Defending Islam’s right to kill for blasphemy

According to Anjem Chaudhary, the killers at Charlie Hebdo were only defending Islam, and since there is no such thing as free speech in Islam, or free thought, the killers were entitled to take matters into their own hands. The French government at fault for allowing Islam to be offended. He is not joking; he is defending Islamic orthodoxy.

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.

So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.

As another kind of Prophet said in the 20th century:

“The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
Adolf Hitler

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty.”
Adolf Hitler

Lawlessness, the overcoming of all restraints, the disregard and if necessary the crushing of state, society and religion in service of the Leader, his Party and his ideology: is Islam fundamentally different from the government of the Leader? In both systems, has not Caesar become God? Or has God become Caesar?

As became clear to me in reading Rebecca Bynum’s Allah is Dead, in Islam the idolatry is of Islam itself, as a total, complete, practical, and essentially godless system of belief and ritual behaviour. By “godless” I mean that there is no avenue of personal access to the Godhead except through the practices of the religion. There is no standpoint of inspiration or revelation for anyone outside the mechanistic behaviours imposed by Islam. There is no interiority, no development of the soul by the making of free choices, which may be wrong choices. No free choice is allowed. Muslims may talk much about Allah but they operate under the most chilling and limiting assumptions of what God could ever be: an infinitely remote tyrant who hates us to the extent we do not obey Muhammad’s laws to a ‘t’.

Ask a pious Muslim about free will and he will not know what you mean. How can will be free?

I am not saying this to be mean, I am saying it because I think two fundamentally wrong ideas animate Islam: that the soul is not free and that God hates us, except as we obey his revealed dictates. From these two deeply important ideas the damage continues to  flow.


Bookmark and Share

If Anjem Choudary actually followed his own beliefs, he would be dead now. Back in his college days, he was called Andy Choudary and he was a heavy party animal, who drank heavily, smoked marijuana, regularly slept with different women, and even looked at porn. Yet he wants to bring Sharia Law to Britain which would mean stoning to death for adultery which he has committed, and 40 lashes for alcohol consumption which he has done. Shows what a hypocrite this guy is. He also is apparently on the dole in Britain so to save taxpayer’s money maybe a one way ticket to a country that lives under Sharia Law he so loves would be a better use of taxpayer money. Even many Muslim countries don’t follow sharia law, for example Turkey is a secular democracy where over 95% are Muslim yet women can dress as they want, Istanbul and Ankara both have gay pride parades, and unlike in most of Canada grocery stores are allowed sell alcohol. So his version of Islam doesn’t represent all Muslim countries, only the most repressive ones.


It is not “his version of Islam”. It is, I sincerely consider to be, Islam. All the sensible reformers such as Irshad Manji are the infidels. That is the problem. The sane Muslims are not orthodox Muslims, and the orthodox are insane. So one can only hope that the sane ones propagate a new Islam, but in the meantime, I am not holding my breath.


His version is a very conservative version that essentially is time warped since it wants Islam as it was in the 7th century not today’s modern world. During the 1500s to 1700s, Christianity had a similar divide between the conservative ones who wanted to keep it stuck in the past and the reformers who argued the church needed to change with the times. In the end those arguing for modernization won out and at the moment Islam is having a similar battle within. Hopefully those who favour modernizing the religion win. Otherwise secular Muslim countries like Turkey as opposed to repressive theocracies like Saudi Arabia are the way Islam needs to go in the future.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *