Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations—is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”
Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.
To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.
However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC cynically maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.
What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Koran itself— which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”
Considering that the word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western cartoon appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.
Indeed, it is precisely because of this that some Russian districts are banning key Islamic scriptures—including Sahih Bukhari, which is seen as second in authority after the Koran itself. According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari has been targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of Ruslan Galliev, senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”
Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.” Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.
What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.
Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary.
What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife, Aisha—the “Mother of Believers”—as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.
Nor is such defamation of Christianity limited to Islam’s core scriptures; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity. (The Qatari website also issued a fatwa in 2006 permitting burning people alive—only to take it down after the Islamic State used the fatwa’s same arguments to legitimize burning a Jordanian captive pilot.)
The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Koran 9:29).
It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.
Why are Halal mortgages being advertised on this website?
I love your intelligence, Mr. Ibrahim! You always see a twist in things that many miss. Such a law would be as a double edged sword: it might not allow debating islam and on the other hand might enable Christianity to point out that islam consistently defames, insults, persecutes Christianity. But I have the feeling that the only protected religion will be islam.
Islam is nothing but HATE,that religion would not exist with out hate,Islam is Filth,the Moslem in the whitehouse has got to go,an the next President must not be Hillary Clinton she has Moslems in her campaign,Obama is the most Islamic Loving President in U.S History,To Hell with Islam.
Excellent point. If Islam succeeds in banning the defamation of religion, it could end up banning itself.
As long as there is a Muslim in the White House, the slaughter will continue.
Thank you for the article. I noted that Muslims in Niger protested the Charlie Hebdo cartoons by attacking and burning 8 Churches and tearing up Bibles. If we had done the same to Mosques and the Koran here in the U.S., those same Muslims would have gone insane with hatred and violence. I realize the Churches were connected to France, but Charlie Hebdo takes aim at all religions.
No, the bigger question is whether the Koran could be banned in France as “hate speech.” Certainly 109 verses of the Koran can be seen as hate speech. If non-Muslims made the same statements about Muslims (that you should “hate” Muslims so that they realize that they are wrong and convert, or “Kill the Muslims, when you are able to do so”), liberal Americans and Europeans and Muslims themselves would howl with rage.
Even if you would not ban the statements in the Koran as “hate speech” and argue that they are simply taken out of context, what many preachers of hate in the middle east have DONE with those verses should be banned. The Imam in Turkey who called for all olive trees to be cut down is a case in point. Since he longs for the day when the trees will cry out, “Here is a Jew: come and kill him,” he wants the olive trees cut down since they are “Jewish” trees and they might hide the Jews, when the genocide is supposed to take place.
Germany and France DO ban Nazi propaganda. They learned 75 years ago how destructive that speech was. The statements by the preachers of hate lead to pogroms and persecution of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists and Muslim minoities.
Excellent, excellent logic, and very well expressed!!
I am strongly anti-hatred. I oppose and even abhor religious chauvinism (let alone fanaticism). I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Pipes’ distinction between Islam (belief in that religion) vs. Islamism (a belief in the supremacy of Islam, and in its imposition onto believers of all other religions).
So it is particularly striking, to me, that you have marshalled such a convincing argument regarding fundamental flaws, and dangers, from the religion of Islam, itself.
On the other hand, it’s important to note (and admit) that the West’s two fundamental religions (the Judeo-Christian framework) also have their own similar tendencies. Thankfully, there is a history of strong resistance against those tendencies, esp. importantly, from within both of those religions.
As Pipes says, Islamism is the problem. And moderate Muslims are the answer. I hope there are enough moderate Muslims, who can speak and act forcefully enough, and quickly enough, to outweigh the force from Islamists.
I think you have missed the point of the article above, which specifically discusses the parts of the Koran that denigrate other religions. There are no such parts in the Old or New Testaments.
As to your hope about moderate muslims speaking and acting forcefully enough, how much longer will we have to wait, do you think ? When should we expect this miracle to happen ? Will it take another 13 years and another 25,000 terrorist attacks before these so-called moderates start speaking and acting ?
“….moderate Muslims are the answer..”
“Moderate muslims” are those who don’t practice the faith, or only a small part of it. They are the prime victims of Islam itself, when their more “devout” “brothers” decide to teach them a lesson for being “hypocrites”.
Once “moderate muslims” recognize that these “extremists” are doing nothing “unislamic” and they can no longer justify their faith, and are increasingly embarrassed (as they should be), by the fact that these “extremists” are quoting the Quran and example of Muhammad to justify their actions, they will do the “decent thing”, and apostasize, publicly or not. That is how Islam in the West will end :by decent people, who happen to have been born into the faith by chance, realizing the true nature of the religion, and wanting to have nothing to do with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f92Nx4u-SMQ
So,no. “Moderate muslims are not the answer.
Abu Talib (Uncle of Prophe) was an infidel and year of his death is remembered as the “year of sorrow”. He was one of His greatest supporters but never changed his religion. I have not read anything about being paradise married. As for as (9:29) do read this.
https://prophetrejectors.wordpress.com/929-at-tauba-of-quran-doesnt-encourage-muslims-to-terrorism/
On the other hand I also believe that the best response to any defamation attempt against religion is to ignore it.
Put another way, Muhammadanism is OMNIPHOBIC.
What you have pointed out in this article is what I’ve been waiting to hear said for ages. Thank you.