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.

Senate Bill 1070: What's Right, What's Wrong, and What's Irrelevant

Not everyone against illegal immigration is angry or white.

Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 (AZ SB 1070 and HB 2162) stirred much controversy in the past, and still today causing further division among Americans, legal residents, and illegal residents.  Many individuals argue that it is a simple legislation that makes the federal government enforce what they have legislated.  Others argue the possibility of legalizing racial profiling and possible human rights violations due to the interpretation of the bill's text.  Thus, the arguments on both side are heated and violent, but one must refer to facts before drawing conclusions.

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act requires illegal aliens (those who do not have the legal right according to law to work in the United States) who reside for longer than 30 days to carry their registration documents at all times.  It also allows the law enforcement to verify the immigration status of suspected persons, and imposed sanctions or fines on individuals who knowingly aid, hire, or transport illegal immigrants.  SB 1070 is in cooperation of federal immigration law, outside of the liberal media’s imagery.  This was further revised to restrict law enforcement officials to check immigration status at a “lawful stop, detention, and arrest”[1]. 

There is a fine line between legal and illegal immigration.

Displaying much resistance and violence, the critics argue that interpretation of AZ SB 1070 would lead to racial profiling.  Racial profiling is utilizing a suspect's race or ethnicity as a factor in enforcing the law, and is in conflict with Fourth Amendment rights of protection from unlawful searches and seizures.  Both Republicans and Democrats do not explicitly approve of racial profiling, but it is an evil that resides in society (regardless of opinion).  Despite many social justice and civil rights groups' ideals, it is wishful thinking to eliminate racial profiling and promote civil rights equally.  Racial profiling is also facing criticism because of the debate on whether or not race or ethnicity is probable cause to search, seize, or detain individuals.  However, many Supreme Court decisions (such as United States v. Bringnoni-Ponce) conceded to the fact that racial profiling is a statistical inevitability, even though Supreme Court decisions prohibited suspecting individuals based on race or ethnicity alone[2].  Defeated, civil rights activists argue that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.  However, Plyer v. Doe (another Supreme Court case) argues otherwise.  The court held that since illegal immigrants made the choice of unlawfully entering the United States, they also made the choice to not be entitled to equal protection under the law[3].  Thus, they do not have to be subjected to protection from self-incrimination.  

Those who disapprove of SB 1070 (such as Mexican President Felipe Calderon) drone about the “violation of human rights” through “criminalization of migration”.  First, illegal immigration is already a criminal act, and thus already criminalized, considering that federal law made it illegal.  Second, tapping into an extremely vague area of law and ethics is extremely unspecific and requires indication as to what aspect of human rights is violated, which he has failed to provide.  But is there a human rights violation, and if so, where?

If there was a human rights violation, it would probably be held in either Article 13(2) (in which people are allowed to leave any country, even their own) or 13(3) (these rights are unrestricted unless provided by law or in the interests of national security, public health, rights and freedoms of nationals, and other rights) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[4].  In these two sections is where the conflict lies.  However, it is definitely not in the favor of illegal immigrants, as federal law and interests of national security already places restrictions on such groups, and the UDHR only provides the protections for those who are legally present.

Way to kill your argument, dude.

On top of this criticism, known Mexican supremacist groups (including National Council of La Raza and the Brown Berets) self-imposed their victimization by stating that they are the victims of White Imperialism.  Under the guise of social justice and civil rights for Hispanics, they claim that the white men are the real trespassers.  To tell you the truth, I have seen nothing more biased and inflammatory that what they have been preaching.  Their concepts of fairness and freedom are skewed by racial pride and hostile prejudice.  Their efforts in pulling the “minority card” and the “victim card” and calling supporters of the bill “Nazis” and “hate-mongers” only further displays their bigoted agenda and unveils their ulterior, hate-filled motives.  On top of this biased agenda, NCLR has promoted Hispanics to not cooperate with the law on the guise of "knowing their rights".  However, ill-cooperation only promotes legitimacy towards immigration enforcement and Republicans.

In short, Senate Bill 1070, though controversial, is considered extremely lenient.  However, the courts will have to decide the fate of this bill.  So far, the United States Department of Justice has sued Arizona and has placed an injunction on several significant provisions of the Bill, including those requiring the carry and lawful search.  However, employer sanctions and hiring regulations are legal and within the law.  As the fight continues among the courts, there is wonder as to the fate of the bill in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Sources:

State of Arizona.  Senate.  Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010.  49^th Legislature, 2^nd Session.  Ariz. SB 1070. 

Plyer v. Doe. 457 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 15 June 1982. Print.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 30 June 1975. Print.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 01 July 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.

---

[1] State of Arizona.  Senate.  Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010.  49^th Legislature, 2^nd Session.  Ariz. SB 1070. 

[2] United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 30 June 1975. Print.

[3] Plyer v. Doe. 457 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 15 June 1982. Print.

[4] "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 01 July 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.