Left: A member of the Muslim Khawateen Markaz, a Kashmiri women's separatist group, holds a placard in Srinagar, India, during a Sept. 17 protest against the "Innocence of Muslims," a U.S. film they consider blasphemous to Islam. (CNS photo/Fayaz Kabli, Reuters) Right: An exterior view Sept. 12 shows damage and debris to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which was attacked and set on fire by gunmen the previous day. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff members were killed in a rocket attack on their car by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's prophet Mohammed, Libyan officials said. (CNS photo/Esam Al-Fetori, Reuters)
Perhaps the only
good thing to come out of Muslim rioting in more than 20 countries last
September is that this has been extremely helpful in clarifying what Islam
teachesand what we can expect if its influence expands in the West.
Take the issue of
blasphemy. The rioting was supposedly sparked by a crude video mocking
Muhammad. Westerners understand little about Islam, and it’s only because of
incidents like this that they are beginning to realize that under sharia law,
blasphemy is a crime punishable by death. Moreover, we are now beginning to
understand that parts of sharia law apply not only to Muslims but to everyone.
For example, three years ago Molly Norris, a cartoonist at The Seattle Weekly, initiated “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” In response,
the late Anwar al-Awlaki issued a fatwa against her, forcing her to give up her
job, change her identity, and go into hiding. The upside of this, as Joe Biden
might put it, is that Awlaki is dead and Norris is alive. The downside is that
Norris is still in hiding. She failed to grasp in time the new rules of the
game: Islam must be free from insult.
The 57-member
Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has for many years been pushing
the United Nations to adopt and enforce universal blasphemy laws. The
defamation of a prophet would then be a criminal offense in Canada and the US,
as it is in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Muslims want other faiths to join them
in their “stop defamation” campaign, and it is, of course, a great temptation. Who
wants to have their religion defamed? Still, it is a temptation to be avoided. The
defamation laws are aimed at strangling legitimate criticisms of Islam,
including criticisms that some believers may feel duty-bound to make. If you
have no plans to defame any religion, you may think you have nothing to worry
about, but think again. Christianity itself is inherently a criticism of
Islam’s claim to have the final revelation. Simply to assert the divinity of
Christ is a blasphemy of the highest order according to the Koran. Those who
think that anti-blasphemy laws will somehow protect the interests of all
religions haven’t quite grasped the big picture.
Yet Islam’s
anti-blasphemy campaign is gaining ground. On September 15, European Parliament
president Martin Schulz said in a statement, “I strongly denounce any attempt
to ridicule Islam.” About the same time, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said,
“When some people use freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others
values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.” More ominously, it has been
revealed that Hillary Clinton’s State Department has been working with the OIC
for about two years to formulate restrictions on speech offensive to Islam. In
fact, we already are, in effect, enforcing Islam’s blasphemy laws. As is now
well known, the rioting and demonstrations across North Africa and the Middle
East in September were blamed on an amateurish film trailer produced by an
obscure filmmaker in Los Angeles. Accordingly, Muslim leaders around the world
immediately called for America to respond by enacting anti-blasphemy laws.
It’s tempting to
think, “Well, that will never happen here. We’re not about to give up our right
to free speech.” But in fact, the sentiments of the Islamists were echoed by
many in the US. Numerous government officials apologized for the insensitivity
of the film, a couple of MSNBC commentators suggested that people connected
with the film should be prosecuted as accessories to murder, and, in an address
to the UN, President Obama said “the future must not belong to those who
slander the Prophet of Islam”which, when you think about it, is really quite
an extraordinary statement. What would people think if he had said, “the future
must not belong to those who slander the Lord Jesus”?
Two days later, in
a move obviously designed to appease the Muslim world, the producer of the
video was brought in for questioning by half-a-dozen sheriff’s deputies,
providing a photo-op that was obligingly transmitted by the mainstream media.
He has since been jailed and is now serving a one-year sentenceostensibly for
probation violation. But those of a skeptical bent may be forgiven for doubting
that probation violation is the real reason for his incarceration. Instead, it
seems clear that we were trying hard to send a message to the Muslim world. In
effect: “We deeply respect your blasphemy laws. Behold, we have punished the
blasphemer.”
This is an
extremely dangerous state of affairs. It’s hard enough to find the truth about
Islam as it is, but if blasphemy laws are enacted it will be nearly impossible.
Why? Because there is no end to the things that Muslims find blasphemous and
offensive. Any criticism of Islam is considered offensive. Even honest
examination of Islam’s texts and teachings will be off-limits. Scholars and
theologians who write about Islam will find themselves subject not only to
fatwas but to prosecution by their own government.
We’re all familiar
with the old saying, “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” But what you don’t
know in regard to Islam can hurt you very badly. As Robert Spencer puts it,
“Such laws would leave us mute and defenseless before the advancing jihad.”
Spencer should
know. Although he is a leading authority on Islam, his speeches have been
cancelled on several occasions due to Muslim pressure. In the latest incident,
the Diocese of Worcester cancelled a talk he was to give to a Catholic men’s
conference. The diocese caved in to demands from Islamic groups that he be
disinvited. Spencer, the author of over a dozen books on Islam, is also
thoroughly conversant with Catholic doctrine as it relates to Islam. As the Worcester Telegram observed, “His is an
important voice in the ongoing debate over the nature of Islam and its relation
to other faith traditions.” Yet a word from a handful of Worcester-area Muslims
was enough to deny him a hearing. Perhaps, as is now the custom in many
parishes, the diocese can invite some friendly imam to come and explain Islam
to the men’s group.
Such acts of
appeasement are only a foretaste of what would happen should anti-blasphemy
laws be enacted. Did Muhammad actually receive a revelation from God? It would
be blasphemy to even raise the question. Are Christians being persecuted in
Muslim lands? The implication is offensive. Is the Muslim Brotherhood
influencing policy at the State Department? That’s Islamophobia. How far along
is the Islamic stealth jihad in this country? It will be hard to say, because
the media won’t be covering that story.
Much of the world
and many influential people here at home seem willing to suppress free speech
for the sake of peace. The argument is that no one should be allowed to say
anything that might provoke Muslims to anger or cause them to riot and kill.
Increasingly one hears that free speech should be subject to a test of
consequences. In other words, if Muslims in Cairo, Egypt riot because of
something said by someone in Cairo, Illinois, that person should have known
better. Why? Because, as a post-rioting statement from the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt declared, “The people’s anger and fury for their faith is invariably
predictable, often unstoppable.” In other words, be very careful what you say
about Islam. But, of course, to accept this standard is to give veto power over
speech to the mob.
The window of
opportunity for speaking honestly about Islam was shut long ago in many parts
of the world. It is now closing fast in the West. If recent events have taught
us anything, it’s that now is not the time to shut up about Islamnow is the
time to bone up on Islam and to broadcast what we find. We can no longer afford
to be blasé about the blasphemy issue.
Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes said that free speech protection would not extend to a man who
shouted “fire” in a crowded theater and caused a panic. Currently, that
doctrine is being used as a justification for suppressing speech that offends
Muslims. But what Justice Holmes actually said was that free speech guarantees would
not protect a man in
falsely shouting
“fire” in a theater. The proposed blasphemy laws, however, would prevent us
from shouting fire when there actually is fire. Well, there is a fire and it’s
spreading fast. It seems a reasonable thing to point it out while there is
still time.