In contemporary discourse, a troubling trend has emerged, particularly among progressives and left-leaning intellectuals: Many progressives mistakenly equate Islamic criticism with racial discrimination. The political left views any kind of critical analysis about Islamic teachings and customs as bigotry which manifests as xenophobia and racism against people of color. Intellectual laziness together with moral cowardice has generated a thoroughly dishonest and counterproductive atmosphere that impedes meaningful dialogue on topics like religion, freedom, and human rights.

The primary source of this misunderstanding stems from the belief that any critique of Islamic beliefs or non-Western ideologies automatically becomes an act of racial discrimination against Arabs and Middle Eastern people. The assumption shows a dangerous double standard because Islam represents a belief system that people from diverse ethnic backgrounds follow rather than a race. Scholars who critique Christian teachings and Catholic customs along with Jewish religious beliefs seldom face accusations of racism or cultural domination. As soon as Islam becomes the topic of discussion a defensive barrier emerges which brands anyone who critiques the religion as hateful or racist.

Let’s be clear: religion is a set of ideas. People deserve respect; ideas do not. Society must evaluate ideas regardless of their popularity or sacred status since protecting religious beliefs from criticism contradicts the principles of an open and free society. The necessity to critique religious beliefs becomes both logical and ethical when they serve to support misogyny, homophobia, violence, censorship or political oppression especially prevalent in many Islamic settings.

Progressives who identify as champions of women’s rights and LGBTQ+ equality along with free expression find themselves ironically at odds with conservative Islamic law interpretations. The left abandons its core values to embrace a shallow multiculturalism that confuses moral relativism with tolerance whenever Islamic issues arise.

An atheist displays stronger criticism towards Islam compared to Anglicanism. People often suspect that such focus indicates an underlying hatred toward Arabs or Muslims. But this accusation collapses under basic scrutiny. The scientific community does not label cancer researchers as “anti-human” when they choose to study lung cancer instead of skin cancer. Atheists or secular thinkers often show more concern for Islam because it currently represents a stronger and more dominant religious force compared to other religions in various parts of the world. Islamic religious teachings control how over a billion people live and what laws they follow while several Muslim-majority countries enforce death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy offenses. This issue extends beyond theological eccentricity and represents a fundamental life and death matter.

What prompts many people on the left to instinctively defend Islam? A sincere wish to shield minority groups from hate and discrimination explains this protective stance in part. The lasting effects of Western imperialism in our post-colonial world create an instinctive responsibility to protect marginalized groups from additional harm. Positive intentions frequently fail to produce beneficial results. The outcome of this dynamic creates a patronizing infantilization of entire communities which portrays Muslims as vulnerable individuals unable to withstand intellectual challenges that other groups routinely face.

A false sense of unity under the guise of solidarity creates more damage than it offers support. The Western left’s refusal to critique oppressive systems results in silencing important voices from Muslim communities including ex-Muslims, reformers, feminists and human rights activists who risk their lives to oppose these systems. When you state you support the oppressed you have to support those who fight against oppressive religious regimes instead of backing the ideologies that support that oppression.

I speak from first-hand experience rather than from an external perspective.

As a native Arabic speaker with brown skin I engaged deeply with Islamic scholarship. My criticisms of Islam developed not from ignorance or prejudice but through deep understanding and extensive study which eventually led to my disillusionment. My departure from Islam stemmed not from a desire to adopt Western ways or gain approval from a hypothetical white audience but from my inability to align its teachings with logic and ethical standards as well as personal liberty.

Does that make me a racist? By rejecting oppressive doctrines I face accusations of Arab self-hatred? Is it possible that the left would accept my criticisms if I wrote only in Arabic? Would they feel relief if I shared these opinions in Arabic because no Western audience could challenge their perspective through such a language barrier?

These questions address the core paradoxes we currently face. The modern left supports “lived experience” narratives until they contradict established ideological principles. When an ex-Muslim shares their personal experience it is commonly rejected and labeled as internalized colonialism by those who hold opposing ideological beliefs.

The principles that liberal societies promote such as free speech and personal freedom should not be mistaken for exclusively Western traditions. They are universal human aspirations. The argument that Islam criticism amounts to hating “brown people” demonstrates intellectual emptiness while offending countless brown individuals who seek nothing more than to live in a society characterized by freedom, rationality, and justice.

The question “Why do you guys hate brown people so much?” functions as a dismissive tactic to end dialogue instead of promoting mutual comprehension. The implication that outspoken critics express their views out of prejudice fails to recognize their true motivation which stems from dedication to human dignity alongside freedom and truth. This mindset serves to destroy bridges instead of building them.

The left needs to recover its ability to lead progress and justice through an honest examination of all belief systems including religious ideologies. The struggle for human rights goes beyond the limits set by cultural sensitivity. Remaining quiet in the conflict between established beliefs and rational thought turns into an act of treachery instead of a virtue.

 

في الخطاب المعاصر، برز اتجاه مقلق، لا سيما بين التقدميين والمثقفين ذوي الميول اليسارية: إذ بات الكثير من التقدميين يخلطون عن جهل بين نقد الإسلام والتمييز العنصري. ترى التيارات اليسارية أن أي تحليل نقدي لتعاليم الإسلام أو عاداته الثقافية هو بحد ذاته تعبير عن التعصب والكراهية للأجانب والعنصرية ضد ذوي البشرة السمراء. هذا الكسل الفكري، المقترن بالجبن الأخلاقي، خلق بيئة مشوهة وغير نزيهة تعيق النقاش الجاد حول مواضيع جوهرية مثل الدين، والحرية، وحقوق الإنسان.

ويكمن جوهر هذا الالتباس في الاعتقاد بأن نقد العقائد الإسلامية أو الأيديولوجيات غير الغربية هو تلقائيًا فعل عنصري ضد العرب أو شعوب الشرق الأوسط. لكن هذا الافتراض يعكس ازدواجية خطيرة في المعايير، فالإسلام ليس عِرقًا بل منظومة عقائدية يتبعها أفراد من أعراق وجنسيات متنوعة. فالعلماء الذين ينتقدون المسيحية أو التقاليد الكاثوليكية أو اليهودية نادرًا ما يُتهمون بالعنصرية أو بمحاولة فرض هيمنة ثقافية. أما حين يكون الإسلام هو محور النقاش، تنهض جدران دفاعية سريعة لتصم كل من يجرؤ على انتقاده بأنه كاره أو عنصري.

لنكن واضحين: الدين ليس إلا مجموعة من الأفكار. الناس يستحقون الاحترام، أما الأفكار فلا. يجب على المجتمع أن يُخضع جميع الأفكار للتقييم، بغض النظر عن شعبيتها أو قداستها. فحماية المعتقدات الدينية من النقد هو نقيض لمبادئ المجتمع الحر والمنفتح. وعندما تُستخدم تلك المعتقدات لتبرير كراهية النساء، أو رهاب المثليين، أو العنف، أو القمع، أو الاستبداد السياسي – كما هو الحال في العديد من السياقات الإسلامية – يصبح نقدها واجبًا عقليًا وأخلاقيًا.

ويا للمفارقة: كثير من التقدميين يزعمون أنهم مناصرو حقوق النساء والمثليين وحرية التعبير، لكنهم حين يتعلق الأمر بالإسلام يتناسون تلك القيم ويتبنون شكلاً سطحيًا من التعددية الثقافية التي تخلط بين النسبية الأخلاقية والتسامح.

يتعرض الملحد الذي ينتقد الإسلام بشكل أوسع من نقده للأنغليكانية، مثلًا، للشكوك والاتهامات، وكأن تركيزه هذا يعكس كرهًا دفينًا للعرب أو للمسلمين. لكن هذا الادعاء ينهار عند أول تمحيص. لا أحد يتهم باحث السرطان بأنه “كاره للبشر” لأنه يركز على سرطان الرئة أكثر من سرطان الجلد. كذلك، فإن الملحدين أو المفكرين العلمانيين قد يركزون على الإسلام ببساطة لأنه أكثر قوة وتأثيرًا في حياة الناس اليوم مقارنة بديانات أخرى، ويسيطر على حياة أكثر من مليار إنسان، وتفرض في عدة بلدان إسلامية أحكام الإعدام على المرتدين أو المجدفين. هذا ليس تفصيلًا لاهوتيًا هامشيًا، بل مسألة حياة أو موت.

ما الذي يدفع الكثير من اليساريين إلى الدفاع التلقائي عن الإسلام؟ ربما يكون الدافع نية صادقة في حماية الأقليات من التمييز والكراهية، وهو شعور مفهوم في عالم ما بعد الاستعمار الذي لا يزال يعاني من إرث الإمبريالية الغربية. لكن النوايا الحسنة لا تضمن النتائج الجيدة. والنتيجة هنا هي تحويل مجتمعات بأكملها إلى كيانات طفولية يُفترض أنها غير قادرة على تحمّل النقد الفكري كما تفعل المجتمعات الأخرى.

هذا النوع من “التضامن” الزائف يولّد ضررًا أكبر من الدعم الحقيقي. فرفض اليسار الغربي توجيه النقد للأنظمة القمعية الدينية يسهم في إسكات أصوات مهمة داخل المجتمعات الإسلامية، من مرتدين، ومصلحين، ونسويات، ونشطاء حقوق الإنسان، الذين يخاطرون بحياتهم من أجل مقاومة هذه الأنظمة. إذا كنت تزعم أنك تقف مع المظلومين، فعليك أن تقف مع الذين يقاومون القهر، لا مع الأيديولوجيات التي تبرّره.

وأنا لا أتكلم هنا من موقع خارجي.

أنا شخص عربي، ذو بشرة سمراء، لغتي الأم هي العربية، وتعمقت سابقًا في الدراسة الشرعية الإسلامية، فقد كنت رجل دين. لم تأتِ انتقاداتي للإسلام من فراغ أو كراهية، بل نتيجة فهم عميق ودراسة طويلة انتهت إلى خيبة أمل فكرية وأخلاقية. لم أترك الإسلام بدافع رغبة في التغرب أو التودد إلى جمهور أبيض وهمي، بل لأنني لم أعد قادرًا على التوفيق بين تعاليمه وبين العقل، والأخلاق، والحرية الشخصية.

هل يجعلني هذا عنصريًا؟ هل يُتهم من يرفض الاستبداد الديني بأنه يكره نفسه كعربي؟ هل سيرضى اليسار عني إذا كتبت مقالاتي بالعربية فقط؟ هل سيشعرون بالارتياح إذا عبرت عن آرائي بلغتي الأم، حيث لا يستطيع الغرب فهمها ولا مجادلتها؟

هذه الأسئلة تسلط الضوء على التناقضات العميقة التي نعيشها. اليسار المعاصر يدّعي دعم “تجربة الحياة الشخصية”، لكنه يتخلى عنها بمجرد أن تتعارض مع مبادئه الأيديولوجية. وعندما يروي مرتد عن الإسلام تجربته الذاتية، يُرفض ويُتهم بأنه ضحية “الاستعمار الداخلي” من قبل من يرفضون سماع الحقيقة.

القيم التي تتبناها المجتمعات الليبرالية – من حرية التعبير إلى كرامة الفرد – ليست حكرًا على الغرب، بل هي تطلعات إنسانية عامة. الادعاء بأن نقد الإسلام يعني كراهية “أصحاب البشرة السمراء” هو تهافت فكري وإهانة لملايين الأشخاص ذوي البشرة السمراء الذين لا يريدون سوى أن يعيشوا في مجتمعات حرة، عقلانية، وعادلة.

سؤال مثل “لماذا تكرهون أصحاب البشرة السمراء؟” ليس سوى وسيلة رخيصة لإسكات الحوار بدلاً من تعزيزه. هو اتهام خبيث يُراد به تشويه نوايا المنتقدين، رغم أن دافعهم الحقيقي هو الالتزام بكرامة الإنسان، وحريته، وحقه في التفكير والنقد. بهذه الطريقة، لا تُبنى الجسور بل تُهدم.

إن كان لليسار أن يستعيد دوره كقوة من أجل التقدم والعدالة، فعليه أن يسترجع شجاعته في انتقاد كل الأيديولوجيات – بما فيها الدينية. فالنضال من أجل حقوق الإنسان لا يجب أن يتوقف عند حدود الحساسية الثقافية. وفي معركة العقل ضد الدوغما ، فإن الصمت لا يُعد فضيلة، بل خيانة.

 

Philosophical inquiry, from its inception, grapples with the fundamental nature of existence, knowledge, and truth. The ambition to commence this inquiry from a stance devoid of any preconceived notions or assumptions, known as starting from “first principles,” has been a persistent theme in the annals of Western philosophy, especially since René Descartes’ cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” This seminal assertion sought to establish an unassailable foundation for knowledge, positing the act of thinking as evidence of existence itself. Yet, this endeavor to root philosophy in indisputable truths reveals the inherent complexities and challenges of attempting to purify thought from all presuppositions.

 

The quest for a neutral, unbiased starting point in philosophy underscores a deeper intellectual struggle: the tension between the desire for objective truth and the unavoidable influence of subjective experience. Every philosophical exploration, consciously or not, is imbued with the underlying beliefs, cultural contexts, and personal biases of its proponents. These elements shape the contours of philosophical discourse, often masquerading as universal truths.

 

Descartes’ proposition serves as a prime example of this dynamic. “I think, therefore I am” is presented as an immediate certainty, a fundamental truth that stands self-evident without need for external validation. This assertion, however, is laden with assumptions about the nature of self, thought, and existence. It presupposes a distinct ‘I’ engaged in the act of thinking, thereby implicitly endorsing a dualistic view of mind and body, self and thought. The acceptance of this dichotomy as a foundational truth raises critical questions about the nature of identity and consciousness, suggesting that the very act of thinking may not simply reveal the self but rather construct it.

 

Philosophical inquiry, therefore, is not merely an intellectual exercise in abstract reasoning but is deeply entangled with the existential and ontological assumptions that philosophers bring to their work. The claim of any philosophical system to be founded on pure, unadulterated reason must be scrutinized for the hidden presuppositions it carries. This scrutiny is not just an academic task but a vital process of uncovering the layers of belief and bias that underpin our search for understanding and meaning.

 

The critique of foundationalism in philosophy – the belief in the possibility of constructing a belief system or knowledge structure from basic, self-evident principles – is further complicated by the historical and cultural contexts in which philosophical ideas develop. The values, norms, and beliefs of a philosopher’s time and place inevitably seep into their work, shaping the very questions they ask and the answers they find plausible. For example, the pervasive influence of Christian theology in Western thought has often gone unacknowledged, yet it has profoundly shaped philosophical concepts of morality, the soul, and the nature of existence.

 

This entanglement of philosophy with the cultural and historical milieu challenges the notion of philosophy as an objective, detached quest for truth. Instead, it reveals philosophy as a deeply human endeavor, reflecting the complexities, contradictions, and diversities of human thought and experience. Philosophers, no matter how objective or rational they aim to be, are invariably participants in the cultural and intellectual currents of their time, their work a tapestry woven from the threads of their own lives and the broader cultural fabric in which they are embedded.

 

Furthermore, the idea that philosophy can proceed without assumptions is itself a philosophical stance that needs examination. It assumes a view of knowledge and thought as potentially free from bias and presupposition, an idea that has been contested by various schools of thought, including postmodernism, which argues that all knowledge is socially constructed and contingent.

 

The implications of these reflections are profound for the practice of philosophy. They suggest that philosophical inquiry must always be a reflective and critical process, one that continually questions not only the content of philosophical arguments but also the foundational beliefs and assumptions that underlie them. This requires a willingness to engage in self-examination, to recognize and interrogate the personal and cultural biases that shape our thinking.

 

In engaging with philosophy, we must also confront the paradox of seeking objective truth within a subjective framework. This does not invalidate the philosophical endeavor but rather enriches it, highlighting the dynamic interplay between the subjective and the objective, the personal and the universal. Philosophy, in this light, becomes a dialogue—a conversation not only among different thinkers across time and space but also between the individual and the collective, the subjective and the objective, the particular and the common.

 

This dialogic nature of philosophy also emphasizes the importance of diversity and plurality in philosophical discourse. Different perspectives and traditions bring unique insights and challenge established norms and assumptions, fostering a more dynamic and robust exploration of truth. The engagement with a variety of philosophical traditions, including Western and Eastern ones, can provide fresh viewpoints and challenge the Eurocentric biases that have historically dominated philosophical thought.

 

Let me summarize the above, the assertion that philosophy can be conducted without assumptions is a proposition fraught with complexities and contradictions. Philosophical inquiry, inherently shaped by the personal and cultural contexts of its practitioners, cannot escape its foundational assumptions. Recognizing this fact does not diminish the value of philosophy but rather underscores the importance of critical self-reflection and openness in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Philosophy, then, is not a quest for an unreachable objective purity but a journey of continuous questioning, a process of navigating the intricate interplay of assumptions, beliefs, and the quest for understanding. In this journey, the critical examination of presuppositions, the acknowledgment of the subjective origins of our thought, and the embrace of diversity and dialogue are essential for a deeper and more nuanced engagement with the philosophical quest for truth.

 

Within this article are two main pieces: What is content moderation, and what is Freedom of Speech.
Content Moderation is the process of examining the content and determining what should be permitted on a social media platform. Freedom of Speech is the right to express opinions without fear of censorship or punishment and is one of the most fundamental rights in a democratic society.

 

Freedom Of Speech

Freedom of speech is a right that every citizen in every democratic country is granted and protects their ability to express themselves freely. In most cases, people are entitled to say and write whatever they want without worrying about how others perceive it.

In the USA, as an example, Freedom of speech is an integral part of society. In most cases, people have the right to say and write whatever they want without having to worry about how others may understand it. This right is enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging Freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech also includes the power to speak, listen, and read. One can watch or otherwise observe people do any of these activities, and it can be used as a tool for political expression and social change in various forms, such as through demonstrations, boycotts, civil disobedience, and strikes.

Freedom of Speech is regarded as one of the most fundamental rights in democratic societies because it ensures citizens the opportunity to speak their minds and contribute to public debates.

There are many ways in which Freedom of Speech can be suppressed on social media platforms. Some of these are by using algorithms that censor certain content or by using human moderators who have the power to delete posts or ban users from posting altogether.

 

What is Content Moderation, and How Can it Affect Online Freedom of Speech?

 

This article aims to explore the impact and ethics of content moderation on social media. With social media becoming increasingly ubiquitous in our society and daily life, it is crucial that we examine how these platforms are moderating our content.

There are two main types of content moderation strategies: content removal and content restriction. Content moderation strategies are a response to the influx of inappropriate, harmful, and hateful content online. Content removal removes offensive content from the internet, while content restriction restricts access to a site or service.

When we talk about content moderation, They consider it the process of filtering and removing objectionable content (with no graphic images, swearing, or violence) from social media. It also goes by the name “content polishing.”

Social media has been used to spread news and information quickly and with relative ease. Nowadays, it is the primary way that people get their news. The problem with this is that social media platforms have become a battleground for those who want to suppress Freedom of speech.

 

How does UCONVO handle the moderation process?

This process uses machine learning algorithms on major social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and others. It is based on Content-Type, Geography, and Language of word content. While the quantity of moderation content by humans is stunningly high, AI’s potential in automating the process neared future to reach that would mean common use and more efficient employment could happen. But, again, this raises a worrisome question: will people be banned from making their voices heard due to automated moderation? The answer is yes; it’s happening everywhere on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and many other major social media sites. 

However, for that reason, we decided to keep our moderation as human as possible. The reason is that we believe human evaluation will still be better than any preprogrammed AI algorithm. 

From a Freedom of Speech perspective, If a social media site has its own rules that are not disclosed in any form, how can its users define important guidelines? It would be difficult for users to implement those rules within a given context. It’s an issue that always surfaces through posts and groups—related to social media sites. There is no such thing as Freedom of Speech on a social media platform that has its own rules. The scope of what can be said is defined within the confines of that particular platform.

 

Secularism, in its essence, emerges as a force that defies the confines of geography and geopolitical boundaries. It is a philosophical stance that rises above the mundane divisions of nations and states, seeking to navigate the intricate tapestry of human existence under the guise of various epithets, notably “Globalization” or the more nuanced “Planetaryism.” The relentless march of economic globalization and the relentless stride of technological progress, entwined with the convoluted narratives of fundamentalist ideologies, particularly those stemming from the Islamic tradition, have seduced certain minds into believing that these phenomena alone suffice as catalysts for the construction of a shared global arena. This envisaged domain, they propose, would not only render national values obsolete but also herald the dawn of a new era, one characterized by the emergence of the “global citizen.”

 

As elucidated by Dr. Murad Wahba, the contours of human perception have undergone a profound metamorphosis, veering away from erstwhile paradigms. Where once our gaze fixated upon the cosmos from the vantage point of Earth, there has been a seismic shift in perspective. Now, we find ourselves peering back at our terrestrial abode from the boundless expanse of the universe. This inversion of outlook heralds a momentous reorientation, inviting introspection into our place within the cosmic tapestry and prompting a reevaluation of our relationship with the cosmos.

 

The cultural and intellectual homogenization arising from this perspective dismantles the intrinsic value of nuanced diversity championed by secularism. Idealistic philosophical doctrines, intertwined with religious mythologies, adhere staunchly to a framework of sweeping generalizations and unyielding absolutism. Devoid of contextual relativity and analytical discernment, these doctrines conspicuously eschew the virtues of dialectical engagement and robust debate. Instead, they propagate a monolithic narrative that stifles dissent and suppresses dissenting voices, thereby obliterating the very essence of intellectual discourse and philosophical inquiry.

 

The quandary confronting proponents of the global paradigm lies in its detachment from its economic underpinnings and its extrapolation into the realms of ideology and culture. Advocates clamor for the establishment of a uniform cultural milieu that obliterates the distinctions between individuals of diverse origins – be they Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, Iraqi, American, or otherwise. This fervent plea for homogeneity overlooks the rich tapestry of human experience and negates the intrinsic value of cultural diversity, relegating it to the annals of historical oblivion.

 

This rallying cry for the creation of an ideal global citizen resonates eerily with the fervent calls of religions to disseminate their beliefs worldwide. But what truly distinguishes them? The divergence lies not only in the outward appearance of the global individual, divergent from their devout counterparts, but also in the fervor with which they both strive to propagate their ideologies. While one may don the cloak of globalization and espouse a veneer of modernity, the underlying drive remains akin to the religious zealot’s mission: the erasure of diversity in favor of a singular, homogenized worldview.

 

Secularism, with its intricate spectrum of beliefs and principles, inherently recognizes the significance of national identities as anchors of cultural heritage and historical legacy. It operates on the premise of coexistence, emphasizing the importance of respecting and preserving the diverse fabric of human societies. However, the proponents of globalization, in their pursuit of a homogenized global culture, often overlook the nuanced intricacies and unique characteristics that distinguish one nation from another.

 

The danger lies in the erosion of national values and traditions, as well as the dilution of cultural identities under the banner of a universalized worldview. While globalists may not explicitly advocate for the abolition of national identities, their vision of a borderless, interconnected world risks diminishing the cultural richness and historical depth that have shaped civilizations over centuries.

 

When prioritizing a uniform global identity over the richness of individual cultures, there is a risk of undermining the inherent diversity that contributes to the tapestry of humanity. Secularism, on the other hand, celebrates this diversity and recognizes the value of preserving cultural heritage within the framework of mutual respect and understanding.

 

Embracing diversity and fostering mutual respect, coupled with unrestricted economic interaction, represents a departure from the notion of imposing a singular ideology on all. Economic openness serves as an opportunity to leverage national resources and effectively promote them on a global scale.

 

This model of economic engagement transcends borders and fosters interdependence, allowing each nation to capitalize on its unique strengths and resources while contributing to the global marketplace. It underscores the importance of collaboration and exchange, promoting mutual prosperity while preserving the distinctiveness of each cultural identity.

 

When we address the issue of the ideological and intellectual war against terrorism, we enter into the realm of media with its dimensions and vital role. What can the media offer in this context? What are the effective methods to achieve this? And who will be responsible for this critical task? These are the fundamental questions that arise in this context.

 

To answer the first question, “What can this media offer?” we must understand that this question lays the foundation for a comprehensive answer to the ideological and intellectual crisis that led to the emergence of religious terrorism. Terrorism is not merely the dominance of certain leaders or a misunderstanding of the religious ideas adopted by extremists. It is the product of a complete ideology based on foundations and rules that must be studied in depth. To effectively counter it, we must deconstruct it and build a comprehensive alternative ideology that aligns with the values of freedom, justice, and moderation.

 

This requires cooperation and joint efforts by various parties involved in combating terrorism, including governments, media institutions, scholars, and social activists. We must direct efforts towards presenting media messages and programs that highlight universal human values and promote peaceful coexistence and constructive dialogue.

 

Therefore, we must unite to present an alternative vision based on education, awareness, and dialogue, reflecting the values of freedom and tolerance and contributing to building a more peaceful and stable world. We believe in the power and the impact of visual media and how it can be effectively used to counter these extremist ideas. Looking at strategies to fight terrorism, we find that visual media could be one of the strongest tools that can be exploited.

 

Terrorists have relied on visual media to create terror and panic among people and to promote their extremist ideas. By exploiting this medium, they have managed to sow tension and hysteria around the world. Here comes the role of counter-media, which uses the same means to fight these harmful ideas. Visual media can be used to spread messages that promote peace and tolerance and encourage cultural understanding. Success stories of those who have overcome extremism and adopted positive life paths can be presented.

 

Moreover, the negative aspects of terrorist organizations can be highlighted, exposing their contradictions and discord with universal human values. This can help present a negative view of terrorism and shatter the ideological image these organizations try to spread. We must work on developing strong and effective counter-media that strategically uses visual means to counter extremist ideas and promote messages of peace, tolerance, and understanding in societies.

 

We have to collaborate with experts specialized in various fields. The challenge here is to present scientific and objective insights that refute extremist ideas and expose their real weaknesses. Those resisting extremist thought must be specialists in analyzing terrorist ideas precisely, to understand their roots and how they function. They must tackle this challenge in a scientific and strategic manner and be able to critically analyze documents and data related to terrorist organizations.

 

It is essential to assemble a multidisciplinary team, including experts in politics, religion, psychology, sociology, culture, and more. These experts will work together to develop strategies to counter extremist ideas and provide objective and well-considered insights.

 

On top of that, we must have a strong team of researchers and analysts who can study these ideas in depth and analyze them accurately. These researchers will dissect and analyze extremist ideas from within, revealing weaknesses and contradictions that contribute to dismantling their foundations. With this multidisciplinary team, we will be able to effectively combat extremist thought and provide strong and objective insights that contribute to changing harmful ideas and perceptions.

 

Free Mind TV comes as a platform for rationality and independent thought in the face of extremism and rigid ideas. It is the result of a gathering of experts and secular activists from diverse backgrounds, who began their lives as Muslim clerics, both Shia and Sunni, but made a bold decision to move towards rationality and independent thinking.

 

The name Free Mind TV implies a clear purpose and goal: to liberate minds from the traditions and fundamentalism promoted by terrorist groups. The channel considers terrorist thought to be nothing more than a manifestation of blind tradition and immersion in old ideas.

 

To overcome the influence of Salafism and terrorist calls, the channel believes that the only solution is for individuals to liberate their minds and seek rationality and independent thinking. This is the main goal of Free Mind TV, which aims to provide programs and content that promote free thinking and give viewers the opportunity to explore a new horizon of independent ideas and knowledge.

 

Free Mind TV strives to provide a safe and open environment for discussion and free thinking, where individuals can express their opinions without fear of restrictions or intolerance. This can contribute to changing harmful ideas and attitudes and encourage the development of the mind and thought.

 

With simple and limited means, these activists managed to build the Free Mind TV channel. They opened the doors for dialogue and discussion with a diverse group of people, ranging from Muslim and Christian clerics to secular and liberal writers and prominent bloggers. They discussed sensitive issues that many are hesitant to address, especially in the Middle East.

 

Within less than three months of launching the channel, they succeeded in attracting the attention of international media and also aroused

 

 the interest of supporters of rigid fundamentalist thought. These latter issued an incendiary fatwa to stir up trouble and undermine the foundations of the channel. However, these attacks did not deter the channel’s team from continuing strongly in their approach and style, aimed at spreading secular thought and the culture of peace, love, coexistence, and acceptance of the other.

 

Free Mind TV reflects the determination of these activists to achieve their vision of promoting secular thought and enhancing dialogue and understanding among different groups in society. They consider this the path to building more open, accepting, and tolerant societies.

 

The means of intellectual warfare offered by Free Mind TV include a diverse range of important aspects for combating terrorism and promoting understanding and tolerance in societies:

 

1- Discussing the educational and pedagogical situation in Middle Eastern countries:

 

We believe that it is essential to liberate our children from the influences of distorted cultural heritage, which may contribute to promoting extremism and violence. Therefore, we think it is necessary to eliminate Islamic education subjects from the curricula at all non-specialized stages. The presence of these subjects in educational curricula has contributed to increasing extremism in societies, as they may present inhumane and distorted historical images.

 

We aim to change this situation through open and constructive discussion on this topic. We want to enhance our education and upbringing with ideas that promote dialogue, understanding, and tolerance among individuals and different cultures. Achieving this goal requires a radical reform in the educational and pedagogical curricula in the region, and Free Mind TV is committed to participating in this effort by discussing this vital issue and highlighting its importance.

 

2- Discussing the concept of Jihad in Islam.

 

We recognize the importance of this concept in extremist thought, where extremist thinking heavily relies on its interpretations and legal rulings to justify its violent acts. The concept of Jihad is an important part of Islamic sharia and deals with general matters and subsidiary rulings.

 

We deeply study and analyze these topics, especially the concept of Jihad, and seek to find solutions to these matters in extremist thought. Through Free Mind TV, we provide a platform for thinkers and writers who can offer secularist opinions to dismantle the Islamic thought. We strive to present a balanced middle east, away from extremist fundamentalists.

 

3- Promoting secular visions of political life and public life in the state.

 

We believe in the importance of separating religion from the state and raise the issue of the need to achieve a balance between the government, the constitution, and the country’s law so that they treat all citizens equally, regardless of their beliefs and religions. We oppose discrimination against any segment of society and strive not to criminalize freedom of expression, press freedom, and freedom of belief.

 

We spread awareness about the importance of achieving this balance and work to promote the concept of secularism and modern citizenship in the state. We call for the criminalization of extremist and takfiri speeches that threaten cultural and national diversity in society and seek to promote values of tolerance, coexistence, and respect for human rights in all aspects of life.

 

4- Presenting the principle of citizenship as a supreme value:

 

We advocate for the restoration and celebration of the Middle East’s profound civilizational heritage, including the Pharaonic, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Akkadian civilizations, and by revitalizing the heritage of peoples and minorities that have faded or diminished under the amalgamated culture introduced through Islamic history. The principle of governance and internationalism in Islam in addition to the intense preoccupation with the legacy of Islamic conflict, particularly the significant rift between Sunni and Shia sects, has led many communities within the region to become disconnected from their rich civilizational, heritage, and historical roots. Reconnecting with these ancient legacies offers a pathway to reclaiming a sense of identity and continuity that transcends contemporary divisions, enriching the cultural fabric of the Middle East with its diverse and ancient histories.

 

When an individual desecrates the flag of their nation, they are not just attacking a symbol; they are rejecting the entirety of their country’s historical values and heritage. This act signifies a shift in loyalty towards groups or ideologies that are disconnected from—and often hostile to—the cultural and historical legacy of their homeland. This disregard for national identity and heritage was vividly demonstrated by ISIS through their destruction of invaluable artifacts in Mosul’s museums and the ancient ruins of Palmyra, as well as their murder of Dr. Khaled al-Asaad, a renowned scholar dedicated to preserving Syria’s rich historical legacy. Such acts are a direct assault on the collective memory and civilization that the flag and these cultural treasures represent.

 

5- Presenting an alternative civilizational model:

 

At Free Mind TV, we strive to present an alternative civilizational model based on the culture of coexistence and mutual respect among people, away from the culture of violence and extremism that has prevailed in some parts of the Middle East and North Africa. We believe that this alternative culture can be the solution to the conflicts and tensions the region suffers from.

 

Through our programs and activities, we present successful models of secular experiences in advanced countries such as Europe, the United States, and Canada, where people can see how coexistence and mutual respect can be the basis for prosperous and stable societies.

 

We host many successful personalities and human models from the United States and other countries, who share their personal and social experiences that highlight the beautiful human values of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa.

 

We believe that solutions to the region’s problems must come from within, so we gather activists, intellectuals, and thinkers from different countries to think and work together towards building a better future for the region. We believe that free thought and secular thinking can be the perfect platform for positive change in the Middle East and North Africa, and this is what we strive to achieve through Free Mind TV.