Islam and Blasphemy (15/01/15)
Rod Liddle used his Sunday Times column to argue that we should not draw a veil over a traditional Islamic view of blasphemy which I agree with wholeheartedly.
If you ask me, 'apostasy' is a throwback to the Dark Ages and it's not acceptable for a member country of the United nations to persecute its citizens for deciding not to follow a particular religion.
The same is true of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, for example, which religious zealots used regularly to silence and jail their critics.
We must not draw a veil over Muslims’ view of blasphemy
By Rod Liddle - The Sunday Times
On Thursday afternoon I was in Paris, listening with mounting incredulity to a leading French intellectual explain to me that all religions got a bit het up about blasphemy and one shouldn’t single out Islam. By way of example, this thoughtful and decent man made reference to a recent protest by a bunch of Roman Catholics outside an art exhibition in the French capital, angered at what was on display. See? All the same.
This was the day after the murders in which some of this very man’s friends had been killed or injured. It seemed too early, too raw and too glib to respond by asking: “Um. And these Catholics you speak of. Did they have Kalashnikovs?” Or to suggest that there is a difference between turning the other cheek and being wilfully purblind.
Equating a well-behaved, non-violent, sit-down protest by a bunch of mildly pious left-footers with the barbaric attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices seems to me berserk almost beyond comprehension. And yet this quite magnificent delusion is very common and you will have heard much of it these past few days, from the politicians and the BBC.
It is much the same when Muslim countries are criticised for their vigorous approach to homosexuality and the hand-wringing western liberals say: ah, but the Christians are just as bad. And they then point you to the half-dozen bedraggled nutjobs of some small-town Baptist church in Texas: these halfwits somehow make Christianity morally equivalent to the sharia penal codes of Islamic countries. I suppose it is an elitist attempt at crowd control, and a shaky defence of their cherished if somewhat battered belief in multiculturalism. But it is also sort of mad, no?
It is only in Islamic states that people risk being put to death for blasphemy. No non-Islamic states do this, not even the Vatican these days. It is only in Islamic states that people may be put to death for apostasy; no other countries do this. There is little in the way of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression in any Islamic country — although things are rather less grim in Bangladesh than, say, Saudi Arabia, where a crowd last week watched a blogger suffer the first 50 of 1,000 lashes he has been sentenced to for cybercrime and insulting Islam. He also got 10 years in jail; his lawyer got 15.
But what of British Muslims? An NOP poll in 2006 reported that 68% of our Muslim community thought that British people who insulted the Prophet should be prosecuted. Not killed, mind — just banged up. Further, 28% hoped that Britain would become an “Islamic state”. In a later poll for the Policy Exchange think tank, more than a third of young British Muslims said they thought apostates should be put to death. And in another, some 40% of Muslims wanted sharia in the UK.
So we ought to be clear. It is not just Muslim “extremists” who wish to punish people for apostasy and blasphemy; it is the view of the mainstream Islamic world. The difference is only between whether the transgressors should be killed or merely imprisoned. It is not only “extremist” Muslims who wish for the law of God to take precedence over the secular law of the land.
This, I would venture, is a problem in western secular democracies that cleave to Voltaire and John Stuart Mill and thus value freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. And the problem cannot be assuaged by simply closing one’s eyes and wishing that it did not exist, or making fatuous arguments that insist — against all the evidence — that all religions are alike. The Methodists, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, the Muslims — all the same. They are not.
Ironically, you might think, the Koran takes a view of blasphemy with which neither Mill nor Voltaire would quibble too much. “When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme.” Turn the other cheek, then. Hell, someone tell modern Muslims, quick.
On Thursday afternoon I was in Paris, listening with mounting incredulity to a leading French intellectual explain to me that all religions got a bit het up about blasphemy and one shouldn’t single out Islam. By way of example, this thoughtful and decent man made reference to a recent protest by a bunch of Roman Catholics outside an art exhibition in the French capital, angered at what was on display. See? All the same.
This was the day after the murders in which some of this very man’s friends had been killed or injured. It seemed too early, too raw and too glib to respond by asking: “Um. And these Catholics you speak of. Did they have Kalashnikovs?” Or to suggest that there is a difference between turning the other cheek and being wilfully purblind.
Equating a well-behaved, non-violent, sit-down protest by a bunch of mildly pious left-footers with the barbaric attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices seems to me berserk almost beyond comprehension. And yet this quite magnificent delusion is very common and you will have heard much of it these past few days, from the politicians and the BBC.
It is much the same when Muslim countries are criticised for their vigorous approach to homosexuality and the hand-wringing western liberals say: ah, but the Christians are just as bad. And they then point you to the half-dozen bedraggled nutjobs of some small-town Baptist church in Texas: these halfwits somehow make Christianity morally equivalent to the sharia penal codes of Islamic countries. I suppose it is an elitist attempt at crowd control, and a shaky defence of their cherished if somewhat battered belief in multiculturalism. But it is also sort of mad, no?
It is only in Islamic states that people risk being put to death for blasphemy. No non-Islamic states do this, not even the Vatican these days. It is only in Islamic states that people may be put to death for apostasy; no other countries do this. There is little in the way of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression in any Islamic country — although things are rather less grim in Bangladesh than, say, Saudi Arabia, where a crowd last week watched a blogger suffer the first 50 of 1,000 lashes he has been sentenced to for cybercrime and insulting Islam. He also got 10 years in jail; his lawyer got 15.
But what of British Muslims? An NOP poll in 2006 reported that 68% of our Muslim community thought that British people who insulted the Prophet should be prosecuted. Not killed, mind — just banged up. Further, 28% hoped that Britain would become an “Islamic state”. In a later poll for the Policy Exchange think tank, more than a third of young British Muslims said they thought apostates should be put to death. And in another, some 40% of Muslims wanted sharia in the UK.
So we ought to be clear. It is not just Muslim “extremists” who wish to punish people for apostasy and blasphemy; it is the view of the mainstream Islamic world. The difference is only between whether the transgressors should be killed or merely imprisoned. It is not only “extremist” Muslims who wish for the law of God to take precedence over the secular law of the land.
This, I would venture, is a problem in western secular democracies that cleave to Voltaire and John Stuart Mill and thus value freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. And the problem cannot be assuaged by simply closing one’s eyes and wishing that it did not exist, or making fatuous arguments that insist — against all the evidence — that all religions are alike. The Methodists, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, the Muslims — all the same. They are not.
Ironically, you might think, the Koran takes a view of blasphemy with which neither Mill nor Voltaire would quibble too much. “When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme.” Turn the other cheek, then. Hell, someone tell modern Muslims, quick.
Religious Zealots (26 January 2014)
While Unionist councillors in Northern Ireland make themselves look ridiculous by accusing a theatre company of blasphemy - here is a salutary tale of what happens when religious bigots gain real power and control of the state.
Apparently the death sentence handed down to this British man, Muhammad Ashgar, is unlikely to be carried out, but according to this report from the BBC he has already been held in prison since 2010 - and all because he has been deemed to have insulted Islam.
Which is a complete joke, if you ask me.
Blasphemy case: Briton in Pakistan sentenced to death
Saba Eitizaz - BBC Urdu
"We are afraid that Asghar is not going to live long enough to see an appeal against his death sentence." Asghar's lawyer told me.
This case is highly sensitive because of the strong reaction by the religious right to blasphemy cases. It is so sensitive that lawyers requested their names be withheld for security reasons.
Muhammad Asghar is a British Pakistani from Edinburgh who came back to Pakistan to look after the family's property here. He has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by the Royal Victoria Hospital in Edinburgh and is also partially paralysed from a stroke.
The blasphemy complaint against Asghar was filed by a tenant in his building, after he was given an eviction notice. Sources say there is pressure on the court from religious extremists who have been seen in mobs outside the courthouse.
He tried to take his own life once in jail, where has been held since 2010. The authorities have refused to put him on suicide watch, his lawyer says. There is also fear that religious extremists might harm him.
He is currently in the same jail as Mumtaz Qadri, who was arrested for assassinating former Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for speaking out against the country's strict blasphemy laws.
"Asghar claimed to be a prophet even inside the court. He confessed it in front of the judge," Javed Gul, a government prosecutor, told the Agence France-Presse news agency.
Comedian Jake O'Kane criticises 'zealots' who cancelled play
Councillors decided the play made a mockery of the word of God
One of NI's leading comedians has criticised the council "zealots" who have banned a play in County Antrim.
Newtownabbey Borough Council cancelled the Reduced Shakespeare Company's The Bible: The Complete Word of God (Abridged) after complaints that it was blasphemous.
Jake O'Kane said unionist councillors who took the decision "weren't elected to be moral guardians".
Councillor Fraser Agnew said there was a "need to defend Christian values".
“They call themselves moral guardians - they weren't elected to be moral guardians. We elected them to empty our bins, make sure the leisure centres were open - that's the powers they have,” said Jake O'Kane a well-known comedian.
The play was to have been staged at Newtownabbey's council-run Theatre at the Mill on 29 and 30 January.
But it was cancelled on Thursday after a meeting of the council's artistic board.
Some councillors had previously called for the show to be cancelled.
Alliance councillor Tom Campbell said: "It's typical of the DUP, they're intolerant, they're a party that wants to see censorship of things that people want to see in the borough.
"I've had plenty of complaints from people who wanted to see it and indeed I was one of those who had booked to see the show."
Apparently the death sentence handed down to this British man, Muhammad Ashgar, is unlikely to be carried out, but according to this report from the BBC he has already been held in prison since 2010 - and all because he has been deemed to have insulted Islam.
Which is a complete joke, if you ask me.
Blasphemy case: Briton in Pakistan sentenced to death
Several recent cases have prompted international concern about the application of Pakistan's blasphemy laws
A court in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi has sentenced a 70-year-old British man to death after convicting him of blasphemy.
Muhammad Asghar was arrested in 2010 after writing letters to various people claiming to be a prophet, reports say.
His lawyers argued for leniency, saying he has a history of mental illness, but this was rejected by a medical panel.
Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws carry a potential death sentence for anyone deemed to have insulted Islam.
Several recent cases have prompted international concern about the application of these laws.
Mr Asghar, who is from Edinburgh, Scotland, was accused of writing letters to police officers claiming to be a prophet. He is thought to have lived in Pakistan for several years.
Sensitive issue
But his lawyer told the BBC's Saba Eitizaz that she was forcibly removed from the case by the judge and that proceedings were carried out behind closed doors.
His lawyer says she will launch an appeal against the verdict, which was delivered late on Thursday. Higher courts in Pakistan have been known to overturn blasphemy verdicts handed down in lower courts because of insufficient evidence.
Mr Asghar is believed to have been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and had treatment at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Edinburgh, but the court did not accept his medical reports from the UK, reports say.
He has been in jail since his arrest in 2010 and his lawyer says he has also tried to take his own life in jail on one occasion.
Mr Asghar is unlikely to be executed as Pakistan has had a de facto moratorium on the death penalty since 2008. He was also ordered to pay a substantial fine by the court.
Critics argue that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are frequently misused to settle personal scores and that members of minority groups are also unfairly targeted.
In 2012 the arrest of a young Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, on blasphemy charges provoked international outrage. After being detained in a high security prison for several weeks she was eventually released and her family subsequently fled to Canada.
Blasphemy is a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan, where 97% of the population are Muslim.
Muslims constitute a majority of those prosecuted, followed by the minority Ahmadi community.
Earlier this year, another 72-year-old British Pakistani from the Ahmadi community, Masood Ahmed, was jailed on blasphemy charges.
A court in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi has sentenced a 70-year-old British man to death after convicting him of blasphemy.
Muhammad Asghar was arrested in 2010 after writing letters to various people claiming to be a prophet, reports say.
His lawyers argued for leniency, saying he has a history of mental illness, but this was rejected by a medical panel.
Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws carry a potential death sentence for anyone deemed to have insulted Islam.
Several recent cases have prompted international concern about the application of these laws.
Mr Asghar, who is from Edinburgh, Scotland, was accused of writing letters to police officers claiming to be a prophet. He is thought to have lived in Pakistan for several years.
Sensitive issue
But his lawyer told the BBC's Saba Eitizaz that she was forcibly removed from the case by the judge and that proceedings were carried out behind closed doors.
His lawyer says she will launch an appeal against the verdict, which was delivered late on Thursday. Higher courts in Pakistan have been known to overturn blasphemy verdicts handed down in lower courts because of insufficient evidence.
Mr Asghar is believed to have been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and had treatment at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Edinburgh, but the court did not accept his medical reports from the UK, reports say.
He has been in jail since his arrest in 2010 and his lawyer says he has also tried to take his own life in jail on one occasion.
Mr Asghar is unlikely to be executed as Pakistan has had a de facto moratorium on the death penalty since 2008. He was also ordered to pay a substantial fine by the court.
Critics argue that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are frequently misused to settle personal scores and that members of minority groups are also unfairly targeted.
In 2012 the arrest of a young Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, on blasphemy charges provoked international outrage. After being detained in a high security prison for several weeks she was eventually released and her family subsequently fled to Canada.
Blasphemy is a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan, where 97% of the population are Muslim.
Muslims constitute a majority of those prosecuted, followed by the minority Ahmadi community.
Earlier this year, another 72-year-old British Pakistani from the Ahmadi community, Masood Ahmed, was jailed on blasphemy charges.
Analysis
Saba Eitizaz - BBC Urdu
"We are afraid that Asghar is not going to live long enough to see an appeal against his death sentence." Asghar's lawyer told me.
This case is highly sensitive because of the strong reaction by the religious right to blasphemy cases. It is so sensitive that lawyers requested their names be withheld for security reasons.
Muhammad Asghar is a British Pakistani from Edinburgh who came back to Pakistan to look after the family's property here. He has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by the Royal Victoria Hospital in Edinburgh and is also partially paralysed from a stroke.
The blasphemy complaint against Asghar was filed by a tenant in his building, after he was given an eviction notice. Sources say there is pressure on the court from religious extremists who have been seen in mobs outside the courthouse.
He tried to take his own life once in jail, where has been held since 2010. The authorities have refused to put him on suicide watch, his lawyer says. There is also fear that religious extremists might harm him.
He is currently in the same jail as Mumtaz Qadri, who was arrested for assassinating former Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for speaking out against the country's strict blasphemy laws.
"Asghar claimed to be a prophet even inside the court. He confessed it in front of the judge," Javed Gul, a government prosecutor, told the Agence France-Presse news agency.
Ban Monty Python? (25 January 2014)
Politicians in Northern Ireland have put Newtonabbey council on the map with a crazy decision to ban a play by the Reduced Shakespeare Company because they regard the production as blasphemous.
Now this remands me of an episode of Father Ted when the eponymous priest ands his sidekick, Dougall, are ordered by the fearsome Bishop Brennan (whom Ted has to 'kick up the arse' in a letter episode) which the pair duly do, of course, but with little success or enthusiasm.
But there's a serious point to this madness as well because the behaviour of the moral guardians in Newtonabbey puts them on a par with religious extremists in Pakistan who are fond of using that country's blasphemy laws to persecute non-Muslims - and it also takes us back to the bad old days in the 1970s when other 'moral guardians' in the UK tried to ban 'Life of Brian'.
So the question for these crazy councillors is: "Are you going to ban Monty Python next?
Comedian Jake O'Kane criticises 'zealots' who cancelled play
Councillors decided the play made a mockery of the word of God
One of NI's leading comedians has criticised the council "zealots" who have banned a play in County Antrim.
Newtownabbey Borough Council cancelled the Reduced Shakespeare Company's The Bible: The Complete Word of God (Abridged) after complaints that it was blasphemous.
Jake O'Kane said unionist councillors who took the decision "weren't elected to be moral guardians".
Councillor Fraser Agnew said there was a "need to defend Christian values".
“They call themselves moral guardians - they weren't elected to be moral guardians. We elected them to empty our bins, make sure the leisure centres were open - that's the powers they have,” said Jake O'Kane a well-known comedian.
The play was to have been staged at Newtownabbey's council-run Theatre at the Mill on 29 and 30 January.
But it was cancelled on Thursday after a meeting of the council's artistic board.
Some councillors had previously called for the show to be cancelled.
'Dead in water'
Mr O'Kane said: "I haven't seen the play, and unfortunately I'll never be able to see the play because councillors have decided that we will not be allowed to see the play.
"It's like getting in a time machine and they went back to before the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
"There was £7m spent on this theatre, it opened in 2010, and they may as well close the doors. If they are going to be the moral guardians of what we see and don't see, that theatre is dead in the water.
"We already have laws, we have hate speech laws, that dictate what the arts can and cannot do. If it is hateful, if it is against minorities, the laws are already there to censor that.
"We don't need a bunch of unionist councillors in Newtownabbey deciding what we can or cannot go to see.
"They call themselves moral guardians - they weren't elected to be moral guardians. We elected them to empty our bins, make sure the leisure centres were open - that's the powers they have.
Comedian Jake O'Kane said if people were offended by the play, they should not go to see it
Mr O'Kane said: "I haven't seen the play, and unfortunately I'll never be able to see the play because councillors have decided that we will not be allowed to see the play.
"It's like getting in a time machine and they went back to before the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
"There was £7m spent on this theatre, it opened in 2010, and they may as well close the doors. If they are going to be the moral guardians of what we see and don't see, that theatre is dead in the water.
"We already have laws, we have hate speech laws, that dictate what the arts can and cannot do. If it is hateful, if it is against minorities, the laws are already there to censor that.
"We don't need a bunch of unionist councillors in Newtownabbey deciding what we can or cannot go to see.
"They call themselves moral guardians - they weren't elected to be moral guardians. We elected them to empty our bins, make sure the leisure centres were open - that's the powers they have.
Comedian Jake O'Kane said if people were offended by the play, they should not go to see it
'Humiliated'
"They didn't put on their manifesto that they were going to decide what we can or cannot see."
Mr O'Kane told BBC Northern Ireland's Good Morning Ulster that "the vast majority of people in Newtownabbey, I guarantee, are humiliated by this decision".
Mr Agnew, an Ulster Unionist Party representative on the council, said: "Unionists were objecting based on the number of calls they were receiving and some people who had seen the trailer.
"I had a call from a chap who had seen the play, who had trained for the Roman Catholic priesthood, and he advised me that it was blasphemous.
"If it was a play to do with anti-gay material can you imagine the outcry there would be over that, if it was anti-Semitic, if it was anti-Koran... all of those things would create an uproar.
"People weren't going to go, but I think there is this need to defend Christian values."
"They didn't put on their manifesto that they were going to decide what we can or cannot see."
Mr O'Kane told BBC Northern Ireland's Good Morning Ulster that "the vast majority of people in Newtownabbey, I guarantee, are humiliated by this decision".
Mr Agnew, an Ulster Unionist Party representative on the council, said: "Unionists were objecting based on the number of calls they were receiving and some people who had seen the trailer.
"I had a call from a chap who had seen the play, who had trained for the Roman Catholic priesthood, and he advised me that it was blasphemous.
"If it was a play to do with anti-gay material can you imagine the outcry there would be over that, if it was anti-Semitic, if it was anti-Koran... all of those things would create an uproar.
"People weren't going to go, but I think there is this need to defend Christian values."
Alliance councillor Tom Campbell said: "It's typical of the DUP, they're intolerant, they're a party that wants to see censorship of things that people want to see in the borough.
"I've had plenty of complaints from people who wanted to see it and indeed I was one of those who had booked to see the show."
'Unjustified'
Human rights group Amnesty International said that the decision to cancel the play was "utterly unjustified".
Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International said: "It is well established in international human rights law that the right to freedom of expression, though not absolute, is a fundamental right which may only be restricted in certain limited circumstances to do with the advocacy of hatred.
"It is quite obvious that those circumstances are not met in the context of this work of comedy and thus that the cancelling of the play is utterly unjustified on human rights grounds.
"Such interference with freedom of speech and artistic expression should be of concern to freedom lovers everywhere."
Mayor of Newtownabbey Frazer Agnew said the decision was made after taking on board what people and councillors were saying
However, speaking to BBC Radio Ulster's Evening Extra programme on Friday, the Rev Brian McClung, welcomed the news that it would not be shown and said the play was "derogatory".
"There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere in what is offensive, and we certainly believe that what that company was putting on was highly offensive," he said.
"This is derogatory and offensive to Christians. Whether people laugh at you or not, you're standing up for the Bible and I make no apology for that."
Anne McReynolds, chief executive of Belfast's MAC theatre said: "It's a ridiculous situation, there's no question about that.
"You can see by the reaction of the vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland who engaged with the issue that there is no support for this kind of censorship."
Human rights group Amnesty International said that the decision to cancel the play was "utterly unjustified".
Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International said: "It is well established in international human rights law that the right to freedom of expression, though not absolute, is a fundamental right which may only be restricted in certain limited circumstances to do with the advocacy of hatred.
"It is quite obvious that those circumstances are not met in the context of this work of comedy and thus that the cancelling of the play is utterly unjustified on human rights grounds.
"Such interference with freedom of speech and artistic expression should be of concern to freedom lovers everywhere."
Mayor of Newtownabbey Frazer Agnew said the decision was made after taking on board what people and councillors were saying
However, speaking to BBC Radio Ulster's Evening Extra programme on Friday, the Rev Brian McClung, welcomed the news that it would not be shown and said the play was "derogatory".
"There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere in what is offensive, and we certainly believe that what that company was putting on was highly offensive," he said.
"This is derogatory and offensive to Christians. Whether people laugh at you or not, you're standing up for the Bible and I make no apology for that."
Anne McReynolds, chief executive of Belfast's MAC theatre said: "It's a ridiculous situation, there's no question about that.
"You can see by the reaction of the vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland who engaged with the issue that there is no support for this kind of censorship."
