This story helps to demonstrate why "blasphemy" laws and other legislation curtailing free speech to shield Islam from insults and "provocations" (real or imagined) must be resisted: "While Algeria professes that it upholds religious freedom, it also embraces a blasphemy law that, by its very nature, can be used to prosecute anyone who does not adhere to the religion of Islam." At the end of the day, merely expressing a belief at variance with Islam is "blasphemy," and the fact that one could have the gall to think such thoughts and admit to them out loud could be construed as "insulting." That is what has happened to Siagh Krimo. "Algerian Christian Given Five Year Prison Sentence for Blasphemy," from International Christian Concern, May 27: The previous paragraph suggests Krimo left Islam for Christianity, though it is not stated elsewhere. In that case, he would also run the risk of being killed for apostasy from Islam, according to Muhammad's own orders. http://www.aina.org/news/20110527171608.htm
A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith. Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the nonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended." The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the U.N. General Assembly: Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007. Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn't get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001." You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of 9/11 as merely "tragic") is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too. This is clumsy, but it works: The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success. http://www.slate.com/id/2212662
It's things like this that make me grateful that I live where I do. My mom's entire half of the family is catholic, yet I'm agnostic. I couldn't imagine living in a place like that.
You mean Islam in its core is pretty fascists. How else can you call a oppressive system where the Kuffar is a 2nd rate creature which descended from pigs and apes. While woman are even worse off. How else to call the mandated Jizya Infidel tax,
Certain interpretations of Islam are definitely fascist. Still, clearly, there are interpretations that aren't. Albania and Turkey seem pretty progressive for Muslim-majority countries. Granted, Turkey is starting to go backwards as of late.
I disagree we have right to call out these outrageous laws and practices. We may not have the power tor a reason to meddle directly with the affairs but regardless injustices should be called out. All religious criticism is on the table the moment they want to enter public policy. ALL OF IT. Just like any ideas should be.
How come all those interpretation of Islam, which are not facists are not brought into practice? Turkey has anti Christian laws and violence. Churches may not be repaired. Albania is more secular then anything else. Its more cultural Islamic
Five years gaol for blasphemy isn`t such a bad deal, compared to being publicly tortured to death for being raped, that is.
I hear Australia has some problems too with Muslim immigrants. Didn't someone in Govt tell em to get the hell out if they wanted Sharia?
I will remind you of this post when you whine about Israel again. PS barbaric country, barbaric laws. don't you agree?
Actually all interpretations of Islam are fascist, Albania and Turkey were not letting Islam penetrate the government and legal system and play a role in running the country. It's changing for the worse in Turkey indeed but it's not that they are reinterpreting Islam in a more fascist manner, they are just letting Islam creep back into the political and legal system from which it was excluded since Ataturk.
Excellent post. Turkey, the best hope for 'secular islam', is fading, making that term perhaps the oxymoron it probably is.