The Right Not To Obey Islamic Law
posted at 6:38 pm on April 23, 2010 by Laura
Many crimes take place in two locations. For example, a kidnapping begins at the primary crime scene where you are actually abducted. The secondary crime scene is where you are held hostage, and where your kidnapper can torture, rape or murder you at his leisure. That’s the entire point of going there; to bring you further under his control. Islamic attacks on free speech are an attempted kidnapping of western civilization. Compliance with those attacks represents going to the secondary crime scene. That’s what Comedy Central has done. The trouble is that these sorts of scenarios never turn out well for the victim.
At the heart of the South Park controversy is whether Trey Parker and Matt Stone – and by extension, Comedy Central – have the right not to obey Islamic law. Abu Talhah al Amrikee/Revolution Muslim thinks they do not; that it’s reasonable and normal that the death penalty be administered for the offense of insulting Islam:
Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post [on the Muslim website threatening the creators of the show], told Foxnews.com he wrote the entry to “raise awareness.” He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to “explain the severity” of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
“It’s not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome,” al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It’s just the reality.”
If I were to post my opinion that a likely outcome to his comment is a pack of furious New Yorkers, upon seeing this guy out on the street [insert address here], would tackle this guy and administer a righteous beating, I suspect Mr. al Amrikee might feel threatened. Ibrahim Hooper would be on every cable news show worrying about Islamophobia and explaining why we need to be more sensitive.
This is why Bill O’Reilly’s response is so disgraceful.
He would have advised them not to do it, and he thinks this will blow over. Why should we allow that, especially since it seems clear that South Park’s creators don’t want to let it blow over? Is there any other reason why they keep coming back to this topic? Madison Conservative wrote about Comedy Central’s decision,
There are lots of cracks about the phrase “the terrorists have won”. Well, this is one of the clearest, truest signs that they have. It’s utterly abominable, and everyone responsible for this craven, pusillanimous decision is a worthless coward.
Add everyone who wonders whether we ought to go along to get along – mustn’t upset the Muslims! – and like O’Reilly, doesn’t know “if the risk, reward is worth it.” I’d be very interested in finding out precisely what O’Reilly thinks would be worth it. We have the right not to obey Islamic laws, and we’d better exercise that right if we want to retain it. Now. Not later, when compliance like Comedy Central’s has become so ingrained in us that we have to overcome that before we can fight back against our prospective oppressors.
As Kate at Small Dead Animals put it -
You see – there’s the difference between an “extremist” and a “moderate”. The “extremist” is the one with the death threat. The “moderate” is the one who explains what you’ve done to deserve it.
Recently in the Green Room: