How do double standards appear in reactions to Dr Ulil Abshar’s 2014 entry denial?

Question

Accepted Answer

Double Standards Evident in Reactions to Dr. Ulil Abshar's 2014 Entry Denial

The reactions surrounding Dr. Ulil Abshar Abdalla's 2014 denial of entry into Malaysia, particularly when contrasted with subsequent events concerning Zakir Naik, reveal a significant double standard within segments of the Malay Muslim community. While Dr. Ulil was reportedly barred for being perceived as "deviant" despite intending to speak against terrorism, a different response emerged when other controversial figures faced similar restrictions, highlighting selective application of principles like freedom of speech and religious tolerance.
Dr. Ulil Abshar's Entry Denial and its Context

In 2014, Dr. Ulil Abshar Abdalla, an individual noted for his advocacy against terrorism, was denied entry into Malaysia. The stated reason for this denial was his supposed "deviant" status. This action occurred despite his intention to deliver speeches that would counter terrorism, a purpose that would typically be viewed favorably in discussions about national security and religious moderation. The implications of barring someone with such an objective, based on a label of deviance, were not met with widespread public outcry or extensive debate regarding freedom of expression at the time.
Divergent Reactions to Restrictions on Speakers

A notable disparity emerged in public reactions when other Islamic speakers faced limitations. For instance, when Zakir Naik's talk was cancelled, it triggered an uproar within parts of the Malay Muslim community, with many decrying it as an infringement on freedom of speech. This reaction contrasted sharply with the muted response to Dr. Ulil's entry denial. The article suggests that the same community members who championed freedom of speech for Naik, even when his statements were controversial or potentially inflammatory, were largely silent when Dr. Ulil, who aimed to speak against terrorism, was barred.
Selective Upholding of "Freedom of Speech"

The discourse surrounding these events indicates a selective interpretation of "freedom of speech" by some within the Malay Muslim community. While this principle was invoked to defend Zakir Naik's right to speak, even when his views were contested by other communities like the Hindus, it appeared to be less of a concern when Dr. Ulil, who sought to address terrorism, was prevented from entering the country. This suggests that for some, "freedom of speech" is primarily supported when it aligns with their own group's perspectives or when it serves to challenge perceived external criticism, rather than as a universal right.
Perceptions of "Deviance" and Religious Tolerance

The differing reactions also shed light on how perceptions of "deviance" are applied. Dr. Ulil was labelled "deviant" and denied entry, seemingly without significant protest from those who later defended Naik. This implies that the criteria for what constitutes "deviance" and the tolerance for differing interpretations within Islam can be applied inconsistently. The article posits that this selective application of principles and labels points to a broader issue of hypocrisy, where certain values are upheld only when convenient or beneficial to a particular group.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How do double standards appear in reactions to Dr Ulil Abshar’s 2014 entry denial?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends