Should we have the right to disobey Islamic law?
posted at 10:00 pm on September 19, 2012 by Laura
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.
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:
- Sunday reflection: Matthew 4:1-11
- Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained