Blasphemy and Freedom of Speech

I oppose the blasphemy law under all circumstances as it burdens Free Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion. Therefore I fully support the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publication of 12 blasphemous cartoons about the holy Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet himself would probably have chuckled at them in his time and let the matter rest at that. Instead, his fanatical psychopathic supporters whose intolerant mentality has not changed in the past 1,000 years have threatened to kill the Danish cartoonist.

More importantly, the matter has come up at the OIC that has decided that the matter should be referred to the U.N, and that all religions deserve protection from insult. A proposed UN resolution is to be tabled banning ‘attacks on religious beliefs’.

Let us consider carefully that if ‘all religions’ deserve protection, then abhorrent practices will no longer be subject to criticism. All religions if protected from criticism would mean that the Hindu religion that glorifies Sutte, or wife burning on the funeral pyre, would be considered above criticism. Evil practices would never be eliminated.

The Hindu religion to cite an example has the following distinctive cultural practices today: Cow worship, monkey worship, elephant worship, idol worship, urine gargle and even polyandry. None of these practices ought to be above criticism. Man is an animal with the capacity to evolve over time, and religions would stop evolving if protected from criticism or even insult and ridicule, all of which are legitimate and fair comment.

1400 years ago the Islamic punishment for theft or adultery may have met societal standards, but as we have become more civilized, amputation and stoning to death, both of which are claimed to be part of the Shariah, (despite the latters exclusion from the Holy Quran) have become unenforceable. People should not be silenced for lack of Free Speech from criticizing these laws or ridiculing their purported author.

Post-9/11, important questions have been raised regarding whether Islam condones terrorism, and the discussion should not be silenced just because a Danish newspaper decided to use satire as a weapon in this fight against religious extremism. In fact the newspaper should be commended for pushing the limits of the debate. It becomes very hard to say anything except flowery praise about Islam in today’s intellectual circles given the intolerant fanaticism of Islam’s followers.

Islam and Christianity both spread throughout the world by ‘attacking the religious beliefs’ of the civilizations they encountered. They spread because of Freedom of Speech, Press and religion (people were free to choose their religion or willing to risk religious persecution to change their faith).

In any event, no one should be put to death merely for hurting others ’religious feelings’ and sentiments. This is the height of religious intolerance and fanaticism embodied in law.