As I write these words, I shudder at the thought of what the wrong attitude to religion and religious leaders can wreak in human life - and hope that things get better rather than worse...
The context is one of the stupidest and most useless movies ever made in the name of religion or freedom of expression. Titled "Innocence of Muslims," the poorly made video is alleged to have been made by a California citizen curiously named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. It shows a rakish, shady character playing the role of Prophet Muhammad and indulging in all sorts of "obnoxious" behavior.
I happened to watch it when someone pointed it to me. But when I knew of the outrage it caused and its aftermath, including the death of several innocent people caught in violent protests that erupted in various parts of the world, I was aghast. Not that my watching it caused any of it, but I wish I hadn't.
Who would have liked to watch a movie such as this? And why did Nakoula, apparently a frequent financial fraudster as per several media reports, make it in the first place? Do Americans - or anyone else for that matter - have the right to express whatever they want, in whatever form they want to? And should that right be defended even at the cost of several innocent lives (that might be saved if some exceptional bans to the right are exercised)? To what extent should the right to free speech be defended and in what circumstances?
All these questions are being debated in American and other media right now - as they have been debated for some time in the past on other, similar occasions (such as when a US cleric was bent on burning the Koran on the anniversary of Sept 11).
There are stern men and women who think that it should be the perpetrators of overt violence that should be punished, why ban a movie or arrest its producer?
In my opinion, while the fundamentalist nature of a section of Muslims (as also of other religious followers) is for everyone to see and condemn, isn't there a "reverse fundamentalist" nature of many free speech advocates who want to defend it at any cost? And, in cases such as this, apparently without any justifiable noble cause.
If the idea of the movie is to criticize the Prophet or Islam or its followers, why not do it in less vulgar forms than the movie in question?
What would work better - to involve and engage a wider audience in a debate and discuss the core issues or to make a crass parody and enrage people (a majority of whom are uneducated, misguided youth and cannot grasp sophisticated arguments about free speech anyway, but can get angered if provoked unnecessarily and blatantly)?
The context is one of the stupidest and most useless movies ever made in the name of religion or freedom of expression. Titled "Innocence of Muslims," the poorly made video is alleged to have been made by a California citizen curiously named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. It shows a rakish, shady character playing the role of Prophet Muhammad and indulging in all sorts of "obnoxious" behavior.
I happened to watch it when someone pointed it to me. But when I knew of the outrage it caused and its aftermath, including the death of several innocent people caught in violent protests that erupted in various parts of the world, I was aghast. Not that my watching it caused any of it, but I wish I hadn't.
Who would have liked to watch a movie such as this? And why did Nakoula, apparently a frequent financial fraudster as per several media reports, make it in the first place? Do Americans - or anyone else for that matter - have the right to express whatever they want, in whatever form they want to? And should that right be defended even at the cost of several innocent lives (that might be saved if some exceptional bans to the right are exercised)? To what extent should the right to free speech be defended and in what circumstances?
All these questions are being debated in American and other media right now - as they have been debated for some time in the past on other, similar occasions (such as when a US cleric was bent on burning the Koran on the anniversary of Sept 11).
There are stern men and women who think that it should be the perpetrators of overt violence that should be punished, why ban a movie or arrest its producer?
In my opinion, while the fundamentalist nature of a section of Muslims (as also of other religious followers) is for everyone to see and condemn, isn't there a "reverse fundamentalist" nature of many free speech advocates who want to defend it at any cost? And, in cases such as this, apparently without any justifiable noble cause.
If the idea of the movie is to criticize the Prophet or Islam or its followers, why not do it in less vulgar forms than the movie in question?
What would work better - to involve and engage a wider audience in a debate and discuss the core issues or to make a crass parody and enrage people (a majority of whom are uneducated, misguided youth and cannot grasp sophisticated arguments about free speech anyway, but can get angered if provoked unnecessarily and blatantly)?
