This I Abhor
I believe I have established here that I like tolerance, but I have also noted that tolerance is a value for me, not an absolute. In other words, I don’t have to tolerate everything. I just believe it’s good to be as tolerant as possible. (You can find some previous comments here.)
Ed Brayton has written a post, American Imam Calls for Death of Hirsi Ali, in which he cites this article:
Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.
“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.
Ed comments:
Let me explain something to you, Imam. Religions don’t have laws, governments do. Religions have rules which are followed voluntarily by those who choose – note that word – to be members of that religion. If they choose no longer to follow those rules, you are of course entirely free to kick them out of your religion. What you cannot do – and this is a real law – is threaten them or harm them. Period. This is not negotiable, it’s not optional and if you insist on doing so you’re going to find yourself in prison where you belong.
To which I say, Precisely.
I go further, however. It is only illegal if the Imam actually threatens Hirsi Ali or takes some actions that lead to harming her. But I personally can abhor whatever I want to, and I abhor the very idea that a religion can threaten a defector with death. It was evil in the Middle Ages when many Christians felt this was acceptable, and it’s evil today. This is not something I tolerate out of respect for someone else’s religious beliefs; it is an evil that I do not tolerate. I condemn it.
I urge Christians to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists and not to smear an entire faith with the actions of some members. At the same time, any gain in power by Islam as practiced by Imam Fouad ElBayly would be a tragedy for the world. No matter what religion we espouse, or if we espouse no religion at all, we need to be clear on this.
I believe that there is a cultural conflict arising. It’s not between Christianity and Islam, but rather between tyranny and freedom. Each of us, irrespective of our religious beliefs, need to decide which side of that one we’re on.
Is it not illegal for the Imam to say anything which might be interpreted as a call for her death? And his words certainly can be interpreted as such a call, and have been, at least by Ed Brayton. This would be an offence in the UK, and not a new one but the long-standing one of incitement to murder. Tolerance is good, but it has to have its limits, and they must exclude tolerance of this kind of incitement.
It is also nothing new for religious leaders to pass death sentences on perceived heretics and expect government authorities to execute them (the sentences, which in this case also implies the heretics). This is how the Spanish Inquisition worked, with its “handing over to the secular arm”. And this is how Jesus was put to death, the religious leaders pressuring Pilate until he agreed to their demands. We must all be vigilant that our governments make no concessions to demands of this kind, as even the smallest concession will lead to demands for more.
I’m in complete agreement with you on this. I think the question would be whether he said something like “If this were an Islamic government she would be executed” or “I think somebody should go kill her.” There’s a line under U. S. law between protected free speech and incitement. Merely stating that a certain class of people deserve to die is not illegal.
In our area, we have the example of Rev. Paul Hill, now very ex-Rev, who was executed by the state of Florida for murder a while back. Rev. Hill long advocated the killing of doctors who perform abortions and any persons who help them. But since he never urged any specific person to go and kill a specific doctor, he was not arrested for that.
One day he took a shotgun and put his beliefs into practice by shooting a doctor and a clinic escort, both of whom died. Then he was arrested. There are still people in my area who believe and will state that it is morally acceptable to kill a person who performs an abortion. There’s a line they have to cross before it’s illegal.
I would add that I agree with your comments about the inquisition. That was evil; this is evil. We should not tolerate either one.
Thanks. I would only add that in the UK, especially in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7, the authorities are taking a harder line than you suggest that the US takes with those who preach that certain people deserve to die. Anyway, I guess many people in Guantanamo Bay have done no more than this to get themselves locked up indefinitely as terrorists.
While I know there’s a difference between radical Islam and moderate Islam, I think one thing needs to be mentioned: which one was taught by Mohammed. “Death for the apostate” was taught by Mohammed, according to the earliest Muslim sources; according to some modern Muslim jurists, it was and has been an undisputed point of Islamic law from the earliest times. Those who teach something other than “death for the apostate” are going against the foundational documents of Islam and the weight of Islamic history in much the same way that those who teach “validity of homosexuality” are going against the foundational documents of Judaism and/or Christianity and the weight of historic interpretation. That’s not to say there aren’t people in both camps; it’s to say which one has the more ancient claim to authority, the vast bulk of historical support, and the near-uncontested claim to original interpretation.
Why do I bother mentioning it? Too many people suppose that “radical Islam” is something unjustified, a distortion of the original texts. So whenever I get the chance, I plead with people to get rid of their preconceptions and actually read those original texts.
Take care & God bless