Why the West must protect freedom of speech (2024)

Muhammad’s critics and their deaths

Why the West must protect freedom of speech

James M. Arlandson

An authoritarian ruler must get a grip. The first policy that he imposes on his peopleshuts down free speech that expresses dissent and criticism, especially if the speech questions the leader. He takes any questioning of his opinions and decisions as a personal insult of him, the head of state, and therefore a threat to his society.

Muhammad laid down severe restrictions on such free speech. He assassinatedmany who insulted him. In the Quran, he promises death and eternal damnation if anyonedeviates in words and action from Allah and his messenger. In the hadith (Muhammad’swords and deeds outside of the Quran), we read that he kills dissenters and insulters.Later legal rulings, rooted in the Quran and hadith, follow his lead and decree thathard-hitting speech must be stifled. Indeed, the dissenters must die, if they cross theline.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate SalmanRushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about theangel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levelsin Iran have recently renewedthe fatwa.

In 2003, legendary American radio host Paul Harvey was asked by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to apologize for saying that Islam encourages killing. Dhimmi Watch provides the context of Harvey's remarks. His comments have plenty of Quranic verses to back them up, but his free speech must be curtailed.

In 2004, Britain’s Robert Kilroy-Silk, presenter of a daytime TV show, wrote an article that used harsh language against Arabs. The Muslim Council of Britain denounced the rant and said that action should be taken against him. He has since resigned. The Muslim Council welcomed the news.

In 2005, Radical Muslims do not hesitate to riot if the Quran is desecrated. In honor of their holy book, they kill innocent people. This demonstrates how far radicals will go in responding to perceived insults of their religion.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convictedbased on a vilification law in one of Australia’s states. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence, but the lawyer for the Muslim Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded.However, Muslims may read passages from the Quran that call for harsh treatment of Jewsand Christians. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed, either. Opponents ofthe law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

[Editor’s and author’s update: The religious hate speech law has finally not succeeded. The bill, which "was aimed at extending the concept of the UK’s race hate laws to cover belief" lost by one vote. "[C]ritics said ministers’ proposals would have made it too wide-reaching." (Sources: here and here)]

In 2005, Radio host Michael Graham was fired for connecting Islam to terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations called this hate speech. The owner of the station demand that Graham apologized, but he refused. This is the article that started it all.

Why do these Muslims want to restrict unpleasant speech about their religion? Are theyhiding anything? Are they embarrassed about something that sits at the core of theirreligion? These Muslims who would restrict free speech are following their prophet.

Here is how the story of repression of hard-hitting speech unfolds in early Islam.First, some verses in the Quran, analyzed in their literary and historical context, do not promise a happy life for dissenters and insulters. Second, the hadith (reports ofMuhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) records reliable traditions thatspell out doom for dissenters and insulters. Third, later classical legal rulings, whichare rooted in the Quran and hadith, do not promise tolerance for hard-hitting speech, tosay the least. Next, we contrast the way of Jesus with the way of Muhammad. Needless tosay, even though Jesus was often insulted, he did not order executions or lay downexcessive rules against unpleasant speech.

Finally, we explore why the West must maintain its free speech, and we apply ourfindings to the world today.

Islam

Islam punishes insulters and blasphemers severely—and even executes them. Thisstifles free speech, even offensive speech. This repression is unwise in a society,because the truth will stay hidden.

The Quran

The Quran asserts that insulters and mockers may be killed or condemned to hell.

After the Battle of Uhud in March 625, which the Muslims lost, Muhammad was stung. He and his Muslim community suffered a loss of prestige, though the community did notcrumble, but quickly recovered and grew, so the loss was not material. In this verse aboutundergoing insults from the People of the Book (Jews, mostly, in Medina at this time),Muhammad has to take the path of humility.

3:186 You [Muhammad] are sure to be tested through your possessions and persons; youare sure to hear much that is hurtful [aa-dh-aa] from those who were given theScripture before you and from those who associate others with God [polytheists]. If youare steadfast and mindful of God, that is the best course. (MAS Abdel Haleem, TheQur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The word "hurtful" is the same Arabic word (three-letter root is aa-dh-aa)that has been translated, below, as "annoy" and "insult." It has thesemantic range of hurt, suffer, damage, injure, or harm. "The word . . . signifies a slight evil . . . or anything causing a slight harm" (Abdul Mannan Omar, ed., Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, Noor Foundation, 2003, p. 19). Fakhry translatesthe key word in this verse as "abuse" (An Interpretation of the Qur’an,NYUP, 2000, 2004). Allah tells his prophet that he has to take the insults, not retaliate.Historically, Muhammad was momentarily too weak to retaliate against insults after the Battle of Uhud. But Allah reveals that if he is patient, then he will find a great strength. Indeed, he exiled the Jewish tribe of an-Nadir in August of that year and eliminated the Jewish tribe Qurayza after the Battle of the Trench in AD 627.

After the Battle of the Trench in 627, Muhammad’s power, though always growing,increases exponentially in Medina, even more so than after the Battle of Badr in 624;therefore Allah sends down Sura (Chapter) 33 in the context of the Trench. In fact, we find in this sura that Muhammad is so powerful that he lays seize to the Jewishstrongholds in Medina, captures them, decapitates 600 male Jews of the Qurayzah tribe,enslaves its woman and children, though he keeps a beautiful Jewess for himself, andconfiscates all of their property, which is considerable (33:26-27). After this greatvictory and confiscation, Muhammad is wealthier than ever. In his wealth and power he lays down more rules for his many wives (33:33-40). Thus, it is in the context ofMuhammad’s rising power and wealth, atrocity against the Jews, and new laws aboutmarriage and the behavior of women that these verses were received in Sura 33:

33:57 Those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment forthem— 58 and those who undeservedly insult [aa-dh-aa] believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin. (Haleem)

Muslim scholars agree that the word aa-dh-aa includes false reports. SoMuhammad was advocating eternal damnation for merely annoying the prophet and his Muslims,the "believing men and women," and for lying insults.

Then the sura (chapter) continues with commands to Muhammad’s wives to wear veilsso that the insults will stop. But he also promises the insulting liars conquest and death(v. 61), which seems to echo the atrocity committed against the Jewish Qurayzah tribe.

33:59 Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make theirouter garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted [aa-dh-aa]:God is most forgiving, most merciful. 60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, andthose who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet]against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while.61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed.(Haleem)

This passage is stark. Muhammad lays down the law for all the Muslim women so that nofalse rumors can grow—they must wear veils. The phrase "sick of heart" is understood by Muslim commentators like Maulana Ali and Hilali and Khan as those who have excessive sexual desire, so the women must cover up. Regardless, the class ofrumor-mongers, "those who spread lies," is subjected to the harshest warning. Ifthey do not desist, they will not only be exiled, but also find no rest wherever they go.Then they will be "seized and killed," as the Qurayza tribe was. These verses,though received in 627, predict nicely what will happen to the satirical poets during theconquest of Mecca in 630, for they spread lies and insult the honor of Muslim women andMuhammad himself.

Finally, in Sura 9, Muhammad’s power is complete, especially in the lasttwo-thirds of the sura, which deals with the expedition to Tabuk (in the far north ofSaudi Arabia today) in late 630. The hypocrites in Islam are the lukewarm Muslims whocircle just outside of Islam, watching the fortunes of the community, whether they riseand stay prosperous. They do not follow the prophet when he cracks the whip; indeed, theybacked away from following him to Tabuk because of the expense, the harvest season, andthe heat (Sura 9:81-83). Muhammad could not tolerate such wishy-washy behavior, since heplanned to expand northward even after Tabuk. So it is in this context that Muhammadreceives these verses about insults and mockery and jokes from hypocrites.

9:61 There are others who insult [aa-dh-aa] the Prophet by saying, "Hewill listen to anything." [Muhammad,] Say, "He listens for your own good" . . . An agonizing torment awaits those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God’s Messenger . . . 63 Do they not know that whoever opposes God and His Messenger will go to the Fire of Hell and stay there?" That is the supreme disgrace. (Haleem)

Thus, the hypocrites accuse Muhammad of listening to anything and everything, so helacks wisdom and inspiration from Allah. But Allah gets the last laugh, for they will bethrown into the fires of hell. According to Sura 9:73 and 123, Muhammad wages a physicaland violent war on them.

Muhammad continues his denunciation of the hypocrites with their jokes:

9:64 The hypocrites fear that a sura will be revealed exposing what is in theirhearts—say, "Carry on with your jokes: God will bring about what youfear!"— 65 yet if you were to question them, they would be sure to say,"We were just chatting, just amusing ourselves." Say, "Were you makingjokes about God, His Revelation [the Quran], and His Messenger? 66 Do not try tojustify yourselves; you have gone from belief to disbelief." (Haleem)

Muhammad goes on to assert that the hypocrites are misleading a number of people, andin the eyes of the violent radicals today, this could easily be applied to Muslims who gofrom "belief to disbelief" as they criticize Islam and Muhammad. They havebecome hypocrites worthy of the fires of hell (v. 68); and taking verse 33:61 (see above)seriously, which promises besiegement and death, the radicals today help the hypocritesreach hell more quickly, by assassinating them rather than waiting for natural causes. Thehypocrites of Muhammad’ time and of today cannot hide behind "chatting andamusing themselves" because God, the Quran, and the Messenger cannot be trifled with.

Indeed, the Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1989) in 1980, shortly after he gained power in Iranand issued the first fatwa against Rushdie, said: "There is no room for play in Islam. . . . It is deadly serious about everything."

To conclude this section, the Quran, allegedly the book of peace, commands violence and promises eternal damnation for insulting Muhammad. He wages war on the hypocrites andother opponents circling just outside or barely within the Islamic community. He predictsthat he will seize and kill insulters and mockers. Why should we be surprised ifMuhammad’s followers seize and kill insulters and mockers today? Or short of that,why should we be surprised if Muslims in the West today seek to restrict by legal meansunpleasant, hard-hitting (but fact-based) speech that criticizes Muhammad, the Quran, orIslam? How can traditional Muslims who know the origins of their religion reform? Thatwould entail giving up many verses in the Quran. The cognitive dissonance or mental shockwould be too severe.

For more information on Islamic intolerance, please go to this article.

The Hadith

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran.The three most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d.875), and Abu Dawud (d. 875). The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legalrulings. What follows are the stories that tell of the deaths of individuals who insultedMuhammad.

Uqba bin Abu Muayt

Uqba harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him (cf.Sura 83:13). He was captured during the Battle of Badr in AD 624, and Muhammad ordered himto be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba criedwith anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of hisfollowers cut through Uqba’s neck.

Source: Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424.These three passagesfrom the hadith depict Muhammad calling on Allah for revenge on this poet. See also IbnIshaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), p. 308(Arabic page p. 458). Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a good source ofearly Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.

Kab bin al-Ashraf

Kab b. al-Ashraf had a mixed ancestry. His father came from a nomadic Arab, but hismother was a Jewess from the powerful al-Nadr tribe in Medina. He lived as a member of his mother’s tribe. He heard about the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, and he was disgusted, for he thought Muhammad the newcomer to Medina was a trouble-maker and divisive. Kab had the gift of poetry, and after the Battle of Badr he traveled down to Mecca, apparently stopping by Badr, since it was near a major trade route to Mecca,witnessing the aftermath. Arriving in Mecca, he wrote a widely circulated poem, a hostilelament, over the dead of Mecca.

Pro-Muslim poets answered Kab’s poem with ones of their own, and that was enoughfor his hosts in Mecca to turn him out. He returned to Medina, writing some amatory versesabout Muslim women, a mistake compounded on a mistake, given the tense climate in Medinaand Muhammad’s victory at Badr. Angered by the poems and now able to strike backafter the Battle of Badr, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, "Who would rid me of[Kab]?" Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, "O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to telllies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."

As the murder was underway, Kab mounted a strong defense, so the swords of the fivemurderers were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbedKab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached Kab’s genitals, killing him.The five made it back to Muhammad, but only after difficulty, since in the dark they hadwounded one of their own. They saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. He spat on their comrade’swound, and they returned to their families. Their attack on Kab sent shock waves into the Jewish community, so that "there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for hislife," reports Ibn Ishaq. (For more details on how the five Muslim thugs killed Kab,see this article and scroll down to point no. five. The article also answers Muslims who justify Muhammad’s violence.) The early Muslim historian Tabari reports that the five severed Kab’s head and brought it to Muhammad. How can the terrorists who are also thrilled to sever heads not be inspired by early Islam? It is authentic Islam because it is original Islam—the one that Muhammad taught.

Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436. See also Ibn Ishaq 364-69 /548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, trans. W. Montgomery Watt (SUNYP, 1987),pp. 94-98 / 1368-73. Reputable historians today consider Tabari to be a good source ofdata on early Islam, though they may not agree on his chronology or miraculous elements.

Abu Dawud collected and edited the hadith, and his is considered reliable. He cites twocases of death for insulters, and limits the death penalty to insults thrown at Muhammadalone, not at other Muslim leaders like a Caliph or a governor.

A slave-mother

First, Ibn Abbas was Muhammad’s cousin and is considered a highly reliabletransmitter of traditions. He recounts that a blind man had a slave-mother who used toabuse the prophet with her words. The man tried to stop her repeatedly, "but she didnot give up the habit."

One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he [the blind man]took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who was betweenher legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

The next morning Muhammad was informed of the murder, so he assembled the people anddemanded to know who did it. Finally, the blind man stood up, trembling and explained to Muhammad the insults of his slave mother, his human property. He said he even had two sons by her. He told the prophet that he tried to stop her, but she did not desist. He admitted that he killed her. What was Muhammad’s response? "Oh, be my witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood" (vol. 3, no. 4348). It is remarkable thatMuhammad did not imprison or even scold the man for killing the mother of his twochildren. Who says that early Islam is not violent beyond all reason and all excuses?

A Jewish woman

Second, a Jewish woman used to insult the prophet and disparage him. "A manstrangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah . . . declared that no recompense waspayable for her blood" (vol. 3, no. 4349). The translator of Abu Dawud notes thatthis proves that non-Muslims, even People of the Book or Bible (Jews and Christians), canbe killed for insulting Muhammad (note 3800). Violence sits at the core of early Islam,authentic Islam.

An anonymous man who insulted Abu Bakr

The case that illustrates that insulting Muhammad alone brings down the death penaltyinvolves Abu Bakr (a companion of Muhammad), who refused to slay a man who uttered hotwords against him. The companion became angry with him. Another man who saw everythingvolunteered to chop off the head of the abuser (even the offer demonstrates how casuallyearly Islam traffics in violence). But Abu Bakr stopped the Muslim volunteer, saying thatthis punishment is not allowed after Muhammad (vol. 3, no. 4350). This means that ifsomeone insults another Muslim leader besides Muhammad, the insulter is not killed. Solimited free speech is allowed, but not enough, if no one today is permitted to criticizeMuhammad or even insult him. Apparently, this fine distinction is lost during Islamic rule in its heyday. Tolerance was not always practiced, as Robert Spencer’s new book,The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, demonstrates.

Before leaving the hadith, we should note two things. First, here is a prediction ofeternal damnation for anyone who insults Muhammad or Allah.

Narrated Ali: The Prophet said, "Do not tell a lie against me, for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter Hell-fire. (Bukhari vol. 4,Book of Knowledge, no. 106)

Muhammad said that Allah feels slighted if anyone says that Allah has a son, preciselywhat Christians affirm, according to the New Testament (Bukhari, Beginning of Creation,vol. 5, no. 3193).

Second, Muhammad ordered poets of his own to attack with words his opponents and saidthat the archangel Gabriel would be with them (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, vol. 5, nos. 4123-4124; 4196). Muhammad allowed friendly poets to insult his enemies, but they were unable to kill him or his poets in revenge. One would hope that an Allah-inspired prophet would rise above such dubious customs and practices as insult poetry. So this custom and the revenge for insults go only one way--Muhammad's way. How is this justice? It is tribalism at its worse.

The conclusion here follows that of the previous section. Muhammad was not tolerant, soshould we be surprised if his followers today are intolerant? Muhammad killed critics andinsulters, so should we be surprised if his followers do the same to critics and insultersof Muhammad? But if they are not allowed (or do not wish) to kill critics and mockers, whyshould we be surprised if Muslims in the West today seek to restrict by legal meanshard-hitting (but fact-based) speech that exposes Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam? How cantraditional Muslims who know the origins of their religion reform on this matter ofviolence perpetrated on dissenters and critics and mockers? That would entail abandoningpassages in the hadith and in the Quran. The cognitive dissonance or mental shock would betoo severe.

Classical legal rulings

Sharia is Islamic law embodied in the Quran and the hadith. Fiqh is the science ofapplying and interpreting sharia, done by qualified judges and legal scholars. Over thefirst two centuries after Muhammad’s death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqhemerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa(d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, butwho was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq.

The most thorough discussion of insults and excessively limited free speech is found inthe medieval manual compiled by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368): Reliance of theTraveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller,Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994). It summarizes rulings in the Shafi School of fiqh.

We focus on this manual, but for the other schools of fiqh, we rely on a Muslim scholarto summarize their views. This section covers the insults committed by Muslims andnon-Muslims.

According to Reliance of the Traveler, for Muslims, acts that entail leavingIslam—known as apostasy or ridda—are "the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr)and the worst" (p. 595, o8.0). "When a person who has reached puberty and issane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed" (p. 595, o8.1).Repentance is accepted so that he is not killed, but if he refuses to repent, then theCaliph or his representative may execute him, without indemnity or expiation for killinghim.

For our purposes, these eight acts (among many more) mean that a Muslim has apostatized(pp. 597-98, o8.7):

(1) To speak words that imply unbelief such as "Allah is one of three" or"I am Allah." A mitigating circumstance on such blasphemy is if a man’stongue "runs away with" him or is intoxicated.

(2) Reviling Allah or his Messenger.

(3) Being sarcastic about "Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat."

(4) Denying any verse of the Quran or "anything which by scholarly consensusbelongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it."

(5) Holding that "any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent."

(6) Reviling the religion of Islam.

(7) Being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.

(8) Denying that Allah intended "the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world."

These rules are broad and ambiguous; therefore, they can shut down any criticism ofMuhammad, Islam, or the Quran. It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam and the violence and immorality in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head. The Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800) that covered the West and that produced critical scholarship and advanced technology has bypassed the Islamic world, and this is tragic and the cause of many troubles between the West and Islam.

The non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)-(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;

(2) Conceal spies of hostile forces;

(3) Lead a Muslim away from Islam;

(4) Mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

The first rule, leaving out adultery, which Judaism and Christianity also prohibit,shows the patriarchy of Islam. A Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish woman, but a Christian or Jewish man may not marry a Muslim woman. This means that a Muslim man must exercise control in the marriage. The second rule is reasonable. But the third and fourth rules stifle and restrict free speech and freedom of religion.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments forviolating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release withoutpaying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also executefree speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

For the other schools of law besides Shafi, the translator of Abu Dawud’s hadithcollection, Ahmad Hasan, informs us:

It is unanimously agreed that if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet . . . he should be killed. There is a difference of opinion of killing a non-Muslim. According toal-Shafi, he should be killed. Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that he should not be killed. . . Malik maintains that he should be killed except that he embraces Islam. (vol. 3,note 3799)

But Hasan records his opinion on a hadith that shows a Jewish woman being killed (seeHadith no. 4349 in Abu Dawud, above). "This [strangulation of the Jewish woman] showsthat even if a Jew or any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet . . . he will be killed."This includes Christians, as well. Hasan then lists some jurists who hold this opinion(note 3800). Death for insults is excessive, and excess is never just.

To conclude this section, these legal rulings carry on the policies in the Quran and the traditions. Insulting Islam or Muhammad brings death for Muslims, and death,enslavement, release, or ransoming for non-Muslims. But the hadith shows that Muhammad chose death, and this last cited paragraph in sharia indicates death, as well. Sharia must never be allowed to gain even a small toe-hold in the West. It degrades and restricts people excessively, just as medieval law in the West used to degrade and restrict people excessively. The West has progressed, but Islam has stagnated.

Before moving to the Christian view of free speech, we should take stock of theimplications of the last three sections.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position andmessage. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power oftruth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran and sharia itself testifies to its position of weakness since the Islamic legal system threatens and carries out the threats against those who dare to differ.

How confident is Muhammad in his message that he has to rely on violence and force,besides reason and persuasive argument? How confident are today’s Muslims in their religion when they still insist on threatening critics and dissenters with severe punishment? Do today’s Muslims fear that Islam will fall apart were it to allow freedom of speech in their community?

Christianity

Though Christianity says that blasphemy is morally repugnant and wrong, it providessteps to restore the blasphemer. It does not impose the death penalty, as Islam and theOld Testament do. The New International Version is used in the next two sections

The Torah

The sacred text says clearly and bluntly:

Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people (Exodus 22:28).

The penalty of this sin was revealed and actually carried out in another context.

The son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with anIsraelite. The son blasphemed God, so they brought him before Moses who said that heshould remain in custody until the will of the Lord made things clear.

Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp . . . and theentire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses God, hewill be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death.The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes,he must be put to death.’" (Leviticus 24:13-16)

Clearly blasphemy is a sin, but did Jesus and his early church endorse the punishment?Should it be carried out today?

The New Testament

Jesus came to fulfill the law or Torah, not to destroy or abolish it (Matthew 5:17). Hefulfills it in at least three ways, but the one we look at here takes away the law’ssevere punishments. This benefits all of society, especially today.

Jesus fulfills the law by taking on himself the penalty for our sins. The Torah isfilled with specific punishments for specific sins, but his death on the cross satisfiesand propitiates divine wrath that is directed at our sins—this is the Christiandoctrine of the atonement. It is for this reason that a Christian could never give up this doctrine and must totally reject Muhammad’s odd view that Christ never died on the cross (Sura 4:157). (For more information and a refutation of Muhammad’s odd claim, see this article and this one.)Muhammad’s belief is completely misguided. Christ’s death is God’s gift to us. We are saved and on our way to heaven, not based on our own works, but onChrist’s good work on the cross. Therefore, those who trust in Christ do not have to pay the spiritual penalty for their sins—though they will have to pay a penalty if they commit a crime like murder or theft.

For more information on how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, click on this article.

Is blasphemy a crime that deserves civil prosecution and time in jail or a fine?

First, Jesus was falsely accused of blasphemy by teachers of the law. According to Mark 2:1-12, some men brought a paralytic to Jesus, and Jesus said: "Son, your sins are forgiven" (v. 5). But some teachers of the law were sitting there and said amongthemselves: "Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who canforgive sins but God alone?" Rather than get into a lengthy debate on the topic,Jesus simply heals the paralytic, demonstrating that God was backing his words. This means that Jesus was not blaspheming when he spoke those words. This is another hint (among many) of the divinity of Jesus. He did not order his disciples to find these teachers and assassinate them, stealthily in the night. He rose above such vicious and ungodly violence. He trusted in his Father to vindicate him.

Second, Jesus was falsely accused of blasphemy during his trial just before he laiddown his life for the sins of the world. The judges at his trial evidently used Leviticus24:13-16 against him. According to Matthew 26:57-67, as the Sanhedrin or Jewish high courtbrought false witnesses to testify against Jesus, he refused to answer their accusations.But the high priest asked the pertinent question: "I charge you under oath by theliving God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (v. 63). Jesus repliedstraightforwardly: "Yes, it is as you say" (v. 64). Then the high priest torehis clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses?Look, now you have heard the blasphemy" (v. 65). (See John 10:33-42, where Jesus was also accused a blasphemy for claiming he was the Son of God.) It was this confessionduring his trial that precipitated his God-ordained death.

Thus, by undergoing this penalty in the sacred law, Jesus now takes away the penaltyfor everyone after him. They do not have to die for the sin of blasphemy, though blasphemyas such is still immoral. But blasphemers do not have to get stoned or crucified for theirsins; Jesus took their execution on himself as he was getting executed. He commutes theirsentence. This is far different from Muhammad who either commanded or allowed blasphemersto be killed. Muhammad seems to even celebrate the death of his enemies.

What about the early church after the death and resurrection of Jesus?

The earliest followers of Jesus needed some guidelines as they lived in Christiancommunities, first in Jerusalem and Judea, and eventually throughout the Greco-Romanworld. For this reason (and many others), the New Testament came into being. TheChristians wanted to know what Jesus may have said or thought about this or that problemlike dietary restrictions or the Sabbath. We can get a view of how the church worked outtheir policies, under the leadership of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. We focus on theSpirit-inspired Apostle Paul.

According to Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus lays out some specific steps to restore an errantbrother. First, an individual Christian must show the sinning brother his fault. But if the sinner does not repent, then the early Christians were to take two or more brothers with them to show him his fault. If he refuses to listen, then the church leaders were to tell it to the entire church; and if he still does not repent, then he is to be removed fromChristian fellowship. Paul and his disciple Timothy did this for two errant men, whosenames survive in the Epistles to Timothy: Hymenaeus and Alexander. These two falseteachers (and a certain Philetus) said that the resurrection had already taken place,probably a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one, so they led some church membersastray (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Paul said, "I have handed them over to Satan, so they maybe taught not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20). It is clear from the context that thechurch leaders warned these three men, but they refused to listen. The leaders spoke oftheir heresy to the entire church, but the two men would still not listen. So Paul said he would turn them over to Satan, which means that they were removed from Christian fellowship and therefore exposed to the wiles of Satan, without spiritual protection. In the Greco-Romanworld, when the church was still small but growing rapidly, removal from fellowship wasserious, since polytheism ruled over people’s lives. No account is recorded that saysthis last remedy worked for the three heretics. Regardless of the results chosen by the three errant men, the Spirit-inspired Paul was following the wisdom of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-18.

It should be pointed out that Paul knew about blasphemy, first hand. He tells Timothyin his first epistle to him that he too was "once a blasphemer and a persecutor and aviolent man" (1 Timothy 1:13). He continues with his testimony: "But I was shownmercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out onme abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus" (v. 14). Thus,Paul understood that he did not have to take on the penalty for blasphemy—death orrejection by the risen Lord Jesus. Jesus did not send his disciples to find andassassinate Paul. Instead, Jesus poured his divine love on Paul. But what about Hymenaeusand Alexander? They had reached the end of the line. Maybe this removal from fellowshipwould make them reach rock bottom, where the only way to go is up—to Jesus. Theycertainly had plenty of opportunities to repent and receive the love of the Father, butthey rejected each opportunity before this last remedy of removal.

No one knows the outcome, but they may have repented and received divine love.

These are practical and down-to-earth steps that Christian churches may follow withvariations that relate to specific facts. Therefore, early Christianity has a lot to offersociety.

But the essential difference (among many) between these steps and Muhammad’srecycling of an old-new law is the penalty. In no place does the New Testament endorsekilling or flogging insulters and blasphemers. Rather, Jesus and his New Testament authorsseek to help and heal the sinner, not condemn him as a criminal.

The West must protect its freedom of speech

What is the major difference between Islamic law or sharia and western law?

Islamic law is based on the Quran and the example of Muhammad in the hadith. Muslimsassert that Allah inspired his book and guided his prophet in the clearest and most directway possible. Logically, this means that Islam loathes change and innovation. If shariafollowed common sense, reason, and the dignity of humans more fully, then this would notbe a problem in human affairs (theologically, though, many problems emerge). However, thisarticle and the linked articles in the introduction demonstrate that Islamic law does notfollow these three virtues. But how can they, when the Quran and hadith are harsh andexcessive? Excess is never just. But Allah wills it nonetheless.

Western law, on the other hand, does not claim direct inspiration from God, even thoughBiblical principles lay at its foundation. Also, since the Age of Enlightenment or the Ageof Reason (c. 1600-1800), a strong dose of reason has been injected into the legalprocess, as well. (The Islamic world has not yet undergone this kind of Enlightenment, butit needs to. But can it? How can Islam enjoy the benefits of Enlightenment when Muslimsmust abandon their roots, for example, the life or sunna of Muhammad? At least the life ofJesus brings freedom, as we will see, below.) If western law became harsh and oppressive,specifically, in the Medieval Age, then it could be changed for the better. Reason and theBiblical principle of dignity, for instance, allow for improvement more readily. This iswhy reform is much easier to enact here in the West than in societies that are drenched in religious law.

This difference between Islamic law and western law can be seen most clearly in thefounding of the US as it evolved from the small communities in the early seventeenthcentury to the thirteen colonies and to the founders’ writing and ratification of the Constitution in the late eighteenth century.

The founders of the US wrote documents in support of the Constitution before it was ratified. These documents sometimes draw from the Bible. For example, at theConstitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the centralgovernment into three branches: the judicial, legislative, and executive. He read Isaiah33:22: "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." The three branches of government are kept separate and balanced on the theory that humans are corrupted and therefore corruptible and that no branch should become too powerful.

Another stalwart idea is free speech. The founders knew the basics of the four Gospels.They knew the laws in the Old Testament against blasphemy. At the very least they hadaccess to the laws against blasphemy in the puritan colonies, particularly, "AnAbstract of the Laws of New-England, as they are now established. Printed in London in1641," recorded by John Cotton, an early puritan (a puritan is a devout andextra-strict Christian).

Four rules in this Abstract, in Chapter 7 which pertains to crimes that deserve capitalpunishment or banishment, are relevant to this present article. The very first rule says:"FIRST, blasphemy, which is cursing God by atheism, or the like, to be punished bydeath." This follows the Old Testament. Next, rule no. 7 says that members of thechurch who do not conform to the church’s doctrine "shall be cut off bybanishment." Further, a similar rule, no. 8, says, "Whosoever shall revile thereligion and worship of God, and the government of the church, as it is now established,shall be cut off by banishment." It then cites 1 Corinthians 5:5, which sees asexually immoral young man banished from the church—though he later repented and waswelcomed back in. Finally, no. 11 says that "Profaning the Lord’s day, in acareless and scornful neglect or contempt thereof, to be punished with death." Thisrule follows the Old Testament. Clearly, then, free speech was severely restricted in theearly colonies because the puritan leaders took a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

How did the later founders sort out these rules that elicit death and banishment andthat follow sometimes the Old Testament or the New Testament?

Many (not all) signers of the Declaration of Independence were devout Christians andministers, and many or those of like mind who endorsed the Constitution were also devoutChristians and ministers. They worked out a compromise between religious law embodied inthe Bible, and civil law stemming from reason and common law. After all, they lived duringthe height of the Age of Reason or the Age of Enlightenment, so they understood that Godendowed humankind with a reasoning mind to figure out the balance between religious lawand civil law—though civil law has the Bible in its background.

The historical context of the first puritan colonies demonstrates that the communitieswere small and held to uniform Christian doctrines, so religious law could be imposed.(But some members of these communities felt suffocated and wanted to leave.). On the otherhand, in the late eighteenth century the thirteen colonies were large and religiouslydiverse by comparison. Therefore, the founders drew from the Christian principle offreedom in the simple gospel message. Christ said, "If anyone comes after [follows]me" . . . (Matthew 17:24). The little word "if" implies freedom to acceptthe way of Jesus or to walk away from it. He never raised a holy army to force anyone toconvert (but Muhammad did). Thus, the founders of the US did not accept the principle ofcoercion, but of freedom.

The founders understood the principle of freedom in the gospel. Patrick Henry delivereda speech in 1765 to the House of Burgesses in which he says that America is founded on thegospel. For that reason, people of other faiths are offered asylum and religious freedom.

It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, andfreedom of worship here.

He seems to say that a religion would exclude people, but the gospel includes them. He is right.

So what does the Constitution say about free speech, specifically? How did the foundersstrike a balance between unpopular and even repugnant speech and popular and agreeablespeech in religious affairs and disagreements? The First Amendment tells us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This short Amendment connects freedom of worship with the freedom of speech. Everyonemust have the freedom to express their opinions, even unpopular ones. And everyone mustworship (or not) as they want. No conscience can be coerced. So the framers of the Constitution disagreed with the early puritans. No one should be put to death for blasphemy or verbal insults against religion or the church. The founders followed a deeper principle from the gospel, rather than a literal reading of the Bible.

We in the West must protect our free speech, especially in criticizing truth claims,even religious ones.

Application to today’s world

The importance of absolute freedom of speech in debates over religions is seen mostclearly in two examples in the West and in Muslims pushing for sharia courts in Canada andAustralia.

As for the first example, David Harsanyi reportsthat in 1999, a London-based group called Muhajiroun (named after Muhammad’sfellow-emigrants from Mecca to Medina in AD 622), describing itself as Defenders of theMessenger Jesus, put a bounty on the playwright Terrence McNally for his play CorpusChristi, when it reached London. The play, set in modern Texas, shows Jesus dying notas the King of Kings, but as the King of Queers, after his gay lover Judas betrays him.This play is especially offensive to Christians, and some may protest it, but no Christiancan ever cite support from the New Testament or from the example of Christ to assassinateMcNally. The Muhajiroun, however, have ample testimony from the example of Muhammad andthe Quran to eliminate the playwright.

The second example concerns Theo van Gogh, who was not a US citizen, but a citizen ofHolland. Any citizen in the West and anywhere else should be allowed total free speechwhen he debates another citizen over ideas, such as the validity of Islam or Christianity,even if the speech becomes blasphemous. Theo van Gogh insulted Islam in his film Submission. He also saidthat Jesus was "the rotten fish of Nazareth," apparently referring to theChristian symbol of a fish. Any Christian finds this offensive, and may even protest vanGogh and his art for those words, but no Christian should ever prosecute or threaten anoffensive and vulgar speaker like van Gogh. Everyone must be allowed to choose his ownmethods of debate, even if they are vulgar. They may lose the debate because of theirmethods, but they must be free to lose it on those grounds.

All discussions of allowing sharia courts in the West and elsewhere must not concludethat such courts are valuable to society. The hard evidence demonstrates beyond doubt thatsharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments. One of the most tragic and under-reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory islegitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. So Canada should promptly shut downany sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world. Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbiddensharia. This is the right initiative, for sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

The West must never allow laws that restrict speech criticizing any religion, even ifthe speech is offensive and vulgar.

Conclusion

Christianity, if properly understood, allows for freedom of speech. Jesus neverassassinated or ordered the assassination of mockers, even though the Torah, which herevered, commanded death for blasphemy. He fulfilled that penalty in his death on thecross. Rather, he said that if anyone wants to follow him, then the hearer of his callshould come. If not, the listener is free to go his own way. The founders of the US drew from this principle of freedom of religion and conscience, as well as from soundreasoning, coming from the Enlightenment. Therefore, everyone must be free to speak his or her own mind without reprisal, assassination, or imprisonment, merely for debatingreligious ideas, even if the words are offensive.

In many Islamic countries, in contrast, a citizen is not permitted to criticizeMuhammad, the Quran, or Islam. This act may get him thrown in jail or killed. This modernpolicy comes directly from the early source documents in Islam, all the way to classicalfiqh. Can Islamic law be reformed today when it draws from these source documents? How can Islam itself be reformed, when this means abandoning many, many passages in the Quran and the hadith?

Jesus Christ came with good news and freedom and God’s love, even when he wasinsulted. Muhammad came with repression and death for dissidents and critics. Jesus allowed dissent, but often answered his opponents with words. The outcome was never in doubt. God anointed him to respond with a definitive reply—but never with assassinations. This implies that the gospel is attractive and backed by God. This implies that Christianity, specifically the life of Jesus, can be defended, without repressing free speech, but the opposite is true of Islam. In contrast, the life and the Quran of Muhammad, whichwere filled with moral excesses and violence, cannot be defended reasonably. This implies that God was not backing this man or his message.

Christianity advances society forward. Islam drags society backwards.

Jesus liberates. Muhammad assassinated.

In case the reader missed the link at the end of the section "the Quran,"here it is again. This article is a superb analysis of intolerance in Islam, seen in the Quran, the hadith and in Islam’s early history. The verses in the Quran that seem tolerant must be read in their larger historical context.

What context? It is a fact that Muhammad either sent out or went out on seventy-fourraids, expeditions, or full-scale wars in the mere ten years that he lived in Medina (AD 622-632). Sometimes the raid was a small assassination hit squad, but one was a full-scale Crusade to Tabuk in AD 630, with thirty-thousand holy warriors. This is the larger historical context of all of the verses in the Quran in the Medinan suras.

For more modern examples of Muslims assassinating and killing mockers and politicalopponents in the West and elsewhere around the world, please go to this article and then click on the links throughout the article and in the Supplementary Material at the end.

Articles by James Arlandson
Answering Islam Home Page