The Emir of Kuwait is faced at this very moment with the
decision of approving a law that would impose the death penalty against
unrepentant Muslims (and varying prison sentences upon others) who
exercise their religious freedom of speech in a way deemed blasphemous.
So far, this is the most extreme version of such a law in the region,
and it is very surprising that it makes its appearance in enlightened
Kuwait.
Furthermore, similar though less draconian versions of
this law have been recently adopted in Egypt and Tunisia. One year ago,
hopes were high for these countries to usher in a new age of freedom,
but the Arab spring is being viewed increasingly as an eruption of
serious local, regional and global dimensions that will take a long time
before its true character and impact is understood. In the meantime,
we are witnessing unprecedented excesses, such as these anti-blasphemy
laws, that must be addressed thoughtfully and effectively.
It is
not sufficient to advise these countries to restrict their
anti-blasphemy laws to cases of incitement to imminent violence or
national security. In the era of the Arab spring, these criteria are
often satisfied. Take the example of the young Egyptian Copt Gamal
Abdou Massoud. His religiously offensive comments about Islam on
Facebook led to riots in his village that soon spread to neighboring
ones. Seven houses were burnt, both Muslim and Coptic, and a high level
meeting between Muslim and Coptic religious leaders was convened to
calm the situation. The court sentenced him to three years in prison.
One could argue that the anti-blasphemy law was justified in this case.
In fact, in reaching its verdict, the court in the Massoud case
specifically mentioned the twin grounds of incitement to violence and
threatening national security.
Thus a demand upon Egypt that it
only criminalize speech that incites to imminent violence may help in
some cases, but would not change the result in this case. This speech
incited riots. The same can be argued for other cases. In dealing with
anti-blasphemy laws in this tinderbox, it is not enough to propose our
standards. We need to be cognizant of the local circumstances and
tailor a more effective solution to the problem. For example, Amba
Yisanti of the Coptic Orthodox Church demanded parity of treatment in
blasphemy cases, so that the law applies equally to Muslim offenders.
That is a demand we American Muslims should vigorously support along
with the previously mentioned standard. It is not only fair through the
lens of international justice but also through an Islamic one, a fact
that is important in Muslim countries.
As to executing
offenders, it is wise to remember that the model proposed by the Kuwaiti
law was discredited when Socrates was condemned to drink the hemlock.
Many centuries later, we are still talking about Socrates and his ideas,
not his judges. On a more practical level, an execution in Kuwait may
temporarily intimidate potential offenders but will not solve the
underlying problems which are political as well as religious. These
will continue to simmer before they suddenly erupt, as in Bahrain,
causing incalculable damage to the state. On the political level,
draconian anti-blasphemy laws are misguided autocratic responses in a
region which is just now attempting to rediscover its democratic roots.
On the religious level, they violate various Qur'anic injunctions, such
as "there shall be no compulsion in religion."
The problem of
offensive speech is not solvable through executions or prison sentences,
but through serious multifaceted education about respecting diversity,
the opinions and faiths of others, interfaith understanding and
collaborative community building. There is a long tradition in the
Muslim World for that, although the recent surge of extremist ideology
has wiped it from many memories.
It is time to revive this
tradition in school education, internet websites, political discourse
and community outreach. It is time to say "no" to the extremists loudly
and unabashedly. They will not be allowed to steal and disfigure a great
heritage. They will not be allowed to destroy harmony in otherwise
peaceful societies. Most importantly, they should not be allowed to
speak for the silent majority. I can think of no better weapon to defeat
them than grass roots education as well as comprehensive and
well-reasoned policies protecting all democratic rights, especially free
speech.
For angry Muslims eager to protect their religion from
verbal attacks, the Qur'an exhorts them to "restrain their anger and
forgive others." It is appropriate to remember this important verse at a
time when people across the region are rejecting authoritarianism in
favor of democracy. It is time to move away from angry authoritarian
responses, and adopt the Qur'anic recommendation to let the "common
word" be the link among the faiths, which can be accomplished through
interfaith education and outreach. We should demand that the young
Massoud and others like him receive interfaith education not a prison
sentence. This approach is similar to some UN Human Rights Council
proposals. More importantly, if anger gives way to forgiveness and
education, an older Massoud may become a close friend to his village
neighbors instead of a bitter enemy.
Azizah al-Hibri is a
Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
and Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Richmond. She is
writing this article in her personal capacity.