The hater, my son the hater – enraged by his latest drug of choice – stood on his stepstool in the town square and yelled at us. His topic today was the same as yesterday’s; the words didn’t matter. He hated.

I made the same mistake I made so many times before. I caught his eye. I engaged him and tried to reason with him. I applied logic to emotion with just as much success as quoting the constitution to a swarm of angry bees. Finally, I walked away, humiliated once again by unreason and sorrow. I was aware of nothing but my failure and his hatred, and all day I let myself feel reduced by that encounter.

A new morning came to interrupt my despair. Once again, I walked to the town square. Once again, I tried to reason with unreasoning anger. Once again, I failed. And so it went. Day after day, it went on.

One day, I was stopped by a stranger who asked me the way to the town square. He had heard, he said, of the madman and felt it would be entertaining to watch his antics.

“Why?” I asked him. “Why would you listen to the hatred? Why listen to him standing there on his stool, yelling at us all? Do you think it funny?”

The man sniffed, then spoke clearly and precisely.

“No, not the hater. I mean to watch the madman. The one who argues with the hater. The one who fails every day, but does the same thing the next day, without fail.”

Finally, I saw what I had become, what I could not see while engaged in insanity with the hater. I saw the madman.

That day I did not engage the hater. I did not try to help him. That day I engaged myself on my own behalf so that I would find the life I had lost and my own steps in the eternal dance, not his. That day, I left my son to his madness so that I could address my own. Where before I had never approached the locals, I began conversations with older men and women who tarried in the afternoons, sitting at the sides of the square then in shade and drinking their strong coffees, playing endless games of chance with faded cards and marked dice. I willingly lost small monies to them and bought coffees, and eventually learned of their lives and kin.

Later, many days later, my son again carried his stool to the market square and stood upon it. As he began his tirade, I slipped into my seat at the coffee shop. The old man, the easterner who makes the coffee, brought me a pot and mug and my daily biscuit. Friends came over and we shared silence. I had changed this year, since I stopped trying to change my son, and I gained friends. They were there all along, but I did not see them until I gave myself permission to see something other than him.

There was no use trying to talk until the shouting was done. My son was punctual as any clock, if more obnoxious.

But just then, after only a few minutes, and as I sat there in comforting presence of my friends, the shouting stopped. From one word to the next, it just stopped and the hater stepped down from his stool and began to walk away. He hesitated and looked my way, and my heart thudded but there was nothing more, just a look.

I called for more coffee and my friends and I began to chat about the day ahead, our duties, and what we’d heard of the wider world. I was sad, but I had found some measure of peace since I stopped my own mad attempts to change my son. He was what he was, as was I, and I felt free to live again. It was a gift I had given myself.

After weeks, perhaps months, change began. The hater, having finished his spew, picked up his stool and walked through the square to where I sat. This had happened several times before, and each time I had motioned for my friends to leave. Each time, as they left, the hater turned about and left as well. Each time, I sat alone and cherished my action, my refusal to engage.

I resented his approach. I had come to cherish these mornings with my friends. These were women known as wise within the community and men whose words were heeded. That they had chosen to sit with me, the madman and father of the hater, had astonished me at first. Yet, I could see their calm acceptance and patient tolerance had gone a long way toward reducing the anger most townsfolk felt toward my son and myself. Truth to tell, it had done so for me as well, and I had come to look forward to those mornings as my safe harbor. And now the hater, my son the hater and addict, threatened that as well.

I had enough. That morning I did not ask my friends to leave, and they stayed and watched in calm surmise as the hater approached. As he placed his stool down by us and sat upon it, the wise around me smiled calmly at the hater, then turned their gaze upon me. I felt flushed with anger, near to bursting. I felt that my very survival had been challenged and I rose to spew forth my own hate at this violation of my sanctuary. Then, one of the women spoke, but to the hater, ignoring me and my righteous indignation.

“Welcome, young man. We’ve been waiting for you. Have a seat.”

One of the others, an older man, then turned to me where I stood, fists clenched and shaking with rage and fear.

“You are welcome to stay, of course, as long as you can be calm. We’ve spent many mornings here preparing a safe harbor. All are welcome.”

And having heard what they were telling me, and understanding my own true nature, I took my stool and walked to the center of the square and placed myself where I belonged.

We have taken turns, my son and I, in the market square. One day soon, I hope to have the courage my son demonstrated, to turn away from the madness and to take a seat at the table of sanity. My son waits there for me, in the presence of the wise, in the shadow of the divine, in safe harbor.

Hate speech is much like propaganda in that it targets specific audiences that are sympathetic to their message. Manjoo (2008) called this selective exposure. All one has to do is go to any discussion board posted by various hate groups to see that most people commenting there are vehemently opposed to some group without any counter-messages. Manjoo (2008) explored another related concept, selective perception. Hate speech can simply be an issue of perception.

Manjoo (2008) describes how these different perceptions are actually a result of different beliefs and world-views. Manjoo (2008) described this phenomena with 9/11 conspiracy theorists such as Phillip Jayhan, whom he describes as harboring distrust for government. Manjoo, who described himself as having different beliefs than Jayhan, noted that, “as a consequence of his ideas about the world generally, he is naturally prone to seeing something in those pictures that I – as a consequence of my (Manjoo’s) own vastly different beliefs about the world – do not (Manjoo, 2008, p. 75).”

These dual truths can be considered a natural product of communication patterns, which Todd Kelshaw elaborates on in his chapter in the book by Shepherd et.al., on communication perspectives. According to Kelshaw, people form meaning by communicating with each other. He notes a pushing and pulling process in communication in which truth or fiction is not necessarily the premise, but values are (Kelshaw, 2006). Kelshaw (2006) adds, “since everything we know is relationally made, relationships may be defined in this way: as negotiations of values that gird personal and social ethnical frameworks and – in effect – make us who we are in light of others” (p. 158).

This definition of meaning through a process of communication adds a significant detail to this concept of selective perception. While Manjoo (2008) points out the stratification of the population into like-minded networks, values begin to develop as those individuals interact. What is apparently hate speech to others outside the group is considered normal discourse for those inside the group. When these groups attempt to spread out their message of hate, many of them might not even understand why their message is being opposed so vehemently.

Dharmapala and McAdams (2001) present, in an economic analysis, the potential linkage between hate speech and hate crimes. The authors focus on the esteem theory in which motivation is based on fame, whereas the utility of committing a hate crime increases as this motivation increases. In this case, perpetuators of hate crimes are highly influenced by hate speech. The authors note that if individuals possess common prior beliefs, engage in Bayesian inference (the adjustment of beliefs/values in relation to evidence or observations), and are risk-neutral, than speech will likely not influence them. The paper notes that this is typically not the case where Bayesian inference is replaced by correspondence bias. This correspondence bias is akin to Manjoo’s selective perception, whereas any contrary evidence is filtered through deeply held beliefs about the world. The authors backup their claims with various economic and psychological models not elaborated on here. The authors do conclude, “thus, even if potential hate offenders overestimate the number of hate crime approvers (as is likely), they will overestimate more in the presence of high levels of hate speech than they will in the presence of low levels of hate speech” (Dharmapala McAdams, 2001, p. 24).

The link between hate speech and hate crimes is where hate speech becomes problematic. When speech induces an action that hurts others – whether through institutionalized prejudice or non-institutionalized prejudice – or provokes violent actions against the group the hate speech is directed against, than that speech should not be allowed and criminalization could be an option. The problem is that because the First Amendment in the United States is so broad on free speech, it is unlikely that hate speech will ever be forbidden or criminalized there. There are differences in legal approaches to hate speech and even cases of discrimination depending on the identity of the person involved in different countries. (Elgot, 2013). While free speech of some groups might be criminalized in a given country because of their lyrics and social media statements for conspiring to provide material support to terrorist groups (Muslim Legal Defense Fund, 2013), in another country a to-be terrorist could be allowed to reference to hate speech perpetrators as many as he likes (Daily Mail, 2011).

In Islam, speech is not just words without ramifications. In 50:18 (al Qaf), the Qur’an says, “Not a word does he utter but there is a watcher by him ready (to note it)” (Ali, 2010, p. 354). The watcher is referring to the angels that watch over every living person and record all their words and movements to be used in their judgment (Ibn Kathir, 2013).
Further, it is recorded from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in which he states, “Let him who believes in God and the Last Day speak good, or keep silent; and let him who believes in God and the Last Day be generous to his neighbor; and let him who believes in God and the Last Day be generous to his guest” (Nawawi, 2013, website).

In this verse and Prophetic saying, the Muslims are warned against saying anything that will cause them to be judged poorly in the hereafter. This speech most definitely includes hate speech. Islam recognizes the extreme harm that wayward speech can cause and includes injunctions against it. For instance, the Qur’an states (6:108), “Do not revile those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did” (Ali, 2010, p. 92). In this verse, the Muslims are told not to insult the deities of others because of the potential for it to lead to bigger evils than any benefit that may be received by doing so. Additionally, those insults tend to spread like wildfire, causing bigger ramifications than at first perceived (Kathir, 2013).

During the time of the Prophet in Medina, harsh words of unbelievers were addressed to him and his community in different ways. One time, Abu Bakr, one of the leading Companions of the Prophet, entered a Jewish school and met Finhas, who was one of the respected rabbis there. Abu Bakr invited Finhas to Islam. Finhas retorted that God was poor, but they were rich so it is God who should submit Himself to them. This comment angered Abu Bakr to the point that he hit Finhas. Later when retelling the story to the Prophet, the Prophet received a revelation concerning the situation (3:186): “(So O believers, as a requirement of the wisdom in, and purpose for, your life of the world,) you will surely be tested in respect of your properties and your selves, and you will certainly hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and those who associate partners with God. If you remain patient (are steadfast in your Religion, and observe the bounds set by God in your relations with them) and keep within the limits of piety (in obeying God, and in your conduct toward them), (know that) this is among meritorious things requiring great resolution to fulfill.” (Ishaq, 1967, p. 263. The translation of the verse is from Ali Unal, 2006).

In this verse revealed about Abu Bakr and his exchange with Finhas, the Muslims are enjoined to be forgiving, patient, and forbearing with the words of those who do not believe in Islam. Ibn Kathir adds in his commentary that, “indeed, the Messenger of God and his Companions used to forgive the (polytheists) and the People of the Scriptures, just as God commanded them, and they used to tolerate the harm that they suffered” (Kathir, 2013, website). In the modern era, this advice is more than adequate when dealing with hate speech directed against the Muslims and the religion of Islam. When people insult the religion and its followers, Muslims are enjoined to forgive and bear these insults patiently.

Bearing patiently and forgiving is also not an excuse for inaction. Responses to hate speech are to be measured with a strong foundation of forgiveness and patience, but it does merit a response. Hate speech and its potential negative effects have to be addressed either by calling attention to it through research, lobbying, providing counter messages and rallies, and legal actions, if needed.

Unfortunately, hate speech is becoming more pronounced in the modern era. As fiscal crises continue to cause unemployment and economic hardship across Europe and the United States, people search for an easy scapegoat. In the past, religious minorities such as Jews were these scapegoats. Hate speech abounded decades and even centuries before the atrocities of the Holocaust in the early 20th century. This should cause some alarm amongst the Muslim minorities of Europe as far-right groups continue to emerge, spewing hateful speech mostly directed at the small Muslim communities there. Muslims are reminded to follow the advice contained in the Qur’an and hadith regarding this speech while seeking means to be involved in making their communities a better place to live for all people.

References

Ali, A. Y. 2010. The meaning of the glorious Qur’an. Istanbul: ASIR Media.

Bill of Rights. 2010. In The Charters of Freedom. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.

Dharmapala, D. McAdams, R. H. 2001. Words that kill? Economic Perspectives on Hate Speech and Hate Crimes. U Illinois Law Economics Research Paper No. LE02-004. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2003-05.html.

Elgot, J. (2013, June 26). Pamela geller and robert spencer banned from the UK by home office, due to speak at EDL Woolwich rally. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/26/pamela-geller-banned_n_3503307.html

Hate speech. 2010. In Webster’s New World Dictionary. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/hate-speech.

Ishaq, M. 1967. A. Guillaume (Translator.) The Life of Muhammad. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.

Kathir, I. 2013. Quran tafsir Ibn Kathir. Retrieved from http://www.qtafsir.com/.

Kelshaw, T. 2006. Communication as political participation. In Shepherd, G.L. et.al. (Eds.), Communication as…perspectives on theory (pp. 155 – 163). Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications Inc.

Manjoo, F. (2008). True enough: Learning to live in a post-fact society. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley Sons Inc.

MLFA funds appeal of ziyad yaghi thought-crime conviction. (2013, April 30). Retrieved from

http://www.mlfa.org/mlfa-funds-appeal-ziyad-yaghi-thought-crime-conviction

Nawawi, A. Z. (2013). 40 Hadith Nawawi. Retrieved from http://sunnah.com/nawawi40.

Unal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, NJ: Tughra Books.

‘We could have another Timothy McVeigh’: U.S. authorities warned against anti-Islamic terrorism after Norway shooter ‘inspired’ by Robert Spencer and Unabomber. (2011, July 27). Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018976/Norway-shooting-Anders-Behring-Breivik-inspired-Robert-Spencer-Unabomber.html.

“No one yet realized the wealth of sympathy, the kindness and generosity hidden in the soul of a child. The effort of every true education should be to unlock that treasure” – Emma Goldman

For centuries there has been much isolation (of various sorts) and years of conflict that have placed a wall between peoples, cultures, countries, and religions; this is because some people have been taught to hate each other. Poverty, religious fanaticism, and war have taught people all over the world to hate one another.

Despite the increased opportunities for dialogue today, the community of nations is also faced with serious economic, social, and cultural difficulties; the inequality between nations is growing, and many conflicts and serious tensions threaten peace and security. Just by looking at recent events, we can see that the world has witnessed a number of brutal wars and conflicts in the twentieth century alone. Bosnia is one of the examples of wars where ethnic cleansing and numerous ethnic and ideological conflicts have left a deep traumatic scar on the collective memories of the nations in the region. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is another conflict that is just as painful.

The crises in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Karabag, and many other parts of the world can be added to this painful list. The purpose of this article is to find some possible answers to the following questions: Why do people not solve their problems through dialogue? What prevents them from doing this? Or in other words, who or what is to blame?

My immediate answer to all these questions is just one word: education. But the meaning of that word is not as simple as it seems. It can be defined in different ways, such as the following: Education is an organizational substructure that prepares individuals in order that they will eventually become useful for:

• The ongoing operation of their current social structure;

• The preservation and continuation of such a social structure in following generations. Or;

Education is a substructure that prepares new generations so they can eventually improve on current organizational structures (into which they have been thrown) by:

• Introducing mechanisms to smoothly implement improvements;

• Sustaining those mechanisms with improvements;

• Trying to preserve the stability of the social structure.

Once the question becomes “what is the purpose of education?” it becomes more complex:

“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past, and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” – Ayn Rand

“The central task of education is to implant a will and facility for learning; it should produce not learned, but learning people. The truly human society is a learning society, where grandparents, parents, and children are students together.” – Eric Hoffer

“The central job of schools is to maximize the capacity of each student.” – Carol Ann Tomlinson

“The one real object of education is to leave a man in the condition of continually asking questions.” – Bishop Creighton

“The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think-rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with the thoughts of other men.” – Bill Beattie

As understood from the above quotations, it is not easy to find a single definition of what education is. Therefore, education has a twofold role to play in the questions asked above concerning “Education for dialogue” or “Education for hate.” In fact, the duality of the role of education emanates from the people, the educators, who use it for whatever their purpose is. This purpose can vary, being political, national, religious, antireligious, etc…. Thus, we arrive at the issue of preparing people as “good educators.”

All in all, education is the key to solving the greatest dilemmas of humanity. Investment in human resources represents the best hope for achieving growth in several areas, such as economic, social, and cultural, without forsaking the goals of the alleviation of poverty, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. Achieving global sustainability will depend upon the contributions of young generations with the knowledge, training, and social commitment needed to create real change.

In the new millennium almost every region of the world will face tremendous challenges. The insistent pressures of globalization imply a new world order in which the only constant will be change. It seems that education will be one of the essential foundations of both a culture of peace and dialogue among civilizations. Education advocates the respect of universal values common to all civilizations (solidarity, tolerance, recognition of human rights, fundamental freedom for all, etc.). Education is also ideally suited to the transmission of national and universal cultural values and should foster the assimilation of scientific and technological knowledge without detriment being made to the capacities and values of the people.

The point of this article is not who hates who. Rather, we want to learn why people become angry with others who have different skin colors,

religions, or thoughts. This nightmare, known as racism, has been the source of great and frequent violence throughout history.

Who Was the First Racist?

The first racist was Satan, for he hated Adam. According to Qur’an 17:61: All angels prostrated [before Adam], except Iblis [Satan]. He asked: Shall I prostrate to one whom You made from clay? What was Satan’s biggest mistake? Instead of accepting the reality of diversity in creation, he sought to justify his rejection of Adam. He assumed and asserted that he was nobler than Adam. He did not ponder who decides everyone’s color, nation, and social environment, but justified his racist superiority: [God] asked: Why did you not prostrate when I commanded you? [Satan] replied: I am nobler than him. You created me from fire, but You created him from clay (7:12).

Since this early racist dialectic, all racist groups and their followers have used similar arguments to justify their beliefs and prove that they are the best. The result of such an effort has been a very bloody history.

We are living in a period of rapid change. Due to the global media, these changes affect everyone. Hate organizations use the media to expand their reach in totally new ways. Of course, this is not new: In Italy, in 1922, Benito Mussolini understood the power of the brand-new medium, radio, and he began to use it as soon as it was electronically possible in his country. Some years later he was quoted as saying, ˜If it weren’t for radio, I wouldn’t have the power over the Italian people that I have.(2)

In recent years, the Internet has become a major tool for extremist propaganda. Time columnist John Cloud makes a significant point:

He is absolutely right, for creating hate-filled Web sites is easier and cheaper than taking risks, such as public demonstrations and protests. Don Black, founder of a famous racist Web site, learned in jail how to use the Internet to spread his message. He started a Web site, which at last count had been visited by over 3 million people. It even has sections for women and children.

How Do Such Sites Affect People?

A recent race crime horrified the nation. On June 7, 1998, William King and his friends kidnapped James Byrd, an African-American, tied him to their truck, and dragged him to his death. How can a person become a racist murder? While covering the story, the American media found several reasons, among them that a hate group had agitated King while he was in jail. The Christian Science Monitor interviewed Clara Byrd-Taylor, Byrd’s sister, to get insight into King’s personality: After the dragging death of Texan James Byrd, his sister decided that he would not die in vain. She set out to discover what could have nurtured the hate that killed her brother. She found it on the Internet. ˜Prior to the death of my brother,’ Clara Byrd-Taylor says, ˜I had very little knowledge about the hate sites and what was happening with the hate groups around the world. I had heard isolated incidents, but I had not put all those things together.'(4) There are now over 600 hate Web sites, most of them targeted specifically at young people. The Internet and rock music are two key attractions for youth. CD and Web sites have presented young people with music mixed with advocacy of violence and racial separation Resistance Records, in Detroit, identified as a neo-Nazi music label, sells about 50,000 albums a year through its Web site.(5) Why are youths chosen as targets? Nowadays, more people feel lonely even though they live and interact with people all the time, such as in the workplace. But sharing social and moral values with some communities, like family, has been forgotten. People are losing themselves and, as a result, seeking a new identity that might solve their individual and social crises. Many young people feel isolated by the social structure, and so face an identity crisis. They feel alone, insecure, and abandoned. Music about violence offers messages that highlight the importance of rebelling against social discipline and authority. Being a part of the group and against others is a way to obtain a new social identity for many young people, who see everything in black and white. This is a very complicated problem without a clear solution. Many academic researchers and human rights groups are trying to learn how to overcome hate propaganda on the media. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center declared 10 ways to fight racism. They are as follows(6):

Act. Apathy is interpreted as acceptance.

Unite. Join those who oppose hate and work to eliminate it.

Support the Victims. Let victims know that you care, and report any hate directed toward you or people you know.

Do Your Homework. Learn how to identify hate groups and spread this knowledge to others.

Create an Alternative. Find another outlet for anger and frustration, and capitalize on people’s desire to do something

Speak Up. Expose and denounce hate wherever and whenever you can.

Lobby Leaders. Persuade political, business, and community leaders to take a stand against hate in the interest of their reputations and businesses.

Look Long Range.Create a bias response team and celebrate your community’s diversity and harmony.

Teach Tolerance. Bias is learned early, usually at home. Sponsor an I have a dream contest. Target youths who may be tempted by skinheads or other hate groups.

Dig Deeper. Study divisive issues so that you can determine your own prejudices, and then work to eliminate social prejudice.

Defining Censorship

One of the most contentious media-related issues is defining censorship. Governments are responsible for protecting their citizens from racist groups and propaganda. For instance, Canada and Germany are trying to catch people who use the media, including personal Web sites, to spread hate. But there is still one vital question that must be answered: Who defines protecting the people, especially the young, and protecting the freedom of speech? Prohibiting such speech is not the answer, because governments have abused this authority throughout history. Besides, modern technology and its products almost have eliminated the importance of physical borders as tools for governmental control.

What You Can Do

If you are involved in education or business, work to get your employers to focus on cultural diversity as a valuable human resource. Schools are many children’s first direct exposure to different cultures and peoples. The business sector often brings people who otherwise would not meet each other into close contact, thereby dispelling stereotypes. If handled correctly, deep biases can be destroyed in both children and adults. In addition, the importance of peace must be taught and reinforced in the home, school, workplace, and everywhere else. Create your own anti-hate Web site. Spread the information provided by such anti-hate organization Web sites as:

www.angelfire.com/on2/EvasGarden/AntiHate.html

http://earnestman.tripod.com/forewarned.htm,www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/multicultural/pages/anti.htm,

and

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/hatred1_frame.html.

Subscribe to their publications, donate money or time, and participate in their activities whenever possible. Protest all radio programs and music that encourage this nightmare of modern times. Explain to your children why you oppose their listening to such programs or music. Sponsors and producers are not immune to public outcry and negative publicity. Remind the mainstream media that it has the vital responsibility of showing its audience how to live together without hate. If religious or racial discrimination are tolerated or even encouraged, the media only reinforces negative or distorted images and racism. Establish or join coalitions devoted to fighting hate messages. Explain to others that you do so in order to create a better future for everyone by trying to prevent the racist nightmare from destroying our good dreams for the future.

Footnotes

1. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Ten Ways to Fight Hate: A Community Response Guide. Online at: www.splcenter.org.
2. Robert L. Hilliard and Michael C. Keith, Waves of Rancor: Turning in the Radical Right (M. E. Sharpe: 1999), 20.
3. John Cloud, Trading White Sheets for Pinstripes, Time Magazine (8 March 1999).
4. Gloria Goodale, HBO Exposes Hate Groups in Cyberspace, The Christian Science Monitor (20 October 2000), 20.
5. Hilliard and Keith, Waves of Rancor, 55.
6. The full text is available online at: www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-index.html.