Which Is Preferable: Security or Freedom?

Mahjoub Fadl Badri
After the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, a number of public opinion polls were conducted to measure Americans’ attitudes toward the trade-off between security and freedom, amid fears of further attacks.
The question posed was:
Which do you prefer: increased security measures at the expense of personal freedoms, or the preservation of freedoms at the expense of security?
The poll results showed that a clear majority of Americans—citizens of the so-called citadel of freedom—preferred security over freedom.
These results effectively gave security agencies a free hand to expand their powers of surveillance, arrest, raids, and searches under what became known as the Patriot Act.
This introduction is offered in light of the fact that some young people recently went out to commemorate what was termed the “glorious December Revolution,” at a time when our country is in the midst of the War of Dignity being waged by our people and army. The security services dealt with some individuals who participated in these demonstrations, during which they hurled insults and abusive language at our valiant army and vigilant police—acts that, even under normal circumstances, would place them within the scope of the criminal law.
But given that our country is engulfed in an active war, it was incumbent that such elements be dealt with in a manner commensurate with their conduct—conduct that harms national security, shows contempt for the blood of civilian victims, and displays indifference to the systematic destruction of our national capabilities—all under the pretext of freedom of opinion and expression.
This observation is not intended merely to incite the authorities to intensify action against anyone who commits acts that undermine national security, but rather to call for the activation of the state of emergency law, which empowers security agencies to proactively monitor, apprehend, and pre-empt such elements before they embark on their activities—
without the slightest regard for the supposed luxury of freedom of opinion and expression.
There can be no freedom while we are fighting a war imposed upon us by the Dagalo militia, while at the same time allowing their affiliates to demonstrate in cities that were liberated by the blood of our people from the filth of the militia and its backers.
If any opinion poll were conducted among our people asking: Which do you prefer, security or freedom?
The result would undoubtedly come down overwhelmingly in favour of security over freedom.
Yet, because we are an emotional and deeply tolerant people, some condemned the arrest of certain demonstrators. In contrast, others argued that it would have been more appropriate to use excessive force in suppressing them rather than tear gas—on the grounds that they do not deserve the status of good citizens, but rather constitute “unrighteous deeds.”
Scholars, in their interpretation of verse 46 of Surat Hud, state:
“He said: O Noah, indeed he is not of your family; indeed, he is [one whose] work was unrighteous. So do not ask Me about that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I admonish you, lest you be among the ignorant.” (Qur’an 11:46)
After Noah (peace be upon him) said, “My son is of my family,” God replied: “He is not of your family,” meaning not of your faith or your allegiance. This implies the omission of an implied term and indicates that unity in faith is stronger than unity of blood lineage.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=9875