Post 80--Insulting the Prophet

In the previous post I wrote about Aasia Bibi (Sometimes her name is spelled as "Asia.") being released from prison. I also wrote how risky this action was in the face of apparently large groups of Muslim extremists who threatened social violence if she were released. I expressed admiration for a judge and a government who dared to release her. As it turns out, I was right.  The government felt compelled to negotiate with extremist groups and then took Bibi back into custody for her own safety in a secret place. Spain and France offered to take her in, but even that was not acceptable to those extremists. I will try to keep you informed as things develop.

Now Bibi's case was one of a false accusation of blasphemy.  You might react with a shrug of your shoulder, thinking that this does not concern you, especially if you live in the Western world. Pakistan is far away from us. But hold on. This post tells you that it's coming closer to us--not Pakistan (It stays where it is; it does not move.), but the Muslim position on blasphemy against the Prophet.   

Bill Warner is a blogger on  < Political Islam.com >.  I find him kind of extreme and conservative.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being conservative, but being extreme is. I am not an extremist, but I am a conservative,  a radical conservative even. Now that will probably sound ominous to you, but my radicality is not the popular kind which is just another word for "extremism." Mine means that I like to go to the radix or root of a problem. That's what "radix" means. In that sense, it is good to be radical, for it means you are not satisfied with a mere superficial interpretation of things.  And conservative? Again not in the popular street sense or even media sense of the word, but philosophically. I have respect for traditional pillars and cultures; I am not a revolutionary so much as a reformer or conserver, but one that always is open to considering new ways in a reformer sort of way. Well, I should get back from this diversion to the real topic of this post.

Warner wrote the following on his post:

"Tyrannical European Court of Human Rights says Mohammed is a Prophet, if insulted there could be blood in the streets."

By now many are familiar with the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Elizabeth Sabitch Wolf. This ruling stated that “abusive attacks on the Prophet of Islam (Non-Muslims referring to Mohammed as the “Prophet of Islam” is an important detail to understand), [are] capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts had come to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance.”  This statement by the ECHR indicates that in order to maintain religious harmony, citizens may not insult Mohammed, and this is more important than freedom of expression. This European ruling is in line with the Islamic principle of blasphemy. Under Sharia, criticizing Mohammed is equivalent to apostasyand punishable by death. Censoring ourselves to please the Sharia is an underhanded subversion of democracy, an attack on free speech—jihad of the pen and tongue—by our own hands. Without free speech, you no longer have a republic or a democracy, you have tyranny.  Furthermore, there are two important subtexts to be noted in the ECHR ruling...[continue reading]: Sharia law has now been inserted into the laws of member states – Leading expert on Islam