I wish I could imagine a time in the future in which I would not have to write anything about the violence of fanatical Muslims taking exception to some real or imagined offense against their Prophet. How often do we have to utter the timeless truth that “blasphemy is a victimless crime?”
We can talk all day about how poverty, Western imperialism and militarism are to blame for religious insanity. However, many fanatical Muslims are financially well-off--even incredibly wealthy--like the late Osama bin Laden. Moreover, why is it that non-Muslims do not generally go berserk after charges of blasphemy?
After all, people blaspheme Jesus, but Christians do not threaten people, riot, slit people’s throats, firebomb buildings, etc. in reaction. Bigoted Muslims routinely demonize Jews, especially in predominantly Muslim nations; however, Jews do not issue fatwas calling for the deaths of anti- Jewish hate mongers. Last but not least, you certainly do not hear about secular humanists, freethinkers, atheists, rationalists, agnostics, and others threatening, harming or killing their critics. The fact of the matter is that, as syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts has noted, fanatical Muslims (from all classes) are the spoiled brats of the human race. Unlike the rest of us, they believe they are special and that they have the moral right to riot and murder when someone criticizes their leader or their holy book.
Fanatical Muslims cannot relate to the notions of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or freedomfrom religion. They are incredibly hypocritical. They rightly insist upon the right to build their mosques and community centers wherever they see fit-- including near Ground Zero in New York City where the Twin Towers were destroyed. Yet Christianity is illegal in Saudi Arabia and churches are discouraged in Egypt, Yemen and numerous other predominantly Muslim countries.
Many Muslims in predominantly Muslim nations believe that any Islamophobic image, cartoon, message, statement, book, etc. produced in the U.S. is automatically endorsed by the U.S. government. They believe that government censorship should prevail to protect their imagined right not to be offended.
For those who insist that fanatical Muslim madness is the result of Western domination, consider these facts. Fanatical Muslims often turn on citizens of their nations. They have rioted in Nigeria and directed their murderous rage against Nigerian Christians. They reacted violently when a Nigerian woman merely stated that, if the Prophet Muhammad had been alive, he would have approved of the Miss World contest.
In Pakistan, on August 16, 2012, a poor ,14-year-old girl with Down syndrome was accused of blasphemy. In a strange but welcome turn of events, an imam was arrested and charged with planting incriminating evidence on the girl in an attempt to scare Christians out of his neighborhood. (Indeed, when a Christian in Pakistan is charged with blasphemy, Christians in general are targeted for violence by intolerant Muslims.) The girl is currently out on bail and at home with her family. Calm, rational heads are trying to have the case thrown out of court.
Obviously, none of this religious insanity could be directly blamed on Western imperialism. This leads to the purpose of this piece. Religious fanatics have rioted in Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Tunisia, and Pakistan, at least partly in reaction to the Islamophobic film “Innocence of Muslims.” However, Nobel-winning author and secular humanist Wole Soyinka of Nigeria has long been a critic of Muslim religious fanaticism. He has wondered why angry Muslims go nuts in reaction to some perceived offense to their faith. Furthermore, he has wondered why they never express outrage due to the misbehavior of their fellow Muslims. Why do they not riot when some religious nut throws acid in the face of a woman for dressing immodestly? Why do they not slit the throats of religious thugs that kill women in “honor” killings? Why do they only go crazy over some real or imagined offense against their Prophet? They obviously place the reputation of their Prophet above genuine freedom and the best interests of their fellow human beings.
However, the religious nuts are not alone on this issue. Indeed, another Nobel laureate, Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, weighed in on the issue after the deadly rioting in Egypt. ElBaradei, a liberal secularist, had the audacity to tweet: “Humanity can only live in harmony when sacred beliefs and the prophets are respected.”
Imagine that from a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize! In truth, humanity will never live in harmony as long as religious fanatics continue to inflict violence upon their critics, and as long as people like ElBaradei fail to speak out against religious violence at every opportunity.
It would be great if there were more Muslim-led protests against Muslims that inflict violence against those accused of blasphemy, and their innocent fellow non-Muslims. (For example, when Muslim extremists stormed a base of international peacekeepers in the Sinai of Egypt, fourColombians were wounded.) There was a disgracefully under-reported protest against the violence in Libya, in which demonstrators sympathized with the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, killed during the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate there.
How about the Muslim equivalent of a Million Man March against blasphemy-related violence? Is this an unrealistic suggestion? Such a march could not come too soon.
_[Note: Nigerian humanist activist Leo Igwe has drafted a statement suggesting that nations that “fail to punish faith-based violence against religious and non-religious minorities, or which legitimize faith-based violence through laws against ’blasphemy’ or ’apostasy’ should have no seat on the UN Human Rights Council.” See the complete declaration here.