By Nur Adilah Ramli
Freedom, on a deeper level, connotes limitation. This is simply because, unless we’re God, we are bound to limitation within the space of freedom. To be ultimately free is not plausible for us, thus freedom which is packaged with limitation, must be internalised so we don’t cross the boundary.
Religion is highly personal for it involves a direct relationship between ourselves and God alone – there’s no intermediary needed as we connect with God. For that reason, any provocative remark or action can possibly fuel anger, especially that religion is a matter of belief. By that token, any suggestive act that could potentially rupture the system of belief is not a petty issue. It is, in fact, a matter of utmost importance to observe the limitation of freedom of expression, particularly in the realm of religiosity.
Last Thursday, on 26 February, the IIUM Debate Club organised its first ever debate series, at the moot court of the Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Law (AIKOL). Under the motion, “This House Believes That Freedom of Speech Should Not Extend to The Mockery of Religion,” the debate was contested by six speakers who delivered their points in support of their respective sides.
The Prime Minister, Sara, started off the debate by bringing up the issue of Charlie Hebdo, among others, to imply catastrophic events that follow the act of mocking religion. The arbitrariness of freedom of speech has opened the channels of mockery, which in this case, targeted to a certain religion. It is the failure in defining the limit of freedom that religion is mocked, to the extent that it hurts the persons who subscribe to a certain faith. In order to protect the unique inherent identity of the persons, there must be a border in religion which freedom of speech must not transgress. At the end of the day, law intervention is then inevitable as court is the adjudicator.
From the bench of the Opposition, the Leader of Opposition, Amshar, in his rebuttal, said that people have different attachments, so in this respect, taking offence in matters of religion is subject to individual viewpoint. Moreover, in the case where a religion is mocked, it is, conversely, the perfect time to re-educate the people what the religion is really all about. The misconstrued judgment towards the religion can be resolved through discourse, and because reasoning is part of belief, mockery should be confronted, and not dismissed. Restraining people from making their voices heard is not the right method to present a religion as it will give birth to issues of misunderstanding even in the community of the same belief.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Hazem, stated that mockery of religion results in the widespread collective harm. Because the act of mocking is directed to a certain religion, this inflicts harm on the people at large. This causes the people of the religion to be perceived in a certain way, and the prejudice will psychologically and physically affect the ones attacked. The Deputy Prime Minister thus rejected the act of mocking religion, and proposed the idea of better achieving religion moderation. There must be a guideline in governing the extent to which matters of religion can be touched so that the sensitivity of the people of the religion is well taken care of.
Back to the Opposition’s table, the Deputy Leader of Opposition, Fakhry, reaffirmed that mockery of religion is imperative for discourse. He further mentioned the existence of the elements of mockery in religious texts, which testifies that among the religions themselves, the disputes pertaining to discrepancies in different religions are recorded in the books, thus in a similar vein, mockery of religion should be allowed with no restriction. The Deputy Leader of Opposition wrapped up his speech by a line worthy of standing ovation, “You’ll be glad when Dajjal mocks you because then, you’ll know if you are a true believer.”
The Government Whip, represented by Saddiq, who had the last chance to defend the Government case-line, said that mockery of religion is a form of massive antagonism as it doesn’t concern the psychological assault per se; the physical assault is also a worrying issue when it comes to mockery of religion. The Government Whip also pointed out the feasibility of discourse or discussion to take place, without the need of mocking other religion. In my deduction, he meant to say that bigotry should be refrained at all costs, but room for healthy discussion should by all means, be given.
Mubarrat, acting as the Opposition Whip, took the stage as he literally whipped the Government as a whole. He stood up saying that denying the freedom of people to mock religion equals to mocking the intelligence of the individuals. The mockery should serve as a platform for clarification, as when a religion is at its lowest ebb (perception wise), then that is just the right time to restore the dignity by portraying the intrinsic nature of a religion which is not necessarily embraced by the people of the religion. Mockery, hence, can be positively geared for a good cause in fighting for religion. The Opposition Whip, towards the end, came up with a rhetorically fashioned statement as he posed a question to ponder upon, “Who is the criminal? The one who burns religious books or the one who kills the people who burns the books?”
***
The first-ever debate series had garnered a remarkable number of audience as the moot court was congested with people. As one of the hundreds of spectators, I was definitely thrilled to watch the match and I’m certainly looking forward to more debate matches in the future!
The recording of the debate can be watched on Youtube through the link provided below: