13 June 2016

Can jihadi literature be banned?

Radicalized Muslims claim that fighting the infidel is a religious duty. They can cite verses of the Qur'an as their authorization, but how many have found and interpreted those verses for themselves? More often, radicals are told by some imam, whether in print, in person or online, that certain verses oblige them to fight. Muslims make a distinction between collective and individual (or voluntary and compulsory) duties. Modern jihadists are distinguished by their assertion that violent jihad is an compulsory individual duty. It's not enough for them that someone else does it -- the essence of collective or voluntary duty is that it doesn't matter who does a thing as long as it's done. Their claim is that every single Muslim has a duty to fight the infidel who allegedly oppresses the umma, or to impose the sharia where ostensibly Muslim rulers have neglected or violated it. This assertion that jihad is compulsory may be the key to banning jihadi propaganda in the United States.

Americans have long been uncomfortable with banning ideas. During World War II allegedly pro-Axis publications were banned, but you could still find copies of Mein Kampf anywhere in the country. Even at the height of the anti-communist hysteria of the Cold War the works of Marx and Lenin remained readily available. The current Supreme Court precedent dates back to 1969, when a majority overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan organizer for advocating violence against blacks and Jews. In Brandenburg v. Ohio the Court ruled that advocacy of violence enjoyed constitutional protection unless it is intended to incite "imminent lawless action." Without that extra factor, what looks like incitement is only a suggestion. In practical terms, when a Klansman talks his big talk he's only really discussing what his fellow Kluxers could do, or might do. It should be possible to argue persuasively that when a radicalized Muslim calls for jihad there is a different, more actionable order of threat because he isn't just making a suggestion, but is really asserting a duty that must be fulfilled if his audience wants to be good Muslims. By comparison, you could read Marxist-Leninist advocacy of violent revolution regularly without acquiring an obligation to start the revolution in your lifetime. Radical jihadism demands action as immediately as possible and could only save itself from prosecution by renouncing the idea that jihad is a compulsory individual duty.

The Brandenburg standard, if I understand it correctly, would seem to allow action against the entire tradition of jihadist or takfiri literature dating back the the infamous Ibn Taymiyyah, the medieval scholar who rejected the idea of submission to rulers who tolerated Islam without implementing the sharia. The Qur'an itself is probably immune from action on First Amendment grounds, but governments should make it clear informally to mosques and Muslim organizations that interpretations of the scripture that discourage jihad are expected of them. Such interpretations were prevalent during the age of imperialism, particularly in India where the British tended to favor Muslims over Hindus. The consensus then was that governments that allowed Islamic worship (summed up by the "five pillars" you may have learned in school, and not including the sharia or jihad) were entitled to the loyalty of Muslims, whether the rulers were Muslim or not. If American Muslim leaders aren't willing to say this we have a right to ask why. More importantly, it looks like we have a right to take action against jihadist propaganda so long as it's understood as the incitement of imminent violence. If we could only deal with all the other ideas that inspire Americans to kill as easily....

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)


I'm not sure how many ways "kill" can be interpreted. Also the end of the phrase "...and worship is for allah alone." would seem to indicate world domination. Given the situation, I prefer a more cautious interpretation and simply invite them - at the barrel of a gun if necessary - to leave the West and never return. In return, let them do as they will in their own little "sphere of influence".

Samuel Wilson said...

In more peaceful times it isn't a matter of questionable interpretations of verses like those; they simply get ignored the way most of the Old Testament is ignored by Jews and most of the Bible as a whole is ignored by Christians. Unfortunately, these are not more peaceful times and during the last half-century or so many Muslims find the argument that they can't ignore those verses very persuasive, and certainly more persuasive than any counterarguments from Muslims that you can find out there.

Anonymous said...

I think the majority of those who would protest a ban on the koran, oddly enough, would be from christians who might fear a future ban on their own scripture, should a large enough majority of Americans ever evolve beyond monkey stage to human stage. A few moments of research turns up the interesting fact that most books banned in the US have been banned for 1) sexual themes 2) profanity 3) apparently for showing racism in a bad light. I couldn't find any reference to any book being banned exclusively for violent content.

I do think a case could be made for banning the koran as hate speech or for only allowing edited versions that do not contain any incitement to violence to be published, printed or sold within the US and it territories. I think such a law would quickly be copied by France and the U.K., with the rest of the EU to follow (except, of course, Turkey) within a generation.

I also think that a law must be passed, Constitutionally if necessary, that would ensure that whenever an act of religious-based terrorism occurs, all family members and fellow congregants of the perpetrator be fully investigated as to whether they knew, or had reason to suspect, said perp was an extremist. Any who can be proven to have known should be charged and treated as an accomplice. If the religious aren't willing to turn in the terrorists among them in return for their citizenship, then they shouldn't be allowed that citizenship.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon 9:33 - The christians you mention would probably lobby against a "hate speech" ban on the Qur'an out of fear that the Bible might be deemed anti-semitic, while the Old Testament alone might be judged anti-gentile. As for your final suggestion, why limit it to religious-based terrorism? Shouldn't we want as thorough an investigation of Dylan Roof's social circle? The tendency to label mass-shooters of any persuasion as "lone wolves" may reflect a "personal responsibility" ethos that may be irrelevant in the 21st century.

Anonymous said...

Basically, what you are trying to do is deflection. Let's keep on subject. The koran supports violence of muslims against non-muslims. In a few cases, it demands it. For example: Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Show me a similar scripture in the new testament.

Yeah, the old testament condones the genocide of complete populations, so if you want to draw comparisons there, draw them between ancient hebrews and 20th century nazis. And remember, if I and others are correct and the true intention of muslims in America is to eventually take over and replace the Constitution with sharia, you can look forward to a nice, comfortable beheading. If you support gun control to ensure lunatics don't have access to guns, I have a hard time understanding why you don't support muslim control for the same reason.