The Grand Jihad on "Blasphemy"

Sharia makes blasphemy a capital offense. It considers blasphemy to be any form of expression that casts Islam and its prophet in a poor light. Islamists refer to this concept as "defamation," and their apologists follow the script. But the equivalence is absurd. Defamation is slander: harming the reputation by the publication of things that are untrue. It is not defamation to call attention to the true parts of a doctrine that believers are embarrassed by or on which they would, for strategic reasons, prefer that you didn't focus. Islamists don't see, or at least won't acknowledge, this distinction because they see Islam as the one true religion, and there fore anything said against it must, by definition, be false...and punishable by death. In fact, in a recent case in Afghanistan, now under a new, U.S.-supported constitution that installed sharia as part of the fundamental law, merely expressing criticism of the crime of "insulting Islam" was itself deemed an offense against Islam by the court.

You know, one of the quickest ways to get labeled a "bigot" is to say perfectly true and applicable things about Islam--or to confess that you think it's reasonable to be apprehensive about some Muslims under certain circumstances. Just ask Juan Williams.

Paying Attention to Geert Wilders' Trial?

Of course you're not. Hardly anyone in the United States is, despite its momentous nature.

Wilders, of course, is on trial in the Netherlands for saying perfectly true and applicable things about Islam. This happens to be against Dutch law. Diana West sums it up for you, emphasis mine:

...Dutch prosecutors announced in January 2009 that Wilders would go to trial for "insulting" Muslims and "inciting" hatred against them...

What we know now we knew then: that this trial presented a watershed moment. Wilders, leader of a growing democratic movement to save his Western nation from Islamization, risks one year in prison for speaking out about the facts and consequences of Islamization. Such speech is prohibited not by the Western tradition of free speech Wilders upholds, but rather by the Islamic laws against free speech that he rejects. Wilders' plight demonstrates the extent to which the West has already been Islamized.

"It is irrelevant whether Wilder's witnesses might prove Wilders' observations to be correct," the public prosecutor stated back at the beginning. "What's relevant is that his observations are illegal." Since when are observations "illegal"? Under communist dictatorships is one answer. Under Sharia is another.

[snip]

Topping the OIC wish list is its effort to criminalize criticism of Islam in the non-Muslim world. And this is what makes the Wilders case is so significant. It's one thing if Islamic street thugs mount assassination attempts in Western nations against violators of Islamic law (i.e., elderly Danish cartoonists), or Muslim ambassadors to Western nations lobby them to punish such violations (the free press), or OIC representatives introduce similar Sharia resolutions at the United Nations. It would be something else again if a Western government were itself to convict a democratically elected leader for violating the Sharia ban on criticizing Islam. That's not war anymore; that's conquest.

Note carefully the italicized and bolded statement from the Dutch prosecutor: the fact that what Wilders said is true is no defense!

Now, let me draw this a little tighter for you: we are talking about the Netherlands, that land famous for "tolerance" so great that its "red-light" districts are famous the world over, so great that it legalized so-called "homosexual marriage," so great that possession of small amounts of certain recreational drugs is a de facto legality. This oh-so-"tolerant" country has put a man on trial, and is threatening to send him to jail for a year, for the "crime" of saying perfectly true things about Islam.

Now, let me ask you this: twenty years ago, when there weren't quite so many Muslims in the Netherlands, if someone had said to the Dutch, "Creeping sharia is a threat; one day, you won't even be able to openly voice your opinion about Islam without threat of fine or imprisonment. Too many Muslims in our country will prove to be a grave threat to such basic freedoms as freedom of speech," what do you think the Dutch would have said?

Maybe about the same thing they're saying in the United States now? That saying such things is bigotry and xenophobia? That most Muslims "aren't like that?" That such things constitute hate speech?