Critical Response

The Qur'an and Freedom of Expression — A Divine Framework for Speech or a Divine Framework for Control?

---

The article titled “The Qur’an and Freedom of Expression: A Divine Framework for Speech and Criticism” presents what it claims to be a Qur’anic blueprint for managing expression — one that places divine reverence and community cohesion over individual liberty. At face value, the article outlines Islam's internal conception of regulated speech. But upon critical examination, it becomes evident that the Qur’anic framework is not merely a moral vision for speech — it is a theological and legal apparatus for repression, control, and the suppression of dissent, justified as “divine will.” This response will unpack, challenge, and ultimately refute the article’s romanticized claims using historical analysis, textual deconstruction, logical reasoning, and core principles of human freedom.

---

I. A Framework Not of Expression, But Suppression

The Qur'an’s speech doctrine, as portrayed in the article, is predicated on the idea that criticism of God, Muhammad, or the Qur’an is not simply offensive — it is a crime warranting divine and, often, legal punishment. The claim is not that the Qur'an teaches restraint or wisdom in speech; rather, it teaches that certain topics must not be spoken about at all — unless in praise.

Such a position stands in fundamental opposition to any universal standard of freedom of expression. In secular societies, truth is pursued by the contest of ideas, not by silencing one side through divine threats. The Islamic framework instead installs sacred persons, books, and institutions beyond critique, which is the very definition of authoritarian speech control.

Freedom cannot exist where blasphemy is punishable.
To place God and his Messenger above scrutiny is to place tyranny above truth.

---

II. Divine Insecurity? The Logic of "Offending God"

Surah Al-Ahzab 33:57 is cited as evidence that abusing Allah or His Messenger brings eternal damnation:

“Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger—Allah has cursed them...”

Let’s assess this logically. The claim that God is offended by words — spoken by human beings He created — reduces an all-powerful deity to an insecure monarch who cannot tolerate dissent. What kind of omnipotent being reacts to verbal criticism with eternal torment? Is truth so fragile that it requires such punishments to preserve it?

Furthermore, if Allah is truly beyond comparison (Qur’an 42:11), how can finite human speech damage His infinite dignity? If insult is meaningless to Him, why then curse the speaker?

This exposes the real issue: the "divine framework" is not about protecting God, but protecting power — both religious and political. The fusion of the sacred and the authoritarian serves to silence dissent not for theological purity, but for institutional control.

---

III. The Qur’an as Beyond Question — Circular Reasoning and the Problem of Sacred Immunity

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:2 states:

“This is the Book about which there is no doubt...”

But this claim is self-referential and circular. A book declaring itself infallible is not evidence of its infallibility. That would be like a man saying, “I am always truthful, and you must believe me because I just told you I am.”

Furthermore, the verse in Surah Al-Furqan 25:30, in which Muhammad laments that the people abandoned the Qur’an, reveals a more uncomfortable truth: the earliest audiences often rejected the Qur'an. This admission is critical. If the Qur’an were self-evidently divine, as the article claims, why was rejection so widespread that Muhammad had to call down divine curses on dissenters?

Historically, Quraysh did not reject Muhammad’s message because they failed to grasp its truth, but because they saw it for what it was: a challenge to tribal authority and inherited customs — dressed in divine language. This is not spiritual resistance, but rational opposition.

---

IV. "Promoting Good and Forbidding Evil" — The Trojan Horse of Islamic Censorship

Surah Al-Hujurat 49:11 is presented as proof that Islam promotes respectful speech. Yet Islamic jurisprudence uses the same doctrine — amr bil ma'ruf wa nahi ‘anil munkar (commanding the right and forbidding the wrong) — to justify:

• Harassing ex-Muslims

• Silencing dissenters

• Imposing orthodoxy by social coercion

• Restricting academic and journalistic criticism of Islam

This is not a call to ethical dialogue. It is a license for religiously sanctioned surveillance, intrusion, and violence — often delegated to mobs or religious authorities who decide what is “wrong.”

Surah An-Nisa 4:140 is also misrepresented. It doesn’t say “don’t mock,” it says don’t even sit near people who question or criticize the Qur’an. It encourages isolation, exclusion, and avoidance of dissenters — a strategy common to cults and dogmatic regimes.

---

V. Apostasy and Blasphemy: From Theological Warning to Legal Execution

The article makes a carefully evasive claim: that while the Qur’an doesn’t prescribe worldly punishment for apostasy or blasphemy, the Hadith and classical jurisprudence do. This conveniently offloads the problem onto “later” tradition, despite the Qur’an being used as the justification for such traditions.

Let’s be clear:

• Surah Al-Baqarah 2:217 calls apostasy a destruction of all good deeds.

• Surah An-Nahl 16:106 says those who disbelieve after belief will suffer the wrath of Allah.

These verses are spiritualized death sentences. And the Hadith merely weaponizes them, giving legal form to what the Qur’an threatens in the afterlife.

The Prophet Muhammad reportedly said:

“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari 9:84:57)

This is not an aberration of history; it is enshrined law in all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. The article hides behind the Qur’an’s ambiguity to mask what the Qur’an itself sets in motion: a theology of fear, maintained by death.

When a religion claims to be true and yet requires the sword and the gag to protect it, it exposes not its truth, but its fragility.

---

VI. Theological Blackmail: Faith or Fire

The Qur’an routinely presents the false dichotomy of belief or eternal torture. The punishment for disbelief is often described not just as Hell, but as a “humiliating” and “eternal” torment (e.g., 33:57, 98:6, 3:88).

Is such a moral framework compatible with intellectual integrity or ethical persuasion? When belief is secured under the threat of infinite torment, what results is not faith, but submission through terror. The Qur’anic approach is not “freedom within boundaries.” It is coercion masquerading as reverence.

---

VII. Reframing the Entire Question

The article concludes that the Qur'an’s speech laws are not meant to align with Western liberalism — and this is true. But what it doesn’t admit is far more important:

The Qur'an is incompatible not only with Western liberalism, but with any system that prizes truth-seeking, open inquiry, and individual conscience.

What it offers instead is a sacralized authoritarianism, where speech is permitted only within the boundaries of ideological loyalty to Islam.

Let’s invert the question:

• What happens when a Muslim questions Muhammad’s prophethood?

• What happens when a Muslim says the Qur’an contains contradictions?

• What happens when a Muslim leaves Islam?

The answer, both doctrinally and in practice, is:

• Exclusion

• Censorship

• Social ostracism

• Legal persecution

• Death in many jurisdictions

This is not “divine order.” It is totalitarian religious control.

---

Conclusion: Truth Demands Freedom, Not Threats

Freedom of expression is not about the right to insult for its own sake. It is about the right to question, challenge, and scrutinize every claim — especially those that demand ultimate authority over human life. A god who threatens eternal torment for questions is not a god of truth, but a god of fear.

The Qur’an does not promote a divine framework for speech. It promotes a framework of submission, censorship, and enforced conformity, with blasphemy and apostasy as its twin blasphemies against authority.

True freedom cannot coexist with sacred untouchables. If Islam’s truths are indeed true, let them stand without coercion. If they fall without force, perhaps they were never truths to begin with.