The right to offend does not mean that you have a duty to offend, DJ Dax J

Published: April 15, 2017

Heddon temporarily suspended all his social media accounts after allegedly receiving death threats.

British DJ Dax J was recently sentenced to a year in prison by Tunisian authorities after generating massive backlash for playing a track that included a remixed vocal of the Azaan, the Muslim call to prayer.

DJ Dax J, whose real name is Dax Heddon, had been touring Tunisia as part of the Orbit Festival and was performing at the El Guitoune nightclub in the city of Nabeul when he played the controversial song.

After a video surfaced online showing people revelling to the track which caused a national outrage, the nightclub was shut down by local authorities, and both the owner and the event organiser were taken into custody. They have since been cleared of the charges levied upon them and released. However, Heddon was charged with public indecency (six months) and offending public morality (six months) but managed to flee the country before the court case.

Heddon temporarily suspended all his social media accounts after allegedly receiving death threats. However, following his return, he wrote on his Facebook page,

“I am incredibly saddened that anyone would believe that I played a track, featuring a 20-second vocal of the ‘call to prayer/ Azaan’, for any reason other than its musicality and the beauty of the vocals.”

Furthermore, he offered his deepest apologies to anyone who was offended.

When asked to comment on the issue, Mnaouar Ouertani, the governor of Nabeul, said:

“We will not allow attacks against religious feelings and the sacred.”

Tunisia’s Religious Affairs Ministry issued a statement stating,

“Mocking the opinions and religious principles of Tunisians is absolutely unacceptable.”

Although Tunisia doesn’t have a “blasphemy law” like Pakistan does, the country’s penal code does have provisions for criminalising speech that could “cause harm to the public order or public morals”.

Is the sentence justified? Or is it outrageous? Perhaps a fine should’ve sufficed?

I consider myself to be a huge advocate of freedom of speech and the right of citizens to exercise it responsibly. It is for this reason that I view with suspicion any legislation that seeks to curb this right because it turns societies, dynamic by their very nature, into echo chambers. Uniformity of thought, you see, is a dangerous ideal to pursue because as convenient as it may be, it discourages dialogue and thereby impedes social progress.

With that said, it is also important to realise that freedom of speech is never absolute, even in the most liberal societies. There are always going to be lines that cannot be crossed for the purposes of law and order, and should not be crossed for the purposes of taste and decency. But what falls under the purview of ‘taste and decency’ is incredibly subjective and mind-bogglingly vague.

Criticism against any ideology, no matter how sacredly it is held, should never fall under this category as that sets a dangerous precedent whereby we elevate ideologies over and above fundamental human rights. However, it stands to reason that disrespecting passive religious symbols that people hold sacred is highly irresponsible as it serves no greater purpose. It achieves nothing except to make conservative religious folks even more defensive and unreceptive to genuine calls to address problematic issues happening in the name of religion.

It is, therefore, imperative that in order to create a more inclusive world, we consider each other’s sensitivities and not trample over them just because we have the right to do so. The right to offend, after all, does not necessarily mean that you have a duty to offend.

Rohail Waseem

Ro Waseem

The author is a Muslim who writes about Progressive Islam. He runs a weekly blog on Patheos ( and has contributed some of his articles to Huffington Post, Onfaith, & Tikkun, among others. He tweets as @Quranalyzeit (

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • Agha

    “It is, therefore, imperative that in order to create a more inclusive world, we consider each other’s sensitivities and not trample over them just because we have the right to do so.” So basically “inclusive” society means not offending your feelings or you will punish. Got it. And by the way right to offend may not mean you have a duty to offend but it definitely means that “offending” should have no consequences. Only violence and exhortation to violence has consequences. If we started punishing people for “offending feelings” we will soon be living in a society without ANY right to say ANY thing. Recommend

  • Agha

    Please keep your “concerns” for the people who advocate for violence for minorities. Because that DEFINITELY isn’t free speech. Or is it? Feelings trump Physical Harm right?Recommend

  • Parvez

    It was apparent that the DJ did not INTEND to offend… was a judgment error and should have been treated as such, keeping in mind the spirit of Islam that teaches tolerance and forgiveness.Recommend

  • abhi

    This shows the true colour of so called liberal muslims. They are fine as long as freedom of speech is used to support terrorists and jihadis. The don’t like the freedom of speech when it is challenging the great religion of anything associated with it.Recommend

  • Ahmar

    Has it ever occurred to our religiously sensitive that religion is taken as part of culture and the DJ may have been to trying to give a cultural vibe to the music rather than trying to offend anyone?

    So what is next in the “offended list” of the religious conservatives?

    Naat khuani?

    You are offended by a guy who wasn’t even trying to offend anyone. No one has a “duty” to offend but you sure seem to have assumed the duty to get offended by anything..and everything. Recommend

  • Miyagi Jr.

    blasphemy blasphemy, what a sorry state of affairs right now.Recommend

  • Cynical

    Very well put.Recommend