The Pakistani Spectator

( a logical discussion to disembark, wrong perceptive view of freedom of expression, as speech)

Although this discussion was generated during a commentary while expressing my views on an article related to blasphemy and limitation of speech, nevertheless, I have blended the discussion in to the article so to reach a possible conclusion based view thereby limiting the concept of free speech in my opinion and is presented to my reader, if at all, for their opinion.

Speech is a voluntary coordinated response to ideas originating in brain and transforming in to words thus endorsing the impression of desire and interest so to communicate the listener of intentions and resident response and perception as intended by the conveyor.

Expression is a mode to convey message or opinion, may it simply be a motion, a verbal response, a physical move, an action or a reaction.

Expression defines motive as intention.

It is an impression to explain and float notion as thought.

It’s a gesture, dependent upon the mood, environment, place, personality and perception.

It is an act that response as reaction without verbal denomination thereby deciding and curtailing the term in the contest of sign and symbol.

Modes are portfolio which acts as transformer so to deliver the info to the processor for responsible action as expression.

Expression derive its origin from built in and acquired tendencies in the form of traits, habits, senses and factors that governed personalities.

Hence as many as one can consider suitable and appropriate as per his exposure, suitability, required criteria, necessity and circumstances.

In the world of broader spectrum, expression is the only platform which enables the speech to be communicated to the listener intended for, thereby, the message to be received.

In methodology of US law or else, whereby, it awards legitimately, “free speech” in the contest of expression, means, a “freedom to communicate with all forms of expression”.

Expecting response to speech through speech is a misnomer, if we take speech as mode of expression.

It denies the concept of expression, as expression is a platform to convey speech which can be through the way and mode, what ever is acceptable, feasible and suitable to the retaliator or listener.

In my opinion this utilization of mode other then the speech as expression, is the real legal ground of limitation of speech as expression where it should be curtailed deliberately , as it havoc a new multidimensional attitude of listener to respond ,who shall be expected to utilized any such platform that in his horizon of thoughts is fruitful as retaliation.

Such magnitudes of impulsive reactions again are dependent on multiple factors from, exposures to qualification and broad perspective to courteous tendency, terminating at his assumed or obligatory religious bindings and belongings.

Tendency to react in situation has neither criteria nor protocol hence is always situational.

In such a variant horizon of vast population peoples have different perspective to look in to affairs, whether religious or functionary.

Grooming, exposures, ethnic belongingness, religious bindings and attachments, and grievances against races are all such factors that shoot a new circular of event in any such untoward free speech culminating in to undesirable situation.

It is again, this point where legal measures need to be initiated so to curtail and avoid any new situation, vide free speech and expression.

There are pre set criteria and limitations to respond and react.

Such responses are threshold dependent and variant, exercising individual in to different trait qualities as aggressive, humble, down to earth or offensive etc.

These traits are again dependent on time tested exposures, circumstances, situational, obligatory, bindings, belief, and horizon and perspective of vision.

In other words such limitations are polished with exposures to extreme of environment that breaches the threshold by diffusing its pressure and brunt so that person may become immune or to a limit that his thresh hold to respond increases thus delaying the reaction in retaliation.

The same is the theory of tolerance that person sacrifices his desire over interpreted thoughts ,thus curtailing and abiding and refraining from the untoward behavior and indecent response, morally and socially unacceptable by virtue of law, society, culture or religious abides etc.

Rules are right and acceptable to the extent that of course one has the right to peacefully protest whatever he want, as the natural human desire to speak up in response to a message, if one find hateful!

However, here again discussion enters in to the same methodology of expression, as mode and platform to respond in lieu of speech is in the domain of retaliator, depending on his trait qualities and threshold to accept brunt, and the brunt itself depends on his previous or innate abilities as tolerances.

This tolerance has one other visionary prospect if we scrutinize the subject in the light and methodology of belief and religion.

Tolerance under such perspective resides on principle of obligatory restrictions and belief as attachments.

Hence, sorting, tolerance, in to mode of, preference and priority, on the basis of liability, obligation and restriction as bindings.

It is this restricted liability that is always targeted and floated by such offensive culprits that deliberately utilized the expression of free speech in lieu.

In my opinion, under such diversified domain of responses, again, limited speech with legal implementation become a requirement so to refrain and avoid unfamiliar and offensive behavior.

It’s all, the matter of perceiving and interpreting things.

Perceptions and feel has a very little line of demarcation, and most of the times used inadvertently and interchangeably as synonymous.

Up to the point of definition and synonymous attrition in a vocabulary of books, terminology does not create mess but if we get out of definition and implement the terms on religion and belief, there seems to be a mass difference.

This is the root cause of deranged directions.

We feel things through our innate abilities that have been destined by virtue of our god gifted natural tendencies in the shape and format of nature, as smell, taste, sight and scene, hearing, and touch.

These are the modes by which we appreciate the end result or resultant in the form of good, bad, stink, and etc.

However perception is an integrated phenomenon.

It’s the cumulative effect of feel and associated paraphernalia with element of interpretation.

If I observe religion in the light of perception my feelings would be different, as compared to a person who observes religion by his feel, as closed observation would relate element of emotion and attachment with in the domain of definition.

It is this tendency that ignites and retaliate thus deviating the horizon of thoughts.

Inquisition, to modus operandi, for curtailing and abstain those offensive people who derogate belief or religion, regardless of their belongings, in my opinion, being Muslim, we have, many situational responses of our holy prophet (PBUH) and qoran which clearly, specify and negate such irresponsible behavior of human response that may hurt, or derogate or culminate in to grievances.

Islam teaches principle of brotherhood and harmony with peace, and negates and disowns all such elements that sabotage or dismantle scope of Islamic ideology and teaching.

In my opinion, irrational responses under any circumstances should be condemned and disown and as has been cited and advised unanimously by all intellects of diversified era, thus, ignoring the event and expression remains one of the standard option.

Why it is that destiny of continuous consequences in terms of disgrace and disregard as Muslim community has become our fate if I recall continuous cycle of probing and provoking from the end and side of enemies.

In my opinion it is due to the fact that has taken the birth from the resultant of our iatrogenic distortion of behavior in terms of nation as Muslim.

Qualities as traits and symbols as faith have always been set aside from the emblem of insignia as belonging and bindings.

Perceiving all if and buts within the platform of religious assertions has developed an irrational wave of unaccepted discrepancies among the fake and reality.

One thing people got to realize, no body can threaten Islam, but any body can threaten Muslim.

Belief is a subjugated term, with different perspective and domains of religion among different community, people and nation.

What has been defined as prohibition in Islam can be an integral part of other religion.

Dominancy under such rational and logical diversity can only be countered by excellence ,expertise, knowledge and advancement and with abilities that may counter and restrict the conscience with in the laid down principles of religious practices being Muslim keeping preferences ,priorities and liabilities above and towards the interest of humanity at large.

No body will accept our slogan and signature of dictation as Muslim.

People have their own faithful principle and policy of obedience, practices, loyalties and acceptance as belonging and bindings, within their defined domain of religion as Hindus, Sikh, Jew, Christians etc.

If we as Muslim want to curtail and disembark these culprits from the sight and scenes of maniacal activities we got to compete on every platform of intellect above and about the domain of our ideology of belief.

However ideas in the confiscated term of free speech and expression as repeated criminal blasphemy episodes, remains the point of reservation being Muslim, as intended desire to legalize repeated act of blasphemy under the cover of free speech can not be own or engulf or assimilated by and under the head of courteous and neglecting response.

This disowning has infact similar threshed hold as; we being Muslim and nation condemn the cowardly act of all such happening in the shape and format of suicide bombing or any criminal acts in the name of self interpreted fanaticism based non Islamic principles.

Last 5 posts by Dr Razahaider

• Appendicitis, A Surgical Dilemma - October 23rd, 2008
• Theory of Evolution, a Pre-School Concept - October 19th, 2008
• Unnatural Offense or Behavioral Deviation - October 11th, 2008
• I shall need you My Son - September 19th, 2008
• Come on and Get Me - September 11th, 2008

Trackback URL