APRIL 15 — It’s ironic that supporters of Dr Zakir Naik are calling for the Indian Muslim preacher to be allowed to lecture here in the name of freedom of speech and academic freedom, when these are the same people who refuse to give space to alternative views.

As a free speech advocate, I believe that Dr Naik should be permitted to talk about any topic he wants to, including a comparison of Hinduism and Islam. Local Indian and Hindu groups accuse him of spreading hate against Hinduism and have even called for the Muslim preacher to be deported. But the authorities eventually decided to allow Dr Naik’s lectures on condition that he change the topic.

What Dr Naik’s fans from PAS, Amanah and Perkasa fail to realise is that freedom of speech doesn’t mean the liberty to only hear opinions agreeable with them.

Free speech means that every Malaysian citizen has the equal right to express their views, even if some people disagree with those opinions. Nobody should have a monopoly on public discourse.

Nothing in the Federal Constitution states that only certain views can be expressed in Malaysia; certainly not in Article 3 that says Islam is the religion of the federation.

Where were these so-called free speech advocates when religious authorities seized the Malay translation of Canadian author Irshad Manji’s book Allah, Liberty and Love and prosecuted the local publisher?

Where were they when Wan Sulaiman Wan Ismail was charged with blasphemy for merely questioning certain Muslim practices? Or when Kassim Ahmad was charged with insulting Islam for questioning the hadith?

Where were these sudden protectors of intellectual freedom when the Malay translation of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was banned? Or when the police prohibited Parti Sosialis Malaysia from organising a debate on Marxism?

Dr Naik has expressed some rather outrageous views, like saying that it’s okay for the Islamic State to have sex with their female slaves. Then of course, there is his infamous speech supporting Osama bin Laden and saying: “Every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

He also supposedly made 25 factual errors in five minutes when he criticised Darwin’s theory of evolution, including making up fictional names of scientists and getting basic scientific facts wrong, such as saying that “Homo sapiens” died 500,000 years ago. He forgets that he himself is “Homo sapiens.”

Ignorance is no reason to stop someone from speaking, of course.

Freedom of speech means allowing people to make inaccuracies as a marketplace of ideas is one where all sorts of ideas flourish, so that we can sort out the wheat from the chaff. Rather than shut Dr Naik down, we should educate him (and other Darwin critics) about human evolution.

Too bad Malaysia banned the Bahasa Malaysia translation of Darwin’s book.

MCA vice-president Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun is misguided in using racial and religious harmony as reason to prevent Dr Naik from speaking.

That has always been the reason cited to block debate in Malaysia and even to infringe on the right of Christians to call their god by whatever name they choose.

Malaysians need to stop being so “sensitive.”

Insults, jokes and criticisms do not kill people. It’s people who are offended by such remarks who do the killing, or who throw Molotov cocktails at Penang Deputy Chief Minister II Prof Dr P. Ramasamy’s service centre just because he called Dr Naik “Satan.”

We shouldn’t quell offensive speech unless there are direct calls for violence. It is the perpetrators of physical acts of violence we should go after.

In the same vein, Dr Naik’s supporters should realise that launching an arson attack against the preacher’s critic only reinforces the perception that he teaches extremism.   

Unless they’re prepared to give equal opportunity to other people to spread so-called “liberal” views about religion, then proponents of Dr Naik’s have no business using the freedom of speech card to back him.

They should just be honest and say that they believe their views are superior and that using force (either by the State or by individual acts of violence) is permissible to shut everyone else up.

This would show their intellectual paucity as they’re incapable of using logic and reason to argue their stand. But then, what would you expect from people who support someone who doesn’t even know what “Homo sapiens” is?

*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.