Freedom of speech is a right to let a person present his ideas and opinions freely without any fear but the person using it to express his opinion should feel the sense of responsibility that whatever he is saying should be based on truth and his ideas must be supported by some strong arguments. But unfortunately Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, the maker of the movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ failed to do so, as the content of the movie suggests that it is a brainchild of a sick mind which perceived things in his own way or the way he wanted and depicted them accordingly.
This movie is unable to focus over the multitude of positive attributes that dominated the character of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) and instead points finger at his character by basing its arguments over his 11 marriages. But here I would say that the film has been churned out on poor research work because if carefully one reads the history he would get to know that our Holy Prophet (PBUH) had married Hazrat Khadija (RA) at the age of 25 and at that time Hazrat Khadija (RA) was 40 year old means 15 years elder than him and was twice widowed. Their marriage lasted for 25 years and only after Hazrat Khadija (RA)’s death he opted for second marriage with Hazrat Ayeshya (RA). If Holy Prophet (PBUH) was fond of women then he could have refused to marry a woman who was twice widowed and elder than him as well or he could have had married other women during his marital life with her. But he didn’t do that. History reveals that after these two marriages rest of the marriages by Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH) were done out of need either for the expansion of Islam or for the strengthening of Muslim empire.
The depiction of Holy Prophet (PBUH) in this movie is absolutely wrong and unacceptable for the entire Muslim world. The maker of this movie has misused his right of freedom of speech to spew his hatred towards Islam which is the most widely practiced religion around the world.
US government disassociating itself with the movie has condemned it in strong words. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it as unacceptable and a conspiracy to defame a great religion. US President Barack Obama also condemned the movie but terming it as a shameful act of one person and disassociating the state from it neither assuage the pain of millions of Muslims whose sentiments have been hurt by the movie nor it prevents such offenses from being committed again in future.
President Obama during his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York said, “Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.” I would like to ask President Obama that it must have been ok for your society to accept blasphemy and your state’s constitution also provides room for it but why do you expect other societies and followers of other religions to follow the same norm? You can not just turn your back and say that blasphemy is tolerated in our society so you should also bear with it.
If the government of US is restricted by the state’s constitution to take action against the film maker then at least it can address the issue by investing its efforts in trying to form such rules that restrict such blasphemous acts against Islam and other religions in future. Furthermore, what’s the point for US in having the ‘first amendment’ in its constitution that protects free speech but bars the government from taking action against those who misuse this right to say lie and to propagate false information on a mass level.
The regret over the movie and its content should not be limited to the use of words only, US, United Nations and the whole world should seriously enact a law on a global level that discourage blasphemy and such felonious acts otherwise such sort of offenses will keep taking place in future. The point is that freedom of speech should prevail but it must be used in a fair manner rather than being exploited by inane minds.