There is big similarity between fair judge and smart voter, as both of them never make a decision until they hear to all parties. This means the guarantee of freedom of speech is essential for every party so that he can explain his case. Subsequently, this would ensure fair trials and successful democracy.
What if the judge gave that right to one party and took it away from the other one? Don’t we call him unfair judge? In Middle East the society is like that unfair judge. And the democracy here is even worse. They allow freedom of speech for who raises the banner of religion, customs and traditions.
We can notice this inequality through the form of intellectual conflicts; Islamists are never enough with attacking the personal behavior of their opponents and also attacking the intellectual basics of those opponents. They usually use offensive expressions against very peaceful concepts.
But on the other hand, when you and I want to respond to this relentless attack, we should know in advance that the criticism of paradigm embraced by majority is not allowed.
I am respecting all religions without exception, and constructive criticism never contradicts with that respect. When a religion says that certain act is forbidden, I have the right to ask why? And if they gave me the reasons, I should be able to ask the second question: if those reasons don’t exist anymore, will this act be forbidden?
On the other hand, respecting a religion doesn’t mean to use its teachings as a standard to measure my morality, as my brain should do this.
If they want me to respect their religion, why don’t they respect my decision of choosing my mind to be my reference? Why should I allow them to insult my mind and let them say that it is deficit and not aware of god wisdom!! While not allowing even the constructive criticism of their teachings!
Why have they the right to trample on what I see sacred to me, while I am not even allowed disagreeing with what is sacred to them?
That image of unjust judge is a reflection for this society we are living in, as majority allow for themselves to express whatever they want, while they say to other parties shut your mouth up. Why are they afraid to hear our opinions? Because they don’t have logical arguments or reasoning, and I would like to tell them to focus on some logic lessons. And please don’t be afraid of us, we don’t need guardians of our minds and opinions.
One example of their fear of freedom of speech is the existence of “Hisbah” in some Muslim countries which means: Keeping everything in order within the laws of Allah. This doctrine is based on the Qur’anic expression: Enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong.
For example, in Saudi Arabia, the state establishment responsible for hisbah is the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
In a minority of Islamic states, namely Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Aceh province of Indonesia and Iran, there is an establishment of mutaween or “religious police”, as called in English-speaking countries. In some places, it is state-established, in others it is independent of state.
This is the same laws that put me in jail for one year for writing about secularism and atheism. This is again the same judge who did not even listen to my defense, and did not even want to hear from me. This is the judge who asked me how you dare to criticize our religion! Instead of being neutral.