Back in 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt" ("The face of Muhammad"), referring to the Prophet Muhammad. Along with it, they published 12 cartoons, many of which depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a demeaning way. After many other newspapers, mainly European, reprinted these cartoons (along with ones in Muslim countries like Libya, Jordan, Yemen and Malaysia), protests were held around the world with some of them turning violent. Embassies were burned down and about 150 people were killed.

Why was there such an outrage against these cartoons? For Muslims, it is prohibited to draw or depict the Prophet Muhammad or any other Prophet - such as Jesus or Moses - for that matter. This is out of respect to the Prophets and to avoid idolatry. But it is not the first time the Prophet has been drawn. There are many books that have drawings of the Prophet, written by both Western and Muslim scholars. In fact, there is even a carving of the Prophet Muhammad sitting atop the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

For many reasons, people in the Middle East and Muslim majority countries are not used to free and open speech and criticism of authority figures; especially not the beloved Prophet. So for a population who rarely reads criticism of their authority figures, the mere thought that someone had insulted their Prophet, combined with the frequent images of dead Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, only added fuel to the fire – hence the resulting outrage.

In America, however, there is considerable emphasis on the freedom of speech outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. But in light of these events and similar ones, should the First Amendment ever be limited to exclude the freedom to insult religious beliefs, or to commit blasphemy (something still forbidden in many European countries)? Should these kinds of actions be made explicitly illegal?

The First Amendment is an all encompassing principle. Though it forbids the government from promoting or prohibiting the practice of religion, it also forbids the government from making laws that abridge the freedom of the press. It is no accident that these two clauses are contained within the same Amendment.

America is a great country because the government recognizes that its citizens have certain inalienable rights granted to them by their Creator - even if that leads to denial of said Creator. As such, there are a number of reasons why the press should be able to criticize, insult, curse religion and even to make blasphemous statements.

The first is that the courts and the government would be deciding what beliefs constitute a religion and what do not. How would they go about “approving” religions? And when they do approve a religion, would that mean that all other beliefs are open season for the press? Would there then be an approved list of religions every year? What would the criteria be? This power could be used by the majority to suppress unpopular beliefs held by minorities. How would they draw the line between criticism and insults? Should there be a line drawn?

Obviously there are many problems with the government defining what is “religion” and what is not. Meddling in religious affairs goes against the spirit of the first clause of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It can surely be argued that by recognizing a certain set of beliefs as a religion and different set of beliefs as not a religion, the government would be “respecting an establishment of religion.”

The second problem lies in determining what is blasphemous or insulting. Will the courts determine this on their own? Or will they look to religious scholars for blasphemy criteria? If it’s the former, what will they base their criteria on? Government and courts are not qualified to determine insulting material.

If it’s the latter, which religion will they follow? Different religions have different views on blasphemy. Something that may insult one group may not be insulting to another group. Even different sects of the same religion have different opinions on the same issue. For example, most Sunni Muslims reject any depiction of prophets, but some Shiite Muslims have no problem with respectful depictions of them. There will be no way to please everyone.

Obviously having the courts determine the criteria for blasphemy and then prosecuting people based on it, is unconstitutional. It becomes law that promotes religion, which is in direct conflict with the first clause of the First Amendment. Simply put, people have the right to say what ever they want.

Finally, and most importantly, people should have the right to question religious institutions. Not only should they be able to question religious institutions and scholars, but they should be able to insult and commit blasphemy, because after all that is what this country’s founding was based on. The Founding Fathers were considered heretics and spoke up against the Crown. The Pilgrims were ousted from England because their beliefs were different.

Censoring this type of speech puts a plug on the marketplace of ideas. It is this type of speech that makes broader discussions possible. Discussions on religion and violence should be allowed so that people can freely convey their thoughts.

Though I want to be able to say all sorts of blasphemous things, it is my refusal to make such statements that makes me a believer. I want to have the right to say God does not exist; however, having that right does not mean I will exercise it. I may not agree with what someone says, but I will surely defend their right to say it. Just because we have the right to do something does not mean we have to do it.

The Prophet Muhammad himself was often called a liar. Yet he did nothing to his accusers or defamers, replying only that “you have your beliefs and I have mine.” In the spirit of this response, it should be left up to the free market of discourse to choose what is censored and what is not.

>> if im the perfect example muslims in the west <<

Well. Whaddaya know. Even perfection nowadays has so much room for improvement.

I dono if anybody has noticed how much Mrs.A. resembles Heather Mills, the charity-worker turned ex-wife of Paul McCartney?

=> Both think they are perfect human beings
=> Both scream on and on about their own need to do charity
=> And about how they were both raised tough on the streets

Probably a particular type of blue collar, hard life, narcississt, white female type turned in- your- face- dont- all- you- people- get- the-meaning- of- life- charity- worker. Scary.

comment by alomar- to MRS.A-
"You are a perfect example of what America Muslims are,..."

my response-
"if im the perfect example of muslims in the west, we are in deep trouble as ive given up..."

the meaning is if im the example of perfection- i am a very poor example to gauge by and we, as muslims, are in serious trouble.

however, im sure the comment by alomar was well-intended- not towards my perfection- but the pluperfection of the example given-

im assuming alomar is the author of this article, and is so well spoken, that i would welcome seeing them on the onfaith blogs previously mentioned.

we all have different talents to give- mine are more action oriented-
alomar has the talent of effective communication.

of the two, i believe the communication is superior because it may change hearts and minds and reach more people-

but i dislike making qualitative statements as such.
i do not believe we are in compettition with each other, but brothers and sisters with a common goal.

which is why i felt comfortable asking for guidance and help.

hajibaba, hope that clears it up

still hoping against hope for a contact number or reference in the new york city area
peace all

>> hajibaba, hope that clears it up <<

Of course, Mrs.A. Nothing personal, just trying to needle Mrs.A. from various angles about her white blue collar background, trying to draw some kind of racist, bigoted comment. So far not having much luck. A bit disappointing. I was hoping she'd turn out to be one of those faky do-gooders, but seems like we actually have a rare original article on our hands.

im somewhat surprised and disarmed by this positive evaluation, but thank you

In the spirit of this response, it should be left up to the free market of discourse to choose what is censored and what is not.

Does that "spirit" extend to freedom of proselytization, as in encouraging Muslims to convert to other religions?

Solomon2: There is no compulsion in Religion. It should work both ways for Muslims and Non-Muslims.

Missionaries have been trying to convert Muslims to other religions, and it hasn't been very successful.

It should work both ways for Muslims and Non-Muslims.

It doesn't. Everyone knows that Muslims are commonly threatened with death or dispossession of property if they should choose to convert. In the West the threat may be small, but it may be growing as Muslim communities grow, centralize, and submit to their radical elements.

Solomon,
I realize that that is the case in some instances, and it is unfortunate. However, I would like to see some statistics, words like "commonly" and "growing" are not exact and they can be construed in a number of different ways, leading to generalizations and stereotyping.

"everyone knows" is such a vague statement, it can only be expressed within the confines of one's own social circles to make any sense- it would be more honestly phrased as "everyone i know,knows".

i have been proselytized to by christians all of my life- and i have never found it to be a mutually respectful, or even mannerly exchange, as there are always implicit insults about the nature of my own lost soul status and incorrectness of my own being.

i have yahoo on my frontpage- and the other day there was a story that islam is currently the largest religion on the planet.

i am also a muslim in the west-

i find no evidence, that everyone i know- is 'submitting to radical elements'.

salamu laykum, alhamdullelah that we have the security and freedom to have this discussion,
i respectfully completley disagree with the author, first of all two major points that sum up all of the substance discussed in this article.

1. this is a matter of sharia. i am not a faq'e and i asume the author and commentors are not as well, there fore our opionons are based off of ignorance, and this is of the signs of the last day. my self first. i have no medical degree, can i practice medicene?they will throw me in jail. i am not a lawyer and couldnt try to work as one with out proper certification. which doesnt mean that we shouldnt have opionons. but acnowledge our inabilty to come up with the most correct answer. do we know every place in the quran that a ruling on this or light on this could be shed, do we know most of the tafsirs of those ayat? do we know all the ahadith that might pertain and the different commentarys? do we know what the sahaba might have said of these subjects? the tabaiyene? the four imams? ther ulema that came after? even if we did doesnt mean we would know how to apply it!
2. what was argued for and against was not the middle path. in my opinion both extreams were picked up and discussed leaving the real discussion completley out of the article and most comments.

yes the prophet salllallahu aleyhe wasallam was abused in many ways and was the most mercifull and forbering of humans, but there were lines drawn, firm ,clear, boundraies that he sallallahu aley wa salem is reported to say something like ''no two goats would but heads over the actions taken, or rulings'' and this is not meant to be a quote but i sugest listening to this brand new lecture by imam anwar al-awlaki who talks just of this subject here
http://www.halaltube.com/anwar-al-awlaki/anwar-al-awlaki-the-dust-will-never-settle-down
NOTHING IN CREATION HAS THE RIGHT TO INSULT THE BELOVED OF ALLAH. rights are givin by allah azzaw jel, not humans. dont get confused. protect the honor of rasul allah sallallahu alayhe wassallam before you protect the honor of your self, your freedom, your children, are we forgeting who we are speaking of here. ya i know, the masses of muslims and non muslims are caught up in the glammar of the dajjal system, and love of this dunya along with dislike for the hear after.but the prophet had many exucuted for slandering him and the muslims, for harming the muslims and him with there words, and after the hidjra to medinia it appears to be abrogatted, or antother words the lines where drawn, go read sira, read sira , read sira, how many were killed for what we are discussing, the author who i belive has the best of intentions made a mistake by quoting what he did out of context, and i belive he probably knows more than me, but i think he has LIED AGAINST THE PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAYHE WASSALLAM, and may allah forgive him and guide him and us all.
we must go study this dean from those qualified to teach, we must stop making our own sharia as our nefs sees fit, we must build inshallah a burning love for allah and his messenger and untill then we will continue to be humilliated around the globe while we are hyponotised by tv dunia and our desires. dont forget the messenger of allah sallallahu aleyhe wasallam has more right over us than we have on our selves. this is islam not hislam or herslam, its submission to the will of allah not ourselves and yes i am from california and yes i see the masses of musim youth under 30 here have never read the whole quran or picked up a book of sira and finished. that is how we are in this situation.

listen to imam anwars lecture on halal tube, our you tube, the dust will never settle down
you dont have to agree but he has very stong proofs and others may have proofs against him so lets hear the debate and leave the answers to the rightly guided ulama and may allah guide us to there feet.
but please dont say or let any muslim say that anyone has the right to insult the messenger of allah salllallahu aleyhe wasallam, because i think that they would be lying! wether intentional or not
one last question for all of you. if you have an old mother, or young daughter, or wife of sister with you, and someone started abusing and degrading, humiliating her in front of you, would you smile and say thats your right to abuse us, that ok, lets debate your claims would you allow some one to insult your child infront of you? if you say yes you have no honor and if you say no , then what about the one thats supposed to be more beloved to you than that?
and i am not promoting violence by any means, just the middle ground, leave both exreames, make lots of dialog, educate make dawa, show the beauty and modesty, and tolerance of islam, but draw the lines as well, dont start making things up, fear allah
thanks for listening to my ignorance
and may allah use us to give islam victory

Samieh, Thank you for your comments. I think you have misunderstood my article, and you have to look at the broader picture. Also I think you have misstated some things.

First off,
You say that "this is a matter of sharia." I don't agree, Sharia is for Muslims, and I wrote this article based on the fact that I live in the USA (and most readers here do) and I have to abide by US laws that don't interfere with my religion. Also, I wrote this article based on the fact that people of all sorts of beliefs live in the US and in the world, and therefore we can't have the government or the courts determining what religion and blasphemy are.
Imagine the government prying into your daily life and telling you how you should worship and how you shouldn't.
Allowing the government to intervene in this will lead to terrible results (even Muslim governments) and will allow majorities to oppress minorities.
Who's to say that lighting myself on fire and running around in a circle barefoot on the beach is not a form of worship??
I don't believe it is, and I want the freedom to say it is not and tell people how dumb they are if they do it.
Unfortunately, this works both ways, and people will not agree with you and your religion, and they will insult you and demean you.

Secondly, you say that "the prophet had many executed for slandering him and the Muslims, for harming the muslims and him with there words" and "how many were killed for what we are discussing." I have read the sira, and I don't claim to be an expert in it, but I don't know of any situation where the prophet ordered the execution of someone who slandered him or Muslims. If you do know of such a situation, please enlighten me???? You cannot make such statements without giving proof because this is a serious claim!!!

Third, I think you should have an opinion and we are not ignorant. Yes, we may not have studied sharia, but we have real world experience, which some scholars do not have. And, while everything makes sense in a perfect world, we don't live in one, and we must adapt to it.
We don't live on a planet with only muslims, and therefore there will be people who disagree with you.

Lastly, I agree with your point of finding the "middle ground, leave both extremes, make lots of dialog, educate make dawa, show the beauty and modesty, and tolerance of islam." we should always be doing that, and by doing it the right way, more people will defend the Prophet (not by violence, but by dialog), even non-Muslims will come to his defense.

I am not making things up, I am simply being realistic, and explaining why an Anti-Blasphemy law in the US will not work, and will lead to more problems. That is the whole premise of this article.

I would like to read your comments.

salamu laykum, thankyou for your kind response and i would like to apologise for my harsh tone.

as far as ''sharia'' i would say that i think we basically mean the same thing. the sharia dictates that we must abide by the laws of the land we live in. and many of us and not inferering you, but many muslims i know personally from the muslim world dont want to live under sharia for various reasons like, dictators , kings, or groups who dont practice or understand islam the same way as the majority of people. and many muslims now prefer to live under democracy than sharia, wich is a complex and musunderstood issue with many variables. the sharia i was speaking of is the one derived from sacred law, the law of allah. wich superceeds any other law. please dont take my statement out of contex, not saying i dont appreciate to laws that are just here in my homecountry. just that the law of allah is supreme. and that i think that if we understood those laws we would be able to follow the law here and inshallah earn the pleasure of allah and not displease him, inshallah hypothetically. that we should see what the sharia says about those situations and our constitution that is being degraded, and dismantled right befrore our sleeping nations eyes with very little being said or done by mainstream america, may allah protect us from those criminal elements who wish destroy our constitutinal liberty.

the part about those few people who were exucted, i cannot quote from the top of my head even though i am familiar with these events, i will look up the sources and respond accordingly inshallah. i can sugest some materials that will go over those events in sira.
those things really caught my attention because i didnt know how to understand those things intiatally in my study of them, it ''un like the charicter'' of the prophet salallahu aleyhe wasallam since he was the most mercifull and tolerant of all humans. and you are correct in that he forgave and overlooked the masses in gerneral. ''muhammad man and prohet'' by adil salahi, is the most detailed and accurate book of sira out there in english. it was recommended to me by imam suhaib webb. i had several questions about sira after reading the sealed nector and martin lings book, i enjoyed all of them but found historical contridictions, how ever small they were , i wanted answers and didnt know how or what to belive about them, from the events we are speaking of to the mother of said ibrahim may allah bless him, who died at such a young age. who people say was a wife and some say wasnt. to various other differences of opionion. that book i mentioned is about 800 pages and very thourough and accurate, i highly recommend it. lastley i suggest listening to the lecture of imam anwar al-awlaki i linked to above, i have come to the understanding that the whole difference of oppinion is that we are the state of the muslims before hijra. so i think the scholars are taking the rulings derived for musims in those situations? i dont advocate or think that we should be following the rulings of the scholars after hijra in pertaining to the slander of the prophet sallallahu aleyhe wasallam. wich is muslim or not, exucution, and this was the consensus of the scholars from then to well now that we live with no calif we are back to square one and i dont know? but i sure would exucute some one for that , but i sure would not be soft with those people in most situations any more dialog is crucial but these people have gone to far now and we cant say its ok. i would say please listen to the link, and understand it to be about the time of califate. thats what i did. also the book by qadi iyad, ash-shifa muhammad messenger of allah, translated by aisha bewley. it is one of the mother books of the prophet. it is probably the most famous book about him. all about him and what rights he has on us. ect. ect....very very good book. please have for your library.
the events i referred to are in the lecture and all detailed books of sira
may allah give us sucsess in this life and whats next
salamu laykum