Free Speech

Algerian Islamic Scholar Gets 3 Years in Prison for "Offending Islam"

|

So reports the BBC:

[Said Djabelkhir] was tried after seven lawyers and a fellow academic lodged complaints against him for disrespecting Islam.

Mr Djabelkhir had said the animal sacrifice during the Muslim festival of Eid was based on a pre-Islamic pagan ritual.

He also suggested that parts of the Quran, such as the story of Noah's Ark, might not be literally true and criticised practices including the marriage of young girls in some Muslim societies.

[Algerian] law imposes a fine or prison sentence on "anyone who offends the Prophet or denigrates the dogmatic precepts of Islam, whether it be by writings, drawings, a statement or another means"….

[Djabelkhir] recently told AFP that "the traditional readings [of the Quran] no longer meet the expectations, needs and questions of modern man".

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: April 25, 1938

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is awful. But, in the US, the dumbass lawyer believes minds can be read, the future of rare events forecast. It believes the standard of conduct is based on a fictitious character to be objective. That character has to be fictitious because it is really Jesus. That is unlawful in our secular nation. Based on these supernatural beliefs, people have been executed and $trillions have changed hands. So STFU about Algeria, lawyer dumbasses. You lawyers make both our countries stink, you dirty traitors.

    1. Sometimes you feel like a nut. For this guy that time just happens to be all the.

      1. What a mean spirited, hurtful remark.

        1. Few animals can recognize themselves.

        2. “What a mean spirited, hurtful remark.”

          You forgot “accurate”.

  2. The Moslem Martin Luther?

    1. No, that was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

    2. The Islamic hierarchy cannot tolerate self evident adverse statements. Our hierarchy is just smarter and slicker, but not any different.

      1. Yes, because the Catholic hierarchy (and their allies in the secular government) notoriously reacted so smart and slick to Martin Luther.

  3. Apparently Freedom of Speech is not a Universal Human Right after all. See Also: China.

    1. And Ireland.

      Prof. Volokh has been pretty good pointing out religious blasphemy nonsense from all faiths, including Budhism once, IIRC.

      1. In what ways has Ireland been repressive of speech in ways that are comparable to sharia, the CCP, the government of Myanmar, and so forth?

        1. You forgot the US, you know because of all the woke censorship of Big Tech and academe, just like China amirite?

      2. I take it this is a reference to Irish blasphemy law, which famously led to an investigation of comedian Stephen Fry; but note that this law has since been repealed.

        I don’t recall any convictions in the past couple of decades for blasphemy against Christianity in Western Europe, though there has been a prosecution brought in Spain; and there has been more action in Eastern (or Eastern-ish) Europe, such as a recent conviction in Poland. And there has been a conviction in Austria and a prosecution in Denmark for blasphemy against Islam, though the prosecution was dropped when the Danish law was repealed; for recent posts on the subject, see here.

        1. Oh, and Russia seems to have a bunch of blasphemy convictions recently.

          1. Summary execution for criticizing Putin… no trial necessary.

        2. How about Pakistan? I seem to remember several cases reported in the press.

          1. Sure, this is indeed more common in majority Muslim countries; SarcastrO, I thought, was pointing out that it happens in non-Muslim countries as well (and it does, sometimes, though not in Ireland any more).

      3. While there was a blasphemy law in Ireland, in recent times, it protected all religions, not just Christian religions, or any particular Christian denomination (since 1937 and ending in 2018). And, the number of people prosecuted in the last several centuries are fewer than in Algeria in the last decade, perhaps even last half-decade.

        So mentioning Ireland in this context is specious, indeed.

        1. As implemented, it was kinda sectarian.

          Plus, as Prof. Volokh noted, Russia.

          The point is that Islam may be unique in magnitude but it sure isn’t unique in the impulse.

          1. The fact that you skipped over the fact that the Irish amended their Constitution (as Prof. Volokh also pointed out) to remove the laws about blasphemy kind of highlights how duplicitous your double standards are.

            1. The fact that you skipped over the fact that the Irish amended their Constitution (as Prof. Volokh also pointed out) to remove the laws about blasphemy kind of highlights how duplicitous your double standards are.

              As if his dishonesty and hypocrisy were ever anything other than glaringly self-evident.

            2. Yeah, the law was on the books until 17 January 2020.

              Forgive me if I think it should be in the conversation about modern blasphemy persecutions.

  4. What do you expect from a religion where “free will” is not allowed?

    1. What should we expect from any organized superstition?

  5. So sort of like being canceled if you violate or dismiss the tenets of Wokeism, then.

    1. People who dismiss the tenets of wokeism are now going to prison for three years?

      1. He said “sort of like being canceled,” not exactly the same punishment.’ Why do have to be like that?

        1. Because it’s a completely outlandish comparison of things that bear little resemblance to each other, just so he could take a gratuitous and off topic swipe at something he disagrees with. I gave it the response it deserved.

        2. Because comparing being cancelled (whatever that ends up meaning) to 3 years in prison is a crap analogy.

          1. Most people would prefer a stint in jail to losing their chosen profession.

            1. Not sure about that. A felony conviction makes it difficult to practice your chosen profession. I’m quite certain my law license would not still be waiting for me if I did a three year prison stint.

              1. You should not lose your law license if your crime was not related to the practice of law. It is not the business nor the jurisdiction of the bar. It is not a finishing school enforcer, if you brawled outside of work.

                1. You should not lose the law license if you did not make alimony payments, even if that violated a court order.

              2. “Not sure about that. A felony conviction makes it difficult to practice your chosen profession. I’m quite certain my law license would not still be waiting for me if I did a three year prison stint.”

                So, “sort of like being canceled,” seems to be hyperbole, but not completely outlandish.

                And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

            2. No. Nobody would. People who have never been in prison might claim that they would. They would change their mind once they had actually experienced prison.

              Also, it’s a false choice since being in prison also causes one to lose one’s chosen profession.

              1. There’s a small number of professions to can work in prison. Some writers did their best work while confined.

          2. Because comparing being cancelled (whatever that ends up meaning) to 3 years in prison is a crap analogy.

            As crappy as your comparison to Ireland?

            1. Answered above.

  6. Ostensible adults, fighting over childish superstition, using state power to enforce a particular view of whose fairy tale can beat up another fairy tale (or, often, all other fairy tales).

    The progress that will diminish this silliness can not develop too soon.

    Choose reason. Every time.

    Choose reason. Every time. Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance.

    Choose reason. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, backwardness, bigotry, ignorance, and superstition. By adulthood — this includes ostensible adulthood, even in the most deplorable, can’t-keep-up backwater — it is no excuse.

    Choose reason. Every time. And science, tolerance, modernity, freedom, progress, education, and inclusiveness. Avoid ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, superstition, authoritarianism, insularity, dogma, and pining for ‘good old days’ that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago.

    Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

    Or, at least, please try.

    Thank you.

    1. These are Chinese Commie talking points. Zero tolerance for agents of the Chinese Commie Party.

      1. “Choose reason. Every time. And science, tolerance, modernity, freedom, progress, education, and inclusiveness. Avoid ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, superstition, authoritarianism, insularity, dogma, and pining for ‘good old days’ that never existed.”

        “These are Chinese Commie talking points.”

        1. They are a masking ideology for tyrannical, big government. You are fooling no one, you agent of the Chinese Commie Party. Be honest, or at least, please, try, you lying Commie. You need to be purged and to be deported to Venezuela.

          1. And remember, we’re officially against “cancel culture”, because leftists do it, too, nowadays.

        2. except for the science that shows genetic differences, right? The science that shows two sexes, right?

    2. “Ostensible adults, fighting over childish superstition”

      What’s your excuse?

      “Choose reason”

      We’re still waiting for a shred of evidence that you are capable of anything approaching reason.

      1. “We’re still waiting for a shred of evidence that you are capable of anything approaching reason.”

        And your shreds are fully visible.

        1. “And your shreds are fully visible.”

          Yes, the shreds of evidence that show that I am, indeed, capable of reason. I’m glad we agree. Artie, James and QA. Man, what a team y’all have on the left.

  7. The traditional readings of wokeness no longer meet the expectations, needs and questions of modern man.

    In light of new circumstances, the woke need to acknowledge that discriminating against whites asians is a form of racism.

    They need to acknowledge that men and women have enough differences that they are at least entitled to their own separate sports teams, divided by biological sex.

    They need to acknowledge that government is a backstop, not the initial go-to solution for every problem.

    To know more about my Reformed Church of Wokeness, please subscribe to my newsletter. Write to me c/o Ministry of Love, Room 101.

    1. “In light of new circumstances, the woke need to acknowledge that discriminating against whites asians is a form of racism.”

      Yeah. Stop picking on those white asians.

      1. he said ‘whites asians’. obviously he was talking about whites and asians

  8. We have the same thing happening in this country, where the religion protected from blasphemy is Wokeism. Make a statement that criticizes critical race dogma, and see how long you last in academia, the legal profession, or as a member of the police force. And yes, there are many laws – current and in the works – that attempt to criminalize “hate speech”.

    So why are people upset if this is being done in the name of a religion that is actually more than ten years old?

    1. Getting fired because you’re a racist isn’t the same as going to prison for blasphemy.

      1. it is if the accusation of racism if based not on reality but from their own dogmatic rules and ideology. ‘Racist’ has pretty much lost all objective meaning at this point

Please to post comments