Green Room

Should we have the right to disobey Islamic law?

posted at 10:00 pm on September 19, 2012 by

Should we have the right to disobey Islamic law?  The future of western civilization hinges on our response to this question.  Right now people are suggesting that “hate speech” should not be free speech because when people blaspheme Mohammed, Muslim extremists riot and kill.

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.
– U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

The extended liberal argument is that if you make Islamists mad, you know they’re going to kill, so you bear some responsibility for those deaths, too.  Even Salman Rushie, after a quarter century of living with a fatwa on his head, called the “Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker “disgusting” and said, “He did it on purpose. I mean, he set out to create a response, and he got it in spades.

When Ezra Levant was hauled before a tribunal in Canada to defend his right to publish the Mohammed cartoons, he was asked what his intent was.  He replied,

“Why is that a relevant question? We published what we published. The words and pictures speak for themselves. So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred and cause offense, are you saying that’s an acceptable answer?  My answer to your question is as follows. We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think.  I’ve probably given 200 interviews to people other than the state where I’d give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent, but the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is that it’s my bloody right to do so. … My answer to these two fascists, the one trained in Saudi Arabia and the other one piling on, is that I reserve the right to publish those cartoons for exactly what they complain about. I reserve the right to publish those cartoons to do every offensive thing that they claim is in my heart.”

Liberals don’t care about protecting the tender feelings of the religious, as evidenced by decades of offenses against Christians and every other faith.  They are simply afraid of a group who is willing to kill because they’re offended.  And what liberals are really saying, if they were honest, is that we have a moral obligation to obey Islamic law in order to prevent more bloodshed.

They are saying that non-Muslims, living in non-Muslim countries, should voluntarily adhere to Muslim law.

These same people who scream like a goth in the sun at the sight of a nativity scene on public property, are suggesting that non-Muslim governments should use their non-Muslim citizens’ tax dollars to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws.

That’s insane.

Not only do we have the right to not obey Islamic law, we have the obligation to not obey it - because going along to get along will only result in further oppression. I’ve used the “secondary crime scene” analogy before: You’re in a parking lot, and a criminal sticks a gun in your ribs and demands you drive him somewhere. The parking lot is the primary crime scene, where your kidnapping takes place. The ‘somewhere’ is the secondary crime scene, where he can safely torture, rape, and murder you at his leisure. It’s obviously better to fight back at the primary crime scene – even if you are shot, at least it’s in public where help is more likely to be available.  Fighting back at the primary crime scene may scare off an attacker – if you’re not an easy mark, he’ll probably move on to another victim. It also may get the attention of others who may help fight him off. Compliance always empowers your kidnapper, never you.

Here, at the primary crime scene is where we need to fight.  If we do not forcefully challenge the concept of so-called “hate speech” not being protected speech, we will eventually lose our right to speak freely, and ultimately, our right to disobey Islamic blasphemy laws.  And in that case, can sharia be far behind?

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”
– U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

…moon YU!…P.O.S.Secretary-General!

KOOLAID2 on September 19, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Mr. Levant’s reply should be emblazoned everywhere.

They are saying that non-Muslims, living in non-Muslim countries, should voluntarily adhere to Muslim law.

Nope. Not me, not ever. Not in America.

PatriotGal2257 on September 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM

So they want o make it international law to ban published thoughts (books, movies, speeches, etc.) that offend, provoke or humiliate others’ values and beliefs?
Bring it on! This would be great! I would sue Hollywood, the White House, the Supreme Court, NBC, the New Yahk Tymez, NPR, etc., etc., etc., and make my living that way, the way Jesse Jackson taught us!
I think non-Christians living in non-Christian countries should voluntarily adhere to Christian law, and pay for the privilege. Unless and until they admit it’s only about Muslims, they would open quite the big can of worms, don’t you think?

DublOh7 on September 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM

This is, exactly, how we came to war with Japan. Few people today know Shinto before 1945. An equally scary faith before it’s reformation, on par in stupid death and devastation with the Inquisition.

PXCharon on September 20, 2012 at 1:27 AM

When the United Nations starts enforcing its own Treaties and Conventions and such…1948′s UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, for example, then maybe, Ban Ki-moon can raise his voice.

What Islam is doing and has been doing over the past century across the globe fits the UN definition of genocide…if you are a non-Moslem. The goal of Islam is to eradicate all “non-believers” or force them to become Moslems, if you read their own Koran, and view their own actions, and lately seems they are playing the victim?

1.3 billion people victims?

They’ve been at war with us for centuries.

Have been at war with the West since long before 9-11.

Yet, we kowtow to their every demand in the name of sensitivity and “respect” for their faith?

Lots and lots of dead Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Parsis and a host of others over the past 100 years, and lots and lots more before that, thanks to the dictates of “the prophet.”

And Moslems are the victims?

coldwarrior on September 20, 2012 at 6:03 AM

Lan astaslem!
I will not submit!

I need to put that Ezra Levant quote on business cards to hand out! I don’t need a reason why – it’s my right! (And, that is true of the 2d Amendment, as well!)

GWB on September 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM

How do you not offend someone who is offended by your very existence?

CurtZHP on September 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Where were these tools of confusion speaking out against offending religions when Jesus was chocolate, during the Mormon mock theater fest (drawing fine praise from NPR by the way), when the crucifix was artistically fit for a beaker of urine?
Oh, they’re only there for the Orwellian religions; athiesim, islam, obamaism.
“These are the true religions and shall not mocked upon penalty of imprisonment and/or death”. The new first ammendment on the second term fiat “to do list”.

onomo on September 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Vlad Tepes.

If we had more nailing of turbans to foreheads, we’d all have fewer troubles.

orbitalair on September 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM

How do you not offend someone who is offended by your very existence?

CurtZHP on September 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM

By refusing to submit to slavery or death.

onomo on September 20, 2012 at 9:56 AM

There should just be a month of putting stuff out…take the edge off of it.

tomas on September 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Allah is the devil
Mohammed is a pedophile.

Deal with it Muslims.

rbj on September 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Should we have the right to disobey Islamic law?

Of course not. What a silly question. When we disobey Islamic law, offended muslims riot and people die, and since we know they will do that it is all our fault.

So say our rulers.

The rulers the American Voter chose.

Stupidity has consequences.

fadetogray on September 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM

There should just be a month of putting stuff out…take the edge off of it.

tomas on September 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Agree

geramy2012 on September 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Libs don’t say this stuff because they agree with sharia. They do it because the perceive that Islam is the enemy of America and the west, and they always side with our enemies.

happi on September 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

They aren’t “libs.” They are Progressives who believe “progress” is achieved by moving away from liberal democracy and toward empowering the State over individual liberty.

Powerful ideas like Christianity and liberal democracy and things like the Constitution get in the way.

And those Progressives are right to side with Islam against us. We are strong. Islam is stupid and weak. If Islam becomes too powerful, the Progressives will lead the extermination of the Muslims. It is the kind of people progs are. It is what they do.

fadetogray on September 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM

DHIMMI.

the UN is a farce controlled by militant jew hating, democracy hating Arabs- let them relocated to saudi arabia rather than mouthing their dhimmi filth on (supposedly) free american soil.

how easy it was for muslims to win ‘the hearts and minds’ of those born several generations into western democracies, people who generally oppose any western religion, any morality, any attempt to punish even the most heinous of criminal acts vigorously. so now our own leaders will force us into dhimmitude. problem solved- world wide caliphate here we come.

the only way to win or force change in the ‘ hearts and minds’ of people is what islamists have done to their fawning liberal lap poodles – use of or threat to use terror and unparalleled extreme unprincipled force. then theyre the first ones to tear up the bill of rights and submit on our behalf.

mittens on September 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Our home will never submit to the rop type law.

We are Christians and if we would submit, that would mean we would have to renounce Our God and I will not do that!

We have got to get rid of bho/team and get R&R to put a stop to the un and any talk of taking away any more of our rights we have under our Constitution.
L

letget on September 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM

If Christians were to murder Judges for banning prayer in schools, or every time an athiest sues to have a cross removed, etc. would that be different from what the Islamists do? Would these Islamists and their Governments, one in the same, be calling for speech against christianity to be banned or made criminal… Somehow I doubt that.

aposematic on September 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

GWB on September 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Excellent idea. And not only hand them out, but leave them places, too, e.g. put on a bulletin board at a car wash or at a grocery store.

Or even … taped to a gas pump.

PatriotGal2257 on September 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Not only do we have the right to not obey Islamic law, we have the obligation to not obey it – because going along to get along will only result in further oppression. I’ve used the “secondary crime scene” analogy before: You’re in a parking lot, and a criminal sticks a gun in your ribs and demands you drive him somewhere. The parking lot is the primary crime scene, where your kidnapping takes place. The ‘somewhere’ is the secondary crime scene, where he can safely torture, rape, and murder you at his leisure. It’s obviously better to fight back at the primary crime scene – even if you are shot, at least it’s in public where help is more likely to be available. Fighting back at the primary crime scene may scare off an attacker – if you’re not an easy mark, he’ll probably move on to another victim. It also may get the attention of others who may help fight him off. Compliance always empowers your kidnapper, never you.

This should be promoted to the HOT AIR main page just for this paragraph alone. It should also be taught in schools whenever you learn about the Constitution.

dentalque on September 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM

These discussions always remind me of the scene in Independence Day when the President asks the Alien what he wants us to do. The answer: “Die. Die.”

Muslims want you to die, if you are not their flavor of Muslim.

These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.
-Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan

cptacek on September 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM

We don’t have a right to disobey Shariah. We have an obligation not to follow it. Shariah is the antithesis of the constitution in almost every respect, not the least of which includes the fact that separating state and religion is seen as a SIN in Islam. I will not submit.

gryphon202 on September 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Hey, folks, I’d like to invite you to a very special moment: I’m going to say the Shahada right here, right now.

Are you ready?

“There is no god named Allah, and Mohammed was a two-bit sociopathic camel-shagging kid-diddling caravan robber.”

Oh, and I said that while eating bacon, driving a convertible with the top down, and wearing a string bikini. (Hey, maybe I should cross-post this at Ace’s place! :-) )

Excellent article, Laura C.! I think I’m in love with Ezra Levant.

Mary in LA on September 20, 2012 at 12:42 PM

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!”

Patrick Henry

Mary in LA on September 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I think I’m in love with Ezra Levant.

Mary in LA on September 20, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Likewise. :-) Here’s a complete playlist of that whole interview:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C0BA528800C4AE5

Really fantastic defense of free speech.

Laura Curtis on September 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

You nailed it Laura, thank you.

46blitz on September 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You nailed it Laura, thank you.

I agree.

Also, it is critically important for our survival as a free people for Americans to understand our view of the nature of individuals, liberty, morality and the collective are not the dominant views worldwide.

Ki-Moon said what he said because most of those listening give him props for saying it, and he wants to be popular.

Popularity is not our friend. Global democracy unfettered by Constitutional law is not our ally. It is our mortal enemy.

Americans who have fetishized democracy, even when it is shariah based, have put us in mortal danger.

Most people are still savages ….. even most people now in the White House.

fadetogray on September 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Saying a speaker, or filmmaker, is responsible for the violence people respond with is like saying a woman who got raped asked for it by the way she dressed.

Once we say “offensive” speech is illegal, we give the government the ability to tell us which speech is or isn’t offensive, and free speech is over.

PastorJon on September 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I’m sorry, if the UN ‘grid’ demands control of my thoughts and speech to avoid (possibly) offending ‘someone…somewhere’, then I have to withdraw my token from the game. I’m American and firmly believe in free speech, whether I agree with what you have to say or not.

The minute you succumb to one idiotic demand, it will be immediately followed by one even more idiotic… stop the idiocy.

xmanvietnam on September 20, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Likewise. :-) Here’s a complete playlist of that whole interview:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C0BA528800C4AE5

Really fantastic defense of free speech.

Laura Curtis on September 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Wow! That’s great stuff. Thanks!

Mary in LA on September 20, 2012 at 5:29 PM