“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
Maybe we should rethink part of this.
I finally finished reading the “The Islamist”, by Ed Hussein. Aside from his personal story of radicalism within Islam in Britain, he taught me in a way like never before how powerful words and ideas can be. As a radical Muslim practicing a highly politicized form of Islam, Hussein’s job, like most radicals in Britain was not to strap bombs to his chest, but to pass out leaflets and spread propaganda in London’s streets and Europe’s Mosque’s and Universities. “Pass the concepts” was an order given to Hussein in which he in turn gave to others that would lay the foundation for future terrorist attacks. It is the very concepts of Islamic radical scholars such as Abu Ala Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb and Taqiuddin al-Nabhani that inspired characters like Osama Bin Laden and continue to influence young Muslim minds, much like they did Hussein, all over the world. In the United States, but especially in parts of Europe such as Holland and London, radical Islamists spew hate and violence, sheltered by democracy’s unwavering right to free speech. The question then remains that if violent concepts are the prerequisite to violent action, why does democracy condemn terrorism, but not the minds that birth the ideas? If there is a direct correlation and causation between propaganda and terrorism, as Hussein suggests there is, then shouldn’t there be closer censorship over the messages that known radical groups preach and proliferate?
Maybe we should rethink part of this.
I finally finished reading the “The Islamist”, by Ed Hussein. Aside from his personal story of radicalism within Islam in Britain, he taught me in a way like never before how powerful words and ideas can be. As a radical Muslim practicing a highly politicized form of Islam, Hussein’s job, like most radicals in Britain was not to strap bombs to his chest, but to pass out leaflets and spread propaganda in London’s streets and Europe’s Mosque’s and Universities. “Pass the concepts” was an order given to Hussein in which he in turn gave to others that would lay the foundation for future terrorist attacks. It is the very concepts of Islamic radical scholars such as Abu Ala Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb and Taqiuddin al-Nabhani that inspired characters like Osama Bin Laden and continue to influence young Muslim minds, much like they did Hussein, all over the world. In the United States, but especially in parts of Europe such as Holland and London, radical Islamists spew hate and violence, sheltered by democracy’s unwavering right to free speech. The question then remains that if violent concepts are the prerequisite to violent action, why does democracy condemn terrorism, but not the minds that birth the ideas? If there is a direct correlation and causation between propaganda and terrorism, as Hussein suggests there is, then shouldn’t there be closer censorship over the messages that known radical groups preach and proliferate?
1 comment:
That's a slippery slope we don't want to start scaling. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the President wisely advised that we should continue our lives and "not let the terrorists win". I believe the same principle is true with regards to the First Ammendment. The First Ammendment is one of the sacred yet controversial staples of our Constitution. It is the ammendment that gave us the "I have a dream speech" and the vitriol of the white supremacist groups. The promise of the First Ammendment at its best is enough of a reason to persevere when it is at its worst. To do otherwise would be to let the terrorists win.
Post a Comment