How a Muslim Defines Freedom of Speech: And Who’s the Real Blasphemer?

Philosophers, Muslim and non-Muslim, have always had an extremely difficult time determining the line between freedom of speech and religious blasphemy. Current law has only defined obscenity as far as non-academic sexual exploitation, but not clarified on violence, gore, hate speech, and anarchy.

Blasphemy is defined, theoretically, as any irreverence towards Islam and its associated artifacts, including the laws, the Prophet Muhammad, and its teachings. The vagueness in the definition of blasphemy allows skepticism as to what truly defines blasphemy. However, it can be agreed that any act is considered religious blasphemy if:

1. The perpetrator is a participant in the religion and its associated activities. This will be the foundation for blasphemy, as a blasphemer is usually within the religion.
2. The perpetrator engages in the stated act in an effort to antagonize or insult other religions.
3. The perpetrator allows destruction of religious artifacts with the purpose of insulting religious followers.
4. The perpetrator forces religious coercion upon another individual, or claims religious superiority over another religion.
5. The perpetrator physically or spiritually discourages the human right to pursue other religions.

In this political and social climate, and the Islamic reaction to caricatures and dedications, one must wonder who is worse: the cartoonist or the violent complainant. For one, does the cartoonist worship the religion it satirizes? If not, then is it considered blasphemy? Religious blasphemy implies that the perpetrator engages in the religion and its associated activities. Second, is the cartoonist's motive clear, or permitting the destruction of religious artifacts?  Was the purpose of the cartoons to force religious coercion or infringe on the individual's right to freedom of religion?  The only way to apply this criteria is to place it in an example.  Several examples are out there, but a prime example is from Denmark.

Take, for instance, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad editorial cartoons.  These were a series of editorial cartoons that had images of the Prophet Muhammad, whether they were antagonistic or not.  Although one can see the offensive and inflammatory nature of the cartoons, it is difficult to determine if these cartoons are considered blasphemy. One may argue that the offensive act is towards a religion and its followers, and thus considered blasphemous. However, supporters (mainly Muslims) fail to specify what aspect of blasphemy is being perpetrated, with or without the fact that the right to free speech nullifies the aspects of blasphemy. Not only that, we cannot determine whether these cartoonists in question are even Muslim or affiliated with Islam. These cartoons were in response to a political environment where Muslim terrorists physically and psychologically harassed and destroy Western lives. These cartoonists were exercising their free speech towards a religious demographic that they did not approve of because of previous, repeated acts in the name of Allah.

And Muslims have to really step back and look at themselves for a second. As humans evaluating other humans, are they really in the right position to even question, let alone protest, the publication of free speech when they themselves also use these laws to spread their anti-Semitic, misogynistic, government-overthrowing jihad? Unfortunately, the Muslims, in an effort to silence its opposition, utilize lawfare and other aggressive measures, even at the cost of human lives. Based on the points on what defines blasphemy, one could argue that Muslims themselves are blasphemous (according to my previously stated statutes of blasphemy) in nature, as a significant portion aggressively imposes their “unsullied” beliefs upon non-Muslims, forcing the controversial Sharia law, exacerbating anti-Semitism, and even in some nations, prohibit freedom of other religions except Islam. They need to ask themselves, “Would they just laugh it off if it was 12 editorial cartoons about Jews or Christians?” Most likely they would, and this only exacerbates their hypocrisy.

Should we, as Westerners, allow the Muslim to dictate our political and social agendas of the Western States? They need to understand the difference as to what is blasphemous, what is inflammatory, and what is free speech. When will they learn? Some may argue that it is even wishful thinking for them to progress towards taking satire and criticism. Blasphemy and free speech are always going to be in conflict, but the lack of Muslims accepting the cold, hard fact that their religion is going to be ridiculed and editorialized only makes them move backwards at a faster rate than they are currently.