[This is the eighth part of a ten-part series. To read more, see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 here.]

Caffè Italiano: The two meet again over coffee and begin conversing.

EU bureaucrat: My boss was upset. She says you’re nothing but an Islamophobe peddling hate speech. 

Islamofactist: I’m glad she’s opened up this critical topic of hate speech. Let’s probe this with facts and logic. Shall we?

EU bureaucrat: Sure. 

Islamofactist: First, it is a fact that in 2024, the Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council states, “Europe [is] united against hatred.” We both agree on this, I suppose. 

EU bureaucrat: You bet. 

Islamofactist: But what is “hate speech”? Is there an agreed definition?

EU bureaucrat: Good question. 

Islamofactist: We’re on shaky grounds. The fact is, according to the UN, “to date, there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.” It also stated, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech.” It also added that “hate speech does not include religious leaders or tenets of faith.” In short, religions can be criticized. As Islam is a religion, it can be criticized. 

EU bureaucrat: But the UN must have some working definition of hate speech? It can’t be a blank slate, can it? 

Islamofactist: You’re right. According to the UN definition, hate speech is understood as “any kind of communication, in speech writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language, with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent or other identity factor.”

EU bureaucrat: That seems to cover everything. Anything from the Muslim community on this?

Islamofactist: Yes. When we talk about “hate speech,” naturally, one also has to talk about free speech, as it is a part of the cultural heritage of the West. 

EU bureaucrat: Admittedly, there is a tension between them. How do you, as an Islamofactist, reconcile this? 

Islamofactist: That’s quite easy. We stick to the facts. And bear in mind that the Muslim Council of Britain has said, “being critical of Islam … would not automatically make you an Islamophobe unless you were using the language of racism.”

EU bureaucrat: I’m relieved as I see you are not using the language of racism. You are merely pointing out facts, if I understand your method. 

Islamofactist: You’re beginning to get how Islamofactism works. And to add another fact, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) report on Islamophobia specifically stated, “Let us be clear, the aim of establishing a working definition of Islamophobia has neither been motivated by, nor is intended to curtail, free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion. Criticism of religion is a fundamental right in an open society and is enshrined in our commitment to freedom of speech.”

EU bureaucrat: That’s reassuring. What’s next? 

Islamofactist: Let’s test it with an example. Winston Churchill said some very unkind things about Islam and Muslims, and I won’t repeat them here. (Googles and shows the EU bureaucrat). 

EU bureaucrat: That’s terrible! 

Islamofactist: Now, let’s suppose I printed these words and distributed them. Would I be guilty of hate speech against Muslims? 

EU bureaucrat: Absolutely! 

Islamofactist: You’re sure?

EU bureaucrat: One hundred percent. You are distributing printed material that has hate speech towards Muslims. 

Islamofactist: Now suppose another person distributed written material which has the words: “Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of all beings.” What would you call this?

EU bureaucrat: Hate speech. 

Islamofactist: You’re sure?

EU bureaucrat: Absolutely. But what’s the source of this quote? 

Islamofactist: Surah 98.6 of the Qur’an. 

EU bureaucrat: (gulps) It’s probably an isolated example from the Qur’an. 

Islamofactist: Unfortunately not. My reading of the Qur’an shows that it has rather unkind things to say about non-Muslims, who are called kaffirs. You can verify it on the internet. 

EU bureaucrat: You’re making this up. All religions preach love and harmony. 

Islamofactist: The fact is, the Qur’an takes rather a dim view of us non-Muslims. We are considered donkeys in surah 62.5 and 74.50; dogs in surah 7.176; cattle in surah 7.179, 25.44, 47.12; losers in surah 2.121, 3.85, 5.5, 8.37, 10.95, 27.5, 29.52, 39.63, 39.65; wicked in surah 8.37; insolent in surah 6.146, 7.166, 40.75, 67.21; hard-hearted in surah 39.22, 57.16; deaf in surah 2.171, 5.71, 6.39, 17.97, 30.52; blind in surah 2.171, 5.71, 17.97, 30.53, 41.44. And in surah 4.46, Allah states, “those who disbelieve in Our verses, we will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through, we will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment.”

EU bureaucrat: (plugs his ears) STOP! You can’t say this against Muslims. 

Islamofactist: I haven’t said a word against Muslims. I am merely quoting the Qur’an. 

EU bureaucrat: That would be hate speech. 

Islamofactist: On whose part?

EU bureaucrat: Yours, of course. 

Islamofactist: Let me get this straight: me simply quoting the Qur’an would be hate speech? 

EU bureaucrat: Yes. Because you’re saying it. 

Islamofactist: What about the fact that Muslims distribute millions of copies of the Qur’an for free? An organization boasted it had “distributed over 1.7 MILLION copies of the Quran, Alhamdulillah! But we want this number to keep rising, to spread the word of Allah to all mankind!” The organization has published Qurans in 11 languages: Arabic, English, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Bangla, Nepali, Urdu, Hindi, Asamiya and Sinhala. So, would the distribution of the Qur’an be considered violating the laws of hate speech? Clearly, they are distributing the Qur’an because they believe in it. 

EU bureaucrat: Of course not. Look, this is getting complicated. You know how all religions sometimes say the darndest things. 

Islamofactist: Agreed. But do you think what is written in the Qur’an falls within the definition of hate speech by the UN, which talks about “any kind of communication, in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language, with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent or other identity factor”?

EU bureaucrat: No. 

Islamofactist: Why not? 

EU bureaucrat: Because the Qur’an is the direct and final word of Allah through his last Prophet (PBUH). 

Islamofactist: If I repeat what is in the Qur’an, I am guilty of hate speech. And if a Muslim repeats it, he is not. Is that what you are saying? 

EU bureaucrat: Correct. 

Islamofactist: Can you please explain why? 

EU bureaucrat: Look. Don’t get me wrong. I’d never say this in public, but yes, the answer is the Qur’an is above the laws of the EU. 

Islamofactist: And why would that be so?

EU bureaucrat: Because holding the Qur’an above the laws of the EU is the only way of upholding the laws of the EU.

Islamofactist: I see. Something like, “We must surrender our values to uphold our values”?

EU bureaucrat: Exactly. 

Islamofactist: But what if I don’t believe in the Qur’an? 

EU bureaucrat: You never give up, do you? Look, what I’m saying is that all religious texts contain passages that may be interpreted as hate speech. Therefore, singling out the Quran for criticism is an act of Islamophobia. 

Islamofactist: I have not singled out the Qur’an for criticism. I have merely pointed out its contents with no comment. Second, even if I did, as you know, the UN has said that “criticism of the ideas, leaders, symbols or practices of Islam” is not in of itself Islamophobia. 

EU bureaucrat: Come on! You know, religions! They were born in humanity’s infancy. We know better now. For example, I could quote many passages from the Bible that would be horrific to our ears. 

Islamofactist: That is false equivalence. Christianity, for example, has undergone significant reform over time. Its communities have largely adopted secular principles, distancing themselves from ancient teachings in their scriptures that may promote intolerance or hostility. As a result, hate speech in their religious texts is no longer widely followed in practice, nor do their religious leaders widely endorse it. In this reformed tradition, the Bible is openly subject to critique without triggering widespread accusations of “Bible-phobia” or “Christian-phobia.” 

EU bureaucrat: Be that as it may, the best way to tackle hate speech is to suppress speech. 

Islamofactist: The fact is that what you have just said directly contradicts what the UN says. Because “the UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech.”

EU bureaucrat: Forget what the UN says. There must be a consensus on what hate speech is in Europe. 

Islamofactist: I’m afraid there isn’t. Europe, too, mirrors what the UN states. Specifically, “that hate speech is defined and understood differently at the national, European, and international levels.”

EU bureaucrat: You can’t give the public the freedom to have certain opinions. We bureaucrats know better. 

Islamofactist: But what about the fact that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights “protects the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”?

EU bureaucrat: Damn, our overpaid lawyers wrote this! What do they know about the challenges we face with Muslims?

Islamofactist: I don’t. Please tell me what challenge you face with Muslims. 

EU bureaucrat: Come on, man! Muslims might get offended! 

Islamofactist: So, Muslims have a legal right not to get offended? 

EU bureaucrat: Absolutely. It’s to protect them against Islamophobia. 

Islamofactist: Now, I’m confused. Isn’t it a fact that on 20 May 2022, the Committee of Ministers, under the terms of the Statute of the Council of Europe, recommended to member States on combating hate speech that “the freedom of expression is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.” It also stated, “any restriction of this right must be in strict accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention and thus narrowly construed and comply with the requirements of lawfulness, necessity, and proportionality to the legitimate aims.”

EU bureaucrat: Darned Committee of Ministers! Putting such stuff in fine print. Should have left it to us civil servants. 

Islamofactist: So what do you suggest I do? 

EU bureaucrat: Just shut up for the sake of diversity. What you are saying is hate speech.

Islamofactist: I am not, according to your definition. My stating of facts does not incite, promote, spread or justify violence, hatred or discrimination against Muslims and is not hate speech. 

EU bureaucrat: You may be legally correct, but stating certain facts is hate speech. 

Islamofactist: I fail to understand why. Recall what I said when we met: My Islamofactist approach is inspired by the EU’s stand on fact-checking, which states, “Fact-checking is a crucial pillar of the EU’s approach to disinformation. Fact-checkers help assess and verify content to provide the public with accurate, reliable information they can trust.” The EU talks about “cooperating with fact-checkers, civil society, media and academia.”

EU bureaucrat: Boy! You sure have given me a lot to think over. Can I talk it over with my boss? 

Islamofactist: Done. 

EU bureaucrat: (to the server) L’addition, s’il vous plaît. 

They tussle over who will pay the bill and decide to split it. Outside, each goes their way, melting into the crowds. 

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.