The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working on this for years now, ever since the first Muhammad cartoon controversy. The West, meanwhile, is working toward it by means of official efforts to silence “misinformation” and “hate speech.” The two sides will converge before too long.
“The United Nations should make blasphemy a crime in the name of Prophet Muhammad: Allama Tahir Ashrafi,” The PiPa News, June 11, 2022:
ISLAMABAD: Special Assistant for Religious Affairs Allama Tahir Ashrafi has said that nothing is dearer to us than the sanctity of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The United Nations should make blasphemy a crime in the name of the Holy Prophet.
Addressing a press conference in Lahore, Allama Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi said that the people of Islam are protesting against the blasphemous statements of the Indian leaders. They strongly condemn the blasphemous statements of the BJP leaders….
Allama Tahir Ashrafi said that Indian products are being boycotted in all Islamic countries, Arab countries have been boycotting Indian products. He said that Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif was the first to raise his voice on the issue while the Holy Prophet’s Day was observed all over the country yesterday….
Tony says
Blasphemy for calling a paedophile child abuser what he is, or drawing cartoon drawings of the dog ‘prophet’. Whatever next? The scum.
mortimer says
Allama Tahir Ashrafi wants us the world to give up their blasphemy habit. He shouldn’t hold
his breath.
The right to blaspheme is one the fundamental rights of European civilization. It can be argued that our freedom of expression IS the right to blaspheme … principally, it was the right to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church and its monopoly to interpret the Bible and Christian tradition.
In a New York Magazine article, Jonathan Chait declared that the “right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.” (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-and-the-right-to-commit-blasphemy.html)
Our right to blaspheme was best explained by the US Supreme Court. Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
Additionally, Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs which are “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”
What the American justices were getting at is that the US has no establishment of religion. A US Supreme Court justice has no ‘official’ explanation of blasphemy, since there is no ‘official’ faith in the US.
The Irish Law Reform Commission’s 1991 Report opined that “there is no place for the offence of blasphemous libel in a society which respects freedom of speech.”
It refused to allow the prosecution, stating “in the absence of any legislative definition of the constitutional offence of blasphemy, it is impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists … In the absence of legislation and in the present uncertain state of the law the Court could not see its way to authorising the institution of a criminal prosecution”.
What Allama Tahir Ashrafi is actually demanding of us to establish Islam as the official
religion of of the world. This is not possible. About 80% of humans will not agree to put Islam beyond criticism nor will they agree that Islam is the one true, perfect, eternal faith.
Finally, Islam has dozens of sects with widely divergent doctrines. What is acceptable in one Islamic sect is ‘blasphemous’ in another.
Allama Tahir Ashrafi is demanding in effect that his sect be established as the authority on Islam. This cannot be done without starting WWIII.
PMK says
Mortimer,
Excellent summary. Unfortunately, since the advent of political correctness, it has less and less meaning. Our free speech rights are being pared back, little by little. Our leaders continue to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt, even after 9/11. Recall George W. Bush’s words to ‘our Muslim friends”, soon after thousands of Americans were killed in one day by Saudi and Egyptian attackers. Then we have hate crime laws, specifically to curtail our speech. The Muslim’s freedom of expression is protected. Ours is not. At least not any longer. If you use the wrong word on your tweet or comment, it will be deleted. Nothing ‘hateful’ can be said against Islam. Muslims are now a protected class. Not just in the US but in most Western countries. Our leaders were bought off decades ago. They have betrayed us and our history.
mortimer says
The simple rationale for Islam to wish to control all speech about Islam is that Islam is an HONOR/SHAME culture. Any perceived slight to Islam is unacceptable and must be punished by death.
The reason for punishing slights to Islam is because it is the sacred tradition (Sunna) from Mohammed himself, who sent out hired killers to murder the critics of Mohammed.
Occasionally, Mohammed forgave some people who had criticized him, but mostly, he had them murdered.
Muslims today cannot ask Mohammed to forgive, so the rule of Sharia law is KILL THEM ALL if they insult Islam.
It is mystery why Allama Tahir Ashrafi thinks that 80% of the world (which is non-Muslim) will agree to establish THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR BLASPHEMY contained in Sharia law.
He’s nuts.
PMK says
I think you have too much faith in the non-Muslim world. Countries may not establish the death penalty for blasphemy but they may very well make it a criminal offense At that point, people will be cowed into remaining silent on Islam. What the Spanish did in liberating Spain from the Moors can never happen today. Our laws are being used against us by people whose only goal is more power. Thus, we have ‘refugees’ coming from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and our leaders are requiring us to give their views and ‘feelings’ primacy. Witness the doctor in the UK Too many people will go along to get along. We generally have a philosophy of live and let live. Too many people will not recognize that Islamic philosophy is more one of live and let die.
mortimer says
Reply to Allama Tahir Ashrafi: 80% of all humans do NOT agree that Mohammed is either ‘holy’ or a ‘prophet’. Quite the reverse.
I personally doubt Mohammed existed anymore than King Arthur of Robin Hood. I owe no deference to a myth.
somehistory says
Obviously, the fool is wrong. What should be considered a *crime* is praising the feculent matter that is labeled a “prophet.” Praising and worshipping a raper of children, mass-murdering son of satan, lying sack of evil filth should be considered a “high crime”…and all who do this should face a high Court for sentencing to harsh punishment..
Mike mcQuade says
it’s only actual blasphemy when it comes from within the group–islam accuses everything non–islamic as blasphemous–and then use it as an excuse to rob, rape and kill–which is their central idea
Ade Fegan says
Others might suggest he be beheaded for shirk !
Ade Fegan says
Nah .. that’s a pants idea .. how about making following Muhammad a crime instead ?
PMK says
Note that this man wants the UN to make blasphemy a crime. Why should the UN cave to Islam when Muslim countries will not adhere to the UN declarations in other areas.
Exhibit A is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Muslims created their own human rights declaration, since their religion didn’t allow them to abide by the Universal Declaration.
Infidel says
There are only 50 (not 57) muslim countries in the UN. It’s up to the other 143 non-muslim countries not to let them boss them around
PMK says
There are 56 countries in the OIC that are also UN members Palestine is part of the OIC but is not recognized as a country and so it is not a UN member. There may be some countries that are not majority Muslim, but they have significant Muslim populations and so have joined the OIC..
Infidel says
No, countries like Guyana and Suriname are members, and their muslim populations are a mere 15% or so. Not even a plurality. They may have joined due to a desire to be members of that club, but they are by no means shariah states. Other countries – Mozambique, Gabon, Cameroon, Uganda, Ivory Coast and Benin – actually brings the number of muslim majority countries to below 50!
PMK says
Infidel,
You keep moving the goalposts. There ARE 56 COUNTRIES in the OIC. Of the nine OIC countries in which Muslims are a minority, only one, Guyana, is under ten percent. Ivory Coast is 38% Muslim. Muslims don’t have to constitute a majority or even a plurality to affect a country’s laws. Eight of the nine OIC countries that are not majority Muslim have Muslim populations of ten percent or more. They all joined the OIC. The fact that they are not majority Muslim doesn’t mean that Muslim opinions have no impact on their laws and outlook.
Infidel says
PMK
In those countries where muslim populations are not even a plurality, do their views outweigh that of religions in that country, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, et al? In their constitutions, assuming they have those?
Andrew Blackadder says
The idea of an International Universal Law in favour of protecting islam from any kind of criticism was put forward into the United Nations decades ago, perhaps around the 1960s, so nothing new here, however people are more aware of the nature of this fascist religious cult today than ever before, 9/11 merely woke some folks up to what these morons believe and how easily they get their wee knickers in a twist when somebody calls their main guru dude, may piss be upon him, as a man of low IQ, sexual deviancy and lacking in morals and who cant take a joke, plus proudly claimed to have cut off the heads of 600 men in one single day because they would not follow his garbage ideas.
islam has never been a religion of peace it has however always been a religion of conquest, and evil.
Melc says
These medieval jokers are holding up human progress. If they don’t ike secular western values then they are free to go and live in an Islamic country. But they won’t do that. They want to turn where ever they occupy into an Islamic state. Hajira. Then Mosque and Sharia. Ban on free speech.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“The United Nations should make blasphemy a crime”
Is the United Nations a legislative body? Has it ever enacted any law?
OLD GUY says
How about the UN making Islam a crime against humanity? That would make more sense and actually make life on earth safer and more peaceful.