As the media cameras began to roll on the Charlie Hebdo attack, Muslims globally held their breath, anticipating yet again another cycle of assault on their Islamic beliefs. They were not wrong. As details of the incident emerged, so did the bombardment of condemnatory and accusatory statements from journalists and politicians alike, that Islam's strong rejection of any insult against the Prophet (saw) or its sacred tenets was somehow to blame for this act of violence. Muslims were then presented with an ultimatum. They had to make a choice - either they were with the so-called defenders of freedom of speech and accept for their Prophet and beliefs to be insulted OR they were on the side of those who perpetrated this bloodshed.  This absurd "them or us" ultimatum was based upon the twisted logic that those who oppose the right to vilify religions are somehow ‘closet sympathisers' of those who kill journalists and cartoonists. It's on par with accusing those who disagree with the values of Islam as being ‘closet sympathisers' of Anders Breivik, the far-right mass-murderer who killed dozens of people in Norway in the name of his anti-Islamic ideology.

However, throughout the media coverage of this story and its aftermath there was also another liberal assertion that rang out again and again, presented as an undeniable fact - that freedom of speech, including the right to ridicule, insult, and offend was the mark of a ‘civilised, enlightened, mature' society; it was a vital requirement for the healthy critique of ideas, to challenge injustice, a prerequisite for progress; this was why the freedom to offend should be defended at all cost. This is perhaps why Nicolas Sarkozy, former French President termed the assault on the offices of the satirist magazine, "a war declared on civilisation".

The political and media hysteria surrounding the Charlie Hebdo attack left little public space to examine the truth of such an established liberal assertion. Additionally, within secular societies, the treatment of liberal freedoms as sacred cows means that even querying the soundness of such values often evokes a reaction on par with performing a blasphemous act. They are viewed as untouchable, beyond question. Those who criticise them are shunned, viewed as outcasts, backwards, and enemies of enlightenment and debate.

However, there has been to date no credible reason given as to what purpose insulting the religious beliefs of communities serves for a nation. Nor has any sound argument been presented as to WHY exactly the freedom to offend is the mark of a civilized society. Rather there are numerous points that prove the converse.

Firstly, a civilised society is surely one where those of different faiths and beliefs are able to live side by side in peace and harmony, within an atmosphere of mutual respect and compassion. The question is surely therefore - whether it is the right to offend OR the rejection of this ideal that can create this reality. Offending the deep-set beliefs that communities hold as sacred, breeds nothing but resentment, hatred, alienation, and anger within those who are the target of such insults. This can be the precursor to violence and retaliatory attacks. This is in no way justifying the killing of journalists and satirists. It is simply explaining a simple fact of human nature - that many people have deeply engrained sensitivities about many things - from their religion to their race - and allowing individuals free-range to ridicule and mock such things nurtures an unpleasant and dangerous environment for all. It's an obvious fact that supporters of freedom to offend seem to stubbornly and irrationally overlook. This includes Western politicians of all hues who have been lining up in the wake of the attack on the satirical magazine to voice their support for the right of individuals to mock and ridicule all faiths. In a recent interview with the American TV Channel CBS, UK Prime Minister David Cameron stated, "I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion."

For Muslims, their attachment to Prophet Muhammad (saw) is one based upon an intense love, admiration and respect. He is viewed as dearer to them than their own families. Insults against him (saw) cannot therefore be laughed off as simply satire or light humour. No! They are a cause of deep hurt and intense anger which some respond to through violent vigilante action. Such violence in response to religious offence is not unique to any community. In 2004, when Birmingham Repertory Theatre hosted a play that was insulting to Sikhs it triggered violent protests from the Sikh community against the theatre. Embracing the freedom to offend is clearly therefore not the path to harmonious, cohesive and safe societies.

Indeed, many journalists seem to live in a bubble, believing that their vilification of religions and religious communities has no consequences or potential to inspire violence. They adopt the ‘sticks and stones' philosophy that lulls them into a false sense of security that their writings and satire have no repercussions upon a society. And they often enjoy protection behind the convenient wall of ‘intellectual discourse' from the legal ramifications of their words that in reality fall into the same category as ‘incitement of religious hatred'. One non-Muslim writer wrote regarding the debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo attack, "At worst, satire is veiled aggression. True, it is the aggression of the pen and not the gun, but it is a kind of violence nevertheless. If we pour petrol on a fire, we should not be surprised if we get burned."

Supporters of such ‘veiled aggression' often argue that freedom to offend should not cross the line into incitement to violence. However, when you consistently vilify communities, demonise their values and stigmatise their members it creates a climate that does exactly this. There is no doubt for example, that the relentless media hysteria regarding Muslims and their beliefs that intensified following the Charlie Hebdo shootings had a part to play in fuelling the increase in Islamophobic attacks in France and the UK following the incident. Around 26 mosques around France have been subject to attack by firebombs, gunfire, grenades and other means over the last two weeks. Muslim-owned businesses have also been targeted. Alongside this, there has been racist graffiti, threats, and intimidation against Muslims. In the UK, London mosques have been sent death threats, hate-mail, and insulting drawings of the Prophet (saw). One needs to ask how innocent Muslim communities across France and the UK who had nothing to do with the attack on the magazine have been dragged into this issue; in essence come to be viewed as holding some responsibility in some way for the incident and hence the target of Islamophobes. Surely the relentless focus and demonization of Islamic values, associating them with violence or labelling them as dangerous for Western societies bears some culpability for all this.

Furthermore, the sanctioning of the freedom to offend within liberal states, under the umbrella of freedom of expression or the deceptive veneer of ‘political debate, has provided an open platform for racists and Islamophobes, amongst them politicians and journalists, to publically air their hate-filled vitriol and gain support for their noxious ideas and agendas. The satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo itself has been long recognised for propagating racist stereotypes of many communities. Yet despite this, it was provided an uninhibited license to operate by the French government, even after the French Foreign Minister in 2012 warned that provocative crude caricatures of the Prophet (saw) risked, "pouring fuel on the fire." Under the protective guard of ‘pluralism', far-right, racist organisations such as the National Front in France, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and the English Defence League in the UK have been allowed to openly operate. So while some Western leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel have criticised the anti-Islamic demonstrations in their countries, such as the recent 18,000 strong rally organised in Dresden by the racist, right-wing movement "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisisation of the Occident", it is the secular system that they govern over that allows such inflammatory, divisive views to be voiced under the liberal value of freedom to offend.  This further fuels the rise of religious hatred within societies. This is far from laying the foundations of a civilized society.

Secondly, surely the mark of a civilised society is one where its people are immersed in good and decent values such as showing respect and kindness in the treatment of others; and not one where offending, bullying, and stigmatising fellow citizens becomes a celebrated act. It's strange for example, that insults and verbal abuse if practiced on the playground amongst children or in the streets by youth would be categorised as rude, anti-social, or delinquent behaviour. However, if exercised by journalists or cartoonists, it becomes an acceptable, even praised form of conduct.

Why is it though that while liberal states label the right to offend religions as a mark of a civilized nation, their own media are constrained by defamation and slander laws and even practice self-censorship in many matters in order to maintain a sense of decency and to avoid offending their audiences? This includes imposing strict regulations in the language that is used by broadcasters; avoiding publication of gruesome images from conflict areas; and keeping away from humour on sensitive issues such as rape, paedophilia, genocide, and a host of other subjects. This is because every society has red-lines and norms of acceptable decent conduct which it is recognised are needed to ensure a relatively pleasant, respectful environment for all, rather than one that is debased and low.

However, within liberal states, the standards of human decency and what constitutes moral or immoral behaviour is being consistently re-defined - not based on what brings true harmony or progress for societies but simply for the purpose of allowing individuals to say or do what they want, regardless of the social chaos that sows. Stephane Charbonnier for example, the editor of Charlie Hebdo who was killed in the attack, said that it was his aim to target Islam until it "became as banal as the Catholic Church". Hence, behaviour that was once widely viewed as the mark of lowly conduct such as insulting others, under liberalism is being normalised and absurdly passed off as a sign of modernity and progress. In a BBC interview with Kenan Malik for example, an author, broadcaster, and opinion-writer for The New York Times, he attempted to defend the freedom to insult by arguing that one way to prevent incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo shootings was to break the link between morality and the act of offending people - that it should no longer be viewed as immoral to offend individuals. Such liberal views explain the growing levels of disrespect demonstrated by children towards parents, or the youth towards their teachers within secular states. What kind of society is it when decent human values such as shunning offending others are viewed with contempt and cast aside, simply for the sake of allowing individuals to follow their desires? Definitely not a civilized one!

And thirdly, a civilised society is surely one where open debate of different ideas and faiths can take place in a respectful manner without the need for insults and offence. The argument that preventing the freedom to offend would serve as a barrier to criticism of thoughts, scrutinising beliefs, or challenging injustice and oppression is one that holds no weight at all. Indeed, it is creating offense that hampers productive discourse over ideas for it simply enrages, directs the focus of discussions to the insults themselves, and closes hearts and minds to the truth. Additionally, resorting to mockery and ridicule of religions in order to prove a point is simply surrendering to a deficiency in creativity in presenting arguments in a civil way, illustrates a lack of sound proofs to support views, or indicates a frailty in intellect. Indeed, the claim that enlightened discourse cannot take place without the need for insults is in itself insulting to the intellect of individuals! Moreover, how does offending individuals help reaching the truth on matters? How does it aid examining the weight of an argument or critiquing two sides of a debate?

Additionally, the liberal argument that were it not for the freedom to offend, individuals would not have the right to practice and propagate their religion as they wish, for the beliefs of one faith may by their nature cause offense to those of other faiths, is utterly absurd. It suggests that individuals cannot distinguish between expressing robust disagreement in religious beliefs and mocking and satirising those ideas.

Furthermore, it's ironic that while Western leaders such as David Cameron express their unwavering support of freedom of speech, they effectively gag Muslims from discussing their beliefs through a host of anti-terror measures back home. The British government for example, is currently trying to pass a bill that could require colleges and universities to ban so-called ‘extremist preachers' from speaking on campuses, even about ideas which are non-violent in nature. The bill has been accused by many, including the UK Parliament's Joint Human Rights committee of curbing academic freedoms. The record of what the British government and politicians see as ‘extremist views' is clear. It ranges from everything from the niqab to Islam's separation of men and women to the concept of one Ummah to support of the implementation of Shariah and the Khilafah "Caliphate" in the Muslim world. So the message is clear - journalists and others should have the right to mock, ridicule, and vilify Islam, while Muslims should not have the right to speak about some of the basic tenets of their belief. Therefore, it is clearly the political agendas of secular governments that are being used to silence Islam which are a barrier to open debate of ideas; not the rejection of the freedom to offend.

So while many liberals are at pains to argue that freedom to offend religions is the mark of a civilized society, the reality proves the converse. Indeed, there is something of the ‘emperor's new clothes' about this narrative that has been promoted so widely and accepted so readily by so many without question. The truth is however, that civilized societies are ones where those of all faiths feel equally respected, and their beliefs protected. They are ones characterized by kindness, compassion, and harmony between all communities, and where good, decent values are the norm and celebrated. And they are ones where speech is used in a productive way: for healthy respectful debate; critiquing ideas, exposing injustice, and holding leaders to account for their actions. It is this type of society that the Islamic values and laws seek to create. This is why Islam condemns insulting the beliefs of any religion or vilifying the members of any faith. Allah (swt) says,

((وَلَا تَسُبُّوا الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّـهِ فَيَسُبُّوا اللَّـهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍۗ))

"And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge." [TMQ Al-Anam: 108]

The Khilafah "Caliphate" state that ruled by Islam embodied this type of society. This was a state which prohibited abuse - verbal or physical - against its religious minorities; a state which embraced good, decent values; and a state which encouraged open, robust discourse between those of all faiths. And such will be the reality of the future Khilafah "Caliphate" state too.

Perhaps therefore, those secular governments and muscular liberals who are seeking to pressure Muslims to leave their Islamic values through the use of inflammatory ‘extremist' labels or false narratives should consider who exactly is undermining civilisation.

((ادْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ ۖ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ ۖ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ))

"Invite (mankind) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided." [TMQ An-Nahl: 125]

Written for The Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by

Dr. Nazreen Nawaz

Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir