Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald proposes a means to evaluate the religious hatred law that yesterday passed in the British House of Commons:
A simple test needs to be performed. Someone should compile relevant passages from Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira — the ones that describe non-Muslims being killed (as the Banu Qurayza, or the Jewish tribe in the Khaybar oasis), as well as Muhammad’s least attractive deeds, such as his evident pleasure when someone assassinated, to curry favor with him, the mocking Asma bint Marwan, or his sexual intercourse with nine-year-old bride Aisha, or quite a few other things that one can find proudly set out in Sira and Hadith, or in the biographies, such as that by Sir Wiliam Muir, or Tor Andrae, or Arthur Jeffery, not to mention those by worshipful Muslims.
These passages then should be read aloud in the House of Lords. One should then inquire if the reading aloud, or other distribution of these passages, together with appropriate commentary, such as “This is what Islam teaches” or “Islam commands that Muslims bear implacable hatred toward non-Muslims” or some such, and then ask representatives of the British government if these passages would be considered actionable under the proposed new legislation.
Ask if a rabbi, or a minister, or a former Muslim, who simply passed around the passages, without any commentary, would be prosecuted under the new law.
Then ask what would happen if a Muslim, an imam in a khutba, were to recite, or refer to, any of these passages. Would he be prosecuted under the new law?
One wishes to know, in advance, before such a law is passed. But of course we know already: Home Office Minister Paul Goggins has “reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals.”
So it would be licit to quote Qur’an 9:29 about “smiting the Unbeliever” as long as no particular individual is meant, and one could tell one’s followers that the tree in that Hadith told Muslims to come and kill the Jews hiding behind it, and one could urge Muslims not to take friends “among the Jews and Christians, who are friends only to each other” (Qur’an 5:51) and in general, to hate the Christians and Jews (but let them live), but to kill right off the bat any other group (Hindus and Sikhs).
Just as long as the Muslims do not refer specifically to nice Mr. Rosenbaum the grocer who lives at 88 Laburnum Lane, or those uppity college boys, the twins Vijay and Vikram who are proudly Hindu, or Mrs. Singh whose husband is on the police force and just last week dared to arrest one of the brothers — just as long as no “individuals” have hate directed at them, and the hate is directed at Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and the like, it’s okay. Got that?
But if anyone should quote the same verses by way of suggesting that Islam is a religion of hate, that would be hateful, very hateful. And not to be allowed.
What if instead of the odious Sir Bob Geldof, there were someone cleverly genuine, genuinely clever — Rowan Atkinson, or Stephen Frear, let’s say, who would organize a Free Speech Aid Comedy-In, right in the Albert Hall, or some other welcoming place. And it would have Steve Martin and Billy Crystal and John Stewart and Jay Leno and Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin and Jerry Seinfeld, and another few dozen, on stage, making jokes all about Free Speech, and what happens when first this person says something, and then someone else recites the same thing, but in a different tone, with different facial expressions, and then, all over the hall, and easily picked up by the television cameras that will beam this show all over the non-Muslim world, there will be huge blow-ups of Buster Keaton, and Charlie Chaplin, and the Marx Brothers, and Laurel (Stanlio) and Hardy (Olio) and Toto, and Alberto Sordi, and Peter Sellers and the rest of the Goon Show, and ditto with the cast of Alto Gradimento, and Fernandel, and Gracie Allen and George Burns, and Max Linder and Jackie Gleason and Art Carney and — well, you can each contribute another few names.
And in a parody of the pretentious Live Aid Concerts (where all the billionaire celebrities would have to do is simply shut up, take out their own checkbooks, and write checks amounting to 5% of their total wealth, and they would raise far more than their concerts, and it would be far more fitting for these rich businessmen still parading as rebels and outlaws and wild in the street, when they are the spoiled children of the West — oh, the same goes for Sir Bob Geldof, who is not in want of much these days), these comedians would make fun of the “Hate Law” legislation, by reading out selected passages from Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and then comparing them with well-known passages in Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh sacred texts — and the differences would startle. And then they might take terms reciting still more passages, or trying in mock-puzzlement to figure out what a passage like Qur’an 9:29 could possibly mean, about fighting the Unbelievers until they “feel themselves subdued,” and what kind of deconstruction would lead us to understand that such a text required the application of post-colonial discourse with just a dash of the male gaze thrown in.
Mock them, mock them again and again. Laugh them out of Parliament, out of court, out of civilized society, these intolerable and sinister primitives with their monstrous beliefs.