Edward Said Quotes

Ironically, without the word “wicked” most people would regard the first sentence as a good description of elements of a modern democracy. It illustrates that for the Islamic fundamentalist democracy substitutes the rule of man for the rule of God, freedom of speech allows heresy and blasphemy to to uttered and communicated, and religion which is supposed to inform and direct politics. So what is good for the lover of democracy is the very thing that is bad for Islam. This is not a uniquely Islamic viewpoint. It has been and is held by fundamentalist Christians and Jews as well who would return to Biblical law punishing blasphemy and heresy with death and have religion drive all politics.

Note the absolutism of the word unbounded.

Abdul Rahman, Afghan citizen, had converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years before. Conversion from Islam is a capital crime under Sharia Law which was the law of Afghanistan even after the Taliban had been overthrown. He was jailed and threatened with death. Statements like this and others made directly to the government persuaded the Afghan politicians to go against their mullahs who demanded the death penalty as is proscribed by Islamic Law—Sharia. The judges tried to get Rahman to recant and he would not (see {589518}). So they finally decided that he must be mentally insane and therefore could not be tried, and the problem was solved that way.

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. The Sheikh along with many other Muslims called for the death penalty for the cartoonist who was exercising his Danish right of freedom of expression.

Danish fundamentalist Muslim Groups were demonstrating, protesting, and threatening Danes who wrote or published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Other Europeans who had committed what Muslims thought to be blasphemy had been attacked and even murdered by Muslim fundamentalists. Led by Nasim Rahnama, some Danish Muslims, braved attack and possible death, and produced a petition of Muslims defending the right of freedom of publication. See {59932} & {59919}.