“Defamation of religion” By – Sheikh Zakir Elahi
The Islamic world is in raving anger, both aghast and enraged over the movie Innocence of Muslim and the cartoons published by a French magazine. These deplorable actions, the defamation of the Prophet were carefully planned to hurt the sentiments of over 1.6 Billion Muslims worldwide. For Muslims, their love for the prophet takes precedent over any other kind of love. For Muslims, the Holy Prophet Mohammad is dearer in their hearts than their parents, children, brothers, sisters and wives.
The question we ask now is: what is objective of this movie? Does the freedom of expression have no limit, even as it incites violence and hatred within many? I have the utmost respect and agree with first amendment of US constitution and believe that it does protect the freedom of expression but this freedom has its limits. This movie, which is based on derogatory, defamatory and blasphemous material, is motivated by a deep seated hatred for Muslims. The producer of this movie was acutely aware of what he was doing and what kind of reaction would spur, worldwide, from his actions. The sole purpose of this movie was to spark violence and it could legally constitute as a vehicle to incite violence, as it so obviously has. The Producer wanted to inspire hatred towards Islam and Muslims and to destroy intra-religious relations.
This defamation of the world’s second largest religion can lead to social disharmony and anarchy, and is a clear violation of human rights. As per professor of law, H. Brian Holland, “We don’t protect threats or ‘fighting words,’ which means something that incites an immediate breach of the peace,” Taking his words into account, this case at hand can indeed be categorized as hate speech in its worst form, as his actions were clearly fighting actions. The General Secretary of UN, Ban Ki-Moon, not only condemned this abuse of the freedom of speech but in his own words says, “Some people abuse this freedom. This effort to provoke, to humiliate others by using [religious] beliefs cannot be protected in such a way. We are living through a period of unease. We are also seeing incidents of intolerance and hatred that are then exploited by others. Voices of moderation and calm need to make them heard at this time. We all need to speak up in favour of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others.” Clearly, voices of moderation and of peace need to be heard more loudly in this day and age, than the voice of hatred, and that is what, ideally, the freedom of speech should provide.
Furthermore, Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the right to hold an opinion without interference but, the exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or moral.
Additionally, Article 20 of the ICCPR also adds, “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The article referred to here calls on states to take measures that are “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.” This is a duty that the US has clearly, painfully overlooked and ignored for too long now, claiming greater advocacy for the freedom of speech and expression. But, US must realize that through their abuse and misuse of their freedom of speech, they are going against the international community’s common law and such an abuse of freedom of speech which disrespects other religions is against its own national interest and a threat to its national security. Such irresponsible actions endanger American Citizens as we have seen in the case of the US ambassador in Libya and the hurt US interest and credibility all over the world. There is a direct correlation between the actions of the makers of this film and deaths of several Americans. This movie was to provoke Muslims all over world and such a violent reaction was expected. Makers of the movie must be prosecuted for hate crime and provoking violence. The director made a conscious decision, when making this film, to commit a hate crime. He was fully aware of the probable and possible consequences. His actions were premeditated. He can be also be tried under current FARA law as this film serves as propaganda with intentions to start a worldwide conflict, incite violence and promote hatred.
The UN also adopted a Religious Tolerance Resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion and urged countries to take effective steps to address and combat such incidents as necessary. But the UN resolution failed to include following language as suggested by the OIC: “Alarmed at increasing instances of deliberate and systematic negative projection of religions, their adherents and prophets in media and by influential political parties and groups” – a phrase opposed by the EU. However, the document did recall that “Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant human rights provisions, that make punishable by law all acts and dissemination of ideas based on religious hatred that lead to incitement to violence.” Again, a duty to the US put forth by the global community that the nation has once again ignored.
Moving along, in 2010 the Human Rights Council did pass an unbinding resolution (Combating the defamations of religions). This resolution covered items like stereotyping of Muslims, attempts to identify Muslims with terrorism, denial of their fundamental rights, measures specially designed to control and monitor Muslims, protection against hate crime, protection against hate, discrimination, intimidation, etc .But the most important is clause is clause 14 which deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion.
Another resolution has also been being pushed since 1999 by the OIC condemning the defamation of religion which deals with incidents like we see today (disrespect for the Prophet) but also includes criticism of Shari’a. Muslim courtiers argued that this resolution was essential to defend Islam along with other religions against criticism that could cause offence to the ordinary believers. But it really is a major embarrassment for all 57 Islamic countries that the number of votes, instead of increasing every year, is decreasing with each passing year. The resolution had 57 votes in 2007, and last year only 12 countries supported this resolution. This means that even the majority of Muslim countries are failing to support this resolution. All of the major European countries and the US opposed the resolution, holding that this concept is inconsistent with the universal human rights standards that protect individual’s right of speech rather than abstract ideas or religions. The US, under the first amendment has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government did not want to lower those standards even though, as mentioned before, it clearly violates Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right.
Finally in 2011 after 12 years of campaigning by Islamic countries to pass the resolution (Defamation of religion) came to an end. The Western world saw this as an attempt by Muslim countries to protect their religion and their prophet from “defamation.” Instead, there was a compromise where a new resolution was adopted and the focus shifted from protecting beliefs to protecting believers as a whole (Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief). This resolution, which was passed by 193 countries at the National Assembly condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions.” The call on countries to prohibit “defamation” had been included in the non-binding resolution. Resolution 16/18 calls on states to make “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.” Countries are expected “to take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.” The bottom line of this resolution calls for the criminalization only of religion-related “incitement to imminent violence, and although this is certainly the case here with this movie, this incident has not been handled as an act of crime.
At this point in time, there are indeed legislation against Anti-Semitism in Romania, Mexico, Latvia, France, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. It is a punishable crime to deny the Holocaust in Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, Poland, Switzerland and Luxemburg. Certain legislation even prohibits the use of Nazi symbols in Brazil, Hungary, France, Austria and Denmark. The underlying principal used by these countries is that such actions are threat to the national security; it endangers the unity and integrity of country and have the ability to incite actions which severely imperil law and order in those country. To go against these laws constitutes as harassment, racism, discrimination, conscious incitement of violence and disturb law and order. Punishment for these violations is between 1 to 30 years. The question is, if the world as whole is willing to accept such laws for the Jewish community, why we can’t we as Muslims have similar laws against religious intolerance?
The only solution to avoid future attempts by fanatics in the West to fuel hatred against Muslims is the UN penalizing the defamation of religion, with the overall objective to prohibit expression that would, as stated in a UN General Assembly prior, “fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences.” It must be mandatory for all countries that are members to implement that resolution. This is not an attempt to protect our religion only, but all religions. OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called on political and religious leaders worldwide to “ take a united stand against fanatics and radicals involved in destabilizing global peace and security by fanning incitement and religious intolerance.” He continues that it is time for the “international community to take serious note of the dangerous implications of hate speech and inciting publications and come out of hiding behind the excuse of freedom of expression.”
We all live in a global village where all countries are dependent on each other for resources. Muslim countries have combined DGP (at purchasing power parity) of USD 7,740 billion. If all 57 Muslim countries can come together and speak with one voice and put pressure on the international community, they can get this resolution /convention to pass without any problem. Economic pressures and threats of sanctions on different countries for the passage of the law is a simple, civilized solution. Further we have option to boycott companies ,search engines which are used for propaganda against our religion.
Muslims around the world must unite against such sacrilegious acts and disrespect to their prophet. They must put pressure on their respective governments, but they must also realize that violence in the streets of their own homes and destroying their own property is not the answer. Any protest in the street must be fully civilized and non-violent in line with teaching of our beloved prophet.
Sheikh Zakir Elahi
Advisor to Chairman PTI Imran Khan
Political and Planning affairs
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
Convener Advisory Committee
201 450 2394
We add:
”Free Speech” is not sacrosanct in America or anywhere else in the world. There are exceptions.
1) In the US, one cannot shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. It is not considered “Free Speech”.
2) In the US, one could not publish the detailed plans to create a Nuclear Bomb. That was banned. (I am not proposing that it should be available (I am just making a point here)
3) While the detials on creating a bomb does exist in the Encyclopdia Britanica, a US citizen was disallowed to put in on the web.
4) In the US for decades the Native Americans, women and African Americans had no right to any speech (even though the First Amendment was in vogue).
5) Anti-Semitism is not considered feee speech and falls under a law unto itself.
6) hate speech is not considered Free Speech and is punishable under US law
7) Incitement to violence or murder is not considered Free Speech and is punishbale under US Law
8) While deragatory comments against Black, Women, Jews, Handicapped folks, Children may be technically allowed, but no politicians or artist can really make them and survive politcally
9) Pedophilia is not accepted as Free Speech and any communication encouraging it is not covered by the First Amendment
10) In Europe, anyone speaking against the Holocust is gagged. Holocust Denial is not covered under Free speech
11) Flying the Swastika is illegal is most European countries and is not considered Free Speech
12) Almost all European and other countries have Blasphemy Laws–though they are not used to prosecute. The point remins that there are limits to Free speech
13) Bullying in schools in whatever form is not covered under the First Amendment and there are laws against it.
14) Most recently the Frech magazine was prohibited from publishing nude pictures of the Royal family. So there are limits to free speech
Blasphemy Laws exist in almost all Western countries. In fact when British Muslims tried to invoke the UK Blaspheme Law, the courts there decided that British Balsphemey Laws only protected Chritianity and other religions remained unprotected.
Lets pick a few countries which have been in the news:
Denmark
In Denmark, Paragraph 140 of the penal code is about blasphemy. The paragraph has not been used since 1938 when a Nazi group was convicted for antisemitic propaganda. The hate speech paragraph (266b) is used more frequently. Abolition of the blasphemy clause was proposed in 2004, but failed to gain a majority
In Austria, two sections of the penal code relate to blasphemy:[2]
§ 188 : Vilification of Religious Teachings
§ 189 : Disturbance of Religious Practice
Canada
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.” Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an “identifiable group.” The Code defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Netherlands
The Kingdom of the Netherlands prohibits blasphemy by a provision in its penal code. Article 147 punishes (by up to three months in jail or a fine of the second category (i.e. up to €3,800[34])) anyone who publicly, orally or in writing or depiction, offends religious feelings by scornful blasphemy.[35] Furthermore, article 429bis prohibits displaying blasphemous material at places visible from the public road.[36] The law came into being in the 1930s after the Communist Party called for Christmas to be dropped from the list of state holidays.[37] The last successful conviction under Article 147 took place in the early 1960s when a student newspaper was fined 100 guilders for satirizing the New Testament.[37] The law against blasphemy complements laws against racial discrimination and incitement to violence.
In 1966, the Public Prosecution Service prosecuted Gerard Reve under Article 147. In his novel Nader tot U (Nearer to Thee), Reve describes the narrator’s sexual intercourse with God, who is incarnated in a donkey. The court of first instance convicted Reve. He appealed. In April 1968, an appeal court quashed the conviction.[38][39]
In November 2008, Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin expressed the country’s coalition government’s intent to repeal Article 147.[38] He said the government would strengthen the legislation against discrimination to prohibit any insult to any group of people.[40] In May 2009, the government decided to leave the law as it is. The decision followed a high court ruling in which a man who had put up a poster that read “stop the tumour that is Islam” was found not guilty of insulting a group of people on the grounds of their religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have laws that make reference to blasphemy.[1] Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws — a provision based on a similar colonial era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 — states:
Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.The history of Maryland’s blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland. But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutionalPennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional.[1] On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page Opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that the Pennsylvania’s blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Here are examplesof enforecement of Blasphemy Laws in the USA
Didn’t the National Portrait Gallery–heavily funded by the American taxpayer–just pull an item from a privately funded exhibit because it offended some Christians? In early December, an 11-second video clip of ants crawling over a crucified Jesus was removed after complaints by the Catholic League and a comment by then soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner that the video was a misuse of taxpayer money. U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) then called for Congress to launch an official investigation into the matter
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Barry_Lynn/2011/01/blasphemy_laws_alive_and_well_in_the_us.html
Muslims are saying
a) “Elevate Islamphoboa to the same level as Anti-Semitism and give it the same protection”
b) “Consider blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad, Moses, Jesus, David, and against Budha, Krishna and others as hate speech” and do not allow it. This is simple and should be considered as a legal basis to stop the agression against Islam.
Mr. Sheikh Zakir Elahi is living in Lost Land.
Islam as a Deen cultivated by the CREATOR HIMSELF can not be targeted or defamed by lewd inbred of lowly kind whatsoever.
This articles only affirms that Sheikh Sahib knows different laws pertaining to international agencies.
Please tell him all these agencies and laws are irrelevant as far as Muslims are concerned.
The recent Friday demonstration was pathetically staged by Pakistani Gov in collaboration with foreigners to show the world the insanity of Muslims when provoked.
Muslims should and must IGNORE these silly provocation. In doing so they will defeat the Satanic Cabal Elite who’s primary aim is to follow the edict of Albert Pike’s final round.
“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” Albert Pike.
Since the staged attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Muslim World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.
Thus far Pakistan was doing a good job of beating around the bushes to buy time. Recent Gov staged demonstration defies its policies.
Muslim world should absolutely avoid provoked confrontation and use that time to strengthen itself. As the clock go past 2012 without incident. The Satanic Cabal Elite are Doomed. Insha’ALLAH.
Imran Khan need to have a better counselor who is expert in Qura’n, Hadith, Bible and History of secret Societies to steer the future policies of Pakistan and Muslim World.
Assalamu-Elekum
“I have the utmost respect and agree with first amendment of US constitution and believe that it does protect the freedom of expression but this freedom has its limits…”
You may respect it, but you don’t understand it. To amend the 1st amendment free speech clause to prohibit criticism of religions and the religious would gut the amendment of any meaning or power.
If I don’t have the right to criticize that which I believe is wrong or incorrect, such as somebody else’s interpretation of their own faith and practice of that faith, then in the end I won’t be able to express my opinion about virtually anything.
If you can tell me that prohibiting criticism of this or that faith is flawless in its application where the truth is concerned, well hey man, prohibit away.
But of course you cannot do that. Restrictions of the type you are advocating for are a means of giving the religious, no matter what faith, free reign to believe and practice as they choose, even if it mean harming others or violating laws in the process.
And who’s to say who should be allowed to decide what is and is not objectionable? You? Me?
In America, Christians are often criticized, joked about, mocked … Jesus is mocked… you name it, but for those who are the faithful in America, they let such criticism slide off their backs and move on.
Often times, criticism of Religions or those who practice them are justified. Legitimate, factual criticism would disappear under the scheme you advocate for.
Better to develop some thicker skin, accept that the Prophet and Allah, being all mighty, cannot be harmed by mere earthly petty pokes and jabs, and get on with your life, and let others get on with theirs.
Just because you mock Jesus doesn’t mean Muslims have to mock him
Free speech is not Hate Speech. Speech based on bias and bigotry is not acceptable under any constitution. There are special laws against Anti-Semitism.
You have the right to defame and bully Muslims, but cannot dare to do it against Jews, Women or Gays.
On cannot refute the holocaust or fly the Nazi flag in Europe, but one can curse Muslims
All this reeks of double standards
In America, one absolutely can mock women, Jews, and gays. It happens all the time. It is frowned upon, but it is not against the law. And the US Constitution does not prohibit it in any way. Physical acts of violence against a Jew or a gay in America will often be classified as a “hate crime,” though many believe this is just a crude attempt to criminalize “thoughts,” as such attacks are already covered in the laws as “assaults” or “murder.” What does tacking “hate crime” do to change the act or its severity?
Muslims often mock and insult non-Muslims. Have you never heard an Imam refer to unbelievers as “infidels” or “dogs”? Jews are routinely “defamed” across the Muslim world in similar terms.
There is no double standard under the law in America. All are equally susceptible to mocking, and to respect and reverence as well.
Public opinion may sway one way or another, and at times comes down harder on one group or another. But bias, which is an inherent trait among humans everywhere, cannot in any practical way be “controlled” in America under the law. As everyone has biases, it would be silly to try.
In America, much reliance is placed on “the court of public opinion.” If someone or some group is behaving in an extreme way (however that may be assumed at the time), public scrutiny, mocking, scorn, or perhaps even praise, has the effect of discouraging or encouraging that behavior. It has a calibrating effect.
And, while not always 100% effective, it is preferable to attempting to make laws that target bias or bigotry, because who is to say, under the law, that what one man says is punishable while what another man says is not? Even language that is “inciting” cannot guarantee action. The call to “KILL THEM” may or may not result in someone actually acting on that call. This is why mere words, even hateful words, are not typically punishable under the law in America. I grant, however, that there are some exceptions – the “Yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a theater” as an example. But it is a very fine line and to this day in America it is not completely agreed upon.
Humans are fallible. Even those among us of high education, learning, and experience can be wrong.
Even reaching for a holy book for wisdom is problematic as there are as many interpretations of such a book as there adherents to that faith.
Free speech guarantees the greatest level of freedom – the freedom to express opinions, to right wrongs, to change course.
There is a saying, and at the risk of sounding crude, it goes like this: “Rear ends are like opinions. Everyone has one and most of them stink.” The point is that, regardless, we should have the right to say what is on our minds.
Attempts to restrict speech in terms the article above suggests are destined fail.
I will add one good reason why in the West, “defamation of religion” is not part of our laws. I should speak for America only.
Let’s assume that the Constitution prohibited “defamation/blasphemy” against Christianity (Pakistan actually does have such a provision, only regarding Islam, does it not?).
Say you’re not a Christian, but your neighbor across the street is. You are leaving for work one morning. You see your neighbor. You say “Good morning!” to your neighbor. You do this despite the fact that he doesn’t like you and never has, something you’re quite aware of. He grumbles and goes back into his house. You think to yourself, “oh well” and leave for work.
Later that day, you are arrested by the police and charged with insulting Christianity. It is your neighbor who has filed the charges. You are accused, the police inform you, of having hollared “Jesus was stupid!” at your Christian neighbor and that there were three witnesses nearby who saw and heard the whole thing.
Under the law, how do you defend yourself? If the neighbor and three “witnesses” claim they heard you say “Jesus was stupid” earlier that morming, and no one was around who could counter it on your behalf, you’re going to jail, or worse.
That is the danger in criminalizing speech. Doing so opens the door to abuse of the law.
Who is safe? Even your fellow Christians in the neighborhood could run afoul of such a law with one wrong word before a grumpy, revengeful neighbor.
Joseph:
Thank you for genuinely engaging Pakistanis, Muslims are those who want dialogue. Please ignore the flamebait comments which may hit below the belt.
While your comments are logical and make sense, however there are anomolies and prescendence. “Free Speech” is not sacrosanct in America or anywhere else in the world. There are exceptions.
1) In the US, one cannot shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. It is not considered “Free Speech”.
2) In the US, one could not publish the detailed plans to create a Nuclear Bomb. That was banned. (I am not proposing that it should be available< i am jsut making a point here)
3) While the detials on creating a bomb does exist in the Encyclopdia Britanica, a US citizen was disallowed to put in on the web.
4) In the US for decades the Native Americans, women and African Americans had no right to any speech (even though the First Amendment was in vogue).
5) Anti-Semitism is not considered feee speech and falls under a law unto itself.
6) hate speech is not considered Free Speech and is punishable under US law
7) Incitement to violence or murder is not considered Free Speech and is punishbale under US Law
8) While deragatory comments against Black, Women, Jews, Handicapped folks, Children may be technically allowed, but no politicians or artist can really make them and survive politcally
9) Pedophilia is not accepted as Free Speech and any communication encouraging it is not covered by the First Amendment
10) In Europe, anyone speaking against the Holocust is gagged. Holocust Denial is not covered under Free speech
11) Flying the Swastika is illegal is most European countries and is not considered Free Speech
12) Almost all European and other countries have Blasphemy Laws–though they are not used to prosecute. The point remins that there are limits to Free speech
13) Bullying in schools in whatever form is not covered under the First Amendment and there are laws against it.
14) Most recently the Frech magazine was prohibited from publishing nude pictures of the Royal family. So there are limits to free speech
Muslims are saying
a) “Elevate Islamphoboa to the same level as Anti-Semitism and give it the same protection”
b) “Consider blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad, Moses, Jesus, David, and against Budha, Krishna and others as hate speech” and do not allow it. This is simple and should be considered as a legal basis to stop the agression against Islam.
Peace, Shalom and Salaam to you
With all due respect Sir, you are wrong, and very wrong–and lack of knowledge on your part makes you an oplogist for Islamphobic bigtory.
>>why in the West, “defamation of religion” is not part of our laws
Actually Sir: Blasphemy Laws exist in almost all Western countries. In fact when British Muslims tried to invoke the UK Blaspheme Law, the courts there decided that British Balsphemey Laws only protected Chritianity and other religions remained unprotected.
Lets pick a few countries which have been in the news:
Denmark
In Denmark, Paragraph 140 of the penal code is about blasphemy. The paragraph has not been used since 1938 when a Nazi group was convicted for antisemitic propaganda. The hate speech paragraph (266b) is used more frequently. Abolition of the blasphemy clause was proposed in 2004, but failed to gain a majority
In Austria, two sections of the penal code relate to blasphemy:[2]
§ 188 : Vilification of Religious Teachings
§ 189 : Disturbance of Religious Practice
Canada
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.” Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an “identifiable group.” The Code defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Netherlands
The Kingdom of the Netherlands prohibits blasphemy by a provision in its penal code. Article 147 punishes (by up to three months in jail or a fine of the second category (i.e. up to €3,800[34])) anyone who publicly, orally or in writing or depiction, offends religious feelings by scornful blasphemy.[35] Furthermore, article 429bis prohibits displaying blasphemous material at places visible from the public road.[36] The law came into being in the 1930s after the Communist Party called for Christmas to be dropped from the list of state holidays.[37] The last successful conviction under Article 147 took place in the early 1960s when a student newspaper was fined 100 guilders for satirizing the New Testament.[37] The law against blasphemy complements laws against racial discrimination and incitement to violence.
In 1966, the Public Prosecution Service prosecuted Gerard Reve under Article 147. In his novel Nader tot U (Nearer to Thee), Reve describes the narrator’s sexual intercourse with God, who is incarnated in a donkey. The court of first instance convicted Reve. He appealed. In April 1968, an appeal court quashed the conviction.[38][39]
In November 2008, Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin expressed the country’s coalition government’s intent to repeal Article 147.[38] He said the government would strengthen the legislation against discrimination to prohibit any insult to any group of people.[40] In May 2009, the government decided to leave the law as it is. The decision followed a high court ruling in which a man who had put up a poster that read “stop the tumour that is Islam” was found not guilty of insulting a group of people on the grounds of their religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have laws that make reference to blasphemy.[1] Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws — a provision based on a similar colonial era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 — states:
Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.The history of Maryland’s blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland. But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutionalPennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional.[1] On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page Opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that the Pennsylvania’s blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Here are examplesof enforecement of Blasphemy Laws in the USA
Didn’t the National Portrait Gallery–heavily funded by the American taxpayer–just pull an item from a privately funded exhibit because it offended some Christians? In early December, an 11-second video clip of ants crawling over a crucified Jesus was removed after complaints by the Catholic League and a comment by then soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner that the video was a misuse of taxpayer money. U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) then called for Congress to launch an official investigation into the matter
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Barry_Lynn/2011/01/blasphemy_laws_alive_and_well_in_the_us.html
We do see you totally influenced by propoganda and your knowledge stems from bias and bigotry that you may have heard.
Its not just “Physical violence” against Jews or Gays that is considered a “hate Crime”. Graffiti, or an article could also be considered a “Hate Crime”. In fact in NJ assault could be described as “threat of violence” a charge often used in Domestic Violence cases. A mere look or gesture could be construed as a “threat”. Sexual Harrasment Laws prohibit “leering” or “Lewd gestures”.
So there are pretty hard limits on “Free Speech”.
“infidels”? There is no such word in Arabic. “Infidel” is a Crusader term actually used for Muslims. In Islam the term for Christians and Jews is “Alh-ekitaab” (People of the book). Actually there is special reverence for Christians and there is an entire chapter in the Quran on the innocence of Mary. It is called “Surah e Maryam”. (Chapter on Mary).
You are right about rear ends—Your opinion could be considered as such too!
Most Anti-Semitic laws were fomed in the 70s, and women and gays got protected in the past twoenty thirty years. The day is not far when Islamphobia will be restricted in the US too.
In the US, “blasphemy” laws, while certainly still on the books from the olden days (some probably pre-US Constitution), are considered obsolete.
There is a concept in America, not having always been applied according to our Constitution, called “equality before the law.” As “hate” crime legislation has increased in America, new groups have been added to the list of groups to be protected from such “crimes.” It seems we’ve done a very good job lately of designating this or that group “special” and therefore treated differently under the law. Given that the aim of “equality before the law” is to render everyone – regardless of religion, ethnicity, etc – “equal,” this is a disturbing development, for it is essentially a step backwards.
As you can see, I am not terribly sanguine about such “special” designations in the here and now. Earlier in US history, there was certainly “institutional” bias, no question, and strong actions (laws) were needed to correct those injustices.
Such past indiscretions may seem ironic, given the wording of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights (the amendments), but then early America cannot (and does not) claim to have been all that enlightened when it came to slavery, people of color, or of various religious persuasions, to say the least. American is not alone in this.
I am personally disheartened that THAT history is often more at the forefront of discussions about America than are the gains made that put us where we are today.
So, no, the application of our Constitution with regards to the Bill of Rights, including the free speech clause, has by no means been “perfect” or “pure” in application. But, I do not believe the Founders who constructed that Constitution intended necessarily that it be treated as such. Technically, the Bill of Rights refers to restrictions placed upon the Federal government, not the states or the people. That left a lot of room for interpretation at the local level, where the Founders believed the needs of the people, region by region, could best be decided.
I believe it was not until the early 1900′s that the Bill of Rights, at least some of them, were seen as extending beyond the top-line Federal realm. Federal jurisdiction over free speech, for example, is seen to include the state and local levels now. State and local governments are not allowed create speech laws, generally, that override Federal speech codes.
This is why the prevailing understanding of free speech and rights today permeates those lower levels of government. And, it may be one reason blasphemy laws are rarely acceptable to most people in America. There are some quarters, such as fundamentalist, evangelical Christians who would like to see them implemented, but beyond that, you will rarely find any supporters for it.
Such laws are simply too onerous, in theory and in practice. Moreover, you will not find many people in America who see God and the Prophets as “insultable” or “harmable.” Such views are often mocked. They don’t stand up to reason, would be the way to put it, at least for most.
At the same time, many among the faithful will certainly find it offensive when others openly mock them, but the view is that the better part of valor is to disregard it. Religion in America is a primarily “individual” pursuit, which is consistent with a society that has always put the individual rights at the top of the order. That is, one can be born a Christian, but later in life feel something is missing – whatever – and see that Hinduism has elements that appeal. I read of a Muslim women in America who had been born a Christian but who later “stumbled” on Islam. She liked some stories she had heard about Muhammad, one a credible story from the Hadiths that suggested Muhammad was respectful toward women. She liked that and merged that into her ongoing spiritual journey.
But it was HER journey, and there was (and is) no law saying she should be punished for doing so.
This, I’d assume, is quite unlike what Muslim religious life is like in Pakistan or other primarily Muslim countries. There, my understanding is that Islam is much more central to not just individual life but society at large and the individual is subordinated to it.
Religion in America does NOT hold that position… Not because religion is not important and central to many Americans… it is. But religious life, while not necessarily subordinated to US law, exists largely within the context of US law. US law strives, in concert with the US Constitution, to not favor one religion over another. There is no “state” church here. This has not always been the case, as history shows, but it was the intent and the goal of the US Constitution, once adopted.
Britain to this day has a state church. Pakistan has institutionalized Islam into its Constitution. It is not easy being a Christian or a Jew in Pakistan, and that is in no small part because Pakistan has made Islam its “state” religion. You cannot be free to practice another religion in equal standing with everyone else under such a system. When the rules dictate that you subordinate yourself to a single religion, diversity of thought will have a tough time, will it not?
America’s Constitution, or its Declaration of Independence, may refer to a “creator” but that creator is not affiliated with any one religion. This had the additional advantage of suggesting that the rights we Americans enjoy are not conferred upon us by other men, but come from the “creator,” which, depending on what you believe, can be God or the Universe, or a flower, but not other humans. As such, no human can take those “God-given” rights away.
One such right, while not applied all the time with perfect integrity, is free speech. And while I cannot claim to have done as much research as others commenting here, I will rely on my gut and what I understand having lived my life in the US “system.” I don’t know any other way to explain it.
Imagine a law in the United States that prohibited insulting any religion, not just Christianity or Islam or Judaism – any and all religions. I believe, consistent with the negative issues cited by me above about problematic, group-oriented hate crime legislation, that such a law would create more division, not less. One outcome might certainly be an increase in strife between the various religious groups. Much as “political correctness” has made speaking one’s mind more difficult even in America, the same would happen between the religious, perhaps especially between the religious and the non-religious. No slight would go unturned in either direction.
And how do we interpret the new law? Does it specifically refer to insults against God, or God and the respective Prophet; or to how the religious dress compared to others; did somebody look at somebody funny? Where does an actionable slight begin and end? Would the law be limited, and if so, how would it be enforced? Would such a law clog an already overburdened legal system with the most petty of gripes? How much time and money are we as a people willing to exhaust with a totally new law with problematic interpretation and enforcement “rules”?
And further, and perhaps more important, what are the political motivations behind those pushing the adoption of such a law? Does someone “win” while someone else “loses”? In Pakistan, does the anti-blasphemy against Islam clause in its Constitution result in any clear losers?
Probably.
It is my hope that such a law will never take hold in America. It would be a step backward in a country that has come farther than most in promoting a society that sees the individual – at least thus far – as the ultimate “group” to be protected from the tyranny of the mob and the tyranny of an oppressive government.
Sorry to make this so long a response. I’m not sure what else I can say. America has lots of ideals. But, as with any other nation, we are a nation of simple, humble humans struggling to achieve a better world.
America does not have a monopoly on opinions that may offend others, it should be noted. I will not apologize for our free speech standards. They work to create more tolerance, not less. Eliminating them or watering them down will only bring more division and strife. This is already in progress, and it is a tragedy.
Sounds counter-intuitive to many, I’m sure, but it nevertheless is true.
I will end my participation in this thread at this time. Take care.
Dear mr JOSEPH,
I hope u learn somethings from above discussions, rather deetailed and through. U may not know the real differences between ‘ islam’ and judeo-christiianity or Hinduism. Even many muslims are unaware of these.
– Islam’s prophet is a ” historic person” unlike bibles mythical persons i e Moses, David, jesus or his desciples, mark, luke, etc.
– So pples poke fun on mythical heroes and great mythical feats they demonstrated– walking on water, reviving the dead etc.–certainely unbelievable by common sense. So poking funs at them has been from the beginning. BUT Dissent was a death sentence–in history-u know it better.
– Christianity and judaism ” Guaranty” heaven for their folks only–rest are hell bound–u know this.
– ISALM became the very first religion via a historic person that guarantees ” Heaven” to all pple with ” Good conduct” irrespective of faith. A radical idea that grew at the cost of Church. Mohammed became the worst enemy of both jewish and christianity–priest/rabbaies–potential danger to pocketbook.
Since 7th century, 100s of anti mohammed polemics/books etc has not stopped its growth at the cost of mainely christianity/ hinduism. Prophet’s chracters and his marriages had been the principle targets— but to no avail because most stuff had been lies as HE is pretty well documented–as man of history.
Why muslims are reacting with viloence is entirely different subject– Those who react perhaps dont know the essence of Islam and its social radicalism as their countries are not run on Prophet’s islam; The Islamic core discredfits,
1) Biblical GENTIC races, Superior semites etc–All are equal.
2) Priestcraft-magic-holy water/holy bread–an heritage of ancient egypt–borrowed by early chritian.NO need for a priest to pray; Man got freed to pray directly; NO THITH means HUNGRY priest.
3) human right -social justice for all MUslims/non muslims.
4) heaven for all based on good social deed not Faith; Bad muslim will be hell bound as any one else.
Thus we have not seen the last of these incitefull drama. I see that main threat of islam is to coptic priest craft. Under a successful new system and social justice in egypt–christianity can loose steam. The film is rooted in this fear.
So you first say that the West does not have blasphemy laws. When proof was shown, you say that they are not enforced. Of course you ignored the actual dates of conviction for blasphemy crimes both in the US and Europe.
So, we have shown you that “Freedom of Speech” is not sacrosanct and there are excpections.
Muslims ask for blaspehmey against ALL the prophets be considered hate speech because it incites violence, is bullying, is hate-speech and should not be accepted as free speech.
Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, to pretech the Muslims–else there would be no reason to create the country. It has to have Islam as the state relgion, however all minorities should be protected.
The golden age of world Jewry was under Muslim Spain in Al-ANdulusia under Sharia Law–when Hasdai Shaprut was the Commander in CHief and Grand Vazier of the kingdom, and under Saldidn Egypt where Moses Maimonides was the Surgeon General and he wrote all his books on Judaism. As soon as the Sharia Law in Spain was abolished Jews faced the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, death and deportation.
@ Dr Abdul jamil khan & Akhbar Navees
Mr. Joseph is a damage control personal activated as apparent by his style of writing and some knowledge of blasphemy laws in Pakistan.
His perception, “It is not easy being a Christian or a Jew in Pakistan, and that is in no small part because Pakistan has made Islam its “state” religion. You cannot be free to practice another religion in equal standing with everyone else under such a system”, is absolutely incorrect and baseless.
Minority religion is absolutely protected by Islamic code of Jurisprudence. I will not go into his mind control game as they are well trained and experts. However even these well trained personal have drawbacks. For instance not knowing the history or subject or just plainly brainwashed.
The subject is not the US constitution or bill of rights which I myself hold dear to my heart as it is nothing but Islamic Shariah masked as US constitution. Though it is in danger from within by greedy bankers and corporations.
It is well known facts that the minorities in Muslim Countries were targeted by either non-Muslim forces or by young Muslim bribed to take a package to deliver with the non-Muslim holding a remote control. This was done in the past and still done currently for political agendas.
Jews dressed as Muslims have targeted Jewish people and their Synagogue so as to make them feel unsafe and to force them to migrate to Israel.
Its been many decades the controlled media entertainment has been bombarding negative propaganda against Islam to control their mind and make them ready for the events of 9/11.
Again 5 Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen dancing on the streets of New Jersey. Many Israelis were caught red handed with smoking gun, but released. When asked why did you release them, it was said its ‘Classified’. So much for the ‘Honesty’ and ‘Freedom of Press’ and free speech.
They made a false claim and Murdered Million of Muslims on the way and still continue. If this man is so interested in freedom of speech, ask him to challenge the official theory of NIST.
No plane hit building 7 and it came down on its foot print. Does one has to lie that the building came down due to office fires as a result of two towers hit by planes, for the sake of freedom of speech, and then go around the globe committing Muslims Genocide?
This is the reason of Movie. Provoke them to attack Jews in Muslim countries and Coptic Christians in Egypt, so the west will come to their rescue and Murder yet more Millions while capturing their wealth and resources and Israel will have its dream come true of Greater Israel, from Nile to Euphrates.
For reasons above and the fact there is absolutely no evidence from Qura’n to implement Blasphemy Laws as understood by majority of Muslims, that, I wrote to absolutely ignore the provocation.
Assalamu-Elekum
I will make one more brief comment about blasphemy laws in America cited above.
There are many, many laws still “on the books” in America, down to the local level that, if challenged as to their constitutionality, would be struck down.
But the key is “challenged.” If a law is passed that anyone with common sense can see is unconstitutional but which nobody challenges, the law will likely stand.
In the case of Maryland v. Irving K. West, you see an example of this. Many of these laws are outdated and forgotten until someone who knows of their existence is motivated to apply them. Then, they either succeed in getting their way using the letter of the law, or, those whom they challenge push back and challenge what they see as an unconstitutional law. In this case, the law ws duly struck down.
I personally wish that our legislators would spend some quality time reviewing “the books” and ridding them of these outdated and largely forgotten laws, but I’m not holding my breath.
One must also remember the power of public persuasion to force the hand of public or private officials into action. In the case of the “ants crawling over the baby Jesus” “art,” the fact that the exhibit including this “art” was tax-payer funded goes a long way in defining why the exhibit was taken down. The government of the United States is held tightly by the ACLU and other rights groups to a standard that would prevent it from “supporting” or “denigrating” any religion, because ostensibly it operates under the principle of “Separation of church and state.” To avoid appearing to be supporting or promoting a viewpoint (in this case a clear poke in the eye at Christians and Jesus), the publicly-owned (ie., government-run”) Smithsonian was “encouraged” to remove the ants-over-Jesus element.
If the exhibit had been that of a private citizen or gallery, there might have been equal condemnation of the exhibit by some in the public, but the government could not force the exhibit’s closure.
Again, the US is not perfect in its application of many of its laws, though there is a thread of consensus which includes, among many others, concepts such as “separation of church and state,” “equality before the law,” etc. These guiding principles steer how we approach these issues.
As an example of how confused it can get, you are all probably aware of the protests in New York some time ago against the “Cordoba Project,” a proposed Muslim Community center to be built at “Ground Zero” of the terrorist attack against the Twin Towers.
Public opinion in New York State was majority opposed to the project by a significant margin. Protesters converged on the proposed site and expressed their strong opinions that the community center was at the very least an exercise in poor taste and judgement by the developers, given the facts behind the attack and those who committed it.
Many on the Left in the US were outraged at the protesters, going so far as to claim that the protesters were violating the 1st Amendment clause providing for the freedom of religion. They further accused the protesters of being “constitutionally illiterate.” It was very amusing.
In fact it was THEY, the left-wing critics, who were misguided in their zeal. The fact was that as far as the Cordoba Project was concerned, all government agencies responsible for reviewing and approving the project had approved the project. There was nothing holding up the project in legal terms. They were free to proceed. So, consistent with US laws and the Constitution, there was no discrimination against the Cordoba Project or any of the project leaders. There was no discrimination against religious practice.
However, as mentioned earlier, there was strong public opinion that the project should move somewhere else, preferably farther away. After all, while many claimed the location wasn’t really “Ground Zero,” the building the project had purchased had been condemned after one of the plane’s landing gear struck and damaged it. I’d call that “Ground Zero.”
But despite the protesters’ concerns about the project, and despite New Yorkers’ overwhelmingly negative view of the project, the project leaders nevertheless have stayed the course, refusing to move the project elsewhere. The system worked. They might have moved in light of public opinion, but they didn’t and they were not required to. Had they chosen to leave, many would have erroniously claimed their religious rights had been violated, but that would have been incorrect. Leaving by choice is not the same as leaving by force. It is not unusual for private entities who find themselves at the hot end of a controversy to bend to public pressure. That is differenct from the government forcing them to bend.
The Imam overseeing the Cordoba Project, one Feisal Abdul Rauf, was interviewed during the controversy and made some comments about the perception many Muslims around the world have of the US and Muslims living here.
He said:
“In spite of the polls, the fact is that American Muslims are very happy and they thrive in this country. One of the misperceptions that exists in the Muslim world, which needs to be fixed, is the perception that Muslims in America are living in very, very, very bad circumstances. They cannot practice religion freely.
“It is not the truth at all. The fact is, we are practicing. We fast, we pray, we do our prayers. We are able to do that. The laws protect us. Our political systems protect us. And we enjoy those freedoms in this country. And the Muslim world needs to recognize that.”
The American “system” is designed to allow for free expression but at the same time prevent “tyranny” of the majority against minorities, AND vice versa. That was the intent and continues to be the intent. But America is a work in progress, not a perfect synthesis. Many of the concepts we attempt to live by do not always present clear solutions, so we do the best we can.
Do not look at a lack of perfection as evidence that we’re all a bunch of hypocrites.
It’s not that simple.
Thanks for the conversation. Best of luck to all.
Your apoligist behavious not withstanding…here is some food for thought
FACT: There are blasphemy laws in the US and we have shown you dates when they were used
FACT: Many have been prosecuted under them
FACT: British Common Law in vogue in the US is based on Biblical Ten Commandments
FACT: Blasphemy Laws and PC writ provide exceptions to the venerated First Amendment
FACT: For Decades Black, Native Americans, Gays, Women, Mexicans/Latinos did not have rights despite First Ameendment
FACT: Hate Speech, “Yelling Fire in a crowded theater”, and Anti-Semitism is not allowed despite “Free Speech”
FACT: After the cannonization of the Patriot’s Law, almost all US Citizens can be stripped of citizenship and any thing that they say will be used against them. First Amendment has been killed if the words “TerroR suspect” is used
FACT: Anti-Semitism falls under Hate speech and not allowed
FACT: Speech aginst Jews, Gays, Women though techncally allowed in the US, is not acceptable and is poltical suicide.
FACT: Speech against Muslims is acceptable. It is open hunting season on Muslims and has been for a decade.
FACT: Muslim suffering is not mentioned or known.
The First Amendment is not sacrosanct! It has a lot of expections.
Muslims ask that “Islamaphobia” be treated as the same Anti-Semitism (after all Arabs are also Semites)
The Islamophobic brigand
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-133843-The-Islamophobic-brigand
Mir Adnan Aziz
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
From Print Edition
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment. However, the US Supreme Court has held that this is not an absolute right. Several categories of speech are excluded; some of the exceptions are: the Miller test, slander, speech that incites violent reactions and the use of false allegations (words or acts) with intent to harm others.
The Innocence of Muslims has created an understandable furor in the Muslim world. The film describes Islam “as a cancer,” is vulgar and laden with sexual innuendos against the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The work of a depraved mind, this film is extremely provocative and was designed to enrage. President Obama’s response espousing respect for all faiths and Hillary Clinton’s claim that she finds the film ‘disgusting’ seems, at best, frivolous given the committed affront.
Hillary Clinton asserts in the same breath that “We [the US] do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.” In plain English we may not like it but the enabling ground shall always be there for more sacrilegious and extremely offensive ventures. Not to be left behind, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says, “It’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.” Google said: “This video, widely available on the Web, is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube.” However, Google had no qualms when it removed 1,710 videos and closed their affiliated accounts because, as Google put it, “a substantial number of those videos concerned Holocaust denial and defense of Holocaust deniers.”
What we in the Muslim world fail to understand are the dual standards followed on this issue by the West, ably led by Washington. It may take a voluminous book to enumerate cases in which the misnomer of free speech has been castigated and punished in the West. Post 9/11 laws have become an enabling guise to perpetrate extreme excesses at will. The dichotomy too is brazenly blatant if one denies the Holocaust.
Tarek Mehanna, a twenty-nine year old American Muslim pharmacist, was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison. He was accused of “conspiring to support Al Qaeda” by “taking to the Internet to try to spread the terror group’s message.” All charges, as are evident from his messages now in public domain, were false. Javed Iqbal, a Pakistani-American and a 25 year resident of New York, was sentenced to 69 months in prison. His sin was to offer to broadcast Hezbollah’s Al Manar television channel for viewership in the US. The Dutch far-right politician, Geert Wilders, was compared to a Nazi guard in a cartoon posted by Joop.nl. It had to be removed after threats to the website. However, Wilder’s fitna and his rant of the Holy Quran being “the Muslim Mein Kampf” was defended as his given right to express himself. One can quote many more examples of the myth of freedom of speech in the West.
The mere denial of the Holocaust is a crime in many Western countries. German author and historian, Ernst Zundel, has spent seven years of his life behind bars as a result of expressing his viewpoints and opinions about the Holocaust. French President François Hollande stripped John Galliano, a fashion designer, of the Légion d’honneur (France’s highest public distinction). This followed his conviction on charges of ‘public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity.’ He had made anti-Semitic remarks. Actor and director Mel Gibson was branded an anti-Semite when he made the film The Passion of the Christ.
Islamophobic rhetoric, caricatures and movies pave the way for a backlash that has led to world-wide protests and the killing of Americans in Benghazi and Muslims in their home countries. In a decade Muslims will account for nearly 9 percent of Europe’s mainland population. This has led to an increasingly potent group exploiting the West’s post 9/11 fears, and institutionalising Islamophobia. In the US alone, American Muslims, accounting for less than one percent of the population, have been the target of 15 percent of religious hate crimes since the last year. More than a decade after 9/11, polls show that nearly 50 percent Americans believe that Islamic values are incompatible with American ones.
Washington should spare us the freedom spiel. History is a testament to the ‘freedom’ that was wrought upon the indigenous natives of the US and the Western hemisphere. Millions in Iraq and Afghanistan are the latest victims of this ‘freedom’, while Pakistan and Iran are in the cross-hairs. Never have morals and justice seen such a lopsided equation; never did freedom invoke such nightmarish reality. However, our response to the despicable film has led to the death of 23 of our own, with more than 200 wounded and property worth billions gutted. In doing so, we only strengthen the demented Nakoulas and Terry Jones of the Islamophobic brigand. We need to channelise our strength and resources to force Western governments to rectify their biased and lopsided stance on this issue.
With the looming US elections, the Muslim lobby there should create a united stand that makes it clear that their vote is tied to this imperative condition. Muslims in European countries should do the same. The OIC has to take a more pro-active role and get out of its slumber mode. Our diplomatic missions in the West should take an unambiguous and forceful stand. By announcing a holiday and performing their usual disappearance act, the government shares responsibility for the death and destruction. Musharraf played the ‘Taliban near Islamabad’ card to prove his relevance to Washington. Lal Masjid became the beginning of his end. The mysterious presence of masked men bearing the Al-Qaeda flag was something that even Musharraf’s relevance game missed. Playing unholy politics, as seen last Friday, in the name of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is in itself a sacrilege. It may yet be the undoing of this dispensation too.
The writer is a freelance contributor.Email: miradnanaziz@gmail.com