Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

UN blasphemy law sends wrong message

Guest Columnist

Published: Sunday, October 7, 2012

Updated: Sunday, October 7, 2012 14:10

According to a Daily Times article released in late September, Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf “announced that the government would fight on all diplomatic fronts to stop the evil forces in the world from all kinds of anti-Islam actions like the recent blasphemous film.”

Ashraf is joining the voices of millions around the world calling for the U.N. to create anti-blasphemy laws following the controversial Innocence of Muslims video and the subsequent violence that erupted in Libya last month. Unfortunately, there has been no small amount of support from outraged Muslims who haven’t stopped to think what this really means.

In simple terms, an offensive video was released, and Muslims — fringe, extremist, but Muslims nonetheless — attacked a U.S. Embassy, and there was international violence. As a result, the U.N. is considering banning blasphemy. This says two things: first, that violent reactions are legitimate ways to achieve political goals, and second, that Muslims are such uncivilized animals that rather than expect them to react civilly, we need to censor ourselves to avoid making them angry. It makes as much sense as the logic that if I were to punch someone in the face who said he didn’t like my shirt, the school tells him that it is now against the rules for him to make fun of my shirt.

More importantly, banning blasphemy reduces Muslims to nothing more than uncontrollable, violent animals — in a civilized world, one is expected to act civilly. You are expected, when offended, to talk about that offense and find a peaceful resolution. The vast majority of Muslims are willing to live in this manner, but due to the few — the few that go unchecked by the majority — we are now considering passing laws that clearly tell Muslims “We don’t trust you to behave like civil people, so we are protecting ourselves from your uncontrollable violent tendencies.” Is this the message we should be sending? Who does this help to simultaneously insult Muslims on a fundamental level while rewarding international violence?

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

2 comments

Anonymous
Mon Oct 8 2012 08:47
John Quincy Adams on Islam

"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."

Anonymous
Mon Oct 8 2012 08:46
Islam and ALL freedoms (not just freedom of speech) are incompatible. Islam means submission. Submission to Allah: Never questioning him or his wisdom {sic}. Islam is the opposite of, say, Judaism where questioning, curiosity, intellectual indpendence are encouraged.

Islam means submission of the indiviual to the group: Groupthink, group behavior, group madness.

Thanks to Islam the UN is now a sick parody. While Muslims murder, gang-rape and force children into the military in Mali the UN is silent. While Sudan and Somalia, Nigeria and Egypt all ethncially cleanse population groups from their countries the UN is silent. While Pakistanis, Bahrainis, Iranians all break all civil codes the UN is silent.

Do not let Islam do to the West what it has already done to the UN. Show the courage - as Tyler has shown - to speak out AND to speak FREELY. Follow Tyler and John Q. Adams in this effort.





log out