Liaquat Ali Khan teaches commercial law, arbitration and international law at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. He argues here that Muslims should petition Congress to outlaw the burning of the Qur’an because doing so incites violence — in contrast to the burning of the American flag, which, he says, the Supreme Court declined to outlaw because “no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur.”
And so here we have a vivid example of how the stealth jihad and the violent jihad go hand-in-hand, support each other, and are two aspects of the same effort. Muslims go crazy and kill innocent people over a burned Qur’an, and their useful idiots in the mainstream media blame the Qur’an-burner instead of the Muslims who behaved violently and irrationally. Then a smooth and rational voice — a law professor — says that because burning the Qur’an leads to violence, it must be outlawed.
The whole thing is based on a false premise: that someone who burns a Qur’an is responsible for the violent actions of someone protesting the burning of the Qur’an. That is not remotely true. Just the other day a Muslim woman wrote that a couple of my books should be burned; making fun of the conventional wisdom on who bears the responsibility for Qur’an-burning, I said that if she did burn my books and I killed some people after that, the blood would be on her hands. And that is just as absurd as saying that the freedom of expression should be limited because some people react violently at some forms of freedom of expression. They should be called to behave rationally and responsibility, rather than restricting the freedom of expression, which is a free society’s foremost defense against tyranny.
But restricting the freedom of expression regarding Islam is a foremost Sharia objective, and is being pushed aggressively today by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its minions. That is the agenda that this calm law professor, Liaquat Ali Khan, is serving.
“Petitioning Congress on Qur’an Burning,” by Liaquat Ali Khan in MWC News, April 19:
[…] In the language of law, Qur’an burning would be an expressive conduct. The First Amendment is generous in protecting oral and written word. It is less so with respect to expressive conduct. The First Amendment shelters expressive conduct if it does not threaten to disturb the peace. The United States Supreme Court declined to outlaw the burning of an American flag because, “no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur.”
The flag precedent does not apply because Qur’an burning is an expressive conduct that incites actual violence. So far Qur’an burning has produced instantaneous violence outside the United States. Given the presence of a growing population of American Muslims, Qur’an burning threatens domestic peace. Media and blog invectives may have forced Justice Stephen Breyer to retract his otherwise sound intuition that the First Amendment would not protect Qur’an burning.
Invoking their constitutional right, American Muslims should petition the United States Congress for a redress of grievances. They must demand constitutionally sound legislation that outlaws desecrations of the Qur’an. For Congress, such legislation will demonstrate to American Muslims that the United States is prepared to break away from the medieval custom of assaulting the dignity of the Qur’an. It will also send a powerful message to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the entire Muslim world, that the U.S. is neither Islamophobic, nor anti-Islamic, a move that can undermine terrorist threats to homeland security.
To their credit, Western European nations have adopted anti-hate statutes, which would proscribe burning of the Qur’an. A few days ago, the British government arrested a Welsh politician who allegedly burned a copy of the Qur’an. The British government has also banned Pastor Jones from entering the United Kingdom.