Mustafa Akyol: ‘The right to blasphemy’

You —

Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine, recently became much more famous than it ever was. Early this month it came out with a provocative issue whose cover presented a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad and the headline “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing.” Shortly afterwards the offices of the magazine were firebombed and its website got hacked, reportedly by a group of Turkish Muslims.

Luckily, no one died. But this incident underlined a recurrent conflict between European notions of free speech and the Islamic notions of the sacred. The pro-Charlie Hebdo demonstrators that gathered outside Paris City Hall on Nov. 6 were pointing exactly to that dilemma by declaring their “right to blaspheme.” Even mainstream Muslim organizations, however, have long been arguing for laws against blasphemy.

Read more @ Hurriyet Daily News

Forum

You — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 - 19:20

Good article to read, but for those that cba, the quick version is the following verse:

“When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.” (4:140)

So the "Islamic" reaction is to avoid such company while they blaspheme.

The author further adds:

(By the way, this verse is from a “Medinan” chapter. It, in other words, comes from a later phase in which Muslims had military power and thus it can’t be explained away as resulting from necessity.)

TPOS — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 18:33

[qs:4:140]

As I explain in my book “Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty” what we see suggested here is a civilized form of disapproval: Muslims are not supposed to be a part of a discourse that mocks Islam. But all they have to do is to stay away from it. And even then, that is only until the discourse changes. Once mockery ends, dialogue can restart. (By the way, this verse is from a “Medinan” chapter. It, in other words, comes from a later phase in which Muslims had military power and thus it can’t be explained away as resulting from necessity.)

If we apply the spirit of this verse to the modern world, we can say Muslims can boycott anti-Islamic rhetoric by refusing to join conversations, buying newspapers and magazines or watching films and plays that mock the values of their faith. But that’s it. Disapproving and boycotting is the Qur’anic thing to do, whereas violence and threats are not.

So, if I were a French Muslim, I would end my subscription to Charlie Hebdo, if I had one. I would also express that I found their cartoons about Prophet Muhammad disrespectful to the Muslim community. But that’s it. The violent attack on the magazine cannot be justified or tolerated. And their “right to blasphemy” cannot be countered by anything other than a peaceful stance for the sacred.

The Lamp — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 - 15:27

I love the boycotting suggestion, let's make Charlie Hebdo a third world country! LOL!
We can use other sources to challenge and criticise and refute them, or would that give them publicity?

You — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 - 18:15

[quote=The Lamp]We can use other sources to challenge and criticise and refute them, or would that give them publicity?[/quote]

There will be other situations where people insult Islam and Muslims, so it is good to remember what the qur'an says for those situations, instead of giving any specific group or party free publicity over their offensive actions.