Last week in Turkey the ninth Higher Criminal Court convicted world-renowned Turkish pianist Fazõl Say of “openly insulting religious values”. This penalty caused some circles to take immediate action worldwide, asking how an individual can be banned from declaring his opinion by law in a democracy? A fake drama is on display, in the true sense of the word. On the television shows in which he appeared, Say claimed that he had been unfairly treated after re-tweeting a few lines of an Omar Khayyam poem on the social networking site Twitter. Without considering the issue at length, the circles in question inquired why sharing a few lines of poetry on social media should constitute a crime. However, Say was convicted not because of sharing those lines but because of his blasphemous insults to Islam and sacred values. He was punished because of defamation, not because of his views or quotations. The reason why some have reacted to this punishment is as follows: some people's understanding of democracy is wrong. They advocate some issues malignant to democracy on behalf of democracy. However, democracy is expressing one's views and opinions in a democratic milieu, maintaining a reverent and meticulous demeanour of moral perfection towards the other party's views. In this sense, democracy does not allow an individual to say whatever he wishes in any style he wants. In order to express thoughts freely, firstly, “humaneness” is essential. This is what “freedom of thought” means. Revilement, on the other hand, does not mean “freedom of thought”. Revilement is not even an “opinion”. In the absence of any scientific and intellectual reference, revilement is a pathetic method generally resorted to by the defeated party out of not being able to admit defeat. Rather than defending an opinion, these people usually resort to attacking one they do not advocate, and they do this in the name of democracy. Now, let's ask the following question to those reacting to the conviction of Say in the name of “freedom of thought”: Would they ever admit the same revilement for themselves? Would they remain silent in the face of such defamation against their loved ones, for instance, their parents, spouses or children? Would they also be a fervent supporter of the profanity if used against themselves? Surely they wouldn't. The one thing such people are generally most intolerant of is defamation against themselves, their values and their loved ones. For this reason, when people's faith is in question, it is an insincere to suggest that defamation is employed in the name of “freedom of thought”. Let's have a look at Say's case now. l Say pressed charges against a number of people including prominent artists of Turkey, such as Ercan Saatçi, Mÿslÿm Gÿrses, Hÿlya Avgar and Justice and Development Party Azmir Office Chairman Kabak. Say pressed these charges because, respectively, he was reviled himself; the profane language he used was returned to him, and because he was advised to receive psychological help. This means that he is not tolerant towards insults to himself. This means that insults hurt him. Just as he does not want anyone to use profane language against him, Muslims do not let profane language be used against Allah, Islam and sacred values. The advocates of fake democracy must pay attention to the following: the European Court of Human Rights secures the protection of religious, spiritual and personal values against defamation by means of law. Furthermore, European countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, Spain and Nordic Countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland, all considered to be representatives of the term “democratic nation”, as well as Russia, consider defamation a crime. In all these countries freedom of thought is protected as a requisite of democracy while laws openly ban revilement. It is also quite natural and necessary to pursue the same method in Turkey, a democratic country. It is evident that there is a group of people in the world who generally target Islam and consider revilement as a virtue. For some time now, there has been a systematic effort to make the Islamic world get accustomed to revilement and defamation. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Somali, Mali and many other Islamic countries this has been literally the case. Some circles have first defamed the faith and sacred values of these nations, and made them get used to it, and then devastated these countries. This endeavour has been accomplished with shoddy movies, obnoxious cartoons and people like Salman Rushdi, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They want to disseminate the mindset that renders Islamic communities almost worthless in the world and considers news of the deaths of hundreds of people everyday so irrelevant as not deserving any mention in the media. The purpose is to impoverish Islamic communities and render them insignificant. As Muslims, we will not get used to it. We will not let Islam or any other divine religion be humiliated under the guise of democracy. We will prevent this stealthy plan from being implemented under the guise of “freedom of thought”. As Muslims, we are responsible for being the most fervent advocates of freedom of thought as a requisite of Islam. Just as a devout person is free to abide by his religion and express it openly, an atheist is also free to express, advocate his belief and criticise other opinions. The Quran condemns the mindset of imposing obligations such as, “You cannot believe in this!” or “You cannot say that.” In Surat Al-Kafirun, democracy is beautifully defined: “Say: Idolaters! I do not worship what you worship and you do not worship what I worship... You have your religion and I have mine.” Indeed, religion is maintained in an environment where opinions are expressed freely and respect is experienced at its pinnacle. In a milieu where oppression, imposition and despotic treatment prevail, democracy cannot flourish. In this respect, as Muslims our obligation is to create a mindset disallowing defamation, but advocating that unbounded freedom of thought prevail in the world. We need to keep in mind that those societies attempting to mingle defamation into democracy will always fail, for defamation is malignant to democracy. It aims to oppress the other party's opinion rather than guarantee freedom of thought. It is a fatal blow to reverence, mutual solidarity and friendship. Defamation is a vulgar and perfidious method used to weaken the other party. Defamation is not freedom but pitifulness. One who reviles is always the incapable and defeated side of a debate. In a setting where an individual and his beliefs are deemed worthless, the law's enforcement would be a great blessing for all parties in protecting material and spiritual values and democracy. Such an enforcement would protect both the devout and the atheist, and needless to say, democracy.
The writer is a commentator and religious and political analyst on Turkish TV and a peace activist.
