the whole reason I posted this article, because of the similarlity of this standard to what I learned in my class.

Do you not find the article to be clear on the points that I mentioned?

Kynn said:

Total comments: 12

Something I found interesting is how "American" is contrasted with "Islamic". One is a country, the other is a religion.

Many folks (most on the right) will claim that this is "a Christian nation" founded on "Judeo-Christian values". But posts like yours remind me that, in truth, our legal system really has little to do with our religious experience.

In America, a sort of secular nationalism has replaced the detailed study of the Christian faith's teachings -- it is assumed, for example, that God is all for democracy and he would support and love America and its freedoms.

However, the concept of democracy is not found in the Christian Bible. Concepts such as free-enterprise capitalism and the right to bear arms are likewise not there. Free speech isn't there. Freedom from cruel and unjust punishment? Not biblical.

You'd think that if these were so important to living, God really could have been bothered to put them in his Bible. (One of the reasons I like Islam is that in many cases it is a much more progressive faith than traditionalist Christianity.)

Your posts make me reflective on how my own faith (principle one: love god, principle two: love other people) is and is not played out in American thought, as well as how conservative Christians fail to live by the teachings of the Bible that they wish to impose on the country -- and instead simply pander to the American secular nationalism.

--Kynn

PG said:

Total comments: 64

Originally posted by Al-Munaqabah -

Wow. You certainly read that article in a totally different way than I did. I thought that the article made it very clear that people with opposing views have the right to express those views and to assemble for the purpose of doing so and it is only if there is the imminent threat of violence that action can be taken against them.

That is the whole reason I posted this article, because of the similarlity of this standard to what I learned in my class.

Do you not find the article to be clear on the points that I mentioned?

I've only taken undergraduate level constitutional law classes, and that was a few years ago. But from what I recall, the Supreme Court defines quite specifically what constitutes a clear and present danger -- "imminent violence," as you say. The only time a concept like "normal order" would be used is when First Amendment law is applied to schools, because it is recognized that a school functions to educate children and speech or expressive actions that clearly will interfere greatly with that function can be suppressed.

American society as a whole, however, is not considered to have much greater purpose than the free expression of views, particularly political ones (at least according to the way courts seem to see it). Thus I was allowed to go around knocking on strangers' doors to campaign for my chosen candidate, even if such disturbance would constitute an annoyance and a break from the normal order of our society.

I suppose I became confused by these parts of the article:

...The Shari'ah ... confines the scope of restrictions [on expression] to measures necessary to repel an imminent danger to normal order in society. ... ...Seditious (i.e., political) fitnah is an abuse of the freedom of expression that threatens the legitimacy of a lawful government as well as the collapse of a society's normal order. This theoretical characterization may appear fairly uncontroversial, but problems arise when it is translated into practice. Defining its scope and establishing a correct balance among conflicting values often tend to be problematic. It should also be noted that words and acts constitute fitnah only if they succeed, or are likely to succeed, in posing a threat to a society's normal order. An isolated opinion that remains ineffective and does not incite opposition to a lawful government would therefore fail to qualify as fitnah...

...'Awdah ... outlines the rights and duties of those whose views are in opposition to those of the community and its legitimate government. The opposition has the right to propagate its views through peaceful means and enjoys the freedom, within the limits of the Shari'ah, to say what it wishes. The community also has the right to refute such views.

I asked the question because the article was using a textual phrase that was very broad "normal order of society" and saying that it covered a much narrower realm than one would think.

From what I understood, fitnah is unprotected and non-fitnah is protected. Why is only ineffective expression allowed? This seems to defeat half the purpose of free speech. We need free speech partly because human dignity requires the freedom to communicate one's thoughts and feelings with others, but also because the status quo never will be improved upon without the right to challenge it.

Suppose a particular social practice, such as women's not driving cars, is part of the normal order of society, and a woman is effectively using her speech to challenge and change that, thus posing an imminent danger to normal order in society. Because her speech is causing disorder, it doesn't seem like the Shari'ah would protect it.

Certainly, this is contradicted by the last paragraph that I quoted from the original article, which sets up a state of affairs similar to the current level of constitutional protection for free speech in America (with the significant exception of "within the limits of the Shari'ah"). It is this apparent contradiction that caused me to ask the question.

Apologies if I am being obnoxious or appear deliberately obtuse, but I felt that the article was not delineating a free speech standard similar to the current state of First Amendment law in the U.S.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kynn. You're right of course that Islam is a religion, but it is also a legal system, which is why I compared it to the American legal system. I would be interested in seeing how Jewish legal/political thought approaches this issue (Jonathan? anybody?) Christianity, however, is a different kettle of fish.

PG, thank you very much for explaining further. I have a much better understanding now of where you're coming from. I never intended to say that the Islamic system was identical to the American system. For one thing, as you noted, they have two totally different aims. What I did want to do is show that Islam provides a framework for protecting freedom of expression and in fact that it can support a standard that is very similar to America's. I don't think a lot of people are aware of this, including many Muslims!

You seem to have focused all your attention on a single phrase "normal order of society". What exactly does this mean? The author doesn't provide a definition when he uses it, so we have to look at the rest of what he wrote to try and determine what he meant by it. The reason I was so astonished at first by your response is that it is clear from the article as a whole that the author can't be using your definition of "normal order of society" because he came to totally different conclusions that you did.

First, I want to deal with the question of effectiveness. In some of the cases I read, that is exactly the standard that the Supreme Court has used, in fact it was mentioned explicitly by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In the Abrams case, Abrams was arrested for handing out pamphlets that called capitalism the enemy. The majority of the Supreme Court said that his speech (the pamphlets) had a bad tendency and had rightfully been prohibited. Among other things, Holmes said in his dissent, "Now nobody can suppose that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man, without more, would present any immediate danger that its opinions would hinder the success of the government arms." It was precisely because the speech was ineffective and posed no real danger to the government's war effort that Holmes thought the speech should be protected. And even in more recent cases, one of the criteria that the Court looks at is whether the speech had any effect. The less effect it has, the more likely the Court is to find that it's protected by the First Amendment. The more effect it has, the greater the chance that the Court will find that the speech was rightly prohibited, because it caused a disturbance of the peace and a disruption of public order. In times of national crisis, the Court has actually done so.

OK, getting back to "the normal order of society", the phrase that is so exercising your mind. The author does provide some hints about what a disruption of the normal order is. For instance, he says:

"Seditious fitnah applies to words and acts that incite dissension and controversy among people to such a degree that believers can no longer be distinguished from disbelievers. It so clouds the atmosphere of understanding and confounds the thoughts and minds of people that they can no longer distinguish right from wrong and, therefore, are unable to advocate the truth "

At another place he addresses a question similar to your one about challenging the ban on women driving, because this is a restriction that has no basis in any text of Islam, even if it happens to be the "normal order" in Saudi Arabia. In this case, the author looks at a historical example of someone who was calling for reform of practices that have no basis in Islam:

Writers have also discussed, in the context of fitnah, the exiling of Abu Dharr al Ghaffari for preaching and urging people not to accumulate gold and silver. He criticized the conduct of government officials under the khalifah 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and charged them with bid'ah (conduct repugnant to accepted norms and precedents) for gathering wealth and indulging in ostentatious shows of affluence. Possessing wealth in excess of one's needs, extinguished, according to him, the light of faith in one's heart and was clearly indefensible. He was exiled first to Madinah by Mu'awiyah (governor of Sham) and then by 'Uthman from Madinah to one of its suburbs to prevent fitnah (Abu Zahrah n.d.; El Awa 1980). There is no substance, in my opinion, to the claim that this incident should be considered as fitnah or even as potential fitnah. It would appear that the fragility of the political climate under 'Uthman played a part in labelling Abu Dharr's views seditious. However, the substance of his views is so eminently agreeable to the teachings of' Islam-"Those who hoard gold and silver and spend not in the way of God are warned of a painful doom" (Qur'an 9:34) -that they could hardly be refuted, let alone be branded, as fitnah.

In other words the author is saying here that if the speaker is calling for reform of society based on Quranic principles, it can't possibly be called "fitna" no matter how disruptive it is (this is one major area of difference between Islamic law and American law).

Here's yet another selection in which the author looks at the question of differing interpretations of Islam, including ones that if implemented could have a major effect on the way that the society is run (normal order of society):

Reports further indicate that 'Ali did not take anyone to task for holding the view, as did many Kharijites, that one who committed a major sin (kaba'ir) automatically renounced Islam and became an unbeliever (kafir). He considered these as matters falling within the purview of the Qur'anic statement that argumentation should be conducted with courtesy and tolerance (Qur'an 16:125). The authors and propagators of such opinions were to be given sincere advice (nasihah) and persuaded to change their views through correct guidance

This would apply to your earlier question about women travelling alone, a ban that does have a basis in Islamic texts.


You do have a point in what you said. One of the functions of the government in an Islamic state would be to ensure that a particular system, that of Islamic law, is implemented. Calls for reform based on Quranic principles are likely to be protected pretty much absolutely. Calls for a departure from the system of Islamic law are much more likely to be limited (if I dare say it, they would be treated the way many Americans would like to treat a suggestion that our current system of government should be replaced by Islamic law; and the way that in the past Americans wanted to treat the suggestion that our system of government should be replaced by a socialist one). Calls for applying an unusual or unorthodox interpretation of Islam would fall somewhere in the middle.

But the author has clearly stated what the limits are and his statement (as I mentioned in my original response) is that even a group that would like to change the basis of the government is to be tolerated as long as they do not incite violence. They can speak their opinions, assemble for the purpose of doing so, and even form a party for the purpose of promoting those opinions. But as long as they obey the law and don't incite violence, they will be left alone. To me that is the most important part.

David Denend said:

Total comments: 1

Try not to judge Americans by the Bible. One thing that we have learned is to separate religion from our everyday lives. Trying to live every day from directives written in a 6000 yr old book is a mistake. If you can't find examples in the Bible on gun control and freedom of speach, then that is what the writers intended. The way of living happily and in peace is not something that is written in a book. God intended it to be written in our hearts. If we follow blindly the teachings of someone hundreds of years ago, it may not allow us to change to fit the change of the times. Rigid following of religion is dangerous and leads to close-mindedness. Plus it leads to a feeling of supieriority over others who don't have the same beliefs.

Dave

Originally posted by Kynn -

Something I found interesting is how "American" is contrasted with "Islamic". One is a country, the other is a religion.

Many folks (most on the right) will claim that this is "a Christian nation" founded on "Judeo-Christian values". But posts like yours remind me that, in truth, our legal system really has little to do with our religious experience.

In America, a sort of secular nationalism has replaced the detailed study of the Christian faith's teachings -- it is assumed, for example, that God is all for democracy and he would support and love America and its freedoms.

However, the concept of democracy is not found in the Christian Bible. Concepts such as free-enterprise capitalism and the right to bear arms are likewise not there. Free speech isn't there. Freedom from cruel and unjust punishment? Not biblical.

You'd think that if these were so important to living, God really could have been bothered to put them in his Bible. (One of the reasons I like Islam is that in many cases it is a much more progressive faith than traditionalist Christianity.)

Your posts make me reflective on how my own faith (principle one: love god, principle two: love other people) is and is not played out in American thought, as well as how conservative Christians fail to live by the teachings of the Bible that they wish to impose on the country -- and instead simply pander to the American secular nationalism.

--Kynn

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

A-M, you made exactly the point I was going to make - that Islam (and Judaism) are systems of law and as such can be compared with the American legal system. There's a rather perfunctory commentary on the halachic attitude toward free speech and the concept of lashon hara ("evil speech" - essentially, defamation) here; I'll try to put together something more complete.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Great, thanks, Jonathan. I knew I could count on you to have something to say about a civil liberties issue and Jewish law

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to veiled4allah