America’s Founders wisely understood the necessity of protecting unpopular speech. After all, they were revolutionaries. The First Amendment to our Constitution is so firmly ingrained in our culture that we abhor the concept of the government dictating acceptable speech.
Other democratic countries may not have the specific protection, but they have generally accepted the concept of free speech. The attacks in France, however, are violent reminders of what happens when religious radicals reject modernity and attempt to force their theocracy on others.
The Muslim terrorists who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo claimed they were seeking retribution for the magazine’s caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Anjem Choudary, a radical Muslim cleric from London writing in USA Today said the attackers were provoked.
“Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities,” Choudary wrote. “In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
Frankly, that sounds more like a threat than a legitimate argument. So non-Muslims are supposed to know that radicalized Muslims may take the law into their own hands for any real or perceived insult to the Prophet?
Choudary goes on to suggest that it was the responsibility of the French government to stop Charlie Hebdo. “Why in this case did the French government allow the magazine to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?”
That’s tantamount to suggesting that when a woman dresses in a provocative manner she’s inviting rape. Interestingly, if secular governments practiced what Choudary is preaching, England would prevent him from engaging in his radical preaching.
Journalist Asra Nomani, author of “Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam,” says Choudary’s view is shared by many Muslims.
“It’s much more common than most mainstream Muslim organizations will acknowledge,” Nomani told me. “But if you think about blasphemy laws in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, you have to acknowledge that Anjem Choudary’s view is the law of the land in too many Muslim countries.”
Pakistan’s Friday Times editor Raza Rumi says the problem lies with Muslims, not those who would offend Islam. “The issue of blasphemy is about political insecurity of the Muslims, and about the Muslim public reaction to the so-called injustices committed by the West,” Rumi is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying.
Citizens of secularly governed countries already struggle to understand the Islamist approach to governing. The jihadist-inspired attack at Charlie Hebdo expands that gulf even more. As Nomani says, Muslims who believe in free speech need to change the laws — and values — of their societies.