Luther Strange Quotes

In 2005 an Egyptian writer, Usama Anwar Ukasha, criticized one of the Prophet’s companion’s role for causing dissention and divisiveness in Islamic history. Some called for his legal punishment for slandering a holy figure (see {588714}) and a law case was brought to force him to divorce his wife—so that she would not be “contaminated by his heretical thoughts. Al-Bana argued for freedom of thought and speech on such subjects. His view was particularly important since he was the brother of Hassan Al-Bana, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a powerful fundamentalist organization. Note that Al-Bana’s call for intellectual freedom does not go so far as to say that it should be legal to criticize The Prophet Muhammad and it illustrates how far even modern Islam has to go to meet reasonable standards of freedom of thought and speech.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

She was dealing with a serious campus situation where an invited speaker, Chief of Police Kelly of New York City was prevented from giving his p resentation on the controversial “Stop and Frisk” rules by student protesters who opposed the practice. Brown’s tradition of hearing anyone on the campus regardless of point of view had been broken to the distress of most students, faculty and alumni.

This is a very important quotation. The reason is that the Secretary General of the UN backed off and did not support the absolute right of freedom of speech and expression. He favored allowing exceptions. In this case a film was made that was not only intellectually an attack on Islam but it was done in such a manner that most orthodox Muslims were insulted and offended that their Prophet and religion were both insulted in a blasphemous manner. It was a film that was very much in poor taste, insensitive and gross. One major difference between freedom of speech as interpreted by most countries and the United States is that most other nations do not allow and defend hate speech and material that insults a people or their religion or is blatantly blasphemous. The U. S. however protects anyone who blasphemously attacks anyone or any group for any reason. There are a few other nations that protect free speech absolutely but Germany, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India are considered major examples of democracy and freedom and yet they do not protect free speech absolutely. In most Muslim nations, whatever freedom of speech they might have does not apply to blasphemy where Islam is concerned. In most of the Arab nations, there is rank hypocrisy in that freedom of speech is tolerated and protected if there is a blasphemous attack on any other religion such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Bhai. This kind of difference on human rights between the U. S. and the UN causes many Americans to oppose the US participation in UN operated courts and projects to protect human rights. Few Americans would favor being a part of an international court system where an American could be convicted of blasphemy for what he had written or said. Essentially, the Secretary General has taken a stand against the United States Constitution and the values of most Americans and many other people of the world like Denmark, or Norway. Offensive and insulting speech is the only kind of speech that needs protection. If speech offends no one, there is no need for its protection.