Saturday, March 11, 2006


Should We
Allow Muslims
To Call

For Murder
In The Name
Of The Koran?



Yesterday, I posted here about the fact that there are groups in Germany who are proseucting the Koran as hate speech. When I first read of these prosecutions, I was very happy that someone was finally doing something about the obvious incitement to violence. However, having given the subject more thought, and having read Dag's fine article over at No Dhimmitude, I have decided that even the Koran's violent incitement against Christians and Jews needs to be protected by our right to free speech.

TruePeers has a very thoughtful post, over at YARGB, on the subject. Check it out:


The real target in this action, it seems to me, must eventually be not so much Islam, as the present liberal order that would set itself up as the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable speech or writing. Liberalism, having decayed into a wholly victimary politics in which "progressive" forces appoint themselves the judges of what groups or individuals may claim a victim status, which one is not permitted to publicly criticize (if one is to share in the world of our liberal institutions), has reverted to a primitive system of demonization.

What is left of public debate is largely ritualized denunciations and contests over victim status. Lacking more sophisticated forms of discrimination that would appeal to universal truths - by explaining not indulging the human reliance on sacrificial or victimary forms - our contemporary liberalism leaves itself unable to even begin figuring out the problem that the rise of Islam in Europe presently poses for traditional liberal values, like free speech.

... this attempt to ban the Koran should only go to show that the liberal dream of a humanity united in some multicultural harmony (a "multiculturalism" which is actually conceived as a unity - "we are the world" - in opposition to some patriarchal oppressor of old who has been cast out of politically-correct society, the oppressor often being figured as a white imperialist or a rabid, often Jewish, free marketeer) is unrealistic in its denial of some basic facts about human differences ...


Having now given this issue more thought, I believe that an adherence to absolute free speech is what we need. As I always say, "You gotta love your enemies when they tell you the truth."

The truth will, indeed, set us free. And, obviously, the suppression of free speech makes it that much harder to learn the truth.

But, the thing is, eventually,


  • if a large moderate Muslim contingent does not make itself heard,
  • if a large moderate Muslim contingenet does not join us in the fight against Islamofascism,
  • if a large moderate Muslim contingent does not assert itself, and reform Islam as we know it,
then we are going to be forced to do some very illiberal things in order to rid ourselves of the fascists in our midst.

One of the ideas that I have been playing with is this:

Sharia is itself a Constitution for an Islamic state.

Therefore, anyone advocating for the establishment of Sharia law within a Western state is advocating for the overthrow of that state.

They are also advocating for the abolishment of a generally-accepted set of Human Rights.

As such, anyone advocating for the establishment of Sharia law within a Western state is a treasonous criminal and should be thrown in jail.

I am not sure if I am, in this reasoning, attacking free speech, or if I am upholding the rights of the state to protect itself.

What do you think?