Do Blasphemy Laws Really Protect the Best Interests of Muslims?

June 8, 2008

We have witnessed a series of Muslim outrages over Westerners’ remarks or art about Islam. To name a few, there’s the movie Submission, the Danish Mohammed cartoons, the Pope’s quotation of Pope Benedict XVI, and recently, the movie Fitna. These outrages are always followed by (or even, as in the case of Fitna, preceded by) calls for self-censorship and/or hate speech laws.

Self-censorship, typically called ”showing respect for religion” or “responsible free speech”, in this case basically comes down to a voluntary internalization of Islamic blasphemy laws. Who decides what kind of speech regarding Islam is “respectful” or “responsible”? Why, that would be Muslims.

Hate speech legislation, or laws against “defamation of religion”, basically comes down to a government’s official adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws. Who decides what speech regarding Islam is “hateful” or “defamatory”? Why, that would again be Muslims.

It’s difficult to imagine how anyone could think Muslims should determine what non-Muslims can and can’t say about Islam, any more than Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, or any other group of people should decide what non-members can and can’t say about their ideology. This notion is indefensible on its face, and to even consider going down that road is to take the fist step toward a theocracy.

Muslims don’t get the notion of what constitutes an outrage out of thin air, but from centuries-long traditions of dhimmi laws, subjugating non-Muslims under Islamic rule. Just one small part of this subjugation is controlling non-Muslims’ speech. Andrew Bostom notes, following Muslims’ outrage over the Pope quoting Pope Benedict XVI:

The ultimate source of the convulsive reaction to the Pope’s speech is the Islamic belief that spiritually and physically debauched infidels have no right to express opinions—least of all negative opinions—regarding Islam’s sacred text, the Koran, the Muslim prophet, Muhammad (Ecce Homo Arabicus), or the sacred Islamic Law (Shari’a), which includes the permanent institution of jihad war.

Such deep-seated intolerance has always predominated under Muslim rule….

Blasphemy laws and their first cousins, heresy laws, are currently used to persecute religious minorities including Christians, Hindus, and Bahais. Accusations of blasphemy can also provide cover for the murder of non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

Many observers have commented about the dangers to non-Muslims of restricting our speech concerning Islam in the West.

Islamic Blasphemy Laws Are Bad for Non-Muslims. But Are They Good for Muslims?

It may seem as though blasphemy laws are bad for non-Muslims, but good for Muslims. However, the question is: Which Muslims? Unorthodox Muslims are among the primary victims of blasphemy laws. For example, in Muslim countries, the peaceful Ahmadiyya sect is typically deemed heretical and is stifled, even in a “moderate” country like Indonesia. Other “heretical’ sects are persecuted elsewhere in the Muslim world, such as the Alevis in “secular” Turkey. Then there are the well-known conflicts between the Sunnis and Shias, much of which is kept alive through charges of blasphemy. Pretty much any Muslim sect can be considered heretical by other Muslim sects.

In addition to heretical sects, individual Muslims are punished for blasphemy. Arifur Rahman, a 20-year-old cartoonist in Bangladesh, was recently sentenced to six months amid public demonstrations calling for his death. He wrote a cartoon making fun of a local custom involving the name “Mohammed”. Parwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old Afghan student journalist, has faced the death penalty for downloading and distributing articles that were said to question some tenets of Islam. (So far as I know, he is still in prison pending final appeals.) Street thugs sometimes mete out punishment vigilante-style: Naguib Mahfouz, an Egyptian novelist, was stabbed in the neck by a Muslim who was angry at his portrayal of God. Jawaad Faizi, a Pakistani journalist in Canada, was beaten for criticizing an Islamic organization. Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Taha was kidnapped and killed in Sudan for publishing an article which he personally disagreed with, questioning the ancestral lineage of Mohammed. These are just a few examples.

Muslims who choose to leave their religion, even in the West, had better keep quiet about their thoughts on Islam. Just ask Salman Rushdie.

Muslim and ex-Muslim reformers are often hurt by blasphemy laws and Muslim vigilanteism. Rashad Khalifa in Tucson, Arizona, founder of the “Submitters” sect, was declared to be an apostate due to his blasphemous ideas and assassinated. Farzana Hassan Shahid, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress who receives death threats from other Muslims for her views, explained: “There is an underlying fear all the time…that uneasy feeling is part of my daily life. I have been declared an apostate twice, for opposing the Sharia [Islamic law]….” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the well-known Somali ex-Muslim, wrote “…the reformists are shunned by their families and communities and live under the constant fear of assassination.”

Of course, blasphemy laws and fear of vigilante punishment also cause immeasurable harm to all the unorthodox Muslims we don’t know about because they dare not speak or publish their views freely.

Islamic blasphemy rules for non-Muslims are somewhat different from those for Muslims, because non-Muslims endure the added element of dhimmi subjugation, as noted above. Certain things could be considered blasphemous for non-Muslims to say, but not for Muslims to say. Nevertheless, all Islamic blasphemy laws share a common assumption: the Islamic orthodoxy gets to regulate what people can and can’t say about Islam. Any time the West gives any credence to this assumption, we strengthen and legitimize it.

So even if, in a fit of madness, we non-Muslims cared nothing about our own interests and only about the interests of Muslims, we would still need to decide which Muslims’ interests would be important to uphold. It would be absurd to throw the peaceful Ahmadis and reformers under the bus, to “respect” the religious thought police who would persecute them. Given the harm caused to unorthodox Muslims by blasphemy laws, we should think twice before adopting them ourselves. We may not be able to do a lot for the Ahmadiyya sect in Asia or for young cartoonists like Rahman, but at least we can set a good example by protecting freedom of expression in the West. If we do not protect it here, freedom of expression may well disappear from the world.


News Flash: Muslims Want Free Speech for Themselves!

May 7, 2008

Gallup has conducted world-wide polling of Muslims, described by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed as “six years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing 1.3 billion Muslims who reside in more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have sizable Muslim populations. Representing more than 90% of the world’s Muslim community, this poll is the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind.” It should be noted that John Esposito is the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, which has received “$20 million of funding from Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal”, as noted in Martin Kramer’s Sandbox Blog.

Esposito and Mogahed report about Gallup’s findings in their book, Who Speaks for Islam?, which has the “not-so-hidden purpose” to “blur any difference between average Muslims around the world and average Americans”, as described in The Weekly Standard. Truth, it would seem, is not an insurmountable obstacle to that goal. (I highly recommend this article).

According to a review published by Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH), Esposito’s and Mohaged’s book draws the following conclusion:

“It thus turns out that Muslims apparently want a different kind of ‘democracy,’ one which avoids moral and other kinds of risks. For example, although they would like freedom of speech, they would not like it to be unlimited, such that it might permit speech offensive to religious sensibilities. In other words, blasphemy laws should limit it.”

This means that they want freedom of speech only for themselves! Anyone who has views of Islam that are different from their own would be censored! What’s so great about that? Anyone can be in favor of freedom of speech for those who agree with them. Even in Communist countries, a person is free to express a pro-Communist viewpoint. Is that freedom of speech? A person is committed to freedom of speech only if they also want to protect this freedom for those who disagree with them.

In practice, blasphemy laws apply to any view deemed sufficiently unorthodox; for example, in Muslim countries, the peaceful Ahmadiyya sect is typically deemed heretical and is stifled, even in a “moderate” country like Indonesia. Other “heretical’ sects are persecuted elsewhere in the Muslim world, even in “secular” Turkey. And, of course, the views of Muslims can be considered heretical whether or not they belong to a heretical sect, as can the views of non-Muslims.

So, despite Esposito’s and Mogahed’s attempt to portray the world’s Muslims as “just like us”, even this one statement reveals a vast difference. Individual Muslims should be judged on their merits, and there are Muslim individuals who do indeed believe in free speech for all. However, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to portray the Muslim community as freedom-loving.


Is there a liberal, secular, tolerant Muslim country?

February 1, 2008

There is disagreement over whether Islam is really compatible with Western values of freedom, tolerance, and secular government. One piece of evidence for this would be if, out of about 50 Muslim majority countries, there were any sizable countries which demonstrated values comparable to those found commonly in the West. Let’s look at several which are frequently put forward as shining examples of secularism, freedom and tolerance: Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Turkey

Christianity Today reports three Christians who were brutally tortured and murdered in April, 2007, by Muslims who had asked to meet with the victims in order to “learn more about the Bible.” According to reports published by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, there have been attacks on priests including one murder in 2006. Genocide Watch cites beatings, death threats, police brutality, and other anti-Christian behaviors. From time to time, missionaries are arrested or deported, even though missionary activity is ostensibly legal. Niyazi Guney, Ministry of Justice director general of laws, has commented that “Missionaries are more dangerous than terror organizations.” Since religious minorities compose less than 1 percent of the Turkish population, and there are many instances of Muslim intolerance even with so few minorities, one wonders what things would be like with more.

Bangladesh

The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities” lists many instances of intolerance and persecution toward religious minorities in Bangladesh. For example, Christians are savagely beaten. 10,000 Hindus live in fear of eviction. Rapes of minority Hindu women occurring on a daily basis could arguably be considered genocidal; little girls, pregnant women, and the elderly are not spared. According to Amnesty International, human rights defenders are under attack in Bangladesh. At least 500,000 minorities have been displaced within Bangladesh, in addition to hundreds of thousands who have fled the country, since October 2001. The indigenous Jummas of the Chittagong Hills Tract region of Bangladesh have, over the past 40 years, faced forcible conversion to Islam, religious persecution, arrests, tortures, abductions, and massacres. In 1947, 38 percent of the region that is now Bangladesh were non-Muslim; now it’s down to 8 percent.

Malaysia

Malaysian authorities recently confiscated Christian children’s books. Malaysia is now refusing to issue new visas for prists. They have given foreign priests already there a six month renewal, and told them they must leave after their visas expire. Ethnic Malays in Malaysia are required by law to be Muslim, and those who leave Islam may be jailed. In 2006, Malaysia banned the distribution of the infamous Mohammed cartoons.

Indonesia

In June, 2007, three Sunday school teachers were released after two years in jail. They had allowed some Muslim children to attend a program with the full consent of their parents. According to a report by Bishop Martinus Situmorang, 108 Christian churches have been closed in Indonesia due to Islamic pressure from 2004 through 2007. Asia News reports “Indonesian authorities have prevented the parish priest of Christ’s Peace Church in South Duri (West Jakarta) from celebrating mass.” According to Indonesia Matters, the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, a peaceful sect which believes there was a prophet named “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad” after Mohammed, has agreed to say they believe that Mohammed was the final prophet after all, in order to avoid being banned. Why would a peaceful sect be banned in a secular country? Also from Indonesia Matters, “Indonesia remains on the ‘Watch List’ in the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom report for 2006.”

Conclusions

The fact is, the four Muslim majority countries that are regularly touted as the most secular, tolerant, and free continue to have major problems with religious persecution. In addition, these four countries are among the least orthodox, but they are on a trajectory of becoming more orthodox, which probably means things will get worse. The rest of the Muslim world, in general, has even less religious freedom. (The possible exceptions are Senegal and Mali, two unorthodox West African nations with populations of around 12 million each, who have thus far mostly escaped the Islamist trend.) This is something for us to think about, as the Islamists have designs for making every Western country Islamic, as well. It that what we want?