Blasphemy and Free Speech


IN A RECENT issue of Imprimis from Hillsdale College — a publication read by almost two million people every month — is an excellent article by Paul Marshall, adapted from a lecture he delivered February 3rd this year. Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:

A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.

Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack.

Click here to read the whole article (and share it with your friends).


jim patterson 7:03 AM  

Taking the initial paragraph about insult to religion. Let's set two ground parameters:
Us -- whether religious or irreligious, the koran has everyone 'not muslim' covered since it only makes the distinction of 'believers'(muslims) and 'disbelievers'.
The disbelievers are called the "open enemy" of the believers, and assigned various other attributes -- none of which of are good. (koran: "verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies." Hilali-khan 4.101)

In detail:
The entire sura 98 is one of at least two places where the disbeliever is called, by the god of islam (allah) "The worst of created beings" (or similar wording depending on the translation used.) Specifically, 98.6.
A stand-alone phrase in 2.85 tells the believers that if they believe in part of the book but do not believe in all of the book they are going to hell. (I suggest the Hilali-Khan translation, but all translations give a similar thought.)
If someone is truly a muslim, then they also must believe that in matters decided by "allah" and muhammad they have no option but to agree. (that's 33.36. "... And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. " --hilali-khan translation.)

What did the pagans of mecca say about the head muslim -- muhammad rusallah? Tabari, Volume VI, p. 101 : [The Meccans said:] “We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided out traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him.”

Mo made a life's work out of annoying other faiths -- or non-faiths........the meccans were no more pagan than he --- except that they were tolerant of other religions..........

So my point here, even though there is plenty of further unmentioned detail, is that muslims (not the many MINOs among us) are continually insulting the kaffir merely by claiming allegiance -- complete fealty -- to allah (and muhammad).

jim (the closer I look at islam, the uglier it gets.)

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP