The Emir of Kuwait is faced at this very moment with the decision of approving a law that would impose the death penalty against unrepentant Muslims (and varying prison sentences upon others) who exercise their religious freedom of speech in a way deemed blasphemous. So far, this is the most extreme version of such a law in the region, and it is very surprising that it makes its appearance in enlightened Kuwait.
Furthermore, similar though less draconian versions of this law have been recently adopted in Egypt and Tunisia. One year ago, hopes were high for these countries to usher in a new age of freedom, but the Arab spring is being viewed increasingly as an eruption of serious local, regional and global dimensions that will take a long time before its true character and impact is understood. In the meantime, we are witnessing unprecedented excesses, such as these anti-blasphemy laws, that must be addressed thoughtfully and effectively.
It is not sufficient to advise these countries to restrict their anti-blasphemy laws to cases of incitement to imminent violence or national security. In the era of the Arab spring, these criteria are often satisfied. Take the example of the young Egyptian Copt Gamal Abdou Massoud. His religiously offensive comments about Islam on Facebook led to riots in his village that soon spread to neighboring ones. Seven houses were burnt, both Muslim and Coptic, and a high level meeting between Muslim and Coptic religious leaders was convened to calm the situation. The court sentenced him to three years in prison. One could argue that the anti-blasphemy law was justified in this case. In fact, in reaching its verdict, the court in the Massoud case specifically mentioned the twin grounds of incitement to violence and threatening national security.
Thus a demand upon Egypt that it only criminalize speech that incites to imminent violence may help in some cases, but would not change the result in this case. This speech incited riots. The same can be argued for other cases. In dealing with anti-blasphemy laws in this tinderbox, it is not enough to propose our standards. We need to be cognizant of the local circumstances and tailor a more effective solution to the problem. For example, Amba Yisanti of the Coptic Orthodox Church demanded parity of treatment in blasphemy cases, so that the law applies equally to Muslim offenders. That is a demand we American Muslims should vigorously support along with the previously mentioned standard. It is not only fair through the lens of international justice but also through an Islamic one, a fact that is important in Muslim countries.
As to executing offenders, it is wise to remember that the model proposed by the Kuwaiti law was discredited when Socrates was condemned to drink the hemlock. Many centuries later, we are still talking about Socrates and his ideas, not his judges. On a more practical level, an execution in Kuwait may temporarily intimidate potential offenders but will not solve the underlying problems which are political as well as religious. These will continue to simmer before they suddenly erupt, as in Bahrain, causing incalculable damage to the state. On the political level, draconian anti-blasphemy laws are misguided autocratic responses in a region which is just now attempting to rediscover its democratic roots. On the religious level, they violate various Qur'anic injunctions, such as "there shall be no compulsion in religion."
The problem of offensive speech is not solvable through executions or prison sentences, but through serious multifaceted education about respecting diversity, the opinions and faiths of others, interfaith understanding and collaborative community building. There is a long tradition in the Muslim World for that, although the recent surge of extremist ideology has wiped it from many memories.
It is time to revive this tradition in school education, internet websites, political discourse and community outreach. It is time to say "no" to the extremists loudly and unabashedly. They will not be allowed to steal and disfigure a great heritage. They will not be allowed to destroy harmony in otherwise peaceful societies. Most importantly, they should not be allowed to speak for the silent majority. I can think of no better weapon to defeat them than grass roots education as well as comprehensive and well-reasoned policies protecting all democratic rights, especially free speech.
For angry Muslims eager to protect their religion from verbal attacks, the Qur'an exhorts them to "restrain their anger and forgive others." It is appropriate to remember this important verse at a time when people across the region are rejecting authoritarianism in favor of democracy. It is time to move away from angry authoritarian responses, and adopt the Qur'anic recommendation to let the "common word" be the link among the faiths, which can be accomplished through interfaith education and outreach. We should demand that the young Massoud and others like him receive interfaith education not a prison sentence. This approach is similar to some UN Human Rights Council proposals. More importantly, if anger gives way to forgiveness and education, an older Massoud may become a close friend to his village neighbors instead of a bitter enemy.
Azizah al-Hibri is a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Richmond. She is writing this article in her personal capacity.
Blasphemy law in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blasphemy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anti-blasphemy law to go? - dr.dk/Nyheder/Andre_sprog/English
The Blasphemy of "Anti-Blasphemy" Laws | Midwestern Muslim
How Pakistan's Blasphemy Laws Are Tearing The Country Apart
AlbertMohler.com – The Deadly Logic of Anti-Blasphemy Laws
Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws | World news | The ...
but what to do with a medieval culture
that overwhelmingly supports the death penalty for women that have
affairs.How outrageous is that and how silent the media is.
I would like to respond to your comment.
He argued that the Qur'an itself (not to mention the rest) should be considered as an attack on all religions and, judging by the history of Islam, is a book that has inspired violence.
The government removed the judge, chastising him for admitting the case in the first place. The replacement judge dismissed the case saying that the law was not applicable, and that there was no direct evidence that the Qur'an inspires violence.
Shariah 1, Secularism 0.
"One could argue that the anti-blasphemy law was justified in this case." Does this apply to Fazil Say's case, as well? If not, why not? Does it depend on whether or not someone riots?
How about this one?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/egypt-comedian-found-guil_n_1449059.html
I think you are sending a terrible message.
How important is free speech?
Whereever and whenever there has been a totalitarian fascist government in human history among the most important restrictions is always suppressing free speech. I´m not a free speech absolutist however, incitement to violence or demonizing a group on a racial basis (Islam is not a race, duh) doesn´t belong in modern civilized society.
No, but it is a group. Groupism, defining a group for abuse, is a better way of approaching this than the narrower definition of racism.
From: http://www.impact-se.org/docs/reports/Egypt/EgyptMarch2004.pdf
A. The Attitude to the "Other"
• Judaism and Christianity are both respected as monotheistic religions and despised as unbelief. On the one hand, the Egyptian school textbooks stress the common human heritage of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and, on the other hand, they describe various aspects of Judaism and Christianity in negative terms. Islam is the only true religion and all other religions are viewed as false. Although the Torah and the Gospels are considered to be heavenly (i.e. revealed) books originally, it is claimed that they have been distorted by the Jews and the Christians, respectively. No adequate and objective information is given to the student about these two religions.
• Non-Sunnite Muslim sects and non-Muslim sects that originated in Islam are referred to in one religious (Azharite) textbook in mostly negative terms. No other information is provided.
Unless a riot starts, and then, irrational or not, there are one or more victims.
I find your view on this subject offensive, but I promise you i won't hold you responsible for the victims if I decided to riot over it.
We must not have any blasphemy law anywhere in the world. Blasphemy laws are the greatest danger to human rights the world has ever known; Azizah al-Hibri's thinking will be a backdoor way to introduce blasphemy laws for all religion. People in Egypt must understand that sometimes people make statements via actions against symbols, figures and items of a religion in order to assail bad leaders, express disbelief, declare breaks from religion and many other things. It is better to argue against the speech than simply rise in violence. The encouragement of dialogue over the use of violence is how best to reduce violence over religious speech; not using a backdoor to introduce blasphemy laws.
Azizah al-Hibri's stance amounts to support of international blasphemy laws.
Of course, people won't realize it, but their religiosity is actually a turn off to foreingers, and not a turn on. While they may scoff and laugh at this now, their religiosity will scare off and eventually enrage the Western world and the Far East. These two regions, the Far East in particular, are unaccustomed to or dispositioned towards religious fanaticism. So much for the Arab Spring. This is the Arab Fall. The true Arab winter is about to arrive, and this time the Arab governments have brought it on their on people, in some places with the people's consent.
Meanwhile the Western world(including developing Latin American countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Mexico) and the Far East(China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, etc.) will continue to prosper and be the crown jewels of the world and oases of peace while the islamic world will continue to be a violent backwater.
Such a sad future for a culture that once ruled nearly the entire known world. But, they chose this for themselves...I'm not going to force them to change, seeing as they will have to eventually if they wish to pull out of the seventh century mindset...
The argument for freedom of expression is rock solid. Lets not inch towards it by trying to convince others in half steps that don't hold up logically in debate - lets explain how it works, so when the countries do move in that direction, it will be grounded the proper logic, and done for the right reasons.